GOP Needs Better Message and Machinery

Gerald Seib interview with Karl Rove video at the link.


  1. wholefoodsrepublican
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    here’s the message!

    Democrats push to redeploy Obama’s voter database

    By Craig Timberg and Amy Gardner, Updated: Tuesday, November 20, 6:22 AM

    If you voted this election season, President Obama almost certainly has a file on you. His vast campaign database includes information on voters’ magazine subscriptions, car registrations, housing values and hunting licenses, along with scores estimating how likely they were to cast ballots for his reelection.

    And though the election is over, Obama’s database is just getting started.

    Democrats are now pressing to expand and redeploy the most sophisticated voter list in American political history, beginning with next year’s gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey and extending to campaigns for years to come. The prospect already has some Republicans worried.

    “It’s always hard to play catch-up,” said Peter Pasi, a Republican direct marketer who worked on Rick Santorum’s primary challenge to Romney. “It can be done by 2016. I’m much more doubtful it can happen by 2014.”

    The database consists of voting records and political donation histories bolstered by vast amounts of personal but publicly available consumer data, say campaign officials and others familiar with the operation, which was capable of recording hundreds of fields for each voter.

    Campaign workers added far more detail through a broad range of voter contacts — in person, on the phone, over e-mail or through visits to the campaign’s Web site. Those who used its Facebook app, for example, had their files updated with lists of their Facebook friends along with scores measuring the intensity of those relationships and whether they lived in swing states. If their last names seemed Hispanic, a key target group for the campaign, the database recorded that, too.

    The result was a digital operation far more elaborate than the one mounted by Obama’s Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who collected less data and deployed it less effectively, say officials from both parties.

    To maintain their advantage, Democrats say they must guard against the propensity of political data to deteriorate in off years, when funding and attention dwindles, while navigating the inevitable intra-party squabbles over who gets access now that the unifying forces of a billion-dollar presidential campaign are gone.

    “If this is all we do with this technology, I think it will be a wasted opportunity,” said Michael Slaby, the campaign’s chief integration and innovation officer.

    Tests of whether Obama’s database can be successfully redeployed will come even sooner. Virginia Democrat Terry McAuliffe, a party insider who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2009, already has inquired about the data for his gubernatorial campaign next year, say those familiar with the conversations.

    “We have been communicating to Obama For America all along about the importance of receiving that data, since Virginia has a 2013 election,” said Brian Moran, the outgoing chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party.

    Though McAuliffe is an early frontrunner, many in the party say individual candidates should get access to such data only after winning the nomination — something that in Virginia can’t happen before the June primary, leaving only a few months before the November general election. The short time frame may make a full data set, should McAuliffe get it, even more valuable.

    All the party’s candidates have access to the lists kept by the party, which includes voting and donation histories along with some consumer data. What Obama’s database adds are the more fine-grained analyses of what issues matter most to voters and how best to motivate them to donate, volunteer and vote.

    But there are serious logistical challenges to handling a database of the size and sophistication of Obama’s, which is why campaign officials are debating how to proceed even though there is wide agreement on the desire to help fellow Democrats and like-minded independent groups.

    Slaby, the campaign official, said the database might go to the Democratic National Committee or Obama’s presidential library committee once it gets established. Or, he said, it could go to some other new group created specifically to nurture and deploy the database most effectively. No existing group currently has the technical resources to properly manage the data that Obama assembled, he said.

    Slaby added, “A lot of this will rest on him and what he wants his legacy and the legacy of this organization to mean.”

    The database powered nearly everything about Obama’s campaign, from fundraising to the identification of likely supporters to motivating them to the polls on election day. This resulted in an operational edge that helped a candidate with a slim margin in the overall national vote to trounce Romney in the state-by-state electoral college contests.

    Obama was able to collect and use personal data largely free of the restrictions that govern similar efforts by private companies. Neither the Federal Trade Commission, which has investigated the handling of personal data by Google, Facebook and other companies, nor the Federal Election Commission have jurisdiction over how campaigns use such information, officials at those agencies say.

    Privacy advocates say the opportunity for abuse — by Obama, Romney or any other politician’s campaign — is serious, as is the danger of hackers stealing the data. Voters who willingly gave such information to campaigns may not have understood that it would be passed onward to the party or to other candidates, even though disclosures on Web sites and Facebook apps warn of that possibility.

    Chris Soghoian, an ACLU analyst and former FTC technologist, said voters should worry that the interests of politicians and commercial data brokers have aligned, making legal restrictions of data collection less likely.

    “They’re going to be loath to regulate those companies if they are relying on them to target voters,” he said.

    Slaby said the campaign took great care with the data it collected and would ensure that whoever takes it over continues to protect it. Such efforts, though, take unusual resources, he said. Building the campaign’s technological systems took nearly two years and, at its peak, involved about 120 paid staffers working with data provided by hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

    Republicans once held the edge in using technology to identify and motivate voters. After Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) lost to President George W. Bush in 2004, Democrats invested in building better voter lists and in developing a new generation of political operatives skilled in the science of persuasion and motivation.

    Obama’s 2008 election was hailed for its technological sophistication, and especially its use of social media to cultivate energized communities of volunteers. But campaign officials now acknowledge that the operation fell far short of its hype.

    With the benefit of four years of lead time, the campaign was determined to make better use of increasingly sophisticated technologies. Driving this was Obama’s data-minded campaign manager, Jim Messina. Among his mentors was Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, who was a regular visitor to what many have said resembled an Internet start-up company within the Chicago campaign headquarters.

    The campaign invested heavily in engineers and technologists, including many who had never worked in politics before, and used Amazon Web Services to host the voter database on its cloud servers. The key was a program the campaign built — called Narwhal after a predatory whale whose single tusk makes it look a bit like a fat, finned unicorn — that consolidated lists of voters and donors, often collected over years by state party officials and campaigns.

    Narwhal allowed related pieces of software, such as those used by field organizers and call center workers, to both draw on the information in the voter database and continually update it.

    Slaby and others from the campaign said that while it relied on detailed analyses of cable television viewing habits and Web site traffic, personal information from those sources was made anonymous and did not flow back into the voter database.

    The most important information, officials said, was provided by voters themselves whenever they had contact with the campaign, in person or online, enriching the database with e-mail addresses, cellphone numbers and, crucially, information about what issues most concerned them.

    This allowed the campaign’s analysts to test the effectiveness of messages aimed at narrow demographic slices — single women in their 30s worried about health care, for example. Though often described as “microtargeting,” Slaby said the most important element was what he called “micro-listening.”

    “If people tell us they’re interested in cats, we probably took that down,” he said.

    Despite some glitches, Narwhal proved crucial in helping the campaign allocate resources, especially as voting finally began.

    The Romney’s campaign computer system, which officials there dubbed Orca after one of the few known predators of narwhals, crashed so badly on Election Day that many Republicans have derisively rechristened it “the Fail Whale.” The term was popularized by users of Twitter, which showed a cartoon image of a flock of birds attempting to lift a smiling, chubby whale when the company’s systems were overmatched.

    • Dave
      Posted November 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      There was an article about the failure of the Romney GOTV a few days ago. In that article it mentioned that servers at the Garden crashed and then Comcast (who owns NBC) pulled the plug on the internet connection supposedly thinking it was an outside hack on their servers or some lame excuse like that. Overall, the article indicated there was simply too much data for the servers at the Garden and Comcast wasn’t bashful about shutting it down. Next time the GOP should make sure they run their election headquaters in a state and city you know you’re going to win comfortably and the people providing your internet aren’t corrupt partisans like Comcast.

  2. Billy Butch 2.0
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve contacted multiple GOP groups and the response to date is…crickets.

  3. Kevin Paradine
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I think the Bushes were right to sit the Romney campaign out, in large part. Rove was foolish to tie himself so closely to the campaign. I’m a Karl Rove fan but I think less of him after this debacle.

  4. MikeN
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Bigger problems than that. Romney during the convention was focused on securing his reelection with rules changes. One of those is that the national committee can change the rules between conventions. In the House, John Boehner kept conservatives out of the leadership. Everywhere you see the party establishment is more interested in fighting conservatives than in fighting Democrats.

    • Conservatives
      Posted November 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      And that works both ways

      We stuck it to the RNC real good by staying home or voting 3rd party and letting Obama win with his reduced turnout

      • MikeN
        Posted November 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

        That’s not who stayed home. The problem was a moderate to conservative Republican campaign that played nice. I’m convinced Santorum would have won Ohio, Gingrich would have won Ohio, and Perry would have won Ohio.

