Romney pummeled his primary opponents into dust, and set new records in campaign mendacity, and he’s the GOP’s idea of “nice”?
Yes. Romney never bothered to expose the flaws in Obama’s argument.
” and set new records in campaign mendacity”
Obama is still the world record holder there. Romney wasn’t going to outlaw Planned Parenthood or NPR, return us to Jim Crow, ban birth control and tampons, and never blamed the gays for all of our problems.
Nor did he accuse anybody of giving them cancer.
I thought the record was capped when Palin put a surveyor’s mark on Arizona and thus targeted Rep. Gifford as a weak district worthy of fundraising efforts to eliminate her and flip to GOP.
Heck we are only learning from your Dear Leader:
“if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun…”
“get in their faces…”
“punish our enemies”
“voting is the best revenge”.
If Romney behaved the same way during the General election, as he did in the primaries – or even the first debate – he would have won. When he told Obama, to his face, that he picked losers, that was tough but fair. I liked that. I thought Romney knew what he was up against and grew a pair.
Then Romney got “nice”. Then he lost.
One hypocritical ploy of the Democrats is to do X for years right alongside the GOP; then all of a sudden the Dems declare X to be evil and so the GOP is evil; then the Dems go right along and continue to do the same thing. (Dem graphics placed targets on maps and people AFTER Arizona).
This is especially true with the “New Civility”.
Well a lot of us are hip to the scam now and refuse to play. So I did not nor will I sign on for the New Civility. The liberals are going to get it good and hard. And their own game is going to be turned around on them.
You want tough? You will get tough.
Baghdad Jim’s definition of “mendacity:” daring to criticize Dear Leader.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Romney was up against this:
Daring to criticize Dear Leader can get you sent to the principle’s office doncha know?
This is the same old crap the (R)’s have been dong for most of my adult life. Whether the (D)’s are in or out of power, when they point at the Right, tell some half truth or some horrible, damnable lie, the Republicans draw in the sand with their big toe and say, “…AW gorsh!”.
And as evidenced by this last four or five weeks, the nastier the Left gets, the nicer the Right wants to appear. I don’t get it, I’ve never understood it, and something tells me I’m never going to understand it.
If nothing else, I’d rather lose honestly for calling my opponent a lying, mouth breathing ass hat, than give some generality about how we’re all different but that’s OK. It’s just part of the further wussification of American men. But isn’t it ironic that the people who think we should turn the other cheek in all circumstances, don’t do so themselves and for the most part deny the very existence of the ‘guy’ who coined the phrase?!
Keep in mind: getting tough does not mean getting mean. The alternative to Ned Flanders GOP presidential candidates (which is all of them post-Reagan) is not Al Pacino in …And Justice for All. Toughness means discrediting the opposition.
How?
Theologian Francis Schaeffer offered a structure for evangelism that applies to all forms of persuasion. You lead not with the ideology you’re hawking but with that of the audience – you lead them to the logical conclusions of their views where those conclusions conflict the most with the audience’s greatest concerns. People don’t reject a worldview until they find fault with it – and only then will they be open to an alternative.
That’s why “going negative” is critical. Voters won’t abandon a Santa Claus candidate unless they perceive that Santa is doing more harm than good. In Romney’s case, he should have talked about stuff like the failed solar subsidies, where the stimulus money really went, government waste in general (you’d think that would resonate in a country with a $16 trillion debt). Obamacare is still unpopular; Romney should have highlighted odious characteristics that PPACA does not share with Romneycare (such as the IPAB politburo). He should have reminded them about cap-and-trade, a scheme that is inherently geared toward decreasing industrial (and thus economic) output. He should have reminded folks about Obama’s explicit promise to raise electricity rates. Maybe Mexican-Americans and America-inhabiting Mexicans would care about Fast and Furious’ cost in Mexican lives.
You are so right.
I wholeheartedly agree with Jim. For example, during the third debate, Romney said this:
“There was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with.”
Now what kind of a lying c**ks*****r would say a thing like that, except a Republican? You bastards!
