By virtually sweeping all the battleground states, President Obama was re-elected yesterday to another four years.
I don't have time now to write a lengthy dissertation on why Republican nominee Mitt Romney lost. Suffice it to say I thought he was a terrible choice from the beginning. In an age of populism, the GOP nominated probably the most establishment, least populist candidate on the planet.
The irony is that the establishment is going to try to pin this loss on the tea party or the fiscal and social conservatives foot soldiers who provide the energy for the party. But the loss belongs solely to the establishment GOP types who shoved Romney down our throats until many of us actually became convinced he was a good choice. He wasn't and the results last night proved that.
A good part of the loss does indeed belong to the SoCons, who made Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock and turned them into albatrosses for Romney. His 18-point loss among women speaks volumes.
And will you PLEASE get rid of that stupid word verification.
Romney lost because he is Romney, a rich white guy who got rich by tearing apart companies. And yet I voted for him because Romney was a better choice than Obama whose idea of ensuring universal health-care was to enact legislation that requires everyone to buy health insurance.
I am very disappointed that Mr. Mourdock lost, he is a very decent man who tries to do what he believes is right.
I am happy that Glenda Ritz won, since I think that Mr. Bennett's idea of fixing schools by outsourcing them is an example of not doing his job.
Romney was not a good choice, but given the other choices: Perry, Bachman, Newt, etc., who was better??
I do not want a candidate who has to pander to people who believe in "Intelligent Design," or a 10,000 year old earth.
I do not want a candidate who will take away a woman's choice to take Birth Control Pills.
Had Ron Paul been treated fairly, allowed to play on an even playing field and won the primary, he could have defeated Obama.
The GOP is not really any different than the Democrats. We would get the same thing, regardless of which puppet won.
More Patriot Act
More unsafe food and water
More warantless wire tapping
More shredding of our Constitution
Had Romney won, we would see a bump in the markets today.
Instead gold got the bump.
Ron Paul would have been crushed. Dems would have voted for Obama. A good many Republicans, myself included, would have voted for Obama. Ron Paul is simply THAT repugnant.
Flogger, I am unaware of any candidate who wanted to take away a woman's choice to take birth control pills.
I know that there were several candidates who would eliminate government funding of birth control pills, and several others who would not mandate that insurers pay for birth control, but I can't think of any candidate who wants to forbid women from taking birth control pills.
Are you that confused about the difference between needing to pay for something yourself verses only being able to have that choice if someone else pays for it?
Jeff, you would be in the minority.
Indy Rob said, "I am unaware of any candidate who wanted to take away a woman's choice to take birth control pills."
Are you kidding?
What about all those zealots who want to legislate "life begins at conception"?
Birth control pills would be outlawed as a form of "early abortion".
And you wonder why Akin, Mourdock et al were defeated....
Hoosier in heartland, name a candidate who wants to deny women the right to take birth control pills. Not abortion, simply a Hoosier candidate, who wanted to take away a woman's right to take birth control pills (and by this, I mean announced an intention to legislate).
I don't think any candidate would have faired any better. The GOP has a major demographic problem. The current GOP coalition is a 30 year old marriage of economic and social conservatives in the midwest, south and west. The Electoral patterns of the last 20 years have not changed. However, the demographics supporting those patterns are moving away from Republicans. Republicans must branch into gaining support from younger voters and minorities. The old white men are dying off.
That Cox finds Paul repugnant is ongoing proof that the Republicans are so revolting and unfit for office that we must continue to punish that party and drive it from relevance.
It's far more comfortable in the Democratic Party than in the anti-freedom Republican Party.
Jeff Cox needs to take political science 101 at Ivy Tech.
Ron Paul is a bigoted anti-Semite who blames the US for 9/11 and thinks its hunky-dory that the Iranian mullahs who are on record as wanting to kill us have nukes and ICBM's. He blames America first for everything, probably including Pearl Harbor, the Hindenburg, the Titanic and the Barbary Pirates. Yes, that's repugnant. Morally, ethically and intellectually. If the Libertarians see that as anything but repugnant to the interests of the United States and its people, then they will remain in the electoral wilderness they so richly deserve.
Ben needs to take remedial world history at the nearest public high school.
Jeff, You are absolutely deluded if you think Ron Paul is anti-semetic.
It is more accurate to say that he is not a Zionist.
I'm not a Zionist either, but it doesn't mean I hate Jews.
I understand your obsession with war and that you are probably ok with the fact we waged war against Iraq without Congressional approval, based on the lie of WMD's.
Ron Paul and people like myself would rather not go to war without Congressional approval and based on flimsy lies.
Ron Paul is not anti-Semitic. Have you actually read his "newsletters?"
2. There were indeed WMD in Iraq. Many of them are now in Syria, where Assad is threatening to use them on Turkey.
Jeff, I know what you are talking about. Those newsletters are very old and Ron Paul didn't read them before they were sent with his name on hem. .
Dr. Paul is guilty of not doing a good job of overseeing.
He did not write those words and disavowed them a long time ago.
For someone who is a supposed history buff, you sure do seem to forget important details like he didn't read the words, nor did he approve of them being mailed in his name!
Jeff? There are WMD's in North America.
Would you condone an army bombing the crap out of us and slaughtering our women and children?
1. Your comment on WMDs is moral relativism. You can't seriously be placing the US on the same moral plane as Saddam Hussein. Both the world in general and Iraq and the US in particular are better off with Saddam Hussein gone to Hell. If the Libertarians cannot grasp this they are unfit for public office.
2. Your comment on Ron Paul's newsletter is an excuse and you know it. You would not give even a quarter of that leeway to the GOP or Dems.
Look Jeff, we have laws for a reason. We went to war without Congressional approval and it was based on lies. That is wrong. We violated the rules of how we are to conduct the affairs of our country when we did so. That was immoral.
I happen to think a lot of Americans are some of the worst people on earth. Some are stupid, mean, fat, lazy, ignorant and selfish.
Americans are not necessarily morally better than anyone. For instance, have you read the twitter feeds from the looters in NYC?
Our women and children aren't better than those who live in Iraq or Iran.
We are all human. Including Ron Paul who made a mistake many years ago when the content of newsletter went out without his expressed consent or knowledge. He disavowed the content and I believe him. I can understand how it happened and he took action to remedy, which is all he could have done.
That you place more value on innocent people who live in America than you do those who live in the mid-east is racist thinking, in my opinion.
The job of the American government under both the Constitution and the social contract is to protect and defend the interests of the American people from the predations of others. Not vice versa, as you seem to believe.
Jeff, I agree it is America's responsibility to do as you suggest.
However, we have rules about how we are to go about waging war.
We have three branches of government for a reason. It is to prevent dictatorial power of the president. We are to get authorization from Congress before we launch a war.
President Bush launched a war which was immoral, in part, because he did not have an act by Congress to do so.
Bush bypassed a very important step in our checks and balances. It was not solely his call to make, yet he did so without approval of the people's representatives in Congress.
Bush trampled the American Constitution and a whole lot of innocent people (who never attacked us) were slaughtered. Iraq never declared or launched a war on America.
I'm sorry, but the president's powers are restrained for a reason. For without the law, and adherence to the law, we are no better than thugs, in my opinion.
AMERICA'S PERPETUAL WAR MACHINE: MONEY, MUNITIONS, AND MAYHEM
Jeff, I think you should read this for perspective.
Cox, the best part of Romney's defeat was seeing the death of neoconservatism and it's kooky adherents who think America exists to serve another place.
Fox News pushed Israel hard for four years, and that issue lost badly. Neoconservatism is done. This country has sent a strong message that it's distancing itself from Israel.
Find some domestic issues to discuss if you and your kooky party again want to be relevant.
Cox, the Constitution doesn't say a damn word about the "interests of the American people," nor does it demand that we send the military around the world to prop up corporate profits.
Russians, Chinese, French, Americans and others can all have "interests" in a copper mine in Australia or the oil reserves of Arabia.
"Interests" aren't enough. America isn't its "interests." We only get to meddle abroad if we are attacked, not our interests. If America more fully understood this rule of civil conduct, we'd be better global citizens and more mindful of our manners across the globe.
You really, REALLY need to read a history book. Even a grade school level history book. Your comments above evince a profound (and possibly willful) ignorance of world history and how international relations have functioned since the beginning of human governance. There are so many insane falsehoods in your comments that it's impossible to debunk them all in one comment thread.
The Republicans had a chance to nominate the only guy in that line up who could have stood a chance. John Huntsman got out of that race fast. You see, the problem isn't that the anti establishment guy did't win, its because who ever is to win, must appeal to the nutcase wing of the party. That is why we have another 4 years of President Obama. Romney was, as you said, a terrible choice and he was forced on everyone. But who, besides Huntsman, did not play with mercury as a child? Who stood a chance of winning the primary and wasn't moderately insane or more accurately a Christian jihadist? The Tea Party, who the previous makes up a majority of their members, regardless of their anti tax origins, is holding the party hostage. The GOP will need to fix that if they or the nation is to benefit. The ONLY reason the GOP still controls the House is because they've managed to take over State Houses and they draw the maps. Thats why they do NOT have the White House or the Senate. They cant gerrymander those races. The party needs to get back to its conservative yet reasonable roots and give the nation a viable choice.
Wow, now Paul is censoring anything that he does like..thats pretty funny stuff.
Im starting to think that Paul is really Jeff Cox, he allows Cox to spew his ignorant hate, but when someone criticizes him, Paul pushes the edit button..
Cox trashing Ron Paul is pretty funny stuff, since when did his trailer park get cable?
Based on my experience on election night with the pro-lifers, who heaped a torrent of abuse on me for having the gall to suggest that a rape victim should have the option of an abortion, you're right on the money with the term "Chirstian jihadists." Based on the women I've talked to in the last week, most of which had been disposed to vote for Romney, the rape comments by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock together did severe damage to Romney among women, far more than is generally recognized.
One possible factor that is getting little discussion, but really should, is the effect of GOP comments on the unemployed. The Republicans say that having 28 million unemployed is a tragedy, which is correct, and they want those 28 million unemployed to have jobs, which is good. But at the same time they demonize those same 28 million unemployed as "lazy" and openly try to cut off their unemployment benefits to "encourage" them to get jobs that the GOP admits simply are not there. You can read that combination as the GOP basically telling those unemployed and their families to starve. The unemployed are part of that 47%, and while they likely do not want to be a part of that 47%, given the choice of staying in that 47% or starving, they will choose the 47.
That's 28 million voters the GOP alienated with those comments. That could have flipped the election to Obama by itself. My beef with Obama is on his hideous record on defense and foreign policy, his even worse record of using the EPA to turn us into some version of Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Eric Holder. But if those unemployed voted for Obama on the unemployment issues I just mentioned, I take no issue with it.
Re: John Huntsman. You probably like Huntsman because he was more Democrat than Republican. On a number of major issues he was indistinguishible from Obama, specifically on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, which I and many, many others consider fraudulent and not deserving of government coercion and the catastrophic economic consequences thereof. That is one issue on which I and, again, many, many others are not willing to compromise, simply because it is cutting our own throats in the name of fraud. That is one reason Lugar is gone and why he is not missed. Same with Huntsman.
Wow, Ben. Ron Paul says the US deserved 9/11 and that the Jews are evil. Yet you think we who point that out are the ones who "hate." Gotcha.
If your comments indeed have been censored (and I really doubt that they have, but I do not know), it may be because your comments are typically fact-free zones, consisting only of drive-by personal insults, and not even creative ones. For those reasons, the fact that I draw so much of your ire is most heartening. I must be doing something right.
And, Paul, will you DROP THE DAMN WORD VERIFICATION?
I agree with your post 100 percent Paul. I just don't get how the Republicans can keep picking such absolutely horrendously bad candidates for President. Romney was a better pick then Dole, but not by a large margin. Ryan would have been a better pick then Romney, young, energetic and had less baggage then Romney. The Republicans better wake up and look in the mirror before they find Hillary in the White House in 2016.
Jeff Cox needs to find his way out of the trailer park and deal with reality. Paul puts the any spam bot up just because of trolls like you.
Unlke you, Paul knows who I am
If anyone knew Paul, they'd know that he is familiar with Jeff Cox, as they have sat together on vlog panels repeatedly over at Civil Discourse Now.
Paul and Jeff do know each other pretty well in person. And I know them both too.
Jeff is a war hawk who sees problem resolution through the lens of war as solution.
Evidently, he also doesn't think the government feeds us propaganda and seems to the buy their BS.
You libeled Ron Paul.
Please show me where he ever said Jews are evil and that the U.S. deserved 9/11.
Either that or you need to retract the libel.
BTW - I must strenuously deny that I am a war hawk. I prefer the term war pterodactyl. Much more violent than war hawk. And check our PJ O'Rourke's Give War A Chance for examples of how war, uh, is never a solution.
Care to show off any more of your Cracker Jack research skills?
This whole debate is nothing more than old white men lamenting the loss of their hegemony.
Get over it.
There are more women than men in the world. There are more "people of color" than white folk in the world.
Romney, Ryan, Mourdock -- their ilk can slink back into the primordial ooze where they belong.
We need to support more Republicans like Lugar. Oh, wait....
I loved seeing you cite the Weekly Standard. My, how they must be crying over there, these days.
I put it at good odds that the neocons will spend the next four years trying to weasel back in to the Democratic Party from whence they came in the 70's.
Four years from now, FoxNews may be endorsing Democrats if Fox finds it likely that the Dems will have a perpetual lock on the Executive Branch.
With nobody in the Republican pipeline, these odds look pretty good.
Look for the neocon pivot.
He never said Jews are evil.
He never said we deserved 9/11.
Ron Paul simply wants us to do the rule of law and points out that nation building is pissing people off in other countries. You might be pissed if an invading country slaughtered members of your family.
He doesn't say they are evil.
He said both. That is a reasonable interpretation on his statements and policy positions.
My "reasonable interpretation" of Cox's view is that they are those of a bloodthirsty savage.
I'm afraid I don't have the bio in hand, Cox. What is your own military record?
Yes Jeff, since war is so great and so necessary, what is your record of military service?
Ah, yes, the "chicken hawk" argument. Typical of those who hate the military.
Jeff, for self-proclaimed historian you sure play fast and loose with what people say.
No one said they hate the military. I, for one, hold a lot of respect for them.
I think America abuses its power and know we have gone into wars under false flag pretense.
Ex-Navy Seal Jesse Ventura says every war in past 100 years was started by a false flag event.
If you are going to proclaim yourself an historian, and expect people to respect your work, then be careful about putting words into people's mouths.
Ron Paul never said the things you claim he did.
And we never said the military is evil.
It is accurate to say that those controlling the military are abusing power, killing innocents, and dragging America into wars she has no authority to be in.
I just gave you the evidence for Ron Paul and his anti-Semite and ultimately anti-American views. That you refuse to see it does not mean I am lacking in historical knowledge.
As for false flag operations, you're basically saying that 9/11 was a false flag operation? And how about Pearl Habor?
Finally, the chicken hawk argument is indeed anti-military. You do know that current members of the military are legally prohibited from expressing political opinions or campaigning? They need civilians to speak up for them, to make sure they get the funding, the supplies and the support they need.
I have trouble with some people who keep preaching war as the answer to all problems but never served in the military. If you believe it that much then you should have enlisted and helped the cause. Maybe it is just for other peoples sons and daughters or for poor people.
We have plenty of people with military experience to give us political opinions and break it down for us.
Ron Paul for instance.
You, on the other hand, haven't served a day, yet it seems you believe it is some how moral for America to be imperialist and nation building, and seemingly have no problem with America breaking her own laws. (Congressional authorization to go to war)
I find it unusual how little the rule of law matters to you, since you are a lawyer.
I'm influenced by veterans with real military experience like Jesse Ventura and Ron Paul, who DO speak about politics and war.
You are a lawyer who doesn't stand for the rule of law.
You are a self-proclaimed historian without military experience who believes war is the answer to our problems, even an illegal war.
None of the wars since I've been alive have solved a single problem on this planet. The one thing they did accomplish was the killing of millions of people.
Ultimately the killing of millions must be ok with you too.
Here is some evidence that the liberty vote might be responsible for Rommey's loss.
And I have a problem with those who think only those with military service should take part in the political process. So would, for instance, the vast majority of the female population, who have not served in the military.
Jeff has nicely outed himself as a chickenhawk. As if it wasn't obvious. Blood thirst has apparently been his life-long obsession, as one person who claims to have known him described:
"As a child he spent a good portion of his time drawing 'cartoons' strips about government issues including soldiers firing at groups of people."
We know what how he thinks protestors should be treated in the United States.
And his is some people's idea of "civil discourse."
Jeff has a problem with those who point out that warmongers who don't volunteer for military service are hypocrites, if not cowards. He even resorts to hiding behind skirts in his defense. The historical prohibition on females in combat surely doesn't prevent Jeff from having gone to war, unless there is something he is keeping from us.
Don't get upset, Jeff. It's just, um, satire. Yes, it's satire.
Assuming you're not just making this up (a big "if"), you should choose your sources a lot more carefully. I did draw cartoons as a kid. They were called "Libyan Hit Squad." Basically Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote with Ronald Reagan in the role of the former and Muammar Gadhafi as the latter. I never drew groups of people because I couldn't draw people except for stick figures. Still can't. Wish I could. My ability to construct stick men is no where near as great as your ability to construct straw men.
And it would seem that Nick has no issues with protesters physically threatening legislators into enacting legislation opposed by the people. That's what the Nazi brown shirts did. Would that make him a libertarian brown shirt?
Wow, Nick. You're actually calling women "skirts." I'm sure they'll appreciate that.
Romney was blown out of he water by Obama. The Republican PACs will never again see the 2012 funding levels. Romney lost all 8 battleground states. FoxNews is irrelevant and unable to deliver results at the polls.
You never served in the military. Iraq never had WMDs. Killing people is sick, savage and grotesque. America's military is unable to coerce any foreign land into having a government of our choosing and not theirs. Wonderful massive military cuts are coming.
Your side is done, Cox.
Jeff, it does seem a peculiar line of defense to admit to the thing that you accuse a witness of lying about. But attorneys are a strange species.
It is bemusedly gallant for you to run to the defense of American women, but it doesn't pay to be so ethnocentric. Women still wear skirts; including many of the women killed and mutilated in the wars you champion but don't volunteer to fight. But, then, you are a delicate chap, better suited to blogging rapping with fellow lawyers.
Your "big 'if'" can easily be disposed of. See response of poster Running Scared:
Like I said, Nick, you need to choose your news sources more carefully. The commenter is simply wrong. If you read sites like that on a regular basis, it might explain your constant anger, as well as your inabity to make a political argument without descending to personal insults.
Then again, the fact that you seem to not only disagree with me but hate me so much that you direct personal insults my way every chance you get is actually both comforting and flattering.
You should take no comfort in anything Nic says about you. His conclusions state fundamental character flaws, not mere personality quirks.
Further,you should realize that the Republican Party will not grow again until people such as you reform yourselves or leave the party.
Jeff, you are awfully sensitive for a man whose hobby is promoting bloodbaths.
Post a Comment