"What the President's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, & then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote, & that strategy worked. It's a proven strategy...give a bunch of money to a group &, guess what, they'll vote for you...Giving them free stuff is a hard thing to compete against." Mitt Romney speaking to a group of donors after the election with a similar message to the one he delivered to donors last May re "the 47%"
click on graphic to enlarge
By reciting Death Of Democracy messages to donors, like above, it is a wonder that Mitt had any donors @ all during the last campaign. Every democracy in history has ultimately fallen into ruin by the above quoted principles that Mitt obviously knows so well.
The miserable Republican results from the 2012 election are best illustrated by the popular-vote statistics & the above table - Mitt got one million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008 & that from a voting age population that had increased by over ten million people in the last four years. Couple this with losses in Mitt's two home states of MA (61% to 38%), NH (52% to 46%) & Ryan's home state of WI (53% to 46%) & you can see the rejection of these candidates by the voters. Worse yet – Ryan won his House reelection seat by the lowest margin in the last twelve years 55% to 43%. Ryan had won his last six House races with over 60% of the vote including 68% in 2010. Ryan's actual voting record instead of his reputation may have caught up with him once he joined Mitt.
Each of us can decide for ourselves what the lesson, if any, is from the above statistics & table.
Some frightened Republican pundits think the lesson is to somehow reach out (pander) to minorities & everyone else Mitt offended during the campaign & tell them Republicans are really for them after all. The problem with this deceitful approach is that as they appeal to the masses they are probably losing many in the conservative voting block base faster than they are picking up new supporters.
Other just as frightened Republican pundits, who fear the future irrelevance of the Party, have decided that the lesson is to take the gloves off & blame Mitt more & more for the loss. These pundits are envisioning the hopelessness going forward with the establishment Republican Party in a country where the majority is best described as financially conservative & socially liberal. Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson pointed this out many times during the campaign & yet people who really should have voted for Gary based on their beliefs were brainwashed into voting for one of the lesser of two evils from the two major parties who each had terrible candidates that conventional wisdom said could win. The point is that between the Tea Party & the Libertarian Party we already have two other parties to consider & the sooner we recognize these parties as distinct from Democrat & Republican the better off we will be.
The results of the recent Two Quizzes posting confirmed that if not a majority @ least many in the RTE readership follow this financially conservative – socially liberal profile which in turn can be classified simply as libertarian.
The hopelessness of the last election persists if no viable alternative develops & if the bluebloods of the establishment Republican Party continue to nominate candidates like Mitt, McCain, & Dole who pander for votes in a way that is not believable to Hispanics, Asians, blacks, homosexuals, single women, young people, & the poor – all groups that went for BO in large numbers & as such are now the groups who control the policies in our country. Who would ever believe that such Republican candidates could all of a sudden be for homosexual rights, comprehensive immigration reform, abortion rights, free student loans, & expanded welfare? We don't need two give-a-way parties. Let left-wing liberals vote for Democrats who support forcing taxpayers to pay for big government social programs & right-wing conservatives vote for Republicans who support laws that restrict personal behavior that violates their ideas of traditional values. If the rest of the people vote for candidates who are financially conservative & socially liberal we will have established a viable third choice which is the last thing the two major parties want.
Now a viable Party that will replace the establishment Republican Party or @ least produce candidates who will be competitive with the Democrat & Republican Party candidates must connect with all of the people in the aforementioned groups who supported BO on the one thing we all have in common; namely, the desire for the self-respect of having a meaningful job that supports a family – if we have lost this human dignity & self-respect than all of this message is beyond our time. A candidate who will compete against the "gimmee" Democrat & Republican candidates will have to be credible – not one who has been on every side of every issue for the last eighteen years.
For instance, on the deeply divisive issue of abortion which even many libertarians disagree on – try this approach - "The government should neither use tax dollars to pay for or encourage abortions, nor to discourage or prevent them. Organizations & individuals on both sides of this issue should voluntarily contribute towards providing education or procedures they deem necessary. Doctors & hospitals should be allowed to perform abortions or not based on their own moral convictions, without any government sanctions or penalties. Women should be allowed to make such personal decisions without government interference."
I don't know how you could get any more reasonable than the above passage in quotation marks that was taken from Ken Kaplan's website. Ken was the Libertarian Party candidate for NJ senate & FairTax supporter that Carol & I voted for on November 6.
In essence, with this sort of tolerance everyone is free to pursue their own salvation with "fear & trembling" with no one but God Almighty sitting in judgment – otherwise the fight on earth goes on forever with no winners & all losers.
Isn't it better to have liberals & conservatives mind their own businesses & vote as they see fit with the rest of us not caring how judgmental either of them are. In my preferred plan individuals have the right to do as they please, in action or speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights of others. These government hands-off principles carry forward & apply to all of the other issues as well & work best when you leave the intolerance of the Democrats & Republicans behind.
Now none of this eliminates the need to get back to the bedrock basics of educating our youth regarding America's heritage or selecting new candidates who know & can articulate the message of the benefits, including having a more fulfilling life itself & returning to the excellence of our founding principles (particularly self responsibility & free enterprise) so that the government-dependent people can more readily recognize the inevitable economic collapse of the country BO has in mind for them & all of us.
Instead of being disillusioned & voting for current major party candidates who pander to one interest group @ the expense of another how about looking for & finding candidates in a Party you can feel good about voting for who just tell you what they believe in & let the chips (& voters) fall where they may?
"recognize the inevitable economic collapse of the country BO has in mind"
ReplyDeleteThe above may happen before the 2016 election, maybe even before the 2014 election.
BO will be very hard core on having rich pay more while focusing on "investments" in education, environment, and infrastructure. So he is proposing tax increase to pay for more spending. We all know that tax increases result in less revenues; hence with the extra spending our 2013 debt may increase by $1.5 trillion and GDP lucky to escape negative growth. At some point in time given current trends our foreign creditors will likely balk at financing out debt. They would be in a powerful position to restructure our debt and spending. In the long run this event may be a blessing in disguise. Minus the Nanny State the US may once again lead world to new prosperity.
Follow the fiscal cliff talks. If Boehner compromises on tax rate increases (BO expects this), expect the above to occur sometime soon.
I agree with you that a third party is needed. Only drawback, is you need large DONERS to give money. By getting average people to give $100-$200 toward the third party movement, will not do it. You need large doners who give millions (yes millons) to your cause. They and ones that give hundreds of thousands - then you have a "fighting chance." Also if you are known to the public, is a "plus".
ReplyDeleteI remember reading that this person who owns a casino in Nevada gave millions to BO.
Remember, money counts.
Say, Doug -why don't you run??
Hi Doug - Ken Kaplan is pretty dead on the mark for me... The federal government is not to be involved in this issue. How do we get politicians to drop this issue in your mind? This issue is for a woman to decide and to deal with her God. We clearly should get out of issues like these that only serve to grow the federal government's involvement in our likes...
ReplyDeleteDoug to you and Carol, have a Happy Thanksgiving...talk to you soon.
Had a young student stop by selling magazines which I did not need. After I said no to the sale ,
ReplyDeletehe turned and said "since I am young what problems should I look for?" I replied "taxes." Would you rather pay for
a car in four years or for the rest of your life - four years he said. Well I said every time you raise taxes you not only
pay your way but pay for students for the rest of your life. He nodded and went his way. Did that ring a gong? I don't know.
Third parties - and beyond - work only with systems of proportional representation. What we have here is direct representation.
ReplyDeleteLet us illustrate the point by examining Germany. In Germany, the voter goes to the polls and casts two votes, one for a party and one for a candidate. The candidate who receives a majority in the election district goes to Berlin. But the parties have seats left over that they can fill - the "overhang seats."
The parties fill "overhang seats" from pre-election lists ranking their candidates. As long as he party itself garners at least 5% of the vote, the candidate ranked number one on the list is assured of going to Berlin - even if he or she loses the direct election. The 5%-rule is there to prevent splinter parties that existed in post-war Italy and France.
Thus, a small third party in Germany can roar - and broker political deals.
Third parties will never work in this country as long as we have direct representation. Third party candidates assure the defeat of the major-party candidate most kindred to them - and the victory of the major-party candidate least kindred.
RTE – the Tea Party roared in 2010. I am not against another party replacing the Republican Party. The stats in the post indicated that the candidate most kindred to many people who voted for Mitt was Gary Johnson.