The final presidential debate review may be framed accordingly: Obama will want to be judged on his foreign policy intentions; Romney will want voters to judge Obama on his foreign policy actions.
As with arms control (and government intervention, writ large), the problem with the Obama Administration isn’t that it hasn’t been given a chance to succeed; it’s that its success, like tomorrow, is always only a day away.
The Romney theme will be that America needs new leadership because the cost of the status quo is greater than the risk of change. The President—apparently both writing and believing his own press releases—said he’d restore America from the grinding foreign policy failures of George W. Bush. The reality is America’s position in the world is the lowest it’s been since the Civil War.
As Winston Churchill might have suggested, Obama has confused disarmament with peace. When we have peace, disarmament will follow. And to paraphrase Curtis LeMay, when you kill enough terrorists, they’ll stop fighting (and even the President knows this at some level, hence the ongoing drone wars). The lesson of history is that peace ends in war and war ends in peace.
Finally, the left’s pillow-biting media will remain incapable of understanding the difference between a man who sheds light and one who lights fires. The Barack Obama experience has been a fool’s errand and Americans have played the fool.
According to insiders, the President’s campaign team, reeling from his odious debate performance, has changed it’s approach. Just how odious was the performance? Even Mr. Obama’s re-election staff is quietly calling it “the Denver debacle.”
The new tact, said one official not authorized to speak publicly, will use a sort of “good-guy, bad-guy” approach to try and make inroads with voters. The “good guy” part of the plan is thought to be a subtle jab at Mr. Romney and will use a picture of Big Bird with the words “Vote Obama” beneath it. A second part of the good-guy plan will employ the vast pro-Obama library of Andrea Mitchell video clips.
As for the “bad guy” part of the plan? “Our idea,” said a second official, “is to try and better re-demonize Mitt Romney—that’s why we’re doing the liar-liar thing, and why we got the media and Hollywood to do the same—while telling voters who look like they’ve switched their allegiance, or might do so, that they’re simple-minded idiots who don’t understand all the things the President has done for them.”
Mr. Obama is said to be on-board with the new plan and has been already been promoting his idea that Mr. Romney is a liar at campaign stops, fund raisers, on the campaign web site, and in social media.
The second official offered the good-guy, bad-guy act was not an move of desperation, but was rather an element of the campaign to be held in strategic reserve until needed. He also offered that should the approach fail to provide the intended results, the President will have no choice but to cancel the remaining presidential debates “as a result of Mr. Romney’s lies.” Should in-house polling show the cancellations to be detrimental to Mr. Obama’s re-election effort, the campaign is also said to be considering re-visiting their earlier demand to have Jon Stewart and Bill Maher moderate the debates.
(Philup Nubia and Zerxes Jones-Smith from PMNS’s Mumbai Information, Research, and Translation Service enclave contributed to this article.)
What’s truly terrifying to the President’s handlers and fans? That after the debacle in Denver they’ve now seen the real Barack Obama Barry Sorento Barry Obama Barack Obama.
Mitt Romney is not John McCain. John McCain made Bob Dole look energetic, made John Kerry look connected to the citizenry, and made Barack Obama look presidential. And Mitt Romney made Barack Obama look like John McCain (literally, as Joe Biden might say) to all America.
Consider the fear and loathing of the Obamunist camp: that the next two presidential debates will only further confirm what America has already learned.
No wonder David Axelrod had the President’s transcripts, standardized test scores, and grades sealed.
The liberal media thinks they have the definitive Mitt Romney gotcha, the fact that Romney has recognized—and said with his out loud voice—that government has become the tool (not de jour, but des décennies) for forced redistribution.
Or to paraphrase a long dead (and still disreputable) white male, from each according to their ability to pay, to each according to the government standard.
The liberal media thinks the observation might be both a profound destructor of Romney’s presidential campaign and a useful point of departure to highlight the greatness of government. From the paragon of Learjet liberalism, The New Republic and author Jonathan Cohn:
…the fact that the entitlement state has grown shouldn’t, by itself, alarm us. It’s actually a sign of progress, because it’s a reminder that the government has stepped in to do what the market would not.
Liberals fail to ignore that things happen in a market for a reason. Why does manufacturing move offshore? Cheaper labor. Why do families not take care of their own? Because the state does it. Why are food stamp numbers soaring? The government condones and encourages such behavior. Why don’t children have fathers in their lives? Because mother government will provide.
With any luck, Romney’s controversial comments will get people to think about these contradictions [regarding the elderly, health care for the poor, and Social Security]—and to realize that they like government a lot more than they seem to realize.
While most people are willing to accept a large and continuing gift of cash or services, especially when it didn’t cost the recipient, the disconnect that liberals fail to see is that these programs are unsustainable. I’d like to only be billed $10 to have my car repaired, to fill my gas tank, or for a shopping cart full of groceries, but I know any business offering such deals would soon be out of business no matter how much I like these prices. Such examples are not market failures but failures to understand basic economic principles.
We generally prefer steak to hamburger, Cadillacs to Chevys, and high-speed internet over dial-up and perhaps a lot more than we seem to realize. However, just because this is true doesn’t mean the nation can afford the more expensive options no matter how much we like them or for that matter, how much the above programs—and thousands of other redistribution programs—clear the liberal conscience. What matters to the nation is if they are affordable. Many costly programs are affordable if for a short period of time. But we’re not talking about short periods of time.
Is it wrong in the liberal mind when the government makes promises it knows can’t be kept or when it transfers today’s debt to future generations? To paraphrase Cohn, it’s probably actually a sign of progress that we’ve learned we must defer to the wisdom and power of the state. (Of course, the state is made up of highly flawed human beings like you and me.)
And the reality is we’re in the mess we’re in because we’ve over-deferred to the state.
Many people see the unsustainable trajectory the nation is on. Unemployment still sky-high; underemployment higher still; workforce participation is down; food stamps are up. There’s sovereign debt that cannot be repaid without massive inflation and sovereign promises that cannot be kept without serious reform. As it is, makers are on track to get to keep less while takers will be taking more.
And yet, Democrats remain in deep denial about accountability and the future of the nation.
Democrat’s redistribution ideas won’t work because takers will always want more and makers will be disinclined to give more. Most people’s wants are virtually limitless, especially when someone else pays.
More Democrat regulation won’t work because it increases the barriers to competition that enable the free market to thrive.
The Democrat’s crony capitalism won’t work because it leads to misinvestment and waste. Who needs a million government-sponsored green jobs if the cost of each green job is six hundred thousand dollars? Only Joe Biden would think that’s how we’ll grow our way out of this.
We are governed by an Administration that thinks the government builds roads, schools, and dams and that individual initiative and hard work are oxymorons. The reality is that people and companies build our infrastructure using taxpayer provided funding and public debt. This Administration could not have things more backwards.
Even then, the terms “building” and “investing” are confused by the President (and his fellow travelers) with “adding value.” Bridges to nowhere add no value. Solyndra lost value. The GM bailout lost value. The Justice Department’s Fast and Furious did not make America safer; it reduced our safety as well as the safety of many Mexican citizens.
Adding teachers, teacher assistants, educational bureaucrats, and cops where they are not needed does not add value and the costs added to taxpayer and public-debt funded projects via government “oversight” are not nearly consummate with the “value” they add.
So what to do?
We need a new president, who is willing to deal with the nation (and world) as it is and not just as he wants it to be. Otherwise, as President Obama has already shown us, it will be a case of keep doing what you’re doing, keep getting what you got.
Thomas Sowell suggests the President possesses a dangerous mixture of confidence and ignorance.
That’s a kinder euphemism than portraying Barry as an empty chair or describing him as an “idiot with initiative” as some do.
Regardless, on Election Day remember this: if you think the empty suit doesn’t fit, vote Romney.
The Obama campaign has its tail between its legs—another ethical fail—as the President’s super-PAC has created an anti-Romney ad based on a foundation of lies and mendacity.
Lies and mendacity are useful in attempting to have Obama’s record examined, but are they forms of protected speech?
The revelation drew an immediate rebuke from Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams, who said Obama and his campaign “are willing to say and do anything to hide the president’s disappointing record.”
“But they’re not entitled to repeatedly mislead voters,” he said.
Desperate ads for desperate campaigns.
Barack Obama is, to paraphrase Hunter Thompson, running a 2008 campaign in 2012.
The 2008 campaign allowed the unknown and poorly vetted Obama to successfully tar John McCain, an unattractive, weak, and plodding candidate (that is, Bob Dole without any of Bob Dole’s redeeming qualities) as the flag-bearing successor to the war-weariness and later, the financial meltdowns that occurred during the Bush Administration.
In 2012, Obama owns the wars and all that goes with it (and check out the roaring silence) and the economy is in the toilet. Yet Obama is again attempting to tar the Republican candidate, a more attractive, stronger, and less plodding candidate, with the “he’s George Bush” tag.
In 2008 Obama made McCain into a Bush surrogate. But the Obama challenge for 2012 is he has a record of his own and it’s quite an ugly one at that. From Thompson, circa early 1973:
Any incumbent President is unbeatable, except in a time of mushrooming national crisis or a scandal so heinous – and with such obvious roots in the White House – as to pose a clear and present danger to the financial security and/or physical safety of millions of voters in every corner of the country.
If Thompson is correct—his personal judgment is not that great, but his observations are often on-track—Obama’s loss in November is all but assured.
There are many great reasons to salute U.S. veterans.
While Barry Oh’s! exploits with his lucky skull bong and the barf couch are slowly being revealed—years after his candidacy and thanks to a book (versus the traditional media)—there are also other critical election year stories emerging: 1) the LA Times has discovered Ann Romney rides horses and 2) the Washington Post-it says a Mormon militia, in 1857, was involved in a shoot-out in Arkansas.
Meanwhile the traditional media have remained remarkable incurious about Barry’s sealed records and even less so regarding “vetting” of Michelle Obama.
Come on Barry and Michelle, information longs to be free, so why are you keeping yours in prison?
Of course their candidate has a failed domestic and foreign policy record, so in large part, that’s to be expected.
On the other hand, the campaign has had so much ‘splainin’ to do that they’ve been unable to dodge avoidable (avoidable through coordination and vetting) blunders of all sorts like Joe Biden forcing Barry Oh!’s hand on homosexual marriage, the idiotic Julia campaign, the Forward slogan, the Obama-provided ‘born in Kenya’ biographical blurb, and the the latest blame Bain face plant.
The Obama campaign’s latest attack tells the story of workers at an Indiana office supply company who lost their jobs after a Bain-owned company named American Pad & Paper (Ampad) took over their company and drove it out of business.
Here’s what the Obama Web video doesn’t mention: A top Obama donor and fundraiser had a much more direct tie to the controversy and actually served on the board of directors at Richardson, Texas-based Ampad, which makes office paper products.
Jonathan Lavine is a long-time Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. He is also one of President Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. He has already raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign this election, according to Federal Election Commission records.
While politics ain’t beanbag, it was for Obama in 2008 thanks in large part to the traditional media papering over and/or flatly ignoring their candidate’s flaws. But it ain’t 2008.
Fool us once, shame on Obama. Fool us twice, shame on us.
The Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, dogs his fellow Democrats and Obamunists for their senseless and ineffective attacks on Mitt Romney.
Cory, bus; bus, Cory.
And for you others, the beatings will continue until morale improves. The most serious crime against the glorious revolution is counter-revolution; the second most serious crime is dissention.
As for the criticism that the Team Obama’s Bain attack is part of “nauseating” political discourse with which Booker has become “very uncomfortable,” Axelrod said, “on this particular instance he was just wrong.”
Booker is not the only Democrat to question the aggressive, negative portrayal of Romney’s work in private equity. Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. said today he agreed with “the substance” of Booker’s comments and “would not have backed out.”
“I agree with him, private equity is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances,” the Democrat said in a separate appearance on MSNBC earlier in the day.
Former Obama administration economic adviser Steven Rattner made similar comments last week, calling a new Obama campaign TV ad attacking Romney’s role in the bankruptcy of a Bain-owned steel company “unfair.”
“Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for its investors,” Rattner said. ”‘It did it superbly well, acting within the rules, acting very responsibly. … This is part of capitalism, this is part of life. I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.”
The good news for the Obama campaign is this kerfuffle keeps the nation from focusing on the unemployment rate, the national debt, Taxmageddon, and a nuclear Iran (among other things).
By CHARLES BLOWS
We liberals knew this day would come.
The New York Chime-Ins reported on Thursday that a Republican “super mega mondo PAC” was mulling a plan to resurrect Barry Obama’s spiritual chimichanga, Rev. Jeremiah B.A. Bulfraugh, as a WMD against the president.
The proposal said it would do what John McCain, whom it labels “a white-haired, malignant melanoma, Bob Dole look-alike” (Yowsah!), would not do in 2008.
It called for using Jeremiah Bulfraugh to “increase the dis-ease” and to “inflame the brain” among independents using the episode “that be never properly exploited.” How I love the use of sinister ebonics, especially if it detracts from Obamanomics.
But there was one description of the president that truly seized me:
“Obama, a quasi-heterosexual black Jimmy Carter, is a hyper-partisan, hyper-liberal, mega-politician with glimmer.”
For non-Republicans, this sentence is deliciously delicious, simultaneously sadly accurate, and non-incendiary — the perfect anti-Barry Oh! fodder.
Let’s dissect it, shall we? Scalpel!
First, there is the phrase ‘quasi-heterosexual.’ This phrase is usually defined as a man keenly interested in grooming his poodle. But despite the definition, the term isn’t all about sexuality. In its most true sense, it’s about President Obama wearing mom jeans — as he told the “Today Show” in 2009, “I don’t need a baggy crotch” — which is far more quasi-heterosexual than Mitt Romney of the big hair, traffic-cone epidermis, and Gap skinny jeans with baggy crotch.
But ‘quasi-heterosexual’ is rarely appropriately applied. On the contrary, it’s often delivered with a snicker to question real sexuality and to re-feminize my President, and feminists writ large. In a politically incorrect culture, “quasi-heterosexual” has become the non-bigot’s anti-Obama taunt.
Wait, did I get that right?
I guess it doesn’t matter, because while Obama’s bonfire of the insanities may be true, the part that rings even truer is the President’s desire for a legacy, no matter how inept his legacy may be.
As historian Dorcas ‘Weezey’ Noughgoodwin wrote in her book “Dealing with Rivals: The Political Un-Genius of Jimmy Carter” about his darkest era:
“Even in this moment of despair, the strength of Jimmy Carter was his weakness to engrave his name in television history for any reason, idiot, or if need be, sub-idiot. So like the ancient geeks, Jimmy Carter and those who fixed old computers, Obama’s ‘ideas of a person’s worth’ are tied to the way others, both contemporaries and future generations, perceive him.”
No president, regardless of ineptness, can be knocked for such a Jimmy Carter-like ambition. Or for achieving Carter’s non-success.
Now to the “hyper-partisan, hyper-liberal” accusation: somewhat false, but not very much. Yes, Obama is a non-pragmatic, left-leaning ideologue, much to the consternation of both even more devout leftists and normal Americans. But the media will fail to acknowledge this, so efforts to paint him as an extremist will never work.
And remember, Romney used to be a pragmatic, right-leaning centrist until he became a racist, which he was at birth.
So while Obama may have a “bit of the glimmer of the ‘American-past’ in him,” that is, he’ll modify his positions for expediency, Romney isn’t nearly as bad.
Wait, am I making a case against Obama or for Romney? I’m all confused.
I suppose it doesn’t matter much if you’re a dedicated reader.
Then there is my favorite phrase: “elitist.” It’s obvious to even me that Obama is hardly smart even if he’s a capable reader. But still, stupid to Barry Oh! is like lack of integrity is to Al Gore, so what’s the big deal? So maybe elitism is perhaps the most asinine charge to level against Obama considering he is the non-epitome of the phrase per its original intention.
And before I forget, it gets worse: any anti-Obama proposal is racially charged, no matter what. So anyone who criticizes my President does racial damage to America while protecting Republicans and white Hispanics.
As evidence, on Thursday, Joe Ricketts, the Warren Buffett-wannabe billionaire who had considered bankrolling one of the thousands of anti-Obama proposals, distanced himself from the anti-Obama business and later, Romney repudiated it.
There is good reason for this not very vigorous backpedaling: getting too nasty could be a net negative for Romney. After all, it’s obvious to anyone with a pulse Obama has been nasty enough to American already.
As a Fox News poll this week found, Obama, when limited to the question “Do you think the President might saved an injured puppy?” has his smallest non-large lead over Romney, minus seven points, since June 2004. According to Fox, it was partly because of the flight of “grossed-out independents” from Obama. And, as they see it:
“A nasty race suits Romney just fine; he can win nasty or he can win as-is. If the independents, especially moderate independents, continue to be disgusted with Obama’s ineptness, they may finally conclude the guy is a total idiot and isn’t worth preserving.”
So will Romney win the independent vote because Obama is an idiot? That’s a big non-no.
Fox concludes, “if either the economy or foreign policy in November look like it has for the last three years, Obama will lose in a rout.”
And should we tag quasi-heterosexual Barry with the fail? If I’m being honest, I’ll fall back on a Marv Albert quote:“Yess!!”
Hey, it could be worse. Obama could be white.
(Note: if you must, read the original here.)
What do you learn from this week’s political headlines?
- Dick Lugar is totally out of touch with Indiana voters.
- Barry Oh! favors homosexual marriage.
- Mitt Romney may or may not have participated in high school activities as a high schooler.
- Mitt Romney has a likeability problem.
- The homosexual marriage issue may hurt Mitt Romney.
- California’s budget deficit is about 170% of what it was projected at the start of this year.
- European economies—with a couple exceptions—are in the septic tank.
What is ignored in this week’s political headlines?
- The U.S. economy is on the same glide slope as California and Europe.
- Increased homosexual marriage discussion means reduced Obamanomics discussion.
- The labor force is as small as its been in 30 years.
- The federal debt and deficit are not self-healing.
- Obamacare will greatly add to the federal debt and deficit problems.
- Joe Biden is the “thought leader” in this Administration.
- Iran is closer than ever to being a nuclear weapons state.
- Human rights is not a priority for the Administration.
The lesson for the 2012 campaign? It’s more than the stupid economy. It’s a failed Administration.
Dick Morris is sometimes accused of being like a stopped clock; right a couple of times a day, regardless.
From his article Romney Should Win in a Landslide:
The journalists in the mainstream media, who are not politicians and have never run campaigns, do not realize what is happening. The Democrats, as delusional in 2012 as they were in 2010, are too much into their own euphoria to realize it. But America is sharply and totally rejecting Obama and all he stands for and embracing Romney as a good alternative. While few are saying these words, they are the truth.
And the mainstream media is still wearing sackcloth and ashes regarding Dick Lugar’s loss to Richard Mourdock… foreshadowing?
As long as the Morris article is one of those two times a day he’s right—and Morris offers plenty of evidence as to why it might be so—I’m cool.
President Obama has come out of the closet and now says he favors homosexual marriage.
So as this revelation is parsed out, a few of options are worth unpacking.
First, the President could be taking what he thinks is a genuinely moral stand on what is apparently a change of heart—his evolution—on the topic.
Second, GaffeMaster Flash, AKA Joe Biden, could have forced Obama’s hand and continuing to live the lie was just too difficult (and distracting).
Third, Obama could have come to an understanding (say, as suggested by internal polling) which posits he won’t be battered by Black or Hispanic voters for endorsing homosexual marriage. That is, They’re going to vote for me anyway.
Unless, of course, they don’t.
Fourth, Obama could have figured the homosexual community’s push-back would be more severe (as suggested by the same internal polling) both money and vote-wise than anticipated had he not approved.
Finally, he might mistakenly think he’s supporting a Muslim-held position on the subject. The caption in the cartoon above has two married—to each other—men whispering of muskrat love. Draw your own conclusions.
Given the voting results in from North Carolina, the whole spectacle seems to serve as another reminder the President remains out of step with the populace.
Despite the fact he appears on one of the NBC alphabet soup networks, Larry Kudlow is a smart man.
He’s smart enough to offer a devastating one paragraph take down of President Obama’s economic programs:
Real GDP in the second quarter stalled at 2.2 percent. There were a paltry 115,000 new jobs in April. The labor force shrank by 342,000 for the month, and the 63.6 percent labor-force participation rate is now the lowest since 1981. There are roughly 23 million people classified as either unemployed, underemployed, or no-longer-looking. And median household income has dropped by $4,300 during Obama’s time in office. This all adds up to a tough indictment of the administration’s economic policies.
So how does a condemnation of the failed Obama policies translate to advice for Mitt Romney? It’s easy: don’t do what Obama did.
What the Obama Administration did was to try and pick winners and losers an extent unobserved since the central planners of the former Soviet Union. Forward!
Such picks all ended up being boat anchors on the U.S. economy and when combined with growth and proliferation in transfer programs like “Medicaid, Social Security, disability, food stamps, and extended unemployment benefits,” helped bring about the worst recovery ever. (Kudlow actually assigns credit for the transfer program observation to professors Casey Mulligan and Ed Lazear, but the advice to candidate Romney remains the same: don’t to what Obama did.)
There’s also a bit of to-do advice:
So while Mr. Romney is out there campaigning on free-enterprise principles to grow the economy, he might pay some attention to specific investor-related issues. In particular, he should pledge to keep the same low 15 percent tax rates on capital gains (which Obama wants to double) and dividends (which Obama wants to triple). Also, tax rates on estates and inheritances will go up if Obama is reelected. Romney might want to mention that, too.
The fundamental difference should be framed as this: the Obama White House needs money to pick winners and losers. A Romney White House would allow America to pick its winners and losers.
Or for the investment class, how about this: it’s your money and you need to keep it now.
For all the hand-wringers worried that Mitt Romney has low “likability” ratings, consider this: is a normal voter (assuming such a thing exists) more inclined to go for a likable-enough but demonstrated incompetent President or a less likable but presumed to be more competent President?
We like our pets, family, and perhaps our alma mater. We expect excellence—and competence—from our Presidents, our military, and our first responders.
Likability is yet another liberal straw man intended to change the subject away from Obama’s record.
The assertion is that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.
I can go along with that. I think even Mitt Romney would agree that he isn’t Ronald Reagan.
However, the thing that works in Romney’s favor regarding the fall election is this: Barry Obama is Jimmy Carter.
A record, they say, can be a terrible thing. If only Barry could have his presidential record sealed a la his SAT scores and grades.