Crouere speaks truth to power and as such, will be anathema to the Romney sycophants.

The repub party is either going to make a significant shift in returning to its core principles, and quickly, or they will have no chance to recapture the few supporters they can.

I don´t believe they can br saved.. I think there are to many Republicrats that are statists too. Or they´ve been in DC so long they think they own the place and are part of the "screw them, their my constituents club". There are a whole lotta of u s who will never hold our nose again to support a party that continues to snap defeat from the jaws of victory repeatedly.

Yep, but what most don´t realize is that the Republicans causing the losses are Libs in drag...Purge the party of all RINO´s and other Libs and start over!

Yup.

Almost correct. Many of those "savaging" conservatives are others who call themselves conservatives. If those of us who are conservative had acted we would have added President Jack Kemp to our history of great Republican Presidents.
Reading posts on this site all season it was obvious to me that we were picking apart each candidate who was a conservative to Mitt Romney. Some of them blew their own campaigns apart.
Mitt Romney is a good man with a good record in business. He is not a movement conservative. I respect his accomplishments and would have preferred that he win the election as most here would have.
There are some who won´t be happy until we nominate a candidate who is pefect. That is to say, some will never be happy.
In the meantime, I´ll go back to reading Kirk, Buckley, and Burke while assessing which conservative can win. That candidate will have my support.

The writer as well as the first couple of posters continue to overlook one basic reality: we have to choose a nominee from among the ANNOUNCED candidates. You cannot make up your own favorite superhero candidate, or coerce someone who doesn´t want to run into doing so. Why is that so hard to grasp?

And as to the 2012 hopefuls who may have been more conservative than Mitt (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, "9-9-9" Cain) each one of them fell short FOR A REASON. There was no RNC plot against any of them, and none would have had a ghost of a chance in the general. It would have been 1964 all over again.

Romney and his campaign made mistakes, no question, but those conservatives who continue to trash this fine man who gave it all he had ought to get off their asses and get in the game themselves.

Matthews, Sharpton, Madcow......all sane????

Oh yes, and Schultz.

It looks like the name calling loonies who were with us last week are back name calling ( Rinos,), etc. again. An interesting letter in last week´s local rag was from one lady, who admittedly didn´t vot for Romney because he isn´t a Christian, or some such nonsense.

We don´t need excuses to goof this thing up. When there is an election in a two party system, you go and vote for the person who most nearly represents your views, or, alternatively, against the person who doesn´t. Jo Jo the dog faced boy would have been my candidate if he had run on the Republican ticket.

I am embarrassed to share this planet with people who did anything else.

Romney was an excellent candidate with a perfect background that not even the democrats could uncover a scandal. And a beautiful family to boot. Shame on those conservatives who nitpicked his positions and didn´t vote for him. Are you happy now that you made your point? Jerks!

FTA: “Romney tried to make the entire campaign about one issue, the economy. As a result, social conservatives were given no reason to vote.”

-If social conservatives really thought that they had no reason to vote they are devoid of reason itself. If they believe Obama will address their moral political issues more favorably than Romney would have, they are deluded.

-Romney picked a tea party favorite as his VP running mate.

-As for Ron Paul delegates, many of them behaved like thugs during the nomination process. You don’t invite thugs to a party.

The author of this article is correct about one thing: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

As long as social conservatives continue to believe that our nation would be better off by letting social and fiscal progressives run our government as a result of the religious right withholding support for sympathetic but non-evangelical fiscal conservatives, our country will continue its downward spiral. And that is truly insane.

As a Christian conservative, I have to take issue with those who claim that his loss is the result of evangelicals who did not support Romney. I´m an evangelical, as are many of my friends, and we all supported him, campaigned for him and voted for him. What´s more, from what I´ve read about our demographic nationwide, the vast majority did the same. That´s why I´d say the evangelical argument is a weak one, though not unexpected, given that there were those who, during the primary, regularly trashed anyone who preferred someone other than Romney as "an anti-Mormon evangelical" and accused people who disagreed with MR politically of religious bigotry.

In reality, I believe that conservative turn-out was better and the vote count was more favorable to us than the fraudulent records reflect. The problem is, we´ve been had, both by the Dems and by our own leaders in the GOP who won´t fight against lying and fraud. There has to be a better way to run a party.

Other then Romney the stupid party (the Republicans) did not have anyone who could have won the election. I think that millions did not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. If will be even worse in 2016 if Hillary Clinton, or some Obama clone, gets the Democrat nomination. Then besides the candidate you will have both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton out there campaigning for whoever the Democrat candidate turns out to be.