In response to:

Why Mitt Lost and it Wasn’t Very Close

loadstar Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 6:34 PM
Why the deep chasm between the sides? I wonder if the bitter polarization is not exaggerated by the way people get their news now (randomly on the web) and the fact that the MSM have TOTALLY gone in the tank for the Left...they won't even ask the ObaMessiah about Benghazi, NOR complain that he simply refuses to have a presser to discuss it-- or have a presser PERIOD! I mean, the guy goes on the Freakin View for Chrissake to answer fawning questions of idolizers! The MSM WERE the best asset O had running for re-election with his PATHETIC record
LtScrounge Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 8:42 PM
The reason for the polarization is because the liberals don't ever compromise. They're more than willing to lie, cheat and steal to get their way. Look at the "budget" deal. They set up a no win scenario and forced the Republicans to agree to it. They wanted to gut the military, and the idiot Republicans believed them when the Dems said that they weren't going to allow that to happen. Boehner needs to start gutting every social program but Medicare and Social Security and then every government agency and dept other than Justice (greatly curtail some areas of it though) Treasury, and Defense. Make the Liberals give up something for every dollar spent on those agencies. Cut funding to EPA to next to nothing.Add them to the unemployment line

Memorandum to the GOP: When running an election campaign it is often valuable to select a nominee who represents the rank and file of the Party. This is how other Parties do it. Perhaps you might get on board.

Who?

Well let’s start with who not to select.

There was George H.W. Bush, who, while a nice, honorable public servant, won primarily because of the record Reagan established. He lost because the rest of us thought that when he mouthed the words “Read my lips, go to Texas,” he meant “Read my lips, no new taxes.”  

There was Bob Dole,...