H8: 11/06/12: SRN Election Night Special and Aftershow
November 6, 2012 by Hugh Hewitt Radio Show
Filed under Radio Show
11061208 Hugh Hewitt: Hour 7 – Hugh hosts the SRN Election Night Special with in-studio guests; James Lileks, Guy P. Benson, Andrew Malcolm, Rep. John Campbell, and Ed Morrissey. Then, Generalissimo Duane does a short aftershow.
Loading the player ...
H7: 11/06/12: SRN Election Night Special
November 6, 2012 by Hugh Hewitt Radio Show
Filed under Radio Show
11061207 Hugh Hewitt: Hour 7 – Hugh hosts the SRN Election Night Special with in-studio guests; James Lileks, Guy P. Benson, and Ed Morrissey.
Loading the player ...
So many thoughts, not many of them joyful. I would quote Anne Coulter who said that she is sorry for Romney, but even sorrier for our country for not having him as President. Already the pundits are pointing the finger at the Republican party -but one wonders, how will we or can we fight against the abdication of our 4th estate into what it has become
the most brazen of partisan supporters…
There are so few news programs on TV that look at the issues and analyze them carefully. But we have to look at the electorate and the fact that our schools, and our universities (institutes “of higher learning”) the MSM have for the most part drunk the progressivist kool-aid. How to we fight the prevailing culture??
What do the critics want us to do? Out-pander the Democratic Party? Become more like them?
I hate to say it but I’m afraid that it is going to take a big disaster to bring people back to reality. Well i suppose that the people get the government they deserve, too bad that they will take down the rest of us with them.
In line with what I commented under hour 3, ultimately Obama’s policies must fail because they are unaffordable/unsustainable. Even if he cut defense to 0 and took ALL “wealth” from “the rich,” it wouldn’t be enough to cover what he wants to spend.
Add to that, declining tax revenue from the overall economic decline that follows from his other policies – in addition to those who will choose to deliberately “shrug” – and in pretty short order it all falls apart under its own weight. And for us, probably a lot quicker than it happened to Spain, Italy, Greece, etc., because our velocity in that direction is already so much greater.
I think I actually look forward to the great suffering to come for those who refused to possiblye – and that’s just POSSIBLY – accept a little less now. It’s looking to be the only way to get their minds right, if only for a little while again until people forget the lessons of Jimmy Carter – and Barack Obama – once again. Maybe a Great Depression – or even worse, this time – every 100 years or so, is what it takes.
Sorry Duane, but the problem was not the candidates. Romney SHOULD HAVE won, and so should most if not all of the Senate and House candidates. The problem is a large part of the electorate. Picking candidates to appeal to people who will vote for Obama no matter what the evidence in front of their eyes is, means being way too much like the other side. And what’s the point of that? A Senate full of Lincoln Chafees and Olympia Snows benefits us how, exactly? Along with.. what, President Jesse Ventura? or Ahnald?
Your alcoholism analogy is apt, but you seem to be advocating running candidates who say it’s fine to drink lots of beer and wine, against candidates who are offering free whiskey; when what is really needed are teetotalers.
Maybe we can’t hope to get really conservative candidates elected in states like the People’s Republic of California, as long as education and media are pretty firmly in the hands of the left. But “crafting a message that appeals to the other side too not just us” is also doomed to failure when “the other side” is used to having candidates bid for their votes using more and more freebies. Something has to be done about that, first, even if it means some really hard times for a while to get some peoples’ minds right. Otherwise the kind of candidates that might seem appealing next to the likes of Obama will be too much like Obama to make a difference.
I’m reminded of the saying, along the lines of “If you run a fake Democrat against a real Democrat, the real Democrat wins.”
Oops, didn’t mean to put this under H7, which apparently was really H6…
Sorry Duane, but the problem was not the candidates. Romney SHOULD HAVE won, and so should most if not all of the Senate and House candidates. The problem is a large part of the electorate. Picking candidates to appeal to people who will vote for Obama no matter what the evidence in front of their eyes is, means being way too much like the other side. And what’s the point of that? A Senate full of Lincoln Chafees and Olympia Snows benefits us how, exactly? Along with.. what, President Jesse Ventura? or Ahnald?
Your alcoholism analogy is apt, but you seem to be advocating running candidates who say it’s fine to drink lots of beer and wine, against candidates who are offering free whiskey; when what is really needed are teetotalers.
Maybe we can’t hope to get really conservative candidates elected in states like the People’s Republic of California, as long as education and media are pretty firmly in the hands of the left. But “crafting a message that appeals to the other side too not just us” is also doomed to failure when “the other side” is used to having candidates bid for their votes using more and more freebies. Something has to be done about that, first, even if it means some really hard times for a while to get some peoples’ minds right. Otherwise the kind of candidates that might seem appealing next to the likes of Obama will be too much like Obama to make a difference.
I’m reminded of the saying, along the lines of “If you run a fake Democrat against a real Democrat, the real Democrat wins.”
Something is really wrong here. I tried to re-post that under “H8″ and it got duplicated under “H7″ again.
In 2009, I called your radio station, late in the evening while trying to drive through a snowstorm in Minnesota trying to get home. In my truck, I told Hugh if Mitt Romney was the Republican candidate for the 2012 election he wouldn’t win against Barak Obama. Hugh scoffed and told the conservatives we were wrong. While on this blog, I continuously ranted and received unofficial Troll status on telling you all on this blog site that Mitt Romney would not win against Barak Obama. We conservatives were ridiculed and told how wrong we were. We faced a TRANSFORMATIONAL ELECTION in this nation and the RINOS like Hugh told us we had to vote for the Bob Dole, John McCain and George W. Bush look-a-like. The RINO’s who control this party early on should have stood behind and pushed forward Marco Rubio or Herman Cain. The electoral wiz-kids in the RINO party should have nurtured these candidates and prepared their message for the electorate and we would have won. Don’t tell me this wouldn’t have worked because YOU RINO’s convinced us hick conservatives Romney would win, so as far as I’m concerned, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Now, honestly I like Mitt Romney. In spite of the fact on past blogs I made fun of him and disparaged him. All I was doing was using my poor literacy license. I was trying to tell all of you who supported Romney how wrong you were. I think Romney is a good man who has an outstanding track record and might have even been a good president. But his problem, like all of you RINO’s who hang out at your “Country Clubs” he ran the typical “Dignified Nice Statesman” style campaign. He let Obama define Romney instead of Romney attacking Obama. And as a result, Obama kicked Romney’s political butt. The only time Romney stood up to Obama was during the first debate and look what happened; He kicked Obama’s butt, showed Obama for what he was and finally took a short-term lead. But Romney should have done that daily for the last 2 years and then he would have won. This was an extremely easy race to win but Romney and the RINO’s found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I’m sure you’re sick of hearing this Troll so I’ll let Laura Ingraham school you.
http://nation.foxnews.com/laura-ingraham/2012/09/11/ingraham-gop-if-you-can-t-beat-barack-obama-shut-down-party
I won’t hold my breath while I wait for Hugh’s apology (as a representative of the RINO’s who run the Republican party) for losing the nation to the “obamaphone lady” and the “obama’s gonna pay for my house/gas” lady. His prediction of a Romney victory sounded so much like his prediction of the Cleveland “baby” Browns improbable march to the Superbowl and Ohio State winning the National Championship in football. Is Hugh the one that had something to do with the Buckeye’s removing USC (a real football team) from their schedule so they have a chance to pretend to be a top ten team.
My father died just over 10 years ago, and my stepmother died last October (of 2011). Mom is still around, and I hope she stays a while longer, because she doesn’t deserve to get away that easily. She needs to get some real hard, first-hand experience with what she votes for. Like, being told by some Obamacare panel that she can’t have the surgery or treatment she needs, because she’s too old and no longer productive.