Rabbi Pruzansky On Why Obama Won

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Your percentage points are wrong.
His (possibly yours) attitude towards Americans are wrong, which is one of many reasons why he lost.

Had Obama ACTUALLY BELITTLED half of the country, it would be another example of his disrespect for America and why he's not really an American citizen!

Romney insults (with something that's not even true) half of the country, but he's an unsung hero.

Give me a break!


Furthermore, mormonism is a CLEAR abomination in the sneakiest way-- and you want everyday Christians to just ignore that and vote for him, when the Republican party has spent years and millions of dollars presenting candidates that are, at the bare minimum, Christian on the outside. What you want and what the Republican party asked American Christians to do was non-sensical.

We're not that FLAKY when it comes to our religion and politics.

How much time, money, and energy did some political junkies on the right go through to present Obama as a non-Christian-- as a Muslim-- when Obama at least attended a church that embraced the major tenets of Christianity, a church that would be considered flawed, but not a cult or an abomination?

Mormonism is about as anti-Christ as you can get-- talk about satan appearing as an angel of light! But American Christians should have voted for him anyway! That argument is ludicrous, ESPECIALLY in light of the GOP's efforts to woo our vote for the last 30 years or so!

Seriously, I am almost convinced that "the powers that be" never wanted a Republican to replace Obama for his 2nd term in the first place-- which is why the GOP presented an ABOMINABLE, out-of-touch, plastic "conservative" from Massachussetts as the Republican solution for America!

The crazy thing is, with history in mind, ANY REPUBLICAN but Romney probably would have beat Obama.


Want to see Romney's commitment to America?
The luxury car that he bought for himself after he lost the election was manufactured in the Czech Republic.
His heart was NEVER for the Presidency and probably never for America to begin with.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

The only reason I believe he won is because God allowed him to for America to come to her knees.

Jmo

[Esther]

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."

I think he is pretty spot on.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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!

His comment on the 47% was truth. And the truth hurts!

Too many takers in America today.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Breitbart is putting out a 5 part series on a third party emerging. I am ready!

I agree America is ready for a third party. I am sick of both parties we have today.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esther

I agree America is ready for a third party. I am sick of both parties we have today.

Duopoly is dangerous, bad for liberty and coming to an end - one way or another. Either you will have tyranny or the States will open the ballots up to more parties, more candidates, more ideas and then we can have real competition. If that happens there is no doubt that you will have more conservative/libertarian parties and the Left will die - they only exist because of parrots and repeaters - they cannot compete in a free market. BRING IT ON!

We have two enemies; the Left and the RNC progressives in the party.

Those of us involved in the ground game weren't battling Democrats during the primary; we were battling Romney people who basically acted just like democrats.

Newt and the rest of them talk about the leftist political machine and ground game... well, we had one and it was owned by the RNC and Romney. They had developed it to get Romney the nomination.

The problem is by the time Romney stole the primary, the whole party was severely split. Plus, they couldn't shift the machine and take on Obama effectively. I have never followed anything on a national basis this closely before.

All the data was there, all the patterns were there; the strategies, the marketing, the social media hacks and infiltrators, etc. They had a machine. The problem was it was used against conservatives and Paul people of which they needed their votes to win with.

And it was used against the third party candidates. We all saw the people shift at the end to attack the idea of voting for a third party candidate.

Here’s the problem - Rove, Romney and the RNC social media machine were only good at attacking and creating doubt and fear. They couldn’t sell a terrible candidate that nobody liked. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the GOP primary.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esther

I agree America is ready for a third party. I am sick of both parties we have today.

And Esther, I hope you are paying attention to how the Rhino/Progressive Republicans are dogpiling Sen. Ted Cruz along with the Left. People need to pay attention to what is going on here. The RNC doesn't want Conservative politicians around any more than do the Democrats.

Here is the awesome response from Ted Cruz regarding his questioning of Hagel.

“I have to admit I find it amusing that those in Washington are puzzled when someone actually does what they said they would do.”

“A lot of media attention has been focused on the attacks leveled on me and I would encourage all of you if you want to write stories on that great, knock yourself out, but I would ask for every ten stories you write, attacking me, perhaps write one story on the substance of Chuck Hagel’s record,"

You go, Ted Cruz!

[Pressing-On]

Why Karl Rove and Stuart Stevens are Plain Wrong

The Romney campaign decision to savage first Governor Perry and then me on immigration destroyed any chance to build a Latino-Asian appeal.

The Romney formula of self-deportation (which must have seemed clever when invented) led to a collapse of acceptability.

Latinos worry about getting health insurance and health care. A Republican candidate who had a better health idea could have had great appeal. A Republican candidate who was merely anti-Obamacare (and therefore seen as anti-healthcare) would lose that contest. But wasn’t it Stevens’ job as chief consultant to design that before the campaign, not to explain its failure afterwards?

Our “Lessons to be Learned” project at Gingrich Productions will begin releasing reports on the scale of change we need in the next few weeks.

We will continue to report throughout the spring and summer.

By this fall we will have online courses on 21st century self government and politics.

The debate over Rove-Stevens versus the new 21st century model may be the most important intra-Republican debate since the emergence of Reagan and Kemp to challenge the old order in the 1970s.

http://www.gingrichproductions.com/2...e-plain-wrong/

[Pressing-On]

Cruz: Obama's 'lasting legacy' will be creating Republican leaders

"You want to know what happened last election cycle? We didn't win the argument for the American people," Cruz said Thursday night according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

"We got clobbered the last time around, but we are continuing to see a new generation of leaders step forward," he said. "In 1980, it took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan. And I remain convinced the longest lasting legacy of Barack Obama is going to be a new generation of leaders of the Republican Party who stand for liberty."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...blican-leaders

Exactly!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by crakjak

I disagree with you on so many levels, I will just let you be.

You disagree with me?
I haven't typed anything false or misleading in my post.
What's there to disagree about?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Esther

I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

The only reason I believe he won is because God allowed him to for America to come to her knees.

Jmo

What is it, specifically, that you disagree with?
I've typed the the truth above.