Wake County Republican Party Chairwoman Susan Bryant is putting the best face forward on election results that cost the GOP control of the school board.
In the Elephant Express on Friday, Bryant writes that "Election Night was not the wholesale sweep for the Democrats you may be reading about in the N & O." She writes that "the municipal candidates we endorsed did very well," adding that "we have won 12 out of 20 races for sure, and are leading in the only undecided race in Morrisville."
Whether those wins in the smaller towns are enough to counterbalance the results for school board and municipal races in Cary and Raleigh is something that Republicans will be considering.
Also in the newsletter, Bryant urges people to cancel their N&O subscriptions. Bryant and school board candidate Heather Losurdo have opted to take a blame the N&O approach to account for the electoral results.
Comments
we are accept credit card free shipping
Sun, 11/20/2011 - 10:02 — omnguon========= clothes6.us ======
Cheap Nike air Jordan shoes33$,Air Force 1 33$, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Wholesale Cheap Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED hardy t-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies,ED hardy shoes,ED hardy Jeans,Evisu shoes,GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbag……welcome to
==== clothes6.us ====
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $30
SOCCER JERSEY 16USD
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $14
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap NY $9
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
New era cap $9
we are accept credit card free shipping
========= clothes6.us ======
Goldman to blame again?
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:19 — virginiadareFrom Gary Pearce at talkingaboutpolitics.com:
RM
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:32 — HereWeGoDo you think RM's behavior had anything to do with his loss?
Thanks. I missed that post.
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:21 — KeungHui (author)Thanks. I missed that post. I haven't been looking at that blog as much lately as I should have.
oh please
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 17:13 — EBDarcyThe Republicans lost because they picked the wrong candidate. One who has no history of involvement in Wake school issues. Had they endorced Mansfield for example, there would have been a very different dynamic in the D3 race
That's possible....BUT.The
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 17:45 — shearertwThat's possible....BUT.
The Republicans lost primarily b/c D3 is a predominantly left leaning district in a predominantly left leaning county in a predominantly left leaning state. It's actually remarkable that the election was as close as it was (~52-48). Same for the D8 results. It suggest to me that the majority of thinking people voted for the republican candidates. Non-thinkers typically vote how they're told to vote and there is no where in Wake Co. that is predominantly conservative that I can find (if I had I'd live there). Couple that with the overwhelming attacks by the non-thinker's sources of info (N&O, MSNBC, Colbert, etc.) and its darn amazing the race was so close.
That is not what the voter registration numbers say
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 08:17 — festusThey show D3 as evenly divided, and trending Republican.
I saw that too....but
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 08:38 — shearertwI saw that too....but there's a large group of unaffiliated voters....Contrary to popular belief (and the post below), I don't believe these people are the "thinkers". I believe many of them to be "fed up" but mostly people who don't follow what's going on very closely. I don't believe most of the U's (certainly some do) actually take the time to dig deep into the information they're being fed. In this county and state run by D's for over 100 years coupled with a large influx of people from mostly liberal states, I believe that most of the U's are left leaning. That's just my opinion but I'm sticking to it.
Swing voter
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 22:19 — Solon77Ever heard of the swing voter ? You know the voter not controlled by either party and actually thinks.
Solon, I know that's what
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 08:43 — shearertwSolon,
I know that's what you like to believe, however, I don't. I'm an R not because I believe in everything R's do (by no means) but because I believe 100% of what liberals do is wrong for this country. R's are far from perfect but I would vote for any R over a D or I'd not vote at all. You may not understand it but there's a LOT of thought that goes in to that position. I don't believe 99% of the "swing voter's" put nearly as much thought in to their vote as I do. If you cannot understand the difference between a the R position and where a liberal D will take this country and make up your mind on which way you want to go, then you are not a "thinker".....PERIOD.
A LOT of thought
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 22:08 — Solon77I am not sure how you can claim a LOT of thought goes into a decision when you have already made up your mind that you would vote R all of the time regardless of the issues and the individual candidate's position on issues. Sounds like you are just another member of the Borg collective.
Ah
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 09:46 — Dove314So someone who always votes R for the primary reason that the candidate is not a D (as D policies are universally bad) is a thinker but someone who votes D for the primary reason that the candidate is not an R could not possibly have gone through a similar reasoning process and come to the opposite conclusion? i.e. your opinion is intelligent and anything contradictory is stupid? Is this what you are saying?
Not what I said... I'm sure
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:00 — shearertwNot what I said...
I'm sure that people who vote generally vote D b/c they believe conservative positions are wrong have put some thought (perhaps a lot) in to it. They just want the country going in a different direction (i.e. European socialism). I just don't agree that's where we should take the greatest country in the world...I'm not calling them stupid, conservatives just have a different vision for free people.
Ah so not stupid
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:19 — Dove314just "unthinkers" or "nonthinkers".
Depends on whicn
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 13:44 — shearertwDepends on which "nonthinkers" you are referring to...
Clearly there are "thinkers" and "nonthinkers" on both sides and in the middle.
The "thinkers" on both sides have very different visions for this country. One is for freedom and free enterprise, capitalism, etc. one is for European socialism, nanny state, etc. They both know what they’re doing and where they're going, just want to end up in different places. My opinion is that most of the people who claim to be "in the middle or unaffiliated" don't have a clue (not necessarily because they are "stupid" but more likely uninterested or uninformed). There are people in the middle or are interested and informed and just "fed up". I certainly get that....I find it tough to be "aligned" with the R's sometimes as well. However, I also am not naive to believe a libertarian is going to be elected anytime soon so I choose to support the lesser of two evils in some circumstances. I believe that most of the "unaffiliated" people Wake Co, NC are not well informed, have voted D more that R historically (particularly in local elections) and, albeit not stupid, are more open to being persuaded by liberal attacks against conservative ideas (likely due to their uninformed state). Conservative ideas are more complicated and require more thought, knowledge and understanding than liberal "feel good", "it’s all for the children" policies.
So you are for free....
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 11:23 — bpuli9999enterprise with government regulation or free enterprise?
Share some of the conservative ideas that require a lot thought - for all of us stupid folks. Also, explain how that does not make you an elitist while you are at it.
Why socialism doesn't work
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:07 — shearertwWhy socialism doesn't work for one....
Marx was a smart man, no one denies that....However, his philosophy was full of holes. Smart people come up with wrong theories all the time. Even Einstein came up with a few wrong theories....
Liberals often based their policies on emotion....
We have to protect the children....we have to protect the environment....we have to save the whales, the dolphins and all the cute little creatures, we have to provide health insurance to all, we have to ensure everyone has shelter, food, etc. Of course we're all for those ideas, but liberals like to make policy around those ideas without a fully understanding of their ramifications and total impact. Cap N Trade, green house gas regulation, welfare, healthcare for all, on an on. Capitalism has created the greatest country in the world with wealth and resources that has spilled over in to just about every other country in the world. Just about every country in the world is better off today because of the things capitalism has created in the US. Are their people in the US that are less fortunate than others in the US? Of course, however, by in large, those "less fortunate" are better off tha the "middle class" of most other countries. If the US were a socialist or communist country, the entire world would be worse off today. Liberals tend to focus on the immediate, apparent inequities without the ability to see the big picture. In other words, I'd rather be "poor" in a rich country than poor in a poor country. Capitalism spurs innovation which everyone ultimately reaps the rewards of. Socialism breeds mediocrity (and usually an "elite" ruling class) that stifles progress and ultimately harms everyone.
Thanks for the...
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:30 — bpuli9999spiel. I know what socialism is and what capitalism is. But you did not answer my question. Do you want any regulations at all? Your answer will tell me how much of a free market person you are.
Luke 18:18
As for the Bible
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 15:04 — shearertwAs for the Bible verse...
I'm fairly certain that Jesus would not consider being forced to hand your money over to the government through taxation nor voting to have other people's money stripped from their hands through taxation to be on moral ground. Giving of your own free will to the poor is likely more of what He had in mind. I'm guessing He may have also approved of investing you hard earned cash in a company that creates a life saving medicine worthwhile endeavor as well, even if it ends up employing people who also make a little money too. The USA is by far the most charitable country in the history of the world. Many studies have shown that conservatives are far more charitable that liberals. So, thanks for the Bible verse...it proves my point nicely.
I'm not against all
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 14:53 — shearertwI'm not against all regulations....
I'm not for any regulations that give favor one company or one industry over another....I don't believe in providing incentives for some and not others. I don't thing the feds should be loaning money to their green energy buddies and subordinating the Ameican tax payer on the loan.
I prefer to let most regulations occur at the most local level possible instead of providing additional power to the federal government. If the HOA can handle it or the city council, then that's where it should be dealt with. We don't need a federal regulation for everything.
I don't think the feds should be involved in protecting unions given the obvious conflicts of interest that exist. I don't think the feds should be deciding whether or not Boeing can move a plant to SC from Washington state for example.
I also don't believe we need to constantly change the rules every year. Set some basic rules up and let every have at it. Constant changing of regulations is a major drain on the economy.
I don't believe the federal government should be involved in requiring health insurance companies to pay for certain things. However, they should be required to pay for what the said they'd pay for when someone signed up for the insurance.
I don't think the feds should be allowed to tell banks what they can charge for an ATM fee or any other kind of fee. They should, however, be able to tell banks how much information they have to provide to people investing their money in the bank (so people can judge the risk) or how much their interest rate can go up in at the end of the ARM.
I have a million examples but not enough time to go through it all.... hopefully this was enough to give you the insight you're looking for.
So...
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:34 — Bob_SconceI don't think the feds should be allowed to tell banks what they can charge for an ATM fee or any other kind of fee.
If, however, a bank got federal bailout money, then I think the feds should be in there every day, telling them what their fees can be, dictating who to hire, specifying branch locations and making sure they use only the scratchy toilet paper. There needs to be a serious downside to asking for bailout money--the current best option is government intervention so invasive that the bank wishes it had just declared bankruptcy to begin with.
I prefer we just stick to
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 13:51 — shearertwI prefer we just stick to bankruptcy as the only option.....
The last thing we need to do is replace stupid with stupider.
Loved this placard ...
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 11:39 — Dove314""I bailed out the banks and all I got was a $5 debit card fee."
I dumped BOA in 2008 (no
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 13:57 — shearertwI dumped BOA in 2008 (no coincidence). Its amazing how easy it is to find a new bank....you just have to drive a couple of blocks in any direction. Nowadays...all you really need to do is go online and click "open new account" followed by "transfer funds" and then finally, back at your old bank's website,"close account". Not sure why anyone needs the feds help for that.....
Too cute
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 14:25 — Dove314Too cute, thinking it was only BOA playing tricksy with the fees and that the fees were/are/will be all this obvious. Sure you can sign up anywhere anytime. They'd all love to have the unwary or naive open an account. Not sure where you, thinking person that you are, got that anyone was suggesting anything more than the irony that industry got a huge bailout and were so thankful to taxpayers that they look for more and more fees, hidden or obvious, to increase their profits. Gotta move that money from clients to stockholders somehow.
#CreditUnionsRMoreFriendly
My banking is now with USAA
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 14:42 — shearertwMy banking is now with USAA and they've been awesome in everyway. I agree credit unions are great options for those who don't have access to USAA or similar.
FYI-the "for profit" bank's job is to make a profit and to move money from clients to stockholders. I don't think they are claiming anything different. If they don't make a profit and move money to shareholders, they go bankrupt (or get bailed out again). Do you have a problem with banks making a profit?
Nope
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 17:43 — Dove314Just wish I could do whatever I wanted in my business and have the certainty that the government would bail out my shareholders, mycustomers and me when I did a crappy job. I'd especially like one of those sweet bonuses those execs got for their absolute crap oversight of lending practices. But I will follow their example and insert all kinds of sneaky fees wherever possible in upcoming contracts just because I can because I value money more than anything including integrity. As you note, that's the way the game is played.
I think you saw my post
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 17:55 — shearertwI think you saw my post above where I said I wasn't in favor of the bailouts....at all.
If you don't think a company has integrity....don't be a customer. There's a lot of competition to choose from. We all don't need our hands held.
The gov't bailed these guys out because they were their financial backers that were on the line....that was wrong, period. We seem to agree on that. That doesn't mean the gov't needs to take over businesses in the future. If fact, they need to send a message to them that they're on their own.
You believe in a lot more...
Fri, 11/18/2011 - 07:56 — bpuli9999regulations than you give yourself credit for. Sounds like you are a big government republican.
North Carolina is a 'left leaning' state?
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 21:58 — JoeTarheelProudly born and raised in NC and have never heard anyone refer to the entire State as 'left leaning'.
Is this the GOP strategy to 'daze and confuse' us all to obscure the fact that you put absolute losers on the GOP ticket for Wake County? Wait until 'Creepy' Tedesco, Malone, and Prickett are up for election next fall. what will be the rationale then?...........Raleigh and San Francisco might as well be the same city?
Never Heard That?
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 20:13 — lawyerjohnReally? You never heard that NC is left leaning? With the influx of the Northerners that you despise and their left leanings how could NC not lean left? NY, NJ, CT and MA are as true blue as it gets and they're coming here in droves. Price and Miller never even have to run and they get elected by wide margins.
The NC GA was controlled by
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 08:45 — shearertwThe NC GA was controlled by D's for over 100 years...Any further questions?
Left leaning is not the same as left extremist (thank goodness).
Awwww...
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 20:52 — bpuli9999Can't think of anyone else to blame? Wonder what happened to all those "thinking" voters in RM's district? A few years of Rm made them stop thinking, I guess. Stop whining and playing the victim - that's just pathetic.
You'll Be Lost
Tue, 11/15/2011 - 21:33 — lawyerjohnWith RM gone what will you do? You poor thing, you'll be lost and stuck defending Martin and Evans. Enjoy your win while you can.
:c)
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:05 — FSandYOULost and defending Martin and Evans.
Man, that's like being stuck between the left and the right butt cheek.
Certainly am...
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 08:08 — bpuli9999enjoying it. Seeing the republicans starting their typical whining - blaming the unions, outside organizations, the N&O, the weather, planetary alignments and what not.
Hmm....I believe it's your
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 08:53 — shearertwHmm....I believe it's your buddy Obama who has blamed HIS failed economy on just about everyone including but not limited to....GW, lazy Americans, Republicans (who were in the minority in both houses for his first 2 years and for the preceding 2 years before that), an earthquake/Tsunami in Japan, ATM machines, Libya, global warming and global cooling, pharmaceutical companies, lazy American businesses, GW, lazy Americans,....
"His Failed Economy"?
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 21:04 — chaboardDude - when he took office the REPUBLICAN economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month and GDP was shrinking at a rate of over 5% per year. True he hasn't gotten us completely out of the hole the Republicans blew in the economy but you know "his economy" has created more private sector jobs in the last year than in the entire eight years of Bush's economy.
You couldn't think your way out of a Happy Meal bag. Your synapses are buried under too many layers of Fox propaganda to even fire.
I stand corrected, I
Thu, 11/17/2011 - 09:57 — shearertwI stand corrected, I shouldn't have laid all the blame on Obama...After all, Nancy and Harry took control of congress in 2006! The Republicans haven't had a major bill passed since then, almost 6 years ago. In 2006, Bush had zero political capital left and had lost control of congress so who do you think this economy belongs to?
Nice try on you statistic there....If you exclude the final two years of the Bush administration (which were controlled by Democrats), Obama's track record on private sector jobs is certainly not better. The thing about stats is, depending on how you present them, you can hide a lot of truth. As you can see, Bush inherited a recession (everyone acknowledges that fact). Then, it 2001, we also experience 9/11 which led to over 1 million jobs lost from the private sector that year. The Bush tax cuts did not go in to effect until 2003 and you can see the increase in jobs kicking in at that point. In 2006, Nancy and Harry took over and you can see the trend in yearly job creation that follows (clearly). Of course, after losing 8 million jobs, it's almost impossible for our economy not to rebound with a million or so jobs per year but that ain't gonna do it. Plus, Obama, Nancy and Harry spent 1 Trillion $ in the process as well (lets see....1T divided by 2 mill = $500,000/job). So...needless to say, perhaps you need to dig a little deeper than just quoting from the Huffington Post. Just looking at "net" jobs over a blocks of time hides a lot of the real story. If you need help our your bag, I suggest following the light.....
Year Private Sector Jobs Created x1000
2001 -2266
2002 -619
2003 84
2004 1742
2005 2216
2006 1556
2007 613
2008 -3788
2009 -4146
2010 1187
2011 1228
Learning from Obama...
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:05 — bpuli9999now, are you? That's a good. Next you are going to say he started two wars that have cost us trilions of dollars (and much more in lives). And obviously, that has nothing to do with the current state of our economy - the money for wars grows on trees and need not be counted.
Compared to the economic
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 13:33 — shearertwCompared to the economic drain created by the housing situation, entitlements, and potential future healthcare cost due to Obamacare.....we could probably wage war with China for a decade and still come out ahead.
Uh...
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 12:23 — Bob_SconceOsama Bin Ladin started one of those two wars.
Dubya lost the proper focus
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 13:39 — tartexanBob, you stated that Osama Bin Laden started on of those wars and I assume you mean Afganastan. Things were going well there until Dubya decided he wanted to do what his Daddy didn't do so he could prove his manhood and he invaded Iraq. Due to losing the focus in Afganastan for many years, we had to go back and attempt to made the best out of a bad situation.
So...
Wed, 11/16/2011 - 21:32 — Bob_SconceI was referring to Afghanistan. As for your characterization of Iraq, I think you attribute the wrong motives to GWB. That said, I think the Iraq war was probably a mistake -- while getting rid of Hussein and the evils of his government was undoubtably good, I question whether it was worth the 4,000 dead servicemen and well over $1T spent. In the run-up to war, there's insufficient attention paid to the enormous cost of war, the uncertainties of the end result and the opportunity cost. That was true with Bush in Iraq, and it's true of Obama in Libya. Of course, they are privy to far more information that we are -- there may be huge positive benefits that we never know about, so I could be wrong.
By 'opportunity cost,' I mean that it now appears that Iran may be a bigger threat than Iraq ever was. Yet, there's no realistic way the US can do anything about it -- we are stretched too thin and there's no way the American people would now cotton to the trillions it would take.