Team Obama’s Latest Attacks On Ryan Asks “Why The Hell Romney Picked” Him

  Bookmark and Share  In what can only be considered the epitome of the liberal hypocrisy that is a fundamental component of the thought process that Democrats undergo, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina recently issued a letter to supporters which tries to convince them to make a financial donation to the President’s reelection effort by claiming Paul Ryan was selected as Romney’s running mate for the sole purpose of raising money from radical Republicans for  his own campaign.

Laced throughout the letter are a litany of lies, a host of hysterically hypocritical claims, and a dubious dose of deceitful distractions designed to do for the Obama campaign all that the letter claims Romney is trying to do by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate.  It even asks “why the hell” did Romney pick “this guy” and claims that the reason is so that Romney could “reassure and inspire ultra conservative ideologues and corporate interests that they will have one of their own a heartbeat from the presidency”.

With the President’s campaign spending money at a pace that is quickly becoming faster than his ability to raise money, this letter is simply trying to fire up his base and motivate them to finally start donating.  The letter also seems to indicate that many people who have been Obama supporters in the past have not yet made any donation to his campaign this time around.  That would help explain the air of desperation that this letter reeks of and why President Obama is finding himself having to even deceive even his own supporters.

To understand just how deceptive the President is being, let us break the letter down.

A.- “Congressman Paul Ryan is the poster boy for the extreme Republican leadership in a Congress whose overall approval rating is 12 percent”:

  1. If that were true, Congressman Ryan would never have drawn brutally harsh criticism for his 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and subsequent vote for the auto bailout, both of which seem to fly in the face of Ryan’s conservative based economic ideology.  However, at the time when the world economy teetered on an unprecedented collapse because of crumbling financial institutions which were freezing lending and thereby halting worldwide commerce, Paul Ryan allowed himself to temporarily forsake ideological purity for what was seen as the immediate need for practical measures to avert a crisis.  TARP was a massive interference in the free market that was sold to Ryan and 90 other House Republicans as a necessary evil to prevent an economic collapse caused by greedy bankers and toxic assets. Predictions that ATMs would be empty, payrolls would be unmet, and that checks would be valueless, provided the incentive to believe that civil disobedience would become the norm and that Armageddon was just one evolution of the earth away, allowed Ryan to compromise his traditional approach to such matters. But that ability to compromise is not an indication of rigid extremism, it was the sign of a man who was willing to make the hard choices needed to provide what at the time were perceived to be suitable and necessary solutions for unique problems involving unique circumstances.
  2. If Paul Ryan was such an extremist, how does Team Obama explain away Ryan’s winning of seven elections in a congressional district that went for Michael Dukakis in 1988,  Clinton in ’92 and ’96, Al Gore in 2000, and Obama in 2008?
  3. If  Paul Ryan is so radical how is that Erskine Bowles, a liberal described Paul Ryan as “amazing” and called the Ryan Budget that liberals are trying paint as too extreme, to be “sensible, honest, and serious”?  Bowles a two time candidate for U.S. Senate from North Carolina happens to have been  President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff and was President Obama’s co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  According to some on the left, if given a second term in office President Obama is likely to have Bowles replace Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

Cleary, Paul Ryan is not the irrational, radical, extremist that liberals are falling over themselves as they rush to make him out to be and it is also quite obvious that Paul Ryan is far more popular than the left want you to think.

B.- “His plan to dismantle Medicare is deeply unpopular with the general public, and especially undecided voters”;

  1. First, Paul Ryan’s budget plan, does not dismantle Medicare, it reforms it by making it solvent and preserving it for future generations.  President Obama is the one who reduces Medicare spending under Obamacare which creates what he calls the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of 15 unelected government bureaucrats, who will ration care to seniors by underpaying doctors and hospitals.  Ryan’s plan gives seniors more control over their own health dollars by allowing them to choose the plan that provides them with the best value for their money through free market competition.  Furthermore; those who are over 55 will have the option to stay under the old plan.  The Ryan plan simply allows future beneficiaries to put a voucher toward “private health plans,” which  would be regulated by the government and required to offer coverage to all beneficiaries.  So the Ryan plan, does not dismantle Medicare!
  2. Second, the claim that Ryan’s plan is unpopular, especially among undecided voters, is to say the least am unreasonable stretch of reality. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked Americans whether they would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who “supports changing Medicare for those under 55 to a system where people choose their insurance from a list of private health plans and the government pays a fixed amount, sometimes called a voucher, towards that cost.” 38% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports Ryan’s Medicare reform, 37% are less likely to vote for that candidate, while 18% say it makes “no difference” in determining their vote, and 7% are not sure.  This does not paint the picture of the electoral death wish that liberals are painting for Romney’s decision to select a running mate who has the courage to present an actual plan to reform a broken system that needs fixing.
  3. A new Gallup/USA Today poll shows that the age group that Democrats would hope to scare the most by Ryan’s Medicare reforms, senior citizens, are actually most receptive to his budget which outlines those Medicare reforms. The poll finds 48 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) support Ryan’s plan over President Obama’s plan, while 42 percent back the president. That’s the highest total among the age groups tested.

That all tends to contradict Jim Messina’s claim that Ryan’s proposals are as unpopular as the left would like us to believe.

C.- “Here’s the calculation: Mitt Romney doesn’t need or expect Paul Ryan to convince even one undecided voter to cast their ballot for him. That’s not what he’s on the ticket for.”:

  1. Forty percent of voters identified themselves as politically independent in 2011. According to a  2011 Gallup poll more voters identified themselves as politically independent than ever before.  The poll showed that 40 percent consider them independent, a new high that surpassed  previous record of 39 percent in 1995 and 2007.  Gallup’s historical data shows that the proportion of independent voters in 2011 was the largest in 60 years and little has occurred to change that in 2012.  So why would Mitt Romney assume that he doesn’t need a running mate who can appeal to self-described independent voters?
  2. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sunday and released Monday indicated that among independent voters Ryan’s favorable rating jumped 20 points, from 19% Wednesday through Friday, to 39% over the weekend.  Does that sound like the selection of a running mate who will not be used to appeal independent voters?
  3. If selecting Paul Ryan for Vice President is not in part, an attempt to appeal to independent voters, I must again ask  how Team Obama explains away Ryan being elected and reelected six times in a swing district that has voted for every Democrat presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis in 1988?
  4. Most independent voters are fiscally conservative and appreciate the type of fiscal responsibility and sanity that Paul Ryan represents.

Those factors demonstrate the illegitimacy of the second claim in the Obama campaign letter.  To suggest that Ryan can’t appeal to independents and that Mitt Romney is not even concerned with winning independent voters is either an indication of just how profoundly unintelligent Team Obama is, or of how absolutely disingenuous they are.

D.- “That means tens or even hundreds of millions more dollars for the Romney campaign and the array of outside groups supporting him — and if current trends hold, more than 90 percent of that money will be spent on TV ads — lying, distorting and trashing Barack Obama”;

  1. As demonstrated by Politifact even before the 2012 campaign began, President Obama was already the reigning king of negative campaign ads. No candidate has run more negative ads in American history than Barack Obama did in 2008.  It is how he defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democrat’s presidential nomination and how he won the presidential election. Given that undeniably truth alone, is not obvious that President Obama is guilty of using the majority of his money for the same thing he suggests is an evil practice that Republicans will conduct?
  2. President Obama has now officially spent more money on his campaign and done so more quickly than any incumbent in history. So far he has spent well over $100 million on television commercials, outspending Mitt Romney by 5-1, and in some battleground states Obama has outspent Romney by as much as 8-1.  Even more damaging is the fact that as reported by Forbes, 85 percent of the President’s advertising has been a barrage of negative attack ads aimed at Mitt Romney.

So can someone please tell me why President Obama’s campaign is trying to actually demonize Mitt Romney for following the President’s example and competing in the climate that he created?

The answer is simple.  The President and his supporters have a tremendous problem.  It’s the President’s record.  It’s a record so dismal that it makes it impossible for the Obama campaign or their surrogates to promote his candidacy with any positive reasons to vote him.  Can the President run ads touting the longest sustained high rate of unemployment we have seen in history?  Can he run ads promoting his accumulating a national debt that is greater than the sum total of the debt accumulated by Washington to George H.W. Bush combined?  Can Barack Obama offer Americans a “Morning In America-like” Ronald Reagan style ad?  Hardly.  This has demoralized the left and the President’s supporters.  As such, polls indicate that Republicans are far more engaged in the campaign than Democrats or unaffiliated voters  are and this Obama fundraising is indicative of that.  The only way Obama can inspire his vote is to breed a degree of hatred for his opposition that provides the motivation for them to go to the polls and vote against the Romney-Ryan ticket.

This fundraising letter from the Obama campaign manager is a sure sign of just how desperate things are getting for Team Obama and the Democrat Party.  This letter not only incorporates all 3 aspects of the left’s 3D strategy of distortion, distraction and division, it also highlights the degree of absolute hypocrisy and total lack of integrity behind the Obama reelection effort.  But what I find most striking about it is that the Obama campaign finds it necessary to raise money among his own supporters by offering them so many lies and distortions.  If Obama is willing to decieve his own supporters in order to raise money from them, how far you do you think he will be willing to go in decieving undecided voters?

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

No Comment

With Democrats fleeing the Democrat convention, the DNC has turned to local popular mayors.  Now, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro will be providing the keynote address.  Not too long ago, Obama mistook Mayor Castro for a Whitehouse intern.

Along with Senator Claire McCaskill, several other prominent Democrats are skipping out, including nearly every Democrat from West Virginia.

Mayor Alvin Brown, D-Jacksonville, FL

But even among popular Democrat mayors, Obama is struggling to gain traction.  I have noted before how Mayor Alvin Brown of Jacksonville has been notably absent from Obama’s visits to the city.  Jacksonville.com reports that even if Mayor Brown was in town, he wouldn’t have been at the event.  While stopping short of endorsing Romney, Brown has stated that he intends to steer clear of the election and not get involved at all, including offering no endorsement for Obama.

He had no such inhibitions as a staffer for the Clinton Whitehouse.

Then again, Clinton and Obama are two completely different kinds of Democrat.  Clinton was a liberal, but he knew how and when to moderate.  Clinton understood that not only did business owners “build that”, but they were essential to a growing economy.  Brown understands the same thing and has been growing Jacksonville by going out and bringing business to town.  He hasn’t tried to grow the city through wasted stimulus spent on friends and campaign supporters, and in fact he has refused to raise taxes. Instead, he has cut the size of local government to close budget gaps.
If Obama had any illusions of bi-partisanship, support for businesses, or winning Florida, Mayor Brown is the type of person he would want to pursue for things like making key speeches at the convention.  Yes, Castro is more popular in San Antonio.  He got 82% of the votes (totaling about 34,000).  Brown on the other hand, with about 97,000 votes, only barely eked out a victory over his Republican challenger.  Or perhaps Obama believes that Texas is a more attainable prize than Florida.

Obama has already lost the Reagan Democrats, but he may also be in danger of losing the Clinton Democrats.  They won’t vote for Romney, but if they don’t vote for Obama, he’s sunk.

The Veiled Message in Clinton’s Endorsement

A highly strategic political game is being played out right before our eyes between the leader of the old-school liberal Democrats and the leader of the new-school socialist Democrats.  When Bill Clinton atoned for his sins in a New York City joint fundraiser with Obama, all I heard was “This Obama guy is no Bill Clinton”.

We got the message…

Don’t misunderstand Clinton when he calls Romney qualified and praises Romney’s business record.  Clinton is not giving up on his party affiliation.  If anything, he is trying to convert his party back to what it was before Obama.  Dick Morris is likely right when he insinuates that Clinton doesn’t want four more years of Obama.  But Clinton doesn’t necessarily want to see his party fail.  Nor does he want to lose the power and influence he has amassed for himself in the DNC.  He just wants to see Obama fail.

That is why Clinton’s endorsement was not a call to support Obama, but a veiled warning to stay home in 2012.  Clinton reminded the crowd that he is the one who gave them four balanced budgets.  Contrast that with Obama who has increased the deficit by a trillion and a half dollars every year in office, and whose wildest dreams of a budget won’t balance even ten years after he leaves office.  Every Obama budget has been voted down bi-partisanly as outlandish to both Republicans and liberal Democrats.  Nothing says “vote for the guy who’s added $6 trillion to the deficit” like an endorsement from someone who’s record is the polar opposite.  Clinton flaunting his budget record in his Obama endorsement was no mistake or gaffe.

Now, Clinton is not a deficit hawk.  He is not pro-austerity, and he certainly is not a conservative.  Anyone who has been alive long enough knows that it was Newt Gingrich who dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into those balanced budgets.  But Clinton’s perception of himself is as a non-socialist compassionate liberal who cut spending and saw it work.

Clinton cannot support Romney.  First, Clinton is not a conservative.  He opposes Romney on social issues.  He doesn’t really agree with Romney on fiscal issues.  Second, Clinton has no higher ambition at this point than to maintain what he has: his life as a Democrat celebrity.  An actual endorsement of Romney would destroy the Clinton dynasty.

But at the same time, Clinton knows what works and what doesn’t.  Even he can look at the Obama record and see what danger our country is in if the new-school socialist Democrats win.  Setting aside Clinton’s personal and racial beef with Obama, he understands what Obama’s out of control spending will do to the Democrat party’s legacy, and by extension his own, if Obama is given another four years to outspend revenues by over a trillion a year.

If Obama is smart, he will find a way to keep Bill Clinton in whatever corner of the country he has kept Joe Biden for the last four years.  However, don’t count old Slick Willy out yet.  Obama may be about to get schooled by the original campaigner-in-chief.

 

Politics IS a Contact Sport

Newt hopes to land knock-out punch with attack ads, but is Mitt's mitt bigger and stronger?

So, Newt has launched an attack ad on Mitt, and no doubt the Democrats are watching with glee.  There are no doubt worries that attack ads damage the Republican Party, just as many worry that American politics is too divisive. Does all the “infighting” damage Republican chances?

Well, no.

Attack ads are part of politics. Politics is divisive. This is because folks disagree, and they rightly disagree on important points of principle and policy. Of course the candidates attack each other, and why not? The prize is big; these are passionate people who feel they deserve a run at the number 1 job on the planet. Otherwise, they might as well play paper and scissors for the right to run.

Cast your mind back to 2008, and the exchange of “shame” accusations by candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

You can see her attack here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPV1yd7sQg&feature=share and Obama’s response here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkR9kw81Cx8&feature=share. You can also see the Obama attack ad, comparing Hilary Clinton to Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo, which is quite a laugh given that Democrats are the Orwellian nightmare party!

Both parties share the tactics of attack, and it goes a long way back. Hilary’s barb that Obama was following Karl Rove’s playbook was foolishness; it doesn’t take a village to work out that attacking the candidate, or in soccer parlance playing the man rather than the ball, goes back a lot further than Rove.

In fact, the earliest example of attack ads was launched by Lyndon B Johnson in 1964, in his attack on Barry Goldwater. Known as the “Daisy Spot”, it showed an innocent girl picking daisies followed by a countdown to nuclear catastrophe, which shocked audiences at the time. The idea was that Goldwater’s aggressive stance on the Cold War would lead to nuclear destruction. [You can view the ad here: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/media/daisyspot/]This will be the same Johnson who thought escalating Vietnam was a good idea.

Hilary and Obama attacked each other without pulling their punches. She lost, Obama won, and despite all the punches Hilary laid on Obama he won the White House. Like Hilary’s husband said in 2008, “This is a contact sport, politics. You can’t complain about being attacked. It’s like Yao Ming complaining about being fouled playing basketball.”

The narrative that the attack by candidates is damaging is simply a way of attacking the Republicans, while President Obama as incumbent and the official nominee come September can stand serenely above the action and appear, well, presidential. That is, until his Republican opponent is selected and can turn his attention to attacking Obama’s record 100%.

For this reason ending the attacks is important, we need to see the main bout start. The chief result of Newt’s attacks on Mitt is to bring Mitt onto the canvas ready to land his punches. Newt’s attack ads are the last attempts to land some body blows on Mitt, but Mitt’s mitt appears to be the bigger and stronger of the two. Once the attacks are done, the choice is made, the Republican nominee can step onto the canvas and win the prize fight that will take him to the White House.

Bill Clinton was right, this is a contact sport. He was wrong to compare it to basketball though. This is a fight, and it is a fight to the end. Unlike Johnson’s Daisy ad the countdown is not to nuclear destruction, but losing to Obama will see more destruction of the American economy and the nation.

Cain Falls Back on the “B” Word

In a 5pm news conference on Tuesday, Herman Cain addressed the sexual harassment charges against him by saying there were groups trying to keep him out of the white house for one key reason.  He is a Businessman.  He is not an establishment politician.

Cain once again resisted the temptation to play the race card and accuse his accusers of racism, even though it’s pretty obvious in some cases.  Yesterday Martin Bashir interviewed Truther Toure and Karen Finney on MSNBC who both referenced Herman Cain as a “sexually aggressive” black man towards white blonde women.  They basically warned that GOP’ers should keep their women away from the black man.  Amazingly, these racist comments on MSNBC have not received much replay.

Cain stared America in the face today and said he did not recognize Sharon Bailek.  This is a risky move, since hotel records and other travel records may be dug up to show that she was in Washington at the time, which will just add more doubt for Cain supporters.  However, for now Cain has bolstered his position by addressing the accusations head on and flatly denying them.  Of course, Clinton did the same thing.  But Clinton had the advantages of a compliant mainstream media and compliant witnesses like Monica Lewinsky who he could illegally coach.

Cain did not attempt to downplay true sexual harassment or assault.  He called such things very serious and mentioned that he had dealt with those issues with his employees in past occasions.  Cain also pointed out that Mitt Romney had not agreed with the accusations, but had simply spoken about the nature of the charges which Cain agreed with.  He handled the press conference very well and demonstrated the sort of political competence that many had alleged was missing from his campaign.

What Cain did today was restore “innocent until proven guilty” to his corner.  But if he is proven guilty, the ramifications will extend far beyond his 2012 primary race.  It will hurt his family and his career, but it could also hurt the entire Republican party.

What Cain Has In Common With The Boyscouts

Cain may not be a current member of the Boyscouts of America organization, but he does share something in common with them.  Today Cain became the latest target of Gloria Allred, a liberal feminist lawyer who once sued the Boyscouts because they wouldn’t let a girl join.

This isn’t the first time Allred has played attack dog for the left either.  Allred represented Rhonda Miller in the 2003 sexual harassment case against popular GOP Gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzeneggor.  The case was eventually dismissed and Arnold won, despite admitting that in his youth he had “behaved badly”.  What that meant wasn’t revealed until after his time as governor came to a close.

Allred is the feminist version of an ambulance chaser.  She even went as far as to represent Kelly Fisher in a lawsuit against Dodi Fayed for breaking off his engagement with her to date Princess Diana.  How about that, fellas.  How would you like to be sued for breaking up with a girl?  Of course, Allred dropped the suit when the evil Fayed died with Diana in an infamous automobile accident.

There are some high profile cases of women being harassed, and even raped, that Allred has ignored. Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broderick come to mind.

So now there is a name and a face to the accusations that have been coming up against Cain.  There are also two unreleased affidavits of unnamed friends who allegedly can corroborate her story.  Interestingly also, Bailek and the other accusers were all former employees, disgruntled employees, or employees on the chopping block.  Cain apparently was smart enough not to sexually harass any permanent employees.  Meanwhile, Cain continues to deny all of the accusations.  Is Sharon Bailek telling the truth?  Now that we have a name, and timeframe, it shouldn’t be too hard to check some of the details.  As more backstory comes out, the public will continue to develop their opinion of what is truth.

Meanwhile, this is not good news for the Cain campaign.  Cain has the unfortunate privilege of being a member of a party that still cares about morality.  If Social Conservatives begin to turn on Cain, he is finished.  However, if the story simply does not pan out the backlash against the media and the racist left will seal Cain’s victory.

Why the Cain story is so big

Let’s be honest.  There really isn’t much to this Herman Cain story.  After a week of the media acting like Cain had raped a woman, had an affair with an intern or broken some federal laws or something, all we know is that he allegedly did something to someone a couple decades ago. In the grand scheme of things, the Cain story is the biggest non-story since we discovered that George W. Bush was a drunken AWOL airman because Dan Rather had a fake letter that said so.

The intensity with which the media has been following this story has consumed major media resources.  So let’s look at what the Cain non-affair story might be hiding.

– Administration scandals such as Fast and Furious and the Solyndra affair continue to get juicer as Congress subpoenas the administration for documents they have been slow about releasing

– Occupy Oakland protests show the true nature of the Wall Street Mob as protestors get violent and start destroying public property.  The movement is finally stooping to the level we have come to expect from liberal, leaderless mob protesters, especially union supported mobs.  Now the media is working hard to find OWS protesters who look enough like they are in charge of something who will disavow the violence.  Of course, poll that crowd and you are sure to get even responses either way.

– Speaking of union led protests, a story that has barely entered the Cain filled news cycle is yet another document shred drill at the ACORN offices in New York City.  ACORN is shredding documents and firing workers as fast as they can to cover up the extent of their involvement behind the scenes with the now Democrat bought and owned Occupy Wall Street movement.

– Wall Street meanwhile ended a winning streak on Friday after job growth came in lower than expected and downright anemic compared to what the economy needs to start making significant strides towards reaching reasonable employment levels.

– After taking millions in bonuses, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae execs are reporting billions in losses and Freddie Mac is asking for $6 billion in new bailout funds.

– Obama’s jobs tax hike bill continues to face bi-partisan opposition, though he is choosing to blame it all on Republicans.  Meanwhile, Democrats are blocking Republican jobs provisions that don’t kill jobs at the same time by raising taxes.

– And perhaps the biggest scandal fresh on the scene and being ignored by major media outlets is the Jon Corzine fraud story.  Remember Bernie Madoff?  He was the guy who tricked investors into giving him money in a grand pyramid scheme which worked great until he ran out of money.  Corzine did it the legal way.  Corzine’s investment company, MF Global, found a legal loophole that allowed him, without investor knowledge, to take funds out of investor accounts as a “loan” to fund business operations.  When the investors went to get their money, they found it wasn’t there.

So how is what Corzine did legal, you might ask?  Simple.  Jon Corzine is a well connected Democrat, former senator and New Jersey governor.  He was a star at Goldman Sachs where many administration officials cut their teeth.  When Obama regulators considered eliminating the loophole that allowed Corzine to steal from his investors’ brokerage accounts to fund business operations, Corzine himself personally lobbied them (all his friends), into not regulating out that loophole or even requiring proper accounting for it.

Throughout the 2012 campaign, we will continue to hear the same mantra about how we need regulation to prevent what happened in the past from happening in the future.  In this case, we have another example of the hand in glove relationship between Democrat politicians, Democrat corporate CEOs and Democrat regulators.  And as usual, the media ignores it.  Why?

Because a conservative allegedly did something offensive to a female employee 20 years ago.  For all we know, he picked his nose while she was in the room.  No names, no specifics, just enough to inspire the tabloid writers we used to take seriously.

%d bloggers like this: