Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Conservatives lambast Romney, vow to take over Republican Party

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    106,973

    Conservatives lambast Romney, vow to take over Republican Party

    Conservatives lambast Romney, vow to take over Republican Party

    By Erik Wasson - 11/07/12 02:43 PM ET

    Conservative leaders on Wednesday lashed out at Mitt Romney, saying his attempts to paint himself as a centrist and hide his principles cost him the presidency.

    They vowed to wage a war to put the Tea Party in charge of the Republican Party by the time it nominates its next presidential candidate.

    “The battle to take over the Republican Party begins today and the failed Republican leadership should resign,” said Richard Viguerie, a top activist and chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.

    He said the lesson on Romney’s loss to President Obama on Tuesday is that the GOP must “never again” nominate a “a big government established conservative for president.”

    Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots said Romney failed to make the kind of strong case for conservatism that would have won the election.

    She described Romney as a “weak, moderate candidate hand-picked by the country club elite Republican establishment.”

    “They didn’t see a clear distinction so they went with what they know,” she said of voters.

    “It should have been a landslide if Romney had run as a true conservative,” said Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.

    “Romney took all the right stances, no question. The problem was not communicating them on the national stage with President Obama,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

    Martin argued that there was no repudiation of the Tea Party by the electorate because Tea Party values were not firmly articulated.

    “This is not the death of the Tea Party,” Martin said.

    “Tea Partiers will take over the Republican party in the next four years,” Viguerie said.

    In the meantime, conservatives will work to ensure that congressional Republicans do not compromise their principles in fiscal talks with Obama, he said.

    “Conservatives and Tea Partiers are just sick and tired of Republican leaders compromising on the state and national level with Democrats that grow the size of government,” Viguerie said. “We are going to hold their feet to the fire.”

    Bozell said conservative groups need to up their financial pressure on GOP lawmakers unless they agree to a series of demands, including again vowing to approve of no tax increases for anyone.

    Conservatives lambast Romney, vow to take over Republican Party - The Hill's Ballot Box
    imblest and HAPPY2BME like this.
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    106,973
    The OLD OLD SCHOOL WHITE SHOE BOY'S WILL BE FIRED. The GOOD OLE BOY's SYSTEM DISMANTELED

    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    106,973
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  4. #4
    Administrator ALIPAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    50,992
    Blog Entries
    1
    The 2014 Revolution Begins Now!!!!!!!!

    More to come under that title.

    W
    Click here to learn more about William Gheen President of ALIPAC

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    106,973



    Polling shows Romney's pro-enforcement more popular than Obama's pro-amnesty -- Romney lost for reasons other than immigration

    Let me arm you with some very important numbers to resist a frantic push today by open-borders-leaning journalists and pundits to persuade congressional Republicans to help Pres. Obama pass a mass amnesty early next year.

    Their argument is that Gov. Romney's highly public support for immigration enforcement cost him the election. And they suggest that Pres. Obama's support for legalizing illegal aliens was a much more popular position with voters.

    Many Bush-era-retreads are part of the loud chorus of demands that Republicans will improve their popularity if they stop blocking amnesties.

    Not so, according to exit polling by The Polling Company/Woman Trend.

    STARTLING EXIT POLL FINDING The scientific national sampling of Americans after they voted found 50% had voted for Obama and 47% for Romney (close to the actual results). And it asked the voters this question:

    QUESTION: In this election, were you more inclined to vote for candidates who favor . . .

    (a) Providing an opportunity for illegal immigrants to become legal and remain in the country

    (b) Enforcing and strengthening laws against illegal immigration to encourage them to return home

    (c) Not making any changes to the current immigration law
    The poll was commissioned by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR suppo rts the (b) attrition through enforcement option, but the wording of the poll was straightforward and neutral.

    Only 31% of voters said they were more inclined toward candidates who favor the (a) legalization option. That was Obama's position.

    But 52% of voters said they were more inclined toward candidates who favored the (b) enforcement option, which was Romney's position.

    Clearly, Romney was advocating the more popular position by backing enforcement to cause illegal aliens to go home. And the results indicate that lots of people voted for Obama despite his position on legalization.

    For a fine overview of other polling and analysis of the media's illogical conclusions from this election, be sure to read (and comment on) Jeremy's blog.

    PRO-Enforcement Romney Had Better 'Spreads' Than NON-Enforcement McCain In Most High-Hispanic States With so much attention being given to Hispanic voting in the states, we wanted to see how such a strong pro-enforcement candidate like Romney did in the 20 states with the highest percentage of Hispanic voters.

    The question on positions is not really about how a position might affect a single demographic group but what might be the overall net effect among all voters of that state.

    So, we compared Romney's overall voter performance in those 20 states with that of the Republican nominee in 2008. While Romney ran as a decided PRO-enforcement candidate pushing especially for interior enforcement to keep illegal aliens from jobs and benefits, John McCain ran as a NON-enforcement candidate. He didn't oppose enforcement (like Obama), but he didn't advocate it.

    What we found was that PRO-enforcement Romney significantly improved his "spread" in those high-Hispanic states, over that of NON-enforcement McCain.

    For example, Obama's spread over McCain in Nevada was 12%. That means his share of the vote was 12 percentage points higher than McCain's.
    But Obama's Nevada spread over Romney was 6%. The PRO-enforcement Romney improved the spread by 6 points. For whatever reasons, Romney's heavy pro-enforcement positions did not end up causing him to do worse than McCain who didn't push enforcement.

    In Arizona, native-son McCain's spread over Obama was 9%. Romney's spread was 12%. So, Romney improved the GOP's Arizona spread by 3 points.
    In 16 of the top 20 Hispanic states, Romney improved on McCain's spread with Obama:

    Utah by 19 points
    Illinois by 9 points
    Kansas by 7 points
    Nevada by 6 points
    Connecticut by 6 points
    Colorado by 5 p oints
    New Mexico by 5 points
    Washington by 5 points
    Texas by 5 points
    California by 3 points
    Arizona by 3 points
    Georgia by 3 points
    Hawaii by 3 points
    Florida by 2 points
    Maryland by 1 point

    There was no change in the spread in New York and Rhode Island. Romney's spread was worse than McCain's by 2 points in New Jersey and by 3 points in Idaho.

    You may have noticed that there aren't many swing states in that list. That's because Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and other highly competitive states have very small Hispanic electorates.

    It would be foolish to conclude that Romney's pro-enforcement positions were the primary cause of his improvement over McCain. But the open-borders journalists and pundits seem to be trying to say the opposite -- that maybe Romney lost some of these states because of his pro-enforcement positions even though he actually had some significant improvements over the non-enforcement GOP candidate in the last election.

    For a much more thoughtful look at how issues other than immigration are the reason for Republicans' difficulty with Hispanic voters, read this blog in Slate.

    POLL SHOWS HISPANICS SUPPORT THE E-VERIFY THAT CONGRESSIONAL GOP LEADERS CONTINUE TO BLOCK

    Whether or not most Hispanic voters were able to find their way through all the media bombast, hyperbole and misdirection about R omney's immigration stance, a poll last month shows that most Hispanic voters suppport Romney's key plank of mandating E-Verify to keep illegal aliens from getting U.S. jobs.
    Perhaps Romney didn't communicate his position adeptly enough. Even more likely is that most Hispanic voters marked their ballots based on a host of other issues in their choice for president. But Republicans failed to get the votes of anywhere near the number of Hispanic Americans who favor mandatory E-Verify.

    A Pulse Opinion Research poll released last month found 66% of Hispanic voters favoring mandatory E-Verify.

    The question was: Do you support or oppose requiring that every employer use E-Verify to electronically ensure that no U.S. job goes to illegal immigrants in the future?

    75% of all voters said YES.

    69% of Hispanic voters said YES.

    The majority of Romney's immigration policy was just that. Mandato ry E-Verify was nearly the whole basis of what he meant by "self-deportation."

    What he explained was that he would take away the jobs magnet and mainly let illegal immigrants make their own decisions about moving back home.

    The question just before the E-Verify question was: Do you believe most parents around the world would stop bringing their children illegally to this country if they thought finding a job was doubtful?

    66% of all voters said YES.

    70% of Hispanic voters said YES.

    Can these results be in the ballpark? Well, on the survey's question of sympathizing with so-called Dream-Act illegal immigrants, the result for Hispanic voters was 62%, with only 8% saying "not at all sympathetic."

    This poll did not over-sample Hispanics, so the margin of error was fairly high. Nonetheless, the key point here is that at least half of Hispanic voters recognize that illegal immigration is bad for the country and that taking away the jobs magnet with mandatory E-Verify is a great way to slow it down.

    Thus, taking a stand for mandatory E-Verify should not hurt a candidate, especially Republicans who rarely get more than 33% of Hispanic votes.
    Any candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- has an opportunity to improve standing with Hispanic voters by connecting support for E-Verify to tackling high unemployment among Hispanic Americans.

    BUT DO WE FURTHER LOOSEN THE LABOR MARKET DURING TIMES OF HIGH JOBLESSNESS AND STAGNANT WAGES?

    Finally, we must ask the p undits why they are insisting on loosening the labor market and further driving down the value of labor for our American workers.

    Does morality ever enter the minds of these political scribblers?

    America has a gigantic excess supply of workers. Even if increasing that supply would gain some short-term political advantage, is that really worth causing more suffering among the victims of that over-supply?

