Share This Article with a Friend!


Don’t Blame The Voters For Romney’s Defeat

Any business that criticized its customers for not liking its products by implying that the customers were too dumb to recognize quality when they saw it, would soon be out of business – and rightly so.

Mitt RomneyA good number of establishment Republicans, and even some conservatives who should know better, are beginning to sound like they blame the American voters for Tuesday’s epic GOP defeat at the polls.

This is not only bad strategy for the future, it is just plain wrong.

Those inclined to subscribe to this foolish “blame the voter” analysis look at Obama’s liberal agenda and abysmal record and conclude that by re-electing Obama voters must be suckers, or that a majority of Americans want something for nothing.

The problem with this analysis is that those weren’t the choices the Obama and Romney campaigns presented to the voters.

Obama ran as a liberal with a liberal agenda based on an overarching national theme, “fairness.”

The Obama campaign had a coherent vision of the future and made everything about fairness: fairness demands we raise taxes on the wealthy; fairness demands the Obamacare mandate; fairness demands we allow same-sex marriage; elect me and your government will impose “fairness” on American society.

What was Governor Romney’s vision of the future? That was never very clear.

It wasn’t freedom as opposed to government imposed “fairness.”

It wasn’t constitutional government or traditional values, those themes never appeared in a Romney or national Republican ad or debate.

During the campaign we criticized Governor Romney for playing “small ball” and not nationalizing the election by presenting a clear conservative alternative to President Obama’s liberal agenda.

Unfortunately, that advice fell on deaf ears and you couldn’t find conservative ideology anywhere in the Romney campaign, the establishment GOP’s national advertising or even from Karl Rove’s much vaunted Super PACs.

No matter where you turned, the overarching theme of Republicans and Mitt Romney was “elect me and I’ll make things run better.”

Making the welfare state more efficient is not exactly a compelling conservative vision of the future, or even a credible one given the recent Washington Republican record on spending, earmarks and pork.

In 1988 Republicans vaporized another Massachusetts technocrat – Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis – when he ran on competence and the “Massachusetts Miracle” against then-Vice President George H. W. Bush.

Dukakis came out of the Democratic national convention well ahead of Bush in the polls, however, Bush and the Republicans focused on Dukakis’ somewhat cold personality and his snooty liberal dismissal of the rituals of patriotism to the point that even conservative icon Barry Goldwater said, “Tell George Bush to stop wrapping himself in the flag,” and start talking about the issues.

Bush ignored that advice and by the time the GOP was done, everyone knew Dukakis was a card carrying member of the ACLU, who thought burning the flag was OK, was weak on crime, and against the death penalty even if his wife was raped and murdered.

Voters got the message; Bush stood for their values and believed in Reagan’s vision of American exceptionalism and Dukakis did not.

Obama took that lesson and ran with it – hammering Romney as a mean-spirited elitist plutocrat who would toss Grandma out of her wheelchair and workers out of their jobs.

Romney’s answer, “President Obama is a well intentioned man whose policies haven’t worked.”

In 2010, the Tea Party wave election brought Republicans back to power in the House, and elected hundreds of constitutional conservatives down ballot, by offering voters a clear choice between leftist Democrats and Republicans who stood for smaller, limited constitutional government.

When Tea Party candidates stood for a constitutionally limited government in opposition to liberal candidates whose policies led to economic stagnation and suffocating government regulation being imposed upon this country by President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress – overwhelmingly the voters chose the Tea Party candidates.

The Romney campaign and their allies in the establishment Republican Party rejected that proven model for political success, and instead ran a content-free campaign selling Mitt Romney the technocrat.

American voters think technocrats make good Governors and cabinet secretaries, but they want a President with vision.  As long as Republicans blame the voters for Romney’s defeat, instead of articulating a clear conservative alternative to the Democrats’ radical leftist vision of America’s future, they are going to have a hard time recapturing the White House.

Conservative means change has to be slow

Conservative, to me means, change has to be slow, not revolutionary. Additionally, conservatives are suposed to be realistic. It has taken several decades to slide to the current state, which really is a liberal welfare state. The reality is that it cannot be changed overnight. The electorate is not just ready to elect a "true conservative". Getting a true conservative into the White House may require supporting and getting a few moderate Republicans presidents. This is just the reality. Any "principled" conservative, libertarian, etc. who did not get vote for Romney, really voted for Obama. It is as George Bush said- "you are either for us or against us".

The work for true conservative is to elect as as many conservative members of the Congress and the Senate as possible (so they can help a moderately conservative President be more conservative) and also continue to educate the electorate to really become more conservatives.So, eventaully they will be ready to elect a true conservative. 

We Are Getting the Gov't we DESERVE

1. OUTSIDE IN VIEW:  With so much at stake this November, WHY did Ron Paul allow himself to be on the ballot anywhere when he had been clearly set aside in the primary ?   Think Ross Perot (spoiler) = Clinton in '92.  Thanks for NOTHING pal.   Add to that, that the GOP voter turnout was lower than 2010 = death-wish & lazy.

2. INSIDE OUT VIEW:  Rush, Hannity & Napolitano all say this week that the USA electorate opted for Santa Claus instead of a strong America.  And demographics are turning against conservatives e.g. the white male voter ratio has shrank a lot since the mid-70's, latino vote is larger, and so on.  All the Super-PACs, great ideas and perfect candidates in the WORLD will NOT compensate for the the cold truth that conservative birth-rates are too LOW to sustain Reagan's world anymore.  And the 1965 Immigration Reform takes cares of the rest.  The candy-man now cometh instead. 

3. MY TAKE:   Conservatives winning elections does NOT stop The Left.   It only slows down the Left -- for a time.  Else we would have been permanently rescued in 1980 by Reagan.  As long as the 17th Amendment is in effect, we will see The Left craftily demonize The Right "... for not coming to the table, to compromise...", so that over decades the inches become MILES.  And afterward things STILL aren't good enough for The Left - so more shaming tactics,  more compromise, bigger government.  It will never end.

FIX THE LEVEE (repeal the 17th Amendment) -- DON'T SHAKE YOUR FIST AT THE WATER BECAUSE IT WANTS TO FLOW & FLOOD (politicians & rent-seekers).   Any other solution is a 100% waste of valuable time.

The Lesser of Two Evils

Voters are stupid -- especially a lot of Obama voters. On the Glenn Beck radio show this morning, an Obama voter from Chicago was ecstatic over the win. He agrees to a short quiz: What does socialism mean? Answer: To talk to people. What do the letters FBI stand for? Answer: Uh? (He had no idea.) He did get one question right: It was about what snack is created when you heat corn kernels. Ron Paul thinks it is immoral to vote for a candidate like Romney, but all those Republican/Conservative non-voters helped put Obama back in the Whitehouse and how bloody immoral is that? So much for your stay-at-home protest. You say Romney's vision was never clear. It was clear that he would have repealed Obama Care. It was clear that he understands that raising taxes makes an economy worse. And he made it clear that smaller government was better, that there are bloated agencies and handouts like PBS that he was more than willing to chop altogether or whittle down to size through attrition. Romney may not be your ideal Conservative or Libertarian but he was a hell of a lot better choice than the Socialist/Marxist. Thanks, all you moralistic non-voters.

Don't blame voters for Romney defeat

How can we Not blame the voters. At least 3 Million repubs did not show at the polls which could have pushed him over the finish line in the vote count.

PERFECT!

"Any business that criticized its customers for not liking its products by implying that the customers were too dumb to recognize quality when they saw it, would soon be out of business – and rightly so."

Richard, THIS IS EXACTLY the comparison I kept trying to drill into the heads of Romney voters this year when I told them I REFUSED to vote against Romney, and they gave me that mindless nonsense about "voting 'fill-in-the-blank' is like voting for Obama." You try to explain to people WHY Romney had not done ANYTHING to EARN my vote, and still. It's all my fault (and others like me).

THANK YOU for saying exactly what us non-Romney voters were trying to tell the Romney voters the whole way. Just because we didn't want Romney does not mean we wanted Obama.

What a wasted opportunity for the Republican Party.

Finally Viguerie....

Where was this conservative person you seem to have again become.... before the election? Why were you so adamantly behind Romney when real conservatives were on your site daily saying "we will never support him when we can't tell the difference between the two"? This makes us thoroughly question your standing as a conservative voice at all. If we are to fail as a country then let it be by the D liberals and not closet liberal RINOs with an R on their chest. The truth is the Campaign 4 Liberty did very well nationally in this election and we could very easily have taken the presidency if we had a horse left in the race that is. For some reason the RNC and the power brokers in Washington do not want a change in the status quo, and that is why there really is no difference between the two parties. I told you as a frustrated republican state delegate that we could not prevail with him as our choice, so If anyone is to blame for letting this country continue on its current path to oblivion it's the establishment trying to stuff a liberal down our throats without considering that there are those of us committed to a return to constitutional governance or bust. It's either over or back on track... just try us again! I hope we either re-take the party from the liberal RINOs or start a new one before the next presidential election.... assuming there is anything left worth saving. At least then the country will have to give the credit due to the right party when this completely clueless character does his damage.