Ending a self-imposed silence about the November election, 2012 Republican vice presidentialnominee Paul Ryan said on Wednesday that he and presidential running mate Mitt Romney lost not because of ideas, but due to ineffective communication.
Ryan said Democratic President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden also prevailed because they did a better job with "technology and (voter) turnout."
"We have to learn that," said Ryan, chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee. "We have to fix that."
Ryan made the comments at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Wall Street Journal as the eight-term Republican ended his silence and spoke out.
Romney and Ryan kept low-profiles after the November elections, figuring they would surrender center stage to the victors, Obama and Biden.
Ryan had spoken with the media in his home state of Wisconsin, but stayed away from the national press until Obama and Biden were sworn in for second terms this week.
At Monday's inauguration ceremony, Ryan sat with fellow lawmakers near Obama and Biden outside the U.S. Capitol.
While watching Obama take the oath, Ryan said he thought about what he and Romney could have done if they won and implemented their conservative agenda.
But Ryan said he is now looking ahead, focusing on his job as Budget Committee chairman where he is again helping to lead a Republican charge to cut spending.
Romney, who has generally remained out of public view since the election, did not attend the inauguration and has not indicated what he plans to do next.
"I think it is going to be whatever he wants," said Ryan, adding that they stay in touch via email and plan to have lunch together in the coming days.
Since Romney does not intend to run for public office again, Ryan said "it puts him in a unique position to be a leader of our party, to weigh in on big issues."
Obama has stated that he and Biden won re-election because voters agreed with their priorities, like raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to help reduce U.S. deficits.
Asked what voters were saying to Republicans on Election Day, Ryan suggested that they did not understand what his party was about.
This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 9:15
"We have to do a better job of explaining and demonstrating why our ideas are better" on such issues as fighting poverty and helping people move up "the ladder of life," Ryan said.
"There are a lot of people who just don't think or know that we have good ideas on these fronts," Ryan said.
This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 9:16
Paul Ryan should not be ruled out for 2016. He is one of the few that is standing up to Obama and his administration and speaking out, still, about the economy. I notice that the economy is not on the top of Obama's list of things to accomplish in the next 4 years; gun control, gay rights seem to top that list.
Ryan knows first hand what cost the election and he also knows what it takes for the Republican Party to fix that problem. I sincerely hope that he steps in there to work on this and he is absolutely right, Mitt Romney would be the perfect person to take over the leadership of the Republican Party if he will do that, or at least to have significant input in what is necessary to get this party up and going once more.
Tara Jane, would like to have you share your thoughts on this, please.
This post was modified from its original form on 24 Jan, 9:20
I agree with Ryan - the GOP did a horrible job because they did not want to come across as whiners like Boehner. Whoever handled the promotion(s)? did an awful job.
No where did the GOP attack the left as it should have to point out the truth of their legislation proposals and the lies by them and the media.
While Ryan may be a good candidate I think Rand Paul has much less baggage and is not afraid to hit them where it hurts with the truth. He works hard to keep the constitution in the forefront of legislation.
I think Rand Paul has a fierceness to call out bullsh!t, unlike Ryan, who is more apt to get steamrolled by bullsh!tting dems, drowning out the truth and facts of Ryan's message.
I think Paul would have embarrassed Joe for laughing and being dismissive and rude during the debate. Ryan was too polite.
I like Rand Paul quite a bit, not that I don't like Ryan, but I agree with you Margaret & Elizabeth.
Linda: "...Mitt Romney would be the perfect person to take over the leadership of the Republican Party if he will do that..."
Gads, I sincerely hope not. He's a good man and a bazillion times better than King Obama, but the Republican Party needs Conservatives not Moderates.
Hi, Margaret....you finally got on Care 2!! Yeah!! Good to see you here. Rand Paul is not afraid to speak his mind and then back it up. I, too, like Paul Ryan, but the biased left wing media did their usual dirty deed on him. He is very smart and very nice. Why would any man or woman in the US ever want to run for president or vice president knowing how the left wing media are going to destroy every fiber of their being?
Part of the reason that Romney & Ryan lost was because of all the dirt thrown at them by Obama & Biden. All completely false, but many people were too willing to buy into it.
Then there's that "small little" detail known as voter fraud.
Voters who believe Obama & Biden's idea of taxing the rich (among other ludicrous things) is the right thing to do & will help the economy are either damn ignorant or just plain stupid! Obama & Biden say a lot of untruths. Barely more than 50% of the vote is not exactly a very large mandate. Almost as many Americans disagree as agree with Obama's agenda.
