Pathetic Loser

[kalm]

I found the reports that the Romney campaign literally thought they had it in the bag almost right up until the concession speech interesting. Supposedly, they had to write the concession speech on the fly as he wasn't kidding when he had mentioned the night before that he had not prepared one. And now this:

Mitt Romney, in some of his first reported remarks since his concession speech, claimed Wednesday he lost the presidential election because President Obama provided "gifts" to key groups like black, Hispanic and young voters.

The Republican presidential nominee did not acknowledge any major missteps in his campaign in a phone call with top donors Wednesday, attributing his loss to Obama's focus on distinct groups rather than the country as a whole.

Romney also blamed his problems as a candidate on the attacks against him by the Obama campaign, especially their efforts to paint him as anti-immigrant. He said his campaign, though superb, had trouble because of these attacks until he was able to come back during the debates.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized Romney's comments later Wednesday, as some GOP leaders offered critiques of their party's last campaign on the first day of Republican Governors Association (RGA) meetings in Las Vegas.

Jindal, thought to be a potential 2016 candidate and the incoming RGA chairman, said he "absolutely rejects" Romney's "gifts" assertion, and said those types of notions do not represent who Republicans are as a party.

"We’ve got to stop dividing American voters, go after every single vote," Jindal said, "Show that our policies affect every voter out there."

Jindal also said though the party needs to modernize, he emphasized that it can reach an increasingly diverse electorate without becoming “a 2nd Democratic party.” He said he believes the U.S. is still a center-right nation.

Jindal has been outspoken with his criticisms of his party since its loss last week, telling Politico on Monday that the GOP needs to "stop being the stupid party."

He said the GOP needs to offer an inclusive message to a wide range of voters to thwart the Democrats' characterization of them as the party of the rich.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... z2CJ8d0ZOD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a completely clueless and out of touch douchebag.

[Grizalltheway]

Bigger megalomaniac than Obama, and that's saying something.

[dbackjon]

yes Mitt, All those hundreds of millions that were given to you by SuperPacs were from people that weren't expecting ANYTHING in return...

[AZGrizFan]

Gotta love Bobby Jindal.

[Benne]

Gotta love Bobby Jindal.

I liked his stance on the issue. He's right.

[AZGrizFan]

Gotta love Bobby Jindal.

I liked his stance on the issue. He's right.

The question is: WILL they?

[JohnStOnge]

I figured that was what this is about. He essentially spoke the truth. The Democratic Party, many years ago, embarked on a path of essentially buying votes. It introduces programs that enhance dependency. It provides benefits. Meanwhile, the benefits are paid for by somebody other than those who receive them.

What Romney said is essentially correct. The Democratic Party, as I said in another post in another thread, is the Candy Man. It's destroying the country over the large term. But for now it works very well. More and more people receive benefits they are not paying for. More and more people support the Party they perceive as providing that to them.

[JohnStOnge]

"We’ve got to stop dividing American voters, go after every single vote," Jindal said, "Show that our policies affect every voter out there."

The Democrats don't do that.

[Chizzang]

"We’ve got to stop dividing American voters, go after every single vote," Jindal said, "Show that our policies affect every voter out there."

The Democrats don't do that.

Jeezus john
Would you quit acting like the Republicans latest successful effort wasn't George Bush
Because it was...You keep going on and on about the Great Republican Party and the last guy they delivered was a complete idiot - and a liar - and a fraud - and was in bed with Dick Cheney - and it goes on and on and on... The only appropriate word to describe his presidency is: Disaster

Let's try to keep this all in perspective shall we...
Yes we get it - you vote Republican and think they're awesome
But I haven't seen anything even close to resembling actual evidence that your sentiments reflect reality

[Seahawks08]

Jeezus john
Would you quit acting like the Republicans latest successful effort wasn't George Bush
Because it was...You keep going on and on about the Great Republican Party and the last guy they delivered was a complete idiot - and a liar - and a fraud - and was in bed with Dick Cheney - and it goes on and on and on... The only appropriate word to describe his presidency is: Disaster

Let's try to keep this all in perspective shall we...
Yes we get it - you vote Republican and think they're awesome
But I haven't seen anything even close to resembling actual evidence that your sentiments reflect reality

The voice of reason.

[Cap'n Cat]

John St. Wronge. Wronge for Louisiana. Wronge for America.


(I'm Cap'n Cat and I approved this message.)

[BlueHen86]

"We’ve got to stop dividing American voters, go after every single vote," Jindal said, "Show that our policies affect every voter out there."

The Democrats don't do that.

It wasn't a democrat that was caught on video dismissing 47% of the vote.

[BlueHen86]

John St. Wronge. Wronge for Louisiana. Wronge for America.


(I'm Cap'n Cat and I approved this message.)

Wronge for CS.com

[Ibanez]

John St. Wronge. Wronge for Louisiana. Wronge for America.


(I'm Cap'n Cat and I approved this message.)

Here is a guy I can vote for'

[Grizalltheway]

John St. Wronge. Wronge for Louisiana. Wronge for America.


(I'm Cap'n Cat and I approved this message.)

[JohnStOnge]

Jeezus john
Would you quit acting like the Republicans latest successful effort wasn't George Bush
Because it was...You keep going on and on about the Great Republican Party and the last guy they delivered was a complete idiot - and a liar - and a fraud - and was in bed with Dick Cheney - and it goes on and on and on... The only appropriate word to describe his presidency is: Disaster

Let's try to keep this all in perspective shall we...
Yes we get it - you vote Republican and think they're awesome
But I haven't seen anything even close to resembling actual evidence that your sentiments reflect reality

I didn't say anything at all about the Republicans in the post to which you were responding in writhing that. I wrote "The Democrats don't do that" in response to Bobby Jindal saying that the Republicans have to stop dividing America and go after every single vote.

And I'm right. The Democrats obviously do divide during their political activity. Most prominently, they divide based on class. They engage in demagougery such as constant references to making "the rich" pay their "fair share" when they already pay more than their fair share. They don't have to say that fair share stuff. They could just as easily say something like "we hate to make anybody pay more in taxes but we're going to have to and upper income people are the ones who can afford it." But they don't. They not only make sure to use that "fair share" language. They also basically lie by claiming there has generally been a trend over time towards "the rich" carrying a lower share of the burden when in fact the trend has been towards them carrying more. The top 20 percent of households paid 55.3% of ALL federal taxes (not just income taxes) in 1979 vs. 67.9% in 2009 (latest year for which I've been able to find estimates). The way they handle it is no accident. They are playing to class resentment. Setting up an enemy. Those rich people who don't pay their "fair share" and they've been getting away with paying less of a share over time. And both assertions are untrue.

Also the Democrats don't go after every single vote. They have their calculus. They know where their bread is buttered. They direct their efforts towards maximizing support and turnout among definable groups they know already tend to vote in majorities for them. If you can't see that as campaigns develop you're not looking.

As I've written before: I am not a Republican. There is plenty about the Republican Party that I don't like. But I am very much anti Democrat. The Democratic Party is definitely and by far the greater of the two evils from which we can realistically select. The Republicans are just the best chance of slowing the rate of damage the Democrats are inflicting upon the system as well as the culture. Also, on balance, have more respect for Liberty. Each side emphasizes different areas as far as Liberty is concerned. But on balance the Republicans are better for the cause of Liberty and they are the only other realistic alternative. Same kind of thing with respect to actually following the Constitution. Both violate it. Both pick their spots to ignore it and "interpret" their way around it. But, on balance, the Democrats are worse about that. A lot worse.

[JohnStOnge]

Now to the general premise behind what Romney said. No group is monolithic. But it is very reasonable to think that the Democrats play to lower income voters and that their reputation for "taking care of them" with programs as well as insulating them from taxation to share in the cost of running the country is a factor in their party consistently winning within their group by a substantial majority.

During this past election 41% of those who voted reported incomes (I assume household) of less than $50,000 per year. They voted by 60% to 38% for Obama over Romney. That translates into about a net of about +11 million votes for Obama in an election where he won the popular vote by about 3.5 million votes.

And why do you think that is? In 2009 the bottom 40% of households in terms of income bellied up to pay a whopping 4.1% of all Federal taxes (not just income taxes). Meanwhile members of that group received a whole bunch in unearned benefits.

Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that the Democrats being perceived as more generous in that regard isn't a factor in that group voting overwhelmingly majority Democrat on a consistent basis? Really? So I guess if the Democrats announced before the next election that they're going to cut and/or eliminate some of those giveaway programs it would make no difference at all. All those noble low income people would still turn out to vote for them because they don't care at ALL about the handouts they're getting. Why, that's not a factor at ALL in why they consistently vote overwhelming majority Democrat.

Right. But when somebody tells the truth about it...THE HORROR!!!!

[BlueHen86]

I didn't say anything at all about the Republicans in the post to which you were responding in writhing that. I wrote "The Democrats don't do that" in response to Bobby Jindal saying that the Republicans have to stop dividing America and go after every single vote.

Jindal is right, it doesn't matter what the Democrats are doing, they just won. The GOP lost and needs to do something different. They can start be courting every voter.

Romney's comments about the 47% were incredibly stupid. Even if they were spot on, they should never have been spoken out loud by a candidate that wants to lead the entire country.

[JohnStOnge]

The GOP lost and needs to do something different. They can start be courting every voter.

We live in a circumstance whereby, while the Democrats have had somewhat of an edge over time, each side wins some and loses some and it's just about always by a narrow popular vote margin in the grand scheme of things. We tend to think of of a 53% to 46% result such as Obama had over McCain in 2008 as large. But it's not. 53% vs. 46% is a small margin. We just have become accustomed to margins that are usually smaller. And this time it ws 51% to 48%.

Neither side is going to abandon its model for remaining competitive. The Democrats are not going to seriously court every voter. They are not, for instance, going to go hard after White Born Again Christians; a group that voted for Romney over Obama by 78% to 21% this time. To get serious about making inroads there they would have to abandon their "pro choice" position as well as their pro homosexual marriage position. They'd have to support prayer in public schools. So on and so forth. In other words, they'd have to abandon their core principles and they would probably lose more than they gain.

The Republicans are not going to serously court every voter either. There are certain issues in which you have to take a stand and when you do close to half of the country is going to disagree with you. They may say stuff like Jindal said but they're not, for instance, going to suddenly start singing "raise taxes!!!!" in order to get the votes of people who think we ought to do that.

Yes the practical reality is that there are times when one can't be honest in their assessment. And yes the Republicans would be better off if they don't proclaim the truth in this regard. But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats HAVE created a formula that's very difficult to combat. Over the past century they have created a paradigm in which government spends more and more money while the cost of doing that is shifted to a small minority of the population and to debt. It is basically a "something for nothing or very little" scheme for the majority of the population and the Democrats are correctly perceived as most likely to defend it. Arguing that "somebody" who has been getting something for nothing or very little for many years either must give up some of that or actually bear some meaningful portion of the cost is never going to be popular in a population sense.

I put "somebody" in quotes because it's in a population and generational sense. We have populations of people now who are the current generation in a series of generations that have been socialized under this paradigm. Government assistance...government guaranteeing them what they need while they don't have to pay for it...is part of the background enviornment in which they and a series of their predecessors have existed. It's become deeply engrained culturally.

And now we even have things like middle to upper class women who go before Congress essentially asserting that the fact that they might not be able to afford birth control pills or devices automatically means that government should be providing it to them. It's the entitlement mentality and it's very bad.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

John you put words to computer screen a lot more articulate than I do but I tend to agree with what you said in your post here.

IMO, elections go in cycles. Independants are the ones that decide these elections now.

In a nut shell, when people get tired off working hard and paying more $$ so others do not have to then things will change.

[kalm]

The GOP lost and needs to do something different. They can start be courting every voter.

We live in a circumstance whereby, while the Democrats have had somewhat of an edge over time, each side wins some and loses some and it's just about always by a narrow popular vote margin in the grand scheme of things. We tend to think of of a 53% to 46% result such as Obama had over McCain in 2008 as large. But it's not. 53% vs. 46% is a small margin. We just have become accustomed to margins that are usually smaller. And this time it ws 51% to 48%.

Neither side is going to abandon its model for remaining competitive. The Democrats are not going to seriously court every voter. They are not, for instance, going to go hard after White Born Again Christians; a group that voted for Romney over Obama by 78% to 21% this time. To get serious about making inroads there they would have to abandon their "pro choice" position as well as their pro homosexual marriage position. They'd have to support prayer in public schools. So on and so forth. In other words, they'd have to abandon their core principles and they would probably lose more than they gain.

The Republicans are not going to serously court every voter either. There are certain issues in which you have to take a stand and when you do close to half of the country is going to disagree with you. They may say stuff like Jindal said but they're not, for instance, going to suddenly start singing "raise taxes!!!!" in order to get the votes of people who think we ought to do that.

Yes the practical reality is that there are times when one can't be honest in their assessment. And yes the Republicans would be better off if they don't proclaim the truth in this regard. But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats HAVE created a formula that's very difficult to combat. Over the past century they have created a paradigm in which government spends more and more money while the cost of doing that is shifted to a small minority of the population and to debt. It is basically a "something for nothing or very little" scheme for the majority of the population and the Democrats are correctly perceived as most likely to defend it. Arguing that "somebody" who has been getting something for nothing or very little for many years either must give up some of that or actually bear some meaningful portion of the cost is never going to be popular in a population sense.

I put "somebody" in quotes because it's in a population and generational sense. We have populations of people now who are the current generation in a series of generations that have been socialized under this paradigm. Government assistance...government guaranteeing them what they need while they don't have to pay for it...is part of the background enviornment in which they and a series of their predecessors have existed. It's become deeply engrained culturally.

And now we even have things like middle to upper class women who go before Congress essentially asserting that the fact that they might not be able to afford birth control pills or devices automatically means that government should be providing it to them. It's the entitlement mentality and it's very bad.

Yes, Republicans were dragged kicking and screaming into all the frivolous spending that occurred under their watch...for the last 100 years.

[kalm]

Here's another pathetic LOOOOOOOOSER from this election.

(I might have to owe Gannonfan and IT an apology on all our citizens united debates after all )

Fiscal conservatives, listen up: If you invested money in a political campaign in this cycle, one of the WORST people to give it to was Karl Rove. His return-on-investment — i.e. achieving the desired electoral result: 1 percent. One. Percent. ….of the $103 miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllion Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC rained on the various campaigns it supported and opposed, according to the nonpartisan money-and-politics analysts at the Sunlight Foundation. No wonder the dude was trying to deny reality on Fox News on Election Night.

http://news.yahoo.com/giving-karl-rove- ... 37094.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Dope.

[JohnStOnge]

This is the test I use in thinking about it:

I ask myself what things would be like in terms of these programs if the Republicans had been in charge the whole time. No FDR. No LBJ. No years with Democratic majorities in either House of Congress. And to me the answer is pretty clear. We wouldn't have most of these programs. We might not have any of them.

They came from the Democrats. Once they became established political reality meant Republicans could not and would not try to eliminate them.

Then I ask myself what it would be like if the Democrats had always been in complete charge. And I'm confident that under such a scenario we'd have even more programs of this type.

Why do we have a national program to attempt to guarantee access to health insurance now? Because the Democrats gained enough power to get it through. The Republicans fought it. But 20 years from now you will not see Republicans trying to repeal it because it will be part of the background of entitlement that people have become accustomed to.

To me, it's fair if you believe in such programs to say we wouldn't have them if the Republicans had always had their way. Maybe that's why some people like Democrats better. But at the same time you have to concede that in the final analysis the Democrats are the reason they exist. The extent of such programs would not be nearly what it is if Republicans had had their way.

Also on the tax front it's pretty obvious that the Republicans do not believe in going as far with respect to the "tax the rich" approach we have whereby 60% of the population carries 14% of the tax load while the other 40% carries 86% of it (all federal taxes, not just income taxes, 2009 CBO estimates). They are not the ones primarily responsible for creating a situation whereby the majority of the people don't "feel" what it costs to do all this stuff because they're bearing so small a share in terms of paying for it if they're bearing any share at all.

[Grizalltheway]

This is the test I use in thinking about it:

I ask myself what things would be like in terms of these programs if the Republicans had been in charge the whole time. No FDR. No LBJ. No years with Democratic majorities in either House of Congress. And to me the answer is pretty clear. We wouldn't have most of these programs. We might not have any of them.

They came from the Democrats. Once they became established political reality meant Republicans could not and would not try to eliminate them.

Then I ask myself what it would be like if the Democrats had always been in complete charge. And I'm confident that under such a scenario we'd have even more programs of this type.

Why do we have a national program to attempt to guarantee access to health insurance now? Because the Democrats gained enough power to get it through. The Republicans fought it. But 20 years from now you will not see Republicans trying to repeal it because it will be part of the background of entitlement that people have become accustomed to.

To me, it's fair if you believe in such programs to say we wouldn't have them if the Republicans had always had their way. Maybe that's why some people like Democrats better. But at the same time you have to concede that in the final analysis the Democrats are the reason they exist. The extent of such programs would not be nearly what it is if Republicans had had their way.

Also on the tax front it's pretty obvious that the Republicans do not believe in going as far with respect to the "tax the rich" approach we have whereby 60% of the population carries 14% of the tax load while the other 40% carries 86% of it (all federal taxes, not just income taxes, 2009 CBO estimates). They are not the ones primarily responsible for creating a situation whereby the majority of the people don't "feel" what it costs to do all this stuff because they're bearing so small a share in terms of paying for it if they're bearing any share at all.

Do you know how much WEALTH the top 1% of this country controls?

[JohnStOnge]

Do you know how much WEALTH the top 1% of this country controls?

Totally irrelevant in my opinion. First of all, I don't know where this thing came from where we say people should pay more just because they make more. It may be a practical necessity at some point. May have to do that to some extent with taxation. But I don't see why people appear to think there is some kind of moral imperative or "fairness" to that. Fairness would be each person paying the same amount in taxes. Each pays the same share. When we go to the movie they don't check our incomes and make one person pay twice as much as another because they have a higher income. We don't do that with ANYTHING in life that I can think of except for taxes. May not be possible to make everyone pay an equal share but, theoretically, that's fairness. Either that or let people who pay more have more say as we discussed.

But it is NOT fair to have 40% of the people who pay something like 4% of the taxes have the same say in how the money of the country is going to be spent as another 40% that pays 86% of the taxes or the 20% that pays 68% of the taxes. And I think there is also a problem in that, as I said, you have a majority of the people getting to support the establishment of programs they don't have to pay for.

I think at some point in the past I posted this before but if you look at what happened between 1979 and 2005 (latest year for which I could get all the necessary estimates), you see that government spending per capita went up significantly in inflation adjusted terms. Also, average household income went up for all five quintiles including the bottom 20%. Yet the average federal taxes per household went down for the bottom four quintiles. I'm talking about in absolute terms. For instance the average total Federal tax liability for the bottom 20%, in 2005 dollars, went from $1,250 to $684. Cut almost in half. Again, I'm talking about ALL Federal taxes and not just income taxes so that "everybody pays taxes" crap liberals like to throw up as though it significantly changes the picture is accounted for. Also went down in percentage terms.

So what you've got is most people getting more government services and benefits while actually paying LESS. The lowest 20%, in particular, saw its tax liability go down while it got more and more services. And it's real easy to support programs when you're not paying for them. With respect to the increase, it's getting something for nothing. In fact it's getting something while also paying less for what you were getting before.

Similarly the average annual total Federal tax liability for each of the next three quintiles up to the 80th percentile also went down.

Meanwhile the average annual total Federal tax liability for people in the top 20% went from $59,700 to $84,800 in 2005 dollars. Way up.

You can see what's been happening. Politicians have been promising and delivering stuff to "the poor" and "middle class" and avoiding making those groups actually pay for at least some of the increase in cost by going over and over again to the "tax the rich" well. That and borrowing. It's basically buying votes. And it creates a situation where fiscal problems can creep and creep because until the whole thing collapses most of the country is getting more goodies for nothing. Better than nothing because the cost for the total package of goodies has gone down as more goodies were provided.

Then the Democrats turn around a say the "wealthiest Americans" aren't paying their "fair share" and that they pay less than they used to when the truth is that they're paying considerably more.