Valin Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 TAS: The New Reagans and the enduring principles of conservatism Jeffrey Lord 11.8.12 And so, another moderate fails. Governor Romney is a good person, a great business leader. But, alas, he is also a moderate Republican. As were Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Gerald R. Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain. Making Mitt Romney a historical asterisk as the tenth moderate GOP nominee (Dewey was nominated twice) to lose the White House. The exceptions to the rule are Dwight Eisenhower, who won not because he was a moderate but because he was the general-hero of World War II. Richard Nixon campaigned as the moderate he was in 1960 and lost. By 1968 he had won the nomination of a party that had shifted back to its conservative roots and he campaigned accordingly -- as he did in 1972. He won narrowly the second time, by a landslide the third. George H.W. Bush ran as the heir to Reagan in 1988 and won. Governing as a moderate he lost -- and lost badly in his 1992 re-election effort. George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" -- which is to say a moderate -- in 2000 and 2004 and squeaked by the first time thanks to the Supreme Court, winning the second time by a bare 100,000 votes in Ohio. (Snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logicnreason Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 By the next general election, the spanish population will have grown by 14%. By the next general election, the illegals (who will be legal by that time) will add over 12 million voters to the democrat roles. Voter turnout for this election cycle was down by over 14 million. The Tea Party made little if any difference at all in this election. It is going to be a very very long four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 By the next general election, the spanish population will have grown by 14%. By the next general election, the illegals (who will be legal by that time) will add over 12 million voters to the democrat roles. Voter turnout for this election cycle was down by over 14 million. The Tea Party made little if any difference at all in this election. It is going to be a very very long four years. Ask yourself this question...What would have happened if the Tea Party did exist? For what its worth IMO there are a large number of "establishment types" who are very concerned about what the Tea Party types will do. What revenge they will take. This is just the latest battle that goes back to Taft, for the soul of the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logicnreason Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 By the next general election, the spanish population will have grown by 14%. By the next general election, the illegals (who will be legal by that time) will add over 12 million voters to the democrat roles. Voter turnout for this election cycle was down by over 14 million. The Tea Party made little if any difference at all in this election. It is going to be a very very long four years. Ask yourself this question...What would have happened if the Tea Party did exist? For what its worth IMO there are a large number of "establishment types" who are very concerned about what the Tea Party types will do. What revenge they will take. This is just the latest battle that goes back to Taft, for the soul of the party. The "Tea Party" (not a recognized political party - more of a "movement") certainly did exist. In this election however, they - as a group - didn't do anything. In fact, republican voters did not turn out (2 million less this time then last). At this point in time, the "Tea Party" has shot its bolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argyle58 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 As congress and the White House now turn their attention to the debt crisis at the expense of all other agendas Americans will be seeing their incomes hit again. The built in tax increases that come with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will effect a much larger percentage of the population than the Democrats have let on. The liberal agenda will being felt in a negative way by those who were duped into accepting it. That is a good place to start. Do NOT sell the Hispanic voter short. As more of them become taxpaying citizens through whatever legalization program will be offered, more of them will be coming to the Republican view. They are by nature and culture a conservative people, and when the free ride is over they, like most of us, will vote their pocket books. I live in a predominately hispanic neighborhood (it wasn't like that when I moved here, but has become so) and I have noted that those who are raised here and are working legally and paying taxes tend to be more conservative in their world view and social practices. They don't like to see their investment in their communities squandered any more than the rest of us. Finally, if we are going to expend our energy and resources bemoaning the fact that we lost this election and finding fault, we will have squandered the opportunity to shift gears and work at trying to change the way that our message is being delivered. We need to find ways to expose the "Class Envy" tactics used by the Democrats for what they are......a rejection of the American dream and the self condemnation to a bottom rung existence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokke Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 "The "Tea Party" (not a recognized political party - more of a "movement") certainly did exist. In this election however, they - as a group - didn't do anything. In fact, republican voters did not turn out (2 million less this time then last). At this point in time, the "Tea Party" has shot its bolt. " @logicnreason, I think you are wrong here. The Tea Party didn't do anything because the party they are attached to shut them out. Sarah Palin was about the only reason many Republicans voted for McCain in 2008. The RNC wouldn't even acknowledge her in 2012. I think a vast majority of Republicans who didn't vote in 2012 (millions) were people who lean in the Tea Party direction more than the the moderate GOP direction. They didn't like Romney to begin with and Romney did zero to encourage their support. Candidates do not win elections if they cannot generate the support of their party. Independents are a media hyped, ever elusive target that do not determine election winners. That is who Romney directed his campaign toward. He won them. And it cost him the election. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logicnreason Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 "The "Tea Party" (not a recognized political party - more of a "movement") certainly did exist. In this election however, they - as a group - didn't do anything. In fact, republican voters did not turn out (2 million less this time then last). At this point in time, the "Tea Party" has shot its bolt. " @logicnreason, I think you are wrong here. The Tea Party didn't do anything because the party they are attached to shut them out. Sarah Palin was about the only reason many Republicans voted for McCain in 2008. The RNC wouldn't even acknowledge her in 2012. I think a vast majority of Republicans who didn't vote in 2012 (millions) were people who lean in the Tea Party direction more than the the moderate GOP direction. They didn't like Romney to begin with and Romney did zero to encourage their support. Candidates do not win elections if they cannot generate the support of their party. Independents are a media hyped, ever elusive target that do not determine election winners. That is who Romney directed his campaign toward. He won them. And it cost him the election. It is entirely possible that the reasons you site are true. However, it is also true that the reasons are moot. The fact is....the "Tea Party" is gone....regardless of reason. Oh...maybe not gone entirely, but now relegated to footnotes in the history books that will be written by the dems and taught by union teachers in our public schools. Such is life.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokke Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 "The "Tea Party" (not a recognized political party - more of a "movement") certainly did exist. In this election however, they - as a group - didn't do anything. In fact, republican voters did not turn out (2 million less this time then last). At this point in time, the "Tea Party" has shot its bolt. " @logicnreason, I think you are wrong here. The Tea Party didn't do anything because the party they are attached to shut them out. Sarah Palin was about the only reason many Republicans voted for McCain in 2008. The RNC wouldn't even acknowledge her in 2012. I think a vast majority of Republicans who didn't vote in 2012 (millions) were people who lean in the Tea Party direction more than the the moderate GOP direction. They didn't like Romney to begin with and Romney did zero to encourage their support. Candidates do not win elections if they cannot generate the support of their party. Independents are a media hyped, ever elusive target that do not determine election winners. That is who Romney directed his campaign toward. He won them. And it cost him the election. It is entirely possible that the reasons you site are true. However, it is also true that the reasons are moot. The fact is....the "Tea Party" is gone....regardless of reason. Oh...maybe not gone entirely, but now relegated to footnotes in the history books that will be written by the dems and taught by union teachers in our public schools. Such is life.... I honestly wouldn't count on that. The GOP is not gaining any converts based on its winning track record. Angry people (republican voters) don't simply shrug and accept the status quo. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/06/Tea-Party-Declares-WAR-On-GOP-Establishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logicnreason Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 "The "Tea Party" (not a recognized political party - more of a "movement") certainly did exist. In this election however, they - as a group - didn't do anything. In fact, republican voters did not turn out (2 million less this time then last). At this point in time, the "Tea Party" has shot its bolt. " @logicnreason, I think you are wrong here. The Tea Party didn't do anything because the party they are attached to shut them out. Sarah Palin was about the only reason many Republicans voted for McCain in 2008. The RNC wouldn't even acknowledge her in 2012. I think a vast majority of Republicans who didn't vote in 2012 (millions) were people who lean in the Tea Party direction more than the the moderate GOP direction. They didn't like Romney to begin with and Romney did zero to encourage their support. Candidates do not win elections if they cannot generate the support of their party. Independents are a media hyped, ever elusive target that do not determine election winners. That is who Romney directed his campaign toward. He won them. And it cost him the election. It is entirely possible that the reasons you site are true. However, it is also true that the reasons are moot. The fact is....the "Tea Party" is gone....regardless of reason. Oh...maybe not gone entirely, but now relegated to footnotes in the history books that will be written by the dems and taught by union teachers in our public schools. Such is life.... I honestly wouldn't count on that. The GOP is not gaining any converts based on its winning track record. Angry people (republican voters) don't simply shrug and accept the status quo. http://www.breitbart...P-Establishment The words and the sentiment are fine; but the proof is not there. We can only rely on what is fact and true and provable. And right now - today - the tea party is a thing of the past; or at the very least relegated to a very noisy but insignificant minority......until facts and truth prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokke Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Fact and true and provable? I agree. I just provided a link in which their national coordinator sounds very much alive. In fact, more alive than anyone in the Romney campaign. As in 2010, Tea Party endorsed congressional candidates did very well this election. And Sen Ted Cruz is the first Hispanic Senator from Texas. 2014 will be a midterm election. As in 2010, the Tea Party will have far more influence than the recent RNC dominated (and abjectly failed) national election. At this point in the game, I would not be willing to project the fate of any conservative leaning political party or movement, to include the RNC. All I know right now, is that they all continue to exist, despite some deep, self-inflicted wounds. The MSM will continue to push their wish that the tea party will go away. In a race to obsolescence, I think the MSM has a head start. And unfortunately, after two failed Presidential elections against a hopelessly empty candidate, the RNC is pushing to take the lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 "The "Tea Party" (not a recognized political party - more of a "movement") certainly did exist. In this election however, they - as a group - didn't do anything. In fact, republican voters did not turn out (2 million less this time then last). At this point in time, the "Tea Party" has shot its bolt. " @logicnreason, I think you are wrong here. The Tea Party didn't do anything because the party they are attached to shut them out. Sarah Palin was about the only reason many Republicans voted for McCain in 2008. The RNC wouldn't even acknowledge her in 2012. I think a vast majority of Republicans who didn't vote in 2012 (millions) were people who lean in the Tea Party direction more than the the moderate GOP direction. They didn't like Romney to begin with and Romney did zero to encourage their support. Candidates do not win elections if they cannot generate the support of their party. Independents are a media hyped, ever elusive target that do not determine election winners. That is who Romney directed his campaign toward. He won them. And it cost him the election. A Platform for a Free America Posted on November 12, 2012 7:49 am by Bill Quick Tracy Coyle created this platform and asked for my assistance in helping to get it as widely distributed as possible. The philosophy underlying what follows is straightforward: Fewer and fewer Americans each election take the trouble to participate in their own governance. A significant part of the reason for that is that many – rightfully, in my opinion – regard the choices presented to them each election cycle as being no real choice at all. The recent spectacle of one party running as its candidate the first man to implement statewide socialized medicine against the first man to implement nationwide socialized medicine tends to support that notion. It seems to both Tracy and I that the solution is to write a platform, not for a specific party, but for a specific set of political convictions. It is neither a Republican nor a Democrat platform. It is an American platform, designed to create an America more free, more wealthy, and more happy than we have enjoyed since Leviathan began its vast metastasis a century ago. You didn’t build that? No. This is America. If you build it, they will come. Here, then, is the beginning of an edifice that could become a great and shining city on the hill. This could be America. If you want it. My Platform http://www.dailypundit.com/2012/11/12/a-platform-for-a-free-america/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now