PDA

View Full Version : LMAO Rove Blames Weak Candidates,Contributers FUME



Gayle in MD
11-09-2012, 03:16 PM
American Crossroads Insists Donors Stand By Karl Rove, Blames Losses On 'Very Weak Candidates'

The Huffington Post *|* By Amanda Terkel

Karl Rove's American Crossroads group has been on a charm offense in the wake of widespread Republican losses in Tuesday's election, attempting to reassure donors who gave the group more than $300 million to spend on candidates who largely were defeated. So far, Rove has refused to take any blame for the losses, and on Friday, a spokesman for the group said that its supporters were standing by them.

"We've been talking to a lot of our donors," said American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio on MSNBC. "Everyone is disappointed with the results, but everyone also fully understands the contribution we had in the 2012 election."

Crossroads held calls with its big donors on Thursday, to go over what happened in the election.

Privately, donors don't seem to be quite as reassured as Collegio said.

"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one GOP operative told The Huffington Post. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing."

Rove and Crossroads have aggressively been deflecting the blame. Rove, for example, has blamed the timing of Hurricane Sandy, accused President Barack Obama of suppressing the vote and argued that the former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney did not respond quickly enough to the Obama campaign's attacks.

On Friday, Collegio identified another culprit: the Senate candidates and a weak GOP recruitment process.

"On the Senate side, we did -- and I'll be the first person to admit -- have some pretty big problems on the candidate-recruitment side," he said. "I would argue that over the last two election cycles, Republicans have probably lost at least six Senate seats -- not because of any bad messaging coming from our party, but because we had some candidates that were outraised and that frankly were not ready for the platform that's a Republican Senate candidate, where there's an enormous amount of scrutiny. So instead of talking about our message of cutting the debt and taxes, we ended up on a lot of tangential issues that should never have been debated, because we had some very, very weak candidates."

The two conservative candidates whose races became dominated by discussion over their controversial comments about rape -- Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) and Indiana's Richard Mourdock -- were certainly surprises for the party when they won their primaries and put the GOP in a weaker position in the general election. They were also dealt a setback when Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she was retiring, and the more liberal Angus King (I) ended up winning. In other races like Ohio, Michigan and Florida, the Republican candidates never really seemed really for prime-time.

Still, the defeats of all these candidates call into question the wisdom of Republican donors giving so much money to Rove, and whether they should instead have invested more into recruitment, grassroots organizing or research. But Collegio argued that without Rove's operation, the election would have been an even bigger Democratic victory.

"The critical thing that gets lost with all of this analysis, is the president did a very, very good job raising a lot of money; he outspent Mitt Romney on television by $154 million over the campaign," he said. "And even that is understated by the fact that Mitt Romney was buying all of his ad time late, which meant that he was paying higher prices. The Crossroads groups and a lot of the outside groups that were spending money were really balancing out a really good and well-executed campaign by the president, but one where the Democrats had a really big financial advantage. Not only at the presidential level, but at the Senate level."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09...html?ref=topbar (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/american-crossroads-karl-rove-losses_n_2102006.html?ref=topbar)


<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>LMAO! Rove Blames Weak Candidates, AND Obama's Voter Supression! BWA HA HA HA!

Poor Loser Repiglican Story Number 5!</span> </span>

eg8r
11-10-2012, 04:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LMAO! Rove Blames Weak Candidates</div></div>On this point I would definitely agree. As far as your attacks on the Reps I would think you would agree also? What is it about this statement that you disagree?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-11-2012, 10:58 AM
Of course, he does have a point about their Senate candidates' woes. I think all those races were easily winnable and most would have been won by the very GOP candidates their TParty zealots defeated between this cycle and the last one.

I had little hope for Harry Reid or Claire McCaskell holding their seats, given their poor polling numbers. That Delaware seat was the GOP's for the taking as well.

Arguably, the GOP could have had the majority in this cycle, had they picked up the last cycle's easy pickings, and this cycle's, instead of 'p!ssing them away' as Hailey Barbour admitted.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 08:59 AM
I don't agree with you my friend,

I don't think they could have won over more seats, with better canndidates, because their policies are offensive, and they are far too far right, for most in our country.

I think the Republican Policies are not in line with the majority in this country.

Not that their irrational crazies didn't fail to help them one bit, but IMO, their policies, regardless of who might have presented them, failed to have support.

Republican views are unpopular with most in our country, and hence, they do not have support from the majority of voters.

Their divisive and offensive policy statements, on every campaign level, From foreign Policy, to Domestic Policy, and their intention to block raising taxes for the wealth top, and take more away from others less fortunate, in order to do so, will continue to cost them.

Additionally, they refused to accept the facts which all rational polling data pointed to, throughout this campaign.

They basically skewed their own internal polls, annd IMO, several Right leaning polling organizations assisted in that endeavor, and then lied to their own contributors, collecting and wasting more and more of the millionaire supporters millions, while denying the facts, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif it's a Repiglican thingie. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Gross lies and denial! </span>
The irrational Rove accusation that Obama won, due to voter suppression, is just laughable beyond words, given that we ALL watched Republican's concentrated voter suppression campaign tactics, from early on and throughout, by a number of Republican governors and in one case at least, admitted by Republican campaign operatives, in Pennsylvania.

Additionally, they cut their own throats, because their own clearly obvious voter suppression tactics, fired up many more voters to exercise their right to vote, and Democrats won more voters from other groups, as well, like Cubans in Florida, for example, where young Cubans joined the Democratic base, while Romney/Ryan's own statements during the campaign, destroyed them, aka, 'Self Deport' 'End Planned Parenthood' 'Overturn Roe V. Wade' and annti-Gay, 'Defense Of Marriage' all of their social issues, lost them votes of Hispanics, African Americans, young voters, and women.

While I agree their losses were highlighted in the news by the idiocy of their nutjob candidates, I think their stated policies, included in their own platform, would have done the job, regardless.

I think it was a three hundred million dollar learning experience, for Rove et al, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif and that Republicans are far, far too far right, to grab majorities.

Voters were inspired to vote against Republican Policies, across the board, and additionally, Romney's inability to run a good campaign, fraught with outdated, extremist Republican views, and the blatant lies told in the campaign promotions by their Super Paks, angered many Americans in swing states.

All in all, it was an across the board repudiation of Republican Policies, economic, foreign AND social, IMPO, and I believe that their own War On Women, War on the Middle Class, War On Gays, War On voters rights, Workers rights, and their idiotic denials of Global Warming, will continue to be failed Republican policies which will continue to devastate their credibility throughout the mid-terms.

They have made it very clear, that they ONLY represent the wealthy, and the crooks.

Additionally, organized religion is losing favor with young Americans.

Republicans lost nearly every voting group.



G.

Soflasnapper
11-12-2012, 10:14 AM
We agree more than disagree, and part of what I mention concerned the '10 mid-term elections, where the GOP had the advantages of a bad economy and a dispirited Dem base. Reid was eminently beatable with anyone but a Sharon Angle or her type.

Then, and this time, the GOP incumbents or superior candidates they discarded were in fact at least sometimes the remnants of the moderate wing of the party. Mike Castle in DE was not a fire-breather wingnut, and far from that. None of Akin's rivals were as crazed as he was (which is why McCaskill spent money helping him gain the nomination in the primary).

Probably both Akin and Murdouch might have won if they'd simply kept their mouths shut on rape and pregnancy issues, however much their records prior spoke of the same positioning on these issues.

As is fairly clear considering that Paul Ryan was a co-sponsor with Akin of many of the anti-abortion measures that passed the House, and yet he was re-elected in WISCONSIN (far more moderate and blue-leaning than Missouri or wherever Murdouch was from-- Indiana, right?).

The difference? Ryan essentially kept radio silence on his most extreme beliefs (even as the evidence was abundantly clear from his voting record).

Even a man such as GW Bush could fool a lot of people about his real positions by talking the opposite way from how he'd really govern or how his record was. People easily buy misleading rhetoric.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 10:57 AM
Gotcha. Agree...and question as well, if Ryan got away with fooling the people, why the President's campaign wasn't more effective in exposing Ryan's voting record?

I suppose it is hard for me to understand how people could vote for Ryan, or Romney, at all!

I know I heard plenty about the Ryan/Akins connection, which in my case, I already knew, but it was surely out there in the media.

I just think a lot of these folks in the Red States, ONLY watch Fux, and listen to Limpballs.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

Soflasnapper
11-12-2012, 02:26 PM
Ryan fairly immediately swore fealty to the newest Robme position on exceptions to bans on abortions (allowing for exceptions in the case of rape and incest and life of the mother), while making the briefest possible mention of his own principled objection to the rape and incest exceptions, only to say he was going with the top of the ticket's position.

Then you had the GOP platform, which advocated for no exceptions.

The thing that spared Ryan was that Robme was the target, and that target had the new position of allowing the exceptions (as of that moment at least).

Gayle in MD
11-12-2012, 07:41 PM
Yes, all true.

The country, however, is not in agreement with the Republican Platform.

Americans aren ot in line with Republican economic policies, nor with their foreign policies, nor with their domestic and social policies, and those policies are in the Republican Platform, so it is gong to be very hard for them to play their usual denial game, or to twist reality, or use semantics to muddy up the waters.

G.