Friday, November 16, 2012

More Post-Election Rumbling


John Hawkins of Right Wing News polled a group of shell-shocked right wing Bloggers (myself included) about the election results.

What he found to be the most interesting findings?

2) 81.8% of the bloggers polled said Mitt Romney was not their preferred candidate during the primaries. That may help explain Mitt's difficulty in turning out voters.

5) 38.1% of the bloggers polled, the largest group, believes the GOP needs to engage in identity politics to reach out to Hispanic voters. They want to see the GOP's own version of groups like La Raza and MEChA.

6) More than half the bloggers gave the RNC the lowest possible grade on new media outreach and 85% gave them a "C" or lower.

8) 77.8% of the bloggers polled think the GOP should become more Libertarian and less socially conservative.

The full poll and answer percentages is at RWN.

Prior to the election and much to my dismay, no one seemed to be aware of the fact that the Communist Party of the USA had endorsed Barack Obama. It was a first for them. It was a first for the country.

After Obama won, the Communist Party president said it was "the dawn of a new era" for the country. I'll say.

This is a MUST READ article with pertinent excerpts from Communist leader, Sam Webb's, thoughts on why the Obama nomination heralds the dawn of a new era.

Like this:

"And thanks in large measure goes to what might be the most notable development in this election - the emergence of a multi-racial, male-female, working-class-based electoral coalition that has the potential to transform America in the years and decades ahead.

The Communist Party said a year ago that the 2012 elections would be the main front of the class and democratic struggle, and subsequent events have confirmed that fact.

Indeed, we argued that defeating right wing extremism was the key to moving the whole chain of democratic struggle forward in the coming period.

Conversely, we said that a victory by right-wing extremism would set into motion a far-reaching assault on the people’s living standards, rights, and organizational capacities, the likes that we’ve never seen.

Had Romney won the Presidency and the Republicans the Congress, it would have accelerated to warp drive a capitalist class counterrevolution – a reversal of seventy years of social progress. In a matter of three months time, the entire body of social legislation dating back to the New Deal could have been expunged…"

Surely, Reagan is turning in his grave.

All this and it's now reported that when General Patraeus testified the last time her prefaced his remarks with, 'do you want what really happened or the official line?' wow.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

25 comments:

CrabbyOldMan said...

OFF TOPIC OFF TOPIC
I see that another union got a big dose of reality. The company that makes Twinkies and Wonder Bread opted to liquidate, putting 17,500 union people out in the street.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Putting together a winning coalition is going to be like balancing a plate on the fingertip. Push one side down and the other goes up. I think it is is going to be a very tough job, but our survival depends upon getting it done. The teenagers among us need to do some soul searching and decide if they want to be team members or become irrelevant.
I think Georges Clemenceau was the one who said "there are no friends in politics, only common interests".
I remember reading somewhere that Clemenceau was noted for being a very shrewd and cynical judge of human character. The Marxocrats also have that talent. We need to have it too.

Hoss said...

Turn away a huge voting bloc of social conservatives to embrace a small bloc of libertarians is a huge loser. To become more libertarian is one thing, to turn your back on the social conservatives is another (remembering social issues are far down on my scale of priorities ultimately).

Mitch Daniels was right: concentrate on getting into office on fiscal/economic policy, because that's the $16 Trillion dollar elephant in the room, and the social stuff can follow, but not lead (I'm paraphrasing his idea).

Bram said...

Hoss - I would be tempted to agree if most of the true social conservatives weren't big spenders. I invite you to look up Rick Santorum's Senate voting record as an example.

Zelda said...

Hispanics, Hispanics, Hispanics. Don't sell out. Don't just pander like the Democrats. Really get into the communities and show you respect their work ethic and they will never be rewarded for it by the Democrats.

Hoss said...

So Bram, are you looking for ideological purity? The left always gets it because all you have to do for them is say yes to more government/more government control.

It would be suicide for the Republicans to trade social conservatives for libertarians: how many libertarians would they pick up, and how many conservatives would they lose. It would be the most moronic move of the century. That, and you would alienate a lot of your national security conservatives with some of the wacky foreign policy shit that comes from the libertarians sometimes.

I agree about a lot of the social cons being big spender.

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

The easiest way to get the Libertarians on board is to get those in Congress to quit opening their mouths on social issues and focus on the economy and get the candidates for open positions or re-elections to not shove their foot in their mouth over social issues and actually talk freedom and fiscal conservatism.

Of course, this also means a public apology for the Convention, and active mea culpas instead of lip service. You really burned that bridge, and as Zelda said, you need more non-whites. If you can get them. For those you'll have to appeal to the process of immigration, because it's massively fucked up (ALa, ask your brother how that change of status is going, because they've lost paperwork for us, and our translator decided to take a vacation in the middle of translating our documents - which are due on Thanksgiving). You'll also have to streamline migrant worker visas, so speak to your ideas on that, if you have any. The drug war, it's a big thing in N. Mexico/S, Texas, and they're pretty pissed about the guns that just happened to make it down there. Your fault or not, you have to have a plan to solve it.

And here's an idea, one that I really like about the Libertarian party - be willing to return questionable donations. Be willing to not accept donations from Super PACs, or non-federal funds. You might lose the money race, but it's something you'll be able to use against the Dems, because we all know that they'll eat up the Super PAC funds and the questionably large donations. And don't be afraid to hammer down on serious issues (Benghazi, the mass quantities of EOs vs laws signed, the Dems flat out saying they wouldn't work with Romney).

Because right now, you guys look just like them - obstructionists and unwilling to put the health of this country first.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Well, I'd say the best place to start is to get a handle on how many votes the various constituencies actually bring to the table. I don't know where to find this information. Does anyone else?
The discussion is all so much blather without this first step.
The problem is a complex one. For example, what category does the CrabbyOldMan fit in? I am very strongly opposed to the welfare state, the nanny state, homosexual “marriage”, legalizing “recreational” drugs, affirmative action, and Federal involvement in a host of other matters, most notably public education. I am very definitely not a religious person.
I am firmly pro-choice. I would greatly curtail, but not entirely eliminate, the Federal regulators, particularly the EPA. I am in the big spender crowd when it comes to National Security. I would like to see a Federal government having the same zeal for cracking down on the crooked urban political machines (particularly voter fraud) that it had enforcing the 1960s civil rights laws (having an honest election to vote in is a civil right). I don’t know a practical way of doing it, but see an urgent necessity of purging the judiciary, tax supported education and the government bureaucracies of leftist extremists.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ALa said...

The crux of the problem is I tend to believe it's the social hardcores that lost us this election. Not the FCs and Brams, but the Frees. The ones that didn't believe Mitt was truly pro-life and that didn't believe he was actually against gay marriage and the ones that abhorred his Romneycare. The more people I talk to, the more that I think people want MORE Conservative...not less. They want more division between the parties, not less. They like the gridlock and don;t want reaching across the aisle because it means compromising principle. This is what the party needs to flesh out over the next 1-2 years...

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

I know I won't vote for a social hardcore, ever. While Free may be social hardcore, I'm more than willing to bet he'd rather see someone go after the economy, right now, than social issues.

Right now, we have serious economic issues. In all honesty, the only social issues I'd like to see addressed are the ones pertaining to the equal protection clauses of the amendments, as well as the actual amendments (the 1st Ten come to mind most readily as continually being abused or ignored).

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass if someone is pro-life. As long as they limit the legislation to the states. I don't care if someone is "anti-gay marriage" as long as they recognize that the Federal gov't will have to provide equal protection under the law in the states where it is legal (survivor benefits and all).

This is a country, with more than 1 religious view point. When you step up to the level of overlord, you have to legislate for everyone, and you have to protect those who don't agree with you. Our country is about that, because if it's not, then the 1st Amendment is a waste of parchment and ink.

CrabbyOldMan said...

ALa @ 1:18 PM comes close.
I have come to believe that Free0352 and the other teenagers were manipulated by the Marxocrats behind the scenes into voting third party or staying home.
It was classic divide and conquer.
It would not have taken all that much money and the left is very skilled at convincing people who are moved by emotion at the expense of reason.
I admit that I have no proof whatsoever to support this belief.

free0352 said...

We weren't manipulated we were fucked over within the Republican Party and that is who is to blame.

Its not that Romney wasn't really prolife. Hell, the whole Libertarian Party is pro choice. I can live with that. Its the fact Romney was lying, and the GOP is a corrupt shit hole that doesn't believe or stand for anything.

CrabbyOldMan said...

If you define fucked over as the GOP not taking positions that would cost more votes than the Libertarians would bring, you are right.
Can you point out a couple of Romney's "lies"?

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

"I'll over-turn Obamacare"

CrabbyOldMan said...

How will we ever know?
Do you have anything else?

free0352 said...

Yeah I suppose we should have passed that bill to find out what was in it eh COM?

I didn't leave the GOP, it left me when Bushed signed TARP and McCain quit his campaign to make sure it passed while Mitt cheered it throgh. Give me a break, the GOP is a pack of liars. Fiscal conservative my fucking ass! I quit that day and was glad and affirmed in the decision the day your joke of a party nominated that pandering fraud Romney.

free0352 said...

Oh, and tell us all again COM how "electable" Romney was when you couldn't get more Republicans to vote for his dumb ass than McCain?

free0352 said...

And I define fucked over as changing part election rules on the spot to keep anti Romney deligates from voting in the primary.

CrabbyOldMan said...

And your agenda is soooo advanced by electing the Marxocrats. Nothing but a tantrum fueled banzi attack, but now you can FEEL better.

free0352 said...

The question is, do you feel better? You might want to remember how it felt election night in two, and again in four years.

CrabbyOldMan said...

There is no question at all. I feel much worse, but you and your ilk will never be able to make me feel any better.
Why? If the right adopts any of the Paulite crackpot positions without greatly watering them down, or is just generally PERCEIVED to do so, the result will be a NET LOSS of support.
You apparently have this fantasy that you can blackmail the Republicans into adopting positions your minority favors. I say most believe doing so will ensure defeat by driving many more voters away.
Have you considered the possibility that your antics could drive the Republicans into veering more to the LEFT to pick up votes?
Where do you think that Libertarianism would be if the result were a center-LEFT ruling coalition with the far left and your friends each eating their lunch alone, out of office and irrelevant?
If you insist upon playing with matches, you run a very high risk of getting badly burned.

free0352 said...

The way I see it, that senario already happened... Medicare d, TARP anyone? But I'm not worried, all this wellfair WILL fail. Socialism does NOT work. One way or another, it ends. And at 16 T in debt that end is sooner rather than later. So the qustion for me is the Republican party the party that stands against that? It isn't, and won't get my vote till it is plain and simple.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I entirely agree that the welfare state will eventually fail. I entirely agree that socialism will not work.
My own hope is to see leftism utterly destroyed.
Our disagreement is about how best to oppose the nanneystaters/welfarestaters.
It has taken a century for the Europeans to get as close to the brink as they have (Russia was quicker because it was more extreme in the first place). It took several centuries for the Romans to collapse. You seem to cling to the fantasy that it is a matter of just a few years for us to come to our senses and adopt conservative governance.
I say that you treat the disease as best you can, all the while trying to find a cure that does not kill the patient (civil war, military coup, collapse into chaos).
You should keep in mind that the pattern has been for there to have been ever MORE government control as conditions became ever worse. The historic pattern is for Libertarianism to be squeezed out completely.
Banzi!

free0352 said...

Its 16 t in debt, a system based on that cannot sustain. We have over 100 T in unfunfed mandates, that can't work. Austerity is coming no matter what. We are going the route of Greece, that damage was done and fully half of it was caused by Republicans. You guys are no better than the liberals on spending. So till the party changes and more so cleans up its internal corruption you can forget getting my vote, and so too it seems millions of your fellow republicans who are sick of the RNC as well judging by the turn out Romney got.