The GOP House Has a Mandate Too

[Pressing-On]

Scotty,
I agree with Thomas Sowell.

"But the Republicans' greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles-- and the track record of those principles-- to either white or non-white voters."

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma.../creators_oped

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Ted Cruz has a mandate and I like it, if he is serious about it. We shall see.

I agree with Cruz.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

So, you think 3 million evangelicals stayed home from voting for a "severe" conservative? I don't think so. They probably just don't like liars. Many voted for Romney for what they hoped he would be, not for what he really was.

We are back to El Numero Uno - Don't call yourself a "severe" conservative when you ain't.

If they can get past that one, we can proceed to El Numero Dos.

Many voted for Romney because they knew they did not want another four years with BO. They knew another four years would be worse than the last four. Romney was a belief of better than BO even knowing it was not what we wanted.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Scotty,
I agree with Thomas Sowell.

"But the Republicans' greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles-- and the track record of those principles-- to either white or non-white voters."

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma.../creators_oped

I would say that applies to the DEMs. I heard almost no agenda from BO, just mud slinging

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

OMG!!!!! - they stayed home because they didn't think the Republicans were going to do anything different and they didn't see much difference in the two candidates. Romney's favorable ratings were among the lowest for a presidential candidate. Why? Because, he flip-flopped so often, you couldn't make heads nor tails of where he really stood or where he would stand once elected. I mean, what in the heck else is there to say, Scot-tay?!!!

But there is a HUGE difference. The stupid part is anyone who cant see that. Now here is my deal, honestly, I don't care about anything but the economy. We can't fix anything else until we fix the economy. Their economic policies are like night and day they are so different. Thats what everyone should have been focused on. I don't care much for Romney either, but when you single out the economy, he should have been a shoo in.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Scotty,
I agree with Thomas Sowell.

"But the Republicans' greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles-- and the track record of those principles-- to either white or non-white voters."

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma.../creators_oped

Still not sure there is a big enough voting block that has the same principles any more. Sad I know.

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by scotty

But there is a HUGE difference. The stupid part is anyone who cant see that. Now here is my deal, honestly, I don't care about anything but the economy. We can't fix anything else until we fix the economy. Their economic policies are like night and day they are so different. Thats what everyone should have been focused on. I don't care much for Romney either, but when you single out the economy, he should have been a shoo in.

Exactly why I voted for Romney.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esther

I would say that applies to the DEMs. I heard almost no agenda from BO, just mud slinging

Obama did articulate an agenda. Doesn't matter if it was a bad one or not, it was a plan.

Romney didn't effectively articulate an economic agenda. Proof of that is in the debate when the young college boy asked about getting a job after he graduated. You can look back at the transcript, which I posted on another thread, and find that he never specifically answered the boy's question. All he said was he knew how to do it, but didn't specify. It was pretty lame and I was kind of surprised by his answer. I was actually waiting for a good answer and sat back with a - WOW - he just did that in a debate - on television - in front of God and all the angels?

The point is that we will always have two choices - income redistribution and economic growth. If you don't put out a specific plan, when asked, you will lose. People will fall back on a cushion if they don't believe they can advance economically on their own.

So, we can say moochers won the day, but it was those wanting what appeared to be a safety net. Romney did a lame job of laying out a principled plan. People were unsure of him.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by scotty

But there is a HUGE difference. The stupid part is anyone who cant see that. Now here is my deal, honestly, I don't care about anything but the economy. We can't fix anything else until we fix the economy. Their economic policies are like night and day they are so different. Thats what everyone should have been focused on. I don't care much for Romney either, but when you single out the economy, he should have been a shoo in.

I did focus on the economy. There is a lot involved and we need to look deeper.

People didn't feel comfortable with him saying he would make personal income tax cuts revenue neutral. IOW, to what extent a program of tax reform/regulatory reform would actually increase economic growth was uncertain and therefore controversial.

I didn't see any clear evidence, from scoring, that Romney would be able to produce. In fact, I read a study that the 12,000 million jobs is going to happen regardless of who is in the WH. So, I figured that Romney knew that information, used the information thinking he would win the WH and then later say, I did what I promised. Not good enough for me.

I can see how he lost the Asian vote. It appeared he was devaluing the dollar even further by something he said in the 59-point plan - “Designate China a currency manipulator and impose countervailing duties” and "Trade that works for America".

Huntsman spoke about the trade wars during the primaries.

HUNTSMAN: Well, first of all, I don't subscribe to the Don Trump school or the Mitt Romney school of international trade. I don't want to find ourselves in a trade war. With respect to China, if you start slapping penalties on them based on countervailing duties, you are going to get the same thing in return because what they are going to say, because of quantitative easing part one and part two, you are doing a similar thing to your currency.

And then you're going to find yourself in a trade war very, very quickly. And what does that do? That disadvantages our small businesses. It disadvantages our exporters. It disadvantages our agricultural producers.

So I say for the first and the second largest economies in the world, we have no choice. We have to find common ground. We have to, of course, use our trade laws and use them very, very aggressively.

But at the end of the day, we have got to find more market opening measures. We have got to get more governors from this country together with governors from provinces of China, mayors together with mayors, and exploit the opportunities that exist for exporters.

That is a job creator in this country. It is a huge job creator. And we have to get used to the fact that as far as the eye can see into the 21st Century, it's going to be the United States and China on the world stage.

He also talked about cutting tax rates while eliminating deductions and likened that to Reagan's '86 tax reform. The only problem is that Reagan brought down, on ordinary income, the top marginal tax rate (from 50% to 28%) only to increase the tax rate on capital gains from 20% to 28%.

Still not sure there is a big enough voting block that has the same principles any more. Sad I know.

I think people will listen to someone who is consistent, (Romney didn't have a consistent, conservative record and flip-flopped quite a bit on the campaign trail) solid with their plans AND solid with their answers.

Will we get to have that person stand before us and lead the charge? Only if the parties and media allow it, it looks like to me. We had a lot of good conservatives in the race. I'm glad Bachmann retained her seat. When she knows her subject, she is sharp as a tack.

We place way to much credence on what our own parties and the media hands us, I think.