White House 2012 is Now White House 2016 and We’ve Moved to WhiteHouse16.com

Bookmark and Share   With our wounds licked since the victory of President Obama in November, White House 2012 has moved on and is now looking towards the future with White House 2016.

The new home for the old blog is now WhiteHouse16.com.

There you will find a redesigned website with new features such as a White House 2016 chat service that will enable readers to debate among themselves and the contributors to White House 2016.

While White House 2016 will continue to focus on the evolving race for the White House in 2016, we will also continue to bring you news, commentary, and analysis on the important political issues of the day.

White House 2012 has been covering politics from a conservative perspective now for over two years and great success.  We look forward to continuing our efforts with you, the readers in, the years to come.  So please visit us at and subscribe to us at our new web address;

http://whitehouse16.com/

Also “Like” us on Facebook at

http://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse2016

and follow us on Twitter at

https://twitter.com/GOPwh2016

Bookmark and Share

Congratulations President Obama. So Now What?

Bookmark and Share  As of 11:45 pm, with Ohio called for the Obama-Biden ticket, while the states of Virginia, and Florida remain too close to call, President Obama has received 290 electoral votes and secured himself a second term in the White House.  For myself, as Editor-in-Chief of White House 2012, I am quite humbled and even embarrassed by the wide disparity in the projections which I presented, and the actual results.  And as an American I am disappointed.  I am disappointed by the fact that our nation will be hindered by a spender-in-chief who has done his best to change the American way instead of doing his best to preserve the American way.

Yet despite the disappointment and even the fear over another four years of Barack Obama, I remain cautiously optimistic that not even Barack Obama can destroy what it means to be an American.  This nation is greater than any one person and it is not defined by any one man.  So while I have lost some faith in the political process, I have not lost any faith in our nation.

Now it is up to President Obama to deal with the divisions in our nation… divisions which I firmly believe he has largely been responsible for.  His divide and conquer strategy of class warfare and his attempts to pit Americans against each other in order to win reelection, now puts him in the unenviable position of having to bridge the existing divide.  His inability to do so will make his victory a hollow one and the mission of his next four years as President impossible.

Not only does Barack Obama become the first President reelected with a smaller Electoral College vote than he was elected with, he also faces an an American electorate and Congress that is probably more divided than it has ever been since the Civil War.  After orchestrating one of the most divisive and empty campaigns in recent history, how he will pivot and try to create goodwill will be interesting.  And even more interesting will be how quickly he can do it because he  must work fast.  With a fiscal cliff only weeks away, true leadership is required.  His lack of leadership has brought us to this cliff and so far there is no indication that it will be able to avoid it.   But hope springs eternal.

So tonight I congratulate our President.  His campaign put together a brilliant ground game.  His Party increased its margins in the U.S. Senate.  And except for a loss of seats in the House of Representatives and possibly even the popular vote, he won and there is no denying it.  But did America win?  And what does his victory mean?  Will it mean more of the same that has gotten us into an economic crisis so severe that it is considered a national security threat?

I don’t know the answers to these questions but I do know that President Obama’s win tonight leaves us with more questions than answers and more uncertainty than certainty.

Bookmark and Share

First Exit Polls in Ohio Show It May Be Tough Going for Romney

Some of the first exit polls being released by Fox are showing that Romney is winning working class whites by 55% to President Obama’s 43%.

While  exit polls usually underestimate trends, if Romney was on a clear path to winning the Buckeye State’s 18 electoral votes, these numbers should be better for him.  These early figures are by no means conclusive but if anything they confirm that the race is close.  A clear sign that Romney was headed to a victory in Ohio would be that he was winning this demographic by at least 15%.  He is not far off that mark and as indicated previously, these numbers are probably understating Governor Romney’s lead with this demographic.  But so far, depending upon which side of the aisle you’re in. all signs are that the election may be too close for comfort for Republicans or Democrats.
Bookmark and Share

Key Early Counties To Watch Tonight For Signs of How the Election Will Go

  Bookmark and Share   If the election turns out to be as close as predicted in the battleground states, many states will not be called for one candidate or the other for hours.  In the case of one of the most critical swing states… Virginia, although polls close there at 7 pm EST, if exit polls from throughout the day and actual returns are very close, we may not know who won till maybe 10:30 pm … some 3 and a half hours after polls have closed.

But signs of who may ultimately win the presidential election can still be found by looking at the returns of several key counties in a handful of early states.  Here are some of the counties in the earliest state closings of the evening which typically act as electoral bellwethers, and what to look for to get an idea as to how things are shaping up for Romney and the President.

7 p.m. Eastern – VIRGINIA:

  • Prince William County

2004: Bush 53–47     2008: Obama 58-42

Obama 93,386 to McCain 67,589

If Prince William County shows Mitt Romney trailing Barack Obama, Romney is in trouble.  If he trails the President by more than 2% here, he probably will have no chance of winning Virginia and he will probably be underperforming in many other battleground states.

  • Loudoun County

Obama 54-46

Obama 74,607 to McCain 63,328

Romney needs to reverse these numbers if he is going to win Virginia.  If he can not trounce President Obama in Loudoun County, he can not win the presidential election.

7:30 p.m. Eastern – OHIO

These counties will help tell us if President Obama is underperforming. In order for President Obama to be on track to win Ohio, he must produce pluralities that are large enough to discount the pluralities that Mitt Romney will receive on other counties.  If the President is not beating Romney in these counties by  30% or more in Cuyahoga, 25% or more in Franklin and Lucas counties, and 5% or more in Hamilton County, than he is in trouble.

  • Cuyahoga (Cleveland):

2004: Kerry 448,503 vs. Bush 221,600 (+226,903);

2008: Obama 458,422 vs. McCain 199,880 (+258,542) (69-30)

  • Franklin (Columbus):

2004: Kerry 285,801 vs. Bush 237,253 (+48,548);

2008: Obama 334,709 vs. McCain 218,486 (+116,223) (59-40)

  • Hamilton (Cincinnati):

2004: Bush 222,616 vs. Kerry 199,679 (+22,937); Bush 52.5 – 47

2008: Obama 225,213 vs. McCain 195,530 (+29,683) Obama 52-47

  • Lucas (Toledo):

2004 Kerry 132,715 vs. Bush 87,160 (+45,555);

2008: Obama 142,852 vs. McCain 73,706 (+69,146) (65-34)

8 p.m. Eastern : FLORIDA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, PENNSYLVANIA

FLORIDA:

  • Pinellas County

2004: Bush 49.6 – 49.5           2008: Obama 54 – 45

If Obama is to have any chance in Florida, he must come within at least 5 percentage points of Mitt Romney.  The President will not need to be ahead of Romney here, but if he can limit Romney’s lead in Pinellas County, the President will be underperforming and is not likely to see him defeat Romney in the final numbers.

  • Hillsborough County

2004: Bush 53 – 46     2008: Obama 53 – 46

If he is to be competitive in The Sunshine State, Romney needs to produce at least a 5% plurality over the President in Hillsborough and that is cutting is close.  To really feel confident about which way Florida will go, Romney should optimally lead Obama by as much as 8%.

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

  • Hillsborough County

2004: Bush 51 – 48     2008: Obama 51 – 48

If we get news that Romney or Obama are leading the other by 3% or more here, it may not be an accurate measure of national trends and the final popular vote but it will certainly be a sign of which way New Hampshire will go.

PENNSYLVANIA:

  • Chester County

2004: Bush 52 – 47.5  2008: Obama 54 – 45

Romney needs to take Chester County by 7% or more if he is to win Pennsylvania.  Anything less than that will make the race too close to call and likely a win for President Obama.

  • Bucks County (Philly Suburbs, north)

Obama 54-45

178,345 to 149,860

If Romney has any chance to win Pennsylvania, he needs to win Bucks County or hold President Obama to a 4% lead or less.

  • Delaware County (immediately southwest of Philly city)

Obama 60-38

170,949 to 109,766

President Obama will be in trouble if he does not win Delaware County by at least 55%.

  • Montgomery County (northwest of Philly)

Obama 60-39

249,493 to 163,030

If President Obama does not see at least a 10% lead over Mitt Romney here, than the race in Pa will be too close for comfort for him.

  • Westmoreland County (Pittsburgh suburbs)

McCain 58-42

96,786 to 69,004

Romney needs to win this County by 15% or more to be in the running for Pennsylvania’s electoral votes.

Stars01.gif picture by kempite

For a detailed look at signs to look for on election night and poll closing times, visit White House 2012’s Election Night Guide

Below the poll closing times you will find a White House 2012 timeline which includes when each state will probably be projected for Governor Romney or President Obama and it also provides an estimated running total of the Electoral College that each candidate probably will have at the top and bottom of each hour.

Bookmark and Share

NY Daily News Endorsement of Romney is a Clear Sign that Obama’s Base Has Eroded

   “The presidential imperative of the times is to energize the economy and get  deficits under control to empower the working and middle classes to again enjoy  the fruits of an ascendant America. So The News is compelled to stand with Romney.”

Bookmark and Share   And with that, the traditionally liberal oriented Daily News which endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2012.

The endorsement is probably meaningless in terms of its effect on the final result in the election, especially the expected result in New York City which The Daily News covers. Few if any committed voters in the New York tri-state area will be changing their minds based upon this endorsement.  First of all, millions of people in this area are homeless, or without power and busy throwing their belongings in to garbage bags and dragging them to the curb as they try to salvage their flooded homes.  So many of them are not seeing or hearing about the endorsement and those that might, probably won’t be convinced to change their minds because of it.   But while the endorsement may not make a difference, it is still an important verdict.    It is further evidence of a national sentiment which is not being accurately measured in most state and national polls.

Polls which are basing their results on the 2008 turnout models are giving President Obama an overwhelming and undue edge by assuming that voters are as excited by and as enthusiastic with Barack Obama as they were in 2008.  That model does not accurately gauge the sentiments of voters who four years later are disappointed by Barack Obama and as seen in the opinion of the liberal editorial board of the Daily News, that disappointment even exists among the President’s base.

Ultimately, an incumbent can not run away from their record.  President Obama has done his very best to run away and hide from it, but like his own shadow, he has not been able to distance himself from it.  And it is that record which The Daily News based its decision on.

