The Face of the Republican Party

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I don't profess to know who Matt Taibbi is, but I stumbled across a blog entry of his. I think it hits well upon the reasons Romney lost the election. The perceived elitist attitude of the Republican Party somehow managed to turn off the majority moderate voters more so than the failures of our current President. Here is the blog entry (I'm sure some of you who get more excited about politics may have seen it already).

The fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.

But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they’re surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab.

Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average “illegal,” as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can’t win votes when you’re calling people lazy, stoned moochers.

It’s hard to say whether it’s good or bad that the Rushes of the world are too clueless to realize that it’s their attitude, not their policies, that is screwing them most with minority voters. If they were self-aware at all, Mitt Romney would probably be president right now. So I guess we should be grateful that the light doesn’t look like it will ever go on. But wow, is their angst tough to listen to.

I'm curious how some of you will respond.

[Baldy]

kalm just got a little wood.

[CAA Flagship]

Great. So this guy is telling us that women, hispanics, and teens voted against fiscal responsibility because they are not perceived correctly by the hard-line Republicans?

Baby. Bathwater.

[Grizalltheway]

Great. So this guy is telling us that women, hispanics, and teens voted against fiscal responsibility because they are not perceived correctly by the hard-line Republicans?

Baby. Bathwater.

Wait, so cutting taxes on the wealthy while increasing military spending=fiscal responsibility? In that case I guess I'll quit my job and by a Porsche.

[ASUG8]

Not a bad assessment, but I think there were a number of other reasons Romney lost:

* was never truly embraced by the lunatic right (although what percentage of Republicans are "lunatic right"? 5% ?)
* made a move toward the center toward the end, which alienated the PAC's
* sabre rattling about Iran
* lacks the charisma of Obama

The frightening thing is that he got so close. He may have been a solid president, but who knows. There was no good viable option this year, so we settle for the lesser of the two evils like usual. IMO, Romney never appeared any more elitist than Obama did, except Obama hammered home the 47% comment in a negative light (although I don't know that the figure isn't correct, just spun to Romney's detriment).

If that's Taiibi's definition of a Republican, then I'm certainly a Libertarian and voted properly.

[AZGrizFan]

I don't profess to know who Matt Taibbi is, but I stumbled across a blog entry of his. I think it hits well upon the reasons Romney lost the election. The perceived elitist attitude of the Republican Party somehow managed to turn off the majority moderate voters more so than the failures of our current President. Here is the blog entry (I'm sure some of you who get more excited about politics may have seen it already).

The Republican party is perceived as "elitist" because the donks tell their sheeple that the Republican party is full of elitists and the sheeple believe everything they're told.

[kalm]

kalm just got a little wood.

Muuuuuuuhwahahahahaha!

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I don't profess to know who Matt Taibbi is, but I stumbled across a blog entry of his. I think it hits well upon the reasons Romney lost the election. The perceived elitist attitude of the Republican Party somehow managed to turn off the majority moderate voters more so than the failures of our current President. Here is the blog entry (I'm sure some of you who get more excited about politics may have seen it already).

The Republican party is perceived as "elitist" because the donks tell their sheeple that the Republican party is full of elitists and the sheeple believe everything they're told.

So, you don't think Romney came off as priviledged and out of touch with the average American? Sure, his people fed him lines to speak to try to break that perception, but it come off as disingenous at best, IMHO.

Romney was widely perceived as a champion of the rich. Is that not the same as an elitist?

[CAA Flagship]

[D1B]

kalm just got a little wood.

What about the article, Paul Ryan, Jr.?

[green&gold75]

I don't profess to know who Matt Taibbi is, but I stumbled across a blog entry of his. I think it hits well upon the reasons Romney lost the election. The perceived elitist attitude of the Republican Party somehow managed to turn off the majority moderate voters more so than the failures of our current President. Here is the blog entry (I'm sure some of you who get more excited about politics may have seen it already).

The Republican party is perceived as "elitist" because the donks tell their sheeple that the Republican party is full of elitists and the sheeple believe everything they're told.

Donk sheeple = conk sheeple.
Sheeple are everywhere.
And don't both parties love it.

[UNI88]

Great. So this guy is telling us that women, hispanics, and teens voted against fiscal responsibility because they are not perceived correctly by the hard-line Republicans?

Baby. Bathwater.

Wait, so cutting taxes on the wealthy while increasing military spending=fiscal responsibility? In that case I guess I'll quit my job and by a Porsche.

Bill Clinton was the more recent POTUS who could reasonably be called "fiscally responsible."

There was a serious concern the Romney would be as fiscally irresponsible as Dubya and Obama. While Romney might have turned out to be an excellent President who skillfully managed the country through an economic crisis he didn't do enough to separate himself from the neo-conservative ideology that had turned people off during the Bush Presidency.

[D1B]

Not a bad assessment, but I think there were a number of other reasons Romney lost:

* was never truly embraced by the lunatic right (although what percentage of Republicans are "lunatic right"? 5% ?)
* made a move toward the center toward the end, which alienated the PAC's
* sabre rattling about Iran
* lacks the charisma of Obama

The frightening thing is that he got so close. He may have been a solid president, but who knows. There was no good viable option this year, so we settle for the lesser of the two evils like usual. IMO, Romney never appeared any more elitist than Obama did, except Obama hammered home the 47% comment in a negative light (although I don't know that the figure isn't correct, just spun to Romney's detriment).

If that's Taiibi's definition of a Republican, then I'm certainly a Libertarian and voted properly.

Hey, idiot, the 47% thing had nothing to do with it. Romney, at least in this campaign, was way more charismatic than Obama.

Ryan did Romney in. He was a poor choice who scared the fuck out of young people, minorities, women, catholics, you name it. The RNC lunatic right LOVED him.

Put your excuses away, you fucks are just way more out of touch than donks are. Period.

[D1B]

I don't profess to know who Matt Taibbi is, but I stumbled across a blog entry of his. I think it hits well upon the reasons Romney lost the election. The perceived elitist attitude of the Republican Party somehow managed to turn off the majority moderate voters more so than the failures of our current President. Here is the blog entry (I'm sure some of you who get more excited about politics may have seen it already).

The Republican party is perceived as "elitist" because the donks tell their sheeple that the Republican party is full of elitists and the sheeple believe everything they're told.

Oversimplification. See ALL of Paul Ryan's speeches, then look at Romney.

Conks tell their sheeple and they tell the donk sheeple they're elitist.

[ASUG8]

Not a bad assessment, but I think there were a number of other reasons Romney lost:

* was never truly embraced by the lunatic right (although what percentage of Republicans are "lunatic right"? 5% ?)
* made a move toward the center toward the end, which alienated the PAC's
* sabre rattling about Iran
* lacks the charisma of Obama

The frightening thing is that he got so close. He may have been a solid president, but who knows. There was no good viable option this year, so we settle for the lesser of the two evils like usual. IMO, Romney never appeared any more elitist than Obama did, except Obama hammered home the 47% comment in a negative light (although I don't know that the figure isn't correct, just spun to Romney's detriment).

If that's Taiibi's definition of a Republican, then I'm certainly a Libertarian and voted properly.

Hey, idiot, the 47% thing had nothing to do with it. Romney, at least in this campaign, was way more charismatic than Obama.

Ryan did Romney in. He was a poor choice who scared the fuck out of young people, minorities, women, catholics, you name it. The RNC lunatic right LOVED him.

Put your excuses away, you fucks are just way more out of touch than donks are. Period.

Read up, douchebag1 - it's spoonfed directly from one of your own lib rags.

President Barack Obama's reelection campaign is making sure that every last voter has heard Mitt Romney's 47 percent comments, releasing a new ad on Thursday that contrasts the GOP nominee's controversial words with images of Americans representing "the 47 percent" he spoke of. According to recent polling, the firestorm over Romney's remarks has already hurt his standing in swing states.

Obama's team has publicly stated that the 47-percent comments will be a big part of its messaging leading up to Nov. 6. This is the campaign's third ad on the subject, which the president has also incorporated into his stump speech while campaigning across the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... 19157.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

Hey, idiot, the 47% thing had nothing to do with it. Romney, at least in this campaign, was way more charismatic than Obama.

Ryan did Romney in. He was a poor choice who scared the fuck out of young people, minorities, women, catholics, you name it. The RNC lunatic right LOVED him.

Put your excuses away, you fucks are just way more out of touch than donks are. Period.

Read up, douchebag1 - it's spoonfed directly from one of your own lib rags.

President Barack Obama's reelection campaign is making sure that every last voter has heard Mitt Romney's 47 percent comments, releasing a new ad on Thursday that contrasts the GOP nominee's controversial words with images of Americans representing "the 47 percent" he spoke of. According to recent polling, the firestorm over Romney's remarks has already hurt his standing in swing states.

Obama's team has publicly stated that the 47-percent comments will be a big part of its messaging leading up to Nov. 6. This is the campaign's third ad on the subject, which the president has also incorporated into his stump speech while campaigning across the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... 19157.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I can find a thousand Fox news polls that say different. Whats your point, ASU2MOUTH?

No shit it hurt his image, but it didn't decide the election. He was storming after the post-comment, first debate and his numbers were going up.

Put your excuses away and come to grips with the fact that you fucking conks better get it through your lizard brains that, short of an AZBaldyBDSMist - line up all the poor and minorities and just shoot em strategy, you can't bully anyone anymore, at least in this country.

[ASUG8]

Read up, douchebag1 - it's spoonfed directly from one of your own lib rags.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... 19157.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I can find a thousand Fox news polls that say different. Whats your point, ASU2MOUTH?

No shit it hurt his image, but it didn't decide the election. He was storming after the post-comment, first debate and his numbers were going up.

Put your excuses away and come to grips with the fact that you fucking conks better get it through your lizard brains that, short of an AZBaldyBDSMist - line up all the poor and minorities and just shoot em strategy, you can't bully anyone anymore, at least in this country.

Apology accepted.

[AZGrizFan]

Not a bad assessment, but I think there were a number of other reasons Romney lost:

* was never truly embraced by the lunatic right (although what percentage of Republicans are "lunatic right"? 5% ?)
* made a move toward the center toward the end, which alienated the PAC's
* sabre rattling about Iran
* lacks the charisma of Obama

The frightening thing is that he got so close. He may have been a solid president, but who knows. There was no good viable option this year, so we settle for the lesser of the two evils like usual. IMO, Romney never appeared any more elitist than Obama did, except Obama hammered home the 47% comment in a negative light (although I don't know that the figure isn't correct, just spun to Romney's detriment).

If that's Taiibi's definition of a Republican, then I'm certainly a Libertarian and voted properly.

Hey, idiot, the 47% thing had nothing to do with it. Romney, at least in this campaign, was way more charismatic than Obama.

Ryan did Romney in. He was a poor choice who scared the fuck out of young people, minorities, women, catholics, you name it. The RNC lunatic right LOVED him.

I agree. Ryan was a poor choice...To gain the 5% lunatic right (who may or may not have come out and voted anyway), Romney lost 8-10% of the moderates/latinos. Should have picked Rubio.

[D1B]

Hey, idiot, the 47% thing had nothing to do with it. Romney, at least in this campaign, was way more charismatic than Obama.

Ryan did Romney in. He was a poor choice who scared the fuck out of young people, minorities, women, catholics, you name it. The RNC lunatic right LOVED him.

I agree. Ryan was a poor choice...To gain the 5% lunatic right (who may or may not have come out and voted anyway), Romney lost 8-10% of the moderates/latinos. Should have picked Rubio.

[dbackjon]

Republican VP nominees

[BlueHen86]

Great. So this guy is telling us that women, hispanics, and teens voted against fiscal responsibility because they are not perceived correctly by the hard-line Republicans?

Baby. Bathwater.

What fiscal responsibility? There are some differences between Romney and Obama, fiscal responsibility isn't one of them.

And if somebody insults me (i.e. calls me a victim), I'm not voting for them, even if it's true. Even if the GOP is right about the 47% being victims and looking for a handout, they can't say it and then expect their vote.

[kalm]

Great. So this guy is telling us that women, hispanics, and teens voted against fiscal responsibility because they are not perceived correctly by the hard-line Republicans?

Baby. Bathwater.

What fiscal responsibility? There are some differences between Romney and Obama, fiscal responsibility isn't one of them.

And if somebody insults me (i.e. calls me a victim), I'm not voting for them, even if it's true. Even if the GOP is right about the 47% being victims and looking for a handout, they can't say it and then expect their vote.

And this is exactly Taibbi's point. It's the same point guys like me and just recently 93hen have been making. We're supposed to be sailing off into a beautiful conk sunset right about now but the Republican party resides exclusively in a bubble of it's own creating. The disconnect and arrogance that everyone else outside that bubble is buying the Fox News/RNC bullshit is astounding. It's also what led Mitt to into the shock, shock I tell ya, of not actually winning Tuesday night.



Conks need to edumacate themselves and start reading Rolling Stone more. Michael Hastings is another excellent journalist there!

[Baldy]

kalm just got a little wood.

What about the article, Paul Ryan, Jr.?

Article?

It's a blog post from a mouth breather who can't walk without dragging his knuckles.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

What about the article, Paul Ryan, Jr.?

Article?

It's a blog post from a mouth breather who can't walk without dragging his knuckles.

And there it is. The voice of the Republican party in microchosm.

[kalm]

Article?

It's a blog post from a mouth breather who can't walk without dragging his knuckles.

And there it is. The voice of the Republican party in microchosm.