O won by giving black,Latino,young voters "big gifts" says mitt

[Labgrownmangoat]

Being the old guy here, with old guy perspective, I think this is the Republican version of a Dukakis moment.

The Republican Party has lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last six Presidential elections (President Bush 43 lost the popular vote in 2000).

I was listening to Jindal, Barbour, Ayotte all essentially say the same thing. This is in direct conflict with the Limbaugh version of the world. This might easily be the turning point for the GOP.

Most of the Republicans I know personally are not the hate filled archetypes that are on AM radio. Vice President Biden referred to the Tea Party fever as something whose time has come and gone. I suspect, he is right.

I hope you're right about this. Here are some links to the comments you reference: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH).

[Patsfan56]

They just chose to put forward a guy with those views as the person they want to lead the country. How am I not supposed to think they support those views?

Let me add that I think we do agree to a point, thus my statement:



Am I wrong about that?

I'll provide a nearby example of what I mean. The person who wrote the "Yay for Obama!" thread represents a significant portion of the Republican base, even if that's painful for more mainstream folks to admit.

No, your not wrong on that Lab, I just think you and I think differently on how many folks on the right are hard core social conservatives. I really feel many aren't like that at all, and many who claim to be could easily be redirected if someone just helpd shine the conservative idealogical flashlight up to their positions and showed them where they are inconsistent with thie concepts of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism, and key facets of the constitution they loved to quote. People forget the constitution was generated by federalists and antifederalists alike- some truly amazing men from very different perspectives. One example of the philosophy I am talking about stems from Maine- not modern day Maine, but old school Maine from the 1970s and 1980s, before it went blue. Most folks there were more of a live and let live kind of breed. Government doesn't spend too much money becasue people didn't ahve it to spend, people did as much as they could to be self sufficient, and above all, don't **** with someone's personal choices. That is what I beleive in, and what I think the majority of Americans could be convinced to support.

EDIT: I think this comes from people on the right getting lazy with questioing their ideology, and jsut accepting whatever pundits say. Folks need to start thinking for themselves.

[jayjay33]

They just chose to put forward a guy with those views as the person they want to lead the country. How am I not supposed to think they support those views?

Let me add that I think we do agree to a point, thus my statement:



Am I wrong about that?

I'll provide a nearby example of what I mean. The person who wrote the "Yay for Obama!" thread represents a significant portion of the Republican base, even if that's painful for more mainstream folks to admit.

No, your not wrong on that Lab, I just think you and I think differently on how many folks on the right are hard core social conservatives. I really feel many aren't like that at all, and many who claim to be could easily be redirected if someone just helpd shine the conservative idealogical flashlight up to their positions and showed them where they are inconsistent with thie concepts of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism, and key facets of the constitution they loved to quote. People forget the constitution was generated by federalists and antifederalists alike- some truly amazing men from very different perspectives. One example of the philosophy I am talking about stems from Maine- not modern day Maine, but old school Maine from the 1970s and 1980s, before it went blue. Most folks there were more of a live and let live kind of breed. Government doesn't spend too much money becasue people didn't ahve it to spend, people did as much as they could to be self sufficient, and above all, don't **** with someone's personal choices. That is what I beleive in, and what I think the majority of Americans could be convinced to support.

EDIT: I think this comes from people on the right getting lazy with questioing their ideology, and jsut accepting whatever pundits say. Folks need to start thinking for themselves.

Correct me if I have you confused with someone else. But aren't you one of the ones who defended Romney on his 47% comment and said it was no big deal. If that was you, then at the time you didn't think that's how Romney really felt either. Maybe it's you who just does not want to see what the party really is.

[ewing]

I was thinking about this quote i really don't have much problem with it. Free contraception is a gift. Interest forgiveness is a gift. I also don't think it is out of line to think that Obama was knowingly strengthening his base with certain actions.

The use of the word was unnecessary but not completely untrue.

I don't like how he brought race into it when his examples had nothing to do with race.

I find the 47% tirade much more offensive. All those who take advantage of gov't programs do not see themselves as entitled to what they are receiving. Some are simply thankful and some are just taking what the gov't is willing to give. Personally, i think there should be a healthy dose of shame connected to receiving unemployment or welfare etc. That does not mean that you don't utilize the program or you see yourself as a ward of the state if you do

[Patsfan56]

Correct me if I have you confused with someone else. But aren't you one of the ones who defended Romney on his 47% comment and said it was no big deal. If that was you, then at the time you didn't think that's how Romney really felt either. Maybe it's you who just does not want to see what the party really is.

(EDITED OUT)

I remember some conveniently taking Romney's comment out of context, yes. And I remember defending the context of his comment about the 47% eing a waste of his time with regard to his election strategy EDIT. He was talking election strategy, and if you think for a second Obama's team wasn't having a strikingly similar strategic discussion in their own planning rooms, then its not me who is deluded.

But this is not what the thread is about, no matter how hard you try and derail it. This is about hard line conservatism vs pragmatic conservatism within the party, and how much traction it really has. On no planet is Romney a hard line consergvative. If you want to debate that, I suggest you go back and read the GOP primary threads over again and post there. If you want to debate Romney's 47% comment, I suggest you take that conversation back to the appropriate thread as well.

[dbroncos78087]

Its funny, now that Romney is done running for president how the GOP is wiling to call out his BS. I wish it worked that people would call out their party even during or before an election. The system would be so much better.

[jayjay33]

(EDITED OUT)

I remember some conveniently taking Romney's comment out of context, yes. And I remember defending the context of his comment about the 47% eing a waste of his time with regard to his election strategy EDIT. He was talking election strategy, and if you think for a second Obama's team wasn't having a strikingly similar strategic discussion in their own planning rooms, then its not me who is deluded.

But this is not what the thread is about, no matter how hard you try and derail it. This is about hard line conservatism vs pragmatic conservatism within the party, and how much traction it really has. On no planet is Romney a hard line consergvative. If you want to debate that, I suggest you go back and read the GOP primary threads over again and post there. If you want to debate Romney's 47% comment, I suggest you take that conversation back to the appropriate thread as well.

What in the world are you taking about? He didn't just say they were a waste of time. He actually characterized those people. We are talking about the way he sees that so called 47%. you continue to deflect by never addressing the way he characterized that 47%. Thats what everybody had a problem with and you know it, yet you defend him by skipping over the way he "defined" those people, which is the actual issue we all had. An instead you say he was just talking about the election. But he didn't just say oh their a waste of time cause they will never vote for me, as you continue to pretend. In addition He also called them lazy, parasites who play the victim and don't want to do anything with their lives.

How do you defend that part? That is the part that everybody was upset about, that was the "issue". An for him to see people that way is in fact a big deal. Please explain to me why the way he "SEES" and DESCRIBED the 47% is not a big deal. He talked about the kind of people he perceived them to be, he directly defined them. Are you actually going to pretend he didn't directly "define" that 47% beyond them not voting for him and speak to who HE THOUGHT they were as people, and what they wanted and believed. Or are you saying that it doesn't matter what he called them or how he See's them because as long as he's taking about the election it doesn't matter how he See's people. An once the election is over he all of a sudden magically wont see them as lazy good for nothing parasites anymore?


An have you even read through the thread? This thread is about Romney's comments on how him losing is because people voted for obama because they "wanted gifts". Which fits right in line with his 47% don't want to do anything and just want a hand out comments. Which is why several people have brought up those comments IN THIS THREAD. So I'm not derailing anything, that is in fact a big part of what we have been talking about. Lab, myself and other people have brought up the 47% comments in this thread because it's relevant to the comments Romney just made (An to the discussion we where "in fact" having in this thread about how many conservatives like Romney see anyone who needs help as a lazy parasite, who just doesn't want to do anything) No matter how hard you try to BS and pretend it's not relevant, it is very relevant. An if your not pretending then maybe you should read through the thread again and get a better understanding of what it's about and what's been discussed. Before you make anymore ridiculous comments about someone trying to derail it.

[jayjay33]

(EDITED OUT)

I remember some conveniently taking Romney's comment out of context, yes. And I remember defending the context of his comment about the 47% eing a waste of his time with regard to his election strategy EDIT. He was talking election strategy, and if you think for a second Obama's team wasn't having a strikingly similar strategic discussion in their own planning rooms, then its not me who is deluded.

But this is not what the thread is about, no matter how hard you try and derail it. This is about hard line conservatism vs pragmatic conservatism within the party, and how much traction it really has. On no planet is Romney a hard line consergvative. If you want to debate that, I suggest you go back and read the GOP primary threads over again and post there. If you want to debate Romney's 47% comment, I suggest you take that conversation back to the appropriate thread as well.

Someone else who is 'CRAZY' enough to think it's revel ant to this thread. man you are so full of conservative BS. An thats why things never change. Because to many of you defend, dismiss or ignore this kind of junk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-of-politics/


quote

"The last time Romney’s comments to his donors leaked, he was telling them about the 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay taxes, refuse to take responsibility for their lives, and will support Obama come hell or high water. These new comments are continuous with those: Romney really does appear to believe that there’s a significant portion of the electorate that’s basically comprised of moochers."

[WES445]

Its funny, now that Romney is done running for president how the GOP is wiling to call out his BS. I wish it worked that people would call out their party even during or before an election. The system would be so much better.

Party loyalty is more important then doing right by the american public. Political power is more important then solving problems. That is why the republicans desires for Obama to fail was so discouraging to me. They put destoring a political foe ahead of the nation's needs.

It is a shame, I grew up with democrats and republicans willing to work together to advance the needs of the country. They were respectfull and sincre in making it work. Now, in the nation darkest hour, republicans want to play power game.

[Longhornfan1234]

What! Man it's no surprise you are one of the biggest GOP supporters on here. Why the hell would any minoritie side with the likes of you. I just really hope they start turning out in the midterm elections as well so we can get rid of your kind for good.

Blacks are worst off in the country from a socioeconomic perspective and thus receive the most welfare. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more welfare or less welfare ideas......which do you think that voter base would vote for? It's an extremely tough sell for Republicans right now to convince this voter block that they have a better path forward by reducing the size of government, welfare, getting off the government's tit and becoming self reliant and accountable for your path and prosperty in life. Those are conservative ideas. They can apply to people regardless of race or gender.

Are blacks any better off today from an economic perspective than they were 4 years ago? No. Actually worse off. Blacks as a socioeconomic group continue the trend towards full reliance from the federal government for meeting daily needs. This is not good. But the trend of voting for continued dependecy continues.

Hispanics are the largest growing voter base by race due to immigration (legal or illegal) and the economic opportunity immigration to the US offers. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more "concessions" as an immigrant group or less "concessions" as an immigrant group......which do you think that voter base would vote for? The latinos that have immigrated here did it for a simple reason....a better life than where they came from. Thus, it's an extremely tough sell for Republicans to convince the hispanics as a whole that we must "shut down" the border asap and reduce our "concessions" to immigrants for the good of our nation and in the process prevent others in their racial group from also being able to execute the fastest path to a better life for them and their family...........illegal immigration to US. And once they are here they can continue to receive these "concessions" that the US Fed Govt offers (free healthcare, free education, more welfare, free citizenship for their children born here, and ultimately amnesty). Liberalism is destroying the black and Hispanic communities.

[Longhornfan1234]

Longhorn is our todd akin.

I didn't know Todd was a moderate Republican.

[Buckwheat]

You can call yourself a moderate all you want.

But based off of every post I have read from you, that's not true.

[stephkyle7]

Blacks are worst off in the country from a socioeconomic perspective and thus receive the most welfare. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more welfare or less welfare ideas......which do you think that voter base would vote for? It's an extremely tough sell for Republicans right now to convince this voter block that they have a better path forward by reducing the size of government, welfare, getting off the government's tit and becoming self reliant and accountable for your path and prosperty in life. Those are conservative ideas. They can apply to people regardless of race or gender.

Are blacks any better off today from an economic perspective than they were 4 years ago? No. Actually worse off. Blacks as a socioeconomic group continue the trend towards full reliance from the federal government for meeting daily needs. This is not good. But the trend of voting for continued dependecy continues.

Hispanics are the largest growing voter base by race due to immigration (legal or illegal) and the economic opportunity immigration to the US offers. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more "concessions" as an immigrant group or less "concessions" as an immigrant group......which do you think that voter base would vote for? The latinos that have immigrated here did it for a simple reason....a better life than where they came from. Thus, it's an extremely tough sell for Republicans to convince the hispanics as a whole that we must "shut down" the border asap and reduce our "concessions" to immigrants for the good of our nation and in the process prevent others in their racial group from also being able to execute the fastest path to a better life for them and their family...........illegal immigration to US. And once they are here they can continue to receive these "concessions" that the US Fed Govt offers (free healthcare, free education, more welfare, free citizenship for their children born here, and ultimately amnesty). Liberalism is destroying the black and Hispanic communities.

the absolute worst part is that you actualy think your right...you actually think you are looking at the issue analytically, with a crtical eye for facts.
people will always believe what they want to believe, you cant change that, its only sad when they have fooled themselves into believing that they have made a sincere attempt at understanding things.

