Ann Coulter: Merely continuing current immigration policies spells doom for Republicans.
As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.
Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?
Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.
Immigrants – all immigrants – have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)
This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.
At the current accelerated rate of immigration – 1.1 million new immigrants every year – Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.
Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.
According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.
While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.
No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.
The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control.
According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent.
Overall, 69 percent of immigrants like Obamacare, according to a 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
That same survey showed that only 35 percent of native-born Americans support affirmative action, compared to 58 percent of immigrants, including – amazingly – 64 percent of Asians (suggesting they may not be as smart as everyone thinks).
Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.
Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.
Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government – also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent.
How are Republicans going to square that circle? It’s not their position on amnesty that immigrants don’t like; it’s Republicans’ support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.
Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation’s No. 1 priority?
It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, “You can’t vote.” But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?
Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.
Yes, it’s great for the most powerful Americans to have lots of cheap, unskilled labor. Immigration definitely solves the rich’s “servant problem.”
(Approximately 5 million times a day, MSNBC expresses bewilderment that any Republicans oppose amnesty when it’s supported by the Chamber of Commerce. Wow! So even people who profit by flooding the country with cheap labor are in favor of flooding the country with cheap labor!)
It’s terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have.
And it’s fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as “the land of the free.”
The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.
But are they going to give John Boehner a job when he’s no longer House speaker, as some big-business lobbyist will?
Will they help Marco Rubio run for president on the claim that, as a Cuban, he can appeal to Hispanics? (Fat chance.)
Will they bundle contributions for Eric Cantor’s re-election, as well-heeled donors will?
Will they be enough to re-elect Kevin McCarthy to Congress so he can keep his gold-plated government health insurance?
Will they be the ones writing Darrell Issa’s flattering New York Times obituary?
Sorry, Americans. You lose.
The Republican establishment is composed of liberal-globalists: they do not support small government, gun rights, patriotism, or the Constitution, and they think capitalism is flawed because it still allows holders of capital, no matter how small or few, to choose how that capital is spent. The Republican establishment wants as many new laborers and consumers as it can get. If citizens won’t make more consumers, then the Republican establishment will just have to help the Democrats import more consumers. In the end, the goal of liberal-globalists (Republicans) and liberal-socialists (Democrats) just isn’t that different. Conservatives may be about to wake up and discover that the Republicans have been their enemies for a quarter-century. We’ve been sucker-punched: no wonder the R.N.C. hates the Tea Party. Too bad people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have spent decades telling conservatives to stick by the Republicans and stay away from third parties. It’s too late to say you’re sorry, Ann, and you get no credit for criticizing the Republican establishment, now, when our options are all but gone.
The Republican “establishment” didn’t nominate Mitt, McCain, George W. or George H.W. It was the rank and file.
MY LETTER TO CONGRESS: STAND-DOWN NOW !!
American citizens are not obligated to give citizenship and benefits to
people who decided to invade our country and now expect us to feel sorry for
them. Your duty is to AMERICAN citizens. Republicans don’t want to extend
unemployment benefits, yet they are willing to flood the country with cheap
Mexican labor??? Driving down wages and increasing competition for available
jobs? All this because business interests want higher profits and don’t care if
America is reduced to a third world country?
Read my lips….Dems aren’t the problem. Quisling Republicans are the
problem. Both parties have sold out the American people. If you vote for amnesty
I’m done. Let the other side kill the country. I’ll never vote for another
Republican and I won’t be blackmailed by the lesser of two evils. The person who
says they’re my friend and stabs me in the back is the EVIL one.
I will never again vote for a republican if you guys pass this latest
amnesty bill. You guys didn’t stop your pay raise. I suppose it’s hard to get by
on 174K/yr.? The average full time minimum wage earner makes about 15K/yr.
Republicans are against extending unemployment benefits? At the same time you
want to flood the country with cheap labor from Mexico further driving down
American wages and available jobs. The drivel that we just need to get an
education is also BS, because business wants to give those jobs away too. More
HB-1 visas are included in this bill. HB-1 visas have been successful at holding
down the wages of our most skilled workers. It’s a lie that there aren’t enough
American’s to fill the positions. Data shows many people graduating from tech
schools are not getting jobs in their fields. Americans will be competing with
Mexicans for jobs at McDonalds. There will be a stampede over the border.
Apparently our “representatives” are willing to sell out American citizens.
Big business is calling the shots. Bush was the last time I’m getting sucker
punched. Re. talks about waiting till after the election to stick to the middle
class? If you think people like me are that stupid you are wrong. Unless a
candidate comes out strong for the interests of the people he/she is
representing I will not vote for them. Democrats aren’t the problem. Sellout
Republicans are the problem. A congress that does not assert its rights under
the Constitution is the problem. Let the Dems kill the country. Pack up your
bags, because in my opinion most Republicans need to get their asses handed to
them on the way out. Boehner is a globalist stooge doing the bidding of the
establishment/oligarchs. I’m done with politicians who think the Constitution is
toilet paper. DONE
“David Rockefeller enthused, “Everything is in place-after 500 years- to
build a true ‘new world’ in the western Hemisphere.” In the Los Angeles Times,
Henry Kissinger provided his own perspective: NAFTA will represent the most
creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the
end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free
trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere…NAFTA is not a conventional trade
agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.
NAFTA creates an economic trading bloc with the U.S., Canada, and Mexico,
but the ultimate goal is political convergence and then a larger vision for the
region. In the Trilateral Commission 1993 annual report, Honorary Chairman Paul
Volker noted, “Interdependence is driving our countries toward convergence in
areas once considered fully within the domestic purview.” Unfortunately, this
convergence will mean a lower standard of living for Americans. “The standard of
living of the average American has to decline…I don’t think you can escape
“It should be noted that Establishment insiders never refer to their
bi-partisan legislation as treaties because this requires two-thirds approval in
the Senate. And, as Kissinger indicated, NAFTA (with 1,700 pages) is not a
conventional trade agreement, but it has all of the force of a treaty. Hidden in
this same legislation was the creation of the WTO…Newt Gingrich (CFR/Bilderberg)
introduced the separate WTO legislation (26,000) pages) in a lame duck session
of the Congress and described it as a “transformation moment.” Why did the House
Speaker do this? He and Establishment insider knew that the incoming republican
majority Congress (including Rep. Joe Scarborough) would probably reject the
WTO. The WTO was easily passed in the Democratic congress, and now the Executive
Branch has ceded authority to the WTO headquarters in Geneva , which allows the
EU to outvote the U.S. 15 to 1, and 70% of the remaining votes are in the Third
World . (Also in WTO is GAT)”
Republicans are going along with the latest fast track screw job,
Think Mexicans are going to vote
Republican? Go ahead and kick the base to the curb. We’ll see how that turns
out. I won’t be held over the barrel any more with the lesser of two evils. IMO
Republicans are the evil ones. I expect Dems to do stupid things. The ones who
say they are conservative and my friend but are working against me are the evil
CLINTON D. BERRY
We are at the stage in our country’s final days, when those supposedly our own side, (the GOP) which is FULLY aware of the cultural, political, legal, and moral fallout by rewarding lawbreaking, has deliberately decided to vote yes on this treasonous amnesty. And we are paying their salaries, to do it to us!
These traitors put short-term profits ahead of the long-term destruction of the country they claim to love and the constitution they claim to support. There are no words left to explain this act, which is committing slow-motion national suicide. And they destroy the party and the country under our very noses, using ideas like compassion to sell it to us.
We are *officially* living in the decline of Western Culture. Conservatives and Christians, prepare to be a hated minority.
Why are Republicans supporting this? Just read Erik Rush’s piece today on infiltration. The GOP was infiltrated long ago and the final implementation of their plan is about to happen.
It may even be too late to educate the masses, both natural born and immigrant, of the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. Most other nations have been victimized by fascism for generations.
that’s certainly an accurate representation of the status quo.
However, this society has had its fat pulled out of the fire time and again — never more than during our war of independence.
Some would call it divine intervention; some might find other explanations. But there IS a record.
Perhaps we’ll have a political reformation comparable to the religious reformations we’ve had since colonial times.
It may take a catastrophe to catalyze it — a WMD attack on the homeland, a massive epidemic, a humungous natural disaster, a world war, an economic collapse rivaling or exceeding the Great Depression, an explosion of bloodshed in the nation for whatever reason, you pick your own scenario.
Maybe such a development will open the door to restoration of the Republic.
We have to be ready to seize any such opportunity. The founders would demand nothing less.
I sincerely hope you are right and I’m wrong, but I sadly must agree with Siluan on this matter. You are historically correct, but are comparing apples and oranges in your assessment of the facts. The truth is that we live in a FAR different America than the one you mentioned: OUR America has unbridled open immorality, lawlessness on a scale never before seen, a national debt no sane person could have even imagined, homosexuals legally “married”, students fully indoctrinated in socialism, no opposition to the thugs in this regime, this looming amnesty, and much more. Of course God can do miracles, and that is why I pray you are right, rather than me. You are 100% right that we must be ready to resist, and I would add pray for said miracle, but I just don’t see a way back.
There’s a lot of truth in your perspective, but it’s only a partial view.
We tend to forget the moral lapses in our history. God surely did not approve of the ginned-up wars in which we engaged throughout our history. The first legit foreign war in U.S. history was WW II — `160 years after independence.
We butchered, exploited and slaughtered native Americans, including those who were sincere friends, by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. We stole from them, raped their women and oppressed their children. God surely did not approve.
We treated millions of African slaves like dirt, inflicting the worst treatment on them that can be imagined. You bemoan sexual impurity? Except for relatively recent immigrants, there are hardly any blacks in the U.S. who don’t have white DNA in them from rape of slaves by whites. Oppression and torture of slaves was a sport for much of our history, and when it was outlawed, the vast majority of blacks were still mistreated and oppressed.
As a country we tolerated physical, sexual and other exploitation of women and children for centuries. It was swept under the rug. The phenomenon still abounds. Many readers here will remember the comic Red Skelton, whose stable of imaginary characters included Chester the Molester, whose perversion was played for laughs, reflecting popular attitudes.
We drove God’s animals to extinction. We polluted His environment. The resources we were gifted with were wasted on petty materialism and sloth and greed and more.
We spit in God’s eye in a thousand ways before the Revolution and after it. We practiced the 7 Sins as if they were going out of style. Probably always will.
You’re focusing on immoral practices that constitute a thorn in your side. That doesn’t mean they’re much worse — if worse at all — than the transgressions of the past.
If you take the long view, we’ve been immersed in moral failure throughout recorded time and don’t really deserve anything but purgatory.
What’s different now is that we’re tracking toward self-destruction as a nation through massive fiscal irresponsibility, rejection of patriotism, purging of personal liberty, admission of tens of millions of people who despise historical American values and other trends.
It seems unlikely we can extricate ourselves from this graveyard spiral, but none of us mortals can know what’s on the other side of the door. Our Republic has achieved unbelievable things. Maybe we can bottom out under the right circumstances and reform, like an addict who at long last begins recovery.
I won’t presume to gaze into a crystal ball. We did not succumb to fatalism during the Revolution when victory seemed impossible. Our situation is not as dire as that of Lech Walesa and other freedom fighters behind the Iron Curtain in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Yet they overthrew one of the most oppressive empires (if not THE most oppressive empire) that ever existed.
If we got rid of the “land of the free” — the free hand-out — we’d probably have fewer people showing up to try and transplant their brand of socialism. So long as we are the richest country on Earth AND maintain an active and generous welfare state, we will never stop, or even slow, the influx of parasites. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. You can replace “stupid” with “greedy,” “gullible,” “selfish,” and so on.
Ann may be right overall, but I doubt that the Democrats of the early 20th century were anything like the Statists and collectivists of the 21st century.
But, I do agree that the thinking that Republicans, or conservatives in general, could garner anywhere near the number of immigrant votes needed to build a majority party for any significant period of time was delusional, at best. I would go so far as to say that not many natives are really in favor of small government (assuming Republicans actually are), and would not be inclined to vote for a party who wants to cut the government down to size. They would rather keep getting freebies themselves. I think that’s a bigger problem than immigration. We have to do a better job of convincing people that were born here that freedom is better than dependency.
Actually, Woodrow Wilson was more devious and intent on undermining our founding values than any president since.
He wanted to subjugate our national sovereignty to a “league of nations.”
He ran on a platform of total refusal to engage in a war in Europe but after being elected ginned up enough public support to enter WW I when we had no business getting involved.
He violated Americans’ rights on a mass scale. He created the closest thing we’ve ever had to stormtroopers in the U.S. They amounted to gangs who beat war opponents to a pulp.
He bequeathed to us the Fed and a federal income tax.
He was unrestrained in his support for the Klan and arguably radiated the most hate for minorities we’ve ever seen in the White House. He supported lynching and destroyed any remnant of federally-imposed civil rights legislation that existed before his administration.
He was a direct precursor to Mussolini.
He violated the Constitution every whichways That included concealing his medical state and having his wife basically function as president for what? A whole year? Wilson was a collectivist of the first order — a template for Mussolini. Clinton, LBJ, Carter, Truman, even FDR were very weak sisters to his passion for state power and abuse as well as one-world governance.
And considering Wilson’s burning hatred for blacks and his embrace of violence, he might be more aptly compared to Hitler than Mussolini. Eugenics was ingrained among at least some parts of the progressive movement (Margaret Sanger was a princess if not queen of both schools), and I’d be surprised if ole Woodrow wasn’t a master race advocate.
For all of Teddy Roosevelt’s deep and unforgiveable faults, he wasn’t the sadistic bloodsucker Wilson was. I know of no figure in U.S. history more infused with raw evil than that KKK worshiper and Bill of Rights despiser.
And he WAS nominated by the Dem Party, so he wasn’t an outlier to Dem attitudes.
As for Washington, I don’t really care what he would think or do. He was a creature of his age. The State was all he knew. In that, he and the others didn’t go far enough in their distrust of men with power. And, the question of Constitutional legitimacy is entirely relevant. You seem determined to work within the confines of a system that is a cherished myth. I choose not to. The whole system is fraudulent.
You said yourself that the system relies on the consent of the governed. Nobody has actually consented to any of this. But, you are essentially correct in that we implicitly consent when we allow things to be done to us without complaint or with tacit acceptance. I understand this. The French writer de La Boitie said essentially this in his “The Politics of Obedience:The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude”.
“He ran on a platform of total refusal to engage in a war in Europe but after being elected ginned up enough public support to enter WW I when we had no business getting involved.”
By way of a false flag event, the sinking of the Lusitania? He committed war crimes by including war materiel on a passenger liner. The Germans repeated warned him not to do it and eventually torpedoed the ill-fated ship. Voila’. Ignorant Americans all amped up to go kill.
History repeats itself. Nothing truer was ever written.
The German government even published newspaper ads in the U.S. in 1917 warning Americans to “steer” clear of the Lusitania and other passenger liners containing war contraband, which that ship was proven a few decades ago to have carried. Divers actually were able to pore through the freight entombed inside of it and found plenty of munitions.
How reminiscent of the invented Gulf of Tonkin “attack” on U.S. forces that LBJ conjured.
In fact, Wilson followed the script of the sinking of the Maine less than 2 decades earlier, used as a springboard to declare war on Spain
Maybe the earlier attempt to force Socialized medicine on us was a trial balloon, as was the recent drive to get us into another war. The game is not over on that latter front, and massive public outcry was not enough to save us from Obamacare. The same with amnesty – the game is still going on. The establishment may yet have its way. Then what? Your vaunted public outcry seems to have a rather spotty track record.
Would it help to say I agree with you that we have largely done this to ourselves? But, given the nature of State power and its ability to continually bamboozle the public, crafted over many centuries, I don’t see how this could have ended any other way. You and I and others have seen the system for what it is, but we obviously disagree over how the system can be fixed, if it can be fixed at all.
I think it’s time to admit that limited government doesn’t work. It’s been tried and found wanting. We as citizens certainly have failed to live up to our end of the bargain, but, just as importantly, those who have been entrusted with power have not been able to keep their end of the bargain, either. No one should have expected that to happen. They acted as we would have expected. The limited State is a fiction. There has never been, and will never be, any such thing.
The obvious bone of contention is how do we free ourselves from clutches of this system. You have your ideas and I have my own. It would be nice if true Conservatives and Libertarians could agree on what needs to be done, but every person sees the situation and solution differently from all others. That’s human nature. The thing we must all agree on is that we have to start doing what we think is right. We can’t just do nothing, and nobody, least of all me, is proposing that.
I have a feeling that if we could sit together and have a coffee (or something stronger), we could have a more fruitful discussion. It’s a shame that internet forums don’t really allow us to do that. Peace.
“If you can cite wiser men than our Founders, by the way, I’ll be flabbergasted.”
Well, the Founders were certainly wise, but not infallible. We have political philosophers and statesmen (admittedly not too many of those) today that I would favorably compare to those men of old. As I said previously, their big mistake was not being suspicious enough of men with power.
But, my reading and thinking has convinced me that many of those same Founders had ulterior motives. They were not as pure as the wind-driven snow. Many of them sought economic advantages from their proposed government, and took advantage when the Constitution was ratified. Many of those men had designs on a system of government very much like the monarchy in England. They didn’t get what they wanted in the actual document, but they held the levers of power and eventually got what they wanted by slowly perverting the document in practice.
You mentioned earlier something about the Republican vote being split in the early 20th century, thereby enabling Wilson to be elected. You tied that to the idea that the modern Republican party should not be weakened by a split. All well and good. But, who do you know that would have been acceptable to all Republicans in the last two presidential elections? Around whom could all conservatives have been united? I have my idea, but I’ll leave it to you come up with your own name, and then come up with any scenario whereby that person could have been supported by a united Republican party and actually have won either of those two elections.
You obviously think elections are the way to go, but I think it’s gone way beyond that. A generation ago that may have worked, but not now. I, myself, had advocated that very position some time ago, but I slowly began to realize that the Republican party was not truly the party of small government. One of their former chairmen, Jim Nicholson, admitted that to a major newspaper in New Hampshire many years ago. That sealed the deal for me. If they were going to abandon the idea of small government, then I was going to abandon them.
So, no, I don’t think the Republican party, as currently constituted, is the vehicle by which we can restore sanity to our nation. They have been all too willing to go-along-to get-along.
A_friendly_reader Antonio Germano
• 8 hours ago
No one argues the Founders were perfect. They were creatures of their times. Even the best of them, like GW and TJ, were slavers.
But they fashioned the most gargantuan leap forward in human history, with remarkably little to guide their path but deep insight into human potential and human frailty and their own passionate aspirations for a virtuous society.
I’m not privy to whatever low motives you perceive for so many of the Founders. But I grew up reading and hearing about the great sacrifices suffered by so many whose considerable personal fortunes — economic and otherwise — would have been best served by avoiding a bloody revolution or at least staying above the fray.
No, the Republican Party is not a trustworthy framework as it stands now for non-leftists. But it can be captured soon enough and for long enough to stop the downhill plunge the country is now engaged in. At least that scenario is much more practical and achievable than replacing the entire political system the U.S. has functioned with from the early days, which is a long shot under the best of circumstances, let alone while under assault.
The issue here isn’t ultimate hope and change but practical achievability. It’s not only doable, but it was done in 1994 in the House and then allowed to slide. But that showed how close interim success is, or was 20 years ago. Yes, there has to be some shift in the GOP, and it has to be somewhat enduring, but that’s not calling for the country to be turned inside out, as you’re counting on. I’m calling on the high school football squad to improve its success record. You’re calling on the squad to defeat NFL teams.
As for the Founders: How they can be slammed for not being suspicious enough of government staggers me. They blazed unprecedented frontiers in limited government. They had unprecedented success. It’s very possible their accomplishments will never be matched.
Because of the vast imperfection in human nature, there will never be a totally sound or safe system. Humans will always covet power and wealth and prestige. They will always fear the unknown and their own faults. They will be plagued with resentments and jealousies and disrespect and absence of humiliation and much, much more. They will steal and conspire and persecute and exploit.
That creature won’t placed in an antiseptic environment that prevents it from doing mischief — especially when most of the world is indoctrinated in beliefs that drive mayhem and murder.
Finally, it’s not necessary to nominate a Republican who can appeal to all fellow party members.
From 2011 forward, I said (and posted thousands of times) that Mitt Romney was the worst contender that could be chosen by all manner of metrics. He was a Democrat for most of his life. He despised the Contract of America and, for decades, Reagan. Indeed, he voted for Mondale, Carter and Tsongas.
Redstate documented how he pivoted positions on all significant issues in 2005-06, when he realized he’d be thumped in a re-election bid. Since he could hardly unseat Kennedy or Kerry, he had no electoral office to work toward except president.
His elective record is so bad that even before the 2012 election, Mitt lost or forfeited as many campaigns than did all of his post-Iowa Republican opponents combined — Noot, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Cain and that other Mormon candidate whose last name always escapes me. (I omit Ron Paul from this scoring because he’s not a Republican but a Libertarian Party guy.) On the flip side, Mitt won one single office compared to dozens for his opponents.
Mormonism also hurt Mitt’s chances, as did his massive fail of a campaign. Just as an example: He spent half of his campaign in Ohio, which he wound up losing. But he totally wrote off his home state of Michigan, despite having good election prospects there.
He never set foot across the state line after the primary even as he campaigned a quickie plane hop away. He didn’t spend a penny here on campaign ads. He committed terrible miscues in Michigan before the primary. Yet in November he lost Michigan by only 2 percent of the vote. Had one of 100 voters switched from (d) to (r), he would have pocketed the state.
Consider that he grew up in Michigan and knew its politics, based on his father being one of the state’s most popular governors ever and being the main architect of the state constitution. Consider that he still has family here, some of whom have been very active politically. Consider that he should know this state better than every other state save Massachusetts. And yet he threw away all of its electoral votes.
Michigan has something like 5/6 the electoral vote of Ohio, on which Mitt wasted endless tons of time and money. That alone should exemplify how Mitt managed to lose the presidency. Total, unswerving, bedazzled ineptitude.
He was only elected gov in Massachusetts back in ’02 because that state had a string of 3 or 4 Republican governors that the public was happy with, and he ran on their coattails. He began his single term with a 2/3 favorability ratio and ended the term at 1/3. His plunging approval was the reason that he nipped a reelection bid in the bud after 2 years in office and decided to run on a different political scape — the presidency.
The longer upshot? Since Mitt tarnished the GOP brand in Massachusetts, it hasn’t elected another Republican governor. That’s despite the fact that most of its governors since the 19th century have been Republican, and an even higher success was achieved since WW II. Until Mitt showed up.
Except for the presidency and a couple of Senate races which unbelievable, not-ready-for-prime-time Republican goobers threw away, Republicans had a very good year in 2012. Already dominant in state legislative chambers and governors, they added to their leads substantially.
Obama was damaged goods. He would have been child’s play for almost all the Republican field, save for Ron Paul and maybe Noot. Cain remains a question mark because of the sex scandal that was never resolved because he dropped out of the running.
Romney’s historical ineptitude strongly suggests that Bachmann, Santorum or Perry would have defeated the incumbent resoundingly..
I could tell you more about Mitt’s political stupidity and venality, but I think the point is made.