PDA

View Full Version : Why Romney Lost the Election



RJG
11-07-2012, 07:56 PM
This is an interesting article (IMO).

http://t.news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost

Franco
11-07-2012, 09:16 PM
Good article. The Repub Primary debates were a joke and did scare a lot of people away. And yes, the Repub Party has moved far to the right. Probably why 80% of the Latinos and the majority of women voted for Obama.

Uncle Bill
11-08-2012, 04:33 PM
Good article. The Repub Primary debates were a joke and did scare a lot of people away. And yes, the Repub Party has moved far to the right. Probably why 80% of the Latinos and the majority of women voted for Obama.


Newsmax is full of shinola...but I buy into MSNBC BS every chance I get. You indeed are an enigma to most.


UB

Larry Thompson1
11-08-2012, 04:37 PM
Good article. The Repub Primary debates were a joke and did scare a lot of people away. And yes, the Repub Party has moved far to the right. Probably why 80% of the Latinos and the majority of women voted for Obama.

Not far right enough.

Franco
11-08-2012, 04:37 PM
I DO NOT watch msnbc or nbc! Just like I do not watch Fox News. Both organizations lack credibility. And, I certainly don't pay any attention to Dick Morris or his emails/website. Funny how Morris was all about Clinton until Bill gave him the boot. Now, he is nothing but a scouned Democrat.

BonMallari
11-08-2012, 05:41 PM
Good article. The Repub Primary debates were a joke and did scare a lot of people away. And yes, the Repub Party has moved far to the right. Probably why 80% of the Latinos and the majority of women voted for Obama.

Why were they a joke ? because they exposed what a loon Ron Paul was :p

the only thing bad about the R primary season was that it was too long and too many debates and did more to harm to the Party than help

As for the Party moving to the right, I am fine with that...GWB 43 was a moderate. McCain is a RINO, Mitt is a moderate....I don't want the Party looking like a Democrat because they arent...

You always talk about RP being a man of principle, what kind of principles would it be if the R party drifted to the center, why should they compromise their principles anymore than your guy...

Face the facts, you may be a Fiscal conservative, but you are a social Liberal, which is fine ,just dont try and tell those of us that are Social Conservatives or even Moderates that we are any less Conservative than you....

I would guess that 80% of those here on POTUS are Fiscal Conservatives, no one likes money being wasted....but on Social and Moral issues we are deeply divided, and thats OK, because that is where the real gem of Freedom is at..I can choose to attend the church of my choice and you can choose to not attend one at all, you can choose to smoke your weed along with many of my friends and I can choose not to partake.....but guess what it doesnt make you or I any more patriotic

The Tea Party has moved the R Party to the right to remind its members where their core constituency is at..I am fine with that, there are still a whole lot of America that thinks that way...the numbers are also showing that many registered R did not vote for Mitt...more than likely they did not vote at all, highly unlikely that they voted for BHO....the reason they did not vote for Mitt was because he wasnt Conservative enough

huntinman
11-08-2012, 05:51 PM
Why were they a joke ? because they exposed what a loon Ron Paul was :p

the only thing bad about the R primary season was that it was too long and too many debates and did more to harm to the Party than help

As for the Party moving to the right, I am fine with that...GWB 43 was a moderate. McCain is a RINO, Mitt is a moderate....I don't want the Party looking like a Democrat because they arent...

You always talk about RP being a man of principle, what kind of principles would it be if the R party drifted to the center, why should they compromise their principles anymore than your guy...

Face the facts, you may be a Fiscal conservative, but you are a social Liberal, which is fine ,just dont try and tell those of us that are Social Conservatives or even Moderates that we are any less Conservative than you....

I would guess that 80% of those here on POTUS are Fiscal Conservatives, no one likes money being wasted....but on Social and Moral issues we are deeply divided, and thats OK, because that is where the real gem of Freedom is at..I can choose to attend the church of my choice and you can choose to not attend one at all, you can choose to smoke your weed along with many of my friends and I can choose not to partake.....but guess what it doesnt make you or I any more patriotic

The Tea Party has moved the R Party to the right to remind its members where their core constituency is at..I am fine with that, there are still a whole lot of America that thinks that way...the numbers are also showing that many registered R did not vote for Mitt...more than likely they did not vote at all, highly unlikely that they voted for BHO....the reason they did not vote for Mitt was because he wasnt Conservative enough

Right on the money Bon!!

RailRoadRetrievers
11-08-2012, 06:06 PM
The reason republicans lost is because 3,000,000 registered Republicans didn't vote, because Romney is too much of a Moderate. Look at the actual Republicans that took seats held by moderates. This nation desired something we didn't give them, now we have hopefully only two more years of this crap

Franco
11-08-2012, 06:50 PM
Why were they a joke ? because they exposed what a loon Ron Paul was :p
The debate modertors would even give RP any time. The only candidate that called for a Balanced Budget Amendment and audit of the Fed Reserve and peace!

the only thing bad about the R primary season was that it was too long and too many debates and did more to harm to the Party than help
The deabates exposed how radically right most of the candidtes are. Perry, Santorum, Cain, Gingrich scared women and independents away. They came off as loonitics!

As for the Party moving to the right, I am fine with that...GWB 43 was a moderate. McCain is a RINO, Mitt is a moderate....I don't want the Party looking like a Democrat because they arent...
GWB43 was a fiscal Liberal and social Conservative. Can you say, "9-10 trillion deficit under GW43? Do you really think Perry, Santorum or Cain would have done better against Obama?
You always talk about RP being a man of principle, what kind of principles would it be if the R party drifted to the center, why should they compromise their principles anymore than your guy... Entering the 21st Century on social issues isn't what I call moving to the center! Typical big government and limited Liberty wanting to run everyones lives!

Face the facts, you may be a Fiscal conservative, but you are a social Liberal, which is fine ,just dont try and tell those of us that are Social Conservatives or even Moderates that we are any less Conservative than you....
I've always said I was a Fiscal Conservative and Social Liberal, I wouldn't want it any other way! I believe that people should be free to live thier lives they way they want to as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
I would guess that 80% of those here on POTUS are Fiscal Conservatives, no one likes money being wasted....but on Social and Moral issues we are deeply divided, and thats OK, because that is where the real gem of Freedom is at..Agreed I can choose to attend the church of my choice and you can choose to not attend one at all, you can choose to smoke your weed along with many of my friends and I can choose not to partake.....a very stupid comment! Because I support the rights of gays to marry one another, does that make me gay? I support peoples rights to smoke whatever they wish, drink whatever they wish, worship whatever they wish and live however they wish! but guess what it doesnt make you or I any more patriotic

The Tea Party has moved the R Party to the right to remind its members where their core constituency is at..I am fine with that, there are still a whole lot of America that thinks that way...the numbers are also showing that many registered R did not vote for Mitt...more than likely they did not vote at all, highly unlikely that they voted for BHO....the reason they did not vote for Mitt was because he wasnt Conservative enough I hope you keep thinking this way so that we can keep Liberty intolerant politicians out of the White House.

my comments in red.

murral stark
11-08-2012, 07:10 PM
The reason Romney lost is because he couldn't make up his mind about where he stood on things, other than liking to fire people. He made that perfectly clear and never waivered. If he would've took a solid stance, and not flip flop around, he probably would've won. LOL!!!

cpj
11-08-2012, 10:08 PM
Bon, are you saying Ron Paul is a social centrist or liberal? He's anti abortion, pro traditional marriage, been married for 54 years and believes marriage is a states rights issue. He believes that the federal government has no business being in the marriage issue. He is a Baptist and I assume his stance is that marriage is biblically based and that if two people of the same sex get married they will ultimately answer to God for their actions. He basically believes people are responsible for their actions and decisions and should be held accountable. Kind of like government for grown ups. People have abused substances for centuries. The constitution doesn't mention banning them. Bush and Obama could smoke weed, snort cocaine yet prosecute you or I for choosing to do the same. The constitutional conservative believes you can abuse yourself at your discretion so long as you don't harm others. Personal freedom, the freedom to be a dumbass or not! We don't need a nanny state, it's proven not to work.

Henry V
11-08-2012, 10:19 PM
Not far right enough.



...... As for the Party moving to the right, I am fine with that...GWB 43 was a moderate. McCain is a RINO, Mitt is a moderate....I don't want the Party looking like a Democrat because they arent...

You always talk about RP being a man of principle, what kind of principles would it be if the R party drifted to the center, why should they compromise their principles anymore than your guy...

...... The Tea Party has moved the R Party to the right to remind its members where their core constituency is at..I am fine with that, there are still a whole lot of America that thinks that way...the numbers are also showing that many registered R did not vote for Mitt...more than likely they did not vote at all, highly unlikely that they voted for BHO....the reason they did not vote for Mitt was because he wasnt Conservative enough


Right on the money Bon!!

I love this thinking. Is this the permanent majority thread?

cpj
11-08-2012, 10:20 PM
Bon, it's clear you've never really studied Ron Paul.

smillerdvm
11-08-2012, 10:23 PM
Bon, are you saying Ron Paul is a social centrist or liberal? He's anti abortion, pro traditional marriage, been married for 54 years and believes marriage is a states rights issue. He believes that the federal government has no business being in the marriage issue. He is a Baptist and I assume his stance is that marriage is biblically based and that if two people of the same sex get married they will ultimately answer to God for their actions. He basically believes people are responsible for their actions and decisions and should be held accountable. Kind of like government for grown ups. People have abused substances for centuries. The constitution doesn't mention banning them. Bush and Obama could smoke weed, snort cocaine yet prosecute you or I for choosing to do the same. The constitutional conservative believes you can abuse yourself at your discretion so long as you don't harm others. Personal freedom, the freedom to be a dumbass or not! We don't need a nanny state, it's proven not to work.

Nicely said

True Conservatives cherish the idea of personal freedom if it isn't hurting someone else. Unfortunately the Republican Party which claims to have Conservative values and decries a nanny state espouses rhetoric supporting personal freedom;...............AS LONG AS THEY PERSONALLY APPROVE OF IT!!!
Sounds kind of nanny statish to me

BonMallari
11-09-2012, 02:30 AM
Bon, it's clear you've never really studied Ron Paul.
,
I never had the desire to,all i had to do was listen to the RP fanboys here on and the old Fuge (imagine franco times ten) you all quoted the same mantra....sometimes he had the right common sense message but was not the messenger I would have chosen

RailRoadRetrievers
11-09-2012, 05:53 AM
The reason Romney lost is because he couldn't make up his mind about where he stood on things, other than liking to fire people. He made that perfectly clear and never waivered. If he would've took a solid stance, and not flip flop around, he probably would've won. LOL!!!

And your example of this would be?

cpj
11-09-2012, 01:39 PM
Weak Bon, but typical.

murral stark
11-09-2012, 05:51 PM
And your example of this would be?

Gay marriage
abortion
healthcare
to name a few.

Henry V
11-10-2012, 10:38 AM
Well, here is former Bush speechwriter David Frum's opinion on why Romney lost.

"Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIPUIfWrj84

For 20 minutes of Romney flip flops on video, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x2W4GhSLlQ

zeus3925
11-10-2012, 05:19 PM
Its interesting that the red meat ballot proposals that the GOP puts on ballots to jin up fervor in its base has tended to backfire on them this election. Gay marriage and voter ID did not fare well.

Gerry Clinchy
11-13-2012, 07:44 PM
Isn't it part of the first amendment that different opinions are allowed? That's why there will never will be a time when everyone is a Democrat; or everyone is a Republican. This has been going on since the founding of the country.


Every once in a while Rush has an interesting insight. Read one of the transcripts yesterday, and he posed: when Dems lose an election do they ever run around saying that they should change their position on this issue or that issue? When the Dems got whacked in the mid-terms, what was Obama's reaction? He said he had not "told the story right."

When certain voter groups will throw all their values to the wind to worship one individual, are those votes that any Republican can get? Many blacks and Latinos strongly disagree with gay marriage and abortion, yet they still supported Obama in the election ... even though it's on his record that he not only is in favor of abortion, but also voted in favor of 3rd trimester abortions and for allowing babies who survived late-term abortions die. I can't buy into the fact that those groups voted against R's because of of those two social issues, if they are willing to vote FOR someone who would stand there an watch a baby die. I simply do not believe that they are really aware of where Obama stood on that. Once those babies survive, they are protected by our Constitution; not according to Obama's voting record.

Surely immigration reform is needed, but if amnesty didn't work for Reagan ... it just resulted in even more illegal immigration later, then why should R's embrace amnesty just to please one minority group? (who will likely find another reason to vote Dem)

For every vote they might possibly gain, they will lose, I think, at least the same number. A third party might actually become a reality if the R's become indistinguishable from the D's. Maybe they already have? Maybe Libertarians will finally get their "fair shot"? Too many reasons why I could not vote for Ron Paul ... but I could vote for Rand :-)

Henry V
11-15-2012, 08:13 AM
Another perspective http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/

road kill
11-15-2012, 08:18 AM
The reason Romney lost is because he couldn't make up his mind about where he stood on things, other than liking to fire people. He made that perfectly clear and never waivered. If he would've took a solid stance, and not flip flop around, he probably would've won. LOL!!!
Hey, Murral, in the last 4 years who has cost more businesses to close and cost more people their employment?

Bain or Obama????:cool:

JNG
11-15-2012, 08:51 AM
The reason republicans lost is because 3,000,000 registered Republicans didn't vote, because Romney is too much of a Moderate. Look at the actual Republicans that took seats held by moderates. This nation desired something we didn't give them, now we have hopefully only two more years of this crap

I think that about hits the nail on the head.

PamK
11-15-2012, 08:57 AM
These grapics are interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/11/10/opinion/marshpdf.html?ref=sunday-review

M&K's Retrievers
11-15-2012, 09:21 AM
Hey, Murral, in the last 4 years who has cost more businesses to close and cost more people their employment?

Bain or Obama????:cool:

I doubt that he really cares. He thinks he's got his and is living for today.

Golddogs
11-15-2012, 09:30 AM
Another possibility from the St Paul Pioneer Press of 11/15, letters to the editor :

SPOTLIGHT LETTER

Assumptions

"I am taking issue with the assumptions of the writer of “A ‘handout’ economy” (Nov. 11). Not all of us who voted for President Obama this time around are part of the “47 percent,” a number made famous by what I saw as an out-of-touch, arrogant candidate.

As a conservative, active, lifelong Republican, I voted this time around for what I considered the better of two bad choices. I saw the Republican candidate as an ethical chameleon with no firm agenda being given a free pass by the press on ethical and character issues.

The Republican Party has huge problems. Members were too tightly enmeshed with and hamstrung in negotiation ability with the allegiance to the Tea Party. The “Bush tax cuts” were passed to nudge a sluggish economy but they contributed to other long-term problems. The reduction in FICA taxes resulted in less money going into Social Security, which was already in trouble. In the last part of the Clinton Administration, Glass-Steagall was repealed, with the Republicans having a majority in both houses and, though it didn’t directly cause the ensuing financial crisis, this was a direct contributor to the scope of that debacle.

The Romney camp had no offices in Minnesota. These national high-profile offices serve to galvanize the state and local entities, and their absence hampered the efforts of state and other national candidates. And I don’t like the disdainful treatment of old party faithful at the national convention.

So much for assumptions. "




Many sides to an issue Regards

huntinman
11-15-2012, 09:35 AM
Another possibility from the St Paul Pioneer Press of 11/15, letters to the editor :

SPOTLIGHT LETTER

Assumptions

"I am taking issue with the assumptions of the writer of “A ‘handout’ economy” (Nov. 11). Not all of us who voted for President Obama this time around are part of the “47 percent,” a number made famous by what I saw as an out-of-touch, arrogant candidate.

As a conservative, active, lifelong Republican, I voted this time around for what I considered the better of two bad choices. I saw the Republican candidate as an ethical chameleon with no firm agenda being given a free pass by the press on ethical and character issues.

The Republican Party has huge problems. Members were too tightly enmeshed with and hamstrung in negotiation ability with the allegiance to the Tea Party. The “Bush tax cuts” were passed to nudge a sluggish economy but they contributed to other long-term problems. The reduction in FICA taxes resulted in less money going into Social Security, which was already in trouble. In the last part of the Clinton Administration, Glass-Steagall was repealed, with the Republicans having a majority in both houses and, though it didn’t directly cause the ensuing financial crisis, this was a direct contributor to the scope of that debacle.

The Romney camp had no offices in Minnesota. These national high-profile offices serve to galvanize the state and local entities, and their absence hampered the efforts of state and other national candidates. And I don’t like the disdainful treatment of old party faithful at the national convention.

So much for assumptions. "




Many sides to an issue Regards

Good job covering the DNC letterhead:rolleyes:

menmon
11-15-2012, 09:36 AM
I wish republican would quit saying they are conservative. They are only conservative on things they don't like or disagree with. They can out spend a democrat any day!

Bottomline - the so called conservatives do not see the big picture. They have convienced themselves that they pay taxes to support the lazy, so they don't want to pay any. They have convienced themselves that our debt problems can be solved by doing away with government, so someone who works in government is a leach to a conservative. When the truth is that little of the taxes collected go to the lazy and government provides folks with much that I'm sure conservatives don't want to do without.

Golddogs
11-15-2012, 09:45 AM
Good job covering the DNC letterhead:rolleyes:

While it will reqiure you to read, the link for this opinion piece is below. Your grade school response is pretty predictable.

http://saintpaulpioneerpress.mn.newsmemory.com/?token=9c5b4377415279043c776ec6015355f6_gldnriley@ aol.com&utm_source=EmailMarketing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EmailPush

pg 19 A
Looking for a Goldwater Regards

M&K's Retrievers
11-15-2012, 09:47 AM
I wish republican would quit saying they are conservative. They are only conservative on things they don't like or disagree with. They can out spend a democrat any day!

Bottomline - the so called conservatives do not see the big picture. They have convienced themselves that they pay taxes to support the lazy, so they don't want to pay any. They have convienced themselves that our debt problems can be solved by doing away with government, so someone who works in government is a leach to a conservative. When the truth is that little of the taxes collected go to the lazy and government provides folks with much that I'm sure conservatives don't want to do without.

Oh my!!! :???::???:

huntinman
11-15-2012, 09:53 AM
While it will reqiure you to read, the link for this opinion piece is below. Your grade school response is pretty predictable.

http://saintpaulpioneerpress.mn.newsmemory.com/?token=9c5b4377415279043c776ec6015355f6_gldnriley@ aol.com&utm_source=EmailMarketing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EmailPush

pg 19 A
Looking for a Goldwater Regards

Once again a lib shows he is incapable of recognizing or understanding sarcasm... Oh well, not surprising you are the same way with humor....

HPL
11-15-2012, 09:58 AM
I think that about hits the nail on the head.

Well, you can think that and yet, as someone who has voted for the republican presidential candidate every time since my first election (1976, Ford) EXCEPT 2008 when I just couldn't stomach Palin, I will tell you that there are plenty of folks who agree with the true Republican values of FISCAL conservatism, smaller government, and less government interference in our lives who DON'T agree with the reactionary positions the supposed republican "base" espouse on many social issues (gay marriage, birth control, etc.) and will either stay home or vote for someone else. I suspect that it is easier to lose our votes than those of the base.

HPL
11-15-2012, 10:03 AM
While it will reqiure you to read, the link for this opinion piece is below. Your grade school response is pretty predictable.

http://saintpaulpioneerpress.mn.newsmemory.com/?token=9c5b4377415279043c776ec6015355f6_gldnriley@ aol.com&utm_source=EmailMarketing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EmailPush

pg 19 A
Looking for a Goldwater Regards

Would love to read it, but the print is too small, even with my tri-focals and when I enlarge it to something bigger than about a 6, the resolution is too poor. Could you just give us the Cliff Notes version?

Golddogs
11-15-2012, 10:14 AM
Once again a lib shows he is incapable of recognizing or understanding sarcasm... Oh well, not surprising you are the same way with humor....Once again you assume.Bill, you have no clue. We have had this conversation before. Because some of us do not march lock step with the RNC platform, we are libs. Because some of us actually think for ourselves we are progressives. You are shown a letter to the editor from a life long Republican and choose to mock him and his opinion because if is not the RNC party line.

Stay with the mindset you have and it will be a long time before a good Republican again sits in the Whitehouse. Until the RNC stops trying to mandate social issues as policy and refuses to become more inclusive, the GOP will be taking a back seat, with some bible belt exceptions.

The extreme right was the cause of the GOP losing control in our House and Senate, and it is going to be a long time before they get control in either. All because they pushed to mandate social issues rather than allow the individuals to make their own choice. They had a great chance to make some good policy and blew it by drinking from the RNC punchbowl.

Hope and Change for the party Regards

( and I do recognize good humor and sacastic wit when I see it You just didn't offer any )

huntinman
11-15-2012, 10:16 AM
[/B]Once again you assume. Stan, you have no clue. We have had this conversation before. Because some of us do not march lock step with the RNC platform, we are libs. Because some of us actually think for ourselves we are progressives. You are shown a letter to the editor from a life long Republican and choose to mock him and his opinion because if is not the RNC party line.

Stay with the mindset you have and it will be a long time before a good Republican again sits in the Whitehouse. Until the RNC stops trying to mandate social issues as policy and refuses to become more inclusive, the GOP will be taking a back seat, with some bible belt exceptions.

The extreme right was the cause of the GOP losing control in our House and Senate, and it is going to be a long time before they get control in either. All because they pushed to mandate social issues rather than allow the individuals to make their own choice. They had a great chance to make some good policy and blew it by drinking from the RNC punchbowl.

Hope and Change for the party Regards

( and I do recognize good humor and sacastic wit when I see it You just didn't offer any )

I'm not Stan, but I'll take that as a compliment.

Golddogs
11-15-2012, 10:16 AM
Would love to read it, but the print is too small, even with my tri-focals and when I enlarge it to something bigger than about a 6, the resolution is too poor. Could you just give us the Cliff Notes version?

Exact letter is in the original post. I copied and pasted it exactly as it appears. If you go to page 19 a and left click on the letter, it will appear in large print on the left side of the page.

Golddogs
11-15-2012, 10:18 AM
I'm not Stan, but I'll take that as a compliment.

My bad, but it could have been Stan. You both sound alike.

road kill
11-15-2012, 10:29 AM
My bad, but it could have been Stan. You both sound alike.

Let me see if I got this right........you don't even know who you are talking too, but you are certain, whoever it is, they have no clue.

http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu294/saltydog235/ROFLMAO.jpg




BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Golddogs
11-15-2012, 10:31 AM
Let me see if I got this right........you don't even know who you are talking too, but you are certain, whoever it is, they have no clue.






That part is correct Bill.

huntinman
11-15-2012, 10:32 AM
Let me see if I got this right........you don't even know who you are talking too, but you are certain, whoever it is, they have no clue.

http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu294/saltydog235/ROFLMAO.jpg




BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Literally laughing out loud at that!:razz::razz:

HPL
11-15-2012, 10:33 AM
These grapics are interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/11/10/opinion/marshpdf.html?ref=sunday-review


Cool. Several interesting stats. Romney got a small majority of college graduates (would be interesting to break that down a bit more into Scientists, Engineers, Ag majors and the like vs. History, Poly Sci, other "arts" etc.). One would probably expect that those whose financial position has improved over the last four years might vote for Obama, and that the opposite would be true for those worse off, but why did Obama have an 18 point advantage with those whose situation was unchanged? Would like to see who was in the "financially better" group too (how many are in the private sector, how many in the public).

Here is a REAL big one: 38% of the electorate identified as Democrat, 32% as Republican, and 29% as independent. The independents determine the election and even though the Republicans got a slim majority there, it wasn't enough to overcome the initial advantage of the Dems. A crucial lesson here should be that if ALL the Democrats get out and vote and ALL the Republicans get out and vote, and we split the independents equally, the dems will win every time. Let me say that again: if ALL the Democrats get out and vote and ALL the Republicans get out and vote, and we split the independents equally, the dems will win every time. That's why driving the independents away is a real problem.

murral stark
11-15-2012, 06:05 PM
Hey, Murral, in the last 4 years who has cost more businesses to close and cost more people their employment?

Bain or Obama????:cool:

I would have to say Bain. My reasoning is. The President only creates or eliminates one type of job, and that would be a GOVERNMENT job. businesses remain open or close their doors by a business owner making a decision. If their business is viable to weather the lean times, they remain open. If they can keep running until an opportunity arises, they do. When the opportunity arises, they are in the position to capitalize on it. If it is not viable, they shut it down. The president doesn't tell a business owner that you have to shut down your business, nor does the president tell someone that they have to open a business. the president doesn't tell business owners that they must hire people. if he did, we wouldn't have any unemployment problem in the first place.:2c:

BonMallari
11-15-2012, 06:18 PM
I would have to say Bain. My reasoning is. The President only creates or eliminates one type of job, and that would be a GOVERNMENT job. businesses remain open or close their doors by a business owner making a decision. If their business is viable to weather the lean times, they remain open. If they can keep running until an opportunity arises, they do. When the opportunity arises, they are in the position to capitalize on it. If it is not viable, they shut it down. The president doesn't tell a business owner that you have to shut down your business, nor does the president tell someone that they have to open a business. the president doesn't tell business owners that they must hire people. if he did, we wouldn't have any unemployment problem in the first place.:2c:

I dont know where to even begin with this one :confused:

So would General Motors be a Government Job ? so does that make them Government Motors


read your statement again ....on one hand you say the President creates or eliminates one type of job
but then you turn around and say the President doesnt open or close a business :confused:

murral stark
11-15-2012, 06:29 PM
I dont know where to even begin with this one :confused:

So would General Motors be a Government Job ? so does that make them Government Motors


read your statement again ....on one hand you say the President creates or eliminates one type of job
but then you turn around and say the President doesnt open or close a business :confused:

I stand by that statement. the president can only create or eliminate one type of job and that is a government job. General motors asked for help to remain open and they received it. What business has the president opened or closed? I am not as well enlightened on these matters as you. I ask you to provide me something that shows where the president forced a business owner to open a new business or the president forced a business owner to close their doors. The government helped a business to remain open because that is what the leaders of that company asked for.

M&K's Retrievers
11-15-2012, 06:40 PM
I would have to say Bain. My reasoning is. The President only creates or eliminates one type of job, and that would be a GOVERNMENT job. businesses remain open or close their doors by a business owner making a decision. If their business is viable to weather the lean times, they remain open. If they can keep running until an opportunity arises, they do. When the opportunity arises, they are in the position to capitalize on it. If it is not viable, they shut it down. The president doesn't tell a business owner that you have to shut down your business, nor does the president tell someone that they have to open a business. the president doesn't tell business owners that they must hire people. if he did, we wouldn't have any unemployment problem in the first place.:2c:

In the words of the great Homer Simpson: "DOH!"

Golddogs
11-16-2012, 08:32 AM
More thought from more top Republicans:

Top Republicans say Romney didn’t offer specifics

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS — Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party failed to unseat President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal.

In conversations at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, a half-dozen party leaders predicted the GOP will lose again if it keeps running the same playbook based on platitudes in place of detailed policies. Instead, these leaders asserted, the party needs to learn the lessons from its loss, respect voters’ savvy and put forward an agenda that appeals beyond the white, male voters who are its base.

“We need to acknowledge the fact that we got beat,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in an interview. “We clearly got beat and we need to recognize that.”

Little more than a week after Romney came up short in his presidential bid, the party elders were looking at his errors and peering ahead to 2016’s race. Some of the contenders eying a White House run of their own were on hand and quietly considering their chances. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scheduled a private meeting on the sidelines with Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor who is widely seen as one of the GOP’s sharpest political operatives.

Other potential White House contenders such as Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were outlining a vision for the party in coming elections.

“We need to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout — all the things that are required to win elections,” McDonnell said. “We are disappointed, but we are not discouraged.”

In the hallways at the conference, the governors and their top advisers uniformly blamed Romney’s loss on an uneven communications strategy. They said Romney allowed himself to be branded a corporate raider who put the interests of the wealthy above those of middle-income voters.

“We didn’t have effective means by which to counter the attacks the Obama-Biden campaign took against Mitt Romney and his team,” Walker said. “I just don’t think you can let that go unanswered.”

Jindal, however, attributed Romney’s loss to a lack of “a specific vision that connected with the American people.”

“His campaign was largely about his biography and his experience,” Jindal said. “But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision, you have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don’t think the campaign did that and as a result, this became a contest between personalities and — you know what? — Chicago won that.”