Most of the voters hear a line like that, look at their wife, back at the tube and think, “…I wonder if ION TV is showing Bonanza or Hawaii Five-O right now?”
OK, so you agreed, NOW tell us how you’d do something better, cheaper, quicker, give me something…I know what he DID, now tell me what you will DO!
My god…..just go back and listen to the 1980 nomination acceptance speech by Ronald Reagan:
Minute 3:55
“…I will [ work with governors] to eliminate, wherever it exists, discrimination against women…”
“…want my candidacy to unify the country…”
“…regardless of party affiliation…..”
And then he got tough as well:
Minute 5:00
“…[their] energy policy based upon sharing of scarcity…”
“…..major issue of this campaign is direct political personal and moral responsibility of the deomcratic party leadership in the white house and congress for this calamity which has befallen us…”
BIFF! POW!
Did anyone show this to Romney?
Minute 5:38:
“….they tell us they did the most that could HUMANLY be done … ”
Sound familiar? Why yes it does, doesn’t it?
“…..they expect you to tell your children that the american people no longer have the will to cope with their problems…I reject that view…..The American people …..are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backward ourselves….have no business leading this nation…”
Ok I’m at minute 6:24 in all this and already, in 6 and a half minutes, he has defined the Obama administration precisely, drawn a picture of our very circumstances today, and rejected them utterly. He talked tough but in an uplifting manner.
THAT is how you talk tough and win elections.
I’m going to go now and listen to the rest of the speech.
Gregg,
it’s just too sad where we are now, given where we were then, right?
(OK Jim, that’s your cue to say Iran Contra!!! Jim, hello JIM!!!!)
Der,
Regan wasn’t perfect but he was a darn sight better than the clown pack we had this time around…..
…and we had three branches of government.
“….preserved the forward movement of growth as well as preserve the strength of the safety net for those in need…..Social Security be preserved….instant freeze on Federal Hiring….[Fed] programs paid for by the money earned by working men and women….we’re going to put an end to the notion that the American people exist to fund the federal government….government betrays the trust and good will of the American workers who keep it going….ladder pulled out from under people just as they get on the first step. That might be the message of the democrats to minorities but it won’t be mine. ”
Well it goes on. But you can see the man pulled no punches and next to him, Romney was a spaghetti spine.
He touches upon all those topics and issues that the GOP shies away from. He calls the Democrats out.
Man you can apply his description of the situation as it was, to the situation as is. That speech would work very well today. Too bad there’s no one with the cojones to give it.
“The Carter administration lives in a world of make believe….”
sheesh
Can you imagine Reagan in a debate with Carter saying he doesn’t really disagree on this policy, that policy, and the other policy? If Romney couldn’t really differentiate himself from Obama, other than “I know how to do this stuff! I’ve done it before!” then what was the point of voting?
George I cringed every single time Romney said “I know how – I’ve done it! I can do it!” It was a thoroughly empty statement – much like the statements Obama made in his campaigns.
Sowell is wrong. Romney had to tone it down because any aggressive criticism would offend the huge voting bloc that “votes with their lady parts”.
Despite being a total RINO acceptable in a Blue state, bi-partisan to a fault, and a respected husband and great father of daughters, Scott Brown was “hammered” by the LP bloc in MA and lost by a decisive margin because he was too harsh with the Fake Indian in the debates.
Yeah I recall back in one of the debates in 2008 between McCain and Bronco that anytime McCain would go on the offensive the lady parts being tracked on the bottom of the screen would go way down into the ‘disagree’ area. “Eww, icky old hateful man yelling at a black person, yuck!”
Idiocracy?!?
Your soaking in it.
Idiocracy? It was a documentary.
Another problem is we have such a desire to have someone with a backbone represent us that we immediately look to anyone with a spine as presidential material. NJ anyone? We don’t need a RINO. Can we figure at least that out in the next four years? Is there nobody in the country with both a spine and principles we could encourage and select for 2016?
So far I’m only seeing Col. Allen West? Who would make an superlative VP attack dog.
Perhaps the time will then be right for someone that fights like a girl?
Romney pummeled his primary opponents into dust, and set new records in campaign mendacity, and he’s the GOP’s idea of “nice”?
Yes. Romney never bothered to expose the flaws in Obama’s argument.
” and set new records in campaign mendacity”
Obama is still the world record holder there. Romney wasn’t going to outlaw Planned Parenthood or NPR, return us to Jim Crow, ban birth control and tampons, and never blamed the gays for all of our problems.
Nor did he accuse anybody of giving them cancer.
I thought the record was capped when Palin put a surveyor’s mark on Arizona and thus targeted Rep. Gifford as a weak district worthy of
fundraisingefforts to eliminate her and flip to GOP.Heck we are only learning from your Dear Leader:
“if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun…”
“get in their faces…”
“punish our enemies”
“voting is the best revenge”.
If Romney behaved the same way during the General election, as he did in the primaries – or even the first debate – he would have won. When he told Obama, to his face, that he picked losers, that was tough but fair. I liked that. I thought Romney knew what he was up against and grew a pair.
Then Romney got “nice”. Then he lost.
One hypocritical ploy of the Democrats is to do X for years right alongside the GOP; then all of a sudden the Dems declare X to be evil and so the GOP is evil; then the Dems go right along and continue to do the same thing. (Dem graphics placed targets on maps and people AFTER Arizona).
This is especially true with the “New Civility”.
Well a lot of us are hip to the scam now and refuse to play. So I did not nor will I sign on for the New Civility. The liberals are going to get it good and hard. And their own game is going to be turned around on them.
You want tough? You will get tough.
Baghdad Jim’s definition of “mendacity:” daring to criticize Dear Leader.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Romney was up against this:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/howard-stern-does-it-again-interviews-obama-supporters-in-harlem-hilarity-ensues/
Daring to criticize Dear Leader can get you sent to the principle’s office doncha know?
This is the same old crap the (R)’s have been dong for most of my adult life. Whether the (D)’s are in or out of power, when they point at the Right, tell some half truth or some horrible, damnable lie, the Republicans draw in the sand with their big toe and say, “…AW gorsh!”.
And as evidenced by this last four or five weeks, the nastier the Left gets, the nicer the Right wants to appear. I don’t get it, I’ve never understood it, and something tells me I’m never going to understand it.
If nothing else, I’d rather lose honestly for calling my opponent a lying, mouth breathing ass hat, than give some generality about how we’re all different but that’s OK. It’s just part of the further wussification of American men. But isn’t it ironic that the people who think we should turn the other cheek in all circumstances, don’t do so themselves and for the most part deny the very existence of the ‘guy’ who coined the phrase?!
Keep in mind: getting tough does not mean getting mean. The alternative to Ned Flanders GOP presidential candidates (which is all of them post-Reagan) is not Al Pacino in …And Justice for All. Toughness means discrediting the opposition.
How?
Theologian Francis Schaeffer offered a structure for evangelism that applies to all forms of persuasion. You lead not with the ideology you’re hawking but with that of the audience – you lead them to the logical conclusions of their views where those conclusions conflict the most with the audience’s greatest concerns. People don’t reject a worldview until they find fault with it – and only then will they be open to an alternative.
That’s why “going negative” is critical. Voters won’t abandon a Santa Claus candidate unless they perceive that Santa is doing more harm than good. In Romney’s case, he should have talked about stuff like the failed solar subsidies, where the stimulus money really went, government waste in general (you’d think that would resonate in a country with a $16 trillion debt). Obamacare is still unpopular; Romney should have highlighted odious characteristics that PPACA does not share with Romneycare (such as the IPAB politburo). He should have reminded them about cap-and-trade, a scheme that is inherently geared toward decreasing industrial (and thus economic) output. He should have reminded folks about Obama’s explicit promise to raise electricity rates. Maybe Mexican-Americans and America-inhabiting Mexicans would care about Fast and Furious’ cost in Mexican lives.
You are so right.
I wholeheartedly agree with Jim. For example, during the third debate, Romney said this:
“There was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with.”
Now what kind of a lying c**ks*****r would say a thing like that, except a Republican? You bastards!
