Through some fluke of fate, I'm able to hear the President's speech today about all of us "victims" of Superstorm Sandy. Oh, Fate... how you hate me.
First he talks about how he intends to "cut" all the red tape and hassle that surrounds the aid, assistance and recovery efforts that have hampered past victims (again, presumably ME, since I was a Katrina refugee, too) whenever the Government has tried to fix what was wrong... something I am ALL IN FAVOR OF, and specifically why I am voting for the OTHER GUY.
Then he turns my stomach... literally, makes me ill... with the comment "We won't leave anyone behind!"
What about J. Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador (deceased)? Or Sean Smith, Officer with the US Foreign Service (deceased)? Or Glen Doherty, USN (deceased)? Or Tyrone S. Woods, USN (deceased)? Can you explain to their children, families and friends how THEY weren't left behind either? Why THEIR well being and safety was less important than mine, or my neighbors, here at home?
The level of hypocrisy is almost amazing... and the ignorant manner in which it is brushed aside by the liberal supporters of the man truly are amazing. To use a promise made to every American service man and woman that has ever put themselves between harm and home... a promise he wouldn't or couldn't bring himself to keep... to make some cheap political points at MY expense, simply because I was somehow effected by this storm, along with 8.9 million other people? Those are some balls, Mr. President! Balls as big as church bells.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
On Sandy...
I can't seem to get away from these damn hurricanes, can I?
They have already declared a State of Emergency in both PA and NJ, the county I live in is crawling with power crews and Asplundh trucks, school has been closed for at least the next two days (really not good news)... but I'm still going to work.
Liz has stocked up on more stuff than I would have thought needed in five hurricanes. The lamps are full, the batteries charged, the coolers packed, the propane ready to burn, loose items and toys in the yard secured.
All I worry about is an extended time without power. Even PPL (the largest power provider in PA) is telling everyone via text messages and emails that they should be prepared to live 3 to 5 days with no power, and for as much as a week with interrupted power. Is that PPL being cautious and covering their collective butts, or is it a harbinger of what is to come?
Man, I'm tired of hurricanes.
They have already declared a State of Emergency in both PA and NJ, the county I live in is crawling with power crews and Asplundh trucks, school has been closed for at least the next two days (really not good news)... but I'm still going to work.
Liz has stocked up on more stuff than I would have thought needed in five hurricanes. The lamps are full, the batteries charged, the coolers packed, the propane ready to burn, loose items and toys in the yard secured.
All I worry about is an extended time without power. Even PPL (the largest power provider in PA) is telling everyone via text messages and emails that they should be prepared to live 3 to 5 days with no power, and for as much as a week with interrupted power. Is that PPL being cautious and covering their collective butts, or is it a harbinger of what is to come?
Man, I'm tired of hurricanes.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
This could break the President...
Which is why I am convinced that the Democrat-controlled Senate has issued the date for it's own investigation to begin AFTER the elections are over.
The White House has broken a sacred trust. The President is the "Commander and Chief" of all the Armed Forces of the United States, and everyone working under him must represent that position... even the civilian Cabinet positions.
If there were a motto that all branches of the military could claim, and all have adhered to since their inception, it is that "we leave no one behind". No one is left to fight "alone" involuntarily. If the means to support our personnel exist, we MUST do it... or we undermine the will and determination to fight for our whole defensive structure.
Those people that fought for their lives in Libya knew help was available... literally as little as 200 minutes away... and put up a defense waiting for that help to arrive. As Ryan said, there were assets on the ground that could have been employed, but were specifically and repeatedly told to "stand down" as fellow Americans and comrades were under attack. In short, I believe that the men stationed in Libya, and specifically in Benghazi, were left without support so as not to put the White House and its policies in a "bad light" so close to an election at home. This is more than bad policy or failed diplomacy... this is the ultimate example of failed leadership and command, and resulted in the ultimate cost to those most directly at risk.
As much as I detest the thought, I have tried to imagine what would exonerate the President and his staff in this matter... and nothing has presented itself, at all. There is no doubt in my mind that he KNEW what was happening, and that he KNEW what his top advisory and command staff was doing, and people still died because no help or support was given in their time of need.
I don't want to sound flippant or glib in light of the very serious nature that this topic follows, but anyone that might be considering answering the "Help Wanted" poster now being drawn up by the White House and the State Department needs to look long and hard at the possibility of the same thing happening to them. What kind of people do you think are going to take that job in the future? Certainly not the ones best suited for the position, I'd venture to say.
The White House has broken a sacred trust. The President is the "Commander and Chief" of all the Armed Forces of the United States, and everyone working under him must represent that position... even the civilian Cabinet positions.
If there were a motto that all branches of the military could claim, and all have adhered to since their inception, it is that "we leave no one behind". No one is left to fight "alone" involuntarily. If the means to support our personnel exist, we MUST do it... or we undermine the will and determination to fight for our whole defensive structure.
Those people that fought for their lives in Libya knew help was available... literally as little as 200 minutes away... and put up a defense waiting for that help to arrive. As Ryan said, there were assets on the ground that could have been employed, but were specifically and repeatedly told to "stand down" as fellow Americans and comrades were under attack. In short, I believe that the men stationed in Libya, and specifically in Benghazi, were left without support so as not to put the White House and its policies in a "bad light" so close to an election at home. This is more than bad policy or failed diplomacy... this is the ultimate example of failed leadership and command, and resulted in the ultimate cost to those most directly at risk.
As much as I detest the thought, I have tried to imagine what would exonerate the President and his staff in this matter... and nothing has presented itself, at all. There is no doubt in my mind that he KNEW what was happening, and that he KNEW what his top advisory and command staff was doing, and people still died because no help or support was given in their time of need.
I don't want to sound flippant or glib in light of the very serious nature that this topic follows, but anyone that might be considering answering the "Help Wanted" poster now being drawn up by the White House and the State Department needs to look long and hard at the possibility of the same thing happening to them. What kind of people do you think are going to take that job in the future? Certainly not the ones best suited for the position, I'd venture to say.
Friday, October 26, 2012
They hate us more than they value truth...
That's the conclusion I've come to. After all the economic data, foreign policy debacles and clear loyalty to an ideology which fails every time it's tried, I have determined that those still supporting President Barack Hussein Obama simply hate the "other side" more than they value intellectual honesty. There is no sane defense of this man. And the Libya scandal is making that horrifyingly clear.
This is an issue I've taken particular interest in, and there have been shocking new developments today (source). When the attack started, around 9:40pm 9/11/12, the two ex-Navy SEALS Doherty and Woods were at a secure CIA annex only one mile away from the chaos unfolding at the consulate/compound. After the men heard shots fired, they promptly let the chain of command know about the situation on the ground. However, sources now claim that they were told to refrain from action. This same mandate was again given to the men when they called a second time just one hour later to report that the dangerous situation was still unfolding at the consulate.
According to three newly released emails dispatched on the afternoon of September 11—as the attack was underway—the State Department Operations Center alerted multiple government offices, including the Pentagon, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and the White House Situation Room (including the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper) that the assault was happening. The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU,’ meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’ The email said the State Department’s regional security office had reported the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was ‘under attack.Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.’ The message continued: ‘Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.’
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin (chief National Security correspondent) is reporting that despite those alerts to the highest halls of government her sources have confirmed that a total of three urgent requests for military assistance were sent from that CIA annex and all three were all denied. In addition to the two SEALS, CIA operators within the annex, with rapid deploy capabilities, were also told to “stand down."
Doherty and Woods allegedly disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down” in the wake of the attack and decided to go to the main consulate building to help U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege. At least two others, along with elements of the CIA Quick Reaction Force also ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. The quick reaction force evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith (a US diplomat), who had been killed in the initial attack.
A second email, headed ‘Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi’ and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.’ It said a ‘response team’ was at the site "attempting to locate missing personnel.”
In the end they could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. After arriving back at the annex, the incident was far from over for the security team, which at this point still included Woods and Doherty. An attack was launched on the annex — this one more intense than the initial assault on the main building. At that point, they called again for military support, reporting they were taking fire at the annex. The request was denied.
On Thursday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s responded to questions surrounding military reaction saying that forces did not intervene because officials did not have enough “real-time information” about what was happening on the ground, “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
However eyewitnesses arriving from the compound say there were no communications problems at the annex. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News reported that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Military officials in Benghazi told CNN that rocket-propelled grenades were among the heavy firepower used by the attackers at the annex, with one official saying mortars were also fired. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex. The two ex-SEALS (if there is such a thing) Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by one of those mortar shells at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations.
Sources appear to claim that there were potential options that could have been pursued, although these avenues were reportedly not taken during the September 11 attack. While the forces available at Sigonella could have been flown into Benghazi in less than two hours, they, too, were also allegedly told to “stand down.” Around 3 a.m. that evening, a pro-U.S. Libyan militia finally showed up at the CIA annex. And an American Quick Reaction Force that was sent from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m., but was delayed for 45 minutes over transportation confusion. In both instances, though, the arrivals were hours after the initial attack took place.
Only several hours after the annex was finally evacuated did US officials even know the fate of Ambassador Stevens. A hospital doctor started randomly dialing numbers in a cell phone belonging to a corpse dropped off at his medical facility. One of those calls was to the US embassy in Tripoli. The corpse turned out to be the ambassador.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, to US based officials that carried the subject line: ‘Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.’ The message reported: ‘Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.’
In addition there has been debate surrounding drones and whether or not U.S. officials had the ability to watch a portion of the Libyan attack in real time. Some have dismissed the notion that the battle was being viewed live by officials as it progressed. But an October 20th report from CBS News claims that a portion of the attack was potentially seen by officials. In fact, according to the network, “hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.” FOX, too, reported today that there were two military surveillance drones that were sent to Benghazi after the attack on the U.S. consulate began. Both of these drones had the capability to send images back to government officials, including the White House situation room.
Let me remind you that all of this Intel, this entire timeline was available to the President in the FIRST 24 HOURS. He knew all this, as well he should. Yet the Press Secretary, The Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador, and the President of the United States himself spent weeks emphatically claiming they had "concrete evidence" as Press Secretary Jay Carney put it, that this was not a premeditated attack in opposition to America or American policy, but rather a spontaneous protest turned violent over an obscure You Tube video which had 19 hits as of July 2012 (with surely millions more now that the administration made it famous). In fact the father of one of the fallen hero SEALS has disclosed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him, at the receiving ceremony of the caskets, that they would get the maker of this film. THAT is the depth of deception they were willing to sink.
Why?
The Al Qaeda connections to Benghazi were well known. Images showing the black Al Qaeda flag being hoisted up over the city after the fall of Qadaffi were beamed to every corner of the earth. Al Qaeda and its affiliates had already attempted attacks on our consulate there, repeatedly, and even attempted to assassinate the British ambassador, our closest ally. The pattern of planned terror attacks was well-known. The new head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had called for attacks on U.S. interests in Libya after a drone strike had killed a top Libyan al Qaeda operative. Our now-dead Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and his team had repeatedly reported the escalating violence and had repeatedly requested more security. They were denied.
Again, I ask why?
As far as I can tell there are four fundamental questions yet to be answered by the administration:
1.) Why were earlier requests to increase security repeatedly denied given the threat level was publicly known to be extremely elevated (particularly on 9/11)?
2.) During the attack why were requests for military back up, made in real time by trained men with eyes on, denied?
3.) Whose idea/plan was it to blame an obscure video?
4.) Why did the administration, including the President, agree to that plan?
“That is cowardice by the people that issued that order. And our country is not a country of cowards. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. And what we need to do is we need to raise up a generation of American heroes just like Ty who is an American hero. But in order to do that, we need to raise up a generation that has not just physical strength but moral strength. We do not need another generation of liars who lack moral strength.”
-Charles Woods, father of fallen SEAL Tyrone Woods on 10/26/12 responding to reports that back-up teams were repeatedly told to "stand down."
This is an issue I've taken particular interest in, and there have been shocking new developments today (source). When the attack started, around 9:40pm 9/11/12, the two ex-Navy SEALS Doherty and Woods were at a secure CIA annex only one mile away from the chaos unfolding at the consulate/compound. After the men heard shots fired, they promptly let the chain of command know about the situation on the ground. However, sources now claim that they were told to refrain from action. This same mandate was again given to the men when they called a second time just one hour later to report that the dangerous situation was still unfolding at the consulate.
According to three newly released emails dispatched on the afternoon of September 11—as the attack was underway—the State Department Operations Center alerted multiple government offices, including the Pentagon, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and the White House Situation Room (including the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper) that the assault was happening. The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line ‘U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack’ and the notation ‘SBU,’ meaning ‘Sensitive But Unclassified.’ The email said the State Department’s regional security office had reported the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was ‘under attack.Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.’ The message continued: ‘Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.’
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin (chief National Security correspondent) is reporting that despite those alerts to the highest halls of government her sources have confirmed that a total of three urgent requests for military assistance were sent from that CIA annex and all three were all denied. In addition to the two SEALS, CIA operators within the annex, with rapid deploy capabilities, were also told to “stand down."
Doherty and Woods allegedly disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down” in the wake of the attack and decided to go to the main consulate building to help U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege. At least two others, along with elements of the CIA Quick Reaction Force also ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire. The quick reaction force evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith (a US diplomat), who had been killed in the initial attack.
A second email, headed ‘Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi’ and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.’ It said a ‘response team’ was at the site "attempting to locate missing personnel.”
In the end they could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. After arriving back at the annex, the incident was far from over for the security team, which at this point still included Woods and Doherty. An attack was launched on the annex — this one more intense than the initial assault on the main building. At that point, they called again for military support, reporting they were taking fire at the annex. The request was denied.
On Thursday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s responded to questions surrounding military reaction saying that forces did not intervene because officials did not have enough “real-time information” about what was happening on the ground, “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
However eyewitnesses arriving from the compound say there were no communications problems at the annex. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News reported that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators. Military officials in Benghazi told CNN that rocket-propelled grenades were among the heavy firepower used by the attackers at the annex, with one official saying mortars were also fired. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex. The two ex-SEALS (if there is such a thing) Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by one of those mortar shells at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations.
Sources appear to claim that there were potential options that could have been pursued, although these avenues were reportedly not taken during the September 11 attack. While the forces available at Sigonella could have been flown into Benghazi in less than two hours, they, too, were also allegedly told to “stand down.” Around 3 a.m. that evening, a pro-U.S. Libyan militia finally showed up at the CIA annex. And an American Quick Reaction Force that was sent from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m., but was delayed for 45 minutes over transportation confusion. In both instances, though, the arrivals were hours after the initial attack took place.
Only several hours after the annex was finally evacuated did US officials even know the fate of Ambassador Stevens. A hospital doctor started randomly dialing numbers in a cell phone belonging to a corpse dropped off at his medical facility. One of those calls was to the US embassy in Tripoli. The corpse turned out to be the ambassador.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, to US based officials that carried the subject line: ‘Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.’ The message reported: ‘Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.’
In addition there has been debate surrounding drones and whether or not U.S. officials had the ability to watch a portion of the Libyan attack in real time. Some have dismissed the notion that the battle was being viewed live by officials as it progressed. But an October 20th report from CBS News claims that a portion of the attack was potentially seen by officials. In fact, according to the network, “hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.” FOX, too, reported today that there were two military surveillance drones that were sent to Benghazi after the attack on the U.S. consulate began. Both of these drones had the capability to send images back to government officials, including the White House situation room.
Let me remind you that all of this Intel, this entire timeline was available to the President in the FIRST 24 HOURS. He knew all this, as well he should. Yet the Press Secretary, The Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador, and the President of the United States himself spent weeks emphatically claiming they had "concrete evidence" as Press Secretary Jay Carney put it, that this was not a premeditated attack in opposition to America or American policy, but rather a spontaneous protest turned violent over an obscure You Tube video which had 19 hits as of July 2012 (with surely millions more now that the administration made it famous). In fact the father of one of the fallen hero SEALS has disclosed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told him, at the receiving ceremony of the caskets, that they would get the maker of this film. THAT is the depth of deception they were willing to sink.
Why?
The Al Qaeda connections to Benghazi were well known. Images showing the black Al Qaeda flag being hoisted up over the city after the fall of Qadaffi were beamed to every corner of the earth. Al Qaeda and its affiliates had already attempted attacks on our consulate there, repeatedly, and even attempted to assassinate the British ambassador, our closest ally. The pattern of planned terror attacks was well-known. The new head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had called for attacks on U.S. interests in Libya after a drone strike had killed a top Libyan al Qaeda operative. Our now-dead Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and his team had repeatedly reported the escalating violence and had repeatedly requested more security. They were denied.
Again, I ask why?
As far as I can tell there are four fundamental questions yet to be answered by the administration:
1.) Why were earlier requests to increase security repeatedly denied given the threat level was publicly known to be extremely elevated (particularly on 9/11)?
2.) During the attack why were requests for military back up, made in real time by trained men with eyes on, denied?
3.) Whose idea/plan was it to blame an obscure video?
4.) Why did the administration, including the President, agree to that plan?
“That is cowardice by the people that issued that order. And our country is not a country of cowards. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. And what we need to do is we need to raise up a generation of American heroes just like Ty who is an American hero. But in order to do that, we need to raise up a generation that has not just physical strength but moral strength. We do not need another generation of liars who lack moral strength.”
-Charles Woods, father of fallen SEAL Tyrone Woods on 10/26/12 responding to reports that back-up teams were repeatedly told to "stand down."
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
To quote Kip....
"I love technology." I am right now posting from my xbox controller on my TV screen! The new update for xbox live included an internet explorer app for the dash board. I can peruse the news sites in the morning on a 52 inch screen. My eldest has also just seriously been set back in his argument to have his own laptop, hehe. Years ago I heard from a tech guy that "one day" our television screen will be an all encompassing activity screen and the idea of a seperate station for your home pc will be antiquated. That day is here ... now all I need is the Iron Man touch response hollogram app with the Jarvis voice add-on and I'll be set.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
This is driving me nuts!
I want to follow up to my response below... I've been walking around all day and no matter what I do or how I attempt to distract myself I keep having the arguments I would have prosecuted were it me debating Obama last night instead of Romney. Again, I get the idea that there are only a select amount of states in play and only select demographics within those states, so I understand last night's strategy to capture the three undecided single moms in Ohio by communicating, "I'm nice. I'm not Bush. No more wars, I promise." However, I tend to concur with Pat Cadell (a political analyst on Fox News whom has the unique distinction of being both an out spoken critic of Obama and the 1980 campaign manager of Jimmy Carter), that there were ways for Romney to avoid being painted as a war mongering Bush 2.0 without curling up into the fetal position. He played it safe. Fine. But playing it safe doesn't strike me as particularly inspired leadership when Americans are dying in foreign wars.
So if I am to get a single thing done in the next 72 hours I must purge myself of these arguments here. I give you an abrogated foreign policy debate between F.Ryan, son of Terrance, warden of the South and Barack Obama, second of his name and Lord of the East . . . (I've been watching Game of Thrones, forgive me):
Mr. President, I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt your ability. You see sir, as history has shown us wars are either won or lost, not arbitrarily ended so they may serve as campaign slogans. Many people may not be aware that in Afghanistan, our longest war, 70% of US casualties have occurred within the last four years. That was your watch. And that 2/3rds of the cost of the war has been spent in the last four years. It would appear that much like the stimulus spending the American people are not getting a good return on the blood and treasure they entrusted you with. Last month alone a half dozen Afghan soldiers, trained, housed and fed by our military so that they may stand up when we stand down have turned on our men, killing them in cold blood. Across North Africa and the Middle East we see embassies under protest, under attack and under evacuation. You stand up in the UN and declare we will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet the biggest obstacle to tighter sanctions, Vladimir Putin, is sent a secret message via his proxy so that he'll know things will get easier after your reelection... easier for him. As a candidate for president you declared it folly not to negotiate with the worst actors around the world. You described Iran, Cuba and North Korea as, "tiny countries that don't pose a threat to us." Mr. President, as it is today, in 1941 Japan was a tiny country in comparison to the United States. As any junior analyst at the CIA can tell you, the geographical size and population of a nation do not dictate their threat level. Their determination does. And as we sit, four years later, Iran seems as determined as ever to acquire nuclear weapons. They pursue their goals, threaten our closest ally with a second holocaust, and we do nothing. Your strategy has failed. They are undeterred. And why shouldn't they be? One of your first acts as President was to tell them and the world that essentially America has been a problem. You stood on foreign soil and proclaimed that we, the greatest nation ever to grace God's green earth, have "failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world" and added "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Mr. President you said these words in France. Let me ask you, were we dismissive at Normandy? Were we derisive at the liberation of Paris? Imagine the young Lieutenant coming in from patrol in Mosul where he spilled and spent blood that day only to come into his command post and hear his Commander-in-Chief call the country he spent all day defending, arrogant. I think your administration has failed to appreciate America's leading role in the world, and you have personally condemned it. In the Port of Spain you proclaimed, " [A]t times we sought to dictate our terms.” Your view on American history seems to have a theme - we are the problem. Mr. President, America is not the problem. America is the solution. I started this by stating that I don't doubt your sincerity in Afghanistan and Iraq, just your ability. Unfortunately the same can not be said of Libya. There has been much discussion on why a video and angry mobs were said to be at fault when it was clear there were neither. Discussions on why your Secretaries of Press, the UN, and State repeatedly and emphatically claimed that when our Embassy fell and four Americans died that a spontaneous protest was to blame. In your speech to the UN, nine days after the assault, you referenced this video and those protests no less than six times. Mr. President, it never happened. There were no protests. It was not due to a video. It was planned. It was premeditated. It was a terror attack. Not a "man caused disaster" as your National Intelligence Director insists on calling such attacks, not an "over seas contingency" as your Press Secretary refers to wars. It was an attack by terrorists. And the fog, the muddled haze that followed, which continues to this day, has been nothing short of dishonest. If the American people can not expect a straight answer on matters of life and death then how can they expect a straight answer on medicaid? On unemployment? On gas prices? So the question quickly becomes, why? Why do we see a foreign policy agenda unraveling before our eyes? I submit it is you. With all due respect sir you went into the office of President as a national security novice, and four years later the rest of us are paying the price. America trusted you and you have been irresponsible with that trust. And just for the record, the Navy classifies air craft carriers among their ships. Perhaps if you spent more time among world and military leaders and less time with David Letterman and raising crystal champagne glasses with vulgar rappers, you would know that. I think America has had enough of a foreign policy born of on the job training. The job is too important and your training is going too slow. You've had your four years to apologize for us. We're ready to go back to leading now.
So if I am to get a single thing done in the next 72 hours I must purge myself of these arguments here. I give you an abrogated foreign policy debate between F.Ryan, son of Terrance, warden of the South and Barack Obama, second of his name and Lord of the East . . . (I've been watching Game of Thrones, forgive me):
Mr. President, I don't doubt your sincerity in wanting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt your ability. You see sir, as history has shown us wars are either won or lost, not arbitrarily ended so they may serve as campaign slogans. Many people may not be aware that in Afghanistan, our longest war, 70% of US casualties have occurred within the last four years. That was your watch. And that 2/3rds of the cost of the war has been spent in the last four years. It would appear that much like the stimulus spending the American people are not getting a good return on the blood and treasure they entrusted you with. Last month alone a half dozen Afghan soldiers, trained, housed and fed by our military so that they may stand up when we stand down have turned on our men, killing them in cold blood. Across North Africa and the Middle East we see embassies under protest, under attack and under evacuation. You stand up in the UN and declare we will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, yet the biggest obstacle to tighter sanctions, Vladimir Putin, is sent a secret message via his proxy so that he'll know things will get easier after your reelection... easier for him. As a candidate for president you declared it folly not to negotiate with the worst actors around the world. You described Iran, Cuba and North Korea as, "tiny countries that don't pose a threat to us." Mr. President, as it is today, in 1941 Japan was a tiny country in comparison to the United States. As any junior analyst at the CIA can tell you, the geographical size and population of a nation do not dictate their threat level. Their determination does. And as we sit, four years later, Iran seems as determined as ever to acquire nuclear weapons. They pursue their goals, threaten our closest ally with a second holocaust, and we do nothing. Your strategy has failed. They are undeterred. And why shouldn't they be? One of your first acts as President was to tell them and the world that essentially America has been a problem. You stood on foreign soil and proclaimed that we, the greatest nation ever to grace God's green earth, have "failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world" and added "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Mr. President you said these words in France. Let me ask you, were we dismissive at Normandy? Were we derisive at the liberation of Paris? Imagine the young Lieutenant coming in from patrol in Mosul where he spilled and spent blood that day only to come into his command post and hear his Commander-in-Chief call the country he spent all day defending, arrogant. I think your administration has failed to appreciate America's leading role in the world, and you have personally condemned it. In the Port of Spain you proclaimed, " [A]t times we sought to dictate our terms.” Your view on American history seems to have a theme - we are the problem. Mr. President, America is not the problem. America is the solution. I started this by stating that I don't doubt your sincerity in Afghanistan and Iraq, just your ability. Unfortunately the same can not be said of Libya. There has been much discussion on why a video and angry mobs were said to be at fault when it was clear there were neither. Discussions on why your Secretaries of Press, the UN, and State repeatedly and emphatically claimed that when our Embassy fell and four Americans died that a spontaneous protest was to blame. In your speech to the UN, nine days after the assault, you referenced this video and those protests no less than six times. Mr. President, it never happened. There were no protests. It was not due to a video. It was planned. It was premeditated. It was a terror attack. Not a "man caused disaster" as your National Intelligence Director insists on calling such attacks, not an "over seas contingency" as your Press Secretary refers to wars. It was an attack by terrorists. And the fog, the muddled haze that followed, which continues to this day, has been nothing short of dishonest. If the American people can not expect a straight answer on matters of life and death then how can they expect a straight answer on medicaid? On unemployment? On gas prices? So the question quickly becomes, why? Why do we see a foreign policy agenda unraveling before our eyes? I submit it is you. With all due respect sir you went into the office of President as a national security novice, and four years later the rest of us are paying the price. America trusted you and you have been irresponsible with that trust. And just for the record, the Navy classifies air craft carriers among their ships. Perhaps if you spent more time among world and military leaders and less time with David Letterman and raising crystal champagne glasses with vulgar rappers, you would know that. I think America has had enough of a foreign policy born of on the job training. The job is too important and your training is going too slow. You've had your four years to apologize for us. We're ready to go back to leading now.
Lets not go too far here...
On me or Romney.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
On me... I didn't endorse Romney's strategy of last night. I was clear about that. I don't like this stuff. I was clear about that. Reread my post, I wasn't happy. I simply acknowledged that this was a purposeful strategy that may work to capture the few mushy middle undecided voters still left. That's all - it was on purpose and may work. But I don't like the strategy of smothering with hugs just so the middle doesn't think you're "mean", especially when your opposition was caught dead to rights lying about the assassination of an ambassador. I prefer drawing clear and definite contrasts the way I feel Romney did on economic policy and the way Reagan did on every policy. That, I feel, is the more effective tact, but Romney's not paying me $900 an hour to advise him... maybe he should.
Now, on Romney... overall I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. I don't think that our "only hope" is the electorate realizing Obama is now making excuses for, rather than defending, his record. I think Romney has prosecuted the economic issue well and that this election will turn on whom the nation feels will be better on the economy (from gas prices to jobs).
In fact, here's my prediction - Romney wins in 2012 by more than Obama won by in 2008, in spite of giving an absolutely corrupt, historical-revisionist, self-loathing American, radical apologist a pass on foreign policy.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
On me... I didn't endorse Romney's strategy of last night. I was clear about that. I don't like this stuff. I was clear about that. Reread my post, I wasn't happy. I simply acknowledged that this was a purposeful strategy that may work to capture the few mushy middle undecided voters still left. That's all - it was on purpose and may work. But I don't like the strategy of smothering with hugs just so the middle doesn't think you're "mean", especially when your opposition was caught dead to rights lying about the assassination of an ambassador. I prefer drawing clear and definite contrasts the way I feel Romney did on economic policy and the way Reagan did on every policy. That, I feel, is the more effective tact, but Romney's not paying me $900 an hour to advise him... maybe he should.
Now, on Romney... overall I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you. I don't think that our "only hope" is the electorate realizing Obama is now making excuses for, rather than defending, his record. I think Romney has prosecuted the economic issue well and that this election will turn on whom the nation feels will be better on the economy (from gas prices to jobs).
In fact, here's my prediction - Romney wins in 2012 by more than Obama won by in 2008, in spite of giving an absolutely corrupt, historical-revisionist, self-loathing American, radical apologist a pass on foreign policy.
I didn't expect that...
I didn't expect F. Ryan to say what he did in his last post... not in a million years.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
I thought he (Romney) was lack-luster at best. He danced to Obama's beat, and that cost him. I agree with you that it wouldn't have served to have Romney seem to do nothing but "attack" and "argue"... but he is spending FAR too much time and effort trying to say "Obama and I want the same thing" and that the voting public should pick Romney's means over Obama's, but still shoot for the same end. That is what I am hearing, and I don't like it.
I'll say this, too: Obama is beginning to look like he is making excuses for his policies and actions, rather than defending them. I can't say that any one point stands out, but it is a general impression that I HOPE like hell I'm not simply imagining but that others can also see.
It might be our only hope.
Dude... what happened to running on principles? Holding Obama's feet to the fire? You have said, time and again, that the GOP candidate (whomever it is) should NEVER pander to the middle... always go to the base. Your reasoning was always that it was what worked for Reagan, we can do no better.
I thought he (Romney) was lack-luster at best. He danced to Obama's beat, and that cost him. I agree with you that it wouldn't have served to have Romney seem to do nothing but "attack" and "argue"... but he is spending FAR too much time and effort trying to say "Obama and I want the same thing" and that the voting public should pick Romney's means over Obama's, but still shoot for the same end. That is what I am hearing, and I don't like it.
I'll say this, too: Obama is beginning to look like he is making excuses for his policies and actions, rather than defending them. I can't say that any one point stands out, but it is a general impression that I HOPE like hell I'm not simply imagining but that others can also see.
It might be our only hope.
Playing it safe?
Not one word on the Libya cover-up from Romney. Not one.
He went after Obama on Israel, somewhat. He went after the apology tour, somewhat. He went after the administrations inability to identify democrats (small "d") within the Arab Spring to back with weapons and rhetoric, somewhat. It seemed that Romney was playing it safe, protecting a lead. He decided to handle the fiery, borderline insulting (strike that, there was nothing borderline about "We have these things called air craft carriers, planes land on them, and ships that go under water, they're called submarines.") and the other cutting jabs from Obama by smothering them in a peace-loving hug. Now look, Romney didn't "forget" about Libya. And he had ample opportunity to go after Barry with a sledge hammer (the POTUS even tried to draw him out on it saying, "let's return to Libya for a moment"), but Mitt was nothing doing. It was clear (and the Romney camp not only admitted this after the debate, but noted this was a strategy specifically insisted on by Mitt) that Romney was not going to go on attack over foreign policy in the way he went on attack over economic policy. He would instead find ground (with some notable exceptions) where they agreed on foreign policy, and use the balance of his time to pivot and hammer home the economic argument. Essentially he's decided "It's the economy stupid", to quote a fellow Southerner and Saints fan.
Look, we're not GOP sycophants here. If you're asking me for what I like to see in a debate, it's a brawl. It's precision cuts across the artery of the inner thigh, it's take him apart at the joints, it's what the hell do you mean Israel should retreat to the 1967 borders and are you going to let your madam SoS take the rap on Benghazi sir? It's shouting that you can find out all you need to know about the president's energy policy every time you pull up to the gas station, it's going for the soft underbelly all the time, every time, and Romney just didn't deliver for me ... BUT ... Romney's not looking to convince me. And that's the one other thing, besides pivoting to the economy, that I thought he was trying to do tonight - convince undecided voters that he's not George W. Bush. Due to Dubya's inability or flat unwillingness to defend himself during his two-terms, every GOP nominee for the rest of our lives will be forced to say "See, I'm not a war monger, I like peace." And that was Mitt's only other goal, "I'm tired of war too, I'm not Bush." It was either clever, or too clever by half, but I am willing to admit that the verbal blood on the sand I hope and cheer for may not be the winning strategy to capture those last few folks in the moderate, mushy middle. Time will tell.
One other observation. The roles were interestingly reversed in a traditional/historic perspective. Mitt seemed to be the seasoned incumbent, confident in his lead, unwilling to rock the boat, opting to play defense rather than keep a jab in his opponents face. While the sitting POTUS played the role of the scrappy contender, taking risks, coming off as almost belligerent. We at the Bund of course prefer a belligerent confrontation whenever it can be found ... but like I said, he's got us. On debate points, Obama wins. However, the only point tally Romney's debate strategy was concerned with is the electoral college. And I pray, literally, that this strategy worked.
He went after Obama on Israel, somewhat. He went after the apology tour, somewhat. He went after the administrations inability to identify democrats (small "d") within the Arab Spring to back with weapons and rhetoric, somewhat. It seemed that Romney was playing it safe, protecting a lead. He decided to handle the fiery, borderline insulting (strike that, there was nothing borderline about "We have these things called air craft carriers, planes land on them, and ships that go under water, they're called submarines.") and the other cutting jabs from Obama by smothering them in a peace-loving hug. Now look, Romney didn't "forget" about Libya. And he had ample opportunity to go after Barry with a sledge hammer (the POTUS even tried to draw him out on it saying, "let's return to Libya for a moment"), but Mitt was nothing doing. It was clear (and the Romney camp not only admitted this after the debate, but noted this was a strategy specifically insisted on by Mitt) that Romney was not going to go on attack over foreign policy in the way he went on attack over economic policy. He would instead find ground (with some notable exceptions) where they agreed on foreign policy, and use the balance of his time to pivot and hammer home the economic argument. Essentially he's decided "It's the economy stupid", to quote a fellow Southerner and Saints fan.
Look, we're not GOP sycophants here. If you're asking me for what I like to see in a debate, it's a brawl. It's precision cuts across the artery of the inner thigh, it's take him apart at the joints, it's what the hell do you mean Israel should retreat to the 1967 borders and are you going to let your madam SoS take the rap on Benghazi sir? It's shouting that you can find out all you need to know about the president's energy policy every time you pull up to the gas station, it's going for the soft underbelly all the time, every time, and Romney just didn't deliver for me ... BUT ... Romney's not looking to convince me. And that's the one other thing, besides pivoting to the economy, that I thought he was trying to do tonight - convince undecided voters that he's not George W. Bush. Due to Dubya's inability or flat unwillingness to defend himself during his two-terms, every GOP nominee for the rest of our lives will be forced to say "See, I'm not a war monger, I like peace." And that was Mitt's only other goal, "I'm tired of war too, I'm not Bush." It was either clever, or too clever by half, but I am willing to admit that the verbal blood on the sand I hope and cheer for may not be the winning strategy to capture those last few folks in the moderate, mushy middle. Time will tell.
One other observation. The roles were interestingly reversed in a traditional/historic perspective. Mitt seemed to be the seasoned incumbent, confident in his lead, unwilling to rock the boat, opting to play defense rather than keep a jab in his opponents face. While the sitting POTUS played the role of the scrappy contender, taking risks, coming off as almost belligerent. We at the Bund of course prefer a belligerent confrontation whenever it can be found ... but like I said, he's got us. On debate points, Obama wins. However, the only point tally Romney's debate strategy was concerned with is the electoral college. And I pray, literally, that this strategy worked.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
I was watching Romney...
and I didn't say Obama won, only that Romney missed chances.
I did call Romney's victory in the first debate, by the way... and I'll call him the winner in this, too. I had simply hoped for a bigger win, a more decisive victory.
My dislike of Obama is growing on a daily basis. I've never been one of those that are convinced he is determined to "re-write" the American Constitution to suit his socialist dreams, but I can't deny his socialist attitude. Add to that his pandering, meaningless platitudes and empty promises to the "American people"... and I'm almost to a point where his voice makes me ill.
Nothing came clearer to me in these last three debates than this fact: Romney/Ryan, while they use "I" and "we" in their rhetoric, don't MEAN "I" or "we". They are not promising that GOVERNMENT can fix any problems... they are promising that government is the PROBLEM. Obama is not only saying government is the solution, he is promising that HE is the solution. He wants the GOP to "get out of my way" so he can fix things... and that nauseates me. His utter disdain for anyone that has had, earned or come into any kind of material or fiscal wealth shows me that he sees two Americas... and he longs to be able to take from both equally and without restraint. Take the freedoms and responsibilities from the "have nots" and take the wealth and wages from the "haves" to pay for it all. Both Americas are equally reduced, both are marginalized in the political arena, and the Democrats are the better for it.
However, as Ryan said... I read this message clearly for what it is. The rest of America probably doesn't. That is sad in the extreme.
I did call Romney's victory in the first debate, by the way... and I'll call him the winner in this, too. I had simply hoped for a bigger win, a more decisive victory.
My dislike of Obama is growing on a daily basis. I've never been one of those that are convinced he is determined to "re-write" the American Constitution to suit his socialist dreams, but I can't deny his socialist attitude. Add to that his pandering, meaningless platitudes and empty promises to the "American people"... and I'm almost to a point where his voice makes me ill.
Nothing came clearer to me in these last three debates than this fact: Romney/Ryan, while they use "I" and "we" in their rhetoric, don't MEAN "I" or "we". They are not promising that GOVERNMENT can fix any problems... they are promising that government is the PROBLEM. Obama is not only saying government is the solution, he is promising that HE is the solution. He wants the GOP to "get out of my way" so he can fix things... and that nauseates me. His utter disdain for anyone that has had, earned or come into any kind of material or fiscal wealth shows me that he sees two Americas... and he longs to be able to take from both equally and without restraint. Take the freedoms and responsibilities from the "have nots" and take the wealth and wages from the "haves" to pay for it all. Both Americas are equally reduced, both are marginalized in the political arena, and the Democrats are the better for it.
However, as Ryan said... I read this message clearly for what it is. The rest of America probably doesn't. That is sad in the extreme.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
What debate were YOU watching?
Last night was another stellar performance by Mitt Romney. In fact, I'd argue that last night was perhaps the single best indictment of the Obama economic record ever publicly made by a candidate for office. And just as an aside, maybe I'm wrong but I'm getting the feeling you found Romney's first debate performance less than impressive. Buddy, even that bastion of right-wing propaganda CNN had that debate polling at 72% to 27%, Romney. The first debate performance single handily changed the momentum of the race. It's why Chris Matthews had a melt down, about which you posted. Look at these post-first debate swing in numbers from the Pew Research Center:
This was a direct result of the first debate. I mean what more do you want man?
To last night... yes he did allow the Benghazi issue to get away from him, but (unlike I thought) it is the third/next debate that is solely focused on foreign policy and Romney will have more than adequate opportunity to expose the inconsistency in that scandal. And in fact the missed opportunity may have caused the chance for a greater opportunity in Monday's foreign policy debate because Romney got the POTUS "on the record" (Romney's actual words) claiming he was calling the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack starting on 9/12. On Monday night he can now compare that claim to the 9 days that followed in which the entire administration, including Obama's speech at the UN (where he mentioned the video 6 times), emphatically reiterated that the attack was a result of spontaneous protests. Now we can get into whether Obama was directly referring to Benghazi on 9/12 when he used the phrase "terrorist attacks" or not, but that argument, essentially over what the definition of "is, is", is not the point. The point is the POTUS is now claiming that from day 1 he thought it was a terrorist attack. That's incredible! It means he purposely misled the world for the 8 days that followed. And by the way, it's now clear that State Department officials watched the attacks unfold in real time. The woman at State whom claims this is true, her name has been made public. We have someone specific to point to and say "she knew." So what do Biden and the rest mean then when they say "we were told it was due to protests"? By whom? When? How come State has a tape of it, yet the POTUS was informed of a fictional protest? Trust me, this will prove fertile ground come Monday. Obama ducked it Tuesday, thanks largely due to Candy Crowely, but he dug himself into a deeper hole for Monday.
But here's the more important point in this presidential race as of 10/17/12: Romney has owned the room on the economic issue since that first debate, and did so again last night. And it's because, in my opinion, he employed a simple, potent strategy for defeating the flowery "hope and change" rhetoric of 08'- compare it to the now established record. When that black gentleman said to the the president (via his question) "I'm less than enthusiastic this time around", the answer Romney gave during his 2 minute follow up starting with, "I think you know we can do better", was a specific, uninterrupted prosecutorial style verbal indictment of the Obama failures (including this fallacy of creating 5 million jobs) that has never been accomplished by any sitting member of the GOP in four years. And Romney repeatedly returned to this list of failures, including the fact that the president had four years, two including control of both houses of congress, to fulfill his promise that he'd pass "sweeping immigration reform in my first year" yet failed to even propose legislation. Romney succinctly compared the cost of gasoline today at nearly $4, versus that of January of 2009 when the national average was $1.86 a gallon. Obama's only retort to gas prices was, "The reason prices were so low then was because the economy was on the edge of collapse." What does that even mean, that now that we're away from the edge they're back to normal at $3.86 a gallon? WTF? That was perhaps the most pathetically weak answer of the night, and it should leave every undecided voter scratching their heads and wondering if this guy grasps even the most basic of economic issues. For example, most registered voters today remember that gas was cheap under the Clinton era dot.com boom ($0.99/gallon). Romney won that exchange in a walk. Romney also crushed the POTUS on the oil and coal issue, in particular the topic of oil leases on federal land. That exchange was borderline emasculating for the CIC. He articulated at every opportunity that the president promised health care costs would go down two-thousand five hundred dollars, and yet they went up by two-thousand five-hundred dollars on average per family; that 32 million Americans were on food stamps in January 09', now 47 million fill those roles; that 1 in 6 Americans are now living in poverty; that the president promised, at this point, that we'd be at 5.2% unemployment and the difference between that number and where we are constitutes 9 million Americans out of work (which is a more effective way of comparing 5.2% and 7.8%); and that the president promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and instead has doubled it. And in a statistic I thought particularly provocative, that even wonks like us haven't heard, there are 3.1 million more women in poverty now than when the president took over. These are simple, easy to grasp failures that people see and feel in their everyday lives and Romney relentlessly exposed them last night. Obama routinely had to look to Candy Crowely for a bailout of the conversation. It was a prosecutor with a hostile witness on the stand and quite frankly I feel it was a devastating performance by Mitt. I'm being serious when I ask if you watched the entire debate, uninterrupted? If not, watch it again.
Look - you must bare in mind two very crucial things in regard to last night's debate. 1) everyone (especially the Left) agreed that Obama's first debate performance was a disaster. In fact when we look back on it, perhaps historically so. Romney emerged with an 8 point swing nationally and in 7 of 11 battleground states as a result of that first debate (you can read its devastating impact on the polls from Leftist columnist Andrew Sullivan here.). My point being is all that Obama had to do to be successful in the second debate was show up because he could have hardly done worse than his first performance. 2) Most analysts/polls are claiming that overall the second debate was a draw or a slight edge to Obama (again, see point #1). It was not an equivalent knock out as Romney had in the first. However, when asked whom won the economic portion of last night's debate CBS has it Romney 55%, Obama 37%. CNN has it at 65% Romney to 33% Obama. And this is a critical stat Titus - a sitting president can not lose the economic argument and win the election. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding: on Monday morning the grand puba of presidential polling, USA Today/Gallup opened up Romney at a 50% to 46% lead over the president. As the challenger, reaching that 50% mark was a crucial a milestone. This morning USA Today/Gallup has it 51% to 45%, Romney. The task of last night's debate for Obama was to stave off Romney's momentum. Obama failed.
Do me a favor. In fact, do yourself a favor - you, Jambo, me, people like us, we have a litany of visceral, factual debates with team Obama on a regular basis. In our heads, in the car listening to the radio, watching television. So don't fall into this trap where you compare Romney's arguments to the ones you would, and have, made. He'll never measure up to that standard, believe me. But that's ok. With 20 days left to the election he's not going after the Titus/Jambo/Ryan vote. He's got us. His job at this late date is to move anyone that is movable from 08', into his camp. And winning the economic issue at a 2:1 ratio is exactly how he's going to accomplish that goal. So pack your pipe, have a swig of Jameson and relax, he's gonna bring this thing home buddy. The polls are bearing that out.
This was a direct result of the first debate. I mean what more do you want man?
To last night... yes he did allow the Benghazi issue to get away from him, but (unlike I thought) it is the third/next debate that is solely focused on foreign policy and Romney will have more than adequate opportunity to expose the inconsistency in that scandal. And in fact the missed opportunity may have caused the chance for a greater opportunity in Monday's foreign policy debate because Romney got the POTUS "on the record" (Romney's actual words) claiming he was calling the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack starting on 9/12. On Monday night he can now compare that claim to the 9 days that followed in which the entire administration, including Obama's speech at the UN (where he mentioned the video 6 times), emphatically reiterated that the attack was a result of spontaneous protests. Now we can get into whether Obama was directly referring to Benghazi on 9/12 when he used the phrase "terrorist attacks" or not, but that argument, essentially over what the definition of "is, is", is not the point. The point is the POTUS is now claiming that from day 1 he thought it was a terrorist attack. That's incredible! It means he purposely misled the world for the 8 days that followed. And by the way, it's now clear that State Department officials watched the attacks unfold in real time. The woman at State whom claims this is true, her name has been made public. We have someone specific to point to and say "she knew." So what do Biden and the rest mean then when they say "we were told it was due to protests"? By whom? When? How come State has a tape of it, yet the POTUS was informed of a fictional protest? Trust me, this will prove fertile ground come Monday. Obama ducked it Tuesday, thanks largely due to Candy Crowely, but he dug himself into a deeper hole for Monday.
But here's the more important point in this presidential race as of 10/17/12: Romney has owned the room on the economic issue since that first debate, and did so again last night. And it's because, in my opinion, he employed a simple, potent strategy for defeating the flowery "hope and change" rhetoric of 08'- compare it to the now established record. When that black gentleman said to the the president (via his question) "I'm less than enthusiastic this time around", the answer Romney gave during his 2 minute follow up starting with, "I think you know we can do better", was a specific, uninterrupted prosecutorial style verbal indictment of the Obama failures (including this fallacy of creating 5 million jobs) that has never been accomplished by any sitting member of the GOP in four years. And Romney repeatedly returned to this list of failures, including the fact that the president had four years, two including control of both houses of congress, to fulfill his promise that he'd pass "sweeping immigration reform in my first year" yet failed to even propose legislation. Romney succinctly compared the cost of gasoline today at nearly $4, versus that of January of 2009 when the national average was $1.86 a gallon. Obama's only retort to gas prices was, "The reason prices were so low then was because the economy was on the edge of collapse." What does that even mean, that now that we're away from the edge they're back to normal at $3.86 a gallon? WTF? That was perhaps the most pathetically weak answer of the night, and it should leave every undecided voter scratching their heads and wondering if this guy grasps even the most basic of economic issues. For example, most registered voters today remember that gas was cheap under the Clinton era dot.com boom ($0.99/gallon). Romney won that exchange in a walk. Romney also crushed the POTUS on the oil and coal issue, in particular the topic of oil leases on federal land. That exchange was borderline emasculating for the CIC. He articulated at every opportunity that the president promised health care costs would go down two-thousand five hundred dollars, and yet they went up by two-thousand five-hundred dollars on average per family; that 32 million Americans were on food stamps in January 09', now 47 million fill those roles; that 1 in 6 Americans are now living in poverty; that the president promised, at this point, that we'd be at 5.2% unemployment and the difference between that number and where we are constitutes 9 million Americans out of work (which is a more effective way of comparing 5.2% and 7.8%); and that the president promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and instead has doubled it. And in a statistic I thought particularly provocative, that even wonks like us haven't heard, there are 3.1 million more women in poverty now than when the president took over. These are simple, easy to grasp failures that people see and feel in their everyday lives and Romney relentlessly exposed them last night. Obama routinely had to look to Candy Crowely for a bailout of the conversation. It was a prosecutor with a hostile witness on the stand and quite frankly I feel it was a devastating performance by Mitt. I'm being serious when I ask if you watched the entire debate, uninterrupted? If not, watch it again.
Look - you must bare in mind two very crucial things in regard to last night's debate. 1) everyone (especially the Left) agreed that Obama's first debate performance was a disaster. In fact when we look back on it, perhaps historically so. Romney emerged with an 8 point swing nationally and in 7 of 11 battleground states as a result of that first debate (you can read its devastating impact on the polls from Leftist columnist Andrew Sullivan here.). My point being is all that Obama had to do to be successful in the second debate was show up because he could have hardly done worse than his first performance. 2) Most analysts/polls are claiming that overall the second debate was a draw or a slight edge to Obama (again, see point #1). It was not an equivalent knock out as Romney had in the first. However, when asked whom won the economic portion of last night's debate CBS has it Romney 55%, Obama 37%. CNN has it at 65% Romney to 33% Obama. And this is a critical stat Titus - a sitting president can not lose the economic argument and win the election. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding: on Monday morning the grand puba of presidential polling, USA Today/Gallup opened up Romney at a 50% to 46% lead over the president. As the challenger, reaching that 50% mark was a crucial a milestone. This morning USA Today/Gallup has it 51% to 45%, Romney. The task of last night's debate for Obama was to stave off Romney's momentum. Obama failed.
Do me a favor. In fact, do yourself a favor - you, Jambo, me, people like us, we have a litany of visceral, factual debates with team Obama on a regular basis. In our heads, in the car listening to the radio, watching television. So don't fall into this trap where you compare Romney's arguments to the ones you would, and have, made. He'll never measure up to that standard, believe me. But that's ok. With 20 days left to the election he's not going after the Titus/Jambo/Ryan vote. He's got us. His job at this late date is to move anyone that is movable from 08', into his camp. And winning the economic issue at a 2:1 ratio is exactly how he's going to accomplish that goal. So pack your pipe, have a swig of Jameson and relax, he's gonna bring this thing home buddy. The polls are bearing that out.
Who wants Candy?
Candy Crowley... utterly useless as a moderator. Wow.
Well, I'd say that Obama has kept one promise in his first term... he certainly threw the "polite" factor out the window, didn't he? He was angry, confrontational and very defensive. For me, that does not read as "confident", which is a word used frequently in describing Obama's performance in the media this morning.
Romney was less than stellar, again. In fact, I'd grade his performance last night as "poor". Especially on such basic topics as immigration, taxes and gun control. He should have owned those topics, but muddled through with almost no point made.
How many times did Obama say "We need to create jobs in this country."? Why wasn't it brought to his attention that he has had four years to create jobs, and routinely says he created 5 million of them? Why wasn't it shown that, even if he did create 5 million jobs, 9 million were lost in the four years he's already been President? There has been NO gain in unemployment since 2008... none. Why not?
When asked about gun control, and the danger of certain weapons being in the hands of people who shouldn't have them (i.e. the Aurora shooter), when was it going to be explained that the weapons owned and used by criminals are ALREADY ILLEGAL? The tragedy that was the shooting in that Aurora, CO theater isn't the result of what weapons were employed to execute those people... it was the result of an unbalanced mind committing a horrific crime. Using the Aurora tragedy as an example of why a new weapons ban is needed is tantamount to saying that all cars should be outlawed because someone kills another person while drunk driving. We can't blame gun violence in this country on a breakdown of the nuclear family, for Pete's sake... we need to see it for what it is: a biased view of a symptomatic aspect of ANY multi-cultural, diverse population wherein 380 million people coexist. Liberal media pundits look at Aurora as THE symptom, but in reality the problem lies in the FACT that every 45 seconds in this country, someone is held at gun-point by an assailant in a crime. These guns are procured illegally, are possessed illegally, and are utilized in an illegal activity by CRIMINALS. Denying law-abiding citizens their rights does NOTHING to stop the problem.
Romney also dropped the ball on the Benghazi question. Yes, the President said "terrorist attacks" in the Rose Garden... but attributed the "attacks" to an anti-Islamic video, just as Romney was alluding to. Why would he allow himself to get tripped up like that? Where was his head?
A very poor performance indeed.
Well, I'd say that Obama has kept one promise in his first term... he certainly threw the "polite" factor out the window, didn't he? He was angry, confrontational and very defensive. For me, that does not read as "confident", which is a word used frequently in describing Obama's performance in the media this morning.
Romney was less than stellar, again. In fact, I'd grade his performance last night as "poor". Especially on such basic topics as immigration, taxes and gun control. He should have owned those topics, but muddled through with almost no point made.
How many times did Obama say "We need to create jobs in this country."? Why wasn't it brought to his attention that he has had four years to create jobs, and routinely says he created 5 million of them? Why wasn't it shown that, even if he did create 5 million jobs, 9 million were lost in the four years he's already been President? There has been NO gain in unemployment since 2008... none. Why not?
When asked about gun control, and the danger of certain weapons being in the hands of people who shouldn't have them (i.e. the Aurora shooter), when was it going to be explained that the weapons owned and used by criminals are ALREADY ILLEGAL? The tragedy that was the shooting in that Aurora, CO theater isn't the result of what weapons were employed to execute those people... it was the result of an unbalanced mind committing a horrific crime. Using the Aurora tragedy as an example of why a new weapons ban is needed is tantamount to saying that all cars should be outlawed because someone kills another person while drunk driving. We can't blame gun violence in this country on a breakdown of the nuclear family, for Pete's sake... we need to see it for what it is: a biased view of a symptomatic aspect of ANY multi-cultural, diverse population wherein 380 million people coexist. Liberal media pundits look at Aurora as THE symptom, but in reality the problem lies in the FACT that every 45 seconds in this country, someone is held at gun-point by an assailant in a crime. These guns are procured illegally, are possessed illegally, and are utilized in an illegal activity by CRIMINALS. Denying law-abiding citizens their rights does NOTHING to stop the problem.
Romney also dropped the ball on the Benghazi question. Yes, the President said "terrorist attacks" in the Rose Garden... but attributed the "attacks" to an anti-Islamic video, just as Romney was alluding to. Why would he allow himself to get tripped up like that? Where was his head?
A very poor performance indeed.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
On Ryan's "scandal" post...
Seems someone in Wyoming County, PA is as pissed off as F. Ryan is about the 9-11-12 questions being raised by Congress.
They've set up a table with large signs just outside of the Post Office (the only Federal building in the county) and are handing out impeachment literature to anyone walking by. Liz, my wife, seems to think this is more election drama than it is serious impeachment concerns... but I'm not sure that's true.
This part of PA is pretty conservative, in a general sense. I do think the county voted for Obama, but it was awfully close if I recall correctly. What I do know is that the NRA has a HUGE presence here, and that they are all over this like flies on feces. I personally wouldn't be surprised if the table in question was paid for by the NRA itself.
They've set up a table with large signs just outside of the Post Office (the only Federal building in the county) and are handing out impeachment literature to anyone walking by. Liz, my wife, seems to think this is more election drama than it is serious impeachment concerns... but I'm not sure that's true.
This part of PA is pretty conservative, in a general sense. I do think the county voted for Obama, but it was awfully close if I recall correctly. What I do know is that the NRA has a HUGE presence here, and that they are all over this like flies on feces. I personally wouldn't be surprised if the table in question was paid for by the NRA itself.
Fifty years ago today...
On this day in 1962, Pope John XXIII convened the first session of the Second Vatican Council.
I'm constantly amazed at the level of misunderstanding that still, half a century later, surrounds this event. Since the Council's closing in 1965, most Catholics and nearly all Protestants view the history of the Catholic faith as falling into two parts: pre-Vatican Council and post-Vatican Council.
Angelo Roncalli came to the papal conclave in 1958 with a round-trip train ticket... convinced he'd be returning to Venice once a new Pope had been found. His election was seen as a "stop-gap" measure... truly, a continuation of the interregnum following the death of Pius XII, until a more long-term candidate could be identified and elected.
You'd be hard pressed to find a man who did more to change the face of the Catholic Church than John XXIII did... and I am serious here. Francis of Assisi comes to mind, as does Benedict. Loyola and Xavier. These are the names that I think of when I think about who shaped the Church as we know it today... and I simply cannot imagine keeping John's name off that list. I realize he didn't do it alone... but he wasn't afraid to do what no one had done in the Church for nearly a century, and he took on issues that had troubled the Vatican for more than 500 years.
I'm constantly amazed at the level of misunderstanding that still, half a century later, surrounds this event. Since the Council's closing in 1965, most Catholics and nearly all Protestants view the history of the Catholic faith as falling into two parts: pre-Vatican Council and post-Vatican Council.
Angelo Roncalli came to the papal conclave in 1958 with a round-trip train ticket... convinced he'd be returning to Venice once a new Pope had been found. His election was seen as a "stop-gap" measure... truly, a continuation of the interregnum following the death of Pius XII, until a more long-term candidate could be identified and elected.
You'd be hard pressed to find a man who did more to change the face of the Catholic Church than John XXIII did... and I am serious here. Francis of Assisi comes to mind, as does Benedict. Loyola and Xavier. These are the names that I think of when I think about who shaped the Church as we know it today... and I simply cannot imagine keeping John's name off that list. I realize he didn't do it alone... but he wasn't afraid to do what no one had done in the Church for nearly a century, and he took on issues that had troubled the Vatican for more than 500 years.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
scandal
I just saw the Reaganomics post and will respond at my first opportunity. I just popped on today to link to a detailed account of a story I've had a particular interest in ...
The State Department held a press briefing today in which the most detailed account of the Benghazi Embassy attacks was laid out. Found HERE this story reads like something out of a Vince Flynn novel. The attacks, firefights, driving against traffic with two flat tires in an escape attempt, and most damning of all is State flatly saying that "others in the administration" whom claimed this was all a result of protests (spontaneous or otherwise) were wrong noting, "that was never our conclusion."
Now you might ask yourself why State would come out against its' own administration (read: its' current boss). Well, State Department officials, career State Department officials are testifying under oath to congress starting today and a security official that fended off the attack has already testified that security was "inappropriately low", and repeated requests for enhancing it were denied. The bottom line - career State Department and security professionals are not about to commit perjury for a CIC that looks to be on his way out of office.
The POTUS clearly and repeatedly lied. UN Ambassador Susan Rice, SoS Clinton, and Press Secretary Jay Carney all repeated this lie, emphatically so. A sign of how bad this is getting - Carney does a daily press briefing... he hasn't been seen nor heard from in two weeks; and what is described as an "emergency meeting" between Hillary and the President is said to be taking place this very afternoon.
And guess what? The next presidential debate is on foreign policy.
The State Department held a press briefing today in which the most detailed account of the Benghazi Embassy attacks was laid out. Found HERE this story reads like something out of a Vince Flynn novel. The attacks, firefights, driving against traffic with two flat tires in an escape attempt, and most damning of all is State flatly saying that "others in the administration" whom claimed this was all a result of protests (spontaneous or otherwise) were wrong noting, "that was never our conclusion."
Now you might ask yourself why State would come out against its' own administration (read: its' current boss). Well, State Department officials, career State Department officials are testifying under oath to congress starting today and a security official that fended off the attack has already testified that security was "inappropriately low", and repeated requests for enhancing it were denied. The bottom line - career State Department and security professionals are not about to commit perjury for a CIC that looks to be on his way out of office.
The POTUS clearly and repeatedly lied. UN Ambassador Susan Rice, SoS Clinton, and Press Secretary Jay Carney all repeated this lie, emphatically so. A sign of how bad this is getting - Carney does a daily press briefing... he hasn't been seen nor heard from in two weeks; and what is described as an "emergency meeting" between Hillary and the President is said to be taking place this very afternoon.
And guess what? The next presidential debate is on foreign policy.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
On Ryan's defense of Reaganomics...
F. Ryan reminded me that he had, indeed, responded to my questions about GOP taxation policies, but in a comment rather than a post. I wanted to keep that discussion front and center, so here are his salient points:
"I don't think we can have a proper discussion on "Reaganomics" & what aspects of it jump started the economy if we simply define it as the raising & lowering of personal income tax rates, which is the way I read your posts. lets get a common definition of Reaganomics first. "
"In other words, if he compromised on taxes in 86' because he made the executive calculation that the USSR was now a greater threat than the once faltering/now recovered US economy, then that makes his decision part of history, but not necessarily part of Reaganomics. "
"...we need to establish whether we mean Reaganomics the theory, as articulated by Reagan, or the reality of what legislation was produced post political compromise, because "supply side" is traditionally thought of as the polar political/economic opposite.of Keynsian, and Reagan's ideology is certainly one of a supply sider "
Fair enough. I define "Reaganomics" as the policies and agendas laid out by Reagan from early in 1980 (once his campaign came full swing) though his entire terms in office. In short, "Reaganomics" is the economic policy, in all its subtle nuances, of the man as he ran for President AND of the President himself through both his terms in office.
Let's begin with Reagan's Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, given in Detroit, MI on July 17, 1980. In that speech, Reagan made four fundamental promises for the first term of his Presidency:
1) Massive spending cuts to reduce the Federal deficit and secure a balanced budget by 1984, including the elimination of such wasteful and redundant organs as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy,
2) Massive tax cuts to reduce marginal income tax rates across the board, lower the capital gains tax, eliminate loopholes and simplify the tax code,
3) Reduce the rate at which the Federal government grows,
4) A return to the "gold standard" to ensure a strong, inflation-proof US Dollar into the future.
With the help of history's unwavering eye, we see that there was no balanced budget, that Education and Energy are still sucking up tax dollars and clogging the machine of government, there still is no gold standard (nor will there ever be), and that government spending doubled from 1980 to 1989.
Now, I know Ryan is foaming at the mouth because Reagan spent $991 billion in 1987 (up from Carter's last budget of $541 billion) specifically to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. One can't win a war without spending money, I agree. What I question is why we have to separate "Reaganomics" from any efforts to "win" the Cold War. Either the country is fighting a war to win, or we are not. I've often heard Ryan defend Bush Jr. and his spending as all part of the effort to win the "War on Terror"... but Obama hasn't lowered the amount of money spent on the military since his inauguration, either. Why is his spending less important than Bush's?
Winning the Cold War had to have been, and (indeed) WAS, an integral part of Reagan's economic agenda from the very start. Thus, it was part of Reaganomics and can't be separated from it.
Furthermore, I contend that the pundits of Reaganomics today use the term and "theory" of the policies in ways that are not only contradictory to the actual Reagan vision, but do so in the most un-factual manner (not a real word, I know) possible simply to make a talking point. I want to be sure that we, as members of this proud brotherhood, DO NOT fall into that same trap. We are more than capable (and yes, I am including myself in this generalization) of taking the truly objective path and seeing history for what it is, rather than what we want it to be.
I'm the first to admit that Reagan restructured the tax rate, and lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% (33% in '88). Capital gains went from 44% to 32%. However, the amount of revenue stemming from payroll tax went from 58% to 88% in the same time frame, meaning more and more of the government funds come from our paychecks... especially the paychecks of the top 25% of wage earners. These are the same wage earners that today we are told are paying the bills in this country.
The rate at which government grew was lowered from 5% to 2.5% in 7 years... probably his greatest achievement, economically. However, he was spending nearly twice what Carter was spending, in any way you care to present it. As a percentage of GDP, as gross dollars, as a percentage of total revenue... all were more than 80% MORE than what was spent in the four years of Carter's term. His deficits were nearly three times what Carter's were... and his national debt figure was the first to take the US out of the world's primary creditor to the world's primary debtor... something 3 of the next 4 Presidents would emulate in the years that followed.
Thoughts?
"I don't think we can have a proper discussion on "Reaganomics" & what aspects of it jump started the economy if we simply define it as the raising & lowering of personal income tax rates, which is the way I read your posts. lets get a common definition of Reaganomics first. "
"In other words, if he compromised on taxes in 86' because he made the executive calculation that the USSR was now a greater threat than the once faltering/now recovered US economy, then that makes his decision part of history, but not necessarily part of Reaganomics. "
"...we need to establish whether we mean Reaganomics the theory, as articulated by Reagan, or the reality of what legislation was produced post political compromise, because "supply side" is traditionally thought of as the polar political/economic opposite.of Keynsian, and Reagan's ideology is certainly one of a supply sider "
Fair enough. I define "Reaganomics" as the policies and agendas laid out by Reagan from early in 1980 (once his campaign came full swing) though his entire terms in office. In short, "Reaganomics" is the economic policy, in all its subtle nuances, of the man as he ran for President AND of the President himself through both his terms in office.
Let's begin with Reagan's Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, given in Detroit, MI on July 17, 1980. In that speech, Reagan made four fundamental promises for the first term of his Presidency:
1) Massive spending cuts to reduce the Federal deficit and secure a balanced budget by 1984, including the elimination of such wasteful and redundant organs as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy,
2) Massive tax cuts to reduce marginal income tax rates across the board, lower the capital gains tax, eliminate loopholes and simplify the tax code,
3) Reduce the rate at which the Federal government grows,
4) A return to the "gold standard" to ensure a strong, inflation-proof US Dollar into the future.
With the help of history's unwavering eye, we see that there was no balanced budget, that Education and Energy are still sucking up tax dollars and clogging the machine of government, there still is no gold standard (nor will there ever be), and that government spending doubled from 1980 to 1989.
Now, I know Ryan is foaming at the mouth because Reagan spent $991 billion in 1987 (up from Carter's last budget of $541 billion) specifically to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. One can't win a war without spending money, I agree. What I question is why we have to separate "Reaganomics" from any efforts to "win" the Cold War. Either the country is fighting a war to win, or we are not. I've often heard Ryan defend Bush Jr. and his spending as all part of the effort to win the "War on Terror"... but Obama hasn't lowered the amount of money spent on the military since his inauguration, either. Why is his spending less important than Bush's?
Winning the Cold War had to have been, and (indeed) WAS, an integral part of Reagan's economic agenda from the very start. Thus, it was part of Reaganomics and can't be separated from it.
Furthermore, I contend that the pundits of Reaganomics today use the term and "theory" of the policies in ways that are not only contradictory to the actual Reagan vision, but do so in the most un-factual manner (not a real word, I know) possible simply to make a talking point. I want to be sure that we, as members of this proud brotherhood, DO NOT fall into that same trap. We are more than capable (and yes, I am including myself in this generalization) of taking the truly objective path and seeing history for what it is, rather than what we want it to be.
I'm the first to admit that Reagan restructured the tax rate, and lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% (33% in '88). Capital gains went from 44% to 32%. However, the amount of revenue stemming from payroll tax went from 58% to 88% in the same time frame, meaning more and more of the government funds come from our paychecks... especially the paychecks of the top 25% of wage earners. These are the same wage earners that today we are told are paying the bills in this country.
The rate at which government grew was lowered from 5% to 2.5% in 7 years... probably his greatest achievement, economically. However, he was spending nearly twice what Carter was spending, in any way you care to present it. As a percentage of GDP, as gross dollars, as a percentage of total revenue... all were more than 80% MORE than what was spent in the four years of Carter's term. His deficits were nearly three times what Carter's were... and his national debt figure was the first to take the US out of the world's primary creditor to the world's primary debtor... something 3 of the next 4 Presidents would emulate in the years that followed.
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Let's talk "priceless"...
Did anyone else see the Chris Matthews meltdown? I swear, the man was actually in tears!
He all but said that Jim Lehrer's fairly objective position within the framework of the debate made Obama's position in the debate untenable. What does that say about the President and his policies? Without the support of MSNBC and the rest of the sycophantic liberal press, Obama can't make his points, let alone win them against rational opposition.
Does that about sum it up, Mr. Matthews?
He all but said that Jim Lehrer's fairly objective position within the framework of the debate made Obama's position in the debate untenable. What does that say about the President and his policies? Without the support of MSNBC and the rest of the sycophantic liberal press, Obama can't make his points, let alone win them against rational opposition.
Does that about sum it up, Mr. Matthews?
My thoughts...
Man, I hate always being the guy that has to oppose everything F. Ryan says, but here I go again...
Paris Hilton has a purpose in this nation, and deserves the opportunity to work and succeed as much as anyone else. If her purpose is to look stupid constantly, and to put that stupidity on the airwaves at every chance she gets, so be it... she is guaranteed that right.
Seriously...
Ryan's right about one thing: the choice is pretty clear.
Was it a home run? An "out-of-the-park" grand-slam? Probably not, but it was FAR MORE than I expected from Mitt by any stretch of the imagination. It was a stellar win... from start to finish. In fact, it wasn't really much of a debate. It was more a platform for Mitt to make his case in solid contrast to Obama's and the liberal Left. Obama certainly didn't present anything with any conviction, that's for sure.
Obama's mistakes were many and multifaceted. He misspoke stumbled, stuttered and lost his place numerous times. He showed a seriously lack of facts, and an utter inability to counter presented facts in a manner that did anything but HELP Romney. His eyes were anywhere BUT on Romney or the camera, while Romney was calm, poised and obviously listening to everything the President said.
I almost panicked when I heard Romney say (the first time) that he agreed with the President (on ANYTHING)... and I had nightmare visions of the ultra-moderate coming through loud and clear once again. However, the "agreement" was nothing more than gracious debate... and he couldn't have made it more clear that very, very little of what the President has done has been anything but ineffective. He showed that he shared the President's concerns, but has a completely different idea about how to address them. THAT was a tactic that worked fantastically last night... but might not work again.
Perhaps the best news is that the debate was a HUGE success through internet viewing. The debate broke all the records on internet participation, which I think means that a large portion of the younger block of voters was probably viewing, and (thus) that serious questions MUST be twirling through those young minds as we speak. The opinion polls that gauged win/loss last night were 67% to 25% in favor of Romney last night, and though most were online polls (something I can't bring myself to trust at all), it is telling in itself.
Let's not forget, Reagan got crushed in his first debate, too.
Paris Hilton has a purpose in this nation, and deserves the opportunity to work and succeed as much as anyone else. If her purpose is to look stupid constantly, and to put that stupidity on the airwaves at every chance she gets, so be it... she is guaranteed that right.
Seriously...
Ryan's right about one thing: the choice is pretty clear.
Was it a home run? An "out-of-the-park" grand-slam? Probably not, but it was FAR MORE than I expected from Mitt by any stretch of the imagination. It was a stellar win... from start to finish. In fact, it wasn't really much of a debate. It was more a platform for Mitt to make his case in solid contrast to Obama's and the liberal Left. Obama certainly didn't present anything with any conviction, that's for sure.
Obama's mistakes were many and multifaceted. He misspoke stumbled, stuttered and lost his place numerous times. He showed a seriously lack of facts, and an utter inability to counter presented facts in a manner that did anything but HELP Romney. His eyes were anywhere BUT on Romney or the camera, while Romney was calm, poised and obviously listening to everything the President said.
I almost panicked when I heard Romney say (the first time) that he agreed with the President (on ANYTHING)... and I had nightmare visions of the ultra-moderate coming through loud and clear once again. However, the "agreement" was nothing more than gracious debate... and he couldn't have made it more clear that very, very little of what the President has done has been anything but ineffective. He showed that he shared the President's concerns, but has a completely different idea about how to address them. THAT was a tactic that worked fantastically last night... but might not work again.
Perhaps the best news is that the debate was a HUGE success through internet viewing. The debate broke all the records on internet participation, which I think means that a large portion of the younger block of voters was probably viewing, and (thus) that serious questions MUST be twirling through those young minds as we speak. The opinion polls that gauged win/loss last night were 67% to 25% in favor of Romney last night, and though most were online polls (something I can't bring myself to trust at all), it is telling in itself.
Let's not forget, Reagan got crushed in his first debate, too.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
the choice ...
The debate has 3 minutes left.
All I can say is free peoples get the government they deserve. The choice couldn't be more clear - embrace a model of collective salvation that has seen the great nations of Europe waste away, or return to the ideals of our founding. Individual liberty or government sponsored security. A fundamental transformation of America or a fundamental restoration of America.
Here is my fundamental concern - is the American electorate of 2012 sufficiently educated in the principles which have brought America unparalleled success to make a decision that will sustain this nation's preeminence in the world, or are they too busy watching dancing with the stars?
I must say, I fear for any nation in which Paris Hilton has a job.
All I can say is free peoples get the government they deserve. The choice couldn't be more clear - embrace a model of collective salvation that has seen the great nations of Europe waste away, or return to the ideals of our founding. Individual liberty or government sponsored security. A fundamental transformation of America or a fundamental restoration of America.
Here is my fundamental concern - is the American electorate of 2012 sufficiently educated in the principles which have brought America unparalleled success to make a decision that will sustain this nation's preeminence in the world, or are they too busy watching dancing with the stars?
I must say, I fear for any nation in which Paris Hilton has a job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