    When House Speaker Boehner (R) and Majority Leader Cantor (R) say they don't wan t to hear any more enforcement talk from their Republican Members, all of you have to insist that your own Republican Congressman (if you have one) talks morality and what is right for American workers.
    When Senate Majority Leader Reid promises that he will push a foreign-worker-increase bill through next year, all of you have to insist that your own Democratic Senator (if you have one) talks morality and what is right for American workers.

    We cannot let up in our fight for less immigration and a tighter labor market while 20 million of our fellow Americans want a full-time job but can't find one, and when many millions more are stuck with declini ng real wages that already are barely able to support a family.

    I THANK ALL OF YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE THROUGH THE YEARS TO SHOW THIS KIND OF COMPASSION FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS,


    roy beck
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  6. #6
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    106,973
    The pure anger that is BOILING over is being generated and FOCUSED on the RNC and the GOP

    YOU Created this mess' YOU WILL BE FIRED

    dont under estimate this one
    Amnesty for 11 million will increase debt by $6.3 trillion And that doesn't count costs of 22 million additional legal immigrants in just 10 years!
    A Nation of of 3rd World Broke A@@es "AmeriKa" cannot afford an Invasion of Broke A@@es from the 3rd World

  7. #7
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    16,955
    The OLD OLD SCHOOL WHITE SHOE BOY'S WILL BE FIRED. The GOOD OLE BOY's SYSTEM DISMANTELED
    -----------------------------------------------

    Globalists have control of both parties, including the GOP. There is no way to dethrone them without leaving their corrupt kingdoms to rot on their own.

    Many are saying red states should secede, or that millions of citizens should do a pitch fork march on D.C., and other shouts of frustration, anger, rage, and fear coming from all sectors.

    Romney needed another 15% in voter numbers to win. That is about the number of Christians who boycotted him with their votes. The GOP was told straight out that Romney would lose over that, plus his veiled promises of a Dream Act Amnesty.

    We were right, they were wrong, and they forced Romney on us.

    Some historical change must come for Americans who still hold to the Constitution and the Holy Bible as the ultimate authority over man's destinies before this country can break free from those that Andrew Jackson warned us would destroy us.

    The problem is the two-headed beast now holding us captive is quite prepared to see that change will never come about, to the point of imprisonment and death of those who are demanding it.

    "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of
    Andrew Jackson."
    -- Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933
    to Colonel E. Mandell House

    "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."
    — Andrew Jackson

    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
    - Thomas Jefferson, 1816

    Last edited by HAPPY2BME; 11-08-2012 at 07:34 AM.
    AirborneSapper7 and imblest like this.
    U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: GUARANTEES AMERICA FROM INVASION!

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    19,843
    Perhaps it is time for the Republican Party to go the way of the Whigs.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    19,843
    November 7, 2012 by Michael Minkoff

    Divided GOP Resulted in Obama Victory


    As we all know, Barack Obama has been re-elected for a second term. Right about now, Republicans need to ask themselves, “What went wrong?” How could Obama have won? His track record was abysmal. The economy is tanking, unemployment continues to rise, civil government debt has reached a level from which we will probably never be able to recover, foreign relations in the Middle East have only become more treacherous… On almost every issue upon which Obama campaigned, he has proven worse than his predecessor. Yet he has been elected for a second term. Why?

    Let’s look at the numbers. The race was almost split 50/50. Obama got less than one percent of the votes more than Mitt Romney. Of interest, libertarian Gary Johnson got right at one percent. Gary who? Right. How did a guy with almost no presence during the primaries get one percent of the votes? The only other Libertarian to get this much traction was Ed Clark in 1980 with 1.1 percent. But this wasn’t so much a victory for the Libertarian Party as it was a loss for the GOP. How did Gary Johnson get so many votes? Ron Paul. Sorry, but that’s just the truth.

    Most disillusioned Ron Paul supporters chose either to not vote, to vote for Gary Johnson, or to write in Ron Paul even though such a vote would be largely symbolic. But before you start talking about how lame Ron Paul fans are, let’s really assess this issue.

    Tea Party candidates in the Senate lost big this election. Joe Walsh and Allen West lost their seats in the Senate. Akin and Mourdock, as expected (or ensured), also lost. Almost all the members of the GOP who operated on a principled conservative Republican “Tea Party” platform did poorly this election. Why? Because the party establishment abandoned them. The Tea Party didn’t cause the split. The Tea Party represents the majority of active grassroots Republicans. The GOP power brokers caused the split. And they added insult to injury by pretending like they didn’t need the Tea Partiers any more. Say what you will, but the GOP is going through a major identity crisis. And I think it’s choosing to become Mr. Hyde. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

    Consider that most of the people, if not all, who voted for Mitt Romney would have voted for whomever the GOP nominated. No matter what. Anyone but Obama, remember? These people voted pragmatically… er, not so pragmatically now that all is said and done. So most of the people, if not all, who voted for Romney would have voted for the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man if he had been on the ballot with an “R” next to his name. So they really don’t matter in the end. Despite all of the media drivel about electability, any Republican candidate would have gained at least the number of votes that Romney did. But I believe a few of the primary candidates could have gained more. The Republican Party was trying to get some extra votes from the middle, so they chose a big-government-lite candidate with largely liberal social policies that could appeal to “moderate” voters. Wrong plan of action. Moderate voters swung to Obama anyway. All the Republican Party did by putting all its eggs into the middle-of-the-road candidate was jettison the swing voters they should have been appealing to instead: the conservative idealists.

    Consider it this way: liberal idealists love Obama. And moderate voters like him too. So Obama is the perfect candidate for the Democratic party. He consolidates the base while reaching beyond it. Conservative idealists (the ones who vote on principle alone—damn-the-torpedoes type people) hated Romney. Tea Party conservatives also disliked Romney. But the hold-your-nose-and-vote Republicans weren’t numerous enough to result in a Romney victory. They needed just one extra percent. Which they lost because they had ejected the grassroots core of their organization: the real idealists who would not vote for Romney on principle. And the answer is not to all rally around the jellyfish flip-flopping moderate. The answer is to rally around the people who stand firm like stone walls. (That sounds familiar somehow…)

    The Republican Party may hate the conscientious and often contentious idealists at their base, but as this election proved, they cannot afford to ignore them. It is illogical to do so anyway. Let’s think about this. What if Ron Paul had been nominated? The hold-your-nose-and-vote Republicans would still have voted for him. And if they wouldn’t, they have no place whatsoever to criticize idealists who wouldn’t vote for Romney. If the GOP machine had gotten behind him like they did Romney, there’s no indication that Paul would have fared any different than Romney. At least as well, as I said. But on top of the hold-your-nosers, Ron Paul had a rabid base of extremely motivated supporters (at least a million, actually… just ask Gary Johnson) who certainly would have voted for him though they refused to support Romney. (Oh, if only we had fewer Americans with unshakeable convictions. They’re such a plague on this country. Yeah. Whatevuh.) He also attracted many moderate voters who liked his states-rights stance on illegal drugs and homosexual marriage. Colorado just voted to legalize marijuana, by the way… and it went to Obama this election… again. So, bottom line: if Ron Paul had been nominated, in all likelihood we would have a Republican President-elect right now. But he’s not electable… And Romney is? Hello!? Any of the candidates would have done at least as well as he did, and I think any of them would have actually done better. Romney wasn’t the voters’ first choice. He was the GOP establishment’s first choice. Let’s not kid ourselves on that one. And this is the same group that gave us McCain. Remember that guy? He was “electable” too. When will we ever learn?

    Why was Romney crammed down our throats? The GOP establishment wanted him in. And they’re also the reason why so many Tea Party candidates suffered losses this election. They refuse to support conscientious Republicans with constitutional convictions because it seems they have an agenda to rewire and reform the Republican Party in their own image whether or not Republican voters agree with them. They are forcing the Republican Party to become something it never was before, and they are promoting their agenda with fear, force, and manipulation. They have commandeered the energy and resources of men of conviction while trampling those same convictions underfoot. They think we will go along with them no matter what because the alternative is so intolerable. And so far, they have been right. They have betrayed this party using our votes, our voice, our power.

    Don’t blame the Paulbots or the independents for four more years of Obama’s national trainwreck. Blame the GOP establishment power brokers. Their stubborn unwillingness to listen to their constituency and their blatant disregard for the traditonal federal constitutionalism that once made the GOP “grand” has cost us yet another election cycle, perhaps the most critical to date. We can’t afford to place our trust in them anymore. Let them know loud and clear: “Give us candidates who fully support our values, not your agenda! And back these candidates with your full endorsement. We won’t be fooled again. We won’t accept another Romney, and if you give us one, we will not vote for him.” Do we have the courage to do this? We didn’t have that courage this election. We thought too much was at stake. Too much was at stake. And we lost it because of fear. If we don’t gain the courage necessary to stand on conviction, this country is most assuredly doomed.

    Read more: Divided GOP Resulted in Obama Victory
    imblest and HAPPY2BME like this.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator imblest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    6,163
    Where were all of these "outspoken" TEA Party folks when Romney was being nominated?! Apparently, not making a peep!!!
    Last edited by imblest; 11-08-2012 at 10:02 AM.
    ...cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? ...Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?" John Adams

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •