Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
In the last few weeks, as some of you may have noticed, I have written very few blog posts. In part, this is due to the rhythm of the semester. Once the grading begins, one's free time shrinks. Part of it is due to the fact that I am maniacally trying to finish a polished draft of a book on ancient Sparta that I had hoped, before my extended sojourn in the hospital at the National Institutes of Health took place, to finish this summer. In part, however, it was because I had some thinking to do.
As some of you are no doubt acutely aware, the election results came to me as a shock. Given the emergence of the Tea Party Movement in 2009, the Republicans' discovery in the last months of that year that there is such a thing as a backbone, and their magnificent victory in the midterms in 2010, I figured that the Republicans had a real shot in 2012 at repeating what they had achieved against Jimmy Carter in 1980. And when Mitt Romney put Paul Ryan on the ticket, it looked to me as if he was going to fully capitalize on the opportunity that Barack Obama's mismanagement of the economy had afforded the Republicans.
But, of course, the Republicans did not achieve again what they had accomplished in 1980. I have no doubt that they could have won handily, and I believe that they would have done so had Mitt Romney not, in the end, opted to run a largely non-ideological, non-partisan, personal campaign against Barack Obama, eschewing appeals to first principles and intimating by his silence in this regard that Barack Obama is a perfectly decent fellow with perfectly respectable ideas and intentions and that there was nothing more at issue in the election than the unfortunate managerial failings of the President.
Instead of seeking a partisan victory by uniting the candidates of his party on a single, clearly spelled-out platform like Newt Gringrich's Contract with America, Romney orphaned the Republican Senatorial candidates in such a manner as to localize the Senatorial campaigns. This enabled the Democratic nominees in states such as Montana, Missouri, and Indiana to distance themselves from the President, to run as independents of a sort highly critical of Barack Obama, to capitalize on errors made by their opponents, and to win. It also meant that there was no real clash of visions in the national race. When Romney put Paul Ryan on the ticket, I persuaded myself that he was an old dog capable of learning new tricks and that he was going to grasp the bull by the horns and run a principled campaign. But in the end he chose not to do so, and he ran for the Presidency in the manner he had run for the Senate and for the Governorship in Massachusetts: as a man almost ashamed of the party that had nominated him and of the ideological principles that it had embraced. You can never win an argument you do not make, and Romney, by his silence regarding the nature and ends of government, conceded the argument.
Even then, of course, Romney himself might have won the personal victory he sought had the women and men he hired run a competent campaign. But this they did not do. To begin with, in the primaries, especially when challenged by Governor Rick Perry of Texas (where the Republicans have done well with the Hispanic vote) Romney acted in such a manner as to alienate Mexican-Americans. Then, in the general election, he simply conceded the Hispanic vote. I have a colleague who is fluent in Spanish and who regularly watches Univision. He tells me that, in the course of the campaign, he saw not a single television advertisement on Univision touting Mitt Romney.
I am not arguing here that Romney could have persuaded a majority of Mexican-American voters to side with him. That would have been beyond the reach of any Republican this year. I am merely suggesting that he could have done much better and that, in the circumstances, had he done so, it might well have made a real difference.
The other area in which the Romney campaign was simply incompetent had to do with getting out the vote. I live in a battleground state. We were inundated with robocalls for weeks prior to the election. The Romney people clearly had money to burn, and this money they wasted in such a manner as to infuriate potential supporters. Never once was I contacted by a real human being. In Michigan -- at least in the corner of Michigan in which I live -- the Romney campaign had no ground game to speak of.
To this, we can add that his campaign spent considerable sums on software designed to support the ground game that he apparently tried to mount elsewhere, and on election day that software crashed. So much for Mitt Romney's competence as a technocrat!
One of the reasons that I did not see this coming was that I did not pay adequate attention to the campaign as it unfolded. Lacking a television, I missed the advertisements aimed at demonizing Romney, and I did not fully appreciate the significance of Romney's abysmal performance at the Republican National Convention -- where it became clear that he intended to eschew principles and run a personal campaign, inviting people to vote for him solely because he is a nice fellow and an experienced manager.
I did watch the debates (all of the first, and most of the others). I was overly impressed by Romney's magnificent victory in the first debate. I thought that it put him in the lead, and my suspicions were confirmed by the Gallup poll and, some of the time, by Rasmussen. What I did not adequately appreciate in the following weeks was Romney's folly in trying to sit on that lead and run out the clock. When he should have been audacious, he was almost timid; and, especially on Benghazi, he allowed President Obama to get away with outright lies. Instead of going for a decisive victory, Romney aimed at eking out a win -- which is the way a challenger is very much apt to lose. All that it took to tip the balance against him was a hurricane and a Republican governor, in need of help from FEMA, willing to heap effusive praise on the President.
I have no doubt that Mitt Romney was a better candidate than any of those who ran against him for the Republican nomination. He lost a squeaker. The others, apart from Rick Perry, had no business being in the race. Every one of them would have lost by a landslide.
I also have no doubt that we would be much better off now had Romney won. For the time being, Barack Obama has the whip hand; and, in the next few years, he is going to do the country a great deal of harm -- all for the purpose of expanding further the administrative entitlements state. The consequences in foreign affairs could be exceedingly grim -- especially with regard to Iran and China -- and the damage done the economy will hurt Americans grievously for a long time to come.
But I also suspect that, had he won election, Mitt Romney would soon have left his party and its supporters demoralized.This, as you may remember, I worried about from the start. Back in May, 2011, I post a piece entitled The Last Man Standing. In it, I restated in brief the conclusion reached in my recent book Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift that "there is built into liberal democracy a natural tendency to drift in the direction of the administrative state with its concentration of power in the executive branch of the central government and its entitlement programs," and I added the following:
This propensity can only be successfully resisted if we understand its origins and if we take cognizance of the manner in which the American regime, as envisaged by the Founding generation, was designed to stand in its way. This propensity has been systematically and quite effectively exploited by the Progressives and their heirs now for something like a century. What they understand that we need to understand is that a reversal of the trend is well nigh impossible – well nigh, let me add, but not quite. Well nigh because those in possession of entitlements will scream bloody murder if they are threatened. And not quite because, thanks in part to our unwitting benefactor Barack Obama, we no longer have the resources to support the entitlements state. We can certainly raise taxes, as President Obama and the Democrats intend to do, but that does not mean that in the long run we will take in more revenue – and it is massively increased revenue that the entitlement state needs. The Progressives are banking on the unwillingness of a considerable part of the electorate to give up the subsidies on which they live, and on this they have always to date successfully banked. Right now, however, the fiscal crisis of the welfare state offers us an opening, and I am confident that Mitt Romney will miss it. He is the sort of man who never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Since 1928, when Calvin Coolidge relinquished the Presidency, the office has been held by a number of Republicans – Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Only one of these has displayed an understanding of the problem we face, and he was, for understandable reasons, too preoccupied with wining the Cold War, to confront that problem with all of his energy. Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils were all what I call managerial progressives. Their claim over against the liberals was that they could manage the administrative state more efficiently and effectively than their counterparts. Rarely if ever did any of them mention the Founders. Rarely if ever did they appeal to the first principles of our form of government as they are expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Rarely if ever did they appeal to the Constitution in opposition to the jurisprudential drift of the Supreme Court. Limited government was not part of their vocabulary. They were without clue.
The reasons are simple enough. Not one of these men was properly educated in the principles of American government. They had their virtues. They were practical men, can-do sorts with a pretty good understanding of how to get from here to there. In terms of moral understanding, as it is applied to political matters, however, they were bankrupt or pretty nearly so. The ordinary senior at Hillsdale College these days has a better grasp of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the conditions of freedom than did any of these men.
The same is true of nearly all Republicans. They come into Congress, the Senate, and state government from the Chambers of Commerce. Few of them have any sort of political education. Most are businessmen. If they have something more than an undergraduate education, it is reflected by their possessing a law degree or an MBA – which is to say, they have been trained to be managerial progressives. Our law schools and our business schools owe their origins to the Progressives. They were created for the purpose of encouraging what Franklin Delano Roosevelt called “rational administration.”
