A Message From Lucianne  



Now More Than Ever
Get Your Eagles Up!
Lucianne Tees - in
Black or White
Click to Buy

































   
 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute
Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password


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.

  

Post Reply  

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!



Post Reply   Close thread 720943




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "tisHimself"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "tisHimself"



Obama Got Pass on Benghazi,
Thanks to Romney
Real Clear Politics, by Richard Benedetto    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 5/11/2013 11:09:02 AM     Post Reply
For nearly eight months now, Republicans in Congress have been confounded by the apparent lack of public interest in, or concern about, what actually happened in the Sept. 11, 2012 Libyan terrorist attacks in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. But Wednesday’s dramatic hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee shined new light on the issue. It brought out more details of possible Obama administration mismanagement while the attacks were underway and potential coverup in its aftermath.

Obama to Name Wheeler to Head FCC
Wall Street Journal, by Danny Yadron    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 5/1/2013 11:58:10 AM     Post Reply
President Barack Obama is expected to tap a venture capitalist and former lobbyist to be the country´s next top telecom-industry regulator. Mr. Obama´s choice to run the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, appeared open in 2011 to letting wireless giant AT&T Inc. T +0.99% acquire T-Mobile USA despite a lawsuit from antitrust regulators seeking to block the deal. But he had a price. In exchange for a $39 billion merger, AT&T would have had to agree to a slew of new regulations, according to an idea Mr. Wheeler laid out at the time on his personal blog.

The Presidential Wheel Turns
Wall Street Journal, by Peggy Noonan    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/25/2013 10:21:41 PM     Post Reply
Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 because he was not George W. Bush. In fact, he was elected because he was the farthest thing possible from Mr. Bush. On some level he knew this, which is why every time he got in trouble he´d say Bush´s name. It´s all his fault, you have no idea the mess I inherited. As long as Mr. Bush´s memory was hovering like Boo Radley in the shadows, Mr. Obama would be OK. This week something changed. George W. Bush is back, for the unveiling of his presidential library. His numbers are dramatically up.

Democrats blink first on aviation cuts
Politico, by Kathryn A. Wolfe and Burgess Everett    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/25/2013 10:15:09 PM     Post Reply
The White House and Democrats in Congress argued for months against a piecemeal fix to the budget problems caused by the sequester. But on Thursday, Democrats caved in and agreed to allow the Federal Aviation Administration to keep air traffic control towers running at close to full capacity. All it took was a few thousand people standing in line at the airport. The Senate approved a deal late Thursday to ease the FAA's burden following negotiations among both parties and the White House. The House is expected to take up the bill Friday, just before the congressional weeklong recess, so President Barack Obama can sign it.
Text added by Staff.

Paul Ryan’s Immigration Play
National Review, by Robert Costa    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/24/2013 10:52:23 PM     Post Reply
This week, there was a new development in the House: Paul Ryan may be the key to passing comprehensive immigration reform. But that should hardly come as a surprise. Long before he was a vice-presidential nominee, Ryan was an adviser to former New York congressman Jack Kemp at Empower America, a conservative think tank. It was there, in his early twenties, that Ryan began to share Kemp’s politics.

Forget About Family Reunification
National Review, by Charles C, Cooke    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/24/2013 10:49:06 PM     Post Reply
n Emma Lazarus’s 1883 poem The New Colossus, the United States offers a “world-wide welcome” to the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” One suspects that, were the poem written today, it would be rather more prosaic. “The golden door,” Lazarus might surmise, is open principally to those who happen to have a family member in the country or are fortunate at lotteries. When discussing any aspect of immigration policy, politicians shrewdly chatter on about “skills.” An immigrant “inventor” — of which there is an apparently unlimited supply — will create manufacturing jobs for the natives;

Do You Have the Right
To Remain Silent
New Republic, by Jeffrey Rosen    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/22/2013 12:52:01 PM     Post Reply
The FBI’s decision to interrogate the Boston marathon bombing suspect before reading him the Miranda warnings has been extensively criticized by civil libertarians. Meanwhile, on the other side, conservatives like Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went even further in their disagreement, suggesting that Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev should be interrogated as a “potential enemy combatant.” (Even Graham, however, eventually acknowledged that, as a U.S. citizen, Tsarnaev could not be tried in a military commission and “any time we question him about his guilt or innocence, he’s entitled to his Miranda rights and a lawyer.”)

The Irresponsible Search
for Bomb Scapegoats
Commentary, by Jonathon S. Tobin    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/19/2013 10:40:07 PM     Post Reply
It was probably too much to hope that the chattering classes would keep their desire to spin the tragedy in Boston in check for long. Filling the air and the Web with copy in the absence of any real information about who is responsible for the bombing at the Boston Marathon places a real burden on those who comment about such things to avoid sending the discussion off the deep end. Though there are some exceptions, such as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (who couldn’t wait to speculate about the bombs being planted by radical right-wingers)

Falsely Accused in Boston:
3 Examples and What They
Should Teach Us
Atlantic, by Conor Friedersdorf    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/19/2013 10:35:16 PM     Post Reply
What is it like to be a Muslim, or a person frequently mistaken for a Muslim, in the aftermath of an apparent terrorist attack? Americans who don´t fit that description can´t really know for sure, but three news items from the last few days show that knee-jerk prejudice is inexcusably common. If your ethnic group were treated this way, you´d be walking around paranoid and anxious. Innocent victim number one is a 20-year-old Saudi who is studying in the Boston area. He was watching the marathon when the force of the bomb blast tore into him.

The Poverty Lie: How Europe´s
Crisis Countries Hide
their Wealth
Der Spiegel, by Staff    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/17/2013 11:48:32 PM     Post Reply
The images we see from the capitals of Europe´s crisis-ridden countries are confusing to say the least. In the Cypriot capital Nicosia, for example, thousands protested against the levy on bank deposits, carrying images of Hitler and anti-Merkel signs, one of which read: "Merkel, your Nazi money is bloodier than any laundered money." German Chancellor Angela Merkel was greeted by a similar scene when she visited Athens in October 2012.

America Needs an Alternative
Maximum Tax
Wall Street Journal, by John H. Cochrane    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/15/2013 5:25:14 AM     Post Reply
They keep coming back, like the villains of a good zombie movie, chanting "more taxes, more taxes." Long ago, Congress passed the alternative minimum tax, or AMT—a simple flat rate to ensure that in an insanely complex tax code, no one escapes paying something. Now we need an alternative maximum tax as a simple, rough-and-ready way to limit the tax zombies´ economic damage. Call it the AMaxT. With Monday´s deadline for filing tax returns looming, let´s start a national conversation: How much is the most anyone should have to pay?

Manchin, Toomey Prepare
to Unveil Gun Deal
Roll Call, by John Gramlich    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 4/9/2013 11:38:13 PM     Post Reply
A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators signaled Tuesday night that it has reached a deal in principle on expanding background checks to include more gun sales, in what was widely seen as the major sticking point on the biggest gun control legislation to reach the floor since 1994. Sens. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., and Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa., said they would hold a news conference at 11 a.m. Wednesday to discuss the details of the tentative deal, which was reached with the support of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and could entice a significant number of other lawmakers to sign on.



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



McCain Defends Obama Against
Impeachment For Benghazi, Will
‘Give President Benefit Of The Doubt’

76 replie(s)
Mediaite, by Jordan Charlton    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 5/12/2013 8:07:37 PM     Post Reply
Senator John McCain, who famously defended his then presidential opponent Barack Obama against an islamaphobic supporter during a 2008 campaign rally, defended President Obama once again on ABC’s This Week Sunday, cautioning his Republicans colleagues to cool it with talk of impeaching the President over the Benghazi attacks and its aftermath. In response to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) invoking the “I word,” McCain called for caution: “With all due respect, I think this is a serious issue,” McCain told guest host Martha Raddatz. “I will even give the president the benefit of the doubt

Benghazi Coverup Uncovered
59 replie(s)
American Thinker, by Clarice Feldman    Original Article
Posted By: DW626- 5/12/2013 5:24:55 AM     Post Reply
BBC has apologized for its coverage of the Benghazi murders; ABC has unraveled the mendacious tale of the talking points ´ genesis and the Congressional hearings this week have dramatically established the administration´s elaborate lies about how our ambassador and his brave defenders were murdered and its failure to protect them. Maybe now the press will feel it´s okay to get off their duffs and report how a thoroughly incompetent administration, motivated solely by self-interest, left our ambassador and others to be murdered and then lied about it with consequences to us all.

Study: Black students suspended
more often than others

53 replie(s)
USA Today, by Brett M. Kelman    Original Article
Posted By: Scottyboy- 5/12/2013 1:59:12 PM     Post Reply
Black students are suspended more than three times as often as their white classmates, twice as often as their Latino classmates and more than 10 times as often as their Asian classmates in middle and high schools nationwide, a new study shows. The average American secondary student has an 11% chance of being suspended in a single school year, according to the study from the University of California Los Angeles Civil Rights project. However, if that student is black, the odds of suspension jump to 24%.

Joe Klein: Hillary´s ´One of the
Most Experienced Candidates We´ve
Ever Had Running for President´

47 replie(s)
NewsBusters, by Noel Sheppard    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/12/2013 3:42:58 PM     Post Reply
"Everybody knows that she´s one of the most experienced candidates we´ve ever had running for president. She practically doesn´t have to say it." So said Time magazine´s Joe Klein about Hillary Clinton on Sunday´s syndicated Chris Matthews Show (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOE KLEIN: But also, they made a decision at that point that a lot of the people in Hillaryland really regret. They went with experience rather than the notion of change. “Hey, he isn´t the only change candidate - I´m a woman.” And she never did that. This time, everybody knows that she´s

Covering for Obama
45 replie(s)
New York Post, by Michael Goodwin    Original Article
Posted By: FlyRight- 5/12/2013 6:25:07 AM     Post Reply
Politics! Politics! They’re playing politics in Washington! Pretending to be modern Paul Reveres, Democrats and their media handmaidens are doing their damnedest to diminish the Benghazi revelations with the cheapest trick in town. While there is always pungent hypocrisy when one gang of politicians accuses another gang of playing politics, the current phony outrage from the Obama Protection Society is exceptionally putrid. After all, the whole saga of Benghazi — before, during and after the terror attack — reflects nothing so much as the ultimate expression of Barack Obama’s politics.

Report: Top IRS officials knew
in 2011 that conservative
groups were targeted

38 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Josh Hicks and Ed O´Keefe    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 5/11/2013 11:12:26 PM     Post Reply
An inspector general’s report due for release this week says senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011, nine months before the IRS commissioner assured Congress the targeting was not happening. The report is certain to raise questions about the timing of the IRS’s disclosure of the targeting on Friday, how high up were the officials who knew about the practice, and whether anyone outside the agency was aware of it. Details of the inspector general’s audit, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide

CBS anchor Pelley:
Journalism´s house is on fire

34 replie(s)
Associated Press, by David Bauder    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/11/2013 3:52:34 PM     Post Reply
NEW YORK— Top CBS News anchor Scott Pelley delivered a tongue-lashing to fellow journalists on Friday, urging them to worry less about the "vanity" of being first on a story and more about being right. "This has been a bad few months for journalism," Pelley said. "We´re getting the big stories wrong over and over again." The "CBS Evening News" anchor made the criticism while accepting a journalism award named for broadcast executive Fred Friendly from Quinnipiac University. He didn´t exempt himself, noting that during early reporting of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre last December he mistakenly reported

Former Nixon aide claims he
has evidence Lyndon B. Johnson
arranged John F. Kennedy´s
assassination in new book

33 replie(s)
Daily Mail [UK], by Staff    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 5/11/2013 12:33:02 PM     Post Reply
Esteemed Republican strategist and lobbyist Roger Stone writes in his upcoming book that former president Lyndon B. Johnson set up John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Stone also writes that Richard Nixon and Johnson had a documented relationship with Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald’s killer, years before he shot Oswald in the basement of Dallas police headquarters in 1963. Stone, who worked for Richard Nixon’s Committee to Re-elect the President in 1972 and later served in the Nixon administration, writes that Johnson, a congressman at the time, instructed Richard Nixon, also a congressman at the time, to hire Ruby onto

Rep. Pelosi knocks Republicans´
´obsession´ with Benghazi attack

33 replie(s)
The Hill, by Sam Baker    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 5/11/2013 2:19:01 PM     Post Reply
Congressional Republicans are using their Benghazi investigation as political "subterfuge" to distract from other issues, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Saturday. Pelosi said it´s important to find out what happened in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But the right is taking it too far, she said in an interview with MSNBC´s Melissa Harris-Perry. "The obsession that some of my Republican colleagues have in the House doesn´t look like it´s on the path to really finding a solution, but just to keeping an issue alive," she said.

Smitten teen girls stir
up #FreeJahar mania
for Boston Marathon
bombings suspect

33 replie(s)
New York Post, by Candace M. Giove    Original Article
Posted By: Desert Fox- 5/12/2013 8:59:10 AM     Post Reply
This love is terrifying. Thousands of American teen girls are crushing on Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 — and leading a social-media movement to exonerate him. The swooning teens will not accept allegations that the college kid — whom they refer to by his nickname, “Jahar” — and his brother, Tamerlan, 26, killed three and maimed hundreds by setting off bombs at the April 15 race. While some scrawl the hashtag “#FreeJahar” on their hands with markers, an 18-year-old in Topeka, Kan., is going to the extreme — she wants Dzhokhar’s words inked on her arm forever.

A Triumph on the Page,
The Great Gatsby Founders
Miserably on the Silver Screen

32 replie(s)
New York Observer, by Rex Reed    Original Article
Posted By: pineledger- 5/12/2013 6:30:57 AM     Post Reply
Let’s face it. The Great Gatsby never has been—and probably won’t ever be—successfully turned into a great motion picture. Many have tried (four flop movies, not to mention various small-screen attempts, including a truncated but memorable Playhouse 90 with Robert Ryan and Jeanne Crain in the golden days when TV still knew what quality programming was). Robert Redford was a perfect Gatsby in the pretty but boring 1974 version by Jack Clayton, but the movie was dead on arrival. The best I’ve seen is still Elliott Nugent’s black-and-white 1949 version, with Alan Ladd at the top of his form

Feinstein: ´Talking points were wrong´
31 replie(s)
Politico, by Tarini Parti    Original Article
Posted By: Scottyboy- 5/12/2013 11:50:51 AM     Post Reply
Sen. Dianne Feinstein says the talking points used on the Sunday news shows following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were wrong, adding that the administration should have been quicker in calling it a terrorist act. “I think the talking points were wrong,” the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on NBC´s “Meet the Press.” “I think the talking points should not be written by the intelligence community.” “Unfortunately," she added, "the word extremist was used which isn’t not as crystal clear as terrorist.”


Post Reply   Close thread 720943





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.

FS