That is why we have to start looking now for the real conservatives. You cannot convince people that conservative principles work if you don’t yourself believe in those principles. Once we find those who believe then we have to look at their record and see if they actually practice conservatism. If they practice it, then we have to determine if they really have integrity. If they don’t have personal integrity, then they will not stand up for conservative principles when things become bad, nor when they become too good. When things seem to be going good for the country is when the inner politician comes out in those who are not truly conservative and they try to buy popularity or votes or both. Hence GWB’s drug benefit and “every child left behind”. Yes, the masses wanted those programs, but they were not, and still are not, right for America. Those who are not truly conservative will look for “programs”. The truly conservative will look to apply the time proven principles that actually work, and work over the long haul, and not just propose or accept ill-conceived “programs” that seldom work in the real word.

Keep beating up on Romney. Instead, try look at the product you’re trying to sell to the American public. No tax hikes to people who can afford it when those who are working poor or middle class are losing homes, jobs and retirement savings. Legislate women’s reproductive choices. Refuse to consider any type of road map to decriminalize long term undocumented aliens. It’s a loosing platform. Then the GOP has weak, at best, inroads into the minority Hispanic and certainly Black communities. And apparently the GOP has not laid the groundwork in swing states to deliver votes. And the rancorous primaries where each candidate tried to eviscerate the next guy and Obama had no Democrat to oppose him. It’s easy to pin the blame solely on Romney. He got 120K fewer votes than McCain, but Obama got 6 million fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008 and Romney still lost. So the GOP turnout was flat, Obama did considerably worse and 6 million people stayed home. That can’t all be Romney’s fault.

“Mitt Romney will probably be the last Republican nominee who ever opposed Ronald Reagan.”
Interesting that you’d put it that way… In 1980 Romney was 33 years old & surely wasn’t opposed to or running against Reagan…Seems he would have been forming his “world view during Ronald Reagan’s America.”

Now we all knew Romney was a “mainstream” Republican, as opposed to a limited government conservative, only some crazy Democrats thought he was backed by the Tea Party…

More importantly though, if you think folks like Romney didn’t understand Reagan, what makes you think folks that weren’t there to see how his conservatism worked actually understand where he was coming from?(Marco Rubio would have been 18 during the last year of Reagan’s term as President. Paul Ryan was 19… How many high schoolers care about national politics??)

Romney didn’t lose because he “wasn’t conservative” enough, Romney lost because neither he nor any other big gun Republican could make the message understood by the folks that the Democrats are telling government is here to make their lives easy. So, unfortunately the 47% remarks and the “gifts” remarks are correct. How do you explain to those folks that it is less government that makes their lives easier?? That is something Reagan understood almost instinctually. No, Romney probably didn’t, but he did understand that government is the problem…It’s just that no one was getting that message out.

Maybe the big gun Republicans just don’t get it, or were looking to secure their own chances in 2016, but the problem is no one made the message clear nor even attempted to correct the Democrat talking points.
There’s no guarantee that your “young guns” can make the message any better, though we’d better hope they can, and starting now, not later.

Romney was absolutely right. Obama bought the election with a basketful of goodies that we, the suffering workers in this Nation, provided. We have to stand up and not allow ourselves to be robbed in this manner. What is the difference between having a thug put a gun to our head and taking our money than our government putting a gun to our head and taking our money? Erick, you are a total fool if you think all these people getting handouts want anything to do with self reliance and rugged individualism. Our tax dollars should only be used for the common good such as protecting us from harm, instead our government is the one inflicting the harm.

Eric, you have got to be kidding? The idea that 47% statement caused his failure…
Throughout the campaign everyone was talking about Romney couldn’t connect to the voters. Any voters….Tea folk didn’t connect with him… Not because he mentioned 47%.

Romney is a white – wealthy – politically elite – male who doesn’t have a clue as to how how the average citizen lives and certainly not the people who are in need of support.

If you were to pull out the votes that were case for him as simply a vote against Obama he wouldn’t have won any state. (Well maybe a few southern states.)

Why is this confusing? If we don’t get this straight as to the fact that Romney lost because of who he is we will repeat the same mistake next time…..

You can’t win until the tone & tenor of the message changes. Consistently sending the message that the, “47%”, actually 50+%, are the, “problem”, because they are lazy, shiftless, ignorant or uninformed because they don’t think like you, and are looking for handouts, is not a winning strategy. Belittle me and I’ll vote for you, NOT.

The idea that more than a tiny percentage of people are content and plan to live out the rest of their lives on a $300 per week government subsidy is ludicrous and at the same time shows a lack of detachment from the real world.

George W (a 2 term president) won in part because he was a passionate conservative and somebody you’d want to have a beer with.

The electorate is changing daily. Romney was right, but could not explain himself well enuff, especially with the incessant Villification from the leftist media. It was a 2-3 point win…so the country is still split in half. But the Right definitely needs to make the play for the fringe vote and get every existing righty off his butt and to the polls. Had Romney won, he would have made a great Pres….not so much from the political side…but as a Fixer. Opened up Oil / Gas…which has Industrial Revolution potential for the country…and probably Obama will grasp this at some future time….out of survival neccessity….and do so….and of course gain all the credit…and open himself up for a 3rd term…and the idiots out in the midst now would rename him Jesus. I cannot believe what is happening to this country and the mindset of the populace.

Don…I find your comment interesting regarding the fact that the common man could not connect with Romney. If true it does reflect a change in thinking. I would like to elect a person that I thought could solve issues and not just someone that feels my pain. The White – Wealthy – Elite comment shows just how successful the politics of class warfare and envy are.

Did Romney’s “47-percent” statement hurt him that much? I don’t know, but it’s a third-degree felony in Florida to spy on people with cameras. That’s exactly what the person who captured Romney’s statement on video did and, so far, nobody has been arrested.

Y’know, most of the explanations and comments I’ve been reading about the 2012 elections sound like they’re coming from people who can’t explain the 2012 elections, and I think that’s because the 2012 elections defy explanation. I think relatively few people know what actually happened: why Obama won.

Maybe it’s because Obama “mobilized his base.” Maybe it’s because the majority of news media companies simply refused to broadcast, either in print or on television, anything that might hurt Obama’s re-election chances.

Maybe it’s because a huge sub-population–those who voted for Obama–didn’t want to learn anything that might persuade them to vote for Romney. The information was available: The Washington Examiner’s lengthy story about Obama, the “2016″ and “Dreams from My Real Father” movies, the facts about Obama’s and other life-long leftists’ excessive wealth and failure to do anything for those who worship them. Those who voted for Obama and the political left could’ve learned that their allegiances were flawed, and their heroes have been exploiting them, but they didn’t want to hear it. They didn’t want to know.

Maybe it’s because Obama’s supporters are more concerned with “civil rights” than with whether or not the nation survives.

Maybe it’s because Obama–himself a wealthy elitist who’s demonstrated contempt for his minions–successfully identified Romney with the conservative right’s hallowed “job creators” who, in case you haven’t noticed, have been crapping all over those of us who work for them. I mean, seriously: Michelle Bachman decrying the minimum wage? What, is fifteen thousand bucks a year too much to pay?

Maybe this, and maybe that: a lot of writers seem to grasping at straws and speaking in vague metaphors: “don’t give up the ship,” and “circle the wagons.”

I do know that sometime around 1986 Ronald Reagan–the anti-socialized-healthcare champion–signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which guaranteed free medical treatment to anybody who showed up at the emergency room, and show up they did.

I do know that healthcare reform is necessary because free healthcare is sapping state and federal coffers dry.

I do know that Obamacare doesn’t provide free healthcare; it provides health insurance to those who can’t afford it. Obama didn’t provide free healthcare to 30 million Americans. He instituted a public-sector-run medical insurance company that, like all such compamies, is going to carefully monitor the care it provides and deny care that it deems either unnecessary or over-priced. It’s long-term effect will be to deny what Ronald Reagan guaranteed, mostly to those who voted for Obama and who consider “Reagan” to be a swear word.

Imagine the irony: Obama, the so-called champion of socialized healthcare, taking away what Reagan, the anti-socialized healthcare champion, provided.

Imagine Obama putting this over on his minions. Imagine the media allowing him to do it.

Imagine the utter contempt for Obama’s supporters: “Lie to them. They’ll believe.”

I do know that most of the wealthiest people in congress–and Obama himself–are the political leftists who successfully posture themselves as friends of the poor, and this information was available, but those who voted for Obama weren’t interested. The gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us has grown to historic proportions, and among the very wealthy, as many–if not more–are leftists as are conservatives.

I’ve read that, in the Soviet Union, neighbor turned against neighbor “for the good of the party,” and now, years later, when the damage is both done and irreversible, they’re hard-pressed to explain why.

Why did they support the pillaging and arrest of the haves by the have-nots? It was for the good of the party. They were convinced that they were making things better.

I believe Obama is a master exploiter who can win elections, but who cannot lead. I believe his supporters, having worked for him one day out of every four years, will now sit back and wait for his glorious promises to come true, and they won’t, and the supporters–largely, once again, with the media’s support–will not accept that they’ve been duped.

I believe . . . it’s time for me to get ready for work.

And another one wakes up.

It’s not just the media, it’s education, entertainment, and law. Marxists targeted those areas as far back as the 1930s. They sent their children to school to infiltrate. They used every position with hiring authority to invite more. They turned American education at every level into a Manufacturing Center for the New Socialist Man/Woman.

Demolishing the media noise is necessary, but at the same time we must guarantee home schooling, voucher programs that include private and parochial schools, magnet schools, and — most important — abolish the requirement for teacher certification, which is how they guarantee that every teacher is on board with Progressive education.

And then we have to root the Marxists out of entertainment.

Tim and Real: Feeding the troll this morning?

I’m not sure where all this comes from??? Ronald Reagan; increased government jobs, increased government spending in the private sector, increased the trade
deficit, increased the budget deficit and increased the debt, but he’s considered the small government Conservative’s conservative. This rhetoric is similar to fog rolling in
from the desert; you think to yourself, ‘huh?’

Reagan did nurture record economic growth with those policies and yes, Reagan cut everyone’s taxes, but who was helped the most? To think that that growth had no consequences to the public good and that the public doesn’t feel those consequences in their bones today; is today’s conservatives living in that desert fog.

Whether we like President Obama’s job performance or not, the issue is what will Republicans do to ensure the life, liberty and happiness of all citizens? It’s not that the
demographics of the country have shifted it’s that the country fears what this taken over Republican Party will do. What are those three unalienable rights when all we can do is worry about our job security and losing our homes?

Romney lost because the Republican Party I grew up with has been taken over by this twisted conservatism that sees only what it wants to see. Huh? What fog?

I appreciate your analysis. However, I found myself aggrieved at paragraph 3, wherein you erroneously state that 47% do not pay taxes. It is a damaging meme that keeps getting repeated, so it becomes the message, and is not true. Not only is it not true, but the mere mouthing of it shows two things: that those of us who fail to acknowledge that ALL Americans to various degrees pay taxes are insensitive to those who do not make enough income to reach the threshhold for federal INCOME taxes, and that we are not intelligent, or nuanced enough to insert the words “federal” and “income” before we talk about these particular taxes. There’s a definition of intelligence which has suited me on occasion – “the ability to make finer and finer distinctions”. It is pure laziness not to use the total phrase “federal income taxes”. Let’s not be lazy, insensitive or stupid. Then the actual message might be more palatable.

Romney was out smarted by the Chicago gang. The elete gang of would be handlers of Romney ran the campaign and made many mistakes in their assessment of the information that they had. I believe that Romney obeyed the campaign staff and has learned a good lesson. The old football strategy of playing prevent defense does not work. You have to play the game with the game plan that got you where you won the primaries. Try to destroy your opponet like he did Speaker Gingrich. I understand he wants to look “executive like” but that is only for models in the clothing industry. I would be willing to state that Romney did not act the fashion when he ran Bane Capital. Mind you I was not a Romney fan for he bragged that he was able to work with the 87% Dem.’s in MA and also his plan for the new medical bill was used to form the Obama Care Bill.

I believe in the free market place and that has been the only way to get prices down and a better product for the money. Insurance has always been a place where prices and goods delivered have always been over priced and abused. We have been able to make it in the U.S. without making everyone carry insurance. The State of TX made its auto drivers carry insurance (Liab.) since 1962. This has made many auto body shops rich as well as many Lawyers.

You obviously have not spent an hour in the military. Open thinking is far preferable to dying.

America has become a “center” left country. The media has always been liberal and is only get worse. America has turned it’s back on God. Christianity is attacked daily by the liberals and the liberal judges help them get away with it. Both parties are “big” government parties…we are not a nation of “Laws”, we are a “hand-out” welfare nation people on Tweeter said they would kill Romney if he one because he would take their food stamps away.

Yes…they correctly realize that the long term goal is to control the culture. That is what enables your message to resonate and for you to win elections.

I think it’s going to be more of a challenge than we think it will be to persuade people living in our society that policy measures that expand capitalistic activity are the best means of lifting people out of poverty rather than relying on government to provide perpetual sustenance for those living in poverty. People look at our welfare system, see ever-increasing enrollment numbers, and think “Reagan’s beliefs are outdated and simply will not work in this day and age”. They see it as a failure of capitalism. What these same people do not do is to evaluate how our welfare system is constructed and realize that it is designed to keep people locked into the system. This the fault of government, not capitalism.

If President Obama proceeds in implementing the type of policy measures he has indicated he will pursue, any opportunity we might have to provide evidence of how capitalistic activity benefits our society will be very limited. In all likelihood, we’re going to see an increasing number of large corporations begin to move their operations to other countries. Small businesses are facing their own share of obstacles to overcome simply to survive, much less to thrive.

We need to come up with some new business operating models if we want to succeed in convincing people that capitalistic activity is the best choice to make.

I don’t know whether the comment itself hurt Romney, but the mentality behind it certainly did. He ran this campaign on the assumption that Obama’s absolute floor was 47%, and that he therefore had to scratch out a victory by getting almost everyone else. Hence the cautious “hold the lead” strategy for the third debate when he thought (perhaps correctly) that he was up by a point or two. It also meant he kept hammering the low-risk “fire Obama because the economy is lousy” theme at the expense of almost everything else that might have given people a reason to vote against the guy offering them “free stuff.”

Contrast his approach with the plan Mitch Daniels laid out at CPAC in 2011 where he talked about the need to win a large majority in order to be able to implement the ambitious agenda the country needed.

Just curious: Can any conservatives here give an example of a society that became more conservative and less liberal over a multi-generational span?

Estonia. Former member of the USSR. I generally dislike using Wikipedia as a reference, but what Estonia has accomplished since 1991 when it regained independence has been remarkable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia

There are other countries trying to move in that direction, such as Canada, but the jury is still out, so to speak, on how much they will succeed in accomplishing.

The points you are making in this diary are precisely why we could not win no matter what we did. And it explains why these “patrician aristocrats” turn everybody off.

I remember saying way back when we were debating who would win the primary that Romney would lose just like Meg Whitman lost out here in Cali — no matter how much money he poured into the race. The aristocrats really do fit the false meme that liberals try to put out about conservatives — that we are cold and only care about the rich. Not because they are cold and uncaring, they just cannot relate on any level.

When you are born into aristocracy, you can only talk about the poor and middle class as if they are pawns in your chess game and you are oblivious to how offensive you sound when you make statements like Romney made about the 47%. To add insult to injury, Romney is blind to how the government continues to exacerbate and create the very conditions that keep the poor poor.

Infuriating.

Wait…you’re definition of conservatism include totalitarianism? Seriously? Uhhhh….NO.

Estonia moved in the direction of more conservative economic policy by expanding both individual freedoms and liberties along with economic potential via capitalistic activity and decreasing dependency on government, thereby reducing the role and scope of government.

Same thing Conservatives in this country have been striving to achieve.

The comment from jghedge above shows that the conservative message is not getting out. For anyone to believe that conservatism is anything but rooted in individual liberty and the reduction of government shows that we need to work on making our message both concise and consistent.

I am amazed by how many people I know have an image a NAZIs when they think conservative. Rather than National Socialism for that particular group.

And just to stave off the attack now – LESS government does not mean NO government. It means government doing those thing it is mandated to do, and nothing else.

“Reagan in 1980 ran a campaign on the explicit understanding that government was an obstacle to the poor and middle class elevating themselves from poverty and the role of a Reagan Administration would be to get the government out of the way.”
Anyone who wants to run in 2016 on the GOP side should post this on the banner of their website and the mirror in their bathroom.

No, don’t give them credit (whoever “they” are), – they are actually not that smart, and there’s no conspiracy. Don’t be deluded. Just keep having good policy ideas, ones which, when applied at the nexus, have optimal effect. Lather, rinse, repeat.

sorry about my typing

“I am amazed by how many people I know have an image a NAZIs when they think conservative.”

Despite the fact that Nazi’s espoused similar social goals and neo-nazis are always referred to as “far-right extremists”, and the Norway massacre was carried out by a right-wing extremist who idealized nazism…

rightlane1111…your link isn’t working.

So, you’re relying on the European definition pertaining to the “right” end of the political spectrum? I wondered if that might be the case. Faulty premise, though, because the European definition of Conservatism versus Liberalism is the exact opposite in America of the definitions that Europeans use.

Here’s the basic line of thought in American Conservatism…dependency on government can lead to expansion of the size, scope and power of government. Expansion of the size, scope and power of government increases the potential for corruption in government. Expansion of corruption in government increases the potential for misuse and abuse of power that leads tyranny. Increase in tyranny undermines and strips away individual freedom and liberties.

Our founding fathers lived in a society where tyranny from government existed. As a result of this, they established principles in the Constitution of US that limit the power of government (in the hope that this would prevent tyranny). Conservatives believe that the vision our founding fathers had in preventing tyranny was correct, and that the best means possible of ensuring individual freedoms and liberties is to keep the size, scope and power of government limited.

That’s the prerogative of the Estonian people. It isn’t my decision to make.

I do admire the manner in which they have succeeded in applying specific principles to overcome economic obstacles and to generate greater economic freedom and liberty across their society as a whole.

“Faulty premise, though, because the European definition of Conservatism versus Liberalism is the exact opposite in America of the definitions that Europeans use.”

Really? So for that to logically apply, liberalism in Europe would be conservatism in America? Because that’s what your “exact opposite” definition entails.

Obviously, they mean the same thing in both continents. Otherwise, their labeling of neo-nazis as far-right extremists would make neo-nazis liberals, which is nonsense when you consider what the neo-nazis actually espouse (as per the rants of the Norway massacre perp).

But I was asking for an example of a society moving from liberalism to conservativism over a multi-generational span…Estonia just joined the EU in 2004, which isn’t “multi-generational”…

Again, any examples of a society becoming more conservative over a multi-generational span?

The point being, if it’s never happened, why think that it ever will? And what, therefore, is the point of conservatism in the first place, if it never succeeds in achieving this?

So conservatives and Nazis have similar social goals?

Man, THAT didn’t take long…

No, you need to go check this one out for yourself. In Europe, Liberal is defined as ‘right” and Conservative is defined as “left”.

Here’s where you’re dead wrong, homey. Not life, liberty and happiness. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The basic divide in this country is that people like you expect the government to provide happiness, and people like us don’t. Simple as that.

And what CONTINUES to crack me up is that people like you are completely unable to see the link between four years of big government liberalism and the worry about “our job security and losing our homes.” So you bow at the altar of government to save you, when it is completely responsible for your predicament. And the cycle of liberalism is complete, and unbreakable.

Talk about blinders.

” The terminology for “left” and “right” is the exact opposite in Europe of what it is in America.”

And again, this is nonsensical, because it would imply that, if European conservatism = American liberalism, then European liberalism = American conservatism.

Again, starting from when a given society became democratized (and we have around 200 years of world history to reference here), have any of them become more conservative and less liberal over a multi-generational span?

I have better things to do than put up with left-wing asshats trying to stir things up. Go away, Joe.

He won’t be responding.

Bless you, Bill. Thanks.

To that I would say no. Have you seen 2016:Obama’s world?? Thats where we’re headed…

I don’t know about that..I thought in ’72, didn’t the Republicans have an extended time in WH??.I think people will tire of this crap, Mr. Soros will die, there is hope…..

I completely agree. I’m afraid this is what is already is being done with Rubio since he’s Latino. So now the party will try to “groom” him to be a presidential candidate. You can’t fake enthusiasm and vision. I’m not saying he doesn’t have it, but he will have so much thrown at him in the next 2-3 years who knows what will happen.

Maybe, it wasn’t fall of 2008, before the election, that I lost my job. Maybe, it wasn’t the collapse of the financial system that caused thousands across the country, to lose their homes. Maybe, I need to see beyond my
desert fog.

But, then again, maybe, I see clearly. Tell me how the response would’ve been different from “four years of big government liberalism” if McCain Palin won the election in 2008?

How did Ronald Reagan attack the economic problems of 1980? After stopping inflation with the help of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, Reagan stimulated the economy by pumping stimulus into it. And, as I said earlier, as a result he increased; government jobs, government spending in the private sector, the trade deficit, the budget deficit and the national debt.

The response has to be “big government liberalism”, any President facing the same challenges would’ve done the same. We just don’t like the way this one did it, but that doesn’t change any of the facts.

This is all well and fine, for a diminishing, adequately informed audience. For much of America, Big Government has been a shadow nanny, always hovering, always present. This nanny is not interested in “adequately informed,” at least in any traditional sense.

Parents, or likely, a parent, have allowed a persistent, always present influence to shape the thinking and behavior of their children for decades. Conservative outcomes in voting booths were likely predetermined in classrooms, a hostile environment for conservative values.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell

As long as our ‘present’ public educators ‘control’ the past (America’s history) you can parse election results all you like, it will make little difference to ‘future’ outcomes.

Romney was the son of a famous moderate republican governor who ran against Reagan – from the distant left – in 1968 for the GOP nomination, pretty sure Mitt’s world view was set by the time Reagan won in 1980. Oh, and there is Mitt’s assurances in Massachusetts that he was an “independent” in the 1980′s who didn’t support “Reaganomics.” The OP is right.

I understand you want to be the victim. I am sorry for whatever problems you are having. But I was there for the “malaise” of the Carter years, and I was there for the rebirth of the Shining City On The Hill. What I said is indeed based in fact, whether you want to believe it or not.

I can tell you what happened, because I was there. Were you?

One small bit I’d add about GW is he didn’t come across as a wealthy ‘look down his nose’ at the common man which Romney did. Romney wore his wealth and was proud of it. He worked for it and earned it so that’s not a problem. But it is an image that the less fortunate see and automatically assume he thinks he’s better than them. GW as you put it came across as somebody you’d want to have a beer with and someone who’d be happy to shake your hand and look you in the eye as an equal. I remember going to Spurs games here in SA when GW was the Governor. There were no escorts, no big dog and pony shows. He walked in like anybody else and sat in the stands next to the commoners. Always thought that made him twice as classy as he was.

Looking back I wasn’t wrong about his class. He left office and kept his mouth shut – not like all the demos who’ve left office. He also spends a great deal of time with wounded veterans and to me that is awesome. He could go live the ‘Life of Riley’ but instead he’s riding bicycles with vets, attending functions, welcoming home groups of vets as they come in to town. He’s the real deal and really does care about the people. The media made him out to be a villian. That was so wrong. But at that point it was anything to get Barry into office. And they’re still doing it.

I, like others, began the post-mortem after the election loss. Apart from the obvious monumental disaster known as ORCA ( which exposed the dishonest consultant class), it all came down to the 47% comment. I initially dismissed the effects of this comment, although it clearly was a serious poor choice of words.

But post-election, it dawned on me that it was not simply the poor use of words. It was a wretched strategy. We have two choices to make regarding those who are dependent on government. We can write them off, wag our fingers at them and point out what losers they are. Or, we can educate them on why less government is better government. Teach them that these bureaucratic programs do very little to end the cycle of poverty and dependence. We need to give people the benefit of the doubt. That maybe, just maybe, they want to be independent. We need to see them as people to help rise out of poverty and dependence, not as people to condemn.

Education is the key. Reaching out is the key. We may not convince everyone, but if we convince a few thousand, we can begin to stop the cycle of poverty and dependence.

“This wasn’t an election, it was a 5 billion dollar PR campaign to destroy Conservatism”

Really? Whining again. Conservatives get rid of the fairness doctrine and then whine because their message is not being heard when they have more media outlets then ever. Seriously, whining again. I am beginning to think that the GOP and maybe conservatism is becoming the party of the tin foil hats. You always back in this lifetime what you give. I am just returning the love.

There are definitely two different midsets. Those who cannot grow emotionally past childhood (liberals) and those who mature and take responsibility (conservatives). Your self-serving categories expose you as a narrow-minded lib.

We need to start now discrediting every potential Dem candidate for 2016. It won’t be that hard – they discredit themselves – just need to point it out often.

Reagan had charisma, you can’t fake that. So even if Romney believed the same things as Reagan did, he still never would be as popular as old gipper, because he’d still be Mitt.

Everyone who disagrees here is a labeled a troll. You know, I work as a usability analyst and it’s my job to make web sites easy to use for the site visitor. What typically happens is that a bunch of business people sit in a room and talk about how to get visitors to the site. They certainly know the business inside & out, but they don’t know anything about what makes people *want* to use a web site. That can only be learned by talking to people in the target market, asking them what they want, and watching how they use the web.

If conservatives really want to know why independents vote liberal, or even why liberals vote liberal, you’re going to have to talk to us. I’m here because I want to know what makes you tick but from what I’ve seen after reading most of this site is that you’re also working from strong and unhelpful stereotypes about liberals, and you are asking *each other* how to get the independent vote instead of dialoging with independents and yes, liberals.

A troll isn’t someone who disagrees with you. A troll is someone who asks a dishonest question, who already knows what their answer will be and is not looking for honest discussion. Everyone who disagrees is not a troll.

I am a former conservative who is now votes liberal and it’s because I felt pushed out of the Republican party due to the stereotypes about my race about how we’re all waiting for a handout. That meme has been running through the Republican party for years, and it’s just not true. If you want to remain a viable party as the white demographic shrinks, you’re going to have to talk to independents & liberals and you can begin by stop calling names like troll.

So many here think you can grow your party and win elections by just articulating your value proposition clearly and people will come flocking to the Republican party. I tell you that will not work. Whether it’s true or not, the perception is that the GOP is a closed party, just like this web site is closed to anyone except like minded people, branding everyone else as trolls. That, my friends, is the root of your problem. You don’t want to talk *with* independents and liberals to bring them in, you want to talk *at* us. It’s never going to work.

Agreed. We all pay payroll taxes or social security taxes. It’s important for us to acknowledge that!