|
|
Why Romney Lost
The American Thinker, by Dr. Charles Kenny
|
|
Original Article
|
|
Posted By:tisHimself, 1/28/2013 10:57:54 AM
|
| Conservatives instinctively ground all of their ideas and policies in time-tested philosophies of man and of government. Most successful Republican candidates also paint a picture of what they can do and how their ideas are better than their opponents. This is why people evoke the memory of Ronald Reagan so often; because he is the last Republican candidate for president to conduct his campaign explicitly and consistently within this framework.
|
Reply 1 - Posted by:
msctex1, 1/28/2013 11:04:30 AM (No. 9144050)
Romney lost because we were willing to pretend the Governor of Massachusetts, who instituted Socialized Medicine in his State, was an appropriate candidate to represent Conservative interests.
Our last two losing candidates have been Mitt Romney and John McCain. Those who wish to do us the most damage tell us we "need" to keep moving "towards the Center" for our own good. If we ever -- ever -- win another Presidential election, it will only be if we stop allowing the Media to convince us who is electable. That and a top to bottom overhaul of our voting system to ensure every eligible voter receives precisely one vote.
|
Reply 2 - Posted by:
trapper, 1/28/2013 11:18:33 AM (No. 9144091)
This is the first article I have read that analyzes the failure of the Romney campaign in a useful way. It does not suggest that Republicans become democrat-lite, that conservatives abandon everything we believe and become progressives, or that Romneycare was the singe fatal flaw. It was all communication.
|
| |
|
Reply 3 - Posted by:
QRP, 1/28/2013 11:19:26 AM (No. 9144093)
Romney lost because you can´t beat Democrat Real with Democrat Lite. If you nominate someone that could not beat McCain, why do you think he would beat someone to whom McCain lost. Insanity - the practice of doing the same thing and expecting a different result. It no longer matters, the country is lost.
|
Reply 4 - Posted by:
HisHandmaiden, 1/28/2013 11:20:15 AM (No. 9144096)
Wow! More than Must Read...
FTA: Romney lost the presidency because he failed to connect emotionally with the voters. He and his advisors failed to realize that they had to present Romney as uniquely able to deliver an emotional benefit that Obama could not. They talked about what he had done in his career, but seldom talked about what he would do for the people and for the country. Presidential elections in America are won by candidates who successfully persuade the people that they are able to create the conditions that will improve the voters´ lives. This is the quintessential way to deliver a powerful emotional benefit.
|
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Cor-vet, 1/28/2013 11:20:40 AM (No. 9144097)
He lost because when a person dies, he´s automatically re-registered as a Democrat!
|
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Teleologicus, 1/28/2013 11:25:49 AM (No. 9144111)
There will probably never be anything like consensus among conservatives about why Romney lost. The only thing to be said with certainty is that he lost because he didn´t win.
He got the full Alinsky treatment and refused to fight back. He called Obama a nice guy. He never touched a one of Obama´s personal vulnerabilities. He ran a dignified, elevated, high-minded campaign while the other side, with the complete cooperation of the mainstream media, dumped barrel after barrel of slop and ordure over him as he pretended not to notice. He and his staff appeared to be completely clueless about what was happening. They probably still are.
Regardless of their candidate, Republicans will never will an election against people like Barack Obama by refusing to fight back while they are being smeared and slandered 24/7. I don´t know why this is so difficult for some of them to understand. There is nothing new here. Politics has always been a dirty, nasty, ugly business. The American public has always been dumb, uninformed and easily manipulated.
You can´t win if you won´t fight. If you are too proud or too noble to fight, you shouldn´t be in the ring in the first place.
|
Reply 7 - Posted by:
TrueBlueWfan, 1/28/2013 11:26:06 AM (No. 9144112)
There are many reasons Romney lost, and one I haven´t heard discussed too much is that he failed to personalize his ideas. For instance, we heard repeatedly that Romney wanted to "grow the economy and create jobs". That is such an abstract idea to so many. What he needed to say is: we want to let Carol the bakery owner keep more of the money she would pay in taxes so that she can hire a new clerk. Or so that she could buy a new commercial mixer, which helps employ someone at the mixer factory in Peoria, while making Carol more profitable.
