Romney Stings Obama With “Apology Tour” Remark

During last night’s debate, Mitt Romney stung Obama when he stated that the president went on an apology tour and conveniently skipped Israel. You could tell immediately the comment hurt. And why wouldn’t it? It’s true. And as the cliche states — “the truth hurts.”

Attempting to ease the sting, Obama got a little bit uppity. He leaned in, elevated his voice and went into a denial and distort story about visiting Israel before he was the President of the United States. He rambled on, as he is prone to do, but ultimately skipped addressing the Israel slight or the numerous speeches he made about “America is bad and we’re sorry” during the apology tour.

Romney’s jab is significant because it showcases how Obama conducts his foreign policy — as an weakling.

Look at the Libya events that took place just last month. Obama and his administration spent numerous weeks stating the violence was sparked by an anti-Muhammad video and apologizing to the Middle East for it. During that time, not a word was mentioned about the concept of freedom of speech nor that Obama was intent on protecting it.

Authorities actually approached Google (the owner of You Tube) and requested they squash access to the video. Isn’t that censorship? Consider, too, that the video-maker was identified, detained, questioned and even forced to do the “perp-walk” in front of national media. All this because he made a video. But making amateurish videos is not against the law. Nor is criticism or making inflammatory remarks. Yet, as of today, more authority has come down upon our video-villain than on the militants that carried out the attack that killed four Americans.

And this is the problem with being an international weakling — you end up making America look bad by undermining our founding principles. The reality is those that hate us already see America as bad, depraved and evil. We are the Great Satan. Who would be so naive as to think that validating their outlook will change their minds? Erroneously acknowledge we are evil to those that portray us as evil and you re-enforce their outlook — you don’t alter it.

The sad reality is that Obama and his liberal-progressive, utopia-loving lunatics actually believe in the preposterous “we can all be friends” approach to foreign policy. And they’re so desperate to prove it correct that they have become blind to reality. As a result, when things go wrong they can’t blame the other party because that would be admitting we really can’t all be friends. This would invalidate their life view. So to perpetuate their adolescent outlook, they claim it must be something we did. In the case of Libya it is “that terrible video insulted people beyond their ability to be rational, that’s why they hurt us. Take away the video and we can still be friends.”

We just can’t make videos. Or openly critique Islam. Or call radical terrorists — radical terrorists. It is an immature and self-destructive outlook. America has a black president. It has a woman that runs the State Department. Americans believe in freedom of speech and equal rights. At the same time, there exist cultures in the world that shoot children for seeking an education, lock people in jail for bad-mouthing leaders and don’t allow women to drive. Yet, to the apologists, it is our values that create the problems of the world.

If you believe the Left, foreign policy was a feather in Obama’s cap. The “courageous” decision to kill Osama bin Laden and Obama’s “heroic” drone attacks were scenarios the Left could spin a narrative around as a reason for re-electing Obama. Better still, if the Right attacked his approach, the Left could counter by claiming apologies do work because Obama has kept us safe.

Unfortunately, the terror attack against the American consulate in Libya shows this narrative to be just another lie.

Do you think they will apologize?

Video — Some samples of Obama’s Apologies

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net 

The Last Presidential Debate: Obama Hit Mitt Hard But Romney Won (See The Full Debate Video and Transcript)

   Bookmark and Share   Without question, President Obama had a good night last night but he failed to achieve his goal of beating Mitt Romney by landing political punches that successfully painted Romney as a clueless, warmonger whom Americans can’t trust on the world stage  (See the transcript and video of the entire debate at the bottom of this post).

From the beginning it was clear that the two men had two entirely different demeanors.  President Obama began and ended the night with an aggressive, combative almost angry quality that was often sarcastic and condescending.  For his part, Romney was friendly, respectful and un-rattled by the President.  But most of all, while President Obama failed to essentially disqualify Romney and his foreign policy vision, Governor Romney again passed the presidential test and proved to the American people that he is prepared to take on the job of President.

President Obama tried his best to describe Romney as “always wrong”, and “all over the map” and at one point he even spoke to the Governor as if he were a child after launching in to this diatribe about Romney’s call for a stronger navy;

“You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

For Romney, while he spent most of the night demonstrating that he is quite informed on matters of foreign policy and proving that he has a vision for America’s role in the world, he never exhibited the type of bitter and arrogant behavior that was put on display by the President.  And in one of his strongest remarks of the night, Romney turned the attacks against him on to the President ;

“I can say this, that we’re talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we’re seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and – and confusion. And – and attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence.”said Romney.

Overall, President Obama may have actually won last night’s debate on the basis of his ability to defend his own unravelling foreign policy by aggressively trying to put Romney on the defense throughout the night.  But Romney was actually less defensive than the President and held his own.   In doing so Romney made this debate a draw, which for a challenger to a sitting President is ultimately a win.

Many may not initially see it that that way though.  That includes Romney supporters, who may have been disappointed by the fact that Mitt Romney did not beat President Obama over the head with Benghazi.  But as I suggested in a post prior to the debate  any attempt to go after the President so aggressively on Benghazi  risked “the creation of a new narrative that will suggest that Romney took legitimate questions about the events surrounding Benghazi and exploited them by over-politicizing them in a desperate attempt to win the presidential election.  Such a narrative just two weeks before Election Day would produce irreversibly damaging results for the Romney-Ryan ticket and future headlines in the biased liberal media will deal more with their accusing Romney of attempting to exploit Benghazi than the facts that make Mitt Romney right to make Benghazi an issue”.

I added;

“So while the temptation to confront President Obama with the evidence and questions surrounding the obvious foreign policy and national security blunders behind Benghazi, Romney would probably be best advised to allude to these legitimate concerns in broader terms.”

It is clear that Governor Romney agreed and instead he used this debate as an opportunity to apply a strategy that targeted listeners of the debate who’s votes he needs to win in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio.  This too was a point I predicted Romney would take in the post refered to above.  Romney applied this strategy by offering a solid defense of his position on the auto bailouts, a point Romney proved the President to be wrong about when he mischaracterizes Romney’s real position.   Romney’s decision to spend time explaining that domestic policy issue during a foreign policy debate was a clear attempt by Romney to address the swing voters among Ohio’s  auto workers.

Romney also appealed quite well to the relatively large Jewish vote in the battleground state of Florida.  In one exchange between the two men, Romney eloquently laid out  how much “daylight” President Obama created “between ourselves and Israel”.

All of this means that Governor Romney accomplished all that he really needed to last night.  Not only did he avoid making any gaffe’s, he demonstrated a clear knowledge and command of foreign policy issues.  He also conducted himself in a way that avoided any negative impressions among voters who watched the debate.  While President Obama may have turned off some voters with his small and petty style during the debate, Romney was  strong, confident and principled.

In the final analysis Romney needed to demonstrate that he is presidential and on equal  footing with President Obama and when all was said and done, he did just that.  That means that despite President Obama’s strong but condescending performance, Mitt Romney won.  Why?  Because President Obama failed to change few if any of the undecided minds that he needed to if he wants to win this election.  But Romney’s inoffensive performance added to his credibility as a candidate and it quite tactfully targeted the voters he needed to speak to last night.  And with the momentum behind Mitt, President Obama failed to turn this election around.

Click here for or a complete transcript of the debate.  See the full video of the debate below:

Bookmark and Share

Watch the Final Presidential Debate Live Online at White House 2012

This Live Stream has ended but you can see the entire debate and read a transcript and analysis of the debate here

 

Bookmark and Share  Here we go.  This is it! Tonight’s final presidential debate begins at 9:00 p.m. EST.  You can view it live online from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida , here at white House 2012.

While Mitt Romney has a perfect opportunity to hammer the President over Benghazi and use it to demonstrate how his Administration has been conducting a failed foreign policy and dangerously incompetent national security and intelligence operation.  But Romney may not too aggressive on the issue of Benghazi for two reasons.  First he does not want to be seen as overly aggressive and as exploiting the tragedy for political purposes.  The other reason is that all Romney needs to do to win tonight’s debate is hold his own against the President.  That standard should force Romney to play it safe tonight.

But President Obama has to take an approach different from Romney’s.

President Obama needs to score a knockout blow on Romney and reverse the momentum that is currently propelling him ahead of the President in national polls and battleground states.  whether he can achieve that or not is unknown but also unlikely.  But it will certainly be fun to see the President try to knock Romney out on foreign policy while his own foreign policy is unraveling before our eyes.

Watch it LIVE here:

Bookmark and Share

Framing Tonight’s Foreign Policy Debate and the Unravelling Obama Foreign Policy

Bookmark and Share  To frame tonight’s final presidential debate, American Crossroads released a new video: “Not Optimal.”

The video juxtaposes President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 against the current unrest in the Middle East.

Bookmark and Share

A Foregn Policy Question for President Obama Not Related to Benghazi

  Bookmark and SharePresident Obama will try tonight to paint Mitt Romney as a warmonger with no experience and who is consistently wrong.  But at some point during tonight’s foreign policy debate, I would like to see President Obama answer this following question;

After opposing the war in Iraq and calling it a “dumb war”, and after carrying out the Bush timeline in Iraq and seeing that war through to its conclusion, do you still consider it to have been a “dumb war” and given the current situation in the Middle East, do you think we would be better today  if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

The question is one that goes to the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy or lack thereof.  It is a policy that is adrift and lacking any meaningful purpose.  And the question I put forth is one which if answered honestly, should shed some light on the President’s willingness or unwillingness to confront our enemies if he were to be granted a second presidential term.

Bookmark and Share

“Death And Deceit In Benghazi”: The Timeline Behind the Obama Coverup (Full Video)

  Bookmark and Share   While most journalists continue to fail to ask the President and his Administration the hard questions about the circumstances leading up to and following the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Bret Baier of Fox News has put together an excellent report that proves the  President and his Administration have a lot to explain to the American people (see the special report in the video below).

The timeline established in this report raises several questions including some which deal with  the broader concerns of national security within an Administration that apparently went without ever knowing or acknowledging the fact that al Qaeda was establishing itself in Eastern, Libya, even though the Administration was being warned about it for more than two months.

The final presidential debate will be devoted to foreign policy, an issue which until recently has largely taken a backseat to the economic crisis that is confronting our nation.  But over the course of the past six weeks, events beyond our borders have reminded many Americans that what happens abroad creates ripples that eventually and inevitably impact on our own shores and citizens.  Pleas from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene in  Iran’s march towards nuclear capability have reached a fevered pitch.  Continued fallout from the lead-from-behind Obama strategy in regards to the so-called Arab Spring has turned into an Arab Winter that has led to an ongoing civil war in Syria that continues to destabilize an already unstable region of the world and threatens to turn in to a war between Syria and Turkey.   And in Libya the promise once seen in the final fall and demise of Moammar  Gaddafi  has turned in to an opportunity for al Qaeda related cells to kill our Ambassador and three members of his security detail and in to an opportunity for al Qaeda to establish another beachhead to launch future terrorist attacks from.

The ramifications of the events leading up to, and following the terrorist attack in Benghazi are turning in to two scandals.  The fist being the scandal of the obvious intelligence failures which made it possible for the killing of our 4 Americans in Libya on September 11, 2012.  How could the President never have been told about the activity level of al Qaeda in Libya that Ambassador Chris Stevens warned us about in cables to the Administration which he told us about two months prior to the attack that took his life?  Or is this something that President Obama might have known had he not avoided approximately 62% of his daily intelligence briefings since the beginning of the year?

Brett Baier’s timeline also raises questions about the Administration’s reaction to the terrorist attack… a reaction that is turning into the second scandal.

Given the clear contradictions between the facts outlined in this report and the statements made by the President and the Administration, this timeline shows evidence of  an Administration that is at best less than forthcoming with the truth and at its worst, trying to cover-up both the fact that there was such an extraordinarily severe intelligence failure and the reasons for that intelligence failure.

Could it be that President Obama knew nothing about Benghazi because since just the beginning of 2012 alone, he skipped out on  approximately 62% of his daily intelligence briefings?  While this is not a question asked in Brett Baier’s reports, it is a logical question when one consider all the facts and adds them in to the timeline laid out in this special report.

Whether or not Mitt Romney has the opportunity or desire to make these points in tonight’s presidential debate on foreign policy is anyone’s guess.  But what there is no need to second guess is the fact that since the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the president and his Administration have acted in ways that are raising more questions than answers.  In fact while they have not provided any answers , all their actions have raised nothing but questions.  If you take the time to watch this special report by Brett Baier entitled “Death and Deceit in Libya”, you too will begin to understand the true meaning of the phrase… “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.

Bookmark and Share

Candy Crowley Screwed Up. We Told Her To Keep Her Mouth Shut.

Bookmark and Share  One of the most tense moments during last night’s debate came when the issue of the terrorist attack in Benghazi came up.  At one point President Obama tried to claim that he publicly recognized the tragic event as a terrorist attack the morning after it occurred, during a speech given in the  Rose Garden.  Upon hearing that, Governor Romney entered in to the following exchange with the President;

ROMNEY: I think (it’s) interesting the president just said something which —  which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said  that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act  of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re  saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the  president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

Then as Romney turned to the moderator, Candy Crowley took it upon herself to interject herself in to the debate by agreeing with the President by stating;

“It — it — it — he did in fact, sir … call it an act of  terror.”

Her comment was then followed by applause.  The moment lended a total lack of credibility to notion that the questioners in the audience of this town hall and its moderator were impartial or undecided participants.  Nothing says undecided and impartial like the moderator making one side’s argument and the crowd cheering.  But this is exactly why in a pre-debate post , I specifically stated that Candy Crowley needed to keep her mouth shut during the debate.

As it turned out, within an hour of the debate, Crowley popped up on CNN admitting that she was wrong.  The President never actually called the violence that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi a terrorist attack as he and Crowley claimed he did from the Rose Garden on September 12th.

On that occasion the President avoided describing the assassination of our staff in Libya as a terrorist attack.  He did however say the following about the tragedy in general;

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that  character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said.  “Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United  States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is  done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we  also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of  their attackers.”

Then for 14 days following that statement, the President and his Administration still refused to call the tragedy in Benghazi a terrorist attack and tried to claim that it was the result of a spontaneous riot inspired by a video.

So Candy Crowley was wrong.  She was wrong about her conclusion and in  her to attempt disagree with Mitt Romney over the stated facts.   And  she was wrong for refusing to leave the debate up to the debaters.  Instead she interjected her own biased conclusions into the debate.  This is something she was urged to avoid when I wrote the following about Crowley in White House 2012…

“You’re not on the ballot, so we don’t care what you know, what you think you know, or what your alleged unbiased opinion is!”

But Candy couldn’t help herself.  When she saw her prefered choice for President needing a lifeline she pretended to be the host of “Who Wants To Be  A Millionaire” and gave President Obama a chance to call on a friend for the answer.  That friend being herself.

If only she listened and kept her mouth shut.  Instead she confirmed that her next job should not be moderating a presidential debate or reporting the news, it should be as the White House Press Secretary in the next term of whatever Democrat wins the presidency after Mitt Romney’s two terms in the Oval Office.

Oh yeah, let us not forget the other thing confirmed during all this… our President was again caught lying in an attempt to save his presidency and get reelected.

Bookmark and Share

Second Presidential Debate; Obama Showed Up and Romney Held His Own (Complete Video & Transcript)

See the complete video of the debate at the bottom of this post and for a complete transcript of the debate click here

   Bookmark and Share  The second presidential debate was marked by a generally sharp and in-your-face diplomatic dialogue that brought the two candidates to their feet and at one point, almost nose to nose.   While it was not the one-sided match up that we saw Mitt Romney mop the floor with Barack Obama in the first debate, Romney was still confident, statesman-like, hard hitting and in command.  This time though, President Obama actually showed up to the debate and was willing to try to defend his record and doing his best distort Mitt Romney’s policy proposals.  For that alone one should anticipate the mainstream media narrative to run deep with claims that the President won this second debate.  But as usual, that liberal bias would not be inaacurate.  While President Obama did finally show a fire in his belly and some passion for his positions, he failed to land any punches that convinced anyone that his positions will produce better results than they have in the last four years.

For his part Mitt Romney did successfully land verbal punches on with several devastating indictments of the President’s economic, energy, and foreign policies.

President Obama did win some points during the debate but they were largely points scored with only his base.  The President’s attempts to consistently claim that Mitt Romney was not telling the truth failed to ring true.  Especially when the President tried to deny Romney’s claim that under Obama gas and oil production on federal lands decreased by as much as 14%.   Here Mitt Romney made a valid point about the President’s failed energy policy but Obama’s unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that in his drive to invest billions in failed alternative energy companies, he also reduced the number of permits that allowed domestic drilling on federal lands.   The President was so adamant in his denial that he ended up making it a bigger deal of the point than even Mitt Romney did.

But as the President tried to paint Romney as the liar in the debate, Mitt Romney was the one who actually proved Barack Obama to be the liar.

When the issue of Benghazi came up, President Obama tried to deny that he refused to call the attacks that killed our Ambassador and the members of his detail, a terrorist attack.  President Obama tried to claim that he called them terrorist attacks during a statement in the Rose Garden on the morning following the tragic event.  Romney doubled-down on the fact that President did not call them terrorist attacks and that he spent two weeks trying to claim the act of terrorism was the result of a spontaneous riot inspired by a video.  Making matters worse, moderator Candy Crowley aided President Obama by saying he did call the tragedy a terrorist attack that morning in the Rose Garden.  Some time after the debate,Crowley admitted she was wrong but President Obama has still failed to fess up to his lie.

All in all, the debate was an interesting verbal ballet which allowed each candidate to use dialogue that danced around the issues.  Mitt Romney offered only the minimal of details regarding his own economic plans and President Obama offered the same balme-it-on-Bush inspired excuses for the failures of his own Administration.  But Romney did do something which the President did not do.  He created more doubt about the President’s plans for the future of the nation than the President did about Mitt Romney’s plans for our nation’s future.  And Mitt Romney did something else too.  He kept the President on the defensive and at times, particularly when the issue of gun control came up.  On this, Romney left President Obama noticeably unsettled as he interjected Fast & Furious into the debate.   Romney stated;

The — the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords.

They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a — this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American people would like to understand fully, it’s been investigated to a degree, but — but the administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.

I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.

The point came up after President Obama used the question as an opportunity to lecture voters on an assault weapons ban and while Mitt Romney deftly responded by finding a way to interject the Fast & Furious scandal in to his own answer, it would have been much more effective if he came out and said… “Mr. President, you are the very last person in the nation who should be trying to lecture us on assault weapons.  Not after your Administration gave Mexican drug cartels assault weapons that they used to kill our border agents with”.  But despite not putting it that way, Mitt still successfully weighed the President with the Fast & Furious scandal.

By the time the sun comes up though, the mainstream media will be writing stories about a much different debate.  They will probably be printing and posting headlines like “Barack is Back” or “Prez Rips Romney Apart”.  However; the truth is this.  Typically a tie in a presidential debate is a win for the challenger and in truth Romney at least did well enough to make the debate a tie.  So by any honest assessment, Romney should be declared the winner of this second debate.  But regardless of which narrative about who won is printed more times than the other, the bottom line is this… President Obama will not get the same type of pronounced bounce from this debate that Mitt Romney got from the first one.  In fact, I predict that he gets no bounce and furthermore, from my vantage point, I believe Mitt Romney swayed more independent and undecided voters his way last night than did the president.  And that in the final analysis is the true determining factor here.

Bookmark and Share

Watch the Second Presidential Live Here on White House 2012

   Bookmark and Share  View tonight’s second presidential debate online here at White House 2012 and join our live Twitter conversation with your comments directed to @WhiteHouse12  or use the hashtag #wh12.

This Youtube feed offers a pre-debate program schedule that inlcudes the following:

8:00 PM ET :

  • ABC News Debate Pre-Show

8:30 PM ET :

  • Al Jazeera Debate Pre-Show
  • Wall Street Journal Debate Pre-Show
  • Univision Google Hangout
  • New York Times Debate Pre-Show


Bookmark and Share

Candy Crowley Needs To Keep Her Mouth Shut During Second Presidential Debate

   Bookmark and Share   Tuesday night’s second presidential debate is proving to be one of the most anticipated in decades.  After Mitt Romney’s stellar performance and President Obama’s disastrous performance in the first one, tensions are high as Obama supporters wait with bated breath to see their hope for a big Obama comeback come to fruition, while Romney supporters are praying for their guys ability to repeat his domination of the debate.  Meanwhile those independent and undecided voters who are not in one camp or the other are looking forward to seeing how both men do so that they can make an informed decision regarding  which of the two candidates they believe deserves to be President for the next years.

Left to their own devices, both President Obama and Governor Romney should be able to make their cases and the voters paying attention to the debate should be able to determine who made the best case.  But as the second debate approaches, its moderator, CNN correspondent Candy Crowley informs us that she intends to take the town hall style debate in the direction she wants it to go in.

According to Crowley;

“Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’”

Well I am glad to know that Crowley thinks she knows her A,B,C’s but FYI Candy… you’re not on the ballot, so we don’t care what you know, what you think you know, or what your alleged unbiased opinion is!

A good journalist is said to be one who never makes themselves a part of the news and when it comes to moderators, a good one does not become too big a part of the debate, they merely ensure that the debate keeps flowing.  Well as an anchor on CNN , Candy Crowley hardly ever reports a political story without interjecting her own mainstream media, liberal biases in to them.  Now she makes a statement that indicates to me that she will interject her liberal biases in to the presidential debate.

Crowley’s remark may initially sound innocent to some.  For some it may even sound responsible and sensible.  It suggests that she intends to hold the candidates accountable for their answers without allowing them to avoid full explanations.  But those who see it this way are missing the point of what a moderators job is and the purpose of a debate.

Part of any good debaters job is to hold the person they are facing off with accountable for their answers.  It is up to President Obama and Governor Romney to deftly find a way to say to each other,  ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”.   Not Crowley.

In most debates there is a moderator and either several prepared questions or a group of panelists who ask the questions.  The moderator simply manages time and enforces any of the rules agreed to by the debate’s participants.  In this second presidential debate, we have a town hall style forum where voters in the audience are suppose to ask the questions.  So the way I see it, as the moderator, Candy Crowley should not be asking anything.  And for good reason.

None of us have any reason to hear Crowley or any talking head interject their political biases in to any debate.  That means I do not need for her to try to press Mitt Romney to give additional details in a particular answer that she disagrees with, but not press President Obama for further details on an answer he gives and which she agrees with.

Part of the success of the first 2012 presidential debate was due to the fact that its moderator, Jim Lehrer,  for the most part, allowed the candidates to be the ones to ask each other  “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”    The fact that Lehrer did not interjecthis own judgment calls into the first debate allowed it to be defined by the two candidates for President, not the moderator who is not on the ballot.  Candy Crowley would be wise to follow Leher’s example and for the first time in her career, try to be a good journalist by interjecting herself into the story as little as possible, and by being a good moderator that is seen but not often heard.

In other words, Candy… shut your trap and let the audience ask the questions and allow the candidates to answer them and hold each other accountable to their answers.

Bookmark and Share

“Smirk”: The Ad That Uses Obama’s Losing Smile

  Bookmark and Share In the wake of President Obama’s astonishingly poor debate performance, the Republican National Committee has quite appropriately taken the opportunity to use a split screen video that highlights some of Mitt Romney’s sharpest exchanges during the debate with clips of President Obama reacting with a very telling and uncomfortable smirk. (See the video below this post)

Throughout the debate, Mitt Romney seemed to often school the President on everything from taxes and the economy, to healthcare and the constitution.  And as Romney confidently but politely rattled off what were embarrassing facts and figures for the President to hear, the President spent most of his time fidgeting as he looked down with a silly grin that gave away just how uncomfortable he was with his failed policies.

The R.N.C. used these images to drive the President’s failures home and they did so in a way that allowed Romney to appear to be in total control with a superior command of the issues and level of confidence that President Obama failed to demonstrate throughout the debate.

The ad successfully portrays President Obama as being helpless and unable to defend his record, which up to now, he has done his best to distract voters from.


Bookmark and Share

Romney’s Crushing Defeat of Obama in the First Debate: Analysis and Reaction

Bookmark and Share  The first presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney produced a surprisingly lopsided victory for Romney that made President Obama look like the empty suit that most Americans have come to see him to be.  (See the complete video of the debate below this post)

From beginning to end, Romney was confident, commanding, and concise.  For his part, President Obama was a rambling mess who reiterated shallow DNC talking points that even he did not seem to believe anymore.  And while Mitt Romney came across as eager to address the President, President Obama often seemed uncomfortable and even annoyed.  Pained looks  to cross the his face as he continuously looked down at the podium with a strained smile or uncomfortable and exaggerated smile on his face as Mitt Romney often schooled him on such things as the economy and the constitutional role of government in America.

To make matters worse, even though President Obama addressed the audience 4 minutes longer longer than Romney did, his long winded responses actually did little more than provide listeners with a meandering mess that never seemed to arrive at a valid point. It drove home the fact that in politics, when you’re explaining, you’re losing.  In last night’s debate, President Obama was explaining a lot.

Viewers of the debate couldn’t help but feel that the President was running scared and even the most casual of political observers concluded that President Obama was caught off guard by Romney’s command of the issues and seemingly natural confident persona.  With nearly universal unanimity, viewers of last night debate saw a President that should have studied harder.   Of course the President will probably blame his poor debate performance on Bush, but when all was said and done, the first thought to strike me was that once again, Massachusetts Senator and 2004 Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry failed to accomplish another mission.  As President Obama’s debate prep partner, Kerry who stood in to play Mitt Romney during debate practice with the President, obviously did not do a good enough job because President Obama was far from ready for this first encounter with Romney.

The Reaction.

Probably the most dramatic result of last nights debate was the universal agreement on how each candidate fared.  Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that Mitt Romney was the clear winner and by wide margin.  Romney’s superior performance was even well lauded by the some of the left’s lowest of players.

Bill Maher spent the night in tears as he took to his iPhone to tweet the following gems;

Leading liberal blogmeister Markos Moulitsas‏ from the scurrilous Daily Kos had a few tweets denouncing President Obama’s weak debating skills;

Perhaps the gloomiest of gusses last though were the cast of clowns over at MNSBC.  There the liberal minions were apoplectic and unable to contain their frustrations.  The always lying and perpetually perplexed Chris Matthews was so distraught at the President’s inability to defend his failed liberal policies that it sparked within him a sense of anger that left him frothing at the mouth and offering a diatribe of the President that was at times violent.  The most notable example of that sentiment came when Matthews claimed that the President needs to watch his show and the rest of the programs on MSNBC because they have “the knives coming out. ”  Matthews added  “We go after the people”.

Over at the liberal lala land called Current TV, Al Gore’s leftwing propaganda mill, Gore himself sat in the center of his hand picked puppets and socialist supporters and confirmed that this first matchup with Romney for President Obama was not his finest moment.  But Gore defended the President by turning to a scapegoat that Gore has built his career on… the environment.  According to Gore, the high altitude of Denver where the debate took place was responsible for throwing the president off.

As for the right, Romney exceeded expectations and provided his base with some much needed enthusiasm.  Across the board, conservatives offered what was uncharacteristically high praise for Romney.  Conservative Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol credited Romney with what he called the “Best Debate Performance By a GOP Presidential Candidate in More than Two Decades”.  Over at the American Conservative, Scott Galupo offered the following eloquent assessment;

President Obama was listless, exhausted, halting. When he should have been vigorously twisting the knife, he would pause, search for words, and take 15 seconds to make a point that should have taken five seconds. Romney, by contrast, was gamely and ultraprepared; he never once seemed caught off guard. Romney came into this debate knowing he needed to alter the dynamic of the race. If he didn’t do it tonight, then it couldn’t be done.

What it All Means

While last night’s debate has provided Mitt Romney with at least an undeniable but possibly only temporary boost , with 30 days left in the election, it cannot be said that this first of  three presidential debates changed the game for him or Obama.  Most people who watched the debate walked away supporting the same candidate that they were supporting before they sat do to see the debate.  Romney did however at least help himself among the small but significant undecided voters who will be critical to his winning or losing the election.  Thanks to the way in which Romney handled himself, these voters did walk away without any reason to vote against Romney.  If anything, they left the debate still willing to give Romney a chance to earn their vote.  At the same time, another portion of that voting bloc saw a President who was unable to effectively defend his failed economic policies and who struggled to define what role government should play in our lives.  Combine that with the confident, poised, energetic, and convincing way in which Romney defended his own policies and these voters left the debate leaning closer to finalizing their support for Romney than at any other point in this election.

Still, despite the overwhelming consensus describing the first debate as a big win for Mitt Romney, at the moment the victory simply keeps him in the game.  It has provided the Romney campaign with a new narrative, one which gives his candidacy some much needed momentum.  But politics is dynamic, not static and as such Romney will have to work quite hard to keep the momentum flowing in his direction.  In addition to the need for a strong performance by his running mate Paul Ryan on October 11th in his debate against Vice President Blunder…I mean Biden,   Romney will also have to repeat his strong performance not just one more time but twice more in the the two debates yet to come on October 16th and October  22nd.  That will be a tall order, especially now that President Obama has learned that Mitt Romney is no pushover.

So Romney fans need to avoid the temptation to believe that last night was a game changer. When all is said and done and the benefit of hindsight allows us to analyze the entire election in retrospect, it could prove to be a so-called game changer but only if Romney can continue to outperform the President and not just in the debates.

As the remaining weeks of this campaign unfold, Romney must convince voters that he has a plan to turn our economy around and he must offer some details that demonstrates his vision includes much more than just the smoke and mirrors that President Obama’s 2008 “hope and change” campaign was based on.   After last night’s night debate Romney certainly has the opportunity to do that.

By Sunday, the first real in-depth polls based upon this debate will make their way into the public domain.  If those polls do not show at least some minimal change in Romney’s numbers in the right direction in critical states like Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire  than we will know that Romney has a bigger mountain to climb than some already think. If the numbers do show a swing towards Romney, than the pressure will still be on him as an Obama inspired target on his back gets bigger than ever.

Bookmark and Share

Al Gore and Friends Blame Obama’s Poor Debate Performance on the Altitude

  Bookmark and Share After spending more than 4 years  blaming everything on George Bush, the left, under the leadership of liberal icon Al Gore has now turned to a new scapegoat…. the altitude.  (See video below this post)

After last night’s tragically disappointing debate performance by the liberal messiah, President Barack Obama, Al Gore claimed took the opportunity to to use his obscure, irrelevant, and barely watched cable network, Current TV, to the high altitude of Denver, the locations of last night’s debate, for President Obama’s losing debate performance.  Gore predicates his charge by making it clear that his opinion will be a controversial one but not so according to the cast of clowns gathered around Gore on the panel, who all agreed that the altitude was certainly part of the President’s problem.

The unintended result of this theory is that if President Obama has a problem with high positions, than he obviously is not capable of holding the highest position in our nation.

Bookmark and Share

The Left Admits Romney Wins First Debate

It was a game changer. Romney cleaned Obama’s clock. Romney wins the night. It’s not debatable, Obama stumbles. What is so sweet about these opinions, crusaders, is that they are from the New York Times. And HuffPuff. And Politico. Left, Left and Left.

CNN, running a post-debate poll reported a 67% to 25% Romney win.

At the New York Times, Michael Goodwin wrote, “When it came to defending his record, Obama resorted to filibusters that moderator Jim Lehrer was too willing to tolerate. As though his handlers were whispering in his ear, the president trotted out his favorite campaign clichés: millionaires and billionaires, oil companies corporate jets, fair share, fair shot. It was all stale stuff.”

Bill Maher — i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter

Michael Goodwin again, “As for specifics, I have no more idea what Obama would do in a second term than I did before the debate.”

“They know they lost tonight,” said NBC News’ Chuck Todd.

Joy Behar of The View — “Obama blew it. I hate to say it but Romney was lying and Obama didn’t hit him on it.”

Here is Left-lunatic extraordinaire, Chris Matthews, in all his glory.

The best part is the pathetic Obama performance wasn’t missed by the supreme ruler’s subjects either. Have some fun today, crusaders, and read some post comments at Politico, HuffPuff, the NY Times or any Left-leaning publication of your choice. Here’s a few to get your engine started.

Raw6464 — The man is a typical wimpy Democrat. After the debacle of last night I hope his staff will light a fire under his ass because one more debate loss and he’ll be a one term president…The thought of Romney choosing the next 4 Supreme Court Justices scares the shit out of me. If and when that day happens, the Right Wing will rule the world.

Jill — Was so depressing to watch that I turned it off after the first 45 minutes.

Slangwhang — OBAMA FAILED…..THE ECONOMY! THE COUNTRY! AMERICA

Balthasar — Obama looked tired to me; seemed to be having trouble keeping his eyes open as Mitt delivered his closing argument.

MileHiDem — Obama is still blazing in the polls and one debate won’t change it much, perhaps a little.

The Apostate — More debates coming, but Mitt will most likely take a lead in the polls over this debacle.

Donealready1 — This IS Obama without a teleprompter. He has been protected by everyone and this time, he was on his own. We finally got a glimpse of the true Obama……disaster

JaxSax1 — Wake up call to Obama. Yeah you are a nice guy. NOW FREAKING STOP IT. Stand up and punch back because this election was yours to lose.

Enjoy!

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net

Three Presidential Debates and One Vice Presidential Debate Are Set for 2012

 Bookmark and Share  The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), has today announced the schedule, formats, and locations of the public debates that will pit the presidential and vice presidential candidates against one another in the 2012 election.

According to CPD co-chairmen Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, there will be three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate and each will last 90 minutes and begin at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.   They will be moderated by a single individual and while each debate will not allow opening statements by the candidates, they will feature two-minute closing statements.

The schedule is as follows:

The first presidential debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

The first and only Vice Presidential debate which will take place in Danville, Kentucky’s Center University will discuss both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.

The second presidential debate will differ from the other two by featuring a town hall format that will have questions on both foreign and domestic policy, asked by undecided voters who are selected by the Gallup Organization.  In this forum, the presidential candidates will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion.

The final presidential debate will be dedicated to foreign policy and it’s format will be identical to that of the first debate.

As for additional details, the CPD has recommended that the candidates be seated at a table with the moderator in each of the debate except for the town hall style forum at Hofstra University.  As for the all important question of who the moderators will be, the CPD states that those individuals “will be selected and announced in August.”

While politics has become more of a forum for soundbites than substance, these debates may provide voters with the opportunity to get at least a better understanding of the candidates that attend them.  While each presidential and vice presidential nominee will undoubtedly respond to questions with well tested phrases or points that are chock filled with well rehearsed statistics and jargon, these debates will most likely be more important for the opinions that voters establish based upon the rare, unscripted moments that these debates often offer.

Who can forget when in 1992, President George H.W. Bush looked at as his wrist watch and left the viewing audience with the impression that he was uninterested in the process.  In a campaign where his Democrat opponent was doing his best to paint Bush as out of touch, Bush’s little look at at his watch seemed to simply confirm the point.

Or how about the 1976 debate gaffe of incumbent President Gerald Ford who during a debate with Jimmy Carter, claimed “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” Taken back by the obviously false statement, he moderator, Max Frankel of the New York Times, incredulously responded , “I’m sorry, what? … Did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a communist zone?”  The answer to that question should have been “No, I meant to suggest that the people of Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia may physically endure the heavy hand of Soviet intrusiveness, the Soviets have not won the hearts and minds of those people, freedom loving people who seek to themselves of Soviet interference. However; Ford refused to back down from his original statement, and insisted  that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia were free from Soviet interference.

The results in that election were so close, that many have logically concluded that Ford’s debate gaffe about Soviet domination probably cost him the win.

In 2012, these debates could make or break the election for one candidate or the other, especially since the extreme political polarization that exists in most states will allow a handful of voters in approximately 6 states to probably determine who will win.  That means that the wrong move or the slightest slip of the tongue in these debates could easily change the course of history.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: