The Biggest Lesson the GOP Should Learn from the Election


The Biggest Lesson the GOP Should Learn from the Election
by Frank J. Fleming


So what lessons should Republicans learn from the 2016 election? I don’t think anyone other than me has thought to ask this question, as Republicans tend not to be very analytical. But I think the answer is pretty obvious when you look at the failure of their presidential candidate this year and the one in 2008: Republicans need to stop nominating right-wing extremists like John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Obviously, the two most recent Republican presidential candidates were far too extreme to the right to be elected by the American public. They were constantly seen in the company of numerous Republicans and conservatives (one was even seen hanging around Sarah Palin) and often praised them instead of denouncing them. Also, they reveled in the racism of the Republican Party (especially in their racist stance on taxes) and sometimes said positive things about Republicans’ stances on social issues. And worst of all, they were actually opposed to the election and reelection of the first black president and occasionally even criticized him.

… If the Republican Party doesn’t want to continue being hated, it needs to finally give up on its right-wing radicalism exemplified by McCain and Romney and plan to have in 2016 a perfect candidate who will not be so offensive to Democrats.

So what is he like? First off, the Super Squish will not spend a lot of time criticizing Democrats, as he should be far too busy disparaging his own party. I mean, lately, the party has been filled with white people critical of a black man, and this ultimate candidate needs to take on that racism in his own party to show he’s not a part of it. …

… If he could get Democrats to say things like, “I do like raising taxes on the rich, but that Republican candidate wants to go too far with it,” that would be perfect.

Furthermore, the Super Squish is someone who won’t lose votes on social issues. He’ll never bring them up, and if Democrats bring them up, he’ll immediately capitulate to what they want to keep those issues from being problems. And maybe he can support them on some things to show he doesn’t agree with those scary religious Republicans. Ideally, he himself will be an abortionist. This would certainly keep women voters from being frightened of the Republican candidate; they love abortions.

Also, the Super Squish will not be another one of those Republicans who mindlessly invoke Ronald Reagan and instead will really chastise the Republican Party’s love for him. He’ll tell Republicans, “Reagan would be ashamed of the Party as it is today. Also, I’m ashamed of Reagan, because he’s not as great as everyone pretends and was actually quite divisive. Yes, everyone likes him now, but they shouldn’t. So let’s never mention him again except to say how ashamed he would be of today’s GOP.”

Similarly, the Super Squish will take on the religious wing of the party that pushes it to extremism. “The only things I believe without question are things that people in white lab coats say,” he’ll lecture the religious nuts. …

So who is this Super Squish? We don’t know yet, but we’d better start looking now. Start with any Republican allowed to speak on MSNBC. And we must have him ready for 2016 before the wingnuts start to rally around another far-right disaster like McCain or Romney. If the Republicans have finally learned their lesson, they’ll embrace the Super Squish, and the Super Squish will in turn keep them at arm’s length so as not to appear too Republicany. And while the Super Squish won’t win the presidency (beating a Democrat is racially insensitive to their numerous coalitions), he’ll run a campaign so inoffensive to the left that they’ll pat us on the back and say, “You ran an honorable campaign, predominantly white people.”

[sarcasm] Fleming goes too easy on social conservatives and the religious wingnuts. And he seems to have entirely forgotten about the stance on multiculturalism the Super Squish needs to embrace and his need to continually apologize to tyrannous mini-monster-wannabes for the US’ continual insistence on existing. But this column is a good start! [/sarcasm]


How’s either Romney or McCain an extremist? Which GOP nominee can possibly be more moderate than both? Is he only talking about social issues?


Right wing extremists? What rock is he living under?


Romey/McCain are moderates if not anything else. Then again, maybe the same can be said for me in areas.


[quote=“Susanna, post:3, topic:37332”]
Right wing extremists? What rock is he living under?
[/quote]Apparently if you embrace morals and values that is the antithesis of what those have who use the government forward their ideals rather than try to work for the good of the people and the nation as a whole. Unfortunately we are faced with a government which has coalesced into one entity which shares the same value and pretend they do not.


Ummm … did anyone read the article, whose sarcasm would have dripped so voluminously as to endanger nearby keyboards and other electronic devices? Or at least notice the sarcasm tags I used with my “agreeing” comment?


Speaking as someone who also has the Spiritual gift of sarcasm, BRAVO!


wow why is this garbage being posted about republicans on a supposed republican site by a moderator and his only defense is that it’s sarcasm… If that was the case there should be some clarity in the article. For starters is should be on a site’s satirical page… This is not. This is not sarcasm. These insults were intentional and plain wrong as was pointed out by several members.

So not sure why a moderator posted this in the first place when their job is supposed to moderate this sort of crap! It’s got troll written all over it.


As I said to you before, maybe you can get your sense of humor defibulated when Obamacare kicks in.


I dunno how anyone could read this as anything but satire. Even ignoring the McCain/Romney radical bit, “Super Squish”? And

"If Democrats bring them up, he’ll immediately capitulate to what they want to keep those issues from being problems. And maybe he can support them on some things to show he doesn’t agree with those scary religious Republicans.
Come on, guys :stuck_out_tongue:


You think this inability to identify the obvious is also an explanation for how Romney was viewed as a viable candidate to begin with?


lol pretty much!


[quote=“RET423, post:11, topic:37332”]
You think this inability to identify the obvious is also an explanation for how Romney was viewed as a viable candidate to begin with?
[/quote]Which of the 2012 field do you think would have run better against Obama? I think Huntsman would have, but I think Romney was the next best shot.


No I don’t think it’s funny. If it was a joke, why didn’t you put it in the laughs section?


Huntsman was Romney, just with less money and Party support.
He also tried far less to become a “Conservative” overnight so he probably would have had even less luck convincing Conservatives to pretend he represented them.

This field was weak but Gingrich was the only one capable of winning all the arguments and the only one with a believable resume of major accomplishments that were relevant to our current issues and not gains for the Left.

He would have not gleaned any votes from the takers but he would have won nearly all the Independents and gotten a full turnout of Republicans.

Gingrich was the only possible winner in this group, he was capable of dealing with his own baggage and he never had trouble driving the debate. It was the GOP who coalesced to derail his candidacy because the GOP had first hand experience with Gingrich in power, they knew he would bloody as many GOP noses as it took to pursue the agenda that he campaigned on.

And in case nobody noticed, he campaigned very specifically regarding what his solutions were and he sold these ideas easily to voters.

That is what happens when a candidate runs on a platform that they have believed in for decades instead of just the last few months.


Well, let me take a wild guess.

Maybe because “Sarcasm” is not necessarily just a joke?
Maybe this author is showing how utterly ridiculous the Extreme Left, Establishment GOP is sounding by their “explanations” that include everything but the fact that they nominated another Liberal Candidate?

Sounds like an article tailored perfect for “Left Vs Right” to me since the entire message was regarding the Conservatives vs the Liberals in the GOP, of course I read and comprehended the article.


All I find funny is right wingers weather they’d be conservatives, libertarians or moderates all beating up on each other and then, wondering why we can’t win elections… It seems we all know what we have to do, but we just don’t do it. I don’t see why posting the same stuff over and over again is going to help anything whatsoever.

This meaning, I’ve seen this post in a different way over and over again since we’ve lost the election. We get it! Romney gets it. It’s time to move on from the bashing and work on working together and re-branding the party. Isn’t that what you all want anyway?


I don’t think everyone is on board though. Some want the party to moderate, some want it to become even more extreme. That’s a fundamental division that likely won’t be sorted out until 2016.

Though I do find a “Let’s all get along” message to be a little weird with a “I Am Against Ron Paul and His Crazies” sig.


Did they all “get it” after McCain as well?

You are delusional if you think the Establishment GOP has learned anything, you also are not listening to them because they are already blaming Conservatism and planning to move even further Left next time.

The further Left they go, the more they lose.
The more they lose, the further Left they go.

The GOP is beyond redemption.


Touche with your sig as well!