November 7, 2012

Rounding Up the Reax

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 12:30 pm

I’m still processing, so I’ll post others’ comments throughout the afternoon.


Mark Levin“Tyranny won last night. … It happened, and it’s terrible.” Listen to the whole thing. I insist.


Ace — “Ten Reasons Why Romney Lost.” Read the whole thing. I insist. His conclusion: “He (Romney) walked into the same trap McCain did, and suffered the same result.”

Roger Simon — Obama got “a boost from a Republican governor more interested in his own survival than the country’s.” More: ” The enemies of democracy are laughing. There is only one thing left to do: roll up our sleeves. All the way.”

Rush Limbaugh

  • “According to the exit polls, only four in ten voters thought the economy’s getting better, and they voted for Obama. What? Scratch your head. According to the exit polls, in addition to that, just 25% of voters thought they’re better off financially today than they were four years ago, and they still voted for Obama.”
  • “A lot of it doesn’t make sense until you accept that we have allowed the understanding of what creates prosperity in this country to be blown up into smithereens.”
  • “(The government and country’s fiscal and economic collapse) will continue and continue until it collapses. It could happen in 18 months; it could happen in three years. But if nothing changes the track we are on, we are facing a financial collapse. And as we’ve seen in Greece and Spain, the people that live there don’t care that their countries are collapsing. They just want their pensions, and they want their checks, and they want their union contracts to continue to be paid. They don’t care what’s happening to their government. They don’t care what’s happening to the country. They don’t care who’s paying for it. By God, it better not stop. The same thing will happen here.” … “The only way the average Obama voter is gonna care about that is if it’s gonna personally interrupt the flow of goodies, income, or whatever that he’s getting from government.”

More from Rush:

There’s one option that still hasn’t been tried in a long time. It’s called conservatism with a capital C. It still hasn’t been tried. This was not a conservative campaign. It was a good campaign, I don’t want anybody misunderstanding me here ’cause I think Mitt Romney is one of the best people, human beings I’ve ever met. … But I’m telling you: We’re gonna have to go back and redefine how prosperity happens in this country. And conservatism and the Constitution are the best way to do this!

Glenn Beck — “We are going to double down.”

David Horowitz, in an email — “What lies ahead is not only an opportunity to change the course on which we are headed but a solemn obligation to our children and to ourselves. ”


Ron Fournier (formerly of AP), at the National Journal“If the president begins his second term under any delusion that voters rubber-stamped his agenda on Tuesday night, he is doomed to fail.”

Michael Barone (“Two Americas “) at National Review — “The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.”

Jonathan Last — “I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again: In terms of political ability, Mitt Romney is not only the worst major-party nominee since World War II (at least), but his weaknesses were particularly ill-suited to this particular race. This isn’t to say that Romney had no chance of winning. But I’d argue he had the worst chance of any of the major candidates in the 2012 field.”

Krauthammer — “I think the real story here is that Obama won but he’s got no mandate. He won by going very small, very negative. We are left as a country exactly where we started, but a little bit worse off.”

At the Hill — “In a warning to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday night that the reelection of the House Republican majority means that there is ‘no mandate for raising tax rates’ on the American people.”

J. Christian Adams, at PJ Media — “When governments gain power, individuals lose freedom. Looking out toward the horizon tonight, I wonder how much more freedom Americans will be willing to surrender.”

Charles Hurt, at the Washington Timesthe Achilles heel of a democracy … (is that) Politicians simply tax those who do not support them and give the money to those who do. Or give the money to those they would like to have support them. It is the end of the line. Game over.”

In a Wall Street Journal editorial — “this is best described as the voters doubling down on hope over experience … the definition of winning ugly.”

Investor’s Business Daily — “… the old “hope and change” of 2008 has devolved into ‘no change.’ The American people, by a slim majority, have chosen to go through four more years of a presidency that doesn’t seem to have a clue about bipartisanship. What’s worse this time is that America has lost four precious years to work out the tax and entitlement reforms it needs to ward off fiscal disaster. Another four years of gridlock brings national bankruptcy that much closer. Then there’s the dead weight of ObamaCare, which will soon hit the economy with full force.”

Adina Kutnicki (“THE DAY LIBERTY DIED…THE WEST TRULY HANGS IN THE BALANCE”) — “(Israeli Officials) fear that the second Obama term will usher in a nuclear-armed Shiite Iran which will quickly reach out to the Sunni Muslim Brothers, starting with Egypt, for a joint bid to terminate the life of the Jewish state.”

Mark Macina at American Thinker (“What Have They Really Won?”) — “So mourn Romney’s loss today, but tomorrow pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off, and carry on. Do what conservatives always do — work hard and thank God for our great nation, which will see better days. Let the other side thank government… as far as that goes. They will be the ones mourning soon enough.”

Hyatt Seligman at American Thinker — “Our newly re-elected, incompetent President is good at one thing: Chicago style politics.  Kill your opponent by character assassination and promise freebies to your base. … the community organizing, empty-suit incumbent won by pandering to the Democratic base and defaming and distorting Romney into an evil caricature. His simple plan of dividing and conquering through fear, envy and class warfare trumped all else, barely. Appeals to race, gender and emotion triumphed over economic reason and self-interest and the good of the country.”

Erick Ericksen at RedState — “Like when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, we now know what happens when a candidate so weak anybody can beat him meets a candidate so weak he cannot beat anybody. Americans vote for the status quo. $6 billion later, Americans voted for the status quo. … The next two years are going to be some of the most fun and exciting years within the modern American conservative movement.” I’m not having fun yet, good buddy.



  1. Kill your opponent by character assassination and promise freebies to your base. … the community organizing, empty-suit incumbent won by pandering to the Democratic base and defaming and distorting Romney into an evil caricature. His simple plan of dividing and conquering through fear, envy and class warfare trumped all else, barely. Appeals to race, gender and emotion triumphed over economic reason and self-interest and the good of the country.”

    I’m hearing talk about how the GOP has to appeal more to Hispanics/Latinos by changing with the times. I have a problem with this thinking of appeal to race. The GOP is not the Party of Race but of Ideas such as Liberty, Free Enterprise and Natural Rights. While Democrats have been successful in framing the GOP as the Party of Whites only, the heritage of Europe where those Whites came from had a tradition they followed and brought with them. IF the GOP is to reframe the “optics” of how they are seen or their message, it can NOT change the core message of what we stand for otherwise there is reason to be a Republican.

    We can not challenge the Democrats by trying to be like them. The point of the challenge is NOT to be like them to give people a clear alternative choice or differentiation. If we have have failed in delivering the message it is because we failed to clearly contrast ourselves from Democrats and properly frame them as the Party of the Special Interest. Our appeal has to be IF you want to participate in the bounty that this country has to offer, you MUST assimilate to become an American. That bounty can not and will not come by some politician taxing others and giving the product of their labor to someone else.

    Like every person who came here from somewhere else, we left there because the opportunities DIDN’T EXIST as it does here. To make that CHANGE you must LEAVE behind the failed paradigm of that birth. The message must be to be an American is to CHANGE yourself and not the country. Opportunity is not what politicians are willing to offer you in benefits but that you are free to be. Most of the people coming here from Latin America are economic immigrants seeking prosperity, our appeal is you must follow the rules by assimilation to become successful. Success is being an American not waiting on a hand out. You must emulate success not wait on it to be given you. Being resentful of the successful will never get you prosperity. Democrats are the Party of Resentment. This is the same message for every special interest group the Democrats have divided their constituency into whether that be Hispanic, Black, Women, etc.

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 7:15 am

  2. Is Demography Destiny?
    by Megan McArdle Nov 7, 2012 8:50 AM EST
    Has the changing composition of the American electorate handed Democrats a permanent majority?

    The Party of Division is not sustainable, but then Democrats have a history of successfully throwing people under the bus when their utility is used up. I.e. Seniors.

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 7:23 am

  3. You can change the message without changing the principles. What I mean by that is that we can better communicate how Conservative ideas appeal to everyone.

    If you’re of African descent or Asian or White or Latino, you still want to put a roof over your head and food on the table. For some of us, that means jobs. For others, it means building a business that provides jobs. When a business has more money to expand, it has more money to hire more people. If you tell that business that it has to give more to each of its employees, it will have fewer employees. What government does affects how many jobs are available for people like you who want to keep their homes and feed their families.

    America was built on the idea that you get to keep what you earn and you can work more to get more. When you earn more and build more, you employ more. Everybody wins when businesses do well.

    Liberals seem to have the idea that lowering taxes on ‘the rich’ means that they take their money out of the system. They don’t connect that when business owners have more money at the end of the month (because the government takes less), they have money with which to hire people to grow their businesses.

    “I’m not going to give you an Administration that will take money from a business that would be better spent hiring hard-working people like you.”

    Comment by GW — November 8, 2012 @ 10:34 am

  4. #3, We have said all that and in so many different ways especially in the last four years that I don’t think the message or how it was delivered is the problem. It’s the people receiving the message, they either don’t care, are incapable of understanding, or committed liberals. We have just have to accept there are large numbers of folks right now who are never going to change now matter how well or effective you deliver your message and that the solution is a long term process of teaching our children and convincing others in the few cases that we can.

    In regards to the Hispanic issue, we’ve reached out to them often and in many different ways for the past 20 years. It didn’t work. It’s not the solution, it’s a dead end.

    Comment by zf — November 8, 2012 @ 11:34 am

  5. What Major Demographic Shift?

    Had Romney (57,425,441) done as well as McCain did in 2008 (59,934,814), he and Obama would have run neck and neck, virtually matching each other’s vote totals. That’s hardly the stuff of demographic ruin.

    The question Republicans and conservatives need to ask is not why voters showed up for Obama, whose turnout wasn’t exactly extraordinary, but why millions of their own voters, people who had pulled the lever for Bush and McCain, didn’t do the same for Romney or simply stayed home.
    Why did Romney get a full 2 million fewer votes than McCain did? Why did those voters pull the lever for McCain, but not for Romney? Who were they, and where did they go? That is what Republican and conservative strategists need to find out.
    Is it possible that Republicans and conservative-leaning independents just weren’t that wild about the guy?

    The bigger question is IF Romney had those two million would any of those have made a difference in the Swing States? If two million extra GOP votes had been cast in (only) all the Blue States, probably not given the lopsided party affiliation in those states. On the other hand, again we need someone to look at the numbers not voted in the Swing States to determine what really happened. VA, FLA, OH, etc. Was it because Romney was Morman? Was it really that bad in the face of Obama’s lack of religious practice? Was this percentage of the GOP vote that sensitive to religious identification? It would have implications for Bobby Jindal as a former Hindu?

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 11:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.