G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
First, Republicans defend Romney. Then, they point out that it's hard to beat an incumbent president, sigh that the press is in the tank for Obama...
After the presidential campaign ends, partisans explain why their party lost and how to rebound.
Republicans are already working on their talking points.
"He’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not, some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign."
David Brooks
“In the future, and not distant future, Republicans have to come to grips with the right policy on immigration."
Haley Barbour
Immigration is the topic that comes up most often in these conversations about a hypothetical post-election debate.
That’s because there is a direct relationship between the party’s ideas and vision and the demographic changes Republicans will face in a country that is getting less white.
Why on earth would any self-respecting Republican rush to make definitive claims about Romney when a president with a weak record can still be turned out of office?
You might be saying, these columnists don't speak for me.
That feeling is honest and part of the debate.
Grassroots activists will argue that Romney was a compromise candidate who could never articulate the anti-government case for freedom and that’s why he’s having a hard time. (That is the argument Rick Santorum made during the primaries.)
Others will argue that the Tea Party pushed Romney into ever-more absolutist positions.
Any successful campaign weathers the moment when people pipe up to say the candidate is doing it wrong.
That was the signature trait of the Obama 2008 campaign, but there is also a pattern to decline.
Negative chatter from your own party builds and leads to finger-pointing, which leads to early verdicts, which leads to a debate about the future long before Election Day.
The Romney campaign has already experienced the first two stages of this cycle.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ll_have_a_big_debate_about_its_future_.2.html
After the presidential campaign ends, partisans explain why their party lost and how to rebound.
Republicans are already working on their talking points.
"He’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not, some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign."
David Brooks
“In the future, and not distant future, Republicans have to come to grips with the right policy on immigration."
Haley Barbour
Immigration is the topic that comes up most often in these conversations about a hypothetical post-election debate.
That’s because there is a direct relationship between the party’s ideas and vision and the demographic changes Republicans will face in a country that is getting less white.
Why on earth would any self-respecting Republican rush to make definitive claims about Romney when a president with a weak record can still be turned out of office?
You might be saying, these columnists don't speak for me.
That feeling is honest and part of the debate.
Grassroots activists will argue that Romney was a compromise candidate who could never articulate the anti-government case for freedom and that’s why he’s having a hard time. (That is the argument Rick Santorum made during the primaries.)
Others will argue that the Tea Party pushed Romney into ever-more absolutist positions.
Any successful campaign weathers the moment when people pipe up to say the candidate is doing it wrong.
That was the signature trait of the Obama 2008 campaign, but there is also a pattern to decline.
Negative chatter from your own party builds and leads to finger-pointing, which leads to early verdicts, which leads to a debate about the future long before Election Day.
The Romney campaign has already experienced the first two stages of this cycle.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ll_have_a_big_debate_about_its_future_.2.html
