Republicans still don’t realize that although Willard almost won the election, he bought the primary elections and, at base he was a terrible candidate and would be a disastrous president.-Republicans hatred of Obama as their primary platform was almost successful enough to win the election, but if Obama had been white, Willard would have gotten 33% of the vote, if that.-Take a look at the other Republican candidates. Who was qualified to be president? Maybe Huntsman, but the Party wanted nothing to do with him. Maybe Buddy Roemer, but they wouldn’t even let him on stage, even though they broke their own rules in order to exclude him.-As far as I can tell, Republicans still believe that if they just word their anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-middle class, anti-women messages more elegantly, they will win.
I read an article some months ago, suggesting that Mitt didn’t really want to win the election and actually do a very difficult job for four years. I don’t know it that’s true, but wonder if the Republican Party maybe didn’t want to win the election. It’s easier to sit back, obstruct Obama and blame everything (that will without question follow from the Bush debacle) on the Democrats.
“it is true Lincoln was a republican, he was considered a radical liberal because he had that leftest view that slavery was wrong”Everything you wrote was true . . . but it would more accurate to say that Lincoln was a ‘moderate liberal’, since he favored (originally) restricting the expansion of slavery followed by its gradual elimination.The Abolitionists favored immediate elimination of slavery, and so were the ‘radical liberals’ at the time. For many years, they considered Lincoln ‘wishy-washy’ on the slavery issue.I’m nit-picking, I know, but it’s interesting . . .
“Although it is true Lincoln was a republican, he was considered a radical liberal because he had that leftest view that slavery was wrong.”
While fully aware of the dangers of learning history from the movies, in the movie “Lincoln” one of the characters (I forget his name, but he was presumably the “founder” of the Republican Party) said something along the lines of “I built this party specifically to be Conservative, but anti-slavery.” As for Lincoln himself, perhaps it’s fair to say that his position on slavery “evolved.” :-)
alcors3 over 11 years ago
I’d like to be under the ea in an octopus’s garden in the shade.
reynard61 over 11 years ago
Aaaaaaaaaaand that’s why you’ll lose the 2014 mid-terms and the 2016 Presidential election too!
Republicans: “We’re not retreating into madness, we’re advancing into a version of Reality more compatible with our worldview.”
braindead Premium Member over 11 years ago
Republicans still don’t realize that although Willard almost won the election, he bought the primary elections and, at base he was a terrible candidate and would be a disastrous president.-Republicans hatred of Obama as their primary platform was almost successful enough to win the election, but if Obama had been white, Willard would have gotten 33% of the vote, if that.-Take a look at the other Republican candidates. Who was qualified to be president? Maybe Huntsman, but the Party wanted nothing to do with him. Maybe Buddy Roemer, but they wouldn’t even let him on stage, even though they broke their own rules in order to exclude him.-As far as I can tell, Republicans still believe that if they just word their anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-middle class, anti-women messages more elegantly, they will win.
Yontrop over 11 years ago
I read an article some months ago, suggesting that Mitt didn’t really want to win the election and actually do a very difficult job for four years. I don’t know it that’s true, but wonder if the Republican Party maybe didn’t want to win the election. It’s easier to sit back, obstruct Obama and blame everything (that will without question follow from the Bush debacle) on the Democrats.
fritzoid Premium Member over 11 years ago
“That’s ok Christie. I didn’t vote for O either.”
Given the privacy of the voting booth, can you be sure Christie DIDN’T vote for Obama?
corzak over 11 years ago
“it is true Lincoln was a republican, he was considered a radical liberal because he had that leftest view that slavery was wrong”Everything you wrote was true . . . but it would more accurate to say that Lincoln was a ‘moderate liberal’, since he favored (originally) restricting the expansion of slavery followed by its gradual elimination.The Abolitionists favored immediate elimination of slavery, and so were the ‘radical liberals’ at the time. For many years, they considered Lincoln ‘wishy-washy’ on the slavery issue.I’m nit-picking, I know, but it’s interesting . . .
fritzoid Premium Member over 11 years ago
“Although it is true Lincoln was a republican, he was considered a radical liberal because he had that leftest view that slavery was wrong.”
While fully aware of the dangers of learning history from the movies, in the movie “Lincoln” one of the characters (I forget his name, but he was presumably the “founder” of the Republican Party) said something along the lines of “I built this party specifically to be Conservative, but anti-slavery.” As for Lincoln himself, perhaps it’s fair to say that his position on slavery “evolved.” :-)