Fair enough, I agree that's why they vote D. But the only solution is to teach them, and show them, that pandering and freebies are morally wrong and destructive in the long run to all of us -- including them!  Unless you are just willing to give up forever on winning them over (and you plan on leaving the country and living somewhere else in 20 years), then we must find ways to reach them and communicate with them.

Being cynical about the media and about the people themselves-- as if they will keep wanting freebies and be lazy no matter what-- is too easy and gives up on winning elections for decades.  I'm not there yet. 

When the message gets through about government overspending, eventual default and the consequences for everyone (especially about dark days ahead for their kids), people change their minds. I experience this in my work every day.  We must find creative ways to get the message through and persuade. In the vernacular.  In English and in Spanish.

Kylez- There are quite a few countries that have 2 or more official languages: Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Belgium, Israel (not official), India, China, others I'm sure. They do fine with national identity.  BTW yes, it's due to the decentralization in CH. Isn't that we would like more of?  We call it federalism.  Decentralization does not mean lack of strong national identity, which the Swiss have.

Yes, most Hispanophones speak at least basic English.  But they get their pop culture -- and political information from Spanish sources (Radio, TV etc).

Neither of you answered my basic question: are you tired of losing elections? Without creative rethinking of communication with the Spanish-speaking population, that's what we will get. This trend will persist for the next 50 years. If we get decades more of liberal governance-- well, the country will be gone in fewer than 50 years.

I SECOND IT!  Mitt and Ann, you are cherished and very much appreciated.

Alito will vote to affirm Obamacare? ("Ginsburg and Alito" spoken of as a an ideological pair?)  Thomas will not strike it down because he is black (and will decide based on identity politics!)?  Kennedy is thought of by people as a sound conservative?  The court will affirm Obamacare by a vote of 5 to 3?  (Poor Justice Breyer).  Come on guys, you can do better than this.

You guys don't get American electoral politics.  You have this in common with other Europeans.  (We don't understand parliamentary/coalition politics too well, either).  Many of us have known since 2007 that Romney is the best candidate in the current field-- if we want to win an election-- and have worked constantly on his behalf.  There are better GOP candidates (as you seem to believe)-- if we want to lose again.

He complains too much about how he's been treated. He forgets to express his more positive message and program.  He goes on too long. It's not just this passage, it's all the time.  People tune out.  It puts me in mind of the schoolteacher in Charlie Brown.  Bla bla bla.  And I agree with 95% of his positions!  Maybe my reaction is because it's too similar to the current president. Scold, complain, pity party, poor me, then more gasbag.  Maybe I'm the only one who reacts this way, but it seems that is not the case. 

I like the shorter version.  Santorum has become a whiner and a blowhard.  He always says way too much.  (I think it's poor preparation).  I'm sorry to say that because I have always liked him. 

Mr. D.,

I think being at a distance your perspective is shaped too much by our (and your) MSM who would like everyone to think that Mitt is a weak candidate who produces no enthusiasm.  I wish you could have been here last Saturday in Washington State.  More than 4x the anticipated number of people showed up and the energy level for replacing the current president was palpable.  Everyone will vote and work for whoever the candidate turns out to be. No one present could remember a GOP event anything like it taking place here.

Candidate Newt means 4 more years of destruction. The Dems will shred him. There is a reason he was way down the list until the other challengers failed.  Only one question for supporters of NG (besides "are you out of your mind?): What is the central, urgent, overarching goal of the coming campaign?  If we are not clear on this, we will not succeed.

Comparisons are confusing. What we call "right-wing" in America is small-government, pro-tradition, religious/churchly, patriotic.  Historically, these views in Europe were represented by "Center" parties-- people who resisted radicalisms of all sorts (communists, Nazis, anarchists, etc.). In Norway this political party is still called "Sentrum." On the continent, this stream lives on in the parties usually called "Christian Democrat."  Rattlesnake, that's not right.  In Germany the FDP is against Statism and for small government.  We would call them Libertarians. Just like our Libertarians, they don't fit on the spectrum (exhibit A: Ron Paul).  Then there's the Pirate Party, which just won seats in some German states for the first time (over the 5% minimum)-- geeky, young, uber-libertarians

You're right. This strategy is the only way in Norway to keep Breivik locked up indefinitely. If he is declared sane, he would be out in about 12 years, I think.

P.S. Milt will love it-- he is an Anglophile. Recently had Max Hastings, Bernard Wasserstein, etc.

Chicago- WGN

It's Milt Rosenberg (Rosenthal was close) on "Extension 720". One of the best broadcasts and podcasts around.

Perfect format for you , Claire-- thoughtful, extended. He takes the time.

http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/ext720/

The self-confident person sees someone who has more, or does something better, and becomes interested in that person-- to learn from them and see what can be gained by observing them. The insecure person sees those who have more or are more gifted, and responds by criticism and, if possible, by harming the person in some way. Most of our leaders are profoundly insecure and thus all is shaped by the politics of envy. It is so tiresome.

Matt, what are the sources of your awareness that people are fallible and yes, fallen? How refreshing to read someone who proceeds from truthful anthropological ground. Most of the idiots we're surrounded by think that people are basically good.