In response to:

Sam Tanenhaus's Problem Continues

John in OK Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 6:16 AM
Simple enough. A lot of the 57% stayed home and didn't vote because there was no real conservative to vote for. Romney was at best a moderate, lacked any real convictions or principles and generally failed to inspire us to believe that he really offered any difference from Obama. This should be obvious to anyone who paid enough attention to note that Romney got several million fewer votes than McCain. Until the Republican party starts putting up candidates that appeal to conservatives, they're going to keep losing.
SteveL2 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:32 AM
Not true.

Romney got more votes than McCain did. Didn't know that, huh?

Romney got only one million fewer votes than Bush did. Didn't know that, huh?

Most likely that one million consisted of elderly voters who had passed away in the interim.

WASHINGTON -- It has happened again. Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of the New York Times Book Review referred to by Paul Krugman the other day as "a long-time conservative," has essayed in the New Republic the modern conservative movement, and traced us all back to John C. Calhoun. I suppose our point of origin could have been more sinister. Sam could have traced us back to Nathan Bedford Forrest, the former Confederate General who went on to be an early member of the Ku Klux Klan, but John C. Calhoun is bad enough.

Of course, Calhoun is no kind of modern...