In response to:

The Lady Is Right -- Let's Keep Our Eye on the Ball

LonePine Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 9:52 AM
I voted Romney in November ! I Did Not WANT Romney to be president. It was with no pride that I cast my ballot. It is only that He seemed to be the ABO. The "Anybody But Obama". The other "conservative" candidates who Did Not Bow Out when they saw the polls indicating they would get only a few percent of the vote, Are THE Reason we have so Many speculations of everything from financial ruin, to martial law, to civil war, or all. Congratulations to all conservatives that did not vote Romney. This, Today, and the next 4 years at least, are what you voted for.
MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 11:44 AM
You voted for Romney yet you did not want him to be president. Then you blame those who didn't vote for Romney for what we're getting.

That you'd vote for someone you didn't want to win says enough about your logic. If you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot, then don't.
Jeff2422 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 10:07 AM
Romney recieved 3 million less votes than McCain. Obama recieved 8 million less than in 08. I understand the drop for Obama as he pretty much lied about all his 08 promises of transparency and working with Repubs. But, what happened to those 11 million less votes. They just stayed home. The big gap in the predictions was that there would be a much smaller electorate and that it would help Obama. Normally it works the other way. Apparently, they couldn't stomach Romney any more than Obama and stayed home. So Obama's negative campaign worked even on so-called conservatives. Expect more of the same negative campaigning for a long time thanks to all those people that stayed home.
Earl29 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 10:12 AM
It is the job of the candidate to get the vote out. Blaming people for not buying your product is a waste of time. Give them a product they want and they'll buy it.
Earl29 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 10:03 AM
No, the fault lies with those who let polls substitute for intellect.
You can claim that none of the other candidates could have beaten Obama, but that is only an opinion. That Romney lost to Obama is a fact.
Bill1260 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 10:45 AM
I think the pack was pretty lame when it started out. Remember, to run for president it takes a three year running start. First and second year of Obama he was flying high. Who in their right mind would want to challenge him? Why not "keep your powder dry" and wait for 2016? 'Course, to run in 2016, you need to get geared up in 2013 or '14 (provided a Republican didn't win the White House).

There were some great gains in 2010, and I think the "tea party" can deliver again in 2014 if people just pay attention.
MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 11:48 AM
It would have been better if Ron Paul were nominated. Then we'd have gotten the votes of many Democratic disaffected civil rights defenders, the anti-war crowd and those who were disappointed with Obama's policies. Plus many of the 11 million that didn't show up to vote would have voted for Paul. The polls showed Paul to be the most likely to beat Obama, but the statists in the R party (that would be 80% of our elected Rs) and the media were all against him.

It seems the Republican Party news is getting worse. This past fall, we suffered the defeat of our nominee for president. Based on the economic conditions, Republicans should have won. Many Republican pundits tagged Mitt Romney as the winner days before the election, talked about a possible landslide and were flabbergasted when he lost.

Yes, I said it would be a photo finish, but I digress.

Karl Rove, former senior adviser to George W. Bush and the architect of W.'s successful president runs, was so undone Election Night that he fought back on Fox News when it projected Obama would...

Tuesday, June 18 | 03:56 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 03:56 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 03:56 AM ET
Tuesday, June 18 | 03:56 AM ET