[Labgrownmangoat]

No, your not wrong on that Lab, I just think you and I think differently on how many folks on the right are hard core social conservatives. I really feel many aren't like that at all, and many who claim to be could easily be redirected if someone just helpd shine the conservative idealogical flashlight up to their positions and showed them where they are inconsistent with thie concepts of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism, and key facets of the constitution they loved to quote. People forget the constitution was generated by federalists and antifederalists alike- some truly amazing men from very different perspectives. One example of the philosophy I am talking about stems from Maine- not modern day Maine, but old school Maine from the 1970s and 1980s, before it went blue. Most folks there were more of a live and let live kind of breed. Government doesn't spend too much money becasue people didn't ahve it to spend, people did as much as they could to be self sufficient, and above all, don't **** with someone's personal choices. That is what I beleive in, and what I think the majority of Americans could be convinced to support.

EDIT: I think this comes from people on the right getting lazy with questioing their ideology, and jsut accepting whatever pundits say. Folks need to start thinking for themselves.

It sounds like you are describing the old Northeastern Republican wing that once existed, but is now the motheaten and widely disliked stump of a wing. I agree with you that those folks had some good ideas. Few of them are dominant, or even really represented much at all, in the modern-day Republican party.

It's true that at one time, the majority of Americans supported a pro-environment, pro-choice, anti-war Republican President with many of the ideas you describe above, even re-electing him for a 2nd term. Setting Watergate aside, what party do you think Nixon and his views would be welcome in now? Surely not the GOP.

The Republican party deliberately got in bed with unreasonable fanatics who are unwilling to compromise their extremely rigid stances no matter what. They will drop back out of the political system before they compromise. No fact or argument from a source outside their on insular world will sway them. And they mobilize powerfully during the primaries. They're responsible for Akin, Mourdock, Sharon Angle last cycle, Michelle Bachmann, and thousands of state legislators. They're now a huge part of the base, and that is a huge problem not only for Republicans, but for the country. If we were talking about anti-federalists and federalists, I agree it would be healthy. We're not, though. We're talking about theocrats and anti-theocrats.

[dbroncos78087]

Blacks are worst off in the country from a socioeconomic perspective and thus receive the most welfare. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more welfare or less welfare ideas......which do you think that voter base would vote for? It's an extremely tough sell for Republicans right now to convince this voter block that they have a better path forward by reducing the size of government, welfare, getting off the government's tit and becoming self reliant and accountable for your path and prosperty in life. Those are conservative ideas. They can apply to people regardless of race or gender.

Are blacks any better off today from an economic perspective than they were 4 years ago? No. Actually worse off. Blacks as a socioeconomic group continue the trend towards full reliance from the federal government for meeting daily needs. This is not good. But the trend of voting for continued dependecy continues.

Hispanics are the largest growing voter base by race due to immigration (legal or illegal) and the economic opportunity immigration to the US offers. So when you have Obama and other libs offering you more "concessions" as an immigrant group or less "concessions" as an immigrant group......which do you think that voter base would vote for? The latinos that have immigrated here did it for a simple reason....a better life than where they came from. Thus, it's an extremely tough sell for Republicans to convince the hispanics as a whole that we must "shut down" the border asap and reduce our "concessions" to immigrants for the good of our nation and in the process prevent others in their racial group from also being able to execute the fastest path to a better life for them and their family...........illegal immigration to US. And once they are here they can continue to receive these "concessions" that the US Fed Govt offers (free healthcare, free education, more welfare, free citizenship for their children born here, and ultimately amnesty). Liberalism is destroying the black and Hispanic communities.

I still have yet to see you counter the fact that as a percentage white people are on welfare higher than their percentage of the population.

I still have yet to see you counter the fact that as a percentage people in Republican states are on welfare more than those in Democratic states.

I still have yet to see you counter the fact that states that are run by Republicans take more from the federal government than states that are run by Democrats.

All of these FACTS directly contradict what you claim (ie opinion).

If welfare is a grand scheme for liberals to control anyone, it was clearly the scheme to control conservatives and make them hate the very system they are on and have become reliant on. Is that the grand scheme that liberals have run? Because if so, then I have to give them a massive round of applause. It was pure genius to get people who claim to hate something hooked on the very system they hate.