Here come the inevitable arguments that the Republican Party’s problem was not nominating a True Conservative for president. U.S. News reports:
The Tea Party Patriots, one of the most prominent organizations within the fiscally conservative tea party movement, says Mitt Romney lost the election because he was a “weak moderate” candidate that was “hand-picked” by the establishment GOP.
“For those of us who believe that America, as founded, is the greatest country in the history of the world – a ‘Shining city upon a hill’ – we wanted someone who would fight for us,” Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin wrote in an e-mail, quoting 40th president and conservative hero Ronald Reagan. “We wanted a fighter like Ronald Reagan who boldly championed America’s founding principles… What we got was a weak moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment.”
The Tea Party is an important force within the conservative movement, but it needs to get a handle on its own limitations. Barack Obama didn’t win last night because Romney was too “establishment” and conservatives rebelled. Obama won because of high turnout among his base groups (Democrats, black and Hispanic voters, young people), and even though he lost support with independents, he was able to hold onto enough of them to close the gap.
Grassroots enthusiasm alone isn’t a substitute for a strong turnout operation. And even with a strong turnout operation, Republicans would have still needed to pick up more independent voters.
The point is, the Tea Party-rightblogger-grassroots on its own can’t trump Obama’s cobbled-together coalition. There were always going to be some independents who stuck with Obama because they strongly supported him in 2008 and wanted to give him another chance. But he was also able to hang on to wavering independents for a couple of reasons. One was freebies: birth control, auto bailouts and the assortment of giveaways under Obamacare. The other was fearmongering: convincing voters that abortion would be banned, the social safety net would be destroyed, and that Mitt Romney was a cartoon villain who couldn’t be trusted.
Republicans aren’t going to break up Obama’s coalition by choosing a Newt Gingrich or a Michele Bachmann. That would be a recipe for a spectacular defeat. The Tea Party is an element of a winning GOP coalition, but needs to realize that it’s just one.
I suggest a reality check Alana on something you conveniently overlook and which all defenders of Romney as the "best" nominee overlook. This guy was the ONLY GOP candidate with a vested interest in not going after Obamacare and making it a centerpiece issue which was how the Tea Party was able to turn the GOP around in 2010. He was the one whose "Romneycare" was so essential to the image of "moderate" and "bridge-builder" that he was from the get-go going to be the one candiate who would mean forfeiting the heart and soul of how the GOP saved itself from claims that 2008 meant the permanent minority status of the GOP. So I suggest you not overrate how "good" a candidate Romney supposedly was, because he was at heart a country-clubber elite in the H.W.Bush mold, and H.W. Bush is the one we can now with hindsight really thank for destroying the GOP's ability to have a solid coalition that Ronald Reagan had created on the presidential level.
The "Tea Party" may be the reason that Romney lost, not what might have saved the GOP. The religious fanatics who want their religious beliefs enforced by law rather than quiet nonpolitical persuasion.
This, for me, is the 'Charge of the Light Brigade'. Canons to the right, canons to the left, I charge down the valley of death. In my case, religious fanatics to the right, leftist anti-Semites to the left, I have no where to go.
Have you ever actually *met* Michelle Bachmann? I have and would no more call her a "religious fanatic" than I would so label a person who carefully observes the Kosher dietary regulations. Michelle Bachmann's religious beliefs are to her are pretty much what Judaism is to one who "keeps Kosher" and "doesn't strike a light on the sabbath" — absolutely not hidden, part of a personal system of values but not imposed upon others. n nIf we had a Presidential Candidate who "kept Kosher", would there be a fear that the entire nation would have the Kosher laws imposed upon it should he/she/it be elected? I know the anti-semetic schmucks would be saying this, but would any rational person believe it? n nI know some highly observant individuals, none of whom have ever tried to impose their Kosher values upon me. I have been encouraged to sample items that I couldn't hope to properly pronounce let alone spell, but that is out of a genuine believe that I, too, will find them delicious (and often have), that I will voluntarily want to eat them. That's not "imposing" the food upon me, it is merely bringing it to my attention. n nSo too with Michelle Bachmann.
