Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Take this enthusiasm into November!
Here's some end of the week positivity for you! A Rush caller, Gina, recalls the enthusiasm felt at Red Rocks a few days ago. This enthusiasm is being felt at EVERY Romney/Ryan rally across America. Let's take this into November, into the voting booths, and return leadership to our country!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Obama to youth: 'do it' with me!
The new low...comparing the first time you vote to the first time you 'do it'. Brought to you by Barack Obama...making his daughters proud.
Unfortunately, this political flirtation with young women's sexuality isn't new...his commie buddy Vlad used the same disgusting tactic earlier this year...
Figures.
Unfortunately, this political flirtation with young women's sexuality isn't new...his commie buddy Vlad used the same disgusting tactic earlier this year...
Figures.
Obama calls Romney a 'bullsh*tter'
Politico: FIRST LOOK – Rolling Stone cover, “Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview,” by Douglas Brinkley: “We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”’”
I'm gonna go with WeaselZippers response: 'Takes one to know one.'
Steady as she goes...
Lots of polls out from yesterday to today...here's how the Mittmentum is rounding out (courtesy RCP):
Within a couple of those polls, we see some other key indicators. As far as that 'gender gap'...yeah, it's gone...
AP: What gender gap? Less than two weeks out from Election Day, Republican Mitt Romney has erased President Barack Obama’s 16-point advantage among women, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows.
Rasmussen has Romney holding steady both in nationwide polling and within the crucial swing states...
theRightScoop: The nationwide daily tracking poll just got a little tighter with Romney maintaining only a +3 point lead, holding steady at 50% with Obama encroaching at 47%. In the swing states daily tracking poll, nothing changes from yesterday with Romney leading by +4 points at 50% – 46%.
With an all-time high in enthusiasm behind the Romney/Ryan ticket, likely due to a very successful round of debates, which voters say the Republican presidential candidate won heftily by a 49% - 41% margin (Rasmussen), Americans are actively demonstrating their desire for new & improved leadership in D.C.
Within a couple of those polls, we see some other key indicators. As far as that 'gender gap'...yeah, it's gone...
AP: What gender gap? Less than two weeks out from Election Day, Republican Mitt Romney has erased President Barack Obama’s 16-point advantage among women, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows.
Rasmussen has Romney holding steady both in nationwide polling and within the crucial swing states...
theRightScoop: The nationwide daily tracking poll just got a little tighter with Romney maintaining only a +3 point lead, holding steady at 50% with Obama encroaching at 47%. In the swing states daily tracking poll, nothing changes from yesterday with Romney leading by +4 points at 50% – 46%.
With an all-time high in enthusiasm behind the Romney/Ryan ticket, likely due to a very successful round of debates, which voters say the Republican presidential candidate won heftily by a 49% - 41% margin (Rasmussen), Americans are actively demonstrating their desire for new & improved leadership in D.C.
Message to UN: Don't mess with Texas
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a stern warning to an 'irrelevant' UN partner that wants to send 'observers' into the United States on Election Day...
AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today advised the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe -- a United Nations partner
-- that groups and individuals from outside the United States do not have
jurisdiction to interfere with Texas elections. The Attorney General's letter
comes after the international group -- comprised of 56 members including EU
nations and other countries such as Albania, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Estonia,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, the Russian Federation, Slovenia and Turkey -- announced
they would be sending election observers to sites throughout the United States,
including Texas, on Election Day.
The text of the letter can also be found here...but thought I'd post the last two paragraphs that get right to the point:
If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections. However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons—including persons connected with OSCE—are required to comply with these laws.
Elections and election observation are regulated by state law. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE. The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.
Don't mess with Texas, boys. You've been warned.
The text of the letter can also be found here...but thought I'd post the last two paragraphs that get right to the point:
If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections. However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons—including persons connected with OSCE—are required to comply with these laws.
Elections and election observation are regulated by state law. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE. The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.
Don't mess with Texas, boys. You've been warned.
Obama: 'I couldn't find my plan'
Yeah, we've known that for a while now, Mr. President...
HotAir: Maybe this is the best recap ever of Barack Obama’s campaign, taken from Obama’s own speech this morning in Tampa Bay. Obama starts off by attacking Mitt Romney’s economic agenda, and then momentarily can’t find his own:
The booklet itself is mostly pictures, with no detail on some very familiar campaign pledges … most of which date back to 2008. One in particular is missing, though — immigration reform. This is a jobs-program pamphlet, but Obama has made the argument many times that immigration reform relates to jobs and the economy in key ways. He has promised immigration reform since 2007, pledging as a general-election candidate to accomplish it in his first year as President. In his picture book, there isn’t even a mention of it.
Nor is there a single mention of entitlement reform.
Nothing in this pamphlet can be described as a “plan,” let alone an “agenda.” It’s a collection of slogans taken from the campaign trail that become incoherent when jammed together in this booklet...
It’s regurgitated nonsense, mostly resurrected from the 2008 campaign in a desperate attempt to shift strategies at the last minute. Its sole purpose is to reveal, finally, that this President ran out of gas intellectually and politically a long time ago — and his picture book illustrates that very well.
HotAir: Maybe this is the best recap ever of Barack Obama’s campaign, taken from Obama’s own speech this morning in Tampa Bay. Obama starts off by attacking Mitt Romney’s economic agenda, and then momentarily can’t find his own:
The booklet itself is mostly pictures, with no detail on some very familiar campaign pledges … most of which date back to 2008. One in particular is missing, though — immigration reform. This is a jobs-program pamphlet, but Obama has made the argument many times that immigration reform relates to jobs and the economy in key ways. He has promised immigration reform since 2007, pledging as a general-election candidate to accomplish it in his first year as President. In his picture book, there isn’t even a mention of it.
Nor is there a single mention of entitlement reform.
Nothing in this pamphlet can be described as a “plan,” let alone an “agenda.” It’s a collection of slogans taken from the campaign trail that become incoherent when jammed together in this booklet...
It’s regurgitated nonsense, mostly resurrected from the 2008 campaign in a desperate attempt to shift strategies at the last minute. Its sole purpose is to reveal, finally, that this President ran out of gas intellectually and politically a long time ago — and his picture book illustrates that very well.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Romney rally draws HUGE crowd at Red Rocks
Supercharged! Way to go, Colorado.
DenverPost: A confident Mitt Romney, two weeks out from Election Day, spoke about his campaign as a movement sweeping the nation during a moonlit rally at Red Rocks Amphitheatre on Tuesday night.
Repeatedly, Romney referred to President Barack Obama as a president whose time has passed — out of ideas to improve the economy and out of touch with the needs of business owners. Romney said his own plans would restore American prosperity and prestige.
"The president's status-quo campaign ... is why he's slipping, and it's why we're gaining," said Romney, who was joined at the rally by running mate Paul Ryan. "It's why this movement is growing across the country."
DenverPost: A confident Mitt Romney, two weeks out from Election Day, spoke about his campaign as a movement sweeping the nation during a moonlit rally at Red Rocks Amphitheatre on Tuesday night.
Repeatedly, Romney referred to President Barack Obama as a president whose time has passed — out of ideas to improve the economy and out of touch with the needs of business owners. Romney said his own plans would restore American prosperity and prestige.
"The president's status-quo campaign ... is why he's slipping, and it's why we're gaining," said Romney, who was joined at the rally by running mate Paul Ryan. "It's why this movement is growing across the country."
Dem Rep's son conspires to commit election fraud (UPDATE)
Cheaters never prosper...unless you're a Democrat?
HeraldOnline: Project Veritas, the group headed by James O'Keefe and known for undercover video operations, has released a new investigation that exposes Representative Jim Moran's Field Director, conspiring to commit election fraud.
When approached by an undercover investigator for advice on how to steal the votes of more than 100 people, the Field Director advised falsifying documents to satisfy Virginia's new voter ID law. he said, "Bank statement obviously would be tough, but they can fake a utility bill with ease."
The Field Director went on to clarify that, "You'd have to forge it."
Btw, that field director is none other than Congressman Moran's own son! But naaa, it's RACIST if we expect votes to be legitimate ones, right, Mr. Holder? Unbelievable.
UPDATE: Looks like the son resigned from his father's campaign after O'Keefe's video was made public.
HeraldOnline: Project Veritas, the group headed by James O'Keefe and known for undercover video operations, has released a new investigation that exposes Representative Jim Moran's Field Director, conspiring to commit election fraud.
When approached by an undercover investigator for advice on how to steal the votes of more than 100 people, the Field Director advised falsifying documents to satisfy Virginia's new voter ID law. he said, "Bank statement obviously would be tough, but they can fake a utility bill with ease."
The Field Director went on to clarify that, "You'd have to forge it."
Btw, that field director is none other than Congressman Moran's own son! But naaa, it's RACIST if we expect votes to be legitimate ones, right, Mr. Holder? Unbelievable.
UPDATE: Looks like the son resigned from his father's campaign after O'Keefe's video was made public.
Leak reveals they knew Benghazi was 'terrorism' from the beginning
It's official...the Obama administration knew from the very beginning...
Reuters: Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.
Remember that second debate? Obama knew and lied about it.The email leak reveals that the attack went on for 7 hours, two of those American diplomats were killed later in the attack...and this administration did nothing to help. What about those aircraft carriers and submarines in the region, Mr. President? Better yet, the drones?!
Chuck Todd was talking yesterday about Obama 'requalifying'...I'd say this is a major DISQUALIFIER!
ADDENDUM: Rush was right out of the chute with this story on his program this morning...
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
Remember that second debate? Obama knew and lied about it.The email leak reveals that the attack went on for 7 hours, two of those American diplomats were killed later in the attack...and this administration did nothing to help. What about those aircraft carriers and submarines in the region, Mr. President? Better yet, the drones?!
Chuck Todd was talking yesterday about Obama 'requalifying'...I'd say this is a major DISQUALIFIER!
ADDENDUM: Rush was right out of the chute with this story on his program this morning...
Trump: $5M to charity for Obama's college/passport transcripts
Not gonna happen, Donald...his reelection matters more to him than any charity.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Essential hits from the Apology Tour
Not only was the Romney camp quick to create a critical ad from last night's debate focused solely on Obama's apology tour, which Obama predictably denied (along with media in tow); but Rush played audio sample after audio sample after contemptable audio sample from the first five months of Obama's presidency to remind all of America, including the absent-minded media, that Obama did worse than simply apologize, he went around the world indicting and condemning America!
Rush can effortlessly find these instances, but our mainstream American media can't? Well, here ya go, kids...the Big Guy already did the work for you.
Rush can effortlessly find these instances, but our mainstream American media can't? Well, here ya go, kids...the Big Guy already did the work for you.
Swinging towards Romney
RasmussenReports: In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 50% of the vote to Obama’s 45%. Two percent (2%) like another candidate in the race, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
This is now the third time Romney has hit the 50% mark in the combined swing states in the past four days and is the biggest lead either candidate has held in nearly three weeks. This survey is conducted on a rolling seven-day basis, and as a result, virtually all of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the end of last night’s presidential debate. Romney has now held a modest lead for 12 of the last 15 days; Obama was ahead twice, and the candidates ran even once.
Nationally, Romney has now also hit the 50% level of support in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
Chuck Todd: Too late for Obama to ‘disqualify Mitt Romney,’ has to ‘requalify himself’
Wow.
DailyCaller: With the presidential election headed into its final stages after Monday night’s debate in Boca Raton, Fla., MSNBC’s Chuck Todd says President Barack Obama has lost the window of opportunity to attack Mitt Romney, and is now forced to have to “requalify” himself to be president.
ADDENDUM: theRightScoop also reminds us of a similar sentiment about Romney surviving Obama's disqualifying attacks...
Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin told Charlie Rose in May of this year that all Romney has to do is survive being disqualified by the Obama campaign, and that if he can do that and then rise to the occasion by using his VP pick, the convention and the debates, then Romney will likely win.
DailyCaller: With the presidential election headed into its final stages after Monday night’s debate in Boca Raton, Fla., MSNBC’s Chuck Todd says President Barack Obama has lost the window of opportunity to attack Mitt Romney, and is now forced to have to “requalify” himself to be president.
ADDENDUM: theRightScoop also reminds us of a similar sentiment about Romney surviving Obama's disqualifying attacks...
Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin told Charlie Rose in May of this year that all Romney has to do is survive being disqualified by the Obama campaign, and that if he can do that and then rise to the occasion by using his VP pick, the convention and the debates, then Romney will likely win.
Liberal media stunned by CBS focus group in Ohio
The look on the faces of Rose and O'Donnell...priceless.
HotAir: Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell seem a little surprised by the results of this focus group conducted by CBS during last night’s debate, a group that consists of eight undecided voters in Ohio — a critical swing state for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Conventional wisdom and spot polls showed Obama winning a narrow victory over Romney in last night’s debate, but that’s not how CBS’ independents saw it:
HotAir: Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell seem a little surprised by the results of this focus group conducted by CBS during last night’s debate, a group that consists of eight undecided voters in Ohio — a critical swing state for both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Conventional wisdom and spot polls showed Obama winning a narrow victory over Romney in last night’s debate, but that’s not how CBS’ independents saw it:
Monday, October 22, 2012
Thoughts on final debate
My first impression (as a passionate conservative, mind you): I wanted Obama's teeth knocked out...and I think it could have been possible to cordially do so without being painted as an evil Republican warmonger. But alas, that was not to be. Instead, I shook my head in frustration for at least the first 45 minutes (or until the Iran discussion).
Don't get me wrong, I understand Mitt's strategy: show your effective level-headedness to undecided voters while sitting next to Mr. Superiority Complex...and in many respects, that worked to illustrate Romney's capacity to be presidential, as opposed to Obama's bratty condescension. But for Obama to be allowed to waltz through his Middle East debacles one-by-painful-one is slightly infuriating.
I think Quin Hillyer probably summed up my sentiments the best...
For 75 minutes tonight, I was tearing my hair out over missed oppotunities for Romney. But he did succeed in making it so boring that few people will base their votes on Obama's better performance during that long, long stretch. By "better," I don't mean "slam dunk." I just mean slightly better body language and tone of voice, and a narrow edge in terms of electoral effect.
In the last 15 minutes, Romney hit his stride. And while Obama's closing argument was warmed over, same-old same-old pablum, while he looked a bit shaky, Romney's closing statement was superb. If anybody was still awake by then, Romney left a much better closing impression.
Final effect: More people, by a narrow margin, will say Obama "won." But he didn't get a game-changer. A couple of days of poll doldrums for Romney will follow -- not big losses, but just a few little ticks down -- and then comes a nice little recognition by the public that Obama is a disaster. Tonight's debate did nothing to make Romney look unpresidential or unlikeable. Therefore, Romney is still more than viable. This will be a dog fight until the end. Nerve-wracking. But if Romney turns the closing statement into a commercial, it should help him make a nice final push.
So, all in all, nothing harmed, nothing gained.
On the other hand, Krauthammer was more optimistic, and sensibly so...and I'm overwhelmingly with him on the baseball bat!
"Romney went large. Obama went very, very small – shockingly small."
I also absolutely agree with Krauthammer's assessment that "the high point of that debate for Romney is when he devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour," followed up by a few back and forth's, with Romney slamming Obama:
"Mr President, America has not dictated to other nations; we have freed other nations from dictators."
Right on...that's what I really wanted to see/hear consistently throughout.
So what it all boils down to is essentially what the Great One succinctly stated...
Obama was pretty nasty and condescending. He also spun like hell. Romney was cautious and factual. Obama's hope to paint him as trigger happy failed. I don't think this debate changes anything. Incidentally, Bob Schieffer did an excellent job.
Well, that and the ties: Romney's red with purple stripes vs. Obama's solid blue.
ADDENDUM: A few other memorable lines that may have tilted this towards Romney with undecided's...
“I congratulate the president on the killing of Osama bin Laden… but we can’t kill our way out of this mess.”
"Attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East unless we take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.”
Poll shift
"There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics." ~ Benjamin Disraeli
Cataclysmic! Hold on tight, desperation is about to kick in to the nth degree on the Left. Polls are suddenly shifting as we near Election Day...and the pollsters' post-election credibility being at stake might have a little something to do with it. In other words, we're finally seeing the results of what we've suspected for quite some time...
Cataclysmic! Hold on tight, desperation is about to kick in to the nth degree on the Left. Polls are suddenly shifting as we near Election Day...and the pollsters' post-election credibility being at stake might have a little something to do with it. In other words, we're finally seeing the results of what we've suspected for quite some time...
World's dictators endorse Obama
Ahhh, doesn't that set your mind at ease? Weakness can't be project onto the Free World any better than to see the world's dictators rally behind a feckless American president. (Here's the original article from a few weeks back that many are reporting on today)
GerardDirect: The latest [dictator] to publicly announce his support for the commander-in-chief’s reelection bid was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who this week assured he’d vote for Obama if he were from the United States. The America-bashing strongman made the announcement on state-owned television, saying “Obama is a good guy” and that if Obama was from Caracas, he’d surely return the favor by voting for Chavez.
With the way Obama's Justice Department has fought the Voter ID laws across the nation, Chavez may get to vote for his man afterall. The article moves on to the other tyrants...
Earlier in the year the government-official daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S. “I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart,” Mariela Castro said during a cable news interview. ...
That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has eliminated most elections in his country, monopolized all major media and destroyed the political party system. ... In a letter to a major newspaper, the president of a group dedicated to expanding freedom around the world points out that under Putin there has been an “across-the-board crackdown on civil society.” The piece goes on to ask: “Will Obama stand up against Putin’s abuses?” Unlikely, now that the Russian dictator has extended his endorsement.
Time to wake up, America. If it's taken you up until tonight's debate to figure out who the better leader would be to navigate America through these turbulent times and back to its exceptional path, then I'm sorry to say, but you've been fast asleep over the past 4 years. The alarm's buzzing louder than ever...don't hit sleep again.
H/t CanadaFreePress
With the way Obama's Justice Department has fought the Voter ID laws across the nation, Chavez may get to vote for his man afterall. The article moves on to the other tyrants...
Earlier in the year the government-official daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S. “I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart,” Mariela Castro said during a cable news interview. ...
That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has eliminated most elections in his country, monopolized all major media and destroyed the political party system. ... In a letter to a major newspaper, the president of a group dedicated to expanding freedom around the world points out that under Putin there has been an “across-the-board crackdown on civil society.” The piece goes on to ask: “Will Obama stand up against Putin’s abuses?” Unlikely, now that the Russian dictator has extended his endorsement.
Time to wake up, America. If it's taken you up until tonight's debate to figure out who the better leader would be to navigate America through these turbulent times and back to its exceptional path, then I'm sorry to say, but you've been fast asleep over the past 4 years. The alarm's buzzing louder than ever...don't hit sleep again.
H/t CanadaFreePress
Friday, October 19, 2012
Irony
Irony is such a funny thing. With all that's happening out there, all the distractions, the threats, the scandals and current cover-up, and the stark disarray that the Obama administration/campaign finds itself in...also, not to get too caught up in the polls that from Rasmussen to Gallup have Romney edging ahead...but at this moment, I'm reminded of a particular portion of Obama's 2008 speech to the Democratic National Convention, where he spoke about desperation...
Funny, I'm also suddenly reminded of one of his mentor's phrases as well:
Chicken's coming home to roost!
Not America's, Rev, but Barack Obama's.
Funny, I'm also suddenly reminded of one of his mentor's phrases as well:
Chicken's coming home to roost!
Not America's, Rev, but Barack Obama's.
Changing the story to suit the campaign
Ed Morrissey of HotAir is all over this morning's McClatchy report stating within the first 48 hours, the Obama administration suspected a terrorist attack, but then changed the narrative to say that the attack was the result of protests over a video.
HotAir: Barack Obama insisted in the presidential debate on Tuesday night that he had called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden address the next day. Fact-checkers called shenanigans on that claim, but McClatchy notes that Obama did call it an “act of terror” the next day at campaign stops in Colorado and Nevada on September 13th. On the same day, the State Department refused to link the Benghazi attack to the YouTube video that media outlets like the New York Times and AFP had. Hillary Clinton called it a terrorist attack that evening.
However, the next day, things began to change, as McClatchy’s Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay report in their in-depth look at how the narrative shifted toward the YouTube video instead of an al-Qaeda attack...
From McClatchy:
With images of besieged U.S. missions in the Middle East still leading the evening news, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney became the first official to back away from the earlier declaration that the Benghazi assault was a “complex attack” by extremists. Instead, Carney told reporters, authorities “have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” He added that there was no reason to think that the Benghazi attack wasn’t related to the video, given that the clip had sparked protests in many Muslim cities.
“The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive,” Carney said.
When pressed by reporters who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was preplanned, Carney said that “news reports” had speculated about the motive. He noted again that “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”
Carney then launched into remarks that read like talking points in defense of the U.S. decision to intervene in last year’s uprising against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: that post-Gadhafi Libya, he said, is “one of the more pro-American countries in the region,” that it’s led by a new government “that has just come out of a revolution,” and that the lack of security capabilities there “is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.”
By that Sunday, Sept. 16, the evolution of the narrative was complete when Rice, the U.N. ambassador, showed up on all five major morning talk shows to make the most direct public connection yet between the Benghazi assault and the incendiary video.
While she couched her remarks in caveats – “based on the information we have at present,” for example – Rice clearly intended to make the link before a large American audience.
Morrissey followed that up by an AP story revealing that the CIA had evidence within 24 hours that the consulate attack was carried out by 'militants', not a spontaneous mob upset about a video.
HotAir: Earlier this morning, McClatchy asked why the Obama administration changed its story on the Benghazi terrorist attack after three days from an initial, vague reference to terrorist attacks to a demonstrably false narrative about a “spontaneous demonstration” that never took place, and a YouTube video that had been on line for two months. That question got more pressing this morning, as the Associated Press reports that the CIA linked the attack to “militants” in eastern Libya.
If you haven’t already done so, be sure to read all of McClatchy’s report on the shifting narratives from the Obama administration. The CIA report would generally align with most of the messaging from the White House in the first two days. It’s not until the 14th that the Obama administration went all-in on the YouTube-video blameshifting that continued for more than a week...
From AP:
The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
They're covering-up something all right...but it might have more to do with Obama's disinterest and fervent nonstop campaigning through the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, with trips to Vegas and beyond, over the concern of northern Africa erupting into an al-Qaeda haven, demonstrated on the world stage through the murder of an American ambassador and three diplomats. If the vast majority of Americans from all walks of life realized that, even the more liberal leaning, there's little doubt that even they wouldn't be interested in reelecting a president who prefers campaigning and insulting with petty talk of Big Bird, binders and Romnesia...over actually leading.
HotAir: Barack Obama insisted in the presidential debate on Tuesday night that he had called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden address the next day. Fact-checkers called shenanigans on that claim, but McClatchy notes that Obama did call it an “act of terror” the next day at campaign stops in Colorado and Nevada on September 13th. On the same day, the State Department refused to link the Benghazi attack to the YouTube video that media outlets like the New York Times and AFP had. Hillary Clinton called it a terrorist attack that evening.
However, the next day, things began to change, as McClatchy’s Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay report in their in-depth look at how the narrative shifted toward the YouTube video instead of an al-Qaeda attack...
From McClatchy:
“The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive,” Carney said.
When pressed by reporters who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was preplanned, Carney said that “news reports” had speculated about the motive. He noted again that “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”
Carney then launched into remarks that read like talking points in defense of the U.S. decision to intervene in last year’s uprising against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: that post-Gadhafi Libya, he said, is “one of the more pro-American countries in the region,” that it’s led by a new government “that has just come out of a revolution,” and that the lack of security capabilities there “is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.”
By that Sunday, Sept. 16, the evolution of the narrative was complete when Rice, the U.N. ambassador, showed up on all five major morning talk shows to make the most direct public connection yet between the Benghazi assault and the incendiary video.
While she couched her remarks in caveats – “based on the information we have at present,” for example – Rice clearly intended to make the link before a large American audience.
Morrissey followed that up by an AP story revealing that the CIA had evidence within 24 hours that the consulate attack was carried out by 'militants', not a spontaneous mob upset about a video.
HotAir: Earlier this morning, McClatchy asked why the Obama administration changed its story on the Benghazi terrorist attack after three days from an initial, vague reference to terrorist attacks to a demonstrably false narrative about a “spontaneous demonstration” that never took place, and a YouTube video that had been on line for two months. That question got more pressing this morning, as the Associated Press reports that the CIA linked the attack to “militants” in eastern Libya.
If you haven’t already done so, be sure to read all of McClatchy’s report on the shifting narratives from the Obama administration. The CIA report would generally align with most of the messaging from the White House in the first two days. It’s not until the 14th that the Obama administration went all-in on the YouTube-video blameshifting that continued for more than a week...
From AP:
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
They're covering-up something all right...but it might have more to do with Obama's disinterest and fervent nonstop campaigning through the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, with trips to Vegas and beyond, over the concern of northern Africa erupting into an al-Qaeda haven, demonstrated on the world stage through the murder of an American ambassador and three diplomats. If the vast majority of Americans from all walks of life realized that, even the more liberal leaning, there's little doubt that even they wouldn't be interested in reelecting a president who prefers campaigning and insulting with petty talk of Big Bird, binders and Romnesia...over actually leading.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Obama says American deaths in Benghazi 'not optimal' (UPDATE)
Breitbart: Today, according to the White House pool report, President Obama told Jon Stewart during a Comedy Central Daily Show taping that the deaths of our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were “not optimal.” This comes just weeks after President Obama told CBS News’ Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes that the murders of four Americans in Benghazi were “bumps in the road.” By way of contrast, President Obama described the YouTube video “The Innocence of Muslims,” which had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks, as “crude and disgusting,” an “insult,” and said that its message “must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”
To reiterate: deaths of Americans are “not optimal,” and “bumps in the road.” A YouTube video is “bigotry,” “blasphemy,” “crude and disgusting,” an “insult,” and inhuman.
Unreal. It's a disgrace...and so is this President.
UPDATE: The mother of Sean Smith, one of the American diplomats killed in Benghazi, has responded to Obama's Daily Show comment...
"My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead."
Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: "It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don't think it's right."
"How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don't think the President has the right idea of the English language."
Clinton: Romney's argument 'is true', Obama hasn't fixed the economy
Bill Clinton at a campaign event in Ohio says that it is true that the economy is not fixed under Obama. That'll show him to lay the Benghazi blame on his gal...
"Wait, is he campaigning for or against Obama?" ~ WeaselZippers
"Wait, is he campaigning for or against Obama?" ~ WeaselZippers
Time to come clean on Benghazi
YES...please proceed, Governor!
Another damning ad from American Crossroads exposing the ugly little lie Obama told about Benghazi in Tuesday's debate...
Chicken's coming home to roost?
It's time to come clean on Benghazi, Mr. President.
Another damning ad from American Crossroads exposing the ugly little lie Obama told about Benghazi in Tuesday's debate...
Chicken's coming home to roost?
It's time to come clean on Benghazi, Mr. President.
Time to put the adults back in charge
Yes, it is! Great tv ad that nails it...
"It's time to retire the beer summit, spring break presidency. It's time to put the adults back in charge of America."
"It's time to retire the beer summit, spring break presidency. It's time to put the adults back in charge of America."
Surprise! Jobless claims return to 18-month range…
And there it is...'unexpected' to some, reality to the rest of us...
HotAir: It’s funny what happens to a data series when consistency returns to its collection. Last week’s weekly jobless claims numbers dropped dramatically to nearly a four-year low, but later it was discovered that one large state didn’t report all of its claims properly. This week, the level returns to the same range we’ve seen since the spring of 2011.
The Associated Press confirms that California bolloxed up the works, and that the data series is back on track.
In other words, nothing really changed. Initial jobless claims are being created at about the same relative pace as it has for at least the last 18 months; although this is the highest number we’ve seen in the last four months, it’s not statistically significant from the series to be exceptional. This series does not provide a direct correlation to job creation, but over time this data series does have some indirect correlation to the health of job creation in the economy. What this tells us over the long term is that the labor market is still stagnant.
Thanks to the vigilance of those in the know who understood from the very beginning that these were bogus numbers, followed by the discovery that California's jobless claims weren't included, this is probably the most expected rise in the jobs numbers.
The Associated Press confirms that California bolloxed up the works, and that the data series is back on track.
In other words, nothing really changed. Initial jobless claims are being created at about the same relative pace as it has for at least the last 18 months; although this is the highest number we’ve seen in the last four months, it’s not statistically significant from the series to be exceptional. This series does not provide a direct correlation to job creation, but over time this data series does have some indirect correlation to the health of job creation in the economy. What this tells us over the long term is that the labor market is still stagnant.
Thanks to the vigilance of those in the know who understood from the very beginning that these were bogus numbers, followed by the discovery that California's jobless claims weren't included, this is probably the most expected rise in the jobs numbers.
Welfare spending 5x what's needed to eliminate poverty in America!
The Democrat agenda is NOT to lift anyone out of poverty...and Obama doesn't even believe in the concept of self-reliance, much less independence itself, as he proclaimed in his closing statement of the last debate...
Heritage: It’s been a pretty big year for welfare—and a new report shows welfare is bigger than ever.
The Obama Administration turned a giant spotlight on the welfare system in July when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proclaimed it had the authority to gut the work requirements from the welfare reform that had helped lift so many people out of poverty after 1996.
This morning, a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) shows the staggering reality of the growing welfare state—echoing Heritage’s own research that reveals welfare spending is approaching the $1 trillion mark.
Roughly 100 million people—one-third of the U.S. population—receive aid from at least one means-tested welfare program each month. Average benefits come to around $9,000 per recipient. If converted to cash, means-tested welfare spending is more than five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the United States.
But, instead of simply handing out all this cash to eliminate poverty in American (in one year, btw), Obama has tripled welfare spending, grown the food stamps dole two-fold, and eliminated the work requirements for both.
The more than 80 federal means-tested aid programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to low-income people. Here’s how the spending breaks down:
Doubling the welfare rolls, handing out benefits without any work requirements, and spending twice as much on welfare as we spend on defense: This is Obama’s new normal.
How can the economy grow with policies that stifle job growth? Simply put, it can't.
Folks, it is time to move forward...without Obama and his welfare state.
The Obama Administration turned a giant spotlight on the welfare system in July when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proclaimed it had the authority to gut the work requirements from the welfare reform that had helped lift so many people out of poverty after 1996.
This morning, a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) shows the staggering reality of the growing welfare state—echoing Heritage’s own research that reveals welfare spending is approaching the $1 trillion mark.
Roughly 100 million people—one-third of the U.S. population—receive aid from at least one means-tested welfare program each month. Average benefits come to around $9,000 per recipient. If converted to cash, means-tested welfare spending is more than five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the United States.
But, instead of simply handing out all this cash to eliminate poverty in American (in one year, btw), Obama has tripled welfare spending, grown the food stamps dole two-fold, and eliminated the work requirements for both.
The more than 80 federal means-tested aid programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to low-income people. Here’s how the spending breaks down:
- Federal: At $746 billion, federal means-tested spending exceeded spending on Medicare ($480 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), or the defense budget ($540 billion).
- State: In 2011, state contributions into federal welfare programs came to $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.
- Combined: Overall means-tested welfare spending from federal and state sources reached from all sources reached $956 billion.
Doubling the welfare rolls, handing out benefits without any work requirements, and spending twice as much on welfare as we spend on defense: This is Obama’s new normal.
How can the economy grow with policies that stifle job growth? Simply put, it can't.
Folks, it is time to move forward...without Obama and his welfare state.
The myth of the wage gap
Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote a magnificent piece about the myth of the wage gap, which one of those undecided's asked about...
We hear it over and over again: the myth of the wage gap. In Tuesday’s presidential debate, Katherine Fenton asked President Obama what he intended to do about “women making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn.”
Just one problem: Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience.
While Obama bragged about increasing regulations through the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and Romney talked about the women he hired while governor of Massachusetts, Furchtgott-Roth says, "Neither candidate pointed out that women don’t make 72 cents on a man’s dollar, or 77 cents on a man’s dollar, one of Obama’s favorite statistics."
This comes from comparing the earnings of all full-time male employees with all full-time female employees. This averages together women who work as social workers with men who work as investment bankers; female English-literature majors with male engineers; and male loggers with female administrative assistants. Part of the gap is differences in hours worked, because full-time means any number of hours above 35 hours, and full-time women work fewer hours than men, on average. When comparisons are made between men and women who work 40 hours per week, women make 87 percent of men’s earnings.
There’s really no reason that, on average, men and women should be paid the same if they choose different majors in college, different jobs when they graduate, and different hours of work. What’s important is comparing men and women with the same job tenure in the same position in the same firm. If there’s a big difference under those circumstances, then there may be discrimination, giving women grounds to sue.
When economists compare men and women in the same job with the same experience, they earn about the same.
So another pervasive myth that the Left likes to use -- and one bought into by far too many on the Right -- is burst. That is, if you can get your fellow American to see the myth for the apples-to-oranges it is.
ADDENDUM: Carrie Lukas of IndependentWomen'sForum also took note of that debate question, as well as the Furchtgott-Roth article, adding...
I guess it is inevitable that the wage gap myth had to be a part of the official presidential debates of 2012. Though thoroughly debunked, it’s a staple of the Left’s campaign to convince women that our society is a heartless, sexist patriarchy and a micromanaging government is the only way women can hope to get a fair shake.
Just one problem: Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience.
While Obama bragged about increasing regulations through the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and Romney talked about the women he hired while governor of Massachusetts, Furchtgott-Roth says, "Neither candidate pointed out that women don’t make 72 cents on a man’s dollar, or 77 cents on a man’s dollar, one of Obama’s favorite statistics."
This comes from comparing the earnings of all full-time male employees with all full-time female employees. This averages together women who work as social workers with men who work as investment bankers; female English-literature majors with male engineers; and male loggers with female administrative assistants. Part of the gap is differences in hours worked, because full-time means any number of hours above 35 hours, and full-time women work fewer hours than men, on average. When comparisons are made between men and women who work 40 hours per week, women make 87 percent of men’s earnings.
There’s really no reason that, on average, men and women should be paid the same if they choose different majors in college, different jobs when they graduate, and different hours of work. What’s important is comparing men and women with the same job tenure in the same position in the same firm. If there’s a big difference under those circumstances, then there may be discrimination, giving women grounds to sue.
When economists compare men and women in the same job with the same experience, they earn about the same.
So another pervasive myth that the Left likes to use -- and one bought into by far too many on the Right -- is burst. That is, if you can get your fellow American to see the myth for the apples-to-oranges it is.
I guess it is inevitable that the wage gap myth had to be a part of the official presidential debates of 2012. Though thoroughly debunked, it’s a staple of the Left’s campaign to convince women that our society is a heartless, sexist patriarchy and a micromanaging government is the only way women can hope to get a fair shake.
The facts on oil & gas production
Another lie exposed....
Thanks, Bret and Jim. Real journalism is refreshing, isn't it?
Thanks, Bret and Jim. Real journalism is refreshing, isn't it?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Levin: 'I don't think more lies have been told in ninety minutes in the history of debates'
On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show: Mark discusses the second Presidential debate and questions how people can say that President Obama was better than Romney. Obama reiterated the same lies that he always does, only this time adding to them when he spoke about energy availability and the Libya situation. The fact is that Obama intends to use the force of law to confiscate earnings from people who succeeded, in order to fund bureaucracies and redistribute wealth. It is because of this that Mark feels there is a sense of urgency in a grass roots level all across the country to get out and vote and to restore our liberty.
Catch more from Mark's opening monologue.
Catch more from Mark's opening monologue.
A tale of two very different recoveries
Bouncing off the latest Romney ad...
...comes an illustrative graphic that shows just how bad the Obama-enhanced recession really is...compared to a robust recovery under real leadership! (via Instapundit)
h/t: Levin
...comes an illustrative graphic that shows just how bad the Obama-enhanced recession really is...compared to a robust recovery under real leadership! (via Instapundit)
h/t: Levin
Obama mimics Crowley walk back
We previously mentioned Crowley's walk back after the debate, correcting the earlier claim that Mitt Romney was wrong in his accusation that Obama had delayed in calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. The optics were all set by Obama, the moderator and the offset applause to make Romney catching Obama in a lie seem like a mistake on the Governor's part. But as SooperMexican finds in a WashingtonPost op-ed, 'that's not the whole story.'
theRightScoop: It turns out after the debate was over, Obama waltzed over to the Kerry Ladka, the man who asked about Benghazi, and told him that he did delay calling the attacks on Benghazi a terrorist attack:
“After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him “more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.
So essentially, Obama does the same thing as Crowley: knows that the initial mention was broad & not specific to Benghazi, scores some political points for team Obama during the debate, but then recants the deception after the debate's over and confirms that Romney was actually right. Got that about right? Yep...
Obama completely contradicted himself just a few minutes after denouncing Romney...and I'm supposed to believe that Obama made some kind of miraculous comeback last night? Not happening...
ADDENDUM: Rush agrees with a caller that Obama's Benghazi lie was 'a gift on a silver platter'...a lawyer trapping a witness...
“After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him “more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.
So essentially, Obama does the same thing as Crowley: knows that the initial mention was broad & not specific to Benghazi, scores some political points for team Obama during the debate, but then recants the deception after the debate's over and confirms that Romney was actually right. Got that about right? Yep...
Obama completely contradicted himself just a few minutes after denouncing Romney...and I'm supposed to believe that Obama made some kind of miraculous comeback last night? Not happening...
ADDENDUM: Rush agrees with a caller that Obama's Benghazi lie was 'a gift on a silver platter'...a lawyer trapping a witness...
The issues that matter...
On the actual issues that will determine this election, Romney destroyed Obama in last night's debate...
CBS Poll: Romney Wins 65-34 on Economy;
CNN Poll: Romney Wins 54-40 on Economy,
49-46 on Health Care,
51-44 on Taxes,
59-36 on Deficit,
49-46 on Leadership,
All in Favor of Romney
John King even had to admit, "If these numbers don't dramatically change, Romney will win the election."
CBS Poll: Romney Wins 65-34 on Economy;
CNN Poll: Romney Wins 54-40 on Economy,
49-46 on Health Care,
51-44 on Taxes,
59-36 on Deficit,
49-46 on Leadership,
All in Favor of Romney
John King even had to admit, "If these numbers don't dramatically change, Romney will win the election."
Romney solid, Obama runs from record
"Romney was solid again. Obama's aggressiveness won't change a thing. He cannot run from his record, which Romney pounded consistently." ~ Mark Levin
Though the Obama-infatuated media will celebrate the President's performance for merely showing up this time, in realville, not even Candy Crowley's moderating, allowing Obama a little more time or stepping in for some creative fact checking on Benghazi, could secure an outright victory for their guy. On the contrary...
PolicyMic: In the end, Obama fared much better than he did in his first debate performance. But, that was hardly a tall order. Romney presented a pretty scathing account of the Obama record in one 2 to 3 minute diatribe. He recounted the high unemployment, anemic growth, record deficits, etc. . . Obama in turn had virtually no defense. Why? Because there is none. Just the same old broken record, "I inherited" x, y and z. We've all heard it a million times over.
What really strikes me is Obama's complete lack of vision going forward. In 270 plus minutes, Obama and Biden have offered no real plan to improve economic growth, nor do they make any concrete proposals to address our coming debt tsunami. What have they told us? They're going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Everyone knows that's only going to hurt growth and cost jobs. He wants to hire more teachers, even if there's no clear indication we need more. He talks about investing in green jobs, yet just today we see another green manufacturer, A123, declare bankruptcy after getting $249 million in tax dollars.
The RNC quickly cut an ad of that decisive point-by-point takedown of Obama policies.
And in constrast to Obama's performance, Quin Hillyer adds some keen observations on Romney's demeanor:
Barack Obama was more aggressive and didn't come across as if in despair tonight, so he didn't get routed. But Mitt Romney still came across far better: a bit more likeable; more believable; less of a broken record; more substantive; more forward-looking; and, importantly, still more in control.
Just take this exchange on energy for instance...
Romney got off good shots on a number of fronts without sounding like he had rehearsed sound bites, but as part of the conversation that flowed naturally. He did so on gasoline prices doubling; he did so on Fast and Furious; he did so on Obama's arithmetic being less trustworthy than his own because Obama hadn't lived up to his own arithmetical promises while he, Romney, had spent his whole life making budgets balance.
Now, returning to Gary Patterson's piece at PolicyMic for the Benghazi LIE of the night...
...the most significant exchange in this debate surrounded the growing Benghazi cover up. The President disinenguously asserted that he described the embassy assault as an act of terrorism on 9/12/12. While he did use the words "acts of terror", he certainly wasn't saying the Benghazi raid was just such an act. To the contrary, he went on the View, Letterman and Univision telling the nation that the ambassador and three other Americans were killed by an unruly mob responding to a youtube video. They then sent their UN Ambassador to all five major networks to continue spreading the fairytale.
By the end of September and into October, this spin was pretty well documented in several places. One such article by Alana Goodman over at Commentary Magazine even documents Candy Crowley's involvement in this narrative (which she attempted to further Tuesday night, garnering some offscreen applause from...who? Watch it again...was this from college student onlookers or was this from MSM reporters too? Puzzling...).
Now that the Obama administration’s initial narrative that the Benghazi assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film has collapsed, the new spin from the White House is that President Obama has actually called it a terrorist attack all along.
“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.
Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days...
Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
And then before the Capitol Hill hearings, there's this special report with Bret Baier on the Benghazi timeline, which refreshes everyone's memory quite clearly on the misleading story and eventual admission by Obama and his cohorts...
Crowley later had to recant her claim that Obama had called the Benghazi attack 'an act of terror' in the Rose Garden on September 12th, and that Romney was actually correct in pointing out the inconsistency...of course, only AFTER the debate was over when no one was watching...
So while that might appear to save the President's backside in the public domain for the moment, Patterson reminds us, "Unfortunately for Obama, there's still another debate and its focus is foreign policy. He's going to pay for his blatant misrepresentation." Well...only if another liberal isn't allowed to spin it (which you can guarantee they'll try).
In the end, though Obama was actually conscious and spry for this debate, and the media assemblages had prepared to declare victory either way because of it, this didn't result in the profound game changer that they'd hoped for.
More folks are on to this guy. Or as one vet sprang on a Frank Luntz focus group afterwards, "He's been bullshitting the public with the media behind him!" Truth to power, sir.
Surely more have come to this realization.
ADDENDUM: Rush expands on that realization...
Though the Obama-infatuated media will celebrate the President's performance for merely showing up this time, in realville, not even Candy Crowley's moderating, allowing Obama a little more time or stepping in for some creative fact checking on Benghazi, could secure an outright victory for their guy. On the contrary...
PolicyMic: In the end, Obama fared much better than he did in his first debate performance. But, that was hardly a tall order. Romney presented a pretty scathing account of the Obama record in one 2 to 3 minute diatribe. He recounted the high unemployment, anemic growth, record deficits, etc. . . Obama in turn had virtually no defense. Why? Because there is none. Just the same old broken record, "I inherited" x, y and z. We've all heard it a million times over.
What really strikes me is Obama's complete lack of vision going forward. In 270 plus minutes, Obama and Biden have offered no real plan to improve economic growth, nor do they make any concrete proposals to address our coming debt tsunami. What have they told us? They're going to raise taxes on the wealthy. Everyone knows that's only going to hurt growth and cost jobs. He wants to hire more teachers, even if there's no clear indication we need more. He talks about investing in green jobs, yet just today we see another green manufacturer, A123, declare bankruptcy after getting $249 million in tax dollars.
The RNC quickly cut an ad of that decisive point-by-point takedown of Obama policies.
And in constrast to Obama's performance, Quin Hillyer adds some keen observations on Romney's demeanor:
Barack Obama was more aggressive and didn't come across as if in despair tonight, so he didn't get routed. But Mitt Romney still came across far better: a bit more likeable; more believable; less of a broken record; more substantive; more forward-looking; and, importantly, still more in control.
Just take this exchange on energy for instance...
Romney got off good shots on a number of fronts without sounding like he had rehearsed sound bites, but as part of the conversation that flowed naturally. He did so on gasoline prices doubling; he did so on Fast and Furious; he did so on Obama's arithmetic being less trustworthy than his own because Obama hadn't lived up to his own arithmetical promises while he, Romney, had spent his whole life making budgets balance.
Now, returning to Gary Patterson's piece at PolicyMic for the Benghazi LIE of the night...
...the most significant exchange in this debate surrounded the growing Benghazi cover up. The President disinenguously asserted that he described the embassy assault as an act of terrorism on 9/12/12. While he did use the words "acts of terror", he certainly wasn't saying the Benghazi raid was just such an act. To the contrary, he went on the View, Letterman and Univision telling the nation that the ambassador and three other Americans were killed by an unruly mob responding to a youtube video. They then sent their UN Ambassador to all five major networks to continue spreading the fairytale.
By the end of September and into October, this spin was pretty well documented in several places. One such article by Alana Goodman over at Commentary Magazine even documents Candy Crowley's involvement in this narrative (which she attempted to further Tuesday night, garnering some offscreen applause from...who? Watch it again...was this from college student onlookers or was this from MSM reporters too? Puzzling...).
Now that the Obama administration’s initial narrative that the Benghazi assault was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam film has collapsed, the new spin from the White House is that President Obama has actually called it a terrorist attack all along.
“Well, first of all, Candy, as you know, the President called it an act of terror the day after it happened,” David Axelrod told CNN’s Candy Crowley this morning, referring to a speech Obama made in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12.
Axelrod’s claim has been pushed by journalists over the past few days...
Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
And then before the Capitol Hill hearings, there's this special report with Bret Baier on the Benghazi timeline, which refreshes everyone's memory quite clearly on the misleading story and eventual admission by Obama and his cohorts...
Crowley later had to recant her claim that Obama had called the Benghazi attack 'an act of terror' in the Rose Garden on September 12th, and that Romney was actually correct in pointing out the inconsistency...of course, only AFTER the debate was over when no one was watching...
So while that might appear to save the President's backside in the public domain for the moment, Patterson reminds us, "Unfortunately for Obama, there's still another debate and its focus is foreign policy. He's going to pay for his blatant misrepresentation." Well...only if another liberal isn't allowed to spin it (which you can guarantee they'll try).
In the end, though Obama was actually conscious and spry for this debate, and the media assemblages had prepared to declare victory either way because of it, this didn't result in the profound game changer that they'd hoped for.
More folks are on to this guy. Or as one vet sprang on a Frank Luntz focus group afterwards, "He's been bullshitting the public with the media behind him!" Truth to power, sir.
Surely more have come to this realization.
ADDENDUM: Rush expands on that realization...
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Advice: from Rush to Romney
On the eve of the second debate, Romney leads Obama by an average of 3% across 24 polls.
Examiner: With 21 days until the election polls show that the Obama vs Romney race is very close. With an averaging of the 24 latest polls showing Mitt Romney holding a narrow 3% lead. According to all 21 polls Mitt Romney is making gains both nationally and in the swing states.
Coinciding with these gains, Rush has offered some friendly advice over the past few days to continue and advance the momentum into tonight's debate and beyond. Take it, Mitt!
"Obama can never go back to being the messiah. He can never go back to being the empty canvas that people can make him be whatever they want him to be, because he is something: He's a dramatic big time failure! And there's no changing that."
Don't apologize for the 47% comment...
"That would be bad. Don’t go there... I wouldn’t apologize. It just opens too many doors. Besides that...there are a lot of people who agreed with him when he made the comments about the 47%. That's, to use a cliche, the dirty little secret here."
Rush gives more advice on how to handle Obama's attacks with the 47% and Bain...
Finally, Rush tells all of us what this debate tonight really is...
"Obama knows that he’s full of it, Romney knows that Obama’s full of it, and Obama knows that Romney knows that he’s full of it. And because Romney knows that Obama’s full of it, and Obama knows that Romney knows it, that’s why Obama hates Romney."
So basically, know who your opponent is, recognize what he thinks of you, understand his angle of predictable attacks, while taking note of your surroundings (i.e., the forum, the so-called 'moderator', the audience of supposed 'undecided' voters, etc.)...and dismantle this President and his four-year record of failure with candor, wit and appeal.
Examiner: With 21 days until the election polls show that the Obama vs Romney race is very close. With an averaging of the 24 latest polls showing Mitt Romney holding a narrow 3% lead. According to all 21 polls Mitt Romney is making gains both nationally and in the swing states.
Coinciding with these gains, Rush has offered some friendly advice over the past few days to continue and advance the momentum into tonight's debate and beyond. Take it, Mitt!
"Obama can never go back to being the messiah. He can never go back to being the empty canvas that people can make him be whatever they want him to be, because he is something: He's a dramatic big time failure! And there's no changing that."
Don't apologize for the 47% comment...
"That would be bad. Don’t go there... I wouldn’t apologize. It just opens too many doors. Besides that...there are a lot of people who agreed with him when he made the comments about the 47%. That's, to use a cliche, the dirty little secret here."
Rush gives more advice on how to handle Obama's attacks with the 47% and Bain...
Finally, Rush tells all of us what this debate tonight really is...
"Obama knows that he’s full of it, Romney knows that Obama’s full of it, and Obama knows that Romney knows that he’s full of it. And because Romney knows that Obama’s full of it, and Obama knows that Romney knows it, that’s why Obama hates Romney."
So basically, know who your opponent is, recognize what he thinks of you, understand his angle of predictable attacks, while taking note of your surroundings (i.e., the forum, the so-called 'moderator', the audience of supposed 'undecided' voters, etc.)...and dismantle this President and his four-year record of failure with candor, wit and appeal.
Silence
Reporter: How are you feeling about tonight?
Obama: I feel fabulous. Look at this beautiful day. Hope you enjoy the weather.
Reporter: Are you aware Michelle voted for you yesterday?
Obama: Thank goodness!
Reporter: Is Hillary to blame for Benghazi?
Obama: [Silence].
Obama: I feel fabulous. Look at this beautiful day. Hope you enjoy the weather.
Reporter: Are you aware Michelle voted for you yesterday?
Obama: Thank goodness!
Reporter: Is Hillary to blame for Benghazi?
Obama: [Silence].
Hillary takes the blame...then passes it on to Intel
So...conveniently before the second debate, Hillary takes the blame for Benghazi. Or does she? When nudged along by Reena Ninan of ABCNews, it sounds like they're falling in line with Biden's blame-the-intelligence-community schtick...
But wait...didn't she previously say 'the buck stops' at the President's desk during the '08 campaign? Oh yeah...
HotAir: Who could have predicted four years ago that electing a President with no executive experience might end up producing a chief executive that ran away from responsibility for his administration’s actions? The same woman who just took responsibility for this administration’s failures in Benghazi, as it turns out. BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski finds this nugget from January 2008, in which Hillary Clinton tells a Missouri crowd that America needs a President who understands that “the buck stop[s] in the White House,” and presumably not Foggy Bottom or Langley:
Hillary may or may not have intended to take some heat off of the White House after Joe Biden’s Sergeant Schultz “We knew nothing” declaration at Thursday’s debate, but all she ended up doing is making Obama look tremendously weak by contrast. Obama had almost five weeks to get in front of a camera and state the obvious — that he’s ultimately responsible for anything that happens within his administration. In fact, he’s had five weeks to get in front of a camera and address the American people about what turned out to be the first successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic mission in 14 years — and he still hasn’t done so. Instead, he’s doing sports talk shows while his White House staff try to shift blame onto State and the intel community.
So has Hillary's proclamation really provided Obama with any cover before tonight's debate? Or has she just compounded the cover-up?
But wait...didn't she previously say 'the buck stops' at the President's desk during the '08 campaign? Oh yeah...
HotAir: Who could have predicted four years ago that electing a President with no executive experience might end up producing a chief executive that ran away from responsibility for his administration’s actions? The same woman who just took responsibility for this administration’s failures in Benghazi, as it turns out. BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski finds this nugget from January 2008, in which Hillary Clinton tells a Missouri crowd that America needs a President who understands that “the buck stop[s] in the White House,” and presumably not Foggy Bottom or Langley:
Hillary may or may not have intended to take some heat off of the White House after Joe Biden’s Sergeant Schultz “We knew nothing” declaration at Thursday’s debate, but all she ended up doing is making Obama look tremendously weak by contrast. Obama had almost five weeks to get in front of a camera and state the obvious — that he’s ultimately responsible for anything that happens within his administration. In fact, he’s had five weeks to get in front of a camera and address the American people about what turned out to be the first successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic mission in 14 years — and he still hasn’t done so. Instead, he’s doing sports talk shows while his White House staff try to shift blame onto State and the intel community.
So has Hillary's proclamation really provided Obama with any cover before tonight's debate? Or has she just compounded the cover-up?
Campaigning in the past vs. the momentum of the present
Over the weekend, Michael Barone and Byron York gave some interesting perspectives on how the campaign is really going, in terms of the energy defined by the two debates thus far. While Obama and Biden are running in the weeds through past liberal narratives and rehashed attacks, Romney and Ryan have vaulted to the forefront of what matters in the present...and the outpour of support reflects it.
First, Barone says Obama and Biden are running a campaign fit for the '70's or '80's...
Barone: When a politician is in trouble, he usually falls back on what he knows best -- the world he saw around him when he entered into political awareness as a young adult.
That's what seems to have happened to the Democratic ticket after Barack Obama's disastrous performance in the Denver debate Oct. 3.
So Obama on the campaign trail and Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate fell back on what they know from their formative political years.
Obama and Biden, who've written off the white working class, while losing ground with women, as well as some from both the youth & senior citizen vote, attempt to constantly deride with Big Bird and divide us with other nonsense from past fights, basically adopting the politics of anything goes. Barone says these tactics aren't working & people aren't falling for it anymore, whether that be what clearly appears to be a run-of-the-mill cover-up in Benghazi or the supposed 'guarantee' of what most understand to be unsustainable entitlements. And it's showing in the debates...
In the two debates, voters saw a near-comatose Obama and a near-manic Biden -- and two sober, well-informed Republicans. That's not a good contrast for Democrats.
Meanwhile, York discusses the sudden shift and momentum of the Romney ticket after the debates...recognizing and affirming what we've suspected all along...
York: Just two weeks ago, Republicans here in Ohio, even in GOP stronghold Warren County, were filled with anxiety and doubt. Poll after poll showed President Obama widening his lead over Mitt Romney in this crucial battleground state. Republicans didn't know whether to believe the polls -- many didn't -- or admit their man was faltering in a nearly must-win state. Either way, it was a frustrating situation.
No longer. In the wake of Romney's decisive victory over Obama in the first presidential debate October 3, the campaign's trajectory here in Ohio is up, up, up. Not just in the polls...but also in Republicans' everyday lives as they talk to friends and, in some cases, volunteer for the campaign.
For now, the most important development in the presidential campaign is that Romney has managed to get his own campaign...moving forward with an energy and focus it didn't have before.
So tonight's debate, while determining the further momentum of the Republican challenger, might just signify direr consequences for the Democratic incumbent.
That would of course be a very good thing.
First, Barone says Obama and Biden are running a campaign fit for the '70's or '80's...
That's what seems to have happened to the Democratic ticket after Barack Obama's disastrous performance in the Denver debate Oct. 3.
So Obama on the campaign trail and Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate fell back on what they know from their formative political years.
Obama and Biden, who've written off the white working class, while losing ground with women, as well as some from both the youth & senior citizen vote, attempt to constantly deride with Big Bird and divide us with other nonsense from past fights, basically adopting the politics of anything goes. Barone says these tactics aren't working & people aren't falling for it anymore, whether that be what clearly appears to be a run-of-the-mill cover-up in Benghazi or the supposed 'guarantee' of what most understand to be unsustainable entitlements. And it's showing in the debates...
In the two debates, voters saw a near-comatose Obama and a near-manic Biden -- and two sober, well-informed Republicans. That's not a good contrast for Democrats.
Meanwhile, York discusses the sudden shift and momentum of the Romney ticket after the debates...recognizing and affirming what we've suspected all along...
No longer. In the wake of Romney's decisive victory over Obama in the first presidential debate October 3, the campaign's trajectory here in Ohio is up, up, up. Not just in the polls...but also in Republicans' everyday lives as they talk to friends and, in some cases, volunteer for the campaign.
For now, the most important development in the presidential campaign is that Romney has managed to get his own campaign...moving forward with an energy and focus it didn't have before.
So tonight's debate, while determining the further momentum of the Republican challenger, might just signify direr consequences for the Democratic incumbent.
That would of course be a very good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)