Republican Party on the Decline?

[Albion]

It depends on what you consider a "handout." In my experience, to Republicans, almost every government program is construed as a "handout," regardless of whether it improves social mobility or otherwise.

Perhaps the company you keep has made it seem that way. In my experience, most government programs are NOT viewed that way.

These reforms would undoubtedly be impugned as "handouts" by American conservatives who know little better than their current system.

Now it becomes clearer why you wrote what you did above.

 

[Aldebaran]

God will destroy the world if we make it a better place? Sometimes I struggle to understand conservative Christian reasoning.

I wish I knew where you get your reasoning from. It would make it easier to have a meaningful conversation with you.

 

[AceHero]

I've often wondered how if elected Romney would have gotten around to repealing Obamacare since it was so closely related to the successful system he helped create in Massachusetts.

It may be successful in some ways (more people do have health insurance now than used to), it's also created more than a few problems as well. It ain't perfect, by a long shot.

Certainly, and I know the two aren't the exact same system (you'd know more about this than me), but my main point was that I would've enjoyed seeing Romney defend his healthcare plan as governor while trying to figure out what exactly he was going to replace Obamacare with.

It's incredible how far we've gotten from meeting in the middle to having one party accept most of the other party's ideas just to have that party completely disassociate itself with those ideas when they're passed by the other party. It's absolutely infuriating.

The democrats haven't gotten much better, given that some have started to adopt the same ideas and tactics of the GOP, but at least the ideal of cooperation hasn't been lost on them. Sometimes to their detriment, such as with the Dodd-Frank act which, after GOP input became much more watered down and feckless, and the GOP still didn't vote for it.

But, however bad the democrats have gotten, even at the height of their protests with President Bush over Iraq, no one in the democratic leadership ever said their "number one goal" was to ensure that Bush was a "one-term president." That indicates a severe lack of even the illusion that you're trying to work together.

-- A2SG, ayup....

And that's the problem with Obamacare: it's not a very progressive plan and yet Republicans refuse to acknowledge that Obama and the Democrats really aren't that liberal.

The Democrats are only liberal if you compare them side by side with the Republicans, and even so, not by much when you consider their actions over the past few decades. The Republicans are just not willing to admit that they've been taken over by a far-right ideology that the John Birchers could have only dreamed about in the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[The Outlier]

Um, I never said they were against rules, only that they were in favor of certain ones that used religion and religious doctrine as their basis, and as such forced those doctrines and rules on those who choose not to believe in them. You claimed it was liberals who did this, I simply pointed out your error.

So where do you advocate we should get our ethical standards from?- because if you say "ourselves" or "common sense" then everyone will have their own standards and their own common sense. We have to get our standards from a source outside ourselves because ourselves is where the problem lies.

Either way, the point remains: it is conservatives, not liberals, who are interested in controlling peoples lives as regards birth control. The fact that some conservatives don't follow in lockstep with all of them doesn't negate that fact.

Then why are conservatives told that the only way to be is accepting of whatever someone else believes. That is a rule in and of itself. Why are conservatives told to believe the research behind climate change? That's a rule in and of itself. Why are they told to have healthcare? That's a rule in and of itself.

First, Christianity came into being centuries after mankind started forming civilizations, but second, and more importantly, it isn't the basis for US law. Conservatives seem confused about that fact, while liberals are not. So it is, once again, not liberals who are using religion and religious doctrine to control the lives of other people.

It came into being with the patriarch in the OT. Everything Jesus said was based on the OT passages. The golden rule, for example was already in the Bible: "Love your neighbor as yourself." You didn't prove that liberals aren't confused about that and that conservatives are. The idea that man is inherently sinful is the basis of US law. That comes from the Bible.

Um, I never said it was a logical fallacy. I simply said it didn't help you make your case.

Would it help my case to say they were infallible?

It was that, I admit.

No applause, just throw money.

True enough. Which is why anti-discrimination laws apply to christians just as much as they apply to everyone else, just as an example.

The problem is, they don't seem to apply to anyone else. Discrimintaion is treating someone badly or persecuting them because of what they believe, not just disagreeing with what they believe.

Well, you did counter the statement that it isn't liberals who are trying to control the actions of others through the law according to their own beliefs by pointing out that liberals can be religious. I pointed out the fact that liberals don't use religion for that purpose, as opposed to conservatives who often do.

Depends on if you consider atheism a religion.

Then I guess I'm unclear on the relevance of pointing it out.

I seem to remember someone saying conservatives were extremists. Maybe it was someone else though.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Certainly, and I know the two aren't the exact same system (you'd know more about this than me), but my main point was that I would've enjoyed seeing Romney defend his healthcare plan as governor while trying to figure out what exactly he was going to replace Obamacare with.

This is why the Republican Party made a mistake in supporting Romney, he was the wrong candidate to run against Obama.

And that's the problem with Obamacare: it's not a very progressive plan and yet Republicans refuse to acknowledge that Obama and the Democrats really aren't that liberal.

Actually it is a liberal plan, it is designed to wreck the healthcare system so that government can then swoop in to impliment government controlled healthcare. This isn't something fits with classical liberalism, but classical liberalism isn't like modern liberalism in many respects.

The Democrats are only liberal if you compare them side by side with the Republicans, and even so, not by much when you consider their actions over the past few decades. The Republicans are just not willing to admit that they've been taken over by a far-right ideology that the John Birchers could have only dreamed about in the 1950s and 1960s.

Actually the far-left has control of the Democrat Party. Furthermore the Tea Party isn't far-right, while they can politically range from center-left to far-right, they pretty much average out to center-right.

 

[William67]

God will destroy the world if we make it a better place? Sometimes I struggle to understand conservative Christian reasoning.

You see absolute govt control over every aspect of your life as making the world a better place? You really need help.

 

[William67]

That's not so. He's exactly as conservative as he feels he needs to pretend to be to get elected. When he ran for Senate here back in 1994, he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy. Then he was "fiercely conservative" when he ran for President.

He twists with the winds of change.



It's been problematic, granted...but not quite that catastrophic.



Which is why I fully support moving to single payer.

-- A2SG, but that's kinda off topic, so....

You do realize that a single payer plan would bankrupt most small businesses? I would be forced to close the doors on my business and throw everyone out of work.

Of course, thats what most leftists want. They want the people to be slaves to the state.

 

[Aldebaran]

You do realize that a single payer plan would bankrupt most small businesses? I would be forced to close the doors on my business and throw everyone out of work.

Of course, thats what most leftists want. They want the people to be slaves to the state.

Bringing 9 million illegals into the mix isn't enough of a populace to guarantee enough voters to secure democrat victories in future elections. They need still more people dependent on the govt.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is why the Republican Party made a mistake in supporting Romney, he was the wrong candidate to run against Obama.

So who was the right candidate, and why didn't the Republican Party support him?

Because you have to admit, as mistakes go, Romney was a whopper. I mean, look at the state of the country in 2008 -- economy was in the tank, unemployment was up, our debt was spiraling out of control -- we may not have been falling apart, but it certainly looked that way... and it was all too easy to blame Obama for most if not all of it.

The 2008 election was the GOP's to lose; Obama's record up to that point did half their campaigning for them. How did they manage to turn that much gold into lead?

 

[GarfieldJL]

So who was the right candidate, and why didn't the Republican Party support him?

I was hoping for Newt Gingrich, because under the leadership of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, we saw an economic boom.

Plus I thought his ethics violation would be a potential landmine for the Democrats (especially given the insider trading that some in the House were getting away with at the time). Considering Newt Gingrich's violation stemmed from him taking the time to teach a college history class, on the side an a lawyer screwing up some paperwork (and the chief investigator was Nancy Pelosi).

Because you have to admit, as mistakes go, Romney was a whopper. I mean, look at the state of the country in 2008 -- economy was in the tank, unemployment was up, our debt was spiraling out of control -- we may not have been falling apart, but it certainly looked that way... and it was all too easy to blame Obama for most if not all of it.

The economy was still a disaster in 2012. Romney was the wrong candidate to run against Obama for a number of reasons, the fact he did as well as he did against Obama, just goes to show how weak Obama was.

The 2008 election was the GOP's to lose; Obama's record up to that point did half their campaigning for them. How did they manage to turn that much gold into lead?

You're talking 2012, in any event the reasoning as to why Romney was the wrong candidate.

1. His wealth, he was born into wealth, and whether or not he had to make his own wealth is not relevant. Obama's favorite tactic is class warfare. A lot of other Republican Candidates would have been immune to this attack (even if they were now wealthy), because they were born into middle class or in some cases poverty and clawed their way up.
2. Romneycare, this prevented him from seriously going after Obamacare. Every other candidate could go after Obamacare, with impunity.
3. Romney's personality, he was often stiff as a board.
4. Romney offered no stark contrast between himself and Obama. In fact he got compared to an "etch-a-sketch" by his own campaign.
5. Romney was ruthless towards fellow Republicans in the primary, but treated Obama almost with kids gloves in the general.

I could go on and on, it was pretty obvious even in the primaries that if Romney was the nominee, Obama was probably going to win.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was hoping for Newt Gingrich, because under the leadership of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, we saw an economic boom.

A boom for which Clinton got the lion's share of the credit -- Gingrich's greatest public contribution to that era was beating the impeachment drum -- and then getting raked over the coals over his own extramarital misadventures.

Plus I thought his ethics violation would be a potential landmine for the Democrats (especially given the insider trading that some in the House were getting away with at the time). Considering Newt Gingrich's violation stemmed from him taking the time to teach a college history class, on the side an a lawyer screwing up some paperwork (and the chief investigator was Nancy Pelosi).

Pointing fingers when you're the first Speaker of the House in US history to step down after your own party turns on you reeks of desperation.

Just saying, Gingrich might not have wanted to run on his congressional record.

The economy was still a disaster in 2012. Romney was the wrong candidate to run against Obama for a number of reasons, the fact he did as well as he did against Obama, just goes to show how weak Obama was.



You're talking 2012,

yeah, I mean the 2012 election

in any event the reasoning as to why Romney was the wrong candidate.

1. His wealth, he was born into wealth, and whether or not he had to make his own wealth is not relevant. Obama's favorite tactic is class warfare. A lot of other Republican Candidates would have been immune to this attack (even if they were now wealthy), because they were born into middle class or in some cases poverty and clawed their way up.
2. Romneycare, this prevented him from seriously going after Obamacare. Every other candidate could go after Obamacare, with impunity.
3. Romney's personality, he was often stiff as a board.
4. Romney offered no stark contrast between himself and Obama. In fact he got compared to an "etch-a-sketch" by his own campaign.
5. Romney was ruthless towards fellow Republicans in the primary, but treated Obama almost with kids gloves in the general.

I could go on and on, it was pretty obvious even in the primaries that if Romney was the nominee, Obama was probably going to win.

Which raises an important question -- the GOP made a huge mistake running a candidate like Romney -- Obama's record being what it was, they could've run a tuna sandwich and still won... if their judgment was that bad regarding who to put in the White House, what kind of blunders would they have made had they actually won?

Better question -- what has the GOP learned since then? Not about winning elections, but about foreseeing the potential consequences of their decisions?

 

[William67]

So who was the right candidate, and why didn't the Republican Party support him?

Because you have to admit, as mistakes go, Romney was a whopper. I mean, look at the state of the country in 2008 -- economy was in the tank, unemployment was up, our debt was spiraling out of control -- we may not have been falling apart, but it certainly looked that way... and it was all too easy to blame Obama for most if not all of it.

The 2008 election was the GOP's to lose; Obama's record up to that point did half their campaigning for them. How did they manage to turn that much gold into lead?

Youre kidding right? It was the Dems who tanked the economy starting in 2006 when they took over. When Clinton left office, the debt was just over $5 trillion. When Bush Jr left office, the debt was about $9.5 trillion. By the time Obola leaves office, it will be over $20 trillion. So, Obola has created more debt in 8 years than Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. did in 20.

 

[Aldebaran]

Youre kidding right? It was the Dems who tanked the economy starting in 2006 when they took over. When Clinton left office, the debt was just over $5 trillion. When Bush Jr left office, the debt was about $9.5 trillion. By the time Obola leaves office, it will be over $20 trillion. So, Obola has created more debt in 8 years than Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. did in 20.

Small correction.....Obola has created more national debt than ALL presidents from Washington to Clinton combined! Let's just hope our next prez won't be another liberal democrat.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Youre kidding right? It was the Dems who tanked the economy starting in 2006 when they took over. When Clinton left office, the debt was just over $5 trillion. When Bush Jr left office, the debt was about $9.5 trillion. By the time Obola leaves office, it will be over $20 trillion. So, Obola has created more debt in 8 years than Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. did in 20.

Indeed -- As I said, I meant 2012.

Incidentally, the President's name is Obama, not Obola. Interesting mistake.

 

[GarfieldJL]

A boom for which Clinton got the lion's share of the credit -- Gingrich's greatest public contribution to that era was beating the impeachment drum -- and then getting raked over the coals over his own extramarital misadventures.

An affair that was only revealed because Democrat operatives had wiretapped Newt's phones without a warrant...

For all the concern the public has of warrantless wiretapping, the Republican candidate was himself a victim of warrantless wiretapping...

Pointing fingers when you're the first Speaker of the House in US history to step down after your own party turns on you reeks of desperation.

Most of the core people involved in forcing him to step down were later forced to leave office due to corruption...

Just saying, Gingrich might not have wanted to run on his congressional record.

If it were against some other candidates, you'd be correct. However with all the scandals going on, the recent insider trading activity, etc. Newt would have been perfect, since his ethics scandal would have been something that would infuriate the public towards Democrats once the details came out, and he was a victim of warrantless wiretapping when people were worried about government spying on them.

yeah, I mean the 2012 election

I figured you were.

Which raises an important question -- the GOP made a huge mistake running a candidate like Romney -- Obama's record being what it was, they could've run a tuna sandwich and still won... if their judgment was that bad regarding who to put in the White House, what kind of blunders would they have made had they actually won?

One key mistake many Republicans made was letting the media push them into supporting Romney. I'll be honest, a tuna sandwich was probably a stronger candidate than Romney.

A lot of the establishment Republicans want to be liked, they want Democrats to like them, and they can't seem to understand that Democrats won't like them period.

Better question -- what has the GOP learned since then? Not about winning elections, but about foreseeing the potential consequences of their decisions?

Who knows. In my opinion the Republicans need to start listening to the Tea Party, even if they don't necessarily agree with Tea Party members, they need to respect them and hear them out.

Tea Party members wouldn't be butting heads with Republican Leadership if they explained why they make the decisions they do, if they stop trying to undercut the Tea Party, etc. I would also say the Republicans in office should have some Tea Party members on their staff, even if they don't necessarily agree. It is good to have people that can give you another viewpoint on things.

One thing the Republicans need to do is start listening to people like Ted Cruz more, he's either the biggest genius in Washington right now, or the luckiest idiot in Washington, given Obamacare's implosion just after Republicans caved in to the Democrats on the shutdown. In fact the website mess was so spectacular, it made the shutdown old news in the span of a few days, and made Cruz look like he could forsee the future.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Youre kidding right? It was the Dems who tanked the economy starting in 2006 when they took over. When Clinton left office, the debt was just over $5 trillion. When Bush Jr left office, the debt was about $9.5 trillion. By the time Obola leaves office, it will be over $20 trillion. So, Obola has created more debt in 8 years than Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. did in 20.

Not only are your numbers just wrong (W left with a federal debt of about $10.6 billion), but this is one of the most mind-numbingly simplistic summaries of the federal debt I've read in a while.

Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff?

For anyone who's interested, Daily federal debt figures 2002-2014

 

[GarfieldJL]

Not only are your numbers just wrong (W left with a federal debt of about $10.6 billion), but this is one of the most mind-numbingly simplistic summaries of the federal debt I've read in a while.

Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff?

For anyone who's interested, Daily federal debt figures 2002-2014

It was $10.6 trillion, not billion, only about $4 trillion of that was Bush the younger's if I remember correctly. Obama added more debt in about 3 years and 2 to 5 months into his first term, than Bush did in his entire Presidency.

 

[TLK Valentine]

An affair that was only revealed because Democrat operatives had wiretapped Newt's phones without a warrant...

Truth is truth, regardless how it is obtained.

Granted, it never would've stood up in a court of law, but an election is no court of law, is it?

For all the concern the public has of warrantless wiretapping, the Republican candidate was himself a victim of warrantless wiretapping...

Old news -- waterboarding was the new wiretapping... and remember, the Republicans supported that. Wouldn't do for them to whine about wiretapping at that point, now would it? Mixed messages and all that -- "one law for us, another for the subhumans."

Most of the core people involved in forcing him to step down were later forced to leave office due to corruption...

And still they were the people closest to him on the totem pole -- and you know what they say about sleeping with the dogs.

That's the problem with politics -- perception is reality.

If it were against some other candidates, you'd be correct. However with all the scandals going on, the recent insider trading activity, etc. Newt would have been perfect, since his ethics scandal would have been something that would infuriate the public towards Democrats once the details came out, and he was a victim of warrantless wiretapping when people were worried about government spying on them.

How exactly does Newt Gingrich's ethics scandal infuriate the public towards Democrats? Help me out here.

And "warrentless wiretapping" is amateur night to an electorate who had become sadly accustomed to Abu Ghraib and GITMO. Newt wasn't planning to whine his way to a victory, was he?

I figured you were.

Good.

One key mistake many Republicans made was letting the media push them into supporting Romney. I'll be honest, a tuna sandwich was probably a stronger candidate than Romney.

Which only makes the GOP's lapse in judgement all the worse.

A lot of the establishment Republicans want to be liked, they want Democrats to like them, and they can't seem to understand that Democrats won't like them period.

And the reverse is also true -- which makes Romney's, and by extension, the GOP's failure all the more complete.

Second, a candidate can win over the opposition; it's not completely unheard of -- look at how many Democrats supported Reagan.

Sad truth about politics -- you don't have to be the best to win; you just have to be the second-worst.

Who knows. In my opinion the Republicans need to start listening to the Tea Party, even if they don't necessarily agree with Tea Party members, they need to respect them and hear them out.

That's exactly what Romney tried -- nobody believed his sincerity.

...granted, the fact that he had none didn't help matters any, but still...

It's the moderate voters who decide elections. In an era where everything you say in the primary is a matter of public record, pretending to be uberConservative in order to rally your base in the primaries, only to switch to a kinder, gentler image to appeal to independents is insulting their intelligence.

Tea Party members wouldn't be butting heads with Republican Leadership if they explained why they make the decisions they do, if they stop trying to undercut the Tea Party, etc. I would also say the Republicans in office should have some Tea Party members on their staff, even if they don't necessarily agree. It is good to have people that can give you another viewpoint on things.

Agreed -- to a point. If they're going to start taking the TP seriously, and continue to undermine the Democrats at every turn, they're going to be seen as caring more about themselves than the country in general -- remember, half this country is Democrat -- a lot fewer are TP.

One thing the Republicans need to do is start listening to people like Ted Cruz more, he's either the biggest genius in Washington right now, or the luckiest idiot in Washington, given Obamacare's implosion just after Republicans caved in to the Democrats on the shutdown. In fact the website mess was so spectacular, it made the shutdown old news in the span of a few days, and made Cruz look like he could forsee the future.

And then it got out that it was the Republicans who were deliberately sabotaging the website... not to mention the ACA in general.

Republicans Deliberately Sabotaged the ACA Website, Hoping the Law Would Implode

News flash from Politico: Republicans have been sabotaging[bless and do not curse]Obamacare

A Blueprint for the GOP's Attempt to Sabotage Obamacare | The Nation

The Price of GOP Obamacare Sabotage In One Chart

Wonkbook: The GOP’s Obamacare chutzpah - The Washington Post

GOP Sabotage Backfires: Republican Lawmakers Confronted By Constituents Demanding To Know Why They Won’t Expand Medicaid | publichealthwatch

PROTIP: You're not foreseeing the future when you "predict" the disaster you helped cause.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Truth is truth, regardless how it is obtained.

Granted, it never would've stood up in a court of law, but an election is no court of law, is it?

Didn't stop people from voting for Bill Clinton...

Old news -- waterboarding was the new wiretapping... and remember, the Republicans supported that. Wouldn't do for them to whine about wiretapping at that point, now would it? Mixed messages and all that -- "one law for us, another for the subhumans."

Why are you holding a man responsible for waterboarding, that happened during the Bush Administration, when said individual wasn't even in elected office?

And still they were the people closest to him on the totem pole -- and you know what they say about sleeping with the dogs.

That's the problem with politics -- perception is reality.

It could be spun both ways, it could that they wanted to do things that were corrupt but Newt kept getting in their way.

How exactly does Newt Gingrich's ethics scandal infuriate the public towards Democrats? Help me out here.

Slapped with an ethics investigation and ethics violation over teaching a college history class, versus people in congress getting away with getting rich off of insider trading without so much as a slap on the wrist.

Remember the insider trading thing was one of the major stories of 2012. The public would look at the ethics violation as a witchhunt, and considering the lead investigator (Nancy Pelosi) was potentially implicated in said insider trading, I think it would hurt Democrats far more than it would hurt Newt.

And "warrentless wiretapping" is amateur night to an electorate who had become sadly accustomed to Abu Ghraib and GITMO. Newt wasn't planning to whine his way to a victory, was he?

Except Newt Gingrich can't be tied to Abu Ghraib or GITMO, and attempting to do so is rather laughable. Gingrich was a private citizen at the time, he couldn't be tied to President George W. Bush at all.

Which only makes the GOP's lapse in judgement all the worse.

Believe me I got a lot of flak from some Conservatives when I kept telling them Romney was a big mistake, and he probably wouldn't win.

And the reverse is also true -- which makes Romney's, and by extension, the GOP's failure all the more complete.

Nope, the Democrats just want a monopoly on power. It's why they call their own supporters, idiots behind closed doors.

Second, a candidate can win over the opposition; it's not completely unheard of -- look at how many Democrats supported Reagan.

Reagan didn't have the personality of used car salesman. Btw, if you read into how Reagan really was, you'd know the Reagan you saw on camera, was the same Reagan that was seen behind closed doors.

Sad truth about politics -- you don't have to be the best to win; you just have to be the second-worst.

If that were true, Romney would be President.

That's exactly what Romney tried -- nobody believed his sincerity.

...granted, the fact that he had none didn't help matters any, but still...

Actually it does matter that he wasn't sincere, Conservatives tend to be less trusting of politicians.

It's the moderate voters who decide elections. In an era where everything you say in the primary is a matter of public record, pretending to be uberConservative in order to rally your base in the primaries, only to switch to a kinder, gentler image to appeal to independents is insulting their intelligence.

Didn't Romney win the independent vote though? If you repeatedly insult the intelligence of your base, and cause enough of them to stay home in disgust, then the independents don't matter. In order for the independents to be the deciding factor, you have to be able to count on the support of your base.

Agreed -- to a point. If they're going to start taking the TP seriously, and continue to undermine the Democrats at every turn, they're going to be seen as caring more about themselves than the country in general -- remember, half this country is Democrat -- a lot fewer are TP.

As of the end of 2013, only 31% of the country was Democrat, 25% was Republican, a record 42% was Independent.
Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents

And then it got out that it was the Republicans who were deliberately sabotaging the website... not to mention the ACA in general.

Republicans Deliberately Sabotaged the ACA Website, Hoping the Law Would Implode

News flash from Politico: Republicans have been sabotaging[bless and do not curse]Obamacare

A Blueprint for the GOP's Attempt to Sabotage Obamacare | The Nation

The Price of GOP Obamacare Sabotage In One Chart

Wonkbook: The GOP’s Obamacare chutzpah - The Washington Post

GOP Sabotage Backfires: Republican Lawmakers Confronted By Constituents Demanding To Know Why They Won’t Expand Medicaid | publichealthwatch

PROTIP: You're not foreseeing the future when you "predict" the disaster you helped cause.

How exactly could the GOP sabotage what they had absolutely 0 input in the implimentation of?

All you're proving is that the most of the media are shills for the Democrat Party...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Didn't stop people from voting for Bill Clinton...

Bush I/Clinton was Obama/Romney in reverse.


Bush I was president during a recession who had a weak domestic/economic record to run on -- nothing near as bad as what Obama was dealing with from 2008-2012, but the difference is that the Democrats picked the absolute best candidate, as opposed to the worst.

Whereas Romney had no personality to speak of and was utterly unlikable, Clinton had personality to spare and was extremely well liked. He appealed to every demographic and facet of the American people -- whereas Romney in 2012 wasn't even all that liked by his own party.

Why are you holding a man responsible for waterboarding, that happened during the Bush Administration, when said individual wasn't even in elected office?

I'm not holding Gingrich responsible, I'm just saying that listening to him whine about wiretapping in an era where we were torturing people (Right-wing spin aside, waterboarding is torture) would made him sound like a petty crybaby.

It could be spun both ways, it could that they wanted to do things that were corrupt but Newt kept getting in their way.

Only if Newt could portray himself as a modern-day Lot -- the one righteous and upstanding man in a corrupt city. Doubtful anyone was going to fall for that.

Slapped with an ethics investigation and ethics violation over teaching a college history class, versus people in congress getting away with getting rich off of insider trading without so much as a slap on the wrist.

Pointing fingers and whining "But moooooooommmmmm! They're being bad too!" is hardly what I'd call leadership material.

Granted that Gingrich hasn't a shred of integrity or personal responsibility; best not to showcase that.

Remember the insider trading thing was one of the major stories of 2012. The public would look at the ethics violation as a witchhunt, and considering the lead investigator (Nancy Pelosi) was potentially implicated in said insider trading, I think it would hurt Democrats far more than it would hurt Newt.

Except it didn't.

Except Newt Gingrich can't be tied to Abu Ghraib or GITMO, and attempting to do so is rather laughable. Gingrich was a private citizen at the time, he couldn't be tied to President George W. Bush at all.

Never said he was tied to it, but the public had already been shocked, then outraged, then numbed to the realities of it.

And you think Gingrich is going to whine his way to the White House over wiretapping?

Believe me I got a lot of flak from some Conservatives when I kept telling them Romney was a big mistake, and he probably wouldn't win.

I believe you -- I've noticed some Conservatives have difficulty dealing with unpleasant realities.

Nope, the Democrats just want a monopoly on power. It's why they call their own supporters, idiots behind closed doors.

Romney didn't impress anyone behind closed doors -- too bad his "47%" comment didn't stay behind the closed doors.

You don't get very far accusing the other side of the things your side gets caught doing.

Reagan didn't have the personality of used car salesman. Btw, if you read into how Reagan really was, you'd know the Reagan you saw on camera, was the same Reagan that was seen behind closed doors.

100% agreed -- Reagan was popular, funny, and charismatic both in and out of the spotlight... Romney shared exactly none of those traits.

If that were true, Romney would be President.

It is true, which is exactly why he's not.

Actually it does matter that he wasn't sincere, Conservatives tend to be less trusting of politicians.

"Actually," you just agreed with me. Read it again -- Romney came off as insincere precisely because he was insincere.

Didn't Romney win the independent vote though?

Not really, no.

If you repeatedly insult the intelligence of your base, and cause enough of them to stay home in disgust, then the independents don't matter. In order for the independents to be the deciding factor, you have to be able to count on the support of your base.

And Romney failed on every level.

As of the end of 2013, only 31% of the country was Democrat, 25% was Republican, a record 42% was Independent.
Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents

Relevance? All it shows is that more Americans are sick of both parties... they want someone remotely trustworthy, so more of them held their noses and re-elected Obama... after considering the alternative.

As I said, the race was the GOP's to lose... and Romney found the way to do it.

How exactly could the GOP sabotage what they had absolutely 0 input in the implimentation of?

All you're proving is that the most of the media are shills for the Democrat Party...

Or... I'm proving that you didn't click on any of those links.

not a one, amirite?