Romney Wins By A Hair, Obama Loses By A Mile

Romney proved himself to be knowledgeable and thoughtful last night, and he showed himself to be quite Presidential. Obama also came across well, though not quite Romney’s equal – he was more political. Thus, Romney won the debate by a hair. But Obama made key mistakes that caused him to blow his last chance to win the election.

● Bob Schieffer: Schieffer did an excellent job and should be commended. His questions were thoughtful, fair and he allowed a solid debate.

● Romney Succeeds: Romney had one job last night and he did it. He needed to come across as someone you would trust as Commander in Chief. He did. He had much more knowledge than Obama on every single issue and clearly had thought through his solutions. He presented a solid vision, a plan to achieve that vision, and knowledge of the details of every single issue covered which helps you believe his plan will work. He passed the test.

● Obama Strategy Fail I: Obama had two jobs last night and he failed at both. Obama’s first job, the one he really needed to achieve, was to give people a reason to vote for him. He didn’t. All he did was repeat his five point plan that hasn’t excited anyone yet and he attacked Romney as wanting to help the rich. These arguments failed in the first two debates and merely repeating them here won’t change anything. He needed something more and he didn’t give it. Indeed, his strategy last night was surprisingly stupid and I think he lost the election last night by default.

FYI, Obama plan: (1) he wants to help manufacturers invest here with tax code changes, (2) he wants to make our education system the best in the work and he wants to retrain workers, (3) he wants us to “control energy” by investing in clean energy, (4) he wants to tax the rich so he can “invest” the money in R&D, and (5) he wants to hire teachers (later he added hiring veterans to build roads).

Then he accused Romney of wanting to help the rich, of wanting to add $7 trillion in debt through military spending and tax cuts (all of which has been debunked), and said Romney wants social policies from the 1950, economic policies from the 1920s, and foreign policy from the 1980s. None of this helped in the prior two debates, and it won’t help now. To the contrary, all this did was open the door to Romney to repeat his devastating attack on Obama’s record which I’ve written out several times already. (see Romney’s Theme). Romney also repeated that he wants to champion small business, which will help him with the Tea Party, and he talked about education reform, which will help him with women. He also pointed out that he balanced budgets in private business for 25 years, at the Olympics, and four years as governor... Obama has yet to balance a budget.

● Obama Strategy Fail II: Obama’s second job last night was to land a knockout blow on Romney. He never came close because the lines he used were horrible. They were petty and bully-like, and these detracted from an otherwise solid performance. Examples include:

● He condescended to Romney by trying to explain to him what an aircraft carrier is and what a submarine is.

● He described Romney’s foreign policy as Obama’s policies only “saying them louder.”

● He implied that the US jumped in on the side of the Arab Spring protestors right away, even though that’s false. But more importantly, he said this was his idea and he blurted out, “Me!” Kind of a Howard Dean moment there.

● He waved the bloody shirt of 9/11 by claiming that he brought “closure” to the son of someone who was killed on 9/11 – something the left (and Obama) savaged Bush for doing.

● Obama accused Romney of wanting to use military force as a first resort. This stupid attack, repeated throughout the night, let Romney demonstrate repeatedly that he is not reckless or bloodthirsty.

Obama lost the election on the above, the rest below is just details.

● Obama Tactics Fail I: Obama’s biggest tactical mistake was using a shotgun approach on Romney. He attacked on too many issues and used too many details. Moreover, many of his attacks sounded like Obama was trying to pull quotes out of context, such as when he accused Romney of not seeing al Qaeda as a threat – no one will believe Romney said that. These fake attacks polluted all the rest of his attacks and made everything he said sound like a distortion.

● Obama Tactics Fail II: Another tactical failure was accusing Romney of being a reckless warmonger, but then simultaneously accusing Romney of advocating the exact same policy Obama is following. That doesn’t work.

● Key Moments: Here are the likely key moments:

● Romney neutered the bin Laden thing and bought himself serious credibility when he congratulated Obama on getting bin Laden and then said, “but we can’t kill our way out of this mess.” In echoes of my articles on the topic, he said we need a comprehensive strategy to get the Muslim world to reject extremism in their own ranks through promoting: (1) economic development, (2) better education, (3) rule of law, (4) gender equality, and (5) the creation of civil societies. This is brilliant because it stopped Obama from bragging and it highlighted that Obama has no plan – Obama later played “me too” and tried to claim this is what he’s already doing.

● Romney highlighted Obama’s failure to give a reason to vote FOR Obama by repeating, “Attacking me is not an agenda.”

● Obama said of Iran, “We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.” This is interesting because Paul Ryan said the same thing and Joe Biden called the claim ridiculous.

● Israel: A lot was said about Israel, but Romney had the key moment and Obama may have blown a key moment. When Schieffer asked how they would respond if Israel called and said their planes were on the way to bomb Iran, Romney jumped in and said they shouldn’t answer a hypothetical like that. He also said that his relationship with Israel’s Prime Minister was such that this would never happen. This made Romney appear statesmanlike if he already has solid relationships with our allies. Obama ducked the question.

Then Schieffer asked if they would guarantee that an attack on Israel was the same thing as an attack on the US. Obama sort of said it was, but seemed to hedge. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. Romney then suggested that Obama was talking about helping Israel only diplomatically.

● Obama Lies: At several points, Obama simply lied to hide his record. He claimed that he did support the Green Revolution in Iran, even though he remained silent for nine days. He claimed he did not propose $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts on the military, which is technically true but still a lie. Harry Reid proposed them and Obama demanded they be included in the budget deal. His claim to arm the Syrian rebels is a lie. He lied about not going to the UN on Syria. And he lied by claiming he had implemented non-existent policies to promote democracy overseas.

● China: Obama made a huge mistake when he labeled China as our second biggest national security threat after terrorism (he forgot Iran) because China will not be amused. Our relationship with China is based on false facades of friendship, which both sides are careful never to violate. Obama did.

Romney then turned this against Obama by pointing out that China is an opportunity. He said (as I’ve suggested) that China could be made an ally because economic growth is vital to them as they need 20 million new jobs a year to maintain civil order. But we need to get our budget in order, we can’t cut our military, we must strengthen our commitment to our allies in the region (read: Taiwan), and we must go after China for unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, counterfeiting and stealing of intellectual property. Obama countered that Romney owned stock in Chinese companies. This was a mistake because whereas Romney gave a plan to fix the problem, Obama took a political cheap shot.

Romney also used China to talk about engaging Latin America in trade, which will help him with Hispanic business owners.

● Syria: Obama did a lot of doublespeak on Syria. He talked about taking the lead in “mobilizing the world, providing humanitarian aid and organizing the opposition.” As with Biden, he implied that we armed the opposition and then turned around and accused Romney of being a warmonger for trying to arm the opposition. The arms actually came from the Saudis, not us. And Obama asked the UN to take the lead. Romney also denied wanting to send any American troops or planes to fight, proving he’s no warmonger, which caused Obama to flip his strategy on its head and accuse Romney of proposing to do exactly what Obama is doing, only being reckless somehow.

● The Closings: The closings were interesting. Obama went negative. He blamed Bush for his problems and then accused Romney of wanting to help the rich before he repeated his five point plan. This was uninspired.

Romney’s closing was Reaganesque. First, he made two great points. He repeated Obama’s record and called it the President’s path. Obama said we shouldn’t go back to the policies of a decade ago, and Romney countered that we don’t want to relive the last four years. Then Romney made an appeal to bipartisanship, which will play well with independents. He noted that he worked with a legislature that was 87% Democratic in Massachusetts and he said he could work with good Democrats and good Republicans in Washington. Then he spoke about the greatest generation and how they have passed the torch and he described America as “the hope of the Earth.” Basically, he gave people a reason to support him. Obama didn’t. All of this is classic Reagan.

● Good Night For Price: Romney tracked my foreign policy discussions on issue after issue. This is very encouraging because it sounds like he’s looking for real solutions and he’s no Bush neocon.

● Conclusion: This was an odd debate in the sense that Obama didn’t really play to win. I’m wondering what he was thinking. Yes, he performed well, he was Romney’s equal most of the night, and he took some cheap shots that will thrill his ignorant base. . . but he played for the draw when he really needed a blow out. This makes me wonder if his campaign team just isn’t that bright or if he knows he’s lost and he’s look for future political opportunities. Whatever his plan, he failed to take the risks he needed to win the election.

I now expect the MSM to go into desperation mode to win the election for him. But the polls will show Romney climbing a couple percentage points more. At that point, the cracks will appear on the left and they will savage him for his bad campaign.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Audacity of--eh, just The Audacity.

Trust me, I'm a President.

Thanks to their natural intelligence and perceptiveness, readers at Commentarama already know something basic about Obama: He's a liar. Not only that, he evades difficult questions whenever he has to. This was on full display in the debate, when he was asked about Libya. How did he do this? Let's find out.

On Tuesday night, an audience member asked POTUS a very simple question about the attack on our embassy. Who authorized reductions in its defense, and why? As we saw, Obama did everything but answer this question. He talked about how much he cared about our ambassadors, and how terrible Romney was for politicizing the attack in Benghazi, but the actual question asked went unanswered. And unfortunately, Romney didn't get into the issue either, becoming bogged down in who said what (more on that later).

Thanks to the wonder that is the Internet, however, getting to the bottom of this isn't too difficult. It's clear that the State Department stuck the late Chris Stevens with some below-average security in an area with above-average levels of danger. They outsourced embassy security to some private contractors (I thought Obama wasn't a fan of this), who in turn did a pretty lousy job of screening the local help. Two Libyan employees were arrested in April for tossing a bomb into the place. Then in June, an attempt was made on the life of Britain's ambassador, in response to which all the U.K.'s consular staff were withdrawn from Benghazi. All this time, even a week before the attack, according to British and Israeli newspapers, our staff was making repeated requests for reinforcement in security from State, which were not only ignored but actively declined. Do note that verbs like "ignored" and "declined" mean something different from "weren't aware of." And certainly no reflective person believes that Obama wasn't aware of the situation. Yes, Hillary may be "taking responsibility" for what eventually happened, but let's be serious--as the Commander-in-Chief admitted, the buck stops with him.

Romney didn't get into all this, though he probably will in Monday's debate. Instead, he focused on what Obama had said about the attack in its immediate aftermath. "It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror," he said, at which point of course Crowley jumped to the Prez's defense and said that he'd identified it as an act of terror the day after it happened, which Obama confirmed. Only, that's not what really happened. Obama did say "acts of terror" on Sept. 12 in a Rose Garden address; however, he wasn't really referring to Benghazi as a terrorist attack, merely lumping it in with general "acts," mainly those of 9/11/01. He might have been including Benghazi in that as well, but remember his line: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.” So, if it was an act of terror, it was a spontaneous, non-deliberate one. Except, we now know intelligence sources were ID'ing Al-Qaeda as the responsible agent within hours after it happened. Yet not until September 28th did anyone in the government admit that this was a premeditated assault. Obama said to Univision, the hosts of The View, and any one else putting a camera to his face that it was all over a YouTube video. It took his administration sixteen days to own up to something they'd found out within sixteen hours.

Even Candy Crowley herself admitted this, saying two days later,

"There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday {the 28th} after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved....didn't the administration shoot first? Didn't they come out and say, listen, as far as we can tell, this wasn't preplanned?"

Why the disinformation? It would be reckless to say Obama had malicious intent in leaving the embassy, as it were, stranded. He's a lot of things, but murderous is not one of them. But let's recall the line his campaign has been actively pushing most of the last year: "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive!" The last part of that is debatable, but true enough, bin Laden is no longer with us. But if the insinuation is that Al-Qaeda (and the terrorist threat in general) is dead just because Obama ordered a military operation in Pakistan, well, that's demonstrably false. And the more he has to admit to serious terrorist acts since, the more demonstrable it becomes. Better to deny it as long as possible and let people think things are hunky-dory, rather than admit that the meme being pushed is full of holes. Which, I imagine most people would agree, is a bit more "offensive," to use President Foreign Policy's indignantly-uttered words, than Romney's suggesting Obama's not fully committed.

But what do I know? I'm just a hack blogger.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libya/Egypt: An Opportunity

As with all international incidents, it takes time to understand what is really going on across the Middle East. There are a lot of conflicting reports and some obviously false ideas being batted about. With several days to observe, here are my thoughts, and what I think needs to be done next.

As often happens during crises like this, everyone sees what they want to see. If you see Islam as evil, then this is proof that all Muslims are evil. If you want to see Islam as a victim of the US, then this is proof that America continues to provoke Muslim outrage. Both views are ridiculous. Let’s start with some inconvenient facts which the idiots on both sides want to ignore:

● (1) The video did not cause these attacks. These attacks were premeditated to coincide with 9/11. The video was simply given as an excuse. How do we know this? For one thing, Egyptian intelligence warned the US three days early that an attack was planned. For another, there is no way this video could even have been seen across the Middle East – not to mention, why would it only outrage Muslims in a handful of countries but not others?

For yet another, these were not spontaneous crowds. We know this because not only did they bring heavy weapons, such as mortars, but they actually knew the location where the US Ambassador to Libya would flee after the riots began and they shelled that location with sufficient accuracy to convince military experts that this was a highly coordinated, professional attack. These were planned attacks.

● (2) This was not aimed solely at the United States. German and other Western embassies have been attacked as well.

● (3) The Libyan and Egyptian governments were not behind these attacks. Egyptian intelligence actually warned the US this was coming. Both governments have condemned attacks. Libya has arrested around 50 people who were involved. And crowds of Libyans also demonstrated against the attacks.

So what does this mean? It means that this was likely just another terrorist attack by al Qaeda, who have indeed claimed credit and say this was in retaliation for the killing of their number two man. More importantly, this and the reaction by the Egyptian and Libyan governments means that there is an opportunity here.

It is clear that both the Egyptian and Libyan governments very much wish to avoid being seen as hostile to America. That tells us something significant. That tells us that they are much more reasonable than people have been giving them credit for and that we have an opening to work with them to forge a better relationship.

Why is this important? For one thing, if these countries drift into the world of radical Islam, then we are looking at new havens for terrorists, right on Europe’s southern border. It makes a lot more sense to engage these countries, who are giving off signs of being willing to engage with us, to try to bring them into the fold of responsible countries, than it does to write them off. As Sen. John McCain correctly said this weekend:

“It’s a fight, a struggle in the Arab world between the Islamists and the forces of moderation. And they want America disengaged.”

Anyone who doesn’t understand this, simply doesn’t understand what is going on or what is at stake. McCain then claimed that Obama’s policy of disengagement is the problem. I don’t fully agree with that because al Qaeda has been plotting attacks since the 1990s, but I do agree that Obama has failed to engage Egypt and Libya (and others) sufficiently. Now is absolutely the time to (1) get these countries to guarantee individual rights, (2) change the culture of their police by training them to shake off corruption and handle riots without violence, (3) get them to crack down on radical behavior, and (4) get them to open up their economies to create jobs for all these unemployed youths.

In this regard, I think it’s a good thing Obama has invited the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood to come speak to him. The Muslim Brotherhood have actually done a lot to shake off the image of being a terrorist organization and to be seen as a legitimate, moderate Islamic organization. If this meeting is handled correctly, Obama will let the Muslim Brotherhood know that their reputation around the world and our response to them will very much depend on them helping to rid Egypt of the kind of radical elements that give aid and comfort to terrorists like al Qaeda. Whether or not Obama can be this firm is unclear – though he has shown a much stronger anti-terrorist backbone than most conservatives want to give him credit for.

Things to avoid are (1) lumping all Muslim in with these terrorists – that just turns potential friends into enemies, (2) talking about military action where none is possible – that just inflames the situation and makes the US look weak, (3) turning our backs on these governments at this moment of opportunity – which is exactly what al Qaeda wants, and (4) further disengagement -- you cannot control what you do not participate in. Obama also must stand up for free speech and make it clear that Muslims must learn that they have no right to control the views of other people. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has gone the completely wrong way on this and keeps trying to blame the tape.

Politically, I think this has been a disaster all around so far. Romney looked bad by speaking too quickly. He gave the MSM a chance to redirect the crisis at him. I think he was right in what he said, but he should have waited to say it. Clinton looks horrible because the State Department clearly has flopped back and forth between pandering and denying reality. She has presented an image of a liar who is desperate to cover up her mistakes and avoid blame. Obama looks like a fool as well. Indeed, many commentators left and right, including the German magazine Der Spiegel have declared his foreign policy a “failure” because he obviously has failed to “reconcile” the Muslim world. They also criticize his handling of this crisis, particularly his blaming the video. Indeed, they say that it is illegitimate to blame this video because either this was a terrorist act, in which event the video was irrelevant, or this was “an expression of a frightening ignorance,” in which event he needs to stand up to the ignorance. Obama also has had a problem keeping his administration on the same page and his running off to fund raisers rather than dealing with this are, frankly, shocking. Let’s hope everybody learns from their mistakes.

In the end, I think the key to remember here is that we must learn to tell friend from foe. We have received a clear signal of friendship here from the Libya and Egyptian governments and an opportunity we have not had since the Arab Spring began to shape these new countries. It’s time to seize that opportunity, rather than squander it in a false narrative designed to hide what really happened or a blast of ignorant bias.

This is one of those moments that turns history. Let’s hope people start to realize this.

Thoughts? Questions?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

AP Top 10: Politicized News

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.


Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

I owe Herman Cain an apology. This “Libya gaffe” thing is just another smear, and sadly, I bought into it. Mea culpa. Here’s what really happened, along with my thinking on what really matters with the candidates.

Issue One: The Libya “Gaffe”

When Cain’s candidacy started taking off, the media smeared him with bogus sexual harassment allegations. Brought as anonymous and non-specific allegations, the MSM obsessively savaged Cain for failing to satisfy some undisclosed moving-target standard to acquit himself. Yet, within only a week, it became clear there was no substance to these allegations. The accusers aren’t credible: a serial complainer and a money-desperate liar. They have ties to David Axelrod, who has a history of this type of smear. The media witch hunt was overplayed. And polls continue to show Cain at or near the top. The scandal is D.O.A.

But just as Cain appeared to be recovering, a new allegation appeared: that he’s stupid. This allegation was based on his supposed “Libya gaffe,” and has again been pushed by the MSM and useful idiots like Byron York at National Review. But this is a smear too.

According to people like York, the Libya gaffe is this: A reporter asked Cain if he agreed with Obama’s policy on Libya. Cain had no idea what that policy was. He eventually mumbles something about Obama opposing Gaddafi, and then has to ask the reporter if what he’s just said is true.

IF this is true, then Cain really isn’t all that bright. Only. . . it’s not true.

Commentarama reader tryanmax sent me a link with the full interview. Here’s the link to the interview (LINK) and here’s a link to tryanmax’s thoughts on the subject (LINK). The interview is a lengthy discussion of many topics. About 20 minutes into the interview, they turn to the question of whether or not Cain would support democracy movements abroad. Cain tells the reporter he would support democracy movements, but he wouldn’t try to create one. Up to this point, Cain has come across as knowledgeable and relaxed.

The reporter then asks whether Cain thought Bush’s foreign policy was effective in this regard or if Cain has “a major critique” of how Bush handled the balance between American interests and democracy movements. Cain thinks about this and says he believes Bush ultimately struck the right balance. Cain repeats that where a democracy movement exists, he would support it, but he “won’t try to talk people into democracy.”

The reporter then says: “so you agreed with President Obama then on Libya or not?” Note first, that this is a strange question and it assumes much that has not been said by Cain or the reporter up to this point. They were talking about Bush’s foreign policy and suddenly the reporter asks this statement-question which assumes what Obama’s policy was and assumes that Cain has just provided an answer consistent with it. I am not saying this is a “gotcha” question, but it is a vague and ambiguous question with an uncertain subject. It is the kind of question a lawyer would object to and make the reporter rephrase.

Cain again thinks for a moment. Then he says:

“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘yes, I agree’ or ‘no, I don’t’.”

There’s the supposed gaffe. This is what is being portrayed as Cain asking the reporter to help him with the facts. The MSM is saying Cain’s use of the word “correct” means Cain needs the reporter to assure him he guessed right what Obama did in Libya. BUT that’s a blatantly false interpretation. Watch the video and it immediately becomes clear that Cain is neither confused nor is he asking the reporter to confirm the facts. Instead, Cain is asking the reporter to confirm that this was the topic the reporter meant with his odd question. Cain is using the word “correct” as a rhetorical device to make sure they were talking about the same thing. The fact both Cain and the reporter remain calm and continue the interview without any sense a gaffe has occurred confirms this.

There is NO reasonable way you can interpret this video as Cain being unsure what Obama did in Libya or asking the reporter to help him get the facts right. To assert that, as supposedly-reputable conservatives like National Review have done, is to adopt yet another smear, just as they did with the sexual harassment allegations. It is to intentionally pretend there is confusion, where there is none – just as they continue to wrongly claim Cain was confused about the difference between pro-life and pro-choice or as they tried to turn his verbal slip about China’s nuclear capability into evidence of ignorance.

I have also heard claims Cain must be stupid because he took time to consider his answer before responding. That is simply ridiculous. To expect someone to provide rapid-fire soundbites throughout an informal, 20+ minute conversation style interview on a variety of topics, rather than gather their thoughts, is disingenuous at best.

Issue Two: Dissecting Candidate Brains

Finally, I want to explain why I don’t care if Cain makes gaffes or Perry freezes up occasionally or Romney sounds prissy. Those things don’t matter. They are style over substance. What matters is understanding how the candidates think because what is truly critical is understanding how each candidate will approach whatever problems they face on the job. In other words, whether or not they know the capital of Mexico doesn’t matter, but knowing how they would analyze an invasion of Mexico by Venezuela does. Here is what I’ve seen so far (you may see things differently):

● Cain: Cain thinks like an executive. He’s hands off when it comes to details and he expects “his people” to carry out his orders. This is similar in style to Ronald Reagan. However, Cain lacks Reagan’s strong knowledge base and fundamental theoretical understanding of conservatism, and he has yet to show solid political instincts. His biggest flaw appears to be an assumption that those around him will work toward the goals he sets.

● Gingrich: Gingrich is the smartest man on stage. He is also politically savvy. BUT his history tells me he will often base his decisions on the wrong motives, such as ego or a desire to be loved. This overrides his intelligence and makes him unpredictable.

● Paul: Paul is a smart man with deep knowledge and a generally solid decision making process. However, he is prone to erroneous conspiracy theories and is fundamentally wrong on certain issues.

● Romney: Romney is afraid of decisions. He avoids them at all cost and immediately backtracks at the first sign of disagreement.

● Perry: Perry wants to let others make decisions for him. This means we don’t know who will actually be making decisions.

● Bachmann: Bachmann has failed to demonstrate any independent thinking. She follows bandwagons and believes knowledge of trivia is a substitute for analysis.

● Santorum: Santorum is a disaster. He only wants to hear people who agree with him and he simply does not understand the issues or people.

Some of these problems I can overlook, others I can’t. But one thing is clear: most of the things the MSM focuses on are irrelevant to understanding these people.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”

The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Speaks on Libya

Ladies and Gentlemen. Through our sources, we have obtained the original copy of Obama’s Libya speech before someone apparently cleaned it up ever so slightly. After you read this, tell us in the comments if you think this would have been better than Obama’s confused snoozer last night? And feel free to tell us what you might have said in his place. . . we'll pass your comments on to our contact "Joey B."

******

Enter speechifying room. . .
Look serious. . .
Read from TOTUS. . .
NO adlibbing. . .

******

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update you Americans on the international effort going on in a place called Libya -- what they have done, what I heard the Frensh and Britters plan to do about it, and why you should blame George Bush if you are unhappy.

I want to begin by paying tribute to the men and women in uniform on both sides. Because of them, our dedicated diplomats have saved uncountable numbers of lives. Meanwhile, as we speak, American troops are supporting your ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, generally not invading 187 other countries, futzing around with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and some other stuff that I don’t remember from the briefing. That has nothing to do with Libya, but it sounds good (don't read this part out loud).

You may not know this, I certainly didn't, but Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -- two nations that are located in a place called “the Middle East,” near Mexico. We used to call them the Orient, but that was racist, so we no longer call them Orientals. Instead, they are now called Orientations, which makes them happy and gay. Let me give a shout out to my third biggest contributors!

Libya is ruled by a man named Miramar Gandalf, who looks like Michael Jackson and smells like fish oil. He has denied his people their freedom, he exploited their wealth, he raised their taxes and he tried to seize their health care system and put it under the control of his sinister government. He has also involuntarily-ended-the-continuing-living of those who oppose him at home and man-made-disasterized journalists. That is what happened in Libya six weeks ago.

Exactly one day after that began, some people in places called Frensh and Britterica took action to try to stop Mr. Gandalf. Because they acted, we too have a responsibility to act so that we don’t seem weak. Though, we are naturally reluctant to use non-peaceful-expression to solve the world’s many challenges, the use of non-peaceful-expression is called for in this instance. But you can rest assured that I will do my utmost not to solve any of the problems in this Libya place.

When Gandalf began non-peacing his people, my immediate concern as President was with the safety of our citizens in Brazil. So I went to Brazil to ensure that our people, Kenyan and American, were not being mistreated. Contrary to what those who oppose tell you in the media, this was not just a vacation. And I can happily confirm to you that my trip was a success and for the first time in my wife’s life, she is proud to know where Brazil is located.

I understand that when the Frensh and Britters started non-peacing Gandalf’s non-peacing paid-volunteers, Gandalf chose to escalate his non-peacing. That was when I received a call from Obama bin Laden, my long lost uncle. He asked if we could non-peace some people in Libya too. So I unleashed non-civilian jets and helicopter regulated-militia-owners-ships upon people who had no means to defend themselves. These were taxhoarders and the IRS made swift work of them. I also ordered our non-peacers to do something about Libya. They tell me they have.

And we are not alone in this. Canada sent a box of maple syrup. Denmark and Norway sent a card. Italy and Spain and Greece sent promissory notes. Turkey sent a brigade to help Mr. Gandalf. And some of the Orientations sent other things in a box that I haven’t opened yet.

Make no mistake, we are serious about not-surrendering in this mutual non-agreement until our grievances are given a fair hearing by Mr. Gandalf. And we will stay involved and proactive in these events until such time as it is no longer time to remain involved or proactive, and I assure you that will be at some point. In the meantime, I have ordered my political team to find an exit strategy that allows me to blame this entire incident on the failure of George Bush to solve these problems before they were dumped in my lap. Tonight I ask you all to respond to all poll questions regarding Libya by blaming Mr. Bush.

Good night and may Allah bless you with a sexy camel.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Impeach Obama The Warmonger!

I have it on good authority that Dennis Kucinich (D-Pluto) is made from clown concentrate and processed chicken parts. So it won’t surprise you that he’s now wondering aloud whether Obama should be impeached for his war mongering in Libya. Yeah, that Obama. . . the one who spent the weekend in Brazil cancelling press conferences so he could samba. Does he have a point?

For some background, the French and British decided something needed to be done about Libya, where Michael Jackson’s evil clone (see below) has been killing his own people. They went to the United Nations and somehow got the UN to agree to institute a no fly zone over Libya. Russia, by the way, agreed to the resolution and then promptly turned around and condemned it. Weirdos.

With UN approval in his pocket and the French leading the way. . . Field Marshal Obama fled to Brazil as our navy started launching cruise missiles at Libyan air defense installations to protect coalition forces.

Enter clown boy and his posse of “hard-core liberal House Democrats” (as Politico describes them). This group of hard-core fans includes nine House members including noted intellectual luminaries like Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee, and our friend Dennis.

As a group, they question whether Obama has the constitutional right to launch missiles against Libya (after all, the word "Libya" doesn't appear in the Constitution anywhere). They’re also upset that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack, and they’re upset that this would lead the US into a third war in the Muslim world. Said one Democrat on the conference call:

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress.”

Kucinich goes one further and says this raises the question of impeachment. Kucinich, by the way, is an impeachment hobbyist, having tried to bring impeachment articles against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

So let’s look at a few points.

First, they are wrong about the “requirement” to advise Congress before blasting some foreign country. Only Congress can declare war, but under the 1973 War Powers Act, the President can commit US troops for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. So their point is garbage. . . and uppity Belgium better watch its back!

Secondly, this pretty much kills any claims the Democratic left flank has to legitimacy on war issues. They claimed they opposed Bush because he acted without genuine UN approval. Obama got that. Yet, they still complain. They claim they opposed Bush because he only wanted Iraq’s oil and Afghanistan’s. . . dirt. They said we should only fight when US interests aren’t at stake, like when an evil dictator is killing his own people and it has nothing to do with us (yes, they said that). Well, that’s exactly what Gaddafi is doing in Libya, and yet they still oppose the use of force. In fact, at the same time these Democrats were holding their conference call of stupidity, anti-war protestors were protesting at the White House gates.

What does this tell us? It tells us the left is lying when they come up with specific reasons for opposing particular military actions. The truth is they simply object to military action of any kind. Hence, we should start treating their objections as irrelevant.

Third, this tells us the left is unhinged and probably will field a candidate against Obama in the primary. Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders says a primary challenge would be a good thing (sounds like Martha Stewart... "it's a good thing"), though he won’t do it himself. Our boy Dennis Kucinich says a primary challenge would make Obama a “stronger nominee,” and seems intent on jumping in where Bernie fears to tread.

But wait, what about Hillary, you ask? Well, for one thing, Hillary no longer has progressive street cred, so she might as well be Son of Bush. For another, Hillary essentially took herself out of the race this week, saying that she will not run for President, will not take another government job and will not serve in Obama’s second term. I suspect this is actually her attempt to bail out before the rats start abandoning the A.S.S. Obama once the writing on the wall gets clearer in 2012 -- which makes it a brilliant move. But whatever her reasons, she out.

So Kucinich is in. And since Kenya Boy proved that you don't need to be a US citizen anymore to become President, I think we need to expand the field of possible contenders for his VP spot. Thus, I give you....

Kucinich/Kaddafi 2012

. . . you heard it here first.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libya, On The To Do List. . .

Libya. We’re still on Libya. Ug. Why are we talking about Libya? Because Obama is an idiot, that’s why. Well, let’s get this over with.... then we’ll agree to never speak of this again!

1. Obama... Silence Ain't Golden

When a civil war starts in a country that sits a few hundred miles south of Italy, a country rich in oil, a country we bombed in 1986, a country that sponsors international terrorism. . . US Presidents tend to issue statements. So why has Obama been conspicuously silent? We speculated about this the other day and strangely, none of us came close to the real answer: apparently, Obama is soooooo busy he just didn’t have time to issue a statement. I guess Oprah’s been pretty special this week?

Seriously, I'm not making this up!

Here’s the quote from Obama Spokesmonkey Jay “small hands” Carney:

“This is a scheduling issue. The president will meet with Secretary of State Clinton this afternoon. We will have something to say out of that meeting. If possible, the President will speak this afternoon or tomorrow.”

What the heck? This is what you say when you decline a lunch invitation, not when a country erupts in civil war! And how long does it take to issue a statement anyway? It’s really quite simple. Obama takes off his wife’s jeans, puts on a suit. He walks to the statement giving hallway. The media bows, cheers and cries. Someone turns on the TOTUS. Obama reads. The media applauds and holds up lighters. Obama returns to the Huckleberry Hound Show which his staff conveniently TiVoed. How hard is that?

Oh, I see, he doesn’t know what to say? Gee, what do you say when a murderous tyrant the world hates is fighting for his life against his own citizens and his military is switching sides in city after city? Hmmm. How about this:

[look serious]
[frown]

To the people of Libya,
Get him!

[beat cheeks]

Was that so hard? You don’t even have to put it in Haikou format! Seriously, it’s hard to find an easier speech to give. Grrr.

2. On Israel....

While we’re here, I thought I’d mention briefly what all of this means for Israel. I bring this up because The Economist has taken the strange position that if all of this upheaval in the Arab world leads to free and peaceful democracies in the Middle East (which is actually possible), then somehow the United States needs to abandon Israel.

Right, just like we abandoned England when Germany became a democracy.

How does this make any sense? I honestly can’t tell you. The little bit of “logic” The Economist presented was nothing more than watered down conspiracies statements in the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy mold. Apparently, those sneaky Jews control the US because they have an effective lobby, and thus US policy has been a servant to Israel (as evidenced by us invading Iraq and in foreign aid we give Israel). If Arabs stop being meanies, then the US will need to give up supporting the regional bully, i.e. Israel. Q.E.D..

I hardly know where to begin with this. AARP is more powerful than the Israeli lobby? And if Jews are so powerful, why would that power suddenly fail them just because Arabs start voting? We invaded Iraq for a dozen reasons, none of which involved Israel. We give foreign aid to everyone. Israel isn’t the neighborhood bully, it’s the kid that stood up to the bullies. And if the Arabs stop being jerks, then Israel doesn’t need our protection. Hence, every single part of this theory is wrong.

The truth is this. If the Arab world becomes democratic and free (and gives up its desire to wipe Israel off the map), there is no reason in the world the US should abandon Israel. Frankly, I expect that would improve everyone’s relations and probably draw us closer into the whole region through increased tourism and investment.

Somehow, between the antiSemitic Economist and our silent President, I get the feeling we're not in the greatest of hands these days.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gadhafi Carol

Today, I’m going to be a little lazy. I seem to be suffering the effects of the Lawyer Flu (H1N2). Unlike the H1N1, which will kill us all, this one only annoys the heck out of you. In the final stage, I hear it sues your colon, but I don’t know about that yet.

Since I’m being lazy, I’m just going to re-print something interesting I read. I figured you could all stand to learn a little more about our friend Moammar Gadhafi. Enjoy. . .

AP -- New York

In his long and dramatic address to the UN today, Libyan leader and noted Swiss-hater, Moammar Gadhafi aired various eyebrow-raising complaints. Among his targets:

• The UN Security Council, which he called the “Terror Council” for failing to prevent conflicts around the world since 1945, including his own coup in Libya.

• Everyone who says he looks like Michael Jackson.

• Switzerland, because he’s lactose intolerant.

• The premier of China, who keeps saying “nice dress” whenever he sees Gadhafi.

• The UN delegation from Kongo Bora, who keep calling him Gadhafi Duck.

• New York. He wants the UN moved from New York because New York is an inconvenient location for him and it causes him to suffer from jetlag. He also ranted for several minutes about the difficulties inherent in getting camels to board airplanes.

Gadhafi also whined about the Iraq war, which he described as the mother of all evils, and about General Mills, which sold him a box of Lucky Charms that contained the mother of all weevils.

He accused the Fed of being part of an international conspiracy to destroy the Libyan currency -- the Turd. He said that Oliver Stone killed JFK, who is not really dead, but instead lives on the moon deflating world oil prices. And he claimed that swine flu was some sort of plot by non-Arab governments, though he mumbled so badly that no one is sure exactly what he said.

At one point, he tossed the UN Charter fourteen feet across the floor, coming close to the record of fourteen feet three inches set by S'mdum Bastrd from Tossilvania. His throw was enough to place him second, however, just edging out the former Chancellor of East Germany.

Many have speculated as to what caused Gadhafi’s erratic behavior. Some suggest Gadhafi was upset from lack of rest. He had planned to set up his tent on Donald Trump’s property in Bedford, NY, home to Martha Stewart and Ralph Lauren, who also live in tents. But Trump wasn’t home or didn’t answer the doorbell when Gadhafi rang. So he ended up staying at a U-Store-It in Englewood, New Jersey, where he had no access to water or electricity, and he lacked the necessary southern view to get satellite television.

During the night, Gadhafi apparently also experienced difficulties when he was visited by three guests. First, came Louis Farrakhan, who discussed the past with Gadhafi, reminding him of how happy he was before he seized power. Then he was visited by two unknown young African American men in “Raiders” jackets, who showed him what life was like for average New Jersey residents, meaning they stole his tent and graffiti'd his camel. Finally, he was visited by a vagrant who spoke to him of the future, before sexually assaulting him. The vagrant has been charged with sexual assault on a foreign dignitary, which carries a penalty of three days in prison.

In any event, Gadhafi’s speech hasn’t gone unnoticed. As of this writing, most news organizations have reported on his erratic behavior. CNN called it “shockingly insulting,” CBS News referred to it as “Moammar’s Rant”, while MSNBC described it as “a brilliant tour de-force that continues to prove the evils of Bush administration policy.”

The White House had no comment on the content of the speech, though they did congratulate him on his second place finish in tossing the UN charter. They also promised to cut down the trees blocking his satellite view at the U-Store-It.

Tomorrow, Gadhafi plans to unleash a plague of locust at the UN, where he warns prophetically that they will destroy every crop in New York City, starving the people of Manhattan.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...