Sunday, November 25, 2012

Conservatism Doesn’t Lose Elections…. Weak Candidates Do

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 07:26 AM PST

Enough already!  Enough of the drumbeat from the "inside the beltway elite" telling us that we must moderate our tone on core principles in order to appeal to young women and minorities to win elections!  The punditry on the so-called right, and their explanations for the Mitt Romney loss, has been sickening to behold in the last few weeks.  Proving that these people are more disjointed and uninformed about what folks outside their Washington cocktail parties think than a sea slug is about quantum physics.  One fact that they omit from their sterling analysis is that no vast numbers of voters turned out to vote for Barack Obama because of his stances on these issues.  In fact voter turnout was down among eligible voters over the 2008 campaign and Obama received several million fewer votes than he did in his race against John McCain.  If there had been a huge groundswell of support for the Democrat's position on these subjects it would have been evident by a large turnout at the polls, but the opposite was true.  Why, pray tell, should the GOP be courting a shrinking demographic?   The bigger issue is that Mitt Romney failed to attract enough voters to take advantage of Obama's poor turnout.


It is not my intention to attack Mitt Romney.  He is, in my honest opinion, a fine and upstanding man, one of arguably higher moral character than any man who has ever pursued the highest office in the land, and I admire him a great deal for those qualities.  He was however, a weak candidate, who failed to stay on message, on attack and articulate properly the conservative alternative and why it was the answer to America's current issues. Perhaps the pundits on the right are attempting to cover their collective asses now for telling us over and over again during the primaries that he was "the only one that could win" by concocting this new demographic shift in the American electorate.  Many of us knew better, and fought vehemently against a Romney nomination during the primary process because we understood that one of the biggest sticks we could use to beat Obama over the head with was ObamaCare, and Mitt was the worst candidate to use that stick due to his participation in its forbearing legislation in Massachusetts.  And we were proven right in that regard since Romney's arguments on ObamaCare and the need for repeal were as weak kneed as Oliver Twist's request for more gruel.  Every time he broached the issue Obama countered with the similarities between his landmark legislation and Romney's and Mitt consistently failed to differentiate between the two in any believable or meaningful way.


With the ejection of the ObamaCare argument as a meaningful campaign issue we were left with two major points to attack Barack Obama on, the economy and his performance in foreign affairs.   Romney started out well in the first debate, pointing out several of Obama's failures on those issues.  I personally felt that he was a little too soft on the President and could have been even more aggressive, but he did well overall and saw a rise in the polls as a result.  Then the talking heads in the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign known as NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC, shocked by their messiah's poor performance in the debate, pulled out a new strategy.  They started talking non-stop about Romney's "likeability factor".  If ever there was a concocted issue that was invented to coerce a political opponent, this was it.  And it had the desired effect as the Romney campaign shifted out of overdrive and into first gear.  They convinced Mitt that he needed to back off, soften his tone and be more likable else he would alienate some phantom portion of the electorate that seems to desire a Mr. Rogers type character to counter the Iranian nuclear threat.  The result was to be expected, Romney never saw another bump in the polls and we are now saddled with four more years of a Marxist in the White House that will no doubt move this country even more rapidly in that disastrous direction without having to concern himself with re-election.


I do agree with the pundits in one regard, there has been and is a shifting demographic in this country that the GOP should be embracing and courting.  It is the fastest growing new political force this country has seen in the past 100 years and could ensure GOP control of both houses of congress and the White House for many decades to come if only the party would pick up and champion their positions and select candidates that do not ignore them.  It is the Libertarian leaning and Constitutional government backing Tea Party.  Had Mitt Romney at least acknowledged their existence in any meaningful way and endorsed their core beliefs (which are not so far separated from the Republican Party's own) his turnout would have been much higher and no doubt he would be currently working on his inauguration address.  Unfortunately the only mention this group gets from the punditry and campaign insiders is to blame them for the loss of a candidate that failed to appeal to them because he showed no sharp distinction between himself and the other guy.  Virtually no voters that typically back democrats crossed over to vote for Romney and the idea that we need to move the GOP further to the left to appeal to these people has been a proven failure over the past few election cycles.  We are never going to out-Democrat the Democrats so let's just drop that stupid idea right here and now!  Instead let us try to take advantage of the growing faction of voters in this country that recognize how we have slipped away from what made America the greatest most powerful country in history and insist on moving back to those founding principles.  If the GOP fails to embrace these people, they will remain a minority party in this country with diminishing influence that may very well find themselves in third place before long.  And if they continue to blame the Tea Party for their failures and pursue voters from the left, that is exactly where they belong.


No comments:

Post a Comment