Sandra, I am not saying run for an office, I am saying to take the things he learned that cost him the election and work to get these ironed out and the Republican party back in the running. Mitt Romney has no intention of running for office, that is what Paul Ryan is saying as well. But if you just faced what Romney faced, I would think he would be in the best place to undertand what went wrong and what needs to be fixed.
As for Paul Ryan, I do think that the man learned a lot from that election; things that will make him stronger and a much better politician. As for Rand Paul, as long as he doesn't go as far as his father, he would be fine. I just have some reservations about that part. I could never support the policies and agenda of Ron Paul; they are too naive and just not even practical.
Sandra your statement, "Gads, I sincerely hope not, etc. etc. "The Republican Party needs Conservatives, not moderates."
The Republicans need BOTH Conservative AND Moderates. That's what, in part, lost this past election for the Republicans. Why is it that Conservatives think that they alone can carry the water? During this past election all Moderates, of which I am, were crucified by conservatives from day one. Talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity belched their rhetoric every day until they knew they had better step on board or lose the election for the Republicans. But, alas, it was too late. And there were MANY others who finally did the same. After the debates, it was too late. Not time enough to get a really good campaign in full swing. We were working from behind.
The constant distractions from the MAIN subject got lost in the shuffle. We spent TOO much valuable time fighting about Conservatives vs Moderates - we aplit apart while the Democrats who stuck ALL together were way ahead of us and beat us to the finish line.
And, please, please, tell me the difference between the two. Please define it for me. And please, oh please do not use the word RINO. It's insulting to all of us who are Republicans. Not Conservatives - not Moderates -- just plain old Republicans. You might be surprised how much we are different but are the same,.
We seem to have forgotten that this was a MUST win election! This should have been our main goal - to defeat Obama. When I was working this election 24/7 and traveling this state, I didn't care whether the person sitting next to me was a Conservative or a Moderate - but that they were ALL Republicans!
I don't understand the differences. If you or someone would like to define the difference between a Conservative and a Moderate I would be open to that debate. Let's just see how close we REALLY are. I think you and others would be surprised how close we are if we can just get past the petty differences. We need to start working on these differences NOW - not 6 months before a campaign.
We had a candidate who was and is one of the finest people we could have found. But he lost because 3 million Republicans refused to get rid of the petty differences. We cannot do that again. I only hope and pray that in 2016 we can finally stick together.
Tara, good take on the situation. And yes, the GOP needs to be getting ready now not in 6 months or longer.
I'd like to see some women come in that can hold their own. Micheal Bachman did well even though she was picked apart and the GOP did not uphold her as they should have. She is honest and hard working but I don't think presidential or VP material. I could be wrong.
I'm not sure of all the people out there who would qualify but it is going to take someone with an unblemished record. Hopefully the GOP will work hard to find them and maybe back those who qualify. They also need to work terribly hard on using the media.
Tara Jane: Romney LOST and that was because he ran a wimpy campaign. You can't get much more "moderate" than McManic and Dole unless it would be Lugar or Hagel and both of them lost big time against candidates with tons of baggage if someone ran an aggressive campaign rather an inside the Beltway "moderate" love fest. To be sure the RNC and most of the PACs that were "helping" Romney didn't help since they failed to go after Dear Leader's lousy record on all issues. Of course agreeing with Dear Leader on his foreign policy "successes" and not aggressively reacting to the Crowley/Obama set up on Benghazi being a "terror attack" (after weeks of the "video" sideshow line) didn't help Romney. Moderates are those afraid of their shadows on most issues (unless it is bashing a true conservative issue like really reducing non defense spending or signing on to the latest "progressive" farce like women in combat slots) They tend to go along with the latest Beltway ideas just with "moderation". Conservatives actually want to solve the problems without giving up liberty, the US position in the world and our security, and our economy and capitalist system. Looking at the record of the "moderate" House leadership there doesn't appear to have been anything effectively accomplished at all on fiscal matters. Boehner's recent comment that maybe Dear Leader is out to destroy the GOP shows a real nave approach once again in dealing with Dear Leader.
John, I don't know where to begin except I do not agree with you in the least regarding your idea of the difference between a moderate and a conservative; you see you forget one basic truth, a moderate is a conservative just as much as a hawk conservative. Maybe you should first determine that fact. There are moderates and there are hawks; that is true of both the Republican and the Democratic Party. It is not the diffrerence between basic beliefs of conservative regarding liberal in the least.
There is nothing whimpy, as you put it, about a moderate. They are people that realize that the "old school" tactics of the hawk are not going to accomplish anything nor are they going to get a Republican elected to office now or in the future. We can't ignore the other party; we can't ignore women, students, Hispanics, Blacks, or any other group and need to remember that Caucasians are rapidly if not already a minority in the U.S. We can't ignore the majority of the citizens of the U.S. and ever see a Republican president again. It has nothing to do with moderate vs. hawk (or your feeling that a hawk is the only conservative), it is about finding a policy that addresses all groups. We have been labeled "big business", etc. and that is where we have to correct the impression of the people and get them to see that liberals are as much or more "big business" than conservatives.
But I would say we have to get back to the heart of the situation, John, we have to get rid of this idea that we have to be moderate or hawk; what we have to recognize is that we are all Republicans, we are ALL conservatives and start acting like a unified party instead of a bunch of people that can't even decide who we are or what we are striving to achieve. You see, we are stuck on the "difference" when there really is no difference. So some of the Republican candidates are not as aggressive as you would like; they are also having to find the means to work with the aggressive side of the liveral Democratic Party and that side of their party is the entire Party when it comes to discussion with Republicans; we are not and your comments prove this. So, are you willing to set aside the differences to get this Party up and running and to find and put forth the candidate that can accomplish OUR ultimate goals? I sure hope so as Tara Jane states, as well as Margaret, we can't wait, it has to happen now.
John, I agree with you and Linda & Tara Jane not very much.
Linda, I never meant that I wanted Mitt to run again. I know he has no plans on doing so, but leadership of the Republican Party? Sorry, don't like that idea. Look at his political history. He is a NE Republican. I grew up in NY and am all too familiar with them. The only way a Republican gets elected in the NE is being barely Republican imo.
Linda, I agree with you about Rand Paul. He differs on some of the idiotic & dangerous positions his father holds (which is why I like him), but if he ever turned into a duplicate of his father, I wouldn't vote for him even if he was running for dog catcher.
Linda: It appears that the current GOP House and Senate leadership has been practicing the "moderate" approach and how well has that worked? Spending is still out of control with the only brake the utterly idiotic "sequester" deal of 2011 that cuts military spending (already being cut down by the administration) disproportionately not out of control "entitlement" spending. They agreed to raising the debt limit twice now with the last time adding a twist that will come back to haunt them in having the Senate pass a budget which is likely to be heavy on new taxes, heavy on more defense cuts, and heavy on new "government investments". When that hits the House then they will either be forced to agree with the bulk of the "recommendations" or be demagogued by the Demagogues and their media allies once again. They've gone along with all continuing resolutions on spending so far, agreed to raise taxes and hailed that as a "victory" since they "permanently" cut taxes for everyone else (except the payroll tax that never should have been cut in the first place) that is until the next Dem controlled House comes along and raised income tax rates for all to "raise revenues". The GOP rolled over on the questioning of Shrillary on Benghazi for the most part (there were a few notable exceptions), punished of conservative House members like those questioning the increasing influence in the administration and many agencies, went through the motions and then approved a bloated Sandy "relief" bill, and some senators are even currently pushing support some senators for the like of Kerry in the appointment process.
What appears to be "moderate" in the GOP on the vast majority of issues that come up is, they are "moderate" because they are really "me-too" on the issue but not for spending as much, not as quickly should we go all the way implementing the changes, and/or not quite as radical in scope. All you need to do is look at "immigration reform", support for the "Arab Spring", and now support for "women in combat" to see what appears to be "moderate" in the GOP decision makers and their media supporters like the Weekly Standard. No logic, no discussion, no pro-con analysis but just go along and support it with maybe some minor "suggestions" to improve it. All you have to do is look at McManic (the man is frequently irrational and has tendency to be on both sides of many issues) to see why I don't see anything positive with these "moderate" stands or "moderate" candidates. Seems that even the likes of Jindal are falling prey to this "moderate" phobia with his recent comments on both immigration "reform" (read ultimate stealth amnesty for Mexicans) and choice of candidates at the state/local level. Apparently he also "missed" how "well" moderates like Scott Brown and Tommy Thompson did against radical and even tainted candidates last year. It may have been that what caused many losses last year was the messages received were considered too "moderate" by many who then didn't show up to vote. Not necessarily the wisest course of action but the blame then in on the messengers rather than the voters in the end.
BTW, I am not encouraged going forward since I just hear that the GOP Chairman was reelected as was the Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader earlier so doesn't look like anyone learned anything from the last election or the mess in DC. The GOP's reaction has been the same as the State Department on Benghazi which is "mistakes were made" and "it's time to move on". At least State went through the motions of rearranging the Titanic deck chairs by "relieving" some and hiding them somewhere else while continuing to do the wrong thing and ignoring the real problems.
We each have our own opinion and that is what makes the world an interesting place to live and that is just fine with me. I don't agree with you completely on this, nor you with me. In the end it will make little difference as we have to move forward regardless of our personal views. I just think, still, that we can't live in the past and expect what worked in the past to work now. When people refuse to stay up with the times, they are left behind. That does not mean that the core values (which we share, by the way, making me as conservative as you, John) it is just a difference in how we will get there. It appears that your way no longer works; I acknowledge this as I have had to let go of that method myself. So what choice is there. Remember, those that stay in the past remain in the past and the world passes them by with little regard which, painful as it is, is reality.
John....Your dislike for McCain is certainly noted. But McCain is retiring at the end of his present term - so who will you pick on then? You mentioned Dole -- that;s really OLD history. And, when was the last time we had a "true" conservative Republican in office? Let's see - certainly not Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or Reagan. Reagan was a Democrat before he turned Republican - he was a "moderate conservative" - HW Bush was certainly not a conservative and neither was George Bush. All of these past presidents were ALL "moderate" Republicans. And, if I remember most of them, with the time given, did a pretty darn good job. They were elected, John, with the backing of ALL Republicans. You see John, the division between "moderate and conservative" was more obvious during this outing than at any other time in the history of this country when, in fact, because of what we had to lose this time, it was more important than ever that we should have stuck together. We didn't!
Let's go back to the debates -- what candidate would you have chosen of the ones presented, to be the candidate. In my opinion there were really a bunch of "weak sisters". There was only one adult on that stage that didn't at some time or the other stick out like a sore thumb. There was only one candidate that didn't have some sort of baggage. There was only one candidate that rose above the rest. You speak of conservatives -- here was your line up - or who was left. Or, let's just say a couple of them that professed to be conservative. A former speaker of the house, a guy wearing a vest sweater and a guy who thought 9/11 was Bush's fault. If that's your idea of winning over independents, fallen away Democrats, etc. then you would be VERY wrong. They all came across as a whiney bunch of self ingraciating candidates. And, many people, outside the Republican party were totally turned off by their performance.
We, as Republicans cannot win an election with just the registered Repubicans in this country. "Moderate" Republicans realize that, therefore, you have to win over voters who are registered as Independents, Democrats, Women, Catholics, Jews, Gays, Hispanics, Blacks, and young voters, etc.
The "totally, true conservatives" are not liked in this country. There has, for some reason, been a stamp of dis-approval in the minds of some voters. I cannot understand it but, believe me it is there. Just work on a campaign - get out there - talk to Joe Average on the street, door to door, all around your state. Believe me when I tell you it is there !
I know you probably don't want to hear this but I can guarantee you that the Republican Party is changing. Because they HAVE to. I'm sure that you will not be encouraged to hear that message but it is coming. The "good old days" are gone. So, all Republicans can sit back and just let the "old" days and the "old" ways continue or they can get up there on the deck of the Titanic - find their deck chair, start conversing, quit blaming, and start the Republican Revolution with ALL Republicans and quit the belly aching of "why we lost."
Tara Jane, sent you a green star and wish I could send you a zillion more. That is the truth in a nutshell. Get with the program or get out of the way is my feeling at this point. No one wants to listen to the whining and complaining and negativism. It is time to get busy and unify the Republican Party and that is the message Ronald Reagan had and he did it; it is now our time to take up the challenge and do the same. The OLD ways have not worked for some time and will continue not to work. The World is a different place now as is the U.S. Not necessarily is it bad nor worse, just different. Get with the reality of that or you will be left behind talking with no one listening. That is the reality. No one wants to hear anything but what and how we are going to get on top of this and get this Country back on it's feet.
Thank God my Mother was willing to keep up with the times and taught me that same lesson; I, for one, do not want to be left behind with no one listening or caring how I feel about anything. More important, I love this Country too much to remain in the past.
Tara Jane, can always count on you to set the record straight and present the truth.
You mean the recent past? How are the increasingly moderate voices in the party working out? Not well, I would say. Moderate Republican candidates have not worked out...Dole...McCain...Romney... It's time for a Conservative candidate (& I don't mean the extreme pov of some Evangelicals). The Republican party needs to show minorities how much they have in common with our core values. e.g. Hispanics are usually family oriented devout Catholics. We're not getting the message across well enough.
"We had a candidate who was and is one of the finest people we could have found. But he lost because 3 million Republicans refused to get rid of the petty differences."
I agree he is a fine man...a very good man...a patriotic man, but that doesn't automatically make him the best candidate. Some of the blame for the loss lies with him and there were additionally several other factors besides those Republicans who did not vote for him...a dirty campaign run by Obama & his minions for one (although I could not believe it whenever I heard some Evangelicals say that they would not vote for him because he was a Mormon), I voted for Romney, but mostly because he was a hell of a better choice than Obama, not because I agreed with him a lot.
