Oh where is the love?
But it's all President Obama's fault, says Mittens, for giving women free birth control and government funded abortions on demand 24/7 in special secret rooms in the White House; for giving away free health care to illegal immigrants and space aliens; for giving students free money for college--but only if they attend Liberal, Commie, Marxist, Godless schools where everyone is forced to wear Che Guevara t-shirts while smoking free weed [courtesy of Santa Obama] and, lastly, because President Claus gave away free cell phones for every you-know-what on welfare.
ANALYSIS By MICHAEL FALCONE (@michaelpfalcone) and AMY WALTER (@amyewalter)
Nov. 15, 2012
It's been just over a week since his defeat at the hands of President Obama and already a chasm between Mitt Romney and some prominent members of the Republican Party seems to have opened up.
The failed GOP presidential hopeful's candid assessment of why he lost the race, which he offered on conference calls with donors yesterday, instantly drew a sharp rebuke from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal who called Romney's take "absolutely wrong."
Romney told top donors he came up short on Nov. 6 because "what the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote, and that strategy worked."
According to Romney some of the best "gifts," went to Hispanic voters, a group that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama.
More reading:
Romney Blames Loss On Obama’s ‘Big Gifts’ To Minorities, Women
Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal slammed former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney last night in a strong rebuke of Romney's comments claiming that President Barack Obama won the election because he provided “gifts” to minorities and young voters.
Jindal told reporters at a Republican Governors Association
meeting in Las Vegas that Romney's comments, which came in a conference call to donors earlier on Wednesday, were "absolutely wrong."Here's what Jindal had to say, via The Washington Examiner:
“That is absolutely wrong. Two points on that. One, we have got to stop dividing American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent — we need to go after every single vote. And second, we need to continue to show that our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children the opportunity to get a great education, which is for their children to have even better-paying jobs than their parents.”
“If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly: One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream, period. No exceptions.”
Republican strategist Ana Navarro hit Romney on Twitter, saying that "Romney was the biggest gift Obama got."
40 comments:
Bobby Jindal is my early favorite for 2016. Unfortunately, the birther nuts already have their sites on DQing him, despite the fact that "Natural Born" is ill-defined and has never been tested in a court of law.
And my only problem with the "government as Santa Claus" talk is that all parties engage in it. Corporate welfare is a gigantic problem.
Politicians at all levels and across the political spectrum get reelected by handing out goodies at taxpayer expense.
Really? Bobby Jindal?
He'll need some 'splaining to do on this:
Bobby Jindal’s Science Problem
Your post today addresses the fact that the GOP has to keep religion out of politics. But what Jindal signed into law is exactly the opposite of your suggestion. Creationism is not science, and a guy who has a double major in biology knows that, but he believes he has to deny facts in the service of religious correctness--he knows better, then again, he doesn't.
Side note: It'll be interesting to see if the rightwingers will tease "Bobby" about his rejection of his real name, Piyush, in favor of a more western sounding name. Remember how often the right teased Mr. Obama about "Barry?"
But, of course, the right won't, because IOKIYAR!
The reason the Republicans was they had the wrong candidate and the wrong ideas about what is important. They beat each other up in the primaries and selected someone that the majority of republicans were against.
Yes the economy sucks and Obama's primary goal is to punish the "rich" and not fix the economy but the election was about social issues not financial.
The democrats were very good at demonizing Romney and he let them. He was apologetic of his wealth and not strong enough of his accomplishments. You have to counter a lie and he never did.
Jindal stayed with Bobby, Barry did not. Not sure what your point is.
skud,
I and a majority of the American people agree with you when you say:
"The reason the Republicans [lost] was they had the wrong candidate and the wrong ideas about what is important."
"As usual with Republicans these days, there is no real personal responsibility. They do nothing wrong ever. They confess to no mistakes themselves. And we now kinda know that Romney's "47 percent" remarks were actually what he deeply believes:
"I’m very sorry that we didn’t win," Mr. Romney said on the call. "I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close, but close doesn’t count in this business."
He continued: "And so now we’re looking and saying, ‘O.K., what can we do going forward?’ But frankly, we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans for the future."
He's so "troubled" that he cannot plan anything. Does he mean the election was rigged? Or stolen? No - just a function of crude bribery:
"You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge," Mr. Romney said. "Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group."
A couple of obvious questions. Does Romney understand that he is essentially saying that Democratic voters were not interested in the common good, that they had no opinions about the issues as a whole, but were simply after getting "stuff", as Bill O'Reilly explained. Does he understand how that insults the intelligence and good faith of a majority of Americans?"
Answer: No.
RN and SF are on the Jindal train. RN wrote about Jindal yesterday.
What a team these two make.
Shaw: Your Slate article makes the ridiculous and hysterical assertion that allowing intelligent design to be taught is "unscientific."
That's a bold statement given that human evolution from apes is still a theory...
BTW, anybody compared Louisiana's unemployment rate against the "more enlightened" states?
Finally, I would ask, what does the Louisiana state constitution say about this?
@JC << Does Romney understand that he is essentially saying that Democratic voters were not interested in the common good, that they had no opinions about the issues as a whole, but were simply after getting "stuff", as Bill O'Reilly explained. Does he understand how that insults the intelligence and good faith of a majority of Americans?" >>
Solid question, JC. The first thing I thought of when I heard the text of the call was "doesn't he understand this is not helpful?" Apparently not.
"A couple of obvious questions. Does Romney understand that he is essentially saying that Democratic voters were not interested in the common good, that they had no opinions about the issues as a whole, but were simply after getting "stuff", as Bill O'Reilly explained. Does he understand how that insults the intelligence and good faith of a majority of Americans?"
There is a more charitable way to look at it.
Perhaps he believes, as I do, that liberals sincerely believe that all these handouts really do advance the "common good."
You can believe that someone is sincere, and sincerely wrong.
Anon, anything of substance asshat?
Jindal is a breath of fresh air, you don't agree?
Romney lost because... Of Romney.
As to my view of rEpublican party strategy in general... It sucks.
Silver individual.
Me individual.
Not team.
You and Shaw team?
Did I type slow enough for your comprehension skills?
SF: "That's a bold statement given that human evolution from apes is still a theory..."
Apparently you don't know what a scientific theory is.
We share 98-99% of our DNA with the great apes. They and we share a common ancestor. To deny that is to live in ignorance.
RN, the Anon to which you directed your epithet "asshat" did not engage in calling you a name.
Please stop.
PS. Intelligent Design is another name for creationism, and that's based on mythology, not scientific fact.
"You can believe that someone is sincere, and sincerely wrong."
Yes.
And those conservative mouth pieces who repeat the meme of "free stuff" are sincerely wrong.
A safety net for those who are disabled, poor, and stuggling is not "free stuff."
This is the silly excuse the conservatives, and especially Romeny are using to explain why their policies were rejected.
The "why" doesn't really matter. The important thing is that their policies were rejected.
Is Evolution a theory or a fact?
McCain skips administration meeting for Congressional leaders that gave more information about what happened in Benghazi, to attend a press conference that blasted Obama for not giving more information on what happened in Benghazi.
Seems McCain doesn't care about what happened in Benghazi, he simply wants to attack Obama, no matter what.
SF, please provide us with your evidence that creationism is a fact, as Shaw has provided us with information that evolution is a fact.
Remeber how the conservatives said it wasn't fair that the Dems called the GOP anti-woman? Here's a conservative on a conservative blog telling everyone what he/she thinks of women. No wonder they vote Democratic. Who'd want to belong to a party that welcomes jerks like this:
"One of the saddest things that ever happened to this country was granting women suffrage and the right to run for elective office.
Look at this mess with Petraeus and Poundwell. It could ever have happened in earlier times.
Nowadays thanks to Women's Lib, you have prostitutes, sluts, bimbos, nymphomaniacs, lesbians and brazen hussies like this Poundwell creature boldly bragging about their illicit affairs or their lesbianism and illegitimate kids on camera.
Remember when Ingrid Bergman was censored by the US Congress and asked to leave the country because she had an affair with that greasy Dago slob of a director? Her name was Mudd for years after that, and she'd been adored by the American public who were generally shocked and dismayed by her aberrant, immoral performance.
Today she'd pose naked for a Playboy centerfold and describe her illicit lover's genitals in minute detail to slobbering fans.
Women are hyper-emotional and ought not to be put in sensitive positions that demand discretion and top secret clearance.
Helen Highwater"
News Flash,
McCain is an angry and frustrated politician and does not deservethe attention he craves.
He's a disgrace to the Senate.
The President has let Benghazi get away from him.
And the press conference?! Pretty bizzare.
Just days ago I thought there would be compromise. After what I have seen and heard the last two days my bet is that both parties allow billions in tax increases and across the boards cuts to take place January 1st.
"The attack of our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11,which resulted in four Americans being murdered, is now used as an opportunity to gain political points. Washington Republicans and the partisan pundits beyond have slapped on the war paint, donned the camouflage and are armed to the hilt—out to get Obama’s blood at all cost.
Now there is loud clamor for transparency and investigations, accusations of a cover-up and incompetence, with those doing the talking all the while professing to only want the truth as concerned Americans and conscientious politicians.
`
Where was all that concern for our men and women serving in embassies and consulates across the globe when all the other attacks and killings occurred?
Like in 2002 when the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?
Or in 2004 when the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?
How about in 2004, when the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?
There is more: In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.
Then in 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.
In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.
In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.
Notice the dates, all before the Obama administration.
Not yet convinced that all the noise over Benghazi has nothing to do with love of countryman? How about the biggest, most catastrophic attack and murder of Americans? As a New Yorker, Sept. 11, 2001, is indelibly imprinted on my psyche and I’m sure on the rest of the country. 3,000 perished in the most brutal act of terror in our recent history—all under a Republican administration. George W. Bush and his team had nine warnings that al-Qaida would attack within the United States, but they did absolutely nothing. No one in that administration’s head rolled for that stunning incompetence.
But Republicans now want President Obama’s head for Benghazi."
"There's nothing more despicable ... for someone to insinuate that the president of the United States knew there was an attack on our country that was imminent and didn't do anything about it."
"I don't think that anyone should start pointing fingers in a personal way or suggest that people are trying to cover their political backsides."
Bush administration officials on the investigation into the 9/11 attacks.
@Ben Gazzle I understand your frustration at the loud and aggressive attacks on the Obama administration.
Leaving that aside and remaining objective; are you happy with the way the administration has handled the aftermath and reporting of Benghazi during the last two months? How about the events leading up to the attacks?
Try to avoid comparing evenys to other terrorist attacks 10 to 20 years or more ago. Hopefully, we have learned much in the last two decades and are better prepared to ward off attacks today. And, we should have a greater understanding of Americans strong desire to be told the truth. All of us are exposed to possible terror attacks each time we go to the mall or stadium. I don't want to be lied to or placated or have intel dummied down. You may agree?
RE: "But Republicans now want President Obama’s head for Benghazi." Exactly. Though they
are not my senators, I have written McCain and Graham concerning their blatant and transparent maneuvering...I hope they get inundated with such...
KP... your point, as usual, is well taken.
I for one am not happy with what happened in Libya. Anytime one of our own is lost in something like this, I am pained, to say the least.
I wish there was some way to get to the bottom of these types of incidents without the blatant politicking from both sides.
I suspect that in days gone by, when this happened, the lack of 24/7 news coverage helped shield our leaders from having to 100% right in all that is said almost from the moment of origin.
How are leaders supposed to step back and look at what happened and try to determine a better path if we have 200 million people who instantaneously claim to know more about what happened than those involved, or who were monitoring the situation?
@ Shaw...
"A safety net for those who are disabled, poor, and stuggling is not "free stuff."
Well, yes it is actually.
If they did not earn the capital to purchase it it then technically to them it is FREE. (Those who have earned some stuff through their contributions to SS etc. I exempt from this statement, as I do those who are truly disabled and through now fault of their own unable to earn a living.)
To the government, ie: the America people you are correct, it is not free, it ultimately got paid for, by us.
Now having cleared that up I agree there are circumstances in which a safety net net is the right thing to provide. Unemployment insurance is one example.
As a nation we need to be mindful that in the process of doing the right things we don't inadvertently, and unintentionally create a growing class of people who prefer forever to live off the backs of those who work and contribute to their support during their times of need.
@ Anon: SF, please provide us with your evidence that creationism is a fact, as Shaw has provided us with information that evolution is a fact.
It's not a fact.
Now, here's one for you. Go read Origin of the Species.
I hate to spoil it for you, but the title is misleading.
@ Anon: SF, please provide us with your evidence that creationism is a fact, as Shaw has provided us with information that evolution is a fact.
SF: "It's not a fact."
Stop embarrassing yourself. For an otherwise intelligent person, that's about as dumb a statement as one can make.
It appears that you're challenging this fact from an religious aspect, not a scientific one.
Evolution is settled science. And saying it isn't doesn't change that one fact.
You and the rest of the anti-science people in the GOP need to come to terms with this.
The goal of science is theory. Evolution is a theory, one that is supported by mountains of scientific research and discovery.
I will give Silver this, it is a fact that something created life. The preponderance of scientific data is however that evolution is that something. But it is everyone's right to believe as they choose. And since it is a possibility that the non provable entity know as God might exist I say let each to their own.
But what do I know? I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian. Eh Shaw?
@Dave << I suspect that in days gone by, when this happened, the lack of 24/7 news coverage helped shield our leaders from having to 100% right in all that is said almost from the moment of origin. >>
Great point.
Bear with me for a moment while I use an analogy. Approx 6% of our population are sociopaths. That means almost all of us have had dealings with sociopaths (and helps explain weird actions of a few on the political extremes).
When dealing with a sociopath a normal person will notice that they are wrong no matter if they answer "yes" or "no". That leaves the obvious choice of not answering that person.
Long route to my point: Our Presidents understand that no matter how they answer they will be greeted by loud opposition.
Obama is not alone here, nor is his opposition any greater than Bush's. But I can see why they delay responses and avoid making quick comments in the face of controversy. Everybody is a little gun shy. Still, Benghazi is an extreme case where the President's team appears to have worked hard to soften thhe fallout prior to the election.
BTW, in my opinion the 6% is evenly distributed between the left and right :-)
"One last thing: Ignoring, for now, the fact that the Affordable Care Act provides benefits for all Americans — and not just African Americans and Latinos — there’s something odd about this line of criticism. Voters elect and support politicians to do things for them. There’s nothing illegitimate about the fact that Obama won by providing tangible benefits to people who needed them. And in fact, if elected president, this was Romney’s plan as well — large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, who don’t need them but would like them all the same. That Romney doesn’t see those measures as “gifts” is a sign of how blinded he is by his class."
RN,
Evolution does NOT describe how life began. Evolution describes changes over time in species.
True, Shaw. All Darwin said about the origin of life in his book was
"Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed"
After all, the title of his book is The Origin of Species, not the origin of life.
He did write to a friend:
" But if (and Oh! What a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity etc., present that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"
Which implies he did not believe in an god-created beginning of like.
@ Shaw...
Oops, I stand corrected, poor choice of wording. Good catch. :-)
@ Jerry...
Indeed.
"But I can see why they delay responses and avoid making quick comments in the face of controversy."
In comparison to screaming idiots who cry cover up and murder before the facts are in, in fact just hours after the incident happened. Like Romney and you. Again, no apologies for hurting innocent people.
Yes, smart, fair people wait until facts are known before accusing people of dastardly deeds.
Anon, vote me. You are hopelessly ignorant.
There RN you got your insult in again.
Yes, ignorant people are the ones who wait for facts before screaming cover up and murder.
I guess you want me to join you, KP, SF and others who came to the conclusion that there was a cover up and murder 12 hours after the incident before any facts were known.
Sorry, I don't do "chicken little." I'm not that filled with hate for the president (who I did not vote for) nor am I that stupid.
I discovered your blog site on google and check a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the very good operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking forward to reading more from you later on!…
[url=http://cheapnfljerseys168.likesyou.org/]Cheap NFL Jerseys[/url]
[url=http://louisvuittonhandbags8.totalh.net/]cheap louis vuitton outlet[/url]
Post a Comment