Election 2012: What Went Wrong?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

So President Barack Obama won Election 2012. What went wrong? Some people will go small and point towards factors such as the Chris Christie and Colin Powell’s backstabbing, a chance hurricane, a weak third debate from Romney, Romney’s unforced Jeep mistake, or the power of the ground game. But I think the what went wrong is something much bigger than this.

In my post Has America Passed the Point of No Return (ie, 50.1%+ Dependency on Government)? I quotes an article by John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog calledWhy Is This Election Close?:

…On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come….

…I am afraid the problem in this year’s race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority…

I sensed that this was the case last week.

In my ‘endorsement of Romney post’, I tried to address this issue because I recognized that this might be the case- but notice that at no point did I ever realistically predict on this blog that President Romney would win the election because I have had too many conversations over the past week with people who voted for Obama because they perceived that Obama transferred wealth to them that they did not earn.

Teachers, auto workers, those who refinanced home loans, green companies, union workers, farmers, road workers, government workers, those on social security, those on food stamps, those on unemployment, those on government assistance- these people now make up over 50% of the population and realize that they only get by by using the power of the state to take wealth from those who produce and earn it and transfer it to them. The takers now outnumber the givers, and slowly but surely will ever more thoroughly plunder them.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The problem with passing this point is that there is no turning back- the process actually accelerates, as those who produce wealth realize that it is much easier to take than it is to work hard and produce, and as those producers of wealth drop out of the system it becomes necessary to plunder those who remain even more.

The rich- those millionaires who President Obama has been demanding more from and those businesses who remain productive and successful- are going to be either faced with one of two options- pay an ever increasing share of the wealth that the ever increasing share of takers demands, or join the ruling elite and use the power of the state to protect themselves from the predatory state and as a thank you reward the ruling powers with greater political contributions and support.

So where does this take us? Here is my prediction, from my earlier post Three Possible Futures for America:

…(Second Scenario): America is at a crossroads and that it if President Obama and his Democratic allies (also including any Republican that supports government attack on life, liberty, and protection of property) remain in power it is likely that the damage that they will do- together with the damage they have already done- will be too great to recover from and never again will children live the same prosperous, happy, and secure lives that their parents did before them. An Obama win here will be the end of America- another four years of him remaining in power will solidify the damage already done and he will do further damage- he will ignore Congress and implement his policies of steering wealth and power to his friends, regardless of the wishes of the American people…

The America that we all know and love and grew up with is gone. You now have two options. Option one- work the same amount and steadily become more poor, less free, and have your life be less secure. Or mole your way into the political elite, bow and scrape to your political masters, buy off politicians and corrupt the system as never before to protect yourself, and realize that America is on the path towards being a despotic nation just like every other nation in the world throughout the history of the world.

Personally, this means that at some point, I will need to shut down this blog and go into hiding- a fate that I have been barely avoiding for the past year as my enemies sniff ever closer and grow ever bolder. It’s time to get real small and avoid the coming storm. Or perhaps I will fight, like my patriot forefathers have done before me, putting my family and fortunes at risk of retribution in the vain hope of fighting a futile rearguard action in the name of liberty and freedom. I guess you’ll see which it is over the next several months.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Passive Romney Misses Chance to Seize Victory in Third Debate? My Notes and Observations

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Approaching this third and final Presidential Debate in 2012, I am led to believe that the challenger Mitt Romney needs to score a victory in this debate and appear to voters as more competent and Presidential and a better Commander-in-Chief than President Obama. The media is in the bag on this one and will score a tie or even an Obama loss as an ‘Obama win’, and President Obama has the advantage of being able to tout over and over that ‘he killed bin Laden’, so Romney faces some formidable challenges. The President has access to information and can use hypothetical scenario’s, no matter how implausible, to attack the Governor, while the Governor an rely on actual events and the administration’s responses to these events to portray Obama as unfit for command. We’re probably in store for another battle of reality vs rhetoric, results vs slander/lies, and an epic matchup of the real world vs bizarro world. This is it- Romney needs a victory before this large audience to sway Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and other swing states- let’s see if he is able to do this and highlight the foreign policy failures of our hapless and inept President- while also battling a likely heavily leftist moderator.

Here are my thoughts and notes and observations on the debate:

  • Governor Romney is forced to start by defending his statements about Obama’s policy. The start is rather rough- he started out shaky and fell back to material that sounded as if came from a speech. He needed to come out charging and instead it appears that he is playing it safe and going with a simple list of the failures of Obama’s policies. He just said we’re going to continue to do what Obama has done- “we just can’t kill our way out of this situation”- but that isn’t going to sell very well. Obama gets to say ‘I’m glad you agree that I’ve done a great job of killing the bad guys’- Romney should not have soft-served this one to Obama.
  • President Obama does not answer the question about Libya and whether or not his policies there a success there. He summarizes his actions as making a phone call to make sure everything was being done, issued a memo to conduct an investigation, and told someone to put together a speech about how he is going to catch the bad guys- and then went to bed, satisfied that he had done all the ‘work’ that goes into being a President. A lot of rhetoric followed this.
  • Someone told Romney to be wonkish and a policy analyst on this debate and appear to be ‘more Presidential’- but he is not doing so by really going after Obama. Oh, he is talking about a lack of progress in the Middle East- but not pinning it on Obama. The media isn’t going to do this- Romney is going to have to do this.
  • Obama on the other hand has come out hard-charging and attacking Romney, quoting him and putting him on the defensive, listing all of his positions- not ‘bad results’ but blaming Romney directly- this is sounding much better and is more effective. As a side note, the ‘social policies’ of the 1950’s led to important advances for minorities with Brown vs Board of Education and a Voting Rights Act and the ‘economic policies’ of the 1920’s led to a booming economy before it collapsed under FDR. Obama is a replay of the social policies under LBJ and a replay of the economic policies under FDR- neither of which I would consider a success.
  • Romney is letting Obama frame him- putting words in his mouth and then walking away, assuming that this frame will stick. Romney needs to do a better job rejecting this frame while also framing Obama. Obama wins this first exchange by quite a bit, and perhaps the election, letting him rip off lines like “one thing I have learned as commander-in-chief” without Romney replying back anything worthwhile. The Libya topic comes and goes without Romney landing a blow- what a blown opportunity- he was not properly prepared on this and assumes that the American people wanted a policy discussion instead of a political debate show. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- talk about your successes and why your policies have been great towards Syria. A lot of rhetoric here, nothing of note.
  • Romney jumps into a discussion on the importance of Syria- no one cares about this. This was an opportunity to be critical of Obama’s policies, not to have a discussion on the sort of right policies to enact here. Romney is playing defense, and I think he needed to play offense instead. General vague phrases like ‘we need better policies’ should have been stated as ‘President Obama has pushed for bad policies here such as’ blah blah. Less about what we should be doing, and more about what President Obama is not doing. Another missed opportunity for Romney- and Obama was able to jump back onto Libya and hammer Romney on this issue- Romney didn’t do this and that was another miss. Obama won this exchange too and again comes off looking more Presidential. Obama gets in the last word, although the moderator tries to help out Romney by asking him about his policies- sadly, no one cares about our policies in Syria, we care about why your policies are better than Obama’s, and that was not established except as a glancing and side blow at the end. Oh, Obama gets the last word after all on this exchange.
  • Question to Obama- Do you have any regrets about pushing Mubarack out in Egypt? Obama says no, linking his actions to JFK and historical movements for democracy, and then even though it has turned out he gets to say a bunch of stuff about how he wants the region to improve (as if his words and thoughts can become reality without hard work and good policies). Romney needs to come back with “You helped push one of our historical allies out of power and led to radical Muslim groups taking more control of Egypt and destabilized the region”.
  • Romney instead comes back with “I agree with the President” and suggests that he would have also relied on rhetoric about freedom and such. Another missed change. No criticism on Obama in his answer, instead a rough transition about what his larger vision is on a range of issues. He’s talking about the economy now, debt, Iran, and foreign policy- what a mess. I am so disappointed that by his performance tonight- I thought he won the first debates, but this one is a mess for Romney so far- and we’re 30 minutes into it. Here was a chance to talk about the rape of our reporters, the rise of fundamentalists, the attacks on Coptic Churches, etc- and instead we got a lot of rhetoric. Obama gives us this kind of crap and does it better- Romney is coming off as tired and worn and scattered.
  • Question- What is our role in the world? Romney gives a confusing and sprawling answer- he is so unfocused, jumping from subject to subject. Obama is looking serious and locked in, Romney is sounding edgy and not calm. No attacks on Obama, letting him not play any defense at all. Obama gets to simply give a stock speech and engage in attacks on Romney.
  • Romney gets a little bit more excited and with it on talking about the economy- I am surprised at the difference in his tone of voice and passion with this topic switch- he nails his facts and lays down some good attacks. But Obama is clever and switched the topic over to education policy- don’t take the bait on this one, Governor- stick to going back to the economy and don’t get sucked into this argument about ‘how government can support teachers’. Obama spews off usual stuff about ‘government support for education’, even though the federal government plays such a tiny role in providing support for education. Romney took the bait though and instead talked about education successes- but didn’t link this back to the economy and didn’t do anything to hammer Obama. Obama interrupted the Governor several times during this exchange.
  • Question- How will we pay for an increased military? Romney talks about what he would cut- he should just do the usual Obama trick and say ‘I’m going to cut out fraud and waste and magically save billions of dollars’. Romney about a minute into his answer and Obama cuts him off over and over again- and Romney lets him. Obama gets to frame Romney’s policies again and just throw around numbers and information, coming off in control of the situation. I can’t believe that Romney discussed this topic without mentioning sequestration! In discussing Romney’s budget, I think that Obama did his usual accounting move and added trillions together multiple times- Obama’s ‘5 trillion short’ number included already military increases and balancing the budget, yet here Obama added those to the 5 trillion number. Romney never answered the original question about how to pay for the increased military- the libertarians and Ron Paul people aren’t going to like this exchange. I score this exchange another win for Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange, and gets to make a mockery of Romney’s plans by arguing them to absurdity, suggesting that having a smaller navy is the same thing as having less horse cavalry or less bayonets, pretending that having less destroyers and aircraft carriers and cruisers is the same thing as having less of obsolete technology. Romney gets no chance to rebut these attacks. At this point, I think that Obama has spoken a lot more than Romney has and seems to be dominating the time of possession.
  • Obama- “As long as I’m President, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon”, relying on sanctions and economic embargo’s. Obama is looking rather strong here, saying that he will not take any options off the table, while also saying that he is less militant than Romney. Romney has an option- either being stronger and more militant or appealing to moderates and independents by being smarter and less militant. Romney instead falls into policy discussions and ways to manage the situation. A bunch of policy options is no match for Obama pounding on the fact that he’s sent young men into battle, killed bin Laden, and is commander-in-chief right now. Romney’s not President yet, and won’t be unless he reverses the trend of this debate, so all of that is well and good but he needed to go after Obama.
  • President Obama talks about Iran and how we should deal with Iran, attempting to frame Romney as some sort of fool. Romney has an opening though- Obama’s failure to support the Iranian people during the Green Revolution. Obama said that he would ‘stand by the Iranian’ people- but here was a clear and visible time he did not. Romney should charge through here and hammer Obama on this. Romney instead talks about Iran’s views on our current administration- a great chance for him to bring up the fact that the Iran government has endorsed Obama and supports his re-election. In his answer there was a passing reference to both the Green Revolution and Iran’s support of Obama, but his overall argument- that Obama was weak in the beginning- was not a very strong argument- he needed to argue that Obama is weak NOW. Obama’s reply is that Romney is a liar and says his favorite line in every debate that “every fact-checker has looked into that claim and said that it’s simply not true” and gets to defend his actions in the Green Revolution. Romney gets into a discussion about the apology tour, but weakly lands blows on this. Obama replies with a bunch of rhetoric and deep-sounding words, avoiding the fact that there were real policy implications for his apology tour, and frames the debate once again. Obama gets the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney demonstrates that he understands the role of a CEO for real- that there wouldn’t be some sort of call out of the blue saying that Israeli bombers are in the air about to bomb Iran. Obama would have had some sort of smart sounding answer for that, belaying the fact that it would have been out of the blue for him because he has not forged any relationship with any major leaders around the world and because he has not done the hard work- going to meetings, reading memo’s, etc- needed. Obama replies by framing Romney as some sort of extremist, flip-flopping, and lying fool, connecting various speeches without any context and just cherry-picking lines and stringing them together nicely. I’m sorry- it’s powerful stuff when Obama rolls off these sort of insincere, calculating, ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical attacks. He is an audacious fellow, our President, and with no principals or soul he has the ability to lay blows on this like Romney without worry about the fact that pretty much everything that he said was not true. Obama gets the last word in this exchange, Romney does not get a chance to reply to any of these charges, letting the lie stand. LETTING THE LIE STAND. Another win for Obama. This moderator is much better than the other ones in helping out Obama, throwing him softball questions and giving him the last word on every exchange, which are much more subtle but no less powerful means of injecting bias into a debate.
  • Question is about Afghanistan. Romney talked, nothing notable in there, I’ve already forgotten what he said. Obama gets to roll off usual nice-sounding lines. This is the perfect debate for him- a lot of pretty words and stories without having to defend his results and with the moderator helping to end the conversation after Obama drops a good line or series of lies. Obama got the last word in on this exchange.
  • Romney asked a question about Pakistan, answered the question with a lot of solid policies and well-thought out ideas. No attacks on Obama though and Obama is going to get the last word and the ability to say ‘Romney flipped on this’ or that ‘Romney now likes my policies.’ I can only hope that the American people were looking to this debate for policies and looking Presidential and will find Obama to be boorish and rude. Obama is comfortable, in his zone, and not at all flustered by Romney, who isn’t even looking at Obama any more. It’s almost as if Romney doesn’t know why he won the first debate and scored a win in the second- he’s talking to the moderator and just saying stuff- that isn’t how to defeat a skilled sophist like Obama. Obama gets in the last word on this exchange.
  • China- Obama is positioning himself as some sort of right-wing protectionist on Chinese trade. Obama pretends that he has some sort of positive leverage on China, ignoring the fact that we are borrowing money from them, cutting out military, and are abandoning our commitments around the world. That’s the usual ignore reality stuff that Romney needed needed to go after, instead Romney talks about these issues as if they are not Obama’s fault, as if they are happening in some sort of a vacuum- he is looking past Obama.
  • Moderator follows up on a Romney point by pointing out the other side- yet hasn’t done that the whole debate for any of Obama’s points- he never offered an alternative viewpoint or an argument against Obama’s points. I guess this is better than an incorrect fact-check, but still, it would be nice to have a fair moderator one of these debates. Obama gets the last word in on this issue, getting to talk about how he (using taxpayer money and ignoring all the failures that he dumps on taxpayers) was able to build businesses here (as if this is the same thing as a private businessman doing it!). No one is really going to care about currency manipulation and these complicated ideas- I wonder if Obama might be right in betting that Americans are uneducated and ignorant and can be easily fooled by words and shiny objects.
  • Regarding Romney’s stance on bankruptcy, Obama says that Romney did not want the auto companies to get any government help- let’s go to the record on this one- in Romney’s editorial he says “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing”- although Obama is correct and Romney does not say ‘bailouts without conditions for private companies’, Romney is correct that he felt that the federal government should provide guarantees, I assume loan guarantees, to the auto companies that emerge form bankruptcy restructured and stronger. That might have been a better approach than Obama’s, which was give a blank check to some companies and not others, play politics with those companies, and seize control of GM for the unions and the government. One approach relies on capitalism and free markets, and the other in a perverted economic system that could be described as some sort of third way alliance of big labor-big government- and big business. Obama got the last word on this subject.
  • Closing arguments- a lot of rhetoric from Obama, nice sounding phrases, keep trying, Romney’s bad, etc etc. Romney’s closing argument was less passion filled and more confident sounding than his earlier ones- he has got to get the fear back into him, the fear that he might lose, and that might have motivated him more- he sounds like he is targeting moderates and independents with this debate.

This debate was probably not for him- if it was, I would score it as a solid win for Obama. He was able to get the last word in on every subject, able to blast away with little reply from Romney, and Romney had a very laid back and measured strategy. The after-debate commentary is that Romney was trying to simply ‘hug’ Obama, as a boxer who has a lead in points does towards the end of a boxing match.

I don’t think Romney did what he needed to do in this debate to win the election- I think he got some bad advice on this one. Obama was aggressive, critical, petty, and had a lot of good lines- will this win moderate and independent voters or scare or turn them off?

CNN is talking about how Obama anticipated Romney’s move to the center and was ready for it, FOX is talking about how Romney might have surprised Obama by his passive and moderate approach in this debate. I can’t watch CNN any more- they are just bashing Romney and continuing Obama’s attacks on him instead of providing real analysis. FOX is back to looking at what the candidates said and their attitude in the debate, having people chime in with their views on who won, doing some fact-checking, and looking into focus groups. Chris Wallace echoed my thoughts- he said that anyone who just tuned in today would have thought that Romney was sitting on a big lead instead of playing the challenger role. Flipped back to CNN and watched them fact-check some of the debate- many of Obama’s claims against Romney are true but missing important and vital context that undermines that truth, many of Romney’s claims against Obama were mostly true both in context and principle.

Obama 42 minutes, Romney 41 minutes. Shocking- all four debates, advantage Democrat in time, and could have been higher if Romney hadn’t talked over Obama and the moderator several times. All four moderators biased in favor of the Democrats to some degree, some more so than others.

Please feel free to quote and reference my notes and observations in your own posts on this debate. Tinyurl link: http://tinyurl.com/9y2w7oa

UPDATE: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER may have made me feel a little bit better about Romney’s debate performance. Here is what he wrote:

…I think it’s unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn’t just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he’s had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he’s a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he’s talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate. 

We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger. Now I would have gone after Obama on Libya like a baseball bat, but that’s why Romney has won elections and I’ve never had to even contested them. He decided to stay away from the and I think that might have actually worked for him….

Last election a candidate who I liked not do every little thing needed to win and he ended up losing by the smallest of margins, so I really am trusting that Romney knows what he was doing in this debate.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

An Exclusive Look at Obama’s Debate Notepad

Share

 Heinz 57 sauce.  Love that stuff!

Those who watched last night’s debate between President Obama and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney may have noticed both candidates frequently writing notes on a slip of paper.  You may have wondered, “What are they writing?”

After the debate was over I was lucky enough to slip past security (apparently more security was requested but turned down) and take Obama’s debate notepad.

Now many may be saying that I have no right to publish it.  But like the Pentagon Papers, this notepad  is simply too important to not see the light of day.  I now present President Obama’s debate notepad in all its entirety,

Start out by apologizing for wearing Karate work out clothes.  (This will show the country how manly I am.)

Important:  Do not look down!  Do not look down.  Look directly at teleprompter.  (God I hope they have a teleprompter!)

These debates are beneath a man of  my dignity and intelligence.  Sigh.  This Republican form of government isn’t for educated people.

I hope Savannah Guthrie’s here.  She’s hot.  Important:  Must remember to erase last comment before Michelle sees it.

I AM the foreign policy President!  I was born in Kenya, after all.  Note:  Erase that last comment before some tea bagger sees it.

Where the hell are Whoopie and Joy Behar?

There are 57 states.  There are 57 states.  57.  57.  Heinz 57 (love that stuff.)  57 shades of grey?  

Where the hell are Beyonce and Jay Z?

Must mention eliminating first amendment.  It offends Muslims.  God I’m smart.

I wonder what Michelle is buying right now?  Talk about a budget deficit. Note to self:  Erase that last comment before Michelle sees it.  When she gets angry I’m scared.

Where the hell is George Clooney?

We have to make sure the wealthy do more.  Except my donors of course.

Government doesn’t create jobs?  Just look at all the federal regulators working for my administration.

We are a nation of immigrants…….who vote Democratic in exchange for handouts.

I was raised by a single mom.  Except when my typical white grandparents raised me.

Remember:  No matter how badly Romney tries to rattle me I am clean and articulate.

Romney has nice hair.  I usually only go for Pakistani men but that white boy is tempting.  Mmm. Mmm.  Delicious vanilla!

Where the hell is will i. am?

I like this job. The perks are great.  Better not screw up.  My name is Barack Obama.  I own a mansion and a yacht.

Nobody likes me.  Thank god the moderator likes me. 

People can be so cruel  How can people be so cruel?  How can people be so heartless?  Easy to be hard.  Easy to be cold.  And especially people who care about strangers.  Who care about evil and social injustice  – I love that song.  Too many typical white people in the movie though.

Where the hell is Barbara Streisand?

Libya Libya Libya!  Who gives a damn about Libya!

Where the hell is Fergie?

Phew.  Debate almost over.  I have to fly out to Vegas for another fundraiser.

Note to self:  Remember to talk about fat cats and one percent at Vegas fundraiser.

$40,000 a plate should raise lots of money for commercials.

Finally!  Debate’s over.  Shake Romney’s hand.  Use a firm grip.  Like Michelle’s.

And there you have it readers.  Let the FBI arrest me.  This document must be made public!

Original Post: Manhattan Infidel

Share

And Then There Was One …Debate That Is. What Will Obama’s Strategy Be?

Share

The Romney campaign team are rightfully feeling good about their chances of winning now that the first two presidential debate and the VP debate are behind them.  The polls are very favorable.

So, going into next Monday’s debate on foreign affairs, Romney would appear to be in the driver’s seat. All indications are that only a very serious misstep could stop Romney from a  victory on November 6, only three weeks away. Being a foreign affairs debate, and considering the fiasco of the events leading up to the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya (inadequate security) and the Obama administrations bumbling explanations of what really happened (spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video), it would seem that Romney will have no problem making the President look inept and possibly involved in a cover up for purely political reasons.

In the opinion of this humble observer, it would be a big mistake for the Romney team to get overly confident, I would be a mistake for them to underestimate just how low Barack Obama will stoop to win reelection. In the debate the other night, when Obama was asked by a member of he town hall audience, Kerry Ladka, who turned down  the request for additional security in Benhazi, Obama never answered the question. Instead Obama got on his high horse and told the world that he is president and Commander-in-Chief and everybody works for him and he was offended that Governor Romney was trying to politicize a national security matter. He said that, as soon as the word came that there was an attack on the Benghazi consulate, he immediately was on the phone to hiss national security advisors giving orders to do this, that, and the other thing and the very next morning in the Rose Garden he spoke to the American people about the “terrorist attack”. Of course, Mitt Romney called him on the lie that he (Obama) had refered to the attack as a “terrorist attack” and not as a spontaneous protest over some video. As we are all aware, the moderator, Candy Crowley, came to Obama’s rescue. But, my point is this. President Obama never answered Mr. Ladka’s question. President Obama was not prepared to answer Mr. Ladka’s question.

According to this Washington Post article, President Obama spent a few minutes after the debate with Mr. Ladka. Mr. Ladka reports that Obama gave some further explanation.

… However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

[…]

As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them at risk,” Ladka says.

Folks, you can  bet that come next Monday’s debate, President Obama will be prepared and he will have invented a plausible explanation on why he delayed so long on calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack and instead put the blame on the spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam video. It might go something like this.

Obama: Governor Romney has demonstrated he is not fit to be President. governor Romney intentionally tried to politicize this tragic death of our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff and the national security issues that were in play by criticizing  what he clearly does not understand, When it comes to national security, I as President and Commander-in-Chief can not always divulge everything we know. Of course I knew this was a terrorist attack within in minutes of the attack beginning. We had live feed from the security cameras at the Benghazi Consulate and our intelligence people were working to identify some of the people involved in the attack. I, as Commander-in-Chief, gave the order that we should not go public with what we knew. It  was important that the terrorists did know what we knew and that is why I gave the order to go the spontaneous attack do the video. Now, unfortunately we had too many leaks on what really happened and I gad to then go public with what we knew. But, you can bet that I am going to get to the bottom of those leaks. My point is this, Governor Romney understands nothing of national security and he was reckless in trying to politicize this tragic event.

Of course, all the above is conjecture on my part. But, I do believe that Obama will come to the next debate with a plan to defuse the Benghazi issue to the extent that he can. We need to keep in mind that in this 90 minute debate the Benghazi issue will not get more than ten minutes before the moderator moves the debaters on to a different subject.

On the issue of Syria, Mitt Romney must, in my opinion, be very careful. Every time I’ve heard Romney on the issue of Syria, he has been very assertive in accusing President Obama of not doing enough to help the people of Syria who have been murdered by tens of thousands by Syrian president Assad. I would caution Mr. Romney to be very careful  on the subject of Syria. He needs to understand that America has no horse in that race. All parties to the Syrian conflict are anti-American. I believe that Obama is going to try to set a trap for Mitt Romney. Obama would like nothing better than to paint Romney as a warmonger. I can just see Obama looking into the camera and pointing his finger at Mitt Romney and saying “If governor Romney is elected President, he will take America into a costly and bloody war that no American wants and what America can ill afford.”

The election is yours to win or lose, Mr. Romney. Do not let Barack Obama trick you into saying something stupid,

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Is the President Suggesting That Planned Parenthood is Breaking the Law?

Share

Apparently, President Barak Obama has suggested the Planned Parenthood, when not following it’s mission to exterminate the black race, is breaking the law by providing mammograms-a service for which they are not licensed.  CNS News has more…

(CNSNews.com) – During Tuesday’s second presidential debate, President Barack Obama said that women “rely” on Planned Parenthood for mammograms, but, according to the Food and Drug Administration, no Planned Parenthood facility in the United States is licensed to do mammograms.

During Tuesday night’s debate against his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Obama said, “When Gov. Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care; they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That’s a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country, and it makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work.”

This is all part of the “war on women” meme. And like the rest of the meme, it’s completely false. Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, and likely never will. However, the Democrats need to make it all look nice, and justify funding for the abortion machine.  Does it matter that they lie?  To those concerned with the truth, and bother to find the facts, it does.  But what the Democrats rely upon is the uniformed voter-the ones that will never bother to find out that there is no Planned Parenthood facility in the US that has ever performed a mammogram.  The Democrats rely on an ignorant electorate, and a compliant media to hide these lies.  We’ll do what we can to correct that.

Share

Did the mainstream media’s bias contribute towards President Obama’s terrible debate performance?

Share

Oh fudge…

We all know the mainstream media is in the tank for President Obama; but did their bias and unwillingness to ask the tough questions throughout his Presidency contribute towards the President’s terrible debate performance? Looking at the debate from a slightly different angle I believe it did.  In an effort to shield President Obama from the impact his terrible economic policies has had on America the mainstream media has not only done themselves and the American people a great disservice, but they may have unknowingly sabotaged the President’s debate performance last night.

By not holding the President’s feet to the fire when abysmal economic numbers were being reported quarter after quarter for the last four years the mainstream media didn’t do his administration any favors.  By not asking the President to defend his policies that clearly have failed they may be indirectly responsible for his undoing.  The strongest steel is forged in the hottest fire and for the last four years President Obama has not felt the heat.  Instead Obama has been protected and coddled by a mainstream media that is more concerned about getting him reelected than reporting the truth.  The problem with that is he can only hide from his record for so long before someone comes along and holds him accountable.

That person was Mitt Romney and he hammered the President with the economic reality the President’s policies has created; a reality that sees 23 million people out of work with anemic growth.  Finally the President had to defend the indefensible and he was unprepared.  After all he had been given a free pass by the mainstream media for four years, how dare Mitt Romney hold him accountable for his record.  He looked irritated and lost as Mitt Romney fired fact after fact at him.  At one point during the debate he asked the moderator to move on to another topic.  He might as well have said “uncle.” The President looked rattled and shaken and not very presidential.  For the first time he had to face an opponent who took the fight to him and he was soundly defeated.

So the mainstream media that adores Obama so much is now asking what happened.  How could their champion who is such a great orator get schooled?  Why was he so unprepared?  To find the answer to their questions they need look no further than their inability to be objective and unbiased.  Their decision to give the President a free pass in order to protect him may ultimately lead to his political demise because he hasn’t felt the heat until now.  And last night he was burned by it.  How’s that for irony.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Note:  For about a day, the author of this post was listed as me, Not John Carey.  It has been corrected, and my apologies to John.

Share

Romney Demolishes Obama in Debate 1: Reality Wins over Myth

Share

This debate has the potential to be the game-changer that Romney needs. Trailing by over 3% in the polls based on the RealClearPolitics average and needing something more than a tie or marginal win that would likely only narrow the polls, Romney delivered a game-changing performance and changed the narrative of this election in the first debate.

President Obama has attempted to make this election into some sort of class warfare or blame Bush election- but Governor Romney was successful in this debate into making this election into a decision on whether or not to continue Obama’s policies or change them. Romney was right- we can go with the traditional American economic system or continue to attempt Obama’s trickle down government economic theories that have been so unsuccessful over the last 4 years and have slowed the recovery. Throughout the debate, Romney lectured Obama on economic policies, the proper role of government in society, theories in leadership, and on basic truths of the world, and Obama sulked and looked away and looked angry (you can tell by his head tilt). There were times during this debate that I felt that even Obama didn’t believe what he was saying- his tone and cadence changed into what I call ‘lecture mode’ as he spewed out talking points and parts of past speeches, while Romney appeared to be in the debate, listening to Obama, attacking his policies and theories of government, and responding to the flow of the debate.

On to the specific points and questions… here are my thoughts:

  • Romney did a skillful job of anticipating Obama’s attacks and was very well prepared for this debate- he came out roaring and hard-hitting. He responded to Obama’s attacks while not getting sucked into his bizarro world and replying to all of the backwards and wrong facts contained in them.
  • Watch the first 15 minutes of the debate- in that first part, I think that Romney hammered Obama pretty heavily, although the middle of the debate was more even.
  • Obama stuck to the ‘$5 trillion tax cut for the rich’ angle over and over, even though Romney said that he doesn’t have this policy- either Obama believes Romney is a liar or Obama is a liar.
  • Obama over and over cited ‘studies’- compare this to Romney, who cited actual commissions and their findings and said the name of the organizations whose studies he was quoting. I wonder whose studies Obama is citing and whether or not they are nonpartisan, well-sourced, and well-researched. I doubt it, and so did Romney later on, when he said he could find 6 studies that said that the study that Obama was citing was bunk.
  • “Look at the evidence of the last 4 years”- good line from Romney, because this is not a debate between Romney’s potential theories and Obama’s potential theories- we’re comparing the evidence of President Obama’s results (as President) vs the evidence (such as it is) of Governor Romney’s results (as Governor).
  • Obama had NO answer for the debt and deficit questions. He didn’t even try to defend himself or his record on this and dodged and ducked is way through it.
  • Romney said that he will grow his way out of debt. Liberals don’t like this and will talk about ‘the math’- but the math that they will use will be static and assume that tax cuts or spending cuts do not affect revenue, and this assumption is poor. Tax cuts may lead to less revenue of the government- but they also lead to employment growth and after that they lead to much greater revenue than without the tax cuts. Romney believes in a dynamic economy- Obama is about locking in and divvying up a static economy. Later I imagine the liberals will do the math over and over on this issue, ignoring the dynamic nature of the economy the entire time.
  • Obama brought up a bunch of taxes that he would repeal if he were President- but he is President and has been President for 4 years and for the first half of that time his party controlled the House and Senate- and he didn’t repeal those taxes. Either he lied here and doesn’t want to really repeal those taxes or he was incompetent and when handed the keys to the car he drove it in a different direction than he should have.
  • When asked about how President Obama would deal with the skyrocketing (and immoral) debt, President Obama talked about spending more money on college and cutting a minor tax break for oil companies that has been around for over 100 years.
  • “I’ve been in business for 25 years, and I have no idea what you are talking about”- Romney to Obama. Great line, because it establishes that Romney knows what he is talking about and that Obama does not.
  • Obama began his discussion about how to deal with the looming and massive policy problems of entitlement reform by speaking about how we shouldn’t call them entitlements. The name of the program is not really what the problem is here, Mr. President- it is the fact that these programs are broke and insolvent and will soon result in poor and elderly facing a reduced standard of living and less security.
  • Romney says “I want to repeal and replace program”- Obama says “Romney wants to repeal”- Romney says “Also I want to replace it- repeal and replace”- Obama says “Yeah, but there are no details on the replacement”- Romney says “Here are the details”- Obama flashes a sheepish grin and shakes his head because he knows that he is selling BS and got caught.
  • Romney addresses the costs of healthcare and talked about how to get the costs of this program under control.
  • Although Obama mentioned several roles of government, the one that he spoke the most about and with the most passion about was new spending programs.
  • Romney talked about the role of government in protecting liberty and freedom and encouraging prosperity- his answer is much closer to what our Founding Fathers wrote about in the Declaration of Independence.
  • Several times, President Obama said “Romney doesn’t have any details” and then in the next sentence said “But based on the details we have, I can predict”. It is not possible for there to both be ‘not enough details’ and there to be ‘enough details to predict numbers’- that’s double-speak.
  • President Obama talked about how he has lately been making progress dealing with the GOP House as his example of how he has been bipartisan- but I predict that next week Obama will give a speech where he accuses the GOP House of being the sole barrier to him being more successful.
  • Obama in his conclusion laid out his vision of the next four years- raise taxes, more money for green energy, more money to teachers, and continue doing what he has been doing.
  • Romney in his conclusion said that he wants to change directions, course change for America, two paths to take, look at the records and results, and vote based on this contrast in success.

Final verdict- big win for Romney.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

NOW Allowed out From Under Bus to Chime in on Fake Birth Control Debate: Why They Have no Credibility Whatsoever

Share

As we continue to be drug along by the birth control distraction from actual economic issues debate, the National Organization of Women, AKA, the Tammies, have been permitted to re-emerge from under the bus the contribute to the debate massive distraction effort.  The President of that organization recently started speaking out spewing propaganda.  CNS News has more…

Roman Catholic bishops and other religious leaders have failed to keep women from using birth control and now want the “police power of the state” to stop women from doing so, National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill said Thursday at a gathering of feminist activists.

As a result, O’Neill argued, these religious leaders are now “demanding that the government step in and use the force and power and police power of the state to prevent women from taking birth control because the bishops have failed.”

O’Neill’s remarks came in response to a question from CNSNews.com about a large photograph on display at the press conference. It depicted five faith leaders, including a Catholic bishop, who testified at a Feb. 16 House hearinginto the Obama administration’s controversial health insurance mandate.

CNSNews.com noted that Bishop William Lori was the only faith leader–the others were Jewish, Lutheran and Baptist–who opposed all forms of birth control and pointed out that the hearing was about whether the government mandate violated the free exercise of religion.

OK, this is simple.  No one has advocated for banning birth control.  This is only a matter of breaking religions institutions, as well as distracting from bigger issues.   However, by my estimation, the Tammies have no room to complain about anything.  I have several reasons for saying this:

1.  In 2010, I covered the fact that “rape trees” are being found along the border with Mexico.  The idea is simple, and revolting.  People that are “escorting” illegals across the border, tie women and girls to trees, rape them, and  then leave their panties hanging from the tree as a sort of trophy.  Here is the position of the Tammies on this terrible attack on women…

As you can see, they have nothing to say.  I guess leftist causes such as amnesty takes priority over the rape of girls and women.

2.  OWS Rapes and cover up:  As we have covered extensively, there have been a large number of rapes at #Occupy camps.  Also, underage girls were sold as prostitutes on several occasions.  Then, to complicate the matters, victims came forward and said that the “leadership” of the camps discouraged them from reporting the rapes.  So, we have rapes, child molestation, and a coverup.  The response from the Tammies?

Yes, that’s right.  Rapes, molestation, and a cover up.  But, I’m assuming that since OWS is yet another leftist cause, the Tammies decided to over look this as well.

3.  When was the last time that someone from the Tammies testified before Congress, or had a major media blitz over honor killings, or other dehumanizing aspects of Sharia Law?  I looked, but I couldn’t find any (If anyone can find such an incident, kindly drop it in the comment section).   So, I guess birth control and abortion is more important than women being killed?  Apparently so.

Now, let’s contrast that with the front page of the NOW website, as of about 10:00 PM last night…

Click to embiggen.

So, it seems that the Tammies are rather selective in their outrage.  Religious institutions, especially Christian ones, are to be attacked relentlessly.  Marxist rapists, and men who murder women at the behest of their god…not so much.

So, Ms. O’Neill, I really have to suggest that you crawl back under the bus.  Your entire organization lost it’s credibility during the Clinton administration, and it’s done nothing to earn it back.  As long as NOW is selective in it’s outrage, you’ll be seen as nothing more than political operatives.  I can almost respect an organization that is at the very least, consistent with it’s stated beliefs and goals.  NOW is not.  Stop pretending that you are anything more than political hacks.

Share

Site News: Political Scraps Gets a Makeover

Share

For those of you that have been following our plots and and endeavors at the CH 2.0, you know that there has been a forum here for a long time.  In fact, the forum came before the blog.  A few weeks ago, John, Don, and I hatched a plot called “Political Scraps.”  The concept is simple: have a place for everyone to debate with one important caveat-we would follow President Obama’s  call for “Civil Discourse.”  That, of course, would force all involved to stick with the facts, and that would make things rather interesting.

While that plan seemed to be sound, the forum itself was proving to be a problem.    It was transferred from the original Conservative Hideout, and as such was dated.  In fact, the version of the  forum software that powered it was discontinued, and it could no longer be updated.  Also, new features and themes were not being developed, and the new, shiny version of the software could not seem to transfer all of the data from the original.  So, I had no choice but to do a fresh install.

The new and improved forum is more flexible, easier to administer, and has more features and themes coming on line all the time.  So, check it out.   Click on the post image, and you’ll be transferred to the forum.

Share

January 26, 2012: Republican Debate Live Feed UPDATED Now With 75% More Analysis!

Share

It’s yet another debate!  This time, it’s on CNN, and they aren’t a nice as NBC, so the live feed cannot be embedded.  However, we do have the link, and the comment section is available for highlights, or lowlights, as the case may be.

CNN Live Feed.

Considering the way that Romney and Gingrich have been attacking each other, it out to be interesting to see if there are some more fiery exchanges tonight.  It might be fun to watch.

UPDATE:  As it turns out, it was fun.   Here is the CH 2.0 Analysis…

Mitt Romney:  It seemed to me, that for about the first half of the debate, Romney  did the following…

“Let me use this question as a rationale to attack Gingrich”

I all honesty, his new debate coach does have him being more aggressive.  but he seemed to blast away at Gingrich more than discuss actual policy ideas or basic Conservative principals.  In that effort, he did get the better of Gingrich, as he was mostly able to effectively hit back at when Gingrich threw out an allegation.

Newt Gingrich:  Newt appeared to be flat tonight.  He was outmaneuvered by Romney on several occasions.  He did do well in trying to draw himself close to Reagan, but he seemed unprepared for Romney’s counter-punches.  Newt was also kind to Ron Paul tonight.

Ron Paul:  Dr. Paul was more engaging tonight, but I wish he would prepare to give succinct answers that flow well.  He, as usual, beat the others on economic issues, but, also as usual, he alienates NeoCons on foreign policy.  Also, he had the best laugh lines on the stage, and that can endear him with people.  He might also have a point in that his foreign policy may appeal to many more people, who are frankly weary of all the military actions in which we have been involved.

And, we have the man that I think won the debate.

Rick Santorum:  Santorum’s lines on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and unalienable rights, were food for the Conservative soul.  He hit more on principals, and WHY we should do, or not do things.  That, and he was able to present himself as being above the Romney-Gingrich slap-fight.  Also, at the same time, he was able to go after Romney, in particular-not on picayune aspects of his investment portfolio, but on policy.

As always comments are welcome.

Share

January 23, 2012 Republican Debate: Live Feed UPDATE: Missed the Debate? Watch it Here! Also, some Analysis

Share


Here is the live feed for the GOP debate in Florida…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

It ought to be interesting.

UPDATE:  The link will remain up, so people that missed the debate can watch for themselves.

I thought that Romney came out far more aggressively tonight, and had his sights set on Newt Gingrich.  However, I have to agree with the MSM talking heads in that Gingrich seemed to brush aside Romney’s attacks.  Romney did seem, at least to me, to come off as a bit more childish, and needlessly so.  Here is a dramatic recreation…

Gingrich, as usual, is a great speaker, and I think he got his points across rather well.  It is also interesting that he and Congressman Paul seemed to have had a mutual admiration society tonight.  Could it be that Gingrich is courting the Paul supporters in anticipation that Paul will eventually drop out?  Time will tell.

As for Congressman Paul, I thought he did well in articulating his points, though I must say that the moderators let the Gingrich/Romney “Wabbit season-Duck Season” exchange go on for so long, that Paul and Santorum had to think that they were window dressing.  I get that Paul is great on the economy-stronger than any other candidate, if you ask me. However, it still have a hard time thinking that his foreign policy will resonate with Conservatives.  I doubt that it will win him points with the large and vocal Cuban constituency in Florida.

Rick Santorum tried to display himself as the more consistent Conservative.  He rumbled and stumbled less tonight, and he made his points.  Will that be enough to sway enough voters to get him out of single digits?  I doubt it.

Disagree?  Great!  Exercise your free speech in the comment section.

Share

Site News: Political Scraps

Share

Some of you might remember that when I started the Conservative Hideout (almost three years ago), that it was a forum.  The blog came later, as I wanted something to do until the forum took off (that and some prodding from Snarky Basterd).  Little did I know at the time that the blog would become my main pursuit.  So, the forum sat, mainly unused and forlorn.  Then, a few weeks ago, John, from the Sentry Journal, had an idea.  What if there were a place for actual debate to occur? Where leftists and Conservatives could actually discuss issues openly.  Now some, including your’s truly, say that this is simple not possible, as debating a leftist usually goes as follows…

1.  Liberal responds to facts with talking points.

2.  Conservative presents more facts to back his or her point.

3.  Liberal ignores facts, and tries to attack the credibility of the Conservative.

4.  A smart Conservative will brush aside the personal attack, and present even more factual information, or, show the reader what the liberal is doing, as facts go against their narrative.

5.  The liberal will end up insulting the Conservative, declaring victory, and going back to their mother’s basement.

However, we wise brainics in the CH 2.0 brain-trust had another idea.

What if we were to follow, and enforce, the President’s call for “Civil Discourse?”  What if the debate had to be made strictly on facts?  That, my friends, would make for a very interesting situation.

So, we decided to convert the forum, and turn it into what John coined, “Political Scraps.”  It’s debate between right and left, minus most of the Alinsky.  The rules are rather  simple…

1.  No profanity.

2.  No insults.

3.  No mockery or ridicule.

4.  Argue facts only.

So, all are welcome.  Feel free to discuss the issues of the day, and cite articles with a brief excerpt.  You have to be approved by an administrator, so please be patient.  The forum is currently staffed by Don, of Present Discontent, and myself.

Here is the link…

 

Share

GOP Debate: Live Stream

Share

We, some are gone, and fewer remain.  The GOP debate will be taking place  tonight at 9:00PM.  For those of you wanting to watch on-line, here are the links for the live stream.

WMUR

Yahoo! News

It should be interesting to see if Rick Santorum has a strong showing.  He needs one to show that his performance in Iowa wasn’t a one-time deal.  He also needs to strike a contrast with Romney,  and try to sell voters on there being a difference.   Come to think of it, all the candidates need a strong showing,  With Romney in the lead, and being supported by the MSM and the establishment, mistakes are not going to be recoverable events.

At any rate, it ought to be interesting to see how the candidates will perform.

Share

Keeping the Ignorant Feeling Informed

Share

“There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear” – Daniel Dennett

A good friend of mine, one whom I never enjoy being on the opposite end of an argument with, explained to me that in order to properly argue for a belief that you hold true, you should not only want to present good arguments, but deny bad arguments.  It seems simple enough, but in practice we consistently fail – especially in politics.

Politics has become a cesspool for talking points and half truth rhetoric.  Few actually know the principles or intricacies behind the topic they are defending or promoting.  Interestingly, it seems we all know that both sides are guilty of this because we constantly point out the flaw across the aisle.  Talking points are prominent in politics for, as I see it, two basic reasons.  First, because they are easily recited by even the most ignorant of supporters and second, they give just enough information for an individual to feel as if they are learned in regard to the given subject.

There’s an advancement in talking points that seems to be prominent among the left (though honestly, it can be found on both sides) that deals with the problem of not being able to argue with intellectual honesty.  Allow me to explain with a recent encounter.

In the not too distant past I got in a little discussion on a college campus with some kids who were supporting a certain democratic politician. I attempted to keep it civil and simply asked them some probing questions about the issues.  While I presented my point regarding the new laws in our state surrounding methamphetamines, this individual wrote my entire premise off with one interrupting rhetorical statement, “I bet you support Sarah Palin too”.  With that one line, that irrelevant half-accusation, I was doomed in the hallway besieged with collegiate brilliance! My answer didn’t matter, the accusation had been made and I had to either deter from the point and defend that charge or denounce Palin to remain credible – either way, he defused my argument regarding methamphetamines with a parry from the sword of mockery.

Being mocked by the ignorant is frustrating.  For me, I stood in wonder as to how this individual who knows so little was bold enough to taunt me under the misguided belief that he knows so much.  In that thought process it hit me; he has been a successfully converted instrument of the left.  You see, it is easier to convince people of what they want to believe rather than teach them what they need to know.  In the case of this individual, and many others, it was easier for him to be convinced that he was knowledgeable (something he wanted to believe) rather than teach him actual knowledge.

Years ago I made a simple argument with my office’s outspoken liberal about limited government. When I told him that the Tenth Amendment said that all powers not specifically given to the federal government by our constitution are reserved to the states and the people, he scoffed at me for my ignorance.  “The states are bigger than the federal government”, he puffed with a contemptuous voice.  For a brief moment his boorish mockery won the audience – until I pulled out my pocket constitution.

Prior to pulling my trump card, he had convinced everyone I was the dumb character he was imitating. The liberal knows that the federal government trumps everything, just like they know that Bush and Palin are stupid, that Tea Party protesters are racist, and that conservatives are greedy people who hate the poor.  These non-factoids have become, in the minds of liberals, non-fiction.  They have their truth; try opposing it, and you’ll be met with the refined and most effective weapon the left has – mockery.

The left has made a business out of mockery; it is nearly everywhere. It is no longer left to the comedians or talk show hosts, but is consistently used in “real political commentary” by the likes of Rachel Maddow andKeith Olbermann.  The comedians use it as a tool for the supremely foolish such as in Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show”, and then the Bill Mahers of the world try to play both parts of the field when it suits them best. All of this has become a source to puff up those who lack understanding and followers continuously imitate these wind bags in the process of debate.  The masses receive their truth in sound bites and make a joke out of legitimate arguments in spite of their substance.  Try making a drinking game for every time Rachel Maddow rolls her eyes, or shakes her head in dismissal at a republicanor explains their positions with the hint of laughter in her voice and you’ll be as drunk as a lord.

Now, I love mockery as much as the next guy, especially if done with a thick British accent regarding a monarch. Mockery, in its most sincere form, is a derision of another’s foolery.  Dana Carvey’s President Bush is still my preferred way to order Moo Shu Chicken.  Steven Crowder and Greg Gutfeld send a thrill up my leg!  I can even appreciate Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert because the guys are funny.  There is a problem, however, when a charade becomes the foundation of certainty – and that is the problem today.  Too many plant their seeds of understanding in the bedrock of farce and give little charity to the arguments presented from their opposition.

Again, it is not just the left who fall victim to this pitfall.  As my opening quote reveals, we cannot allow bad arguments to be present in our struggle for liberty and limited government.  If we do, we leave open the door to mockery.  We must battle those bad arguments within with just as much fervor as we battle the ones made against us.

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

Live Feed Link for Tonight’s GOP Debate

Share

It’s time for another Republican debate.  Gingrich is starting slow, Paul is rising in Iowa, and Romney is still a RINO.  The Debate begins at 9:00 PM EST.   Hit the link below to see what happens…

Fox News

Feel free to drop your comments and analysis below.

Share

Would you Like Some Bias with your Bias? Krugman wants MSM to be Even More Biased

Share

When the regressives are desperate, they seem to drop most, of not all pretenses.  Case in point, Paul Krugman of the NY Slimes had some interesting comments earlier in the week.  Newsbusters has the details…

Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Friday denounced the “centrist cop-out” of balance. Krugman specifically singled out the Associated Press for not exclusively blaming the ongoing debt ceiling impasse on the Republican Party.

Complaining about too much fairness, the author derided his journalistic colleagues, “But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.”         

In fact, as a July 26 Media Research Center report found, journalists have not made an effort to be “centrist.” The MRC found that 66 percent of network stories mainly blamed the Republicans for the debt ceiling impasse. Only 20 percent found the Democrats at fault.

Of course, this is Krugman’s opinion, and he is entitled to it.  However, since he shoved his own head firmly up his rectum, let’s tale a moment or two and consider what he is suggesting.

1.  To suggest that the MSM is fair in the first place is dangerously naive and asinine.

2.  To suggest that the MSM BE biased shows what Krugman thinks of the viewers, as well as his own distorted view of reality.

3.  He’s an elitist jerk (and I’m being kind there).

Anyway you slice it, Krugman is displaying a childish and petulant version of elitism.  By suggesting that the MSM turn the bias up to “11,” he is pushing his own, distorted view reality down the throat of America.

And based on the Time’s economic juggernaut as of late, we can see how that is working out for him.

Share