TonyB,

I think we’ve about beat this to death, so I won’t gopoint-by-point through your last response.

I have enjoyed the discussion, though, and I would liketo make a few more comments.

First, while you were commenting on the Cayman accounts,you said:

“…the fact thatRomney had MONEY in those accounts, not just instruments of investment.”

Do you recall where you learned of this “fact”???  Also, how would you propose one would respondto this if it were not true???  (Forexample, if I accused you of having Cayman bank accounts, how would you provethat you did not???)

Next, regarding the Romney/Ryan economic plan, youreferred to their having stated:

"Toocomplicated to explain","take to much time to explain", "ifI told you, you wouldn't vote for it";

Do you recall where you heard this???  As I mentioned before, I am somewhat of apolitical junkie who watched and listened to tons of coverage for over a yearand I can’t recall ever hearing these particular remarks.

Lastly, regarding your final remarks:

“The GOP has tofix what it can and overcome the rest. If it splits into 2 parties, neitherwill be able to overcome the Democratic coalition that has been built thisyear. That would indeed change this country and not for the better. There hasto be a viable option in elections or there really is no choice. The next 4years give the GOP a chance to figure it out. Let's hope for all of our sakes,they do.”

We are in complete agreement here.  As much as I would like to see a thirdparty,  it would take far too long (aminimum of decades, in my opinion) for one to become viable, and I fear thatour country simply does not have the time for that to occur.  If for no other reason, the interest on thenational debt will soon overwhelm us if it is not attended to promptly, and Ifear that the bunch in Washington will simply “kick the can” until it is toolate.  I fear that it will be “too late”sooner than most of us realize.

One final thought on “what happened”:

I think that the Republicans “wasted” a lot of time,effort and money on votes that they had already “cinched”, and the Democratsmust’ve better spent their pre-election time, effort and money.  I am NOT talking about campaign ads now.  Here is what I mean:

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with campaigningknow that you can get lists of the registered voters, by PARTY, for the lasthowever many elections from the Board of elections.  Using myself as an example, they should’veknown that I have voted in the REPUBLICAN primary every primary year since 2000,and have remained registered as a Republican ever since then.  They should also have known that I am amember of the Butler County Republican Central Committee.  Also, when I got the first live phone callurging me to “vote early”, I assured them that I would vote, and when I voted Iwould vote for Romney.  Still, I got atleast six calls a day (some live, some taped) asking for my vote.  They were wasting their time, efforts andmoney.  They already HAD my vote.  They should’ve been talking to voters whowere NOT registered Republicans instead of wasting their time on me.  They should’ve had a mechanism to stopsoliciting votes that were already “cinched” so that they could concentrate ontrying to actually harvest additional votes.

On the other hand, we did not receive even one call fromObama’s team.  I guess that they weresmart enough to know not to waste their time, effort, and money on a RepublicanCentral Committeeman.  (One lady didknock on our door late one night just a couple of days before the election toask us to vote for Obama.  I guess shecouldn’t see the Romney/Ryan yard sign in the dark.)

Now, this may seem like a small thing—but there are over10,900 precincts in Ohio, so that means over 10,900 Central Committee members,all of whom should have been “cinch votes”. If each one got called one to two hundred times during the last month ofthe campaign, that’s one to two MILLION calls in Ohio alone that werecompletely unnecessary—a total waste of time, effort, and money.

Rngermed:

You are exactly correct. Not all services are available at all locations, and some locations mayprovide “breast examinations” and instruction on how to performself-examinations.  But NO PlannedParenthood location actually provides “mammograms”!!!

In fact, if you watch the video on their national sitethey actually state: “Planned Parenthood refers patients to other facilitiesfor mammograms…”!!!

“Thanks for thereply. I'll attempt to clarify a few of my points here but I do still believethat the presentation of the conservative message by Mr. Romney and the GOP waswhat ultimately decided the election.

First off, I have to agree with you that Mr. Romney was not, is not and neverhas been a conservative. That, imo, was the biggest problem throughout theelection season; you had a candidate whose core beliefs were at odds with theconservative message. Saying you're a conservative doesn't make you one and itdid give the impression that Mr. Romney was less than honest about what hebelieved. The long campaign season made that point tangible in the eyes ofindependent and undecided voters.”…TonyB

Okay, so even if I stipulate to all of that,so far in this discussion we have been ignoring the fact that there were onlyTWO candidates in this election who had an actual possibility of being elected:Romney and Obama, and we have been ignoring Obama throughout the discussion.  Given that Romney is not a true conservative,it cannot be denied that he is more conservative than Obama, can it???  It certainly appeared to me that there was aclear choice, and given that clear choice, for conservatives (or anyone else)to abstain from voting would be akin to voting for Obama.  True conservatives would certainly NOT wantto help Obama to another four years, so why wouldn’t they vote forRomney???  It just doesn’t make sense tome.  Most of the Democrats that I knowclaim to have voted for Romney, a Republican, this time--the first time thatthey have voted for a Republican in their lives—because of Obama’s ruinouseconomic and energy policies.  How couldObama have gotten more votes than he did in 2008…and why would conservativesrefrain from voting, knowing that by doing so they were helping Obama to asecond term.  Are you saying that theycouldn’t think that far ahead???  It isas I tried to explain to VietVet in another tread: The vote that would bebetter for the American economy would be best for everyone in the long run.  So…I am certain that Obama lost at least some votes from 2008.  It would seem to me that some others wouldhave become disenchanted because the “change” that they had “hoped” for didn’tmaterialize.  Those are the ones that Ithought would “stay home” quicker than anyone would.

“The"compassion" issue is also something that Mr. Romney had trouble withon many occasions. Watching staged events like the conventions where Mr. Romneycould play his role in the story wasn't as telling as the unguarded momentscaught on tape. It made Mr. Romney seem insincere and in politics, perceptionis everything. If I convinced you that it was the media who made Mr. Romneylook insincere, you'd also have to cede the point that Mr. Romney didn't dohimself any favors with some of the decisions he made and the things he said.Romney was the wrong person to run after the bank collapse in 2008; hisbusiness practices seemed greedy and disconnected to most Americans.”…TonyB

I assume that you are referring to hisbusiness practices at Bain Capital. Anyone who thinks that those business practices were “greedy” just doesn’tunderstand business.  Bain took failingand struggling businesses and tried to turn them around, some made it, some didnot.  Most needed some degree ofconsolidation before they could grow and prosper.  Once again, the media concentrated onreporting the failures that closed and not the successes (like AMCEntertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington CoatFactory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Donuts,D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America, Sealy, TheSports Authority, Staples, Toys “R” Us, Warner Music Group, and  The Weather Channel.)  Hundreds of thousands of people probably havejobs that otherwise wouldn’t have, thanks to Bain Capital.  The ones who lost their jobs probably wouldhave lost them quicker, if not for Bain.

“The off-shorebank accounts gave the impression of tax evasion and Mr. Romney's refusal torelease his tax returns reinforced that perception. His lack of specifics onwhat deductions he would eliminate and then saying that if he told what theywere no one would vote for him was one of the most self-defeating moments Ihave ever witnessed.”…TonyB

I am not familiar with the “if he told whatthey were no one would vote for him” instance, which surprises me since Iwatched a ton of political stuff during both the primaries and the presidentialcampaigns.  (I’d appreciate it if youcould send me more info so I could look this up.)  However, as for the “offshore bank accounts”,that is so bogus!!!  I’m not saying thathe didn’t have them…I’m sure that he did and still does, but sodoes Obama.  And guess what??  So do I. And so do millions of other Americans who are not rich, tax-cheating fatcats.  Anyone who owns diversified mutualfunds in a 401K likely has them.  Anyonewho holds diversified mutual funds outside a 401K (as an individual investor,as I do) also likely has them and if their taxes are properly prepared, theirreturn includes a form showing their profits (or losses) on their “offshoreaccounts”, as my return does.  Does thatmake me some sort of devious scoundrel that is cheating the government byhiding millions in a Cayman account??? NO!!!  It simply means that I owna hundred shares of a mutual fund, and that mutual fund consists of investmentsin THOUSANDS of diverse companies, some of which may be banks in Jamaica or theCayman Islands, or even in Switzerland. I have no idea from day-to-day what it is invested in, but I do get apamphlet (about 40 pages) four times a year that lists thousands of companies—mostof which I’ve never heard of—and how well, or how poorly, the fund performedthat quarter.  And guess what??  There is nothing wrong with that—not for me,not for Obama, and not even for Romney!!! What IS wrong is for folks who should know better to try to insinuate thatthere IS something wrong with it.

“I don't knowhow I can say it any planer than this: Mitt Romney was the wrong candidate atthe wrong time. If he had been the nominee in 2008, he might have beaten Obamaand it would have been Romney running for reelection. After running for 6 yearsto win the presidency, Mitt Romney had been damaged by the Republican primariesand election rules that favor the incumbent. President Obama was able to defineRomney as the wrong person to be president and in the end, the voters agreed.It is all the more astonishing to me because this was an election that the GOPcould have won.”…TonyB

Well, you are probably correct.  I know that I would rather have had someoneelse be the candidate, but the like it or not, the fact remains that Romney wonthe primary process, and that is the only legal way for either of the two majorparties to nominate a candidate.  Just aswith Akin and Mourdock (the two Republican senate candidate screwballs), once acandidate wins a primary, the party (either Democrat or Republican) cannot justdecide that they’d rather have someone else and replace them.  The party does not pick the candidate…therank-and-file members do, through the primary process.

“It certainly isn't a matter of convincing the media. However, I have to laughat the idea that the media is "liberal". There is a wealth of medianow; to declare the entire industry one thing or another is absurd. There is aliberal point of view in the media; there is also a conservative point of view.Both sides accuse the other of being biased; that's not news to me. What's newsto me is that you believe the "liberal" media is going to give theconservative viewpoint positive press. They are going to look for the dirt justlike the conservative press is going to do. You'll have to admit that Fox Newsdoesn't exactly put a positive spin on any story about Obama. It doesn'tsurprise me in the same way that MSNBC didn't have much positive to say aboutRomney. Saying the liberal media is responsible for Romney's loss doesn't solvethe problem for the GOP.”…TonyB

Well, I guess that I’m failing to communicatemy thoughts on this particular matter, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

“We've alreadyseen in the last few days how the Republicans are going to govern as theminority party but in control of the budget process. It's back to status quo,hold the government hostage and gridlock. If the House Republicans can presenta deal to the president that can increase revenues without raising tax rates,they might be able to get a deal. If not, the media blame game is going to gointo full overdrive.”…TonyB

Now wait just a minute!!! This harks back tothe previous question about how the left-leaning media gets out the liberalmessage!!!  This is all I hear when Ilisten to any network other than Fox. However, it simply is not true!!!  The House Republicans are NOT “in control ofthe budget process”!!!  First, accordingto law, the PRESIDENT must submit HIS budget to congress no later thanthe first Monday in February!!!  InFebruary of 2009 and 2010, Obama had a DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY in both the Houseand the Senate, yet NO budget was passed. So, how did the Republicans “control” the budget process” those twoyears???  There has been only ONE budgetvoted upon in the DEMOCRATICALLY-held Senate in nearly FOUR years, and it wasdefeated 99-0.  (I would certainly callthat a “bi-partisan” vote, wouldn’t you???) If you say that the Republicans can govern as a minority party by controllingthe budget process, then I say SHOW ME ONE budget that Obama has proposedsince he became president, that has passed the Senate (which has had aDemocratic majority the entire time) that the Republicans have then defeated inthe House!!!  You cannot show meeven one!!!  This proves that you havebeen misled by the media into thinking that the Republicans are controlling thebudgeting process!!!  But is simply isnot true!!!

“The conservative message is in serious danger if a third party emerges. Thetalk has already started and it would be a disaster for the GOP. I know thatyou are sincere about wanting to understand why this election turned out theway it did and to change the results of the next election. A stronger candidatewould go a long way to that end.”…TonyB

Actually, I think that a third party would be a good ideaas I believe that the two-party system has failed.  The so-called “moderate” branches of the twomajor parties are so close together as to be indistinguishable.  The biggest problem I see with a third partyis that it would take so long to become strong enough to be a contender thatour country may not survive to see it (at least not as we know it).  I had hopes that the Tea Party Movement wouldlead the Republican Party back to its roots.

“I do believethere was more to the youth vote than just economic issues but I also thinkthat the image of capitalism portrayed by Mitt Romney tarnished his chances.There seemed to be no compassion in his message and the simple message of jobsdidn't mesh with how capitalism was portrayed. If the message had been moreabout good jobs that can support families and communities, it might have gainedmore traction.”…TonyB

Tony,

This is different from what you originally said, which was:

“The youth votewas lost because the cyclical nature of the economy and the lack of specificsabout the plans of the GOP for the economy.” 

I am having a little trouble understanding the new reasoning thatyou are introducing.  First, are yousaying that Romney, himself, is not a compassionate man???  If so, I doubt that you actually watched theRepublican convention or that you actually know anything about Mitt Romney, theman.  Anyone who actually knows hisbackground and history would know that he is a compassionate person.  Next, the vibrant economy that would flourishunder unfettered capitalism would do more for the poor and lower class, and toraise members of all socioeconomic classes to higher socioeconomic classes,than any other system that the world has ever seen, bar none.  Can you point to any example where making therich poorer, has made the poor richer??? Anywhere…at any time???  Hard workand personal initiative pays off (or, at least it used to).  Consider all of the immigrants who came here(legally) with virtually nothing.  Theyworked hard, saved their money, started their own businesses (this was beforethe government made it virtually impossible to succeed in doing so), and achievedbeyond their dreams.  Then, many of theiremployees did the same thing.  This isnearly impossible today (although some still manage it), since there is a bureaucrat standing in the way atnearly every turn, and every two or three people who are working must alsosupport one person who is retired and one person who either cannot or will notwork.

“I also think that the Romney flip-flop, say whatever the audience wants tohear, gave an aura of indecisiveness to the whole conservative message.”…TonyB

Well, I have to agree with you here, especially early on.  I never did think Romney was a trueconservative, and he did flip-flop trying to appeal to the right during theprimaries, and move towards the middle after he got the nomination.  I believe that a true fiscal conservativewould’ve scored better in the general election and turned out more of the basethan Romney did.  Too many voted forRomney simply because he was “better than Obama”.  Worse yet, I believe that too many stayedhome (did not vote) because they felt that there was not a candidate who stooda chance of winning that reflected their fiscal values.  What I cannot understand is why so many votedfor Obama.

“The Ayn Randphilosophy of every man for himself is at odds with the religious tenants ofChristianity.”…TonyB

You must’ve read different Ayn Rand writings than I did.  I interpreted her philosophy as “every man isresponsible for himself and his family, and that we also have a responsibilityto those truly unable to help themselves.”  But Rand didn’t believe that our help for theless fortunate should pass through the government.  To her (and to me) it is illogical to spendmoney on bureaucrats to collect money, for example, in Middletown, send it toWashington DC, shuffle it around amongst innumerable departments, send what isleft back to Middletown, and then pay someone to dole it out to whomever theythink needs help.  If I see a family herethat is in need, I can give them $50 for groceries.  If that $50 is taken in tax (or any otherkind of federal fee) the family here will be lucky to get $15 by time it comesback.  Rand’s philosophy was to give thefamily $20, and find a way to hire someone from that family and pay them $30dollars…then perhaps the person learns a skill, improves their self-esteem, andkeeps working and therefore no longer needs charity.  And perhaps you end up with a goodemployee.  Everyone wins!!!   The needy family gets the full $50 instead of $15, plus an opportunity to become self-sufficient and to raise themselves up, the "donor" gets some labor for his $50 instead of a tax receipt…and all with NOgovernment involvement!!!

“The messageswere so jumbled that there seemed to be no principles to stand upon.”…TonyB

Agreed.  If someone wasundecided, and followed Romney all of the way from the first primary/caucusthrough until November 6, this would be true.

“I also thinkthat you are deluding yourself to a certain extent when you say that only acouple of GOP candidates said things that didn't reflect conservative ideology.Candidates were repudiated and then given campaign funds;”…TonyB

I disagree.  Those twowingnuts (Akin from Missouri, and Mourdock from Indiana) were renounced byRomney/Ryan, although an ad showing Romney endorsing Mourdock (THAT WAS FILMEDPRIOR TO THE REMARKS) did run for a short period and was high-jacked by theObama campaign and used to imply that Romney agreed with Mourdock’s rapestance.  Money from the GOP Senatecandidates’ fund was cut off from both, but they could not take back money thathad already gone to the two.  Nearly ALLprominent Republicans renounced them and withdrew support.  Party bigwigs tried to get both men towithdraw, to allow a last minute write-in campaign by alternate candidates.  

“Romney nevercame out and repudiated those stains on the conservative message and Fox Newstried to defend some of these remarks as true even as other conservativesrepudiated them.”…TonyB

Romney DID!!! (See above.)  Asfor Fox news, I watched FNC a lot throughout the entire campaign (as well asother news shows.  Remember, I am usuallyup all night, so I can catch reruns of the national shows of several networks.)  NO ONE that I know of at Fox defended thosetwo screwballs, except possibly a guest or two. (Fox usually tries to have someone on EACH side of EVERY debate, so theymight’ve dug up some oddball somewhere in an effort to be “fair and balanced”.)  The only other possibility is SeanHannity.  I usually don’t watch his show…heis just too repetitive for me—like a broken record.  About once a month is enough of him forme.  Now, I’ve heard people on the othernetworks CLAIM that Fox defended the two nuts, but I NEVER heard a Fox straightnews reporter, anchor, or regular commentator do so!!

“It was puzzlingto me why the GOP deluded themselves into thinking they were going to win andwin easily.”…TonyB

Well, Tony, I can only speak for myself.  I thought Romney would win in a landslidebecause I didn’t believe that Obama could fool that many people AGAIN!!!  He had no real message. (Except that Romney’sa crook/liar/thief/hates women/the elderly/children.)  He proffered no economic plan except “tax therich” and keep doing what I’ve done the last four years that has got usnowhere.  He offered no hope.  He offered no change.  That is why I asked for help in understandingwhat happened.  How could that manypeople possibly have voted for him AGAIN???

“I believe theiroverconfidence and the brutal nature of the GOP primaries left independent andundecided voters with a tarnished image of conservative goals.”…TonyB

I could go along with that, EXCEPT…do you remember 2008???  These primaries were no more brutal than the2008 Democratic primaries, and Obama emerged much more overconfident that year thanRomney did this time…and Obama won big in 2008…so what’s the difference???

“If you continueto blame the MSM for this defeat, you'll continue to miss why the message wasrejected. The truth of the matter is that what was offered was poorly presentedand explained, not that the message was somehow lied about.”…TonyB

Hold the phone, Tony!!!  Ididn’t START to blame the media until after we started this discussion.  I asked for help in understanding whathappened.  You replied; I read andre-read your reply many times—even after I answered it.  THAT was when I began believing that the MSMcarried the day…YOU convinced me!  Now, I’mnot trying to turn this into an argument. I really appreciate the discussion and your input.

But (there’s always a “but”, isn’t there?) I’ve watched thisentire campaign closely; watched every debate at least twice; watched many ofthe campaign speeches (of both candidates); and of course I’ve seen most of the ads. I’ve also read a ton of editorials from a dozen different newspapers,watched months of news and opinion shows on ALL of the networks.  I feel like I know what the candidates havesaid about themselves…AND what they have said about each other…AND what thepundits have said about them.

Now, when I go back and read your first reply, again, I still seethe same thing:  I think that you arecorrect on the first issue (regarding immigration), but on the rest of it, itall appears to be information that you got, NOT from the Romney/Ryan campaign,but from others giving a distorted view of the Romney/Ryan campaign and whatthey stood for.  Please, go back andreview it, and my response.  It’s as ifwe watched two DIFFERENT campaigns.

“You give theAmerican voter too little credit if you believe that they can't see through thebias of any media source. Convincing the media isn't the problem, it'sconvincing the voter.”…TonyB

Idon’t believe for a minute that it is a case of “convincing” the media.  It is simply a fact that the media is liberal,and that they have given up their journalistic integrity on most of thenetworks and in most of the newspapers. They are simply willing to say or do anything to get a liberal candidateelected.