Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dear Republican Establishment: a letter from the conservative grassroots

Dear Republican Establishment: a letter from the conservative grassroots

The letter below is from a group of grassroots conservatives who got together to pen their frustrations with the GOP. While these individuals do not wish to share their names, their sentiments are ones many of us share, including myself. Some of them I know; others, whom I don’t know and whose careers preclude them from taking so public a statement, surely join my friends as being hardworking, genuine grassroots, committed Americans.

They are committed to waking up the GOP, the best hope of returning of the country to the right path, before it is too late. Let’s hope they listen this time.

Dear Republican Establishment:

We hear you. We hear you blaming us for Mitt Romney’s recent defeat in the Presidential election. Now hear us.

Over a year ago, we told you that Mitt Romney would not be able to energize the base. You responded that anger at Obama would provide all the energy we needed. You were told that affection FOR a candidate is always a better model than depending on anger AT another candidate. You disagreed. And now, the votes are in. You were wrong.

We also told you the 2012 election would be centered on turning out the GOP base. You insisted the election would hinge on winning independents. We now know that Romney did, in fact, win independents. Congratulations. He won those who showed up. Unfortunately, 10 million 2008 voters failed to get up off the sofa to vote for Romney. Nice job picking candidates!

The grassroots predicted Obama’s victory model: to pivot hard left and drive up turnout of his base, to make independents terrified to vote for Romney, and to dispirit the GOP base. We noted that Romney was the candidate who best fit the Obama victory model, the only candidate who could deliver the one thing a billion Democrat dollars couldn’t buy – a dispirited GOP base. You rejected that idea outright. Well, we have the results. Obama successfully delivered his own base to the polls….while doing such a good job of destroying Romney that 10 million 2008 voters failed to show up at the polls….while a dispirited GOP base complained about the lackluster Romney campaign which failed to attack, failed to defend, etc.

So now you blame the grassroots for all that? We would remind you that State & National GOP leadership leaned heavily on the grassroots this election cycle NOT to repeat the tactics which delivered victory in the 2010 mid-term elections. We played along, and quietly did the hard, grassroots work of walking streets and pounding phones for Romney. And look what happened. We did what you asked, the way you wanted it. Rest assured, the grassroots will not repeat this mistake again. Until you figure out how to listen to us as equal partners, we will not play with you. We will attack as we see fit.

We also warned you that the nomination of Mitt Romney would totally remove Obamacare from the election. It most certainly did. The single greatest policy vulnerability Obama had was totally neutered by virtue of Romney being the ideological godfather of the policy in question. Thanks.

Oh. Stop hanging Akin & Mourdock around our neck. We didn’t know they didn’t understand how conception works. You didn’t know that the word “macaca” was part of George Allen’s vocabulary, either. And you didn’t blame him for the loss of the House and Senate in 2006. Interestingly, you put him up again this time around. We might make mistakes, but we don’t make them twice. So stop the scapegoating, please.

A word about demography: Women aren’t the problem, although we need to (and can) do better with them. Hispanics aren’t the problem, although we need to (and can) do better with them. The biggest nut of the problem is this: our campaign inspired 10 million… 10 MILLION… voters from 2008 who decided not to vote for Obama to stay home rather than come out and vote for Mitt Romney. We lost because we did not present bold colors, big ideas that could inspire a nation to join us.

We lost because Mitt Romney, a man we immensely admire and respect, was the wrong candidate on just about every level. Mitt’s failure to do the obvious and select Marco Rubio as VP makes it much, much harder to win the future Hispanic vote. It’s not impossible. It can be done. Don’t worry. The grassroots will fix this for you. Please stay out of our way. And don’t do anything stupid like granting citizenship to 15m illegals. We have to persuade Hispanics they are conservatives who belong in the GOP, just like that County GOP Chairman in New Mexico did with Susanna Martinez. We win Hispanics by persuading them that conservatism, that free enterprise rather than entitlement, is the path to the American Dream of individual liberty and prosperity.

Let it be known that we were good soldiers. We got on board and worked as hard and cheerfully as anyone else on the team. But please let the most important lesson of 2012 sink in: If we don’t nominate candidates who can inspire the grassroots of this country, we are not going to win, no matter how excited we think the independents are going be about them. If you cannot fire up your base, you are not going to fire up independents.

You cannot win without your base.

You cannot win by attacking your base.

Ok. Enough. We will not harp on it any more. You can poke us all you want. From here on, we’re working on 2014. And 2016.

We hope you will join us. And LISTEN.

Sincerely,

The Conservative Grassroots,
AKA Tea Party, 912, Liberty, precinct Republicans, silent majority Americans

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

They won’t listen – they can’t afford to. They won’t lose their jobs if they keep losing elections, but admitting they were wrong – that hits them right in the ego. And then the question becomes: OK if the leadership screwed up that bad, maybe it’s time for new leadership?

Given the choices between keeping job and ego intact, and losing both – which do you expect them to pick?

    The comments are really good: insightful, instructive, comprehensive. You’re an impressive group of readers.

    I’m sure that aggregating all the campaign mistakes mentioned
    accounts for the resulting loss. But you can make a lot of mistakes in a campaign and still win.

    I know Carl Rove has become fat, dumb, and happy. But he did run two winning campaigns, 2000 and 2004. He ran a governor with a decent record and with no major vulnerabilities. He ran someone people liked and ran him as a cowboy (when, in fact, Bush was Ivy educated, read three to four books a week, and has an excellent–though carefully hidden–vocabulary.)
    But the pose was a winner–especially when compared to the stiff, wooden Gore. Bush and Rove knew how to fight: when
    McCain unexpectedly won an important primary, Bush/Rove went
    for McCain’s political throat: Someone, some group invented an ugly story about McCain’s “black child” and McCain was done. In 2004, Bush/Rove had the great luck to have someone fund a PAC that “Swift Boated” Kerry and tipped the campaign.
    With Romney, we saw none of that; no killer instinct. Nor was Romney particularly likeable–and likeability is almost everything. (Look at Clinton who trashed the White House, perjured himself, lost his law license, and settled with Paula Jones for $800,000–never lost his likeability.)

    Obama’s eligibility, his birth certificate problems, would have been a great “Swift Boat” vehicle for a PAC working the swing states. Where was it? Bush answered every attack with a stronger attack; Romney let Obama destroy him in Ohio for a month without counterattacking. You can’t recover easily from that. Finally, Romney’s team, like Rove, should have known the location of every precinct with a history of cheating and sent in attorneys and muscle. Mix these things together and you have a fallen souffle.

Followup point: once you’ve decided how you think the GOP leadership will choose – you’ll have to decide whether you’re wasting time talking to them, and instead focus on replacing them, bottom-up, with people who don’t have decades of a losing strategy to protect.

This is excellent, aside from that it gives Richard Mourdock a bad rap. Nothing he said should have been shocking or controversial to anyone with a basic understanding of the Christian faith. So, unless Christianity is embarrassing now, he made no faux pas.

    No. It’s people like Richard Mourdock who gives Jesus and Christian a bad rap. Please show me chapter and verse where Jesus had anything to say about rape and abortion; let alone using that as political platform for overthrowing the pagan Roman authorities.

    huskers-for-palin in reply to Pablo. | November 14, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    FYI: Lugar did a lot of damage by not supporting Murdock via poisoning the well with Republican groups in the background.

The logic here is full of holes.

1. Mitt competed with a host of others in the primary process which was fought fair and square. Traditionally, all come together at the end of the primary and support the nominee. Is the author suggesting if you don’t like the nominee, you invalidate the primary?

2. Nobody is perfect, and you work with the cards you are dealt. Bottom line – there is a WORLD of DIFFERENCE between Romney and Obama – night and day difference. It is so easy to choose between the two.

3. The American electorate is generally uninvolved and very stupid; those who did not vote for whatever reasons have nobody to blame but themselves. Expect higher taxes, a liberal Supreme Court, loss of liberty, etc. to follow.

4. Obama won in large part to his “cool blackness”, stupid electorate, and fawning media. All three factors played a large part in the election results.

    Oh HELL.

    1.) the primary process was NOT “fair and square.” There was a concerted effort by the establishment to promote Romney over the other candidates, and when it looked like other candidates might have been able to land a “campaign killing blow” against Romney, suddenly those same establsishment rode to the rescue of ANOTHER candidate to open up a “2 front attack.” THIS HAPPENED MORE THAN ONCE.

    2.) It may have been easy to choose between the two, but that’s the point. The campaign was so ineffective that it didn’t get 10 MILLION PEOPLE to even make a choice, because they didn’t show up.

    3.)This one, you’re right on the money. WE know that because we’re informed. THEY may not have know that because they’re sheep. Where was Romney from the moment he had the Primary in the bag until the convention? Certainly NOT out there every day hammering what an Obama re-election would look like in bold, brash language.

    4.) This is why the Establishment needs to NOT attack the base. Had they spent even half as much effort in attacking Obama and the MEDIA as they had trying to convince the independents that the Republicans were a “kinder and gentler” bunch than they had been portrayed, they would have crushed the Main Stream Morons beneath their heel.

      What a load. Show me evidence of action taken by the “establishment” to game the primaries. I could see some rationale to this IF there had been a better candidate and yet they still lost, but there simply was no such candidate.

        Ok, you want me to spell it out for you? Here it is. Evidence:

        WHOM started plugging Santorum the moment that Newt made a HUGE first place finish in South Carolina, after trashing Santorum as being a “sore loser” for not conceding Iowa. Hmmm? The Leadership, Rove and the RINOs in the media.

        WHOM then started saying that Santorum had to be taken as a serious candidate as Newt was favored to win Florida, thus giving credibility to Santorum and hope to the single-issue pro-life voters that they -might- be able to swing Florida to be won by a pro-life candidate? The Leadership (even though they KNEW Santorum had only the barest presence there. Again, the Leadership, the RNC, Rove and the Media RINOs and COINs.

        WHOM then started to trash Santorum and say nice things about Newt being a strong candidate and a ‘big idea’ proponent when Santorum won 3 of the primaries on Super Tuesday and Newt won only Georgia, saying that the Conservatives should support Gingrich because of his big ideas? Again, the RNC, Media RINOs and COINS rode to the rescue.

        Remember all the nice things that were said about Santorum after the Republican Debates, largely where Newt cleaned up, praising other candidates but trashing Gingrich for being a “firebrand” who couldn’t win in the General Election because he would ‘turn off independents’ and Santorum had largely lackluster performances?

        By a careful playing of Gingrich against Santorum at key moments in the campaign, the RNC caused the Conservative vote (and donations) to be split between the candidates, preventing either of them from gaining traction, and made sure that neither of them was able to become strong enough to challenge Romney.

        All the evidence was right there, plain as the nose on my face, to those closely watching the primary process.

This is pointless. The establishment Republicans are at war with the Tea Party. They have made the conscious decision that they would rather keep their jobs in the minority party than be primaried by upstart conservatives. They are perfectly content with this result. They think they have beaten us. Let’s prove them wrong.

We have to take our party back before we can take the country back.

It is time to stop dealing in mythology and crappy logic…

For starters, if the Washington Post is to be believed, Mitt Romney received 1.3 million fewer votes than John McCain did in 2008, not 3 million. For the record, Obama received 7.5 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.

More than 1.1 million of the Republican votes were “lost” in California. It is not that California Republicans turned against Romney. His percentage of the vote was higher than McCain’s in 2008. It is just they know their votes were in vain in that increasingly absurd state. The same is likely true in New York State where Romney fell more than a half-million votes short of McCain’s totals. Excluding these two states, Romney received 300,000 more votes than McCain.

That much said, the results in several states do raise eyebrows, most notably Ohio and Pennsylvania. Romney received nearly 100,000 fewer votes than McCain in the former and 35,000 fewer votes in the latter. In all the other battleground states, Romney improved both on McCain’s raw numbers and his percentage of the vote. This includes Florida despite the fact that every vote south of Palm Bay down Florida’s I-95 corridor is suspect.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/the_myth_of_the_missing_three_million_republicans.html

Obama won by courting Snookie. He WON…a very narrow victory…by lying, cheating and dividing.

Instead of allowing that recognition to sink in, WE are doing all the navel-gazing and cannibalizing of our own.

I find that SCREWY.

    I don’t know Rags. I think that a certain amount of cannibalizing is not only necessary and proper, but will be good for the party, because we’re FINALLY going to have the intramural fight we SHOULD have had after the 2006 election cycle. Had we done so, we would have not gotten McCain as the candidate, because the “moderates” would have been swept out.

    These guys have a point, and that is that the Establishment was scared stupid that the Conservatives were going to take a winning formula from 2010 and use it. The Establishment Leadership BEGGED the TEA Partiers and Conservatives to “tone it down” in order to not offend the “Independents,” who the Establishment told us were the key to the election. And they -might- have been right had TURNOUT been higher. And the TEA Partiers and Conservatives, wanting to be “good team players” said “ok, we’ll do it your way, against our better judgement.”

    The Establishment method lost, and by doing so has proven the TEA Partiers and Conservatives right, that you can’t win by being a “kinder and gentler” party. This is rough and tumble, and if we’re not willing to fight with the same level of viciousness as the Liberals, we WILL lose.

    Yes, Romney did improve on McCain’s numbers. But he didn’t improve NEARLY as much as he SHOULD have. I have some theories about WHY that is. Part of it is RomneyCare vs. Obamacare. Part of it is religious bigotry, which I AM going to post about lower in the comments.

      Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | November 14, 2012 at 11:49 am

      “But he didn’t improve NEARLY as much as he SHOULD have.”

      What objective standard are you using, Chuck?

      I can…and certainly DO…say that Obama SHOULD not have polled over about 20%.

      But he DID. By hook and crook, yes. But still, he DID.

      Seems to me all this blame-gaming is LESS than productive, and a LOT of it is based on BAD information and thinking, as I’ve said.

        As for the amount of improvement that should have occurred, Romney should have increased McCain’s vote share by at least 5.71%. (3,423,090 / 59,934,814; you’ll see why below). He didn’t. Romney actually LOST vote total as compared to McCain’s 2008 performance.

        The demoralized and unresponsive base that made up the Republican electorate of 2008, and population growth during that time period (accounting for death of older voters) should have grown by more than what we got. They didn’t turnout, and those that didn’t vote for Obama didn’t turn out for us either.

        History: The overall voting age (18 and older) citizen population in the United States in 2008 was 206 million compared with 197 million in 2004. Of that total, 146 million, or 71 percent, reported being registered to vote. That’s slightly lower than the 72 percent who reported being registered to vote in the 2004 presidential election, but does represent an increase of approximately 4 million registered voters. The percentage of those registered to vote that actually did so was slightly higher in the 2008 election (90 percent) than in 2004 (89 percent). (Courtesy US Census Bureau).

        Current: In the 2012 cycle, we’ve got 121,747,434 total votes, with 62,610,717 voting for Obama and 59,136,717 voting for Romney (as of current count). While we don’t have the Demographic breakdown, the current “voting age” population should have increased by approximately 9 Million individuals (again, all other things being equal).

        Of those 9 million, approximately 70% should have been registered (so ~6.3mm). Thus, the “voter share” should have been approximately 152mm registered voters. As noted above, only 121mm of those showed up (79.61% turnout).

        In the 2008 election, 69,456,897 voted Obama vs 59,934,814 for McCain. So as a raw number of votes (at least if the numbers hold up in their current form) Romney LOST vote total to McCain (59,934,814 McCain to 59,136,717 Romney, -798,097). However he did better percentage wise because SO many voters abandoned Obama (69456897 2008 to 62,610,717 2012, -6,846,180).

        If HALF of those who had abandoned Obama turned out to vote FOR Romney (3,423,090) the popular vote total would have been a difference of 50,901 votes (still an Obama popular vote win, but read on).

        This takes a small leap of intuition, but that differential, because of the makeup of the location of the electorate, would have been likely concentrated in California, New York and Illinois, and thus would have delivered Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and likely Michigan and Wisconsin.

        That’s the objective standard that I’m using. That Romney SHOULD have gotten at least the same number of votes McCain got plus half of the votes that abandoned Obama. If you think that’s an unreasonable standard, so be it, it is only my opinion, but I don’t think that it is at all unreasonable to have that expectation of our candidate.

          Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | November 14, 2012 at 3:52 pm

          A lot of what you said you expected was perfectly reasonable, Chuck. I often expect perfectly reasonable stuff that does not eventuate.

          I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect no more than 20% of the electorate would support a president as patently a failure as Obama. But they did.

          These guys had a lot of the same expectations I did…

          http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=105&load=7700

    deadrody in reply to Ragspierre. | November 15, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Also not true. According to the NY Times and CNN vote totals, Romney exceeded McCain’s vote totals in both Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Oh dear.

Recite for me the litany of Republican candidates for US President who have lost and have had conservatives write this same letter to the Republican establishment.

It’s a long, long litany.

Hope’n’Change in one hand and crap in the other and tell me which one fills up first.

    I’ve got 4 years of hope & change filling my hand now and it’s indistinguishable from crap.

    The letter could/should have been shortened to “stop playing nice with the butt-monkeys and kick their scrotums in” and been just as effective. Rather than demonize the base the gumbys in the GOP “elite” need to start standing up for the base when attacked. What are the butt-monkeys and their propaganda whores going to change their stripes? Shit catches just as many flies as honey so why not just go ahead and dish out the kick to the crotch and punch in the mouth.

Mitt won the primary. Mitt wasn’t my choice – at all – but he won the popular vote amongst conservatives.

We are the problem. That includes leadership, but we voted Mitt the nominee.

And part of the problem is that the majority of us generally let the media tell us what to think. Nobody looked to Rove or Boehner for leadership on how to vote. People listened to Fox News and CNN.

Turn off the TV. It’s that simple. But that will never happen and so this will continue to happen.

When I was a liberal (prior to 9/11) I used to have an exagerated fear of the GOP. (Yes, I do remember Lee Atwater.) Now that I believe the GOP is where true conservatism has any chance at all, my take of the GOP leadership is quite different: Scaredy cats, playing it safely; no boldness; and then we have the libertarian streak – many cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face types. In short, we have a mousy, self destructive, and divided house. That’s why we lose. With a powerful media fully Left and Democrat, you need a strong, focused, united muscular party to have any chance of winning; today we have mush. Yes, there are exceptions but the establishment needs to grow some…

As I wrote way back in May 2010, and have given as a speech many times:
The Republican party has the false impression that NJ, VA, MA were all because the voters are mad at the Democrats and that even a hamster can win against them this election. Nothing could be further from reality.

The growing independent movement is not because we are in the middle. It’s not because we are moderates. It is because the stink of both parties has become so foul we want nothing to do with either of you. You have allowed the rotting flesh of Progressivism to invade both of the parties like necrotizing fasciitis (a flesh eating disease).

You need to understand the meaning of the words written by the founders known to us as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We sure do and you have been violating it for decades. We will no longer tolerate this behavior. One way or another we will dispose of you.

Do not think for one single moment you will run just anyone in our districts or on a national level and we will vote the party line. Never again! We will run our own candidates as we did in NY 23. Only now we know how to drive the message home. We know now how to unite and push the real conservative or constructionist over the top and into office. We know now how to vet out your progressive candidates and expose them. We have the tools and the skills and the power to eliminate you and make you irrelevant. NY, VA and Mass are proof of that.

So you keep living in your dream world. You keep thinking you can co-opt our true grassroots movement just because a few of the folks calling themselves leaders, who are in fact only seeking their own power and are willing to come along down your path for a seat at the public trough you have been gorging yourselves on. We shall see after the elections in November who will have the power. I assure you, it will be back in the hands of the people, not the politicos.

When we’re are finished cleaning house there will be nowhere left for you to hide. No redemption for you. The things you have done for the last 100 years are tantamount to treason in your flagrant violation of our constitution, the stealing of our liberty and freedom, the future of our children, our grandchildren and even their grandchildren, should bring shame on any man or woman who committed these crimes.

A decent sort would do all they can to undo this disaster. They would surrender their own holdings and fortunes as repayment and finally, surrender themselves to the mercy of the American people. Were you to have lived in the time of the founders you would have been arrested, given a trial, and upon conviction your assets seized and you would have been drawn and quartered in the public square.

To quote one of your own despicable treasonous intellectuals, one Mr. Welch, 9 June 1954, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
RINO Season is now OPEN!

    I have to inveigh against the stupid use of the term “RINO” yet again.

    Please, think and stop using that. YOU and I do not get to define who a “Republican” is as NOT-Republicans (maybe you are, but I am not).

    If you want to use an apt term, call them COINs (conservatives only in name).

    And remember, Conservatives are NOT the Republican Party. We are a subset of the coalition. There ARE others, and they are necessary in order to win.

    Deal with the facts. Reality is a good place to live and work.

      alwaysfiredup in reply to Ragspierre. | November 14, 2012 at 3:05 pm

      “Conservatives are NOT the Republican Party. We are a subset of the coalition. There ARE others, and they are necessary in order to win.”

      Granted, although this assumes that it is the conservatives who wish to be affiliated with Republicans. In my experience it’s the other way around. There are others who can help us win. 2012 proved that these “others” are not independents. There aren’t enough independents. What we needed was motivation, and we failed to provide it.

      Palin should have been a part of this campaign. Romney made a conscious decision to exclude her. It was a bad decision. She excels at exciting voters, including voters who previously counted among the disaffected nonvoters before she came around. They voted for her four years ago, they would have come out for her again. Cons need others in a coalition, but without the cons there is no party at all. We all need each other, and no segment of the coalition should be sidelined.

      PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      Interesting comment. So the question remains, can we assemble enough Republicans and sympathizers to win a general election vs a party that courts and cultivates a legion of low information voters?

      I know people want to return to a grassroots conservative candidate to carry us across the finish line but will we lose people on the other end of the spectrum?

      I am not sure but it was impressive how the Dem sliced and diced the electorate into pieces that they could target effectively. I’m not sure our party could do that right now. Which means we would have to get complete turnout to win a general. Is that possible?

Is this the drugs talking?
We have to persuade Hispanics they are conservatives who belong in the GOP

Read this:
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10151099215925946

This is how Hispanics voted over the last 30 years:
–1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21

–1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24

–1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39

–1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36

–1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51

–2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27

–2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18

–2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36

–2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44

Yes, that’s right. Latinos are Democrats in Hispanic clothing.

Winning the heart and mind of one woman in New Mexico is not good enough. Hispanics have to do better. And if they intend on continuing to be Democrats, what ever you do, don’t legalize more of them.

Ever.

Conservatives, The Republican establishment is not going to change, embrace you or give up their grasp of power. They will not do this even to win an important election.

Ask Mitt Romney and John McCain. And Bob Dole. And …

There is a huge amount of money, status and power involved. It’s what these people care about and they will sell their country out to maintain it.

The ‘grassroots’ letter is stupid. They are saying don’t blame us, but then admit they lacked energy for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and REFUSED TO COME OUT AND VOTE. Well that sounds like a confession of laziness and moral failure by the ‘base’ (By the way, I don’t agree theletter writers are really the ‘base’).

The letter also says do not blame hispanics, women. But tehn really poitns to itself.

If the so-called base really was repulsed by Barry, sitting out he election was a vote for Barry. So shame on the base. You now have got BO for a second term, and that must be what you wanted. You make me sick.

So if Mitt was the wrong guy, who praytell do the letter writers think should have been the nominee? Does anyone seriously thing RICK SANTORUM could have won the election? Obviously not. Same for Newt. He would not have been able to carry the nation for sure.

We lost because Mitt Romney, a man we immensely admire and respect, was the wrong candidate on just about every level. Mitt’s failure to do the obvious and select Marco Rubio as VP

Ryan was selected to energize the base. That is the main reason he was picked. And it did not work. Imagine if Rubio was picked? Even less of The Tea Party Prima Donnas — the ‘base’- would have voted. . Yeesch.

    persecutor in reply to george. | November 14, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    They had me until they said “Rubio”, and I’ll leave it at that.

      serfer1962 in reply to persecutor. | November 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm

      Why Rubio? cause he’s hispanic? The VP choice was was needed for the country…it was the POTUS choice that sucked.
      Watching Mitts body language I though this guy is a wimp, that The Establishments choice didn’t make it easy , but I voted for him anyway.
      I can’t see any reason to voye The Establishment any more so I won’t

“…We lost because we did not present bold colors, big ideas that could inspire a nation to join us….

And what are these bold colors and big ideas exactly?

Because about five indie women voters whom I had spent the last 2 years trying to get them to see that the Republican Party is a champion of their economic liberty and who were ready to vote Republican by early October, shot angry emails at me in late October, demanding an explanation for Mourdock and his unapologetic apologists on their bold colors and big ideas about rape and gays.

Bill Whittle pointed out something in a recent FireWall that I’d never heard before, and certainly bears investigating; among conservatives who are NOT REGISTERED to vote, the primary reason they give is avoiding jury duty. That is astounding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCz3H5paADQ&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

Before we mount a scorched-earth campaign against OTHER components of the conservative coalition (and it is an unsupport conceit to claim “conservatives are the base”) maybe we need to address the weaknessesssss among conservatives.

ALSO, as I’ve noted here many times, OUR nominating process is the very MODEL of dysfunction. It would be hard to imagine a worse system.

Dear Stupid Head Letter Writers:

Shaddup. You’re DEAD to me. I think Ronald Reagan himself wouldn’t have satisfied you lugheads.

Mitt Romney wasn’t my choice either – at first. I prayed that Rick Perry would be more than he was, or that the tough talking Chris Christie would run because I knew he wouldn’t be afraid to fight the storm that would fall on his shoulders (boy, was I wrong about him), or that Paul Ryan would be the top of the ticket.

Instead, Mitt Romney proved he had the mettle to stand his ground. Not only that, he’s practically a boy scout with no dirt in his past from a party that loves them some mud-slinging.

Even further, Romney is a good man even when no one is looking. And he’s a financial GENIUS, exactly what we need at this time in our country.

So far from holding my nose, as I did when I voted for McCain, I enthusiastically supported Mitt Romney, complete with signs and bumper stickers. It was going to be so NICE to restore American and stop this downward spiral, all I had to do was get through this election and hope that too much further damage wasn’t done before he could take office January 20.

And now you stupid Twinkie Idiots claiming you want to wake me up hide behind a stupid letter proudly spewing your stupid stupidity. And I have to suffer through four more years of obama and likely irreversible damage.

Dead to me.

Hmmm….

MORE information coming in…for deliberative thinkers, that is…

The election news last week wasn’t all bad. Last Tuesday represented the total failure of a multi-year leftist effort to move Evangelical voters left. According to the exit-poll data, not only did Evangelicals turn out for Mitt Romney at percentages that exceeded George W. Bush’s and John McCain’s share of the Evangelical vote, they also constituted a record-high share of the overall electorate. Alas, it wasn’t enough, but this turnout prevented a defeat from becoming a rout.

It’s hard to overstate the extent of the progressive failure here. Ever since the triumph of the “values voter” in 2004, the Left has engaged in a determined effort to liberalize Evangelicals.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333224/progressive-evangelicals-epic-fail-david-french

I once again ask all the ‘conservatives’ who are complaining abut the choice of Mitt Romney as our standard bearer the following question —

— exactly who did we have as a candidate who would defeat Champ?

Newt? More baggage than a Pullman porter.
Santorum? Nice guy but not nearly enough gravitas.
Bachmann? She can barely win her own district.
Perry? He imploded.
Cain? Ditto.

Okay, what about the folks who didn’t run this time?

Rubio? Too junior yet (also why he wasn’t picked for VP, folks).
Jeb? Sure, the country will vote for another Bush, right.
Christie? Too junior, too moderate.
Jindal? Good governor but a little flaky.
Haley? Too junior.

The list trails off after that, doesn’t it.

Face it: Mitt was the best we had. That was well demonstrated in the primary season. For all the talk about a deep Republican bench, it turns out that for President, it wasn’t deep at all. We have great governors, we have great young talent bubbling up, but in 2012 we didn’t have a lot of talent at the top.

Mitt is who we had. I get the concerns of the letter writers presented by Ms. Sorock, but these concerns aren’t new. EVERYONE knew that Mitt would have trouble turning out the base, and it was Mitt’s challenge to fix that. I thought he was getting there in October but it is now clear that the base stayed home.

Okay, base, you stayed home. Happy now?

This gets me to an argument that I just don’t appreciate — the choice is Champ versus Mittens, so the very conservative Pubs vote “neither” and now will spend the next four years complaining about how the country is going to hell under Champ.

If you disliked Champ that much, you should have held your nose and voted for Mittens. But since you didn’t, you can just shut up.

Doing the “I hated both candidates so I didn’t vote” schtick gets old, particularly for us who DID vote, DID contribute, and DID work for our candidate. I don’t need to hear your pious whining about Mitt right now.

Mitt wasn’t the ideal candidate but he was willing to take the beating on our behalf. And took a beating he did. He doesn’t need it from us.

    Romney was not in any way, shape or form the “best we had.” Did the others have their faults? Sure. But each one had a different strength that those faults might have been offset against.

    Newt – Agree he had baggage, but had the oration and idea skills to clean Obama’s clock. Plus he had the TRACK RECORD to run on of the Deficit.

    Santorum – Not enough gravatas, sure, but earnestness. And he would have tweaked the Planned Parenthood types into a meltdown as the candidate, showing them for what they truly are, abortion mills without ANY redeeming quality.

    Bachmann – you’re right. I’ll give you Bachmann. She had no business running for President.

    Cain – Cain I think was unfairly targeted early on because he wasn’t a “political” type. His ideas were simply demonized without actually being looked at. His 9-9-9 plan would have been a revolutionary leap forward in tax format, and having that debate ALONE, even if he had lost, would have been worth losing. Also, as a candidate it would have taken the “race” card off the table. It’s unfair, but life isn’t fair.

    Perry – Had the executive experience that the others generally lacked (except for Romney). Should have been better prepared. But he was someone that the Conservatives COULD have gotten excited for, as opposed to Romney, whom the Conservatives just couldn’t. The Conservatives didn’t turn out for Romney; they turned out for RYAN.

    Your under-card is correct – none of them were ready.

    And as for Romney taking the beating: that’s not accurate. We’re not beating on Romney. We’re beating on the Establishment Leadership who GAVE us Romney by either manipulating the process, or by strategic actions to cut off other candidates at very specific intervals when momentum was being created. The fact that happened MORE THAN ONCE shows concerted effort.

      alwaysfiredup in reply to Chuck Skinner. | November 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm

      Paul Ryan should have been recruited to run in 2010. He would have been an excellent candidate. He said he didn’t want to put his family through the crap that is our primary election process. while I believe this was a consideration, it had to be obvious to Ryan that the people who would otherwise support him already stood behind Romney.

      It was obvious to all of us a year ago that Romney could not beat Obama just because of their personal one-on-one strengths and weaknesses. It wasn’t ideological. It had a little to do with charisma and salesmanship, a lot to do with a biased media that refused to present us fairly, and a little to do with Mitt’s “brand” as a wall street tycoon. That was just the game between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. It’s not Romney’s fault, I think he played this hand better than I would have given him credit for a year ago. But it is a losing hand.

      So why did the “powers that be” (money, Ailes/Murdoch, Priebus and the rest of the RNC, the GOP washington press corps, etc) insist that only Romney could win when it was obvious he couldn’t win? That is where the problem lies. Not so much with the candidate as with the lack of meaningful choice. We needed something drastically different and got business as usual. Well, business as usual can win independents but can no longer win an election. Time for a new plan.

      There is a majority in this nation that wants to live a freer life. That is the future of the party, if we’re willing to back the policies that free us. If we’re willing to walk the walk. It’s there in every demographic and in most regions of the country. Stand against tariffs. Enforce world trade laws. Lower obstacles to basic job creation. Reform the INS and the Fed. Defend the independence of the internet. Back obvious legislation that promotes freedom. People will notice.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to stevewhitemd. | November 14, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    My problem with Romney is the people he hired to run the show. As a class they are unimaginative, un-aggressive, several years behind on the tech curve, consumed with inside the beltway concerns and in possession of a tin ear.

    Consider the youth vote. Fearful people will often focus on the wrong target. Demagogues use this to their benefit. While Obama was demonizing Romney on the war against women aimed, in part, at single voters his advisers should have been working on the killer ad of all times. 2012’s Bear in the Woods should have been the coming debt and entitlement crisis as the zombie apocalypse. Romney’s adviser had no counteroffensive planned other than his it’s all about jobs message and vague language about growth. It didn’t work. In never does once a demagogue has set the tone of the campaign.

    Christie? Too junior, too moderate and way too fat and too unhealthy looking to be taken seriously for POTUS. True! (plus, as he showed with the Obama hug, really kinda of jerk)

    huskers-for-palin in reply to stevewhitemd. | November 14, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Bachmann? She can barely win her own district.

    In 2010, Bachmann was targeted big time by Pelosi. She got help from a lot of outside groups (Palin, TP, AM, etc) and she won in a close race. In 2012, her opponent was a multi-millionaire backed big time by the DNC. The RNC “promised” help if it was close (it was) and they balked. Mark Levin was livid at Prebius when he asked him if the RNC would help and Prebius weaseled out.

    Bachmann got herself into debt early by running for POTUS and ignoring her district….it nearly came back to bite her.

This is not Politically Correct comment. I don’t care.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have to have a VERY serious discussion about religion. People don’t want to talk about it. Again, I don’t care. It needs to be said.

We need to have a VERY serious discussion, as a party, as to whether or not a non-main stream religious candidate can win as the candidate of the Republican party.

Much like a Black Conservative cannot win in upstate New York due to the ‘soft racism’ of the old, white (and largely male) voters inability to comprehend that such a person exists, we need to ask ourselves if the party is able to actually check the box for a candidate who follows a religion that a significant portion of our voter base sees as a cult.

While there was a large Evangelical turnout, I contend that at least part of those 10 Million voters who did not turn out did so because of Romney’s Mormonism. There is at least a portion of those who would otherwise vote Republican who could not vote for Romney due to his religion being viewed as a cult, regardless of the damage that a second Obama Presidency would inflict upon the nation. That ‘soft bigotry’ present in at least some voters was at least part of the Republican’s loss for the Presidency, while retaining the House.

There are simply certain realities that cannot be overcome, no matter how much we wish them to be, and we need to have a very serious discussion as a party as to whether to back a non-major religious candidate in the future.

    As long as we are throwing PC out the window, consider this:

    1. I’m sure you saw the democrats verbal tirade at including “GOD” in their party platform; it would appear that appealing to the anti-Christ is actually a plus. Black families are supposed to be religious … so I wonder how with the democrats booing “GOD” and black unemployment at 18+% how the second time around, blacks can go for Obama at a 90+% rate. I have an answer … sheer stupidity.
    2. Dear Leader is not Christian … if you believe he is, I have a bridge I can sell you … cheap. How many times did he go to Sunday services … I can count just a few photo-op times. It interferes with Sunday golf outings. And it’s not the Mormons who blew up WTC. Dear Leader is a Muslim. He was raised that way in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on earth.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to walls. | November 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm

      Don’t underestimate the intimidation factor with the black vote. When I first moved to Chicago in the 1980s I was astounded by the number of working class voters, black and white alike, who assumed their vote was not secret. They were certain there would be retaliation is the form of denial of government services if they did not toe the Democrat party line. It is hard to break through that fear even without a beefy Black Panther standing outside the polling place.

        alwaysfiredup in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | November 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm

        The black vote will never abandon the first black president. It’d be like abandoning MLK Jr. It will also not be an issue in 2016 because the Dems don’t have another black candidate ready to run. JJJr. has self-destructed. Michelle will not be the first female president. Condoleeza Rice has probably a better shot at the WH than any other black American and I don’t think she wants to run.

    Nonsense. The only people that didn’t turn out voted for Obama in 2008. I doubt very seriously they were concerned about his being a Mormon. Virtually every single vote for McCain was also a vote for Romney. So where is the alleged discrimination against Mormons ? Didn’t exist.

      Go have a conversation with the Southern Baptist Convention or the Missouri Synod Lutherans. Some of their public leadership said nice things about Romney, and said that “this shouldn’t be about someone’s salvation,” but look at the second-tier Pastors, some of whom basically told their congregations “stay home,” because the choice is either a black christian who supports gay marriage against the teachings of the Church or a white member of a racist cult.

      You want to look further than that, Gallup polling apparently released a poll on June 21 that purportedly said that 10% of Republicans would not be able to bring themselves to vote for a Mormon candidate. Maybe that poll was just a fluke, but then again in hindsight, maybe not.

I agree with every word, but our problems go beyond the beltway Republicans.

The GOP establishment in Ohio has been conducting a low-level civil war for years, primarily over silly turf issues. While I don’t live there anymore I’m close enough to activists to confidently say it has been one screwed up state organization. Come 2016, we need our hatches battened down, our focus entirely on winning and the self-serving whiners (like Steve LaTourette and his faction) gone.

What the hell is the tea party anyways? It started with a noble message, oppose Obama care and have a fiscally responsible budget. Then the Glen Beck’s demanded we add prayer, (and damn it better be a Jesus prayer), the Paul-bots want to add some stuff or they are going off on their own, then another group demands we add abortion, (all, no compromise) and another group demands we stop teaching evolution in school, and another group adds that we have a no compromise issue on immigrations….

Until republicans have a unified message we are destined to be a marching band marching in 15 different directions playing 15 different songs. We could nominate Jesus H. f’n Christ and we would spend all are time blogging about the pimple on his nose while we watch another democratic get elected…..

NC Mountain Girl | November 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm

Obama’s people recognized part of their 2008 base are not news junkies. Therefore they didn’t spend all their ad dollars flooding the wells around news shows. They were on ESPN, Comedy channel, TVland and similar channels and they were largely unopposed there.

The inside the beltway Republicans don’t seem to understand how to pitch their ideas to such voters. Indeed, they tend to be quite dismissive of the low information voter who decides based on impressions rather than analysis. Part of this seems to be they simply can’t imagine people who aren’t consumed by politics. That there are people out there who don’t do Drudge astounds them. More of the consultants inside the Democrat party have regular contact with low information voters through backgrounds in education and labor. The Republican grassroots has regular contact, too, because they are our neighbors. Unfortunately the Republican campaign consultant class seldom listen to us. They are too busy talking to one another. Over the years I’ve seen only a few exceptions. Lee Atwater comes most prominently to mind.

Rubio?

Sorry…he’s just another Romney-RINO pushing amnesty who also rejected the TEA PARTY caucus.

NO THANKS!

NO MORE RINOs!!!!!!

Go ahead and vent against the establishment types if it makes you feel better. Unfortunately, they are not going anywhere. But it’s nice to see them get a poke in the eye.

The Marco Rubio comment is bizarre. Hispanics are Cuban (slightly Republican), Mexicans and other Central Americans (all very democrat), etc. The problem here is Cubans are a small percentage of Hispanic voters. Rubio has about as much appeal to a Mexican American in Nevada as a snow shovel.

Moving forward I think we need to get rid of early voting to try and cut down on Democrat voter fraud. Some of the results that came in last week looked very suspicious (ask Allen West). Stronger voter ID laws from Republican states would help (even if they are challenged at the Supreme Court).
I think we should begin with fiscal Conservatism as the main focus to rally a coalition. Even those who are pro-choice, should be able to agree that we shouldn’t be paying for anyone’s elective procedure. If the outcome results in fewer abortions, then isn’t that a win for prolifers?
The TEA party brought people together because of their fear of the fiscal collapse. Now I know that many in the TEA party weren’t willing to sacrifice their own “goodies” when it came time for cuts, but fiscal responsibility is a starting point. Fiscal responsibility can bring in Libertarians and give a unified direction going forward. If the establishment fold on spending, then we may as well be democrats. If they want to give on higher taxes then why not cut the tax deduction for states taxes, that will bring in revenue and make the blue states pay for some of their own goodies.
Looking back helps if we can figure out what not to do next time, but I’m focused on the next 2 years, how to get fiscal conservatives elected.

Let’s face it, Romney was too nice. At the convention, he should have demanded that the House of Representatives start impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General (Fast and Furious) and the Fed Chair (perjury to Congress regarding QE1, 2, 3, etc.). As soon as Libya blew up demanded the resignations of Clinton and Panetta. Attack Obama for his ‘War on the Middle Class’ and the ‘culture of rape’ that permeates the hard left. Attack, attack, attack!!!

It would be great if somehow all those who still rabidly defend Romney can explain why this supposedly great candidate lost. He was the moderate the GOP wanted to run. Whether the Dems ran a good campaign or not – Romney LOST.

Personally I’m getting rather tired of being blamed for candidates who don’t really represent me losing anyway. Time for the moderates to won this loss and stop blaming the TP and Conservatives.

    Ragspierre in reply to katiejane. | November 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    I’d like to raise an elemental question or two…

    1. who is “attacking the TEA Party”? (Point me to a Dear TEA Party letter like the one addressed to “the establishment”, please)

    2. who is listening to them?

    For instance, Aiken was a demonstrably careless, lazy, crank of a candidate…who won the nomination.

    Now, Aiken was NOT a TEA Party candidate IF Palin is any bellwether of TEA Party support. Palin supported Aiken’s primary opponent, if memory serves.

    Aiken HAD a very conservative record as a Congressman. Was that enough?

      Oh, there have been lots of letters like this one directed toward the TEA Partiers. In fact, a friend sent me one just the other day that is circulating from a “future Republican strategist” (who is an uninformed idiot). Most of them don’t even acknowledge the TEA Party by name because that would be to denigrating to the writer, but simply refers to the TEA Party members as something like this:

      “you dumb, racist, homophobic hicks in the Conservative fringe destroying MY Republican party….”

      Also, there have been lots of attacks by those who consider themselves out betters out there as “faces trusted by the public” (aka Main Stream Morons). Those commentators go out and say something like this:

      Well, Bob, the TEA Partiers are being accused again of being racists because they don’t think that there taxes should be used for health care, and that it should be a personal choice (or immigration, or taxes, or a dozen OTHER topics). We Republicans are saying that the TEA Party position isn’t ‘compassionate’ and they need to stop being so uncaring and uncooperative, and work with us on solutions, rather than just pointing out problems.

      That’s the kind of attack that the TEA Partiers suffer under weekly, if not more often, from the entrenched leadership; a soft denigration of the firm belief in Constitutional governance, state’s rights and the rights of the people to self-governance.

huskers-for-palin | November 14, 2012 at 2:40 pm

The GOPe told us to eat bullcrap telling us it was chocolate cake. GOPe said, “Eat it you knuckleheads!”

huskers-for-palin | November 14, 2012 at 2:46 pm

GOPe sins

1. Letting conservatives get dragged through the mud and not lifting a finger to help (West, Bachmann, Palin).

2. RNC rules 12/16 with the systematic, heavy-handed tactics to shove the rules down the delegates. I know of several delegates who got up and left and vowed NOT help Romney whatsoever.

3. Putting up mushy moderatesin the 2012 Senate races.

4. Pimping Jeb Bush.

5. Treating the base the way a pimp treats its bitches.

If the “Conservative Grassroots” need to be “inspired” by a Republican candidate to get off their hindquarters and vote AGAINST Obama and the progressive agenda, they need to do some serious introspection.

For some, this is going to take time for it to sink in…

Romney was the architect of ObamaCare.

Rinse & Repeat.

Romney: Obama is a nice guy.

Rinse & Repeat.

Appeasement of moderates at the expressed expense of the base did not get Romney elected.

Rinse & Repeat.

Sheesh! Where have I heard all this crap before? Oh yeah…four years ago after a very familiar face with a very different message was elected potus.

Everything was copacetic….we were all having a nice, friendly circle-jerk….until the kenyan won and everybody turned and started feeding on each other.

Understandable, I suppose…..but most unproductive….!

[…] work did it? Ann at Legal Insurrection quotes an open letter to the GOP establishment: The grassroots will fix this for you. Please stay out of our way. And don’t do anything stupid […]

[…] work did it? Ann at Legal Insurrection quotes an open letter to the GOP establishment: The grassroots will fix this for you. Please stay out of our way. And don’t do anything stupid […]

Great letter, but they rap the GOPE for pandering to Hispanics with amnesty for illegals even as they provide their own pander in th form of Marco Rubio. Tell me, how exactly is he suitable to be the next POTUS, besides being Hispanic, of course?

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted in here, but have to tell you guys, I read all your comments and appreciate most of them all the time. Maybe it’s because I live in IL and its hard to find anyone I would trust to talk politics with, or maybe it’s because I’m part of the AA community, and have learned to take what I need and leave the rest for my own mental sanity, but all your differing views, is exactly why I come here when I’m dispondent or depressed about the situations I see happening here in my beloved country. The letter to the GOP estab. I feel is spot on. I changed from the Republican Party to strictly Independent with strong conservative leanings. I trust the Tea Party far more than I will ever trust the Repub. Party again (unless true Conservatives get a strong hold and become the upper escheloen mouthpieces for the party). I like many in here, watched a Primary that was destroyed by Romney’s Super Pac, Karl Rove, Fox News and many of the elected Rino’s (or Coin’s, whatever you wish to call them). Some may disagree with me, but our strongest candidate was Gingrich, he was the only one that made a mockery of not only the other candidates, Fox News but also the MSM and is still by far and away the only candidate that could actually clearly defend and promote conservative ideas to those that have no clue what conservatives stand for. His conservative credentials could also not be beaten by any of the 3 left standing by November. (Romney and Santorum’s conservative records were sad by comparison – Romney’s record as Gov. was proof of his being very moderate as was Romneycare and Sante’s own Union backings along with his being a lobbyist stand out as not so stellar. Gingrich was the only one to ever turn around his faults and make it look assinine that the moderators even dared bring it up). Sara Palin’s backing of Gingrich should have been a clear message to all claiming to be Tea Party, Libetarian’s, and Repubs. who could best take on a Chg. politician and know which weapon to bring to oust the dirtiest politician our time has ever met. Anyone who was not a political wonk really had no idea how blatantly Romney’s Wall St. money and Karl Rove and Co.’s bashing (Fox News) truly not only influenced our primary, but elected the worst candidate, again, ever to run against the Chg. machine. You need to live in Cook County (Chg. and many suburbs) to know how corrupt and truly disgusting these politicians are. IL has become more democratic since Katrina. Daley invited all the African-Americans salvation up here after the storm. They came here in droves, now this state will forever be a democratic strong-hold. Much of this state is republican, but the Chicago/Cook County vote wipes out our votes. With the economic collapse many of us Repubs. are stuck here until we either lose everything, or the housing and jobs market picks up. That being said, I now only have hope that those of you living in other states can hopefully come together and find our next “TRUE CONSERVATIVE” candidate and elect him/her in. But like so many have said above, it will take all of us to combine our best ideas from each of the factions (immigration is a death nail in our own coffin and only the Coin’s/Rino’s think it’s a good idea) and get out on any media we can find (other than Fox)and promote them. I see that Fox loves to still put out Gingrich (again he’s the best to convey a conservative message), and that even Romney let him do his Conservative University at the convention – this should speak volumes to the people that think he is a washed-up, conservative martian whacko. And for all those that thought his affairs would do him in, take a look at the sex scandals going down now. Me thinks that may be a none issue in the future. Sorry if this was a little long, but don’t know how to convey to you guys how desperate I feel here in IL watching this country go down the tubes. Thank you for all your guys inputs and explaining them rather than just ranting and calling names, I truly try to digest and keep an open mind to all the differing views and info.

    1. Newt is the most conservative and smartest of the bunch, but he couldn’t keep his zipper zipped. Three wives is a lot, and he divorced one wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. That seems cruel; the opposition would have a field day with that one, and no candidate could overcome that.

    2. Gingrich had financial troubles, and unless you can raise the dollars, you are doomed.

      deadrody in reply to walls. | November 15, 2012 at 8:39 am

      Not true. That divorce story has long since been debunked. He and his wife at the time announced their intent to divorce in the spring. His wife was later diagnosed with cancer in the summer of that year.

The GOP RNC did what they had to do:
As a self serving bureaucracy, their main objective is to line their litter-box. Yep, more cars, Employees, Offices and further the operation.
And as Mitt was able to find his own money, well… you’d have to be crazy to run someone you had to help fund.
That wouldn’t make any sense at all.
Unless it was your job to win elections.
And since they don’t seem to be in the business of winning elections, I am wondering just what it is they do over there…

Republicans, both grasroot and establishment, are doing what they do best…accept the Dem/lib imaging of each other, as well as just accept we wee wrong.

Newsflash. Mitt did energize the base. Crowds turned out for him. Just on this little fact alone makes the letter nothing but a whiney response from some whiners who never wanted Mitt and whose guy did not win the primary.

Newsflash. Reality leading up to the election and the results makes it wonder any republican is spewing reasons and pointing blame for the loss. The outcome has nothing to do with who the Republicans ran……

…..instead of accepting the Prog reality, why not accept what is reality and work from there. The sooner the better. Dictators and Regimes do not lose elections. The sooner we accept that the sooner we can work together to utilizing our combined power and asset to fight this. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can work on being FREE, instead of just accepting we, the producers, must act as slaves and within the bounds of laws designed for a country that does not exist. The Usurpers only expect/hope that we remain being, playing an outdated game with outdated rules, law abiding citizens to laws that are from “the old days” while they live by the laws of the Regime.

Start talking like we won. Start talking reality.

Dear Committed and Pure Conservative Base,
Thank you kindly for not coming out to vote. Your desire to have a more ideologically pure, conservative candidate is noble. BUT your decision to not show up because of your grievances with the Republican establishment and with an otherwise decent candidate and man who would have made a much better president than Obama has left us with an emboldened and re-elected hard left-wing president. Additionally, there is now no realistic way that we can get rid of Obamacare. As you have stated, this appears to be your fault for not coming out and voting.

We would buy your argument that IF ONLY the Republicans had nominated someone more conservative, he would have won IF there were evidence that the “non-establishment” candidates had actually won. Unfortunately, they did not. We would also buy your argument if you could point me to a candidate running last year in the primaryies who would have done better than Romney in the general election. Santorum? You think the moderate on social issues Romney got his clock cleaned by the single woman vote, what would it have been like with a Santorum? Gingrich? Really? First, he’s not that conservative, at least not if you look at his record. Second, he has way too much baggage and looks too much like a grumpy imp. Not that he isn’t well spoken, but so is Romney.
You can complain all you want. And I’m sure that you will over the next 4 years with a President Obama. But remember, it’s your fault he’s president. Not the Establishment.

Best regards,
Your Fellow Reasonable Republican

    Ok. Read EVERY single one of my comments about how and why this is wrong. People very rarely vote AGAINST someone. They need to be provided a reason to vote FOR someone.

    Romney didn’t give us a reason to vote FOR him (at least not until the end, and it was weak), and gave at least SOME portion of the electorate a reason NOT to vote for him. Paul RYAN gave the Conservatives a reason to vote FOR the Romney/Ryan ticket, but by then it was really too little, too late.

For all the talk among conservatives about how corrupt the MSM is, it sure doesn’t stop the right from falling for fake narratives they spit out. Since I live in Virginia and have to listen to people talk about a made up word as though it has an established history of being a racial epithet is very frustrating!! Before Allen said “macaca,” it had no entry on Wikipedia. That was corrected the day after the first stories were published and that entry was edited 37 times in the first day. Basically, the leftists told you that it was a racial slur and it’s now been perpetuated by the masses.

FYI, at this point Mitt is only down 800K votes from McCain and with votes still being counted, its extremely likely he will reach the same 59.9 million votes as McCain. So the narrative that the base, or conservatives, or whoever didn’t turn out for Mitt is simply not true.

Obama is currently 7 million votes short of his 2008 totals. If you think there are 7 million Obama voters that were even remotely “likely” to turn out for Romney, you are a fool.

The fact of the matter is that the media put Obama over the top with their fear campaign over gay rights and women’s issues, and its even MORE likely that the 42% of people claiming Hurricane Sandy was an important factor for them switched from Romney to Obama in the final week.

There was no better candidate actually RUNNING for the nomination, let alone one that could have done better than Romney. That idea is laughably naive.

    See my above breakdown on the numbers, growth of the electorate, lack of turnout and Romney failure to capture voters who abandoned Obama.

    Also see the polling done by Gallup that 10% of the Republican electorate COULD NOT vote for a Mormon, and that anti-mormon bigotry stands at 18% of the overall electorate.

My brief 2 cents is that the Republican Party long ago put any notion of a limited government in its rearview mirror with its spendthrift ways. You can’t out-Santa Clause Santa Clause (the Dem party).

Second, the party, for all of its talk about individual rights, can’t stop with putting forth anti-abortion candidates on a national level (Ryan). If you don’t want tax dollars going to abortions, fine, but stop putting people out there who all but indicate they’d advocate or sign a bill for banning abortions. It’s hypocritical to say you are for individual freedom, and then act to restrict those freedoms.

Third, it’s easy to paint Republicans as the party of the rich. They fight like hell to not raise taxes on the wealthiest, but there is deafening silence on the white collar crime in the country from the financial meltdown. Where’s the plan for the banks besides anti Dodd-Frank? There isn’t one. It shows there is a preferred standard for the white collared wealthy, and doesn’t do a bloddy thing to motivate the average citizen to vote “R.” The Republican party squandered a tremendous chance to be the party of justice.

Fourth, it’s hard to get excited about a party that hardly seems to defend itself in the news media. Besides Sununu and Gingrich, where were the Repubs absolutely demolishing the news biases on the Sunday shows, etc. It’s all very country clubish not to offend anyone. The media’s going to screw you anyway, so nail them first. Were I a soldier, I wouldn’t want to follow a lieutenant into battle who didn’t seem very likely to fight for me. Make no mistake, dealing with the media is war, and should be treated accordingly.

There’s more, but you get the idea….

The Tea Party (which most establishment politicians fear & loath) are normal American citizens joined together in opinion and spirit to change the liberal trajectory killing this country back towards the direction of the founding roots.

It’s a long fight just to get it back to center but the direction has to be opposite of liberal even to do that.

This is the only way America will survive and it will take decades to right the wrongs of self-serving politicians which dominates the DEM party and are still in the majority in the GOP.

We are changing America back from the inside out and no cake was ever baked without cracked eggs.

[…] Dear Republican Establishment: a letter from the conservative grassroots (legalinsurrection.com) […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend