11 Nov

Election Postmortem – The Point Everybody is Missing [Reader Post]

                                       

By now everybody knows about the results of Tuesday’s elections and we’ve seen tons of analysis. The predominant themes have been that only in hindsight did Romney run a horrible campaign, that the Tea Party extremism had been rejected by the voters, that this is truly Obama’s mandate, all of the Republican forecasting models were horrifically wrong, and that the Republican party’s only hope is to make drastic changes to its principles if it hopes to survive. Did I miss anything? It’s natural to knee jerk or overreact when something unexpected happens, so I have advice for both sides: don’t read too much into this election and base your next moves only on what happened Tuesday.

First, for the Democrats, you weren’t given a mandate. You scored some impressive wins on Tuesday, and for that I congratulate you. You kept the presidency in a hard fought campaign. You managed to gain seats in the Senate, including one popular figure from your side in Elizabeth Warren retaking Ted Kennedy’s old seat in Massachusetts. You got a referendum passed in Colorado legalizing pot, you got gay marriage ballot initiatives through in three states, and in California several measures to raise taxes and restrict economic freedom also went through. Combine this with President Obama’s 333 electoral votes and it looks like you’ve got a clear mandate that the country is shifting leftward, right?

Not quite. When you look at the battleground states the president’s victory only came by roughly 350,000 votes. Yes, I now what the final margin in the overall popular vote was certainly more decisive, but keep in mind that the president also got nine million fewer votes than in 2008. The Republicans gained seats in the House, and now has it’s largest margin among Governorships that either party has had in 12 years. Your California measures only made an already hostile business climate even worse by raising taxes and assuring that the unions will still be able to force union members to pay for their political campaigning. Expect more businesses to leave your state and unemployment to rise even more. And be careful with the gay marriage wins – your side seems to be even more prone to overreach than the right is. I’m predicting you’ll jump the shark on this issue when someone decides to file a lawsuit against a church that refuses to perform a gay marriage. Sadly you’ll succeed in turning public opinion on this issue better than any conservative ever could.

Now for the conservatives. Yes, the Romney campaign was not perfect. I’m not even going to bother linking to any of the myriad of post game analysis articles on what went wrong. If you’re reading this post you’ve probably read more than your share already. The day wasn’t a complete disaster for the GOP, as seen by my earlier mention of the House and Governorships. Of course, the presidency was the big prize and the failure to defeat such an incompetent president is painful to say the least. While I’ve seen no shortage of reasons for Romney’s loss to Obama, nobody has seen the most obvious reason that Romney failed – there is simply no way he could have beaten Obama.

I wrote just before the election why I believed Obama would win. Put simply, the president has an amazing cult of personality that gives him legions of voters will support him unconditionally. Obama also is phenomenally gifted at winning elections. Yes, I know about all of the scummy things he had to do to win previous elections – I’ve written about that before as well. But the bottom line is he did win those elections – it’s what he’s great at doing. Regardless of who the Republicans ran I’m convinced that nobody could have beaten Obama.

Think about this as a sports analogy. Playing back in the 1980′s, Lawrence Taylor was probably the greatest linebacker in the history of the game. He was so incredibly dominant at his position that he actually changed the game in that opposing offenses had to completely adjust their style of play to account for him at all times (his being frequently coked up and tiring out his opposing offensive linemen by sending hookers to their hotel rooms the night before didn’t hurt either). You could be one of the best offensive lineman responsible for stopping him – you could be in the greatest physical shape of your life. You could have studied hours of game film of Taylor’s previous games and know all of his habits and tendencies. You are ready and thanks to your preparation you are completely confident in your ability to defend against Taylor when the play starts. In other words, you could be as physically, mentally, and psychologically prepared as is humanly possible. You are ready to stop Lawrence Taylor cold and protect your quarterback. Then the play starts and the result is Taylor blowing past you like you’re a matador and planting your quarterback into the turf. You did everything right that you possibly could, but at the end of the day nothing can change the fact that your opponent is simply better than you.

Obama was simply better at getting people behind him for the election, and his coat tails bought in the votes for many other Democrats sharing the ticket with him. The Republicans would love to have someone similar that they could use to rally their base, although without the creepy cult worship factor. The lefties in the media are dancing in the streets at the death of the Republican party, just like they did back in 2008. And how did that work out? The left also is never going to have Obama on a ticket again, and all of the advantages that he brings with it.

Do the Republicans have lessons they need to learn from this election? Oh, yes. And once the smoke clears I’ll probably have my own two cents to throw in. Do the Democrats have reason to celebrate? They certainly do. But to assume that this once in a lifetime candidate who will never be able to run again marks a complete shift in how voters view the issues would be a mistake for both sides.

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, November 11th, 2012 at 10:45 am
| 1,405 views

49 Responses to Election Postmortem – The Point Everybody is Missing [Reader Post]

  1. Economic Freedom says: 1

    >>>But to assume that this once in a lifetime candidate who will never be able to run again marks a complete shift in how voters view the issues would be a mistake for both sides.

    Let’s hope he doesn’t “pull a Mike Bloomberg” and find some way around constitutional term limits. Many on the left are comfortable with the idea of a benevolent dictator assuming control of everything.

    ReplyReply
  2. Russell says: 2

    “You got a referendum passed in Colorado legalizing pot, you got gay marriage ballot initiatives through in three states…”

    I keep hearing this myth that there are folks on the right who believe in personal freedom. So why do liberty issues seem to end up on the left side of the column?

    ReplyReply
  3. Robert L says: 3

    Instead of looking at how to fundamentally change the GOP, why not look at massive voter fraud conducted by the Chicago Machine?

    ReplyReply
  4. Pingback: Anonymous

  5. retire05 says: 4

    @Russell:

    What personal freedom are you speaking about? Homosexual marriage? Name one state where it is illegal for a homosexual to marry. Just one. And wow! count me as not impressed that you consider it a “personal freedom” to disect an unborn baby in order to pull it out of its mother’s womb. What about the “personal freedom” of the baby?

    It is a misnomer that progressives support personal freedom. They don’t. They only support isolated changes in sociatal structure and that only includs same sex marriage and abortion. On any other personal freedom, they don’t support those.

    Progressive really support a cultural metamorphosis, much as ancient Romans did, much to their downfall.

    ReplyReply
  6. Lazamataz says: 5

    This is an interesting analysis. I give the author credit. There are other issues to consider, of course — a changing demographic, and Republican-vote-elimination as a new form of Voter Fraud — but this is an interesting view.

    We on the right need to get out of the information coccoon we have created for ourselves. If you have a liberal friend, especially a woman, who can speak without shouting at you, I advise you call her. Listen to why she voted for Obama. Don’t refute her points, just listen. Learn what makes them tick.

    ReplyReply
  7. Russell says: 6

    retire05, did you not notice marijuana, also? It’s true that gay marriage is the salient liberty issue of the day. But look back on previous liberty issues. Was it conservatives or liberals who wanted to legalize gay sex? When the courts were deciding 1st amendment cases regarding pornography and radical literature, how did those groups divide? Being long in tooth, I remember when inter-racial marriage was at stake. Go back and read what Bill Buckley wrote on the topic. Like most conservatives of the time, he was on the wrong side of that.

    The more accurate question, historically, is when has the right ever pushed for personal liberty? The only examples I know concern guns. I’ll grant you there, the usual roles are reversed.

    ReplyReply
  8. Allie says: 7

    @Russell:

    marriage is not a “personal freedom” it is a RITE of the church. Get the government out of the business of marriage (tax breaks, quickie divorce, JP’s) and it will be off the table in every state.

    ReplyReply
  9. Helene says: 8

    Be careful what you wish/ pray for because you just might get it.

    The Obama machine is about to find out that there are consequences to elections. Obama ran a machine under the guise of the Democratic Party. He started working for re-election as soon as he was elected. In retrospect, we now see the extent of his community organization in everything from pandering to potential voters to dodging world leaders. This worked to get HIM Re- elected, but can he lead and can he govern?

    People are hurting. How can he balance his grand plans against loss of jobs (coal industry) and the need for business owners to modify business plans to adapt to regulations(obama care)? He can’t force businesses to operate with little or no profit, just to satisfy his glorious plans. Businesses will adjust to stay alive, not run themselves into the ground for his glory.

    Several developments will balance out his agenda:
    1. 30 governors are republicans ( conservative).
    2. More states will have voter Id and/ or checks in place before the next election. Local governments are being forced to update voter rolls. This will continue. Voter fraud is not an urban legend. It’s been proven to be real.
    3. Ordinary people doing ordinary things day to day will now see the results of his plans. Yes, your health insurance will cost more and you will not be able to keep your doctor. (Have you noticed thevAARP Humania ads on tv? Note the comment about medical providers accepting patients.). Buyers remorse will start building with our first pay checks in 2013.
    4. Obama’s lemming-like followers will start to break ranks because he has no glue to hold them together. The promises are now due.
    5. The press will start to recognize that they were used and are no longer needed (unless someone can harness the energy from Chris Matthews’ mysterious tingling leg to replace fossil fuels)

    So, now Mr. president, let’s see what kind of a leader you are.

    ReplyReply
  10. Richard Harkins says: 9

    The reason Romney lost is simple, he brought a knife to a gun fight. While Romney made nice saying Obama was a nice guy but just out of league on the economy Axelrod and Obama distroyed Romney on a personal level. When you are in a fight in Chicago it is no holds barred democrates don’t play nice, they play to win and until the republicans fight fire with fire they are doomed. Adds linking Bill Aires to Obama or asking why Obama doesn’t show his college transcripts and have the 5.5 million to help the children of Sandy’s rath . There many such Obama weak spots. you DON’T play nice in a bar fight unless you want your but kicked.

    ReplyReply
  11. Brother Bob says: 10

    @Russel: The gay marriage debate actually shows the intolerance of the left.

    And when it comes to personal freedom, I wrote about this a while back. The left only likes freedom when it comes to inserting something into your body or someone else’s for pleasure. The left despises any freedoms that involve accepting responsibility for those choices.

    ReplyReply
  12. retire05 says: 11

    @Russell:

    Russell, comparing mixed race marriage to same sex marriage is not only wrong, but it is an insult to those of certain skin tones. Now, I might accept the argument that they are alike, if you can show me, or give me a system where I can determine someone’s sexuality by simply looking at them. I can tell the difference visually between a Hispanic, a white person, a black person, an Asian and a black. How do I tell the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual visually?

    And you failed to answer my question: name one state where it is illegal for a homosexual to marry. Just one.

    The marijuana issues is one where younger voters carried the day. They want the right to be stoned and not be prosecuted for it. But the fact remains, marijuana remains illegal in the United States by federal law. And we all know how liberals love to tell us that federal law trumps state law, so I guess you are the one on the hook for that problem, not conservatives who don’t believe in drug legalization. And where does that end? Should we also legalize the right of some chemistry major cooking up designer drugs in his apartment? Why not one, but not the other?

    Of course the left wants to limit the Second Amendment. It is the very first thing any dictator does; remove the weapons from the populace. You see, it is true that people who are armed against danger and person harm cannot be controlled by government goons. So the only way to enforce oppression is to enforce gun control.

    When you eventually manage to turn the entire nation into a bunch of apathetic slackers who subscribe to the “if it feels good, do it” who will be the personally responsible to take care of them?

    ReplyReply
  13. Russell says: 12

    Again, Brother Bob, look back on the past century, and excepting guns, tell me when the right was on the side of personal liberty? They always have arguments why they’re against it. In fact, they have a basket of arguments which they re-use again and again: the decay of society, slippery slope, God’s law, western tradition, etc.

    I’m not trying to argue for gay marriage here, any more than I’m trying to re-argue any of the liberty issues past.

    I’m merely pointing out the history.

    ReplyReply
  14. GaffaUK says: 13

    @Bob

    Sounds like a simplistic and defeatist analysis. So billions were spent on election when there was only going to be one result? So can the same be said for other Presidents who won a second term – they were unbeatable? That the people who voted for them were cult worshipping idiots? How come Bobby Rush beat Obama back in 2000 if Obama has such unbeatable charisma? I guess if you pretend that a disappointing President in one of the worst economic downturns for decades can’t be beaten then I reckon it’s because you are in deep denial. But sure believe that and pick Palin or Ryan for 2016 and let’s see what the next excuse for failure will be in 4 years time.

    ReplyReply
  15. retire05 says: 14

    @Russell:

    How about the right to determine how much water my toilet holds? Or what kind of milage my vehicle gets? If I want to drive a muscle car, and pay for the gas, shouldn’t I have the right to do that? How about being able to board a plane without having my Fourth Amendment rights being violated. Left wingers do not want states to have the authority to check the I.D. of people who might be illegals, but I have to be subjected to a physical search in order to board a plane. If I refuse, I am not allow my Constitutional right to freedom of travel. Ever been given a check on a bank where you don’t have an account? Try to cash it at the bank where the person who gave you the check has an account. Even with photo I.D., many banks will require you to provide them with your thumb print before the will honor the draft. Whose brilliant idea was that?

    The loss of liberty imposed on us by the left doesn’t come in one felled swoop. It comes, like Chinese water torture, one drip at a time. One infringement at a time.

    ReplyReply
  16. Russell says: 15

    retire05, for the point I’m making, the issues of same-sex marriage and mixed-race marriage are the same in three important regards: 1) There are both issues of personal liberty. 2) They were both opposed by the right. 3) More, they were opposed on the same grounds using the same arguments. You can take what conservatives said about mixed-race marriage, make simple text substitutions, and get the arguments today made against same-sex marriage.

    I’m not going to argue the right or wrong of either issue. What I’m pointing out is the history. If the right wants their claim to the mantle of freedom to be taken seriously, they need to develop a history of standing up for personal liberty when it is contested, and not just a history of supporting it four decades late.

    ReplyReply
  17. doug says: 16

    Russell: economic liberty doesn’t count?

    What about the monopoly that is the public school system (we’re not forced to use it, but we’re forced to “buy” it, meaning people of limited means can’t easily opt out)?

    ReplyReply
  18. Russell says: 17

    “If I want to drive a muscle car, and pay for the gas, shouldn’t I have the right to do that?”

    Who is stopping you from buying the Charger SRT8 or the Boss Mustang? Both are powered by V8s with over 6L displacement and developing over 400HP. And get pretty poor mileage because of that. Knock yourself out. There are other muscle cars to choose from if neither of those appeal.

    “How about being able to board a plane without having my Fourth Amendment rights being violated.”

    I hear more complaint about that from the left as I do from the right. Maybe there are some issues where the two groups agree.

    ReplyReply
  19. Nan G says: 18

    Let’s face it.
    They aren’t called ”useful idiots” for nothing.
    How long does an “Obama Promise” last when made to a group of his useful idiots?
    Not too long.
    Before the election what did Obama do about Gay Marriage?
    He fought for it, even doing ads for it for a couple of state ballot measures.
    He ”promised” to keep fighting for it.
    BUT……
    He’s been elected so, SCREW YOU!

    JUST ONE DAY after endorsing gay marriage proposals in Washington and Maine, President Obama told MTV viewers Friday that he would not be pushing gay marriage in his second term, ABC News reported.

    http://spokanefavs.com/politics/legislation/obama-endorses-gay-marriage-push-in-washington-maine
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-ramps-media-blitz-race-tightens/story?id=17571200#.UIxYzWfleSp
    http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term

    One Day, USEFUL IDIOTS!
    You were PLAYED!
    And, one-by-one, each of Obama’s USEFUL IDIOTS will learn how Obama plays.

    ReplyReply
  20. Russell says: 19

    Doug asks, “economic liberty doesn’t count?”

    Sure, it counts. And it especially counts where it’s necessary for a productive economy.

    But it’s a different kind of thing. The right shows a blindness to the importance of personal liberty, when they try to argue against a restriction on business discrimination as a liberty issue on par with telling a gay couple they can’t marry.

    ReplyReply
  21. retire05 says: 20

    @Russell:

    Here is my question, as clearly as I can put it to you:

    in what state is it illegal for a homosexual to marry?

    Now, I am fully aware that you do not intend to answer that question because it blows your argument out of the water. You are a typical liberal. If you have to go off the standard talking points, you become mute.

    ReplyReply
  22. Russell says: 21

    retire05, the issue is same-sex marriage.

    ReplyReply
  23. retire05 says: 22

    @Russell:

    Oh, wait, I though the issue was marriage “equality”. Equality means applying the law equally to everyone, doesn’t it? So, if gays are being treated unequally, that means there must be some states where a homosexual is not allowed to marry. Name them.

    ReplyReply
  24. ZoneDr says: 23

    Trouble is, while Obama will never run agian, the Democrat paty will employ him (ala Bill Clinton) to campaign for other Democrats … still gives them tremendous advantage.

    I agree with your basic premise, that Obama was unbeatable, but ONLY because the media was in the tank for him. IF the media treated the Benghazi scandal seriously, as they would have had the president been Republican, I’m certain that Obama would have been toast. No doubt. So it was half cult worship of Obama, and half media worship of Obama.

    ReplyReply
  25. Russell says: 24

    retire05, if you do a text search on this page, you’ll find that you are the first person to use the word “equality.”

    ReplyReply
  26. Nostradamus says: 25

    Herman Cain (With woman issue in tow) would easily have beaten Obama.

    Liberals would have to reveal their true racist colors in any attempt to fight against his character or success, and there’s no way that 98% of the A-A vote would have gone to Obama with Cain the opponent.
    And any liberal that tried to attack Cain about infidelity would get a quick reminder about Monica Lewinsky and THE PRESIDENT’S MAGIC CIGAR.

    The truest of all “True Facts” is that Obama won with the inner-city vote. (Romney won the vast majority of counties as well as landmass).

    One look at Philly says it all.

    (And we would have a TRUE CONSERVATIVE in The White House).

    ReplyReply
  27. Brother Bob says: 26

    @Russel: Please go back to my previous comment on #10 and read the link – I offer plenty of evidence to support my assertion way beyond gun ownership.

    @GaffaUK: I never stated that other second termers were also unbeatable. Can you show me another incumbent with as dismal a record as Obama’s who won such a decisive victory? We have too many people who will unconditionally support Obama no matter how badly he performs, hence a 2nd term for a president whose performance is somewhere down in Andrew Johnson territory.

    ReplyReply
  28. Brother Bob says: 27

    @Nostradomus: Cain had zero chance of winning – and I was (and still am) a huge Cain fan. First, 9-9-9 isn’t an answer to foreign policy questions. The press would have skinned him alive if he became a contender. Also the affair allegations would have made every leftist in the press forget that presidents cheating on their wives is a good thing.

    Personally, I would have LOVED to have seen Cain as the Secretary of the Treasury in a Romney administration.

    ReplyReply
  29. Nostradamus says: 28

    I thought this article was very interesting, although I’m not 100% sold on the Popular Vote versus Electoral College part. (Great for discussion though).

    Perhaps FA should consider this article for top shelf space?

    http://txfx.net/2012/11/11/improving-american-presidential-elections/

    However, I would offer my own “solution” to the Conservatives biggest “Presidential Election Problem”:

    Do one of two things.
    1) Move the date of Election Day to April 15th or…
    2)Make “Income Tax Day” the first Tuesday in November.

    (And think of the convenience for all those who vote at their Town Hall! Write Check for $5000 in Property Tax—Then VOTE for LOCAL ASSESSOR! )

    Ta-Da!

    ReplyReply
  30. retire05 says: 29

    @Russell:

    Do you live in a cave? Have you not heard proponents of same sex marriage claim that it is an “equal” rights issue? If not, you are poorly informed.

    Now, answer my question, or continue to dodge which is a typical liberal tactic that I have long been aware of.

    ReplyReply
  31. retire05 says: 30

    @Nostradamus:

    I would be the first to agree that all primaries should be held on the same day. Yeah, that makes the dog and pony show that are campaigns difficult, but why does Iowa get to go first? Who made Iowa so special? Why does South Caroline hold primaries before most of the nation even knows what the candidates are all about? Let’s hold all primaries on April 15th, when a lot of people have to experience the pain of giving the Devil (the IRS) it’s due.

    ReplyReply
  32. Brother Bob says: 31

    @Nostrodomus: LOVE your idea of moving tax day to the start of November! I plan to steal that for a future blog post!

    With proper citation, of course =8^)

    ReplyReply
  33. Russell says: 32

    retire05, I’ve heard all sorts of arguments, sound and specious, serious and silly, nuanced and blindered, on every side of every political issue. What does that matter? Do you think everyone who takes a stance on something has to support every argument made for it? Is there some other reason I should care about someone else’s argument?

    ReplyReply
  34. Nathan Blue says: 33

    @Richard Harkins: My issue is that I don’t want a candidate that plays that way. I earnestly believe the Reps should continue to take the high road. It may not win the day, but it will win the war (so to speak).

    ReplyReply
  35. Sageinmn says: 34

    Romney played the “good guy” candidate and expected the high information voters to support him. Obama set up a huge database of low information voters that he managed to get out to vote (even the unreliable youth).
    Romney was closing in on the victory until he was hit by Sandy and Chris Cristie’s stab in the back. This wouldn’t normally turn an election except that it happened the last week of the campaign. Many GOP voters that had reservations about the GOP inner circle instantly saw Charlie Crist and his RINO actions. These people were turned off enough to stay away from the polls. Then to add insult to injury women thought it was just terrific for Obama to get such bipartisan support they moved back to him.
    Romney had no backup play to execute so late and was left hoping his ground game would get the vote out.
    End of story.

    ReplyReply
  36. all the CONSERVATIVES could beat OBAMA with only your brain matter
    the thing is he might wear a kind of body scent that attract
    the young and older WOMAN
    who knows maybe so,
    there is some with animals in their own testosterone,
    he might have some too that attract WOMAN, some young more probably,
    who are not engaging in sex or other who are once in a while ,
    this guy is exiting them and they are acting so obviously,
    I bet their husband or boyfriend have notice but keep it to themselves
    until she make a slip one day and pronounce OBAMA right in the middle of their encounter,
    then they are in trouble, but they have OBAMA to look at and dream.

    ReplyReply
  37. retire05 says: 36

    @Russell:

    All you are doing is trying to throw up smoke and mirrors. My question was simple, and simple enough for even the simple minded. I am not asking you to subscribe to anyone else’s opinion, I asked a simple question that you have spend bandwidth trying to avoid. Until you answer my question with the same clarity as it was asked, this conversation is moot.

    ReplyReply
  38. HELL, he might wear one for the guys too,
    call it a dual testosterone scent,
    well the guys seem to be attract too,
    the gay and the straight,
    call it fatal attraction,
    his magic potion for both,

    ReplyReply
  39. John Galt says: 38

    @Russell:
    You are correct.
    I have no problem with a woman paying for her own abortion or birth control. After all, each person owns their own body. The state does not own your body, yet.
    I have no problem with people being able to go down to the local drug store and buy penicillin, weed, crack cocaine or anything else they want to put into their body. They own their own body let them self prescribe or take a doctors suggestion.
    This is a question about freedom and I stand for freedom.
    “Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.”
    Ayn Rand

    ReplyReply
  40. Tom says: 39

    @Russell:

    retire05, for the point I’m making, the issues of same-sex marriage and mixed-race marriage are the same in three important regards: 1) There are both issues of personal liberty. 2) They were both opposed by the right. 3) More, they were opposed on the same grounds using the same arguments. You can take what conservatives said about mixed-race marriage, make simple text substitutions, and get the arguments today made against same-sex marriage.

    Great analysis.

    @ Retire,

    Still using that stale “gay people can marry…… people of the opposite sex!” argument? I know you think it’s clever, but it’s actually intellectually insulting to anyone who is attempting to have a serious debate about a serious topic, and patently asinine, at least in how it reflects upon its author.

    ReplyReply
  41. retire05 says: 40

    @Tom:

    The only thing here that is “patently asinine” is you. But like all liberals, you also will not answer the question. Why is that tactic so favored by “patently asinine” people like you?

    ReplyReply
  42. Brother Bob says: 41

    @Tom: Please check out my link in comment #10 – read it and come back if you’re interested in serious debate

    ReplyReply
  43. Tom says: 42

    @Brother Bob:

    Thanks very much for the tip to check out your link. If you go back and look at the FA version of the post you linked to, you’ll see that I detailed my thoughts on the subject there in detail. It was a very interesting debate.

    ReplyReply
  44. Jason says: 43

    The lefties in the media are dancing in the streets at the death of the Republican party, just like they did back in 2008.

    What hopefully has died is the delusion that republicans can win more elections by moving further to the right.

    ReplyReply
  45. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 44

    @Nan G: The hyper-extreme-conservative-wing seem to forget all the “useful idiots” on their side—many of them on this web site.

    ReplyReply
  46. Liberal1
    starting with you I can count some from your side, they are lined up

    ReplyReply
  47. FedUp says: 46

    Not only do we have to groom a new candidate for 2016 to combat: Hillary, BiteMe, Michele O or whomever else the Dems want to showcase, but we also need to focus on regaining the Senate. One of the biggest hurdles is the entrenched politocrats who have dug themselves in regardless of any misconduct or wrongdoing on their part. We need to have terms limits on ALL our elected officials – 2 terms for Senator and 4 terms for the House. Since these would be short-term jobs, when they leave office, they would have NO pension and NO benefits and they would be forced to live under the laws they have so diligently crafted for the rest of us. We need to begin now to get our States in line!
    The one drawback is that we would lose some really great people, but the upside is we would get rid of people like Harry Reid, Nanna Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and a whole host of other morons!

    PS Boehner has to go!

    ReplyReply
  48. 49’1 ROMNEY to 50 OBAMA
    that call for a full investigation
    especially, the machine switching the name ROMNEY TO OBAMA,
    and other unscrupulous actions,
    the whole WORLD smell the rat

    ReplyReply
  49. johngalt says: 48

    Russell said;

    I keep hearing this myth that there are folks on the right who believe in personal freedom. So why do liberty issues seem to end up on the left side of the column?

    Of course, the real difference is in the types of freedom and liberty each side protects. Further on, Russell suggests that marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage, being two big issues voted on by voters in some states, are clearly demonstrative of his assertion.

    On this point, it is important to discuss the ideas of liberty, or freedom, within the terminology of positive and negative.
    -Positive liberty, or freedom, is the freedom one acquires via positive action of a state. Such as a law written and passed allowing gay marriage. This is the favored liberty type of the left.
    -Negative liberty, or freedom, is the freedom one acquires via just being, without dependence of outside action or influence on your choice. These are characterized by natural liberties one acquires upon birth. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of choice are all within this framework of liberty, or freedom. This is the type of liberty favored by those on the right.

    So, when talking about issues such as gay marriage, the proponents of it are suggesting they be granted a liberty by the state, to marry someone of the same sex as they are. This is a positive liberty.

    Positive liberties are not in and of themselves bad simply because they are positive. The problem lies not within the individual liberties detailed under this type, but of the nature of how such liberties are gained, or lost, depending upon the issue. When a state is required to grant a liberty, that is not truly a liberty, but rather, a privilege extended to people. Positive liberty requires, by definition, a government with much more control over people than in the case of negative liberty. This control over people is, in essence, what is truly being fought against by those on the right.

    Positive liberties, however, can be a good thing, if control over the people by the government is strong. That “good thing”, though, is likely to be short-lived, relatively, and dependent upon the political makeup of the government. The marijuana issues voted on by electorates in several states are like this, if you believe marijuana possession and use is good for people. But what about when the government control switches to that of people who are against such a thing? What the government can give, the government can taketh away, so to speak. And this is why arguing for positive liberties leads to nothing but increased control over the people, by the government.

    In contrast, look at freedom of expression, in particular freedom of political expression. Our founders didn’t “grant” this freedom to us. They identified it as one of those natural freedoms all men(species, not gender) possess simply by being. This freedom requires nothing but the absence of control by the government over the people. Government control is lessened.

    But what about gay marriage, you ask, shouldn’t that be an issue of negative liberty? It might, except that societal disposition has a bearing on what is, and isn’t considered a liberty, or freedom. As such, a society comprised of religious people in the majority who disavow gay marriage state clearly that gay marriage is not a freedom or liberty of homosexuals. In that atmosphere, the only way for homosexuals to gain that liberty is through positive liberty. Granting the state the power to declare gay marriage as a liberty. But, and again, when you grant the state that power, you also grant them the power to take it away, so it doesn’t become a true liberty, like freedom of expression, or religion.

    Personally, I don’t much care about what individual states do regarding gay marriage. I say this because although I’m a Christian who believes it is wrong, I still have the choice in whether or not to live within a certain state that grants such a privilege I consider wrong. If it were suggested that a federal law, either way on the issue, be written and passed, I’d be completely against it, though. And the biggest reason is that it grants power to the federal government, not just on gay marriage, but on marriage itself, to the federal government.

    Which brings me to my closing point. That is, that positive liberties grant power to the state. They grant control over our lives to whichever government entity we are talking about. And in doing so, they grant governments the power to not only give us “liberties” and “freedoms”, but also the power to take them away. Avoid that, whenever possible.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site