This is one solid reason why White Conservative voters stayed home and would NOT vote on Nov. 6, 2012. We need to be very honest with ourselves and the Republican Party has to now stay on track to true conservative principles or more elections will be lost.
I am putting this up for a reason, I hope John and James comment here. I know they have much to say on this issue.
Also, Tara Jane ... it is important that you read and understand the wide scope of Romney's political life. His aid, Eric Fernstrom who made the infamous "The campaign is now in etch a sketch mode" and can be recreated .... is a progressive and people did smell it early on but were distracted with many oppositions to the real facts. Mitt made some rebuttal that he was painfully conservative which came out as weird to many supporters.
This was a lukewarm reception in the HEARTS of the republican people. The candidates were all problematic and Romney was served up as one who could get the progressive votes but they questioned him as well because he was not firm and consistent in his personal idealogy. His commitments were questioned too much from both sides.
You cannot placate everyone, you are either conservative or a liberal progressive and your message must be clear to guarantee your win as President of the United States.
I had no illusions about Romney but did vote for him anyway since, once again, the GOP establishment offered us a choice of the lesser of two "evils" (not that Romney was evil but that he had a fairly "progressive" record), If you remember back during the primary battles I pointed out his less that "conservative" record in MA and his father's very "progressive" record in MI (as well as in the Nixon administration). In addition, the "etch-a-sketch" label was a valid reference to his shifting positions on issues in the past especially on his "positions" when running against Kennedy in MA for the Senate where he ran to the left of one of the most left wing senators. If you remember also, I was pretty sure he (or his PAC supporters) would not attack Dear Leader Obama like they did their more conservative GOP rivals and (despite some comments made on other threads here) they really didn't. Even when he did make a very valid comment on the Benghazi fiasco the minute the press came out in support of Dear Leader's "story" he backed off or his handlers forced him to do so. The problem, though, wasn't Romney per se but the GOP establishment pushing him and controlling the election agenda and the same crew of clueless and failed "consultants" that many GOP candidates seem to have an affinity for despite their lousy records. Certainly if elected Mitt could have done a much better job that Dear Leader has and will do even if falling short in areas due to his handlers and his own background. Hopefully somewhere along the line we will get an in depth and honest evaluation of what when wrong so we don't keep repeating these mistakes as has been done for many years now. Likely it is a combination of things, some of which can be addressed like changing the party leadership and getting better consultants and candidates and some not so easily like voter fraud and media bias. The story about the consent decree on voting irregularities and the failure to address that in the face of far worse on the Demagogue side is a clear indication that those in the party who think they are so "smart" are in fact both clueless and stupid. The real problem is the careerist establishment pols and the "professional" political consultants that are more interested in their jobs and reputations than doing what is right.
That is very true John, the careerist pols and consultants are ruining the party greatly.
People are not stupid; they sense there is something really wrong and the stupids only want handouts as they are not even as patriotic as my dogs.
If Romney promised them higher welfare checks, he would have won over Obama. That segment are a huge problem and I hope they are not growing. We need them to be diminished but that is very hard to do in the age of Obamaism which promotes this lifestyle.
They need to be taught and the welfare work code was important. Now, that freebies are guaranteed and work is no longer promoted; America is in for big trouble now and in the future because this is a growing economic drain.
The rest of the people are fed up and they saw no clear differences in policies. Romney had too many progressives within his own camp and I think he had progressive platforms.
He was more liberal than me when I was a democrat and that is why my conservative friends who are democrats would not vote for him. They were angry with his governorship and saw nothing better in the future with him as POTUS.
Shelia: Those of you in MA had a closer look at his political record since he served as governor even if he was dealing with the Dem Legislative Branch in the state. Most not in MA didn't take time to look at his record although I did look at some sources and wasn't pleased with what I saw. Be that as it may for anyone concerned about the country and in touch with what has been going on for the last four plus years (the Demagogues controlled both house from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011) practically you don't always get the candidate you want and more of those years we didn't need.
Now the issue of our declining morality, lack of personal responsibility, and willingness to give up our freedom for "security" is a broader issue and the result of cultural shifts promoted by media, academia, and the "progressive" movement. Contrary to the mantra at election time "cultural" issues are really critical to solving most of the problems especially the current fiscal ones. Abortion, "gay rights", contraception discussions, drug legalization, etc do have implications in other areas since now we are expected to pay for the "benefits" those issues push or the bad results. In the long run those can only be addressed by having a conservative party that can articulate the issues and propose courses of action to counter them via the political process in part but also by counter strategies in both the academic and media sectors. There has been some movement in the media sector with alternative sources but the academic sector is becoming worse especially with this administration's grab for more central control of education at all levels. Defunding Federal programs where possible is a help but the real issue is getting into the curriculum and teacher training/certification process.
John, getting into the curriculum and teacher training/certification process seems like a long and arduous road but it has to start somewhere.
Diane: The educations establishment is likely to be the hardest nut to crack with Arne Duncan running the Department of Education, Dear Leader's good buddy Bill the Bomber deeply involved in teacher training curriculum and standards, and the likes of the Ed Asner production teacher union "pee on the rich" propaganda videos. Defunding at the Federal level and getting rid of the DoE are good first steps to try moving the education system back to the state and local level were it belongs. More efforts to curtail teacher unions and develop alternative education approaches like vouchers for private schooling and promoting home schooling will also help. Rooting the rot out of the higher education system (especially the so called "schools of education" - teacher training) may be a lot harder and a long term process. An additional move is to counter the mantra about the 'need" for more school funding/longer hours/government funded student loans/etc that the "progressives" push because "it is for the children" or to "make us move competitive" with some real facts and proposals in those areas. In addition to being the prime source of "progressive" propaganda and indoctrination, the schools actually haven't been doing a good job in basic education subjects or graduation rates. This needs to be addressed with effective counter measures. This is not what promoting the Bush/Boehner/Teddy Kennedy "No Child Left Behind" (really "No Child Effectively Educated") Act did so RINOs have been part of the problem. Once again, like with "immigration reform", they are really their own worse enemy (and ours) on handing more power to the "progressives".
Actually, John, somewhat wrong on that, it is the Bush/T. Kennedy "No Child Left Behind" and I agree with you about the fact it has failed. Further, the Department of Education will be a hard nut to crack due to the strong lobby of the NEA, don't leave them out of this as they have a vital role in the problems and issues; they are not solving it but hindering it.
Teachers do not know what standards they are to teach to any longer. They have the SAT that the kids need to be prepared for in order to attend college, they have the SOL's which are the government standard testing from "No Child Left Behind" and then there are the AP requirements that allow honor level students to take classes by which successful testing at the end administered by national standards allow them college credit for the high school courses such as U.S. History. None of them agree on what the students need to know to pass their specific tests so it leaves the teachers in a dilemna. They have to prepare the students for the SOL's or they won't have a job. If they ignore the requiresments for the SAT's the students don't make it into college and the parents and students are upset, and for the kids in AP classes, they need to be taught those things necessary to pass that or they have wasted class time, too.
Number one, the government has no business involving themselves in education; that is a given. Number two, why aren't we setting up a standard for knowledge that students should have learned per subject and let that be the standard for all of this; it would seen it would be more efficient for teachers to just teach the course to a set standard of knowledge and then let the student test in all 3 areas meeting the same requirements with maybe an exception for AP classes as they should meet the actual college equivalent.
This is what happens when you have government interference in areas where they have no experience. It would include medical care, as well.
I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick and tired of reading about "Why White Conservatives stayed home and didn't vote Republican." If I've read one article, I've read 50. I have had enough of this breast beating and lamenting. I've had enough of the blame game. I've had enough of the scarfing and bitching. Enough is enough.
We, as Republicans are really looking like a bunch of nut cases with all the different agendas. All the different requirements of who is conservative, moderate or whatever. Pure and simple folks -- the Democrats STUCK TOGETHER and they won by STICKING TOGETHER. And, gee, I can remember when Republicans did that also!
If I the Republicans had put up POGO I would have voted for him. Anything would be better than what we had. And, now, what we HAVE! And, for those WHITE REPUBLICANS who didn't vote Republican you also get what you deserve. You are no better than the people you are accusing at this time. And, no better than a Democrat.
I have voted in every election for many years -- and for many years the Republicans stuck together -- and by sticking together we have won elections. Now, it appears we are world's apart. The constant bickering, the sniping at each other. The Tea Party and it's erratic change from a once proud group combined together to a group that has divided the Republican Party into factions. There are some good people in the Tea Party but they have become over shadowed by a take over of zealous, jealous, nasty mouthed, erratics.
Am I angry that the "White Republicans" stayed home because they didn't think the candidate was something they didn't think was up to their code. You bet. Why? Because, you elected Barack Obama for a second term. Why, because you didn't want to, at least, this time, bury your own selfish reasons. Apparently, it didn't matter to you that we would have to live through another four miserable years of bad economy, etc. Apparently, it didn't matter to you that there was a better choice. No, you opted to just sit back and pout.
This was truly our chance. Mitt Romney didn't lose this election. All the "White Republicans who didn't vote" lost this election. Let's just hope you also didn't lose this country.
Don't like what I had to say -- I really don't much care anymore!
ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
Tara Jane, I hear ya! The Republican party needs to sort through this loss and we need to find the answers if we want to win in 2016.
I voted the republican party and I always will vote the republican party.
Sorry, John, regarding "No Child Left Behind", the legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45), and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8). President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002. Stand corrected.
Now, in response to Sheila in your initial post and John, in yours:
Tara Jane, more than any of us, knows the Romney campaign and knows Romney. She spent time with him, she worked hard in the campaign, and she is no fool. She has her Ph.D. and teaches polticial science, one of the few real conservatives dedicated to that. I have utmost faith in her opinion and know that she would never back anyone that was not conservative and that did not possess the qualities necessary to lead this Country as she is very much a patriot to the U.S; her loyalty is beyond reproach.
She backed Romney from the very beginning, she had more time to really listen to him and what he had to say. She is definitely not one to hero worship, her head is on solid.
So, at this point I think that maybe John, Jim and Sheila, you all might want to rethink things some, too.
I am beginning to see things much differently. Yes, the people want a conservative that understands the conservative position, but they do not want a "died in the wool, unflexible conservative" either. That is what the three of you seem to feel is necessary for them to win; I do not agree. If I listen to the three of you, I might have to switch to Independent rapidly as I do not want a Republican president that is out of touch with the people and so hard line that all he cares about is business and making them the main focal point. We know that is not going to work and he won't get elected, trust me. That was one of the criticisms of Romeny, folks, he was too big business. It was not just the liberals saying that and if you thought so, you are wrong.
People are sick and tired of all the attention being on business as business is not helping them much at this point, either. Unions, corporations, businesses; they have all become too intent on making money and greed; it is past reasonable profits, it is now greed. When money becomes the #1 focus of a Party, they lose, simple. It is time for the Republicans to refocus I believe. They have an image that is just too far right as the liberals have one too far left and I would agree with Diane in a statement she made on another thread.
It is now time for both parties to get their act together and rethink their goals and platforms and bring them into reality or it is time for a new party. I, at this point, think the idea of a new party is one that I could really support. The liberals have created a very socialist-leaning platform that has become very Marxist-leaning under Obama, and that is not the way to go at all. But the Conservatives have allowed this to happen just as much. If we see right now that they could allow the bills to pass by voting "present" and then turn around and see that they were not funded, why didn't they do this before?
You tell people that you have a plan and that means lowering taxes and lifting restrictions to get small business working as this will create jobs and unfortunately that does not tell those out of work much of anything productive. What they see is that you are, once more only interested in the immediate needs of the businesses, not the immediate needs of the people that are not able to afford food, let alone housing and other necessities to take care of their families. They are not asking for anything free, they are asking for immediate help to get back on their feet and earn a living to provide for their family; lowering taxes when they don't have income coming in to tax is not real to them; lifting regulations to get small businesses working does not help them immediately and might not at all if they happened to work in a pharmaceutical company that employed 600 people, or a telecommunications company that hired 800 people, or a DOD contractor that employed 2000 or more workers; there is no relevancy to this for them as there is no indication that these companies will come back and if you worked for a small business that supplied them, it is even worse as if they don't get going again you won't no matter what the lift of regulations mean or lowering taxes mean. IF no one is buying what they sell they will not get back to producing and you won't get back to work.
My suggestion to you, John, is if these "career" politicians are so wrong in your opinion, why not run for office and show them what they should be doing; or get out and talk to some of the young ones that are newly elected and discuss this with them. It would probably go a long way toward opening eyes and making a difference.
I am sorry if I have come across offensively. I am just trying to let the three of you know that maybe the real issue is what you are suggesting, the conservative Republican Party is too determined that the "old school" is the only right one when the whole world has grown up around them and they are not making those adaptations necessary to grow up with it. Don't compromise principal, but make some effort to address the reality of today. I hate it, too, as I am 66 and it seems that the old school always worked so well; unfortunately not so much now, like it or not. We are all sounding too much like my grandparents when I was a young high school graduate. Further, for those that don't think that Reagan was not somewhat progressive for a conservative, go back and study closer. LOL
Again, hope this is taken in the spirit it is intended; it is time to quit complaining about the Republican Party and start to find solutions and make those solutions heard.
Linda: That was my point; NCLB was a joint Demagogue and RINO piece of legislation that didn't do anything constructive in the end. That isn't what needs to be done at the Federal level which really is nothing at all. School lunches were a joke and now are really dumb thanks to Michell and the vegan extremists whose one size fits all ideas of "healthy eating" have caused rebellion and hungry kids. We also have the fiscal farces that were the Kansas City and LA Taj Mahal schools pushed to force integration that are expensive white elephants. Add to that all the "stimulus" from the 2009 "stimulus" bill that bailed out teacher pensions and kept some teachers employed for a year or two but not neither the states or local governments can fund. Add to that the move by the Department of Education to create a "national curriculum" for K-12 and I don't see any "success" or anything good from Federalizing education. There is another little goodie going on behind the scene in the education "education" establishment to not certify any teacher with conservative leanings since it appears they aren't "bright enough" or some such excuse since the "progressives" really want to complete their stranglehold on education at the primary and secondary level. They pretty much have achieved a lot of that at the higher ed level.
John, no argument from me on this at all. I feel the same; education is not something the federal government should have ever been involved in whatsoever. Medical care is another; the mess they have made of Medicare from day one is unbelievable. And they obvioulsy have no business in the welfare area either. They certainly have no business holding hearing to determine whether or not an athlete has used steroids; that is best left to the various leagues to handle.
Listening to the GOP leadership and quite a few of the members of the Senate and House in interviews on Fox News and in other forums I've really lost any respect for the majority of them as well as "Beltway talking heads" like Bill Kristol who are rushing to surrender to all aspects of Dear Leader Obama's agenda. First off Boehner comes out right after the election and gives Dear Leader what he asked for in the dollar value of tax increases while declaring ObamaCare "the law of the land" (even though there are some serious court challenges in progress) and stating that he is for "immigration reform". Tax increases and "immigration reform " along with more actions to destabilize the Middle East are positions that Kristol and his ilk also are pushing as well. Then today on Fox News Sunday we have Sen Corker (RINO-TN) all but giving Chuckie Schumer the go ahead to change the Senate filibuster rule now that the Demagogues are in control and there is a radical POTUS while letting him also push for the Congress to give up the control over debt increases to Dear Leader since apparently it is "confrontational" to demand some fiscal restraint in agreeing to debt limit increases. Those are what passes for GOP positions today and please tell me how "conservative" those positions are?????? While your at it tell me how that helps the party out one whit by giving up everything the left wants????
Tara Jane: Sorry but the GOP establishment is the one dividing the party with their agenda and utterly dumb actions. It was them who would not support conservative candidates running in races in many states because they didn't like what they were saying or doing like Bachmann and West or were unhappy that their favorite RINO did not make it through the primary like in the case of Murdock in IN. Don't give me the BS that he made a misstatement on rape since the Demagogues stand behind POTUS incumbents like FDR/JFK/Clinton using their office for extra circular sex or worse in Bubba's case. Then you have the antics of Barney Frank, Gerry Studds. and a host of other Demagogues involved in sordid affairs or those like Rangle/Geitner/etc in tax evasion and Maxine Waters, Pelosi. and Claire McCaskill in questionable financial activities by their spouses. The Demagogues stick together since they support each other's issues and cover their misdeeds or foibles. The GOP establishment is wedded to the DC status quo and hate in when a "stateman" like Lugar the Internationalist gets "primaried". I'm angry because the GOP elite continues to be "stuck on stupid" as they have been in past elections like 1992, 1996, and 2008. John McCain one of the biggest rectal orifices in the Senate as the candidate???? Yeah, I voted for him because the alternative was worse but in reality not much worse if McManic had a Demagogue congress to give in to!!!! These clowns are stuck on their own careers, power, and egos and do not like anyone or anything that threatens that.
Linda: I'm 70 years old and running for office (since the next election is two years away and you need to start at the local level, make connections, and move up in most cases to get to level that has any impact) isn't really an answer at this point in time. BTW, "business" courts the Demagogues as much if not more than the GOP especially some of the major companies that have left leaning CEOs in many cases. In addition, didn't we just see tons of money flow to car companies, "green energy" companies, and other politically connected "business" entities under Dear Leader? BTW as well, the tax rates EXPIRE on 1/1/13 and funding isn't an issue. It appears that the problem isn't "conservatives voting or not voting present" but the "leadership" in the House and some in the Senate are more interested in giving Obama a deal than in anything else. Do you realize how stupid Boehner looks? Before any talks on the tax renewals he gives Dear Leader his $800B+ "revenue increase" for nothing in return and gets back an "offer" that doubles that amount, a vague "promise" for spending reductions "in the future", a demand for more "stimulus" of $50B and other spending infinitives, and (oh by the way) a demand to have the Executive take over setting the debt limit that is the Legislative Branch's responsibility in the Constitution. If "conservatives" object to that then they're not "growing"?????? Caving hasn't worked in the past, going along to get along hasn't worked, putting up "moderate" candidates like Dole/McManic/Romney hasn't worked, governing as a "moderate" like Nixon/Ford/Bush1/Bush2 domestically didn't work; so what's the answer other than to roll over as the "pragmatic" GOP Beltway insiders propose???? You can't find solutions to the problem if you don't define the problem and/or recognize the problem.
