Tuesday, November 13, 2012

In Case You Missed It.......(11-13-2012)

Paul Ryan: 'We were shocked we lost"



____________________________________________

Karl Rove on the chopping block with GOP donors?

One can only hope.....
Republicans across the country are upset with the party’s election defeats last week, and many see strategist Karl Rove as a major culprit. 
His Crossroads groups raised more than $300 million to defeat President Barack Obama and regain GOP control of the Senate. They failed on both accounts, and many donors to the cause aren’t too happy. 
Some of them are upset that Crossroads had such inaccurate polls, and others say more money should have been spent at the grassroots level rather than on TV advertising, sources tell Politico. Rove’s competitors within the party charge that he’s doing more harm than good and are trying to draw donors away from him.......
______________________________________________

Obama is considering John Kerry for Defense Secretary
President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus......
 _______________________________________________

Michael Steele wants his job back as RNC Chairman

Say what you want about the guy, but he did preside over one of the biggest landslides in party history!
......“It's not a bad idea. I can go shake up the house a little bit more, what do you think?”.....
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.

22 comments:

Pam said...

Can I just say a big fat NO to Michael Steele?! The man talked too much and didn't seem to know when to shut up. We might would have picked up even more seats in 2010 had it not been for his foot-in-mouth disease!

As far as Rove goes, I really think people need to stop blaming the man. It's over and we need to move on. All of the conservative pollsters were off this time for whatever reason.

Pam said...

There is another thing that people are forgetting. In the 2010 landslide for the GOP, many of the minorities and young people didn't vote. They aren't interested in mid term elections. They only vote during presidential contests.

BOSMAN said...

Thanks RWN,

I was hoping you would bring this back.

This and "The Lion's Den" are unique and will surely help bring viewers to RS.

Right Wingnut said...

Bos,

Do the individual headlines within the post come up in Google searches?

Right Wingnut said...

I just Googled "Paul Ryan" for the past 24 hours. Right Speak came up on page 1, but not this specific post. It looks like the post label triggered it.

https://www.google.com/#q=%22paul+ryan%22&hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=qdr:d&ei=dnSiUN-uH4e62wXo0YGYBA&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7bb9b384f427c1da&bpcl=38093640&biw=1366&bih=608

Right Wingnut said...

Having said that, Given the number of stories about Paul Ryan, that's pretty good that RS popped up on the first page.

newark hawk said...

It's supremely ironic that heading into election day, the data guy - Mitt Romney - was absolutely clueless about where he really stood in the polls.

Romney ran his entire campaign as if he had a double-digit lead in the polls.

He played it safe, afraid to criticize Obama on anything but the economy, afraid to make a mistake, playing not to lose the election rather than playing to win it.

Fortune favors the brave, as Romney learned on November 6th, the hard way.

Anonymous said...

Wow, people really imbue politicians with God-like powers if they think voter turn-out is somehow within one politician's control. Barack Obama should not be credited with record turnout of the social-issues Dem voters. The people should be credited. Hollywood can get a big portion of the credit since they've made Republican social stances deadly unpopular.

But to blame Romney for not getting the vote out enough is just petty. We lost because the other side didn't play fair. They had media and superstars on their side, they made the election about little things, and small-minded people responded with their votes. End of story.

-Katrina

newark hawk said...

RNC chief Reince Priebus should find a new gig, because he STINKS at his current one.

Michael Steele seems to be a far better fit at MSNBC than he ever was as head of the RNC.

The GOP'S 2010 landslide occurred in spite of Steele's leadership, not because of it.

To be perfectly honest, the GOP needs new blood in all three of its key leadership positions - RNC chief, Senate Minority leader & Speaker of the House.

Preibus, McConnell & Boehner are dyed-in-the-wool RINOs who must be replaced by real conservatives if the GOP ever hopes to become a true opposition party, rather than just the Democrat Party Lite.

newark hawk said...

@ Katrina

The Dems have always cheated, and they've always had the media & celebrities on their side, but that didn't stop Ronald Reagan from winning two landslide elections in 1980 & 1984.

The GOP needs solutions, not excuses.

Excuses are for losers.

newark hawk said...

Immediately prior to the 2nd debate, I made it very clear on this forum that Romney must attack Obama on the Benghazi debacle, because if he did not, it may very well cost him the election.

I hate to say I told you so, but ..........

newark hawk said...

Romney should have told Candy Crowley that she was dead wrong - rather than back off like he did - and then continue to hammer Obama on his incompetence & deceit regarding Benghazi.

Right Wingnut said...

Completely agree with everything you have said, NH.

Anonymous said...

There is no way to win an election with state controlled media. If Romney had attacked on Benghazi, the media would have made Romney a war monger faster than you can say Candy Crowley.

This is not to mention the voter fraud. If voter fraud is found to have occurred, who will report it? It's not going to be the state owned media. The will label those who uncover voter fraud as crazy and full of sour grapes. In fact, it is a control tactic of the media to mock, ridicule, and discredit; any combination of that will do.

Just look at Petraeus. On the yahoo front page, it's been non-stop stories about his affair. Who has ever cared about Petraues' love life? It is just to discredit him--along with some ridicule for moral impropriety--, in case he dares make Obama look bad with Benghazi testimony.


newark hawk said...

@ Right Wingnut

Thanks for your approval.

I guess going "off topic" ain't that bad after all.

All kidding aside, sorry if I was a bit rough on Ms. Palin the other day.

You're right, it's time to bury the hatchet.

newark hawk said...

@ Anonymous 2:01 PM

"Peace through strength", which includes protecting & defending our overseas diplomatic personnel, is NOT "warmongering".

It's the exact opposite - just ask the family members of the 4 dead Americans in Benghazi.

Right Wingnut said...

NH,

I apologize for getting so defensive. It's a knee jerk reaction having heard the same things over and over. It's probably similar to how a Romney supporter feels about The pro-choice or RomneyCare attacks.

Right Wingnut said...

It pretty clear that you and I agree on most everything else.

Anonymous said...


"Peace through strength", which includes protecting & defending our overseas diplomatic personnel, is NOT "warmongering".

It's the exact opposite - just ask the family members of the 4 dead Americans in Benghazi.
------------------------
That wasn't the point at all, not a fan of peace through strength. You need not look any further than what happened to Sarah Palin to see my point. She spoke up and was filleted for it. The press holds all the cards.

The media was salivating at Romney going strong on Benghazi to make him out like a Bush, crazy, war monger. It would have been the only thing on news the next day.

There's no question that the media bias played a part in Romney's strategy. We're the media moderately balanced, Romney would have gone for Benghazi. But he was all too aware of what they were up to. (Don't forget the moderators at the debates, for example. Romney had to argue with them, too. He only won the first debate cause the moderator didn't expect him to be so strong. They were ready by the next debate.)

But I think this is what it boils down to: Is a presidential election winnable, given the Obama controlled media, and their various cover ups for him, not to mention the massive voter fraud and media silence?

I think it's game over.

I don't think national elections are winnable for Republicans, anymore, due to media and their cover ups for Obama and their out for blood tactics with any Republican candidates (Obama hasn't even been vetted yet).

The election last week had Hugo Chavez written all over it. This is not America as we have known it. That all changed the day Obama got elected.

Allen West is another example. More outrageous voter fraud.

It's time to realize communism has permeated. I hope there's a brave leader bold enough to call Obama out on it.

Sorry for the long post. That's really all I wanted to say won't post anything else.

cimbri said...

Romney was right to leave Benghazi alone, for a variety of reasons; the main one being that due to Bush over reach, everyone is afraid of Republicans and foreign policy. I still think Bush is going to be our Carter, and is good for 2 or 3 election victories for the other side.

Pam said...

I think this interview says it all: http://jstsay.in/N0005z

Anonymous said...

Some of the veteran posters on this site will remember me, others might not but the ones that do will probably remember that I am a staunch Palin supporter. As most of you know I credit Palin's hand in the 2010 victories, I know a lot of you credit Romney's. I never discredited his part, in fact I was more than willing to give both their equal due... but that wasnt possible on this site back then. If you shared an opinion that conflicted with the drones, you were mocked and ridiculed.

Some of you, alos, might remember that I called for Romney to NOT run for President, and instead run for RNC Chairman. It's a job that better suits his talents and skill sets. If it were at all possible I would hope he would run for that position now, but unfortunately he would lose. Like other failed Presidential candidates, in years past, his influence will fall and the Establishment will throw blame onto him rather than admit their own mistakes.

Their biggest problem is that he should have been the perfect candidate. He embraces social conservative ideals but rules with a moderate heart. He was their perfect candidate.

What ever will they do now?

jerseyrepublican