The Name ‘Republican’ Is Damaged Beyond Repair

Fact: Millions of Republican voters did not come out to unseat Barack Obama.

Explanation: The Republican brand has been damaged beyond repair.

Solution: Is Herman Cain Right? Do we need to replace the GOP with a new party?

The Republican brand has been destroyed beyond repair. This is all something we really can blame on the Bush family in general and George W. Bush in particular. Not only do independents and moderates not trust anyone that has the millstone “Republican” hung around his neck, but even too many Republican voters themselves can no longer bring themselves to vote for members of their own party.

George W. Bush is the biggest culprit for this. His big spending and liberal governing style (No Child Left Behind, drugs for seniors, trillion dollar deficits) told Republican voters that there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Now, substantively, yes there are important differences between the parties. But the perception that Bush left with his odious “compassionate conservatism ” — which was just an excuse for big government liberalism — told Republican voters that the Democrats are the party of big government while Republicans are the party for a tiny bit less big government. This is not enough of a difference to entice a vote.

If the GOP could not get out enough voters to unseat Barack Obama, the most socialist-leaning, most anti-American president in American history, then the GOP brand has been damaged beyond repair.

The low Republican voter turnout in this election proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Republicans stayed home by the millions not because Mitt Romney campaigned as the big government candidate, he didn’t, but because President George H.W. Bush, his son President George W., Former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, one-time Senate majority leader Trent Lott, and current leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have governed like the party of just a bit less big government for the last 20 or more years.

In fact, the Tea Party movement proves this.

You see, the Tea Party movement was not just and only a reaction to Obama’s socialist-styled, Euro-lite policies. It was also equally a response to the failure of the Republican Party to live up to conservative principles.

This is why members of the Tea Party almost never call themselves Republican. The general assumption amongst Tea Partiers is that they are Americans, Constitutionalists, and conservatives before they are Republicans. In fact, they are only Republican by default because no Democrat in the country is to the right of a Soviet apparatchik.

Mitt inherited the millstone of the name Republican. It was a drag on his candidacy that he could not rise above. While Ronald Reagan was able to rise above the name Republican, Mitt Romney hadn’t the charisma to do so.

Further, no future Republican candidate will be able to win the White House unless he seems more than a mere Republican. Not to be too flippant, but he’ll have to be Candidate X (who is also sort of a Republican, but please ignore that).

A future Republican winner will have to be seen as a principled conservative who has risen above his party. Just like Ronald Reagan did. If he’s seen to be just another, run-of-the-mill Republican he will not and cannot win.


Unless the party itself truly becomes the party of fiscal responsibility, the party of small government, the party of individual liberty. But if the party won’t turn away from its big government direction it won’t even be able to turn out its own members in sufficient numbers to beat future Democrats just as it couldn’t turn out to defeat the biggest socialist-leaning president this nation has ever seen.

The Republican Party committed suicide. Not with Mitt Romney. It happened long before Mitt Romney even ran the first time in 2008. Mitt Romney wasn’t the cause. He was just its latest manifestation.

The Republican Party itself is at fault.

What exactly were we doing in Benghazi anyway?
Cyber-Theft from Our Nation's Banks a Growing Threat
  • GarandFan

    “The Republican brand has been destroyed beyond repair.”

    Sounds a tad over-dramatized to me. The Republicans still control the purse strings.

    • Carl

      That’s only going to last another 2 years…

      • retired.military

        I sincerely doubt that Carl. I also think the dems will lose the senate in 2014. But then that is what I said last month too.

        • Hugh_G

          With all due respect that’s not suck a sure thing. Something has to change and soon in the Republican party. Believe it or not I don’t want this to be a one party country, even democratic.

          I read an awful lot of political material – not just that that fits my mindset – and I thing the “brand” is in a lot of trouble. That’s not to say it’s doomed but some change has to happen.

          The absurd idea that all the Republicans have to do is change their stand on immigration isn’t going to work. Hispanics voted for the President for lots of different reasons – and not because they want a hand out. The fact of the matter is that there are lots of hard working Hispanics who want good education for their children and who want to succeed and be a part of the American dream. They don’t see that with the current “brand” of Republican.

          • retired.military


            I think that granting amnesty will not do much to help republicans. I honestly dont. I explained my stand on illegal immigration in another thread and wont repeat it here. The republicans could go “Hey we are all for amnesty as long as the illegals cant get welfare and cant vote for 25 years” and the dems would not let it pass. Nothing but full on amnesty (which will happen in the next 4 years) is going to happen and it wont be good for republicans.
            I think the republican establishment needs to stop being democrat lite.

          • Hugh_G


            Yes. They do a lousy job of it and give us dems a bad name in the process – just kidding, sort of.

        • Carl

          I think it is a sure thing. I think Pelosi should have been gone in 2009, and if Obama doesnt’ do his best to get her out of the House leadership I’d be very surprised.

          But I was surprised when he didn’t do it in 2009.

          • retired.military

            Pelosi wont go until she is ready. She knows where too may bodies are buried.

      • GarandFan

        Nancy Pelosi.

        • Carl

          Nancy will be the week after Obama is re-inaugarated.

          Not that it matters. If a woman takes her place it’ll be the same problem – for the right.

          (Meant to say Nancy will be gone the week after…)

          • jim_m

            Nancy will be the week after Obama is re-inaugarated.

            Your first sentence is a fragment and it makes the whole of the comment nonsensical.

          • GarandFan

            That’s never stopped Carl before.

          • jim_m


            So what do you think? Nancy will be what the week after the inauguration?


            Caught in a lesbian affair?

            Charged as a terrorist and sent to Gitmo?

            The possibilities are endless.

          • 914

            All of the above.

          • 914

            All of the above.

          • retired.military

            I think he meant gone. I honestly hope so. I cant stand to look at blinky or sour puss (Reid).

          • Carl

            Pelosi goes, Reid stays, is my prediction.

          • GarandFan

            Given her divorce from reality, she’ll probably wander into the House and start acting as if she were Speaker again.

          • Hugh_G

            More probably leading a vigorous opposition, as is her job.

      • Brian_R_Allen

        With the power of the United States of America’s government directed not outwards in our nation’s defense — but inward to its destruction — Our House in 2014 and a cycle later the senate, too, will be 75% under Zero’s tyrannical Gang’s criminal control.

        These next two years will provide America’s last chance of redemption and Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization’s of survival.

        And Our House’s few Republicans are our last line of defense.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      We The Pe …. um … Republicans do, indeed!

  • “Explanation: The Republican brand has been damaged beyond repair.”


    It couldn’t have been that the Democrats worked hard to get out the vote, or that they worked hard to frame any Republican candidate as being uncaring. It couldn’t be that Romney let the Democrats frame how he was seen and control the narrative.

    “The Republican Party itself is at fault.”

    Yes. Because they were too damn slow to correct impressions, too slow to fight back. Too slow or too timid – and at this point, it doesn’t make much difference which.

    When you let your enemy define you and you lose supporters because of it, THAT’S your problem.

    Can’t get the narrative out? Try harder. Other side’s lying about you? Fight back with facts. Can’t gain traction? Figure out what’s clogging your wheels, and figure out how to get past it.

    It’s all about marketing now. The Republican party should be able to figure that out. Capability and competence doesn’t matter for the Dems – as long as THEY can frame the narrative.

    You’d think that’d be clear after 2008. After 2004. After the hatchet jobs on Palin and Romney.

    It’s the marketing. Figure out how to turn that around, that’s what’s needed. You can run a flippin’ never-done-a-damn-thing-worthwhile incompetent and get him into the Oval Office with the right marketing. And then get him elected a second time – IF you control the narrative and marketing.

    • Commander_Chico

      When your product sucks so bad, no amount of marketing will get buyers.

      • jim_m

        Worked for obama.

      • Does the product suck? It may not be the best – but who’s actually managed to get budgets through to the Democratically controlled Senate? And which party’s steadfastly refused to even consider budgetary issues?

        You could probably ask Paul Hooson or anyone involved in practical advertising and marketing on this – does a crappy product with great marketing move off the shelves faster than a great product with little to no effective marketing?

        Which was better – Betamax or VHS? From a technical standpoint, Beta was better – but VHS had the catalog and thus the marketing.

        It’s like Pizza Hut allowing Domino’s to do most of their marketing for them. What would happen in that case? Both are decent pizzas – but what would happen to their respective market shares?

        The Dems know how to market themselves – that’s for sure. The Republicans… sheesh. They’re decidedly inept…

        • herddog505

          The dems don’t have to “market” themselves to the extent that MiniTru and Hollywood do it for them. Consider the politicians that appear in our pop culture: either they are charicatures of a conservative (heartless, corrupt, moral hypocrites) or else they are paragons of how liberals like to see themselves (erudite, compassionate, struggling against Wall Street on behalf of world peace and the common man). Consider how the world is portrayed: global waming is real; government workers, though harrassed and gruff, nevertheless have a heart of gold; the military is full of goons; every international problem is always the result of a plot by Americans, either in Wall Street, the CIA, or both.
          Growing up with this, who in his right mind would be anything BUT a liberal?

  • Commander_Chico

    Yeah, forming a new party around the Tea Party. That’ll work.

    You can start with these candidates:


    GW Bush would probably have been a moderately successful president but for 9/11 and his incompetent and extreme reaction to it.

    • 914

      Extreme reaction??

      • Anything other than bending over and spreading after dropping trousers…

      • Commander_Chico

        Invading Iraq was the extreme part. Not getting Bin Laden was the incompetent part.

    • 914

      I suppose if Bush would have Bowed to Hussein and Achmad Mullah Omar Sharif, the muslum world would have united and apologized for dancing in the streets on 911 2001 right?

      Geez take your lude’s and drift away…

      • Commander_Chico

        I always liked Omar Sharif.

  • Hank_M

    Even if the Republican Party disbanded and another was created in it’s place, the dems would simply claim it’s the same old republicans under a different name, then they’d demonize it with lies as they did with the Tea Party.

    As JLawson writes, it isn’t the brand, it’s how they present themselves, how they respond to dem lies, how they handle and fight against the MSM narrative that matters – the marketing.

    Bush was guilty of 2 things. Fiscal irresponsibility, although he looks like a miser compared to Obama and the dems, and a failure to defend his actions and policies.

    The brand is fine. Those representing it are the problem.

  • jim_m

    Yep. Ever since Nixon it has been so damaged beyond repair that no one will ever vote for a Republican candidate ever again. Except for Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43.

    Heard it before about both parties. Total nonsense.

  • Carl

    I disagree that the name is finished. They just need to clean house and quit letting lunatics set the agenda while the rich fat white guys try to buy the election.

    This cabal of social extremists on the right supporting the wealthy and giving away America to them so they will buy the the White House for the social conservatives has failed.

    And the Tea Party is never going to let another NeoCon on the top of the ticket — and the fact of the matter is it would have taken a NeoCon to beat Obama. Thanks God the right decided they wouldn’t allow that.

    McCain would have beaten Obama in 2012. McCain’s softer position on Immigration and his less misogynistic attitudes about women would have won enough votes away from Obama to win the 2012 White House for the GOP.

    But at this point the Tea Party right and the religious extremists who have taken over the Republican party won’t allow a McCain on the top of the ticket. Do you really think that Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann or Ron Santorum would have done better than Mittens?

    And if Mittens is the lowest common denominator and he can’t even come close to winning what does that leave you?

    You don’t need to change the name of the party, you need to accept the reality that this nation will never move as far right as you want to take it.

