Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[ishii]

God sent his own chosen people into exile in Babylon for their disobedience. It has become abundantly clear to the most casual observer that the majority of voters like big secular government that gives them “freebies” [some of them immoral] paid for by other people. What message could possibly compete with that? The conservative message of rising on your own initiative is falling on deaf ears. Therefore, the Republican Party is through because it couldn’t defeat even the über liberals, and firing its leadership will not solve the problem because there is no message that can compete with the promise of a “free” lunch.

Perhaps its best course of action is for the long run by letting the Democrats have their way; and when society is finally in “exile” long enough, maybe then the voters will listen.

Interesting comments, sedonaman - esp. about God sending his people into exile for their disobedience.

Here is my take on why Mitt Romney lost as well as why our democracy is threatened:

1. the secular left has been in control of our education system for atleast four decades. This has produced a generation of younger voters who have fallen for the failed promises of the left. This generation doesn’t remember Carter, stagflation, inflation, 20% interest rates and gas rationing. Thus, the leftist Obama can gain a majority of young people.
2. We live in an increasingly entitlement society - record numbers of people who don’t want to lose their benefits from the government are a natural constituency for the statist Obama/Democrats. Add #1 to this group and throw in those employed in the public sector and you have the automatic guarenteed 45% of the vote for Obama. Years ago a candidate with the ideas of Obama would have have been hard pressed to win one state.

Alexis De Tocqueville said, “the American republic will endure until the congress realizes it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Thus, the top 10% of income earners pay 90% of the income taxes, and 47% pay no income tax at all.

1. The media: We no longer have a free, objective media. Instead we have a media that protects Obama, doesn’t pursue issues like Benghazi or Fast and Furious scandals like they would if a Republican were president, and overall is derelict in their duty to report the facts.
2. Individuals/bad luck & Sandy: Two senators made comments on abortion that were easily demogogued by the left and used to portray the GOP and Romney as “anti-Women.” In a close election, this can make a difference. This is not Romney’s fault, but his bad luck. Making matters worse, was an epic hurricane that materialized just as the Benghazi story at last began sticking. The hurricane “blew” the Benghazi scandal off the news. And finally, you had the kenote speaker at the RNC, Mr. Republican, pro-Romney governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, call Obama’s leadership “outstanding” and proceed to suck up to him for the rest of the campaign. At an Obama rally with Bruce Springsteen, Obama called up his new special buddy Chris Christie and put him throught to his (Christie’s) hero Bruce. In a close election, things like this matter. Whether it made the difference or not, it amounts to an epic betrayal of Romney, imo.

So, we can say, “the GOP needs to nominate true conservatives” , etc. but given the state of our country and the electorate, I don’t think it matters. The scales have tipped. The election has confirmed the left’s victory over the traditional America and we are entering a “brave new world” of more abortions, attacks on religious freedom, inflation, economic stagnation and high unemployment - the “new normal.” But not to worry folks, Barrack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius will take care of us.

Thanks Democrat catholics.

Ishii

 

[Lapey]

Ain’t that the truth. Thankfully, that sentiment is far from universal.

John

You seem almost as intelligent as the other democrat hack that you commented on. You two have a lot in common.

You can mock me if you like, it doesn’t really matter; but you cannot show me I am wrong by Church teaching and doctrines. It’s all you have to discredit me, sad…

It’s ok, I forgive you both.

 

[Mickey]

You can mock me if you like, it doesn’t really matter; but you cannot show me I am wrong by Church teaching and doctrines. It’s all you have to discredit me, sad…

This is true deacon. I have been somewhat following the discussion…and he has yet to show anything referring to Catholic teaching and doctrines…although I have seen a few gnostic meanderings.

 

[meltzerboy]

If you ever want to win a national election again, you should. You don’t get more to vote for you from moving farther away from the middle. Romney is as moderate as it gets in the GOP and he still couldn’t win. You think someone more to the right would do better?

The main problem with Romney as I and, it appears, many of the electorate thought is that he moved away from his own views too often, from moderate to conservative and back again. IOW, he was perceived as having no political core. If his handlers had allowed him to run as either a moderate or a conservative period, he would have connected better with the majority of the electorate. The thing is, I believe the GOP wanted to position him in a variety of ways so as to attract and maintain the conservative base at the same time as appealing to independents and even some moderate democrats. That, in my view, is a very risky political game. A viable candidate must be honest with the public in the sense of running according to their own ideological or pragmatic beliefs, rather than saying only what they think the public wants to hear. Much of the vote for Romney, therefore, was based on an anti-Obama sentiment rather than a pro-Romney one. This is where I think both Santorum and Gingrich would have been superior candidates to Romney.

 

[ishii]

Maybe we can put forth a Santorum/Ryan ticket in 2016.

I don’t think the answer is to nominate a guy whose resume is a failed senate re-election bid (lost by 18 points) and a failed nomination bid. Nominate him and you get a year of Democrat demogoguing of the abortion/contraception issue. Santorum is smart, but he is not the best communicator the GOP has, and he appeals to a narrow social conservative base. I think Rubio and Bobby Jindal come to mind, and perhaps a few others. Chris Christie I am done with. Mind you at this point I think its an academic question of who to nominate in 2016. The scale has tipped in favor of the gays/abortion party - the Democrats. I don’t, like some previous posters see this election as proof that the GOP is bad and corrupt. I see it as the confirmation of how much the left has taken over our country. I will support the GOP nominee in 2016, but don’t have much hope that they can make fundamental change: our chance to repeal Obamacare has passed. It will be put into practice and become entrenched and another sacred entitlement like Medicare and SS.

Of course, this could have been avoided if Catholics didn’t vote for the abortion/gay party.

Democrat Catholics, are you proud of what you’ve done?

Ishii

 

[Mickey]

A viable candidate must be honest with the public in the sense of running according to their own ideological or pragmatic beliefs, rather than saying only what they think the public wants to hear .

Or he could have done what Obama did and divide the country along racial, gender, ethnic, religious, and socio-ecomomic boundaries.

 

[ishii]

They had their chance with Ron Paul and they blew it.

So many of you don’t get it: its not about who the GOP nominated. Its about how much the secular left, aided by a corrupt media, has taken over our country. Romney was the strongest candidate in a weak field - and Ron Paul would have been perhaps the weakest. If Romney had chosen Rubio perhaps a few more Latinos would have voted GOP and that would have put him over the top - who knows.

Ishii

 

[oldcelt]

You seem almost as intelligent as the other democrat hack that you commented on. You two have a lot in common.

You can mock me if you like, it doesn’t really matter; but you cannot show me I am wrong by Church teaching and doctrines. It’s all you have to discredit me, sad…

It’s ok, I forgive you both.

Democrat hack…yes, I suppose I am, except for the fact that I consistently vote a split ticket, worked loyally for a Republican Congressman, and give credit where I believe it is due.
My response was not directed at you, but at the notion that the Republican Party and church teaching should be, or are one in the same. The church has a role as a teacher…political parties are out to win elections.

This is and has been a secular society represented by the political process. It can be, and has been influenced by people of faith, but to combine the two into a solid whole is something that is anathema to the American vision. Each has its role.

As for not being able to show that you are wrong by church doctrine, why would I want to? You have your beliefs and are obviously comfortable with them. I have mine and the same holds true.

Believe it or not, a great many highly intelligent people disagree with you assessment of the American condition.

John

 

[oldcelt]

So many of you don’t get it: its not about who the GOP nominated. Its about how much the secular left, aided by a corrupt media, has taken over our country. Romney was the strongest candidate in a weak field - and Ron Paul would have been perhaps the weakest. If Romney had chosen Rubio perhaps a few more Latinos would have voted GOP and that would have put him over the top - who knows.

Ishii

You really need to get off the corrupt media thing. Bob Woodward, on Hannity, offered three specific cases that clearly show that the media was just as hard on the President as they were on Gov. Romney. When presented with facts, Hannity could not muster an effective response.
Just because a network does not apply the same importance to a particular story does not make them a lackey. Journalist may be left leaning in their personal beliefs, but that does not mean the report the facts that way.

It is a tired excuse for political lack of success. If it is true, why do the Republicans hold the house by a sizable margin? How did GW Bush get elected twice?

John

 

[ishii]

This is and has been a secular society represented by the political process. It can be, and has been influenced by people of faith, but to combine the two into a solid whole is something that is anathema to the American vision. Each has its role.
John

I disagree (surprise, I know). We have been historically a nation of Christians. When the president made references to God in speeches (Lincoln) and called for a national day of prayer (FDR) these were natural things to do because the society was not secular, it was Christian. That has changed - we are still a majority Christian nation but a small, secular group of leftists has slowly taken over the leadership of our society- in the media, culture and academia. This has at times taken place with the help of professed Catholics - misguided liberals.

 

[meltzerboy]

You really need to get off the corrupt media thing. Bob Woodward, on Hannity, offered three specific cases that clearly show that the media was just as hard on the President as they were on Gov. Romney. When presented with facts, Hannity could not muster an effective response.
Just because a network does not apply the same importance to a particular story does not make them a lackey. Journalist may be left leaning in their personal beliefs, but that does not mean the report the facts that way.

It is a tired excuse for political lack of success. If it is true, why do the Republicans hold the house by a sizable margin? How did GW Bush get elected twice?

John

How did GWB get elected ONCE? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.)

 

[DlandFan06]

Reagan is dead. Let him stay dead. It is impossible to live up to the ghost of presidents past.

Well, we may have to because this country needs a conservative right now.

 

[ishii]

You really need to get off the corrupt media thing. Bob Woodward, on Hannity, offered three specific cases that clearly show that the media was just as hard on the President as they were on Gov. Romney. When presented with facts, Hannity could not muster an effective response.
Just because a network does not apply the same importance to a particular story does not make them a lackey. Journalist may be left leaning in their personal beliefs, but that does not mean the report the facts that way.

It is a tired excuse for political lack of success. If it is true, why do the Republicans hold the house by a sizable margin? How did GW Bush get elected twice?

John

George Bush got elected in spite of the liberal press. And his opponents were boring white liberals not the current guy who is almost worshipped. I would be interested to know what were the 3 specific cases that the press were just as hard on Obama as they were on Romney. Can you name them? And also, can you name a time when the Washington press corp was caught on the mic talking about how they were going to trip up Obama? Because they were caught doing that to Romney. Thanks in advance for answering these questions.

Ishii

 

[meltzerboy]

Well, we may have to because this country needs a conservative right now.

Then look to the talented young stars of the Republican Party: Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and others.

 

[oldcelt]

I disagree (surprise, I know). We have been historically a nation of Christians. When the president made references to God in speeches (Lincoln) and called for a national day of prayer (FDR) these were natural things to do because the society was not secular, it was Christian. That has changed - we are still a majority Christian nation but a small, secular group of leftists has slowly taken over the leadership of our society- in the media, culture and academia. This has at times taken place with the help of professed Catholics - misguided liberals.

My view of the actions of the two Presidents you mentioned is quite different…In both cases the men were using every tool at their disposal to rally the people. I believe that politicians use religion…almost all of them.

It goes back to the founding document…the constitution. The writers had every opportunity to declare this nation to be …fill in the faith…and they didn’t. We are a secular government that was founded by a large number of Christians with a sizable number of Deists.

How have these secular leftists managed to take over? If they are such a small group, how has that been accomplished? IMO, they are not a small group, and have gained their influence because most people believe in a separation.

John

 

[ishii]

My view of the actions of the two Presidents you mentioned is quite different…In both cases the men were using every tool at their disposal to rally the people. I believe that politicians use religion…almost all of them.

It goes back to the founding document…the constitution. The writers had every opportunity to declare this nation to be …fill in the faith…and they didn’t. We are a secular government that was founded by a large number of Christians with a sizable number of Deists.

How have these secular leftists managed to take over? If they are such a small group, how has that been accomplished? IMO, they are not a small group, and have gained their influence because most people believe in a separation.

John

The constitution of course declared freedom of religion, and does not declare a “state religion.” But that does not mean that we are not (or were not) a Christian country. Our founding document begins: “We are endowed by our Creator…”

As for the leftists, they took over our education system. Much of what they have accomplished has been possible with the compliance of liberals, including liberal Catholics.

Ishii

 

[SGTTOM]

I think the republican party could have done better with the campaigning. Romney could have done better with the debates. Still its not an easy task. In the end you can’t make people vote one way or another. It was an improvement on the 2008 election though.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Maybe next time we will have that perfect candidate.

Americans failed, Romney is a family man, Romney would have created jobs… at least unleashed the energy industry.

:thumbsup:Yep…

 

[oldcelt]

George Bush got elected in spite of the liberal press. And his opponents were boring white liberals not the current guy who is almost worshipped. I would be interested to know what were the 3 specific cases that the press were just as hard on Obama as they were on Romney. Can you name them? And also, can you name a time when the Washington press corp was caught on the mic talking about how they were going to trip up Obama? Because they were caught doing that to Romney. Thanks in advance for answering these questions.

Ishii

Obama is not worshiped by the vast majority of people who voted for him. I would have preferred a stronger candidate, but could not vote for the failed economic ideas that the Republicans were trying to sell. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton is ineligible, and Hillary is employed.

Regarding Woodward:
The economy was one…the others are eluding me right now…I’ll check the transcript. He also spoke about Benghazi. Apparently, two Romney operatives approached him with supposed information from an inside source. Woodward set several meetings and was stood up by the “source.” When they finally did meet, the guy had nothing but, I heard, or, You need to talk to so and so…in other words…nothing.

So, I guess I should conclude that Fox news is in the pocket of the Republican Party since the hammered this story relentlessly?

John

 

[ishii]

I think the republican party could have done better with the campaigning. Romney could have done better with the debates. Still its not an easy task. In the end you can’t make people vote one way or another. It was an improvement on the 2008 election though.

When you are debating your opponent and the moderator - it makes it hard to win. Romney was attempting to call BS on Obama on the Benghazi scandal and the moderator stepped in and flat out told an untruth which saved Obama. If Romney had been allowed to pursue that line of questioning, we might be talking about a different outcome.

Ishii