I first encountered the "strike a light on the sabbath" in the case of a tenant who did not want a working light in his refrigerator — which I honored as soon as I realized that he genuinely didn't want it and wasn't just trying to not make himself a burden on the maintenance staff. n nThe religious traditions and beliefs of faiths other than ones own often seem bizarre. (Ever seen Catholic kneeling benches?) But that is a far thing from saying that the individual was bizarre. n nFor the very same reasons that the Kosher laws prohibit the mixing of milk & meat, one of the most delicious Yankee meals involves a mixture of sour cream and beef. The bacteria in the sour cream break down the meat and make it tender and delicious — and likely would make it quite toxic if given more time to interact and/or not all killed by exposure to high heat in a modern oven – which didn't exist in Biblical times. n nSomeone who "keeps Kosher" is not trying to take this dish away from me. n nAnd observant Christians — true Christians — aren't trying to take anything away from anyone else, either. And there is a really big difference between the way Newt Gingrich has lived his life and the way that Michelle Bachmann has lived hers – one is on his third spouse and one is still married to her first husband…
Oh give me a break. There is nothing fanatical about wanting to stand up for a mainstream position on the sanctity of marriage and not having EXISTING laws or the Constitution trampled underfoot by judicial activists, nor is there anything fanatical about having a mainstream pro-life position in contrast to the extremist pro-abortion positions of NOW, nor is it "extreme" to stand up for the principles of religious liberty (an issue Romney was too cowardly to bring up once as pushback to this phony "War On Women" crap put forth by people who want the taxpayer to subsidize their $9 a month birth control pill addictions). You want to take that view about a vital element of the GOP coalition for decades, then frankly you and the party can go straight to Hell as far as I'm concerned because people like you deserve Obama.
Both you and vandag are wrong. Alana is right. Romney certainly was conservatiev enough for most republicans. he did not have the skills of communication of reagan but ,in any other year, he owuld have won big. This was a very unique election- a black American running for a second term. That alone was probably worth five points. The MSM craven support was worth another five points. Make Obama white and you neutralize the MSM and you win.
No. Alana is right as to Newt Gingrich but wrong as to conservatives in general. n nHer mistake is deeper, but understandable — failing to distinguish between a true conservative and one who adopts conservative values to advance a political career. The true conservative really doesn't want to be in DC, but is there to fight for things instead of just to be there. n nSurvivors who were close to the detonation point of the Hiroshima bomb never heard a "bang", one had to be some distance away to actually hear it. There are a lot of "conservatives" in DC who adopt conservative values because that is how one gets ahead — they do this for the same reason I put on a tie and the rest, the "dress for success" and the rest. But they no more value those conservative values than I value having a slipknot around my neck. n nMichelle Bachman. Allen West. Those are true conservatives. Allen West could have defeated Obama, he would have chewed up the Dem attack team and spit them out.
The world does not live at the extremes. It lives in a kind of graduations ,from extreme right to extreme left. The winner is able to assemble a coalition of enought people to win.Even if Romney was not the kind of conservative you wanted, he was eons ahead of Obama.That should have been enough in normal times. As people study this election, they will see that Romney made up four percent of McCain's loss- a signifciant amount nationwide. He could not close the full gap. And- it pains me to say- too many republicans stayed home- Romney had close ot three million voters LESS than mcCain (the scourge of conservatives, remember) and in the critical states of Virginia and Ohio, his total fell short of McCain's by appx the amount he needed to win! Imagine, less republican voters in those states than in 2008- a banner Democratic year! Well,now they will have four years to reflect uopn the catastrophe that is about to engulf is. nThe Perfect is always the enemy of the good and Romney was pretty good! Blame the ones who stayed at home and shrugged their shoulders at Romney. They may be the real culprits
Well good luck with that strategy (blame the ones that stayed home) in getting their votes. n nIt never ceases to amaze me that "moderates" in the republican party will wet themselves in excitement of changing our principles to attract gays, hispanics, blacks, and women, but can't rouse themselves to win the true conservativ/ llibertarian vote by advocating to more forcefully espouse constitutional principles. n nWhich, by the way, would also pull in some gay, hispanic, black, and women voters if we had anyone that could speak intelligently about those ideals, and how they benefit the population in every area from the economy to taxes.
You better look in the mirror first. Millions of people who voted republican in 2008 did NOT come out in 2012, with a candidate who was eons better the McCain.I am not a moderate Republican- i am actually very conservative but I understand life and know-unlike those childish all or nothing-ers- that life is not perfect and neither are political candidates. You try the best and fight for your principles. Can you tell me ONE position that Romney espoused that went against conservatism? Even the health plan in Mass. was a STATE plan- very much in line with our federalist system. Are you telling me that individual states have no choice in such matters? This includes gay marriage, by the way-to which i am opposed and woudl like the whoe isssue of marriage taken out of the public place. We will never win on a national level if we want "all or nothingZ". Life isn't like that.
Brit Hume of FOX News said something last night that was most likely true: Most people who call themselves "moderates" are actually liberals. Republicans should stop the folly of trying to court "moderates". As Donovan once sang, they "may as well try and catch the wind".
