Thanksgiving At Karl Rove’s

…and save some dark meat for Dick Morris, George Will, Sean Hannity, The Wall Street Journal, Fox & Friends, and a bunch of homeless Senate candidates.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Thanksgiving At Karl Rove’s

  1. Ryan Mount says:

    Never mind those buffoons. Time to pay up towards the Hospitality House for those of us who wagered. It’s party time chumps:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg

  2. Jesus Betterman says:

    But Woodsy 2.0 is nowhere to be found???

    • Ryan Mount says:

      Maybe he’s downgrading to 1.9?

      What was the nature of his wager anyway?

      • The bet was simple, the loser was to pay Hospitality House $100. I bet Obama would win again, Woodsy 2.0 bet he wouldn’t. This was established over two years ago. I think Woodsy was last sighted on Rebane’s about 9 months ago. I guess he’s a rare bird nearing extinction.

  3. Steve Enos says:

    Also include a number of local hard right, Tea Party bloggers to the list of crow eaters. Their “predictions” and their posted basis for their predictions show how out of touch they really are with reality.

    The R’s as a political group are headed down hill at a faster pace. Seems they can’t grasp the demographics and where they will continue to go. The Tea Party and hard right folks are much responsible for what happened across the U.S. on election day, as are the R’s that moved hard right to embrace them. Karl Rove and Fox “News” could not have been more wrong.

    Folks like Todd Akins, the R’s that embraced him and the super PAC’s that funded these types will continue to chant ‘Take our Country back!”, they will continue to go after the wrong issues and they will continue to lose woman and non white voters in the years to come. Plus Romney was the wrong guy to run and Ryan… the death nail to Romney in this election.

    Check out the votes for Romney vs. McCain four years ago… says a lot about Romney/Ryan.

  4. Steve Enos says:

    Could Barry Pruett have been more wrong? Here’s what Barry posted on his blog a few short weeks ago:

    “… we will see one of the most decisive defeats of an incumbent president (by percentage) since 1932, and the conclusion drawn from that can be nothing less than a complete repudiation of the policies advocated by Obama and the Democrats”.

    No Barry, it was the “repudiation” of the hard right, the Tea Party and those R’s that ran to the hard right to embrace them.

    This covers it all very well:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/us/politics/senate-races.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    • Ryan Mount says:

      I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say Barry was wrong. But a few weeks ago, the polling was much different. It’s a frickin’ horse race. Add in a few nut sack (can I say that?) GOP Senators and a terrible storm to make the incumbent look Presidential, along with the quasi-endorsement of a feisty and outspoken New Jersey Governor, it’s easy to see how things could change quickly. Maybe Christie should have ran?

      But in the final analysis Romney, the rather liberal former Republican governor of Massachusetts, lost by his and his handlers doing. Following his moderate costume change at the first “debate,” there seemed to be a ray of hope for a more moderate Romney. Then then there was the Benghazi tragedy, and followed by an odd and somewhat negative scramble by team Obama. Things were looking up. But in the end, Romney lost this race by his own doing, and with the help the untimely things for team Romney I mentioned above.

      This race between the two dominant parties was certainly about who the swing state electorate thought would do the least amount of damage, IMHO as a third party voter. Not something to be particularly hopeful for.

      • Greg Goodknight says:

        With a one percent swing the other direction, with a Democratic majority in the House, would Democrats be expected to completely rethink their very existence after losing the President’s race.

        No.

        Many, if not most, of the independents are probably folks who would be Republicans but for the social conservative/religious Righties, and a small move to the social libertarian side would pay large dividends. Obamacare is just one camel’s nose under the privacy tent, the vanguard of the new United Nanny States.

        • In four more years, many more of the “over thirty” generation from the 1960′s will be DEAD, and Republicans running to please them will be tripping all over into the muck as they try crossing the River Styx. (BTW, how many cases of voter fraud did the Teapers uncover this go round?) The younger generation does not have the anti LGBT and racial problems those born before 1945, or below the Mason-Dixon Line, do.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Keach, some boomers like Pelline will probably even beat you to the finish line.

            The GOP increased their domination of the House over where they were two years ago. That’s not an indication that they need overhauling, just a change of the size of the tent.

            I’d be happier were the Democrats to return to their anti-Federalist libertarian roots but one can’t have everything. Besides, Lincoln was a Whig before he was the first Republican President. Maybe someday the GOP will be a big enough tent for me; Milton Friedman thought it was the most receptive to a message of freedom of the major parties but I think he jumped the gun on that one.

          • Ya left out a few things, and Ami Bera may reduce the slight gain in the house down to 1 or 2:

            ” When all the shouting was done, the American people on Tuesday more or less ratified the status quo that existed at the start of the day: they returned President Obama to the White House for another four years, reaffirmed Republican control of the House and kept the Senate in Democratic hands. As of Wednesday, the margins in the House and the Senate had each changed by just two or three seats.

            The tie in effect went to the Democrats, who had more to lose but did not. Not only did they retain the presidency, they held off a concerted drive to take over the Senate and instead added slightly to their majority.

            The Republicans lost a signal opportunity to win Senate seats in states that by most measures should be their territory — Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota — while losing seats they had held in Maine and Massachusetts.

            For his part, Mr. Obama won a clear victory but less decisively than other presidents who were re-elected. He garnered just 50 percent of the popular vote, three percentage points lower than in 2008, in a sign of just how divided the country remains over his leadership. His margin in the Electoral College was stronger, but even if he wins Florida, which remained too close to call, he will be the first president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term with fewer electoral votes than in his first election, suggesting a narrowing of his coalition. ”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/a-divided-nation-keeps-the-status-quo.html?ref=congress

            And Greg, your source for there being more Latino Republicans in the house than Dems? We are still missing that tidbit over at Rebane’s. Please get on it soon.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

            Posted by: JesusBetterman | 07 November 2012 at 09:55 PM
            JesusBetterman

            Whether it be the House alone, or the Senate, or both combined as Congress, Greg can’t count!

            “Ryan, it’s a shock to see you get it so right. It would also probably surprise most Obama supporters that there are more latino Republicans in the Congress than Democratic ones. And it would surprise just about everyone if Elizabeth Warren ever substantiates her claimed native American heritage.

            This was the ugliest, most underhanded political campaign I’ve ever seen, and that includes Nixon ’72.

            Posted by: Gregory | 07 November 2012 at 02:08 PM “

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Keach, you really are a graceless winner, aren’t you? Why don’t you move your campaign over to your own blog rather than copy posts from yet another blog onto RL’s?

            Of course, if it’s on your blog, everyone will ignore it.

          • Awww Greg, that’s sweet of you!

          • Michael Anderson says:

            GET A ROOM!

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            MA, you find the room and get Keachie into it, I’ll take care of locking it and throwing away the key.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            As long as Keachie pasted his not-very-handiwork here, I did find a good source for the information I repeated, but with a small error that I introduced. Apparently it has been reported, in the LA TImes and other credible news organizations that nationwide, Republicans do have more Latinos elected to offices than Democrats do:
            “GOP holds advantage over Democrats in electing Latino politicians”
            http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/31/news/la-pn-gop-holds-advantage-over-democrats-in-electing-latino-politicians-20120731

            Now I MUST get back to work…

          • Steve Enos says:

            The issue rasied is the MASSIVE Latino voting advantage over the R’s in voting for D candidates vs. R candidates, not how many Latino’s are in office. Voters matter as votes elect candidates abd Latino’s have been voting for D’s in mass, not R’s.

            The R’s have won the popular vote for President only ONE time in the last 20 years (Bush in 04).

        • Steve Enos says:

          And the D’s… clearly hold a MASSIVE Latino advantage over the R’s in voting for, supporting AND electing candidates… as seen by the factual elections numbers and the outcomes last election day… including re-electing President Obama by a wide margin and tossing out a number of Tea Party candidates.

          • Todd Juvinall says:

            Maybe at the Presidential level but there are more elected R Hispanics in America at the lower levels of government.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            Enos, been watching MSNBC, have you?

            Until this election, there was only one Latino in the Senate. Now there will be three; another Republican (that’s two) and a Democrat. Yes, Latino voters were a tide against Romney and many think that’s because Romney chose to go to the right of the rightmost primary candidates on immigration. Bad move. And I don’t have all that much sympathy for Romney personally or Republicans as a whole, because Obama just did to him what he did to other Republicans in the primaries and Republican primary voters bought it.

            Last total I saw, 49.4% voted against Obama in this election, and by most standards, that isn’t a “wide margin”.

      • TD Pittsford says:

        After all was said and done, after all the hype about how close this race was, it turned out to be pure media-driven theater much like the so-called “reality shows” infecting TV these days. Regardless, it had the intended results: it kept millions of people glued to their TV’s, distracting the American public from far more salient world events. Then again there were some of us who were able to avoid the mind-numbing repetition of pure garbage by going bowling. I wonder if I can just move into the bowling alley for the next four years?

        • Ryan Mount says:

          Mr. Pittsford +1

          It was like American Idol that we had to suffer through every day. Ohio was our own electoral version of Simon Cowell (RIP from old school American Idol) who got to pick the President.

          > mind-numbing repetition of pure garbage by going bowling

          and drinking gin.

  5. A few general observations on the election:

    –Voters couldn’t get past the idea that Romney is a plutocrat whose wife is an admitted equestrian. As a clever fellow wrote recently in The Union, “Romney is clueless when it comes to connecting with people–and that’s the 53 percent who might vote for him.”

    –Romney’s strategy was to energize white voters and hope blacks stayed home. Blacks voted, as did Hispanics who are here legally–something that apparently didn’t occur to the Romney brain trust.

    –If the Republicans are going to continue to oppose abortion, they need to come up with some rational arguments against the procedure.

    –Teabagers are useful for energizing the GOP, but they should never be allowed to run for office. See the Missouri and Indiana senate races this year, and the Nevada senate race two years ago. Then there’s Rep. Allan West from Florida.

    –Florida Gov. Rich Scott should get a gold star from the Republican National Committee for his Herculean effort to discourage Democrats from voting. The only thing missing from his obstacle course was the alligators.

    –I’d love to be at the meeting where Rove explains what went wrong to the Koch brothers and other big-bucks contributors to his two loser PACs. Do you think they’ll ask him to refund some of his big fee?

    –Todd, Barry and their fellow travelers should look at the results as an opportunity to finally purge the GOP of those wishy-washy moderates who dilute the conservative message. Unlike the old Soviet Union, they’ll probably skip the show trials and go directly to the firing squads.

    –Brian Dahle gets a gold star for being the first–and so far, only–candidate to remove his sign from the forest of campaign signs at the entrance to Lake of the Pines.

    –The “Ground Hog Day” award goes to The Union reporters Christopher Rosacker and Matthew Renda, who managed to get some version of “garner” into four of the six election stories they wrote. I don’t like the word in the sports pages, and I hate it in the news pages.

    • rl crabb says:

      But George, do you like James Garner? I thought he did a good job in Victor/Victoria. I don’t think he was in Groundhog Day.

    • Adding Tea Bags to the diesel engine of the Republicans has had about the same effect as using gasoline in said engine, and CARB doesn’t recommend either, for obvious reasons. The ruined engine explodes and pollutes the countryside.

  6. Only when he was in “Maverick”–the TV series, not the movie.

  7. Barry Pruett says:

    Crabbman: Please save a serving of the crow for me too! LOL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 3 + 3 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
Please solve this math problem so we know that you are a human :-)