You are currently browsing the archives for the Politics category.
Archive for the 'Politics' Category
-Candy Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. Not quite the 31 Raddatz did to Paul Ryan, but real close. She also gave Obama 9% more speaking time. Raddatz also gave Biden more speaking time. I believe Obama had an advantage in the first debate too.
-Michelle Obama was video taped as one of the people clapping when they were not supposed to be. There were two bursts of clapping during the debate in the Libya-Mod moment. In one, in my opinion I remember a few people clapping. In the second, there was one person clapping loudly. It was Michelle Obama.
-Oddly enough some Gary Johnson/Ron Paul voters, particularly “single issue Gun voters” – are now flopping on their pledge not to vote for Romney. Why is that? Obama’s championing of an Assault Weapons Ban. I don’t think this is going to be huge in the polls overall – but in a close race where a few hundred votes can swing an election, and where a few thousand votes may have gone to Gary Johnson? Who knows. I know the “gun lobby”‘s jimmies were rustled big time by Obama’s answer. It was funny to watch him say “Welll, so the crimes being committed in Chicago are being done with small handguns…. /lets ban assault weapons.” Odd considering Chicago’s murder rate is awful, and the city’s gunlaws are VERY strict, to the point where it was slapped by the Supreme Court. It’s also got a ban on law abiding citizens carrying concealed guns. Their draconian gunlaws have not worked, (but they have disarmed the populace). Solution: do it all over the country.
-Crowley is backtracking after taking sides on the Libya deal.
-Captain Obvious Blog’s resident Journalism analyst “Neutral Man: Semi-Pro Academic” had some of the following words: “Sure, Crowley overall did a better job than Jim “where’s my stapler” Lehrer – but to insert an opinion and take a side in a huge debate like this? Leaning to sides in a debate is more or less “ungentlemanly”, to be totally subjective and take a side is something else. This is a replacement ref level debacle. If I were either campaign/party, upon seeing that, this is the last time she ever gets a debate moderator position. Ever. Inexcusable. Millions of people saw that – and the “correction”, false or not, in and of itself is bias in the extreme. Groups of voters don’t care so much about Libya or Obama’s position on it, for better or worse. What they saw was the Mod saying “No” to Romney. It could be hugely influential, and it never should have happened.”
-Obama claimed that he called the Libyan attack terrorism from the beginning. The same Obama who went on the View and said it was a protest due to a video, who went in front of the UN and mentioned the video 6 times, failing to condemn it as a terrorist attack. Because Obama said the word “Terror” once, this somehow means he was implying it was terrorism from the beginning? F**king please. If you believe that, I have a several-hundred-million-dollar solar company to sell you.
-Obama’s comments on coal, oil, and shale permits were “interesting” too, in that they were deliberately misleading. Technically he had to do so. Romney hung a boat anchor around his neck with this question. I was surprised to see that it got 30 minutes of debate time. It was time well used, energy is a giant portion of our economy.
-Morning Joe, MSNBC’s republican apologist, said Romney didn’t blow it, but that he was “too forceful” on Obama. I disagree, if he didn’t act forcefully the base would have been upset, and awarded Obama victory.
-Now I think dials, panels etc are bulls**t, and influence peddling of the lowest kind. MSNBC’s went to Romney, as did Fox’s (we have just entered the twilight zone). The Fox panel’s member stated that he was sick of Obama “bullshi**ing us”. Video links will be up later.
-Something that stuck out to me: It appears that on these panels (especially so on MSNBC’s mini-panel), people mentioned that they liked Romney’s record as a business man. I heard it mentioned over and over again – that he’s balanced budgets, he has a plan for the economy, they like his track record. Honestly I thought those things about Romney were well known, basic, and old news by now. But it was clear that some of this audience hadn’t really mulled that over. Pontificating here? It looks like Romney reminding voters he’s a business man, and giving his vision and the methods of getting there – was really enough for people. “Business man, did a good job at it. He had plans there, followed them, ran budgets. His track record shows this. Obama hasn’t XYZ. The track record shows this. Romney says we can do better, seems to have a plan. Done deal. Business man. Has a plan.” A lot of what they were saying really didn’t look any more complex than that to me. I’m thinking “Well, the economy, energy, Obama care, and foreign policy weakness seem to be the problems of today – Romney’s the alternative on all those things. Why were people hesitant in the first place?” Their hesitation on him probably has to do with his personal relativity and the amount of tar thrown at him over the past few years in negative ads, and in negative press coverage. I’d also like to remind the reader, he also failed to really excite the Republican base in either 2008 or 2012 primaries, it could also be due in part to this phenomenon. “Bad candidate but he’d probably be a good President” was the line often tagged to him.
- In the aftermath of the debate, I’m not sure it was enough to reverse the trend to Romney. As of today at least Gallup has Romney up 51% to 45%. I’ve routinely said unkind things about Gallup, I won’t back off here. Expect to see more fluctuating between now and election day. Rasmussen has Romney up 49% to 48%. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if Rasmussen has it tied 48 or 47 going into this final debate.
-Romney’s amping up ad spending in a few battle ground states. I wouldn’t be shocked to find out Obama sheds a few points in battleground states, to the tune of 1-2%, which is enormous at this stage of the game.
Thoughts on the next debate:
-This one is big, and I think Obama is in trouble. It doesn’t look he’ll have opportunities to talk about his biography.
-Expect Obama to talk about the Cayman Islands and China crap Re: Romney’s account. Expect a counterpunch from Romney. Expect a rehearsed canned bad joke from Obama.
-Expect more controversy after this debate.
-I anticipate Mitt Winning this one.
This is more like the debates people are used to, only more highly charged for a townhall. Both sides went back to their corners rooting for their guys claiming victory. Mitt was very effective in listing Obama’s missed promises. He also came across as passionate for the middle class “and stuff”, the fluffy things people want to hear. Obama stopped the bleeding. He came out fighting, he was the usual smarmy Obama that the left loves.
Moments that stuck out for me:
-Romney walking after Obama on the energy questions (When Obama interrupted), Obama going back to the chair.
-How many women’s questions there were. It seemed patronizing
-I realized that Obama’s only specific about his “visions”, the magical happy things he wants to do and for what groups. Not so much on how.
-Mitt did not make a wide open TD pass on Libya. That was a head-shaker.
-Obama is a proponent of the so called Assault Weapons Ban
-Obama had 3 home run balls in a row
-Candy Crowley took a side Re: Libya, and then the crowd got involved. That was BS.
Who did what well:
-Obama did what we’ve grown accustomed to seeing from him. Personal attacks on Romney. Denials when called out on his record. (Says it with a straight face too.) Talking about things that apparently happened during his administration.
-Obama also brought out the axe to Romney.
-Obama read off his biography well (to connect with voters)
-Mitt did well when he talked about his record, when he talked about taxes, the economy, energy, etc.
-He did well talking about the future too, “We don’t have to live like this… we can do better than this”
-He did great in bringing up Obama’s record, “Do you believe your taxes have been cut? Nobody does!” as well as the information Re: gasoline prices, healthcare costs, falling incomes, etc.
Obama committed what I thought may have been “Blown up” into a giant error, when he said the quote: ”There are some jobs that are not going to come back.” I wouldn’t be surprised if this comes back in advertisements.
Thanks all in the quick reaction blog tonight – expect to see another in the next few days!
Many on the right underestimated Biden. I myself said the line, “In the debate with Ryan, Biden will come in 3rd.” The talk radio media had Biden done. The kids on FB expected a Biden gaffe. We talked about how smart Ryan was. But we also found out during the debate that smarts need to be complimented by a strong personality. See Newt Gingrich for example isn’t just smart, he’s got an “instant” brain to mouth broadband connection, and he’s got ludicrous levels of confidence. Not quite the level reaching narcissism as Obama has (The guy thought he actually won the first debate)
Some of the more
blind ardent supporters of Zero, felt that Biden did a good job. They were very upset about the results of that first debate (Mitt beating the tar out of him), and they wanted to feel like “their guy” fought back. Biden provided that. To many others (including many in the press, shockingly) Biden was quarrelsome and juvenile with his antics. Supposedly women voters in particular were very turned off by Biden.
On to the next debate:
Obama is supposedly going to be “more aggressive”. I wonder how that will play out. He’s just seen what happened when Biden went too far, so I think the warning on “going too far” is fresh in mind. But does Obama know how to be aggressive? Can he do it without coming across as “Arrogant”? I think he may, I wouldn’t be surprised if he “wins” this next debate. Why? This is a Townhall. He can pander to people on how bad he feels their “hurts”, and he can demagogue Romney on the things he claims Romney supports (that many “faux-checkers” will fail to jump on). This favors him. A townhall can become a bidding war for promises, Obama’s excellent at demoguging opponents, and offering up promises he has no hope of full-filling even if he had say 60 seats in the Senate, a super majority in the house, 80% approval ratings, and a fawning media – he had all those things for 2 years, we’ve seen that movie.
Expect crap on the “47%” and more personal attacks. Expect to hear things like “What specifics on your tax plan”. I anticipate Romney asking for specifics on Obama’s ANYTHING plan if given the chance, Obama will roll a donut if he runs that play. Obama has been specific about 4 things in the past 2 years.
1) It’s Republicans fault
2) Mitt Romney is mean
3) The rich have to be taxed
4) Oil Companies are bad
That’s about it. He’s been woefully short on plans and specifics for a good long time, is he going to suddenly conjure up new rhetoric in this debate? If he does, if he crafts new promises – expect the media to love it. Expect voters to be confused.
There’s also a chance for more Obama fails. It was in a townhall that Obama gave his Obamacare answer that was 7 times longer than the Gettysburg address. He could do this again. He could again “Go too far” on trying to be “aggressive” and come across sour. Remember Obama was elected as the “hope” guy, not the gloom and doom merchant in 2008. Him personally going on the attack vs Romney may play well to the left’s base, but could sour him with independents.
IMHO we saw how Biden can be. The guy’s a dunce but I’ve watched him fling s**t at someone like Thomas Sowell, a guy who has the IQ of at least 2 Bidens. Tonight he was a “gamewrecker”. That’s a term handed to Defensive Linemen who control the game by existing. They’re usually physically dominant, they can collapse the pocket, ruin the run, etc. Basically, they destroy an offense. Such a player is this ‘Suh’ character from Detroit. Great lineman, physically he’s a beast – he can ruin a game if you let him. But Suh is also known for doing this -
15 yard personal fouls, and at times a bad demeanor, I think Biden did some of that tonight. Sure – Biden owned the first 30minutes, he controlled the flow of the debate. He gave the left the “one-liners” on the 47% they wanted to see. He more or less called Ryan a liar a few times, constantly saying “that’s not true” while he was speaking. The left likely loved that during the beginning of the debate. But it got obnoxious at around the 40minute mark. He was constantly laughing and chuckling, IMHO, arrogantly. He then got into the weeds a few times, droning on about nothing. From that moment on in the debate, Biden started to embarrass himself. I think a lot of people checked out mentally near the end.
Ryan looked weak in the beginning, he took a few “dumb sacks” to Biden early, deferring to him too often. Once it got to entitlements he settled down and began to talk. There were times he chided Biden to cut it out, these signs of life excited the base. On budgets, entitlements, and the economy, Ryan won. We started to see around that 40min mark, why Biden had to take the 15yd flags, if he didn’t Ryan was going to throw down the field. If he did this for the whole debate, he would have won it. Taking the flags prevented this. He defended Romney well in terms of entitlement reform, and talking about “the hurts” people have. He did not allow Biden to make the Romney/Ryan ticket look disconnected from “the little guy”. His closing remarks were great.
I don’t think everyone left with a clear winner in mind. Due to this the impact of the debate won’t be as shocking as the first one. Honestly don’t be surprised if that becomes the tune for the rest of the race, with no clear winner for the rest of the debates. IIRC that’s usually what it’s like, this really gives the last debate context.
After this debate expect to see talk radio really riled up about Biden. They also have tons of one-liners from Ryan. (Remember the “Sometimes things don’t come out of your mouth the right way”, the only audible reaction from the crowd all night, and the taxes on the rich not paying for the spending). The right saw some bad fouls on Ryan, they’re mad about it. To them it looks like Biden went “Mel Gibson” at times. They’re also now much more appreciative of Mitt Romney methinks… we saw what Mitt did in a debate and loved it. Ryan didn’t deliver the same way. People now have lost the “I wish Ryan was at the top of the ticket” idea if it lingered in their head.
The left liked to see ‘fight’ in their guy. Obama looked detached, Biden threw punches today, they saw the hits they wanted to see. The guy used character attacks, created strawmen of Romney’s policies, etc – all of this. Ryan didn’t knock them down. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama run these plays on Romney. Expect to see the left-media play (over and over and over again) Biden’s highlights. Derp on the 47%, and the abortion albatross and the like. CNN shockingly, to their credit, called out Biden’s body language and mannerisms. The opinions are mixed.
Electorally I think Biden may have “stopped the bleeding” in the polls. I don’t see it as decisive enough to shift the election. If he was polite, perhaps it would have looked so- but he was not. I think it may have kinda confused independents more than anything. If anything it enhances the drama for this second debate. The media must love this, more people will consume their product due to the hype leading up to the next debate.
Paraphrasing Krauthammer post debate:
“If you read the transcript this debate was even.
If you listened on the Radio Biden Won.
If you saw it on TV, Ryan won.”
Why I think the media won:
Now people may run back into their arms to get an opinion on this one. They have so many snippets to choose from, so much crap to talk about – they can really throw any message they want onto the chalkboard. They are guaranteed viewership, they can make the message they want to sell, and people will come back to them in the “lets take a look at the car crash at the side of the road, lets slow the car down” fashion to see if anything happened in the race. The media won this one.
Edit and update 12:15
Biden apparently interrupted Ryan 82 times. Wow. For those who want to say that Romney’s “interruptions” (which usually him interrupting the moderator who was trying to give Obama the last word and move to a new stupid topic, vs the man interrupting the candidate while he was speaking which is what Biden did) had any level of parity- either you can’t count or you’re too liberal to see what happened.
-MSNBC is in “Obama is getting reelected!!!!!” Fervor.
-Hannity’s man-crush for Ryan came out, it’s wall to wall on Biden’s penalty flags.
-CNN has a poll up of some sort – Ryan 48% Biden 44% I think that’s an internet poll. I’d chalk it up to a wash/tie, it means there was no decisive winner. Usually for debates we kind of default to our corner, I think that happened this time.
-The AP poll has it 51% Ryan to 43% Biden.
I’m currently putting on my Halliburton issue tinfoil helmet (with antennae), I’m wondering if the stage is being set for a big showing for Obama in the second debate. “Oh it’s all up to him, the stakes are high, yada yada” etc.
Edit and update 1:20
GOP put out this video.
Edit and update 11:30 Friday the 12th
-Martha Raddatz apparently interrupted Ryan 31 times. Some have called her “the 3rd debater.”
-Heavily Democratic polls have shown: most Dems liked how the debate went. Biden had the sole goal of knocking Ryan down, regardless of whether it was via a low blow or not. He delivered on that.
See by saying the bounce is “temporary”, the hope is that Biden pummels Ryan tonight. If that happens, the polls can be shifted by the news cycle, (as the combination of that and Obama’s attack ads hurt Romney for quite some time – the undoing was Romney giving Obama his first and only real grilling in nearly 6 years in the public eye.)
If Ryan fails tonight, they can talk about something else, they can give him the Palin treatment. I think this is the play the DNC wants to make, the one the media would shadow-box along with them if given the chance. (How did the “war on women” strawman make it into the news cycle? ;) ).
-A lot of conservatives are underestimating Joe Biden. This could totally bite us in the ass. See Biden is a dumbass and a plagerist, sure, he did reveal the location of the secret Cheney bunker, he has said things on hot mics that would have ended the career of any conservative, etc etc. The man still give – in the estimation of some Democrats, the best speech at the DNC. Even better than their messiah Bill Clinton. The only 2 term democrat since…
Truman. (Being fair, perhaps JFK could have done it, the guy was a tax cutter who was strong on defense.)
Biden has been prepping for this for the past 6 days. Expect him to have zingers. Expect to hear the 47% line. Expect to see him try to table-top Ryan by making him defend the Ryan budget, and asking him to explain the daylight between him and his running mate in the past. Expect a battleharded old politician.
-Here’s what’s going for Paul Ryan: He’s a young like-able guy, and one of the smartest people in the GOP. (Biden, conversely is probably just above Hank “Guam-tipper” Johnson in terms of IQ). He’s articulate, and well versed in his beliefs and their defenses. Paul’s the guy who had that 5min highlight reel worthy take-down of Obama when they first met at that show-summit Obama called after the 2010 election. Paul Ryan may be young, but he’s very smart, and I think he’s prepped well for this debate too. I think Ryan’s ready.
“Alright, make a prediction”
I think this one might be a nail biter. Biden comes out swinging, I think his opening statement will be good. The goal here is to put Ryan on defense. Nitwits in the press (you should see the cartoons that some morons are making, apparently Paul Ryan literally eats poor people) want to see this. Expect to see Paul Ryan given the task of dismantling the strawman created by Biden. I think Biden might at times come across as nasty by accident tonight. This would hurt his cause.
I think Ryan will be studious and well prepped, even if he falters slightly in the beginning due to being on a big stage. If Ryan is allowed to talk at length, he will rack up devastating “combos”. The potential for good counter punches is high. Joey Biden swings for the fences, lets see if Ryan can counter-punch. If he gets on a roll, this debate could get ugly. Biden could gaffe if this happens.
We shall see.
Obama ‘believed he had BEATEN Romney’ in Denver debate – after ignoring advice of top aides on preparation
Say, I was told that statistical discrepancy and an advantage for Dems meant that R’s HATE women. Now that’s it tied, using that “idea”, shouldn’t that mean somehow democrats have started hating women all of a sudden?
Pre debate they tried to lower the expectations for Obama. See, if we expect Romney is “The best debater ever” and Obama “might not do that well”, if he edges over the bar, they can have a victory lap. Obama hit the bar, they couldn’t save it – so they rolled in the “faux checkers” to explain the gap between the real Romney and the caricature he turned out not to be .
Security tapes have now come out showing there was no protest of any kind. Susan Rice, Hildog, Jay Carney, Obama – all of them were flat out dishonest. The answer: The state department said earlier this week, that they’ve never said the attack happened due to the protest or the video. Incredible. Deny, then deny the denial.
This is “Republican Christmas”. The morale of the base compares to the election night of 2010, and Scott Walker winning his derp-recall. I turned on MSNBC to see how they felt the debate went. If you put it on mute, their faces and body language said it all. Maddow didn’t know where to start, a concerned look on her brow. The guy that looks like Maddow’s little brother was starring off into space, purse lipped. I won’t get into a subjective scoring metric here, I’ll instead say: End result is a W for Romney. That simple.
-He prevented a knock out. He also did not put up a “donut”, he did put points up on the board.
-He came into this debate with a campaign that was just about to trend down, a tape of him a few years ago came out, polls were tightening in battleground states, etc. He had a lot of “uhhhhs”. The guy was spending his anniversary night, debating Romney.
-Thought: I think he may have psyched himself out a little bit during debate prep. I don’t think “Lurch” Kerry was a good model for Romney, but I’m thinking that Obama actually came in knowing what Romney was capable of (how he took down Newt via Newt’s finishing move, in the Florida debate).
-This was the Barack Uhh-bama I expected to see in the 2008 debates that never showed up.
-He meandered a lot, he spewed out some canned lines he had prepped. Occasionally he just kept repeating them, after Romney rebutted them. I personally got wrapped around the axle just hearing it. The guy wasn’t converting on “3rd downs”, and he wasn’t scoring points. But, he did have a few yards, and exposed possible holes for the next debates.
-The left was pissed that he “didn’t do XYZ”. Andrew Sullivan, a “journalist” of some sort, was extremely down. This was the feeling I had in 08 watching McCain. This is a sign your guy lost.
-He was looking at the moderator, and his body language looked like shit. Now I was looking down at a computer screen for much of the debate. I was listening* to the candidates more than looking. IMHO Both men were on a razor’s edge of stress in the moment in the beginning. But Obama just sounded a little incoherent. He sounded like a poorly executed “Faux-moderate-state of the union-address” Obama.
-Obama didn’t try the campaign trail class warfare and gender warfare stuff. I was surprised. I think we’ll see it next debate. It gives the media something to talk about.
-He had 5 more minutes to speak (Thanks to our moderator) than Romney did. He didn’t do anything with it.
-He had the gall to cite the Simpson-Bowles commission that he appointed and subsequently ignored. Several years later in debate, he brings it up as a strong point. What an ass.
-His body language sucked. He was looking down or away, he seemed to melt in his shoes. While I find things like this to be analogus to Nixon sweating in his JFK debate – and thus not that big of a deal, it still “looks bad”.
“R-Money”, the victor:
-As someone that doesn’t support Obama, I feel that the press as whole (The Non-Fox-Media, which excludes our corner of internet sites, Fox, and talk radio) has given this guy a pass for 4 years. The guy barely holds press conferences, and when he does he answers few questions and gives extremely canned responses. He’s had it easy, and has never seen a sustained challenge to his derp. A lot of Republicans wanted to someone stand up to this guy and call him out. Romney’s beautiful opening drive set the tone for the night. He started on offense and never let up. I was looking down while this was going on, and I must say, if I was a little bit deaf, I could have sworn I heard a little Reagan in that voice and tone.
-When a conservative says the “R-word”, it’s like a leftwinger saying “Bill Clinton o.o derp”, it means we like what we see. I heard a lot of it last night.
-Much of the base was down on Romney, last night he needed to “stop the bleeding”. He needed to be someone who was not the monster described in Obama’s ads. Last night he was no monster. He looked confident, he had the facts.
-Obama repeated canned lines, and falsehoods over and over – I lost it a few times. Romney didn’t. When the mod tried to cut him off, Romney went ahead and broke the barricade.
-Mitt challenged Zero several times, and had the one liners. No KOs though.
-If Obama decisively won this debate, it would have been considered a “nail in the coffin”, the news cycle would have been all about a campaign in disarray, Obama looks too strong, herpy derp, etc.
-He sounded passionate, he showed that he “got it”. He did not look out of touch, he spoke to people’s problems. People wanted to see that from Mitt. I personally think it’s an entire line of discussion and dialog that “goes without saying”. Of course things are going badly, of course this means people are hurting – but people want to see their candidate and President say that. Romney did last night. Zero didn’t.
-MSNBC admits romney won, as did the panelists on CNN
-DU in meltdown and reddit’s politics boards were a mess last night. All the hippies on those sites were crying it out pretty hard.
- Romney won to the tune of something like 67-22 in CNN poll of registered voters. Jesus Christ.
-”It’s a race again”. The right’s enthusiasm is back, independents felt RMoney exceeded expectations. If the election were held tomorrow, Romney has a better chance now than if it were held even on 8:55pm ET Wednesday yesterday.
-This was just a huge moment for Mitt. He needed a big W on the board and got one.
-I think the polls in VA and FL will suddenly slide to Romney. Don’t be surprised to see a shock poll seeing PA suddenly close. NC is solid Romney.
No idea on Ohio. Given the money spent, I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama carries Ohio in the general, but loses electorally, a “historical” first.
For the future, and the second debate:
-The VP debate is next. I think Biden comes in third. Now I personally think Biden’s a fighter and not be underestimated, despite his penchant for throwing pick-6s in consecutive drives. He will take it to Paul Ryan. If Ryan sleeps on this, Biden can stop the “bleeding”. I personally have faith in Paul Ryan. I think we get a “gaffe moment” from Biden, Ryan’s smart, he knows if he can get a gaffe out of Biden the momentum will continue to swing.
-In 1984 Reagan lost the first debate. Take a look at the ’84 electoral map. This is not over. Obama is no Reagan, not by any metric really (save for rhetoric, if you believe Obama’s reading of someone else’s words on a teleprompter, even to 7th graders, is impressive) , but know the race isn’t over. Romney could be one more “47%” comment away from the news cycle covering anything other than what just occurred. (Say, kinda like what MSNBC is doing today.)
-MSNBC has set the tone. They’re faux-checking Romney. They have false and practically conspiratorial beliefs as to what Romney’s platform “really is” (not to be confused with his actual platform), stuff Obama believed and went into the debate last night spewing. They are not using the recent data showing things like the 2011 deficit being larger than previously believed. Mitt destroyed the BS like clay pigeons in the debate… but, the news cycle is unforgiving, they’re going to continue the mission – say whatever the hell they want about Mitt Romney.
-I think Zero comes out much tougher in this next debate. I wonder if he miss-calibrates a la Al Gore in 2000 and looks angry instead of “passionate”. I wonder if he will throw the 47% comment at Mitt – I think he will. I think we might see more identity politics rear its ugly head. Many left-leaning identity voters did not feel that they were specifically pandered to enough. At the least Obama has to energize a few voters, even if only the “wacky 20%” on his hard left.
-I think the 3rd debate is going to be tough. If the moderator doesn’t stop it, I think Mitt’s going to crush him. I don’t believe we’ve seen the end of the Libya information coming out. Israel may have its strike in Iran by then. Obama WILL spike the football Re: Bin Laden. RMoney WILL hit him back with this. The counter punch on this may be the “Big moment” people want. This is also a time when a fumble near the goal line would demoralize the right. This 3rd debate, this foreign policy debate, is one that even a month ago this time people would have said Obama was “just too strong” on, RMoney would have lost. Not now. Mitt’s got legs to stand on, and this 3rd debate is a home game. Zero has to again put up points and avoid donuts. We may see 47% comments and more domestic policy stuff come out in this debate.
-The second debate is going to be very important for Obama. It’s a town hall with a CNN moderator, audience picked by Gallup. I think it’s a left leaning stadium, so to speak – but there will be conservatives present. They will be energetic. Here, a win for Obama (and ideally a win on the road from bumbling Biden) would put him either tied or back in the lead. He needs to get his base back, he needs to get the news-cycle back on distraction issues, he needs to scare off voters again. I wonder if this offensive scheme will work? I think Obama’s brand is stale, he’s promised the same shit since 06 (The old video of him bares this out), he hasn’t delivered. So his “State of the union” offense didn’t really work in the first debate. He might not have anything other than hopefully goading a gaffe out of Romney. But there’s a problem, this is a town hall style debate. It was in a town hall where Obama famously delivered his 7-times-longer-than-the-Gettysburg-Address-Obamacare costs answer. I think Obama will have a few bad drives. My question is how Romney will do when he gets tough questions. Someone’s going to ask him a toughie. If he falls down, this will become the highlight reel moment for the NFM news cycle. I think in this debate Romney needs to be consistent and good. Obama won’t shrink here I think. Barring a KO, I think this one goes to a “tie”, I think Romney wins the 3rd debate.
-Apparently there’s information saying that the WH had reasons to suspect that the attacks on 9/11 by Islamic extremists was terrorism. If the mortars and machine guns and the coordinated assault portions weren’t enough, if the date wasn’t obvious, if the black al queda flag was a mystery – the fact that this attack took place at a “safehouse” a half mile away from the Consulate building should have been the tip off. Th. the Obama campaign cooks this shit up, the m;edia carries it verbatim. fox challenges it, as does talk radio, WH stood by the “well this obscure youtube video did it” meme, and claimed this was a protest for about 10 days. They sent Rice onto several morning shows to parrot this. Obama stood by the video tape in the UN
-The guy who made the tape is being sued by the federal government. NYC is apparently going to get rid of ads that “might” be offensive (but not to Christians.)
-Bad economic news came out, and was promptly shuffled under the rug.
-As of 15 days after the attack, the FBI who is supposed to draw the chalk outline around the building, I mean investiage, still hadn’t done so. No idea if they’ve finally gotten around to it. CNN, fucking CNN was able to get a hold of the ambassador’s personal journal the FBI hasn’t showed up there in that time days afterward. Just a reminder than in this time we’ve gotten a weak speech from Obama, the Whitehouse got the story wrong for weeks, the FBI has done nothing – and a majority of the press hasn’t flamed him for it. (Sean Hannity hasn’t come back to Earth yet, but results aren’t typical.) Remember how reasonable they were for bush’s 6 minutes post 9/11? Barack Obama went to bed the night of 9/11/12 not knowing the fate of his ambassador, with a Las Vegas fundraiser the next day that he did not cancel or postpone.
-Pundits are currently “lowering the bar” for Obama Re: the debate with Romney that should be happening Wed. See back when the first Gallup poll showed Romney beating Obama (the one that pissed off David Axelrod), we were told that the debates were going to be the focal point, that those were going to change the race. Now we’re being told the debates don’t matter. Some are saying that due to 50+ debates of experience, Romney is one of the best debaters we’ve had. Thus, raising the bar for him.
See this is exactly the crap we’ve been seeing over the past 5 years from the media. A lowering of expectations, excuses, an immediately rush to put up flack, etc. ”It’s too hard. The President can’t do stuff. I mean not even approving a pipeline that would create a quarter million jobs and get us less dependent on oil from the Middle East with a pen stroke. The Economy was too bad. The stimulus needed to be 2 Trillion dollars, even though the guy managed to spend the entire cost of both the Iraq + Afghan wars over 10 years – every year as deficits. The country is too hard to govern. ” All this excuse making has severely lowered the bar for this guy. If he gets obliterated in the debates, the media will say, “oh well that was supposed to happen.”
-Obama’s tape “Uhhh, I support redistribution” was buried in the newscycle. (What a mystery.)
-France just upped their tax rate for “Millionaires/Billionaires” to 75%
-A satire piece Re: Paul Ryan was taken as fact by several liberal pundits. Why? It smelled like what they wanted to hear, the “Zomg Romney’s done” meme they’re spreading.
These pundits read this piece and wrote their own articles based on this, all parroting it. An event like this is easy evidence that our genius liberal and academic overlords are just as able to believe in bull**** as anyone else is. Such people are just as susceptible to “horizontal propaganda” as the “sheeple” whose lives they wish to herd. Rather than acknowledge their biases, many of them fancy themselves empiricists. Here’s a newsflash: Much of the press resides in this little burg in NYC, they live in this little club where they have their own ideas and pet causes. They fancy Mitt Romney out of touch, and point to Romney’s earnings in 2011 as “proof”. Here’s a fun one. That same year, Jon Stewart made $14 Million, Matt Lauer made $17 Million, David Letterman made $28 Million.
-Lastly: This “Zomg Romney should just quit meme” is flaring up. No mention of the fact that unless the polls over sampled democrats, Obama is a healthy distance under 50%. That losses in registered Democratic voters in battleground states is 10x that amount of Republican loses, is also not being reported. The squawking is “Mitt’s done Mitt’s done, braaaaawwk!” I think the declaration that Mitt’s campaign is dead is just crazytalk. The press has had several victory laps for Obama these past few years.
Let me refresh your memory.
-The victory lap started in the summer of 2008. That summer was unbearable.
-The night after the election in 08, some were calling a second term.
-Stimulus pundits declared that the economy was sure to rebound after its passage, Obama was going to get reelected.
-I believe that the so called “summer of recovery” with extremely mild GDP “growth” that defied expectations (when you continuously revise GDP growth numbers and shuffle the losses from one quarter to another, this tends to happen) made him a sure bet in 2012.
-When the healthcare discussion began, some believed that “lol if he gives us free healthcare he HAS to win.”
-After the midterm elections in 2010. Some believed that Obama was going to pivot to the center, Clinton style, and was going to win a second term.
-Remember after the Bin Laden raid had occurred, a victory was in the bag, so said members of the press.
-The GOP Primaries beginning. “Lol the GOP doesn’t have anyone, they can’t win.” was a common meme.
-During the GOP Primary. SNL did its job pillorying the candidates. The meme was that they were joke, they were all losers. Press members at times implied it was a reality TV show (their fixation on unimportant details, surely that didn’t contribute, noo.)
-After the Primary ended – the party was going to be just too damaged and divided to win, the voters were going to be soured, it was over.
-January 2012 economic news – (after revising the workforce denominator in the unemployment equation, as shrinking the workforce with the same numbers of employed people will give you a lower unemployment rate) After this some said it was over.
-His Biden-forced not-quite-an-endorsement of gay marriage moment. He doesn’t support it enough to do anything about it legislatively, but “he likes it”. Gawker took sides on the issue (being an unbiased news source means you actively and obviously take sides and pick causes you like) and had a furious column scathing him for not going far enough. Some said that his comment had assured him election in 2012.
-Post DNC bounce, this victory lap is merely the latest in a series of makeshift ceremonies being held for the clown in chief.
I’m sick of the victory laps.
So it looks like France went through with its 75% tax derp. Most drive by observers won’t watch this story long enough to see where it goes. To them, everything that happens afterward will be a mystery, or will be explained with blame. I’m going to go out on a limb here and make some predictions, with the trio of history, logic, and math.
How the hell does stuff like this happen
See everyone, people like to believe in “ice cream and kisses” politics. It’s much easier to sell these things than it is to sell personal responsibility. If you promise ice cream, and it’s FREE, people are going to believe this. An election becomes a popularity contest, and a bidding war for who can promise the most “Free” crap.
When these politicians themselves and the people suspend their logic? They may believe that the ice cream is really free, and that eating lots of ice cream will not effect them negatively. You can promise just about anything you want in the short term, it only catches up in the long term financially. By that point, the election is long in the past and way out of memory. When voters get fat, the other party can be blamed. Daring to oppose the promise of free ice cream gets one labeled “anti-ice cream”, after all, only a monster “hates” ice cream. The other party may well have a plan to reduce the price of ice cream, and it’s highly unlikely that they do not “hate” ice cream by any non-hysterical definition. No matter, a great majority of the press will not rebut this claim.
It gets worse when actors, whose talents often don’t include being able to take care of their own lives, or properly managing their money, or being knowledgeable about anything other than playing roles on camera (and many are not even good at that)- chime in and aid in pillorying the “ice cream haters”.
So the French Socialist candidate (I believe he’s actually a member of their socialist party, that’s not me being
accurate “mean” with labels”). He promised everyone who was not rich, that they could live better off the backs of “the rich”. He likely made promise after promise that stroked the erogenous zones of left wing voters. Big government herpyderpy, higher taxes ‘just on the rich” and everyone gets, more, ”monneh”.
What do they expect
Free ice cream comrade
When do they want it
With the aids of history and logic, I’m going to state some predictions. I will state them as if they are fact (They have not happened yet).
-First off they’re not going to collect as much money as they think they are. Rich people don’t sit there and let themselves get taxed. These things do not happen in a vacuum where they sit still and allow you to wittle off bits of wood. They can react, think, and when incentives change, so will both of those things. Many of the rich will leave and go elsewhere, others will put their money into tax shelters, others will change how they do business to avoid paying the full amount. You saw this in US history in the early 1900s. When they ramped up the tax rate to the 70s, shockingly in one year there were less millionaires. Did they all die off? No! They changed how they lived their lives. Despite this higher rate, revenues fell off. This cycle repeated itself in Detroit, a city that was at one time a Metropolis. After decades of seeing no real interference by evil “Free market” types, that place has only gotten worse.
-The economy will slow down, as will revenues, unemployment will shoot up.
When you tax the “evil corporate” rich and hand it to the government instead, that’s money they do not invest, money they do not employ people with, money they don’t spend on expensive luxury goods, money they do not donate to charity. See those investments in stocks end up fueling businesses who can hire people, take out loans, produce goods, etc. Banks can loan that “richer” money to people for things like school loans and cars. The knowledge and intellectual capital of these people to setup successful businesses or properly run investments will also be chased off the playing field. In ancient Rome, after the collapse, the people living in the rubble didn’t have the knowledge to either maintain or repair the ruins of a more advanced culture that surrounded them. That’s what a lack of intellectual capital can bring
Businesses, who won’t be able to recoup the rewards of the investment risks they would normally make, are less inclined to take the kinds of risk that results in cheaper goods and services due to efficiency, or new ones with better features. In time, imported goods would become more popular.
Business who now have to pay higher taxes, will pass these on to customers. See businesses really aren’t money trees you can take from. This money has to come from somewhere, be it salaries or benefits for workers, or increases in the costs of goods, reduction of investments in things like marketing or R&D. Watch unemployment shoot up as they have less money to employ workers with. A rise in unemployment will likely cause an increase in government spending due to the benefits paid to these people. This may flat out crush some businesses overnight. Others may die slowly due to being less competitive against foreigners without such government branded burdens.
-That government won’t end up freezing or cutting spending. They will spend more money than they did last year. It will be “unexpected” too.
-Their deficit will be “higher than expected” as the revenues will be short, the economic slowdown will likely further reduce revenue, government spending will be slightly higher.
-In time firms may crash as lesser able executives are the only ones they can find. A lower level of competency ripples through businesses and industries. Some businesses may die from this.
-The government there will call for more spending, because, “something must be done”, and progress and all the other wonderful words the left uses to lipstick up their dog-s*** plans.
-This president will promise more ice cream next time, only this ice cream will have sprinkles and syrup and NO ONE will get the ‘beetus, so he promises. He may consider more entitlements and “price controls”, as if they can really control prices.
From the looks of it, they’re on the road to serfdom. I don’t believe they’re going to regulate and tax themselves into prosperity. That’s akin to jumping into a bucket, and trying to lift the bucket up by the handles while you’re in it. Things like this happened in the early 20th century. Never panned out. France is taking the road to serfdom, I do hope that they slow down or hit an exit.
On the anniversary of 9/11?
“Protesters” flying an Al Queda flag over them?
An ambassador dead, dragged through the streets and tortured (Not water boarding under controlled conditions by professionals with medical personnel on hand – I mean actual physical torture whereinas weapons are used to elicit the most amount of pain possible with no goal of gaining intelligence, and the ultimate goal being the death and humiliation of the person being injured. Gee, context is a bitch, isn’t it.)
And here’s what we did about it: Our government’s officials issued an APOLOGY of some sort, because it was supposedly done due to an obscure youtube video released months ago. The Administration asked youtube to take the video down. Obama mentioned the video and chastised freedom of speech in front of the UN. I mean even “radical Christians”don’t
storm embassies, issue death threats, and kill people protest when “artists” urinate on crosses, in this nation such things are put in meuseams and called “art”. Westboro Baptist “church” can protest soldier funerals, and they do not get a condemnation. Some weak kneed westerners are only interested in limits on free speech when it involves capitulating to radical Islam.
Iran rocketing towards creating nuclear weapons?
Please, pay attention instead to Mitt Romney’s arguably ”poorly timed” true statement (a statement made at roughly the same time as the State Department’s walk-back none the less) instead! That’s what MSNBC and CNN did the week it occurred. MSNBC more or less declared victory for Obama (again-again), saying Romney “Can’t recover from this week.” That’s the meme du jour for them. This is the how many-est time they’ve had an Obama Victory lap?
What happened, what we “knew” in the early hours:
-The embassy in Egypt was stormed. An Al Queda flag was flown overhead
-The consulate in Libya was stormed, our Ambassador was dragged through the streets, tortured, and killed along with 4 other Americans.
-This occurred on 9/11
-This was, according to apologies from administration, a protest that got out of hand due to the aforementioned youtube video. Susan Rice went on a handful of Sunday news shows and told us all it was a protest and due to this very obscure movie trailer on youtube that was released months ago.
-The administration asked youtube to take the video down
-Jay Carney stated that the video was responsible for what happened
The obvious flaws in this were immediately scrutinized by some. The rest of the “one-party-press” was more concerned with Mitt Romney’s truthful but “poorly timed” statements about what had occurred. The press was caught coordinating their questioning of Mitt Romney the next day.
More information came out:
-The Libyans gave us warning of this 3 days before the attack in Benghazi occurred.
-The diary of the Ambassador (That CNN somehow got first) shows that he was afraid of a lack of security and increasing hostilities in threats.
-The State Department has a “no bullets” policy for “security” personnel there, and hired a British firm to do the “security” (might as well call them public safety). Their rules of engagement, signed by state department’s hilary clinton, were extremely restrictive.
-This attack (on 9/11) merely used a youtube video as a “pre-text” (in this context, a fancy word for “excuse”) to attack the consulate building.
-Jay Carney was unable to explain how the “protesters” (That merely got out of hand) got a hold of so many RPGs, AKs, and mortars.
-Turns out there unsurprisingly may not have been a protest in Libya, it was 100-200 men armed with heavy weapons that stormed the Embassy in a terrorist attack in 2 waves.
-This may have been lead by a terrorist released from Gitmo in 2007.
-There was no beefed up security at either embassy.
-Protests (actual protests) have broken out all over the world.
-There were questions on whether Egypt is an ally of ours or not, Whitehouse statements are all over the place
-Administration officials have called this an obvious act of terrorism
-The next day at the UN, Obama fails to show strength.
Why this looks bad politically, and a few reminders:
-Recall that Barack Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize. Yep. Know what it was for? Hope, I think.
But really there was a belief among the left that the hostilities with the Middle East would be fixed or would subside if we did things their way. They contended this:
A) First is the premise that rhetoric can fix major problems, wars come about from “misunderstandings” and the like. This is the age old flawed belief of the left. (Wars historically* occur between close-by nations that know each other better than any other. That doesn’t change the idealistic and pious notions some have)
B) The Middle East hate us because we armed them in the 1980s vs the Russians.
C) They hate us for the 6 times we put American boots on the ground in defense of Muslims in the last 20 years, in Somalia, in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and Kuwait. This isn’t to mention the covert operations we’ve had.
D) We are “mean” and “arrogant”.
E) They don’t like us for the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT), if we go away, they will like us.
F) They didn’t like George W Bush, they like the US kinda not really though, but if we get rid of Bush we’re better off
G) They don’t like Guantanamo Bay (Funfact: average Gitmo prisoner puts on 20lbs)
H) We haven’t done the right/enough outreach
I) We aren’t “sensitive” enough to them
K) We “torture”
Context: Not like, shoving bamboo shoots up nails, or cutting with knifes, or routine physical beatings culminating with beheadings and videos sent to families, lashings/whippings, starvation, burnings, dragging through streets in public, being hooked up to car batteries, being forced to drink oil, rape, being bitten by dogs, being hung by the arms backwards to rip muscles and tendons, breaking of bones, weeks/months of solitary confinement in a box or hole, - not that stuff, the stuff our boys have been subjected to in past and present conflicts. We don’t do any of that.
It boiled down to this:
There was a belief that if we dismantled the war on terrorism, if we apologized for a lot of things, if we distanced ourselves from Israel, if we closed Gitmo, if we pulled out of XYZ, if we used the right rhetoric, if we gave them money – they would change. The “damage” of Boosh’s fault would be undone. The world would like us. Obama would heal the planet, and the oceans would recede.
What happened next:
-Obama announced the closing of Gitmo.
-Eric holder talked show trials for Bush Admin officials
-His first sit down interview was with Al Arabiya
-He sent a video to Iran in early 2009 with his similar “my rhetoric can fix this” style
-He made one of NASA’s goals:Muslim outreach.
-He went to Egypt in 2009 and did the usual rhetoric dance in Cairo.
-He went on an apology for America Tour
-He claimed the war on terrorism was over in April 2012. I wonder why the media hasn’t looked at this as a ”Mission Accomplished” moment. (Here’s a clue: They only like doing that kind of stuff to Republicans)
-He announced withdrawl dates for Iraq and Afghanistan
-He failed to support, even in words, the revolution in Iran. We missed a possible opportunity to overthrow or de-stabilize the government there.
-When there were Islamic extremist backed movements in Libya and Egypt we denounced Mubarak, we flew sorties over Libya, and we overthrew the Governments.
-When Assad began killing his citizens in Syria, Obama joined the UN in: Doing nothing. Issuing statements more or less saying, “Stop it please lol”. We’ve done nothing.
Bonus : The media Herps and Derps:
The reaction was predictable.
-The media at first questioned the “timing” of Romney’s statements after the attacks. Reporters were caught on tape coordinating their attack on Romney, hoping to elicit a “gotcha” soundbite.
-Some pundits were wondering if “this was a good time to be political about this”. Incredible, considering how the same media treated the GWOT’s aspects during the Bush administration. This includes the NYTimes’s reporting that Osama was being tracked via his satellite phone.
-Note: CBS and Reuters were at least somewhat critical of the Obama admin on this.
MediaMatters was predictable:
This was great, Media Matters (David Brock, creator of this George Soros funded tax exempt organization – publicly stated their goal was to destroy Foxnews. This is the same Media Matters that was caught in Emails coordinating propaganda with the Department of Justice, that was caught coordinating with other left wing media outlets and the White House to push their memes, that was suddenly attacking Foxnews after receiving money from the teachers unions, - was AT A LOSS trying to explain away what happened in Egypt, Libya, and the rest of the Middle East. There’s not only a dearth of posts on it, but check out this bit of derp here:
Link here: “Right-wing media (Foxnews, a good % of talk radio, and websites. Because it has anything approaching parity with the left’s “one party media”, comrade.) have responded to the attacks in Libya and Egypt by pointing fingers at President Obama, saying his policies are to blame. (Watch as I show you the glaring failings, in a G-D blog post) Conservative media figures are also amplifying blame by harping on the accusation that Obama does not attend daily intelligence briefings in person; in fact, Obama receives national security briefings in other ways throughout his day.”
I love that sentence at the end. Imagine if it was asked as a True/False question. “Does Obama attend his daily intelligence briefings every morning like that “moron” ( and also a Harvard Grad) Bush 43 seemed capable of.” Answer is False, he actually does not. The Government spends $40 Billion to put this intelligence on his desk and he has a subordinate “inform” him of this. He’s too busy:
hard at work coming up with economic plans, after two years of work he has something more substantive than the same promises he’s made in 4 consecutive state of the union addresses/
writing his own teleprompter content
trying to get Harry Reid to pass a budget for the first time in years despite the fact that this is a Constitutional duty/
working feverishly on foreign policy matters
canceling fundraisers with Beyonce and Jay-Z or a Letterman appearance to attend a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu Re: Iranian Nukes
/Meeting with the world leaders that are gathered in the US at the moment
/Going on The View
/Going to more fundraisers than that last 5 presidents combined.
I’m sure the spin-masters at Media Matters will have some excuse. I’d look up their site, but I can look up what David Axelrod’s been saying in recent days and I’d get similar.