From John Hawkins at Townhall:
“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” – Barack Obama
Geez, these people are quite desperate, aren’t they? I don’t want to hear another goddamn word how she’s off limits. If she’s going to spew bilge like this then she’s fair game.
A really uplifting, positive campaign they’re running, huh?
Who knew that cancer would emerge as a leitmotif of the Obama campaign? First Lady Michelle Obama is the latest to invoke cancer on the campaign trail, but she did so to tout Obamacare rather than attack Mitt Romney directly.
A primary difference between the parties is evident in their campaign rallies. Republicans chant “U-S-A!”; Democrats chant “O-BA-MA!”
From Slate: Why the pallet is the single most important object in the global economy.
From the New Yorker: Why nobody cared — even Obama — when Wade Page shot up the Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
Over a considerable amount of time and through the ability to do copious amounts of research, I have become reasonably good at figuring out political quandaries.
I don’t always get it exactly right but, I honestly wish I weren’t right as often as I am.
Finding the answers to questions regarding political ideology, political history, how dots are connected and the end games of certain politicians have become a passion.
I’d like to think I’ve become pretty good at it.
Currently, however, the answer to a most perplexing political question eludes me.
I’m asking for your help.
There is no cash prize involved, like the sum given to the brilliant mind which created the $50.00 light bulb but rest assured, you’ll have my unending gratitude.
Please, somebody…Explain to me exactly how…
Splitting the 2012 presidential vote between Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Palin, Johnson, Dummett, Tittle and any other number of known or unknown candidates of personal choice will defeat Obama.
Conservatives agree, after all, that Obama needs to be defeated and that if he isn’t, the situation is dire.
In that, at least, there IS agreement.
Thus, the quandary…
Clearly Romney is vastly different than Obama as Obama is a socialist and Romney a capitalist. Romney is a businessman who knows that you can’t spend your way out of debt while Obama…spend, spend, spend. Romney is all about personal responsibility, smaller government, less intrusion and lessening the tax burden on all Americans while championing small businesses.
Obama on the other hand is all about bigger government, MORE intrusion, entitlements, RAISING taxes and says that if YOU have a business – YOU didn’t build that. Somebody ELSE made that happen.
Romney has the polar opposite ideology of Obama on the issues facing our nation…The economy, jobs, the deficit, business and taxes and where Obama apologizes for America, Romney LOVES America so…Saying they’re one and the same is just silly.
Now then, we know that Romney/Ryan are about to receive the official nomination and, for those who are holding out for a brokered convention where their personal choice but not necessarily the personal choice of others, will enter the nomination through a back or side door.
News flash…That won’t happen regardless of one’s personal choice as on the first convention ballot, delegates are bound by the rules to vote for whom won their vote in the primary process and, Mitt Romney has amassed more than the required number to secure the nomination.
Yes, I know there is a lawsuit lingering but, really, were it to be successful, it would negate the entire primary process and then, there would be appeals and counter suits regarding money each state and their respective republican parties spent on that process and, let’s face the fact that none of this would be settled before November 6th at which point, without a nominee, conservatives lose the white house race.
It could also be reasonably stated that should such a mess evolve, it would make it virtually impossible for conservatives to win a majority in the senate and the resulting mess might well doom the existing conservative majority in the house.
If that’s what those hanging onto the lawsuit strategy are hoping for I rather think they’re not conservatives at all.
Okay, now then, about the list of personal favorites in the “Not Mitt” category.
How many of them have the financial backing through private grassroots or PAC donations at this point, only 86 days away from the election, to mount a sustentative challenge?
We know it’s going to take several hundred million dollars to run ads, fund campaign travel, pay campaign staff etc. So, outside of the Romney/Ryan ticket…who’s got the dough?
That of course raises other questions like, who among the “not Mitt” crowd has a nationally organized campaign staff right now and…who among them has a designated VP?
It seems to me that, in order to pose a challenge one would need both.
So, if the nomination for any on the “not Mitt” list is out, and it is out, and the lawsuit strategy is the recipe for national disaster in the senate, house and the presidential election, and it is, and nobody on the “not Mitt” list has the money or organization with but 86 days to go to mount a campaign what’s left?
And that takes me back to the original quandary.
Please…SOMEBODY explain how one group of “Not Mitters” writing in a vote for Newt while another writes in votes for Cain and others write in votes for Palin, West, Dummett, Tittle, Johnson, Paul and on and split the votes with the guy who gets the nomination, has the financial backing, the VP candidate and the national organization winds up defeating Obama.
As there are a number of “Not Mitt” supporters out there and they all think this is possible…please enlighten us.
It becomes even more curious as many of those “Not Mitt” candidates are actively supporting…Mitt.
Palin is supporting Mitt. Newt is supporting Mitt. West is supporting Mitt.
Ron Paul is not yet supporting Mitt but his son, Rand, is.
Herman Cain is supporting Mitt.
A good deal of “Anybody BUT Mitters” out there are actually supporting a “Not Mitter” who is in fact…Supporting Mitt.
(Reuters) — A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads, that scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.
Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a so-called social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.
In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War service.
The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that includes criticism of Obama and his administration. The film, to be released on Wednesday, was seen in advance by Reuters.
“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not,” Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.
“As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy,” Smith continues. “It will get Americans killed.”
An Obama campaign official said: “No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it’s clear they’ve resorted to making things up for purely political reasons.”
From Michael J. Fell at CDN:
David Fischer, the Associated Press and Yahoo News should be ashamed of themselves. They have stretched so far to create a negative headline about GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney an eighteen wheeler can be driven through the holes in the story.
For years Fischer, AP and Yahoo have consistently and willfully ignored the fact that in his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” their dearly beloved leader freely admitted to using drugs many times. “I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years,” he wrote about his days in college. “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.”
However, like rabid dogs, they have jumped all over Romney for meeting Marco Rubio at a public juice stand, making short speeches and then handing out juices to the eager crowd.
What was the headline?
“Host for Romney event is a convicted drug dealer”
The truth is: Reinaldo Bermudez, owner of El Palacio del los Jugos, did serve three years in federal prison after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine back in 1999.
Bermudez has repaid society for that crime. He has served the time. He is now legally engaged in conducting a successful small business that provides for a need in the community.
In a statement to the Miami New Times, Bermudez said “Thankfully, we all have the opportunity in this country to re-enter society when we’ve done something wrong.”
Have Fischer, AP and Yahoo never heard of redemption in America? Apparently, by members of the self-imagined, self-appointed intellectual elite, redemption is not bequeathed upon Conservatives. It is reserved solely for “their people”.
For proud card carrying members of the “progressive” Party Pravda it is perfectly fine to ignore that by his own admission their anointed, almost god-like hero engaged in criminal activity on multiple occasions, but when their target who does not smoke or drink makes one speech and hands out drinks at a juice stand it is “newsworthy” because the stand’s owner once committed a crime for which he has long since made restitution.
A “progressive” can smoke pot, sniff cocaine, whatever they want, admit to it…and never be brought to task or to justice by Pravda.
From Karen McQuillan at American Thinker:
President Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden three times before saying yes, because he got cold feet about the possible political harm to himself if the mission failed. Instead of listening to advisors from the U.S. military, Defense, or even State, Obama was acting on the advice of White House politico and close friend Valerie Jarrett. Valerie Jarrett?
This account comes from Richard Miniter‘s upcoming book Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors who Decide for Him. Miniter has written a half-dozen books on the war on terror. He is relying on an unnamed source within the U.S. military Joint Special Operations Command who was directly involved in the operation and planning of the Osama bin Laden kill mission.
Is the story credible? According to Edward Klein, a reporter once asked Obama if he ran every decision by Jarrett. Obama answered, “Yep. Absolutely.”
Edward Klein, former foreign editor of Newsweek and editor of the New York Times Magazine for many years, describes Jarrett as “ground zero in the Obama operation, the first couple’s friend and consigliere.” Klein — who claims he used a minimum of two sources for each assertion in his book on the Obama presidency, The Amateur — writes in detail about Jarrett opposing the raid on bin Laden. She told Obama not to take the political risk. Klein thought Obama ignored Jarrett’s advice. Miniter tells us he listened to her, three times telling Special Operations not to take the risk to go after bin Laden.
We need to understand the role Valerie Jarrett plays in Obama’s private and political life.
“If it wasn’t for Valerie Jarrett, there’d be no Barack Obama to complain about,” starts Klein’s chapter on Jarrett. He quotes Michelle Obama on Jarrett’s influence over her husband: “She knows the buttons, the soft spots, the history, the context.”
No one outside Michelle has the access or power over Obama’s decision-making like Jarrett does. Here’s an odd little fact that gives some insight into what kind of president Obama is: Michelle, Michelle’s mother, and Valerie, and only a few others in Washington, are allowed to call Barack by his first name. After work, Jarrett joins Obama at night in the Family Quarters, where she dines often with the First Family. She goes on vacation with them.
Jarrett’s title is the weird mouthful “Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.” She is the gatekeeper, but she is also much more than that. She occupies Karl Rove’s and Hillary’s old office and has an all-access pass to meetings. She shows up at the National Security Council, at meetings on the economy and budget. She stays behind to advise Obama on what to think and do. Obama uses her as his left-wing conscience. Klein’s sources describe how at each pressing issue, Obama turns to ask her, “What do you think the right thing to do is?” As president, he likes to have her next to him “as the voice of authentic blackness in a White House that is staffed largely by whites.”
A longtime friend told Klein that Jarrett is the “eyes, ears and nose” of the Obamas. She tells them whom to trust, who is saying what, whom to see at home and abroad. Michelle wants her there: “I told her … it would give me a sense of comfort to know that (Barack) had somebody like her there by his side.” As Obama told the New York Times, “Valerie is one of my oldest friends. … I trust her completely.”
To understand why Obama relies so heavily on Jarrett, we must remember the president’s identity crisis as a black man, which is the main subject of his memoir, Dreams from My Father. Valerie Jarrett’s adoption of the Obamas as her friends and protégés in Chicago’s upper-crust black society was one of the greatest things that ever happened to Obama. Until becoming a community organizer, Obama tells us he felt himself to be an inauthentic American black. Nothing in his life helped him understand or fit into the American black community.
Within a few weeks of Obama’s birth, conceived out of wedlock as he was, his mother moved away to a different college, leaving Obama’s African birth father behind in Honolulu. There may have been a shotgun wedding or not — in the memoir, Obama says he is not sure. The only time Barack set eyes on his father was a brief visit when he was ten. Our president lived with his white mother, then with her and her Indonesian husband in Indonesia from age six to ten. He was so unhappy that he chose to leave his mother and live with his white grandparents back in America. Obama’s America was the tolerant, wealthy American world of Honolulu’s top prep school.
His only black experience was his grandfather’s creepy old friend, Frank Marshall, a card-carrying Communist and self-disclosed pederast, who was Obama’s voice of authentic blackness. One result of this lonely and unhappy childhood as a mixed-race child was Barack Obama’s envy problem. The key to understanding Jarrett’s power over the president is that Obama didn’t just envy people with normal parents and loving, successful fathers. He envied American blacks, especially those who grew up in intact black families, knowing who they were, comfortable in their black skin.
Valerie Jarrett reflects Obama in many ways. Like himself, Valerie looks more white than black. Her mother had three white grandparents, and her father was black. Like Obama, she lived in the Muslim world for part of her childhood, when her father practiced medicine in Iran. Like Obama, she is a committed leftist. But there are crucial differences. Her father was not a drunk Kenyan polygamist like Obama’s, but a famous pathologist and geneticist. Her mother was not a leftist expatriate like Obama’s, but a distinguished psychologist. Valerie married into Chicago’s black elite, the top rung of African-American society. She went to Stanford, got a law degree from Michigan, and became Mayor Richard Daley’s deputy chief of staff, “the public black face” of his administration.
When Valerie Jarrett hired Michelle to work for Daley and befriended her, the Obamas gained access to the exclusive world of upper-class black Chicago politics. Valerie knew everyone whom it was important to know in black and Jewish money circles. She gave Barack entrée and legitimacy. She financed and promoted his ambitions for national office.
Obama finally belonged. Not that Jarrett’s record in Chicago was anything to be proud of. Jarrett was known for her corruption and incompetence. Daley finally had to fire her after a scandal erupted over her role in misuse of public funds in the city’s substandard public housing. She went on to become CEO of Habitat Executive Services, pulling down $300,000 in salary and $550,000 in deferred compensation. Again, she managed a housing complex that was seized by government inspectors for slum conditions. The scandal didn’t matter to Obama. The sordid corruption was all part of Jarrett’s Chicago success story.
Every insider in Chicago told Klein the same thing: Jarrett has no qualifications to be the principal advisor to the president of the United States. She doesn’t understand how Washington works, how relations with Congress work, how the federal process works. She doesn’t understand how the economy works, how the military works, how national security works. But she understands how Obama works.
The president turns to Valerie Jarrett for definitive advice on all these issues. She has given him terrible advice over and over, and still he turns to her.
Her true job is to make Obama feel proud of himself.
This is the speech Obama’s campaign called “unhinged,” as you can see from the video, it’s anything but.
From Thomas Sowell at the Patriot Post:
Governor Mitt Romney’s choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate is one of those decisions that seem obvious — if not inevitable — in retrospect, even though it was by no means obvious to most of us beforehand.
Anyone who wants to get a quick sense of who Paul Ryan is should watch a short video of a February 2010 meeting in which Congressman Ryan politely, but devastatingly, “schools” Barack Obama on the utter fraudulence of the statistics that the Obama administration was using to claim that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That video is available on the Drudge Report.
As a long-time member, and now chairman, of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan is thoroughly familiar with both the facts and the fictions in the federal government’s budget. In recent years, the fictions have grown much bigger than the facts. But, as Congressman Ryan reminded the president, hiding spending is not the same as reducing spending.
If this year’s election is going to be decided on the basis of hard facts, the Obama administration is doomed. But the Obama campaign is well aware of that, which is why we are hearing so many distracting innuendoes and outright lies about such peripheral issues as what Mitt Romney is supposed to have done while running Bain Capital — or even what is supposed to have happened at Bain Capital, years after Mitt Romney was long gone.
The Obama campaign’s big smear, about how Romney is supposed to have caused a woman to die of cancer, has been exposed as a lie by CNN, hardly a Republican network. What smears like this show is that the Obama administration cannot run on its track record, so it has to run on distractions from the country’s real problems.
When Senator Harry Reid claims that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid his income taxes, and demands that Governor Romney disprove this unsubstantiated allegation, that raises an obvious question as to why the Internal Revenue Service has not prosecuted Romney, instead of leaving that to a partisan politician in an election year.
What makes this a farce is that Senator Reid himself has not released his own income tax records, while claiming that Romney’s release of only two years of his income tax records is not enough, even though it has been enough for other candidates in other years.
If Mitt Romney releases all his tax records going back to his childhood, it will not put a stop to this fishing expedition, much less bring an apology when those records show nothing illegal. It will just provide more material for making more distracting claims to change the subject from the track record of the Obama administration.
When Ronald Reagan ran against President Jimmy Carter back in 1980, he asked the question that should be asked of the voters when any president is seeking reelection: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
Four years later, when Reagan ran for reelection, he implicitly asked and answered that same question in a campaign commercial titled “Morning in America,” which listed the ways the country was better off than it had been four years earlier. Don’t look for any “Morning in America” ads from Obama. “Mourning in America” might be more appropriate.
This election is a test, not just of the opposing candidates but of the voting public. If what they want are the hard facts about where the country is, and where it is heading, they cannot vote for more of the same for the next four years.