John, I believe that we have identified the problem; we identified the problem nearly 4 years ago and we still have that problem. So what, then, since it is identified, do you propose to be the solution to the problem?
You see, one problem that you have not mentioned is that the Democrats control the Senate and no matter what the Republican House has tried, they have not been able to sway enough support from the Democrats to get anything related to a budget or debt reduction to pass as they have proposed. And for a minimum of 2 years I don't see a solution to that problem. However, and here is my point, if we get busy and work hard in this area, we very well can bring about the solution to that problem by taking back the majority in the Senate and maintaining the majority in the House.
Where you are so certain that the leadership in the House is not effective and can't accomplish anything, I at least give them the lattitude of the fact that it is rather difficult to bring about the desired results that the Republicans are striving for (which agree pretty much with what we desire as well) when no matter how many times they present a budget, vote no to raising the debt limit, setting some sort of limitations; no matter how many times they come to the table with a budget, it is voted down by the Senate. There is no way to get around this that I can see until we regain the majority in the Senate and maintain the majority in the House. So I can't be as hard on the House leadership as you have decided to be, John, as I also see they are against an unmovable force that will not work with them and a president that would only veto it if they did manage to get it to him.
I just don't see that the blame game works, either. And by sitting here pointing fingers at the Republican House leadership is nothing more than a process that weakens the Party as well as plays right into Obama's hand as this is exactly what he wants us to do.
Yes, I agree that the infighting in the Party is weakening the Party, so where are we different here on PD at this point? Are we not doing the very same thing we accuse the members in Congress of doing to the Party? Republican voters can't even send them a clear message of what we expect of them; we certainly didn't in this election just past. We did in 2010 but we certainly did not do that in 2008 or again in 2012. Therefore, I see that we are as much or more of the problem and that is what I am trying to correct. Unlike Obama, I think we all need to realize that the buck stops with us.
All of us have a different opinion on what we feel is the reason why we lost. What we need to explore is why we lost the young vote and the hispanic vote. Why did we lose women voters to Obama? Why did republicans not get out and vote? There's so much to learn and we need to keep digging for the truth.
Personally, I'm all over the map right now reading articles and opinion pieces trying to find something that comes close to defining the reasons why we lost.
What resonates with me is that Obama only won 51% of the vote. That tells me that we have a good chance of winning in 2016 IF we have candidates that believe in the core values of the republican party. The world has changed. The United States has changed and if we are not keeping up with these changes on some level we will lose again.
The majority of Americans aren't interested in fighting abortion and gay marriages in our country. The young people are unpatriotic so they won't vote for a party who believes the US needs to police the world. Young people find nothing wrong with abortion. They endorse gay marriage. Most of them have never stepped inside a church. Many of them believe we should fund illegal immigrants. They also cannot be bothered with fiscal responsibility. All they care is about is what is free and available to them in America? And they have been taught to hate the rich people because they've been taught that they are evil people and they have a right to tap into their money to fund what they feel our country owes them. This is what we have now in America. The baby boomers and the gen-xer's are the last two generations of personal responsibility Americans. Sad, but true. The next generations are going to be aligned with the nanny state mentality and see nothing wrong with socialism and a very weakened America in foreign affairs. They don't care about terrorists and have long forgotten 9/11 and that 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered. They can't be bothered with 13 people being murdered at Fort Hood due to the democrats bringing political correctness to the forefront.
This is where we are in America. So, the question to me is how do we bring back the young republicans if in fact we ever had them to begin with.
I only put these articles up because I think we need to dissect what is wrong so it does not happen again. I do agree with Tara Jane on the fact that republicans did not band together in numbers to erradicate Obama who is radical progressive and will do far more harm to this country because his agenda is transformation into socialism. We have lots of socialism already embedded in the governmet but he wants total submersion.
People who sat home and did not vote spited themselves in the end.
I had my problems on some of MR's policies; but I still think he would have made a far better president and I said many times that I felt he was becoming more conservative in politics than he was initially as he learned the hard way. However, records do define a person and there was a reason he did not publically discuss his political record.
Obama was and is the worst politician to rule and yes he rules not governs with all of his appointed czars and executive orders.
I guess we all are in agreement that the GOP needs to settle their internal disputes soon because it will only destroy and weaken the party when it needs to be revamped and built up right now. Sometimes, situations like this are needed to rev up the republican foundations of what is really important. Shake-ups are not always bad either.
Sheila, I can agree on the majority of this. It is time to stop pointing fingers (that is an Obama stunt and the conservatives are better than that) and get behind our Republican leadership. We also need to look honestly and realistically at what they are up against, too. We can compromise to a degree without loss of sight of the long term agenda. One thing we all need to determine is what, exactly, we feel is the real basis of what it is to be a Republican; is it a hard line conservative, a moderate conservative or a center line conservative. We can't resolve anything, we can't actuallly find out what went wrong until we identify with what exactly a Republican is to be. Then we can look at the election and see from where the mistakes were made; if we are hard line, what went wrong. If we are moderate, what went wrong and if we are center line, what went wrong as it will be different for each. I think for me that is one of the first problems; there seem to be too many different expectations for who and what a Republican is to be and therefore what they look for in a candidate if not going to be the same. That could contribute to why we didn't appeal to Hispanics, women, or more of the young people. By the way, there is a very strong and active Young College Republican Group; I was innundated with phone calls from them, sent contributions, and even saw the youngest delegate to the Convention, I saw all kinds of young people at the convention, so we did not lose the young people's vote, we lost the liberal, radical young people; there is a definite difference. From the information they sent to me, they have a club on every college campus across the nation and they are working hard to build their strength. They oppose the OWS movement and they do not believe in freebees. So there is hope.
Not sure if many of you remember this, but Ronald Reagan, as President of the Screen Actor's Guild, was brought before the Committee on Un-American Activities in 1947 and here is the link to read more about that as apparently there was infiltration into that organization. http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/cla/legacies/rsimon/rsimonsite/Hum410/ReaganHUAC.htm
At the end of his testimony I found something that I think we all need to consider and reflect upon, as we know that this has permeated our educational system and our government:
STRIPLING: Mr. Reagan, what is your feeling about what steps should be taken to rid the motion picture industry of any communist influences?
REAGAN: Well, sir, 99 percent of us are pretty well aware of what is going on, and I think, within the bounds of our democratic rights and never once stepping over the rights given us by democracy, we have done a pretty good job in our business of keeping those people's activities curtailed. After all, we must recognize them at present as a political party. On that basis we have exposed their lies when we came across them, we have opposed their propaganda, and I can certainly testify that in the case of the Screen Actors Guild we have been eminently successful in preventing them from, with their usual tactics, trying to run a majority of an organization with a well organized minority.
In opposing those people, the best thing to do is make democracy work. In the Screen Actors Guild we make it work by insuring everyone a vote and by keeping everyone informed. I believe that, as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people know all of the facts they will never make a mistake. Whether the party should be outlawed, that is a matter for the government to decide. As a citizen, I would hesitate to see any political party outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. However, if it is proven that an organization is an agent of foreign power, or in any way not a legitimate political party -- and I think the government is capable of proving that -- then that is another matter. I happen to be very proud of the industry in which I work; I happen to be very proud of the way in which we conducted the fight. I do not believe the communists have ever at any time been able to use the motion picture screen as a sounding board for their philosophy or ideology.
CHAIRMAN: There is one thing that you said that interested me very much. That was the quotation from Jefferson. That is why this committee was created by the House of Representatives: to acquaint the American people with the facts. Once the American people are acquainted with the facts there is no question but what the American people will do the kind of job that they want done: that is, to make America just as pure as we can possibly make it. We want to thank you very much for coming here today.
REAGAN: Sir, I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.
Would he ever be disappointed and unhappy with the people of this Country now as we have elected a man into office that does not share these principals; rather is making every attempt to further the cause of Marxism.
Linda: there is a great conflict within the GOP party right now and it is between RINOs or progressives vs. libertarians vs. conservatives ... we need to come together and not split the party anymore than it already is as the libertarians are talking about forming a third party which is what we do not need. Jim DeMint sees excellent platforms in the libertarian branch and he hopes that all factions come together and grow. We need to organize and solidify and if we do not address these different factions which are internally splitting the party; then the party loses big time. Fix it now, rather than later when it is too late.
I put up so many articles from conservative sites like Business insider which interviews party leaders and addresses the schism or bickering. We need to be big enough for all of these people but have a common ground which is unshakeable.
Progressives are NOT WINNING IN THE GOP... WAKE UP TO THAT FACT. people are aware of the liberalism with progressives and are not attracted to that segment which has taken over recently e.g. Dole, McCain and Romney, all lost because there is NO widespread support for their idealogy which is too like the democrats.
Appreciate your efforts but do not completely agree, Sheila. Yes, there is bickering, but I do not agree that Romney was progressive. So we can agree to disagree.
Perhaps if one looks at the word "progressive" one will find that "progressive" means open to new ideas, findings and opportunities. It means to "advance" to proceed. Also to make use of interesting new ideas. Emphasis on the individual!
The word "progressive" has been given a dirty name as far as politics are concerned. It has been used to describe Democrats and Liberals. For some reason many Republicans can't seem to understand that a person can be progressive and be successful.
I do believe that Romney was definitely open to new ideas, findings and opportunities to make this country better. His love of this country should never be disputed. And, his desire to advance this country upward with individuality for the person to better themselves.
So if you use the dirty name for "progressive" -- If Romney was of that description then I am a pole dancer in a bikers bar!
Let's be real here. Those that didn't vote or vote Demagogue for whatever warped reason will not wake up until the effects of those choices hit them in the face. That may be another terror attack, hyper inflation, higher energy costs or energy shortage that directly directly affect their life due to dumb environmental/"green energy" policies, being affected by "affirmative action" to cater to the latest group whining about "rights" be they gays or illegal aliens, when they don't get "free government health care" because of some activity the government nannies don't agree with or when younger or older relatives don't get care because they aren't "productive" any longer, when they get passed over for "benefits' because the money is running out and others are more "deserving", when the government decides to crack down on the internet or social media because it disagrees with how it is being used or has turned that control over to the UN or other foreign powers, or when any of the other goodies or :rights" they expect fail to materialize or get denied. Ignorance is only cured with being presented with knowledge and that is frequently practical knowledge via life experiences. That's also known as learning the hard way!
Linda: I'm not sure we've defined the problem since we don't seem to have come to a common understanding here where we are concerned and are discussing it among ourselves. We had the same crew of party leaders and consultants this time as in 2008 and got pretty much the same results with four years of seeing what Dear Leader and his Demagogues were about. That should indicate that we have a problem somewhere with the people involved, the message, the approach to the campaign, or maybe a bit of all three. Now as to "reaching" various groups it appears that the Hispanics by and large (and this includes a fair number of the second and third generation Cubans as well) are as interested in what the government can give them (taking it away from someone else as long as the money lasts) as any message that the GOP was pushing. The same with young people even if they come out of school marginally educated by the government system and can't find jobs. Of course who needs a job if the government is supposed to take care of you and meet your every need? As far as African Americans, it was the GOP that was the movers of the "civil rights" and "voting rights" legislation of the 60s as well as programs like affirmative action but it was the Demagogues who gave them and others the "Great Society" programs, free ObamaPhones, etc. Now the Dems are trolling for more illegal aliens to come it, become legal thanks to their policies, saddle up to the "benefit feed bag", and vote Dem. And what do we have the GOP leadership saying, good idea!
Shelia: I agree with you last post but the question we have been pondering on how to get the GOP to become more cohesive so far had no solutions unless there is a mindset change at the top or that group is ousted.
Tara Jane: "Progressive" is in relation to the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th Century that ended up being discredited by excesses from a variety of overreaching actions culminating with the Wilson administration so morphed into "liberal" until discrediting that label with excesses from FDR through Carter and went back to the "progressive" label since few know of their deeds that caused the Progressive movement to abandon that label. These were the ones who gave us the direct election of senators, income tax, Federal Reserve, Prohibition, Planned Parenthood, and the internationalist movement starting with the League of Nations. Also was the basis for the New Deal and ideas in the the Great Society and following left wing programs.
Tara Jane, just sent you a big fat glowing green star..."then I'm a pole dancer in a biker bar." So glad you are back with your well defined humor!! I nearly dropped my laptop reading that. Classic Tara Jane.
JohnC, "progressive" is a term that has morphed into different meanings by the left and the right. I believe that George W. Bush was a progressive republican because of introducing new ideas especially as it relates to his policies after 9/11 all of which Obama has kept in place because they WORKED.
Thank you Diane....My sister was telling me that there is some discussion about having "Pole Dancing" added to the olympic games. I haven't checked it out yet - but it certainly would be interesting. Wonder what their uniforms would look like. Hum...wonder how much or how little they can take off. And, if we are thinking about Pole Dancers why not have male strippers. What was the name of those guys who stripped - they wore black bow ties and little bitty bottoms. I could get into that kinda contest.
And, I have a contestant -- the guy who installed those helmet gutters on my house -- he was REALLY good lookin'. My hubby said it was disgusting to see an old woman slobbering over the young stuff. I told him it wasn'[t slobbering it was flat out drooling!
Tara Jane, you don't mean the Chippendales do you? Now that would be unfair as they are professionals; wait, we have allowed professional basketball players to participate in the Olympics. Okay, it is settled the U.S. will send the Chippendales; in fact what about a co-ed entry. The pole dancers and Chippendales on the stage at the same time. We know where 90% of those spectators will be. Now that would be "progressive" would it not?
Yep, that would be The Chippendale dancers. When I was in my early twenties I remember going to see them when they came to town with a handful of my girlfriends. It took me awhile to get over it LOL!!
If I were to have or were to to go see them now, I would be that person with the glowing red face that provided one more point of illumination in the room. It is not that I wouldn't find it something to consider, it is that it would just assault my "Victorian" upbringing. LOL Not really, my Mom would have been there laughing and having a great time. You had to know Mom, she was game to try most things and if the truth be told, the reason my high school girlfriends hung out with me was to have spend time with Mom. Before any of us were licensed to drive so it was sophomore year in school, Mom was our taxi service and when one of the girl's sister offered to drive us, the rest of the group all said no, they wanted Mom. Those are stories for another day. LOL
Actions speak louder than words.
Look at the actions, where is the MAP that these politicians intend to follow, how about a contract with America again. Spell it out clearly and concisely so we can get a grasp in what direction we are heading.
Obama spelled it out; I cannot stand listening to him every single day on the campaign trail to destroy America and put in more UNION jobs, more socialism government programs, tax the rich and make them pay three times over, NO spending cuts just give me carte blanche.
This is hard to take and I am shutting it off most of the time.
Obama spells it out and the stupids eat it up.
Study history, this is very foretelling of destruction from within.
Sorry, I am a psych. nurse, I analyze a problem by dissecting it first. Where is the problem coming from, keep feeding it and it only continues to flourish. Treatment starts with identification of what is wrong.
Sheila, have to disagree there. Obama never spelled it out at all. He didn't spell it out and that is the problem, people bought him simply because he is a liberal and they felt he would continue to take care of them, nothing more. Romney spelled it out just as well if not much better than Obama, people just didn't listen or then didn't like what they heard. You see, if you are used to the party that plays lip service to giving you entitlements for nothing (which is ahuge lie as you will pay for it if nothing else in higher prices for food, housing and other services through higher sales tax and higher pricing) and then when it is time to put those services in place they fail over and over and leave it to the Republicans to deal with the mess. We need to stop and say "No more", you created it you provide it but not by raising taxes or by cutting funding tor those areas such as the DOD to accomplish it. You agreed to it, you do it. If the Republicans were to take a hard loine on that the Democrats would never win another election as they could not, have not and will not take responsibiity for what they create.
Sheila, psychiatric nurses are not the only ones that analyze a problem and dissect it first. I don't think that there is anyone here posting regularly that isn't of the same mind on this. That is what we have all been doing. The difference is that at some point there is really no more to analyze, it is all there in some fashion or another and then it is time to move to the solution phase; we are all well past the analyze and now trying to consider the solution.
The problem is that we may not all agree on where the problem lies; but we do see that something has to change.
And Diane and Tara Jane, one of you needs to start the movement to get the new Olympic events. LOL
This post was modified from its original form on 11 Dec, 8:14
Get rid of RINOS and have solid conservative people running for office who spell it out plain and simple terms that people can grasp.
Continue with RINOS and you lose.
Ok SL......Name us some "solid" conservatives who you think will be able to win in 2016 -- and, will Democrats and others actually vote for a "solid" conservative. Whatever that means! It would be a first for the Republican Party! There has never been a "solid" conservative who has won the presidency for the Republicans. Not even Reagan.
And, as much as a "solid" conservative would be OK with some Republicans, there are others who will not vote for them. There are some who think they are too rigid in their philosophy, sorta out of touch! Hence the moderate branch sprung up in the party.. There are many young people today who are inclined to seriously think about the moderate branch.
And the RINO description is a worn out term that should be forever stricken from the Republican vocabulary. Guess, I'm from the old school - but when you were and are a Republican - you are a Republican period!
If we don't stop with all the division, carping, and name calling - a Republican will NEVER be elected again in my lifetime!
It's beginning to sound like the Repubicans are declaring Civil War on each other. We had a Civil War once - and that didn't turn out well. So, are we to continue on the same path of division we are in or perhaps we should rename the Republican Party the "Civil War Party."
I am interested in Rand Paul, Gov. Martinez to start with because right now I don't see that progressive veneer around them. I as a former democrat was more conservative than Romney from that expose done above by a MA republican who sat home and did not vote.
He lost by wide margins 20% here, Scott Brown lost by less than 5%.
He still would be better than obama, I don't even want to know what he is up to anymore as I have had it with obamaism. I hate progressives and it is a formidable term referring to political correct liberalism. It is the slow poisening of our government and I won't vote, I will find a third party if necessary ... that is why there is such a schism within right now.
A lot of MA republicans wrote in Ron Paul's name here. When a candidate loses their home state by such huge margins, something is WRONG!
Amy Contrada has 17 different files under MR's governorship and how he governed as a very progressive left liberal. Too bad, this did not come out early in the campaign and I am very surprised at the GOP leadership if they were unaware of this.
My nursing peers who are all conservative democrats would not vote for MR because of his record on the gay marriage and they were more aware than I was. Gay marriage did not bother me as much as it bothered them .... but I am very suspicious of all that went down here.
This is NO conservative, this is a liberal progressive who leans left.
This post was modified from its original form on 11 Dec, 12:07
That is only one excerpt from this Republican woman from MA who did not let this out in a timely manner ....
read the entire link which opens up to all facets of governing.
I was not aware of all of this and I knew of the gay radical judge but I wanted to believe he fooled Mitt. fat chance, he played both sides and that is why he did not win as too many saw through the duplicity. I am saying the Ron Paul people knew but their nasty pamphlet went too far on trash talk and should have talked about these points instead.
I did present their work which was handed out at the RNC called Dump Romney which was trashy because they attacked his faith. If they stuck to facts like Amy above does; they may have got a better audience to listen to them.
Tara Jane, I am with you, we need to move upward now. I can not agree more, either you are a Republican or you are not, there is no such thing as a RINO. As for progressive, taking the mean of the word, if we are not somewhat progressive, regardless of party, we are stuck in the dark ages and we won't get elected even as king or queen of a junior prom.
And I would like to know what constitutes a "Solid" conservative as well. I have tried to express repeatedly that even Reagan was not a solid conservative; in fact, he has a lot of progressive concepts that he introduced.
What do I want; a candidate that 1) believes in the Country, 2) understands and upholds the Constitution of the U.S., 3) believes in a strong defense of he Country and is able to act as a commander-in-chief appreciating the efforts of the military, 4) supports the policy of free enterprise, 5) believes in smaller government, 6) is willing to cut frivolous spending and created a balanced budget with the help of Congress, 7) is able to work with Congress and both sides of the isle, not caving to either, but willing to work with both, 8) is President first and party member second - I guess this is something I had nto thought of before, but is something I am leaning more toward, 9) does not sucumb to special interest groups (LOL that will be the day), 10) and most of all, honest, trustworthy and a man of conviction and integrity.
I am sure I can think of more, but this is a beginning.
Sheila, I do like Gov. Martinez, Mia Love, Marcus Rubio, Scott Brown, and any number of others across the U.S. I am not a Rand Paul enthusiast. And any more I am becoming more and more disenchanted with Newt Gingrich. I believe he, John McCain, and a number of others have used up their usefulness and their superior attitude and all-knowing attitude is a huge no for me. There are others that I like somewhat and some that I have become pretty concerned about. Chris Christie, pretty concerned about him; I think he is an opportuntist.
Tara Jane, thank you as you do have a way of spelling it out so well.
Whatever, I am not accepting phoniness from any party any longer. Do what you want, I am not being duped again.
That record sucks big time and that is NOT a record of a conservative principled person.
You probably never opened up the entire link to read everything and that is your problem and not mine....
I know there is a big divide in the republican party and if they want a liberal progressive leaning then join the demagogues ... I want a CLEAR DIFFERENCE and not sameness.
I've read all the comments above and my position is that I supported Romney. I didn't think he was the perfect candidate but if he had won he would've stopped the trainwreck because his ideas to get the country working again was on the mark. As a Republican, he would've been completely tuned in to cutting the spending and addressing the deficit.
Personally, even though I like Paul Ryan, I felt he hurt Romney's chances of winning because the seniors didn't understand his plan to cut spending. I felt Marco Rubio or Condeleeza Rice would've been better VP picks. So, no, I don't fault Romney. As a staunch Republican, I voted for Romney because I knew he could make a difference and shut the Obama socialism trek down.
Linda brought up an interesting point in that we have to be careful when we read articles written giving one person's opinion. I've been burned on this many times myself and have learned the hard way.
I also agree, Sheila, that we need to understand why we lost. But, in so doing, I don't think Romney should be pummeled. And, remember, all of us need to remember, that Obama only won by 51%. Now, think about that. If Obama had won by a large margin that would've been a different story to explore altogether but he didn't. He barely beat Romney. That tells me that just under 50% of Americans liked what they saw in Romney and Ryan.
As far as strong Republican candidates in 2016, it is way too soon to speculate IMO. Barack Obama was so strong in reaching out to the young on the internet from 2007 that the DNC was able to throw the "darling of the democrats" Hillary Clinton under the bus. They were ruthless and nasty and they were able to bury Hillary. This is what we need to be addressing..."how did they do that and how can the Republicans get with the program?
Diane, that is very interesting and that is something to think about seriously. This is, look at us even, a very computer driven society now. Young people on on the internet using Facebook, Twitter, etc. all the time. Not once did I see the Republicans utilize that, not to the degree that Obama did. You get out there like he did and you have a pipeline to the young people. He capitalized on it in 2008 to raise campaign funds and it was so successful and he captured the attention of the young people, but not just them, as the Facebook is the means for so many people these days to communicate with friends and family. I have a cousins, a half-sister, nieces, nephews, brother and sister that prefer to communicate through Facebook to calling me on the phone. Now I am not that public with my communication with my family, so it is not as much my means, but that is where I see pictures of my family, two of my grandsons, my nieces' chldren (both nieces), etc.
So, that is exactly where the Republican Party needs to step up the game and it is so cheap to use it; there is only the expense of a minimal staff to keep posting to it. Yes, Mitt Romney was sending out emails and had a page, but he didn't push it to the degree that Obama did. Obama was sharing policy, and just about everything you could imagine and used it to reach the people. The Republicans need to analyze it, hire a good company to come in and design the site and start to use that.
I am learning so much about the House by going to Boehner's page. Like him or not, it is very informative and features a great deal of information including all legislation being considered and where it is in the process. Unlike Obama, it is very transparent and nothing is hidden. He has openly discussed what has been happening with the meetings with Obama, too.
We need to utilize the internet but remember, it can be hacked and so it needs to be very well protected.
We also need to find a way to shut down the MSM.
When put the way you did, Diane, and then going back to look at the actual popular vote, no, Romeny did not lose by much and it was certainly not the outstanding victory nor the overwhelming confirmation that the people were all behind Obama. I would not make the mistake of believing that for a second if I were him.
Good infomation and a lot to consider.
Linda: It takes more than an internet site to effectively do what the Obama campaign did in both 2008 and 2012. The secret seems to be gather supporters and followers that they could then keep feeding messages to as they needed to get money or support. Some of that was by using potential supporters from other left wing groups, party contacts, volunteer lists, and interest groups with compatible agendas. One problem as well for the GOP is some of the people they need to reach are marginal users of the internet or harder to identify from other sources since they may not be associated with interest groups compatible with GOP agenda items. To be sure I got a lot of communication via snail mail and phone messages during the election season and still get some via phone.
Diane: A couple things to consider in the voting stats is those that bothered to vote showed a rather close in total count but the Dems targeted critical swing states for their efforts with a very successful effort in both getting out the legal and illegal vote. The second issue is in the large number of people who didn't vote for a variety of reasons from apathy to not liking the alternatives. Also not sure again why Ryan was the problem with seniors since nothing in his budget proposal had anything to do with SS and the Medicare ideas wouldn't affect anyone on the program now or who would go on the program for ten years and was modified after getting support from a very "progressive" Sen Wyden to allow the traditional option to continue to be available along with a voucher program (which is an off shoot of the Medicare Advantage option today).
I must agree with Shelia though in there is too much phoniness in the movers and shakers in the GOP as we see in this total farce called the "fiscal cliff" in both how we got there and the GOP's efforts to address it. You all have to admit that the response from the GOP leadership largely in the House but also in the Senate is to give in to Dear Leader on many issues from taxes through ObamaCare to "immigration reform". Now if people don't like the term RINO then let us admit that they are following a accommodation agenda if they aren't actually in agreement on many of the issues. This isn't new since this has been the pattern with the GOP elite as long as I've been following politics since Goldwater's run. If Nixon hadn't been a strong anti communist, hadn't tried to extract the US from Vietnam with some fig leaf of honor, and had a "D" behind his name he would have been hailed as a "progressive" hero for most of his actions as POTUS from overtures to China though a lot of his domestic agenda.
John, there is so much to discuss about why Obama has another four years in the White House. Could've, should've, would've seems a bit meaingless today. Our country has changed. Our young people are not patriotic, push hard for acceptance of illegal immigrants, accept abortion as a means to birth control, and are huge supporters of same sex marriage. Many have never stepped one foot into a church on a regular basis and they've graduated from liberal universities where they have been brainwashed. The baby boomers, the largest generation of Americans of 78.2 million are aging, retiring and are going to greener pastures with their core values, Christianity, belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, and expect illegals to become American citizens before they enter our country. As boomers, we tried to make life far too easy for our children because we lived "the salad days" when capitalism was fat and healthy and we produced children who turned out to be self serving and extremely anti-war hence unpatriotic. Of course, I am generalizing here and I know that all of our children didn't turn out this way.
We also raised our children during a time when we were closing out the VietNam war, participated in Desert Storm and Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our children feel that this involvement was a total waste of time.
Our world has changed. The way our grown children think has changed. They resent having to pay into social security because they feel it won't be there for them. And, for me, I believe paying into social security was the worst financial investment I've ever made.
The republicans need to get a grip on what the other 50% of Americans want from their government. The baby boomers are coming apart at the seams watching what is happening to the country we have supported and believed in all of these years. We hold much of the wealth in our country and all many of us can think about is doing more for our children once we leave this world. We are like enablers and some of our children expect an inheritance when we die. It's a different world today, Jim.
We, as Republicans, need to sit back and analyze the best path for a victory in 2016. We took a hard hit in November and in many ways we deserved it because our party is all over the map. When The Tea Party formed they appeared to be radical to the right but the most interesting thing about the The Tea Party is that they were actually representing the old Republican Party....something we haven't seen in a few decades. They were successful in the Republicans taking the House....and Sarah Palin led that effort in her relentless desire to get our Republican candidates elected. It worked.
Interesting note Diane about the TP representing the Old repubican party of the past.
I hope it is not in death mode as the democrat party is and younger people start thinking about principles and wake up from the stupor that this culture has managed successfully to pull them into. We are an entitled culture and that is problem no. 1, along with the success of the MSM, Hollywood liberalism, etc. which sends out subliminal messages which are now overt messages.
Everything on the net tends to support the left progressive movement starting with green energy conservation and now all the minorities have activist groups. Many of these agencies are funded by Soros foundation. He was well planned and organized and he has been doing this mischief which is now complete indoctrination since the 60s with the help of intellectual radicals like Bill Ayers, Hillary Clinton (she is not as radical; but she is a definate mover in the Soros circles).