They better court somebody besides old white men and married women. And they better not keep trying to ram religious values they conveniently label "conservative values" down the throats of the country. That is NOT the GOP of Reagan – not even remotely close. n nBuckley would pronounce this strategy dead on arrival…because it is…and the country let us know it. Until the Bachmans, Mourdochs and Aikens stick to policy and politics, and read a few books beside How to Preach to the Choir, it will be a long time before a "conservative" occupies the White House. n nOh, by the way, the above from a longstanding conservative who wept when Reagan did not get the 1976 nomination.
I see and hear "persuade" when listening to Bachman, Mourdoch and Aikens. You hear "ram…down the throats." Abortion is murder. It's legal but it's still murder. See. I just tried to persuade you to change your mind about abortion.
Did I mistakenly just read this article in The New Republic or NYT. Blaming the Tea Party for Rommeny's loss is utter nonsense . Sacrificing conservative principles to win elections is not the answer .
Amen to that. Forget 1980, let's try to remember 1994 and 2010 and how the Republicans scored their biggest successes. Unfortunately, because the liberals were able to beat a couple visible faces in those campaigns (Oliver North in 1994-a victim of fink John Warner's lack of support; Sharon Angle in 2010. Contrary to myth, I do not believe Angle was a bad candidate. She became a victim to the chicanery of how Harry Reid could get out the vote where he needed it most and the same thing would have happened to a "moderate") it created in GOP establishment circles the mindset that somehow the people who were at the core of the success were to blame for it not being more than it was and hence after those elections we saw a retreat to "moderates" of no deep principles rooted in the GOP who were guaranteed losers.
No one is blaming the Tea party but it is useful to point out that three million LESS conservatives came out to vote- many in crucial states. Yes, we can blame those who sat home and gave the country back to Obama,instead of having a good man- and conservative- become President. It is abslutely ridiculous to want an all'or nothing policy and candidate.
Your points are well taken, however, I am still highly skeptical or the vote totals in many swing state districts(I strongly suspect significant fraud).
interesting- there are many republicans who insist that there was wholesale fraud in the counting (by computers,btw). if these is any truth in this, then we truly have a fascist country……
And how are Senators Akin and Mourdock doing? The Tea Party people continue to live in fantasyland – if you really believe that Romney would have won if he only were more conservative, you will NEVER live long enough to win an election.
Akin was set up and then stabbed in the back by his own side. (Karl Rove reportedly joked to fundraisers that he might murder Akin.) n nBoth the right and the left have an Achilles heel — the right's is abortion and the left's is behavioral health. The issue of rape-induced abortions is a real ethical quagmire relative to individual rights, but so too is the involuntary commitment of an individual who may be a "threat to self or others" but who has not committed any crime, let alone been convicted thereof. n nAkin's mistakes were threefold. First, his sense of decency precluded his explaining, in sexually explicit detail, exactly what the victim's immediate running for help would do, what the muscle group movements necessary for her to run, combined with the natural tendency of liquids to flow downhill would do. Nor how the hospital's ER would help her avoid becoming pregnant. n nSecond, he didn't address the "innocent victim" aspect of this. He didn't compare it to how cops ought not be shooting innocent bystanders in a legitimate attempt to shoot a perp — as happened in NYC a few weeks later. n nThird, he didn't compare it to the involuntary psych commitment issue of the left. He didn't compare it to gun control and the left's desire to deny everyone a right because someone might do something with it. n nAbove all else, Akin didn't defend his position and that was his fatal mistake. We need good debaters, we need good speechwriters, and above all else, we need to throw the intellectual fascists out of the party so that we can debate issues internally – as issues – without having the fascist "scorched earth" approach of purging all who dissent on anything.
You can't defend an intellectually indefensible position. His position is laughable, and I have spoken to a number of women, married and single, who refused to vote for him on this basis. And they were right. n nAkin stumbled upon his own feet. Period. n nWhen will conservatives learn that it takes more than passionate theology to make a conservative, well, a conservative? What many from the extreme right call conservative is simply Sunday school-stick-your-head-in-the-sand anti-intellectualism – self-servingly labeled "conservative values."
Only moderation should win! The extremes on the rt back-stabbed Romney. They did not want to wait until 2020. If they do not moderate their positions they will loose in 2016 & 2020.
Remember how often Tobin and Goodman told us that Mitt Romney was the "inevitable" Republican nominee? Remember how they trashed conservatives who had the effrontery to want to be the Republican nominee? n nWell, they got what they wanted, and – predictably – Mitt Romney lost the election. Now, thanks to Tobin and Goodman, we'll have four more years of Barak Obama.
Alana Goodman is full of crap. Obama lost 20 million voters from 2008 (not the 9 million the MSM claims). If there had been a high turnout for him, last night would have been a landslide defeat for Romney instead of a DNF. Romney is a very good man, better than Petain McCain. But, Romney did NOT run a Conservative Campaign. In time, even Romney will say that himself. Even so, he would have been a great President.