Sandy, we are not arguing Mitt Romney and good or bad here; we are talking about the Republican Party and what I say is this; how does the hard line "hawk" work for anyone any more; that is what we used to consider the truly conservative Republican and we have not had one of those since maybe Eisenhower. I would say the best chance the Republican Party has is to continue with the moderate candidate. That is all that has worked and it has done very well, frankly.
And as for the past election; the best of the candidates was Romney as he is the one that won the nomination.
There is so much the Party has to do to win another election; correcting the wrongs of this past one is a start. There were too many, as Tara Jane put it, whiney candidates that were more bent on dividing the Republican Party than bringing any semblance of unity to the Party. It is one thing to have a different approach, but these candidates went out on the limb, with the exception of Romney, to defame each other. There was not one that was candidate material among them.
Again, we may disagree, but until we can find a way to bridge the gap and start to promote the Party in a unified manner we will continue to lose; why, because the Democrats have discovered that this type of campaigning does not win elections and they are right at least on that one.
I know that the evangelicals are a sore spot in their own right. I was one and I say that with some regret but it is true. I voted for Romney as he was the best choice based on those that were running for the nomination. An evangelical like Santorum has no chance, especially when he makes it such a big part of his position. Like it or not, abortion is here and it is no longer something that should be considered as part of a candidates platform as it has no bearing until such time as we strike down Roe vs. Wade. The illegal or undocumented aliens in the U.S. can't be ignored and rounding them up and sending them home is no solution; it is impossible to enforce. Even those here with expired green cards find a way to say and get away with it; there are not enough Immigration officials to even begin that task, so it is time to drop that plan and work on a solution to the problem.
And then there is gay rights; agree that this is one that is tough, but again, taking a stand with no solution to this is not going to fly, either.
The Republican Party, right now, reminds me of a church congregation I belonged to a few years back. Loved all the people dearly but the church became divided and it was fierce. You see, the younger members and those about 45 or younger wanted to incorporate more of the more modern praise chorus music to the worship service with one or two traditional hymns. However, the members 46 and over did not want the change; it was to be the traditional hymn or nothing. The result, the church almost died until the older members realized that they were dying and wondered why. They finally got smart and hired a younger paster (he was 46) and let him have the reigns to handle the worship services. The music program changed allowing for more of the praise choruses and low and behold, younger people heard of this, those that had left became aware of the new pastor and his changes and sure enough, came back. The church, at the tiem of the division had 250 members, at the time they hired the new younger pastor was down to 84 members and after a year of his hire date, the membership was back to 189 members and after 2 years they were at an active membership of 475 people and had 2 worship services each Sunday. They are not at 630 active members and have 3 worship services and had to add on to the sanctuary to accommodate those attending the services.
So, do we hang on to the old "hawk" position or do we continue in the Reagan tradition of moderate? That is where we seem to be at this point. I do know that the "hawk" is not doing a thing and has no chance to do so.
I am for the moderate position that will work and then that we stop the arguing as to who is right and who is wrong and repair the Republican Party by bringing it up to the present and looking carefully at what the people are saying. Not all want the big government nor do they want entitlements; I know that I sure don't, either, but how we approach these issues is critical and we have to find workable solutions. If we don't, it will be the end of the Republican Party as we will die, guaranteed we will die.
Given a choice between a "moderate" GOP candidate like a McCain, Dole, or a Romney and a mainstream Dem from the 60s like Happy Hubie Humphrey you would get more realistic set of solutions from the mainstream 60s Dem. My point, which keeps being overlooked and not answered, is what have we gotten from two years of "moderate" GOP control of the House or a "moderate" POTUS campaign in 2008 and 2012 but a move to the left by the GOP and a more radical move to the left by Dear Leader and his party? No economic plan, no cut in wasteful and ideologically driven spending, more radical left wing initiatives like social experimentation in military/gun control/pending amnesty for illegals with no border controls/"gay marriage" support, a failed foreign policy that gets lots of GOP support from the likes of McCain/Lugar/Graham, comments like "he won the election so he gets this or that", go along with bad appointments because "he's the POTUS", and the like. Why should I waste my time and money on a party that seems to be committed to "go along and get along" no matter how bad it is what they are "going along" with? WHAT HAS THE 'MODERATE' APPROACH ACCOMPLISHED?????? I don't see anything!!!!! What is the "present": open borders and amnesty, gay rights all over the place and then pedophilia next since that seems to be next push (unwed pregnancies, sex all the time with whoever, others paying for it, and sexual indoctrination in the education system were all the precursors the the "gay rights" movement), more "investment" in "green energy'/failed federal education policies/union support payments/etc, bowing down to "global climate whatever", overlooking the real threat of muslim radicalism here and abroad, "diversity" for the sake of "diversity" that really means "equal outcome" and group rights rather than the individual should achieve based on real work and merit and everyone really melds, more drug legalization, more government provided mediocre health care, and similar feel good but really left wing stupidity.
John C. have to agree with you on that point. I'm am so tired of turncoat McCain and others who recently gave in to the deal on the filibuster. That has given total control to McConnel over what legislation gets voted on in the house. So the GOP just gave up all that we the public won with the elections to the house. Betrayal is what I feel.
With the assault from the democrats on the GOP we now need another party to really speak for the people. The Dems will continue to assault until the totally destroy the GOP which seems that should not be much longer. Even the Tea Party though not a political party as such seems to have folded in many ways.
I hope someone like Rand Paul will find a new party to stand up to all of this. We need him or Judge Nepolitano to run. There is a petition out to get the judge to run for president. Now wouldn't that turn the dems on their heads? A prez who really knows and follows the law.
Linda, I was addressing Romney because he was brought up by you & Tara Jane. Santorum is not Evangelical, he is Catholic.
I again agree with John. We have an increasing number of moderates in the party. It has not been helping at all and we should increase those numbers? Sure, Romney got the nomination, but did that mean most Republicans were happy with him as the GOP nominee? Romney made more people happy about him when he picked Ryan as his running mate, just like Palin helped McCain. I agree about the pickings in the crop of those running for president in the primary not being optimal. A lot of Republicans were not thrilled with the choices. Having Romney in a leadership position will help the party how? I just don't see it. Pete & I firmly believe that continuing to go in the direction of moderates is a big mistake.
Sandy, humbly sorry for the mistake and forgive me. The Republican Party has been more moderate than hawk since Eisenhower, Sandy. It is not more so, it just has been. Reagan was very definitely a moderate and everyone seems to have found him to be acceptable which he was. Why the change in thinking at this late date?
And I beg to differ with you; as much as I like Paul Ryan and that has not changed, he was an excellent choice in my opinion, but the majority of Republicans did NOT like Romney better when he chose Ryan, in fact that is why a good many did not vote nor vote for Romney. Not sure who you have talked to, but talking to people while working on the campaign and then listening to people from around the Country when I stated making Romney calls, I found out that this was not the fact at all. Ryan was not a plus as I had so thought according to the people I talked with and it was really too late by then.
I am glad that you and Pete feel this way, and that is your right. Maybe a new Party is advisable as anything to stop the bickering among the Republicans has to be a HUGE plus; it is this inablility to come to a meeting ground and the constant bickering that was as much responsible for the defeat as anything else and will continue to defeat the Republcan Party. Many are saying the very same thing, so I do not think I am alone.
So I do think that it is time to put this aside and discover what the Democrats have, unity is critical to elect a president. Look what disharmony did in 2012.
I know some did not like Ryan, not everyone liked Palin either, but generally I think they did at least from what I heard from others.
I see Reagan as more conservative than the current crop of moderates. I don't see them ever saying something as forceful as Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" He had backbone.
The Brandenburg Gate site was chosen to highlight the President's conviction that Western democracy offered the best hope to open the Berlin Wall. His speech focused on a series of political initiatives to achieve this end. The famous "tear down this wall" phrase was intended as the logical conclusion of the President's proposals. As the speech was being drafted, inclusion of the words became a source of considerable controversy within the Reagan administration. Several senior staffers and aides advised against the phrase, saying anything that might cause further East-West tensions or potential embarrassment to Gorbachev, with whom President Reagan had built a good relationship, should be omitted. American officials in West Germany and presidential speechwriters, including Peter Robinson, thought otherwise. Robinson traveled to West Germany to inspect potential speech venues, and gained an overall sense that the majority of West Berliners opposed the wall. Despite getting little support for suggesting Reagan demand the wall's removal, Robinson kept the phrase in the speech text. On May 18, 1987, President Reagan met with his speechwriters and responded to the speech by saying, "I thought it was a good, solid draft." White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker objected, saying it sounded "extreme" and "unpresidential," and Deputy US National Security Advisor Colin Powell agreed. Nevertheless, Reagan liked the passage, saying, "I think we'll leave it in."
Reagan guided huge buildup in arms race http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.pentagon08jun08,0,3497679,full.story
I do agree though that we need to come together more. Something of a challenge it seems.
Reagan was the best of the best IMO. Did he make some mistakes? Yes he did but he did more things correctly. We knew he loved his country. Reagan treated America like a "temple." Obama treats it like a "fun house."
The reason there is bickering among the GOP is because there is no leadership particularly one who really speaks for the party, there is no coherent philosophy, no coherent set of objectives, no common stand on many issues, and it appears no core set of principles. In part that was true during the election as well since Romney didn't seem to have a message that most understood other than he was competent since he had business success. That's hard to run on (although true in that regard) when the other side had already branded you as a tax cheat, job killer, murder, business manipulater, as well as a dog abuser and had effective killed that message before he could even campaign or respond. It might have helped if the party or some of those PACs busy trashing conservatives during the primary had done some ads to counter that message when his campaign couldn't do so by law.
On the question as to who I would have liked during the debates, Bachmann was my first choice, Santorum my second, and I could have gone with Newt in spite of his erratic positions at times. At least Newt would have made the campaign interesting and given both Dear Leader and the alleged "media" a lot of good zingers that may have made some people think a bit even if they didn't vote for him. All three had much more experience than Dear Leader even after four years in office and Romney as well when it came to most issues. He was too much of a one note samba and Ryan could play the details of that note on the fiscal point better from actual internal knowledge of the budget and spending.
As to the "moderate" approach, in a speech to the Ripon Society last Tuesday Boehner admitted he totally blew the 'fiscal cliff" actions and should have "taken a different course". Not sure he's learned yet based on the debt ceiling "deal" just passed. On the surface it looks shrewd (from an inside the Beltway and Elite Coastal view perhaps) but it is likely to backfire big time as all these moves have done. Just wait as the "budget" from the Dem controlled Senate has huge tax hikes, huge defense cuts, and huge new government "investments". You can already hear the rumblings of that from the likes of Schumer. Still waiting for someone to detail the "successes" from the "moderate" actions and positions so far!
Michelle Bachman knows politics and she is a very good speaker. I also liked Santorum and I was a Newt fan for awhile but Newt has a way of becoming his own worst enemy at times.
John C. I don't think we are going to see much coming from the house now that McConnell and most approved the deal on the filibuster. That gives McConnell control on what is to be brought up for vote. Since he dealt with Reid on this what's left to argue?
Those who want to really stand up to Reid and others are going to find it most difficult from now on I fear.
I've read everyone's comments above and I firmly believe that the moderate republican vision for our country is still sound and the way forward. Do we need to make adjustments in some areas? Perhaps we do.
Unfortunately, George W. Bush created the perfect storm for someone like Barack Obama to get elected. The war in Iraq divided our country in such a way that GWB's popularity rating plummeted. Then we had the ever present biased left wing media who drove it home while Obama infiltrated the internet and reached our young minds and destroyed their loyalty to our country as it pertains to war of any kind.
Republicans lost the election for several reasons; the women's vote, abortion and immigration. Obama didn't win by a landslide so I absolutely cannot agree that Obama took the military vote by storm. Obama grabbed the black community and younger women who believe that abortion was their next form of birth control. Add to that those Americans, young and old, who believe that bigger government is important to their receiving "free stuff" from the taxpayers.
So, what do we do as republicans? Do we abandon our party by constantly criticizing their every decision? I believe the republicans in congress have never before in their lifetimes had to deal with a polarizing, unconstitutional, left wing president who has his own agenda (ideologue) and it's difficult to know how to deal with this. So, they've made mistakes in judgement. When faced with a president like Obama who feels that none of the rules apply to him, it places our republicans in a no win situation.
For me, personally, I am never going to turn my back on the republican party. I believe in smaller government and fiscal responsibility and 47% of the voters in our country feel the same way I do. They didn't vote for Obama.
The republican party is deep into "transition mode" trying to find a way to get around a president they know will circumvent the constitution and make backroom deals to get his way. This is a learning experience for the republicans. I believe they will find their way before 2014.
So, to my republican friends, please keep the faith in our party. This is a huge bump in the road for us and we have 47% of Americans who still believe what we believe is the right path for our country.
Know this....Obama knows exactly what he is doing by trying to destroy the republican party. It's an uphill battle for us and we cannot give the victory to Obama. We have a great deal of work to do.
Diane, I would agree with you 100%. I have so much I would like to say, but will leave it there. I am a Republican, a moderate Republican like Ronald Reagan. I have faith in the Party and know that they will regroup and come out strong. But I do know that it means that even the group of us here have to stop bickering and start to maintain (or in some cases regain) faith in the Party. What choice is there but to do this as I am not going to sit around and complain or whine about the Speaker or the other Congressional GOP. We have an election coming in 2014 and I will be putting up the Senate and House seats that will be part of that election. News yesterday is that Harkin is retiring; we know that Rockefeller is retiring as are a few other Democrats and the MSM, for the first time, sounds concerned that this is going to open up the way for the Republicans to regain control of the Senate. Please, let that happen and it will if we get out there and support the Party and the candidates campaigning for these and all the other seats. Support them to retain the Republican seats that they now hold, take over the seats that are going to be up for grabs and then go after the Democrats in the remaining seats up for election.
But the one thing that is the hardest, for me anyway, is not dealing with Obama and the Democrats, it is having to deal with the negativity of my own fellow Republicans. If we can't unit as a Party, as I said yesterday, we will never see another Republican President and more than likely see the end of the Party. The Democrats, like it or not, learned the importance of unity; we have to regain that.
It really makes no difference today who we liked or didn't like in 2012; it makes no difference who we supported either. The only thing that matters is that we give support and encouragement to those that are fighting the battle with Obama and that we start to look very carefully at 2014 and give them what they most desperately need, a unified Party and control of both the House and the Senate. It is then that they can have a chance to gain control over Obama.
As Diane said, he does what he wants regardless of Congress or the Constitution, but in order to even consider something like impeachment they have to control the House and Senate. So, I can only make my own choice and mine is to get behind the Republican Party and to maintain my faith in them and the 47%; to do what I can to help them gain the strength they need to turn things around and control an Administration bent on destroying the Country.
I agree about Bachmann and that she has a great deal of potential. However I do not feel that the voters are yet really ready for a woman president; not Bachmann, Palin, nor Clinton (oh my gosh not her). In 2016 maybe VP, but still not president. I do feel she makes her case and does it well, but women are still not fully respected to fill those shoes.
Due to a very enlightening conversation I just had with my daughter, let me explain further. Until we can accept women in combat we will not elect a woman as president for the very reason that if we can't trust them in this position how do we trust them to be Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces where they are responsible for the life and potential death of our military personnel? I do think that this is worth a lot of consideration.
I was definitely one that did not feel women should be allowed in combat until my discussion with my daughter. Then I had my eyes opened; my son, soon to retire from the Army weighted in by email on this, too. I see things differently now. It is the old school men in this Country that have failed to stay up with the times. They see combat as it was when they served; not as the military is today. Things have changed and actually for the better. It is not just men that put their lives out there, women are as well. The difference is that we throw women into areas where they face as much potential for death as the men, we just do not allow them the full ability to protect themselves. We send them in with helicopters to rescue troops under attack where they are entrusted with the lives of their fellow military personnel and where they are dying, but we can't put them on the ground where they have a better chance of survival as they are not such an obvious target.
Women have as much strength as men in this position as they have been forced to be as strong by the very men they serve with; they have been forced to be not as good as, but better than in order to gain respect and acceptance so the argument that they are not strong enough to withstand the rigors is not valid. The argument that they would not be able to face a situation where they are under fire is equally not a valid argument; they face that right now and are doing just fine as again, they are forced to be better at it to gain that respect and acceptance. Having to work on an aircraft that is under mortar fire constantly during the maintenance is not pleasant but they do it. They would much rather be in a position where they only have to concentrate on dealing with the enemy and protecting their fellow soldiers and themselves than being preoccupied with getting a plane back in the air and being a sitting duck, so to speak.
I have had to change my position on this one and this is what I am referencing. I built my argument based on the old school of my father, grandfather and others. Even my brother, 3 1/2 years younger than I and a 22 year veteran of the Navy is able to see that women can have a place in combat and he was one of the definite old school. But he has been able to see the present where women are no longer relegated to office/clerical duties and medical duties; women that are out there side by side with the men doing traditional male jobs and doing it as well or better and that if the military itself is beginning to see that women have a role, then we do as well.
I might add that in the Middle East we have put our women in a precarious place; Muslims in most of that area do not respect women at all, they have only one purpose for women and we have our women in the area serving in the military; they are targets already there, so why not allow them the ability to protect themselves, they are safer on the front lines as they are more or less there simply because they are women.
I realize that this is a touchy subject, I really do. But back to my original comment, until we can accept that women have a role in combat we would be hypocritical to think that a woman could be President and Commander-in-Chief of the military. It is basic trust; how do we trust a woman in the highest position in the Country and not in combat? Israel trust their women and have for a very long time; the women do very well and prove to be as ruthless or more so than the men, why can't we? I firmly believe that every president should have served in the military; so that would have to include women.
Well stated, Linda, and a big green star was sent your way!