Republican Crybabies

For the past week, I’ve been ass-deep in the election, and in the aftermath.  A few things have become apparent.  First, the political dynamic in this country is swerving toward permanent Democrat control based on everything I see.  Second, the dynamic is due to a whole host of factors, which I covered in my prior post to the GOP on how to stop this insane slide.  Third, the GOP isn’t learning shit from this election, based on the people I’ve dealt with online.  So I’ll give them one more message:

Fucking suck it up and figure out why you lost rather than playing the 0bama game of blaming other people (usually Bush) for your fuckups.

First, you did not lose because of Ron Paul.  You lost because you pushed out him, and all his supporters, and all the people who wanted to stay in the GOP but didn’t fall in line with the party mantra.  You did this in the debates.  You did this in the primaries.  You did this at the convention.  Those are the times that the party can, and should be having discussions as to direction, and dissent is absolutely necessary, and compromise is reached.  I will admit there are a few of the Paulistas that would have bailed no matter what, but they’re the ones that have been wearing the tinfoil hats for decades.  They don’t matter.  The majority of us do.

Second, the Tea Party, the Ron Paul Republicans, the little l libertarians, and the social conservatives all agree that larger government is a bad thing.  So why did the GOP end up with the poster child for big government conservatism?  And why didn’t these disparate groups force Romney’s had when he did get in there?  Is it an assumption that 0bama was such a spectacular failure of a piece of shit that all you had to do was slap some moderate in with an R and we’d all accept that?  Romney may have been better, but there was not a clear sign that he was.

Third, on election day, you didn’t have the ground game.  I got a lot of mailers saying Democrats suck, vote Republican.  But that was all.  And that, again, is not enough to create real enthusiasm for your candidate.  And when I brought the weakness of the candidate up on right wing blogs?  I got told to suck it up and vote 0bama out.  no one tried to persuade my how Romney would fix the problems, and how he was substantively different on things that mattered (the size and scope of government).

Fourth, after the election, you go on attack, not against Marxism, which the people voted for, but against people who are allies in the fight against it that you pissed off.  And that you were warned you were pissing off.  That’s a great way to start rebuilding after you got your asses kicked.

So let me give you an example of how to do things right.  For that, we go with the most successful Republican candidate of my life, Ronald Reagan.  He understood a few things about uniting people and winning elections.  First of all, it takes a big tent to win national elections.  That means placating people with different motives and different philosophies, finding commonality, and convincing them to band together to win.  He understood that third parties, which are more inevitable now in the information age, can destroy any chances of victory (this is primarily why I’m still a little l libertarian).

So, as we go along, it’s time to make peace with the people who can help you win in 2014 and 2016 (and beyond).  It’s time to analyze what you did wrong to lose the election.  and it’s time to fight like hell for the next two years, in any way you can, against the real enemy, because we’re about to find out if the country can survive the mistakes it has made.


About patrickmspeaks

Father, tech-head, political sage, and the Illustrious One of (little) 3x2 fame, I have been blogging for a few years now, and want to stretch in new directions, discover new things, and redefine redefining just for the fun of it. Nonetheless, having produced a pointless paragraph about me, I'll stop before something bursts.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Republican Crybabies

  1. “So why did the GOP end up with the poster child for big government conservatism?”

    Because there are more republican big government conservatives than little government conservatives as evidenced by their selection of Romney. He had the biggest tent. It just wasn’t big enough.

  2. Have to disagree on the big tent here, because the Romney camp did so many things to exclude entire segments. The treatment of the Paul delegates up to and including the convention pushed the libertarians away. His stated immigration stance was as bad, if not worse than Obama’s actual, but the GOP became associated with building fences to keep the Mexicans out, so he lost the hispanic vote. And the aborto-obsessive comments of Republicans continues to push women away. And there’s the gay community, the black community, etc. Some of these are idiotic perception issues (don’t get me started on the blacks’ statistically monolithic support of Democrats, because I’ll get myself in trouble), but a lot of them are of the GOP’s own making. In short, these divisive little things are carving up what should be a liberty-minded coalition.

  3. When I said “he had the biggest tent”, I meant among the republican contenders. His tent still was not as big as Obama’s, and ,yes, he certainly could have been more inclusive which, however, would have generally moved him closer to the Democrats and away from conservative republicans.

  4. Not necessarily. It would have definitely meant moving away from social conservatism (which is horribly exclusive), but economically, the GOP has been moving toward big government mediocrity for a while. And even on the social conservative front, it’s a matter of recognizing what should be fought (ex. fighting 0bamacare’s attacks on religious liberty), what is an issue that is losing in polls (ex. gay marriage and marijuana, which are now legal in several states), and those issues that have to be won in other arenas (the abortion issue).

    The biggest problem is that the GOP (and the Dems, but screw them) is locked in the left/right mindset, which doesn’t allow for differentiation between what really matters (limiting the size and scope of government) and what is debatable (social conservatism and libertarianism should agree economically, but it’s a war when it comes to the social issues).

    So the question is, should the GOP ease up on the social issues (but not abandon them) and focus (like the early Tea Party) on the economic and limited government issues that will kill us as a nation?

  5. Right or wrong aside, limited government is a losing proposition at this time. It will take a booming economy and full employment to sell it to a majority of the American people, and even then it will be a hard sell.

  6. If limited government is a losing proposition, and it will take a booming economy and full employment (which we cannot achieve until we can stop the constant encroachment of government that is causing it), we are so utterly boned.

    But then again, nobody in the GOP (outside of the maybe 6-7 Ron Paul-leaning candidates) has really tried.

Comments are closed.