In response to:

The Republicans' Primary Problem

Phil Byler Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 8:14 AM
Somebody had to say it to Ann, Ms. Rah-Rah Romney. This article shows that she is still not working things through well in her mind well.
Earl29 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 9:13 AM
Rob, you cannot demonstrate that Newt Gingrich, et al, would have lost, but I can demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Romney did lose.
Yes, I was watching the first debate and was impressed, but Obama showed up for the others. After the first debate, Romney reverted to being the candidate I predicted could not beat Obama.
RepubRob2 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 8:42 AM
Totally disagree. If not Romney, then who? And whoever you name, why didn't he/she get a sufficient number of votes to win the nomination? And if they didn't get a sufficient number of votes to win the nomination, how in the world can you make a compelling case that he/she would have fared better than Romney against Obama? Were you actually watching when Romney ground Obama to a blithering pulp in the first debate? Come on, this election never was about who was the "best candidate" for the GOP, it was always about how many kids the Dems were going to get to the polls to vote for their rock star personality, Obama.

Having just lost an election, many Republicans are anxious to remake our party in the image of Democrats. The theory seems to be that whatever we're doing isn't working, so we better change everything.

But in fact, whatever Republicans did in 2012 -- other than an overly long primary fight -- worked amazingly well, given the circumstances.

In a detailed analysis of the 2012 election, William A. Galston, a fellow with the liberal Brookings Institution, makes a number of fascinating observations that Republicans would do well to consider before embracing amnesty, abortion, gay marriage and Beyonce.

In my...