Republicans at crossroads on strategy


Republican governors are torn between essentially staying the course in the wake of Mitt Romney’s loss and a more proactive strategy aimed at radically shaking up their party in an effort to reach out to young and minority voters.

Some governors believe that Romney’s loss two weeks ago to President Barack Obama was just that — a loss by a single candidate who ran a defensive campaign pummeled by negative ads and lacking in vision. They advocate sticking to a tried-and-true formula of running their own races and hewing to local instead of national dynamics.

But other Republicans here attending the Republican Governors Association conference last week believe a more dramatic Republican makeover is in order. They argue that they and the party must reach out to young and minority voters, especially Latinos, in order to win in 2014 and beyond.

Most of the nine Republican governors who face 2014 reelection battles in states Obama just carried are confident that they won’t face the same fate as Romney two years from now — that is, defeat.

With a victory in North Carolina this month, the GOP will hold 30 total statehouses — one more than before the election. By virtue of their 2010 gains, Republicans enter the 2014 midterm elections defending 22 governorships compared to 13 for the Democrats. Some Republican incumbents, like Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, look especially vulnerable.

“Any time you’ve got more of your own people up, just mathematically you worry about it,” said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the term-limited, outgoing RGA chairman whose state was heavily contested but won by Obama in 2012. “But even throughout this Obama wave of election and reelection, Republican governors continue to gain seats because of a record of results and the messaging of the candidates.”

But McDonnell — a prominent Romney surrogate — was candid in his assessment of what the party needs in order to win in the future. And he bluntly rejected suggestions like the one made by Romney in the GOP primaries that illegal immigrants could “self-deport” as a means of solving the country’s immigration problem.

“We have to realize: We’re not going to deport 12 million people,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen.”

Some Republican governors said Obama’s victory was the result of his negative attacks on Romney and didn’t necessarily demand a wholesale revamp of the Republican Party.

“It is a credit to the community organizer in chief,” said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who will likely run for reelection in 2014 in a state Obama won by 6 percentage points. “[Democrats] certainly didn’t win it on the issues or on his record. They did an effective job of smearing [Romney].”

“Every campaign is different, and I learned this a long time ago: You don’t run the last one,” Branstad added.

But other GOP governors attending the RGA meeting here argued that it will require much more than smarter talking points and more aggressive campaigning to win future races. They are formulating more ambitious post-Romney strategies that include localizing their races, improving get-out-the-vote operations and trying to woo crossover voters.

Incoming RGA Chairman Bobby Jindal, who issued a scathing critique of Romney’s comments in a post-election conference call that Obama won because of “gifts” to his constituencies, slammed the GOP nominee again on “Fox News Sunday,” saying that he “absolutely” disagreed with Romney’s comments.

“We as a Republican Party have to campaign for every single vote,” Jindal said. “We don’t start winning majorities … by insulting our voters.”

Jindal also said Republicans needed to stop saying “stupid things,” referring to comments by GOP Senate candidates in Missouri and Indiana about rape and abortion that turned off female voters.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that the GOP is in “a death spiral with Hispanic voters because of rhetoric around immigration.” He criticized Romney for making excuses about why he lost, including the assertion last week that Obama won because he gave “gifts” to young people, minorities and Latinos.

“We’re in a big hole,” Graham said. “We’re not getting out of it by comments like that. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. He keeps digging.”

In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker — also a possible 2016 contender — said the reason Romney lost was that the president effectively branded Romney before the GOP nominee could introduce himself.

Walker then noted his own success in a state that Republicans claimed was competitive on the presidential level until the very end, despite the fact that Obama won Wisconsin by 7 percentage points.

The governor noted that he won more votes in this year’s June recall race than his initial 2010 election and that Republicans retook control of the state Legislature this month even as Romney lost.

Walker argued that when he ran for Milwaukee County executive, he carried overwhelmingly Hispanic wards in the urban areas because school choice was the most important issue to them.

“I don’t think there’s a monolithic Democratic Latino voter,” Walker said. “It’s clouded by the immigration issue, but we’ve got to reach out and then make the case to every community in every part of this country that we’ve got a message of freedom and prosperity that works.”

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, who is of Mexican descent and running for reelection in 2014, implored Republicans to play ball on immigration reform, figuring out a way to deal with the millions of immigrants illegally in the country.

“We need to embrace them not just at election time,” she said of Hispanics. “We have to make them part of the solution, and the way you do that is by listening to them.”

Privately, several Republicans involved in 2014 races say that Obama’s reelection helps Republican governors facing their first reelection battles. The president’s party historically loses seats during his second midterm election both at the state level and in Congress. Political scientists call it the “six-year itch.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich — who is up for reelection in 2014 — emphasized the GOP’s need to improve its ground game and to get more Republicans to vote early in a state that Obama won by 1.9 percentage points.

“In our state, you can early vote for 35 days. So if Democrats are voting for 35 days, and we’re voting for one day basically, who wins that? So our people have to become more comfortable with the process,” he said.

Kasich’s public standing has improved since a voter referendum in November 2011 overturned the signature achievement of his first year, limitations on collective bargaining rights for public employees.

“The debate [in 2012] was about who gets credit for the good things happening in Ohio,” he said. “That is such a sea change from where we had been, which is who gets the blame for what’s happening in Ohio.”

Running for reelection in 2014 as well, Florida Gov. Rick Scott — whose state Obama won — has been one of Obama’s harshest critics, but he’s modulated his tone dramatically in recent days. Scott now says that the president’s reelection means that the GOP needs to deal with the federal health care law and consider exchanges they’d previously rejected.

“The election is over,” Scott said in a speech Friday in Washington. “We may not be happy with the current occupant of the White House, but the question is what are we going to do about it?”

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who has positioned himself as a moderate, is still in a celebratory mood. Romney lost the state in which he grew up and where his father was governor by 9 points, but Republicans kept control of the Michigan Legislature.

Snyder also won five of the six ballot measures on which he weighed in — including beating back a constitutional amendment pushed hard by labor unions that would have strengthened collective bargaining rights. The one setback was the rejection by voters of a law he had shepherded that gave emergency power to the state to take over troubled cities.

Snyder called the ballot measure victories a mandate to keep up what he describes as “the reinvention” of the state. He said his 2014 reelection will be on an independent track from the national debate, and he described his relationship with the Obama administration as generally constructive.

“We don’t fight or blame,” he said.

Some governors have kept a very low profile in the wake of the election. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval — the son of Mexican immigrants — has carefully avoided doing anything that might chip away at his strong approval rating or closely identify him with a damaged GOP in a state Obama just won by 6.6 percentage points. Sandoval is up for reelection in 2014.

He skipped all public sessions of the RGA, for example, despite being the host governor. And his staff refused to make him available for an interview, in person or on the phone, citing a trip to D.C. to accept an award from Governing Magazine.

Haley Barbour, an elder Republican statesman, called for meaningful immigration reform and called for a “proctology exam” on the failed GOP ground game.

But, he cautioned, “This is not some collapse on our side or some runaway for the other side. This wasn’t a terrible election for Republicans up and down.”

To Barbour, the biggest takeaway from 2012 is that negative campaigning still works, as seen in the Bain-themed attacks on Romney.

“An attack unanswered is an attack admitted,” he said.

Maine GOP Gov. Paul LePage said he has not decided whether to run for reelection in 2014. The unpopular Republican in a solidly blue state said he pays little mind to what’s going on at the national level.

“[Obama] carried it in ’08, too. I don’t see Obama as a threat at all,” he said. “When I ran for governor, I had my wife go out and buy me a little scrub brush. Now I have a wire brush.”

Jonathan Martin and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.  

Posted to: News Politico Virginia

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.


About thinking its 2012 and not 1950.


Quote, "About thinking its 2012 and not 1950."

Yeah, who needs those antiquated, outdated values of yesteryears ?...Honesty and Morals are vastly overated...Right?


Anyone read "Animal Farm" lately? Excite the masses, control the masses - tell them they need their fair share and what do you have? A new set of big fat pigs living in the farm house and the masses are left worse than they were before.....

Better, think 1880

Pre-income tax. Pre-prohibition. Pre world policeman. Laissez Faire capitalism.

The policies of economic freedom that lifted us from a ruinous Civil War to the number one manufacturing economy in a single generation and created the first generally prosperous middle class while accepting millions of Europe's poor and assimilating them into that middle class.

Then add in just enough environmental regulation to protect the environment, but not so much as to tinker with what works.

That was the America that really worked best for its people.


Try being a coal miner, tenant farmer, garment factory worker, slaughterhouse employee, child laborer, housewife or black person in 1890s America and get back to us Tabor.

Heck, try being a person with an impacted molar in 1890. Would you visit a blacksmith for an extraction, knowing what you do now about dentistry.


DId I write anything about abandoning technology?

A return to Laissez Faire economic policy does not mean winding back the clock on technology or social progress.

Discrimination, on the contrary, was an affront to Laissez Faire principles. Barring people by race or gender from full economic participation is not economic freedom, it is the use of government to exclude competitors.

Child labor was not outlawed until it had become unnecessary. It was the increase in productivity due to more efficient organization and machinery that allowed a working man to earn enough to support his family by his own efforts alone.

The point of Laissez Faire economic policy was that economic freedom brings prosperity, and as we have reduced economic freedom, we have lost our economic dominance.

Neither technology nor markets benefit the majority

without government regulation. Your golden age of laissez faire never did and never could exist. For example, you praise the system for its benefits during the 1890s while acknowledging that the system did nothing to encourage racial equality during the decade. Either the system failed or it dd pertain. There can be no other conclusion in that regard.

Insisting it should just makes you appear misinformed and misguided. But, hey, get tilting at those windmills.

The perfect as the enemy of the good

You can't judge past actions by today's social standards. Racism was an accepted part of society then, and economic policy acted in that context. Remember that even Abraham Lincoln advocated a return of blacks to Africa after the war. At that time, it was accepted as 'common knowledge' that blacks were inferior and that women were too emotional to vote. Now, we see those attitudes as egregious, but then they were accepted ideas in polite society.

Laissez Faire was an economic policy.(more like a lack of policy) It operated in the context of those social ills. Capitalism does not see race or gender. It sees buyer and sellers. In that sense, laissez Faire capitalism undermines racism and sexism in pursuit of those transactions.

I reject all charges of presentism

Human nature does not change. Get rid of laws prohibiting base exploitation, and powerful people will basely exploit others. That you fail to acknowledge this is why all of your other conclusions about the glories of laissez faire capitalism are risible.

Where have I rejected hthe Rule of Law?

I have consistently written here that government has a duty to exclude force and fraud(including the imposition of external costs) but should otherwise not interfere with voluntary transactions in the marketplace.

I am a Libertarian, not an anarchist.

Of course we need laws to prevent the powerful from using force against the weak, but government is currently more often the agent of the powerful against the weak than their protector.

If you want an example, consider the enormous increases in the cost of energy and food resulting from the government protected monopoly and mandate on corn ethanol.

This boondoggle, rejected now even by the environmentalists who advocated it, costs consumers billions and persists only through EPA force.

*A* failed policy does not invalidate all policies

And if you are not an anarchist, than quit arguing for the removal of all regulations.

You keep denying that you're doing so, but that only proves you don't understand the import of your arguments.

Laissez faire means, literally, hands-off, which is as much to say, "no regulation."

If I come across as dismissive, that's because I am. I do not mean to cause offense, but every attempt you make to strengthen and clarify your philosophy only weakens and bowlderizes it.

You fail both French and economics

Laisez Faire does not mean "hands off." Literally it means "let it be," idiomatically it means 'non-intervention.'

Economically, Laissez Faire allows for the exclusion of force and fraud. Those are the primary duties of government, and only anarchists espouse the rejection of the Rule of Law.

But it does not allow government to try to choose the winners and losers in the marketplace by use of government force.

I have been quite clear about the role of government in a Libertarian political system and a laissez faire economic policy. You seek to redefine them into straw men to knock down.

If you choose to do so, I can always define Progressivism similarly as a pack of thieves and ignore honest disagreement on the role of government.

From the Peanut Gallery

Mr./Ms. Not by Half: You clearly will refuse to acknowledge it, but you are intellectually overmatched -- and are being taken apart, piece by logical piece -- by Dr. Taber.

Please keep it up. This is a most interesting read.

I think

He is a anti-dentite. What do you call someone who failed out of Med School?...A dentist.

There is an alternative viewpoint

Capitalism does not see race or gender but capitalists sure do Doc. That’s why women make 72 cents on the dollar. It’s also a contributing factor to why blacks and Hispanics get denied employment or business loans while whites get hired and find backing. Look, I agree there is such a thing as too-much government, but the argument that government should not interfere with voluntary transactions in the marketplace is an idealistic and simplistic view that ignores the fact that many “capitalists” aren’t the greatest guys and gals in the world.

Sure, some capitalists are racists

so are some socialists. But the market punishes that too.

Most of you know where my office is located. Many, if not most, of my patients are minorities.

I find that by treating every patient as an individual and not making presumptions about what they will or will not accept based on race or financial condition, I have had more success in reaching that diverse population than other dentists who have tried and failed in that neighborhood.

So, without government intervention, racial stereotyping is punished by the marketplace and a color blind view of people is rewarded. I'm still there and doing well in a poor economy, and they aren't.

I'm sure that principle applies to other businesses just as it does for dentistry.

Consider this:

All these regulations in place----and there are a TON of them----and still, according to you, all this discrimination takes place on a daily basis. Exactly how much regulation/government intervention do we need in order to reach your idea of utopia?

Typos and a general comment

"did not pertain"

"keep tilting"

The economic libertarianism you espouse bears up to not a second's critical thought, the most rudimentary knowledge of history or any real understanding of how real people act in the real world. To know that anyone would cling to such an uncredible (not a typo) worldview is, at first, head-scratching, then dispiriting.

You reject libertarianism?

Did Libertarianism give us $16trillion in debt and another $75trillion in unfunded promises that can't be kept?

Did Libertarianism get us the job of world policeman?

Did Libertarianism make government the instrument of public morality?

Did Libertarianism pump fiat money into the economy, particularly the housing sector, and crash the economy?

Did Libertarianism misdirect hundreds of millions into 'green' projects that have uniformly failed and increased unemployment?

If you can look at the havoc resulting from 60 years of Pseudo-Keynesian meddling in the economy and see that as success while condemning the period of Laissez Faire capitalism, you probably should not be raising the issue of critical thought.

I reject your preposterous assumption

That a solution to any problem would be abandoning any and all attempts to formulate solutions.

Preposterous assumptions?

How about the assumption that Progressives can take a quick glance at an incredibly complex machine that IS WORKING and without fully understanding it, make adjustments to the machine and not do more harm than good.

The US economy is at least a million times more complex as the Windows operating system, so when you can open a debugger and make improvements to Windows WHILE IT IS RUNNING and not crash it, then get back to me about managing the US economy.

Be agape and aghast all you want

your ideas hold up to no scrutiny. Being shocked, SHOCKED that someone would call you on your nonsense must play havoc with your mocle budget.


dang it

Federal arrogance

Imagine the arrogance involved for a group to think they can fix everything to do with health care: payment, provision, oversight, measurement, enforcement, wellness regs., et cetera near to infinity, in a fell swoop of 2500 pgs of legalese.

Dept. of Ed.: 40 yrs. of meddling & the avg. student is less capable in basic subjects than in 1960, so much so that the college board had to inflate the average SAT score 100 points since 1995 to maintain the avg.

Read the anti-federalist papers. Human nature, despite all our technology trappings, has not changed. Patrick Henry and others of that day were terrified of just what is happening--tyrannical control from far away unaccountable to the individual citizen. To wit: EPA TSA DOJ

Freedom: what's not to like?

What's preposterous about abandoning governmental central planning and allowing any and all people the freedom to make their own choices?

But to find the RIGHT solution

I would submit that non-libertarians wrongly assume that the solution is the government at all.
The government can help protect rights and freedoms, but when we delegate the bettering of our individual, family and social situations to the government, we basically forfeit our rights and liberties to our new masters.
When the government begins to attack the problems from the ground up, meaning the individual and the family unit, it will begin to make progress. When it attempts to smoothe over those problems with regulations and more money, it perpetuates them.

Unregulated capitalism destroyed the world economy twice

Once in 1929 and again in 2008.


Questioning science, controlling health care through religious morals, backward stances on immigration and gays, yes thinking and dreaming of yesterday will get nowhere.

Questioning science..

i suppose you're talking about "man caused" global warming,to this day there still isn't one single shred of scientific evidence that global warming is caused by man. only a consensus of selected scientist."backward stances on immigration and gays," guess your talking about 'illegal" immigration.what about gays? they have every right straight people have ""controlling health care through religious morals,"" lets see we cant force "muslim" women to unveil their faces in this country because of their religion, because the left says we need to be more compassionate towards islam. but yet you have no problem forcing any religion here to provide for abortions and birth control thru their insurance, wow.

As a gay man

in Virginia I don't have the right to marry the man I love, so no I don't have all the same rights. And although you have the right to practice your religion you don't have the right to force it upon me.

getting married is not a right

a straight man cannot marry another man either,so again what right does a straight man have that a gay man doesn't have?you seem to be confused with "gay'marriage as opposed to "same sex" marriage..marriage is a church institution not a government one.so the church "marries" people,& the church doesn't approve of same sex marriage,so dont try to force your beliefs on the church,now if you want the gov.to marry people with civil union,that's fine,all you have to do then is to get insurance co & others(such as hospitals)to recognize it as legal union.& then they can have the same things a man/woman marriage has . like higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, ect but dont tell me you dont have the same rights as a straight person, cause you do


Would you love your wife less if gay people could get married in VA?

i have no problem

with civil unions, and letting same sex couples have what they call "the advantages" of a conventional marriage.,insurance together, being next of kin, all that, i got no problem whatsoever,, the problem i have is , that they say they want the same rights. they have the same rights.. they are just going about their argument the wrong way ..their are blaming the wrong people,the church. they want the church to go against their beliefs to suit their own beliefs.let the government marry them and make it recognize across the country..i got no problem with that. how they go get that i dont know, just vote if the people vote against it just go thru the courts to over turn it, that's what liberals do when they lose a proposition at the polls

How about this:

Just get the government out of marriage altogether.

1950's - Honesty and morals? Really?

You are viewing those years through a distorting miasma of Leave It to Beaver, Father Knows Best and I Love Lucy.

In those days incredible injustice and societal dysfunction was swept under the rug and kept totally out of sight. Everybody just accepted as "normal" widespread poverty, petty apartheit in the South and institutionalized discrimination throughout the country against women, Jews, homosexuals and minorities in both public and private institutions. We are MORE moral and MORE honest now.

Break out

The Dems soothe with a sorry education, an EBT card, sub-par housing, and the latest "happy meal". They expect us to be happy scraping by on the man's plantation for the rest of our lives.

If you don’t aspire to anything beyond that, then enjoy yourself; it's a free country. If you want yours to have a shot at breaking out, expand your educational horizons. Many of us don’t get our training from Fox or liberal "educators". Talking-head Dems seem to know Rush’s talking points best.

Here's a clue: THE DEMS HAVE 70% OF THE WEALTH.

For those who may be interested in the risk of shaking up your indoctrination, I would recommend some urbancure.org

Don’t buy it; you have been prostituted long enough. BREAK OUT and run your own life!

Rather than being spoon fed

Rather than being spoon fed tripe from a conservative blog, some may prefer to draw their own conclusions from Gallup polls. Yes, Democrats have regained the majority of those earning over $75,000/year - a surprising statistic given all the "taker" talk and that portion of the population who will be paying higher taxes under the Obama proposal.

In 2000, Republicans claimed 54% of those earning $75,000/year or more. By 2009, that percentage had fallen to 47%.


Traditionally safe GOP demographic groups are disappearing.

The GOP ran a pretty good race and lost. It wasn't a blowout

by any means. The Presidential race was within a percentage point or 2 of the popular vote. If anyone looks at the map rural America was carried by the GOP. So what? Look at the presidential elections in the last 60 years, the country has voted for both sides. Presidential elections are won and lost in the margins. It's very interesting that GOP governors and states where the GOP holds majorities in state legislatures were not wins for the GOP at the Presidential level. The race for President is a popularity contest. The GOP doesn't need to do a revamp or a change in principals. The GOP simply needs to get their message to a slightly larger audience.

You've made some good

You've made some good points, but I respectfully disagree. More and more people are fiscally conservative, but more socially liberal. The evangelical right wing spouting off about religion, abortion, gays, immigration, etc. is a real turn off for a big chunk of voters. During the recent election there was so much BS being tossed around it was hard to stomach supporting the GOP, and the liberal alternative wasn't any better. Personally, I feel excluded from both parties, so unless either one of them shifts gears, niether will get my vote. If the Republican party doesn't change (especially with the younger generation coming up), a third party will step up and replace them.

I couldn't agree more!

As a social Democrat and a fiscal Republican, I can only say that I am politically alienated. Neither party really represents my views. The two party system has become so extreme that moderates are left with voting against rather than voting for.


