This is why Republicans are losing ground everywhere.

[SA Friday]

So basically Republicans need to join the godless hedonist socialist Democrats so we can win?

What would be the point then?


The simple fact is that the American people no longer deserve liberty. Period.

So they're going to get the slavery (with bread and circuses) they crave.

No. They just need to be more flexible than you are currently displaying. Taking a zealotry stance on every issue instead of prioritizing core theology over tertiary issues is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Seriously, if I read another stupid quote by a republican candidate addressing rape and abortion, I might vomit... This is a TERMINAL stance within the republican party. Regardless of ones individual belief about abortion, the majority of women voters find the party stance repulsive.

To be fair, Akins and Mourdock said some stupid things but they won in the primaries due to Tea Party support. Mourdock lost because Lugar's supporters (who some here would call RINOs) defected to the Democratic candidate.

[dwalker460]

In general, I agree. Personally, characterizing abortion as "Women's rights" is a pharce perpetuated by the left for the sole sake of getting votes. It is a scientific fact that a fetus/embryo/unborn baby is alive and is therefore a life. Ending that life is now a political battle and the GOP is going to have to figure out what to do about it because Ohio WAS a pro-abortion vote that put it in Obama's column.

Agreed and as a Republican, I do not care much about abortion. I dont like it and its against my principles, but I do not get excited about it as a political issue and I honestly do not know any Republicans in my age group that do. My personal stance is that I would prefer to see more emphasis on birth control and contraception vs birth control, and I would really rather see abortion dropped as a political issue altogether. IMHO, it is the left who pushes the abortion issue, forcing Republicans to respond, and when they respond that they do not support it and do not believe in it that response is then touted as being anti-abortion, anti-womens rights and wantign to reverse Roe V Wade, when that is not likely to be the actual agenda.

While I see, and understand your other points, there are certainly other sides. The GOP is the rich white party as characterized by the left. The middle 80% has been 78% white in 2004, 74% white in 2008 and now 70% white in 2012. (I think those are the right numbers). The CURRENT GOP will NEVER win another election on the current models based on the shrinking "white vote".

While I agree for the most part, I think the reality is that the GOP is not the issue itself, the issue is that "non-white" Conservatives need to identify themselves as Conservatives and witness, for lack of a better term, to their peers. Have you ever noticed how preachy the left is? Start a conversation at a bus stop and I can almost promise you that some welfare recipient will tout Obamas achievements without having a single clue about the true facts. Its simple propaganda but its effective. On the other hand, most Conservatives are by nature Conservative and do not run around being all preachy and spewing BS. While I dont want to suggest that Conservatives need to run around spreading untruths, it would help the party immensely if most, especially the younger Conservatives, took pride in thier political stance and spread the ideals as far and wide as possible. It is seriously going to take a grassroots effort, and the Tea Party was a great start, but we need to hunker down and get to work.

The "Young" vote is here to stay. The technology is geared towards engaging the young vote, who for the most part has always voted Dem. Now, they will be so stoned they may not get to the polls to vote in 2012, so there may be a swing of CO back to the GOP. I do think the "Pro-Pot" vote lost Romney Colorado though.

Thats possible, although here is a novel concept- just because my stance is slightly different than yours- ie I do not drink, never tried drugs, dont gamble, and am faithful to my wife- does not mean that I am going to force my ideals on you. Conservatism as a base view is not about that. thats the Left, not us. We need to communicate and show the young voters that its the Conservative Republican Party that is the tolerant party, not the Left. Yeah sure, I am a Christian and your Jewish, and thats cool and more than that, I support your RIGHT to be Jewish, or Mormon, or Atheist, or Satanist. Because I am a Republican and NOT a Democrat, who on a large basis are against organized religion, and if you do not believe as they do your immediately and completely wrong. As Conservatives this needs to be the message we show day in and day out.

The "brown vote" was certainly in Obama's camp regardless of his performance or policies. Recall the Howard Stern video that listed all of the major campaign issues of McCain but attributed them to Obama, and almost all of the interviewed people said those "issues" were why they were voting for Obama. Hogwash!

Absolutely, but let me add that most Latinos are against most of the principles of the Democrat party. MOST, obviously not all but MOST of the Latinos I know are hardworking and dedicated to their families. Sounds like similar principles to me. A little simple education about the TRUTH of the Republican party would go a long way. Latino, Asian, Russian, Indian, etc. are all hardworking people and are not out to soak the system. They have just been blasted with Leftist principles to the point they are scared shitless of the Right. It woudl take so little for the Conservatives to strengthen the ties to these communities, and we NEED to work to that end.

IF Romney had Rubio on the ticket instead of Ryan, I beleive he would have won. IF Romney had not been moderate, but attacked on the issues of "Women's health", foreign policy and the Auto Bailout, he would have won. If Obama had white skin, Romney would have won.

Romney should have won. He is a great man and would have been twice the President of Obama and likely would have been the greatest President we have seen since Reagan.

Notice I say WE alot, and that because its not Romney, or Ryan, or Paul, or any of those guys who lost this election. WE lost the election, and we need to do better from here on out.

[Zundfolge]

No. They just need to be more flexible than you are currently displaying. Taking a zealotry stance on every issue instead of prioritizing core theology over tertiary issues is exactly what I'm talking about.

What "zealotry stance", what "prioritizing core theology"?

Republicans have publicly not given two shits about Abortion for the better part of the last decade or two, but Democrats keep bringing it up (and lying about it ... telling women that Republicans want them barefoot and pregnant).

Hell, the GOP could change their platform demanding zero restrictions on abortion AND government pay for it and the Dems would STILL get stupid women to vote against them because "the Republicans want you barefoot and pregnant".

The problem isn't really with the GOP, the problem is that the media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party ... and they will continue to lie about Republicans no matter what they believe.

Hell, I think the problem is that the GOP keeps putting up mealy mouthed moderates like Romney and thus not giving people a CLEAR choice between D and R (its just D and D-Lite).

Frankly if the ticket had been Ryan-Rubio they would have done better (unless Obama's victory is due to cheating ... and since they're now claiming that voter turnout was significantly less than 2008 I have to wonder where all those extra votes went).

[MOD: These types of comments can not and will not be tolerated here on this site. While it may some day come down to such behavior, we will not advocate for it. If you truly feel this is the only path forward then perhaps you aren't a good fit here on the site anymore.]

[theGinsue]

It shouldn't have to be stated, but apparently it does so let me put this out here now:

This site will not tolerate ANY discussion in regards to violent revolution against the government of the United States, the State of Colorado, or any other government entity within the United States.

Should any member feel the need to make such posts, the post will be edited or removed and the member will receive an infraction; or, depending on the severity of the comment, a site timeout or ban.

I hope that this is clear enough for everyone to understand as everyone will be held accountable to this standard.

[MarkCO]

dwalker460, excellent comments.

BTW, we don't know each other, hope to meet you at a range someday, but if you ever hear of me getting drunk, doing drugs, being other than faithful to my wife or the raising of my kids, feel free to send me a virtual slap upside the head. Integrity AND accountability are both beneficial.

[Zundfolge]

[MOD: These types of comments can not and will not be tolerated here on this site. While it may some day come down to such behavior, we will not advocate for it. If you truly feel this is the only path forward then perhaps you aren't a good fit here on the site anymore.]

I wasn't advocating for it (in fact the comment mostly pointed out the folly of such action) but if one is going to say there is no solution within the system, someone is going to come back with some sort of "put up or shut up" retort and that needs to be nipped in the bud.

Don't worry, if I ever decide that line needs to be crossed, I certainly won't be discussing it in a public forum.

[Rust_shackleford]

In short let go our principle and be more liberal. We can be liberal conservative, European style and gain some voters, but either way, we as conservatives are screwed, imho.

Already there.

[Ronin13]

Don't worry, if I ever decide that line needs to be crossed, I certainly won't be discussing it in a public forum.

I can't remember what they called their hush hush meetings in the 1770's... with the internet age and "big brother" watching, I have a feeling these won't be as easy to come by anyway...

[theGinsue]

I wasn't advocating for it (in fact the comment mostly pointed out the folly of such action) but if one is going to say there is no solution within the system, someone is going to come back with some sort of "put up or shut up" retort and that needs to be nipped in the bud.

Don't worry, if I ever decide that line needs to be crossed, I certainly won't be discussing it in a public forum.

Thanks for explaining your comment. Exactly what you just explained is why I didn't issue you an infraction - I wasn't 100% sure of your motives.

For what it's worth, I found the possibility that you would advocate such a thing to be very un-characteristic of you. Thanks for not destroying my faith in you!

T.