Party of personal responsibility

by Idéfix Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:22 pm

Romney raised a billion dollars but lost the election because people didn't buy his sales pitch. In his famous 47% remarks, he had blamed "the 47%" as people who he could not persuade to "take personal responsibility" for their own lives. So when he himself fails at something, should you expect to take personal responsibility for the defeat? Heck, no. Instead, he blames his opponent, and fails to acknowledge his numerous missteps, including making those very 47% remarks, standing by them when they came out and taking a full two weeks to call them "completely wrong."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mitt-romney-obama-gifts_n_2133529.html

"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," Romney said in a call to donors on Wednesday. "He made a big effort on small things."

Romney said his campaign, in contrast, had been about "big issues for the whole country." He said he faced problems as a candidate because he was "getting beat up" by the Obama campaign and that the debates allowed him to come back.

In the call, Romney didn't acknowledge any major missteps, such as his "47 percent" remarks widely viewed as denigrating nearly half of Americans, his lack of support for the auto bailout, his call for illegal immigrants to "self-deport," or his change in position on abortion, gun control and other issues. He also didn't address the success or failure of the campaign's strategy of focusing on the economy in the face of some improvement in employment and economic growth during the months leading up to Election Day.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:30 pm

In the 2010 election, Obamacare was a rallying cry for the Tea Party. The recently-enacted legislation was new enough and unknown enough to most voters, and it was not defended eloquently enough by the Democratic party. As a result, Obamacare became a big electoral liability for the Democrats. This time round, Team Romney cites Obamacare in hindsight as a big electoral asset for the Democrats, with the poor, middle-class, women, Hispanics and black people -- key elements of the Democratic coalition.

The benefits of Obamacare have not even kicked in yet; that happens in 2014. Once those benefits are in place, the law will only become more popular with voters. The strident opposition of the current crop of GOP leaders to Obamacare may end up hurting them for years to come, if the Dems play their cards right.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:24 am

panini press wrote:In the 2010 election, Obamacare was a rallying cry for the Tea Party. The recently-enacted legislation was new enough and unknown enough to most voters, and it was not defended eloquently enough by the Democratic party. As a result, Obamacare became a big electoral liability for the Democrats. This time round, Team Romney cites Obamacare in hindsight as a big electoral asset for the Democrats, with the poor, middle-class, women, Hispanics and black people -- key elements of the Democratic coalition.

The benefits of Obamacare have not even kicked in yet; that happens in 2014. Once those benefits are in place, the law will only become more popular with voters. The strident opposition of the current crop of GOP leaders to Obamacare may end up hurting them for years to come, if the Dems play their cards right.

i see.

by truthbetold Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:04 am

Flimflam,
Don't make false claims. We all know you cannot see.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:10 am

Bobby Jindal says Mitt's view was "absolutely wrong." Jindal is trying to position himself as the leader of the party after the big loss last week. The way he is going about it may not endear him to the GOP base though, and that is a risky strategy for his primary run. He seems to be betting on the idea of real soul-searching within the GOP.

It will be interesting to see Chris Christie's reaction to all this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83892.html?hp=r2

by Maria S Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:44 am

panini press wrote:Bobby Jindal says Mitt's view was "absolutely wrong." Jindal is trying to position himself as the leader of the party after the big loss last week. The way he is going about it may not endear him to the GOP base though, and that is a risky strategy for his primary run. He seems to be betting on the idea of real soul-searching within the GOP.

It will be interesting to see Chris Christie's reaction to all this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83892.html?hp=r2

Bobby's strategy seems too transparent.

Speaking of personal responsibility..liked the way the President came out swinging for Ms. Susan Rice- with some boss/male bravado:)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/obama-susan-rice-_n_2131264.html

*Personally I think, Susan is a nice lady- but, so boring and monotonous like Bobby..and hope he picks someone smart with Pizzaz who can replace Hillary- and does not waste his political capital on her!

____________________________

*On a very different topic..at this time in purely legal terms- technically speaking..terminations/induced abortions are legal in any trimester in the US (with some State variations) and in India.

*However..in medical terms since the risks go up dramatically with every trimester - as far as procedures of inducing abortions (which is very different for every trimester) and medical liability..obviously, the doctor/medical professional has to look at individual situation and make that determination..and especially as relates to "viability" (that fine line imo, when the fetus becomes a baby-newborn..and can breathe and survive on it's own outside the mother's uterus- which is usually between 24-26 weeks, with some new great med. advances it may be possible at 22-24 weeks) that is a tough decision to make..with many complications. The reality is that in the US..in most States, it is becoming harder to find a "safe" Clinic/doctor in most States to even perform abortions/terminations these days after the 1st trimester/early 2nd trimester- the only exception is, if the mother's life is in danger..and even in India..most doctors would stay away and not take patients after the 2nd trimester with the same mother's life exception.

*In moral and ethical terms- as you can imagine..there are moral/ethical dilemmas for the doctors/medical professionals who perform these procedures as well.

by Idéfix Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:10 am

Maria S wrote:Susan is a nice lady- but, so boring and monotonous like Bobby..and hope he picks someone smart with Pizzaz who can replace Hillary- and does not waste his political capital on her!

I completely agree. I don't think Rice comes even close to Clinton's stature. Kerry may be a better choice, although that might bring back Scott Brown to the Senate.

Thanks for clarifying the legal/ethical situation regarding abortion. I wanted to hear your opinion on this for sure.

by Hellsangel Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:11 am

panini press wrote: I wanted to hear your opinion on this for sure.

Coz?

by Idéfix Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:12 am

Hellsangel wrote:
panini press wrote: I wanted to hear your opinion on this for sure.

Coz?

Because she is more qualified to speak to the complications involved than I am.

by Hellsangel Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:18 am

panini press wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
panini press wrote: I wanted to hear your opinion on this for sure.

Coz?
Because she is more qualified to speak to the complications involved than I am.

To quote - I see.

by Maria S Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:15 am

As predictable as fleeing from someone who lost the election is..interesting to see Jindal, Christie, Martinez (I like her)..competing with each other to trash Romney..

Speaking of competing..this will be an interesting election to watch, if Booker runs.."all politics is local"..so NJites are more qualified than me to comment!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/16/booker-says-sandy-delaying-his-decision-on-gubernatorial-bid/

Pres. Obama may feel a little conflicted..with all the bonding going on lately with Chris..and distancing with Corey..we'll see.

by Idéfix Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:57 pm

Haha, this will get interesting. Booker vs. Christie will be a fight to watch.

by Hellsangel Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:42 pm

Maria S wrote:As predictable as fleeing from someone who lost the election is..interesting to see Jindal, Christie, Martinez (I like her)..competing with each other to trash Romney..

Speaking of competing..this will be an interesting election to watch, if Booker runs.."all politics is local"..so NJites are more qualified than me to comment!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/16/booker-says-sandy-delaying-his-decision-on-gubernatorial-bid/

Pres. Obama may feel a little conflicted..with all the bonding going on lately with Chris..and distancing with Corey..we'll see.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/21/15336589-newark-mayor-booker-sparks-melee-with-council-vote-police-pepper-spray-crowd?lite

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:41 pm

Chicken. Decided against facing Christie!

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/20/16043454-booker-eyes-2014-senate-run-over-christie-challenge?lite

by Sponsored content

Party of personal responsibility

Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility

Re: Party of personal responsibility