Friday, November 30, 2012
Don't get me wrong, I have no great love for Mitch McConnell. However, I do like his response to Timmy the Tax Cheat Geithner's proposed "solution" to the fiscal mess using front-loaded tax hikes and some sort of vague, future "cuts." McConnell laughed--a spontaneous, involuntary reaction. Good for him.
Here's a quote from McConnell in an interview with Hugh Hewitt: "The election is over. This is time to be governing. The posturing, the endless campaign, the never-ceasing finger pointing and blaming, you know, I know he's [Obama] upset about it, but he's got a Republican House to deal with, and he's got a non-inconsequential Republican minority in the Senate. He doesn't own this Congress like he did the Congress in 2009 and 2010. He can't get anything he wants. Those days are over."
And in response, Duane Patterson in the HotAir Green Room, said this, and I love this quote: "I am pleased to see that not all Republicans in elected office are willing to cower to a President as though he has a mandate when in fact, no mandate exists. A coalition of unserious people can vote in an unserious leader so that unserious economic proposals are presented, but that certainly does not mean that serious people should abandon, well, seriousness."
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
If I see anything worth posting today, I'll post it here.
Here are some comments at HotAir:
Mitt should go drag Christie’s fat ass out of bed in the middle of the night tonight and strap him to the roof of his car for a cross-country drive.
Dammit, I really did NOT want to execute Plan B. Dammit. But I have a plan B, how are you Staten Islanders doing?
Our debt is not sustainable once interest rates inevitably rise. The bond market is not going to like what Obama is selling in his second term. It would have been a messy cleanup for Romney, and conservatives would get the blame. Now the collapse can happen, probably sooner than it otherwise would have, and Obama and the progressives will have to own it.
42% of those asked said Obama’s hurricane response was “The most important factor” or “An important factor” in their choice of candidate. Un-freaking-believable!
Something seriously stinks somewhere.
Obama – 69,456,897
McCain – 59,934,814
Obama – 58,702,702 (-10,754,195)
Romney – 56,455,982 (-3,478,832)
Total Vote Loss – 14,233,027! (9% fewer voters)
I am sorry, I simply do not believe this.
WHAT HAPPENED TO 3.5 MILLION REPUBLICAN VOTERS?
6 million fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2004!
2004 population – 292,287,454
2012 poulation – 313,000,000
Population Growth = 21,000,000
… and yet 6 million fewer voted?
Does anyone else find this extremely odd?
George Bush 2004 – 62,040,610
Mitt Romney 2012 – 56,584,192
5.5 million less votes for Romney than Bush in 2004!
No, just no. Something STINKS here.
POTUS VOTE TOTALS:
1996 – 94,683,948
2000 – 101,455,899 (+7%)
2004 – 121,069,054 (+19%)
2008 – 129,389,711 (+7%)
2012 – 115,562,372 (-11%) <<< WTF?
So after at least 7% voter growth every election since 1996, in 2012 we drop 11%!!!! Has anything like this ever happened before? If you look at voters as a % of population the drop is even more staggering.
And yet, polling stations had to remain open extra hours because of their sheer volume of voters?
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
8:25 p.m. Wow. This is not looking like a Romney night. I'll say this. If 50+% of this country is stupid enough to put O back into office, then I quit. I won't be be blogging here anymore. This might be my last post.
1:14 p.m. Good grief. Some Philadelphia polling place had a bigger-than-lifesized mural of Obama hanging on their wall. They were ordered by a judge to cover it up. I can't even wear a "Romney" button on my coat at my polling place. That would be "electioneering" within a polling place, which is prohibited in Missouri and probably most other states as well. Oh, if I want to vote, I also need a photo ID.
11:30 a.m. We just got back from voting. I've voted in the same place for over 20 years. The line was "middlin'" long--about average--didn't go out the door. If the line isn't out the door between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. tonight, then this is definitely not a big year for voting in my liberal town. I asked one of the election officials how the turnout seemed to her. She said that 2008 was big, but this year was "bigger." I'll just have to take her word for it, since while I was there, it didn't seem that way to me.
8:16 a.m. Breitbart Big Journalism has a *Live Blog* of Election Day News that will be ignored by the Obamamedia. Refresh the site throughout the day.
7:30 a.m. We live next door to the polling place. My town is very, very liberal, and voting day in 2008 was very, very depressing. This morning--No lines! I can't see a soul outside the door of the polling place. In 2008, there were happy, happy people waiting in long lines to vote all day long.
7:00 a.m. I've been predicting a Romney blowout for weeks--a landslide! I just haven't wanted to say it too loud. Hurricane Sandy came along, and I thought, Uh-oh. But that was just a blip for Obama. Mitt is going to win today, and win big, win convincingly. I will keep track of the day here.
Why do I think Mitt is going to win? The polls have been crazy. They've made no sense. Someone said last night that we're finally going to find out which pollsters had their thumb on the scales. I've been looking at the polls, but I've been looking at other things, too.
The crowds. Wow, the size and enthusiasm of the Romney crowds has been something to see--28,000 in Morrisville, PA last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio on Friday. On the other side, Obama just doesn't have it. Even with Bruce Springsteen there to draw people to the venue, they could only drag in 18,000--in Madison, Wisconsin, a town with a campus size of some 50,000. Hey Barry, they're just not that into you. Well, that's OK, because he's not that into us, either.
Then you look at the people on each side talking about their candidate and their campaign. On the Sunday shows, David Plouffe, Obama's campaign boy, looked like he was going to slit his throat. Debbie Washerwoman-Schultz could only talk about Florida voter fraud. And that snarky, snotty little human being, Stephanie Cutter, Barry's deputy campaign manager, came out yesterday to tell the Obamabat base, "Don't panic," despite what they hear today. Heh. No, really, they should panic.
The lamestream media. May they all be visited with boils in inconvenient places. I love this one: "Andrea Mitchell: If Pennsylvania's in Play, It's Over for Obama." Well, IT'S OVER, BABY, but it ain't just over for Obama. It's over for people like you, you dessicated freak. Imagine Andrea without plastic surgery. No, on second thought, don't, because she's only about 85 years old, and it would definitely not be a pretty sight. Be sure to read this from The Daily Caller by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel: "Wave goodbye to the Obama media." And GOOD RIDDANCE!
And then there are the candidates themselves. Romney, looking presidential, looking like a winner. He's happy, relaxed, and energized. Obama looks like he's grimly hanging on for dear life, but of course Google and the lamestream media don't report that--or try not to. This is from the Washington Post opinion section by Richard Cohen: "The president who seems not to care." It captures Obama to a "T."
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
It's now been seven weeks since the Benghazi attack and the murder of four Americans; the story is still in the news, thanks only to Fox News and the blogosphere. The alphabet news agencies are protecting Obama with their extreme incuriosity about the story. However, I don't think the story is going to go away. I also think that Obama had better pray that Romney wins this election, because otherwise he eventually will be frogmarched out the front door (or maybe the back door) of the White House.
Fox News has been doing some great work on this story, led by Brett Baier, the anchor for Special Report, (one of the best people working in journalism today, IMO), and including reporter Jennifer Griffin. Without Fox News pushing this story, likely we would still be blaming the video trailer. This report is from Jennifer Griffin on 26 October: "CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say."
David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post on 30 October: "Lingering questions about Benghazi." "Fox News has raised some questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama administration."
Jennifer Rubin, also writing in the WP: "Obama needs to come clean on Benghazi." "So how about it, Mr. President--who called off a rescue and why? President Obama, a little more than a week before the election, won't tell Americans what happened. Well, why should he--the press doesn't hound him, the liberal elite still rushes to his defense, and his White House attack dogs bark 'Politics!' whenever legitimate questions are asked."
PJ Media has some excellent articles about Benghazi. More than one of their writers are saying, not just impeachment for Obama, but treason.
From Bob Owens, 29 October: "Questions for White House Over Benghazi Just Beginning." "Our consulate staff was abandoned and left to die." Owens links to another article he wrote on 26 October: "AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire."
Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard has "Ten Questions for the White House." "The president was, it appears, in the White House from the time the attack on the consulate in Benghazi began, at around 2:40 pm ET, until the end of combat at the annex, sometime after 9 p.m. ET. So it should be possible to answer these simple questions as to what the president did that afternoon and evening, and when he did it, simply by consulting White House meeting and phone records, and asking the president for his recollections."
Well, we assume Barry was where he was supposed to be--but maybe he wasn't? May be he was out somewhere with the choom gang? But of course that's only my own speculation.
Bob Owens continues: "These ten questions alone [from Bill Kristol] could end a presidency, but they are far from the only questions swirling around Benghazi. As noted earlier, we face the question of what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi without security."
Another writer at PJ Media, Roger L Simon, writes this: "Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi." "Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them." Simon wonders if Obama and others were covering up "more than their ineptitude?" What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day, the anniversary of September 11?
Then there's long time Democrat pollster Pat Caddell, who blasted the mainstream media suppression of the Benghazi story on the Jeanine Pirro show on Fox News Saturday night. Bad enough, he said, that this White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, are apparently willing to dishonor themselves and this country for the "cheap prospect" of getting reelected--"willing to cover up and lie." But the worst thing--"the very people who are supposed to protect the American people and the truth, the leading mainstream media, and I said in a speech a week ago — because I’m stunned. I’ve never seen in an issue of national security like this, but I will tell you this, I said it then they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and then enemies of the American people."
Obama's rebuttal was pathetically lame, as have been all of the fabulist stories about Benghazi coming from him and his administration. He had a 15-minute interview in the Oval Office (O is too much of a coward to have an actual press conference with the White House press corpse) with Michael Smerconish, an "MSNBC contributor," according to his biog. I wonder how many times in that interview O used the phrase, "What is true . . ."? Just like the Sec'y of State, Obama said that he takes "full responsibility" for the circumstances of the attack. And in his mind, what does that mean? Anything? I hope we the American people get a chance to show him what that means.
There was also an Obama sighting on MSNBC's Morning Joe show, where "a defensive and obviously irritated President Obama took on the demeanor of the offended party when he was questioned about his handling of the Benghazi debacle," writes Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart Big Government: "Obama to Morning Joe: 'I do take offense at critics of Benghazi." Well, Champ, "taking offense" and denying wrongdoing aren't the same thing,
Update: I was trying to think of the name of the other reporter at Fox who has been all over this story--it's Catherine Herridge. Wow, there's a post today at one of my favorite blog sites, Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft: "Catherine Herridge: State Department Culpable in Death of Ambassador & Three Americans." Hoft reports that Herridge, a Fox News foreign policy analyst, told Greta Van Susteren on Wednesday: "From what I see the State Department has culpability in the death of the US Ambassador and three Americans."
Friday, October 26, 2012
This is O's plan for the next four years. Hilarious. Evidently his strategy was to wait until after the debates to print the 3.5 million copies of this glossy, cheesy little 20-page booklet (where almost every page has a picture of--you guessed it--Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmmm, mmmm. If he'd published it sooner, Romney would have eviscerated his "plan" during the debates.
Here are a few of the comments I'm reading about O's plan for the next four years:
Rich Lowry at Politico: "Obama's pathetic picture book." "As an artifact of the diminishment of President Barack Obama, it is hard to top his newly released pamphlet, 'A Plan for Jobs & Middle-Class Security' . . . . If the pamphlet works, it deserves to join the ranks of the classic picture books of all time, right up there with 'Go, Dog, Go!' and 'The Very Hungry Catepillar.'"
Paul Ryan is mocking Obama's new brochure on the campaign trail, calling it a "slick repackaging of more of the same" and a "comic book."
Obama, on the other hand, seems to think this little booklet is something quite swell: small-business creation (oh, when did he get religion on that issue?); a manufacturing policy; green jobs (!); and "education"--whatever that means, except that he's throwing a sop to the teachers' union. He keeps talking about hiring "millions" of teachers, and I simply don't know WTF this guy thinks he means by that. When did hiring teachers become a function of the federal government? Oh, he will also "find cuts where needed." And build roads. I keep hearing him say that he's going to "give" veterans jobs--building roads. Why does this O-tard think people want jobs building roads? Pass out the shovels! Besides--wasn't that what the stimulus money was for? I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand this guy's brilliant plan. Oh, yes, and he's going to ask the wealthy to pay a little more. I think he also has a line or two about energy in there.
Breitbart TV has a video of the Morning Joe gang mocking Obama's "plan." See it here. "Nothing new"--heh. One of the commenters writes this: "Listen to the tone of disappointment and resignation among these three. Whatever her name is [the snarky blonde, Mika Brzezinski--but I imagine the guy knows that] is acting like she's waiting on the limo to take her to the funeral; Joe is acting like a high school football coach hearing a story about his once football star, now gay, son has done; and Mark Halperin is completely resigned to the fact that his boy is finished."
The Columbus (Ohio--major swing state) Dispatch has an editorial by David Harsanyi: "Obama's jobs plan doesn't add up." "Members of the middle class will be pleased to learn that their children's future will feature marginally smaller class sizes and work as a midlevel functionary in a green-energy factory. According to the president, the best way to grow the middle class outward (whatever that means) is to strive for more menial-labor work in an unproductive manufacturing sector. Forward."
Even the NYT reports that the document contains "no new proposals, and was derided by a spokesman for Mr. Romney as a 'glossy panic button.'" The article uses the word "frenetic" to describe this past week of O's campaigning. The article also makes clear that O's schedule and the "tenor" of his appearances makes clear that "his primary mission now was to energize his own supporters and get them to vote . . . ." Good Lord. Maybe O is in worse shape than I thought, if that's the report from the NYT.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
I'm experiencing wild mood swings as the election nears. Some days I know Romney is going to win, and even win big. Other days I'm terrified that Obama will be put back into office. The yard signs for O are starting to pop up in my (very liberal) town here and there. As I drive by another one that just appeared in one of my neighbors' front lawns, I wonder how anyone with a brain can even think of voting for this clown again. I (sort of) understood the first time--first blackety-black president, blah, blah blah. But not this time. Those signs depress me.
However, there are other signs that give me hope, such as articles like these:
This one is from the website Redstate, the article by Erick Erickson: "Obama's Hubris Will be His Undoing." Erickson says that although O has clearly lost North Carolina and Florida, he won't stop spending money in those states and redirect the resources to Ohio--and why? Because "[t]hat would convey weakness and demoralize the base."
Some of these articles already sound like a postmortem on O's campaign.
This is from Real Clear Politics, by Ben Domenech: "Obama's Blunder Was Ceding the Center." "If Obama should lose this election, many will say it was because the economy was weak and because the president is black. Actually, it will be because he fought it as a failed progressive rather than a successful centrist."
And this one from Commentary, by Jonathan S. Tobin: "Dems Begin the Post-Obama Blame Game." "New York Times political writer Matt Bai has fired the first shot in what may turn out to be a very nasty battle over who deserves the lion's share of the blame for what may turn out to be a November disaster for the Democrats."
Here is Matt Bai's article at the NYT: "How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign." "[I]n recent weeks, starting with the first debate, the challenger has made a brazen and frantic dash to the center, and Mr. Obama has often seemed off-balance, as if stunned that Mr. Romney thinks he can get away with such an obvious change of course so late in the race. Which, apparently, he can."
I particularly like this one, another from the NYT, this one in the "Opinion Pages" (if they didn't tell you, it would be impossible to tell the difference between their straight "news" and opinion--but I digress), by Ross Douthat: "Obama's Aura of Defeat." "Losing campaigns have a certain feel to them: They go negative hard, try out new messaging very late in the game, hype issues that only their core supporters are focused on, and try to turn non-gaffes and minor slip-ups by their opponents into massive, election-turning scandals. . . . A winning presidential campaign would not typically have coined the term 'Romnesia,' let alone worked it into their candidate's speeches."
Then there's an article by Rick Wilson at ricochet: "The Inflection Point": While Romney draws "astounding crowds" at every event, "Obama is largely reduced to trawling college campuses for political jailbait, stroking the shreds of his coalition in the increasingly desperate hope of getting at least a few salvagable video clips out of each day. Big Bird, binders, and bayonets don't comprise a sweeping vision of a second Obama term and it shows. Vice-President Malaprop wanders Ohio diners, touching people's food and getting biker chicks to sit in his lap. It's a campaign in trouble, and they know it."
It also seems like the one thing O always had going for him, his likeability (not that I ever understood people who swooned over how "likeable" the guy was, but that's just me), is apparently not working for him anymore. In Breitbart's Big Government, Dr. Timothy Daughtry writes, "Letting Obama Be Obama." "Under pressure from an apparent Romney surge, someone--perhaps even Obama himself--has decided to let Obama be Obama. But, considering the strong narcissistic streak that many observers have noted in Obama's character, that decision could prove to be one of the more colossal tactical blunders in recent political history."
According to today's blog at the Weekly Standard, O called Romney a "bullshitter" in a recent interview in Rolling Stone magazine. I honestly think people expect better of their president than that--I honestly do; that sort of dismissive attitude against an opponent is hardly "likeable." I haven't read the article, which is "Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview," by Douglas Brinkley.
Not that newspapers are particularly relevant these days, since journalism has been participating in its own demise, particularly over the past four years. However, there are still interesting signs out there from the tree-pulp press that things aren't going well for O.
Take a look at the front page of this morning's The Des Moines Register--this was posted on Twitchy this morning.
Then there's the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, which has decided to make no endorsement for any presidential candidate in 2012 (and of course--you guessed it--they endorsed O in 2008).
Finally, there are the signs from late night TV. This is from American Thinker, by Daniel Joppich: "The Rats Are Leaving the Ship." Ouch. "Quite possibly the wall around Obama is coming down. The Lefties in the media are subtly trying to distance themselves from BO. They want to be able to say, 'Hey, look, I was tough on the guy.'"
Monday, October 22, 2012
We had damn well better get some quesitons at tonight's debate from Bob Schieffer, CBS News's oldest dinosaur of the lamestream media, about the Obama administration's Benghazi cover up. There seem to be two lines of thought about this: 1) Schieffer will ask some tough questions because this his last-hurrah, and he wants to protect his own legacy; and 2) Schieffer will protect Obama and his own leftist bias because this is his last-hurrah. I vote for number 2, considering the article (link below) written by William Bigelow about Schieffer's 2008 debate bias in favor of O.
Here are some interesting thoughts about Benghazi (and other issues) that we can keep in mind for tonight's debate:
In the WSJ, James Rosen: "The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About."
At PJ Media, Roger L. Simon: "Should Barack Obama Resign Tonight?"
At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey: "CBS News: Why didn't we send the military to rescue Benghazi personnel?"
This is from the NYT, which for the past four years has covered for Obie and his administration all day long, by David E Sanger: "Monday's Debate Puts Focus on Foreign Policy Clashes"
This is from Breitbart Big Peace, by Joel B. Pollak: "Fact Check: The Obama Doctrine, From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe."
From Breitbart Big Journalism by Joel B. Pollak: "New York Times Caught Editing Iran Story After White House Denials."
From the WSJ, Dorothy Rabinowitz: "The Unreality of the Past Four Years."
From Breitbart Big Journalism, by William Bigelow: "Bob Schieffer's 2008 Pro-Obama Debate Record."
Here's another one, suggested by a reader: From the New York Post, by Amir Taheri: "Anatomy of a failed foreign policy."
And another one: From the Washington Examiner, an editorial: "Killing bin Laden is not a foreign policy."