[TheRealVille]

Damage control?

That sentiment was in full bloom following Romney’s first post-election comments — made on a phone call with donors earlier this week. On the call, Romney attributed his loss to the “gifts” President Obama’s campaign doled out to young people and minorities. For many, the comments had an eerie echo of the secretly taped “47 percent” remarks Romney made at a May fundraiser.
“There is no Romney wing in the party that he needs to address,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. “He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”
Added Chris LaCivita, a senior party operative: “The comment just reinforced a perception — fairly or not – that Romney, and by default, the GOP are the party of the ‘exclusives’. It’s time for us to move on and focus on the future leaders within the GOP.”
Speaking of those future leaders, several of the candidates talked about as 2016 presidential possibilities quickly condemned Romney’s comments as well.
“We have got to stop dividing American voters,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. “I absolutely reject that notion, that description … We’re fighting for 100 percent of the vote.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker added that the Republican party isn’t “just for people who are currently not dependent on the government.”
The strong intraparty reaction — just nine days after Romney loss the presidential race — speaks to the desire within the professional political ranks of the Republican party to move on as quickly as possible from an election that badly exposed their weaknesses.
The prevailing opinion among that group is that there is much work to be done and that Romney will have a hand in almost none of it. Put more simply: Thanks for playing. Now go away.
Here’s how conservative columnist Matt Lewis put it in a tweet:
Matt K. Lewis@mattklewis
I'd like to see Romney and his team go out gracefully. (Yes, that requires actually... going away.)
15 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
Romney, of course, likely doesn’t share that opinion — still reeling from an election that he quite clearly expected to win but, well, didn’t. (And didn’t even really come close to winning.)
What Romney seems most interested in doing at this point is rehashing why he didn’t win — with an emphasis (at least in his comments to donors) on what was wrong with voters, not what was wrong with his campaign.
That MO, while understandable for someone who has spent the last six-plus years of his life running for president, is tremendously problematic for a party that needs to get away from the stereotype that it is of, by and for white, affluent men even at a time of growing diversity in the country and the electorate.
“The recent comments about what happened in the election are 100 percent wrong,” said Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “The 47 percent comments represent both a fundamental misunderstanding of the country, they offer a constricted vision of the Republican party and the potency of a big tent conservative message. “
Former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis was even more blunt: “It shows a huge misreading of the electoral landscape. A rather elitist misread. Where does he think his votes came from in rural America?”
Also worth noting: The White House was quick to jump on Romney’s remarks. “That view of the American people of the electorate and of the election is at odds with the truth of what happened last week,” Carney said Thursday morning.
Here’s the two-pronged problem for Republicans at the moment: 1) Romney has no motivation to toe the party line now, and refrain from making such comments, given that he will never again be a candidate, and 2) even if Romney quietly steps aside now, the party is left without any sort of elder statesman to help broker future policy and political fights.
To the latter point: While Democrats have Bill Clinton as their triager-in-chief, using his gravitas to help extend and articulate the Democratic brand, George W. Bush seems perfectly content to spend the rest of his days outside of the public spotlight in Texas. And, while John McCain remains an active force in the Senate, he was never someone that Republicans truly saw as one of their own. Now, in Republicans’ best case scenario, Romney is headed to that same path of obscurity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...tage-left/

[sawmill]

This is what are country has came to. Sad.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Damage control?






http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...tage-left/

What Romney said is absolutely true. If Republicans want to kiss the butts of the freeloaders, so be it. As I said in another thread, they aren't going to win a national election as long as the takers decide elections. They don't need to also lose all their credibility by becoming a light version of the Democrats.

I'm no Romney fan. He is far too liberal for me. However, he is right on this one. As long as I live in this country, I suppose I'll have to help support the con artist freeloaders (the truly needy are not included in this group). However, I don't have to like them or show them any respect or consideration. To use a G rated version of an old saying, "Urinate on them".

[SKINNYPIG]

Romney would have made ten times the President obama has been and will be. I do disagree with his loss assessment. The 47 percent comment and the way he dealt with it, no doubt hurt. Our next candidate needs to be a genuine conservative. One that conservatism flows from, not a pretender. There is a part of those on "the take" that would like to work. True conservatism will appeal to those. Who's it gonna be? Right now, I have no clear choice. I hope one comes flying out of the woodwork soon.

[LWC]

I have said before and will say it again, Republicans best chance is Rubio/Christie. Forget their policies, we are talking about politicians whom are popular in their states. If they can swing Florida (likely) and New Jersey (less likely, but possible) along with Rubio pulling in much more of the hispanic vote than Romney did, and the democrats not pulling in as much of the black vote as before, they are a slam dunk.

[vector]

Romney would have made ten times the President obama has been and will be. I do disagree with his loss assessment. The 47 percent comment and the way he dealt with it, no doubt hurt. Our next candidate needs to be a genuine conservative. One that conservatism flows from, not a pretender. There is a part of those on "the take" that would like to work. True conservatism will appeal to those. Who's it gonna be? Right now, I have no clear choice. I hope one comes flying out of the woodwork soon.

would have that's 2 big word's

[SKINNYPIG]

would have that's 2 big word's

Atta boy vector!

[Harry Rex Vonner]

With the Taker Society growing, it will be almost impossible to defeat the Democrats with their ticket of Claus and Hood - as in Santa and Robin.

And, you won't beat the Democrats by becoming a smaller version of them. Republicans passing out 20 bills can't compete with Democrats who are already passing out $100 bills. And guess who is providing the greenbacks for distribution to the freeloaders?

[Hoot Gibson]

I have said before and will say it again, Republicans best chance is Rubio/Christie. Forget their policies, we are talking about politicians whom are popular in their states. If they can swing Florida (likely) and New Jersey (less likely, but possible) along with Rubio pulling in much more of the hispanic vote than Romney did, and the democrats not pulling in as much of the black vote as before, they are a slam dunk.

No, they would not be a slam dunk. In fact, any Republican presidential candidate that puts Christie on it will see a weaker turnout than Romney received. Christie is not conservative enough to help with the base and he could not deliver NJ to the GOP. I know that the media types have spooked some conservatives into agreeing that they need to move further to the middle, but the loss of moderates Dole, McCain, and Romney - and two landslide victories by Ronald Reagan suggests that they are wrong.

If Christie wants to run on anybody's ticket, then let him switch parties to do it.

[LWC]

No, they would not be a slam dunk. In fact, any Republican presidential candidate that puts Christie on it will see a weaker turnout than Romney received. Christie is not conservative enough to help with the base and he could not deliver NJ to the GOP. I know that the media types have spooked some conservatives into agreeing that they need to move further to the middle, but the loss of moderates Dole, McCain, and Romney - and two landslide victories by Ronald Reagan suggests that they are wrong.

If Christie wants to run on anybody's ticket, then let him switch parties to do it.

I know less about Republicans than you do, obviously, however, if a yellow dog would have ran against Obama, every Republican would have tried their hardest to have elected a dog.

Christie appeals to the middle, you have to try to appeal to the middle.

Remember Hoot, Reagan's last year in office was 1989. We are talking two years after I was born. Most of my generation barely knows who he is. (History was one of my two majors in college, so obviously I know him, but I am one of the few near my age). NOBODY younger than 45 today could have voted for him then.

I say all of that to say that times are different. Remember, ONE Presidential election in the last 22 years had the popular vote go for a Republican. (Bush 2 lost the popular vote to Gore in his first try.)

[Deathstar 80]

Republicans need to nominate Ralph Nader... Just saying.

:problem:




But in all seriousness, we need to elect LWC for president in 2016.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

No, they would not be a slam dunk. In fact, any Republican presidential candidate that puts Christie on it will see a weaker turnout than Romney received. Christie is not conservative enough to help with the base and he could not deliver NJ to the GOP. I know that the media types have spooked some conservatives into agreeing that they need to move further to the middle, but the loss of moderates Dole, McCain, and Romney - and two landslide victories by Ronald Reagan suggests that they are wrong.

If Christie wants to run on anybody's ticket, then let him switch parties to do it.

I agree. Christie lost all credibility when he served as a prop in Obama's photo op after Storm (not hurricane) Sandy. Christie should be seen by conservatives as a parasite. Christie destroyed any small chance Romney had of winning.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I know less about Republicans than you do, obviously, however, if a yellow dog would have ran against Obama, every Republican would have tried their hardest to have elected a dog.

Christie appeals to the middle, you have to try to appeal to the middle.

Remember Hoot, Reagan's last year in office was 1989. We are talking two years after I was born. Most of my generation barely knows who he is. (History was one of my two majors in college, so obviously I know him, but I am one of the few near my age). NOBODY younger than 45 today could have voted for him then.

I say all of that to say that times are different. Remember, ONE Presidential election in the last 22 years had the popular vote go for a Republican. (Bush 2 lost the popular vote to Gore in his first try.)

I'd vote for any type of animal against Obama. Actually, yellow dogs are a credit to mankind. I have one. However, though I would vote for most any animal over Obama, I wouldn't and won't vote for a snake like Christie.

[Deathstar 80]

I think someone from the military should try to run for President. I would have mentioned Petraeus, but unfortunately he was found to be involved in an affair. Having the courage to risk their own life for this country is a characteristic I would love for a President to have.

[Hoot Gibson]

I know less about Republicans than you do, obviously, however, if a yellow dog would have ran against Obama, every Republican would have tried their hardest to have elected a dog.

Christie appeals to the middle, you have to try to appeal to the middle.

Remember Hoot, Reagan's last year in office was 1989. We are talking two years after I was born. Most of my generation barely knows who he is. (History was one of my two majors in college, so obviously I know him, but I am one of the few near my age). NOBODY younger than 45 today could have voted for him then.

I say all of that to say that times are different. Remember, ONE Presidential election in the last 22 years had the popular vote go for a Republican. (Bush 2 lost the popular vote to Gore in his first try.)

Romney received fewer votes than McCain did because much of the base stayed home. Republicans have not run a conservative for president since Reagan, so I see no evidence that running a moderate Democrat against a real Democrat would give Republicans a better chance of winning. Romney's loss and Christie's role in it should put to rest any talk of a ticket with Christie on it.

I have my doubts that Christie will still be in the Republican Party by 2016.

[TheRealThing]

Romney received fewer votes than McCain did because much of the base stayed home. Republicans have not run a conservative for president since Reagan, so I see no evidence that running a moderate Democrat against a real Democrat would give Republicans a better chance of winning. Romney's loss and Christie's role in it should put to rest any talk of a ticket with Christie on it.

I have my doubts that Christie will still be in the Republican Party by 2016.

It's really hard for me to believe Christie didn't know what he was doing, standing up there with Obama like he did. Since when does a governor need to go to that length to get help for his storm ranvenged state? He needs to be a declared democrat instead of a closet democrat.