He needed to show the public he cared. It is pathetic that our populace is so dumbed down that this is how they choose presidents, but it is the reality we must deal with.
|
| |
|
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Sunsong, 1/28/2013 11:34:13 AM (No. 9144133)
Romney lost because people didn´t know which Romney would govern - the far right Romney who won the vicious GOP primaries or the reasonable Romney who won the first debate.
Romney had to go so far to the right to win the primaries that he couldn´t recover and be himself.
|
Reply 9 - Posted by:
a6bump, 1/28/2013 11:40:06 AM (No. 9144149)
#6 is right and I wholeheartedly agree.
|
Reply 10 - Posted by:
sooznews, 1/28/2013 11:42:54 AM (No. 9144161)
I teach people how to give sales presentations, and this article is exactly right. He gave a bad presentation because he did not connect the dots for the audience. Common Sense.
|
Reply 11 - Posted by:
D S Craft, 1/28/2013 11:44:43 AM (No. 9144167)
Nah, Romney lost because of fraud committed by the Democrats. It´s really no more complicated than that. How many big city precincts were there where Obama got 100% of the vote? (statistically virtually impossible) How many precincts were there that had 99.9% voter turnout or where the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters? And please don´t try to suggest that those high turnout rates might have gone for Romney. Here´s a hint: they didn´t. There´s a very good reason why the Democrats so strenuously object to voter ID: it makes it much more difficult for them to cheat, and cheating is what they do. JFK used to openly joke about beating Nixon through the ´dead´ vote delivered to him by Daley in Chicago. Hugh Hewitt is right: if it ain´t close they can´t cheat. Unfortunately the last election was too close.
|
Reply 12 - Posted by:
JoElla Bee, 1/28/2013 11:56:44 AM (No. 9144194)
Our analysis of the Rasmussen data led us directly to the inescapable conclusion that the campaign desperately needed to turn over the stones that were covering up the secrets to victory. Unfortunately, the Romney campaign management ignored our warnings and rejected the help we offered.
http://www.amazon.com/Right-Brain-Way-Drive-Emotion/dp/1425130410
About the Author ~
With a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame and a Ph.D. in Psychology from Clark University, Dr. Charles T. Kenny saw the application of his academic expertise to the commercial world early on. He founded the strategic market research firm, The Right Brain People, in 1972. Thirty-six years later, his client list is a “who’s who” of major companies, including 22 of the top 40 advertisers on the Advertising Age list. Today he is recognized as one of the top consumer psychologists in the world. Using two proprietary methods – Right Brain Research and Brand Strategy Development – Dr. Kenny has worked with more than 450 corporate clients and organizations in 225 product and service categories. His work with Saturn was hailed as The brand building event of the century.” He lives in Memphis, Tennessee, with his wife of 40 years. He has two daughters and four grandchildren.
|
| |
|
Reply 13 - Posted by:
manitouman, 1/28/2013 12:03:00 PM (No. 9144215)
He got fewer votes than the other guy.
|
Reply 14 - Posted by:
ScarletPimpernel, 1/28/2013 12:03:25 PM (No. 9144217)
FTA: "During the presidential campaign, Romney......never presented his ideas and policies in the context of conservative principles. Nor did he paint a picture of how his ideas and policies would work better than what Obama has done and will do."
Bingo!! Romney´s failure to do this could not overcome the shallow slogans and talking points of Team 0bama, nor could it persuade those still on the fence, because 0bama made people "feel good" instead of making them think.
Any Republican candidate for office who is unable to articulate conservative principles 1) probably doesn´t really believe in conservatism and is therefore NOT conservative, and 2) will not be able to defeat the Democrats.
|
Reply 15 - Posted by:
youngtexan, 1/28/2013 12:07:28 PM (No. 9144232)
He lost because of Romneycare. He wasn´t anyone´s first choice, mine included. The media won again by choosing a canidate for us, just like 2008 McPain. I voted for Romney because he was the lesser evil.
|
Reply 16 - Posted by:
JAN, 1/28/2013 12:18:51 PM (No. 9144275)
Voter theft in the battleground states.
