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."
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
I made a mistake. I thought Candy Crowley would be fair and I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Her "moderation" of the debate was an embarrassment to herself and her profession. Not unlike Obama, she was in over her head, and she showed herself not up to the job. In fact, she was so bad she made Jim Lehrer of the first debate look like a genius. She couldn't control the two debaters (although she tried), she was unable to keep control of the time, she inserted (threw) herself into the debate to throw Obama a lifeline on the Libya question, and, frankly, she chose stupid questions. I'm sure the left loved her.
Actually, she probably did exactly what was expected of her. Again, as in the first debate, Obama had a more-than 3-minute edge in the amount of time he spoke. In a 90-minute debate, that's significant. So can Romney have seven minutes of extra time in the last debate? Some wag this morning is calling Crowley Obama's "tag team partner."
Despite all of that, Romney gave a good showing, especially when he was answering questions on the economy. Obama was declared the winner, as expected, by the lamestream media. He would have had to set his hair on fire for them not to say that he won. All he had to do this time was show up with a pulse to have a better showing than in the first debate, but I'm not sure on what criteria they think he won, especially since he still isn't able (or willing) to tell voters why he wants another four years and what he'll do with them. I think he may know what he wants to do, but he also knows that if he shares his plans with the voters, he won't stand a chance in hell of getting re-elected. The CNN snap polls gave Romney a 58-40 edge on the economy, a 51-44 edge on taxes, and a 49-46 edge on health care. But Obama won the debate. Haha. On this question: "Did Obama offer a clear plan for solving the country's problems?" --38 yes, 61 no. But Obama won the debate. On the question of who is the stronger leader --Romney 49, Obama 46. But Obama won the debate. Based on what?? That he showed up and didn't puke on his shoes?
Complaining about the debate set-up or the moderator after a debate is a loser's game. It's "unsporting" to complain about the conditions after the game is over, since it makes your side look like they couldn't hold their own. But I would like someone to tell me how those 80 "undecided" people were chosen to be in front of the candidates last night. How were these people chosen? Does anyone know how they were proven to be undecided? How do you prove a negative--"No, I have not made up my mind." There was the young Latina woman sitting in the front with the camera on her much of the night. Did you see her body language? Did you see her looking daggers at Romney all night? Her question: What are you going to do about the millions of immigrants without green cards? Uh, I think those used to be called ILLEGAL immigrants, but evidently, just like "terrorist," to utter the phrase "illegal immigrant" is verboten. In my view, if you're an "undecided" voter at this point, then you're really too stupid to be part of this process. But what do we do? We give these people a front row seat at the debate.
Update. Here's what little I could find about how the "undecided" people were selected for the audience of the second Obama/Romney debate:
They were all from Nassau County, New York.
They were found by Gallup through phone calls where they were asked if they lean more toward Obama or Romney.
"If voters identify as truly undecided" then they're invited to participate in the debate. But how that miracle of identification is made, who knows?
The voters met with Crowley ahead of time to "discuss" their questions. The ones she chose were questions all America is sitting on the edge of its collective seat, waiting to be answered: Mitt Romney's tax plan (how about a question about Obama's tax plan--or any plan, for that matter); workplace inequality and contraception access (seriously--this is what we're voting about?); assault weapons (??). I think my favorite was the question for Romney--how are you different from Bush? Where was the parallel question about how Obama's failed administration is different from Carter's?
On her blog, Ann Althouse says that Erin Burnett from CNN said that these supposedly "undecided" voters voted overwhelmingly in 2008 for Barack Obama. I wonder what "overwhelmingly" means? Can you imagine the leftist outrage if it was known that these so-called undecided people "overwhelmingly" voted Republican in the last election?
Althouse points out that Crowley was snarky towards Romney ("Governor Romney, I'm sure you have an answer"). Alternately, she seemed to prompt Obama, suggesting the substance of the answer. "Almost patronizing," said Althouse. I thought Crawley came across in those moments like a stage mother prompting her brilliant child.
Another update. This is from Breitbart's Big Journalism: "Crowley Interrupts Romney 28 Times, Obama Just 9." To put this into context, Martha Raddatz interrupted Paul Ryan 15 times and Joe Biden only five. She kept saying to "Mr. Romney" (that's Governor Romney to you, Ms. Crowley) "I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to." She didn't.
This interjection from Crowley is priceless: "Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you. Make it short."
Another one: "If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you." Do I even need to add that she never asked Obama to sit down?
