(Romney ran as a) "Democrat-light" and adjusted his positions to campaign as a moderate during the general election. "At the end of the day, conservatives were left out in the cold. It should have been a landslide for Romney, had he embraced a truly conservative agenda." "But Romney's a moderate and his campaign embarked on a bizarre...defense from the outset."-Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center
"What was presented as discipline by the Romney campaign by staying on one message–the economy–was a strategic error that resulted in a winning margin of pro-life votes being left on the table"--Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony List
"Tea partiers will take over the Republican Party within four years," Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of ConservatieHQ.com
If Romney would have picked a Hispanic like Senator Rubio as his veep--he might have won the election. Florida-New Mexico-Colorado-Nevada probably would have flipped, and then he would have one medium state away from the Presidency. But he picked a turkey to solidify the white bread ticket--and this may be the only ticket where one member didn't carry their home state. (McGovern carried MA--the home of his running mate)
Meanwhile the two most right wing major candidates--the religious fundamentalist Republican Senate candidate lose in Republican tilted states--Indiana and Missouri.
So what message do the Republicans take away from this? Moderate a little--especially on social issues. Actively include more people in the party so you don't slowly become the party of only religious fundamentalists (A thesis Kevin Phillips, who was a major player in the Nixon White House, advances.) Nah.
The message is ROMNEY WASN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH--THAT'S WHY HE LOST. Hee hee hee--please please please keep being misguided and say this often. Please keep moving to the right. Mitt Romney's dad who ran for president probably would be forced out of the Republican Party today.
John Eustice of Time
Meanwhile Lance apologists are saying that all riders doped so what's the big deal. They are right--Lance doping is not that big a deal. THE BIG DEAL is what made him "special"compared to other doping athletes. Lets see--Sammy Sosa wasn't part owner of his team like Lance. Barry Bonds didn't organize his team into a mass doping program like Lance. Mark McGuire didn't marginalize teammates, former MVP's and the press that exposed his doping program like Lance. And Roger Clemons didn't throw fastballs to the head of players who had testified against his dirty personal physician as Lance proverbially did. (See Simeoni for the Lance equivalent which even had fawning Bicycling Magazine puzzled at the time)
Doping was the least of Lance's problem--acting in Nixonesque fashion; running the doping program, covering up the doping program, and having an ever growing enemies list is the BIG DEAL.
Baseball players Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire and Roger Clemons have something in common with Lance Armstrong. While on the juice (or off) none of them ever rode Paris Roubaix. But if Sosa, Bonds, McGuire and Clemons were cyclists, they would have ridden Paris Roubaix to help their team.