Tag Archives: 2012 Presidential candidates

Biden Unhinged in VP Debate, while Ryan exuded self-control

 

Last night’s Vice Presidential debate did put more pressure on Vice President Biden, who was tasked with delivering the same old progressive talking points about taxes, foreign policy, abortion, and health care – albeit with a little more spiritedness.  However, the pervasive grinning, smiling, and interrupting came off as egregiously arrogant and condescending.  Biden conveyed a “I’m gonna kill that kid” demeanor with his impatience and exuded the same entitled disposition that plagued President Obama in his first debate with Gov. Romney.  You don’t get bonus points for being the incumbent – or at least you shouldn’t.

Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post wrote last night that:

…Biden’s aggressive performance is a sure winner for him (and the president) within the Democratic base. But, it felt to us like he went a little bit overboard and, at times, bordered on bullying Ryan.  Biden’s derisive smiles and laughs while Ryan tried to answer questions weren’t great optics for the vice president and his repeated interruptions won’t make those who think politics should be more civil happy. Biden’s agenda was clear during the debate: he was set on erasing the passive performance of Obama last week. That he did, but in so doing it felt like he went a bit overboard.

However, while Cillizza admitted that the Vice President acted like a ‘tool,’ that commentary was tempered since he also rated Biden’s last fifteen minutes in the debate as a win. Guy Benson cited The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan in his post on Townhall this morning reiterating Biden’s obstreperous demeanor.

Another way to say it is the old man tried to patronize the kid and the kid stood his ground. The old man pushed, and the kid pushed back. Last week Mr. Obama was weirdly passive. Last night Mr. Biden was weirdly aggressive, if that is the right word for someone who grimaces, laughs derisively, interrupts, hectors, rolls his eyes, browbeats and attempts to bully. He meant to dominate, to seem strong and no-nonsense. Sometimes he did—he had his moments. But he was also disrespectful and full of bluster. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy!” he snapped at one point. It was an echo of Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, in 1988. But Mr. Quayle, who had compared himself to Kennedy, had invited the insult. Mr. Ryan had not. It came from nowhere.Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore’s sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting. Mr. Ryan was generally earnest, fluid, somewhat wonky, confident. He occasionally teetered on the edge of glibness and sometimes fell off.

[…]

[Furthermore,] CNN’s Gloria Borger and NBC’s David Gregory both said Biden was condescending.

When you interrupt your opponent 82-96 times throughout the debate, you certainly deserve this criticism.

Paul Ryan, like Romney, had command of the facts that demonstrated how the Obama/Biden ticket had policies that are anathema to American business.  He showed that the Obama administration have no plans to deal with the looming fiscal crisis we face.  For all the left-wing agitation over the Ryan budget, it received more votes in Congress than Obama’s alternative and is empirical evidence that Republicans have a plan.  Obama’s secret weapon to pay down our debt and deficit still centers on raising taxes on the job creating and investing class. As Congressman Ryan said, if these individuals were taxed at 100%, it would only fund government for 98 days.  We would still have a $300 billion dollar deficit.  As many in the conservative movement have noted, increasing taxes on an incrementally shrinking base of  taxable recipients, while not reforming our welfare state, is the flawed logic of leaping a chasm in two bounds.

On taxes, Biden hurled ‘malarkey of his own.  As Human Events’ David Harsanyi wrote on October 12,  Biden “continually swatted away claims that small business would be hit by President Obama’s tax hikes, even though an Internal Revenue Service recently found that Bush-era tax rates would mean around 1 million companies would be hit with new taxes.There aren’t enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending,’ Mr. Ryan said, attacking the central promise of a second term – tax hikes. ‘Watch out middle class, the tax bill is coming to you.”

However, Biden pivoted by invoking the middle class and defended the 47% of Americans ,who don’t pay any federal income taxes, who have been labeled as freeloaders.  Everyone knew this jab was coming, but when Biden said “it shouldn’t be surprising for a guy [Mitt Romney] who says 47% of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives,” he forgets that there is some truth to Romney’s remarks.  American liberalism is centered on destroying responsibility and filling that void with the government.  You saw this when the Obama administration called unemployment benefits and food stamps a form of economic stimulus, instead of viewing it as a temporary solution to keep economically hard hit Americans from becoming destitute.

Concerning health care reform, Harsanyi wrote that “Biden also claimed falsely asserted that the Obama Administration had not raised taxes on the middle class, when in fact there are over a dozen middle class hike in Obamacare alone. Relying on a single left-wing study, Biden continued to make the Obama campaign’s case that Romney’s tax reform plan was mathematically impossible, despite the fact that other studies find that it’s feasible. And Ryan laid out the job numbers in proper perspective – as stagnant.”

On the 15% of Americans living in poverty and the 23 million struggling to find employment, the vice president asserts that the Obama administration will focus on “leveling the playing field.”  Again, showing that American liberalism has radically shifted away from emphasizing equality of opportunity and towards equality of outcome.   In doing so, we must sacrifice more freedom to achieve that goal. This is an aspect progressives omit when they, for example, push for the expansion of social programs, which they feel enhances the public good.  By the way, the Dependency Index has increased 23% under President Obama – which is a whopping 67 million Americans who are sustained by at least one federal program.

On foreign policy, the vice president was again mistaken.  Regarding Syria, the vice president feels that Assad will fall.  However, with Iran flying over Iraqi airspace with impunity with supplies to keep Assad in power – that’s a presumptuous statement.  Assad’s army is still strong and there is a chance he can survive this insurrection, which we should stay out of at all costs.  Although, if the Obama administration wanted to ensure such an outcome, they shouldn’t have pulled out of Iraq.  Iraq doesn’t have the capability to protect its skies since we provided for their air defense.  Yet, we shouldn’t be surprised by Biden’s foreign policy inaccuracies.  He, after all, advocated to partition Iraq into three semi-autonomous countries along racial lines that would be “held together by a central government.”  It was an Iraqi version of the Articles of Confederation and we know how that turned out.

On Benghazi, some are saying Biden has damaged the administration irrevocably.  Instead of saying it was a terrorist attack, Biden decided to throw the State Department and the intelligence community under the bus. Oh – and did I mention that he lied about the need for security. He said last night “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

Well, Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy magazine wrote yesterday that:

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Concerning the intelligence community, Bryan Preston at PJ Media’s Tatler posted early this morning that Biden’s insinuation that:

…the Benghazi assault resulted from a protest because that’s what the intelligence community told them. It’s possible that the presidentially-appointed head of the CIA, Gen David Petraeus, blamed the assault on a video. Petraeus was quoted on Sept 13 doing just that in a briefing to Congress. But by that point it was already evident that the assault was a pre-planned terrorist attack and the administration had begun its pushback against that view. The question is, did the larger intelligence community agree with Petraeus?

In a word, no.

Flashback to Sept 26: The US knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours.

Flashback to Sept 28: The US listened in as Benghazi attackers bragged to al Qaeda.

Flashback to October 3: The Obama administration had been told Benghazi was a terrorist attack within hours.

Flashback to October 10: The State Department says that it never thought Benghazi resulted from a protest over a movie.

[…]

By calling out both State (on the security) and intelligence (on the video) during the debate, Biden did two things. He expanded the cover-up to now include himself, in front of the entire nation.

Concerning Iran, nixing a one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in New York – or with any other world leader for that matter – speaks volumes on how seriously this administration thinks about America’s image abroad.  It’s a second tier concern.  It’s not like Obama skipped out to be on The View – oh wait.  I’ll just leave it at that.

I think were Paul Ryan made his strongest points dealt with the social issues.  Concerning contraception and the HHS mandate, the vice president was fact checked today by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in this statement.

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.” [Vice President Joe Biden]

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

The bishops are right.  Furthermore, some colleges, like Franciscan University have dropped their coverage rather than submit to the unconstitutional assault on religious freedom led by the Obama administration.  However, it may be a cost saving move in the long run as Ben Domenech, Transom editor and research fellow for the Heartland Institute, wrote back in May – “the mandate is currently slated to be an annual tax penalty of $2,000 for every full-time employee (or equivalent) beyond the first 30 workers. For some organizations, this will be a high price to pay. But they may find it worth it to retain their right to exercise their religious beliefs. And given the rising premium costs under Obama’s law–according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey, premiums for a family policy exceeded $15,000 a year in 2011, increasing an average of $1,300 from 2010–this might actually make fiscal sense, too.”

On abortion, the debate took a more ordered and somber tone. Ryan told a poignant story concerning his daughter Liza and where he and his wife, Janna, first saw her heartbeat when she was seven weeks old.  He reiterated his belief that life begins at conception and how a Romney/Ryan administration would oppose abortion, except when in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.  Ryan also detailed the Obama administration’s war on religious liberty.

The vice president, on the other hand, walked a waffled line on abortion.  He accepted the church’s notion that life begins at conception, but stated that he does not wish to impose that view on others in this country.  He made the silly claim about the HHS mandate, as mentioned above, and basically said he was a pro-choice, pro-lifer on the subject.

In total, last night the vice president, as a man who ran for the highest political office twice before, came off as cantankerous and grossly unpresidential.  His schoolyard bullying persona was immensely off putting and immature.  Did he miss the early bird special at the Old Country Buffet or a nap?  His incessant need to interrupt Ryan, since he probably knows that Obama record is atrocious, may have delighted the left since it made up for Obama’s flaccid debate performance, but the impatience showed that he too didn’t want to be there.  Although, once you get Joe’s mouth running, one must begin praying that nothing ridiculous slips out.  In the end, grandpa and his facial expressions throughout the night read ‘how dare this kid challenge me.’  It’s an election, Joe.

As for Ryan, he had some faults minor faults as well. While I felt his composure and knowledge of the facts were positives that added to the narrative that, not only is the Republican ticket more serious about the economy, they have a better understanding of it.  However, Ryan should have pushed against Joe much more aggressively due to Biden being afflicted with diarrhea of the mouth.

In all, it was a slight victory for Ryan.  I only say that because all Joe Biden had to do was not come off as soporific, lazy, or disengaged like Obama.  Surely, the threshold for Biden was at shoe level.  For Ryan, all he had to do was not look out of his league on the national stage.  If some sort of event were to make a Mitt Romney unable to execute executive function, I would feel comfortable having the poised and presidential Paul Ryan to fill that role, instead of grumpy uncle Joe.  When George Will slammed some of the more opportunistic Republican candidates at the start of the 2012 race, he stated that their involvement in this election would produce a nominee”much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.

I think “careless, delusional, egomaniacal, and spotlight-chasing” are rather appropriate terms to characterize Joe Biden, who shouldn’t be anywhere near the nuclear football.

ICYMI:

ACORN, SEIU and Now Obama For America

James O’Keefe, who made headlines for his undercover investigations of ACORN and SEIU, has released the first video in a reportedly bombshell series of investigations into voter registration fraud and unlawful election practices by the president’s reelection campaign, Organizing for America.

The video clearly exposes a paid employee of OFA in Texas helping an undercover journalist to vote twice.

In an email sent to supporters, O’Keefe asks for donations so his organization, The Project Veritas, is able to release the rest of the reports. O’Keefe claims to have evidence of election rules violations in five different states.

Who Should Get Credit for “Saving” the Auto Industry?

First, before I start, I need to get this out there: I was/am firmly against the auto industry “bailouts.” I don’t care who did it; I do not believe the government should have rewarded poor business decisions. It’s quite simple in my book. If you make good business decisions, you survive. If you don’t, you fail. By bailing out GM and Chrysler, the government ultimately mitigated risk away from a company and ensured that they would be preserved no matter how badly they performed. The cost of setting this precedent outweighs the short-term benefit of saving these companies. I wrote about this in one of my first ever blog posts: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/11/too-big-to-fail-dangerous-precedent.html

But why am I writing about this now? For one, Vice President Joe Biden and Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan are set to debate tomorrow, and I’m sure this will come up. Joe Biden is often heard at campaign rallies touting the “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive” line. Take a look: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120903/POLITICS01/209030369. He even said it in his DNC speech in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKCwQnIygcw

It’s interesting: President Obama tends to blame George W. Bush for the bad things he “left” us, but he doesn’t give Bush the credit he deserves for the good things. No, Obama tends to take credit for those himself in the most cherry-picked fashion he could. Never mind that the mission to hunt Bin Laden began under Bush, and Obama merely continued the task… I won’t even get into that. I want to talk about the claim that Obama saved the auto industry.

Going forward, I ask a simple question: how does one dole out credit for a success? Well, if I built 75% of a house, and my partner built 25%, I think I would get 75% of the credit and he would get 25%. Or heck, maybe I’d be a nice guy and say it’s even. That’s not the case the democrats are making with respect to “saving” the auto industry. In my opinion, Team Obama tends to think Americans are stupid. They champion the phrase, “we saved the auto industry” while also repeating, “Mitt Romney would have let them go bankrupt.” I will get to that later.

Let’s focus on some simple facts surrounding the auto industry bailout. According to this CBS article (read it here: CBS Fact-Checks DNC Speeches), the auto bailout was started by Bush. Out of a total of $17 billion given to GM and Chrysler, George W. Bush authorized the release of about $13 billion of it. According to the New York Times (Bush Aids Detroit), Bush even left Obama with a manageable situations with various options on handling the developing crisis. The Times article states, “The auto bailout plan sets ‘targets’ rather than concrete requirements about what those concessions may be, meaning that Mr. Obama and his advisers have enormous latitude to decide how to define long-term viability.” It sounds like George W. Bush did a swell job and even left Obama with options. In fact, with respect to whom spent the most money, Bush gave $13/$17 billion, and Obama gave $4/$17 billion. In my book, Bush should get about 76.5% of the credit, and Obama should get about 23.5%  It’s sad, however, that we don’t hear this discussed much in the media, and we constantly hear that phrase “Mitt Romney would have let them go bankrupt.”

So when the left talks about Mitt Romney’s recommendations, what are the referring to? As it turns out, Team Obama is referencing an op-ed Romney published in the New York Times (see it here: NYT Mitt Romney Op-Ed). Interestingly enough, Team Obama plays on the word “bankrupt,” again, while thinking Americans are stupid. They think that if Americans hear the word “bankrupt” they will feel the negative connotation behind it, forgetting the fact that it’s a regulated, potential company-saving instrument. Yes, Mitt Romney advocated for a restructuring of the automaker’s business operations, and most importantly, he called for new leadership. He said:

– “Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.”

Perhaps the last line of the article is the most important:

– “In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

You know who else advocated for the auto industry to go through bankruptcy? That’s right: President Obama. As seen in the CBS article highlighted above:

– “Where Mr. Obama put his real stamp on the bailout was setting the parameters in March 2009, allocating General Motors and Chrysler an additional $4 billion in exchange for agreeing to major restructuring of their operations…

Bankruptcy was not off the table for Mr. Obama: in his March 2009 restructuring announcement, Mr. Obama gave GM and Chrysler one month to shape up or face bankruptcy. In fact, Chrysler did file for bankruptcy at the end of April 2009, GM shortly thereafter, though both emerged from bankruptcy stronger than before.”

Wait?! WHAT?! President Obama “let Detroit go bankrupt?!” Yes, you read it correctly: President Obama and Joe Biden, while thinking that Americans are sheer suckers (there really is no other way to put this), gave a minority amount of bailout cash to the automakers and chastised Mitt Romney, all while implementing the EXACT SAME program that Mitt Romney himself suggested.

To go “off the cuff,” I just want to say, “come on, President Obama. Do you really think you can fool us?” I fear, based on how many times I see Team Obama’s “we saved GM” claim on Facebook, I think he believes he can. Please, Paul Ryan, when Joe Biden comes out with his deceitful little quip, be sure to give him a cold bucket of water known as facts.

Yes, facts are facts, truths are truths, and I think it’s my job to pass this one on. What do you think? Please share this with a friend.

First Debate Replay by SNL

I admit it. I haven’t been a big watcher of Saturday Night Live since Steve Martin and the Cone Heads were popular. Still, over the years I’ve found the elections bring out the best in SNL skits. No matter your political view their exaggeration of  the candidates can be pretty funny.

This week if you watched the real debate between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama you probably picked up on a few of their idiosyncrasies. I thought the SNL characters did a great job bringing them to light. Take a look at this, remembering for many young voters, this is the closest they will get to watching the real thing.

What do you think?

If you can’t view the video try going to the NBC site here.

Romney Destroys Obama in First Debate, Left-wingers Go Nuts

Romney took Obama to school Wednesday night

We all got a shot of life Wednesday night from Mitt Romney.  I received a lot of flak, and some insults, for my previous post castigating Romney for lacking joie de vivre, but he came out swinging and left the president looking for his teleprompter.  While some posted polls in the comment section to show Romney’s campaign wasn’t in trouble since we’re in a dead heat – we should all be thanking Obama’s poor economic policies for that buffer. Regardless, Romney was prepared for battle, while the president was utterly unprepared and began to ramble towards the end of the debate.

Romney was animated.  He was, as Steve Schmidt put it, “clear, cogent, and concise.”  He also delivered his remarks in a tone we haven’t heard before. It displayed a sense of confidence that is a critical quality for the position Obama currently occupies.  In all, it was polished and presidential.  One could easily see Mitt Romney in the Oval Office with his cool delivery that seemed to make the president very uncomfortable.  However, detractors will say that he’s had plenty of debate preparation concerning the grueling Republican primaries, although I’m not sure how being prepared can be construed as a negative.  After all, the president called his own debate preparation a “drag.”  Even though it was made with facetious overtones, it conveyed a sense of arrogance and unseriousness that has been one of the main criticisms hurled at the president.  He assumed he would get bonus points for being the leader of the free world and he was grossly and ignominiously mistaken after his first bout with Romney.

Concerning Romney, I think it was for the first time that we saw him begin to understand what it means to be a conservative.  The comparing and contrasting between private markets and government-oriented programs within the health care market was a good example.  The notion that states are the “laboratories for democracy” was one of my favorite lines of the night.  However, when the question about the role of government was asked – Romney successfully channeled his inner Madison and reiterated that the role of the state is to”promote and protect the principles” outlined in the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Furthermore, he stated that our rights come from our creator, not from government.  Our founders, especially Madison, believed that rights preceded government and drafted a constitution to embed those rights so that other may not take them away.  Adhering to that notion is a  ”severely” conservative affirmation.

While the president may have had a brief moment of exuding his presidential attributes with Medicare, he was often dominated by the litany of facts thrown at him by Romney highlighting the economic pain his presidency has inflicted upon the nation.  The right hooks Romney delivered on jobs, the economy, and the crony capitalism connected to green energy rendered Obama’s statement on corporate welfare for oil companies moot.  Furthermore, Obama seemed to sabotage his own efforts to scare seniors with the false narrative that Romney wants to destroy Medicare.  He agreed that Romney’s reforms to our entitlement programs aren’t that much different from his policies.

As a result, the president gave Romney the death stare midway through the debate.  There’s no doubt that the stare, coupled with the puckered up lips, were indicators that Romney got under Obama’s skin.  In an ironic twist, Obama seems to have become John McCain concerning the feelings of indignation towards those who dare to have opposing views on the issues.  For Obama, Romney disagreeing with him isn’t just wrong – it’s somehow reprehensible.

However, there are still some conservative critics, who agree that Romney crushed the president, but ceded policy ground.  Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner posted a buzzkill column on October 3 reiterating the:

…two reasons why for conservatives to keep their exuberance in check. In past elections, it isn’t uncommon for the rusty incumbent to come off lousy in the opening debate. This was the case when Walter Mondale won the first 1984 debate against Ronald Reagan and John Kerry won the first debate against George W. Bush. In both cases, the incumbents recovered in the subsequent debates, and ended up winning the election.

Another reason for caution is that Romney, as part of his efforts to disarm Obama’s criticisms, made a number of policy concessions that could box him in and make it more difficult for him to govern as a limited government conservative if elected. At various times during the debate Romney said that he wasn’t interested in cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy; that he would cover individuals with pre-existing conditions; that he wouldn’t touch Medicare and Social Security over the next decade and would be willing to give more money to seniors for prescription drugs; and that he’d be open to hiring more teachers. Should he be elected president, all of the major fights – repealing Obamacare, overhauling the tax code and reforming entitlements – will trigger a massive campaign by liberals to portray him as trying to hurt the poor to the benefit of the rich. If he is so willing to concede policy points during the campaign, will he fight for limited government as president?

However, as Joel Pollack wrote on Breitbart, “on health care–which might have been Romney’s weakest issue–Romney argued for the repeal of Obamacare as the best Tea Partier might have done, attacking the board that the law sets up to ration care as a cost control mechanism. The best that Obama could do was remind voters–as if they did not already know–that Romney had passed a health insurance law in Massachusetts. He had to concede one of the best arguments Romney offered–that Obamacare has actually increased the cost of insurance so far.”

Furthermore, if you go to Mitt Romney’s campaign site, coupled with his support for the Ryan budget, you can see that not only will taxes be lowered for everyone – he’ll eliminate the death tax and push for tax reform.  However, the deductions he’ll eliminate has been a rather nebulous subject. Lastly, with an active and vocal Tea Party contingent in Congress – Mitt, if elected, would have to operate as a small government conservative since (a) he owes us and (b) nothing would get done with Democrats and Tea Partiers forming an unintentional coalition to block his agenda.  Democrats obstructing because he’s Mitt Romney and tea partiers obstructing because it doesn’t cut enough spending, reform the welfare state enough, or does enough to pay down the national debt.  Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows.  Lastly, the reaffirmation to uphold the principles of the constitution is a tacit agreement that Romney would adhere to the Madisonian ideals of limited government.  If he’s elected president and becomes squishy – he should be prepared for a primary challenge, despite the historical ramifications of such an action.

However, while Republicans rejoiced, Democrats must have felt like the world was ending.  It brought on reactions of disbelief and abject anger from MSNBC.  Chris Matthews, Obama’s number one fan, was quite agitated during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Tonight wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it? It just wasn’t. It didn’t mention all the key fighting points of this campaign. […] I don’t know what he was doing out there, he had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it.

Romney on the other hand, came in with a campaign, he had a plan. He was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive. He was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively. He was going to relish the evening, enjoying it. Nothing to do with the words he spoke.

Here’s my question for Obama. I know he says he doesn’t watch cable television but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start. I don’t know how he let Romney get away with the crap he threw out tonight–about Social Security.

Listen to the stuff he got away with. He said, you know, emergency room–the latest thing we got from Romney because he said so was you know what I want to do with people when they’re poor? Shove them in the emergency room. Why didn’t Obama say that? Why didn’t he say that?

You talk about Social Security and Medicare people, they’re part of your 47 percent, you want to drop them from the list of eligible Americans. You don’t have any care for these people. What are you talking about? We’ve got it on tape, Governor! We’ve got it on tape what you think of these people! Don’t come out here and pretend you care about old people because you met somebody at some campaign event, you’ve written off 47 percent of the country before you even started!

Where was Obama tonight?! He should watch, well not just Hardball, Rachel [Maddow], he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence [O’Donnell]. He would learn something about this debate.

There’s a hot debate going on in this country and you know where it’s being held? Here on this network is where we’re having this debate. We have our knives out, we go after the people on the facts, what was he doing tonight?! He went in there disarmed, he was like, ‘oh wait, an hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing and I don’t even look at this guy.’

Whereas Romney — I love the split-screen — staring at Obama, addressing him like prey. He did it just right. ‘I’m coming at an incumbent. I got to beat him. You’ve got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy, the moderator, whatever he thinks he is because I’m going to ignore him.’

What was Romney doing? He was winning. […] If he does five more of these nights, forget it. […]

Obama should watch MSNBC, my last point. He will learn something every night on this show and all these shows. This stuff we’re watching, it’s like first grade for most of us. We know all this stuff.

Ed Schultz’s blood pressure went through the roof lamenting how he was “stunned” that Obama was “off his game.”  I think liberals are finally coming to the realization that President Obama isn’t a good debater and lost almost every battle with Hillary Clinton back in the ’08 primaries.  Allahpundit posted about the mayhem from Twitter concerning the president’s debate performance.

Michael Moore tweeted:

Lastly, Bill Maher commented on Obama’s utter lack of direction during the debate with this:

Yes, liberals were in shock and awe concerning how bad the president, the best thing since the resurrection of Christ, performed, but that’s not to say it’ll be the same the next time Obama and Romney duke it out.  However, I’m confident that Romney won’t be the push over that some in the media were conveying before Wednesday night’s smackdown.

Mitt surely stepped up his game during the debate and I found myself enthused for the first time, in a long time, since Romney began his campaign for the presidency last year.  However, I admit that I backed Perry before his epic meltdown.  Nevertheless, Romney has shaken off the criticism that he’s robotic and proved to his skeptics that he’s passionate, hungry, and ready to lead this nation towards economic prosperity.  Mitt is definitely here.

ICYMI:

Originally posted on Hot Air.

Liberal on Liberal Violence, MSNBC’s Fineman Calls Lehrer ‘Useless’ and criminally negligent

MSNBC contributor Howard Fineman lamented how the president was on the defensive concerning his first bout with Republican nominee Mitt Romney last night.  Jim Lehrer, who moderated the October 3 debate, has a history of bias that is usually cloaked with his soporific disposition. However, Fineman seemed agitated to the point of calling Lehrer “useless” and equated his moderating of the debate to “criminal negligence.”  Fineman’s ire seems to be indicative of liberals’ reaction towards Obama’s poor debate performance

This latest incident on liberal on liberal violence could be cathartic for those on the political left as they discover that the president isn’t a very good debater.

 

HOWARD FINEMAN: In terms of debate tactics, Romney was on the offensive most of the time – the president did very well on Medicare, but for the rest of it – and Obamacare – rest of it he did not. He missed many chances to correct the record or to ask questions. Jim Lehrer was practically useless as the moderator.  It was criminal negligence not to follow up on the question – Mr. Romney specifically what tax loopholes or deductions do you want to get rid of – he didn’t ask it. The president should have asked it.  That’s only one example of many and it was clear to everybody in this room tonight what happened in this debate.

 

Voices Without A Vote

These are the voices of our future.

Their future hangs in the balance.

They can’t vote. But you can.

Liberty is never more than one generation from extinction. And they are that generation!

YouTube Description:

The teenagers who speak in this video belong to http://www.im2moro.org. These young people realize that if they don’t stand up and speak out for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness today, they will be living in a very different America tomorrow.

The Debate #Fail No One is Talking About

Photo by Elizabeth Cromwell

It’s no surprise Obama lost the debate, even for his own campaign.

The Obama camp floated the idea that the president would be under-prepared for the debate early last week. Jim Messina, arguably the brains behind the president’s campaign strategy, had a nationwide campaign conference call outlining just that. Even the president himself joined the call & jabbed that Romney is far more proficient in debate performance. Mr. Messina commented that the president has been “doing his job” which doesn’t leave much time for debate practice. (Clearly high donor fundraisers, stumping in Vegas and photo ops with Beyonce are quite time consuming, but I digress.) One has to assume media traveling with the president were on the call that included Obama for America Field Directors from across the nation. The media, now acting shocked at the outcome, was well aware for at least a week that Obama would likely not be the debate winner.

More than just ill prepared, Obama failed his own plan B.

Knowing the possibility was there that the president would perform poorly, surely the campaign had a plan B, right? And in typical progressive fashion, it was time to play the victim card.

This administration, the Obama campaign and those on the progressive left have long used victimhood as a means to gain favor and earn votes. Whether it’s a stump speech centered around the sad story of a crumbling bridge, or at the State of the Union address claiming to read letter after letter from suffering people, or an entire Democratic National Convention pandering to the manufactured hardships of the war on women, the progressive left wins when they play the victim card.

Now, I don’t claim to have definitive inside knowledge, but I would be willing to bet, looking at the full scale attacks from leftwing media pundits and campaign spokespeople, that Team Obama fully intended to play the victim card following the debate. In fact, Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter’s first interview sounded like a carefully memorized berating of Jim Lehrer saying, “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator…”

As if marching to a synchronized drumbeat, MSNBC pundits, ABC and CBS talking heads and others on the left immediately flashed the victim card claiming Lehrer had lost control of the debate. Some even went so far as to claim Romney was given an unfair amount of time to speak, though it was confirmed later on CNN that the president had actually spoken 4 minutes longer than Romney.

I think the president fully expected to be grilled by the moderator. I think the plan was to pander to the audience, play victim as much as possible, tug on heartstrings & when in doubt, blame those darn republicans. But I also think Obama was stunned to learn 10 minutes into the debate that the plan was foiled. Romney’s use of facts, history and his obvious passion (which had been lacking in the campaign to this point) rendered the president listless. He was simply unable recover without a teleprompter & pre-written speech. Obama was so off his game and bewildered that he sounded like the Miss Teen USA contestant that went completely off the rails when trying to explain why kids couldn’t find America on a map. When asked about the economy his answer was about education and medicare, when asked about deficits or taxes, his talking points were off-point and irrelevant.

Obama failed to effectively make the case that he is a victim and thus failed to gain control of the post-debate narrative.

Obama looked weak, out-of-place next to Romney at debate

In the barely-moderated presidential debate held today, Mitt Romney came with his A-game and the President appeared as though he would rather have been anywhere else.

President Obama spent much of the debate staring down at his podium with an occasional smirk on his face while Romney looked confident and appeared genuinely interested in what Obama had to say.

The clear difference between the two men was in the conviction with which they made their statements. The President seemed out-of-sorts when talking about his own ideas and often dropped into talking-point-style attacks on Romney’s plans. Romney, however, came out with point-by-point remarks to correct the President when Obama mis-stated facts.

For the first third of the debate, Obama’s attacks centered upon repeating that Romney would cut taxes by $5 trillion. After trying a few times to correct the President, Romney said “I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. But that is not the case.”

The other major attacks from the President were still based in class warfare. Obama went straight to discussing how Romney will decrease taxes on the rich to which Romney said, “I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know that’s a popular thing to say with some people, but it’s just not the case.”

Rep. Marco Rubio said of the debate that the President looked uncomfortable talking about deficits, jobs and the economy, “because he doesn’t understand those things.” At one point in the debate, the President commented on tax advantages for businesses moving facilities overseas to which Romney replied, “Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you are talking about.”

Obama tried to re-promise that he would cut the debt by $4 trillion dollars, a promise eerily similar to his 2008 promise to reduce the deficit by 50% in his first term. Romney clearly pointed out that the President was unable to achieve it in his first term and would likely fail in a second.

A tough moment for Obama came when he pointed out the $2.8 billion in tax deductions for oil companies. Romney brought up Obama’s failed investments in green energy companies where he said “In one year, you gave $90 billion in breaks to green energy companies” and that it was “50 years worth of breaks to companies like Solyndra”. As an exclamation point, Romney said that the wasn’t just picking winners and losers, but that Obama, with his investments in failing green energy companies, seemed to “just pick losers.”

Obama said that Romney’s health care replacement had no details, then went straight into discussing the details of how Romney’s plan deals with pre-existing conditions.

Probably the strongest point made by Romney was that on day one he would sit down with leaders from both parties and get things done. A direct challenge to Obama’s statement that it can’t be done from the inside. During the debate, Obama even tried to re-iterate how impossible that would be by saying that “Your’re going to be very busy on day one.” America certainly hopes so – it would be a refreshing change.

Romney did an effective job at reminding America that Obama has been president for an entire term and has achieved nothing in the way of creating jobs or helping America.

Obama was clearly out of his element. Unprotected by a friendly media, he often looked to Jim Lehrer for help and requested topic changes when getting lambasted by his Republican challenger.

Obama Trumps Romney in Social Media Battle, Google Survey Finds

WINDHAM, N.H., Oct. 3, 2012  — When it comes to being savvy at social media and online persuasion, Barack Obama is better than Mitt Romney — at least according to the results of a recent Google Survey: “Who’s Better at Social Media and Online Persuasion: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?”

Querying 2,500 Internet users nationwide, a little over 64 percent of those polled chose the incumbent president over the Republican candidate, the exception being within the category of Americans over the age of 64. What’s so significant about this latest factoid?

According to Terry Dean and Dr. Glenn Livingston, the two internationally esteemed marketing experts who orchestrated the survey, it could be useful in assessing candidate popularity and scrutinizing the election probabilities. But that’s not all — the survey itself, when tied to other social media and marketing tools, is excellent for creating “buzz,” which matters because, particularly nowadays, generating buzz generates business.

“Capitalizing on Google Surveys can really get people to pay attention, engage and become interested in a subject — or even you, the one conducting the research,” says Livingston, who heads several marketing firms, including BigTrafficMonster.com (http://www.BigTrafficMonster.com) that combined have provided more than $20 million in consulting to clients big and small. “The survey can help build qualified leads for your brand. Consequently, your business can just skyrocket.”

However, surveys alone aren’t a silver bullet for success. A more comprehensive online marketing campaign will help. With this recent Obama vs. Romney poll, Livingston and Dean constructed a “media website” which contains (among other things), an illustrative 35-minute YouTube video: (http://www.totalconversioncode.com/ObamaVsRomney). The video reviews the candidates’ online campaigns and gives expert opinion on why people voted nearly two-to-one in Obama’s favor.

“When people watch this video, they learn about the poll, but more importantly to us as business owners and marketing consultants, a subset of the curious go farther to explore our businesses and expertise,” says Dean, the project’s co-creator. “This ultimately boosts qualified website traffic, business growth and the bottom line.”

That said, after surveying, developing the media website, and posting the educational YouTube video, there’s still one more step: promoting it all online through an effective press release. Do this, they say, and you’ll really raise the volume of the buzz.

“When the news goes live, that’s when the online hits heat up, search engine visibility rises, pay per clicks pay off, and your entire online marketing strategy generates good ROI,” Livingston says. “Now that’s the buzz you want!”

« Older Entries Recent Entries »