It's shocking how many Republicans blamed attack ads and negative campaigning. Romney didn't lose because of attack ads... Romney lost because he didn't seriously try to appeal to ALL voters. Jindal said it best, the Republicans have to go after 100% of the votes. Young voters, minority voters and women all matter, and if the Republicans continue to lose (and lose badly) in those demographics, they're not going to win on a National level again.

"seriously",,, the key word

Willard had no core. He took both positions on almost every issue depending on what the current audience wanted to hear.

I agree

the GOP must return to libertarian like principles, social moderation, including rejection of one religion's definition of morality, with economic moderation, ie a hand up, not a hand out. Until the GOP puts country first that won't happen, they'll just look like a religious version of the democrats. Leave me alone economically should also apply to leave me alone socially. Until then the GOP will lose on immigration, women's rights, gay rights and healthcare.

By the way, Republicans never offered a fix to Obamacare. The people want healthcare to be reasonable and available, not necessarily fair. When states pass laws benefitting the insurance companies instead of the people that is wrong. Fix the way insurance works.

"Leave me alone economically

"Leave me alone economically should also apply to leave me alone socially."

Well said.

no he lost

for the same reason every republican will lose from now on.. the democrats have gotten too many people dependent of gov handouts and promises.. Romney was correct in what he said, 47% of the people dont need republicans because the dems give them everything.. it might not be politically correct to say it. but its the truth..

your 47%

includes many seniors and many of our servicemen and women.


earned what they are getting now, most of them anyway (seniors) and even then some seniors haven't been much of a contributor as others have, just because they are seniors doesn't mean they aren't taking advantage of the system,and doesn't make them exempt from criticism , you libs take something and run to the wildest extremes you can with it


What about the veterans, and those who pay state, sales, property and payroll taxes yet make too little to pay federal income tax. Did you know there are more white people than anyone on welfare?


there is more white people on welfare by the simple fact that there is more white people in this country ,, now if you want to break it down to the percentage of who is on welfare, you are more likely to run into an African American on welfare than a white person simply because there is a greater percentage of African Americans on welfare than there is of white people on welfare,, African Americans are 12% of the population but yet get 33% of the food stamps. number of whites on welfare is around 16.5 million out of 196 million whites less than 10%,and about 10 million African Americans out of 36 million or about 28% of the African American community..

you cons

are willing to include good folks in your zeal to denigrate those you consider inferior.

Your 47% includes many seniors and servicemen and women.

who said

anyone was inferior? just because about 47% of the population gets some kind of government handout, and social security and military retirement checks are not handouts, but you seem determined to include that for some reason, doesn't make them inferior . but i guess maybe in your mind that makes them inferior i dont know. but not in my mind


You have your numbers all wrong, or like Rove, is that math that Republicans do to make yourselves feel better? The Romney 47% quote was referencing the % of people who do not pay federal income tax.

give thomas a break

He is trying to spin the best that he can.

He's failing but he does give a good try.

I hate to be the one to give

I hate to be the one to give Republicans helpful advice, but if they would simply recognize (particularly the Christian right) that Hispanics are a very religious, family oriented group, and appeal to that, the Pubs would be doing themselves a service. Latinos, particularly Mexicans, are willing to do back breaking work at relatively low wages . . . and send part of that money home to family. They are pro-Life. They believe in God as deeply faithful Catholics. They come here to work, not mooch off the system. But in typically myopic fashion, the Republicans instead insult them, call them criminals, and seek every possible means to deport them, even the children who have grown up here.

Great Post!

Our political perspectives may not align, Esau, but yours is a truly excellent post.

Too bad, at least from my perspective, and lucky from yours, that most Republicans are incapable of recognizing good advice when it is offered.

On the Other Hand ...

On the other hand, there is always Chris33 to constantly remind us that Democratic overreach is only just around the corner.

Brace yourself, America.

I agree, and I'll add to it

Latinos and especially Mexicans who are here unlawfully are natural entrepreneurs, but because they are here unlawfully, they cannot be business owners themselves. Denying people access to the full benefits of capitalism cannot help but drive them away from conservatism.

They cannot fall back on the Rule of Law when abused.

In short, our immigration laws are hypocritical and a betrayal of what it means to be an American.

But in truth, the Dems are little different from the GOP. They are willing to let Latinos stay here as employees, but are no more willing to open our economic order fully to all than the GOP.

It is time to let them in legally and with full access to the American dream.

I'm all for liberalizing

I'm all for liberalizing immigration policy. Certainly, though, you're not equating "letting them all in" to simply opening up our borders for the world to file in.

We don't want to be France

with much of North Africa moving in and applying for the dole on arrival.

But our system should not give preferences to British over Hispanics or the PhD's over laborers. Under our current system, a British PhD wishing to immigrate would face about a 2 year wait, but a Mexican laborer, even with relatives who are citizens, would face an average 129 year wait, effectively a ban.

Maybe a numerical limit per year but I would rather no limit but something like a 10 year waiting period for new immigrants before they can apply for Medicaid, Food Stamps or other safety net programs.

That way people would come here only if they would not be a burden and instead contribute.

Republicans disrespected the voters

In the last two years over 1,000 anti choice bills were introduced at the state level by Republicans....Disrespecting women

"I will veto the Dream Act." - Mitt Romney....Disrepecting Latinos

Republicans passed voter ID laws in an attempt to disenfranchise minorities....Disrepecting African Americans.

I hope Republicans "stay the course." They need to go the way of the Dodo.


--how do you justify the killing of over 1 million babies a year in this country?--they all are because of rape or incest?---abortions are the means of correcting the mistakes of a promiscuous society!--a society that has lost it's morals!

--if you are going to act like dogs in heat---at least get fixed!--you do it to your animals don't you?

And here is part of the rhetoric

that the GOP loses on, one person's definition of 'life' trumps the woman's, no matter what. When we take choices away we are no better than the communists or Taliban. You may choose to practice your religion as far as you want as long as it doesn't interfere with my right not to practice or respect it. Once you demand my observation and respect you violate the COTUS and natural rights.


Take choices away? Then who speaks for the unborn human who cannot make choices?? Do you really think that this unborn human would agree with the mommy and say: "Go ahead ma, abort me, it's cool. I understand - you're not 'ready'"

Somewhere we have driven our moral compass right into the ground in this 'fast food' society. We have all but condoned irresponsibility, murder, and laziness all wrapped up in one.

Imagine explaining to a child of 7 or 8 the reasons that people intentionally terminate a life form:
"Well Jimmy, you see, Aunt Minnie wasn't ready to have a child so they're going to take it away, but don't worry, Aunt Minnie will be ok. You see, accidents happen sometimes." Even said in a genteel manner, it's horrific.


Look no further!

This is the type of person the Republican party needs to toss out on their ear with only the address of the RTL party in their hand. As long as the party continues to let irrational extremists distract from honest discussions about the economy with meaningless fluff like this, they will never win over rational and/or educated voters. Game over.


i think your disrespecting african americans by assuming they are the only ones who for whatever reason cant get a photo id.. maybe its in your own belief that African americans cant get a photo id, if that's so, what would that make you? the word starts with an "r"

Anything goes - if it feels good "do it!"

That's what our country has become. We have strayed from our founding principals on the fast track. The spirit of the American Dream has been turned into "that's not fair, gimme his, too! I need help, gimme an advantage over him! Gimme - just gimme!" And they now know they can vote in a government to take it for them......

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.
A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.
No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to

Patrick Henry

Founding principles?

America was founded on slavery where only white male land owners could vote.

We have advanced a long way from those backward ideas.


You obviously were never successful from elementary through high school history classes.

Division is alive and thriving

in this administration. Division of the sexes, religion, class, and race is promoted. It's big business.It's power! 100% of the vote in 100's of districts for Obama. Really? Children who didn't see black and white - NOW see it. Who promotes this type of thinking and why?

Chris33, slavery? Really? Get off this blog and go volunteer to help some people in need instead of spewing hatred and advancing the division of the people.


Who promotes this type of thinking and why?
--Would that be the party that had candidates that said rape was gods plan, condoned young women for using birth control, thinking dinosaurs and humans walked together, or telling that gays are different from you and me?


Who are 'They'? And who is 'Them'?
Are you one of 'Them'? And folks who disagree with you 'They'?

Alternate headline: "Patrick Henry Predicts Romney Loss!"

Justice, moderation, and virtue... Patrick Henry pretty much lays the blueprint. Justice instead of judgement, moderation instead of unweilding zealotry, and virtue instead of vitriol. It also sounds like he'd make a strong argument against corporations are people, my friend.

The Republican Dilema

How do you implement a strategy of inclusion...
When the party philosophy is one of absolute exclusion...

I can't wait to see the circus atmosphere during the next primary season.

Bet on that!

The primaries and debates were a hoot! Bachmann, 9-9-9, Rick Perry's "oops", Trump hurling insults from the sidelines. What a circus! Then in the end, they lined up behind Romney. With friends like that, he could use more enemies!


Easy to explain whats wrong with the R party....Too Old, Too White, and Too Male.

The founding fathers were

The founding fathers were old white men.


And they owned slaves, and grew marijuana, and cheated on their wives. Your point is?

But they no longer vote...

But they no longer vote...

Their albatross

I can think of two party lines that need to disappear and two that need to appear. The albatross that the Republican’s has hung around their necks was placed there by the Christian Right in the early eighties. That is when the GOP realized that the Christian Right was a huge voting bloc. But, there was a tradeoff for their vote. One involves women’s health and the other is a Civil Rights issue. They should diminish the rhetoric on these two issues and enliven the inclusion of Blacks and Latinos. I believe health issues belong between a doctor and patient, not legislated by government. And everyone knows; the last bastion of inequality in this nation (and the world for that matter) is the Gay Rights issue. It’s time to move away from the dogmas

Here is something the GOP might try.

First voters’ do have a memory. Most of us know our problems didn’t start on January 20, 2009 but was an ongoing downswing. We also know Obama didn’t run up a 16 trillion dollar debt in the same time frame. He inherited a debt of over 10 trillion. So don’t try and tell us it was all his fault.
Second polices folks have pushed for and have seen enacted are not gifts. So don’t act like they are.
Finaly, at least as far as this comment goes, just because we disagree with you doesn’t makes us unamerican or anti-relgion.
Next time you want to qoute our founding fathers please remember the reason they are our founding fathers is because they didn’t like the government at that time and did something to change it.

a thought

--I keep hearing from the democrats---"LETS GO BACK TO THE CLINTON YEARS OF PROSPERITY"?---I say lets go!

---but the first thing you have to know is that the government is now getting MORE REVENUE now then we were then!

--then we also should cut our spending back to what it was in those years!

--so--lets go back to those prosperous years of Clinton!--cut the revenue back to what it was and cut the spending back to what it was!


Wrong, of course

Revenues to the Federal Treasury are at their lowest since 1950 when measured as a percentage of GDP.

gop making lots of excuses

The GOP masses never did truly like or trust Romney.

I have only found one conservative on these forums that would say Romney is a man of truth and even then he would not back up Romney.

The GOP lemmings blindly supported Romney because he played the part of 'republican'.

Stick to conservative principles

Reaching out in terms of being a DEM LITE give-away party is a mistake. When Dems got blown out in 2010 elections, We didn't see Dems doing soul-searching on what they had to change. The positions of power are in fact THE SAME as they were before the elections. So no one has a mandate.

Republican minorities get slurred, or discredited by Dem Pundits and spokespersons to maintain the myth of a racist Repub party and keep minorities in the Dem fold. Anything bad happens, its due to the nearest Repub.

Do another amnesty program like Reagan did in 1986? It still won't get them anymore of the hispanic vote (30%) than they got before. Otherwise, just hand out 10 million green cards. But it won't be enough for Dems until the illegals can vote.

"So no one has a mandate. "

Republicans agree,,, Obama won in a landslide


332 to 206 is it?

Read anything you can into it

A mandate is the complete authorization to act given to a representative. Unfortunately for Obama, with three tiers of government (President, Congress and Courts), he doesn't have complete authorization- even to execute funding/taxing policies. While he got the requisite electoral votes, note that he got the same House (Repubs) and Senate (Dems) which voters sent back. Now if he had gotten a Dem controlled House again with Ms Pelosi in charge, then voters would have stated they trust him to do as he wants with both houses in Dem control. He did not recieve that. Now he may go on TV if he's blocked by the House to complain about it and that he won, but that's about it. Nothing he can do but deal with them.

acually now a days

a mandate is anytime a democrat wins and the "unbiased" media automatically goes into the "the people" want whatever that democrat wants to do mantra. plain and simple

the "mandate"

was defined by your republican pundits for Willard and Obama beat it.

In 2004, George Bush beat

In 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry 286-252 electoral votes. Bush responded that he had won political capital in the election, and that he intended to spend it. Where was the Bush mandate?

there wasnt one

but the democrats , as always were looking to spend money so they went along and even upped the ante

"and even upped the ante"

and republican Bush approved all that increased spending and debt.

"if he's blocked by the House"

Yet all this new spending and debt has been republican approved by the House for the latest two years of Obama's time.

no your wrong

there has been no budget since 2010,dems refuse to pass a spending bill,there is nothing the republicans can do about the spending if the dems wont vote yes for the spending bills the house passes,so until there is a budget the same spending(the same budget as in 2010)with an automatic 8% increase will continue.the republicans cant stop it that's why the dems vote down every budget the republicans approve,the only reason the dems wont approve a budget is because they want to run up the debt & force the republicans to agree to raise taxes.then the republicans will get the blame for everything bad that happens after that because they agreed to raise taxes,& the "unbiased" media will blitz us everyday that its the republicans fault

so you are saying

that the House has approved zero spending in the latest two years.

your getting closer

the house has passed spending bills in each of the past 2 years, but the democrat controlled senate votes no on passing the house bill, so therefore the spending bill that the house passed dies and the government reverts back to spending bill that the democrats last passed in 2010, which at that time the democrats controlled both houses of congress and wrote all the spending bills.. so we are using 2010 budget because the democrats refuse to pass the spending bills that the republicans pass in the house,., i.e. your party of "no" is actually the democrats.. seriosuly this really isn't that hard to follow

so you are saying

that the House has approved spending in the latest two years.

the house

has passed a spending bill each year(not what is being spent now) , but it doesn't pass in the senate, without both houses of congress passing it ,it dies, so therefore the republicans have passes budgets and the democrats have vote no on those budgets, so the "budget we have been using the past 2 yrs is the last official budget passed by congress in 2010.. once again you either playing dumb or you are.......


there was slurring on both sides. This wasn't an honorable election season.

You didn't see Democratic

You didn't see Democratic soul searching in 2010 because the demographic cards were not stacked against them.

Look it up ...

George W. Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote -- mainly because he had reasonable, realistic views on immigration.

I know Republicans hate to

I know Republicans hate to hear this but it's Bush's fault.

Romney didn't help things by trying to take our country back to his failed policies.

Why is it Bush's fault

Only because he didn't defend his record. His father was defeated in 1992 but by 2012 was being praised for putting country first. Bush 43 put country first. What did he do wrong. Revenue is greater than during clinton. Obama dramatically increased spending. History will judge Bush 43 to be a great president. I suspect the four americans killed Sept 11, the 14 americans killed at Fort Hood, and the 30 servicemenn including 22 seals killed in August of 2011 and their families wish George W Bush could have served a third term because those 40 Americans would be alive and Bin Laden would be on trial for mass murder.


Post of the year...so you are basically saying if Bush the Dumber was still President then this would have never happened. How does that rationale work for 9/11/01, or the Cole Bombing? So you would rather have Bin Laden captured and tried than killed instantly?



You appear to be transfixed and/or brainwashed by the "It's Bush's fault" syndrome. Isn't it high time you automatons of the mainstream media snap out of it and realize that Barney and Co actually began our financial downfall several years ago via 'Fannie and Freddie', and that Senator Obama voted also for their selfish methods. Sure did! Check it out! Oh that's right, your 'committed' to remaining brainwashed. Well then, in that case, have a nice life being controlled. I and my ilk will continue to work for a living and I suppose will also pay the way for all those lazy bums who ran to the polls voting for Obama in hopes for more 'free stuff'. How do you sleep with yourselves in your dependent state of suspended animation.


We just don't let Rush and Faux news tell us what is going on in the world. Funny how the exit polls the majority of Americans still blamed Bush the Dumber, but you know they are brainwashed too. You are such a hard worker we know, god forbid you ever had to ask for some sort of government backed loan or anything.


Thank you 12. You have confirmed for me that the dumbing down of America has in fact officially begun ... and with Obummer at the helm, it will be FREE STUFF for EVERYONE!!!

Go to IMDB.com and review the summary for the movie 'Idiocracy' and you will see that this movie's projection of America 500 years from now is what we are now clearly headed for. It's a comedy ... but then again so are the liberals and their comical agenda especially of their whiny "It's Bush's Fault!" continuing fantasyland of a mindset. It's like watching the heart of America die a slow, lazy, ignorant death.

That's ok, as long as I get my free stuff, man!

Way to go, new American majority!
Self first, then country last.


You do realize in this socialist state you foresee whats yours is mine now my comrade. Cling to the guns and religion its all you will have left. Build the bunker and put on the tin foil hat for the end is near. Maybe some hearings in congress to weed out the reds? 1950 isnt coming back, get used to it.


All your suppositions of how you perceive how I and the other 50% (ie those who did not vote for O) act, behave, live, & breathe, reminds me of the bigots I've had the displeasure of running into in my life. This mindset never ceases to amaze me, like spewing out that we 50% "must be" old white males, or that we collectively watch FOX, or listen to Rush.

You are blinded by your prejudices that you either inherited &/or were served up to you by other Obamaites of which many like you have been willing and gullible to eat right up. So sad that the uneducated now have a (temporary)stronghold simply by being fooled by King Obama who happens to be subservient to the rest of the world, as he bows at the drop of a hat to other world leaders.


johnny d bag, it would be better off to explain what you would do to fix this so called laziness society, and fix the ineptness of a national elections for the Republican party and come up with some meaningful, legal, ideas. Instead of complaining and demonizing those who think different than you, provide some actual educated talking points and rationale.


chaser, it is my goal to make this stairstep column of comments get to where it is so small that I can only get one or two words per line. If that's what it takes to educate you, then I got the time to help. And since when is an Obamaite concerned about a legal way to do something? You don't want to hear my ideas because they are all common-sense ideas which as we all know are summarily rebuffed by most Obamaites (you know, that group of Obama rock star fans who are mesmerized by his free stuff offerings. Go run and play with your block of cheese & enjoy the free stuff while you can. My extra taxes are actually worth it as long as I get to watch this 4-year comedy unfold. Go ahead I made up my mind; the stamps and the cheese are on me.

Dear conservatives, please stick to your principals of fear,

it is why you are at war with:



African Americans,


the poor,


and why any body who does not look or sound like you, or who does not agree with you is your enemy. Respectfully, a Democrat.


I will always be at war with folks who want me to pay for their wants. You want an aobrtion, don't want me to help pay for it, don't tell me I have to offer you birth control, don't tell me I have to.

I want tell you have to believe in God, but don't tell me I have to accept your belief as mine,

GLBT's, I don't practice your sexual habits, that is my choice. I wont tell you who to sleep with, so don't tell me who to sleep with.

The Poor, I do what I have to do in order to make ends meet, so I expect them to do the same. I am glad to help someone out, not support them. I understand that there are those who choose to have children they can't take care of, but I don't have to like it do I?

I am not at any war with any race!

Eloquently put................

you made my point for me.....

So you reject both the Republicans and the Democrats then...

Or I should say, you'd reject the Democrat message but the Republican party would reject you because you're not judgmental or exclusionary enough and you offered to help someone in need. That's the self-defeating nonsense the Republican party needs to get rid of.

The Problem I See With The Republican Party

is how their social agenda does not appeal to today's young voters. Mainly taking unpopular stances on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and other issues that have alienated young voters. Many young voters I know are fiscal conservatives who do not support Obama, but they do not support Republicans either, and have thus become Libertarians. Another problem I see is that Republicans rely too much on the religious platform that alienates atheists. Pew Research Center recently reported for the first time in its history that persons of "no religion" are the largest religious group in this country. Republicans should stop trying to be the "Christian Party" and embody separation of church & state if they want to win elections.


It was not the campaign that Romney ran that did him in. You see, he was doomed from the start. The electorate has changed. We now have more takers from the government that we have giving to it and with that, Romney was doomed with not wanting to tax more. He was doomed when he and a few others were talking about personal responsibility. He was doomed when he mentioned the 47% remark, while it is true that he was not going to get any support from that 47% he should have not stated the obivious.

Those that pay into the system will just have to accept the fact that more and more will have to come from them and those who take from the system will have to accept the fact that the taxpayers don't like it.

The electorate has spoken!


Like those who "take" military retirement checks, and gave nothing? Nothing, that is, except 20+ years of their lives defending your right to call others deadbeats.
Like those who draw disability pay and gave nothing? Nothing, that is, except lost limbs and other various body parts and functions to IEDs or enemy fire.
Like those who are on food stamps and/or subsidized housing and giving nothing? Nothing, that is, except their jobs to satisfy those who wish to maximize their own profits by buying out their competitors, closing them down and sending those jobs overseas, and who, by the way, give back as little as possible by stashing their cash overseas. Or did you mean those in my final sentence, who use their anonymity to buy politicians?

"take" military retirement checks

who said anything about people who have earned anything? only the left that's who. it makes their lie sound better.. the majority of people who are on welfare and food stamps, just happen to be "lifers"if you will, generations of families know nothing but going to the mailbox to get their "paycheck" and that's because of the democrats promising to give them a better life, instead they gave them no hope and no change.. only empty promises that every 4 years gets turn up a few notches to keep getting their vote


What about compassionate conservatism? What policies or regulations would you suggest the Republican party take on this issue? If I read it right, who want to end welfare and food stamps?


Tell all the veterans and seniors to get back to work...what a bunch of freeloaders.


The veterans and the seniors that you speak of have EARNED their entitlements. The vets from putting in the years to get what some consider a paltry 'retirement'. And the seniors you speak of have contributed to the social security program their entire life of which they too receive what is considered today as a pittance.

However, a young single mother of 8 or 12 kids can collect huge sums from the government AND receive government cheese etc via food stamps. This is America's lowest form of scum. Parasitic career moochers who feed off the WORKING people's dollar.

Now tell me again, chaser12, who the freeloaders are? And next time, please take the time to do some research before engaging your keyboard's 'send' button.

Wrong Johnny Dee

So these welfare mothers collect huge sums of money, but still live in poverty? I would think the lowest forms of scum would be the murders, child molesters, and people who pry on the less fortunate and needy, not someone who collects welfare, uses food stamps, and uses some sort of government assistance. The 47% comment does include seniors, veterans and those who do pay other taxes such as payroll, state income, property, sales, and social security. It was comical how Bishop Willard was trying to say how that % was all free loaders, until you look at actually who is included in that number.


By intentionally remaining on the government dole and draining taxpaying workers of America dry, these societal leeches ARE the lowest forms of scum alongside their good friends the dregs of society ie thieves/murders/etc. If it's free, they will come. And come they did! To the polls on Nov 6th. Now all I have to do is sit and watch our American dream unravel because many out there have nothing better to do than be their irresponsible cowardly selves and keep blaming everyone but the real culprits for our country's $16T debt.

It's like watching half of the libs digging TWO head-size holes, while the remaining libs stand at the ready after the spit hits the fan so they can all thrust their irresponsible heads into these pre-dug holes.



So military spending totaling more than the next 17 countries combined along with spending more % of gdp on healthcare than the rest of the world has nothing to do with our debt. Or two wars combined with tax breaks. You are going to have to face it, people on the bottom rungs of our country need a handout and will some take advantage yes. Do billionaire bankers rob, cheat and steal of course just look locally at the Bank of the Commonwealth. Keep saying its the poor, minorities, and the lazy who won the election and think how the Republican ideals of anti-women, too much religion, anti-immigration and anti-science lost it. Isnt the American Dream helping those climb up, instead of telling them how lazy and what scum they are?


Hey pal, Freedom ain't free. And the next dozen and a half countries? Well most of them operate and exist predominantly on a socialist scale. But not to worry, If Daddy O gets his way, he will learn the rich entrepeneurs of the USA a thing or two by intentionally running our economy into the ground in the process of implementing his socialist agenda.

Then you will get your wish as the military monies will be filtered to other "free stuff" programs including the lazy do-nothing people on the government dole. If you think it's bad now with a single mother of 8 making a high and clear 5-figure income per year, wait until Obama the Candy Man completes the transformation of our country into a fully functional self serve "free stuff" society.


If you foresee this doom and gloom coming I suggest a move, but you may not like the "socialist" health care the rest of the industrialized world enjoys. Costa Rica may not suite you either as there is no standing Army. I guess you will just have to live with the freeloaders and Obama for another 4 years. Maybe the Rs will figure out how to get more than the older male white vote.


What comes around goes around pal. Better eat up all the free cheese while it lasts. It's free man! Gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee gimmee!!!!!!!!!
(Yeah, that's real normal, but I guess after all, this IS the new norm ... gimme the free stuff!!!!!).

But if history has taught us anything, it is that even the dems sicken themselves over their own greed and overbearing laziness and dependence on others, even while their own suck the system dry without so much as an effort to work and thus abandon any efforts to achieve self respect.

"Oh we have to help those in poverty" ...
Ok fine! Get them a job instead of a handout.
The libs do them no justice in treating them like children.


Probably the most bitter post Ive seen. What would you suggest happen to change this culture of lazy and handouts? Do you think it is this culture of what you speak as the cause of Romney's defeat? Or what it be the policies and stances of which the Republican Party has taken over the last decade? Or is it even the changing demographics that lost it?


The moochers and the lazy will soon be too much for this or any administration to handle. One day in the very near future the "free stuff" will run out, and the takers will be angry that the Obamaites can no longer afford to feed the monster that they will have created, thus this new breed of American will be a shadow of their predecessors who actually worked for a living. Not bitterness, just fact my man.

Just sit tight for the next 4 years and watch as your president kisses the rings of all the foreign dignitaries he meets. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but eventually and sadly your lies and empty promises catch up to you, then BOOM! There will be another Republican president for all you libs to again lay blame on.


With that inside info and ability to see the future I suggest you play the lottery. Build that bunker. So you prefer the Bush Doctrine of bombing and warfare, white fleet diplomacy over you know actually meeting and talking. The republicans better change their stances because the demographics are not in your favor like it or not. 100 point defeats in the electoral college are hard to overcome, especially when you degrade a large portion of the population. How about instead of listening to Rush you read what Jindal had to say.


What's with this 'bunker' talk? What's your attraction to bunkers? The last person to talk this much about bunkers was Hitler. Let it go. It's your football for the next 4 years - enjoy the free cheese while it lasts. "Yum yum look what Daddy O got for me!"

The GOP was doomed by its

The GOP was doomed by its social agenda irrespective of its economic agenda.

ah the victim card. Enjoy it

ah the victim card. Enjoy it along with your fantasy of being a virtuous maker combating against the evil takers. Maybe Mommy will take you to the playground tomorrow and you and your friends can play beat down the homeless guy.

While your response is full of small minded

insults it does nothing to refute the argument. Typical liberal 'debate' tactics - belittle and insult when you have nothing to offer to reason. When you cannot refute an argument smear the opponent. Try explaining how a system, in which almost half the participants not only do not pay into but actually take out of, is not one of givers & takers?


Ill explain it, some are elderly some are veterans, some pay state, payroll, sales, and property, and some make less than required for federal income tax. Seems kinda unfair there are also millionaires out there that don't pay any at all either. Tell your mom to get back to work, she is a free loader.

That does not explain

anything other than what I said - the system is built to have givers and takers. Why? And you just could not resist trying the insult, eh?


You just might have to realize there will always be those who need support from the federal government. The American way seems to help them rather than call them free loaders and lazy dont you think?


I have to accept no such thing. I will accept that there are people who are not capable of supporting themselves. I will accept that there are people not capable of supporting themselves above a bare subsistence level. Neither of those means I must accept that the only answer or the right answer is the support of the Federal government. It is NOT the 'American Way' to help others, it the way of AMERICANS to CHOOSE to help others. There is a distinct difference.

pretty funny calling me out

pretty funny calling me out on "insults" given the post I replied to was one long insult. But keep your head in the sand where you can't see your double standards (or are they just whatever standard is convenient).

In essence you think every household making under around $45k a year are full of takers who can't be made to care about their lives and will only vote for a government which gives them stuff and to "prove" it you point to people who didn't vote the way you'd like and starting reeling off some talking points that describe a RWNJ strawman. You are arguing about some twisted self-congratulatory fantasy. You and everyone you respect is a "maker", right?

You're just patting yourself on the back as part of a game of make beleive.

There is a difference between unpalatable truths and

insults. If I run across someone who has not bathed for a year and let him know he stinks that is an unpalatable truth, not an insult. He may BE insulted by my mentioning it, but it does not make it untrue or insulting. As for your assertion of what I think, you could be no further from the truth. The amount of money you make or the amount of taxes you pay does not enter into the argument. Warren Buffet, in my view, is a taker even though he probably pays more in taxes every year than I will earn in my lifetime. It is about a mentality which believes in Robin Hood.

it's the false brand label that is the root

Republicans have been labelled as racist, mysoginist, redneck, old, white, rich, and/or out-of-touch. I don't know any GOP that is racist and/or mysoginistic. I am sure there are, but you can say that about Democrats also.

Comedians tell jokes about Republicans and people laugh, and people would laugh at jokes told about Democrats if they were told mainstream. The brand label is not the truth but it "sounds right".

Branding matters. Senator Graham is quick to put down a fellow (in name only) Republican but you can't get him near a microphone to speak ill of a Democrat. We need "leaders" who are willing and able to push back the false branding.

Would Hispanics have voted for Romney if immigration was not an issue? Figure that out first.


And distance themselves from the nuts on the right wing radio...and also from Grover Norquist.

Probably not

According to the most recent study I read 75% of hispanics vote for government spending programs because they believe that the governemnt is the source of wealth. As such, they believe that more government spending means the country is better off. When you tell them you want to reduce government spending you are telling them you want the country (and them) to be less successful.

A woman should have the

A woman should have the right to do to her body as she pleases. If she wants an abortion, so be it. She should be able to use her body for prostitution if that is her choice. No government should tell a woman what she should do with her body.

The Republican party cheated

The Republican party cheated and committed fraud at every turn to get Romney nominated, so a complete house cleaning is needed, not a new strategy, if it is ever going to be worthy of survival.

Do tell

I'm curious as to the fraud and cheating you claim.

I watch with my own eyes a

I watch with my own eyes a local Republican party throw out dozens of valid delegate applications and when challenged they readily admitted they did it because it needed to be done in order to get the result they wanted.

Ask Ron Paul

Did you catch that part about the Maine Republican delegates being thrown out of the convention and not allowed to cast their vote? About GOP leaders attempting to rewrite the rules of how delegate selection works?

There wasn't a Democrat in the place so you can't blame them.

Speaking of Ron Paul...

The republicans had a guy who attracted LOTS of young folks as well as every demographic imaginable. He even attracted some democrats. But between the media and the republican party itself, he (and his message!) was ignored and mocked. Ask some of the Ron Paul delegates how they were treated; it's beyond disgusting.

Ron Paul has a simple but consistent message: freedom, peace and prosperity for all. He also spoke the actual truth about the economic situation we're in and what we face if something doesn't change. I guess most people don't want to hear the truth but it sure didn't scare away young folks.


Rand Paul

Working on reading Rand Paul's latest book. He was on C-SPAN recently. It's a pretty interesting read re. gov't over-reach with much that sounds like Ron. Maybe by the time he's seasoned and ready, the country will be ready for him, too.

Math and science would be a good start

Math: Republican self-appointed mouthpieces, say they're now a shrinking minority and the only decent Americans left because the majority are lazy, useless people who don't respond to reason.

Suggestion: A shrinking minority insulting a growing majority = Fail

Science: Climate change is happening whether you blame natural cycles or man. Appointing unqualified political cronies to committees of Science and Technology because of their divinity degree or religious affiliation, dumbing down schooling to discourage critical thinking, and calling Research and Development wasteful spending has resulted in Every American Left Behind.

Suggestion: Remove the religious taboos from science and oh... try science? Or even economics.

Let's watch

The GOP’s Basic Problem is that they cannot understand why, after 30 years of Reaganism and an increasingly conservative message, that America has not returned to an idealized “Golden Age” of single bread-winner, stay-at-home-mom, Ozzie and Harriet bliss.

The Party believes in the Basic Message. Current circumstances will force the conclusion that it’s not the Message that’s at fault, but the packaging. Or maybe something darker? Elections and power are being denied them because they’ve been stolen? Perhaps sabotage?

Enemies within the party itself? This conclusion will result in the purge within the party of everyone who’s even muttered “moderate”, all in the name of “purity”. Don’t know who’ll vote for it, but it’

conservatism and capitalism works

Does anyone seriously think that if the GOP had not said a thing about abortion, illegal immigrations, or adding needed security to voting that Hispanics, Latinos, blacks and women would be voting for Republicans?
That the issue - it is not about the message, but rather it is about what people are told to think the message means.

Liberals LIED about the ultrasound mandate. Here in Virginia the GOP needed someone to say "SHOW ME where it says that!" But that didn't happen, even though the bill required doctors to show the woman getting an abortion a printout from the ALREADY ROUTINE MEDICALLY ultrasound procedure.

Governor Christie is not a conservative but he does push back which the GOP NEEDS, but from a conservative. Push back will win.

Latinos are not stupid. If a

Latinos are not stupid. If a candidate does not address their immigration issue, they will ask. If a candidate addresses the issue but does the opposite once the elected, they will not forget. That is not the same as a candidate trying to address the issue but facing opposition once elected. A party lying to a constituency only works once. Yes, opposition will always try to reshape a party's message. However, it is not just the phrasing of a party's message. It is the substance of the message itself that is the problem.

First term priority

Obama and the Democratic Party Platform stated immigration policy was a major issue when the race was on in 2008.

What major piece of legislation was introduced to solve the immigration issues during Obama's first two years when Democrats controlled all legislation?

Did I miss it buried in an omnibus bill or something? Can't seem to search it out. Anyone have an S- or HR- I can use?

House Republicans let it be

House Republicans let it be known in no uncertain terms that proposed immigration reform was DOA.

111th Congress--House: 255 D, 179 R

Really? In the 111th Congress in 2009, Democrats outnumbered Republican 255-179. How does the minority enforce a DOA policy with that overwhelming majority? And the D's had 60 seats in the Senate until Scott Brown was elected.

Maybe they were too busy with "Cash for Clunkers"

Please reference your information. I would love to read something to the contrary if it exists.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business