Rabbi Pruzansky On Why Obama Won

[crakjak]

Rabbi Pruzansky On Why Obama Won and How We Are Lost as a Nation:

Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish Rabbi from Teaneck, N.J.

It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats.

The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard:

"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues - of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentives looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.

Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority - are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!" Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy - of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's expense and at Israel 's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.

A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.

Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations..

The takers outnumber the givers (makers), and that will only increase in years to come. The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."

[RandyWayne]

Even though nearly everything the author says is common sense, good sense just isn't common anymore.

[Pressing-On]

You can blame Romney's loss on whatever you want. It is easier to blame the entitlement mentality, but that is not what really made Romney lose.

The GOP simply lost because of their dishonesty toward the grassroots during the primaries and at Convention. If they don't pay attention, they will lose again.

It is now becoming apparent why they (MSM & FOX News) keep "labeling" Rand Paul as a conservative.. They are trying to put him in the far right bucket to demonize him. Sneaky jerks..

February 15, 2013

Chairman Priebus,

During and since the Winter Meeting of the RNC, you have stated in multiple interviews that it is your intention to welcome different grassroots factions into the RNC and to address the grassroots' grievances against the 2012 rule changes.

A few of the most egregious rule changes consist of the 2012 form of the rules 12, 16, & 40.

There is an amendment which will be brought to a vote before the Standing Committee on Rules at the April meeting of the RNC, and, if passed at the committee meeting, will be brought to a vote before the RNC (according to your stated intention to support whatever decision is made by the rules committee). The amendment addresses the grievances against rule 16, but is unable to address the 2012 changes made to rules 12 & 40.

The fact that the amendment is unable to address rules 12 & 40 means that the measure is not enough to adequately appeal to the grassroots to continue participation within the Republican Party on the national level for the following reasons:

Rule 12 allows the RNC to make amendments to the Rules of the Republican Party, a power that was previously only reserved to the vote of the National Convention Delegation, ensuring that theirs was the final word over the RNC Rules. If rule 12 is invoked to amend rules 1-11 & 13-25 at the Spring Meeting of the RNC, many of the grassroots do not feel secure that the rules won't be reverted back to their 2012 form at subsequent meetings of the RNC, with rule 12 still in place to allow the RNC to make such changes.

Rule 40 will prevent any grassroots presidential candidate from being eligible for nomination at the 2016 convention. If all of the rules are not reverted back to their 2008 form, rule 40 cannot be amended until the 2016 convention, and that is only if the rules committee should decide to suggest that it be amended, and then contingent upon the vote of the 2016 delegation. Even if rule 40 is amended by a final vote of the 2016 National Convention Delegation at that time, the amendment would not go into effect until the National Convention of 2020 (because of the fact that candidates of the 2016 election will be looking to the 2012 format of the rules during their campaign in determining their ballot access at the National Convention). 2020 is too long to keep the grassroots hanging on the line in order to be able to select for themselves which candidates should have ballot access at the National Convention.

Another grievance that the grassroots hold over the actions of the 2012 RNC proceedings is the manner in which the rule changes were said to have been passed. You may recall the incident during the RNC in Tampa in which John Boehner announced that “the ayes have it” while chairing over the vote of the Rules Committee Report. To those in the audience and those who later watched the video, it was clear that the vote was too close to call, yet Boehner proceeded and ignored shouts from the delegation to bring the vote to an official count. We consider this action to have effectively passed the 2012 rules illegitimately. It was later seen that the vote had been scripted on the teleprompter prior to the vote itself being taken.

The fact that the National Convention Delegation was previously considered to be the final deciding factor over whether the Rules Committee suggested amendments pass or fail, the vote of the National Delegation should have been held with the utmost sincerity, and not simply considered a made-for-tv courtesy upon receiving a vote result that wasn't desired.

The National Convention Delegation vote is one of the very few opportunities for the grassroots to have their voices heard within the RNC, and the described actions of John Boehner during his time of chairing over the Rule Committee Report effectively stripped the grassroots of their voice within the decisions of the RNC.

The amendment that you have stated that you will support if passed by the RNC Standing Committee on Rules at the April meeting of the RNC does not address these grievances. It is for these reasons that we ask, instead, that a motion is brought before the entire body of the RNC to revert all of the rules back to their 2008 form on the grounds that the 2012 Rules Committee Report was not passed by a legitimate majority vote of the National Delegation in Tampa, FL, and on the grounds that you wish to take action to truly address the grievances of the grassroots and encourage further participation of the grassroots within the Republican Party on the national level.

Please advise on what actions you intend to take to address the concerns listed above,

Nicole Revels - Active North Carolina Republican

Bryan Daugherty - Active Maine Republican

[AreYouReady?]

Pressing On....

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You can blame Romney's loss on whatever you want. It is easier to blame the entitlement mentality, but that is not what really made Romney lose.

The GOP simply lost because of their dishonesty toward the grassroots during the primaries and at Convention. If they don't pay attention, they will lose again.

It is now becoming apparent why they (MSM & FOX News) keep "labeling" Rand Paul as a conservative.. They are trying to put him in the far right bucket to demonize him. Sneaky jerks..

February 15, 2013

Chairman Priebus,

During and since the Winter Meeting of the RNC, you have stated in multiple interviews that it is your intention to welcome different grassroots factions into the RNC and to address the grassroots' grievances against the 2012 rule changes.

A few of the most egregious rule changes consist of the 2012 form of the rules 12, 16, & 40.

There is an amendment which will be brought to a vote before the Standing Committee on Rules at the April meeting of the RNC, and, if passed at the committee meeting, will be brought to a vote before the RNC (according to your stated intention to support whatever decision is made by the rules committee). The amendment addresses the grievances against rule 16, but is unable to address the 2012 changes made to rules 12 & 40.

The fact that the amendment is unable to address rules 12 & 40 means that the measure is not enough to adequately appeal to the grassroots to continue participation within the Republican Party on the national level for the following reasons:

Rule 12 allows the RNC to make amendments to the Rules of the Republican Party, a power that was previously only reserved to the vote of the National Convention Delegation, ensuring that theirs was the final word over the RNC Rules. If rule 12 is invoked to amend rules 1-11 & 13-25 at the Spring Meeting of the RNC, many of the grassroots do not feel secure that the rules won't be reverted back to their 2012 form at subsequent meetings of the RNC, with rule 12 still in place to allow the RNC to make such changes.

Rule 40 will prevent any grassroots presidential candidate from being eligible for nomination at the 2016 convention. If all of the rules are not reverted back to their 2008 form, rule 40 cannot be amended until the 2016 convention, and that is only if the rules committee should decide to suggest that it be amended, and then contingent upon the vote of the 2016 delegation. Even if rule 40 is amended by a final vote of the 2016 National Convention Delegation at that time, the amendment would not go into effect until the National Convention of 2020 (because of the fact that candidates of the 2016 election will be looking to the 2012 format of the rules during their campaign in determining their ballot access at the National Convention). 2020 is too long to keep the grassroots hanging on the line in order to be able to select for themselves which candidates should have ballot access at the National Convention.

Another grievance that the grassroots hold over the actions of the 2012 RNC proceedings is the manner in which the rule changes were said to have been passed. You may recall the incident during the RNC in Tampa in which John Boehner announced that “the ayes have it” while chairing over the vote of the Rules Committee Report. To those in the audience and those who later watched the video, it was clear that the vote was too close to call, yet Boehner proceeded and ignored shouts from the delegation to bring the vote to an official count. We consider this action to have effectively passed the 2012 rules illegitimately. It was later seen that the vote had been scripted on the teleprompter prior to the vote itself being taken.

The fact that the National Convention Delegation was previously considered to be the final deciding factor over whether the Rules Committee suggested amendments pass or fail, the vote of the National Delegation should have been held with the utmost sincerity, and not simply considered a made-for-tv courtesy upon receiving a vote result that wasn't desired.

The National Convention Delegation vote is one of the very few opportunities for the grassroots to have their voices heard within the RNC, and the described actions of John Boehner during his time of chairing over the Rule Committee Report effectively stripped the grassroots of their voice within the decisions of the RNC.

The amendment that you have stated that you will support if passed by the RNC Standing Committee on Rules at the April meeting of the RNC does not address these grievances. It is for these reasons that we ask, instead, that a motion is brought before the entire body of the RNC to revert all of the rules back to their 2008 form on the grounds that the 2012 Rules Committee Report was not passed by a legitimate majority vote of the National Delegation in Tampa, FL, and on the grounds that you wish to take action to truly address the grievances of the grassroots and encourage further participation of the grassroots within the Republican Party on the national level.

Please advise on what actions you intend to take to address the concerns listed above,

Nicole Revels - Active North Carolina Republican

Bryan Daugherty - Active Maine Republican

The Republicans and "conservatives" can continue to feud, all you and they desire. All the while ignoring that the elephant in the room is all the things that the Rabbi just itemized. I'm am simply a voter, I am not engaged in the things that you present here. All I can see is that the other party is building on the weak and the poor while the Republicans fight each other, do not build a platform nor a campagin to win. They are just spitting in the wind, as the 47% and the delusional independents elect a radical that is doing great damage to the country. It is going to take ALL the Repubs, and many independents to win, but when the "conservatives" sit it out the rads continue to capitalize on their foolishness.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

The Republicans and "conservatives" can continue to feud, all you and they desire. All the while ignoring that the elephant in the room is all the things that the Rabbi just itemized. I'm am simply a voter, I am not engaged in the things that you present here. All I can see is that the other party is building on the weak and the poor while the Republicans fight each other, do not build a platform nor a campagin to win. They are just spitting in the wind, as the 47% and the delusional independents elect a radical that is doing great damage to the country. It is going to take ALL the Repubs, and many independents to win, but when the "conservatives" sit it out the rads continue to capitalize on their foolishness.

I'm surprised that you think it would be the right thing to do to join the GOP Establishment and Rove with their Soviet style Politburo tactics. It's not happening.

We will never win on substance until we fix what is broken and it is broken. Fixing the debate ideas and uniting Americans is what will work. The GOP has been and seems bent on continuing it's divisiveness and dishonesty. Good luck to them. We certainly won't be party to it.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm surprised that you think it would be the right thing to do to join the GOP Establishment and Rove with their Soviet style Politburo tactics. It's not happening.

We will never win on substance until we fix what is broken and it is broken. Fixing the debate ideas and uniting Americans is what will work. The GOP has been and seems bent on continuing it's divisiveness and dishonesty. Good luck to them. We certainly won't be party to it.

Mark levin's newest "enemy" is Karl Rove!

Levin can be nauseating, but he is right to point out Rove's poison.


Obama didn't win because Romney couldn't compete with free stuff. Romney lost because many Christians refused to vote for the Mormon. Romney lost because he was unable to connect with many Americans.

Historically speaking, this election was Romney's to lose, and he did.

His quote about 47% of Americans was the epitome of political asininity, and it gave America a glimpse of the real Mitt-- a politician that appeared to not care for almost half of the country!

It was IMPOSSIBLE to put any lipstick on that pig!

[Tlswift2009]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Rabbi Pruzansky On Why Obama Won and How We Are Lost as a Nation:

Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish Rabbi from Teaneck, N.J.

It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful explanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats.

The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard:

"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues - of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentives looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.

Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority - are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!" Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy - of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's expense and at Israel 's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.

A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.

Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations..

The takers outnumber the givers (makers), and that will only increase in years to come. The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."

Stop all this whinning-Mr. Romney lost for many reasons that points to Romney and this WEAK-HYPOCRITICAL group of so-called Republican Party who has NOT a TRUE viable; qualified opponent to beat all these freebie taking minorities...The Republican party has become such a weak party over these past 20+years...I would have thought that someone well qualified would have beaten Mr. Obama this second term, and all you had was whoremongering CAIN???????? Cain represent what the Republican party has become in one aspect with many other shortcomings that's apparent and have caused the winning of the Democratic party: STOP WHINNING RABBI, AND ALL OF YOU OTHER SO-CALLED MORAL-CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS AND LIVE WHAT YOU PREACH ABOUT IN REGARDS TO YOUR PARTY, AND YOUR SUPPOSED CHRISTIAN VALUED MORAL LIVES: A LOT OF HYPOCRICY-BLAME YOURSELVES!!!!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Tlswift2009

Stop all this whinning-Mr. Romney lost for many reasons that points to Romney and this WEAK-HYPOCRITICAL group of so-called Republican Party who has NOT a TRUE viable; qualified opponent to beat all these freebie taking minorities...The Republican party has become such a weak party over these past 20+years...I would have thought that someone well qualified would have beaten Mr. Obama this second term, and all you had was whoremongering CAIN???????? Cain represent what the Republican party has become in one aspect with many other shortcomings that's apparent and have caused the winning of the Democratic party: STOP WHINNING RABBI, AND ALL OF YOU OTHER SO-CALLED MORAL-CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS AND LIVE WHAT YOU PREACH ABOUT IN REGARDS TO YOUR PARTY, AND YOUR SUPPOSED CHRISTIAN VALUED MORAL LIVES: A LOT OF HYPOCRICY-BLAME YOURSELVES!!!!

What?
You don't think it was a good idea to try to beat all the freebie taking minorities with a "cain"?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm surprised that you think it would be the right thing to do to join the GOP Establishment and Rove with their Soviet style Politburo tactics. It's not happening.

We will never win on substance until we fix what is broken and it is broken. Fixing the debate ideas and uniting Americans is what will work. The GOP has been and seems bent on continuing it's divisiveness and dishonesty. Good luck to them. We certainly won't be party to it.

I'm not justifying any malfeasance, I am just stating the facts and agreeing with the Rabbi, common sense and good judgment is dead in American politics. Allowing the most radicals to win is accelerating the decent of the country to European type failure, Romney's leadership would have slowed the crash, for you to argue against this fact is sheer ignorance. Romney's business accument and his Mormon values would have served the country much better!!!

The Repubs only chance is to broaden the tent and moderate their policies and some areas concerning minorities or the party is out. How to do this and still maintain some core conservative values is going to be a feat!