09 / November
09 / November
The 'Who Moved My Cheese' Election

Tuesday was the Who Moved My Cheese?-election. Even a mouse could figure out which party adapted to the new nation and which one was trapped in the United States of Yesterday. Circumstances force Republicans to adapt--or remain mired in the maze. Read my article @ the American Spectator on how Obama didn't bring change--change brought Obama.

posted at 12:18 PM

Exactly. Change tactics, not principles. I'll say it again, the GOP was out strategized when it came to sending what message where.

If we had a majoritarian, European style government John Boehner would be prime minister right now. So the 'country has changed' argument holds very little water. Cuban-Americans vote Republican, Mexican-Americans who reach a certain income bracket vote Republican. This is not a done deal, the Liberty message penetrates no matter who's listening. Next time (if there is a next time), talk about workers and not just small business owners, talk about tax-payer funded abortions oversees, talk about homo-sexual marriage, etc, etc.

Posted by: adb on November 9, 2012 03:30 PM

Tuesday was a bloodbath for the GOP and it must serve as a wakeup to adjust to the times. Here's my opinion what the GOP must strive to accomplish (in the next 4 years) if they really hope to win another national election:

1. Leave abortion alone. Maintain your personal convictions, but let the law of the land stand as has been decided by the Supreme Court. The younger generations will not accept a pro-life candidate.

2. Play a major role in immigration reform. As adb mentioned above, many Hispanic folks are conservative on many issues, ie strong families, sense of duty (military), etc. The current system's a joke and the borders are porous (not to mention, many of the folks who are doing jobs Americans don't want are some of the hardest working folks out there). The GOP could make some major headway in both the national security and appeal realms should they show some serious leadership and compromise.

3. Promote candidates "most" Americans can somewhat relate to. Let's face it, most folks couldn't relate to Romney, nor he to them. Paul Ryan has charisma and I think he and another level-headed, down-to-earth Repub could do well in a future race.

4. Reinforce, reinforce, reinforce that EVERYTHING that comes out of a candidate's mouth will be recorded and filmed. The 47% remark, the ludicrous rape-pregnancy clip, George Allen's "Macaca" dig at the kid in 2006, etc. all spelled doom.

5. Make an effort to address the gay marriage stance. Let's face it, gay couples have families, money, and they vote. Regardless of your view on the topic, they can actually hold conservative family values and may be willing to back such a candidate, provided the candidate isn't attacking their lifestyle...Dick Cheney seems to get it.

I'm prepared to be called a RINO or a whole other rash of colorful adjectives for my suggestions. However, should the GOP status quo remain unchanged, prepare for an even bigger defeat in 2016.

Posted by: CheeseHead on November 10, 2012 10:04 AM

12 million fewer votes than John McCain. John McCain?!!

Posted by: adb on November 10, 2012 01:30 PM

Nonsense, they should DOUBLE DOWN on Abortion. It should be tee'd up next time as an issue of BASIC FAIRNESS in that no one who was under the age of 18 in 1973 has been able to cast a single vote on an issue that divides the country right down the line.

Posted by: HomerJFong on November 10, 2012 03:28 PM

Its all Sippy's fault.

Posted by: Johhny on the spot on November 10, 2012 07:41 PM

You can toss the social conservatives out of the party and then never win another election ever.

Posted by: Benjamin P. Glaser on November 10, 2012 08:24 PM


How do you define social conservatism? Perhaps telling people how to live their private lives? If so, I disagree with you wholeheartedly, I think a more Libertarian approach to life is now more appealing. From my standpoint, whatever adults choose do do in their private lives, provided it neither violates law nor affect me, have at it. Besides, who are the "moral authorities" nowadays?

Do social conservatives include a Presidential candidate who unveils his Vice Presidential candidate aboard a Battleship despite the fact neither of them ever served a day in uniform? I think we'll fare better without those types.

Americans want someone closer to the middle. In my case, I'd like to see a social moderate and fiscal conservative. If anyone can think of someone who fits this bill besides Mr. Flynn, please advise. Go Pack Go!

Posted by: CheeseHead on November 10, 2012 09:04 PM

Unless by some fluke or national catastrophe, I don't see the GOP winning the Executive again in my lifetime. This says a lot:

"More Americans report a Nothingarian faith and rely on government assistance than a half-century ago. Whereas 5.5 million Americans depended on food stamps in 1962, 2 million Michiganders do so today. Like marriage and race, faithlessness and freeloading influences the vote in the Democrats' direction. "How often do you attend religious services?" exit pollsters asked. Romney won the "more than once a week" crowd 63 to 36 percent and weekly attendees 58 to 41 percent. He lost the "few times a month" group 55 to 44 percent, "few times a year" 56 to 42 percent, and "never" 62 to 34 percent. Notice the trend line?"

Faithlessness and freeloading indeed. Welcome to the new America.

I don't think the principles that the GOP hold dear should be compromised nor can they be. If the GOP has a fault, it's that the party typically will not turn on a dime on social or fiscal issues the way the Corruptocrats do. I don't see any difference if they do compromise and morph into 'Democrat' light.

Along with that 'flaw', using OUR money to buy votes is a wholly owned tactic of the left. This election was more about that than a poorly run campaign or the likeability of an infinitely more competent and principled candidate.

With minorities typically eating up more government largesse, it will make no difference if the GOP panders to them unless the new party platform is to provide more government and government assistance than the party of the left. And for those whites who are a bigger by percentage of the takers, Republicans are not going to win them over either.

The numbers are clear - whites constitute 64% of the population and take 39% of government handouts, blacks are 12% of the population but grab 40% from government and hispanics (legal) constitute 16% of our population and take 16% or government largesse.

Those on the take are solid voting blocks for the Democrats and hard to change for the opposition so we have to decide if we're going to remain a party of principle and clear choices or not.

Posted by: asdf on November 11, 2012 09:57 AM

Was reading this morning that the youth vote went 60-36 for Obama and likely threw the balance of Pa., Va., and Fla. for Satanclaus.

There is the 'cool' factor, but overwhelmingly, the kids thought that Obama would be the one to forgive their college loans and provide for free college educations eventually.

Mo' free stuff. How does the new and improved GOP win against that? Unless they up the ante.

Posted by: asdf on November 12, 2012 12:32 PM

60-36 is worse than Kerry in '04. Stop with straw men arguments - we're getting enough of those from the media as it is.

Posted by: adb on November 12, 2012 04:50 PM

You're right, in 1853 Blacks received 0% of government handouts

Posted by: goya on November 12, 2012 07:59 PM

I love it when Westbourough Baptist Church uses the term "divine retribution" to frame an argument. LOL.

Posted by: goya on November 12, 2012 08:02 PM

Wait until those kids who borrowed or whose parents doled out $200 grand for a college education end up having to get a job at Starbucks in Obama's economy. Wonder if they'll figure it out?

Kind of doubt it. They'll just chalk it up to the 'new normal' Ospeak.

Posted by: asdf on November 12, 2012 09:06 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?