Why Obama Thinks Romney is Lying

Obama stunk up the stage, no one is questioning that.  Even Seth Meyers on Saturday Night Live had a hard time finding ways to take jabs at Romney’s debate performance.  That means Romney did something special in that first debate.  So what do you do when your opponent so completely mops the floor with you that your most loyal allies can’t even find a nice thing to say?  Accuse your opponent of lying.

In fact, Obama hasn’t just accused Romney of lying.  Obama has accused Romney of so completely abandoning his beliefs and principles that Obama didn’t even know how to respond.  The spin now is that Obama was so shocked by how far Romney would go to lie about his record that Obama was overcome with moral outrage and simply couldn’t get over it enough to respond or call him out.

That’s right, when Romney said he actually doesn’t want to cut taxes on the rich by $5 trillion and raise taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for it, Obama figured every American out there would know that was an outright lie.  When Romney said he wants a healthcare plan that is determined by the states but ensures that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage, Obama figured he wouldn’t have to respond to such an obvious distortion of the truth.  Or perhaps Obama was so disgusted by Romney’s lies that he simply couldn’t stammer out a response.

Obviously that’s a bunch of baloney to try to excuse the worst debate performance since…well maybe ever.  Or is it?

Barack Obama is a pretty smart guy, but surely he tunes in to watch his friends in the mainstream media talk glowingly about him and attack Romney.  When the Tax Policy Center said that Romney’s tax plan was going to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for a tax break for the rich, Obama may have actually believed them.  When Chris Matthews and the left portray the Republican party as some sort of gathering of vampires seeking to suck the life-blood out of the poor and minorities, perhaps Obama began to actually think such wild leftist representations of Republicans must be accurate.

When Obama said that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion for the rich and raise taxes on the poor and middle class to pay for it, maybe Obama truly believed that was an honest attack.  When Obama, who himself cut $716 billion out of Medicare, talked about Romney taking away Medicare for seniors, maybe he thought the charges were accurate.  And since the debate, perhaps the leftist media has Obama convinced now that Romney would actually like to put Big Bird in the unemployment line.

Republicans really aren’t evil.  We don’t want to raise taxes on the poor.  We don’t want to do horrible things to people’s “lady parts” as one Obama internet ad suggested.  We don’t want to put blacks back in chains as Biden suggested.  Honestly, we don’t want to keep Hispanics out of the country or go to war with every country with a majority Muslim population.  Republicans are not racists by nature either.

If Obama doesn’t figure out that the other half of the country isn’t evil, he will look just as lost and bewildered in the next debate too.  And in the next debate, if Romney doesn’t admit to being a monster who wants to chain women to the kitchen sink or station troops at churches to stop gay weddings, I’m sure the Obama campaign will try to get more mileage out of the “Romney is a liar” argument to defend his next debate performance.

Unemployment Rate Explained

Conservatives woke up two days after one of our best debates since Bush/Kerry to hear that despite slower job growth than economists were expecting, the unemployment rate had dropped to 7.8%.  This is magically .1% lower than it was when Obama took office.  Most Americans don’t understand the details of the jobs report, but they understand 7.8%.

If you’ve ever played the game “which of these is not like the other”, the 7.8% rate would qualify.  Economists expecting 142,000 new jobs (the actual number was 114,000 according to the Establishment Survey) expected the rate to stay the same or go up to 8.2%.  However, there are two surveys used to measure the rate as I will explain later.

This is pretty wonky stuff and I don’t want to lose you, so let me get to the point then we will discuss the details.  The reason the rate dropped is because the economy added 583,000 part-time jobs.  But the U-6, which measures unemployed and under employed remained unchanged at 14.7%.  In other words, 583,000 people got part-time jobs they didn’t want.  Why?

Now for the background.  In 2012 we saw some major changes to the way unemployment benefits are paid out.  First, for anyone who loses their job after the beginning of the year, states only pay for 26 weeks.  Second, in states with high unemployment the federal government cut back payments from 99 weeks to 73 weeks.  They cut to 63 weeks for low unemployment states.  So here is the question:

What do you do when your unemployment benefits run out and you still can’t get the job you want or need?  Well, in my family’s case when I was a kid, my Mom got two part-time jobs while my Dad kept looking.  We had to eat.

Can Obama take credit for the 7.8% unemployment rate?  Only if he wants to take credit for cutting off the government’s new pseudo-welfare program of never ending unemployment benefit extensions and forcing some of the 47% to get off the government dole, even if it means flipping burgers for the King during the day and the Clown at night.  How does that sound for the narrative of Obama’s soon to be released “I fixed jobs” ad.

Actually, based on many of the revisions up from previous months, government jobs make up the majority of the growth.  How about that, they can work for the King and the Clown at the same time.  But of course this time I’m not referring to fast food chains.

But even the part-time job growth leaves many rightfully scratching their heads.  Did unemployment really just have its biggest one month drop since 1983?  If the economy is really about to come roaring back, why did Bernanke just promise QE-Infinity where he prints $40 billion a month to pump job growth?  Perhaps Bernanke is a terrible economist and should be canned.

Well, there is one more discrepancy to be mentioned in this jobs report.  The 7.8% rate is based on two surveys.  The Establishment Survey asks 390,000+ businesses about their hiring and extrapolates a national figure based on that.  The Household Survey asks 50,000 households if they are employed, searching, or gave up looking.  The Establishment Survey gave us the 114,000 job number.

The Household Survey indicated that 873,000 more people are employed.  That’s a little bit of a variance.  So although the surge in part-time/temporary hires certainly makes sense, the 7.8% figure is still suspect.

A Contrast in Style

In a desperate move to shift American politics away from the economy, Obama took a controversial idea from Sen. Marco Rubio and made it his own.  In fact, he made it so much his own that he decided to leave Congress out of the law making process altogether.  Obama enacted the Dream Act by Presidential, unconstitutional executive order.  But the real story in the President’s announcement was the blunder of a press conference where a reporter shouted out a question and was quickly shut down by Obama.

The question was whether this unilateral decision, dubbed the right thing to do by Obama, was right for the American workers.  Obama was visibly upset about the question and asserted his right to speak without interruption.  Meanwhile, MSNBC reporters wet themselves with excitement at the opportunity to declare Obama to be the only President to have ever been heckled, and of course to tie it in to his race.

But of course we know that other Presidents and candidates have been heckled.  George W. Bush saw it as evidence of a free society that treasures the freedom of expression and dissent.  I thought it was an interesting contrast to watch Bush’s reaction to two shoes being thrown at him by a foreign reporter in Iraq compared to Obama being questioned while passing down dictates from on high.  I’ve posted them both here.  You can decide which President handled it with more class.

 

Hit Piece Misses

The day after Scott Walker demonstrated the sheer might of the conservative vote over the power of public unions, media outlets are doing everything they can to find something else to talk about.  For example, Ross Tucker at The Exchange writes “Republicans Bungle the Battle Over Light Bulbs”.  His article is all about how Republicans are preventing Americans from saving money by preventing Democrats from making incandescent light bulbs illegal.  Apparently, the only way Americans know how to buy economically is if the government eliminates all non-economical options as determined by bureaucrats in DC.

In other news, MSNBC tried to say that the Walker win was a great thing for Obama because the exit polls that showed Walker barely surviving also showed Obama winning in Wisconsin.  Of course, Walker didn’t barely survive, but instead creamed his opponent by a 7 point margin.  If you adjust exit polling by the actual results of the election, Romney will have the distinction of being the first Republican President to win Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan.

AP highlighted Elizabeth Warren tweeting about Scott Brown’s no vote the Democrat equal pay bill that would unintentionally make more women unemployable.  I’m not sure why Warren needs an equal pay bill for women; she already got her affirmative action benefits for being a “Cherokee”.

But the best hit piece was a headline from Rick Newman at US News & World Report stating that Mitt Romney’s desire to sell the government owned GM stock would cost taxpayers $15 billion.  Or as his headline put it, “Mitt Romney’s Stance on GM Sale Would Cost Taxpayers Dearly”.  What a headline.

Newman himself reviews the reason we have GM stock in the first place, but can’t seem to make the connection that the losses to taxpayers from GM might actually be Obama’s fault.  When GM was faltering and heading into bankruptcy, instead of selling GM to Italy like he did with Chrysler or allowing them to go through the legal bankruptcy protection process, Obama funneled about $25 billion dollars into GM making the US taxpayer a Wall Street shareholder.  He did the same thing with AIG and Citigroup.

When it comes to playing Wall Street fund manager with our tax dollars, Obama sucks. I wonder what Occupy Wall Street thinks about our Wall Street fund manager-in-chief?

When GM re-emerged on the market at $35 a share, Obama did not cut our losses and sell.  Instead he held on to GM with our tax dollars.  GM has now dropped to $21 a share according to Newman’s article.  Newman admits that GM would have to reach $52 a share in order for taxpayers to recover the original money Obama invested in GM.

The premise of Newman’s article is that we don’t need any of our money back and can wait to see if GM makes it back to $52 a share.  Of course, at this point GM would have to more than double in value.  Newman thinks this could happen by the end of 2013.  I’d like to know what he is smoking and where I can get some.

Large cap stocks rarely double in a year.  Large cap stocks freshly out of bankruptcy with 60% of their common stock shares owned by a government who is just itching to sell may never double in price. Romney is wise to cut our losses.

By Newman’s own math, Obama cost taxpayers $8.7 billion by not selling when GM peaked at $39.

Newman was trying to use fuzzy math to make Romney the bad guy for cleaning up the President’s taxpayer funded investment.  Instead, he unintentionally presents a clear indictment of one more foolish Wall Street fund manager: Barack Obama.

The Hidden Truth Behind Wisconsin’s Vote

Yesterday Wisconsin voters confirmed the validity of Gov. Scott Walker’s agenda and slapped unions hard enough to leave a welt. Ultimately, the recall election, spurred by union interests and hyped as “too close to call” for months, wasn’t that close at all. Walker jumped out to an early lead and prevailed easily over the generic and boring Democrat Tom Barrett. But there is more to this story.

Since taking power, Walker has knocked down unemployment a full point and has created some 28,000 jobs. Juan Williams on Fox, promoted the asinine idea that Walker should be recalled because he didn’t deliver 250,000 jobs. But if Walker could have spent the last 18 months doing his job rather than defending it, those employment numbers would be higher. This sad complaint also shows where the left really stands regarding jobs. After all, if Williams and the left are down on 28,000 jobs created then they must be really down on the pathetic results of Obama, who has netted zero. That’s zero, as in the number lower than one. But they aren’t because they don’t care about jobs. They care only about the expansion of government. They dream of an American society where public unions take money from government workers and funnel it to Democratic leaders. These leaders, in turn, pass laws to help perpetuate this cycle. Meanwhile, to pacify folks not involved with unions, they provide endless entitlement programs. But entitlement programs mean nothing if only a tiny portion of the population is collecting them. Therefore, Democrats do nothing about the economy. In fact, wrapped in lies about protecting people and the environment, they in fact, attack industries and businesses with straggling legislation to ensure the economy sputters. It’s simple really — more unemployed people means more entitlements and more entitlements means more people reliant on government. Those reliant on government handouts will vote for those writing the checks.

But the citizenry of Wisconsin rejected this. They see the illusion. They want to be working and independent not unemployed and reliant.

Scott Walker also wiped away $3.6 billion in deficits, ultimately creating a surplus, without raising taxes. Pay special attention to the word ‘without’ in the previous sentence. As progressives and Democrats continue to call for tax hikes rather than common sense cuts they’re only going to dig their grave deeper.

Over the next few weeks, the airwaves will be saturated with reasoning as to what the Wisconsin results mean. Unfortunately, with a presidential election still to come, virtually everyone that hits the airwaves will put a spin on this in hopes of concealing the real meaning. The right, still composed of too many political cowards, will resort to generic talking points like ‘a good solid win’ and ‘Walker’s accomplishments shows raising taxes isn’t necessary’ and ‘Wisconsin voters have had enough of big government’. Although these points are accurate, they are still a surface-based perspective concealing the reality.

And the left, utterly horrified, can’t afford to mention the true meaning of this vote. They will promote ideas all over the board like it was ‘merely a state election and therefore won’t have national implications’, or that Wisconsin shows why the ‘hardcore, radical right needs to be tamed’ or even ‘this is the beginning of the end of democracy’. Well, this is the beginning of the end of something, that’s for sure. Of what?

Oh, just the progressive-liberal movement.

Outrageous conclusion? Not really.

The fact is that all the supposed reasons and justifications for this recall are utter rubbish. The only issue Democrats and unions were really fighting is payroll deducted union dues. Nothing more. Unions, contrary to the hype, retained the ability to negotiate pay. Further, knowing the gig was up, they folded on benefit contributions early on. But when Walker took away mandatory dues, unions and Democratic politician’s hair stood up. By making union dues a choice for members rather than a payroll deducted requirement, Walker has changed the money river that funds the Democratic party into a stream. And this is the real reason behind Walker’s recall.

On the last day of May, Fox reported, “Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state’s second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme’s figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.”

Cearly, given a choice, union members prefer not to pay dues. Whether members quit or were tossed out after they stopped paying dues is irrelevant. That discussion is a distraction. The point is for the first time in forty years, the money laundering scheme put in place by the Democratic party has been destroyed. Citizens paying government workers, who in turn pay unions, who in turn pay Democratic politicians is a scam that the Wisconsin citizens will no longer tolerate. Democrats and unions fought it hard but lost. But they lost more than just the Wisconsin fight. Forcing a recall vote after a legitimate election that put Walker in power, was, like Obama-care, another example of the Democratic party going against the will of the people. Democrats and unions looked selfish and low doing so. As the election year pushes forward, this shameful behavior will be remembered.

Wisconsin is a major step in dis-mantling of the progressive liberal movement. Obviously, Republican governors across the land will feel emboldened and initiate similar agendas. And stopping unions ability to steal from the citizens will be the goal. ”For many years, [unions] were the unquestioned biggest boy on the block, you didn’t dare cross them,” said Bill Wilson, president of the conservative group Americans for Limited Government. But “if they are unable to topple a governor in a state like Wisconsin, then their power is greatly reduced and greatly overstated. … If they can’t maintain it there, then I would have to contend that only in the most liberal of states — California, Illinois — are they going to be able to maintain it.”

Progressive liberals have always been in the minority and without money, their ability to promote and perpetuate their anti-American philosophy is damaged considerably. Look for infighting as pragmatic Democrats, for survival of the party, begin distancing themselves from liberals by bad-mouthing liberal philosophy and rejecting liberal spin. There are meaningful political struggles ahead, but if the cards fall correctly and the hands are played smartly we could see liberalism within the Democratic party marginalized for several administrations.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Wisconsin Bodes Well For Republicans in November and America in General While Making Liberals Suicidal

  Bookmark and Share Last night’s trouncing of liberal Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in a rare recall election, marked a pronounced shift in American attitudes towards liberalism, big labor unions, and the agenda of the radical leftists who wish to hijack democracy and government in order to suppress the true will of the people.

The stunning victory by Walker over big labor union and bosses and the liberal Occupy forces, left Republicans and conservatives pleasantly surprised and it left Democrats and their liberal soul mates mired in anger and a depression so deep that at times at times, some of them seemed to show suicidal tendencies.

As seen in the video below, one Barney Rubble sounding Tom Barrett, big labor union, liberal activist broke down during a brief interview with a CNN reporter.  In the thirty second interview, the emotional Barrett backer held back tears and choked up several times as his quivering voice declared that Walker’s victory was “the end of the U.S.” and that “democracy was dead”.

What the ignorant, emotional wreck representing the liberal point of view did not realize was that Scott Walker’s landslide victory was not the end of democracy, it was merely the beginning of the end to the recent resurgence of American Socialist-Democrats in contemporary American politics.

Walker’s win was not an end of democracy, it was a vindication of the democratic process.  Voters of Wisconsin said three things last night.  They declared that when they elect someone to do a job, their vote should stick and that person should be afforded the opportunity to do that job until their term is up, not when liberals don’t get their way.  They also said that Scott Walker’s policies of fiscal austerity, getting control of the budget, and his attempts to rein in the out of control big labor union bosses, is the right way to go.  But their overwhelming support for Walker also said something else.  It said that a political leaders who are willing to take on the tough problems and who are willing to stand up to the most belligerent bullies and politically intimidating forces in our country, deserve our respect, our support, and a chance to deliver upon their promises.

Whether this bodes well for Republicans or not has yet to be seen, but it should.  However that really depends on whether Republicans get the right message from Walker’s win or not.

If Republicans like Mitt Romney fail to gleam from the election results the fact that Americans want reforms and that they want their politicians to actually enact reforms and not just talk about them, then they will be facing a tough electoral road ahead.  They will be risking the support of millions of Americans who are no longer tolerant of politics-as-usual and who are not particularly attracted to the go-along-to-get-along types.  If Republicans are not willing to accept the fact that a majority of Americans want more Scott Walkers and Chris Christies leading than Tom Barretts and Jerry Browns leading them, then they will go the way of names like Dick Lugar and Mike Castle, Republicans whose years of service were  ultimately rejected because they were viewed as part of the establishment and part of the problem and not as one of the people and a part of the solution.

Meanwhile the left is almost apoplectic.

Liberal opinion mavens like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz were distraught and stretching for the slightest hint of a silver lining in last night’s liberal loss.  They devoted entire segments to trying to convince everyone that Republicans undermined this recall election with an abundance of money.  They tried to suggest that voters did not really vote on the issues that mattered to them.  They simply voted for Walker because he spent more money.  But these suggestions ignored reality and such things as the fact that more than 80% of Wisconsin’s voters made up their minds about who they were going to vote for, over a month ago, well before most of the money was spent in this campaign.

Another aspect of the money angle that many liberal advisors and talking heads tried to ascribe credit or blame for Walker’s win to was the significantly larger amount of out of state campaign contributions that Walker received than Barrett received.   What was lost on the Rachel Maddows of the liberal loonasphere was the fact that the level of money contributed to the candidates in last night’s recall election was a reflection of the level of approval that each candidate’s cause had both in Wisconsin and in the nation.  They also failed to accept that it was a sign of things to come in November.

But that was a fact not lost on all liberals, such as the one featured in the video accompanying this post.

Like the goofy leftist in that clip, may liberals are beside themselves and not just because they lost, but because they lost by so much.  And not just in their attempt to defeat Scott Walker.  Last night liberals lost in almost every attempt to recall all those who opposed their socialist, big labor union agenda, including their attempt to remove Wisconsin’s Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch as well as in at least three of the four Republican State Senators that were target for removal by the left.   The fourth one, Van Wangaard of the 24th Senate District, is too close to definitively declare to have been defeated yet.

The resounding losses are frightening liberals so much that many are beginning to suffer from what in 2004,  psychologist and executive director of the American Health Association, Rob Gordon called “post-election selection trauma” or PEST.  According to author David Limbaugh in his book Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party”, Gordon described symptoms of the disorder as having “feelings of withdrawal and isolationism, anger and bitterness, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, nightmares, intense moodiness, and preoccupied anxiety over the country’s future”.    In 2004, PEST was running rampant in the liberal loonasphere.  According to Limbaugh, Renana Brooks, a Washington, D.C. clinical psychologist observed that people were suffering from post-traumatic stress and total despair when George W. Bush was reelected.  Brooks added that PEST sufferers were believing that “America was pretty much destroyed”.

It was even reported that after the election, a liberal 25 year old Gerogia boy by the name of Andrew Veal, committed suicide with a shotgun blast to his head because of John Kerry’s loss in the 2004 election.

Upon witnessing the tears and emotional breakdowns of the left last night, I would say that post-election selection trauma is going to become a national epidemic among liberals.  In fact I think liberals will be dropping like flies because not only will they be stressing over the post election results in Wisconsin, their anxiety will only be compounded by the pre-election jitters that they will have to try survive in advance of their now anticipated losses in the House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, gubernatorial elections, and the White House come November.Bookmark and Share

Down With Hayes Because Our Military Men and Women Are Heroes

Bookmark and ShareOn Sunday, the day before our nation was suppose to collectively take some time to pay homage to our fallen warriors, liberal media pundit Chris Hayes took to the airwaves and discussed how uncomfortable he was to refer to the men and women who gave their lives in their service to this county as heroes.

According to Hayes;

I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word “hero”?  I feel comfortable — uncomfortable — about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that. (see video below)

Well Chris, certainly was wrong about that.

People who are willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of others most certainly are heroes.  There are few other words that can be ascribed more accurately to men and women who are so giving and strong in character that are willing to die for the founding principles of our nation and willing to give up their own lives so that even an ignorant American whose only claim to fame are the connections which got him his job, can spew the type of liberal vitriol and disrespectfully politically correct, talking points that Chris Hayes did on the day before Memorial Day.

Hayes tried to trace his discomfort with calling “all” America’s war dead heroes, to his belief that doing so seems to justify war.  And therein lies one of Chris’ problems.  He does not believe that any war is justifiable.  He believes that no matter what, it is better to ignore the enemy or to conform to their wishes than it is to say “no” to them or to refuse to compromise with them.  And that is because as you will find out, Chris Hayes has a silver spoon stuck in his mouth and lacks any real passion for principles or for anyone other than himself.  He is a shallow follower of hypocritical liberal doctrine who believes that ours is not a particularly special nation or that our role in the world is any more significant than say, Uganda’s role in the world.  He is a typical liberal elitists and that is what accounted for his truly stupid attempt to try to avoid calling those who gave their all for us, heroes.

No one likes war and no sane person wants war.  And no one dislikes war more than modern day warriors.  But the men and women who voluntarily enlist in our military to defend the values and principles of America and the freedom and rights of individual Americans, know that there are things worth fighting and even dying for.  And that is exactly what made those who died in the service of our nation heroes.  They were brave enough to do what most of us aren’t…..risk it all for their beliefs.

Following Hayes’ ignorant Sunday remarks on his obscure little MSNBC talk show “Up With Chris Hayes”, he issued a carefully phrased apology on Memorial Day that read as such;

On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word “hero” to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don’t think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I’ve set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.

As many have rightly pointed out, it’s very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation’s citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday’s show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.

But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don’t, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.

Personally, after reading that, I wasn’t quite sure which was more offensive, his original attempt to try to explain why he won’t call our war dead heroes, or his fake apology regarding that explanation and continued refusal to call those dead warriors heroes?

That question arises because you might note that Hayes did not apologize for trying to deny those in the armed forces who gave their lives  proper credit as heroes.  Instead he states that he is deeply sorry for not living up to his own standards for himself in the areas of respect and empathy.  What he does not say he is deeply sorry for is his desire to deny calling those who made the greatest sacrifice heroes.

Instead of apologizing for that, this stuck up, pseudo-intellectual, liberal snob, tries to redeem himself  by attempting to reinforce the validity of what he describes as the real point of the discussion that led him to make his inappropriate remarks.   In his apology he goes on to claim that his desire to avoid using the term heroes in regards to our deceased military fighters was an example of the disconnect that most people have with what our service members do and with the reasons for their actions.  The inference being that by not calling those we memorialize on Memorial Day heroes, he too was demonstrating a disconnect of his own therefore his “greater” point was correct.

Not once does Hayes state in his apology that contrary to his initial remarks, those Americans who died on the field are in fact heroes.  Instead he tries to shift the focus away from his disrespectful thought process and shine it on something which he claims he is right about……… that most Americans do not fully comprehend what our military men and women go through.   His claim is that his remarks demonstrated the same “social distance” between the military and civilians that he was addressing and that in doing so he accidentally demonstrated the same lack of appreciation for what our military members go through that he was trying to explain.  And so as he put it, “for that I am truly sorry“.

His regret is not for denying that the members of the armed forces who have given their lives are heroes, it is simply for his claim that  coming off people gleemed from his remark a sense that he doesn’t understand what our veterans went through.

That just goes to show you that Chris Hayes just doesn’t get it.

He doesn’t understand that the vast majority of people who heard about his remark (most people only heard about it through other media sources because few people actually see his show) are offended by his inherently liberal desire to try to avoid justifying any American military actions.  And in this case to do so by denying the participants in those actions the right to be considered heroes.

This whole incident and the thinking behind Hayes’s remarks and the Memorial Day weekend timing of them, was hard for me to understand.  At least up until I found out who Chris Hayes is.

You see, like most people, I never heard of this guy.  And like most people I never heard of or saw his two hour long, weekend talk show on MSNBC called “Up with Chris”.

So I poked around a bit and what I learned allowed me to make perfect sense of it all.

Chris Hayes is nothing but a purely partisan, liberal propagandist who was born in to money, married in to power, and given a career because of who is father-in-law is.

This Bronx, New York born MSNBC star happens to be the husband of Kate Shaw, the Associate Counsel for President Barack Obama.  And Kate happens to be the daughter of award-winning Chicago journalist Andy Shaw, a frequent liberal guest on MSNBC and a reporter with close ties to President Obama.  And to make the picture even more clear, Hayes brother Luke is a Democrat party operative.

Prior to his big job on the low rated MSNBC, Chris recieved an undergraduate education at Brown University where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy.  Philosophy!

In 2006 Hayes parlayed that expertise in philosophy into a gig as a contributing write for the pro-communist rag called The Nation.  In 2007 that liberal stink tank made him their Washington, D.C. editor.  Now he writes for a a monthly liberal tabloid in Chicago called “These Times”.

As for his show on MSNBC, that came about in 2011, after he filled in several times for the legendary liberal lesbian Rachel Maddow of the too low to be rated Rachel Maddow Show.  Hayes also filled in for such MSNBC liberal luminaries as Ed Schultz, self described socialist Lawrence O’Donnell, and the king of liberal lunatics, Keith Olbermann.

These details helped  me to understand what was really at the heart of the controversial remarks that tried to deny our military men and women who died in combat, the proper respect and right to be called heroes.  The problem is nothing more or less than liberalism and I have come to realize that liberalism is not really an ideology or set of beliefs.  It is merely a mental disease that denies its victims of any sense of proper perspective or logic.  It is a malady that erodes at our cognitive abilities and chips away at the heart of our founding principles.  Liberalism is nothing other than a corrosive contaminant that courses through our national fiber and erodes everything from our pride in our nation to our acceptance of reality.

Once you come to realize that, you also come to realize that Chris Hayes is just another random metastatic cell to come out of MSNBC the, nation’s largest incubator of this disease called liberalism.

But from the answer come two questions.  Will we ever find a way  to cure liberalism? And will we ever find “without invoking the word  hero“, a conservative leader who can finally show people the way to try to even find a cure?

Bookmark and Share

Obama: For Tax And Spend…Before He Was Against It

Obama the penny pincher?

Obama has been exposed in yet another blatant campaign lie.  This one wasn’t even really his fault.  Rex Nutting, a writer for the mainstream/yet left leaning Marketwatch prepared a chart that shows Obama hasn’t really grown spending all that much.  The administration quickly ran with it, putting the chart on their facebook page, and announcing that Obama was a model of fiscal restraint.

So how does this economist at Marketwatch, and now Obama and media reporters who can barely add two and two, come to figure out that Obama is so thrifty?  Simple.  Their percentages make one major assumption that makes the percentages meaningless.  Every dollar of spending in the first year of a President’s term is directly a result of the budget the previous President wrote.

To put it simply, the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill that Obama ran on, lobbied for, pushed through the Democrat super majorities in the House and Senate, and signed was actually spending that should be attributed to Bush.  Of course once you do that you have majorly inflated Bush’s spending and deflated Obama’s spending so that percentages make Obama look like a champ.  I’m not making this up.  This is actually what Rex Nutter did.  He also included 2013 in Obama’s figures even though Obama’s budget lost in the Senate something like 99-0.

The footnote is misleading. Nutter means only $140 billion of the Stimulus (the portion passed in October) is attributed to Obama.

Nutter should be fired, but who is going to fire him?  Journalists rely on people like Nutter to be the “experts”.  That way they don’t have to actually do any work.

“I was for tax and spend, before I was against it!”

Obama’s budget cuts the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years.  Of course, like Clinton’s last budget in office, it is simply words on a page that have absolutely no bearing on reality.  But nevermind the fact that $4 trillion over the next ten years wouldn’t cover Obama’s deficits for his first four years or that his numbers are probably about as accurate as the CBOs estimate of the costs of Obamacare.  Since when did Obama decide he was against tax and spend??

Obama, on the one year anniversary of what Nutter seems to think was Bush’s stimulus, praised the stimulus package as having saved us from another great depression.  So shouldn’t we be thanking Bush?  While Obama has been running as a tax cutting President who pinches pennies on his facebook page, just a couple weeks ago he re-affirmed his tax and spend stance in the upcoming debt ceiling debate.  Obama went from tax and spend, to proud tax cutting President when he was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts, to tax and spend when the debt ceiling debate rolled around again, and back to tax cutting for the 2012 election.  Even John Kerry was more consistent.

Biting the hand that feeds them

It is not coming up all roses for the Obama propaganda machine.  Obama is betting the farm on a populist attack against Bain Capital where Romney used to work.  But the Left has been heavily funded by private equity, and most private equity companies didn’t get the memo about Obama just saying whatever it takes to get elected.  Some of them are actually getting offended by the attacks.

Democrats are getting nervous too.  Apparently not every Democrat feels comfortable biting the hand that feeds them.  But what else does Obama have to attack Romney on other than the fact that he is successful and the “independent” liberal voting base is anti-success?

The attack on Bain is dubious anyway.  As a venture capital company, they may have had lots of layoffs on their watch in order to fix businesses, but Obama has seen 2.5 million net jobs lost on his watch.  Actually, let me borrow some Obama math and accuracy and adjust that number to 6.7 million jobs lost.  After all, if the net loss is 2.5 million, but Obama claims he added 4.2 million, then shouldn’t we be using the total jobs lost figure instead of the net?  Just trying to be consistent, Mr. President.

Obama is running as a conservative while acting like a liberal.  When conservatives force his hand, he is happy to take credit for the results.  When liberalism fails, he is happy to pass the buck to Congress or the previous administration.  He will say or do whatever it takes to win re-election and cannot be trusted.

How Will The Media’s Double Standard Play Out Regarding Obama’s Osama Ad?

Bookmark and Share   To mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden receiving his just desserts, President Barack Obama decided to air an ad which suggested that his all but officially nominated Republican presidential opponent would not have given the go to the operation that allowed SEAL Team Six to do the job that brought bin Laden down.

The ad entitled “One Chance”, is based entirely on one quote made by Mitt Romney in an Associated Press interview back in April of 2007, some five years ago. The ad shows an incomplete quote from that interview as it reads “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person…”.

On its own, those words may seem to suggest that bringing justice to Osama bin Laden was not a priority for Mitt Romney, but for the record, the inference created by Team Obama after some very careful and artful political editing is totally incorrect.  When asked by the Associated Press,“Why haven’t we caught bin Laden in your opinion?”, Romney offered the following response;

“I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person… Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates.”

In other words, Romney suggested that while the capture or execution of bin Laden was desired, the AP reporter asking the question should try to not lose focus on the broader War on Terror which involves many more people than just Osama.  Clearly though, Mitt Romney did not suggest that he would not pursued bin Laden or that he would not have approved of the operation that led to his death, as inferred by the President’s ad.

But the story here is not that a rival candidate and his political campaign took his opponents words out of context.  This is politics folks and if you don’t know it yet, politics is all about perception.  Truth has little to do with it and reality is merely what those we elect can convince the majority of voters of.  Sad but very true.  And besides, Mitt Romney already did a similar thing to President Obama back in late November of 2011, when one of his own ads used a statement by the President to mislead voters.  Back then, the Romney campaign used video of the President giving a speech in which viewers saw and heard the President say;

“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”

The problem is that those words actually came from candidate Obama in 2008 when he was quoting something supposedly said by the McCain campaign.

Then Senator Obama’s full quote was;

“Senator McCain’s campaign said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”.

So I guess you can say that the President’s new ad was simply payback to Romney.  Or you might say it is just politics as usual.

Or is it?

The story here is not that politicians are playing politics.  The story is all about what President Obama is playing politics with.

By exploiting the efforts of the the mission to bring justice to the ring leader responsible for one of nation’s darkest days in history, with a deceptive, misleading, political campaign ad, President Obama has demonstrated that nothing, absolutely nothing, is sacred in his attempt to hold on to power.  He could have been the better man here and accepted the nearly unanimous approval and credit he deservedly received for doing the right thing and allowing SEAL Team Six to do their job and not making a Bill Clinton-like call that allowed Osama to live another day.  He could have accepted that feather in his cap which Seal Team Six handed to him after they succeeded at their mission. But instead the President decided to suggest that only he was brave enough to make the decision that allowed our Special Ops forces to risk their lives and take down the most wanted man in the world.

President Obama deserved credit for making the right decision.  Afterall, I would have been the first to blame him if he made the wrong one.  The decision to go through with the operation was one of the only right decisions this President has made and as such, it could have been one of the few things he could legitimately get some praise for.  However, now that the President has taken the anniversary of the end of bin Laden’s rule of al Qaeda and used it to exploit the real heroes behind the event in such a nefarious and unscrupulous way, he now opens himself up to criticism for the one achievement during his Administration that most Americans can agree was good.

After this disgraceful interpretation of the effort to capture bin Laden I can’t help but wonder if getting bin Laden was really a priority on this President’s agenda for the nation.  It now seems to me  that it was merely a priority for his eventual reelection effort?  Afterall, President Obama was simply carrying out the search and search process for bin Laden that his predecessor, George W. Bush already had in place.  You do remember George W. Bush, the guy that President Obama blames everything on?  The guy who’s policies in the War on Terror and in Iraq and Afghanistan he criticized and contradicted but ultimately followed through on?  All of which begs the deeper question which is, does Barack Obama have his priorities straight?

Such criticism relating to the Osama bin Laden capture and kill mission might not have ever been raised had President Obama not been so willing to act so unpresidential and spike the ball after doing cartwheels on the field of play.  But the decision by the President and his campaign team to run this disturbingly tacky and dishonest ad in connection with such a sensitive topic, reveals to me that both he and his staff are nothing but disingenuous, tacky, and incompetent custodians of the Oval Office.  It also shows me that this President is scared.  So scared that he will go to any lengths to try and create a fictional national narrative that paints him in a positive light regardless of how dim, dismal, and debilitating he and his policies have been for our nation.

In the end, politicians taking politicians out of context is nothing new and the practice won’t come to an end anytime soon.  So maybe we really can’t attack either candidate for playing politics as usual.  But we can attack them for what they play politics with and for crossing any new lines that their lack of judgement allows them to.  This is just such an occassion.

Still, it would be nice to see the media do their job and hold President Obama accountable for his disingenuous conducts and deceitful distortions.  Just as we see here, when Communist Chris Matthews, the DNC bullhorn who moonlights as a responsible commentator on MSNBC, went after Mitt Romney when he took President Obama out of context this past November.  But who am I kidding?  Does anyone honestly expect the media to drop their liberal bias and give up their double stereotypical liberal double standards?

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Saturday Political News and Opinions: 12/17/11

Bookmark and Share   Saturday’s White House 2012 news wrap-up provides readers with news from the campaign trail that has a prediction of how the first caucuses and primaries will turn out and how they will effect the contest, Ron Paul claiming Bachmann hates Muslims, Bachmann  claiming the President of Iran hates everyone, Perry dinging Paul and Gingrich while Romney dings Gingrich and Gingrich discusses how the dings are taking their toll.  Other news has talk of Santorum trying toi win Iowa the old fashion way, Huntsman counting independent voters to save him, and Perry talking about cuts the President’s budget and his potential own potential presidential cabinet, while others discuss Perry’s double-dipping.

Tracking Image

Positively Entertainment?

Earlier this election season, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain sat down in a one on one debate that displayed Newt’s intellectualism and fast thinking, and Cain’s graciousness.  It’s starting to look like Newt will have a shot at another one on one debate as only he and Rick Santorum have agreed to The Donald’s debate on Ion Television, sponsored by Newsmax. 

Mitt Romney politely declined, Paul said no and Huntsman inferred that the whole thing was about Trump’s ratings.  George Will has also infamously declared that the Trump debate is below Presidential politics.  Perry and Bachmann have not confirmed, although Bachmann said she believes Trump will be biased because he is already leaning towards a candidate.  How that makes this debate different from any MSNBC or CNN debate where the moderators are already in the bag for Obama, I’m not sure.

Who is going to be hurt from backing out of the Trump debate? Trump has already declared his position on many things.  Huntsman and Paul would both find themselves on opposite sides from Trump.  Romney probably won’t be hurt by snubbing Trump.

Will Santorum or Gingrich be hurt by accepting the debate?  For Newt, probably not.  For Santorum, the possibility for damage to his campaign is pretty big.  While he will be getting a great deal of facetime, Santorum will be answering questions from a very strong willed and strongly opinionated Trump while going up against Newt one on one.  It is a very risky move.  The risk will be compounded if Trump then endorses Newt.

Bachmann and Perry’s non-committal stance currently is only making them more irrelevant. It also comes across as indecisive.

Or is it helping to make Trump more irrelevant?  Trump has said that if the candidate he wants doesn’t get in the race, he will run as a third party candidate.  Is it better to cater to the crybaby?  Or ignore him?  And honestly, would Trump get any votes as a third party candidate, when four more years of Obama is on the line?

Rush Hits Newt Again

Six months ago, I wrote an article about Newt Gingrich’s attempt to clarify his views on healthcare.  Newt had gotten himself in trouble when it came out that in 1993 Newt agreed with the Heritage Foundation on an insurance mandate.  At the time, Newt said that he felt there should be a law that made it so that people would need to either buy health insurance, or post a bond when they receive medical care as a guarantee that they will in fact pay for that care.

At the time, I warned Newt that this would cause problems.  Of course, we didn’t have as large a readership back then, so I’m sure he didn’t get my warning.  Shortly before that, Newt was secretly my number one pick to eventually win it all.

With great influence comes great responsibility

Sure enough, right about that time Newt called in to Rush Limbaugh’s show and tried to explain exactly what I said in the first paragraph here.  Rush didn’t buy it, and the godfather of Social Conservatism cast doubt on his blessing of Newt’s candidacy.  Listen to the interview here.  The result was that a couple weeks later I was writing about the rubble of Newt 2012.  In that article, I said that it would take a miracle to revive Newt, that miracle being upward movement in the polls.  Hallelujah, we now know the political gods did not forsake us after 2008.

Today, Rush once again expressed his reservations about Newt.  In what he framed as analysis of Newt’s rise to the top, Rush once again mentioned Newt’s baggage including his support of a mandate in 1993.  While doing his best not to appear against Newt, Rush laid out everything Conservatives should be careful about with Newt.  To be fair though, he did the same for Mitt Romney at the same time.

In the end, Rush chalked up Newt’s rise to the top as two things.  Newt doesn’t defend his mistakes (like Romney does with Romneycare), and he does go after the media for their bias.

It’s a little bit more than that.  Newt has a proven fiscal conservative track record.  He balanced the budget for four years in a row.  The Federal budget, not just one of the 50 states.  That doesn’t even seem in the realm of reality these days.  It would be like saying he walked on water in the context of today’s deficit.  But speaking of walking on water, Newt has the social conservative credentials as well.

In a speech in Jacksonville, Florida yesterday (that yours truly had the privilege of attending), Newt said that under his education reforms, teachers who could not adequately explain what it meant to be endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights would be asked to resign.  This was in response to a question from the audience regarding a neighboring county where the government was putting pressure on a pastor there to stop school flagpole prayer meetings.  Newt said that he would seek to end funding for Planned Parenthood and use that money to help promote adoption.  He is pro-school choice.  He has well rounded conservative credentials and unlike Romney, conservatives trust Newt when he says things like supporting a mandate and sharing a couch with Pelosi were stupid.

Frank Luntz on Sean Hannity’s show this afternoon said that everyone was shocked about Newt’s resurgence.  It wasn’t a surprise for me.  I predicted that as the Cain-Gingrich debate received acknowledgment and replay, Newt would rise.  On November 3rd, I said that people were taking a fresh look at Newt Gingrich.  But even better than that, on October 13th, I laid out the path to victory for Newt Gingrich going through South Carolina and Florida.  In a blog titled “Yes He Can”, I analyzed how Cain was preparing to fall on his 9-9-9 plan and how Newt would take early states Iowa and South Carolina, leading to a showdown in Florida between Newt/Mitt.  So no, it wasn’t a shock.  If you’ve been reading this blog, it wasn’t a shock to you either.

In that same article, I said that Newt’s dirty laundry has been airing out for a long time.  It doesn’t smell as “fresh” as Cain’s or Perry’s.  The same is true for Mitt, although Newt knows when to admit to a mistake.  Therefore, in this up and down race where nothing is certain and things change every minute, I am sticking to what I said over a month ago.  Newt/Mitt, for the championship, the second to last GOP debate in Florida in Jacksonville.  Newt will be carrying South Carolina and maybe Iowa to the table, Mitt will have New Hampshire under his belt.  Then the two smartest, most articulate, and strongest leaders will have one last significant chance to make their case.

Rush, Coulter, and any other big-time rightwing players who still think Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum could come back and win, keep dreaming.  It’s more likely that Tebow would win the Superbowl.

PS, I have absolutely nothing against Tebow.  In fact, after Thursday’s game against Rex Ryan and the Jets, Tebow is my second favorite quarterback.

Wednesday’s Words and Wit from the Presidential Campaign Trail: 11/16/11

Bookmark and Share   Trunkline 2012 summarizes today’s news regarding Newt’s surge and troubles, Romney’s strengths, Sarah Palin’s opinion of the the GOP presidential candidates, a view of the gaffes made by the candidates, their positions on guns, Santorum’s hope for a shot stardom, and Mitt’s tele-town hall.  And as always, much more too.

Mitt Romney’s appearance on Fox News’ first candidate tele-town hall with host Brett Baier

Bookmark and Share

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.

Did Rick Perry Threaten Ron Paul During the Presidential Debate?

Bookmark and Share  While most of the on air sparring in last night’s Republican presidential debate took place between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, apparently there was a little brouhaha during one of the station breaks. 

As captured in the photo shown here, it was during one of these breaks that Governor Perry strode up to Ron Paul, grabbed Paul’s wrist and raised his other hand to point a finger in Paul’s face in an attempt to make a point to the Congressman.

According to RonPaul.com, here’s how it went down:

“During a commercial break at Wednesday’s Republican debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul continued their spirited exchange on stage. Suddenly, Perry grabbed Ron Paul’s forearm while aggressively pointing his index finger towards the Congressman’s face. Alerted by Perry’s menacing gestures, Ron Paul’s bodyguard (front left) was standing by, ready to protect the Congressman.”

What exactly was said is unknown but that won’t prevent Pauliacs from trying to use the image against their feeble three time presidential candidate.  So far they are on a campaign to try and claim that Perry was threatening and intimidating Paul. 

If the photo is capturing a truly heated exchange you can rest assured that Governor  Perry most likely urged Ron Paul  to stop the blatant lies Paul’s campaign has been promulgating about Perry, including the one about Perry having been a national chairman for Al Gore.

In past debates, live streams allowed internet users to catch glimpses of the candidates and how they were interacting during commercial breaks but MSNBC’s live stream of last night’s debate did not offer such an opportunity as they simply cut the  feed during commercials.  Had they not, we might have at  least seen the Perry-Paul exchange.

So far, there is no official comment from either Paul or Perry regarding what the exchange consisted of, but that has not stopped Ron Paul fanatics from trying to lift their messiah ever higher by alleging Rick Perry assaulted their guy. 

Until it is known exactly what was said, drawing conclusions is futile, but in the end, it my be in the best interest of Ron Paul that Rick Perry’s words remain unknown because if I know Rick Perry, his words probably did not provide for the type of praise that Ron Paul  would want to duplicate in an ad promoting his candidacy. And it will probably make many Paulbots look truly stupid for their exaggerations and lies.

Bookmark and Share

Update:  The truth comes out and the Ron Paul crowd does indeed look stupid.  See the conclusion here.

The Third Major Republican Presidential Debate Starts Setting the Tone for 2012

Bookmark and Share    Watch the entire debate below this post.

 

 Last night’s presidential debate was the first one of the 2012 campaign to actually began to shape opinions and sway voters.  While most voters have not yet placed their bets, the exchanges that took place on a stage in the Air Force One wing of the Reagan Library finally began to provide voters with a true sense of the candidates, their styles, their records, and their vision.  While the program did tend to be dominated by a Perry versus Romney narrative.   The other six did get brief opportunities to shine, but few did so in any signficant way.
 
 While I will leave an in-depth analysis of the debate to other White House 2012 posts entitled “A Two Horse Race” and “Quick Debate Recap“, I will offer a few points of my own about moments in the debate that I believe were quite notable.

NBC debate moderator could not help but begin the program by entering into a statement that suggested Americans blame conservative policies for all the economic problems we are experiencing and insinuated that at the same time, most Americans do not believe President Obama’s policies are as liberal as they should be.   Not only is this incorrect, it was also another subtle but blatant editorial opinion being interjected into a conversation by a member of the lamestream media who is suppose to be impartial and non-partisan. 

Another very memorable moment in the debate can be seen about 26 minutes into the  video of  debate that is proveded  below this post.

As Politico’s John  Harris pursued a line of questioning designed to inflame an internecine ideological debate over healthcare, he through the floor open to Newt Gingrich and said;

“Well I’m frankly not interested in your efforts to get Republicans to fight against eachother…….You’d like to puff this up into some giant thing.  The fact here is that every single person up here understands Obamacare is a disaster.  It is a disaster procedural, it was rammed through after they lost Teddy Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, it was written badly, it was never reconciled, it can’t be implemented, it is killing this economy.  And if this President has a concern for working Americans, he’d walk in Thursday night and ask to repeal it because its a monstrosity.  Every person up here agrees with that!”……….

At that point the audience broke out into one of the largest round of applauds of the night and once the clapping died down Newt went on to say……….

” And let me just say…since I still have a little time left……….let me just say, I for one….and I hope all of my friends up here —- Are going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated, and all of us are committed as a team……. Whoever the nominee is we are all committed to defeating Barack Obama”

To which the audience again broke out into another round of applause but this was even louder than the last.

It was probably one of the best statements of the night and the most real display of anger offered by any of the candidates on the stage last night.  However, it was not enough to propel Newt into the race as an immediate threat to anyone in the front of the field that he trails.  But it did renew my appreciation for Gingrich and made me realize that when the election is over, he might just be perfect as the Republican national Committee Chairman or the new President’s Press Secretary. 

 Beyond that, I again suggest that you see theexcellent analyses provided in the two White House 2012 links above and also that you see the debate by clicking on the link below.  It is a good oner that should not be missed.

Click here to see the complete debate

Bookmark and Share

A Two Horse Race

Bookmark and ShareWith the 3rd major Republican primary debate in the books there are 2 candidates whom have begun to distance themselves from the pack. Mitt Romney looked and sounded presidential as he took shots from and at the man who has unseated him as the early polling frontrunner, Texas governor Rick Perry. Perry was the self described ‘pinata’ as he wore the target as the newest candidate and he did not disappoint, handling well the shots coming at him as well as throwing some shots towards his main opponent.

There were other candidates on the stage but the debate quickly became the Romney/Perry show.

Rick Santorum didn’t do anything to hurt himself but certainly didn’t help himself either. He looked as if he were either miffed that the debate was becoming about the 2 top candidates or that he had just sucked on a lemon. Newt, always the smartest guy in the room, had some good answers but again went after the record of the media instead of the records of his opponents. Michelle Bachmann didn’t have the opportunity that she did in the first two debates to showcase her TEA party credentials and didn’t do anything to stand out. She has simply been overshadowed by the entrance of Perry. Herman Cain stuck to his buisness leader guns but is quickly fading away as he fails to have the power or ability to shine above the other candidates. Jon Huntsman was doing a good job until he got led into his global warming stance which is a quick turn off for most GOP primary voters. Ron Paul did something he normally shy’s away from and took some shots at fellow Texan Perry but again fell prey to his lack of communication skills and undoubtedly hurt the small amount of momentum he gained in Iowa.

In my opinion Romney looked more presidential, whatever that means, and remained calm and well spoken. Romney deserves the win in the 1st head to head showdown between himself and Rick Perry. Perry handled the expected barrage of shots across his bow from his opponents and came out strong in the beginning. As the debate went on Perry seemed to fade and Romney still stood out. Perry also made some bulletin board comments that his opponents, and especially liberals, will pin up and go after every time he speaks. For that he gets the 2nd place finish. The polls in the next week will be interesting. Will Perry hold onto his entering momentum….or will Romney have gained back the spot he has held since the beginning?

It would be hard pressed for any conservative who is voting Republican to deny that after this debate there are 2 candidates that distanced themselves from the rest. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: