Published: Monday, Nov. 12 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Romney was the pre-chosen candidate for this election cycle. The problem is that
Republican primaries force candidates to go far to the right to prevail, and no
amount of etch-a-sketching can get them back to where the majority of voters
are. The guy who ran Massachusetts as a non-ideological pragmatist could have
won this election. The fire-breathing right winger that emerged from the
primaries could not.
"Romney had to go through the meat grinder that is the Republican
primaries."By "meat grinder" do you mean that Romney had
to pander to the far right wing of the GOP?Do you mean that he needed to
try to show everyone that he was a "Severe Conservative"?That he
would reject a 10-1 spending cuts to revenue? That he would expect Latinos to
"self-deport". If by "meat grinder" you mean that
one needs to abandon moderation, common sense and reasonableness in order to get
the nomination, then, yes, you are correct. I believe that this
country needs a strong GOP to balance the Dems. But if the party
leaders believe that they lost because they were not "conservative"
enough, their party will slowly (maybe quickly) drift into oblivion.
Paul, That "meat grinder" was built and operated by the
SuperPACs that Citizens United made possible.Remember, it was Newt
Gingrich who ran the devastating 30 minute anti-Romney TV program about Bain
Capital during the primaries, and Gingrich's campaign would not have even
existed without Sheldon Adleson's infusion of more than $10 million into
Gingrich's campaign. "This ugly process left a scent of
blood in the political waters, leading the sharks on the left to a
feast."Your slanted hyperbole aside... yes, it's an ugly
process. The only way to make it less ugly is to get anonymous corporate
influence out of politics. If we can't reduce the amount that corporations
spend on elections, at least we should demand that politicians be required to
reveal their corporate sponsors.
The fact that we let political parties decide whose names appear on the ballot
dramatically increases the likelihood that we'll end up with leaders from
the far ends of the political spectrum rather than the middle.In the
end, though, I don't think the nominating process was what did Romney in.
In fact, he never would have been nominated under the 2008 rules. The new
process is what forced the GOP to move past the "anybody but Romney"
The Republican primaries were geared towards the far right of the radically
right wing Republican party. Unfortunately for the GOP, America no longer looks
like the cranky old white guys you hear on Fox News, and AM radio rants. It
wasn't the primaries that damaged Mitt's election chances, it was his
refusal to stand up to the far, far, right that sunk his presidential
aspirations.You can gift wrap the tired old conservative message any
way you want, but if it doesn't appeal to women, Hispanics, Blacks, gays,
and young people, the GOP will continue to lose elections.
I hope that we never hear from Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove ever again. I was
surprised that he still continued to circulate after leaving the House in the
1990's. How come we never hear from Jim Wright or Tom Delay now they have
left. Why does he keep reappearing?The Republicans should have won
the women vote "Hugh Hefner does not like us because we don't think
that women are objects for his skin magazine." The Republicans should get
the youth vote, "We want you to have an individual social security account
so the Democrats can't raid your pension to buy votes from well-to-do
The first reason Romney lost was because he was a Republican. Example..your
statemnt about our "horrible economic woes". That evaluation does not
reflect the way most Americans experience the economy. 8% unemployment means you
can argue academicly about the size and speed of the recovery but "most"
Americans have not lost their jobs, nor have they experienced much in the way
wage deductions that is different than the last two decades. A 16
trillion dollar deficit may be fodder for conservative rantings, but a 16
trillion dollar deficit with low interest rates, and low taxes doesn't
effect the daily lives of anyone. So first and formost Romney lost because
Republicans need a reality check. Now it doesn't mean that unemployment and
the deficit aren't serious issues but they aren't driving forces in
the average Americans daily life.
No, there were many, many reasons why Romney lost.Americans simply
don't like people we can't trust.
There is an article today about conservative Joe Scarborough saying that the
"republican media" lied to their audience. Because of these lies and
telling people how good the election was going to be for republicans, they were
in a bubble of non-belief. There was no game plan to counter Obama because they
all believed that they were going to win.What a shock. There are
plenty of Americans that do not think or feel the way that Fox watchers, Rush
listeners do. They had no idea that it was a majority.Interesting.
I saw a reporter asking folks celebrating the Obama victory in Chicago, why they
were happy for the victory? They all answered "free stuff". Much of it
was false assumsions. Romney offered Jobs and higher pay. We know what the
"With that said, Marco Rubio for president in 2016."I'm sure
Mr Rubio doesn't want to spend the next 4 years dodging questions like
"do you think pregnancy by rape is God's will?"The hope
for Republicans is that both parties will be running meat grinders in 2016.
The GOP could dredge reagan up and start grooming him for the 2016 election. But
he'll lose unless the party recognises that the nation has matured, evolved
and moved on past them and that it's not good politics to bet it all on a
"No need for primary fights to give the other side fodder to work
with."I love this. Let's just do away with democracy
(allowing the electorate to have a voice in who the nominee is), as long as we
can win and regain control. Let's leave it up to the party bosses to choose
our leaders for us. Sounds a lot like how the Kremlin handles things. And here I
thought the Republicans were all out of new ideas!
The same things were said after 2008. What happened?The
GOP moved even farther right. I'm not holding my breath that
they're going to change to become more appealing to the masses. If
anything, they'll continue to kick folks out of their tent who share
moderate views and continue to go off the deep end with their radical special
interests. Pretty soon, the only folks voting for the GOP will be mindless
Evangelicals, Rush, Rove, and the Koch Bros.
It's Romney's fault that he ended up in a position where he had to try
and convince (to use one example) women that he favored the standard abortion
exemptions when during a debate he said absolutely he'd be in favor of
eliminating all abortions no exceptions.
Has anyone else noticed that there is already speculation about candidates in
2016? When did "elections" become the main political topic instead of
elected reps solving the problems of the nation? The huge divisions in the
electorate, mean that the losing party must mobilize soon to raise the money
needed to compete. I would guess that early in the New Year, Rick Santorum or
Paul Ryan or Rob Portman will announce the formation of an exploratory committee
to consider a run for President. Yikes!How does Britain get away
with restricting the madness to 60 days?
Rubio? HA! The GOP has a lot of wholesale changes to make if they intend to
offer a candidtate that the US finds worthy.And until such changes are
made, you'll likely see San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro in the White House
after President Obama.C'mon...McCain? Palin? Romney?Give us
someone of substance please.
Romney might well have won....if he didn't tick off women, students,
immigrants, the elderly, most of Europe, his home state, his other home state,
his Veep's home state, a bunch of other states, auto workers, the
struggling lower class, the struggling middle class, Israel, single parents,
gays, straights, small business owners, medium-sized business owners, the
businesses he crumbled, unions, families, retirees, veterans...did I leave
KDave: "I saw a reporter asking folks celebrating the Obama victory in
Chicago, why they were happy for the victory? They all answered "free
stuff". "Baloney. Name the program. Name the channel. Name
the reporter.Seriously, the conservative belief that those who voted
for Obama did so because they were lazy and expected the government to take care
of them is simply wrong, offensive, and guarantees the dwindling relevancy of
conservatives in future elections.
Republican => Archie Bunker => Rush LimbaughSee where this
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments