mj shut up we got obama some what thanks to you stfu On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:58 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *Why Mitt Romney Lost -- and the GOP Will Continue to Lose > **The party's message is confused, contradictory, and unconvincing. > *Nick Gillespie > November 9, 2012 > > How did Mitt Romney and the Republican Party blow it all so badly? > > The short answer is that the GOP insisted on pushing backward-looking > social issues in a country that is increasingly libertarian. > > The White House, a Senate majority, and strengthened control in the House > of Representatives was not simply within reach for the Party of Lincoln > this election cycle. It was gift-wrapped and adorned with pretty little > bows. President Barack Obama presided over the worst economy in memorya > situation greatly exacerbated by the very > policies<http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/11/the-recovery-that-wasnt>he > implemented to restart the economy; U.S. foreign policy is a shambles > and our standing even (especially?) in the countries we “liberated” > recently<http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/so-what-exactly-is-us-foreign-policy-the>from > autocracy is plummeting; and a record number of voters had > disaffiliated from the Democratic Party since 2008. The president was > pulling bad > numbers<http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx>right > up to the eve of the election. > > And yet Obama won re-election easily and the Democrats gained a net two > seats in the Senate (including wins in Missouri and Indiana that should > have been easy Republican victories). That’s because the GOP, despite its > endlessly repeated mantra of limited government, is wildly out of touch > with the majority of > Americans<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-big-shifts-on-role-of-government/>who > consistently say they want the government to do less, spend less, and > not enforce a single set of values. > > There’s no question that on broadly defined social issues such as > immigration, marriage equality, and drug policy, Barack Obama has been > terrible. He’s deported record numbers of > immigrants<http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/19/how-mitt-romney-will-lose-immigration-is>and > his late-campaign exemption of some younger undocumented immigrants was > one of the most cycnical policy changes imaginable. Yet he managed to > increase his take of the Latino > vote<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/with-record-turnout-latinos-solidly-back-obama-and-wield-influence.html?_r=0>precisely > because Mitt Romney and the Republicans are even worse (at least > rhetorically) on the issue. Romney called for “self-deportation” during the > Republican primary season and attacked Gov. Rick Perrywho pulls upward of 40 > percent of Latino > voter<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/perry-s-overlooked-asset-hispanic-support-20110819>s > in Texasfor his mildly pro-immigrant stance (in his 2004 re-election bid, > George W. Bush received around 40 percent on the Latino vote). If > Republican representatives such as Steve King (R-Iowa) continue to talk > about immigrants as akin to dogs and > livestock<http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-rep-steve-king-doubles-down-on-comparing-immigrants-to-dogs-it-was-a-compliment/>, > there’s no way that the party can expect Hispanics to vote for them. Or > non-Hispanics who are rightly disturbed by such attitudes. > > Similar dynamics hold true on issues such as drug policy and marriage > equality, each of which passed handily in various state ballot initiatives. > Obama has raided medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal under state > law without a second thought. Now that Washington and Colorado have > legalized not just medical marijuana but all pot, the GOP should stay true > to its valorization of federalism and the states as “laboratories of > democracy” and call for an end to the federal drug war. The same goes for > gay marriage, which is supported by a majority of Americans and passed in > Maryland, Maine, and Washington stateeven as an anti-marriage equality > amendment to Minnesota’s state constitution went down to defeat. It’s fully > consistent for small-government Republicanswho rarely miss an > opportunity to talk about returning “power” to the > states<http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/31/hurricane-sandy-is-a-case-study-in-the-e>to > champion these developments. As Romney has put it, "Every time you have an > occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to > the states, that’s the right direction." > > The GOP has a major problem with women voters, who perceive it as either > hostile or indifferent to questions about reproductive freedom and choice. > Obama won women's votes by 12 percentage > points<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578103432907278390.html>this > time around, about the same as he did in 2008 (which suggests this > year's result is not a stray indicator). There’s no question that the media > and Democrats made a huge deal out of Todd Akin’s bizarre biological > disquisitions and Richard Mourdock’s principled commitment to an extreme > pro-life position. But the reason such statements resonated with voters is > because they confirm the idea of the GOP as an anti-sex, anti-abortion > party that routinely says the government is awful at everything it does but > should have the final say over whether women can get abortions. That’s a > contradictory message that is also wildly at odds with the 77 percent of > Americans<http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/29/is-obama-an-abortion-absolutist-and-why>who > believe that abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances. > > If Republicans failed to engage the libertarian sentiments of voters when > it comes to social issues, it also failed to put forth a serious > alternative to Obama’s dismal record of increasing government spending > (with promises of yet more to come). Indeed, Romney and his fellow > Republicans simply did not lay out budget plans that called for specific > major cuts to programs even as they called for tax cuts. Instead, we heard > only that President Romney would eventually reduce spending to 20 percent > of GDPa level that is still more than two full percentage points above > the post-war average for revenue as a percentage of > GDP<http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/14/the-19-percent-solution>. > At the same time and despite a 70 percent-plus increased in military > spending over the past decade, Romney committed to the "goal of setting > core defense spending...at a floor of 4 percent of > GDP<http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense>" > (emphasis in original). Add to that Romney’s inability to say flatly that > he would actually repeal Obama’s health-care reform, something everyone > understands will cost far more and deliver far less than promised. Instead, > Romney averred that he would keep the parts he > liked<http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/10/romney-says-he-likes-parts-of-obamacare>. > To a population rightly worried about the looming fiscal cliff, > out-of-control spenidng, and massive national debt, the GOP economic plan > was weak tea, an echo of the Democratic plan of spending more and more and > figuring out how to pay for it sometime in the future. > > So far, the right-wing response to the GOP's drubbing has been strange, to > say the least. Right-wing activist Richard Viguerie, dubbed "conservative > of the century" by the *Washington Times*, has > said<http://www.conservativehq.com/article/10743-battle-takeover-gop-begins-today>, > "Republicans ran away from such issues as same-sex marriage, religious > freedom and Obama’s war on the Catholic Church." At *City Journal*, the > influential publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute, Andrew > Klavan proposes <http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1107ak.html> that > right-wingers play the "long game" by taking over the media and culture > industries and stressing Judeo-Christian values because "an irreligious > people cannot be free." > > [image: []] Charles Krauthammer counsels to keep on keepin' > on<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333030/way-forward-charles-krauthammer>: > "There’s no need for radical change," he says. Don't sweat the increase in > minorities, he says, married women still vote Republicans. He's right on > that, but wrong to ignore shifts in public attitudes that are broad-based > and, even more important, party planks that are flatly inconsistent with > stated GOP ideology and recent experience with Republican legislators. > George W. Bush and a Republican Congress (whose leadership remains firmly > in power) massively expanded state spending and control of all aspects of > life <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275512887811775.html>. They > rushed us into wars and then prosecuted them poorly. While Obama has simply > piled spending, debt, and stupid foreign policy decisions on top of all > that, it didn't mean that voters were willing to vote Romney as the lesser > of two evils. Sometimes you stick with the devil you know. > > If Republicans want a game plan for the future, they should take a long > look at the strong response to former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who > pulled > over<http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/gary-johnson-pulls-one-million-votes-one>1 > million votes and over 1 percent of the total ballots cast as the > Libertarian Party candidate. That’s the best result for a Libertarian since > 1980 and it comes in an election that was cast in apocalyptic termsone in > which votes were supposed to be so important you shouldn't waste yours on > third-party candidates. Johnson, who had virtually no money to spend, got > his votes not by carving special exceptions to limited government > principles when it comes military spending or lifestyle choices or > immigration or on whatever issue the GOP assumes voters want an activist > government. Quite the opposite: He made a consistent case for limited > government that is completely in line with what a majority of voters say > they want. > > For the Republicans to succeed, they need to confront and work through > their contradictions. First and foremost, they need to be internally > consistent when it comes to the limited-government ideology they claim > makes them different from Democrats. Everyone understands that political > parties are broad collections of interest groups that may actually have > little in common but have decided to band together out of necessity. The > role of party ideology or rhetoric is to take these disparate interests and > make them seem like a coherent entity when they are anything but. There's > no necessary connection between, say, between wanting to reduce top > marginal income tax rates and supporting a ban on flag burning or any given > position on abortion, even as the contemporary Republican Party would argue > that these are all beads on the same necklace (the Democrats are similary > chock full of random positions). The GOP has reached a point where its > insistence on choice in some areas (say, the decision to buy health > insurance or where to send your kids to school or whether states can opt > out of this or that federal program or law) is plainly at odds with so many > of its other positions that something has got to give. When Charles > Krauthammer suggests "we had a winning message but didn't communicate it > well enough," he's exactly wrong. The GOP has a muddled message that it's > been communicating about as well as anyone can. > > Why is it important for Republicans to put forth a better effort? Because > the only way a first-past-the-post system like we have in the United States > functions well is when the two major parties (and there will always only be > two major parties, though what they stand for can and does change) present > not just starkly different rhetoric but starkly different choices to > voters. Back in 1964, when the modern GOP moved decisively toward the > libertarian, limited-government sensibility of Barry Goldwater, his > followers proudly proclaimed that he offered "a choice, not an echo" not > just to Lyndon Johnson but to the post-war consensus of rule by elites and > centralized experts. Goldwater and his crew were as different from > Rockefeller Republicans as they were from any Democrat. > > When it comes to spending, economic intervention, foreign policy, > executive power, and civil liberties in the 21st century, there has been > precious little daylight between the Republicans and the Democrats (do we > really need to rehearse GOP-backed initiatives such as No Child Left > Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, the creation of the Transportation Security > Administration, Medicare Part D, TARP, and the first auto bailout?). To the > extent that the GOP offers a choice on broadly defined social issues, it is > a party anchored firmly in the past that needs the federal government (of > all entities) to enforce its desired positions on abortion, drug > legalization, and marriage. > > That's simply no way to woo the increasing number of libertarian voters > and of other independent > voters<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1610391004/reasonmagazineA/>who > have turned away in increasing numbers from the Democrats and > Republicans as worn-out artifacts of the dim past. The GOP can lick its > wounds and tell themselves whatever they want to hearthat it was the > media's fault, that they need to be more religious, that they just need > better candidates, or whatever. But until the party actually changes its > positions on basic policy issues and articulates a clear and consistent > role for limited government, it has nowhere to go but down. > > > > http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/09/why-mitt-romney-lost-and-the-gop-will-co > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