    We’re moving forward, you’re welcome to come along, or not… Move to the midwest and cling to your guns and religion and vow to fight this nation’s federal government until they pry your gun from your cold hands if you wish — but if you can’t recognize how extreme that position is you really need a wake up call.

    • retired.military

      McCain only got as many votes as he did with Palin on the ticket. Anyone else and he would have gotten less.

      • Carl

        Obama would have gotten less, and those votes would have gone to McCain instead, if Palin wasn’t on the GOP ticket.

        Ryan instead of Palin wouldn’t have made enough difference. Ryan is less extreme, but he’s still extreme.

        McCain Leiberman would have beaten Obama in 2008.

        There simply isn’t any good reason, in my view, for the GOP to tack hard right and try to appease the Tea Party extremists. Who else are they going to vote for? It’s the reason the Democrats do nothing to try to appease the Peace and Freedom Cindy Sheehan nutcakes on the left. It’s going to lose more votes than it gains. Peace and Freedom extremists are going to vote for the Democrat over the Republican any day of the week.

        • retired.military

          I sincerely doubt Obama would have gotten less no matter who McCain picked as running mate. McCain was a disaster for a candidate from the word go. The only thing good IMO from 2008 and 2012 is we will never have McCain and Romney running again. I have to wonder who is running in 2016. The republican establishment will probably pull a hat trick and nominate someone like Lyndsey Graham.

          • Carl

            The vote spread between Obama and McCain was 8 million votes. Only 4 million Obama voters would have to move from Obama to McCain to tip the scales in favor of McCain (from a popular vote standpoint). I think there were 4 million Hillary supporters who were skeptical enough of Obama to move their votes to McCain were it not for the very scary prospect of a 73 year old McCain falling over dead and having Palin take over as President.

            I think the GOP candidate won’t be someone like Lindsay Graham. I think it’ll be a person of color – any color – other than white.

            Not to worry about Republicans who wouldn’t vote for a non-white GOP candidate, right? Because we all know there isn’t a single white racist in the Republican ranks who votes on the basis of color… heh.

            But yes, at least Graham is publicly acknowledging the demographical aspects of the 2012 WH loss. He understands why the Republicans lost – whether he’d change things enough to make a difference – I don’t know. If you say yes, I believe you.

          • retired.military


            I disagree. I think the republican heirarchy will shoot theirself in the foot agian and it will be Huckabee, or Graham or someone other person they see as “moderate”.

            If Hillary is still kicking in 4 years she will be the dem nominee and republicans can kiss the baby.

            The only person I see capable of beating Hillary is Condi. Condi;s views (from what I believe) on abortion will be hard sell to the republican base and to top it I half believe the rumors that she is gay as there is no permanent man in her life. (call me stereotyping). However, I think that the base will turn out for her as she is more conservative and smarter than McCain and Romney combined. Plus I dont think Condi wants the job. That is my opinion for what it is worth.

      • herddog505

        I agree. Perhaps I’m projecting, but I personally despised McCain; the “Maverick” schtick got old long before he was the nominee, and I never trusted him. When he nominated Palin, it was a breath of fresh air. The base was certainly energized. It may well be that he might have found somebody better, but certainly Palin helped him turn out Republicans.

        • jim_m

          The whole point of the maverick label was that he was willing to sell out conservative principle for personal advancement. He got that label by sucking up to the MSM. It was always a symbol of his inability to secure the conservative base.

          • 914

            Don’t know what kind of advancement you need at 75 with 20 million dollars but to each his own I guess. I voted for Palin. Could not stand him.

      • Carl

        So you would have voted for OBama if Leiberman was McCain’s VP?

        No, I didn’t think so.

        Or are you one of those conservative Tea Party “patriots” who don’t vote at all if you don’t have a tea party candidate to vote for?

    • 914

      “They just need to clean house and quit letting lunatics set the agenda while the rich fat white guys try to buy the election.”

      Pot meet racist kettle!!

  • Brucehenry

    Even long-time conservative commenters here are beginning to see — and say — what a kooky nonsense-spewer Huston is, what a crybaby he is, just how freaking WRONG he is about nearly everything he writes about.

    It’s about time.

    I’m telling you, Wizbang need Jay Tea back, badly.

    • jim_m

      I’ll agree emphatically on the Jay Tea part.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yah, Jay Tea was a higher quality nutball.

    • He’s getting comments, and page views. Thus, he’s a success.

      But I agree. I miss Jay Tea…

  • retired.military

    How about the republican hierarchy actually running a republican candidate. Not JOhn McCain, Not Bob Dole and Not Mitt Romney. How about the republican hierarchy not agree to 3 biased moderators for the debates. How about the republican hierarchy try to combat the lies of the left and stop being afraid of appearing mean. How about the republican hierarchy stop worrying about what the NY times will say about them and what DC cocktail parties they wont get invited to. How about the republican hierarchy come up with a good message to combat the “I will give you free stuff” party.

    • Brian_R_Allen

      How about the “republican” hierarchy actually being Republican?

      That’d be a novel place to begin.

  • Vagabond661

    Word WTH. Word.

    • Brucehenry

      You so gangsta

      • Vagabond661

        Liberals rebranded themselves as Progressives. Same socialistic claptrap but with a pretty name.

  • Hugh_G

    It’s the brand he says. That must be why Romney lost every demographic except white males. Yeah, the brand – not the political philosophy. Here’s some numbers to ponder:

    National Popular vote: President Obama 61,820,108 (50.54% and increasing – Romney 58,563,101 (47.88%)


    Popular Vote Outside The South: President Obama 42,769,338 (53.95%)

    Romney 35,100,308 (44.28%)

    The absolute inability to appeal to any voters other than white males has nothing to do with the “brand”. It has everything to do with what the “brand” is selling

    Isn’t it ironic. Liberals have been castigated for supposedly blaming “everything” on Bush. Now Huston is turning on his own. Why am I not surprised?

    • jim_m

      I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with your bogus stat of % of vote outside of the south. One could post % of vote outside of major cities or outside of the NE and West coast.

      • Hugh_G

        I wasn’t trying to prove anything. Just illustrating.

        • jim_m

          Yes, when a party gets away from its geographical base it does less well. I think everyone comprehended that.

          And your assertion that white males is the only demographic that the GOP won is wrong as well. Take a look at the married women demo.

          • Carl

            Proof that conservative women do what their husbands tell them to do.

          • jim_m

            So you are claiming that conservative women marry but liberal women do not?

          • Carl

            Oh yeah, haven’t you heard? Women who voted for Obama are whores. The draft-dodging pedophile that conservatives like so much says so…

          • We believe that you [Carl] believe that:

            Women who voted for Obama are whores.

          • jim_m

            I disagree. I would bet that Carl believes that all women are whores. Period.

          • Carl

            The last man who bet me lost $100.

          • Carl

            Mom won’t let you click on links?

    • retired.military


      If you look at Geographics you will see that the problem for republicans seems to be large cities. (over a million people).

      La, Chicago, NY, Detroit, Columbus, Miami, SF, Dallas, and the list goes on.

      Granted that is where the majority of minorities settle but it is also where the majority of democrat politicians are and the worst poverty areas.

      THe cycle seems to be

      Dem Politican elected to big city, big city has poor education, job hopes, future prospects, etc, big city has large minority population, Minority population votes for democrats.;

      I believe the major correlation is not that minorities vote for dems but that places where Dem politicians are have poor chances for minorities to improve themselves.

      It appears that dem politicians need a permanent underclass to keep them in power.

  • Unless there are term limits, few of them will truly have the stones to do what’s necessary. Paul Ryan comes to mind as a possible exception.

    • Term limits look like a necessity at this point, along with a less-complex tax structure. There HAS to be some way to get the ancient farts with their fossilized ideologies out.

      Ain’t gonna see either soon, I think.

  • ackwired

    Mr. Huston is right that there is no significant difference between the Democrats and Republicans. The two party system has failed. Both parties have to do the same things to compete for the same dollars. The result is that they put up poor candidates and campaign by saying that the opponent is even worse. The campaigns are so expensive that only corporations and the super rich qualify as sources of significant funds. These corporations and super rich then write the legislation because the politicians can literally not afford to say no to them. Replacing or renaming one of the two parties will make no difference. The solution is a multi-party system that has too many parties to be controlled. The way to get there is for people to simply vote their conscience.

    • Yeah. But don’t forget the “They’re gonna stitch up your ladyparts or keep you barefoot and pregnant if you don’t vote for us” narrative that was pushed hard by the Dems.

      That certainly gets them to vote their conscience, doesn’t it? I was watching on – talk about single-minded voters. They didn’t see anything beyond that – economics, domestic or foreign policy be damned; tell them that there might be a possibility abortion be pushed back to the states to decide, and that was all they could think about. NOTHING was more important than that. The nation could have been collapsing completely in a hyperinflation burst, but they were going to vote for free contraceptives and abortion. And Obama, because he was so dreamy.

      That’s the sort of electorate you expect to vote their conscience?

      • ackwired

        We have a long way to go, and we may not get there. People do not give up power. It has to be taken from them. That is also true of the Democratic and Republican parties. They are both very good at preserving the two party system so they can convince the voters that their candidate is the lesser of two evils. The two parties in power will not change the system. The people must do it.

        • They’ll be too busy watching the latest reality program.

          The thing is – in order to get people to revolt, they’ve got to be VERY uncomfortable, and someone with a better way gets their attention.

          We’re not uncomfortable enough yet. The message is out there, the way can be seen. But there’s too many people who aren’t uncomfortable enough to walk that path.

          Hell, we’ve got a long way to go.

          • ackwired

            You are right that it is not easy to stir most people. Fortunately, ending the two party system does not require very much of them. They just have to figure out who best reflects their view, and vote for that person. Sounds easier than it is, I know.

    • retired.military


      Unfortunately too many people are voting for their free stuff. As long as govt can give away free stuff people will vote for those candidates.

      • Yep.

        Bread and circuses – keep ’em entertained, and they’ll vote for you. Keep ’em fed, and they’ll vote for you.

        Muck up the bread line, though – and see how fast the attitudes change.

        Over at Ace Of Spades…

        I just heard an anecdote about a conservative who voted for Obama. He’d voted conservative in every past election. The difference this year was that he was out of work and had not made a mortgage payment on his house for two years. He was still able to live in the house, without foreclosure and eviction, because, he thought, of Obama. And Mitt Romney would wind up speeding up the process of foreclosure.

        It is difficult to understand how a President could be reelected having presided over such a disastrous economy, but there it is: Because the economy is so weak, and people are so miserable and just holding on to their fingernails, the Catastrophic President becomes the only lifeline available to many. They wind up caring less about the economy as a general matter, because their survival instincts are just to keep themselves sheltered and fed. They are looking at the current moment, scared as hell of the next.

        Which is a bit like welfare addiction, generally: It keeps you dependent on it so you don’t search for alternatives which are better for you, both financially and spiritually. And you’ll fight like hell to keep on it, because, at the moment, it’s what’s putting food in your mouth.

        It could be that Obama has failed himself into victory. It just might be that he’s created such a nightmare of circumstances that far too few people will even listen to persuasion.

        Trouble with bread and circuses is that once you’ve started, you’ve got to keep providing them. Lose either – and you’re screwed.