Most of the voters hear a line like that, look at their wife, back at the tube and think, “…I wonder if ION TV is showing Bonanza or Hawaii Five-O right now?”
OK, so you agreed, NOW tell us how you’d do something better, cheaper, quicker, give me something…I know what he DID, now tell me what you will DO!
My god…..just go back and listen to the 1980 nomination acceptance speech by Ronald Reagan:
Minute 3:55
“…I will [ work with governors] to eliminate, wherever it exists, discrimination against women…”
“…want my candidacy to unify the country…”
“…regardless of party affiliation…..”
And then he got tough as well:
Minute 5:00
“…[their] energy policy based upon sharing of scarcity…”
“…..major issue of this campaign is direct political personal and moral responsibility of the deomcratic party leadership in the white house and congress for this calamity which has befallen us…”
BIFF! POW!
Did anyone show this to Romney?
Minute 5:38:
“….they tell us they did the most that could HUMANLY be done … ”
Sound familiar? Why yes it does, doesn’t it?
“…..they expect you to tell your children that the american people no longer have the will to cope with their problems…I reject that view…..The American people …..are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backward ourselves….have no business leading this nation…”
Ok I’m at minute 6:24 in all this and already, in 6 and a half minutes, he has defined the Obama administration precisely, drawn a picture of our very circumstances today, and rejected them utterly. He talked tough but in an uplifting manner.
THAT is how you talk tough and win elections.
I’m going to go now and listen to the rest of the speech.
Gregg,
it’s just too sad where we are now, given where we were then, right?
(OK Jim, that’s your cue to say Iran Contra!!! Jim, hello JIM!!!!)
Der,
Regan wasn’t perfect but he was a darn sight better than the clown pack we had this time around…..
…and we had three branches of government.
“….preserved the forward movement of growth as well as preserve the strength of the safety net for those in need…..Social Security be preserved….instant freeze on Federal Hiring….[Fed] programs paid for by the money earned by working men and women….we’re going to put an end to the notion that the American people exist to fund the federal government….government betrays the trust and good will of the American workers who keep it going….ladder pulled out from under people just as they get on the first step. That might be the message of the democrats to minorities but it won’t be mine. ”
Well it goes on. But you can see the man pulled no punches and next to him, Romney was a spaghetti spine.
He touches upon all those topics and issues that the GOP shies away from. He calls the Democrats out.
Man you can apply his description of the situation as it was, to the situation as is. That speech would work very well today. Too bad there’s no one with the cojones to give it.
“The Carter administration lives in a world of make believe….”
sheesh
Can you imagine Reagan in a debate with Carter saying he doesn’t really disagree on this policy, that policy, and the other policy? If Romney couldn’t really differentiate himself from Obama, other than “I know how to do this stuff! I’ve done it before!” then what was the point of voting?
George I cringed every single time Romney said “I know how – I’ve done it! I can do it!” It was a thoroughly empty statement – much like the statements Obama made in his campaigns.
Sowell is wrong. Romney had to tone it down because any aggressive criticism would offend the huge voting bloc that “votes with their lady parts”.
Despite being a total RINO acceptable in a Blue state, bi-partisan to a fault, and a respected husband and great father of daughters, Scott Brown was “hammered” by the LP bloc in MA and lost by a decisive margin because he was too harsh with the Fake Indian in the debates.
Yeah I recall back in one of the debates in 2008 between McCain and Bronco that anytime McCain would go on the offensive the lady parts being tracked on the bottom of the screen would go way down into the ‘disagree’ area. “Eww, icky old hateful man yelling at a black person, yuck!”
Idiocracy?!?
Your soaking in it.
Idiocracy? It was a documentary.
Another problem is we have such a desire to have someone with a backbone represent us that we immediately look to anyone with a spine as presidential material. NJ anyone? We don’t need a RINO. Can we figure at least that out in the next four years? Is there nobody in the country with both a spine and principles we could encourage and select for 2016?
So far I’m only seeing Col. Allen West? Who would make an superlative VP attack dog.
Perhaps the time will then be right for someone that fights like a girl?