Showing posts with label 2012 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 election. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

VDH: "These are the most foreboding times in my 59 years"

Victor Davis Hanson captures perfectly the angst that every conservative should be feeling today:

The New Hubris

These are the most foreboding times in my 59 years. The reelection of Barack Obama has released a surge of rare honesty among the Left about its intentions, coupled with a sense of triumphalism that the country is now on board for still greater redistributionist change.

There is no historical appreciation among the new progressive technocracy that central state planning, whether the toxic communist brand or supposedly benevolent socialism, has only left millions of corpses in its wake, or abject poverty and misery. Add up the Soviet Union and Mao’s China and the sum is 80 million murdered or starved to death. Add up North Korea, Cuba, and the former Eastern Europe, and the tally is egalitarian poverty and hopelessness. The EU sacrificed democratic institutions for coerced utopianism and still failed, leaving its Mediterranean shore bankrupt and despondent.

Nor is there much philosophical worry that giving people massive subsidies destroys individualism, the work ethic, and the personal sense of accomplishment. There is rarely worry expressed that a profligate nation that borrows from others abroad and those not born has no moral compass. There is scant political appreciation that the materialist Marxist argument — that justice is found only through making sure that everyone has the same slice of stuff from the zero-sum pie — was supposed to end up on the ash heap of history.

Do read the entire column at PJM.





Read More...

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Next Post, Wednesday, Early A.M., EST

All that needs to be said has been said. I think that I will be very frustrated with Romney, but in four years, our nation will be in a much better state than it is today. Another four years of Obama and our nation will not fully recover in my lifetime.

So that's it. It's all down to the only poll that matters. We will know Wednesday on the East Coast. God help us all if Obama wins a second term - and / or the Democrats retain the Senate.





Read More...

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Just In Time For Hallowen - & The Election - The Children Of The Corn Meet Orwell

Who in God's name are the target audience for this? And if these kids are the future, please, drop the bomb on me now. Via Newbusters & Hot Air:



And if you didn't catch it, here are the lyrics they are singing:

Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea

We don't have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff

We're the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we're kinda blaming you

We haven't killed all the polar bears
But it's not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying

Congress went home early
They did their best we know
You can't cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it's welfare dough

We're the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we're kinda blaming you

Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair

It's a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down

And the long term's kind of a drag
We're the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we're blaming you

You did your best
You failed the test

Mom and Dad
We're blaming you.

What a credit to the state they are. Can't you picture them turning in their parents to the Cheka? !






Read More...

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Worst Ad Ever? Offer Up Your Virginity To Obama

This is both offensive and wholly aimed at a subclass of truly low information voters:



Honestly, this one makes my skin crawl. Some added commentary from Instapundit on the target market for the ad:

Nine out of ten vapid liberal-arts majors who are going to spend the next ten years working at Starbucks to pay back their degree in Womyn’s Studies agree.







Read More...

Clint Eastwood - The Crossroads Ad

From American Crossroads, this is a superb ad that will be playing in seven swing states over the next two weeks.







Read More...

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Of Boats and Bayonets

Romney: Our Navy is old -- excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me.

I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy. Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947. We've changed for the first time since FDR -- since FDR we had the -- we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we're changing to one conflict. Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the President of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people. . .

OBAMA: Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we are talking about is not reducing our military spending. It is maintaining it.

But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting slips. It's what are our capabilities. And so when I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home.

Presidential Foreign Policy Debate, 22 October 2012

What has made the spin in the above exchange is Obama's incredibly condescending and insulting response to Mitt Romney's points, focusing solely on the analogy to 1916. But in a rationale world, Romney's points make a mockery of Obama's response.

As a threshold matter, the cuts in defense spending required by sequestration came at the insistence of the White House. The stupidest thing that Republicans have done in living memory was to agree to that. The far left's wet dream, for half a century, has been to cut our defense to the bone and beyond. The Republicans misjudged the fact that they would willing accept cuts to domestic programs if they could finally gut defense.

And those of course on top of Obama's many other cuts to defense. His change of our military posture from being able to fight two wars simultaneously was not driven by any change in strategic reality, it was wholly a means to justify deep cuts to defense spending. He has stopped production on a score of critical next generation weapons systems that can't be restarted on the fly. Development of new weapons systems takes years.

As to the U.S. Navy, it is charged with keeping shipping lanes open worldwide and being able to project superior combat force to any point on the high seas. As to the size of our Navy, the numbers Romney cited came from a 2005 DOD review of force structure in respect of their missions. What Obama is doing is wholly gutting the ability of our Navy to meet their missions. This from the NRO:

The Obama administration’s neglect of the Navy can be typified by the early retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) and its plans to decommission other naval assets. In August of this year, I outlined on NRO why the Enterprise should remain in service, but the Big E is only the most prominent asset slated for premature retirement. The administration also plans to decommission and scrap six Ticonderoga-class cruisers, although the vessels have as many as 15 years of service life left (even without further overhauls). Maintaining freedom of the seas requires hulls in the water — and the Navy hasn’t even started building the replacements for these cruisers. At present, all we have is a design study called CGX, which may or may not enter production.

This is one area where Obama is particularly culpable: His administration, in an effort to cut costs, proposed the retirement of the USS Enterprise (which his allies in Congress passed in 2009) and the six cruisers. Numerous crises are heating up around the world, as recent events show, but there is no indication that Obama has reconsidered these retirement plans. Certainly, it would not be hard to halt the retirements, and extenuating circumstances clearly warrant a supplemental appropriations bill. None of our carriers or submarines — no matter how high-tech they are — are capable of covering the Persian Gulf and South China Sea at the same time, or the Mediterranean Sea and the Korean Peninsula simultaneously.

And lastly, we don't have "fewer bayonets" in the military today because "the nature of the military's changed." Obama is clueless. All soldiers in the Army and Marines are trained in the use of the bayonet. All infantry line troops are issued bayonets. The current model M9 is a masterpiece of work – at a foot long, it is a razor sharp short sword.

Bayonet charges have been critical events in modern warfare. Gettysburg, and thus the Civil War, turned on a bayonet charge down little Round Top. In the Korean War, the defense of Chip Yong Ni likewise saw a famous bayonet charge, that one by the outnumbered French Foreign Legionnaires. That same war saw a platoon of U.S. Infantry take out machine gun positions with a bayonet charge on a piece of terrain that became known as “Bayonet Hill.” In both Iraq and Afghanistan, British Army units have executed bayonet charges to overcome resistance, most famously in the 2004 “Battle of Danny Boy” at Al Amara, Iraq.

Beyond the bayonet charge by entire units, The bayonet has been used in all wars, through today, as the last tool of defense in close combat. More than a few al Qaeda and Taliban have been ushered off to meet Allah at the sharp end of a U.S. bayonet.

Bottom line – no line soldier will ever show disrespect to the bayonet. Obama is no soldier. He sees the military not as the single most important part of our federal government, but as a piggy bank.








Read More...

Monday, October 22, 2012

Romney: "Attacking Me Is Not An Agenda"





How important is foreign policy to the Presidential race? At tonight's foreign policy debate, both Romney and Obama spent their closing arguments talking about the economy with barely a reference to foreign policy. And indeed, the economy insinuated itself into about half the discussions by both Romney and Obama.

Tonight, at the debate, one of the two candidates was confident and presidential. The other was President Obama.

Obama has spent the last six months trying to paint Romney as an irresponsible warmonger. Tonight, Romney channelled his inner Gandhi.

If Romney's goal was to look presidential and stay pretty much above the fray, he succeeded in spades. Romney went large. He painted in very broad strokes, outlining what would guide his foreign policy as President. He did not get into the weeds pointing out the almost infinite number of things that he could have raised in criticism of Obama foreign policy - and he even stayed away from Libya for the most part. In stark contrast, Obama was aggressive and angry, spending much of his time attacking Romney. He looked desperate. He tried to draw Romney into a brawl. Romney bobbed, weaved and took very few blows.

The contrast could not have been more stark. At one point early in the debate, Romney told Obama, "attacking me is not an agenda." You will see that one in some ads, I can assure you.

The one thing that Romney said that was utter music to my ears - there is much more to fighting Islamic terrorism than the military. To paraphrase, we need to engage in the "war of ideas." Nothing could be more true. Bush started down that road but then gave up. Obama has moved us backwards. The ramifications of losing - or even failing to engage in - the war of ideas are that our grandchildren's grandchildren will be fighting this scourge long after we are dead.

What had me screaming at the t.v. screen the loudest was Obama's rewrite of his history with Iran. It was just one falsehood after another.

There were a couple of Romney soliloquies that were stellar. I will post video and transcripts below as they become available. We will have to see how much traction they get.

Overall, I think that Romney's performance was what he needed to get him to the finish line ahead of Obama. He appeared rational, reasoned and even tempered. I think the moderates and undecideds will eat up his performance. This is another win for Romney I think.

Update: Frank Luntz's focus group highlighted that the economy was the major issue on everybody's mind. Good news for Obama - the majority thought that Obama was stronger on foreign policy. Bad news for Obama - virtually the same majority thought that Romney was the stronger on the economy tonight.

Update: Charles Krauthammer gives his analysis of the debate:







Read More...

Thursday, October 11, 2012

The VP Debate: Ryan As Road Kill

"When a wise person debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet."

Proverbs 29:9 (An update from Maggie's Farm that deserves to be put at the top of this post)

Ryan should have been channeling Reagan tonight:



That is how you handle a jack ass at a debate. And Biden was the king of jack asses tonight, interrupting Ryan's answers a total of 82 times. As soon as Biden interrupted him the first or second time, Ryan should have, in no uncertain terms, told Biden to stop acting like a bar heckler and start acting like a VP in a national debate.

Instead, Ryan allowed himself to get run over by the two people he was debating - Biden and the moderator, Martha Raddatz. Raddatz, for her part, cut off Ryan 31 times, and Ryan simply accepted it. Ryan came off as credible and smart, but weak.

It was a debacle. And while I am sure Biden did his ticket little if any good with independents, the optics of this debate were horrendous. You can bet that the mainstream media - an arm of the Obama campaign this year - will be playing up this debate as a huge victory in the coming days. That might actually move the polls far more than the actual debate itself.

Biden was condescending to a degree I have never seen before in a national debate. When Biden wasn't interrupting Ryan, he was sneering, laughing and shaking his head at Ryan's answers. And when Ryan would then try to respond, he was stopped by the moderator. Wow - it was disgusting and maddening in equal measure.

As to the answers to questions, if someone didn't know the underlying facts, Biden probably won on pure bluster - and he told some whoppers in the process. For example, Biden claimed that the $716 billion dollar cut from Medicare under Obamacare is actually being applied to Medicare. He claimed that the administration was honestly mystified for a week about the nature of the Benghazi attack. And he claimed that Obamacare will not impact on Catholic rights of conscience under the First Amendment. Ryan's rebuttal to those points was disjointed at best by interruptions.

Update: According to the snap polls and Frank Lunz's focus group, the debate was a draw, not moving the needle at all among undecideds. That is a failure in my book. Ryan needs to grow a pair - immediately.

Update (from Instapundit):

MICHAEL BARONE: “The instant polls: CNBC had it Ryan 56%-36%, CBS Biden 50%-31%, CNN Ryan 48%-44%, . . . Not nearly as one-sided as the instant responses to the first presidential debate in Denver. My sense: Biden pumped up partisan Democrats, but failed to win over the voters who are taking a serious look at Romney at a point when he is up in national polls.”

Update: Bookworm Room has a ton of links to reactions to the debate, plus her own erudite thoughts.

Update: It appears that at least one of the whoppers Joe blurted out last night may have legs - and not in the left's favor. When discussion turned to Benghazi, Ryan hit the administration for their failure to provide a minimum level of security and the failure to answer the Consulate's calls for increased security. Biden's response - to paraphrase, the administration had no idea that such a situation existed, or that additional security had been requested and denied. That contradicts testimony before the House Oversight Committee the other day, and as Ed Morrissey points out:

Just taking Biden at his word, we’d have to believe that (a) the State Department had no special concern over personnel in eastern Libya, where the weak central government can’t even deploy a police force, (b) the White House was unaware that al-Qaeda had expanded its operations in the region, and (c) no one remembered that the anniversary of 9/11 was approaching. That’s a shocking level of incompetence to confess on national TV. Small wonder that CNN’s tracking group considered this Joe Biden’s lowest point of the debate.

Update: Linked at Crusader Rabbit.







Read More...

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

AP Gone Wild

This outrageous photo was published by the AP on Monday.



I'll do my best Big Bird imitation here: Hey kids, can you say M-e-d-i-a B-i-a-s?

If I were the parent of that girl, I would be demanding an apology from AP and readying a lawsuit.







Read More...

Getting Caught In A (Big) Bird Trap

As snark goes, I must admit, the new DNC ad contemptuous of Mitt Romney's plan to take an economic knife to Big Bird is pretty funny. It is right out of the Alinsky's Rules For Radicals - "ridicule is man's most potent weapon."



Ridicule is designed to communicate to the listener that the object ridiculed is not worthy of any serious consideration. So will that backfire on the left in this instance? Lord knows it should. The deficit is among the top concerns for voters. And at the debate, 70 million people heard Romney seriously address the issue:

[Our $16 trillion deficit is] not just an economic issue, I think it's a moral issue. I think it's, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they're going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.

And the amount of debt we're adding, at a trillion a year, is simply not moral. So how do we deal with it?

. . . [F]irst of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it. Obamacare's on my list. . . .

I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. . .

Romney's point was not that he would make cutting PBS a central part of his plan to reduce the deficit, which is what the Obama now wants everyone to believe. Rather it was that Romney's cuts would be so far reaching and disciplined that they would even encompass PBS.

Yet Obama has latched onto Big Bird with a death grip - yes, he is choking that chicken. The Weekly Standard notes "that in the last few days, Obama has mentioned Big Bird eight times, and Elmo five--and Libya not at all." Big Bird is now central to Obama's narrative, and if you have seen Obama talk about Big Bird over the past few days, you've seen him having a lot of fun with it. It is right in his wheelhouse.



No single ad that I have seen to date so well encapsulates all that is wrong with Obama and the far left. They are demagoguing Romney's promise to cut all non-critical programs. If anyone who sees this ad thinks about it for a minute, they should walk away with a damning indictment of Obama. And if Obama wants to play the Big Bird card at the debate, Romney should make him eat that bird, feathers and all.

Romney should ask whether anyone thinks that our deficit, $16 trillion and growing at over a trillion dollars a year under Obama, is a subject for humor, one to be brushed off with ridicule? If we can't touch all non-critical funding - including PBS subsidies - when we have a $16 trillion deficit, then what that makes crystal clear is that the left is simply not serious about addressing the deficit.

Obama and the DNC might have outdone themselves this time. They have created a Big Bird trap that they themselves are standing in.

Update: As Maggies Farm points out:

Back in 2008, Obama said that, “if you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”

Big Bird is the epitome of Small Things.





Read More...

The Debates, Polls & The Far Left's Bubble

Since Romney crushed Obama in the last debate, the polls have swung wildly in Romney's direction, erasing Obama's lead with less than one month and two debates to go before election day. Charles Krauthammer explains both the state of the race and the left's attempt to excuse Obama's debate performance:



The far left are irrational and intolerant of any competing ideas. In their world, their spin is fact beyond question. And in their world, any who disagree are to be demonized, not debated. What we are seeing today is that mindset bump up against reality, as the far left reacts to the Romney-Obama debate.

For much of the left, the post debate meme has settled on asserting that "Romney LIED" during the debate and that Obama simply did not point out those lies, ergo the defeat. That is a view very much from inside the left wing bubble, where it is seen as objective truth, for example, that Romney's tax plan will blow a $5 trillion dollar hole in our economy over ten years. The fact that none of the studies the left cites as proof support their claim is wholly ignored. Likewise ignored, for that matter, is the fact that Obama repeatedly made the $5 trillion claim during the last debate, and in a few sentences, Romney convincingly rebutted it. For the far left, Obama's problem was not objective fact, but that he didn't repeat his claim often enough and did not shout down Romney's rebuttal.

At any rate, Obama has two very clear paths in the upcoming debates. One, he can try to win based on a "vision" that he really will lead the U.S. to an improving economy in four years, an argument he needs to pepper with a heavy dose of class warfare. That seems to me to be his best bet.

But the far left doesn't want that - they want Obama to quite literally eviscerate Romney on stage come the next debate. They firmly believe that if Obama only gets aggressive, if he goes on the attack and screams "lies, Lies, LIES," he will win and reverse the far left's rapidly declining fortunes. Unfortunately for them, the only way this new strategy can work is if the rest of America is willing to join in their fantasies and denial. And given the reaction of America to the first debate, that does not seem likely. Indeed, it risks alienating the majority of voters.

I for one hope that Obama takes the advice of his fellow travelers on the far left. If he does, this race may be over after the second debate.





Read More...

Saturday, October 6, 2012

A Reminder To All Readers

We are fast approaching Oct. 11. If you have not done so already, you need to insure that you have a comfortable seat readied in front of the television and that you are fully stocked up on popcorn and chips (beer and pizza are optional). This will be a show you do not want to miss.







Read More...

An October Unemployment Surprise: Putting the BS in BLS

Mirable dictu. Just in time to impact the election, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the Obama economy is not merely showing some signs of life, but is in the midst of a miraculous recovery. The BLS claims that, while only 114,000 jobs were added in September, the U-3 unemployment rate dropped from 8.1% all the way down to 7.8%. Morning Joe on MSNBC laid out clearly why these numbers just don't add up.



Make no mistake, this is still a horrid number, but it is the first time the economy has had a U3 unemployment figure below 8% during Obama's term. The left is in full squawk mode, hailing this as a sure sign of the success of Obama's economic policies and Obama is warning against any attempt to criticize this number by "talking down" the economy. If you can stomach it, watch the first few minutes of this from MSNBC yesterday:



History teaches that, with an economy growing at an anemic 1.3%, we are going to see stagnant or declining job growth - and indeed, 114,000 jobs added in September (per the BLS's large scale institutional survey) is actually well below the approximately 150,000 new jobs needed just to keep even with the growth in our job market. It is what we would expect with this level of GDP growth.

And yet, in a separate Household Survey (see discussion of the two surveys at Hot Air) that the NLS uses to calculate the U-3 unemployment rate, the BLS is showing job growth of 837,000. The last time our nation saw job growth like that, it was under Reagan when GDP was growing at 9.8%. It is simply impossible to reconcile the the Household Survey number either with September's Institutional Survey, or with historic economic reality.

This has a distinct odor of corruption, cf cooking the books. That said, it is possible that this is really the mother of all coincidences - that in the month before the election, with jobs being the central issue, the BLS Household Survey really did come up with an outlier - a number not cooked, but wildly wrong nonetheless. Charles Krauthammer explains:



Going beyond that, even if we assume the Household Survey number of 837,000 new jobs in September is correct, it does not change the reality of our economic distress. It does, however, greatly muddy the water and makes Romney's job, during the next critical month, of explaining economic reality to Americans that much harder.

Note that the September 2007 BLS report, before the recession, showed unemployment at 4.7% and a labor force participation rate of 66%. This September's report showed unemployment at 7.8% and a labor force participation rate of 63.6%. Note also that we are an expanding nation. Some 200,000 new people enter the potential work force each month - thus we need to be creating about 132,000 new jobs each month just to keep unemployment where it is at the time. What that means is that Obama would have needed to have created, from Feb, 2009 through Sep. 2012, approximately 6 million new jobs just to keep up with the increasing work force. But on top of that, we lost 8 million jobs during the recession that lasted from Dec. 2007 to June, 2009. So for Obama to have led us to a full recovery, he needed to preside over the creation of about 14 million new jobs.

That takes a long time for someone to explain. It is much quicker for Obama to claim "5.2 million new jobs" under his watch and 837,000 jobs in September. Therein lies Romney's challenge.





Read More...

Thursday, October 4, 2012

The Left Goes To Their Last Refuge Defense, Axelrod Calls Out To The MSM For Support

The left, in the immediate aftermath of the debate, was in shock - and at MSNBC, in meltdown. But the memos have apparently gone out, and the left's MSM response has coalesced. Yes, Romney won on theatrics and style points, but all of his facts were LIES - all lies, I tell you, LIES. We've seen this exact same thing play out a few weeks ago in the coordinated MSM response to Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican convention. There are some lies being told it - but that's projection on the part of the left.

Let's take a tour through the gutter of the MSM today and see what piles of excreta we can find. Former Enron advisor Paul Krugman is always a good place to start:

OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn’t or shouldn’t be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.

After that sweeping assertion, Krugman points to but a single example where he thinks Romney was less than honest. Others at least made a more concerted effort to justify their claim that Romney's speech was not but "lies."

Jonathan Chait at NY Magazine actually titled his commentary Romney's Successful Debate Plan: Lying. Chait's chief complaint relies on the original Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney's tax plan - an analysis done in part by one of Obama's former economic advisors. The upshot is that Obama claims that would add $500 billion a year for ten years to the deficit. But that presumption is based on simply dropping tax rates without closing loopholes - a patently ridiculous assumption.

More importantly. Chait, as do all the left relying on that TPC analysis, neglects to point to an update the TPC has done. TPC now finds that Romney's tax plan would come within $41 billion of tax distribution neutrality. I know that the left has trouble with math, so let me point out that $41 billion times ten is $4 trillion 5590 billion less than the $5 trillion dollar figure that Chait, the President and others are claiming would be added to the deficit by Romney's tax plan. And even that number is based on a static analysis of Romney's tax plan, neglecting any consideration of a growing economy bringing in more tax revenue. To call Romney's claims regarding his tax policy a lie based on the original TPC analysis - and assigning it a claim of raising the deficit $5 trillion over ten years - really is a lie.

Then there is Jonathan Cohn at TNR who writes about The Four Most Misleading Moments in Romney's Debate Performance:

The pundits are unanimous. Mitt Romney had more energy, offered more specifics, and may even have come across as more empathetic. I agree and polls suggest voters saw it the same way.

The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.

Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. . .

Cohn too relies on the original Tax Policy Center analysis for much of his argument.

A special mention needs to be made of Igor Volsky of Talking Points Memo who claims to have found: At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes. I won't go down all of them, but just to give you a flavor, my favorite was:

17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.”

Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

Talk about your non-sequiturs. Repealing Dodd Frank now means no regulation - despite Romney's calls for sane regulation? And talk about the insanity and hypocrisy of pointing to MF Global, led by one of Obama's top bundlers, Jon Corzine, who, incidently, Obama's DOJ has refused to indict for the second largest theft in history. MF Global is one example the left should avoid like the plague. One wonders if Igor is off his meds.

At any rate, the left is still reeling today. So what did the President's chief advisor, David Axelrod, do to stop the bleeding? He has called on his most loyal and stalwart allies to rally to Obama's defense:

Mr Axelrod, speaking on a campaign conference call, made an appeal to reporters to make the points that Obama himself had failed to make in the debate,

What does it say of the state of our MSM when Axelrod can call on them publicly to put out administration spin. The worst part is that you can bet the MSM is already pulling out the long knives to do precisely that between now and Nov. 7.







Read More...

The Debate: Romney In A Landslide



Wow. Last night's debate, posted in full above, was a spanking - one viewed by an estimated 70 million people.

Obama spent most of the past four years carefully limiting his appearances to friendly journalists and softball situations. His last appearance was being "eye candy" on the View. And last night, it showed. Of course, having an unsupportable record didn't help matters either.

The importance of last night just cannot be overestimated. It was Romney's one chance, for an hour and a half, to speak to America without having it filtered through the lens of the most biased press in my lifetime. For tens of millions of Americans who haven't followed the campaign up to this point, but have been subject to a tsunami of attack ads trying to frame Romney, it was a first chance to take their own measure of the man. Romney rose to the occasion.

Romney's performance was aggressive and respectful. His command of the facts was impressive. His performance was as good as Obama's was poor.

Now to be sure, Romney's performance was anything but a full throated defense of small government conservativism - it was Rockefeller Republicanism. But regardless, in this election, where the ghost of Rockefeller is facing off against the ghost of Marx, I'll take the former any time.

So how bad was Obama's performance? As Bill Maher tweeted: “i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter." And if you really, really wanted to revel in schadenfreude, you tuned into MSNBC for the post debate wrap-up, where the wailing and gnashing of teeth was deafening.

A couple of things were, I thought, high points of the evening. The first was when Obama repeated his talking point, that we shouldn't be giving "tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas." Romney's response - to paraphrase from memory: "Mr. President, I've been a business man for thirty years, and I have no idea what you are talking about." Obama's response . . . silence.

The second high point of the night was when Obama criticized the oil industry over its "tax breaks." Romney pointed out that those tax breaks, available to all companies as part of the tax code, amounted to about $2 billion a year. He then pointed out that Obama had given $90 billion in actual subsidies to the green energy industry, many of them Obama campaign donors and many of whom have gone belly up. Romney finished his thought by noting that Obama was even a failed crony capitalist - 'you don't pick winners and losers, you pick losers.'

Romney got across his points - and hit Obama repeatedly on his record. Obama for his part repeated the talking points from his inane attack ads - and on more than one case, completely refused to engage on his record. Lastly, there were several points in the debate, particularly during the comparison between Romneycare and Obamacare, when Romney seemed more like a HS teacher explaining something to a particularly dense student - and he managed to pull it off without seeming condescending. That was quite a trick. I must admit, while not a great supporter of Romney, he actually earned my vote last night.

Update: Here is Frank Luntz's focus group from last night - the one where a number of Obama voters go racist and say they now plan to vote for Romney. Enjoy.







Read More...

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Can Democracy Survive - & Do We Want It To In Its Current Form?

In 1933, a German democracy elected Hitler. In about 1980, Iranians democratically elected a theocracy. In 2006, the people of the Gaza Strip elected Hamas. In 2012, Egyptians elected the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2008, Americans elected Obama, and it is looking like we might reelect him in 2012. I gotta tell you, this democracy thing, it's not all that its cracked up to be.

Ours is the worst economy since the Great Depression. Obama, hired to fix it, has not merely failed, he is poised everything worse if, inexplicably, we elect him to a second term. Obama promised to bring unemployment under 8% in 2009; it hasn't been under 8% at any point during Obama's term. Long term unemployment is up almost 90%. Middle class incomes - down over Obama's term. People on food stamps - up by almost 50%. Gas prices - more than doubled. And Obama has grown our national debt by over 50% in just four years, taking it to a level exceeding our Gross Domestic Product. Obama's four years in office have been an economic disaster for America.

And yet . . . there are still people, a near majority at least, who are going to vote for Obama. Something is deeply and systemically wrong with our nation.

Democracy only works if people are well informed and have skin in the game. Far too many of the people who will vote in America this November are not well informed, far too many will be single issue voters, and far too many will vote based on what they can get from government redistribution of wealth. Just to clarify, I am not referring to anyone who has paid into Social Security and Medicare and are, today, merely getting repaid under those programs. But public sector union employees, women like Sandra Fluke, the people filmed in NYC a few months ago holding out their hands for "Obama bucks," crony capitalists . . . there is a sizable portion of the voters who in fact are little more than parasites on society.

There is no doubt in my mind that universal sufferage is a failed experiment. As Ben Franklin stated, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." With universal suffrage and the rise of socialism / progressivism, is there anyone who doubts that Franklin had it exactly right?

When Franklin made his observation,, at the inception of our nation, the United States was designed not to have that problem. The vote was limited to white male landowners and tax payers. While the white male bit is an unsupportable anachronism, landowners and people paying income, SSI, or capital gains taxes - people with skin in the game - certainly sounds like an appropriate method of limiting suffrage.

Another variation is the world envisioned by Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers, a society where the only people with rights of suffrage were those who had served their country in the military. As Wiki explains Heinlein's new world:

There is an explicit contrast to the "democracies of the 20th century", which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears." Indeed, Colonel Dubois criticizes as unrealistic the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but the Colonel claims life and liberty exist only if they are deliberately sought and, often, bought painfully by great effort and sacrifice.

Heinlein was nothing if not a keen observer of politics and humanity. But that is not the only other option. There is the world envisioned by a science fiction author, I can't recall his name, where those who wish to live off the public dime are housed in controlled camps, separated from the productive classes of society. They do not vote, but they get to live the life of Julia, swaddled in the protective arms of the state from cradle to grave.

At any rate, man has been experimenting with forms of democracy since at least the days of Plato. Just because universal suffrage is the latest iteration does not make it the best form of democracy. Indeed, given Obama and the state of our nation in 2012, after a century of progressivism clogging our political machine, it is clear that universal suffrage has failed. It may well be that by 2016, we will be far less in need of an election than a revolution. We need to be sure, if and when America 2.0 arrives, that we listen to the wisdom of our founders and not make the mistakes with suffrage that have given us our nation as it is today.





Read More...

Friday, September 21, 2012

My Name Is Mitt Romney . . . & President Obama Approved This Message



The above ad, from the Obama administration, is currently playing in Pakistan. Romney really should start playing this embarrassing ad in the U.S. This apology for free speech by someone in the U.S. really sums up Obama's Middle East policy and its utter failure.

As I wrote in a post earlier today:

[T]he last thing we should be doing is silencing the criticism of Islam, let alone apologizing for it as a nation.

Our government stance must always be that people have the right to peacefully practice whatever faith they choose inside of our borders free of government sanction. But our Constitutional responsibilities end there. It does not require us to refrain from criticizing a religion mired in the 7th century, that causes bloodshed on a grand scale, that maintains itself by the sword, and that wishes to conquer by the sword. I do not know if Obama actually does not understand that, or whether he is too afraid of kicking the hornets' nest, or whether this is simply the natural result of a drift into anti-semitism and pro-Arab sympathies by those on the left generally.

And as I pointed out in another post today, the Obama ad hasn't exactly tamped down the violence in the Pakistan. To the contrary, after the Obama ad posted in Pakistan, the violence has become significantly worse, with 19 people dying in anti-American violence. Is anyone, other than perhaps the Obama administration, surprised?





Read More...

Political Commentary From Homer Simpson

Yes, its left wing comedy, but it is funny - plus its Homer:



(H/T Gubu World)





Read More...

Monday, September 10, 2012

Whoa! NYT's Maureen Dowd's Primal Scream

NYT's columnist Maureen Dowd - master of the poison pen almost always aimed to the right side of the political spectrum - has ripped into Obama over his acceptance speech. It is a primal leftist scream over the One's failure to meet his 2008 campaign promises, and his attempt to point the finger of blame elsewhere - and more specifically, at the left. It does make for quite the enjoyable read:

. . . In his renomination acceptance speech here on Thursday night, [Obama] told us that America’s problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought.

And that’s why he has kindly agreed to give us more time.

Because, after all, it’s our fault.

“So you see, the election four years ago wasn’t about me,” President Obama explained. “It was about you. My fellow citizens, you were the change.”

We were the change!

We were the change? Us?

How on earth could we have let so much of what we fought for slip away? How did we allow Mitch McConnell, Karl Rove, the super PACs, the Tea Party, the lobbyists and the special interests take away our voice?

“Only you can make sure that doesn’t happen,” the president chastised us. “Only you have the power to move us forward.”

We’re so lame. We were naïve, brimming with confidence that we could slow the rise of the oceans, heal the planet, fix the cracks in the Capitol dome.

We never should have let the Congressional Democrats run wild with their stimulus spending on pork that didn’t even create the right kinds of jobs. . . .

It’s depressing to look back and remember what soaring hopes we had for ourselves only four years ago. Did we overdo it with the Greek columns? Sheesh, a million people showed up for our inauguration. Now we brag when we break 10,000.

What a drag to realize that Hillary was right: big rallies and pretty words don’t always get you where you want to go. Who knew that Eric Cantor wouldn’t instantly swoon at the sound of our voice or the sight of our smile?

Our forbearing leader didn’t pander to us with that standard breakup line: “It’s not you, it’s me.”

He gave it to us straight: It’s not me, it’s you.

. . .

Maybe we relied too much on Valerie Jarrett, a k a the Night Stalker and Keeper of the Essence. She says people should woo us. But could it be that we need to woo them as well?

How could we have let the storybook president lose his narrative?

How could we keep failing to explain what changes we have gotten through? Why is salesmanship so beneath us? . . .

We are grateful to the president for deigning to point out our flaws and giving us another chance.

“I’m the president,” he intoned.

But We, the People, must do the work.

The buck stops with us.

To paraphrase Dracula, "the children of the left, what sweet music they make." Do read her whole column.







Read More...

Cats - They Are Observant, Smart & . . .

. . . apparently opinionated and judgmental.







Read More...