Further the msm is now blaming voter I.D. rules for creating those long lines at the polls for the lower obamao turnout.
They have a lie for everything.
|
Reply 17 - Posted by:
trackman999, 1/28/2013 12:21:58 PM (No. 9144283)
I was afraid that there would not be an election Nov.6th. I wasnt seeing clearly at the time, an election was held, but it was a show election, to keep the people quiet. There was an election, but the results were never in doubt, massive fraud was in place.
|
| |
|
Reply 18 - Posted by:
saryden, 1/28/2013 12:23:02 PM (No. 9144286)
Humbug! He lost because the American voting population has been propagandized to the point that half of them "want what they want and they want it now." Romney promised to put people back to work to have a better life and future. They don´t want to go back to work.. they want freebies and to feel like they "belong".. which they do.. to a gang of thugs that have taken over the Democrat Party and our White House, intending to "rule" America. Reasonable, thinking Americans voted for the fine man Romney.. but there are no longer quite enough of them.
|
Reply 19 - Posted by:
veritas, 1/28/2013 12:35:26 PM (No. 9144317)
Come on, friends.
There were over 100 million votes cast or counted or invented or what-have-you. To think there was one reason, or even to think we should look for the one magic reason, is silliness.
It´s like saying, "This one part is why an airplane flies." See? Silliness.
|
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino, 1/28/2013 12:52:35 PM (No. 9144351)
He lost because I had him pegged from Day One - - Milquetoast Milt.
Any questions?
|
Reply 21 - Posted by:
redink, 1/28/2013 1:17:48 PM (No. 9144401)
Voter fraud was a given from the outset...everyone knew Obama would rig this election as much as he could. The problem we was finding a candidate whose appeal would have impassioned enough people to overcome the fraud.
Romney was never appealing because of his moderate governing policies. He was and always has been a rino. Everyone knew it no matter how many times we were shouted down and accused of ´religious bigotry´.
Conservatives were more afraid of Obama than enthusiastic about Romney. Fear does not make people enthusiastic or passionate and they just won´t go where they know they´re being dragged. And the rest will take whatever carrot is dangling in front if they don´t see something better down the road.
The election was obviously fraudulent. There were enough people to overcome it...but not enough of a candidate to overcome Obama. That doesn´t mean we give up. They´re going to try it again with Christie, Jeb, Rubio or some other establishment get-along who looks like a nice family man. But it will be the one who fearlessly confronts Obama and exposes the lie that will carry Reagan´s banner.
|
Reply 22 - Posted by:
fobo, 1/28/2013 1:30:34 PM (No. 9144428)
we get the leaders we deserve.
|
| |
|
Reply 23 - Posted by:
PoliticalJunky, 1/28/2013 1:30:42 PM (No. 9144430)
Yes, 20 my question is: Was Obama preferable?
Romney never had to connect emotionally with me. I am not an emotional voter. The fact that Obama was incompetent, hostile to half the country and dangerous to our Republic, and his opposition was a man of proven ability to turn an enterprise around was enough. I knew he was honest, capable and very hard working. I didn´t aspire to be his friend, I didn´t care if he was stiff and I didn´t mind the lack of a road map as to exactly how he would accomplish saving our Republic. I knew if he gave one the Democrats would twist every word of it.
|
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Wetlandz, 1/28/2013 1:46:48 PM (No. 9144466)
Sorry, folks all we get is the same old Romney bashing, Romney Ryan were a terrific pair and would´ve been wonderful for this country. Lets ignore the lying media, the voter fraud and the kickbacks and keep devouring our own. Santorum, perry, Palin or Cain could´ve have fared better? Tell me why?
|
Reply 25 - Posted by:
IdahoSky, 1/28/2013 2:00:40 PM (No. 9144513)
The article states Romney lost because he failed to make an emotional connection to the voters. I suppose that´s true enough. Bill Clinton simpered and smiled and made love to us all and won the presidency for eight years. When the electorate shows all the intellectual maturity of a twelve-year-old girl, I suppose Obama is the result. Americans are no longer a serious people.
|
Reply 26 - Posted by:
bpl40, 1/28/2013 2:25:34 PM (No. 9144587)
You have to look deeper than "failed to make an emotional connection". What exactly does that mean and does not mean? Did 0bama the lipsync Telereader make that connection? 66 million out of 220 million elected the Man. In any future election at least that many will vote for a continuation of the gravy train. Romney and the Republicans could convince only 57 of the 154 million to come out and vote against an obvious fraud and failure. Thats pathetic and frightening.
|
Reply 27 - Posted by:
Susannah, 1/28/2013 2:35:01 PM (No. 9144615)
Thank you, #23. I´m deeply sick of hearing that Romney didn´t "connect emotionally" with the voters. Barack Obama is a cold, distant, arrogant man who can´t conceal his contempt for this country and its people. But he had the press working night and day to portray him as a warm, caring, loving protector of us all. Romney, on the other hand, was demonized as a cold-hearted thief and murderer. Most people believe what the press tells them to believe. And they bought the notion that Romney only loves the super-rich.
I´ve never voted on the basis of how warm and fuzzy the candidate was, and I never will.
|
Reply 28 - Posted by:
pigop, 1/28/2013 2:54:29 PM (No. 9144646)
Agree #22, ´we deserve what we tolerate", as my mentor used to say.
|
Reply 29 - Posted by:
bighambone, 1/28/2013 3:00:30 PM (No. 9144663)
He lost because we had Romney the pussy willow going up against Obama the street fighter. When that happens the nice guy will always be KO´ed.
|
Reply 30 - Posted by:
absalom, 1/28/2013 3:23:00 PM (No. 9144705)
Article is marketing blather. Willard, Son of George the Brainwashed and creator of Romneycare is a No East Progressive Lefty in the Rockefeller mold and as such unelectable by a predominately center right electorate. He was viscerally hostile to all thing conservative as well as a feckless and inept nominee. A majority of voters knew exactly who Willard was.
|
Reply 31 - Posted by:
geneinnyc, 1/28/2013 3:42:32 PM (No. 9144741)
Romney lost because of data-mining and micro-targeting. Dems had a bigger and better GOTV operation. For example, Obama had 120 field offices in Ohio, Romney had 44. Read the MIT Technology Review article to see how Obama did it: http://goo.gl/bDTEv
Well before election day, the Obama campaign knew the name and contact info of every single one of the tens of millions of 2008 Obama voters. While we Republicans were criticizing Obama for not having an overall message, the Obama campaign, through extensive A/B experiments, had created multiple individual messages precisely tailored to appeal to individual Democratic voters.
Then, once they had taken care of inspiring their base to vote, they switched to working to CHANGE votes. Where Republicans skipped areas deemed "safe Democratic," Obama´s people went after "soft" Republican voters everywhere, with a carefully organized - and field tested - methodology by which they were able to target individual Republicans with precisely the narrowly tailored message each needed to hear to be persuaded to change their vote.
And as we saw, it worked.
|
Reply 32 - Posted by:
49 Ford, 1/28/2013 3:48:35 PM (No. 9144749)
A "predominantly center-right electorate", #30? Not anymore.
Posters #18 & 25 come closest to the heart of it, IMO. And the campaign´s passivity in the face of all the vile slanders certainly didn´t help matters.
|
Reply 33 - Posted by:
MissMolly, 1/28/2013 3:52:03 PM (No. 9144762)
He, who tolerates not a doubting word about the former half-term governor of Alaska, is full of venom and ugliness toward the former full-term governor of Massachusetts. Can he spell hypocrisy?
|
Reply 34 - Posted by:
absalom, 1/28/2013 4:47:02 PM (No. 9144877)
#32. Fair enough. I should have qualified my predominantly w/sentimentally but not practically.
|
Reply 35 - Posted by:
oldsfc, 1/28/2013 5:31:22 PM (No. 9144978)
Romney lost because he didn´t articulate his beliefs? Maybe he couldn´t because he did not believe, in his own core, what he was saying.
|
Reply 36 - Posted by:
Susannah, 1/28/2013 7:02:03 PM (No. 9145107)
And another point...if Romney couldn´t "connect" with people, why were tens of thousands of people standing for hours in the rain and snow waiting to see him and hear him? Sixty thousand turned out at one venue in Ohio. Obama got a terrible turn-out; a few thousand if he was lucky. But, to reiterate, he had 95% of the press corps working as unpaid public relations agents for him. Hard, if not impossible, to beat that.
|
Reply 37 - Posted by:
Avogadra, 1/28/2013 8:34:58 PM (No. 9145234)
Romney lost because the Republicans didn´t plan to win. They wanted to collect their share of money from their hapless campaign donors and they wanted to polish their resumes.
The only qualification for becoming the Republican nominee was that the person wouldn´t hurt the party "brand." Which is how Karl Rove could tell us that Jon Huntsman (who?) was in the top tier of candidates. Huntsman was a nonentity who wouldn´t hurt the brand in the process of losing. That made him top tier. A nonthreatening loser. Just like Romney.
And as soon as the designated loser lost, he disappared. It was as if he had never existed. Yes, I believe the election was stolen. But it couldn´t have been stolen if the Republicans had not cooperated. They never planned to win, even in the Senate. Else why would they have refused, absolutely refused, to fight for Missouri and Indiana? We have one political party, masquerading as two. I´m done pretending otherwise.
|
Reply 38 - Posted by:
yorkiemom, 1/28/2013 8:47:20 PM (No. 9145252)
Look at this thread and you´ll know why Romney lost. Sure hope the ones who couldn´t and still can´t stand Romney are happy with four more of Obama. I´m sure not.
|
Reply 39 - Posted by:
Sunhan65, 1/28/2013 11:14:38 PM (No. 9145413)
Most Romney supporters on this site did their candidate no favors. To find out anything useful or true about Romney, you had to wade through political operatives paid to post propaganda about their boss, and a clone army of attack posters, most of whom mysteriously vanished the moment Mitt secured the nomination. Romney´s appalling primary campaign was aided and abetted by some of the most dishonest and obnoxious people it has ever been my displeasure to interact with on this site. Throughout, we were admonished that "Romney knows best" and accused of religious bigotry and closest Obama-ism if we questioned Mitt´s inevitability. During the entire grotesque affair, I encountered fewer than five principled conservatives who were prepared to make the case for Romney based on something other than political invective. Even they were sometimes attacked by the Romney Uber Alles crowd.
Despite all of that, I voted for Mitt Romney and did what I could to secure additional votes for him in my precinct. I did so because, unlike the one maroon who pogo-sticked from thread to thread repeating it endlessly, "ABO" wasn´t just a slogan for me. It was a patriotic imperative. The Romney Campaign blew this election. It was an ugly, stupid, unnecessary mess. And I greatly fear that those who will not learn from Romney 2012 will condemn us all to repeat it.
|
Reply 40 - Posted by:
tisHimself, 1/28/2013 11:17:10 PM (No. 9145418)
You are obviously a huffington post operative and troll who wears ill fitting clothes and uses the same toothbrush for years on end.
Romney 2016!
|
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "tisHimself"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
Most Recent Articles posted by "tisHimself"
|
|
Jeb Bush versus the "chirpers"
|
|
Human Events, by John Hayward
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: tisHimself- 6/18/2013 12:15:45 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is still nursing presidential aspirations, despite Republican unease about the “comprehensive immigration reform” he whole-heartedly supports, after losing an argument with himself and immediately backpedaling from a book he had only just published. Bush chose to deal with this unease by attacking the uneasy, referring to them as “chirpers” in a CBN interview following his appearance before the Faith and Freedom Coalition. ”I will be able to, I think, manage my way through all the ‘chirpers’ out there,” he said,
|
|
A Catholic view: Why marriage matters
|
|
Washington Post, by Tim Roder
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: tisHimself- 6/18/2013 11:56:32 AM
Post Reply
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on two cases about marriage. But regardless of what the court decides, marriage cannot be redefined. Its meaning cannot be changed. And the real meaning of marriage matters to everyone, especially children. Father’s Day was this past Sunday. As the father of six, I can’t imagine raising my children without their mother, my wife for life. We’ve been blessed with many children, and this gift has taught us much. One thing we’ve learned is that a mom and a dad aren’t interchangeable,
|
|
Marco Rubio´s Insider Problem
|
|
Real Clear Politics, by Ben Domench
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: tisHimself- 6/18/2013 6:35:01 AM
Post Reply
|
|
What was Marco Rubio sent to Washington to do? The concern among Rubio’s team of the rising chorus of “Marco’s gone Washington” shouldn’t surprise them considering his approach to the gamesmanship of typical Senatorial give and take. The problem is a simple one: Rubio was originally sold to the Republican base as not just a good speaker or an inspiring life story, but as a change agent, one of the few politicians who could actually move the country right. His acceptance of the Gang of Eight’s approach to wheeling and dealing their way to a 1,000+ page immigration measure –
|
The GOP´s Continuing Betrayal of Its Rock Stars
|
|
American Thinker, by Steve Flesher
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: tisHimself- 6/10/2013 10:49:25 AM
Post Reply
|
|
As if running moderate Republicans in two consecutive national elections (and losing) wasn´t enough, some of the GOP´s latest attempts to find their inner coolness have been successful only at one thing: letting the left and their pals in the media dictate the direction of the Republican Party. Fairly recently, we were informed of top-level RNC employees putting forth an initiative to hand out mid-level positions to various minorities. This was pointed out by a longtime D.C. insider, who talked about it in an article published at The Hill.
|
Influential Senate Republicans weigh in against immigration reform measure
|
|
The HIll, by Alexander Bolton
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: tisHimself- 6/5/2013 4:51:17 AM
Post Reply
|
|
Four influential Senate Republicans have sent a letter to colleagues voicing strong opposition to comprehensive immigration legislation headed to the Senate floor, warning it will not secure the nation’s borders. Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Mike Lee (Utah) said in a June 4 letter the immigration bill repeats the mistakes of the 1986 immigration reform law. “In 1986, the American people were promised that, in exchange for granting legal status to illegal immigrants, the border would be secured and the law enforced. Washington broke these promises,” they wrote.
|
Why Chris Christie Might Be a Genius
|
|
Real Clear Politics, by Sean Trend
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: tisHimself- 6/5/2013 4:43:44 AM
Post Reply
|
|
By now you’ve probably read about 1,000 versions of Chris Christie’s political obituary in the last six months, and will probably do so again in the next few months. The story is always roughly the same: Christie was already in peril in a Republican presidential primary, given his status as a relative moderate from the Northeast. Further complicating things, the Republican base believes that his effusive praise of Barack Obama’s handling of Hurricane Sandy cost Mitt Romney the 2012 election, and is furious with him.
|
A-Rod, Braun among those to be suspended by MLB
|
|
Miami Herald, by staff
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: tisHimself- 6/4/2013 11:33:53 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Major League Baseball will reportedly suspend about 20 players, including former MVP´s Alex Rodriguez and Ryan Braun, for their involvement in a Miami anti-aging clinic that allegedly supplied the players with performance-enhancing substances. According to an ESPN "Outside the Lines" report, Tony Bosch, the founder of the Biogenesis of America clinic, reached an agreement to cooperate with the MLB officials investigating the matter.
|
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
Edward Snowden Is In The Process Of Destroying Any Support And Sympathy He Has Built Up
|
|
Business Insider, by Brett LoGiurato
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: StormCnter- 6/18/2013 5:34:23 AM
Post Reply
|
|
Amid a steady rise of backlash, Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former National Security Agency contractor who was the source of a spring of leaks about the agency´s surveillance methods, conducted a live chat on The Guardian´s website Monday morning. Judging from some of the pointed questions he´s been asked and the reaction to newly leaked revelations over the past few days, it´s clear that much of the sympathy and support Snowden had built up for his early exposures is eroding. Many Americans supported his decision to leak information about a pair of National Security Agency surveillance programs, which, he detailed, gathered information
|
Barbara Walters Defends Maher Calling Trig Palin Retarded: ‘I Don´t Think He Intended it to be Mean-Spirited’
|
|
Newsbusters, by John Nolte
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: JoniTx- 6/17/2013 5:19:02 PM
Post Reply
|
|
As NewsBusters reported last week, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called out vulgarian comedian Bill Maher for referring to her Down Syndrome son Trig as "retarded." On ABC´s The View Monday, co-host Barbara Walters astonishingly defended Maher saying, "I don´t think he intended it to be mean-spirited" (video follows with transcript and commentary): WHOOPI GOLDBERG: At a recent standup show in Las Vegas, comedian Bill Maher apparently called Sarah Palin’s five-year-old developmentally-challenged son Trig retarded. And Sarah blasted him on Twitter as a bully. Is that, is it, is he a bully? Is he a bad, what is he?
|
Who is he? Obama keeps allies, enemies guessing in second term
|
|
The Hill, by Justin Sink
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: ketchuplover- 6/17/2013 6:31:12 AM
Post Reply
|
|
Five months into his second term, allies and enemies are as confounded as ever about who President Obama really is. Is he the dyed-in-the-wool liberal that his biggest supporters and critics suggest? Or is he a pragmatic, even cynical, politician who cares more for his popularity than taking risks for his ideological goals or living up to his rhetoric? Even in the short period since his reelection, Obama has provided evidence to support conflicting interpretations. His efforts to pass immigration reform, the unsuccessful push for stricter gun controls and tax hikes on high earners buttress the case for Obama-as-ideologue.
|
Jeb Bush labels conservative critics ‘the chirpers’
|
|
Washington Post, by Aaron Blake
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: KarenJ1- 6/17/2013 1:22:30 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Jeb Bush says he’s not worried that his work toward comprehensive immigration reform and his ties to the GOP establishment will alienate conservatives and negatively impact a potential 2016 presidential campaign, referring to critics as “the chirpers.” “If I decide to run for office again, it will be based on what I believe, and it will be based on my record,” the former Florida governor said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody. “And that record was one of solving problems completely from a conservative prospective.” Bush (R) pointed to his conservative
|
Marco Rubio doesn´t know if ´he´s getting played´ by Democrats
|
|
Washington Examiner, by Charlie Spiering
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Fiesta del sol- 6/17/2013 6:42:44 AM
Post Reply
|
|
Is Marco Rubio, R-Fla., getting played by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.? During his interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl this morning, Rubio didn’t even seem to understand what that meant. “Are you being played by the Democrats?” asked Karl. “Is Chuck Schumer playing you?” “I don’t — I quite frankly, I don’t even know what that means,” Rubio replied. “Is he using you?” Karl continued. “Is he using you to try to accomplish something that the Democrats want and is not — not a conservative bill?” Rubio responded that immigration reform was a bi-partisan issue that “all Americans
|
Obama: You Can´t Fathom ´Complexities´ of Syria Policy ´If You Haven´t Been in Situation Room´
|
|
Weekly Standard, by Daniel Halper
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Desert Fox- 6/18/2013 5:30:04 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Charlie Rose last night asked President Obama his new Syria policy. The president first objected to it being called a new policy. "I´m not sure you can characterize this as a new policy. This is consistent with the policy that I´ve had throughout," he said. Obama then explained the goal is regional stability, and especially in Syria. "Really, what we´re trying to do is take sides against extremists of all sorts and in favor of people who are in favor of moderation, tolerance, representative government, and over the long-term, stability and prosperity for the people of Syria," said Obama.
|
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
|
|
American Spectator, by Jeffrey Lord
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: KarenJ1- 6/18/2013 10:37:24 AM
Post Reply
|
|
Marco Rubio. Paul Ryan. The IRS. Illegal immigration. And fraud to the tune of billions.. Now there’s a combustible mix. Let’s start with the IRS, illegal immigration and fraud. We’ll come back in a minute to Senator Rubio and Congressman Ryan. For those who came in late, a year before the IRS scandals burst onto the scene in early May of 2013, an alert investigative reporter for WTHR-Indianapolis (Channel 13), Bob Segall by name, produced a stunning piece of journalism. Segall’s video report is found here and we will quote from his story for the basics.
|
|
|

Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | RSS | Contribute | Logout | Forgot Password
© 2013 Lucianne.com Media Inc.
~~~c~~~
|