Alana, I know you are too young to remember seeing them, and after he was elected few remembered them, but go look at the TV ads that were run against Reagan in the 1980 election. Then watch the circa-1984 movie _War Games_ and remember that "DEFCOM 1" meant "nuclear war is imminent" — that within 7 minutes or so, most of the United States would cease to exist. n nMemory is that these ads were something along the lines of "Governor Reagan" couldn't start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union "but a President Reagan could." n nObama's coalition is but a remodel of the old one of FDR which Reagan took on and defeated. Reagan won 49 states — he won Massachusetts TWICE and that was Michael Dukakas's Massachusetts, back when all the Catholics were still Democrats.
I am sick and tired of hearing that the ONLY group that energized the Republican base to recapture the House in 2010, the ONLY group to stand up for constitutional originalism, the ONLY group to stand up for limited government as defined by the constitution, is the problem with the Republican party. n nNO MORE. n nIf you believe the Tea Party is the problem, then you should be honest with your readers, and tell them that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison were actually right wing radical purists instead of the founding heroes of our nation as we were all taught to believe. n nThe problem is that we in the Tea Party still believe that those men WERE heroes, and the ideals they stood for are eternal truths, while the GOP-E, and pundits such as yourself do not. n nYou can not have it both ways. Either the founders were also right-wing radicals, or the Tea Party supporters are not. n nI will stick with Washington et al. and will no longer tolerate people such as yourself declaring the Tea Party as the problem.
.Alana, this is one of the few times a disagree with you, and I do for three reasons. First, Romney had to convince the party he really was conservative — remember your take on his CPAC speech, the "I really am a conservative, I promise"? He had to spend valuable time convincing people like me to support him instead of already having people like me and not the negative baggage. n nSecond, in the slash & burn of the primaries, he chewed up a lot of potential supporters. The grassroots Republicans in Maine & Massachusetts (can't speak of those elsewhere) are tired of the party, tired of being dragged into the "firefight in the lifeboat" and much of this started with the Romney/Rappaport/Healey mess a decade ago. n nI'm tired of the robo-calls, damn it. So when the mASSgop robocalled and told me that I had to attend a Paul Ryan event 90 minutes away in NH, I simply hung up. In a different world, I might actually have gone. n nAnd third, the gender gap goes both ways — if one candidate/party is doing better with women, then inherently the other party is doing better with men. Women usually vote in higher numbers than men which is why this is never discussed in the above sense, and while men listen to women, women listen to men as well. And the extremes on both sides of the gender wars (and that it what it sometimes essentially is) have the effect of alienating large chunks of the other gender. n nWomen worry about rape, men worry about being falsely accused of rape; women worry about being falsely accused of rape; women worried about having to give birth to a child against their wishes (the whole B/C *and* abortion issues), men worry about being reduced to utter poverty through child support assessments for the next 21 years because of a child born against their wishes. There are real issues here and both parties have taken the tack of following the women's side at the expense of the man's. n nAnd the male voter drops below the surface. *I* didn't even vote this time and brilliant women like Ms. Goodman aren't going to understand any more than they are going to understand what it is like to comb dried blood out of your hair — they aren't 228 lb guys who are over 6 feet tall and forever scraping their heads on low doorframes and such. Unless they are the mother of an adult son, they don't see how very anti-male this country has become in the two decades of VAWA money, the man-bashing of today which makes the sexism of the 1950s look mild by comparison. n nOne big difference between Alana Goodman and Ann Romney is that Mrs. Romney has five adult sons. And in reflection, the only speech that really moved me was Ann Romney's speech at the convention, and her discussion of women's issues. She understands men too — she has to, she lives with six of them whom she loves. And she presented women's issues as a win/win for both genders, not in terms of manbasing, and that is a very rare thing. n nAnd Paul Ryan buying his daughter a rifle was a touching thing that everyone ought to have applauded and few did. n nMen love women and we want to see the women whom we care about happy. The untold story of the GOP is the rising crop of strong women in it — Michelle Bachmann is by no means the only one — and these are women who, like Maggie Thatcher, have men in their lives whom they have not abandoned. n nBUT, notwithstanding the above, a tactical decision to "write off" the gender gap and to instead increase male turnout would have resulted in a Romney/Ryan victory. Alana, I will admit I am wrong if you can show that there *wasn't* a significant gender gap in voting in the states where it would have made a difference. Not just those male voters who didn't vote, but those who haven't even bothered to register to vote. Or who intentionally fail to register to vote so as to avoid jury duty, child support collections and/or other things — we increasingly live in a society where women have clearly identifiable addresses and men drift around.