        And the bread line might just be getting a trifle shaky…

        “Ohioans’ food stamp aid to be reduced.
        Benefit to fall $50 a month starting in January”

        Damn. I’m sure hoping this isn’t the forerunner of worse to come…

        • ackwired

          I’m afraid that it is a forerunner of worse to come. Unless something unforeseen saves the economy and the currency, times are going to get significantly worse.

          • That’s one of the reasons I’m hopeful for the oil and gas discoveries – it’s income, and can help reduce our balance of trade.


            Of course, Obama’s moving to shut down more exploration.


            Makes ya wonder…

          • ackwired

            Yes, I saw the IEA report. I agree with you that it save the currency. We still have a huge amount of debt to deal with, though.

          • Don’t we just…

            What I’m concerned about – increased revenue will simply drive the idiots in the Beltway to increase the deficit even more…

          • ackwired

            A fair concern. But the idiots in the Beltway seem to increase the deficit regardless of the revenues. The massive borrowing that has taken place since the idiots in the Beltway quit raising taxes to pay for government is a significant part of the problem.

          • Wouldn’t have made much difference. Even at their most optimistic, the Bush tax cuts would have gathered about $150 bil a year. Obama’s spending 10x that per year.

            The dude just can’t figure out numbers. A billion, million, trillion – he can’t tell them apart. “Yeah, we’ll just tax the rest and get $150 billion! That’ll pay off the $16 trillion in no time!”

          • ackwired

            Every objective entity that has looked at it has concluded that we need to cut entitlements, cut military, and raise revenues. It sound like both parties are now finally coming around to this approach.

          • jim_m

            I’ll believe that the dems are willing to cut entitlements when they actually do so and not a single moment before that happens. Too long the have demagogued this issue claiming that Social Security is fully sustainable and that Medicare is sustainable. These have been lies all along.

            Once the dems actually come up with a plan to reform these entitlements, which means cutting spending and very likely benefits, then they can start making a claim to be serious about the debt. I sincerely doubt that the dems advance any reduction or reform efforts for entitlements. They will leave this up to the GOP and they will condemn any reductions in entitlement spending.

          • ackwired

            The D’s have signaled a willingness to cut entitlements and the R’s have signaled a willingness to raise revenues (military spending is still a question mark). This is a long way from an agreement. But it is closer than we have been before. There are extremists on both sides that will refuse to believe the other side. We can only hope that reasonable people will come to the fore.

          • jim_m

            As I have said. The GOP has raised taxes before. When push comes to shove the dems have never been really serious about entitlements. There is no precedent for believing that the dems will offer any serious entitlement reform until it happens.

          • retired.military

            Count on it.

      • ackwired

        Well, I’m not sure that gov’t is going to be able to do “free” much longer.

        • jim_m

          Sure they can. They can keep printing money until hyperinflation sets in. Then they can just print ever larger denominations,

  • Not_Phyllis

    Awesome! Double down on your failing message…it worked so well last Tuesday, didn’t it?

  • Brucehenry

    Apologizing in advance, because I know how you guys hate the implication that you’re saying racist shit, but….

    In 1972, my first election, I heard from middle aged white guys over and over again that “That damn McGovern’s gonna take a thousand dollars of MY MONEY and give it to a ni**er!” Over the following years I’ve heard about “welfare queens” and “food stamp baby mommas”, “racial hiring quotas” and “school choice” or “neighborhood schools.”

    it’s all the same crap. And this new thing you keep telling yourselves, and each other, about Democratic voters “wanting free stuff” — it’s the same thing too.

    I don’t think you guys are racists, but you’re damn sure tone-deaf. If you keep this message up, 2016 is gonna look a lot like 2012.

    • And you pretend, erroneously, that most welfare queens aren’t whites who have embraced the urban culture that uses phrases like “baby mama.” To acknowledge the white component of the problem undermines your continued vain use of the race card.

      • Brucehenry

        I’m just telling you what you sound like to people who don’t already buy into your schtick. The actual demographic composition of the welfare queen or baby mama population is irrelevant. And I’m not pretending anything.

        BTW, how does one pretend something erroneously? Can one pretend a thing and NOT err?

        • The actual demographic composition of the welfare queen or baby mama population is irrelevant.

          I’ll take that as an admission of your error.

    • retired.military


      Welfare queens and cheats make up a very small % of the people getting aid.

      Take 10 people at random in need.

      I walk up and say “I can help you but it will require effort on your part” and

      someone else sayd “I will give you stuff and you can sit here” probably half

      would go with me and half with the other guy.

      Now 6 months later I walk up to the 5 that went to the other guy and say

      “I can help you but it will require effort on your part’ probably 3 will be

      tired of living hand to mouth and go with me.

      Take the same 10 and

      I walk up and say “I can help you but it will require A LOT of effort on your part” and

      someone else said “I will give you stuff and you can sit here” probably 2 or 3

      would go with me and the rest with with the other guy.

      Now 6 months later I walk up to the 8 that went to the other guy and say

      “I can help you but it will require a LOT OF effort on your part’ probably 3 will be

      tired of living hand to mouth and go with me.

      The thing is there is very little opportunity out there to be had.

      I honestly feel that if the economy were doing a bit better Obama would have had

      a tougher time getting reelected as more people would need less govt assistance.

      I think people generally want to better their lot in life even if it means hard work.

      Now let me point you to a statistic that conservatives use.

      50% of the people only pay 3% of the taxes. Basically 47% pay no taxes.

      What most conservatives dont do (I believe) is look further at those 50%. The max

      AGI for that group is about $25k a year. Figure a family of 4 would make about 20k a year

      after taxes. That is about $1600 a month clear for a family of 4. That isnt a hell of a lot.

      After housing, electricity, food and gas, and a car payment there is not a lot left.

      Anyone coming along saying “I will give you free stuff to help make your life better” has a powerful


      I am sure folks want to do better on their own but with lack of opportunities they will take assistance.

      When I was an E-5 with 2 young children I easily quailified for WIC. I refused to use it because

      I felt I was making a paycheck and I could take care of my family. I dont know of many who

      would make the same choice today. Not saying I am better but in the analogy above of 10 when

      told it would take hard work or free stuff I would have been one to choose hard work. Always have.

      Am I better than those folks? Nope. Wired differently ? Probably.

  • herddog505

    What does the GOP stand for any more?

    I suggest that it has really only two planks:

    1. ABO

    2. Spending just a bit less than the dems on social issues, and just a bit more on defense

    This is not exactly an inspiring platform.

    Let’s look at the “face” of the GOP – the tops of the tickets – over the past couple of decades:

    1992 – George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle. Bush was a thoroughly competent man with wide experience in government. However, he came across to his base as “squishy” (Thousand Points of Light) and to everybody else as old, rich, white, and out-of-touch. Quayle, of course, was infamously smeared as an idiot because he misspelled a word. The power of MiniTru…

    1996 – Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. What can one say about this? Dole, like Bush Classic, was a competent politician with long experience. Kemp was a somewhat older version of Paul Ryan. Both came across as old, dour, and white.
    2000 – George Bush and Dick Cheney. Hallelujah! The GOP finally nominated somebody who didn’t come across as old and stodgy. Unfortunately, after eight years of relentless negative PR, people did (and do) think of him as an idiot. Cheney, of course, competes with satan as the epitome of evil.

    2004 – John McCain and Sarah Palin. Raise your hand if you’re a Republican and actually LIKE John McCain. Anybody? Anybody at all? Palin, though I’m a fan, should never have been on the ticket for the simple fact that she lacked experience. It was too easy to portray her as an ignorant hick.

    In short, the GOP has and HAS HAD a problem getting candidates who DON’T look like stodgy old white guys. When they’ve got to also worry about MiniTru gleefully defining them as such (and as cruel, rapacious, heartless, out-of-touch, racist, etc.), this ain’t exactly a recipe for electoral success.

    Finally, as I’ve written before, “Vote for me so I can take sh*t away from you!” is hardly a winning slogan. Anybody with a brain in his head knows that the country is hurtling towards fiscal ruin, but nobody wants to be the one to pay the check.

    • Brucehenry
    • retired.military

      “In short, the GOP has and HAS HAD a problem getting candidates who DON’T look like stodgy old white guys’
      I disagree. I think they want stodgy old white guys (look at Dole and McCain) that is the problem along with them wanting to get invited to the DC parties. As long as they go with the “It’s my turn” guy there will be problems. As long as they dont want the NY Times and CNN calling them names there will be problems. As long as they cant combat the “I will give you free stuff” message of the dems there will be problems.

      • jim_m

        As long as they go with the “It’s my turn” guy there will be problems.


        Until the GOP actually becomes willing to nominate a candidate based on the merits and not based on some BS perception of whose turn it is because they have hung around and lost the last few cycles, they will continue to have these issues.

        There isn’t anyone from the GOP primary I care to see running in 2016. I think that there are a number of good candidates that didn’t run that would be very interesting but the GOP will probably force them out in favor of someone pathetic. My bet is that Perry gets the nod in 2016 because he will be perceived as having paid his dues.

        • That’s the important thing, isn’t it? Paying your dues, putting in your time. Don’t worry about ideas.

          Dems decided to market their candidate and make him as appealing as possible, Republicans decide who gets to run by “Sell By” date…

          • retired.military

            Look at the last 2 democrat presidents.

            They claim to fame prior to being nominated is not paying their dues but making a great speech at the democratic convention for some other nominee.
            If not for Perot Clinton would not have been President and would have lost reelection bid as well. (IMO).

          • It’s really hard to beat surface glitz with substance. Kind of like the old question – “Ginger, or Mary Ann?” Do you want someone that looks good, or do you want someone capable?

            We live in a culture that values surface over substance. Lots of people would rather have the shiny than the solid, because the shiny looks better.

            That really depends on priorities, on what you’ve been taught are the things which should be most important in a politician. That’s not something that comes into being quickly, or is changed quickly except in catastrophic circumstances.

            As it is – I feel sorry for Obama. He’s gotten a second term, but not by landslide levels. He’s got a host of serious problems bearing down on him that he can’t ignore, and not a clue about any good way to deal with them. (And then he’s got Joe Biden as VP. That’s got to be unsettling, having a verbal time-bomb rolling around underfoot…)

            We’re going to see how he deals with real pressure now – 4 years that he can’t escape from, where ALL the responsibility will be on his head and his trusted people from the last 4 years running like hell.

            Whoops – looks like Holder is staying.


            Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? I wonder how long he’ll last – and whether he resigns, or is thrown under the bus?

          • herddog505

            I don’t feel sorry for that son of a bitch at all. He’s spent the past four years spending us into a fiscal hole that we’ll never get out of, not to mention all the scandals, corruption and plain ol’ f*ck-ups from Solyndra to F&F to Benghazi. He has managed to duck responsibility so far; why should he not continue to do so? In many ways, he actually has the best possible situation:

            1. He hasn’t got to run for reelection, so he hasn’t got to worry about keeping people happy but is free (“flexible”) to do as he pleases;

            2. He’s got the GOP in the House to blame for anything that goes wrong, and;

            3. George Bush is still doing duty as Barry’s personal Emmanuel Goldstein.

          • herddog505

            In fairness, the implicit GOP approach is to nominate people who have a great deal of experience: the emphasis (supposedly) is on competence. The dems, on the other hand, nominate people who look good and speak well; experience and knowledge be damned!
            I think it reasonable to say that Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, and perhaps even Yosemite Sam would have done a competent job as president; I doubt that they would have outsourced vital legislation to SanFran Nan and Dingy Harry.

            What the GOP didn’t count on is (in part, anyway) the “American Idol” model of our president: don’t pick the man who can do the best job: pick the man who has the best act.

          • As I said – it’s about marketing. You might have the best product in the world, but if you don’t advertise it, or let your competitor do the advertising FOR you (as the Dems did, quite effectively) you’re not going to get the market share you need.

            Romney would have been a good, competent manager. But that’s not how he was portrayed. He fell behind the power curve, so to speak, and let the Democrats define him.

            And it’s tough to recover from something like that, especially when you don’t even try particularly hard.

  • Blame George W. Bush for Mitt Romney’s loss? How Obama-like that is.

    Folks, early on during the 2012 Republican primaries, plenty of Republican pundits were groaning because they didn’t care much for any of the Republican candidates. Last February, Red State‘s Erick Erickson wrote, “I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades’ sweet meteor of death than any of the [Republican] candidates left in the race.”

    Back then, I wrote, “Romney doesn’t excite me. He comes across to me as being a default candidate, supported by GOP leaders because it’s Romney’s turn at bat. The GOP tried that in 1996 with Bob Dole, and then in 2008 with McCain.”

    Romney simply didn’t have the charisma needed to win the presidential election.

    Also, there is a possibility that some people refused to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon.

    • jim_m

      Given that the most likely voters to be turned off by his being a mormon were the evangelicals and the evangelical vote turned out pretty well, it is unlikely that we can say that this hurt him.

  • Commander_Chico

    The warmongering part of the GOP message would be easiest to get rid of and return the most electoral results. I wonder how much Romney’s tough-talk on Russia and Iran hurt him, but it did hurt him.

    • Jack Zimms

      You mean like Obama going to war without Congressional approval and his aggressive use of arm drones?

  • Carl

    “This is all something we really can blame on the Bush family in general and George W. Bush in particular.”

    Sure…BLAME BOOSH! lol.

  • Wild_Willie

    Wow! I could not disagree more. Romney lost by a very small margin. He had to spend the spring diverting his ad revenue for the primaries while Obama was constantly airing ads in Ohio. The GOP is not a bad brand. A lot of conservatives stayed home this cycle on principle, which I don’t understand because they know an avowed socialist would win. I think it is time to chill. We have the house comfortably, the Senate will no doubt go our way in 2014 and the dem’s have to compromise or they will lose their seat. ww

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. the GOP could not get out enough voters to unseat the tyrannically–fascistic un- and- anti-American pretender to America’s “presidency.” …..

    Wanna bet?

    That’s the “Democrats” line — and not all of the “Democrats” – Karl Rove – John McCainiac – Huckabee Finn – Insufferable-Bill O’Reilly – Lindsey Olin Graham – as examples – trade under the “Democrats'” banner.

    Our votes beat his out well enough but as his and Adolf Hitler’s ideologically-identical triplet, Joe Stalin, is alleged to have observed, those who vote count for naught when compared with those that count the votes.

  • Jack Zimms

    If republicans went back to their conservative bases instead of following fool’s gold by going further left to attract voters that they will never get, then the base would turn out and they would win a great deal more often. Following the advice of the Democrats and liberal press who main interest is the decline of the Republican Party is as stupid as you can get. Just like trying to take the high road, play fair, be civil, etc when the other side doesn’t. Playing by The Marquess of Queensberry rules when the other side brings knives, clubs etc is foolish.

    • Carl

      Look at the last Republican who won the WH – did he go further left towards the middle — or further right away from the middle – to win votes?
      He was a neoconservative. He went left. It isn’t possible for a candidate to endorse Tea Party values and hard right social conservatism and win the White House, not in this day and age.

      • Vagabond661

        If you look at the election in 2010 and all of the Tea Party cadidates elected in this election, you can plainly see that you are talking out of your butt.

      • Jack Zimms

        Look at the last Republican who ran as a conservative. He won by a landslide. The philosophy of running to the left is a mistake.

      • retired.military

        Look at the 2 republican candidates after Bush. THey were both so far left of Bush it wasnt even funny.

      • Vagabond661

        thats bubble talk.

  • Vagabond661

    Come to think of it, Obama lost 10 million voters between 2008 to 2012. Maybe it’s time he reaches out to church groups he has offended. Maybe he needs to moderate his stance on birth control and gay marriage.

    • Carl

      That’s Bubble-talk…

      • Vagabond661

        no different than telling republicans to moderate their positions.

  • bill singer

    The GOP ran a poor second to a highly-oiled Dem machine staffed by nerds who analyzed the electorate, then mobilized on the ground to get out the vote. Exhorting a few million more GOP voters to get to the polls, even if it took driving them there, would have tipped it the other way. We need to study their methodology, and while we’re at it, emulate their efforts at melding a coalition.

    • Carl

      And in comparison, Mitt Romney’s data-fired GOTV effort was a dismal failure. There are even reports that it suppressed votes instead of getting out the vote.

      And here we see, in stark contrast, the management ability of the two candidates. Obama’s effort was wildly successful while Mitten’s efforts were a huge failure.

      ORCA, Mitt Romney’s high-tech get-out-the-vote program, crashed on Election Day

      Mitt Romney’s online voter-turnout operation suffered a meltdown on Election Day, result­ing in a crucial 90-minute “buckling” of the system
      in Boston and the inability of some campaign workers across the country
      to use a vital smartphone program, according to campaign officials and

      Code-named ORCA, the program was kept secret until just before the
      election in order to prevent hacking of the system. It was then
      trumpeted by Romney’s aides as an unrivaled high-tech means of
      communicating with more than 30,000 field workers who were stationed at
      polling places on Election Day.
      Those volunteers were supposed to track
      who voted and to alert Boston headquarters if turnout was lower than
      expected at key precincts.

      But at Boston’s TD Garden, where 800 Romney workers were staffing
      phones and computers in coordination with the field workers to oversee
      the turnout, the surge in traffic was so great that the system didn’t
      work for 90 minutes, causing panic as staffers frantically tried to
      restore service. Some campaign workers also reported that they had
      incorrect PINS and had not been informed that they needed certification
      to work at polling places.

      With all the money in the world Mittens still couldn’t manage his way out a wet paper bag.

      How sad… how very sad…

      ADD: Big expose of Mitt’s disastrous ORCA over at Ace of Spades –

      • Sunny

        How much does MItt Romney has? Since u wrote With all the money in the world Mittens still couldn’t manage his way out a wet paper bag.

        Show that he has “all the money in the world”.. U fool: if he had “all the money on the world”, he would have won because he could buy off any voter or any person he wanted including your master Obama. Precisely because he DID NOT have the necessary money in the world ; that’s why he could not convince a CERTAIN faction of the voters to back him; instead these voters bought the story from your master that he will give them free handouts (food stamps highest ever in 2012).

        U fool your master rely on keeping the poor remain poor so that they will vote for him.

        So sad… Very very sad…,

  • retired.military

    BTW Looks like Obama may get his tax the rich scheme passed. WOohoo a whole $42 billion more ayear in tax revenue.

    • Carl

      Yes, it’s a shame that the 1992 Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy gave away half a trillion dollars before sanity stepped in and stopped this mad giveaway.

      And as the Bush 2007 recession shows, tax cuts for the wealthy did NOTHING to help create jobs.

      It’s good to know that conservatives like yourself no longer feel bothered by the squandering of half a trillion dollars….

      • jim_m

        Gee, and I thought that the recession was caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. Please give us links that demonstrate with data (not ideology) that the tax cuts resulted in the economic collapse. Otherwise admit you’re full of it.

        • Carl

          Gee, you’re an idiot. That’s a surprise. Show me where I said tax cuts resulted in economic collapse, bubble-head.

          Unemployment skyrocketed while the wealthy enjoyed their tax cuts.

          Tax cuts = jobs? Bubble-talk.

          • jim_m

            Redistribution of money by taking money from the public in taxes and filtering it through a corrupt government in order to try to create jobs is a documented failure as well.

            We have some of the highest tax rates for business in the world. There is little question that these tax rates impede business. Denying this truth just shows you are an ignorant ideologue.

            obamacare is adding significant additional costs for business. Companies are already laying off in anticipation of it going into effect or planning to reduce future hiring. While you will deny these facts your denial does not make them any less true.

          • Carl

            and claiming we have the highest tax rates for business while ignoring the tax loopholes and shelters and tax dodges that effectively lower that tax rate, far lower, is just another example of Republican dishonesty.

            Or in your case, JIm, bubble-head stupidity.

            In recent decades, corporate tax revenue has plunged, falling from about 6 percent of gross domestic product in the 1950′s to less than 2 percent today, due to a proliferation of corporate tax breaks and the use of offshore tax havens. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in fact, corporate tax receipts as a share of corporate profits have hit their lowest point in 40 years:

            With Tax Break, Corporate Rate Is Lowest in Decades


            US Corporate profits are at all-time high under Obama.

            But inside the bubble, where facts don’t matter and fact-checkers are ignored, folks like Jim revel in their stupidity and rail at fantasy, ignoring reality again.

          • jim_m

            Then perhaps you should tell the liars at Reuters and the HuffPo how they are dangerously misleading the public.

            I will await a copy of your communications with them and look forward to the pending victory in getting them to present the information according to your ideological slant.

            PS: my article is more recent than yours suggesting that your information is beyond its sell by date.

            Oh, and add CNN to the list of news sources that you need to correct:

            Finally, tax breaks are not universally available so not everyone will qualify for ay given tax break. Nor do most businesses have the ability to employ legions of tax attorneys to work with the government to give them additional breaks like GE does.

  • retired.military

    I think it is pretty funny that under Bush you had a few people threatening to leave the country. Under Obama you have petitions for 40% of the states to leave it.

    • Carl

      Yeah, it’s pretty funny. It shows that liberals are true patriots who love their country through thick and thin, while conservatives are whners and babies who will leave this great nation if things don’t go their way.

      Good bye. Good riddance, and let’s firm up the border to prevent these conservative whiners from getting back into our country.

      • jim_m

        Yeah, all those “true patriots” living in the blue red states of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey…

        It isn’t that you’re ignorant. It’s that you know so much that isn’t so.

        Perhaps if the left loves their country so much they should stop refusing to say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem, fly the flag and they should stop spitting on our soldiers.

        • Commander_Chico

          Anyone signing that petition will have a tough time getting a security clearance.

          • jim_m

            Well they sure as heck aren’t going to be getting any government contracts until obama leaves office.

      • jim_m

        And while you are at it you might want to recall how the left lived their lives back in 2004. The left was all in favor of seceding when W was reelected. I guess your gnat like memory doesn’t reach that far back.

  • Bird666

    That may all well be true, but to still not go out–WITH THE STAKES AS HIGH AS THEY WERE NOV 6–and vote for the lesser of two evils is fucking stupid as hell. I’d much rather be trying to corrall Mitt Romney’s excesses than Obama’s. Maybe if the party is that full of idiots then it should be over. Enjoy the next 4 years with your “It’s Bush’s fault” tantrum. Jesus.

  • Idahoser

    there is no way to defeat the 80% of voters who will not be educated and will vote for their party. The only thing the thinking people in this country are capable of is to decide which of those two parties gets the win.
    You want different people winning elections, you need to get them into position in one of those two parties. That’s all there is, stop wasting time on other things.
    And of course all of this is a waste until you put the states back in the fight against runaway federal government by giving them back their representation that was stolen in 1913. If you don’t repeal the 17th amendment then it doesn’t really matter who wins the white house.