The Daily News dedicated more than half of their editorial outlining the failures in President Obama’s record, including his two centerpiece legislative agenda items… the economic stimulus packages and Obamacare.  And when it comes to the promised hope and change that Barack Obama rode to victory in 2008, The Daily News points out that very little changed and hope under Barack Obama has become a distant memory.  This point is made most apparent in their describing the process that Obama used to pass healthcare reform as a partisan mess.

The Daily News put it this way;

“R.I.P. and never to be resurrected — Obama’s promised bipartisanship.”

Meanwhile, the editorial board of the News did not base their decision entirely upon a desire to vote against Barack Obama.  In their editrorial they offered numerous reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.  They write;

“Critically, he has tailored his policies to create jobs, jobs, jobs.

The centerpieces of Romney’s plan call for spending restraint and rewriting  the Internal Revenue code to lower rates by 20%. He would make up much of the  lost revenue by eliminating deductions and loopholes that have made the tax  system a thicket of strangling complexities. On its own, paring the personal and  corporate rules to the basics would catalyze business and consumer spending.”

The endorsement goes on to praise Romney for his energy plan, Medicare proposals, immigration strategy.  In other words, even The Daily News sees Romney as candidate solid enough to vote for and not as a protest vote against Barack Obama.

No, the Daily News endorsement won’t change the minds of many voters and possibly not even any voters at all.  But with two days to go till the election, it doesn’t matter.  As demonstrated by the liberal Daily News, even the President’s base is finding it hard to honestly say that the last four years have been a success and they finding it even harder to say that another four years of the same will be any more succesful.   Most moderates, independents, Libertarians, Republicans and conservative have known that for quite some time now.  But it is becoming more and more obvious that even many Democrats and liberals are accepting that.  Such is not a recipe for victory for Barack Obama.  It is a winning formula for Mitt Romney

The polls are not picking up on those conclusions.  Instead the liberal hacks and leftist manipulators of numbers like Nate Silver over a the New York Times are trying to convince us that Mitt Romney has about an only 20% chance of winning.  If they truly believe that, than they are far less intelligent than I have until now known liberals to be.

More realistic indications of the national sentiment are reflected by those like Michael Barone, one of the most prominent and less partisan political analysts in the nation.  Barone projects a Romney win in the Electoral College with 315 electoral votes.   White House 2012’s own projection is close to Barone’s, with two exceptions.  While Barone projects Romney will take Pennsylvania and lose Nevada, White House 2012 believes Romney will take Nevada but lose Pennsylvania.  We will defer to Barone’s expertise on the issue but a more likely outcome is that the Romney-Ryan ticket will win neither Pennsylvania or Nevada.  But fear not.  Such a result would still produce a Romney victory in the Electoral College with 295 electors. Of course if this is the landslide that both Michael Barone and White House believe we are headed towards, Governor Romney could win both and seal the deal with a 321 to 217 Electoral College win.

Either way, the writing is on the wall.  The momentum remains behind Mitt Romney in these closing days of the campaign and as President Obama continues to wreak of desperation on the campaign trail, a cool and confident Mitt Romney is seeming more and more and presidential on the campaign trail as he continues to win over over undecided voters and energize his base.

So while The Daily News endorsement of Mitt Romney will not change the outcome of the election, it confirms that there exists a negative sentiment of President Obama that has even spilled over to liberal partisans who despite trying quite hard to find any excuse to support their ideological standardbearer, can’t find any.

Bookmark and Share

Critical Reminders Before You Vote

In a society that offers a 24/7/365 news cycle, four years is a long time. Indeed, for most of us, Obama’s first term has been an eternity. Before Tuesday’s epic election, all citizens should take some time and consider carefully the vote they will cast. With that in mind, and in hopes of sparking your memory, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane. Here are a few things that happened during Obama’s first term.

Let’s start where Obama started — healthcare. Remember the dirty deeds involved with the passage of Obamacare? It was truly a low in American politics. There was the Corn-husker Kickback. There was liberal demi-god, Dennis Kucinich, basically saying — even though I’m against it, I’m for it. Of course, political favors will change even a demi-god’s mind. The late Arlen Spector claimed he was promised increased political clout for his vote but after providing it, he got shafted. Think about that for a minute. Spector was a Republican that jumped to the Democrats. He was a turncoat. Yet once the liberals got his vote, they slit his throat. That’s how dirty this deal got.

Do you recall the stupid sales pitch that Obama-care made fiscal sense? The math wizards used 10 years of revenues versus just six years of expenses for that dandy. How about San Fran Nan’s insightful nugget about how Obama-care had to be passed before the people can see what’s in it? As if it was a present waiting under the tree. Crafty one, she is. Little did we know the pretty paper and ribbon was hiding incomparable tax hikes and bureaucratic death panels. Is it starting to come back you?

The Obamacare circus was an insanely partisan environment. Not one Republican in the Senate voted for it. The House of Representatives has had 33 votes to repeal it. The citizenry was so rip-shit when it passed, that numerous Democrats that supported the bill were voted out during the mid-term elections of 2010. By the way, demi-god Denny got changed out too – he lost his seat at the table earlier this year.

But politicians aren’t the only thing that has changed—so has the price tag. Obamacare was originally said to be a $900 billion pursuit. The last analysis came in at over $2.6 trillion. Ultimately, it is a massively huge tax hike. But we have to have a massively huge tax hike because the $700 billion Obama stole from Medicare just isn’t enough to fund it.

Obamacare is a bad law rammed through by liberal-progressive zealots and it is filled with political poison. Consider that retiring Democrats, as if giving their last confession, have spoken out against it. So bad is Obama-care, unions and businesses that support Democrats demanded exemptions from it. Which, of course, they were given because you can’t jeopardize those campaign contributions, now can you? Obamacare has forced businesses to stop hiring and halt expansion. Numerous states have revolted against it because they are revolted by it. All of this is not anti-Obamacare spin. This is documented reality. In June, Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling basically told us that to rid ourselves of Obamacare, we must rid ourselves of Obama. Well, that time has arrived.

But there are many more sweet memories to cherish from Obama’s first term. It’s well known that Obama has violated the constitution numerous times. Legal scholars have been crying foul almost from his inauguration day. He stands at the podium and talks of love of country but undermines or ignores his constitutional responsibilities. His two-faced behavior was never more evident than when, after blathering on and on about his grave concerns regarding the law, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As a reminder, this law allows the president, on just his say, to target American citizens for detention and hold them indefinitely or to actually have them killed. Incidentally, Obama signed this law under cover of New Year’s eve and a holiday. Political cowardice? You tell me.

This is a president that has made illegal appointments during congressional recess, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and has directed the DOJ not to enforce laws on the books. If you do your research, you will find that some scholars rate George Bush’s constitutional behavior as quite poor. You will also find that others feel Obama’s record is worse. Combine these two presidential terms and we have twelve years of presidential government that routinely violates the constitution. If nothing else, Obama needs to be fired to send the message to future presidents that this will not stand. Dictators and tyrants be warned. The citizens have had enough of constitutional violations, unresponsive government and political corruption.

And speaking of corruption—we have Solyndra, Energy Conversion Devices, Raser Technologies and numerous other “green” businesses that have put us in the red. Obama gave political friends truck loads of cash that has ended in hundreds of billions in losses to American tax payers. There is also the on-going Delphi Pension scandal where, as part of the auto bailout, non-union workers lost huge chunks of their pensions while the pensions of union workers went untouched. Does Obama plays favorites?

And some of his favorites are dangerous. He grants government access to individuals and organizations that have been determined by a court of law to support terrorism. The propaganda press hides it from us. But it is true. What is also true is that scandals involving money and political favoritism are one thing. Scandals that result in the deaths of Americans are something else.

Operation Fast and Furious cost Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry his life. And the killing of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata is also suspected to be the result of a Fast and Furious gun. This scandal remains unresolved because the supreme ruler claimed executive privilege to stop the investigation. Could it have reached him? It seems likely. And of course we have the Benghazi consulate attack.

There were four Americans killed in Libya on September 11th when the US consulate was attacked by men armed with guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars. These details were included in the very first news reports. Yet, instead of standing tall and assuming responsibility as a real leader would, Obama shunned accountability. He misled the American people by claiming the assault was the result of disgruntled protestors upset by an insignificant and amateurish anti-Muslim video.

The details continue to trickle in but to date we know the administration knew almost from the start that the attack was preplanned. We know that personnel within the consulate sent numerous requests for additional protection well in advance of the attack. All of these requests were denied. We also know some security personnel, as the attack was unfolding, were inexplicably ordered to stand down. They didn’t. They fought and ultimately gave their lives to protect others. Meanwhile, tucked safely away in Washington, Obama and his administration have displayed shameful behavior. Clearly, if Obama intentionally misled the public he should be fired. And if you negate malicious intent, then the incompetence displayed by Obama to protect Americans are the grounds for his dismissal.

But there are other gems that should be considered before you vote. For instance, the country’s credit rating was down-graded under Obama’s watch. The first and only time this has occurred. Recall the debt ceiling battles when House Speaker John Boehner said an agreement was reached but then fell apart because Obama moved the goal posts. And even after changing the game, it was Obama that walked from the table, like a spoiled child taking his ball and running home.

Obama has proven himself to be among the most, if not the most, anti-business president in the history of the country. Statements like you didn’t build that and the economy is doing fine are more demonstrative of his disdain for business and capitalism than they are verbal miscues.

It is no secret that the supreme ruler has decided that he—not private industry—should determine America’s energy future. He has created a militaristic EPA that takes more pride in shutting down power plants than working to plan out a realistic future for America. Contrary to his debate lies, he has severely restricted oil permits for drilling. He also rejected the Keystone pipeline. His “green” agenda has closed hundreds of coal plants. This has forced t he price of energy up but worse, it has destroyed the lives of thousands of citizens that rely on the coal industry. And as you know, when plants and coal mines close the restaurants, stores and other small businesses supported by them start to suffer. It is a Domino Effect that can destroy towns. West Virginia in particular has been hammered mercilessly. The pain within West Virginia is so acute and the bitterness is so severe they gave almost half of their Democratic primary votes to a convicted criminal rather than Obama. Hopefully, on November 6th, with your help, they will see a light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

But his wrath is not just directed at oil and coal. Any business is fair game. Recall the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) brought suit against Boeing because it wanted to build a “non-union” factory in South Carolina. It is just coincidence that after Boeing gave a machinists union a new four-year contract extension the NLRB dropped the case? Gibson Guitar Corp., a guitar manufacturer owned by a Republican contributor, was targeted, raided and its assets confiscated. After months of legal hearings and business interruption, the case was dropped. Gibson was fined $350,000 big ones and spent some $2 million defending itself. Who knows how much money they lost in sales. Lawsuits against businesses and states are a regular tactic used by Obama to get his way. You can look all this up.

His goal is to grow government, not business. His goal is to expand entitlements, not the American economy. He bad mouths the rich implying they all cheated to make their money. He is a classic tax and spend guy that will fund anything with other people’s money as long as it buys him a vote. His approach to leveling the playing field is not to raise people up. Rather, it is to force people down. Romney promotes the idea that he wants to help make everyone rich. Obama seeks a level playing field where everyone is poor. His spread the wealth philosophy is really spread the pain.

Every budget year credited to Obama has had a $1 trillion deficit. That is a staggering and horrifying situation. Try to name anyone working anywhere in any field that would retain his or her job after spending $1 trillion more than was brought in. Obama has done it year after year after year. Obama submitted a 2012 budget and it was rejected 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate. In April, a proposal based upon an Obama 2013 budget plan lost in the House 414-0. His spending is out of control. Just for kicks, inform the government you can’t pay your taxes because you over-spent last year and see how it responds. And adding $6 trillion to the federal deficit in just one presidential term is an insult to each and every American citizen that will have to pay it back. And their kids. And their grandkids. And their great-grandkids.

But he cares not. American citizens are not his priority. But because we can stop him from meeting his priorities, he hides his socialist agenda as best he can. He spins stories and tells partial truths because if most of America knew what he was really up to, he would be out of a job faster than a West Virginia coal worker. And don’t think he doesn’t have an agenda. Remember, he got caught with an open-mic promising Russia “more flexibility” after he wins re-election. Ask yourself — if you have the courage — what else might he do after re-election? Another open mic incident let us know he true feelings toward Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, we really didn’t need this dose of reality as he has stuck it to Israel regularly during his first term. But it’s nice to have it on record.

Let’s see, what else is there? Obama allowed Seal Team Six operational details to be leaked to try to glorify himself. Perhaps worse, he gave information to a movie crew about the bin-Laden operation so his hero narrative could be captured on film. Think of it, Obama’s daring and personal courage captured on celluloid. No doubt, because Hollywood worships him, it will be an Academy Award winner. But unearned admiration is nothing new for the anointed one. After being elected he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for — well, just because. Obama’s ego and pursuit of celebrity has few limits. His remembrance tribute at the passing of a real American hero, Neal Armstrong, included a picture of himself, not Armstrong.

But no matter how handsome the smile, or how “cool” the persona, it is a facade. Barack Obama is about himself, not the country. His first term and his re-election campaign have demonstrated that he is a small, petty and selfish man. It is now openly discussed within political circles that Obama is a square. He rarely meets with members in his own party and virtually never meets with Republicans. Even now, Democratic politicians across the country are livid because he refuses to support down-ballot campaigns. We know his jobs council hasn’t met since January 17th and that he skips out on his Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB). In September, Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post wrote, “Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent.” Imagine going to your job, if you’re lucky enough to have one, and blowing off more than half your meetings. How long would you last? This man didn’t even take the time to prepare for his first debate. Is this the type of guy you want running the country?

What we need to remember about Obama before we vote is what we have learned about Obama during his first term. He is a skilled orator, a mediocre politician and a poor leader. He is a political provocateur, not a statesman. Please, do yourself, your loved ones, your neighbors and your country a favor, vote for Mitt Romney so we can toss the Obama administration on the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net 

Unions Impeding New Jersey’s Recovery From Hurricane Sandy

   Bookmark and Share  This is why unions suck.  As nearly a million people remain without power in storm ravaged New Jersey,  utility crews from throughout the country who have generously traveled to the Garden State to provide much needed assistance in the state’s recovery effort, have been told by crews in New Jersey that they can’t help because they are not union employees.

This is precisely why unions have become only slightly more popular than cancer.

While they once had a very necessary purpose that rightly protected the rights of workers, an endless array of federal and state laws have long since been enacted to serve that purpose and in most cases do.  However, nowadays unions are no longer fulfilling a need to protects workers rights, today they are serving the greed and desires of union bosses and mindless dues paying members who are more concerned with hoarding overtime pay for themselves than they are with the well being of the public who provide their salaries and whom they are suppose to be serving

Supporting this claim is the fact that here in New Jersey a utility crew from Huntsville Utilities out of Alabama was headed toward Seaside Heights, New Jersey, one of the hardest hit coastal communities to pounded by Hurricane Sandy.  But before they got there, New Jersey utility crews turned them away because their workers were non-union, and the New Jersey crews are only allowing unionized crews to assist.

If there was ever a better example of just how detrimental contemporary unions have become to our nation, this is it folks.

People are suffering here in New Jersey and yet unions are refusing to speed up the process that could at least alleviate some of that suffering because the people who are willing to help are not union members.

President Obama promised to do everything to make sure that no red tape got in the way of recovery efforts.  Well now is his chance to deliver on that promise.  Unions are in his back pocket.  The two are tighter than thieves when it comes to soaking the public for all their worth.  So perhaps now is a good time for the President to use his influence and denounce the reprehensible and irresponsible conduct of unions.  Because right now  his union buddies are strangling the millions of people in New Jersey suffering in the wake of Hurricane Sandy with the same red tape he promised to cut through.

And by the way, Governor Christie isn’t off the hook on this either.  His big mouth is more than large enough to address this issue loudly and clearly, and if he doesn’t… there is no reason why someone else can’t be given the Republican nomination for Governor next year.

Bookmark and Share

Secretary of Business: Romney Takes Advantage of Obama’s Socialist Mentality

  Bookmark and Share   President Obama recently indicated that if he wins a second term he would appoint a Secretary of Business.  For anyone who understands the legitimate roles that government and the free markets have in our republic, the comment was one which should be enough to demonstrate to them that this President truly is a socialist.   And while Mitt Romney has avoided the use of such descriptions of the President, he did not let the President’s ignorant idea go unanswered.  On Thursday he released a sharp 30 second ad that hammered President Obama for his government-centric vision. (see ad below)

The ad may not play well with President Obama’s hand-out loving, government control seeking, dim-witted, liberal base but there is no need for it to.  Mitt Romney was right when he once told a group of campaign donors that his campaign will never be able to convince those people that he is the better candidate for them or the nation.  But what this ad does do is appeal to Romney’s base, the group of voters who in these closing days of the campaign he must make sure are energized to come out and vote for him and against the President.  This ad does that.  It gives freedom loving people who want less government control, another example of just how antithetical Barack Obama is to that goal.   But more important than even Romney’s base, are the independent voters whom this ad appeals to.

Independent voters tend to be open to good government but apprehensive about more government.   They tend to be more interested in government doing what it is suppose to do properly, than giving government more things to do incorrectly.  Romney’s new ad, entitled “Secretary of Business” helps drive home the point that Barack Obama does not share that view with them.

In addition to the new ad, Romney has also taken that message to the campaign trail where today in Roanoke, Va, Romney told the audience;

“We don’t need a Secretary of Business to understand business, we need a President who understands business “.

  He added “and I do”.

Bookmark and Share

The Liberal Des Moines Register Turns Its Back On Obama and Endorses Romney for President

   Bookmark and Share   Not since Richard Nixon was running for reelection in 1972 has the The Des Moines Register endorsed a Republican for President.  But on Sunday, Iowa’s largest paper did just that after it concluded that Mitt Romney “offers a fresh economic vision”.  The conclusion was essentially arrived because of the opinion that Romney’s business and executive background made him the best candidate to”unlock this nation’s economic potential.”

Despite endorsing the promise of Barack Obama’s hope and change in 2008, in their 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney, the liberal leaning editorial staff of the Des Moines wrote;

“Voters should give Mitt Romney a chance to correct the nation’s fiscal course and to implode the partisan gridlock that has shackled Washington and the rest of America — with the understanding that he would face the same assessment in four years if he does not succeed,”

While I doubt that any newspaper endorsements actually changes the minds of any significant number of voters, the important element regarding the endorsement of Romney by a liberal based editorial board is that is shows clear evidence  of the fact that even a portion of the President’s liberal base recognize that there is no denying that President Obama’s  failed record and policies do not warrant him a second term in the White House.

From the endorsement:

Ten months ago this newspaper endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president. An overarching consideration was which of the party’s candidates could we see occupying the White House, and there was no question that Romney was qualified for the job.

Now, in the closing days of the general election campaign, the question is which of the two contenders deserves to be the next president of the United States.

Both President Barack Obama and Governor Romney are superbly qualified. Both are graduates of the Harvard University Law School who have distinguished themselves in government, in public service and in private life. Both are devoted husbands and fathers.

American voters are deeply divided about this race. The Register’s editorial board, as it should, had a vigorous debate over this endorsement. Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation’s single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands.

Meanwhile as The Des Moines Register broke it’s 40 year long streak of rubber stamping liberal presidents,  The New York Times unsurprisingly endorsed the President today, thereby extending their unbroken string of endorsements for Democratic candidates to 56 years.

Bookmark and Share

Is It Over for President Obama?

   Bookmark and Share  My years of awareness in regards to presidential politics goes back to Nixon when as I was all of 8 years old and remember Richard Nixon leaving the White House in disgrace.  From there I remember how Gerald Ford fought but failed to win his own full term in office as President.  And then came 1980 when Ronald Reagan sparked my political interest in a way that led to my own dedication to public policy and politics.  Since then I have seen President’s rise and plummet in the polls.  I remember seeing George H.W. Bush go from a popularity rating in the upper eighties in 1991, to losing the election in the Electoral College in a landslide in 1992.  I have witnessed Bill Clinton fall from grace and rise back to iconoclastic popularity.  But never before have I seen a presidential election where a supposedly very popular President saw his reelection unravel quite as quickly as Barack Obama’s has been seeing in the last month.

Evidence of this became overwhelmingly obvious as over the past few days we have seen polls show a decided shift to Mitt Romney among voters nationally.  Since the beginning of the month we have found that among military voters, Romney has a 2 to 1 margin over the President.  We also understand that the Jewish vote which traditionally supports Democrats is being won by Mitt Romney over the President.  New polls also show that Barack Obama’s once 18 point lead over Romneyamong womern has evaporated and today we learn that Mitt Romney has a 19% lead over Barack Obama among independents, the swing voters whose decisions usually determine the winner in any given election.

But in addition to signs of a tide against Barack Obama turning in to a tidal wave that threatens to drown any chance of his getting reelected, we are seeing a President who acts more and more desperate as we approach Election Day.

Instead of demonstrating how presidential he is, Barack Obama is doing an endless tour of late night talk shows from Jon Stewart to Jay Leno as  our President avoids any hard news outlets in favor of low brow, pop culture entertainment programs.   Then when he is not sitting aside TV personalities discussing his favorite color, he is on the campaign trail discussing little things such as Mitt Romney’s unwillingness to provide Big Bird with a taxpayer funded government handout.  And as we listen to his references to binders and Big Bird and hear about our President claiming to reporters that even six year old children can see Mitt Romney is a “bullshitter”, Americans can’t help but be struck by how truly unpresidential our President has become.

Meanwhile, as the pressure of the election continues to get to the President and reveal the flaws in this once messianic figure of the liberal lore, we are not hearing anything about the 24 million Americans out of work and how he will get them back to work.  We are not hearing anything about the national debt that is now so burdensome it is considered a national security risk.  And speaking of national security we are also not hearing anything about the national security scandal and coverup surrounding the tragic events in Benghazi, Libya.  No, the President refuses to honestly tell us what he knew or when knew it.  He refuses to explain to us why he tried to deny the events in Benghazi were terrorist attacks, even though the evidence shows he did know it was.  Our President refuses to even explain how he never knew that al Qaeda, the terrorist group the President has admitted is our greatest threat in thew world, was establishing itself in Libya after our Ambassador to Libya made the white House aware of that fact in messages sent for as long as two months.

Then this morning I heard from someone who is not running for President.  A man whose only real political activity consists of fulfilling his civic responsibility of making an educated vote.  His name is Charles Woods and he is the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack. New evidence revealed that Tyrone Woods and the others in the consulate who were killed during the attack, had been pleading for help and the requests were denied.  To this issue Tyrone’s father spoke out.  Charles Woods wants answers.  The revelation did nothing to console the broken hear of father who lost his son. Instead it merely served as a more heartbreak as we are all left wondering who decided to not send in the troops who could have helped save his son and the three other assassinated Americans.  Instead Charles Woods son was left to defend our Ambassador and two other Americans on his own while fighting for his life.

Nothing else matters more than the answers to that right now.  Yet our President is now finishing up a an appearance on MTV after a 48 hour campaign tour that can only be described as a denial tour… denial of the failing economy, denial of no plan to create jobs or cutting our deficit.  Denial of all accountability for every aspect of the failed Obama record, including denials about the facts involving Benghazi.  It is time for our President to take a deep breath and get control of himself.  As our current Commander-In-Chief we need Benghazi explained and the mistakes that allowed Benghazi to come to fruition corrected so that it does not happen again.  We cannot go another day wondering if the pleas for help of another American serving their nation are falling on the deaf ears of a White House and President concerned more with getting virgins to vote for the President than he is with saving the lives of Americans.

So far our President is doing what he does best… avoiding the issue.  Our President refuses to explain any of this.  Instead we are being offered reasons to vote for him based upon sex, false accusations, and promises to deliver in the next four years what he couldn’t deliver in the past four.

While it is premature to suggest the election is over, based upon the more than obvious unravelling of the Obama presidency it is not premature to predict that President Obama is currently on a trajectory that is plummeting to ground faster than a rain drops pouring from the clouds.  And it is not too early to suspect that we are witnessing the makings of the most surprising landslide victory of any challenger to an incumbent President since Reagan overwhelmed Carter.  But more than four years ago, I did predict that Barack Obama was going to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter.  Unfortunately I was wrong.  While Carter’s was a failed presidency, he was not the evil, conniving, liar-in-chief that Barack Obama clearly is.

Bookmark and Share

New Emails Reveal That The White House Knew Far More About Benghazi Than They Admit

   Bookmark and Share  Within at least two and a half hours  of the attack that killed our Ambassador and three other Americans at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House was told that Ansar al-Shariat, an Al Qaeda linked group of militants were taking credit for the attack.

No more than 2 and half hours after the attack, an email  identifying the group claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack was sent to  several locations, including The White House Situation Room, where President Obama was being made aware of the details as the tragedy unfolded.

According to Reuters news agency, the emails specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had taken responsibility for the attacks. In addition to these emails being dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center the White House Situation Room, they also went to offices in the Pentagon, within the intelligence community, and the FBI,.  All on the afternoon of September 11.

Below you will find copies of the actual missives. The names of the individual recipients of the emails are redacted.

The first email, contains the  subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,”.  It was sent at 4:05 PM, approximately 25 minutes after the attack began.  It describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.

Click on the image for a larger version

The second email was sent at 4:54 PM and it states that the shooting has stopped and the compound was cleared.  It further states that a response team was “onsite attempting to locate COM personnel.”

Click on the image for a larger version

The third email, was sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time and had the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

Click on the image for a larger version

These documents were released from government sources who are reportedly not connected to any U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity.  So as is the case with most everything we have been learning about the events leading up to and following the attacks in Benghazi, the facts contained in these documents were not released by the White House.  Nevertheless, these facts do contradict just about everything the White House has been saying about what they knew and when they knew it.  And it especially points to attempts by the White House to cover-up the fact that this was terrorist attack, a description which both the Obama White House and Obama reelection team refused to admit to out of fear that it would be get in the way of the President’s reelection chances.

These emails now cast more doubt on the Administration then ever before.  They reveal that the White House knew that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack even though they spent more than two weeks claiming that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video that was placed online back in July.  This now makes it hard for anyone not to be suspicious of what else the White House and the President knew.  So far, both the President and Vice President claimed to have not known of two months worth of warnings from Ambassador Chris Stevens about al Qaeda gaining strength in Eastern Libya and of his requests for additional security.  If true there is scandal in just the fact that this information never made its way to the Commander-in-Chief.  If it is not true, and he did know of those developments, than our Commander-In-Chief is absolutely incompetent and directly responsibly for allowing the events that killed Ambassador Stevens and three others to have gotten as far as they did.  But no matter how you look at it, right now there is either one scandal or two.  Are we left with a scandal dealing with an intolerable level of incompetence that killed our Americans in Benghazi, or are we left with one scandal regarding incompetence and another scandal regarding an attempt to cover-up the first scandal?

Bookmark and Share

Is Barack Obama Really a Good Friend to Israel? See the Video

   Bookmark and Share   While Mitt Romney did a good job in the last presidential debate, there was one thing I really think he was remiss in not pointing out.  When the topic of Israel came up, the Governor should have mentioned the unprecedented proposal that President Obama made in 2011 when he told Israel to adopt its 1967 borders. (See the video at the bottom of this post)

With all the attempts by President Obama to claim that he has established the strongest relationship with Israel of any previous President, there are many facts which contradict that claim. Between his refusal to ever visit Israel during his entire term in office, his recent refusal to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while Bebe was visiting the U.S. last month, and a history of Obama snubbing the Prime Minister on many occasions prior to that, it is clear that the American relationship with Israel is not as warm and close as it has been under previous presidents. But one of the most egregious acts against Israel committed by President Obama was his attempt to have Israel return to its indefensible 1967 borders.   It is a point which has not gotten the attention that it should in this election but for good reason, it must.

By trying to have Israel return it’s pre-1967 borders, President Obama was providing Arab states and the Palestinians with the ability to launch ground and missile attacks on the Jewish state with ease.  As explained in this video, a return to those borders would make it impossible for Israel to effectively defend itself against the enemies who surround them and have a great capacity to exploit added opportunities to launch ground and missile attacks.  Yet this is the position that Barack Obama proposed one of closest allies in the world to put themselves in.

During the last presidential debate, Mitt Romney had multiple chances to remind voters of this major Obama foreign policy initiative. And he should have.  At one point Romney reminded voters about Obama’s the apology tour to the Middle East he went on when first coming to office.  Governor Romney reminded us that while the President took the opportunity to fly to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq, he skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region.  It was around then that Romney should have at some point pivoted to President Obama’s 1967 border proposal by adding that while he has apologized to audiences that consisted of our enemies, he has also asked our friends to make fatal concessions to our enemies.  In this case it was a concession that would have moved Israel closer to extinction.

Obama’s attempt to have Israel adopt indefensible borders is a major issue.  It is another sign of his bass ackwards policies.  Policies which seek to placate our enemies and offend our allies.  A policy that is more in the best interests of enemies than our own nation.

When it comes to the Middle East, Israel is the only nation in the region that the United States need not fear a terrorist attack from.  If it is not our only real friend in the Middle East, it is certainly our best.  For that reason alone, it should not have a so-called friend who makes it easier for Israel’s enemies to destroy them.  Yet that is a part of the Obama foreign policy which was not mentioned in any of the debates.  So I have prepared the following video to make the point that Mitt failed to and that others have forget to.

Bookmark and Share

Apology Tour: The New Romney Ad That Highlights Obama’s Bass Ackwards Foreign Policy

Bookmark and Share  In the wake of last night’s final presidential debate of the 2012 election cycle, Mitt Romney has released a new 30 second ad which powerfully explains why many people believe Barack Obama’s foreign policy priorities are as bass ackwards as his failed economic policies

In addition to making its obvious point about the President, the ad also goes a long way in reminding Jewish voters that Barack Obama is not exactly the close friend of Israel that he would like us to believe he is.  That is a critical message for Romney get across to Jewish voters in important battleground states such as Florida where the Jewish is significantly larger than it is in other states.

Bookmark and Share

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

%d bloggers like this: