Go to her link, so that maybe she'll get more traffic and won't be too mad. If I get a complaint I may leave the link, but delete her paragraphs and just address the numbered points.
Once again, Republicans are seeing the results and fantasizing causes.
Laura Hollis
Nov 08, 2012Click if you like this column!
I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year's elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:
1. We are outnumbered
We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics, evangelicals; they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn't enough. What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered. For the moment. It's just that simple.
To believe Romney represented "a free republic with a free people" or "free exchange and free enterprise" is completely delusional. You lost because you offered a candidate who was indistinguishable from his opponent- at least to anyone who wasn't just blindly "anti-Obama". So yes, the pro-Romney people were outnumbered- by the pro-Obama people, the anti-Republican people, the Ron Paul people (who you stabbed in the back), the REAL pro-liberty people who see through the rigged game, the apathetic people, the disenfranchised, and the people who have given up. Until you own it, you'll find yourself there again and again.
2. It wasn't the candidate(s)
Some are already saying, "Romney was the wrong guy"; "He should have picked Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get [someplace else]." With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect. Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit harder on Benghazi. But for those who would have loved that, there are those who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost. See #1, above.
Yes, it WAS the candidate(s)- at least to a large degree. Pretending it wasn't is delusional. Who cares if he "ran a strategic and well-organized campaign"? You can try to sell sewage as drinking water with a "strategic and well-organized campaign" but if people see what you are really selling, don't whine that they didn't buy it. "No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost." That's just not accepting responsibility for doing something stupid. And, yes, Romney was a stupid choice. You alienated your voters base by nominating him against the wishes of the grass roots voters. I personally know of at least three staunch Republicans- people I would have bet money on to vote for anyone as long as he ran as a Republican- who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney this time. Two voted for Gary Johnson and one refused to vote for a presidential candidate at all because they couldn't vote for a liberal socialist even though he had an "R" after his name.
3. It's the culture, stupid.
We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting booth. It is long past time we admit that that is not where the battle really is. We abdicated control of the culture: starting back in the 1960s. And now our largest primary social institutions: education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the government to undermine the institutions that instill good character: marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are, at least two full generations later; we are reaping what we have sown. It took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media, and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every election goodbye from here on out. And much more.
Yes, it probably is the culture- and "conservatives" are half of the problem. No one "controls" the culture, so you couldn't have abdicated that control. The belief that "you" did once control it is a part of where you went off-track. Those "primary social institutions" you speak of: "education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment), and marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches" should be safe from anyone's political control- yours included. Once you pretend it is OK for government to control, say, marriage, then your opposition will agree with you and try to control it in the way they would prefer. Government has no business handing out "marriage licenses" or being involved in any marriage. Gay marriage ceases to be an issue when you refuse to allow government to sanction or ration marriages. The same goes for schools/"education". Education is MUCH too important to allow government to control or regulate it in any way. And if you allow religious ideas to be enshrined in "law" (anti-sex laws, prohibition, etc.), you open the door for religious ideas that you hate or fear ("Sharia Law") to be used in the same way- and once soiled by association with The State, your church is never again clean. You can't "reclaim" things that never belonged to you. Remove the government monopoly and then build your own "conservative" alternatives and let the market decide. If you can't bring yourself to do this it may mean you know your "product" is not worthy.
4. America has become a nation of adolescents
The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity. Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are, as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups. Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending.This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and brazenness of our enemies. American voters stick their fingers in their ears and say, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you."It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the helm when those circumstances arrive.
So, blaming everyone else is "mature" and "responsible"? "Romney is a grown-up."? Hardly. But this isn't about Romney, no matter how badly you want that to be true. It wasn't "Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending." that won. No, it was government regulation of sex, prohibition, censorship, enforced "morality", and such as that which lost. And, Romney is just a big a proponent of "irresponsible spending" as Obama. RomneyCare? A military that is bigger/more expensive than the militaries of the rest of the world combined? How are those socialist programs "responsible"? When Americans do grow up, if they ever do, it will be just as horrible for the Fathers of the Republican side as it will be for the Mommies of the Democrat side. Overbearing and overprotective parents don't fare well if they try to hold down grown children.
5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote
It's the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this year. Suffice it to say that the only "war on women" was the one waged by the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to their "lady parts", comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama, trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact that large numbers of women (largely married) used their "lady smarts" instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves.
Yes, this was stupid. But the stupidity comes about because Republicans are so divisive on "female" issues. When you shut out people over these issues, where do you expect them to go? To your opponent. When you allow The State to become involved in health care, why does it surprise you when it starts making demands you don't like? When you impose your own type of "Christian Sharia Law" on people whose beliefs differ from yours, why does it surprise you that they go off the deep end in opposition to everything you "stand for"? True, Democrats use gender (and race) just as much as Republicans, but in a way that seems to be welcoming as opposed to the divisive tactics of the Republicans. Sure, Democrats are just using them for their votes, but as long as you make people feel welcomed...
6. It's not about giving up on "social issues"
No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and Richard.)
That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible.We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.We defend family: mothers, fathers, marriage, children; because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80 percent. When Roe v. Wadewas decided in 1973, many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality. More Americans than ever define themselves as "pro-life". What is tragic is that tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure out what should have been obvious before.There is no "giving up" on social issues. There is only the realization that we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will out in the end.
"That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible." You should try having some principles, then. They are even more unpopular than "values". And with principles you don't get caught up in the fact that you are outnumbered or lost an election. "...we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible." So this is why you still support socialism, anti-liberty "laws", and government regulation of the economy? It doesn't matter that your opponents do the same, only in different ways. The most outrageous claim, though, is this: "We defend family: “ mothers, fathers, marriage, children“ because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80 percent." Your beloved "War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs" is a HUMONGOUS factor in this destruction of families. Every Drug War supporter values the authority to tell others what they may and may not introduce into their bloodstream above intact families. Hypocrisy in the extreme! "...many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality"- only to those who are already "true believers". Don't give up on social issues, but realize that this isn't a legitimate political zone. Trying to turn it into one is part of what alienates voters.
7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one.
I have to laugh- bitterly- when I read conservative pundits trying to assure us that Obama "has to know" that he does not have a mandate, and so he will have to govern from the middle. I don't know what they're smoking. Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He views himself as having been re-elected to complete the "fundamental transformation" of America, the basic structure of which he despises. Expect much more of the same; largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz has it all laid out here.
"...America, the basic structure of which he despises" And Romney differs, how? Romney wouldn't know what the Constitution authorizes him to do if I sat down and explained it to him. He wouldn't get rid of the Department of Education, Medicare, Social Security, the FBI, the military and its foreign bases, etc. etc. etc. Nope. These things are completely anti-American, yet he would embrace them and use them anyway. This shows he despises the basic structure of America (the Constitution and Declaration of Independence- un"interpreted") just as badly as Obama does. He just pretends better. "Expect much more of the same “ largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order..." You can't seriously be claiming Romney would have not done this, are you?
8. The Corrupt Media is the enemy
Too strong? I don't think so. I have been watching the media try to throw elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives (and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing. What we observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to go.Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at it, to defend those journalists of whatever political stripe (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News and talk radio. Because you can fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in term 2.
"In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears." So, it's bad when the media does it to Romney for Obama's benefit, but it's OK that the GOP did it to Ron Paul for the benefit of Romney? "Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives..."? Don't include libertarians in that disgusting gang! Republicans have shown over and over again that they try really hard to use libertarians when it suits them, but throw us under the bus just as soon as we refuse to drink their poison.
9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst
For all the blather about "Wall Street versus Main Street", Obama's statist agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which- as with the public sector unions- are in the best position to make campaign donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from Obama's health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.
Yep. Exactly like what always happens under either of the "mainstream" parties.
10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it's personal
I've been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this time. Not just for me. I've received messages from other conservatives who are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees, even when they have been our friends. It isn't just about "my guy" versus "your guy". It is my view of America versus your view of America; a crippled, hemorrhaging, debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness, or vulgarity, so with each dumb 'tweet' or FB post by one of my happily lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete.What does this portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do not want Obama's policies, and so Republicans who support them will be toast. Good luck, guys.
"...there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees, even when they have been our friends" So, it's "an eye for an eye"? I don't delete anyone. Those who I feel the most pity for need to be exposed to the truth. They can then delete me from their "friend list" if they want, but that is their choice. I don't give up on them. "...America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me" They feel the same way. This is why no one's "view of America" should be imposed on anyone else. Live and let live- and shoot those who refuse to "let live". I never want Congress to "work together". I want them to all go home. Short of that I want gridlock. There is nothing, anywhere that "needs" a new "law". The only possible useful thing Congress could ever do in the future is abolish "laws" by the thousands without passing a single new one. They won't have the guts or the character to do that, so I don't want them doing anything at all. Never.
11. It's possible that America just has to hit rock bottom
I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really wants is for the rich to pay "a little bit more". So reasonable! Who could argue with that except a greedy racist?America is on a horrific bender. Has been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere; too many to mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we are walking now to see what is in store.For the past four years, but certainly within the past campaign season, we have tried to warn Americans. Too many refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during Obama's presidency; unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices, the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi, hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters; can be tied directly to Obama's statist philosophies, and his decisions.What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own "rock bottom", and I cannot seem to reach those who are taking it there.
"I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for..." And neither did those who voted for his "white clone", Romney. The bad things that happened during Obama's presidency would have happened under McCain. And would have continued under Romney. The Federal Reserve has been destroying the dollar since 1913- recent presidents have nothing to do with it, and can't fix it without eliminating "The Fed". "...the collapse of foreign policy"? Invading, murdering, and occupying is a "foreign policy"? Seems like another few nails in the coffin of America to me. Why do you falsely and ridiculously believe Obama's statist philosophies are any worse than Romney's- or Bush's, Clinton's, Bush the First's, Reagan's, Carter's, etc? It's all the same game, and government keeps winning and liberty keeps losing. This condition will not continue.
.
.