Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Thoughts For The Day
Is RedStateVT the first to note that Hurricane Sandy presents a (let's call it) 'inconvenient truth' for the Obama reelection? It turns out that Obama has, in fact, not stopped the seas from rising as he offered up in his inauguration speech.
Has President Obama conceded the election? Several weeks ago he is quoted as saying that he has learned that you cannot change government from within, only from without. And now we hear that he is not campaigning for several days. It could be a sign of vast confidence (unlikely) or it could be an attempt to pick up undecideds with three days of non-partisan presidential coverage centered around hurricane relief. Or it could be that he knows it is over...
One of the highlights of any presidential election season is hearing from the vast array of nitwit Hollywood actresses. Their biggest issue? Continued access to contraception and abortion. We wonder why.
New York Times (10/31/2012) Paragraph 5: Mr. Obama, who has a 50 percent to 45 percent edge here, also appears to be benefiting from an economic recovery in Ohio that is running ahead of the national recovery.
New York Times, Same Story Paragraph 13: Among the likely voters in Ohio who say they are paying a lot of attention to the race, Mr. Obama’s edge narrows to one percentage point, or essentially tied...
If elected, Ms. Love, 36, would be the first black female Republican to serve in the House, a fact that she studiously plays down. “The only history I’m interested in making,” she said in an interview, “is getting our country on track.” (NYT, 10/31/2012)
Liberals have shown little hesitation to trash white female Republicans (see Sarah Palin), black male Republican presidential candidates (see Herman Cain), black male congressmen (see Col. Allen West), black male justices (see Clarence Thomas), etc. What are they going to do if Mia Love is elected? We believe that it was Michelle Malkin who once described minorities who are Republican as an 'existential threat' to Liberals.
The freedom to marry is a fundamental right that should not have to be won or defended at the ballot box. In fact, ballot initiatives are a bad way to write or rewrite laws of any kind. Unfortunately, that is the reality of American politics, which is why same-sex marriage measures on the Nov. 6 ballot in Maine, Washington, Maryland and Minnesota could turn out to be pivotal in the struggle for marriage equality. (NYT, 10/30/2012)
Did the New York Times really just say that laws which result from voting by citizens (also known as "the will of the people") are bad? We think they did! Much more preferable to the Times is getting a Liberal judge to decide the issue.
At The Stake
The Washington Post's Katrina vanden Heuvel serves up some real gems today. Let's break them down:
The most compelling endorsement of Barack Obama for president came from Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren at the Democratic convention. Warren, who grew up “on the ragged edge of the middle class” in Oklahoma, captured the real stakes clearly.
Warren is a multi-millionaire who apparently fabricated a false birth narrative to gain professional advancement. Does vanden Heuvel really want to tie Obama to Warren? What is worse, is that Warren provided the "You didn't build that" language to Obama. Which may well turn out to be the single most damning thing to Obama's reelection hopes.
Republicans finally settled on a true Plutarch — Mitt Romney — as their banner carrier.
The 'rich Republican' line again. Does vanden Heuvel recall the multi-millionaire Kerry/Edwards ticket that her party ran in 2004? Does she think that we have forgotten? And what of other Democrat Plutarchs like all of the Kennedys and, for that matter, Nancy Pelosi? The sound you do not hear is vanden Heuvel's keyboard.
(Obama's) temperament is moderate; his preference is for compromise; his success has been based on bringing us together.
Well, we will just let this one stand as is for readers to decide.
The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised some questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration. (David Ignatius, Washington Post, 10/30/2012)
What is going on over at the WaPo? Another day, another criticism of the Obama administration from a staunch Liberal! Does it mean that they realize that Obama is going down and see little risk in getting on the right side of an issue? We are not sure, but we will again concede that it takes some guts. The Left will hammer Ignatius for the perceived betrayal.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were “Al Qaeda-leaning,” according to American and European officials.
In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi compound have emerged as a major political issue, as Republicans, led by their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, have sought to lay blame for the attack on President Obama, who they argued had insufficiently protected American lives there.
Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack’s aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials. (NYT, 10/29/2012)
Forgive our cynicism, but the New York Times chooses the day after Hurricane Sandy hits to weigh in with another front page story about Benghazi. (How can the Republicans say that we didn't give the story attention....?) The conclusion? The Repubs got nothing!
Of course, the Times ignores the fact that there are two Benghazi stories. The first concerns the question of whether the administration provided the proper security for our diplomats given the known threats. (Absolved!) The second story is the constantly changing account of what the administration knew and when they knew it. One thing is certain. The Liberal media is going to look long and hard at that...after the election.
The ad from Mitt Romney showed up on televisions here early Saturday morning without the usual public announcement that both campaigns typically use to herald their latest commercials: Chrysler, a bailout recipient, is going to begin producing Jeeps in China, an announcer says, leaving the misleading impression that the move would come at the expense of jobs here.
And so began the latest, and perhaps most important, attempt by Mitt Romney to wrest Ohio into his column. His effort to do so is now intently focused, at times including statements that stretch or ignore the facts, on knocking down what is perhaps the most important component of President Obama’s appeal to blue-collar voters in Ohio and across the industrial Midwest: the success of the president’s 2009 auto bailout. (NYT, 10/29/2012)
Op-ed piece in the New York Times? No! This is a regular old news story!
One year after the company's collapse because of Mr. Corzine's trading bets on European sovereign debt, officials have found money to cover most of the estimated $1.6 billion that belonged to customers but was used by MF Global to meet its financial obligations. Investigators are trying to decide who is to blame for misusing the money.
And the 65-year-old Mr. Corzine is struggling to figure out what comes next for himself, according to friends and former coworkers. (WSJ, 10/29/2012)
Uh...how about jail?
This brings us to Al Gore. Earlier this month the Washington Post's Carol Leonnig reported that the former vice president's wealth is today estimated at $100 million, up from less than $2 million when he left government service on a salary of $181,400. How did he make this kind of money? It wasn't his share of the Nobel Peace Prize. Nor was it the book and movie proceeds from "An Inconvenient Truth."
Instead, as Ms. Leonnig reports, "Fourteen green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of President Obama's historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money." (Bret Stephens, WSJ, 10/29/2012)
Which explains why Al Gore is such a relentless champion of all things green. Liberals who chanted "Halliburton" every time that Dick Cheney's name was spoken are now strangely silent.
But somewhere between the campaign and the White House itself, Obama got lost. It turned out he had no cause at all. Expanding health insurance was Hillary Clinton’s longtime goal, and even after Obama adopted it, he never argued for it with any fervor. In an unfairly mocked campaign speech, he promised to slow the rise of the oceans and begin to heal the planet. But when he took office, climate change was abandoned — too much trouble, too much opposition. His eloquence, it turned out, was reserved for campaigning.
Obama never espoused a cause bigger than his own political survival. (Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 10/29/2012)
We probably disagree with Cohen about 99% of the time, but we give him credit here for a brutally honest analysis of Obama. He also has the guts to call out the Left who will brook no dissenters from within:
A single critical column from me during the campaign triggered a fusillade of invective. The famous and esteemed told me off. I was the tool of right-wing haters, a dope of a dupe.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Good Joke Courtesy Of Dick Morris
If Obama wins, Liberals will all say: "Just look at the mess he inherited."
In the last several days we have heard the president use profanity to describe Mitt Romney and seen the release of a sexually suggestive ad encouraging young women to vote for Obama. Debasement of the culture is a hallmark of Liberals and now it has found its way into the Obama campaign. How does this square up with 'Obama the Family Man?' Some intrepid journalist should ask Obama the question that they always ask Republicans: "Are you proud of the campaign that you have run?"
If the Benghazi attacks had occurred in the waning days of an election campaign in which a Republican was the incumbent, and the president's handling of the event mirrored that of the Obama administration, the race would be over. Liberal news media would be devoted exclusively to this story alone and the incumbent's poll numbers would be driven down to 35%. Back here in the real world, however, we have only Fox News waging a lonely fight to hold Obama accountable. The rest of the media is focused exclusively on which Republican said what about...abortion. Journalism is dead.
Thursday was a busy day for the polls, with some bright spots for each candidate. But it made clear that Barack Obama maintains a narrow lead in the polling averages in states that would get him to 270 electoral votes. (Nate Silver, NYT, 10/26/2012)
Forget those polls that show Romney ahead, Nate Silver says that Obama has a 74% chance of winning the election. 74%? Obama might win, but if he doesn't, do you want to be the guy who said 74%?
Does this look like 74%?:
Ohio poll: Obama, Romney tied at 49
Obama hopes fade in Nebraska
Romney's road to Ohio victory
Fla insiders: Romney will win state
(headlines from POLITICO.com, 10/27/2012)
Another one we will remember if Romney wins:
The right wing has lost the election of 2012. (E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, 10/24/2012)
Carnival barker and Mitt Romney surrogate Donald Trump (R-Absurdity) set the gossip mill churning this week when he declared he would make a “major announcement” about President Obama. (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 10/24/2012)
Trump is an ego-driven grandstander (much like Obama actually), but forget that for a moment. What about his offer to give $5 million to Obama's favorite charity if Obama would only release his college and passport records. Obama is a genius, correct? The smartest guy to ever hold the office they tell us. Why wouldn't he call The Donald's bluff? His is also the most open and transparent administration, correct? Let's see those passport records so that we know where Obama went and when. Why, Obama could really stick it to Trump by donating the money to Planned Parenthood. That would show those Republicans! Why doesn't he do it? And why isn't the Liberal media encouraging him to do it?
Friday, October 26, 2012
What RedStateVT Saw in SoCal
Loyal readers know that RedStateVT periodically does field research to keep its finger on the pulse of the country. We just returned from a visit to Liberal Land, aka California. What we saw shocked us.
Granted it is not scientific, but we believe it is meaningful nonetheless. What did we see? Romney signs and bumper stickers! Yes, in the land of the Limousine Liberal, where Republicans are largely not welcome, we saw people who were willing to risk ridicule and condemnation by showing their support for the Romney-Ryan ticket. Romney will not win California and the people displaying their support for him surely know this. Notwithstanding, they were emboldened to fly the flag for him. Makes one wonder...
Speaking of California
California Gov. Jerry Brown has been sounding awfully testy lately, and it probably has something to do with the fact that the tax measure that he's counting on to save the state (from necessary budget reforms) is tanking.
A new USC/Los Angeles Times poll finds that support for the initiative, which would raise top rates on those earning more than $250,000 and the sales tax by a quarter-of-a-percent, has fallen by nine points in the past month to 46%. (WSJ. 10/26/2012)
What, even Liberals do not want tax increases? What the haystacks is going on?
There is little dispute that for Mr. Obama to at least come close enough to matching his 2008 coalition to win he will need to induce people to vote in a way he did not have to four years ago, before the full impact of the Great Recession was followed by intensive partisan wrangling. (NYT, 10/25/2012)
We delight in educating our readers about the devious ways in which the "fact-resistant media*" twist an otherwise objective news story in order to portray Obama and Liberals in a more favorable light. Here we see that the beleaguered Obama has just got to work that much harder to convince the young 'uns to vote for him because of that darn recession (not his fault!) and those pesky Republicans!
* Hat Tip to Ray Hartwell at the Washington Times for this gem of a description.
Any extra money in this tight final phase of the election is being wired to Nevada and Florida for more Spanish-language ads, to Iowa and Ohio for more on-the-ground staff members, and to Google and Facebook for more microtargeted messaging to complacent, maybe even demoralized, young supporters. (NYT, 10/25/2012)
Did we just read that young supporters are demoralized? How can this be? Obama got bin Laden, ended the war in Iraq and saved GM!
Two If By Coulter
Black Democrats apparently can get elected to Congress only from majority black districts, whereas black Republicans are always elected from majority white districts: Gary Franks, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott, Allen West and (we hope!) Mia Love.
How come white liberals won't vote for a black representative? Why can't a black person represent Nita Lowey's district? (Ann Coulter, 10/24/2012)
Coulter's genius is in continually educating us with these indisputable and damning (to Liberals) factoids. The proof is that Liberals never refute them because they cannot. Instead they always resort to asking her if she has any regrets for things that she has said in the past. (She doesn't, by the way.)
The trend is set and Obama's voters are moving away from him in droves. People can see that Obama has to go to college campuses, the David Letterman show and "The Daily Show" to get a friendly audience these days. Even Lindsay Lohan is for Romney.
The media's campaigning for Obama isn't fooling Americans; it's just making Obama's obtuseness worse. If you're behind at halftime, you don't go to the cheerleading squad to ask what you're doing wrong. (Ann Coulter, 10/17/2012)
We will admit that we wondered why Obama is continuing to do the Liberal talk show circuit. Coulter explains: it's the only place he gets a friendly reception...and it is a lot more fun than taking questions from the press corps on Benghazi
And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren't there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn't have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it's never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety. (Peggy Noonan, WSJ, 10/26/2012)
Obama may still win, but if not, Noonan's column is the best yet on what it is that did him in.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
...it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete setup to rehabilitate Barack Obama.
If these are truly undecided voters, they're apparently undecided between Obama and the Green Party. (John Nolte, Breitbart.com, 10/16/2012)
That's kind of the way it looked to us as well. Republicans continue to put themselves into these situations with 'impartial moderators' and 'undecided voters.' They should absolutely insist that the next debate moderator be Rush Limbaugh.
The public is skeptical about ObamaCare. Mr. Obama doesn't help by trying to low-key it. That just reinforces the impression that his reason for seeking office in the first place was to enact policies he wants that the public doesn't. (Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., WSJ, 10/17/2012)
Obamacare gets little mention in the debates and in Obama's re-election efforts. Why? It's his signature piece of legislation and the public does not like it.
And Mr. Romney had more bad moments than the president, particularly when he challenged Mr. Obama’s claim that he early on called the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a terrorist attack, and Ms. Crowley backed Mr. Obama’s version of events. Mr. Romney stammered a bit after that, blinked as the president spoke and never quite got back on a steady, confident foot. (NYT, 10/17/2012)
Once again the New York Times writes its own unique version of history. Yes, Crowley did back Obama, but very soon after the debate she walked it back. The Times doesn't mention this minor detail. And second, the Benghazi discussion happened at the end of the debate...so when is it exactly that Romney 'never quite got back on a steady, confident foot?'
The troubled battery maker A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy on Tuesday, dealing a blow to the Obama administration’s program to jump-start a domestic battery industry and spur development of electric vehicles. (NYT, 10/16/2012)
Someday someone will find a way to store electric power for long periods, and someday someone may build a commercially viable electric car. We will be the first to cheer. But the second to last people in the world to know when that day arrives will work for the Department of Energy, and the last will be U.S. Senators. In 2008 President Obama sold voters a fairy tale about millions of "green jobs" that he could conjure up merely by "investing" taxpayer money. The 2012 election is in part a referendum on whether Americans can be fooled again. (WSJ, 10/17/2012)
Green energy is a sinkhole. There somebody said it.
President Obama is in denial on the subject even as one company after another fails. His speeches and ads continue to tout green. One criticism that we have of Mitt Romney is that he pays slight homage by including green energy in his overall energy policy. He should just say: 'Let the private sector finance green energy if they want, I am cutting off all government funding.'
RedStateVT returns in one week for our election countdown!
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
“I take responsibility,” she said in an interview with CNN. “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”
Mrs. Clinton made the comments shortly after she arrived in Lima, Peru, for a diplomatic visit, and they appeared to be an effort to inoculate President Obama from criticism for any security lapses in Libya as he prepared for Tuesday’s debate with Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger. (NYT, 10/15/2012)
It takes a lot to make RedStateVT sympathetic toward the Clintons. Namely it takes President Obama. The Benghazi defense strategy is now apparently to banish Hillary to Peru where it will be difficult for the media to follow-up with her (if they were so inclined...), but first to throw her under the bus. You just know that Bill and Hillary are seething over Obama's endless slights and incompetence. And, in a way, you have to admire their loyalty, not to him, but to the party. One thing we do know, however, is that they will get their revenge. Whether Obama wins or loses, down the road look for well placed leaks from Clinton insiders that cast Obama in extremely negative terms.
There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. (NYT editorial, 10/16/2012)
Reviving the Republican 'War on Women' one more time before the election, the New York Times lets slip that - like gay marriage - most states do not approve of abortion. Coastal Liberals continue to miss the fact that their social agenda is just not embraced by the majority of Americans.
The Times editorial also throws us this:
Women’s health, privacy and equality would suffer. Some women would die.
No mention of the millions of babies who have already died.
In the two debates, voters saw a near-comatose Obama and a near-manic Biden -- and two sober, well-informed Republicans. That's not a good contrast for Democrats. (Michael Barone, Washington Examiner, 10/13/2012)
Normally, a debate “victory” doesn’t require quite so much damage control. Following Vice President Biden’s manic, careening ride through global politics last week, President Obama is left to make a variety of cleanups and clarifications....The road-rage wing of the Democratic Party (the GOP has one as well) views the Biden meltdown as a pioneering achievement in political discourse. Former governor Howard Dean — an expert in nontraditional political deportment — argues that Biden is “an excellent role model” for Obama. Since adopting this model would disqualify Obama for the presidency, elements of the left are bound to be disappointed with the president’s debate performances. And it will be harder for Obama to claim the mantle of bipartisanship when his running mate is celebrated for his incivility. (Michael Gerson, Washington Post, 10/15/2012)
Apologies for continuing to rehash the past debates, but we liked these two comments. Hard to refute, don't you agree?
Sunday, October 14, 2012
In the New York Times today Nicholas Kristof uses the story of his Harvard University roommate to criticize Mitt Romney's plan to repeal Obamacare. Kristof's friend voluntarily chose not to buy health insurance and then developed stage 4 cancer. (Our thoughts and prayers go out to him. We know something about cancer.) The friend admits he knew the risks and should have protected himself by having insurance but chose not to nonetheless. Kristof argues that under Obamacare his friend would have been forced to buy insurance and therefore his prospects for survival would be better today than they are. This must be the latest Liberal riff on Mitt Romney killed/wants to kill citizens.
So Kristof apparently believes that society now needs to protect Harvard-educated professionals from the consequences of their own poor decisions. The Liberal argument for Obamacare has until now focused on the uninsured poor. Now it apparently is going to shift to uninsured 1%ers.
Some have suggested that the healthcare system absorbs the cost of the friend's treatment notwithstanding his lack of insurance (i.e. you and I pay rather than the insurance company) and, therefore, it is preferable to mandate the purchase of insurance. Well another way to handle it is to say to this individual: 'You made an incredibly reckless decision. It is not fair for society to bail you out. If we did it for you, we would have to do it for everyone. We can give you medicine to ease your suffering, but we cannot offer you access to expensive surgery, drugs and experimental treatments.' Harsh? Yes, but the word would get out.
Cry, Cry, Cry
"But wait," they cry, "unemployment is down to 7.8%!"
Put aside your suspicion and believe the number.
That's it? That's the re-election campaign? Unemployment down to 7.8%?
(Hugh Hewitt, Townhall.com, 10/13/2012)
Obama and team have seized on the dual tracks of 'Romney is a liar/Romney isn't being specific.' Obama has given us: 'we can't go back to the policies of (more than) four years ago, even though my policies have not really made things better.'
Amid concerns that some in the mainstream media are downplaying the Libya terror attack, The New York Times' public editor scolded The Grey Lady this week for burying its coverage of the first congressional hearing on the deadly assault.
The pointed rebuke from Margaret Sullivan, whose job is to represent the interests of Times readers, said the hearing story "belonged on The Times's front page."
Instead, it was on A3 -- while other major papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post put it on the cover Thursday. (Foxnews.com, 10/12/2012)
The reference we cited in yesterday's post. The explanation of Times' editors as to why they did not lead with the story? The issue was being "politicized" by Republicans. Maybe they would rather give us another Big Bird story!
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Lost In The Barrio
Lost amid the election-year wrangling over the militants’ attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, is a complex back story involving growing regional resentment against heavily armed American private security contractors, increased demands on State Department resources and mounting frustration among diplomats over ever-tighter protections that they say make it more difficult to do their jobs. (NYT, 10/12/2012)
Pressed over its disinterest in the Obama administration's changing story surrounding the death of Americans in Libyan (even its 'public editor' notes the paper's lapses) The New York Times runs a lead article...on the role of private security forces in the Middle East. They then check the box that says 'Libya' and move on to important topics like whether Mitt Romney is telling the truth.
The White House tried to explain Mr. Biden’s comments by saying that diplomatic security requests were handled by the State Department, not the White House. “The vice president was speaking about himself, the president and the White House,” said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. “He was not referring to the administration.” (NYT, 10/12/2012)
So Biden and Obama are not 'the administration?' This just keeps getting better!
But Mr. Biden repeatedly mocked and interrupted Mr. Ryan, leading Republicans to use words like “unhinged,” “buffoon” and “disrespectful” in the hours after the fast-paced, 90-minute exchange ended. (NYT, 10/12/2012)
Note to the Times: Lots of honest Democrats also thought Biden's performance was disgraceful. With time, RedStateVT believes that Biden's behavior will be viewed as the single most outlandish performance by a U.S. politician in a debate in American history.
Benefit Of Hindsight
Can you think of any comments you have made on TV or on the radio that you now regret saying in hindsight?
Why we love Ann Coulter.
(OK, we lied. There are many reasons that we love Ann Coulter.)
Friday, October 12, 2012
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace hammered Vice President Joe Biden's excessive smiling and laughing during the debate, saying that he's never seen anyone be so disrespectful in a presidential or vice presidential debate. And Wallace said that he'd seen most of them — all but the first four in 1960. He called his demeanor "unprecedented."
"I don't believe I've ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan tonight," Wallace said. He added: "It was openly contemptuous and disrespectful." (www.businessinsider.com, 10/11/2012)
Joe Biden's job in the VP debate last night was two-fold: continue the Dem party line that Romney/Ryan are liars and re-energize Dems by going on the attack. The liar thing is not - in our view - going to win independents to Obama. It just sounds like political sniping. And it could even backfire given Biden's comments on Libyan security (see below).
On the second issue, Biden will be viewed by Dems as having succeeded. But once again, our view is that he turned off independents with his over-the-top histrionics. Kudos to Chris Wallace for being the first to call Biden's performance what it was.
Biden made the patently false and outrageous claim that no one in the Obama administration knew that requests for extra security had been made by our Libyan ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and other members of our consulate in Benghazi. To emphasize his lie, Biden actually said it twice. (Breitbart.com, 10/11/2012)
The State Department acknowledged Wednesday that it rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya in the months before a fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi as Republicans suggested that lapses contributed to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. (Washington Post, 10/10/2012)
Given that the Liberal media had lost interest in the Libyan debacle (other than to occasionally repeat that Romney should not have spoken out), we have no expectation that they will pick up on the ....er, inconsistencies of Biden's comment, pre-refuted by the Washington Post no less!
For Mr. Biden especially, the night was his chance to relive past debates and unleash his inner barroom brawler. He had to be contained and courteous when he debated Sarah Palin four years ago, lest he look like a bully. This time he let loose. And unlike the courtly Mr. Bentsen in 1988, Mr. Biden turned his temperature up, singeing the young man across the table with patronizing grins, but mostly withering retorts. His interruptive barrage was as relentless as his silent mugging for the camera. (NYT, 10/11/2012)
Our guess is that this copy was written by Biden's aides and forwarded to the New York Times (an objective news outlet) who simply did a "cut and paste."
Campaign Ad We'd Like To See
Gas Prices on January 9 2009: $1.84/gallon
Gas Prices on October 11, 2012: $4.04/gallon
"I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this ad."
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
In the six states that permit it, and the District of Columbia, same-sex marriage was mandated by courts or approved by the Legislature. But every time the issue has been on the ballot, in 32 states in a row, voters have come out against same-sex marriage. (NYT, 10/9/2012)
Always good to review the facts behind the gay marriage debate. It is only EVER allowed when Liberal judges rule in favor. It NEVER passes when voters are asked to decide. Such voters in 32 states who are - according to proponents - bigots and homophobes.
Many are far more worried about a conspiracy that is verifiable and serious: the concerted effort by Republicans over the last four years to deprive minorities, poor people and other likely Democratic supporters of their voting rights. (New York Times editorial, 10/9/2012)
The Times prattles on about Republican conspiracy theories (birthers, crooked polls, cooked jobs numbers), but then reveals the truth: Democrat claims about Republican voter suppression ARE true!
According to financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2011, Sesame Workshop and its nonprofit and for-profit subsidiaries had total operating revenue of more than $134 million. They receive about $8 million a year in direct government grants and more indirectly via PBS subsidies. Big Bird and friends also receive corporate and foundation support, and donations amount to about a third of revenue. (WSJ, 10/9/2012)
Admittedly we cringed when we first heard Mitt Romney make his "Big Bird" remark at the debate. Why go down that path? Upon reflection, we wonder if it wasn't a clever way to draw Obama and the Dems into a discussion they would ultimately lose. All Romney has to do is point to the numbers above and say...really, Big Bird needs federal dollars? It is broadly analogous to the Sandra Fluke controversy which started out as a winner for Dems (Republican War on Women proved!) and ended up a loser with Dennis Miller providing the fatal blow: "She's thirty years old, still in school and she wants me to kick in ten bucks for her birth control...give me a break!"
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Like other presidents, Mr. Obama’s debate preparations were hindered by his day job, his practice sessions often canceled or truncated because of events, advisers said. One session took place just after he addressed a service for the four Americans slain in Libya, leaving him distracted.
Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship. He did not do all that well in 2008 but benefited from Senator John McCain’s grumpy performances. Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said. (NYT, 10/7/2012)
...and the dog ate his homework. How pathetic. Unfortunately for Obama, people are catching on to the real issue: he is lazy.
Prompted by what they call regulatory attacks on their business and personal attacks on their character, executives and employees of Goldman Sachs have largely abandoned Mr. Obama and are now the top sources of money to presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. (WSJ, 10/9/2012)
Never as brilliant as they thought they were, Goldman Sachs gets religion.
Hiring hundreds of thousands of additional teachers won't improve student achievement. It will bankrupt state and local governments, whose finances are already buckling under bloated payrolls with overly generous and grossly underfunded pension and health benefits. (Jay P. Greene, WSJ, 10/8/2012)
Even Mitt Romney is forced to play along with the "invest in education" malarkey. We hope that one day a politician will stand up and say what some Op-ed writers have said: "we will not hire more teachers who are not going to be held to proficiency standards and whose union dues fuel the Democrat party coffers."
President Obama deserves credit for killing Osama bin Laden, but the Republican challenger is right to say that doesn't amount to a successful foreign policy. (WSJ, 10/8/2012)
And yet that is the sum total of what any honest person would say about Obama's foreign policy achievements. You cannot say that the Middle East is stable, that Iran is no longer a threat, that Putin is on board, that our former enemies now like us....
Conservative Women: Brilliant, Good Looking and Funny!
If it’s a day that ends in “y,” it’s a day of trouble for an Obama green loan recipient somewhere in America. (Michelle Malkin)
New poll shows Obama leading from behind. (Ann Coulter)
Liberal television hosts have all recently adopted a new interview technique (confirming that they received the memo from Obama Re-election HQ). Goes like this: A Romney supporter says something critical about Obama; the host feigns shock and generously offers the supporter the opportunity to "take the comment back." Too bad for the host that kick-a$$ Republicans like John Sununu and Rudy Guiliani refuse...and then repeat the comment!
Obama will do better in the next debate. Whereupon MSNBC will crown him "the Comeback Kid."
Monday, October 8, 2012
You are a young person in college or recently graduated and you plan to vote for President Obama.
The answer you give is likely to include one or more of the following:
· Obama believes in helping people – the poor, the elderly, even college students.
· Obama will fight for the average American against the interests of business.
· Obama believes in reconciling American foreign policy interests with countries typically hostile to America.
· Obama supports gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose.
· Obama is supported by people that I respect including entertainers and college professors.
Implicit in the statements above is that your other choice - Mitt Romney - either believes the opposite or is much less concerned with these issues. Therefore, your support of Obama is grounded in a set of values and policies that seemingly align with your own.
But what if things were not this simple? For example, what if Mitt Romney’s views were not entirely antithetical to your own? And what if there were flaws in either Obama’s views or actions with respect to these issues?
Let’s face it. Everyone expects you to vote for Obama. But if you heard a different set of arguments would you be willing to do something really radical and vote for Romney? Well let’s look at the statements above in a new light.
Obama believes in helping people – the poor, the elderly, even college students
A popular characterization of Republicans like Mitt Romney in some areas of the media is that they lack compassion for others. Democrats are perceived as more inclined to lend a hand to those in need. Hence – the story goes – Republicans are not compassionate because they want to cut social welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) while Democrats are compassionate because they want to preserve them.
Before looking at spending on aid to others through a political lens, let’s first look at how Republicans and Democrats behave personally when it comes to giving:
The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers: The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama. (The Politics of Giving, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, August 19, 2012)
By at least one measure, Republicans might be viewed as more charitable (more compassionate?) than Democrats. Surprised?
Next let’s look at the charitable giving of Mitt Romney, President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden:
Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.
Obama and first lady Michelle Obama gave 21.8 percent of their income to charitable organizations last year, donating $172,130 out of the $789,674 they made.
Biden and his wife, Jill, gave 1.5 percent of their income away in 2011, with charitable donations totaling $5,540 out of $379,035.
The Bidens have been notably tight with their money when it comes to charitable giving. In 2008, it was revealed that from 1998 to 2006, the couple never gave more than $400. (POLITICO.com, September/22/2012)
Certainly Mitt Romney could never be fairly characterized as someone who is uncaring. So why is there a perception that Republicans don’t care and Democrats do?
This brings us back to the politics of social welfare programs. These arguments are detailed and would require a separate discussion. However, a fair summary of the Republican position would state that no Republican would want to dismantle these programs. Republicans believe that – as currently structured – Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable. This means that as the population of America ages these entitlement programs will require an ever-increasing level of funding. The funding will come from taxes collected by the government from people in the work force.
This is, or will shortly be, you!
While your compassionate side may readily believe that these taxes are fair and necessary, what would you say if they escalated year after year? What would you say if every annual raise you received went toward higher taxes? How would you be able to get ahead in life?
Republicans have proposed various changes to these programs intended to make them viable for years to come. These changes do not rely upon ever higher taxes and, yes, they do require a bit more from the people who benefit from these programs (which will one day include you!)
To summarize, in their private lives Republicans like Mitt Romney have demonstrated greater levels of charitable giving than many Democrats. In the political arena, Republicans do not want to eliminate social welfare programs, only to fix their inherent flaws.
Obama will fight for the average American against the interests of business.
What do Warren Buffett, Jon Corzine and Peter Lewis have in common? If you said that they are all current or former CEOs of major corporations (Buffett – Berkshire Hathaway, Corzine – Goldman Sachs, Lewis – Progressive Insurance) you would be only half right. In fact, all are CEOs that have either publicly or through their political donations identified with the Democrat Party. Yes, these titans of industry are not Republicans! And they are not alone. How can that be given that you have likely heard in endless repetition that the Republican Party is the party of ‘Big Business?’
In fact, the largest corporate contributor to candidate Obama’s 2008 campaign was Goldman Sachs. What gives?
Well, it turns out that there are just as many businesses and businessman that identify as Democrats, as there are that identify as Republicans. It is a canard to say that the Republican Party is the party of business and that Republicans favor the interests of business over the common citizen. The fact of the matter is that many of you will end up – believe it or not – working for a medium or large-sized corporation. (Job hunting tip: that’s where many of the jobs are!)
By the way, part of the argument against Mitt Romney is that he is a ‘rich’ businessman who does not identify with the average person. It is hard to say what is in Mitt Romney’s heart when it comes to the common man, but you should consider that the Democrats making this argument are the same ones who, in 2004, supported the candidacy of John Kerry and John Edwards, two enormously wealthy individuals. Kerry’s net worth is estimated at $240 million and Edwards’ net worth at $45 million. Perhaps we can agree that just because someone is wealthy, it does not mean that they cannot be an effective president!
To summarize, many corporations and many business executives support the Democrat Party. Businesses create jobs, pay taxes and provide goods and services that you want. They are an integral part of the fabric of American society; however, tempting it is for politicians to vilify them.
There are wealthy politicians in both parties.
Obama believes in reconciling American foreign policy interests with countries typically hostile to America.
President Obama came into office promising to ‘push the reset button’ with respect to American foreign policy. After years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the deaths of thousands of U.S. servicemen and women, and the seeming continuation of hostility from countries in the Middle East during the Bush presidency, a ‘reset button’ certainly sounded both timely and welcome.
Yet just within the past weeks we have seen a U.S. ambassador killed in Libya and the never-ending scenes of angry Muslims burning American flags in the streets. In other areas of the world, we see defiance from Iran toward the U.S. and non-cooperation from Russia.
What happen to Obama’s foreign policy reset?
Here is the geo-political lesson for young people that you will not get from your college professors. The simple fact is that the world is a dangerous place. Most often, countries act in their self-interest and not in the greater interests of some idealized ‘human family.’ The French act in the interests of France and the Russians act in the interests of Russia. Muslims act first in the interests of Islam and second in the interests of their native country. Alliances bring together countries with similar concerns (e.g. security, trade), but country trumps alliances.
Further, President Obama’s attempts to extend an olive branch to nations traditionally hostile to the U.S. are not perceived by these countries as conciliatory. Quite the opposite, such actions are perceived as a sign of American weakness. Notwithstanding a couple of thousand years of civilization, the world continues to be one in which tribal interests – now defined as ‘national’ interests – predominate. If you do not believe that this is true, first ask yourself why Obama’s outreach to the world has not succeeded.
If you believe that Obama’s strategy can be successful, study the outcomes the last time that U.S. foreign policy adopted the approach used by Obama. The president at the time was Jimmy Carter and the results were equally disastrous for American interests.
To summarize, however appealing President Obama’s policy of reconciliation with traditionally hostile foreign interests may be, it has not been successful. The rest of the world respects strength.
Obama supports gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose.
Perhaps your support of Obama comes from his similar views on social issues that are important to you. Obama supports gay marriage and so do you. Mitt Romney does not. But during the 2008 campaign and until just a couple of months ago President Obama opposed gay marriage. So was he wrong then and right now or vice versa? Was Obama a bigot or a homophobe prior to his very recent change of heart? Did you support Obama in 2008 notwithstanding his opposition to gay marriage?
Likewise, Mitt Romney once supported abortion. Today he opposes it. Was Romney right before and wrong now or vice versa? Did he ‘flip-flop’ like Obama did on the gay marriage issue? Or is it possible that the current positions of Obama and Romney are the result of principled changes of heart on difficult issues?
Republicans are typically viewed as the party that is opposed to gay marriage and abortion while Democrats are portrayed as the party in favor of both. But did you know that there are significant percentages of Democrats who are pro-life?
Almost one-third of all Democrats self-identify as pro-life. In the 2008 Election, about one-quarter of Obama’s supporters self-identified as pro-life. (www.democratsforlife.org)
Similarly, did you know that a significant percentage of African-Americans (97% of whom voted for President Obama) actually oppose gay marriage?
Overall, African-Americans remain one of the groups most opposed to gay marriage: 51 percent are opposed, while 40 percent support it, according to a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (Washington Post, August 7, 2012)
Importantly, will you make your decision on who to vote for based upon a single issue or on your analysis of the totality of the candidate’s views?
To summarize, social views are not so easy defined along party lines as you may have been led to believe. There is a divergence of opinion up to and including outright disagreement within each party. Each has room for supporters who do not agree with each other. Further, your own views on various social issues may very well change over time. Just ask someone older!
Obama is supported by people that I respect including entertainers and college professors.
When someone we admire holds the same position that we do on a particular issue, our own view is reinforced and we naturally feel justification. If an actor or musician comes out in favor of Obama, it binds us more closely to them. If we think Jay-Z is cool and he thinks Obama is cool, then we might think Obama is cool.
But understand this: the entertainment industry is arguably the place with the least diversity in America, at least when it comes to political views. There are social and cultural reasons for this which we do not need to discuss here. However, it is largely self-evident that the arts tend to attract people who are more liberal in their views. It is rare to find a Republican there just as it may be rare to find a Republican in your circle of acquaintances. The pressure to conform to the opinion of the group then becomes enormous. Importantly, within non-ideologically diverse groups you tend not to hear the other side of an argument and on the rare occasions that you do, it sounds either foreign or laughable. Republicans give more to charity than Democrats? That’s crazy! This essay is intended to get you thinking about that other side in a way that you may not have done so before.
And just to make the obvious point, Jay-Z may be the best rapper around, but he is not an expert on politics. He is more than entitled to his political beliefs, but understand that those beliefs are not necessarily grounded in deep analysis of the issues.
But what about college professors? They are older and more educated and they seemingly support Obama.
Yes, they are older and more educated, but like the entertainment industry, there is a decided lack of political diversity among educators. Consider the following:
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative. (Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, March 29, 2005)
The education profession clearly attracts more people who identify as liberals and so, inevitably, college students will be exposed more to one specific viewpoint. Yet even liberal professors would have to agree that it would be wrong not to hear or read an opposing opinion. Too often young people are not encouraged to seek out the other side. If they did, they might realize that Republicans are not the villains that that they have been led to believe. And Mitt Romney may begin to look like a much more reasonable candidate.
To summarize, the entertainment and education professions are overwhelmingly populated by people who hold liberal political beliefs. Young people should seek out opposing political views, if for no other reason than to be better informed. No matter what side you are on, you cannot properly defend it if you do not understand the other side.
Friday, October 5, 2012
It was an interesting day in Liberal Land yesterday as the faithful dealt with the debate debacle. Explanations for Obama's poor performance ranged from the bizarre to the more bizarre. We had Al Gore speculating that it was the Denver altitude, while Bob Woodward ominously hinted at some personal or national security crisis that we would only begin to find out about until much later. Meanwhile, the normally rational Juan Williams insisted repeatedly that the debate was a draw. Over at MSNBC they have decided to advance two arguments. The first is that Romney lied. Liberals love this one because they have used it before (Bush lied!) and because apparently Obama always tells the truth. So it's kind of like they can take the high ground. The second, is that during the debate Romney pivoted to the center to attract moderate voters (The snake!). Apparently in the entire history of politics this has never happened before and MSNBC is worried about Romney establishing a new precedent.
Of course the toughest thing for Liberals to grasp - and why all the excuses and redirection - is that another Liberal media myth has been deconstructed. Obama is NOT a great debater. He is lousy at it...which is probably why he famously called the prep "a drag." This comes after the growing perception that he may not even be a good orator absent his teleprompter. These are very very hard truths for Liberals to come to grips with.
The AARP, which put itself in the middle of the health care debate by endorsing ObamaCare, now is telling President Obama to keep the group out of his political talking points. The nation's leading senior advocacy organization objected after the president during Wednesday's debate twice mentioned the AARP while defending his health care plan and attacking Mitt Romney's plans for Medicare. (Foxnews.com, 10/4/2012)
After sucking up to Obama during the whole healthcare debate, AARP backpedals after his disastrous debate performance. Sorry AARP, but we remember.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
RedStateVT: There are more debates to come and President Obama will, no doubt, perform much better than he did last night. We do not like it when either side 'spikes the football' and will not do so here. However, we will take away a small amount of satisfaction simply because the mainstream media have been so incredibly dishonest and untrustworthy in prematurely declaring Obama the election victor.
Liberals React To Romney's Debate Win
Perhaps the best reason for Obama to be hopeful about reaction to the debate: The 90 minutes were so substantive and solid, with so many numbers and such lengthy dissections of policy disagreements, that many viewers may have found it dull — and therefore may not have noticed Romney cleaning Obama’s clock. (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 10/3/2012)
Yes, Romney may have won the debate but viewers were so bored they didn't notice...
But Romney’s relentlessness may not play as well with swing voters. His decision to change his tax plan on the fly, rather than to defend it, will provide fodder for further Obama attack lines on how it would affect middle-income voters. And his obvious pivot to a new political persona — or, perhaps more precisely, his reversion to his older, more moderate self — will lead to more questions about who the real Mitt Romney is. (E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, 10/4/2012)
Yes, Romney may have won the debate but he alienated swing voters...
The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so long anticipated, quickly sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity. With few sparks and little clarity on the immense gulf that truly separates the two men and their policies, Wednesday’s encounter provided little guidance for voters still trying to understand the choice in next month’s election. (New York Times editorial, 10/4/2012)
Who says Romney won the debate?
Well, we guess the people say that Romney won:
According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious. "No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. (CNN.com, 10/3/2012)
Liberals Display Excellent Humor In The Face Of Calamity
Michael Moore: Is Bill Clinton coming in to sub for the next quarter?
James Carville: Mitt Romney came in with a chainsaw.
Bill Maher: I can't believe I'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter.
Vice President Biden: Folks, I hope you saw what I saw tonight...
President Obama (post debate): I hope I made you proud out there explaining the vision we share for this country.