  5. Prescient11
    Posted November 20, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Karl Rove’s SuperPAC was an epic fucking failure. At every level.

    Why again is this man considered a “genius”?

    I give him a good GOTV effort in Ohio in 2004. And that’s all.

    Anyone else?

    • Barf
      Posted November 20, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Agree, Rove is an idiot.

    • wholefoodsrepublican
      Posted November 20, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      where are the computer hackers and computer whizzes from hedge funds or military to help our country out?
      if they are going to accuse of us of “running the country” “running the economy” — i want it to be 🙂

  6. me
    Posted November 21, 2012 at 12:20 am | Permalink | Reply

    Rove was never good. He opposes real conservatives, and has since at least 1976. He also did not help the Swift Boaters out in 2004, yet took credit for the win. He ran a historic failure on the S. PACs in part due to his faulty thinking on messaging effectiveness. The GOP does not need Dinosaurs like him…

    • Posted November 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      he’s not an idiot, his method and ideas are just outdated. He opposes real conservatives because face it a real conservative like Santorum, Bachman, etc would have lost by double digits. Our side has to divorce the hardcore right wing religious hacks.

      Rove’s premise of a GOTV campaign is a great one….but at this time in this modern era it sound be the back up system. Rove’s relied more on person to person, knocing on doors, etc. Obama’s was more digital and moder with some personal touches incorporated. The GOP needs to combine the two for a killer GOTV 2016. 2012 SHOULD serve as a wake up call that another faulure like this will be long term doom.

      Upside of Rove being so publically ridiculed is he is th elast tie to the Bush era and hopefully by 2016 here cant be any “BUSH ERA” BS

      • Barf
        Posted November 21, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

        Whatever dude, I hate your label of Christians..yes, white Christian people as…”right wing religious hacks.” Keep it up, you’ll NEVER, EVER win a national election without the Christian Right. Moan all you want, i don’t care, they were the reason Bush 43 won, both times. They sat home in many states this year because Romney was a LIBERAL! A social liberal. Divorce the Christian Right at your own peril..GOP! Did you support Ron Paul? I don’t think the GOP will win a presidential election again for a long time. I am happy to keep the Congress and regain the Senate. Yes, Karl Rove is a dolt and a monster.

      • Posted November 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

        no the religious right did not sit at home this year. That has been pretty much disproven. Besides do we really want to cater to a group of dipshits that would sit at home and not vote gauranteeing Obama who believes in probably 1% of what they do vs. voting for Romney who was at least 50% of what they wanted?
        The right wing religious sect of the population is dwindling just as the white majority is. Perhaps divorce is too strong of a word….but at the minimum the GOP has to take the shackles and chains off their wrists and feet that are attached to the yoke of the religious right. Bush was an anomoly. in 2000 he didn’t win the popular vote. In 2004 Kerry sucked, we were at war, the economy was good and people still truest him over 9-11. Evalgelicals was a Bush/Rove invention in the 90’s. Just too late to save his dad and because poppy bush would not bow and cater to them.

        We have to expand. I am not advocating being pro abortion, anti gun, wild spenders….but we have to bend and adapt. The country is changing. And right now we are 48% which is not enough to win. We have to appeal . And with dumb asses like Santorum, Bachman, etc looking at running again…unless we unshackle ourselves we are lost. Tea Party was great before they were over taken by the religious nuts.

      • Derclaw86
        Posted November 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

        White evangelicals were 23% of the electorate in 2004, versus 26% in 2012. The difference is that in 2004, there were more non-evangelicals who were at least sympathetic to traditional values. Today, in our more secular society, more people are now more hostile towards evangelicals and their values. I am not saying we should abandon evangelicals, they are still an important part of our coalition. However, they should not be the ONLY part of it, nor should our campaign be centered strictly around their concerns. Instead, we need to win in the suburbs, where the GOP used to run up really big numbers, during the 1980’s.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

        That’s what I propose, it’s a simple solution. Personally I can hold very conservative social values. But so what.

        It has nothing to do with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. We want the FEDERAL government out of everyone’s lives, so questions as to my views on abortion, gay marriage, etc., are irrelevant to any policies I would implement.

        I will not use American taxpayers money to fund abortions and that pretty much sums it up.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 22, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        It’s not Catholics or evangelicals who stayed home. Looking at Ohio, the places that really were weak for Romney had lots of religious voters, conservative voters, but not really solid Republicans. They were very receptive to he’s not one of us. What was needed was not a socially conservative candidate, but a socially conservative campaign, which Romney ignored putting all his chips on economics. Giuliani would have won those areas easily.

  7. Prescient11
    Posted November 21, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink | Reply

    Reagan had a great piece that was republished in NRO after the Barry Goldwater defeat.

    He closed with the statement that perhaps the leadership/generals that led us into this defeat need to be changed for the next time around.

    Reagan was literally the best President of the 20th century. Hands down! As much as I like TR (a little conflict there I know).

    • Barf
      Posted November 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Absolutely he was. We will never see another one like him. Unfortunately, the demographics have changed. I don’t see the GOP winning unless they become a party of handouts like the Democrats. The U.S. is a sinking ship and the makers will eventually leave this country to go overseas. It will be nothing but takers and a country like Mexico.

      • Posted November 21, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

        there has been a pole shift in the ideals of Americans. A Reagan can win again. A moral man, with a vision and a idea and and the ability to articulate them to all Americans will win every time.

        I dont think we have to leap over the cliff to the party of handouts. But we have to be able to explain CLEARER and more sincere why those handouts are anchors around their necks, not a stepping stone to greatness and success.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink


        I tend to agree with Shane. This country always has been about hard work. That’s what we need to stress. And the idea that we can’t afford these handouts. THAT NEEDS TO BE DRIVEN HOME.

        Take all of the rich people’s shit, and we’re still screwed. Limited government/more freedom. That is by far the winning message.

    • wholefoodsrepublican
      Posted November 22, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      2012 is not 1980. and 2016 will not be like 2000. face up — the demographics are changing — more latinos. more people getting government handouts. and the media is now completely a tool of the democrat party.
      things change. that is for sure

  8. Prescient11
    Posted November 21, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    In other words Barf, keep your head up. We ain’t sunk yet…

    • Barf
      Posted November 21, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Going over the fiscal cliff might be a good thing. Tough love for the moochers. I don’t think we’ve seen the last on Benghazi. Why Romney never used it against BO is a mystery.

      • Conservatives
        Posted November 21, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

        Domestic policy always comes first.

        Democrats tried to use Iraq against Bush and failed.

        The strongest point for Romney was the economy and if that didn’t work nothing would

        He lost due to free stuff, racist minorities and moronic SoCons with “principles” who want a perfect candidate and would have refused to vote for Jesus because he associated with tax collectors

  9. me
    Posted November 22, 2012 at 12:01 am | Permalink | Reply

    You make them come to you, you do not change YOUR values to convenience. This one difference between the left and right explains the reason behind their success over the past 60+ years vs ours.

    We lost for not making the arguments and defending them whole cloth without apology. Just as Ted Cruz recently noted…

  10. me
    Posted November 22, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink | Reply

    If I hear one more supposed rightist claim that “we need to emphasize social issues LESS and downplay Evangelicals and such members of our traditional base, the foot soldier heart and soul of the GOP, I will puke. Please. For the love of Venus, you do NOT win by SUBTRACTION or FEAR. The left, if they lose an election, despite having several in many ways disparate factions making up their total coalition/base, never cannibalizes themselves by one segment attacking another and assigning blame over their pet values. No wonder we are losing. Somehow fi-con geniuses in our party come to the brilliant conclusion that we need to win by pissing off prolifers and other social cons, instead of having BOTH fi-cons AND so-cons and then branching out to gain other indies, which is the only way we can actually win. No wonder we are called the Stupid Party. The left would never downplay abortion or gay marriage, no matter what the current polls on those issues show, because they smart enough to know that they only win if they can make AMERICA accept THEIR views on those issues, not pander and destroy their own base with NOW and PP and other pro-choicers. Amazing this has to be explained to anyone on our side. Stuck on stupid?

    • Derclaw86
      Posted November 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      In the 90’s and early 2000’s, the left downplayed gay rights, abortion, and other social issues because traditional values were still in favor with large parts of the population, even with many non-evangelicals. Today, that is no longer the case. We live in a society where traditional marriage rates are in decline. For the first time ever, Protestants are no longer a majority of our population. The Assemblies of God, one of the largest Pentacostal denominations, has stated that roughly 85% of their young church-goers will abandon the church when they turn eighteen. We are a more single and a more secular nation. We cannot afford to make social issues the center-piece of our platform, because we will increasingly offend a larger and growing part of the electorate. This does not mean that we abandon our traditional values. We simply must realize that showcasing them can no longer win national elections.

    • Dave
      Posted November 26, 2012 at 12:53 am | Permalink | Reply

      “BOTH fi-cons AND so-cons and then branching out to gain other indies, which is the only way we can actually win. ”

      This is nice rhetoric but impractical because the so called so con’s won’t accept it. They don’t understand the word compramise and the concept of team. They only understand my way or the highway and that’s what people are bitching about. And the fact that you can’t seem to grasp that underscores the point. I’m all for getting the So Con vote as long as they’re willing to listen to a moderate social message. But so far they haven’t been. The problem is the majority of Americans, the middle of America, are put off by the militant Christian’s zeal to impose their religious values on every one else.

  11. BIG TENT
    Posted November 22, 2012 at 7:03 am | Permalink | Reply

    Bottom line– GOP marketing, and Politicing Sucks! They don’t know how to walk and chew gum at the same time. How the democrats cater to Unions and Illegals at the same time?, Blacks and Latinos It’s nice that Barak Looks like either, Jews and Islamists, Rich white elites and poor inner city folk. I mean come on people! It’s all about the images, the messaging, the control of the media and the schools and universities and hollywood. For crying out loud it’s not policy!

    Lets keep the policies we know will help freedom and our way of life. And yes And…. Lets find a way to sell our party to new people. And lets have a big tent. HUGE TENT for marketing and lets leave our policies where they belong–on the right!

  12. me
    Posted November 22, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Just remember marketing and expanding does NOT mean jettisoning principles, either on fiscal conservatism OR social conservatism. You get others to agree with you by arguing the same core positions in ways that are easier to communicate and are instructive, such as Rubio’s comments about making poorer people richer is not achieved by making richer people poorer.

    We need imaging and marketing and talking points refinements, not value or soul search changes!

  13. No Tribe
    Posted November 22, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Turns out that Romney got more votes than McCain. Is now over 60M:

    He’s also just about to fall below 47.5, which would mean he gets stuck with the 47% number with rounding off.

  14. No Tribe
    Posted November 22, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Next election, GOP must take PA. It shouldn’t be that difficult, as Obama will not be on the ballot to turn out the AA vote inside Philly. Same thing in Ohio, for Cleveland. There is no 3-2-1 in ’16, just 3: FL, OH, PA.

    • Barf
      Posted November 23, 2012 at 8:36 am | Permalink | Reply

      I thought about lobbying my state to break up the electoral votes by congressional districts. I live in southern Virginia. Why should the liberal Northern Virginia decide the state? Southern Virginia has no voice. Makes me angry.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 23, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

        Both parties lose relatively equally in that scenario. There are segments of the South that would vote Democrat – a chain running from NC to Arkansas, heavily black. Similarly, there are segments of the Northeast that would vote Republican. The upstate part of NY is mostly red, for instance. If you just accept that this is true nationwide, your vote is being heard and the election result wouldn’t change.

  15. Kevin Paradine
    Posted November 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Someone in the Republican party who isn’t an idiot.

    • Dave
      Posted November 26, 2012 at 1:01 am | Permalink | Reply

      And he’s leaving. LOL.

  16. jason valerius
    Posted November 23, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Thought Experiment for the GOP Leadership:

    What would be easier for the party of small government, improving performance among big government traditon Hispanics by 25%, or among limited government tradition whites by 2%? Assuming a static level of support form other demographics, either way gets you to victory.

    Trying to get signifcantly more Hispanic votes by jettisoning core principles is going to cost the Republicans more votes among people who share those principles than it is likely to get among people who have been conditioned to view the Republican Party as racist and who don’t share those core principles. Is this concept really so difficult to grasp?

    The great majority of Hispanics (~71%) don’t want limited government; they come from cultures where a dominant central government run by socialist parties is a way of life. Many of them like living in the US precisely because of the entitlements Republicans want to limit. Granting amnesty to 20 million new voters in this demographic would be electoral suicide for Republicans.

    Obviously, attracting white working class voters whose interests no one is defending would be immensely easier than trying to out pander Democrats with immigrants. Here is the winning strategy: Propose a freeze on immigration (with the exceptions for O-1s and E-B5s) until the unemployment rate drops below 4%.

    This would be a brilliant way to attract working class voters while at the same time legitimizing immigration restrictions as something other than racist. The Democrats would be stuck having to choose support for immigration over the interests of American workers, thus delivering Ohio, Pennsylvania and possibly Michigan to the Republicans.

  17. Deborah
    Posted November 26, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink | Reply

    I came across this website while doing a google search on an unrelated matter about the election and want to say a few things after reading some of the comments on this site. First let me say that I am female, white, single, a registered independent, do not get any free stuff, and voted for Obama. I am to the left of center on social issues and to the right of center of fiscal issues. Although you may not want to hear a word of what I’m about to say, here is why the Republicans lost in my opinion.

    The far right wing – not conservatives but the far right very loud vocal wing of your party has turned folks like me off. Screaming that women on birth control are sluts and whores while no one in the Republican party stood up against such rhetoric turned off women. Banning abortions even in the case of rape is too far right for most men and women alike. Right wing radio and the Fox news crowd constantly demeaning hispanics and blacks, calling them moochers and criminals isn’t going to turn those groups to your party. It also didn’t help that some states run by Republicans tried to cut down on early voting – as blacks took that (fairly or not) as an attempt to keep them from voting. The Republcans act as if they only care about helping millionaires and billionaires while trying to cut budgets that help the poor. Republicans said little to nothing to help the middle class during the election cycle. All I hear on Fox and from Republican leadership is how the wealthy shouldn’t be taxed. They seem to have contempt for everyone else. Romney didn’t appeal to the middle class at all.

    The bottom line is that people that voted for Obama did not do so becuase they think he’s wonderful. He isn’t. They voted for him because they have become so turned off by what the Republican party has become, that they can no longer identify with it.

    Until the Republicans get the ultra far right wing flame throwers out of their party, or at least tone down their rhetoric, I do not see the party winning future national elections. When you demean and bash every group of people except for white men, you are not going to win national elections, period.

    I know most of you don’t want to hear what I just said, but it sums up why folks like me didn’t vote Republican, and we won’t vote Republican again until the nasty rhetoric and tone changes to a more civil way of speaking about those with whom you disagree.

    Thank you for your time and I apologize this post was so lengthy.

    • Kevin
      Posted November 27, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The so called “far right” is not the “far right” like you have been told they are, they are Conservatives. The “far right” label is used by Democrats and their allies in the media to scare people from the Conservatives in the GOP.

      “Screaming that women on birth control are sluts and whores while no one in the Republican party stood up against such rhetoric turned off women.”

      First off, Rush called her a slut for one reason, and one reason only. Fluke testified before Congress that she spends over $1,000 a year on contraception, and that her expenses should be covered under Health Care. Rush made the point that women’s contraception is very affordable at Wal Mart, and that her personal behavior shouldn’t be covered under any Health Care plan. If she wants contraception, she can pay for it for herself. He added, and I’m paraphrasing, “if she spends that much on contraception in one year says he’s a slut.” He didn’t call her a slut to call her one, he used her personal behavior and her cost of contraception as example to his conclusion. Wrong or right, that’s the context of his comment.

      “Banning abortions even in the case of rape is too far right for most men and women alike.”

      When people stand for the protection of innocent life, that’s not a “far right” position. There’s something called the Innocent Project, I’m sure you’ve heard of it. Lawyers take cases of those who have been wrongly convicted, and they help them with their cases. Why is that good, but having an Innocent Project for unborn children, children who don’t have a voice or a choice be bad?

      “Right wing radio and the Fox news crowd constantly demeaning hispanics and blacks, calling them moochers and criminals isn’t going to turn those groups to your party.”

      Please give one example where someone came out and said that Hispanics and blacks are moochers and criminals? Site that source for me, provide a link. Again, something you’ve been told about Conservative radio that doesn’t exist. Radio host have talked about able body individuals that have been on welfare for life, and are not making an effort to obtain employment. They have also discussed the record number of Hispanics that are on welfare in California, and in other states. (Stating facts is the new racism in the Politically Correct America) There was also recent discussions how Homeland Security was running ads on Hispanic media advertising how easy it is to obtain Food Stamps.

      If someone on Fox News ever came out and called blacks or Hispanics moocher or criminals they would be off the air. Instead of making up charges against those you don’t like, try providing facts, documentation, and evidence. Smear and slander doesn’t equal evidence and proof.

      “It also didn’t help that some states run by Republicans tried to cut down on early voting – as blacks took that (fairly or not) as an attempt to keep them from voting.”

      Early voting has been used by Democrats as a political weapon to keep backing up the voting dates. It’s not unreasonable, (fairly or not) to have everyone vote on the same day.

      “The Republicans act as if they only care about helping millionaires and billionaires while trying to cut budgets that help the poor.”

      Using the phrase “millionaires and billionaires” is evidence that you’ve been listening to one too many Obama speeches, which are nothing more than Democrat/media talking points. Those so millionaires and billionaires are people that provide jobs to the public. They’re paying the highest Corporate Tax Rate in the world. In addition, the only part of the budget that would be cut to “help the poor” is to phase people off of the dependency of the Government, and make them self dependent individuals by allowing tax cuts to corporations, so they can hire more people, which in turn expands opportunity for Americans.

      Study what Greece has done by allowing people to become dependent upon the Government, and their solution to pay for more for the dependency was to raise taxes, since the “millionaires and billionaires” weren’t paying their “fair share”. Those who had wealth weren’t in the business to provide to have half of their earnings confiscated by the Government, so they left Greece. Freedom to move is such a nice option. Now Greece finds themselves with taxes, yet they still have their public dependent upon the Government.

      “Republicans said little to nothing to help the middle class during the election cycle.”

      Lowering taxes on all Americans wouldn’t help the middle class? I guess you weren’t paying attention to Romney’s speeches because that’s what he proposed. He also proposed giving tax breaks to small business, so they can have more money to invest into their companies. He also discussed approving the Keystone Pipeline which would have created thousands of good paying jobs. He also discussed allowing drilling off of coasts that would, created more good paying jobs. If that isn’t trying to help the Middle Class, then I don’t know what is.

      “All I hear on Fox and from Republican leadership is how the wealthy shouldn’t be taxed. They seem to have contempt for everyone else.”

      Here again, you’re making stuff up. No one on Fox News or in the Republican leadership has ever said the wealthy shouldn’t be taxed. They have expressed concern how the wealthy, the job creators, are paying a very high rate in taxes, and asking where does the rate end. Your proof and documentation about “they seem to have contempt for everyone else” is them saying what? Again, either you’re making stuff up, or you’re hearing what you want to hear since you don’t like them to begin with.

      “Romney didn’t appeal to the middle class at all.”

      Again, you’re making stuff up, or you didn’t listen to any of Romney’s speeches. Read two paragraphs up, and I’ll prove you wrong again.

      “When you demean and bash every group of people except for white men, you are not going to win national elections, period.”

      Demeaning and bashing every group except white men? And who is doing this? Since you clearly don’t listen to talk radio, and hear what you want to hear on Fox News, I guess you’ve never heard the criticism of Harry Reid for his failure to help pass a balanced budget. I guess you’ve never heard of the criticism of Joe Biden, and how he is a gaff machine. I guess you’ve never heard the criticism of Senator Dick Durban and how he smeared our troops comparing them to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, and Pol Pot.

      Speaking of demeaning and bashing every group, are you as outraged and upset at the filth that comes out of Bill Mahers mouth? Did you get upset when he referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt? Did you get upset when Ed Schultz referred to Laura Ingraham as a “right wing talk slut”? Did you get upset when David Letterman said that Sarah Palin’s 14 year old daughter was getting knocked up by Alex Rodriguez?

      Have you said, until the Democrats get the ultra far left wing flame throwers out of their party, or at least tone down their rhetoric, you do not see the party winning future national elections? Of course you haven’t, you just pick and choose your outrage.

      “but it sums up why folks like me didn’t vote Republican, and we won’t vote Republican again until the nasty rhetoric and tone changes to a more civil way of speaking about those with whom you disagree.”

      Before you lecture anyone about “tone down their rhetoric” you may want to examine, and denounce what the Democrats and their supporters have said about Conservatives. Until you do that, you have no credibility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: