The High Stake Strategies in Tonight’s Final Presidential Debate?

   Bookmark and Share   Tonight’s debate may be President Obama’s last chance to put a stop to the momentum behind Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.  Putting more pressure on the President is the reality that the President must not only stop Romney’s forward momentum, he must reverse it.  That need has been made quite evident since the first presidential debate when Mitt Romney mopped the floor with President Obama and a seemingly large number of Americans got what was essentially their first real impression of Romney… an impression that swayed undecided, independent, and women  voters Romney’s way and has apparently become a lasting impression.

Given those circumstances, it is hard to say exactly what we can expect from Mitt Romney tonight.  Romney could easily use this opportunity to try knock-out the President with a series of shots dealing with Benghazi.  Romney could try to go for broke on Benghazi by pressing the President on what seems to be a cover-up of the facts with weeks of contradictory and misleading answers to legitimate questions and also on what is an obvious intelligence failure of catastrophic proportions which allowed the President to know nothing about the fact that al Qaeda was establishing itself in Eastern Libya.  But if Romney takes this route, he must be extraordinarily careful.  If he is too aggressive, it will backfire.  An over aggressive approach to this will turn off many of the voters Romney needs to win in key battleground states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire, which are too close for comfort.

Beating the President over the head with Benghazi will also risk 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.

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.

In the days to come, Romney surrogates will surely continue to raise the tough questions that the President continues to avoid giving accurate answers to.  And that is how it should be given the fact that much of this election is still being decided on the economy and the President’s failed record on the economy.

If Romney wants to ask President Obama one tough question on Benghazi though, it should be this.

“Mr. President, of all the questions that you must answer to regarding Benghazi, I have one which does not require any major and in-depth investigations, or congressional hearings.  It is this.  Aside from the questions as to why you did not know anything about Ambassador Steven’s warnings of a growing presence of al Qaeda, as far back as two months prior to his assassination, what I can’t help but wonder is why you, not anyone else…just you..  Why you could not figure out that September 11th followed September 10th?  You did not need the NSA, FBI, CIA, or DHS to tell you on September 10th that the following day would be September 11th and that September 11th is a tragic date that for the past 11 years has warranted heightened security at our consulates and embassies.  It seems to me that that is a basic fact that no President should have to be schooled on.  So aside from all the other questions, I think that the answer to that most basic question about that most basic fact provides the backdrop for a level of incompetence that stops nowhere else other than smack-dab in the middle of your desk.”

The President may or may not have a fairly reasonable response, but either way, by asking that question, Romney will have raised doubt about the President’s national security, intelligence, and foreign policies.

Another point that Romney must make clear is that if the President had not avoided approximately 62% of his daily intelligence meetings since the beginning of 2012, the security issues in Libya and the broader national security concern about a resurgence of al Qaeda in Libya, may have been raised or at the very least, the in depth discussions conducted in those meetings might have at least triggered in President Obama, a concern that could have helped him eventually learn about the facts in Libya that he and the Vice President claim they knew nothing about.

Aside from those questionable approaches for Romney on Benghazi, Mitt Romney should focus on using this foreign policy debate to subtly appeal to voting blocs that could help him win key battleground states.

To win favor with the swing voters in Ohio, Romney must nail the President on the issue of Chinese trade.  Our trade troubles with China may not seem like a major issue in this election but Romney’s campaign has polling that shows the issue of trade with China is of great importance to struggling Ohioans who feel President Obama has not done enough to even the playing field between China and the U.S. China.  They believe it is an imbalance that continues to prevent them from getting necessary job opportunities in the manufacturing industry.

Then there is Florida.

In Florida, while Romney currently holds a lead that is too close for comfort.  One way to expand that lead is by appealing to the Sunshine State’s larger than average Jewish vote.

The Jewish vote is traditionally a strong part of the Democrat’s base but in 2012 there is ample evidence that President Obama is getting a smaller share of Jewish support than he has in the past.  To take advantage of this trend, Mitt Romney needs to create doubt about the President’s handling of Iran regarding their attempts to enrich uranium, and also on the President’s shaky relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A succesful but subtle exploitation by Romney of Israel and China during tonight’s debate can achieve two critical keys to Romney’s victory on Election Day.  It can give him the edge he needs in Ohio and Florida, two states which together, can be the difference between winning and losing in the Electoral College.

As for President Obama, tonight he needs convince voters that while he is ending the wars we are in, Mitt Romney will get us into new wars.

President Obama must try to derail Romney by making voters believe Romney is too out os step with the desires of Americans.  He must paint Romney as a dangerously inexperienced neo-con who wants to re-wage the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and wants to take us to war in Iran.

If Mitt Romney can’t offer his own legitimate approach to how he intends to handle these nations as well as others such as Libya and Syria, Obama will have the ability to leave lasting marks on Romney among the undecided voters that both men need to swing in their direction on Election Day.  But that will be a tall order for President Obama.  Not only has Romney shown himself quite adept at turning around such charges, thanks to recent events, when it comes to foreign policy, it President Obama who now finds himself on the defense, not Mitt Romney.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

“The Hope and the Change”. See It Here

Bookmark and Share The Hope & The Change interviews 40 Democrats and Independents who were onetime supporters and voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but due to runaway spending, unemployment, debt, and deficits, can no longer continue their support of President Obama in 2012.  If you haven’t seen it yet, take the time to see it now and do your best to get any undecided voters and reluctant Obama supporters to see it too.  It will go a long way in making them understand their doubts about the President are far more valid than they may have thought and that their reluctance to support Barack Obama in a bid for a second term has a great deal of merit.

To see the movie, you may first have to register and log in to Hulu, but fear not.  If you don’t yet have an account with Hulu, registering one is free, quick, and easy.

Bookmark and Share

“The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya” and the Unravelling of the Obama Presidency

    Bookmark and Share   The initial crime that was Watergate might never have brought down Richard Nixon.  Were it not for the conspiracy to cover up Watergate that Nixon was proven to have orchestrated, he might have completed his second term and gone down as of one the best contemporary presidents in history.  In the case of Barack Obama while impeachment is not a consideration, at least not yet, evidence that his Administration is covering up the events leading up to, and following the tragic events in Benghazi, Libya, may now prove to be the tipping point that prevents President Barack Obama from ever getting a second presidential term.

Such is the result of 166 pages of declassified internal State Department documents that were released today by Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government  Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz.  The information in these documents reveal that the Obama Administration received multiple cables from Ambassador Chris Stevens which warned of security threats in Libya.   On the very day that Stevens was killed in the September 11, 2012 attack on our consulate in Benghazi, he signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces who  Ambassador Stevens characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.” 

While the warning in that cable could easily be seen as coming too late to act upon in the relatively short time available between the time it was received and the time of the attack which occurred hours later, the declassified documents released today show a history of  warnings about the deteriorating security condition in Libya that went as far back as 44 days prior to those pleas for security that were expressed in that September 12th cable.   According to these documents, Ambassador  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly warned their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and violence in Eastern Libya.

The documents even  reveal that Stevens went so far as to let is superiors in Washington know that in meetings with local militia commanders,  the militia commanders bragged to him about their exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and even threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”  

A  month prior to that, Stevens signed a two-page cable that he entitled, “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” 

That document noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” Steven then went even further and wrote, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” and are a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.” 

He added

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity” .

Stevens continued;

 “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.”

His final comment on  that two-page document was;

“Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

In other cables from Stevens notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.”  He even went so far as to write;

“Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” and added “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

All of this is contradicting a narrative about Benghazi that the President and his Administration has been offering since the terrorist attack took place more than a month ago.

Just last night, on a comedy show hosted by Jon Stewart, President Obama told listeners that “every piece of information that we get, as we got it, we laid it out to the American people. The picture eventually gets fully filled in.”

However in the context of the newly released documents, that statement does not ring true and between that statement by the President and the evidence showing that were at least two months worth of warnings about an organized terrorist attack on American interests in Libya, there is a growing gap of doubt about exactly what went wrong and exactly how honest the President and the Administration are being with the American people about this tragedy.

According to both the President and the Vice President, neither of them knew about the need for added security in Libya.  That may very well be true.  But if it is, mounting evidence clearly shows that they most certainly should have known.  So assuming they didn’t know, what we have here is a major national security problem.  A problem that shows an inexcusable level of incompetence within the Obama Administration.  A level of incompetence which opens up an entirely devastating line of legitimate attacks on the President.  For instance, it is well known that President has consistently avoided attending his daily intelligence briefings.  The President claims that he always reviewed the multi-paged summaries that were used as the structural foundation for the agenda in those daily briefings.  But he has never quite addressed the fact that by not actually attending those briefings, he was never afforded the opportunity to ask security and intelligence experts normally in attendance,  questions and obtain detailed answers and information that might have helped the President to conclude that measures he had not before thought about, might required.

This legitimate concern points to a level of irresponsibility on the part of the President that is inexcusable and it lies at the heart of the angle to the Benghazi tragedy that could be the nail the Obama-Biden reelection coffin.   It is the motive behind what is increasingly looking like a cover-up.

To avoid being exposed to the his irresponsible practices and policies, we are seeing evidence that the President should have known about the deteriorating situation in Libya.  A situation that was pointing to not only the increasing dangers to our representatives in in Benghazi but an even more dire circumstances involving wider national security concerns … a resurgence of al Qaeda in Libya.

In an attempt to avoid undermining one of the few but still arguable strong points of the Obama Administration, the President wanted to avoid there being any impression other the one that after killing Osama bin Laden, President Obama also successfully decimated al Qaeda.  But that is a false impression and if it was revealed that al Qaeda connected elements killed our Ambassador, the President’s inflated high marks regarding the broader war on terror would have been undermined.    This is why the President and his Administration spent more than a month trying to deny the tragedy in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

In the final analysis, Benghazi is becoming Barack Obama’s Watergate.  Not simply because there is an obvious scandal behind the incompetence  behind the lack of proper coordination of intelligence, but mainly because there is an obvious coverup here involving who knew what and when. And it also involves  questions about how big a part the President’s reelection strategy has played and continues to play in preventing  the truth surrounding Benghazi from coming out.

It’s time for the President to have a prerss conference on Benghazi and it is time for him to come clean.  Continued attempts to be less than forthcoming will only result in a continued drop of his support in the polls.  Unless of course the President knows that the facts that are being hidden are even more damning than his apparent attempts to coverup those facts up.  Either way though, the President is in trouble.

Bookmark and Share

New Romney Ad Sets the Romney Record on Abortion Straight

   Bookmark and Share   As the left continues to use Obama campaign Co-Chair Eva Longoria to lie about Mitt Romney and to try to have female voters buy in to their claim that Romney and the G.O.P. are waging a war on women, Mitt Romney has released another simple but very effective ad that is designed to the set his record straight on the issue of abortion. (See ad in the video at the bottom of this post).

The 30 second spot uses a woman voter named Sarah Minton to explain not only that Romney doesn’t oppose the use of contraception, and that he supports the use of abortion as an option in cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life, it also takes an approach that appeals to women who may be traditional Democrats and are uncomfortable voting for a Republican.

The Romney campaign has long ago seen evidence of the fact that many Democrats, including Democrat women, are unhappy with the job Barack Obama has done, but that they don’t feel good about voting for a Republican.  So for at least three months now, the Romney-Ryan ticket has shaped and targeted messages to such people that offered them a sense of it being okay to vote for someone other than Barack Obama in 2012.  Mainly by pressing the point that they are not alone in their feelings because there are  millions of Americans who feel the same way…. like Sarah Minton.

Script of the ad entitled “Sarah”

You know those ads that saying that Mitt Romney would ban all abortions and contraception seemed a bit extreme.

So I looked in to it.

Turns out Romney doesn’t oppose contraception at all.

In fact he thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life.

This issue is important to me.  But I’m more concerned with the debt our children will be left with.

I voted for President Obama last time but we just can’t afford four more years.

While the ad is simple, it is also straightforward and it leaves the targeted voters with at least a subconscious understanding that President Obama really doesn’t deserve their vote a second time.

Bookmark and Share

Romney and Obama Bring Down the House at The Alfred E. Smith Dinner

Bookmark and Share   With well timed and perfectly delivered humor, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both proved themselves to be quite funny during the 67th annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City.  (See the video of both men’s remarks at the bottom of this post) 

The dinner is an annual white tie charity fundraiser for Catholic charities, that is always held on the third Thursday of October, in honor of Al Smith, a former New York Governor and the first Catholic presidential candidate.  Every four years, the Republican and Democrat presidential nominees traditionally headline the gathering and this year, the tradition continued with Obama and Romney.

First up was Mitt Romney and from the get go he had the well-heeled guests in attendance falling off their chairs.  With a mix of wise cracking one-liners that politely but sharply zinged the President and a combination of self-deprecating humor that poked fun at his own most pronounced characteristics, Romney unleashed a torrent of kneeslappers that stunned listeners with the boldness of his jokes and the hysterical nature of them.  Among his best lines was one that came after Mitt said that many people wonder how one prepares for presidential debates.  He said that in his case, you first spend 65 years refraining from any alcoholic beverages.  While speaking of the debate Romney floored the audience when he told them that what you also do is

“find the biggest available strawman and then just mercilessly attack them… Big Bird didn’t even see it coming” 

He promptly added;

“And by the way in the spirit of Sesame Street, the President’s remarks tonight are brought to you by the letter “O” and the number 16 trillion”.

For Mitt, the hits kept coming with remarks about everything from his hoping the President had brought Joe Biden with him because of the Vice President’s ability to laugh at anything, to even several quite blunt and hysterical digs at the media.

Part of Romney’s success at the event was probably based on how surprised people were to this absolutely funny side of the straight-laced Mormon.  But there was also no dnying the brilliance of the material he used in his approximately 9 minute remarks.

Immediately following Romney was the President and from beginning to end he too did not disappoint.

The President effectively made himself the biggest target in his remarks which began with many references to his first debate performance.  According to the President,

“As some of you may have noticed, I had a lot more energy in our second debate. I felt really well rested after the nice long nap I had in the first debate”

From there the President touched on array of people and topics, including Romney and like Romney he did so in a superbly lighthearted and disarming manner that put the often mean spirited nature of campaigns and elections in a refreshingly civil and even friendly light.

Both speeches were truly great and well worth your time watching.

Bookmark and Share

Time for Eva Longoria to Resign from the Obama Campaign of Hatred and Hypocrisy

The intolerant liberal base of the Democrat Party has consistently demonstrated that they have an uncanny propensity for hypocrisy.  They historically preach the virtues of tolerance yet they remain the individuals who happen to be the least tolerant of any differences of opinion.  It is the type of hypocrisy and political insincerity which leads the left to claim that Republicans are waging a war on women because they refuse to allow the government to fund infanticide.   But the latest example of liberal hypocrisy has reared its ugly head in of all places, the leadership team of the Obama campaign, where Obama campaign co-chair Eva Longoria has demonstrated a level of intolerance and disrespect that any responsible political campaign can not and should not be able to ignore.

Earlier today, Longoria issued the following tweet on Twitter;

The comment was actually a retweet… a reposting of someone else’s tweet.

After news of Longoria’s message broke, she tried to wiggle her way out of  her vulgar, bigoted message by tweeting the following;

“Is anyone else’s twitter bugging out? There are things in my timeline I didn’t  retweet today. Hmmm? Standby trying to fix!”.

So this sick and stupid, lying liberal Obama campaign chairperson actually panicked after revealing her true beliefs and attempted to pull an Anthony Weiner by suggesting someone hacked into her account and posted the offensive message instead of her.

Realizing that was not really a plausible excuse, Longoria then went on to try to claim that she does not hold the opinion expressed by her retweet.  She tried to claim that she never calls conservative women  names and that she retweeted the offensive message because she believes that everyone has a right to have their opinions expressed on her Twitter account.  Unfortunately that excuse doesn’t wash.  If Longoria did not believe the sentiments expressed in that twitter message, than she should not have promoted it.  Period.

But since Longoria took that approach,  I took the opportunity to promptly tweet my opinion on Longoria’s Twitter account.

It read as follows;

Now you might take offense to my reply to Longoria and you can question its appropriateness but if you do than you better be demanding that Eva Longoria either be fired from her position as a co-chair of the President’s campaign or that she immediately resign from the position.  If you think my response to Longoria was inappropriate, than you must feel the same way about Longoria’s initial comment.  But the biggest difference here is that I am not representing anyone other than myself.  In the case of Longoria she is representing the President.  As such, her claim that women and minorities who have a political opinion that is different from her own are stupid, is a sentiment that the President and his campaign must promptly disavow.

That is especially the case since this is not the first time, Longoria crossed the line.

During the vice presidential debate, Longoria posted the following tweet;

So here you have a representative of the Obama campaign calling Paul Ryan  Joe Biden’s “bitch”.  And what was the reaction to it?  A silence so deafening that it is unclear which was more offensive, the original statement or the unwillingness of the President’s campaign to disavow themselves from the message or the person who sent the message.

This latest episode comes at a time when it is becoming alarmingly clear to most people that the troubled Obama-Biden campaign is doubling down on their attempts to win the election by motivating minorities through a campaign of divisiveness that is driven by inciting racist sentiments among blacks and Hispanics.  As pointed out in the post and video seen here, Democrats are increasingly trying to play the race card in the presidential election.  It is a desperate last ditch attempt by the left to make sure that blacks and other minorities show up to the polls on Election Day 2012 and vote for President Obama in the same record numbers that they did in 2008.   And that was the only reason why Eva Longoria, a Hispanic actress with a degree in Latin studies and kinesiology, was chosen for the political role she is now playing the President’s reelection effort.  But now Longoria has gone too far.  She has exhibited a level of unacceptable and intolerable political bigotry that has essentially written off the value of any woman and minority who does not hold the same opinions as her own.

The Obama campaign tried to chastise Mitt Romney for once stating that he can’t care about the 47% who will not vote for him.  Of course Romney said that in the context of a strategic political reality which meant that he will not be able to persuade the approximate 47% of voters who are committed to supporting President Obama.   But liberals intentionally took the words out of context and tried to claim that if elected President, Romney won’t care about nearly half of the American population.  Well now the question the Obama Administration must deal with is whether or not they actually want the record to show that they think women and minorities are stupid unless they support four more years of Barack Obama’s failed policies.

Until they denounce Longoria and her remarks and dump her from their campaign, the record will show that the Obama-Biden campaign does indeed agree with Longoria’s remarks.

Meanwhile, this whole incident is a distraction from the real issues but it is a distraction which is the result of the Obama strategy to distract and divide Americans.  The Obama campaign and it’s surrogates are hell-bent on distracting us from the Obama record and dividing us by race and ethnicity.  It is strategy that is apparently beginning to backfire on Obama but it is all the President has left in his arsenal.

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

Checkmating Obama with Wisconsin: A Romney Win in the Badger State Dooms Obama

   Bookmark and Share  Mitt Romney’s continued rise in the polls has created a new narrative that continues to offer an almost infinitesimal number of possible outcomes in the Electoral College but at the same time it is increasing the number of realistic scenarios in which Romney can win and the President can lose .  Such is the reality of a race which since the first presidential debate some two weeks ago, has seen Mitt Romney turn the tables on President Obama in several key battleground states… specifically Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.  With Romney now practically even with or ahead of Obama in those states, the Romney-Ryan ticket has momentum behind them and is quickly changing electoral the game board by  forcing the Obama-Biden ticket to play catch-up for the first time in this general election.

These developments are probably most pronounced in two states which have up till now been considered solid Obama states…  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In the case of Pennsylvania no Democrat has won the White House without it since 1948 when the Keystone State supported Republican New York Governor Thomas Dewey over President Harry Truman.  In many ways it has become for Democrats what Ohio is for a Republicans. But in recent days, Romney has significantly reduced the size of the President’s lead in Pennsylvania practically in a half.   It is a trend that the Obama-Biden campaign cannot ignore, especially since Mitt romney has not yet been aggressively campaiging for Pennsylvania or spending much money in the state.

Without Pennsylvania, assuming that Romney has Virginia and Florida, an assumption that is increasingly likely, President Obama must win the remaining battleground states of Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  That is a tall order given that the White House 2012 analysis currently projects five of those seven states to be going for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Making matters worse for the President is the fact that one of those states that the Obama-Biden campaign must win if he loses Pennsylvania, is Wisconsin, a state that he is finding even more trouble in than he is finding in Pennsylvania.

Wisconsin has been trending Republican at least since 2010 when the state elected a Republican Governor and rejected liberal icon Russ Feingold by electing a Republican T.E.A movement-backed to replace Feingold in the U.S. Senate.  Then, earlier this year,  Wisconsin became ground zero in a recent union-based recall election that pitted the entitlement mentality of the left against the fiscal responsibility mentality of the right.  In that recall election, the left lost by an even bigger even margins than they did in 2010.

It is along with this troublesome backdrop that President Obama now finds his once comfortable lead in the Badger state slipping to an uncomfortable 2.0% lead.  Add to that the fact that Romney’s running mate hails from Wisconsin and that Romney is seeing his numbers rising across the board in every state and among most all voting blocs, including independents, women and Hispanics, and what you have is an Obama-Biden reelection campaign that is struggling to remain competitive in the Electoral College.

But let us not get ahead of ourselves.  While Romney is certainly currently riding a mild surge in polls, it is no tidal wave and at the moment short of that tidal, Pennsylvania is still likely to go blue for the President.  And while Virginia and Florida are still likely to go for Romney, the Obama-Biden ticket has a good chance of taking Ohio.  A win there by the President would leave Romney with only 11 paths to victory… 11 very viable and realistic paths.  On the flip side, a loss by the President in Pennsylvania, leaves him with approximately half as many realistic paths to victory.  Some of those paths include winning a combination of Virginia, Florida, and or Ohio with a mix of other states that include Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and New Hampshire.  But  most important here is that without Ohio, Virginia and Florida,  every possible path to the 270 Electoral College votes that the President needs to wins, includes both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

What All Means;

For President Obama this means he has less and less breathing room in these last three weeks of the campaign.   It means that states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which he is still leading in, will require him to divert much needed time, money, and resources  away from states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, where a win by the President in any one of those states would be a significant blow to Romney.

For Governor Romney this means, the mountain before him remains treacherous, but if he can maintain his current pace the top of the mountain, the top is certainly within his reach.  So Romney must continue to wage an extremely successful campaign in Florida, Virginia, Ohio.  But the latest numbers indicate that Romney should also look at Pennsylvania where even though he is not likely to win, if he invests time and money there, he will forced to President Obama to reroute resources to from Ohio and Florida in an attempt to keep Pennsylvania blue.   But at the same time Romney must also now begin to really target Wisconsin.  Recent history supports facts that show the state is open to the fiscal responsibility message of the G.O.P. and Mitt Romney.  And with Wisconsin being a state that Paul Ryan is from and still very popular in, combined with the polls showing that the race is already tight there, Wisconsin is a prime state for the Romney-Ryan ticket to pick off from the President.  It is also a state that would make it nearly impossible for the President to win the election without.

So for Mitt Romney, this means it’s time to send Paul Ryan home.  Let Paul Ryan do a non-stop tour of every county and town in Wisconsin.  If Romney can keep up his own end of the deal in Virginia and Florida, by denying the Obama-Biden ticket a win Wisconsin, Romney could win the election just by taking a combination of Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada.  And that is without winning Ohio.  With Wisconsin painted red, a win in Ohio would put Mitt Romney over the top even if he lost Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

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

Obama Administration Leaks News of a Retaliatory Attack But Doesn’t Know on Who or Where?

  Bookmark and Share  Obama Administration officials have stated that the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa in advance of  a an attempt to strike back at the al-Qaeda connected terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three Americans assigned to his detail in Benghazi, Libya last month.   Strangely, reports indicate that Administration officials stipulate that the retaliatory attack will occur only if US investigators can find the al-Qaeda-linked group responsible for the Benghazi terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate.

The odd stipulation seems to indicate that the Obama Administration is acting more on the intelligence coming from the Obama reelection campaign than it is on any actionable intelligence from Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI or NSA.

Under normal circumstances, no responsible Administration would warn their military target that they are about to be blown up by drones or slaughtered by members of the Special Forces by transmitting to the public that such attacks are be prepared for.  Furthermore; no responsible Administration would see any logic in claiming they were about to launch an attack and then essentially state but they don’t who the attack is against or will it take place.  But such is what the Obama Administration communicated to the world when  they admitted that US investigators have not yet found out who our target is or where they are.

This advanced warning from the Administration about the use of military muscle regarding the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya is nothing more than an attempt by the Obama reelection campaign to change the current narrative surrounding the Benghazi attacks.  That narrative is one which continues to point to an Administration which was incompetent and irresponsible in the days leading up to the Benghazi terrorist attack and in the days following the attack.

Since the attacks took place on September 11, 2012, the Administration has been offering what are at best misleading statements surrounding the attacks and in  the days after the attack, the Administration has acted in a way which has signaled an attempted coverup of the facts.  Some of the biggest questions still going unanswered includes, why the Administration failed to heighten security at our consulate on September 11th, a day which traditionally does bring the need for additional security?  Another question is why pleas for additional security from Ambassador Chris Stevens were not fulfilled?

Now as this tragic incident slowly boils up in to a political scandal, the Administration suddenly makes it clear that they are preparing for a retaliatory attack on  the people behind the act of terrorism on Americans in Libya but at the same time admit they have no knowledge of who they retaliate against.

Furthermore; according to the Associated Press officials say the Administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile up other governments in the region.

So the question becomes why did members of the Obama Administration leak this information about a pending retaliatory attack?  If there is no target and no action for it, obviously it is not about to happen?

The conclusion is this.  The Obama Administration which is trying to deny it had intelligence information regarding the threats on our consulate or regarding what was behind the attack, is now allowing the the Obama campaign to drive their foreign policy and national security agenda.  Only this time, the Administration is openly admitting that they have no intelligence regarding the actions they are saying they are preparing for.  Makes sense right?  Not really.

This recent leak was a clear political campaign decision to look tough in the face of a successful terrorist attack that the Administration ignored the potential for.  It is also evidence of just closely the President’s political campaign staff is tied to his administrative staff that is responsible for carrying national policy decisions.  The two by law are suppose to be detached, but as indicated by this leak, in the case of Barack Obama they are one in the same.  Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod are as much in control of what we do in Benghazi as Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta.  And that is dangerous.  But it is why last year the Administration leaked sensitive national security information which seemingly helped the President’s image in early polls.  It is why the Administration gave sensitive information regarding the mission that killed Osama bin Laden to Hollywood so that they could make a movie that would also put the President in a positive light right before the election.

For President Obama, this is all a game.  Unfortunately though, the game is over for four Americans who were serving our nation in Benghazi last month.  Hopefully the game will be over for President Obama when voters show up at the polls on November 6th and say enough is enough and give him the boot.

Bookmark and Share

Romney Increases Lead in White House 2012 Electoral College Projection

   Bookmark and Share In what is now a verifiable trend, White House 2012’s newest Electoral College projection has increased the size of Mitt Romney’s lead in the Electoral College over President Obama for the third time in a row.  In the previous projection, after forecasting Ohio for Romney for the first time, New Hampshire and Nevada where switched from Romney to Obama.  This latest forecast now places both of those states back in Mitt Romney’s column, increasing Romney’s lead in the Electoral College by a combined total of 10 electors.  This now puts Romney’s Electoral College count at 291 to the President’s 247.

According to the White House 2012 formula, Nevada and New Hampshire are still very competitive and not solidly in Romney’s camp.  The same goes for Iowa and Ohio where WH12 considers the Romney-Ryan ticket to be currently holding a slim but still growing lead. But the most significant development in the latest forecast model is that the apparent bounce Romney received in the wake of his first debate, is now proving to be a definite trend.  More importantly, it is a trend that is revealing itself to be so pronounced that it has forced White House 2012 to now add three more states to our battleground map… Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

That is a dramatic development. Especially in the case of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is to Barack Obama what Ohio is to Mitt Romney.  Without Pennsylvania solidly in the Obama-Biden column, the Democrat ticket finds itself with significantly fewer paths to victory in the Electoral College.  This is a switch from the narrative that had defined Romney’s need to win Ohio.  No Republican has ever won the White House without it.   If Romney can’t win Ohio, he will find significantly fewer ways to accumulate the 270 electors needed to win.  White House 2012 has however stipulated that we are sure Romney can win without Ohio and in fact originally projected him to do so.  But recently polling and other factors have now turned the tables and are forcing the President to have to focus us on his m.

While White House 2012 still projects Pennsylvania to go for the President, if current trends continue, that can quickly change.  In the meantime White House 2012 is forced to now make Pennsylvania a battleground state and in what is turning out to be continued trend that is putting the President’s campaign in a more defensive posture when it comes to the electoral map, White House 2012 has also moved Wisconsin and Michigan to battleground status.

Of these three new battlegrounds, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are most profound.

Without them, President Obama must win Ohio and various combinations of other states that include such states as Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and/or Colorado.

While many factors will continue to change future projections, the analysis behind this forecast is most notable for the conclusion that at the moment, the Romney-Ryan ticket is turning the tables in the Electoral College and forcing the Obama-Biden ticket to take a more defensive electoral strategy.  It is forcing the Obama campaign to spend time and much needed resources and money in state’s that at this point in time, they had hoped were in the bag.  Meanwhile, the need to reinforce his standing in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and even Michigan, is taking time and money away from President Obama’s ability to work on winning other important states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado.

Bookmark and Share

Romney Leading or Even With Obama in Early Vote in Key States of FL, NC, CO, NV, and NH

   Bookmark and Share    In 2008 Barack Obama’s campaign was superior to John McCain’s in everything from its rhetoric and strategy to its fundraising, organizing and social media networking.  But in 2012 Barack Obama finds himself weighed down by a few things, including a dismal record on everything from the economy and his unravelling foreign policy.  He is also weighed down by the fact this year he is running against Mitt Romney, not John McCain.  On this more competitive playing field although the Obama-Biden ticket is still well financed and organized, they are seeing evidence that  when compared to 2008, in 2012 they are underperforming when it comes to such things as voter enthusiasm and now we learn, even the amount of early votes that team Obama is getting.

Based upon important numbers that have been coming in, the Republican National Committee is declaring that early voting which has started in more than 30 states, indicates that that the Romney-Ryan ticket is leading or even with the Obama-Biden  ticket among early voters in  the critical swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire.

While none of these have been or will be counted until Election Day and the days to follow it, the various Board of Elections have been reporting the Party affiliation of those people who have cast early ballots and a majority of them are coming from registered Republican voters.  From that news  it naturally follows that most of these Republican votes are going to the Republican presidential ticket.

However; the Obama campaign claims it is leading among early voters in Iowa and Ohio, and that they are only trailing their 2008 early voting counts by a very small margin in several other swing states.

Still, the numbers come at a time when the President is slipping in most polls and more importantly, most battleground states.  This is not good news for a President who is finding it difficult to ensure that he turns out his base in the same historic numbers that he did in 2008 when his opponent for the presidency was seeing a lack of turnout and enthusiasm among his base.  This time, while the extreme liberal base is still fired up for President Obama, Mitt Romney is benefitting from an even greater enthusiasm among his own base of Republicans and also among independent voters who while they may not jump for joy over Mitt, are becoming increasingly motivated to support him because of their dislike of the Obama record… a record which voters seem to finally be holding President Obama accountable to.

Bookmark and Share

Hillary Clinton Is Key To Unlocking Libya Scandal

If you listen to the talking heads, the prevailing wisdom regarding the Libya attack is that the Obama administration is showing itself to be incompetent. If true, of course, that could hurt Obama’s re-election chances. As a result, opponents of the administration are far too eager to try to exploit this opening. Unfortunately, these boob-tube babblers — there’s a reason television is called that — are wrong. Ditto for all the writers that present this idea.

Granted, at face value the events that have unfolded since the attack demonstrate inconsistency. That much is obvious. But that’s the point. It is too obvious. No politician — none — achieves the pinnacle of power without the appropriate support apparatus in place. We are not talking about local politics or someone that sits on a city council, we’re talking the halls of national power. It is like professional athletes. The myth is they are the fastest, the most nimble and the most skilled. A select few clearly are at the top of their game. But all? Hardly. Most are there because they have survived. They have avoided injury, drugs, scandal or any other trappings that might bring down an athlete. The population pyramid from grade school through high school through college to the professional level is ever shrinking with a thinning of the herd at each step. It is the same for politicians.

A successful politician at the elite level can wiggle out of almost any scandal. They surround themselves with loyal and proven advisers, analysts and even fall-guys that ensure they are insulated as much as possible. Mistakes may occur now and then but that’s all they are — mistakes. Genuine ineptitude is fatal. At the political apex, incompetency just doesn’t come into play. This is why they are at the top. They have survived to get there.

Knowing this, are you sure you want to chalk up what you are seeing regarding the consulate attack as incompetence?

It is clear the scandal is being intentionally manipulated by the Obama administration. Do not forget Obama and Hillary Clinton are from the school of Alinsky. Miss-information and contradictions are their tools because chaos is their friend. They embrace it. The conflicting interviews and contradictory statements during the last month have been carefully managed and methodically unrolled. While you sit back and smile thinking you’ve got it figured out, they’re huddling and drawing up the next play. This is what they do.

Look, we’re not playing a kiddie game of checkers here. This is chess and the prize may just be the White House.

Both Obama and Clinton want the White House. Obama wants it immediately while Clinton has an eye on the 2016 race. Both individuals know the details behind the Libya attack and both of them know who is ultimately responsible. Both can be politically damaged. That being said, the truth is chasing both of them is folly because getting one of them will be tough enough. But manipulate events correctly and one of them can be left holding the bag.

Now Obama is handling Libya with two strategies. The first is delay, delay, delay — leave all questions, details and accountability regarding Libya up in the air until after the election. That’s why there are different people saying different things. That’s why it took the FBI so long to get to Libya. That’s why the standard line is the details are “still under investigation”.

The second strategy is to position himself outside the crisis bubble while his political machine drops Libya on the doorstep of the State Department and Hillary. This is the point of the catch phrase “best available intelligence” put forth by administration mouth-pieces. It was also Biden’s objective when fielding Libya questions during the debate — claim Obama didn’t know anything and try to get the cameras and microphones focused on the intelligence community.

But Hillary Clinton is no fool. She see these dynamics playing out and understands that Obama may play pin the tail on the State Department. But because Hillary has time, much more than Obama, she has more options. She can support the stall tactics. She can also help deflect accountability away from Obama to a mutually agreed upon scape-goat. And if necessary, she can throw Obama to the wolves. And that is how the Republicans should attack this issue.

To hell with trying to catch Obama with his hand in the cookie jar. He will never admit any accountability. Never. And it is much too close to the election to risk waiting for damaging evidence to surface. Remember, Obama is actively working against that. No, Obama is not the proper target. It is Clinton that should be worked over — thoroughly.

The Republican strategy should be to apply so much pressure on Clinton that she sings like an opera star. She knows what occurred, and if it was ultimately Obama’s responsibility she loses nothing if she throws him under the bus. It may even help her reputation for 2016. If it is actually Clinton that has blood on her hands, then dumping the mess on the Obama administration is solid strategy — this being politics, after all.

The Clinton-Obama family feud is well known. Don’t think because Bill gave a keynote speech in support of Obama at the convention that the bad feelings have faded. Indeed, there was an article published Friday afternoon by author Edward Klein, that says it has not. Even more, Klein says Obama shunned assistance from Bill Clinton regarding Libya and that this slap in the face further enraged the former president. There is no love here and there is little or no respect either.

Hillary wants the White House. Bill wants her to have a legitimate shot at it. So regardless of the degree of responsibility she actually possesses, Bill Clinton will manufacture some way for Hillary to wiggle out of the Libya mess. That’s why they call him Slick Willie. So Republicans should be smart. They should build this into their strategy. They should attack Hillary to hurt her 2016 dreams which will force Bill to come running in to save her. At that point, the Clinton’s will do what the Clinton’s need to do.

If it unfolds correctly the Republicans get information about Libya splashed all over the media. Hillary Clinton walks away uninjured with her White House dream still possible and Obama gets thrown out with the trash.

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at

Romney’s Strategic Focus Away from Evangelicals to Catholics

   Bookmark and Share   With a highly polarized electorate and pundits and polls pointing to an election that we are led to believe is still very close, each campaign for President is finding themselves having to sharpen their focus on specific voting blocs in specific states.   Foregoing any embarrassing October or early November surprises for President Obama or Governor Romney, states like California, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, and others, are so far in the bag for one campaign or the other that the candidates are not visiting them and only running the most minimal of ads in them.  But states like Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin are somewhere in the middle and with the right approach, many uncommitted and undecided voters can easily be swayed to vote one way the other.  So Romney and Obama are campaigning hard in those states.  But among the voters in those states are voting blocs that can be appealed to on sets of issues that tend to affect them more than others.

For Mitt Romney one of the most crucial voting blocs to target are Catholics, a segment of the electorate that often does not receive the  political attention it deserves and is often more homogeneous as voting bloc than politicians assume.

Catholics comprise approximately 25% of the American electorate and since 1972, every single presidential candidate who has won the popular vote has also won the Catholic vote.  Additionally, in the last 5 presidential elections the Catholic vote total mirrored within 1 percent, the total popular vote received by the winner.   This indicates that in addition to being a significant portion of the electorate, the Catholic vote is also a swing vote which is a pretty good bellwether of national election results.

During the Republican presidential primaries, it was the Evangelical vote was a critical determining factor in the fate of Mitt Romney candidacy.  But since then, the Evangelical vote seems to have solidified behind Romney, or at the very least, against Barack Obama.  So while they will play an important role in Romney’s Get-Out-The-Vote operation, Catholics are for now one of the primary voting blocs that Mitt Romney is trying to convince to vote for him (see video of his latest ad at the bottom of this post).

And the strategy is a good one.

In recent years, Catholics have been offended by what some call the War on Christmas.  It is a hyperbolic term that refers to a very real liberal based, societal and federal enforced agnosticism which does everything from force municipalities to call Christmas trees Holiday trees to banning nativity scenes and menorah from the public square.  This disturbing trend to deny the freedom of religious expression even once forced Federated Department Stores, which includes Macy’s, to “ban” their employees from saying “Merry Christmas” to customers.  It is a trend which Rick Perry skillfully but unsuccessfully tried to exploit when he was competing for the Republican presidential nomination last year.

This liberal, politically correct based assault on public desires to express their faith has long annoyed Catholics but in 2012, Catholic sensitivities to the issue have only been exacerbated by President Obama and his signature accomplishment… Obamacare.

Among the Affordable Care Act’s  nearly three thousand pages of regulations is a clause which in 2011, the Obama Administration concluded to mean that many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees.   This has outraged religious groups and fueled a national debate about the continued overreach of government and the ongoing  federal regulatory infringements being placed on  religion.  Leading this charge against this latest assault is a Catholic… New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

Dolan calls the new Obamacare mandate “a dramatic, radical intrusion of a government bureaucracy into the internal life of the Church”, and states that it forces Catholics to oppose their own conscience.

The issue has intensified anti-Obama sentiments among a large portion of Catholics, even among those whose religious fervor may not find them in church each and every Sunday.  To them the mandate has become another symbol of excessive government control that in this case goes so far that it actually forces religious institutions to participate in that which it is considers to be sinful.  In this case, the sin of abortion.

The situation has made the Obama-Biden ticket extremely vulnerable to attack and Mitt Romney knows it.  So he is making it an issue in these closing days of the campaign and he is doing so in a strategically smart way.

In the closing weeks of the campaign, as it becomes more important than ever to win over non-ideological, non-partisan independent voters, Romney is avoiding the harsh terms that the Obama campaign uses when they wage class warfare or claim Republicans are waging a “war on women”.  So Romney is not out on the stump and campaigning on this federal infringement on religion by using phrases like “war on religion”.  Instead while out on the campaign trail, Romney will make brief mention of the issue, he is relying mainly on short ads that are being played to target audiences in targeted states and which through repetition, are driving the point home to independent voters who are sensitive to government overreach and concerned Catholic voters disturbed by continued federal infringement on religious liberty.

But the importance of the Catholic is not lost on Barack Obama either.  That is why his campaign’s surrogates have taken their own approach to winning them over.

As first told by Deal W. Hudson for Catholic Online, Obama operatives have been calling Catholic voters with a push poll that ask several pointed questions such as; “How can you support a Mormon who does not believe in Jesus Christ? And “What do you think about the “Nuns on the Bus” who support Obama?”

Push Polls are primarily an unethical interactive marketing technique, which campaigns use in attempt  to influence or alter the opinions of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.  In this case the underhanded tactic is ironically exploiting religion by trying to incite anti-Mormon religious bigotry against mitt Romney.  It would be akin to a Romney campaign operation that called White Southern Evangelicals and intentionally used a question to make the President’s color an issue.  Such a racist act would surely be turned in a media inspired “October Surprise” that would derail the Romney campaign.  But such is not the case among a national mainstream media whose obvious liberal biases allow their own politically bigotry to run rampant and neglect to hold the Obama-Biden mpaign caaccountable for anything it does.

Meanwhile, Romney is smartly and ethically pursuing the Catholic vote by appealing to them on the issues… issues which have been leading Catholics to trend towards Republicans more and more over the past few elections.  It’s a trend which Romney may be able to have its best chance to exploit in Ohio, a swing state that is as, or more important than other battleground state that Mitt needs to win the Electoral College and which contains the type of blue collar, Reagan-Democrat, Catholic voters that Romney must win to put Ohio in his column.

Two other states that fall in to that category include Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, both of which are states that will make it nearly impossible for President Obama to win reelection without.

And as Romney makes his case, Catholics are also doing their part to make their case for Romney.

Bookmark and Share

Vice President Biden is Laughing… But Are You?

  Bookmark and Share  Ol’ Joe may find the facts about such things as a nuclear armed Iran, the irresponsible leadership that left 4 Americans dead in Benghazi, and 24 million Americans out of work to be funny, but most Americans can’t seem to find the lighter side of those issues that allowed our Vice President to laugh, chuckle, and cackle his way through the first and only vice presidential debate that took place this past Thursday.

That point is driven home in a recent ad from the Republican National Committee.  (See ad at the bottom of this post)

The commercial powerfully states “Vice President Biden is laughing…”, before stating “Are you?”

The ad is an ingenious use of the extraordinarily smarmy and disrespectful demeanor exhibited by the Vice President during the debate.  And it goes a long way in driving home the point that his unstable attitude is not exactly what most American want to see in a Vice President.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: