The establishment has a really hard time with giving up their failed ideas. But you’ll never guess who does get it and ADMITS it. Read all the way to the bottom.
1. Who cares about ideas? Not us.
Mike Murphy said on “Meet The Press” the GOP would have to implicitly reject Limbaugh’s approach if it wanted to ever win another victory again.
Well, of course Rush is the one who consistently reminds them of the core values they are supposed to uphold; that makes him automatically the bad guy.
2. TEA Party? What TEA Party?
it might be a wise plan for Republicans to allow a few tax increases on the very wealthy to go through Congress in exchange for spending cuts
A lot of the Tea Party guys don’t care that much if a few millionaires pay a couple percent more in taxes
I thought there is not such thing as the TEA “party” and there are no official TEA Party spokesmen. So how would Kristol know what is acceptable to them? (Next he’ll tell us he talks to God, too.)
3. Just don’t call them “takers” or worse; they might hate you:
this time the knives are really out, and for precisely the groups with the most incentive to argue against change – namely, immigration restrictionists and social conservatives. Or, as Latino Romney adviser Carlos Gutierrez calls them, “the far right.”
We already have the hispanics “who come across, and what they do wrong is they risk their lives and they come here and they work because they want to be part of the American Dream.” That’s the 1/3 who voted Republican. The problem is with the other 2/3 who come here for other reasons, and who’ll NEVER vote Republican.
4. Hey, there is no more fun than backbiting, right?
Lindsey Grahamnesty … unloading on Mitt Romney … We’re in a death spiral with Hispanic voters because of rhetoric around immigration and candidate Romney, in the primary, dug the hole deeper.
OF COURSE there are takers and they vote and will always vote Democrat. Will they come over to our side if we pretended we don’t know or care? In what alternate universe?
Then there is THIS:
5. Of course, everything is Bush’s fault, Carl Rove’s fault, …. (well, isn’t it?)
6. Oh, yea, we take advice from Meghan McCain…. (WHO?)
I refuse to let the extremists win. We can’t let the Tea Party bully us any longer. We can’t keep worrying about ultraconservative white male voters. At the end of the day, I still believe I’m on the right side of history, and we can’t let this party sink away. We can and we must evolve.
Look in the mirror, dearie. And see if you can recognize YOURSELF as the extremist. Who else would call it “evolving” when the culture and the body politic is sinking into narcissistic depravity?
No, you silly goose, Romney did not lose big. He lost well within the ballot box stuffing margin.
No, you silly goose, the Republican party that you “love” was not highjacked by “wingnuts.” It was highjacked by the soft-headed establishment who had no trouble undermining the party’s conservative candidates in the primaries but pulled its punches against Obama.
No, you silly goose, there are FAR greater issues in this world than approval of the depravities you advocate. It is your kind that is cannibalizing people that diverge from an arbitrary purity test — YOURS; and it is your kind that is alienating the more moderate voters — those who don’t agree with your LGBT agenda.
7. This one will keep tongues wagging; and it does:
people who voted for dependence outnumbered the people who voted for personal responsibility… Obama promised and those promises resonated with people who decided they would rather be depended upon government, rather than have their freedom and their opportunity to have a real, vigorous economy. … That … was the dividing philosophy.
Not that it matters now, but Romney’s mistake was not that he voiced the obvious about the “47%.” His mistake was in forgetting about the NUMBERS. His emphasis was on the job creators, how government must stay out of their way — but those are what, only 5 to 10% tops? He hardly ever said anything, or at least anything memorable, about the other 90 – 95% who don’t have the drive, energy, imagination, resources and luck to be anything but job seekers. Romney expected them to figure it out for themselves how his 5, 10, 59 point (whatever) program would help everybody. He should have realized that he is speaking to an electorate of economic illiterates, mislead by a ruling class of keynesians, and therefore he should have taken the opportunity to teach and convince the voters of the correctness of free market ideas.
8. And PINCH YOURSELF, sometimes even the left’s “newspaper of record” gets it right
NYT: Dem Majority Sign Of U.S. Decline – Democratic Majority In U.S. – Fox Nation
NYT: The Liberal Gloat
Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do – one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully – or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.
Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children – which is now commonplace for women under 30 – is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.
Or consider the secular vote, which has been growing swiftly and tilts heavily toward Democrats. The liberal image of a non-churchgoing American is probably the “spiritual but not religious” seeker, or the bright young atheist reading Richard Dawkins. But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.
What unites all of these stories is the growing failure of America’s local associations – civic, familial, religious – to foster stability, encourage solidarity and make mobility possible.
liberalism often seems indifferent to its deeper social roots … This is a great flaw in the liberal vision, because whatever role government plays in prosperity, transfer payments are not a sufficient foundation for middle-class success.
See, it is a crime to talk about the “47%” only if a Republican does the talking. It is perfectly OK for everybody else.