Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney is just a terrible candidate. It is really simple. He does not stand for anything, Is he a moderate posing as a right-winger? In Massachusetts was he a conservative posing as a moderate? Why does he even want to be President beyond mere personal ambition? He does not come across as genuine. It is not a complicated issue.

Op here. I understand the sentiment. But don't you see that he does not stand for anything because he had to play the conservative when he isn't? And the true conservatives lost the primary because they were unelectable. You can't be the guy who is right enough for the primary AND centrist enough to win the general election AND authentic at the same time. The process caused most of the centrists to stay out, and the one who did had to compromise his integrity.

NP here. OP, you may be right about the structural flaws in the republican party but I think the pp is also correct that Romney is not good at the candidate thing. I mean, really the guy is supposed to be smart and competent but more and more he is flailing around like Palin only in a more upper crust way. It's baffling, really, because he has got a track record 100 times more impressive than Palin.

Anonymous wrote:Romney is just a terrible candidate. It is really simple. He does not stand for anything, Is he a moderate posing as a right-winger? In Massachusetts was he a conservative posing as a moderate? Why does he even want to be President beyond mere personal ambition? He does not come across as genuine. It is not a complicated issue.

Op here. I understand the sentiment. But don't you see that he does not stand for anything because he had to play the conservative when he isn't? And the true conservatives lost the primary because they were unelectable. You can't be the guy who is right enough for the primary AND centrist enough to win the general election AND authentic at the same time. The process caused most of the centrists to stay out, and the one who did had to compromise his integrity.

Anonymous wrote:The democrats are presiding over a shitshow economy, budget and foreign policy. Epic fail.

Then why isn't Romney winning? You are probably the reason, more than you know.

It's not Romneys fault that Obama ate a dog.

I think Mitt Romney wants to be president for at least two genuine reasons: 1) His father couldn't, so he wants to complete his father's dream and 2) he really thinks he can bring business sense to government. I am not sure 1 is a good enough reason and I am not sure he can accomplish 2.

I was leaning to Romney before the conventions, now I am leaning toward Obama. It won't really matter, since I live in MD, but I am truly in the unsure, if not undecided, camp.

I wish one of these parties could put a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate. I am learning to look back at Bill Clinton with fondness.

Romney is just a terrible candidate. It is really simple. He does not stand for anything, Is he a moderate posing as a right-winger? In Massachusetts was he a conservative posing as a moderate? Why does he even want to be President beyond mere personal ambition? He does not come across as genuine. It is not a complicated issue.

Anonymous wrote:No one is forcing him to do anything. He is losing b/c he is not a good politician. He is a operation/backroom guy, not a marketing /sales guy and it shows. He does not feel he has to engage people in a battle of idea. It must be very frustrating for the true believers. He is no leader.

I feel like he's the Kerry of the Right.

No one is forcing him to do anything. He is losing b/c he is not a good politician. He is a operation/backroom guy, not a marketing /sales guy and it shows. He does not feel he has to engage people in a battle of idea. It must be very frustrating for the true believers. He is no leader.

The democrats are presiding over a shitshow economy, budget and foreign policy. Epic fail.

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you think the Dems are better organized as a party now? They don't have many rising stars, and they are so centrist on so many fiscal issues, it's hard to define them.

Forget about a headcount of rising stars. This is a strategic issue, and one or two personalities will not pull it out in the absence of

Yes, the Democratic party is better off strategically. It did the necessary soul searching that led to Bill Clinton. A Democrat does not have as many litmus tests. A Democrat can put restrictions on welfare, they can cut taxes, they can spy domestically and it no longer costs them elections. They can have differing views on gay marriage and gay rights to a degree. They can oppose cap and trade. They can be for or against testing to rate teachers. They can be pro-gun rights. They can oppose medical marijuana. A presidential candidate can probably not be anti-abortion but they could be for restrictions on late-term abortion if they are compelling in other dimensions. They can have a range of opinions on border immigration issues. They may support or oppose free trade. They can favor Israel or not. Don't get me wrong, they can't take the minority position on everything and still get there. But it matters that Democrats have latitude.

OP, do you think the Dems are better organized as a party now? They don't have many rising stars, and they are so centrist on so many fiscal issues, it's hard to define them.

Anonymous wrote:At CPAC earlier this year, Newt Gingrich said Mitt Romney was acceptable because he would do as he is told. I think we're seeing the proof of that in the recent messaging.

Sorry i am correcting myself. It was Grover Norquist who said this, not Newt.

Someone I respect very much just left her current job to work on the Romney campaign. I guess it's to maintain connections and face time with the political higher-ups, but I just can't imagine leaving everything to join this sh*tshow of a campaign.

At CPAC earlier this year, Newt Gingrich said Mitt Romney was acceptable because he would do as he is told. I think we're seeing the proof of that in the recent messaging.

A lot of conservatives are wondering why the Romney campaign is in such disarray. The discussion of conservative commentators is focused on poor execution. The problem is much deeper. It is the result of the party's inability to hear the wake up call from 2008. I am not writing this to score political points. I genuinely believe that the country needs two strong parties, and the GOP is heading toward failure. Don't get me wrong, Romney could possibly squeak out this election. After all, we are in an economy with 8% unemployment and low growth. But regardless, the inability of the GOP to capitalize easily on this points to a critical problem in the party.

First, take a look at how Mitt Romney got the nomination. It would seem that he got it for the simple fact that he was the only really electable candidate in a field of nine. Why is that? It is no surprise that the nomination process is controlled by the rightmost members of the party. In order to run this gauntlet, a candidate has to pledge to any number of right-wing causes. This, despite the reality that the independents are the key to the election. Romney had the will to profess the right beliefs, and the tenacity to stick it out despite the right's distrust that he really believed them. In the end, the party sighed, and chose electability over commitment to the strictest conservatism. They hoped that the technocratic governor could tilt back to the center when all was said and done.

So how did the party get there? It's simple. They got hooked on an electoral strategy based on mobilizing the most conservative base. By getting them out in large numbers, they could win elections. But as in business, strategies often fail when conditions. change. Businesses are often undone when the very thing that makes them successful no longer produces results. They struggle for years before collapsing, all the while thinking "we're doing what works. Why isn't it working anymore?" A Kodak cannot undercut its cash cow, film, by jumping wholeheartedly into the digital age. And so it fails.

The same is true for politics. In order to tilt toward the center, the GOP needs to turn its back (a little) on the most conservative voters. This means lower turnout and could lose them an election or two. But in the long run, if they are brave, they can emerge stronger. But if they never take the leap, they will increasingly cling to a smaller and smaller group of ardent supporters. And the only candidates who will survive the process are those who commit to an increasingly conservative agenda. Rove predicted this, McCain said it, Quayle has said it, and plenty of other leading Republicans have noted the same problem.

OK, so the process produced a nominee of Mitt Romney. Now why is he failing? Two reasons: (1) he is saddled with the baggage from the primary. He cannot be the authentic Mitt Romney, the fix-it businessman and former governor of a liberal state, who could represent a broad coalition. He is accountable for the statements that got him the nomination. When people say Romney has no core, it is exactly this. No one knows who Mitt Romney really is. (2) In a world where he is second-guessed by extremely influential conservative donors, and in the face of a panicked Republican leadership, they are pushing him to adopt their script, and the script is a bad one. Romney's latest debacle, the 47% tape, is Romney jumping on an ill-advised theme (welfare president) without really thinking, in order to please an overbearing leadership with messages that satisfy their emotions more than broaden Romney's base.

So what can be done? (1) Risk losing the dedication of the most conservative voters in order to gain the middle ground. That means dumping some of the litmus tests required of candidates. You can decide which pieces those are, but I'll at least throw out immigration. Reagan knew he needed to make peace with immigrants. So did Bush. So does Jeb Bush. And even the calculating Karl Rove angrily punched this point after 2008. (2) Focus on enduring Republican values: limited government and fiscal conservatism. There are tons of people who want smaller government. They all have different ideas about what that means, but almost all of them want to tax less and spend less. So do it and mean it! You need to attract the pro-pot libertarian, the isolationist who wants America out of wars, the pro-choice conservative, whomever stands for less government, not more. Get elected on what you can all agree on, and work on the rest when you succeed with that. (3) Do not create reasons to reject different ideas. Do you realize that at least three Republican candidates (if you include Trump) formerly supported elements of Obamacare including and up to National Health Insurance? That at least two supported cap and trade? That some have supported immgrant amnesty? It's not a sin to think differently.

I really, really mean it when I say that as a Democrat I still want a strong Republican party. We need a viable second choice. I fear that this GOP is headed toward permanent minority status. Don't believe me, believe Jeb Bush. He's the guy who would have run if the party had done its soul searching after its last defeat.