Hilarious. One of the commenters for this article suggests that we have another debate, same format as this one, but let Ann Coulter be the moderator and choose the questions. Haha.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Romney in Lebanon, Ohio
This is Romney in front of a crowd in Lebanon, Ohio over the weekend. Of course the lamestream media will never report this, but Romney is said to be speaking in front of "2008 Obama-sized crowds" these days--in Ohio!
Where's Obama? They've had him hidden away at a 5-star golf resort in Virginia for the better part of a week. "Debate prep," is what they're calling it. I guess Camp David wasn't available. He also stayed at a golf resort in Nevada when he did his, um, prep work for the first debate, so actually I'm all for this strategy.
O evidently did a radio interview on Friday, and he told the radio host that "he never thought" during last week's presidential debate that Romney got the better of him. "I do think that on television it was clear that I was being too restrained when Mr. Romney was telling his tall tales. But the truth is, when you read the transcript, everything I said was true and a lot of what he said was not." Obama seems to think his only problem that night was that he was "too polite." And I do believe he really believes that. Having been brought up by a toxic narcissist, I recognize the signs: in their own minds, which is the only place that matters, narcissists can do no wrong. I'm sure O simply believes that the knuckle-draggers out there just aren't smart enough to realize how truly stellar his performance was that night.
Oh please God, let this fool continue to believe that he did just fine in the first debate. I was happy to hear that he's still using John F-ing Kerry to play the part of Romney. How that makes any sense whatsover is beyond me. Oh, they both were elected to political office in Massachusetts. And they both have money, although Romney made his the old fashioned way and Kerry got his from his wife. Romney is a decent, God-fearing, hard-working man who loves his family; Kerry is a nasty S.O.B. patrician snob. Well, it worked for O so well the first time, it will hopefully work out the same way again. Oh, and most hilariously, the moderator, Candy Crowley, is being played by Anita Dunn.
Crowley and Dunn
I've noticed that O Team has recently dropped the "liar" word from their lexicon. Evidently they figured out through their internal polling that, except for their leftist base, which is obviously going to vote for them anyway (or stay home), Americans don't like that word. I noticed that even "Axe" Axelrod didn't use the word on the Sunday shows.
I'm a little bit confused about why Obama is having to "cram" (the word being used by O Team) for days to get ready for this debate. Does he not know the issues of his own administration? Where's he been for the past four years?
The New York Times believes that "obviously" Barry doesn't need any help with his facts, so what he's spending six days working on is his style--seriously: Obama is learning "how to accuse Mr. Romney of twisting the facts without seeming rude." And who is Obama studying for style points? Smilin' Joe Biden! Watching the VP debate aboard Air Force One, O was heard to say "That was pretty good!" again and again at crazy Uncle Joe's zingers.
The NYT says that Tuesday's debate will be a chance for Obama to "come out swinging," although he "must not appear desperate." We are told that Obama is "working on how to answer questions posed by the audience in a respectful way." I fell off my chair laughing when I read that. If Obama had taken any real questions during the past four years from anyone other than his chosen sycophants, then he wouldn't have to be "working on" how to answer questions respectfully. This is maybe the most pathetic thing I've ever seen written about an American president. Obama just keeps taking us to new lows.
Update. Oh for the love of God. The audience for Tuesday's debate, in a townhall format, will be made up of UNDECIDED voters chosen by Gallup. If a person is undecided at this point, then you are either a complete political naif or you are a moron. In either case undecided voters have no business having any role in this debate. Give me people on the right, people on the left, libertarians, progressives--whatever. But undecideds? Good grief.
Even if this idea made any sense, how does Gallup go about proving someone is undecided? This is just ridiculous.
Update #2. This is where Obama has been locked up for his "debate prep." It's a five-star waterfront golf resort in Virginia. Three golf courses. BUT HE DIDN'T BRING HIS CLUBS! These people on the O-Team really think we're stupid. Enjoy it, dude. In fact, I hope he enjoys every day of the rest of his life, living off of our dime. I mean that. Just as long as he goes away for good, he can play golf every day of his freaking life, if that's what he wants to do.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
First came the pre-debate strategy of lowered expectations--Obama was "rusty" and "out of practice" because he's been working so hard at his day job. Yeah, like sitting around on the couch with the women of The View. Or playing his--100th?--round of golf. Or not showing up for his security briefings. Or meeting with his Cabinet twice. Yeah, he sure has been busy.
Now comes O-Team's new and improved post-debate-flop strategy, proving that Obama is not only a loser, he's a pathetic, sore loser: Obama's "Truth Team" has decided to push the narrative that Romney is a liar. "I've never heard so much whining or seen such unprofessional bad form from a top presidential campaign official," writes Keith Koffler at the White House Dossier, responding to senior White House political advisor David Plouffe repeatedly calling Gov. Mitt Romney a liar. Said Plouffe when asked what adjustments the O campaign will have to make for the next debate, "One of the things we're going to have to adjust to is that dishonesty." Plouffe also called Romney's debate performance "theatrically aggressive." That's right, Mr. Plouffe, we sure don't want an aggressive-type personality in the White House, that's for sure. We want Mr. Cool from the choom gang.
Hilariously, O was out on the stump on Thursday, doing his best version of the Comeback Kid. As the head of an administration that has had, shall we say, more trouble than most telling the American people the truth (such as the recent disaster in Benghazi, just to name one event--or how about, "You have to pass it to find out what's in it"--hahahahaha), it seems highly ironic to hear this coming from Mr. Truth: "You see, the man on stage last night, he does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney's decisions ... If you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth," Obama said. Naturally he didn't have the guts to say that to Romney's face on Wednesday night, instead making the statement while reading off of his teleprompter and standing in front of a hand-picked group of screaming, fainting, swooning Obamabots.
Obama's debate performance was an even bigger disaster than the media initially reported. This morning Gallup has Romney tied with O--a 5-point boost in Romney's poll rating since the last Gallup poll taken before the debate. Rasmussen has Romney down 1 point in Ohio and up 1 in Virginia. Ohio, Virginia, Florida--O Team has spent millions on anti-Romney ads in those states, "to build a fire wall," Michael Barone writes, in order to block Romney from getting a 270-vote majority in the Electoral College. "[T]he first numbers suggest the fire wall may be crumbling. We'll see if it holds."
There's a good article at PJ Media by Victor Davis Hanson: "Anatomy of a Disastrous Debate Performance." Hanson makes the point that almost no one argued after the debate that Obama came even close to winning--"so great was the risk for even a toadying media to look ridiculous and so clear-cut the ineptness of the president." The article points out the in what "weird fashion" Obama has been offering teleprompted counter-arguments on the campaign trail--arguments he didn't have the skill or brains to offer on his own during the debate. O has become "enfeebled" by his preference for brief appearances on favorable, celebrity TV and radio shows. His prior debate experience is thin and against undistinguished debaters: "His real and only political interests (and skills) are in caricaturing opponents, in a sort of trash-talking sports fashion . . . or in whipping up a crowd."
But watch out, Hanson warns. Obama will benefit in the next debate from dismal expectations, and the media will be prepared this time: "The realization that another rant by a liberal commentator could cement the reputation of Obama as an incompetent and add to the image of a hopelessly inept president will temper post-debate anger."
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Awww. Just look at their confused, sad, and angry faces. The Left had a meltdown last night after their Affirmative Action President lost the debate. Our Barack Obama evidently thought he would get extra points just for showing up. You can't blame him for thinking that, really, since it's always worked that way for him in the past. Imagine the confusion he must have felt last night when he came up against an opponent who was competent and prepared. It may have been a first for him, when that AA filter didn't work.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, seemed to enjoy the debate. At one point he even said, "This is fun, isn't it?"--and sounded as if he meant it.
In the week prior to the debate, Obama oh-so-cutely told the media that debate prep was "a drag": "Basically they're keeping me indoors all the time. It's a drag. They're making me do my homework." Well, evidently "they" weren't successful in getting Obama to prepare for the debate, since he came prepared with what looked like his "C" game (typical AA grade inflation). Some wag said, when hearing that, "He brought his C game? How do we know this wasn't his A game?" Heh.
My take on O's performance is that what we saw last night was the real Obama, unplugged from his teleprompter, without his presidential prerogative to turn his back on questioners or the ability to give his favorite answer, "My way or the highway." I've never bought the idea, constantly pushed by the Left, that O is a great orator and the smartest president evah. As Byron York wrote in the Washington Examiner, in what sounds like unintended although hilarious understatement: "Obama, on Wednesday night, looked like a president who hasn't had to face many sharp challenges lately." No Kidding. William L. Gensert at American Thinker had another way of putting it: "When you spend 4 years with a compliant media, you never need to be well versed on policy and detail, and he assumed it would be the same last night. . . . And if the man wasn't such an arrogant, nasty ideologue when the deck is stacked in his favor, I would feel sorry for him."
Some of the comments about last night, all from O sycophants:
"He sounded like he was defending a doctoral dissertation. His thoughts ranged from lengthy to endless."
"It's a little early for Obama to fall on the ball."
"Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney."
"Tonight was a rolling calamity for Obama. He was boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney."
[My personal favorite] "How is Obama's closing so fucking sad, confused, lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight."
Maybe one of the best quotes from last night came from Stuart Stevens, a top Romney advisor: "I don't think Obama had a particularly bad debate. He's had a bad four years." Ha.
Updates. Peggy Noonan has been ragging on Romney every chance she's had, so I almost skipped her column in the WSJ. But this is funny: "When Mr. Romney gave him the sweet-faced 'You're a cute little shrimp' look, and he gave it to him all night, Mr. Obama couldn't even look at him. When Mr. Obama stared down and nodded at his notes it looked, as someone observed in an email, like his impersonation of a bored wife." Hahaha.
John Sununu, once-governor of New Hampshire, and one of the sharpest Romney surrogates out there, called Obama lazy and detached. When asked if he didn't think that O's performance would improve in the next debate, Sanunu said, "When you're not that bright you can't get better prepared." The Emperor Has No Clothes.
And from my favorite political website evah--Michelle Obama's Mirror--
"Back in the game, back in his comfort zone; debating himself. And WINNING!"
This photo can't make O Team very happy--this guy is obviously only comfortable when he has his security blanket, the teleprompter.
This article by Lisa Fritsch at American Thinker ("How the Liberal Media Ruined Obama") makes the point that the sycophantic liberal media has done Obama no favors: "Obama has been brought up by an adoring and overindulgent liberal media who have coddled him for the last eight years" and have continually mislead O into thinking he would never have to answer for his record.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Obama before his speech at the U.N. He seems pretty pleased with himself, but I'm not sure why.
Here's a great article by Hugh Hewitt at the Washington Examiner: "Obama's poker tells." How can you tell when O has entered the land of thinly disguised fantasy or obvious dissembling during the debate with Romney on Wednesday night? Watch for these five tells, including my favorite, O's parade of straw men (his favorite too, it seems). "He will set up arguments that have never been made in the service of Republican goals that have never existed, and then he will denounce both."
Monday, September 24, 2012
President Obama will take time to sit down with the ladies of The View while he's in New York, but other than making a speech at the U.N. on Tuesday, he won't take the time to meet face-to-face with any world leaders. Says Reuters, "Despite simmering global crises, he will skip traditional private meetings with foreign counterparts and squeeze his U.N. visit into just 24 hours so he can jump back on the campaign trail."
Even senior Obama advisor Robert Gibbs had a hard time explaining that one away when Chris Wallace asked him: "You say that he's got schedules, that foreign leaders have schedules. But the President has blocked out time to appear on The View on Tuesday. So, he has time for Whoopie Goldberg but he doesn't have time for world leaders?"
Gibbs' answer was that Obama will be "actively involved" at the U.N. General Assembly (he's giving a speech) and besides, they have telephones at the White House. Really, Robert?
Up-Chuck Todd at MSNBC "News" is perplexed. Well, no, perplexed is the wrong word, since Chuck seems to know exactly why O is having zero face-to-face meetings: "This is about a 'do no harm' trip, and his aides don't want any unexpected news." Well, guess what, Chuck: the "unexpected" news of the day is that fearless leader-from-behind isn't having any meetings. In a normal world, Chuck, that's news.
The O administration continues in its own tradition of telling convenient lies when inconvenient truths threaten. White House "spokesman" Jay Carney says that O's attendance at the U.N. General Assembly is "in keeping with attendance by past presidents engaged in a re-election campaign." Well, that's strictly true only if you parse the word "attendance." Yes, he'll be attending. But according to an A.P. report, more than just "attending," both Presidents George W. Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1996 held a series of meeting with foreign leaders in their re-election years.
Updates. Obama is such a petty, little man. KT McFarland, a woman with excellent creds in national security, says that everyone is missing the point about Obama not meeting with foreign leaders at the U.N. General Assembly. On Fox News this morning, she said that by not meeting with foreign leaders, Obama has effectively blocked Romney from meeting with them as well.
"In an election year, it is the responsibility of the leaders to also meet with the opposition candidate. Romney has the right to meet with all of those world leaders too, if Obama does--Obama doesn't, Romney doesn't. The administration doesn't want to get Romney in those pictures with world leaders--he would look presidential. They get nothing out of it. If Romney meets with these leaders, he gets everything out of it--he looks presidential, he looks like he has the ability to be on that world stage. If Obama meets with them, he doesn't get anything."
Why won't the world leaders meet with Romney if they don't meet with Obama? Because then they would be accused, as Netanyahu was, of "influencing" the election by favoring one candidate over another, which would be bad optics. It does seem, however, that by not meeting with them face-to-face, Obama stands to be criticized for his lack of leadership "on the world stage." I imagine he's betting on the lamestream media covering for him, which makes it worthwhile if he can keep Romney from getting any kind of positive press.
h/t to Gateway Pundit
Charles Hurt at The Washington Times has a good opinion piece on the subject of Obama stiffing world leaders while he sits on the couch at The View: "Pundits get unimpeded 'View' of leading from behind. --"And most cloying of all, he brought his wife along so he could display all of his best giggle and banter that makes him such a swell man around the house."
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Well, that didn't take long. Now we're getting finger-wagging lectures from Mohamed Morsi, the new President of Egypt and a leading figure in the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. "America must change," lectures Morsi. Who could have seen that coming?
Obama has "offered" to meet with Morsi next week when the U.N. General Assembly convenes in New York. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with Morsi on Saturday. While he is willing to meet with this Muslim "brother," Obama has given the back of his hand to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama has refused a face-to-face meeting with Netanyahu, either in New York or in Washington.
My question is this: Will Morsi meet with Obama? So far, all we've heard about is Obama's offer. Has Morsi accepted? Leave it to The New York Times to give Morsi a forum to lecture the United States--"Mr Morsi sought in a 90-minute interview with The Times to introduce himself to the American public." According to the article, it is up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world and to revitalize the alliance with Egypt. Is this why our pantywaist president couldn't bring himself to even mention the storming of the U.S. embassy in Cairo in his remarks in the Rose Garden speech when he spoke about Libya and our murdered ambassador?
By May of 2010, Obama's Middle East policies were already being termed a "disaster" by entities such as the GLORIA Center (Global Research in International Affairs), and in September of 2012, "disaster" continues to be the word of the day in describing Obama and the Middle East. In an editorial written by David Horowitz ("Obama's Foreign Policy Is a National Disaster"): "It wasn't enough that Obama pushed away our allies - he has also emboldened and empowered our enemies."
Dan Senor, called a "foreign policy hawk" by the Left (probably the nicest thing they call him) and also a foreign policy advisor to Mitt Romney, echoed the sentiments of others on the Right viewing Obama's outreach to the Middle East: "Chaos in the Arab Spring. Chaos where allies in Israel feel they can't rely on us. You saw the flare up with Israel and the president. Do you think the president's policy in the Middle East has been a success? It looks like a disaster to most Americans."
Update: Obama has "quietly" cancelled his plans to meet with Egypt's new Islamist president. I still wonder of Morsi accepted or declined O's invitation.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
If this had happened under a Republican administration, the leftist media would be demanding the head of the Secretary of State. They would be demanding the impeachment of an incompetent President. But because it's Barack Hussein Obama's administration, the Libyan attacks and murders at the American consulate have been largely ignored by the liberal press. Instead, the headlines for days from the leftist press were all about Romney, how he shoots before he aims, how the timing of his criticisms was wrong.
Well, I say to Romney, buddy, let it rip, because the leftist press is going to tear you up for anything you say, how you say it, and when you say it anyway.
It is now being reported that the O administration's State Department had advance knowledge that an attack was coming two days before 9/11 when the four Americans were killed. The exclusive report first came from the UK Independent: "Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination." Then yesterday, Fox News reported, from "an intelligence source on the ground in Libya," that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to the killing of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans. "There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie."
The O adminstration has come out with lie after lie about what happened in Libya, starting on day one with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Her career ought to be over. We should be demanding that she either resign or be fired. However, naturally, the O administration is denying prior knowledge of the plot of the attack--and it all depends what the meaning of is, is. Said a spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: "We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." Actionable. How carefully they parse their words.
Barack Obama's Middle East policies have failed. The narcissist-in-chief who thought his mere Barackiness would change the way the ME sees America was wrong. Barack Obama is a failure on a grand scale. He's an amateur in over his head. God help the USA and the world if the man is put back in office for a second term.
Update: Senator Lindsey Graham (R, South Carolina), is calling for a congressional investigation into the consulate attack: "The Obama Administration's insistence that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya resulted from a riot inspired by a film, rather than a planned and coordinated attack, defies common sense. . . . The bottom line is statements by the Obama Administration must be properly scrutinized, and that is the proper role of Congress."
Other updates. We have Marines at the French embassy but not in Libya? What gives with that? Evidently, the O administration decided to keep a "low profile" in Libya following Muammar Gaddafi's death. WTF? Protection of the American mission in Benghazi was outsourced to a British firm, since O didn't even want an American company in charge of private security. The British firm (note my "shocked" face) was willing to abide by the "no bullets" Rules of Engagement (ROE). Somewhere there is a ROE document for Libya with Hillary Clinton's signature on it. So where was this British security team? Did they run away? Why haven't we heard that a few of them died or were injured in the attack?
The State Department has declined to make the ROE for Libya available. Breitbart News has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the document.
The Wall Street Journal reports that there were just four Libyan military guards on the exterior perimeter who may have been armed, but who were ordered not to fire in order not to "inflame" the situation.
The investigation into what happened to the four Americans killed in the attack has been given to the FBI, so now the State Department and Obama can hide behind that fact, saying, "[w]e have an open FBI investigation on the death of these four Americans, we are not going to be in a position to talk at all about what the U.S. Government may or may not be learning about how any of this happened . . . not any of it . . . until after the
Isn't it great that Obama is so well-protected from any sort of criticism about what happened when four Americans were killed in Benghazi. Too bad Ambassador Stevens and his security personnel weren't equally protected.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
U.N.Ambassador Susan Rice thinks the American people are stupid--or not paying attention, but I think it's more likely she thinks we're stupid. She was on all of the Sunday morning talking heads shows telling the American people that the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premediated. Nope, not at all. A small number of bad people came to the consulate (on 9/11, but that's just some random date on the calendar, not worthy of mention) with their anti-aircraft atomic cannon and RPG's, and this "spontaneous attack" spun out of control. It was all because of a video and had nothing to do with the White House policy in the Middle East.
Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was hilarious: "Do you really believe that?" he asked Rice, with a barely suppressed smirk.
"Chris," said the Ambassador, "I absolutely believe that"--said with a straight face. I guess that's what you learn to do in ambassador school.
So there you go, that's the insulting, ridiculous Obama administration line and they're sticking to it--and they'll probably get away with it because: 1) the leftist lamestream media will cover all day long for Obama; and 2) they're probably right about at least 50% or so of the American people being either a) stupid, or b) not paying attention. They're hoping it's at least 51% so they will continue in power for the next four years and take this country down.
Never mind that this information comes as news to the Libyan government, who evidently didn't get the talking points memo this morning from O Team. Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf told CBS' Face the Nation: "It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival."
What must it be like to be a person like Susan Rice--her politics aside, I asume she's a reasonably intelligent person--and be required to come on national TV all morning long and repeatedly tell lies and make a damned fool out of yourself? I wonder if it bothers her at all? I wonder, when she got her assignment this morning, if maybe she didn't throw a shoe at her computer screen or something?
There's one fact alone that belies Rice's assertion that this was a spontaneous act (caused by a video, don't you know) by a "small and savage group," (that's talking point diplomacy) as Sec'y of State Hillary Clinton said on the day our Libyan ambassador was murdered--that this spontaneous group just somehow spontaneously knew the location of the safe house in Benghazi.
Here was what Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said this morning after Rice's appearance on Wallace's show: "The way the attack took place, I have serious questions. It seemed to be a military-style, coordinated. They had indirect fire coordinated with direct fire, rocket attacks. They were able to launch two different separate attacks on locations there near the consulate and they repelled a fairly significant Libyan force that came to rescue the embassy." If you missed Rogers' response on Fox News Sunday this morning, you might want to check it out. This was the most adult, measured, intelligent, non-partisan response I've heard from a politician--maybe ever. He has an interesting history, in that he worked as a special agent for the FBI in Chicago, specializing in organized crime and public corruption, from 1989 to 1994.
The O adminstration has sent the FBI to work up the "crime scene" in the Libyan consulate--oh, but wait, that's not quite right. The FBI will go to Libya as soon as it's safe enough for them to do so. But according to Susan Rice this morning, the FBI is there now investigating what happened. Well, Susan, you're a liar and your tongue is going to turn black. "FBI agents' arrival to investigate in Benghazi has been delayed due to security concerns--another example of how little clarity there is on the ground in Libya, reports Jamie Dettmer from Tripoli." An excellent article at The Daily Beast.
P.S. Check out today's post at Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog: "It's the Movie, Stupid! How many times do I have to tell you? --definitely one of the most intelligent and entertaining political blogs with some of the best commenters on any blog, anywhere.
P.P.S. Clarice Feldman is always good. She has posted an article at American Thinker: "The White House and Press Create a Fairy Tale Version of History." Feldman explores three myths surrounding O's administration and the events in the Middle East in the past week. Myth No. 3: "Obama might not know what he's doing but his staff does." Excellent article.
Another update. Ben Stein writes a diary at The American Spectator. His latest post is titled "End Times." --"time for Mr. Romney to go back on attack mode. Why did the State Department not protect our Ambassador in Benghazi? Why isn't Mrs. Clinton resigning over this? Why isn't Secretary of Defense Panetta apologizing and resigning? There was a colossal failure here. The President is accountable. Why isn't he taking some responsibility here?"
Update again. Roger Kimball at P.J. Media calls Susan Rice's performance this morning "peddling the administrations's desperate fantasy narrative." He mentions "the single most repellent bit of truth twisting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's plaintive observation that 'Libyans carried Chris's body to the hospital.'" Frankly, I think Mrs. Clinton ought to go to hell for a lie like that one. Have you seen the photos of Chris Stevens's body being dragged through the streets? I only hope the poor man was dead.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Last night on Hannity, Michelle Malkin blasted Obama and his lack of foresight for protecting the embassies abroad on the anniversary of 9/11--and the leftist media for covering for him. She was on fire, even more than usual.
Hannity: Michelle, when you look at the height of this Arab spring, and Tahir Square, where American reporters were getting punched in the face . . . there were some in the media and the punditry class, and the President, and the Vice President, telling the world, “Democracy,” as the President helped push Mubarak out. Now we’re giving the Muslim Brotherhood 1.5 billion dollars and meetings in the White House. And the President fails to acknowledge what happened yesterday was the result of radical Muslim extremists.
Michelle: Right. That’s right. He won’t say those words, he won’t acknowledge the coddling that this administration is responsible for, and the subsidizing with taxpayer dollars of the kind of Islamic violent agitation that we are now seeing. Keep in mind that the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the so-called Freedom and Justice Party [FJP], is the one that’s instigating now all of these so-called peaceful protests that are going to erupt from now through Friday, through next Friday and every Friday because every Friday in the jihad world it’s Riot Friday against anything anti-Western.
Pretext is the word of the day, the word of the century here, because any perceived insult that can be exploited to castigate, to demonize, and to provoke violence against the West is the agenda of this group, Muslim Brotherhood, and all of its affiliates. “Jihad is our way” is part of their official slogan. “Death for the sake of Allah” is what they strive for. And the network of Wahhabi subsidized groups that have been offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood across this country—it’s very important that people understand that. What was 9/11 about? It’s not about “Will we ever forget, never forget.” It’s will we ever learn, it’s the Muslim Student Association, it’s the ISNA, it’s the Muslim-American Society—it’s all of the groups that the Bush Justice Department helped prosecute. But of course, whether it’s a Republican State Department or a Democratic State Department, you’ve got this attitude of dhimmitude that is killing Americans abroad and that threaten us here at home.
Hannity: But the President now is sucking up to the Muslim Brotherhood. They get invited to the White House, they get American taxpayer dollars, they push Mubarak out, paving the way for the Brotherhood. This is their definition of democracy. How is it possible that the President didn’t read the Pew Poll, didn’t read the other polls, that the people of Egypt wanted sharia law, that they wanted a theocracy . . . how is it possible, with all of his intelligence—we sit here on the set of Fox News Channel, we predicted with pinpoint accuracy what would happen, [but] the President, with all his resources, got it wrong, and to this day can’t admit it, and he’s off campaigning in Vegas.
Michelle: Well, it’s willful and deliberate whitewashing of the civilizational threats that face us. And I was completely disgusted by the clip that you showed at the beginning of your show, Sean, because . . . These optics suck White House! I mean we have four Americans who are dead who were butchered and slaughtered because this administration did not have the foresight to fortify these embassies on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. And there he is with all of his fanbois and fangirls in Vegas raising money while they scream ‘I love you!’ in the middle of an international crisis.
And how about his statement this afternoon in the Rose Garden. He couldn’t muster up a single flash of anger or outrage that these Americans are dead now?
Hannity: “Tough day” is what he said.
Michelle: “Tough day. Woe is me.” The bloodlessness of his statement makes my blood boil. And it should make every American’s blood boil, especially in this week, which was a tough week for all of the 3,000 families of people who died on 9/11.
Hannity: The worst part—this is why everybody’s blood should be boiling, everybody. Because for nine and a half hours the official position of the Obama administration’s State Department was an official apology to the people who breached our embassy and ripped down our flag—and we apologize to them?
Michelle: Their knee-jerk response is whitewash, it always has been whitewash. What did the State Department do, what did the U.S. embassy do, after they were caught with this ridiculous statement that the White House cut and ran from? They tried to delete it. And thanks to social media—we had it at our site at Twitchy.com—those deleted tweets that they tried to bury down the memory hole. And then we have this feckless lapdog media that’s conspiring to make this whole issue about Romney, instead of about Obama. It’s on his hands. The buck stops with you, buddy.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Earlier in the day, when the U.S. embassy in Cairo was attacked by a radical mob, O's administration, including Hillary Clinton, issued an apology: "We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." Never mind, everyone, that the attack came on 9/11.
Well, O and Hillary, that apology strategy worked really well for you.
Meanwhile, O has snubbed Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that his schedule is too full to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister, while on the same day it's announced that he will appear on the Letterman show.
Update. Clinton's statements are already being scrubbed from the internet as O's administration attempts to distance themselves from the apology. Politico has come out saying that O's administration "disavows" the Cairo apology. Do they also disavow their Secretary of State?
Breitbart's Big Journalism has a post about the coverage of these events by the New York Times: New York Times Buries Attacks; Joins Obama in Capitulating to Mob, Attacking Romney. Where's the headline about the American ambassador to Libya being killed? Nowhere.
The post, written by Joel B Pollack, says that the real reason for outrage at the NYT is because "events have placed the Obama administration's foreign policy of appeasement in a deservedly bad light." The leftist media will continue to drag O over the finish line of this election in any way they can. Ignore the murder of an American ambassador? Check.
Here's another post at Breitbart's Big Government: Obama Camp Condemns Romney Before Condemning Attacks in Egypt, Libya. "If only the Obama campaign could find half the outrage they saved for Romney to level at the murderers."
Monday, September 10, 2012
Yet an unbelievable percentage of "the people" still seem to love the guy.
Would someone please explain to me how President Empty Chair actually got a bounce out of that Democrat convention? That comes from Gallup: Forty-three percent of Americans say what they saw at last week's Democrat convention makes them more likely to vote for Barack Obama. OK, so I guess 43% of Americans are stupid.* That's the only thing I can conclude. I guess what I would ask about that number is what I ask about every poll: who are the people being polled? "Likely voters" poll very differently than generic "Americans." But that doesn't matter, since the lamestream media now has their talking point: Obama got a bounce from the convention; Romney did not. And we'll hear that for the next week.
So the generic Gallup group is in love with O, but are they likely to get up off the couch and vote for their hero? I sure hope not. The enthusiasm isn't there even if the love is. And O is out there on the campaign trail telling his sycophants that "you'll love me even more" in his second term. Well, buddy, only if you give away more "free" stuff, which I guess is what he's going to do--or at least he'll tell these poor sops that that's what he's going to do.
According to Rasmussen, 17% of people polled rate the economy as good or excellent. And yet, also according to Rasmussen, 52% of voters say that they at least somewhat approve of O's job performance. There's such a huge disconnect between those two polls, that I don't even know where to start with it. How can his job approval be even approaching that number? We are looking an economic apolalypse straight in the face, and 52% of voters say they approve of Obama?
Good Lord, you fools, wake up. Did you people miss the report from the Federal Reserve saying that the median U.S. household lost 39% of its wealth between 2007 and 2010? And what has O and his administration done to make those numbers better? Just askin'. I wonder how much more we've lost between 2010 and 2012? Bet on it that we won't hear anything about that until after the election--or never, if the Dims have their way.
P.S. My friends at Hot Air remind me not to panic about the polls. There's a new one out from Public Policy Polling (PPP) that has O leading in Ohio by 5 points over Romney, 50-45. Says PPP, "This is the largest lead PPP has found for Obama in an Ohio poll since early May. Last month Obama led 48-45."
But it's the sample, stupid--and that proves true in the PPP poll as well. The sample has a D/R/I split of 41/37/22. The 37% for Repubs matches their 2010 midterm turnout, which had a D/R/I of 36/37/38. Very sneaky--very clever of PPP, but we're not stupid. We're actually learning to ask these questions (some of us). That 41% for Dems significantly exceeds turnout. Plus they're playing fast and loose with the Independent numbers. Has there been a 16-point drop in Independents in Ohio? Has Ohio suddenly become a lot more Democrat than it was in 2010? Other models, according to Hot Air, have Ohio deadlocked and in some cases even edging towards Romney.
This kind of "poll" is useful for the lamestream leftist press to use to push their meme about Obama taking a lead since the convention. Clearly they've got so much invested in this clown that they're going to continue down that road. But stay tuned....
P.P.S. Here's an article pushing back against the lamestream meme at Big Journalism: "Facts, History Undermine Media Con That Obama Win Is Inevitable ," by John Nolte. Over the past ten days, what hasn't surprised me is how the corrupt media created its own pro-Obama reality coming out of the conventions. What does surprise me is how this coordinated psy-ops push is working to panic a lot of conservatives. Read the article here.
*Actually, there might be another explanation for the Obama-friendly Gallup poll. Check out Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs: "Obama Bullying Gallup . . . DOJ Is Suing Them."