Thursday, October 18, 2012

'Bindergate:' Evidence Obama is Losing?

By Guy Benson

Katie and Cortney have already touched on this brewing "controversy," but I suspect the smallness of the issue -- if you can call it that -- is actually indicative of something larger. The Left's fixation on Mitt Romney's turn of phrase "women full of binders" in the second debate may represent the pettiest and most trivial chapter of this entire campaign. And yes, I'm fully aware of the fact that we've witnessed multiple attacks centered around Romney's pets. At first, I viewed "binders" as a transitory lefty internet meme-generator and twitter sensation. Romney's word choice was slightly awkward, but nothing more -- perfect fodder for web silliness. But then the President of the United States tweeted about it, and incorporated the word into his stump speech (while quietly dropping the part about Al Qaeda being on the run). Ridiculous and unpresidential, perhaps, but so was Big Bird. Surely Obama was just needling his opponent over a flash-in-the-pan, substanceless verbal misstep, right? Wrong. The Obama campaign is now aggressively promoting "bindergate" online, sternly warning Americans that the throwaway sentence is damning evidence of Romney's "condescending views towards women." Really:

As a person who enjoys at least a modicum of brain activity, I'm not exactly sure how to react to this. It's so trifling, so frivolous, that it shouldn't merit any discussion whatsoever. But here we are. The leader of the free world and his campaign have decided to elevate is as an issue, so I suppose my response is four-fold:
(1) If Mitt Romney had said "binders full of women's resumes," this whole thing would be less than nothing (I'm not willing to concede that it's actually something). Every single non-lunatic person watching that exchange understood precisely what Romney was saying, even as it evoked the weird mental image of a giant three-ring binder filled with human beings. A meaningless 'oops' at worst. The phrase is not even offensive on its face. Even out of context, who hears "binders full of women," and is authentically offended or shocked? Nobody.
(2) The entirety of Romney's answer directly refutes the Obama campaign's puzzling assertion that Romney was exhibiting anti-women condescension. The whole point of the story is that he walks the walk when it comes to empowering women in the workplace. Barack Obama talks a lot about "pay fairness," droning on about the triumph of the Lily Ledbetter Act. Then he goes on to complain that the problem persists -- despite his grand legislative achievement, and without acknowledging the plain truth that the pay gap "problem" is largely attributable to factors other than discrimination. Nor does he mention that his White House pays female staffers $11,000 less per year than their male counterparts, on average (to say nothing of all this). Romney, on the other hand, went out of his way to seek and recruit qualified women leaders to serve at the highest levels of state government. He doesn't need window-dressing, ineffective legislation to prove his commitment; he's lived it.
(3) The genuine "condescending to women" in this instance flows from the Obama campaign. Do they believe American women are so stupid that they can't recognize this absurd piece of feigned indignation for what it is? Women voters are concerned about jobs, take home pay, rising costs, and the dangerous national debt. Team Obama seems to think they can peel away substantial numbers of these voters by convincing them that Mitt Romney's "binders" is somehow deeply troubling. It's not. In any way. And women know this; they're not children.
(4) This week's USA Today/Gallup poll of swing states showed Mitt Romney in the lead, boosted in part by drawing even with the president among female voters. The Obama campaign freaked out about the poll's methodology and labeled it an outlier. But if that survey didn't strike a nerve in Chicago, what explains this new round of transparent and truly desperate pandering to women? By hopping from Big Bird to binders, the Obama team has not only (again) shown itself to be shallow and unserious; it's tipped its own hand on some very real concerns about a shrinking gender gap. Without winning a sizable majority of women, this president does not get re-elected. Period.
I'll leave you with three videos, all of which are relevant to this battle. The first is Romney's new ad correcting the record and fighting serial distortions of his stances on abortion and birth control. The second is a web spot featuring some of the very women who emerged from Romney's binders to serve in positions of influence and power in the Massachusetts government. Finally, an Obama classic that feels more relevant today than ever before:

"If you don't have a record to run make big elections about small things:"

UPDATE - On MSNBC, Time's Mark Halperin was decidedly unimpressed with 'bindergate:'

Guy Benson

Guy Benson is's Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson.

Senator asks if Obama had a 'a set-up deal’ with CNN moderator Crowley!

Life Site News ^ | October 18, 2012 | BEN JOHNSON

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 18, 2012, ( - Critics of CNN moderator Candy Crowley’s performance in the second presidential debate Tuesday night claim that it is part of a larger pattern that sees Democrats consistently receiving more time to speak, being interrupted less often, and being asked fewer probing questions than their Republican challengers.

Republicans have cried foul after Crowley wrongly corrected Mitt Romney’s statement that Barack Obama did not refer to the assault on the Libyan embassy as an act of terrorism. A transcript indicates Obama did use the term “act of terror” the day after the attack, but in reference to 9/11, not Benghazi.

“I’ve never seen a moderator in a major debate interfere with the two people and take one side and indicate the other one was not telling the truth,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-OK. “I think it was orchestrated.”

“Did the president willfully lie, and was that a set-up deal with Crowley?” Senator Inhofe asked.

Shortly after the debate, Crowley admitted that Mitt Romney was “right in the main.” Later Wednesday, she stepped back, denying that she had acted inappropriately, adding she didn’t think her statement was “a leap.”

The incorrect correction broke Romney’s momentum on what should have been his strongest attack of the debate.

The statement represented only the most memorable facet of what critics see as Crowley’s biased performance.
The veteran CNN journalist interrupted Mitt Romney 28 times, Barack Obama only nine, in keeping with a pro-Democratic pattern that holds true throughout all 2012 debates so far.

Moderator Matha Raddatz interrupted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan 15 times, but cut off Joe Biden only five. Biden himself erratically interjected himself into nearly all of Ryan’s answers.

Crowley, who has a history of pro-abortion statements, personally vetted all questions the candidates were asked. According to one analysis, since the advent of the town hall debate, moderators have chosen liberal questions over conservative questions by a margin of two-to-one. Some say the same pattern held true last night.

At all three debates, Democrats have received more speaking time than Republicans.

President Obama spoke for 44 minutes, four seconds Tuesday night, while Romney talked only for 40 minutes, 50 seconds.

In the first presidential debate Obama spoke for three minutes, 14 seconds longer than Mitt Romney. Joe Biden got one minute, 22 seconds more speaking time than Paul Ryan. Altogether, the Democrats have enjoyed nearly nine minutes more debate time than their Republican counterparts.

Rush Limbaugh mentioned the Crowley controversy on his radio show Wednesday, saying, “She committed an act of journalistic terror or malpractice last night. If there were any journalistic standards, what she did last night would have been the equivalent of blowing up her career like a suicide bomber.”

Romney takes his first Electoral College lead!

Hot Air ^ | October 18, 2012 | Howard Portnoy

Since the debate on Tuesday, which many analysts ceded to President Obama, mainly on strength of his having shown up, the term comeback kid has been getting play among liberal pundits. Yet, this afternoon’s Real Clear Politics Electoral Map suggests goaway kid (or maybe just, “Go away, kid!”) is a more fitting description.

The map for the first time gives challenger Mitt Romney a lead of 206 to 201 over Obama in Electoral College votes. Strikingly, the map has Florida (with 29 Electoral votes), Michigan (with 16), Ohio (with 18), Pennsylvania (with 20), Virginia (with 13), and Wisconsin (with 10) all in the toss-up column. In addition, North Carolina, with its 15 Electoral votes, has moved from toss-up to “lean Romney.”

On the popular vote side of the tally board, Romney has opened up a 1-point lead with 47.7% to Obama’s 46.7%. The Intrade odds, however, continue to show the president with a commanding 63% to 36.9% lead. Also the Electoral College map with no toss-ups still gives Obama a victory with 294 votes to Romney’s 244.

Three Ways Obama Hides His War on Affordable Energy

ATR ^ | 2012-10-17 | Christopher Prandoni

During Tuesday’s presidential debate, President Obama dedicated a substantial amount of time arguing that he, in fact, is a huge advocate of traditional energy – coal, natural gas, and oil. In reality, during the past four years Americans have watched gasoline prices double, the Keystone Pipeline needlessly killed, and the phasing out of coal-fired electricity.

While these industries employ millions of Americans, the implications of Obama’s policies affect every American energy consumer. With fewer offshore lease sales, Obama’s has all but assured higher prices at the pump. With less coal being converted into power, Obama has all but assured higher electricity bills.

Below you will find three attempts by Obama to cover-up his war on affordable energy.
Obama: “Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling.”
One of the President’s first energy actions was to cancel the previous Administration’s five year offshore lease plan, which allowed for drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Slow-walking remaining lease sales, the Obama administration has conducted only 11 of the 21 originally scheduled offshore lease sales. Codifying his plan to inhibit development of oil and natural gas reserves on federal land, Obama’s 2012-2017 lease plan represents the lowest number of lease sales ever offered, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
Probably the best metric to assess the Administration is the number of oil and natural gas approved Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs). Here the Obama Administration shows its true colors: between 2009 and 2011, APDs were down 36 percent.
Further down the road, Obama’s denied Applications for Permit to Drill will cost consumers at the pump when expected oil and natural gas reserves do not come online.
Obama: “We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades.”
Nearly all of America’s increased energy production is owed to the development of shale oil and gas wells – 95 percent of which are on state and private lands. In 2010, 6,512 shale wells were drilled in the U.S. compared to 1,131 shale wells drilled in 2001, a 476 percent increase.
So while oil production on federal lands is down 14 percent in 2011, oil production is up 11 percent on private and state lands. Natural gas is the same story with production on federal lands declining by 10 percent in 2011.
The 2011 increase in oil and natural gas production on private and state lands overwhelms the decrease on federal lands, resulting in an oil production net increase of 3.6 percent and a natural gas production net increase of 7 percent.
Indeed, the incredible production gains have occurred in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them.
Obama: “We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.”
This statement couldn’t be farther from the truth – both coal production and coal employment are down under Obama’s tenure. In January of 2009 there were 86,600 coal jobs. In September of 2012, there were 82,200 coal jobs – that’s fewer jobs, not more. In fact, the number of coal mining jobs has dropped in 24 out of the 45 months that Obama has been president. Over the most recent 12-month period, the number of coal mining jobs has dropped every month for a loss of over 5,000 jobs.
How about coal production? In January of 2009, America produced 545.8 million tons of coal; now, 507.8 million tons of coal. Again, that’s a reduction in coal produced, not an increase.
Most importantly, the full impact of Obama’s job-killing regulations have not yet been felt. Power plant owners have announced the shutdown of around 36,000 MW of coal capacity due, in no small part, to EPA regulations. This enormous amount of electricity represents approximately 11 percent of U.S. coal electric generating capacity. Undoubtedly, such a huge reduction in coal-fired electricity will be accompanied by a similar huge reduction in coal-based employment.
While most of us aren’t employed by the coal industry, nearly all of us consume efficient, reliable coal-fired electricity. So if you pay an electricity bill, the EPA’s policies directly affect you.
Read more:

The Times Runs Interference for Obama [Beyond Shameless!]

The Weekly Standard ^ | October 17, 2012 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

 Today’s New York Times mentions but then quickly glosses over President Obama’s statement in early 2009, in which he said, “One nice thing about — the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I've got four years. And…— and — and —…and, you know, a year from now I think people — are gonna see that — we’re starting to make some progress. But…[i]f I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s gonna be a one-term proposition.”
The Times then writes, “Whether you are better off today than in 2009 may not be the most useful question to ask about an economy emerging from its most severe downturn in 80 years. A more illuminating question is how we have done relative to other countries that were caught in the global financial cataclysm. By that standard, economic growth in the United States has done surprisingly well.”
In other words, the Times suggests that the appropriate standard for judging Obama is, Are we doing better than other countries that also aren’t doing very well? Is this really what Obama meant by being “held accountable”?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama-Biden: Playing the Liar Card ^ | October 18, 2012 | Larry Elder

Within the first few minutes of the second presidential debate, Obama said "not true" more times than Lance Armstrong, Mark McGwire and Baghdad Bob -- combined.

Sure beats talking about the economy.

President Obama scored a big victory over Mitt Romney with this week's cover story in Time magazine: "Who is Telling the Truth?" How is this a victory for Obama? The silliness of sending out surrogates to call Romney a "liar" has become a Big Media Issue in 2012.
Breaking news: Almost all politicians obfuscate, sometimes shading or altering positions as political winds shift and even completely changing positions. Sometimes they admit changing positions (Obama on gay marriage). Sometimes they change while denying any change (Romney initially asserting that RomneyCare could and should be a "model" the federal government "can learn from").
Time magazine asks, for example, did Romney tell the truth when he accused Obama of saying that "if Congress approved his plan to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, he would hold unemployment below 8 percent." No, that's "misleading," Time tells us. "Obama never said that, but before he took office, two of his economists predicted that a large stimulus might have that effect."
OK, Obama himself never said that, but he has acknowledged his top economic advisors did. The statement therefore reflected the goals and expectations of the Obama administration. Is it "misleading" to say "Obama said" -- as opposed to "his top economic advisors predicted"?
How many times did the "Bush Lied, People Died" crowd accuse "Bush" or "the Bush administration" of warning about a "mushroom cloud"? Bush never said that. The speaker was then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Is it a "lie" to say that those words were "said" by Bush? Or was the Rice statement a reflection of the administration's view that Iraq represented -- to use Bush's actual words -- a "grave and gathering danger"?
Where was truth-busting, fact-checking Time magazine during one of the most scurrilous attacks on a sitting president -- that President George W. Bush "lied" us into the Iraq War?
Accusers included Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who voted for the war, then turned against it, saying the Bush administration "intentionally misled the country into war." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., shamefully called Bush "a loser" and "a liar." He apologized for the loser part, but allowed "liar" to stand. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Week after week after week we were told lie after lie after lie." These are party leaders -- not a couple of beer-guzzlers holding up hand-painted signs at an Occupy rally in Zuccotti Park.
Now, what about the word "liar" -- and Vice President Joe Biden?
During his only debate, Biden denied voting for the "two wars on a credit card" (Obama's words) that supposedly contributed to the recession. Biden said: "And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, 'Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?' It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them (emphasis added). I said, no, we can't afford that."
Biden voted for the authorization for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. About Iraq, Biden said in 2002, "If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late," and, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."
Can we call liberal pundits "liars" when they claim the idea for an individual mandate came from the conservative Heritage Foundation?
Stuart Butler, Heritage's director of the Center for Policy Innovation, recently wrote: "Is the individual mandate at the heart of 'ObamaCare' a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no. ... And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate (emphasis added). ... The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability. ... My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate."
The dictionary describes a "liar" as someone who intends to deceive. But to paraphrase economist Thomas Sowell, today the word "liar" means a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal.

What If Romney Wins?

by Raynard Jackson
NNPA Columnist

With the presidential election right around the corner and most of the pundits saying the race is Obama’s to lose, I have begun to ponder the possibility that Romney might win and the impact that would have on the Black community.

Romney has been polling around zero percent of the Black vote. We all know that the usual Black liberal groups have sold out to Obama years ago – Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, etc.

Romney, like Bush in 2000, will owe absolutely nothing to Blacks should he win the election. But, unlike Bush, I have no allusions that Romney will surround himself with the number of Blacks that Bush did. Romney will feel compelled to make some token hires, but not much beyond that.

This will lead to the above-named liberals to complain that Romney is ignoring Blacks and not being inclusive. But these same groups have yet to raise their voices to criticize Obama on the same issue. Bush had more Blacks in his administration than Obama or Bill Clinton. How’s that for a White supposed racist Republican?

So, how can they, credibly, hold Romney to a standard that they refused to hold Obama to?

Let’s assume that Romney agrees to meet with these liberals and they make their typical left-wing demands: higher minimum wage, amnesty for illegals, homosexual rights, input on hiring decisions, etc. If the current incarnation of Romney shows up, he will not agree to their demands.

So, how will they respond if Romney says to them, “Why should I do these things when Obama didn’t do them for you? Congressman Cleaver, will you promise not to march on the White House during my administration like you did for Obama? Mr. Jealous, if I don’t address your annual conference, like Obama, will you give me a pass because my schedule is supposedly full? Members of the CBC, if I tell you to stop complaining like Obama did, will you label me a racist, even though you didn’t call Obama a racist?”

If the first Black president ignores the Black community, how can we then make demands on the next White president, regardless of party? This is why having Blacks put all their votes in one party is so dangerous. We have absolutely no leverage if Romney wins the White House.

What’s amazing about the groups that claim to represent all Blacks is they all claim to be non-partisan. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

On election night, should Romney win, he will say all the right things about wanting to be president for all of America, even those who did not vote for him.

But, in raw political terms, why should Romney engage with these liberals? They don’t represent the Black mainstream. They have been bought and paid for by the Democratic Party and the likes of George Soros.

To the Black community, you must become more politically sophisticated and not continue to allow you and the community to be ignored and taken for granted. To Republicans, get rid of your silly notion of a color-blind society. If you can’t see the changing demographics of this country, then you are truly color blind – blind to people of color.

Politico: Obama cedes the future to Romney!

Politico ^ | October 19, 2012 | Rich Lowry

President Barack Obama has been onstage with Mitt Romney now for a collective three hours and has yet to enunciate anything within hailing distance of a second-term agenda.

He wants to “win the future,” he just doesn’t have a very clear idea about how to do it. His slogan is “forward,” but his campaign is unmistakably backward-looking. His case for reelection has about as much to do with the past four years of the Bush administration as the next four years of the prospective second Obama administration.
All of his campaign’s energy has been devoted to tearing down Romney. If a fraction of its effort had been spent on coming up with a few new proposals around which Obama could wrap a fresh-feeling policy platform, he wouldn’t be forced to run such a remorselessly negative campaign. He could do more — at least as much as is possible for an incumbent president — to keep the mantle of hope and change.
The irony is that Obama aides always said that it would be a choice election. They were right. But they have been running as if the election were a referendum on the challenger. The only real choice that the Obama campaign has offered is one between believing Romney is a heartless right-wing extremist and believing Romney is a soulless opportunist.
This has allowed Romney, pricelessly, free running to present himself as the man with the plan.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Things are not going well for Zero when the Libtards at Politico print something like this!

Why Does Candy Crowley Still Have a Job at CNN?

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 10/18/12 | IBD Staff

Journalism: If the mainstream press had any self-respect, presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley would be out of work today. Even by the media-bias standards we've come to expect, she set a new, unforgivable low.
In a pre-debate interview with the Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik, Crowley talked about how she saw her role as moderator.
"These are two grown men," she said, "and if there are two grown men who should know what's going on, or what should go on in this country, it's them. So I'm not sure either of them needs me to defend them or go after the other guy or whatever."
But that's precisely what Crowley did at Tuesday's debate.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Nuns on the Bus meet Tea Party protests in Ohio

Religion News Service ^ | 10/16/12

The "Nuns on the Bus" have been a consistently popular and effective faith-based tool for religious progressives this campaign season, but on Monday a group of demonstrators apparently organized by a local Tea Party affiliate met the nuns at a stop in Marietta, Ohio, and provided a far different welcome than the sisters usually receive.
Holding placards with slogans like "Bums on the Bus" and "Romney-Ryan Yes, Fake Nuns No," the protesters focused their fire on the abortion issue, accusing the sisters of not being sufficiently anti-abortion.
Someone claiming to be a member of the local "We the People" chapter -- that is the name used by some Tea Party affiliates in the region -- posted a YouTube video of the counter-demonstrators taken before the half dozen nuns and some 100 supporters arrived. It says there were more than 175 marchers opposing the nuns and it shows the demonstrators praying the rosary and singing hymns before challenging the sisters.
"What could be more innocuous, unless of course the nuns happen to be a group of radical, feminist ideologues whose previous political actions have been so out of step with the teaching of the Catholic Church that they have been condemned by the Vatican," the YouTube poster wrote in text accompanying the footage.
Sister Simone Campbell, who leads the Washington-based NETWORK, a left-leaning Catholic social justice group, has spearheaded the Nuns on the Bus tours and spoke against the budget drafted by GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan during the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

It's Over

Posted Image

Making things up...

Posted Image

Of course they'll vote for US

Posted Image

Buy a Volt...or else!

Posted Image

Don't confuse me

Posted Image

She WAS ready!

Posted Image

Falling Fast

Posted Image

...and other BS

Posted Image

The Debate Rules

Posted Image

Biden's Smarmalade

Posted Image

Wingnut Reading?

Posted Image

No Politics Tonight

Posted Image

Sheeteating Grin!

Posted Image

Big Bird

Posted Image

Voting BS

Posted Image

What are you smiling at?

Posted Image

Gas Prices

Posted Image

Tell Me About It

Posted Image

Unhinged Brain

Posted Image

Sky-High Spending, Not Bush Tax Cuts, Drives Deficits

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 10/18/12 | John Merline

President Obama often talks about the need for a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction, by which he means tax hikes in addition to spending cuts.

At the recent presidential debate, for example, he said, "We've got to reduce our deficit, but we've got to do it in a balanced way. Asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts."

The only problem with this approach is that the massive projected deficits over the next 10 years aren't the result of too few taxes. They are entirely the result of too much spending.

Here's the proof:

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama's Hope Fades in Virginia!

The American Spectator ^ | October 18, 2012 | Robert Stacy McCain

Not long ago, this hopeful prospect might have seemed impossible for even the most optimistic Republican to imagine. As recently as Oct. 2,a Roanoke College poll reported President Obama leading by 8 points in Virginia, but in the past two weeks,the Old Dominion has shifted sharply toward the GOP challenger. Romney has led five of the seven most recent polls and,although the RCP average for Virginia still shows Obama with razor-thin lead,the Republicans here sense a strong enough momentum to carry them to victory on Nov.6...

........The Democrats are evidently shrinking their Electoral College map,in what looks like a defensive "triage" strategy to win just enough states to hold on to the White House. Team Obama already appears to have written off North Carolina,which the president narrowly won in 2008,....In a remarkable interview with National Journal's Major Garrett, top Obama strategist David Plouffe suggested that the Democrat is prepared to fall back to a last-ditch defense of just four battleground states--Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire--that would provide enough of an Electoral College cushion for Obama to squeak past to re-election. That would mean ceding not only North Carolina but also Colorado, Florida, and Virginia to Romney,and might permit the Republican turnout operation to maximize its margins in those states without the battering "headwind" of Democrat attack ads. (Such ads, however, continue to run, and there is not yet any sign of a let-up in the Democrat ad blitz.)
However,with the final days of the election season now ticking away,the Romney campaign's momentum continues, and events in Virginia may yet have nationwide impact. The front page of Thursday's Washington Times features a story about how the Obama administration's "war on coal" has thwarted plans by the tiny Appalachian town of Grundy to expand its airport..................
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Class Warfare: The Mortal Enemy Of Economic Growth And Jobs!

Forbes ^ | 10/18/2012 | Jim Powell

Our economy is lousy, the labor force participation rate is the lowest in 31 years, we’ve had 43 consecutive months with unemployment over 8 percent, and a record 47 million people are on food stamps, so one might expect President Obama would welcome as much help as he could get. Surely he would want private sector job creators – investors and entrepreneurs – to have the strongest possible incentives for turning around this Obama “recovery” where household incomes are falling faster than they fell in the Bush recession.

But Obama’s priority is class warfare. That’s why he relentlessly denounces job creators as “millionaires and billionaires.” That’s why he demands that they be punished with higher tax rates.
Recently New York Senator Charles Schumer, one of Obama’s comrades, vowed that there would be no bipartisan budget deal without higher taxes on the rich.

What is it that drives class warriors? “Fairness,” of course, is the familiar battle cry, but according to the IRS the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay about 36 percent of federal income taxes. Before the financial meltdown when the rich were richer, the top 1 percent paid over 40 percent. By any standard, that’s a lot – especially considering that as we have heard, 47 percent of taxpayers don’t pay any income tax.
We need to understand that class warfare is a mortal enemy of economic growth and jobs. At the very least, class warfare means “progressive” taxation — higher tax rates on investors and entrepreneurs, eventually reaching confiscatory levels. In many places, class warfare has gone much farther with suffocating regulations, exchange controls, asset seizures, arbitrary imprisonment and other measures that suppress private property rights and throttle a market economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama’s ‘Trillion Dollar’ Tax-Cut Fraud (Fairly Assessing Romney's Tax Plan)

National Review ^ | 10/18/2012 | Alan Reynolds

Two days before the last night’s presidential debate, the Washington Post’s frenetic blogger Ezra Klein wrote that “Romney’s tax cuts cost $5 trillion over 10 years before his (unnamed) offsets. Extending the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 adds another $1 trillion. Then there’s the $2 trillion in new defense spending. So before Romney can cut the deficit by a dime, he has to come up with $8 trillion in offsets and savings for these plans.”

Obama echoed Klein’s remarks quite closely in the second debate, but the figures are pure fiction.
One part of the ruse, the $5 trillion tax cut, began by taking a crude one-year estimate from the Tax Policy Center (TPC) and erroneously multiplying it by ten. The original estimate, Klein explained, pretends that “in 2015, the Romney-Ryan rate reduction will reduce tax revenue by $480 billion compared to current policy. That’s the raw number, before you start arguing over behavioral responses or growth.” Yet we absolutely have to argue over immediate behavioral responses, reflected in what’s called “the elasticity of taxable income,” to come up with credible revenue estimates, even aside from economic growth.
Without taking taxpayer behavior into account, neither Klein nor the TPC can explain why revenues from individual income taxes were only 7.7 percent of GDP from 1951 to 1963, when dozens of tax rates ranged from 20 to 91 percent; or why such revenues were 8.1 percent from 1988 to 1990, when the top tax rate was 28 percent; or why they were 8 percent from 1993 to 1996, when the top rate was 39.9 percent. TPC-style “raw” estimates would have wrongly predicted that revenues would fall sharply after Kennedy and Reagan cut marginal tax rates by 22 percent and 23 percent respectively. And the same static methodology wrongly predicted that revenues would promptly rise as a share of GDP after top tax rates were increased in 1991 and 1993. In each case, the opposite happened.
Romney’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent also cannot be understood without, as Klein puts it, “arguing over behavioral responses or growth.” Karel Mertens of Cornell University and Morten O. Ravn of University College London find that “cuts in corporate taxes have no significant impact on revenues because of a very elastic response of the tax base.” Roger H. Gordon of the University of California, San Diego, in a 2004 paper with Korean economist Young Lee, found “a cut in the corporate tax rate by ten percentage points will raise the annual growth rate by one to two percentage points.” In other words, Romney’s lower corporate tax rate won’t cost the Treasury a dime, but will likely boost GDP growth by a percentage point or two. Who wants to argue or vote against that?
What about the alleged $2 trillion in “new defense spending”? This refers to Romney’s intent to allocate 4 percent of GDP to defense. Since the CBO projects nominal GDP will rise 59 percent from 2012 to 2022, it is arithmetically certain that 4 percent of GDP (or 3 percent) will involve a rising number of dollars over ten years. “That would add as much as $2.3 trillion to the defense budget over 10 years from projected 2013 spending levels,” wrote Carol Giacomo of the New York Times. But that is not an increase relative to what the CBO or Obama project for future defense spending, but merely a nominal increase compared with dollars spent in 2013. It is preposterous to call that “extra” defense spending.
Besides, changing the mix of spending priorities requires no extra revenue so long as Romney keeps his pledge (which Obama and Klein dutifully ignore) to get spending back to 20 percent of GDP by 2016. Compared with Obama’s 2013 budget plan, which keeps spending near 23 percent of GDP indefinitely, Romney is not proposing spending $2 trillion more, as Obama pretends, but $4.1 trillion less. Federal spending averaged 19.5 percent of GDP from 1995 to 2008, so 20 percent is scarcely unrealistic, even with a fifth of that going to defense.
What about the alleged $1 trillion for “extending the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000”? That estimate is rounded up from page 203 of the Treasury’s Green Book — a rosy picture of the loot Obama might grab from his redistributive tax schemes in which incentives are unaffected by high tax rates. Raising the top two tax rates accounts for only $441.5 billion, however; the rest mainly comes from re-implementing deduction and exemption phaseouts for high-income taxpayers, policies known as “PEP” and “Pease.” When it comes to deductions, Romney’s plan to cap the dollar amount is a much bigger source of revenue than Obama’s (deductions average 23 percent of gross income), yet less discouraging at the margin, because earning more would not result in losing deductions.
The Obama-Klein team, feigning ignorance of Romney’s suggestion to cap deductions, speciously accuse him of forgoing revenue that, under Obama’s planned tax increases, comes from limiting deductions for those with high incomes. But Romney himself, like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and George Soros, stands to lose millions of dollars of charitable deductions each year from his own tax reform.
Klein almost gave this whole $8 trillion charade away by finding it “darkly hilarious” and “flatly untrue” for Romney to compare his tax reform with Simpson-Bowles. “The Simpson Bowles plan,” wrote Klein, “cut tax rates and lowered deductions and exemptions as a way to generate $2 trillion in new revenue. Romney doesn’t generate any new revenue.” Now wait a minute. How could Simpson-Bowles increase revenue by $2 trillion if the Romney plan, which sounds similar, would reduce revenue by $5 trillion? The lowest tax rate is a bit higher in Simpson-Bowles, 12 percent rather than 8 percent, but that could barely account for $1 trillion, much less a difference of $7 trillion. Simpson-Bowles would also raise the capital-gains-tax rate from 15 to 28 percent, but that can’t be expected to raise revenue: We tried that from 1987 to 1996 and realized gains soon dried up. Long-term capital-gains taxes accounted for 9 percent of individual-income-tax revenue from 2003 to 2007 compared with 6.9 percent from 1987 to 1996, as shown in Table 4 of my latest paper, on the misuse of the top 1 percent of income shares as a measure of inequality.
Romney’s tax reforms have a far better chance of generating enough revenue to cover spending that amounts to 20 percent of GDP than Obama’s punitive tax rates have of financing spending closer to 23 percent of GDP.
This is not least because Romney’s plans to reduce tax distortions and disincentives are enormously favorable to economic growth. Meanwhile, Obama’s tax plans are hostile to extra effort or investment if it results in any person or small business earning more than $250,000. Who, exactly, is going to have a hard time closing the deficit?
— Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of a critical new study about “top 1 percent” incomes.

The politics of gun control take center stage in presidential campaign!

Obama’s big gun slip

President Obama is in a fix over firearms. He needs to win undecided voters in the swing states to be re-elected, but these areas are largely pro-gun. So after years of trying to dodge the issue, Mr. Obama let it slip in Tuesday’s presidential debate that he’d push a gun ban in a second term. It’s a revelation that could sway the election.

In the town-hall event at Hofstra University, “undecided” voter Nina Gonzalez asked the president what he’d done to limit the availability of assault weapons. Mr. Obama feigned support for the Second Amendment before calling for regulation of inexpensive handguns, automatic weapons and resurrecting the so-called assault-weapons ban. “I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal,” Mitt Romney countered.
The president’s plan to revive the Clinton-era gun law won’t make America safer. “He wants to reinstate and expand on a ban that was in place for 10 years which, by all evidence, did nothing to reduce crime,” Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told The Washington Times. “In the eight years since the ban sunsetted, gun ownership has gone up, so more firearms are in civilian possession than ever before in the United States. At the same time, crime is at its lowest level since the early 1960s and so are accidents.”
The controversial law had no effect because it prohibited weapons that came with accessories like pistol grips, collapsing stocks and bayonet lugs. “This ‘assault-weapon’ ban didn’t impact the rate of fire, still one trigger pull for one bullet. It just took away some of the cosmetics,” Pete Brownell, CEO of Brownells, Inc. — the world’s largest retailer of gun parts, accessories and ammunition — explained in an interview. “Going forward, if they re-identify the characteristics, and it’s not in line with the American people, it could be anything that falls into that category of appearing to be an ‘assault weapon.’ “
Mr. Obama said he wants to do something to get “automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill” because they “are weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters [that] don’t belong on our streets.” He’s being deliberately confusing. Automatic firearms, also known as machine guns, have been heavily regulated in the civilian market since 1934, and their manufacture for civilian use has been banned since 1986.
The president’s most ominous suggestion was that a ban on “cheap handguns” could be next on the agenda. “It would just hurt people who live in high-crime, poor areas and can’t spend more on a firearm,” said Mr. Keane.
Gun owners finally got Mr. Obama on the record about what he would do if he wins Nov. 6. Consider it fair warning.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

Read more: MILLER: Obama's big gun slip - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Candy Crowley’s Journalistic Reputation is Debate’s Biggest Loser (as if she had some to start with)!

commentary magazine ^ | 10/17/2012 | Alana Goodman

CNN’s Candy Crowley has always seemed like a tough, sharp and relatively fair reporter. So when she said earlier this week she was going to take an active moderator role in last night’s debate, that didn’t immediately seem like a bad thing. There’s no problem with an impartial moderator keeping the candidates on topic and pressing them with follow-ups.

But by the end of the night, it was clear Crowley had done damage to her own reputation of objectivity. It wasn’t just because of the Benghazi question, either. Matt Latimer lays out the instances of bias at the

Daily Beast:
By far the biggest loser of the debate (after my former boss, George W., that is) was Candy Crowley. 

She is one of the most seasoned political reporters in Washington, but she came very close to becoming a participant in the debate. At some points she almost lost control, then seemed to interrupt Romney more often than Obama. The president also was given more time to speak overall. Ms. Crowley’s decision to buttress Obama’s declaration that Romney was being dishonest on Libya, however, will go into the Republican Party’s media-bias file for decades to come. Enjoy that moment—you’ll be seeing it again and again for years.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Total Welfare Spending Now at $1 Trillion (Gov't. only has three choices left: Tax, Print or Borrow)

National Review ^ | 10/18/2012 | NRO Staff

Total annual spending on federal means-tested welfare programs has hit $1 trillion. The Congressional Research Service is out with a new memorandum on spending on these programs. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate budget committee who requested the memo, has crunched the numbers and come up with the astonishing figure of $1 trillion in annual total spending on these programs as of fiscal year 2011, nearly $750 billion in federal dollars and another roughly $250 billion in state funding. Senator Sessions explains:
Ranking Member Sessions and the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee requested from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which data is available (fiscal year 2011). The results are staggering. CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).
CRS estimates that exclusively federal spending on these federal programs equaled approximately $746 billion, and further emphasizes that there is a substantial amount of state spending—mostly required as a condition of states’ participation—on these same federal programs (primarily Medicaid and CHIP). Based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance, Budget Committee staff calculated at least an additional $283 billion in state contributions to those same federal programs,1 for a total annual expenditure of $1.03 trillion. By comparison, in 2011, the annual budget expenditure for Social Security was $725 billion, Medicare was $480 billion, and non-war defense was $540 billion.
The exclusively federal share of spending on these federal programs is up 32 percent since 2008, and now comprises 21 percent of federal outlays (this share too is more than Social Security, Medicare, or defense).
As a historical comparison, spending on the 10 largest of the 83 programs (which account for the bulk of federal welfare spending) has doubled as a share of the federal budget over just the last 30 years. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount expended on these 10 programs has increased by 378 percent over that time.
Many factors have contributed to the growth in federal welfare spending, causing it to rise during times of both high and low unemployment. Persistently weak GDP growth over the last several years is unquestionably a factor in the record amount of money now being spent. But understanding the growth in federal welfare expenditures must also be understood in the context of a federal policy that has explicitly encouraged growth in welfare enrollment—combined with a weakening of welfare standards and rules. 

Solid Proof Obama is planning a concession speech event for Nov 6th Election Night

hillbuzz ^ | 10/18 | kevin dujan

[ Barack Obama is deliberately choosing to cloister himself in one of these fortress-like buildings cutoff from the public on Election Night this year...which is a far cry from the Grant Park victory party he planned in 2008 in the heart of Chicago where thousands were encouraged to worship him like it was a triumphant cult rally ]

[ If you remember, the 2008 Obama victory party was held in Grant Park, where the Obama cult declared him to be a living god-king who would lower the oceans, patch the whole in the ozone, and deliver hope and change and unicorns to everyone. Nothing so grandiose and extravagant is being planned for November 6th, 2012...for good reason ]

I’ve written before about the fact that Barack Obama was not planning another big Election Night victory party in Grant Park here in Chicago like the spectacle he put on in 2008, because no one I know in the Parks Department or in the event planning community had anything on their radar for Grant Park that night. Because of the permitting and union rules that plague any event in this City (which wouldn’t be waived even for Obama, due to liability and insurance issues the City would face if anything went wrong and permitting was not followed to the “T”) we would have known a few weeks ago if Obama expected another win and was going to celebrate in Chicago again. That massive Grant Park victory rally took a while to plan and involved far too many vendors for anything similar to be replicated this year without people already knowing.
I’ve suspected for some time that Obama was going to plan for a concession speech on November 6th, but last night final confirmation arrived in the form of leaked news that the Obama election night event is being staged in private McCormick Place, not a big public setting like Grant Park.
Let me put this as clearly as I can because it’s crucial: if Democrats really thought Barack Obama was going to be reelected, then they would have planned a massive rally in Grant Park again; the fact this is not happening is proof that, despite what you hear coming out of the Ministry of Truth that is the national media, the Democrats really do not expect Obama to win this election. Campaign operatives in Chicago are, thus, making appropriate preparations for his imminent defeat.
Instead of Grant Park, Obama’s apparently going to have his election night event at McCormick Place…the convention center here in Chicago.
Let me explain a few things about McCormick Place that you could intimate from the photo above:
* it’s separated from the City by highways and is hard to reach by anyone traveling on foot from the various “El” trains that service Chicago…which indicates this event is not intended for throngs of Obama supporters.
* there are no buses that readily service McCormick Place like they do Grant Park…so once again, this event is not being planned for the public to come and celebrate with Obama.
* McCormick Place is completely indoors and is a venue that Democrats can easily control in terms of the camera angles and stagecraft of the event…which is a big deal because losing campaigns choose small, isolated places to hold concession speeches while winning candidates are feted on election night in, well, places like Grant Park.
I was an event planner here in Chicago for several years before the 2008 presidential campaign. I planned events in McCormick Place for various trade shows; it’s a building designed with flexibility for downsizing an audience if the need suddenly arises so that the participants do not feel lost in too much extra space. There are modular walls that achieve this, with dividers capable of cutting a space in half…and then in half again…if that’s what needs to be done to make a sparse crowd seem bigger for cameras.
Despite being within sight of the Museum Campus and Soldier Field, McCormick Place is a fortress-like island surrounded on most sides by freeways or railroad tracks (with the lake on the other side). This is where the G-8 summit was held, so the dignitaries could be isolated and kept as far away from the public as possible in downtown Chicago. Because the only realistic way of reaching McCormick Place is by taxi (or car, if people drive themselves) this is clearly not a place Obama would be holding an election night event if he really thought he was going to win the election. How on Earth would his throngs of supporters be able to reach him if he won and the event was held here of all places?
McCormick Place is not a spot to hold a victory rally, folks…but it is the ideal spot to give a concession speech.
Take a look at that photo above again. The place sits on the highway. After the results come in, Obama just has to deliver his concession and then he’s in his car and on his way to his house in Hyde Park while Mitt Romney takes the stage in Boston as the new President-Elect. The highway that runs through McCormick Place leads right to Hyde Park…it would be less than a three minute drive for the Obama motorcade after they leave the convention center to head home and sulk.
I just don’t know any way else to put this, but planning his event at McCormick Place instead of Grant Park again (or another high profile outdoor venue like the Pritzker Pavilion at Millennium Park, for instance) is a tacit admission that the guy is going to lose and will have an early bedtime on Election Night in Hyde Park at the Obama/Rezko Mansion.
Great Merciful Zeus and Sweet Whitney Houston, this is a shocker because even if he remotely expected to win he would have at least scheduled something in a fancy hotel in downtown Chicago that the public could be a part of. But that’s not what they are doing: they are deliberately having his Election Night party in a place that prohibits the public from congregating easily.
I think this might be a way to avoid riots or other public disturbances from the Obama cult here in Chicago…because if they aren’t encouraged to assemble anywhere here on November 6th, then they won’t be assembled and ready to riot. That might have happened if they had the event at a hotel in the Loop…and it would have definitely have happened if they did a big Grant Park event.
But McCormick Place diffuses all this. It’s isolated, remote, and pedestrian-unfriendly.
The perfect place to discourage disappointed supporters from gathering with an easy escape route for Barack and Michelle to their Chicago home when it’s announced he will no longer be the president.
Read more

O-H-I-O: BO Must Go!

American Thinker ^ | 10/18/2012 | Frances Twitty

There has been much consideration given to Ohio in the 2012 presidential election, and rightfully so. Ohio is a microcosm of the nation. It is a diverse mix of urban and suburban with wide educational, cultural, and socio-economic differences. Very often as Ohio goes, so goes the nation. With its coveted 18 electoral votes well in mind, both candidates have been hitting it hard -- campaigning, stumping, running ads.
It is possible for the presidential election to be won without Ohio. But such a development has been exceedingly rare (as in never for a Republican and not since 1960 for a Democrat). Suffice to say, there are plenty of eyes on the Buckeye State. The outcome in Ohio could well decide the outcome of the presidential election.
Currently, in most Ohio polls, the candidates are running just about even. While Obama had an early lead, per mainstream media reports, Romney has since significantly closed the gap. This turnaround was due to, in no small part, the first presidential debate.
During the first debate, the world was finally able to see not the Romney the Obama campaign tried to portray, but the real Romney, sharp and enthusiastic, qualified and capable, a level-headed problem-solver, ready and willing to lead. Unfortunately for Obama, the world saw the real O as well, dull and indifferent, unqualified and incapable, a hot-headed enabler, ill-prepared and not willing to lead (see, 'leading from behind').
The contrast in substance, style and class could not have been more obvious. And American responded, with Romney vaulting up in the polls, jumping some 8 points in Ohio.
Ohio is clearly doing better than many of the other states. At 7.2% unemployment (virtually unchanged over the last few months), it has been running approximately one percentage point lower than the national rate
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama: I am coming after the guns and I will screen gun owners!

Human Events ^ | 10/17/2012 | Neil W McCabe

Crowley cuts off Romney’s Fast and Furious remarks at Obama’s behest!

In the Oct. 16 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger W. Mitt Romney, when the president dropped the pretense of being neutral on restricting gun rights with a key assist from moderator Candy Crowley, hostess of the CNN program “State of the Nation.”
After his policies were rebuked in the 1994 midterms, President William J. Clinton, blamed more than anything else his support for a national ban on so-called assault weapons. It must have been a calculated move for Obama to suggest he would bring back the ban that had expired.
The questioner asked the president what he had done to fulfill his 2008 promise to keep AK-47’s and so-called assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.
Americans support the Second Amendment, he said. Then, those concerned about gun rights waited for the “but.”
They did not have to wait long.
“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” he said.
“We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill,” he said.
“We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement,” he said. “What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”
Obama said it made sense to him that weapons designed for soldiers should not be in the hands of civilians.
Perhaps sensing the a coming retort, the president acknowledged his own city of Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, is rife with gun violence. “Frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”
Message: We are coming after the hand guns, too.
The president and his campaign have been quick to point out that in the last four years, the administration has not proposed new restrictions on gun rights. In the Oct. 16 debate, Obama crossed that line with not only a call for responsible gun ownership, but also with his support for screening Americans for their mental capacity to exercise their guns rights.
Like trying to get off the No-Fly List, Americans who find themselves on the No-Gun List, like veterans, who seek counseling, have no process to appeal or otherwise adjudicate their status–a status bestowed upon them with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen and often without notice.
For his part, Romney got caught up in the law he signed in Massachusetts that banned so-called “assault weapons.” It is a position that Romney took with the cooperation of the National Rifle Association because it loosened other gun restrictions.
The former Bay State governor scored some serious points with he brought up the Fast and Furious scandal, unfortunately, the rogue moderator stepped in again to interrupt Romney and break up his rhetorical momentum.
“The – the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to – to gun violence in some respects is what – what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were – were given to people that ultimately gave them to – to drug lords,” Romney said.
“They used those weapons against – against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a – this was a program of the government,” he said. “I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.”
The president used one of his lifelines: “Candy?”
The immoderate moderator interceded: ”Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.” There could be no discussion of the Justice Department program that sent thousands of military-style long guns to Mexican crime organizations. Because? Because, no reason, because–and that was that.

With 19 days to go until Election Day, Obama stays vague

CBS News ^ | October 18, 2012 | By Leigh Ann Caldwell

Mitt Romney has faced harsh criticism during his campaign for a lack of policy specifics: Democrats have pointed to a lack of details in his tax plan and what he would put in place to replace the health care law, among other issues. Yet President Obama has done little to outline his priorities and promises for the next four years.
Democratic consultants Stanley Greenberg and James Carville of Democracy Corps released a memo earlier this week that said the president has offered only a "modest vision" of the future. They argued that voters want to hear a "bold case" for "bold policies."
Another Democratic strategist told CBS News that the Obama campaign "made a strategic choice" to avoid talking about the future and instead focus on tearing down his opponent Mitt Romney. The decision, the strategist said, was a response to the mood of the electorate, the status of the economy and likely a host of other factors.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Has To Face His Foreign Policy Failures Monday

Political Realities ^ | 10/18/12 | LD Jackson

With the clear and open bias of Candy Crowley in Tuesday night's debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama, foreign policy is growing ever stronger as a relevant issue in this election. 

Obama's Foreign Policy

I could go on and on about Obama's failures in foreign policy, but there is really no need. The moderator opened up a door big enough to drive a Mack truck through when she sided with Obama and told Mitt Romney he was wrong by pointing out Obama's failure to call the attacks in Libya what they were, acts of terror. Crowley is still not admitting she was completely wrong. She has tried to say Romney chose the wrong way and the wrong words with which to attack the President. In so doing, she set up the last debate, which just so happens to be on foreign policy, as the time and the place where Mitt Romney will drop the hammer of truth down on Obama's head and put this election in the bag.
I'm not one for making a lot of predictions and I obviously have no expertise in politics or the games thereof, but I believe the second presidential debate leaves the door wide open for Mitt Romney to clearly and concisely point out exactly how big of a failure President Obama has been on foreign policy. There is ample proof of that failure. Much of that proof has already been discussed on this blog. It has been a policy of appeasement and of refusing to call a spade a spade. Terrorism has been sidelined, for fear of alienating certain groups in the Middle East. The Arab Spring was touted as a huge success, but that success isn't panning out. Some countries receive our support in their struggles for democracy, some do not. There is no rhyme or reason apparent in whatever foreign policy the Obama administration seems to be following.
Going past that, the attacks in Libya that took the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans is the most glaring example of failure in the foreign policy of Barack Obama. To say the ball was dropped is more than a little understating the facts. What about the cover up that has been undertaken to do just that, cover up that the ball was dropped and as a result, Americans are dead? For weeks, the entire Obama administration, from the President on down, has refused to admit the truth. Belatedly, they are coming around, but only after having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to that place.
The last debate is clear opportunity for Mitt Romney to point all of this out, in clear and stark terms, in front of millions of Americans who will surely be watching the debate. As bad as it was for Candy Crowley to interject herself into the debate and tell Romney he was mistaken, we may need to send her a thank you card for setting this up. The issue is not going away and for those of you who may have believed, at one point, that Mitt Romney was unwilling to go after Obama the way he needed to, take a look the first two debates. Clearly, he had no hesitation in doing so and I see nothing changing in the last debate. Candy Crowley has set this up to be a slam dunk for Romney and I fully expect him to take advantage and tell the truth about Obama's foreign policy, for all of America to hear.