The reason why I oppose Mitt Romney is simple, He was born to destroy everything that we have accomplished since the Tea-Party Movement emerged in the Spring of 2009. Romney is the very model of a managerial progressive. He has one great virtue. He knows how to run things; he knows how to organize things. He would make a good Secretary of Commerce. He has no understanding of the principles that underpin our government. And, in fact, like most businessmen, he is a man almost devoid of political principles. Give him a problem, and he will make a highly intelligent attempt to solve it. Ask him to identify which problems should be left to ordinary people and what are the proper limits to government’s reach, and he would not understand the question. He is what you might call a social engineer; and, in his estimation, we are little more than the cogs and wheels that need to be engineered. . . .
Romney’s political instincts are disastrous. He will betray the friends of liberty and limited government at the first opportunity. If he is nominated, the people who joined the Tea Party and turned out in 2010 to give the Republicans an historic victory are likely to stay home. If, by some miracle, the progenitor of Romneycare actually defeats the progenitor of Obamacare, he will quickly embrace the entitlement state and present himself as the man who can make it hum, as he did in Massachusetts. He is not better than Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils. He is cut from the same cloth, and in practice he is apt to be far, far worse. The consequence will be the death in American life or at least the decay of the impulse embodied within the Tea-Party Movement.
What I wrote at that time was harsh, and I came to think -- or, rather, hope -- that I had been unjust. I wanted to believe that time and circumstance had given Romney the education that he did not receive at Stanford, Brigham Young University, Harvard Business School, and Harvard Law School, and I wanted to believe that his choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate was not just a sop thrown to the Tea Party Movement but a sign that Romney himself had outgrown managerial progressivism. Had I spent less time thinking about Sparta this Fall and more time following the Republican campaign, had I read and re-read Romney's acceptance speech at the convention, I would have known better.
I do not now believe that Mitt Romney was ever serious about repealing Obamacare. Had he been serious, he would have run a campaign designed to nationalize the Senatorial elections in every state. What he seemed to want was to be elected President and to have Democratic control in the Senate as an excuse for a failure on his part to keep his campaign promises. It was as if he wanted to win but did not want the ideas he had been forced to espouse in order to get the Republican nomination to be victorious with him. He wanted to win an office, not an argument. In that particular, he was typical of nearly all Republican presidential nominees in the past. He had no desire to change the direction in which we are tending. He merely wanted to manage its progress in that direction more prudently.
That may never have been good enough. It is certainly not good enough now. Let's hope that Mitt Romney turns out to be the last managerial progressive nominated for the Presidency by the Republican Party. What we need is a woman or man intent on radically correcting our course and a party intent on achieving the same end.
The last thing that we need to do is to take the advice proffered to us by Mike Murphy -- tellingly, not in a conservative journal but in the pages of Time Magazine, where such advice is most welcome -- that, to succeed, we must surrender to the Zeitgeist. Why just think how much good Arnold Schwarzenegger did the Republican Party and the people of California! Barry Goldwater was right about one thing long ago. We need to offer Americans a choice, not an echo. We need to do more than re-arrange the deck chairs on our political Titanic.
- Comment (170)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Jan '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Matthew K. Tabor: What I don't understand is how one can openly admit how wrong and how shocked one was when the election results came in, and then tell us how certain one is that A, B and C would have been successful instead.
If an author said, "Remember the last book I wrote? The one where I got everything wrong? Well, me being so abysmally wrong actuallymakes me more of an authority on my next book, which is on the exact same topic," I'd say, "Neat trick," and walk away. · 2 minutes ago
Carl Rove and Dick Morris make a living doing this; and it's their full-time job!
Jan '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
BrentB67
I don't think it would've made a difference. Romney/Ryan might've slowed the decay and they never had fiscal conservatives enthusiastically on board. This election was about enthusiasm. · 4 minutes ago
I liked Paul Ryan as pick for VP, but he did vote for TARP and the Stimulus, so I believe that you are right.
May '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Edward Smith: Mitt Romney is someone I would enjoy meeting, and I do not doubt that the people who work for him feel better knowing that he is their employer.
He was the best that the B Team had to offer.
The A Team decided not to show up.
He did not have to run for President. He did not have to run for Governor of Massachusetts. He did not have to life a finger to help get the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics back on track.
In fact, there are a lot of things he did not have to do. And the people he helped are glad he stepped up to the job.
I saw in him a better candidate than he was.
I still believe that he would have made a good President. Not a great one, not a President who could turn it all around, but a President who could start turning the ship around.
He did the best he could do....
Very nice writing. I believe these election debriefs are very important and good learning, but one thing that has been lost in them is that Gov. Romney is a great man. Well Done.
May '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Barbara Kidder
BrentB67
I don't think it would've made a difference. Romney/Ryan might've slowed the decay and they never had fiscal conservatives enthusiastically on board. This election was about enthusiasm. · 4 minutes ago
I liked Paul Ryan as pick for VP, but he did vote for TARP and the Stimulus, so I believe that you are right. · 2 minutes ago
I read his plan and did my analysis here.
I respect Cong. Ryan a lot. He is a detailed numbers guy that does the hard analysis. I just don't think he makes the hard choices outside of Medicare.
Edited on December 2, 2012 at 5:16amApr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Nick Stuart
11/6/12 was our final chance to lean very hard on the tiller and possibly, just maybe, miss the iceberg.
The majority of voters voted "full steam ahead."
It is now a bit after midnight on the Titanic [recall the ship hit the iceberg at 11:44 p.m. and was on its way to the bottom from that moment].
"Nearer My God to Thee" being so 19th century, the band has struck up "Don't Worry, Be Happy" Free choom and condoms are available in the dispensary. The captain has set out for Hawaii in his private launch.
Agreed...11/6 was our last, best change and we blew it. The American experiment is officially over and we're witnessing the death of a nation. America will be nothing more than a blip on the radar screen of history...a curiosity, if you will. Sad. I am reminded of the first two lines from that famous Everly Brothers' song:
Well, I guess there's no point in crying...time to move on and look elsewhere for that "shining city upon a hill".
Edited on December 2, 2012 at 5:33amMay '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
I was speaking to a neighbor today and made a comment about the election. This neighbor is very libertarian. His basic belief could be summed up as, "Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone." His response to my comment was, "Why would anyone want to vote for a man or party that wants to tell what you can do in your bedroom? The majority of Americans didn't want anything to do with Romney because of that."
Is he wrong? The press and the Dems have painted a picture of Republicans that far too many believe. That's why Romney lost. No one changed that picture least of all Romney.
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Pilli: I was speaking to a neighbor today and made a comment about the election. This neighbor is very libertarian. His basic belief could be summed up as, "Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone." His response to my comment was, "Why would anyone want to vote for a man or party that wants to tell what you can do in your bedroom? The majority of Americans didn't want anything to do with Romney because of that."
Is he wrong? The press and the Dems have painted a picture of Republicans that far too many believe. That's why Romney lost. No one changed that picture least of all Romney. · 0 minutes ago
This is symptomatic of a much larger problem, but yes, I'm amazed at how much thinking the American people do with their loins. Our kids can't read, write or do math, but hey...no problem...at least they know how to put on a condom, group masturbate and give each other BJ's. Why shouldn't we be surprised at what is happening?
Edited on December 2, 2012 at 5:52amJan '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Black Prince
This is symptomatic of a much larger problem, but yes, I'm amazed at how much thinking the American people do with their loins. Our kids can't read, write or do math, but hey...no problem...at least they know how to put on a condom, group masturbate and give BJ's. Why should we be surprised at what is happening? · 3 minutes ago
You make an excellent point. This is why the fiscal and moral issues can never be separated in a campaign; a candidate must be ready always to give his honest views on moral issues.
We saw several senatorial candidates fall on their sword in this arena because they were woefully unprepared.
However, where Republican candidates fail is in making clear to their audience that most moral problems cannot be solved through legislation.
In this regard, they could take a lesson from Ron Paul.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Paul A. Rahe
Scott Reusser: Prof. Rahe:
Every single Senate candidate who ran to the right of Mitt Romney got a lower share of the vote in his state than did Romney. No exceptions. The couple candidates who got higher shares ran to his left.
This would suggest that our current predicament is considerably more complicated than "run a truer, bluer conservative campaign and then, finally, Americans will embrace us."
Man, how I wish it were that simple. But. It. Isn't. · 2 hours ago
When the guy at the top of the ticket is not articulating the argument, it undercuts those running for lower office who try to do so. · 1 hour ago
So glib! -- but with respect, this is the same sort of casual dismissal of contrary evidence that caused you -- and, blush, me -- to be so blind to the discouraging reality in the last weeks of the election.
Nov '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Edward Smith: What I want to know is, where was the A Team? Too scared of Obama to take him on? Romney wasn't.
The Republican Party leadership is not worthy of it. · 4 hours ago
Here, here. While US troops were perishing in Afghanistan in the course of performing their duty, a clutch of talented GOP public officials declined to seek their party's presidential nomination because the timing was not right for their supremely precious political careers. That reticence was reprehensible in the context of the material and moral dangers facing the country. They talk the talk of patriotism, but where was the walk when it was needed?
In Australia, the most common exhortation to effort is, "Have a go!" To be a "have a go" sort of person is to be much admired. I'm sure there must be an American popular expression for the same idea (Americans and Australians being similar in this respect), but I don't know what it is.
Mitt Romney is most definitely a "have a go" person and is, in terms of his basic character and practical patriotism, almost certainly the best president the country never had.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
If you're still watching, Scott, we absolutely have to get you out of Ohio. You'll add years to your life, man.
Apr '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
So many great points made. Prof Rahe, your enthusiasm was understandable. I just spent a few hours listening to American public radio podcasts in Stitcher and no wonder America is changing. One program was about how horrible Minnesota people are because they do not recognize that their city is the location of more killings than the Civil War. The professor self identified as Indian told how she found out about the hanging of Indians in the town in 1850 and she threw up. She is so upset because no one in Minnesota knows the truth. They hid it.
Then I listened to a Harvard professor with an Indian name talk about Winston Churchill and his disgraceful leadership because he was against Indian home rule in the 1920s because he did not like Indians and he was sent away from politics because he was a racist, mad man with poor judgement.
Your comment about not watching TV does show us conservatives can live in a bubble and forget that people are not interested in budgets or small business owner tax issues.
the public conversation is taken up with how terrible the leaders were.
Rape, contraception, abortion and poor tech sunk it.
Jan '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Stephen Hall
Here, here. While US troops were perishing in Afghanistan in the course of performing their duty, a clutch of talented GOP public officials declined to seek their party's presidential nomination because the timing was not right for their supremely precious political careers. That reticence was reprehensible in the context of the material and moral dangers facing the country. They talk the talk of patriotism, but where was the walk when it was needed?
In Australia, the most common exhortation to effort is, "Have a go!" To be a "have a go" sort of person is to be much admired. I'm sure there must be an American popular expression for the same idea (Americans and Australians being similar in this respect), but I don't know what it is.
Mitt Romney is most definitely a "have a go" person and is, in terms of his basic character and practical patriotism, almost certainly the best president the country never had. · 4 hours ago
Well said!
The phrase that comes to mind was made famous by a brave American, Scott Beamer, murdered on 9/11/2000:
"Let's roll"!
Oct '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Stephen Hall
Edward Smith: What I want to know is, where was the A Team? Too scared of Obama to take him on? Romney wasn't.
The Republican Party leadership is not worthy of it. · 4 hours ago
Here, here. While US troops were perishing in Afghanistan in the course of performing their duty, a clutch of talented GOP public officials declined to seek their party's presidential nomination because the timing was not right for their supremely precious political careers. That reticence was reprehensible in the context of the material and moral dangers facing the country. They talk the talk of patriotism, but where was the walk when it was needed?
Just curious, Stephen - to whom are you referring?
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Scott Reusser
So glib! -- but with respect, this is the same sort of casual dismissal of contrary evidence that caused you -- and, blush, me -- to be so blind to the discouraging reality in the last weeks of the election.
...and this is the reason why we're doomed. Our side still doesn't get it and we're nowhere close to acknowledging the truth of our situation. We delude ourselves by thinking that people are going to wake up one day (when the money runs out, they say) or if only we pander to this ethic group or to that special interest then it's all magically going to turn around. I cringe when conservatives say that despite all of our problems we still have the best country on earth. When is it going to sink in to our thick, stupid heads that Americans are NOT special and that America is NOT the greatest country on earth (at least not for long). Why? Because our core is completely rotten and our foundation is disintegrating. And folks, in case you haven't been paying attention over the past four years, the Constitution is DEAD...it's not going to save us.
Edited on December 2, 2012 at 4:18pmOct '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
It's communication, folks. Doesn't matter what our message is - whether from a moderate managerial or a trueblue conservative or anyone else - if we don't control our message, it's not our message, it's the media's.
Until we address the means of communication, as was attempted here and here, we're wasting our collective analyses and time.
Jun '12
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Prof Rahe, I agree mostly with what you write about a poorly run and disconnected campaign but disagree with you on your analysis of Mitt Romney's devious intention to lose the senate race. It is hard enough to win a Presidential race with no mainstream media support, let alone a deliberately deceitful one. Mitt Romney is a Problem Solver, the electorate prefers a Performer. It's ok to have misjudged, no one ever said life is predictable base on knowledge alone "**** happens", that's life. In a way, I am relieved, now, they own it all. I would strongly urge you to take caution in your character analysis of our candidates, we want to encourage more good people with high integrity to run for office.
Edited on December 2, 2012 at 4:23pmApr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Paul A. Rahe
Keith Bruzelius: "Never once was I contacted by a real human being. In Michigan -- at least in the corner of Michigan in which I live -- the Romney campaign had no ground game to speak of."
My question would be: Were you making some of the needed calls?
Why does every post-mortem speak like this? The Romney campaign should only have been a part of the effort. Even a Ron Paul supporter like me supported the Republican Party, at the county fair booth, writing a letter to the editor, and even voting.
Maybe the Republicans have become soft and lazy and deserve to lose to the community organizers. · 3 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
I did my bit -- albeit not at the local level. · 12 hours ago
I'm very pleasantly surprised to hear this. I recall so many posts of yours recommending the apathy that led to our defeat (either on the grounds that Romney was worthless and we should focus on hindering him or on the grounds that he was dominating) that it means a great deal to me that you did something positive to offset them. What did you do?
Jan '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
Paul A. Rahe
You can see why I have been so critical of Cardinal Bernadine and the men he made bishops. [...] The bishops and priests, by their silence, made it clear that they were not serious about chastity and abortion.
Well, perhaps, but I think this is a different issue.
There are a lot of ministries in the church which, while started by religious orders or dioceses, are now separately incorporated. The order doesn't really "own" the school anymore. Even if the bishop and the religious orders wanted to make a point, they don't have the leverage to shut it down.
That leaves the decisions to various boards and committees, filled with people who don't have a vow of obedience. It's highly possible that they would collectively decide that complying with the HHS contraception mandate is just a venial sin, compared to fulfilling the overwhelming Christian mandate to help the poor and sick.
Besides, if I'm a VIP at a Catholic institution, I really don't want to shut down the reason I'm important.
(If you bring a can of gray paint, you can paint over anything that's black and white.)
Apr '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Failure – and Mine
dittoheadadt: It's communication, folks. Doesn't matter what our message is - whether from a moderate managerial or a trueblue conservative or anyone else - if we don't control our message, it's not our message, it's the media's.
Until we address the means of communication, as was attempted here and here, we're wasting our collective analyses and time. · 43 minutes ago
I agree that we're wasting our time and energy. We might as well be discussing why some donuts have cream filling inside and others don't...it's completely irrelevant. We don't just need more or better communication...what we need is deprogramming. We need to counteract the Marxist propaganda has been pumped into our soft heads over the past 50 years. We're a brainwashed county and we're experiencing the inevitable consequences. I have no idea where to begin this monumental deprogramming task...it's probably too late.
Edited on December 2, 2012 at 5:14pm