I met a moron tonight.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, I met a moron tonight. A nice guy, don't get me wrong (though a total know-it-all but we'll get to that later) but someone that was just moronic on at least one major issue: why Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election. I figured you guys would appreciate this. And please read it. I think you'll get a kick out of it.

So I attended a fundraiser for our local party tonight. I got to talking to a fellow young Republican who was introduced to me by a mutual friend. Inevitably, we started talking about the direction of the party in general. He started off about how there are two distinct groups within our party: conservatives and Republicans. Now never mind the fact he didn't correctly label ideological factions and just plain ignorant for thinking that being a Republican and being a conservative are mutually exclusive. Let's let those slide. He proudly identified himself as a Republican; a Northeast establishment Rockefeller Republican. Talked about all the money he donates and almost literally mapped out his political future. I knew it was going to get good once he mentioned he was a Rockefeller type though. I, of course, told him that I consider myself a standard American conservative Republican on social, economic and foreign policy issues and mentioned that Santorum is one of my political heroes. He began to physically twitch.

So we got on the subject of the Presidential race and why Romney lost (he started that, not me). He said it was solely because of Rick Santorum; because Rick Santorum pushed Mitt "so far to the right on social issues, people were never going to vote for Romney." Now, I think the blaming the loss on the Presidential primary is justification for one big eye roll but I'm used to my moderate to liberal Republican friends trotting it out. I argue my point but pretty much let it go. What I couldn't let go was this gem: when I asked if he really thought it was just because of Santorum pushing him to the "far right" and not because of the 47% comments, "Corporations are people" and Mitt being an aloof super wealthy Republican stereotype, he doubled down. He claimed polling proves that the 47% remarks weren't even a blip on the radar! When I asked what specific far right comment Romney was "forced" to make during the primaries that cost him later, he conveniently couldn't remember one but claimed the people didn't have to know of a specific quote: "They just knew." They just knew that but were supposedly un-phased by the very well covered 47% remarks!

But these are the people my party is supposed to listen to when considering how to move forward. They have the answers. "The 47% comments didn't even show up in polling" but he's going to lecture social conservatives about winning...

[Keystone Phil]

though it looks like the 47% comment didn't even have any negative connotations to that guy.

None at all! He literally said those comments weren't even a blip on the radar. Actual. Literal. Quote.

[Keystone Phil]

Mitt Romney fans are very, very strange people. They should be pitied.

Oh, definitely. I also got the classic, Winfield-esque lines from him about how he truly believed Mitt Romney was the man for these times like Lincoln was for the Civil War, Franklin [Roosevelt] was for WWII and Kennedy was for the Cuban Missile Crisis. When Romney lost, he said he didn't feel badly for himself or for our party; he was truly depressed for our country.

[Keystone Phil]

Mitt Romney fans are very, very strange people. They should be pitied.

Oh, definitely. I also got the classic, Winfield-esque lines from him about how he truly believed Mitt Romney was the man for these times like Lincoln was for the Civil War, Franklin [Roosevelt] was for WWII and Kennedy was for the Cuban Missile Crisis. When Romney lost, he said he didn't feel badly for himself or for our party; he was truly depressed for our country.

Stop.

It was really said.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, do you believe Santorum would have won any states Romney lost had he been the nominee?

I believe he could have. I think Santorum personally plays better in quite a few but that's not the point here. The point is that saying the primaries were the sole reason Romney's loss is lunacy and saying Romney's personal weaknesses/gaffes were a total non-factor is out-of-this-world bizarre.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil this sounds like you met someone with the mentality of a typical atlas forumite, irl

Bingo but a typical Atlas Romney fanatic to be specific.

Not surprising that the usual suspects took this opportunity to talk about how poorly they think Santorum would have done (which is irrelevant to the discussion). They just can't help themselves.

[Keystone Phil]

Wow. It could have been bullmoose because the dude laid out how one of his goals is to be the Congressional nominee in Bucks county sometime down the line (despite living and working in the city). However, bullmoose a) isn't an idiotic, arrogant guy (you should have seen the act this guy was putting on. Body movements and all just oozed arrogance) and b) would have immediately said, "Hi, Keystone!" once he heard my name and found out I was a Santorum fan.

[Keystone Phil]

I wouldn't peg bullmoose as an ecstatic Romney fan. I haven't seen one of his posts in awhile though so maybe.

Yeah, that's true, too.

[Keystone Phil]

Where is the theory that Santorum is one iota less right wing or eletist in his economic policies--in perception or reality--than Romney? The only difference between the two is santorum ebraced social conservatism as his bedrock, while Romney ran from his flirtaton with social liberalism, doesn't mean Santorum doesn't believe, legislate, and envision a '47%' America just asmuc, if not more than Mittens.

Hey, I was just repeating what was said to me (months ago. I enjoy this random mega-bump). And it's a popular viewpoint among the head-up-their-ass Santorum hating libertarian/Romney fanboy crowd.

In general, there has been this belief in political circles that social conservatism and economic conservatism (American sense) are mutually exclusive. Now some people believe they ought to be mutually exclusive but that has zero to do with the fact that the vast majority of this party is both socially and economically/fiscally right wing. The libertarian crowd has somewhat successfully created a boogeyman outside of their concern that social conservatism isn't "Pro Freedom;" a belief that these traditional conservatives can never really be on their side when it comes to Dollars and Cents. People have seriously argued with me that Santorum is just a conservative Democrat, that Santorum's relationship with certain unions means he's a "big government" guy...the guy that jumped to push Bush's partial privatization of Social Security plan is a leftist economically. Uh huh.

[Keystone Phil]

P.S. How much did this fellow spell out his particular views on certain issues? I'm curious.

If you're asking how the guy I was arguing with spelled out his personal views on certain issues, he didn't get into a policy debate. It was more like, "What you believe as a conservative is wrong. You're destroying the party. Mitt Romney's gaffes weren't really gaffes and had zero impact on the race."

For the record, I have obviously seen the guy on several occasions since the original encounter. We joke about how we have to continue the debate from June but never do. He's actually a nice guy.

[Keystone Phil]

P.S. How much did this fellow spell out his particular views on certain issues? I'm curious.

If you're asking how the guy I was arguing with spelled out his personal views on certain issues, he didn't get into a policy debate. It was more like, "What you believe as a conservative is wrong. You're destroying the party. Mitt Romney's gaffes weren't really gaffes and had zero impact on the race."

Are you absolutely certain he is serious and not trolling you IRL?

I asked him repeatedly because I had the same feeling he might be screwing around. He was dead serious. Others joined us that night and he continued arguing it so he had to really believe it.