On the 2012 Election

Well, after taking a kinda-sorta break immediately following an election that was a disaster, I am back and in full force.  I have my ice cream, my vodka and my fuzzy bunny slippers and I am all ready to curl up and cry for another few months.  Yes, I will be eating all three.

In all seriousness, as I slowly recover from the utter demoralization of Tuesday, let me give you my thoughts on what happened.

This man loses more gracefully than liberals win, sadly.

First of all, I was utterly shocked by the result.  Not only did Mitt Romney lose, but the Republicans lost seats in congress (though they maintained their house majority).  You already know this.  I think I can also say with confidence I was as flabbergasted as the rest of the conservative movement by this.  It seemed like the momentum was on our side, with the terrible shape the nation is in, and people would be wise enough to make the change needed to fix our ever-growing problems.

They did not and now the question is why?  Let me take a stab at it.

First, I honestly believe Romney was a bad candidate.  Now, do not get me wrong, conservatives did not have a good crop to choose from to begin with.  Most of the others had baggage or inherent flaws.  I love Rick Santorum and Herman Cain (the latter's recent advocacy of a third party notwithstanding), but I also realize neither could have won.  I am also not shortchanging Mitt, for I believe he put as much effort as he personally could into his bid.

However, Romney had several glaring issues, among them Romneycare.  It took the issue of Obamacare off the table almost entirely.  It was most certainly mentioned here or there, but its taxes, spending and rationing never got the play it should have.  Indeed, with Obama's re-election, many businesses fully intend on avoiding its costs and a firmer argument against it may have avoided the lost jobs we will be seeing.

He also never truly has been a conservative.  In this election, it seemed imperative to me that our side draw a clear distinction between ourselves and Barack Obama and, in so doing, show those demographic groups who often vote Democrat that we have their best interests at heart.  That never happened. Romney certainly talked a good game and selected Paul Ryan, to his credit, but it never truly got beyond that.  Thus the lines between the "devil we knew "and the "devil we didn't" became increasingly blurred, particularly during the third debate.

However, moreso than Mitt's own flaws as a candidate was his campaign apparatus.  I believe he surrounded himself with establishment advisers who gave him bad advice.  Part of me genuinely wonders if it was Mitt himself who preferred passivity or the advice he was given to be less aggressive.  Perhaps it was a combination both.  Either way, his campaign was mismanaged, much in the same way John McCain's was (though McCain was a charisma black hole, if what happened Sarah Palin is any indication).  His lack of aggressiveness on issues like Benghazi allowed to truth to stay sealed up tight.

Additionally, I am hearing stories now of a truly weak ground game by the Republicans, which, if true, is truly absurd.  Millions of conservatives and Christians not voting should not be happening, particularly in an election this important.  Obama having a stronger ground game should not have translated into an inept one by his opposition.

This points to what are really the inherent weaknesses of the Republican Party.  If its establishment is so mired in their own egos and belief in their ability that they cannot organize effectively, it is about time they be replaced with people of energy and fresh ideas.  Replaced by people capable of adapting to the information age and changing demographics.  In particular, that establishment must be replaced by people with true conservative principles instead of party loyalty.

I believe when we realize this, conservatives will have learned the true lesson of 2012.

P.S. Think I may write about some of the smaller issues on the election tomorrow or Saturday.  There are many small issues like Chris Christie, Akin and Mourdock and others that deserve some mention.  That and I just feel like talking about it.  You got a problem with that?

On the Vice Presidential Debate

Okay, now that I've waited a bit after the debate, it's time for me to respond.

Note: I just chose this picture because it looks cool.

First off, if you were following my Twitter feed (if you weren't, shame on you), you may have noticed I was very, very irritated at Joe Biden.  On the one hand, he came off more forceful and perhaps slightly more convincing, even when he was wrong.  But his constant smirking and laughing came across as condescending, particularly as so much of it was during serious discussions.  He came across, sadly, as a jerk and it was obvious.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, as very meek and unassuming.  In fact, he was too meek and unassuming. While Biden was jumping all over him and interrupting him, he let it happen far too often.  The same went for the number of times Martha Raddatz blocked Paul Ryan from rebutting specious charges from the Vice President, which frankly is not right.

Which leads me to the debate's big winner: Jim Lehrer.  This debate proved, above all else, that allowing the candidates to talk to each other is a superior debate format to one where the moderator feels that he (or she, in this case) should be part of the debate.  Frankly, there should have been a separate timer for the amount of time Raddatz spoke, because she should not have been speaking for more than a couple of minutes.  But on more than a few occasions, I heard her interrupt and change the subject, more often than not when it aided Biden.  That should not be happening.  On the other hand, I feel it could have been worse, but Martha Raddatz definitely gets a thumbs down.

To my actual verdict, I call it a draw on substance.  Ryan definitely put his wonkishness to good use, reciting numbers and details off the top of his head with ease.  Biden's counter-arguments appealed, as usual, to the heart and glossed over reality more often than not.  His aggressive rebuttals helped make Ryan look cowed, however.  On style, however, Biden, as Steven Crowder put it early in the debate, "came out swinging and punched himself."  He looked like a jerk and sounded like a jerk.  I'm sure many independents tuned out when he reached "critical mass" at 10PM.  I almost did out of frustration.

In the end, it helps the bases and does little for independents, though Biden definitely turned them off with his oafishness.