Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Somebody's talking about Benghazi

It's quite something when the national media cedes coverage of Libya to Jay Leno:
"Well, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is back. Not for gays in the military. It’s President Obama’s new policy for questions about Libya. Don’t ask. Don’t tell."
Don't worry, the MSM won't ask.  But, hey, maybe we'll get some pics from the Situation Room.

Extra - Breaking the embargo, here's David Ignatius in the WashPost: "Lingering questions about Benghazi."

More - Ace: "There are three parts to this scandal: Before, During and After."

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Movie descriptions should all be like this


Obama better get a huge turnout from Chicago cemeteries - Interesting tidbit from Gallup via Q&O: Romney leads by 6% among people who have already voted and 6% by people who plan to vote on election day.  So if Romney leads by a substantial margin with past, present, and future voters, Obama may need another dimension of time to pull this off.

Extra - Good roundup of stuff from Nice Deb.

More - Big Government: "Gallup: Obama's early vote advantage collapses 22 points over 2008."
Haven't we suffered enough? - Twitchy: "Robert Reich: Secretary of Affliction."
Nothing can penetrate this fog of war - Bill McGurn: "The fog of Obama's non-war - Seven weeks after a U.S. ambassador was murdered and there are still no answers."  What exactly was the directive the Commander-in-Chief allegedly gave to "secure our personnel" in Libya?

More - IBD: "Stand-down order in Benghazi attack still a mystery."

Monday, October 29, 2012

You're right: trust matters - Here's Stephen Hayes on Benghazi: "So where the administration didn’t hide information, it cherry-picked what it would share. And where the administration shared information, it manipulated that intelligence. Now, as Americans seek information about what happened in Benghazi, the administration stonewalls."

Do you know why this administration stonewalls?  Because it can.
Dead heat in Massachusetts Senate race - The Boston Globe reports today that Senator Scott Brown has an insignificant lead over Elizabeth Warren.  I happen to think Brown's been running a pretty lackluster campaign but Warren's personality has not been endearing to the voters.

Extra - From Legal Insurrection.
Hurricane Sandy - They sent me home from work and, when I pulled into my driveway, I heard and saw a tree behind my house go over.  I'm nervous.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Administration's curious locution on Benghazi

Am I the only one that has noticed that officials in the Obama Administration have employed a strange non-denial in statements on the Libya debacle?  Here's CIA director David Petraeus:
No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
And here's the White House:
Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi.
Take note that denying "denying requests for help" is not the same as "sending in help."  Why doesn't anybody in the White House say: "Hell, yes, we told them to save those guys!"  Instead we're left to conclude that the Commander-in-Chief didn't say "no" but he didn't say "yes" - in other words, he said nothing at all, which allows these weasel words to stand-in as "truthful."

If we had a real media instead of a bunch of lapdog note-takers, the press would be asking: "Was a Presidential directive made to save the ambassador in Libya?"  Follow-ups: "If not, why not?" and "If so, why wasn't that order carried out?"  We know from Obama's schedule that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was at the White House as the attack in Benghazi was starting.  We also know that as the assault was reaching its fatal conclusion, Obama was chit-chatting with Benjamin Netanyahu for an hour.

Extra - PJ Media: "The White House's lame denial of a Benghazi cover-up."


More - Senator Ron Johnson: "Let's face it. What was the president doing, during those seven hours? Did he give that directive? Or didn't he? Did Leon Panetta directly defy him? I mean, what happened?"  Yeah, what happened?  We don't need a full investigation to state facts.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Meanwhile in Iowa - Nice Deb: "The Des Moines Register endorses Romney."  This is the first time the Register has endorsed a Republican in 40 years.
The Benghazi two-step

Mark Steyn really goes for the jugular here, all but accusing Obama of letting four Americans die in Libya.  Read the whole thing, as they say:
Why would Obama and Biden do such a thing [deny the request for military backup]? Because to launch a military operation against an al-Qaeda affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter — that Osama was dead and al-Qaeda was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock on the door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall-guy into custody.
That gentleman's bail hearing is, coincidentally  the Friday after the election.  Bill Kristol has ten questions for the White House since it has been reported that Obama was in residence throughout the timeline of the battle in Benghazi.  They're simple queries such as: did Obama speak with CIA director David Petraeus?  Did he convene a meeting with his national security council?  Did he even go into the 'situation room'?

It's not enough to simply push off these questions with a boilerplate: "Well, there's an investigation."  There are facts known by this Administration that they clearly do not want to share.

Watch this number - The match-up polls are bouncing in the margin of error, but historically a President will get a popular vote percentage that's close to his approval percentage.  Today Gallup reported that Obama is underwater with 46% approval - 49% disapproval.  Rasmussen has O's approval number at 47% and 52% disapproval; none of the recent polls show him over 49%.

Extra - And then there's likely voter party affiliation.  That's a good 'un, too.
Everybody on the government dole, the kids will get the tab - George Will: "Mugging our descendants."

Friday, October 26, 2012

Big ideas vs. shiny objects - Big Government: "Romney goes big in economy speech."

By the way, while you were watching baseball, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio hit 102%.
Local reporter commits act of journalism - The Blaze: "Obama refuses to answer repeated questions on whether requests for help in Benghazi were denied."  Wow, it's been almost two months since the 9/11 attack and somebody managed to ask the Commander-in-Chief an actual question which was, of course, filibustered.

Extra - From Nice Deb and the Right Scoop.  He wants to be super-careful about the Benghazi investigation after trotting Susan King out to mislead on the Sunday news shows.

More - From Q&O.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Holy cow! - Did you see that bunt?!?
Big font, wide margins - Rich Lowry: "Obama's pathetic picture book."  "If the pamphlet works, it deserves to join the ranks of the classic picture books of all time, right up there with “Go, Dog. Go!” and “The Very Hungry Caterpillar.” In an amusing touch, it has a table of contents — as if readers would have trouble navigating the extensive volume."
Time to put away childish things - Hot Air: "From Generation Hopenchange to Generation Disenchanted?"  Maybe the kids are catching on after all.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

An open letter to America's young voters

In this election season, polls continue to show that President Obama holds a wide lead in popularity with under-30 voters over Mitt Romney.  And I get it: Obama is hip, he's cool, you voted for him in 2008.  Maybe you agree with him on a host of social issues.  But Obama's policies and failure to lead are deeply compromising your future.  Your folks see the problem, too.

First of all, Obama has added $5.5 trillion in new debt to our now $16 trillion-plus national debt.  This is all swiped onto the national credit card to be repaid by future generations.  It also serves to suppress the economy (see: Europe), driving the under-30 unemployment rate to nearly 12%.

If you happen to have a job, watch for more stories like this as Obamacare is implemented: businesses will be cutting back worktime under 30 hours a week to avoid the health care expense.  And then there's the little-known Obamacare practice of "community rating".  From Hit and Run: "How Obamacare, like Medicare, royally screws young people"
Obamacare forces insurers to charge their eldest beneficiaries no more than 3 times what they charge their youngest ones: a policy known as “community rating.” This, despite the fact that these older beneficiaries typically have six times the health expenditures that younger people face. The net effect of this “community rating” provision is the redistribution of insurance costs from the old to the young.
So young Americans are subsidizing everybody else's health care: fairness and all.  Finally, there's the generational warfare of entitlement spending:
Social Security and Medicare, which provide retirement and health insurance benefits for senior Americans, generally without regard to need, are funded by taxes on the relatively meager wages of younger Americans who will never enjoy anything close to the same benefits.
According to the government's own accountants, the Medicare Trust Fund will be depleted in 2024 and the Social Security Trust Fund will be zeroed out in 2033; after these dates, benefits will be cut sharply.  Obama hasn't done the slightest thing to defuse this time bomb set for young Americans who will pay into these programs all their lives.  Tough luck, kids.

What has Obama offered for young Americans in return?  Well, you can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26 and Sandra Fluke can get her employer to pay for her birth control pills (assuming the Olive Garden hasn't cut her hours).  And then there's federal student loans and some studies have suggested that these are actually working to drive up tuition costs.  So you'll need more student debt, a.k.a. the next subprime crisis.

So I need to ask: are young Americans really going to sell their vote - and future - for the magic beans of Pell Grants and subsidized contraception?  Time to grow up.
People died, Obama lied, the press complied

Here's Jim Treacher on Benghazi:
And of course, Obama did what any president would do: He blamed the murder of an American ambassador by terrorists on a dumb YouTube video, and told the world that freedom of speech is fine as long as you don’t offend a Muslim. (Coincidentally, the maker of that dumb YouTube video is now in jail. Even more coincidentally, his court date isn’t until after the election.)
I can understand why Obama thought he could get away with this. He’s never been held accountable for his actions in his entire life, so why would anybody start hassling him now?
This evening on Fox News, Mara Liasson said that Mitt Romney missed an opportunity to press Obama's clear-as-mud explanations on the death of four Americans in Libya.  But Charles Krauthammer said the real fault lies with the media which is uninterested in doing its job when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Extra - Ace of Spades: "Just because Ansar Al-Shariah claimed responsibility for the attack, and in fact were later connected to the attack, doesn't mean you should think they were connected to the attack."

More - Blackfive: "The consequences of Benghazi."

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Make your choice, America



Breitbart: "Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets."
Just in time - Hot Air: "New Obama ad: Dude, I found my second-term agenda."

Opinion Journal: "The guy is tapped out."
Get ready for a lot of ridicule, Nate

As Romney marks a new high in the RCP poll average, the NY Times' Nate Silver actually increases Obama's chance of winning to >70%.  Ace of Spades responds:
Nate Silver just emailed to say Obama's odds of winning improved to 640%, which means that, in addition to winning the election, Obama now has a good shot of being crowned King of the Third French Empire and the next Celebrity Apprentice.
Everybody at the Times is now Pauline Kael.
Obama wins debate on foreign policy...which nobody cares about

I thought Romney was shaky at the start of the debate and his answers had a staccato rhythm.  It's pretty clear he wanted to project an image of steadiness but at times he let easy rejoinders slip away.  For example: Obama has never visited Israel as President although he's visited nearly every other country on earth.  Romney got stronger midway through and he was clearly more at ease talking about the economy.

Obama was better at the start and made some palpable hits.  But then he ran out of steam and fell back on 1.) snark and 2.) his stump speech.  How many times did he say we needed to invest in education?  Four?  Should we ask "people like him" to pay more in taxes?  What American hasn't heard it a thousand times?  By  the end he seemed desperate to let people know he was smarter, oh so smarter, than Mitt.

In the larger sense, Romney needed to appear Presidential and he did.  If Americans were looking for a Commander-in-Chief, Mitt can fill the bill.  This debate will not change the trajectory of the polls one bit and that's a win for Romney.

Extra - CNN poll of registered voters says Obama "wins" 48-40% but on whether the candidates could be President, the numbers were nearly equal.  On the question of whether you'd be more likely to vote for a candidate it was 24% more likely to vote for Obama, 25% for Romney, and 50% neither.  In other words, no change at all.

More - Oh, I forgot to mention: Obama's closing argument to the American people was his vapid laundry list from his stump speech.  Romney's final pitch was optimism, peace, and strength through a strong economy.  Excellent and effective.

And - White House Dossier: "Romney's brilliant maneuver."

Plus - Instapundit: "Snarky, condescending, peevish and small."  Obama that is.

Finally - Nice Deb has a video of Charles Krauthammer who thought Romney won, hands down.

Monday, October 22, 2012

For what it's worth - I agree with Jonah Goldberg on Romney's debate strategy tonight: "Why did Romney get such a huge surge in the polls after his first debate? Because he reassured reluctant voters that he was a plausible president of the United States. He came across as confident, likable, serious, focused on the economy and, most important for tonight’s purposes, presidential. And that should be Romney’s goal tonight: Be presidential. That means seeming steady and unexcitable. It means his criticisms should be focused on Obama’s naivetĂ©, arrogance and ideological obsessions. But even here, less is more."  Yes, make your point but more out of sorrow than anger.
So many questions and no straight answers - Over at the Corner, Bing West is bewildered by the explanations from the CIA, as reported by the NY Times, over Benghazi.  There was no protest - "none, nada, none" - and for weeks the Administration ran with the "bad movie review" line.  We're still investigating and shouldn't draw conclusions, yet Susan Rice was dispatched to push the protest line right away.  The attack on the consulate lasted seven hours but no military assistance was sent as a U.S. drone watched it all unfold.

I don't normally watch O'Reilly but he makes a good point tonight: isn't the country owed a press conference from this Commander-in-Chief?  Yes, the "fog of war", but it's six weeks later.  I predicted way before Libya that Obama wouldn't hold another press conference but now it looks like the only answers we'll get from this President are whatever are pried out of him by Bill Schaeffer tonight.
Somebody's going to get the "Cory Booker" treatment

Hit and Run: "Obama's foreign policy is 'dysfunctional' and 'lackluster' says former Obamaite."
[T]o a significant extent, President Obama is the author of his own lackluster foreign policy. He was a visionary candidate, but as president, he has presided over an exceptionally dysfunctional and un-visionary national security architecture -- one that appears to drift from crisis to crisis, with little ability to look beyond the next few weeks.
Oh dear.
Foward Barack voters - Looks like spelling is optional at a Joe Biden rally.  Or maybe they were reading the Boston Globe.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Not optimal

Here's Slate on Obama's appearance on the hard-hitting "Daily Show":
No one would be stupid enough to refer to the death of four people as "not optimal." The person who really wouldn't be stupid enough to do that is a politician who had emoted so forcefully about how much he cared about those who had died in the line of duty. That guy would definitely not be that dumb. And yet that's what the president did.
Obama "stupid"?  Inconceivable!
President Kill List - Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe: "President Obama, the liberals' bust."  "If a Republican president compiled such an atrocious record, you would do everything you could to prevent his reelection. Can you vote in good conscience for a Democrat with such a record?"

Extra - From Hit and Run.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

One of these is not like the other, America - Which of these parties do you want handling your money?  Stacy McCain: "RNC trounces DNC in fundraising as Democrat party goes bankrupt."  Oh, DWS, we shall miss you.

Extra - Mark Steyn: "The party that gave us annual trillion-dollar deficits as a permanent feature of life applies the same model closer to home."

Friday, October 19, 2012

What did those jerks at NBC do to the season premiere of "Community"?

There's a reason, NBC, why you're scraping the bottom of the ratings barrel.  While you worked to develop surefire losers like "Animal Practice" and the mordant "Go On", you tossed the sharpest, funniest show on TV over to Friday nights.  Except when I tuned in tonight....no "Community."

And here I thought it was October 19th.  But Troy and Abed explain:



Come on, TBS: extricate this great show from the clutches of those morons at NBC, just like you did for "Cougar Town."

End rant.
C'mon, ladies, you can be a victim - Roger L. Simon: "Binder derangement syndrome: how the Democratic party exploits women."

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Cue the media outrage in 3..2..1..never

And now, your President with the quote of the day:
President Obama, during the taping of The Daily Show, discussed the Benghazi terrorist attack that claimed the lives of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.
“Here’s what I’ll say. When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it,” Obama said per pool. “The government is a big operation and [at] any given time something screws up,” he also said, saying that he believes “you find out what’s broken and you fix it.”
Sounds like another "bump in the road" to reelection but no worries: the media will gloss over this latest excursion from the teleprompter.  Note also that whenever something goes wrong in the Obama administration - gosh darn it - the government is so big and unwieldy that "screw ups" like four dead Americans are bound to happen.  Can't blame the One for that, can you?

Extra - From Instapundit and Twitchy.
All roads lead through Cleveland - I agree with this analysis: "The candidate who wins Ohio will place his hand on the bible on Jan. 20."
Consider the source

Today and for the first time, Romney took the lead in the Real Clear Politics electoral map.

He's also in the lead in the RCP general election poll.

Nate Silver of the New York Times says: "Obama's gonna win!"  Math is hard.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Matt Lauer to Paul Ryan: "That's a terrible answer."

This is funny: the "Today" host asked Paul Ryan who would win the Ohio State-Wisconsin football game.  Not wanting to offend either swing state, Ryan punted:


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Job #1: get re-elected - Opinion Journal: "A President without a plan - A more spirited Obama, but he still has no agenda for the next four years."

Extra - Similar thoughts from Megan McArdle.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Oh boy - The Frank Luntz focus group of "undecided" voters (from Nevada) is overwhelmingly in favor of Romney after this debate.
Meh - Obama had nowhere to go but up, and he did.  But Romney was pretty aggressive too so who knows:  I don't think this argument will change anything.
What was that? - That speaker just said: "President.....Romney."  You'll have to wait three weeks.
The buck stops there - Commentary: "Hillary apologizes for Benghazi"  "This is nothing short of disastrous for President Obama. After dodging responsibility for the Benghazi attack for over a month, pointing fingers at everything from the State Department to the intelligence community, the White House is outclassed by…Hillary Clinton."
It's the entitlements, stupid - Zero Hedge: "Why a balanced budget is impossible in America."

Monday, October 15, 2012

Forward, comrades!


Nate Silver's ridiculous analysis - After a relentless march in the national polls towards Romney and now a dead heat in the electoral vote count (including counting North Carolina - laughably - as a "toss up"), the NY Times pollster finds that Obama's odds of winning are only 2-1 (66% - 34%).
There's no there there

Over at Ricochet, John Yoo notes that Obama's debate problem isn't a lack of style - it's a lack of substance:
Strip away posture, tone, and facial expressions, and the remarkable feature of Obama’s time on the podium is how little he actually says. Obama brings up no new domestic policies for his second term. He proposes no new legislation, nor will he cut any unnecessary programs. Spending and taxes, it seems, will simply go on forever at their current rates. Somehow the deficit will magically disappear and the economy will fully recover.
Of course the word from the Obama campaign is that their guy is going to be "more aggressive" in the debate tomorrow night but that won't make up for the shadow that is his record.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Two things Obama doesn't want to talk about: the last four years and the next four years

Washington Post editorial: "Show me a policy"
Analysts have wondered at the Obama campaign’s flat-footed response to the candidate’s poor first-debate performance. It’s one thing to have an off night. It’s another to spend the next week whining about your opponent’s “lies” and wallowing in Big Bird trivia. How to explain an impressive political team performing so feebly?
Alas, the answer lies at the heart of President Obama’s reelection bid: the absence of a second-term agenda. Mr. Obama has yet to say how he would solve the immense problems awaiting the next president immediately after election. Until and unless he does, the only rationale he can offer voters is the urgency of stopping the other guys.
So in the next debate it's back to the "kill Romney" strategy. RIP Hope and Change.

Extra - Jennifer Rubin: "Recall that virtually the entire Obama strategy was aimed to discredit and delegitimize Romney as a candidate. The avalanche of negative ads in the summer, however, failed (barely) to do so. With Romney’s extraordinary debate performance, it now becomes nearly impossible to vilify him. Unfortunately for Obama he’s got no Plan B. He never devised an impressive second-term agenda. He has either unpopular (Obamacare) or unhelpful (raise taxes) or small beans (hire 100,000 teachers) proposals. Romney has therefore been able to deploy his “we can’t afford four more years” argument quite effectively."

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Big crowds for Romney in Ohio - Columbus Dispatch: "Romney on the rise in Ohio."  "Maybe Vice President Joe Biden stopped the bleeding for the Obama campaign on Thursday, but he did little to stall the momentum Mitt Romney’s building in Ohio."

I was watching MSNBC this morning and they kept flashing "Poll: Obama up +6 in Ohio."  Yeah, that was one outlier poll with a +11 Democrat representation - do they really think Obama's going to surpass his 2008 party I.D. lead in Ohio?  C'mon.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Celebrity-in-chief - Twitchy: "Priorities: President Eye Candy to make sixth 'Daily Show' appearance."

You have to wonder what David Axelrod is thinking.  I'll tell you what I'm thinking: does this guy even want to be President anymore?  I can think of very little upside to another visit to Letterman/"The View"/Stewart - maybe it shores up his youth vote a little?  On the other hand, the potential downside is huge as middle-class voters see another visit to glad-hand and giggle with Stewart as we post yet another trillion-dollar deficit and Libya questions go unanswered.  And all this coming after the "Big Bird" fiasco.

Maybe Obama has already made the decision: "You can't fire me, America - I quit!"
Sacrifices must be made - Breitbart: "White House: Buck stops with Hillary on Libya."

It looks like Bill and Hillary are resolved not to "take one for the team."  Daily Caller: "As Benghazi blame nears Hillary, Clintons grow furious."

Extra - Minuteman: "Hillary's bus has come in" "Will this Obama/Biden message of "We killed Osama but they forgot to remind us about the blowback" really carry them past the election? The buck stops where?"  Elsewhere, always elsewhere.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Ryan won - here's why

Ask yourself, honest American: which of these two do you want one heartbeat from the Presidency?  Biden was condescending, constantly interrupting, rude, and fact-challenged.  Libya didn't ask for additional security?  That's not what I heard.

Ryan wasn't overly aggressive but he didn't create any gaffes and thus didn't change Romney's momentum.  I thought he was nervous, especially at the start, but measured and (eventually) confident.  Ryan's closing statement was excellent, or at least much better than Folksy Joe.  No KO but Ryan wins the debate on points.

Extra - Ricochet: "Tonight’s debate was again a major plus for the GOP.  Biden was way too hot and irritatingly dismissive of Ryan. He was flat out wrong about the Libya.  He hurt himself and the president.  Ryan's manner was ideal: calm, controlled.  His answers were well informed and well argued.  You believed him... and liked him.  Biden channeled the now defunct Air America, the leftist talk radio that was full of rage, a tone that put them out of business."



Also - CNN poll on the winner: "Ryan 48% - Biden 44%"."  Wolf Blitzer just noted that in CNN's focus group of Virginia voters, Biden had slightly more "negative" moments while Ryan had much more "positive" moments.

Finally - Ann Althouse: "Biden was horribly rude."  I'm watching CNN and they're saying an updated poll says Ryan won 49%-43%.  Also more Americans said they'd be inclined to vote for Romney than Obama....therefore it was a "draw."  Sure.
Syria now? - Lot of foreign policy questions are being debated in a country where foreign policy is like one spot above "American Idol" results in Americans' opinion.
What was that Joe? - Did Biden just say that Libyan diplomats didn't ask for more security?

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Doesn't add up - Ricochet: "That September jobs report was weirder than you know."

Update - WashPost: "Drop in openings signals limited U.S. job growth."
Explaining the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics



Step one: brush up on your Schrodinger's Cat.
A big goose egg - Hot Air: "Confirmed: Big Bird ad a flop across the entire political spectrum."  Here's Matt Lauer this morning: "Is that the kind of political ad that a campaign releases when it feels that it has ideas and solutions on its side, or is that the kind of political ad a campaign releases when it simply wants to get attention?"  All this and Four Pinocchios too.
That 3 a.m. call went to voice mail - Reuters: "U.S. officer got no reply to requests for more security in Benghazi."  Drip drip drip.
Tough luck, young adults - CNBC: "Prepping for Obamacare, chain cuts workers' hours."  Dang, we needed those tax revenues to pay down the debt.

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Fool's Silver

I tried to warn you, buddy, that you were in danger of beclowning yourself unless you re-calibrated your odds, but would you listen?  Noooooo!  After a week of polls universally trending towards Romney, you've boosted his chances to 25%.  Just wow.

Big Journalism: "NYT's Nate Silver exposed as Obama propagandist."
Twitchy: "Nate Silver's model predicts only 25% chance of Romney victory; Twitter predicts 100% of mockery."

On some level, I understand Silver's predicament: you have a readership that is overwhelmingly in favor of your guy.  So you need to break the news - slowly, delicately, in stages - until reality sinks in.
Headline of the day - Hit & Run: "Obama vows to protect Big Bird, U.S. ambassadors not so much."

Monday, October 08, 2012

I buried poll - Twitchy: "After an unskewed poll shows Romney ahead, liberals suddenly turn into poll skeptics."
"Stop asking for help" - The Right Scoop: "CBS News: Top U.S. security chief in Libya says State Dept. told them to stop asking for more security."
Obama rejects your reality and replaces it with his own straw men

From the Hill: "Obama: Green energy is not a 'socialist plot'"
“On energy, I’m big on oil and gas, and developing clean coal technology, but I also believe that if we’re ever going to have control of our energy future, then we’ve got to invest in solar and wind and biofuels, and that it does make sense for us to double our fuel-efficiency standards on cars,” Obama said, according to a White House transcript.
“And that's not a socialist plot for us to reduce our energy usage,” Obama said to laughter, according to the transcript. “It’s the smart thing to do. It’s right for our national energy. It’s right for our economy. It’s right for the environment. [Romney] disagrees.”
Obama didn't get specific about Romney's alleged disagreement.
No kidding.  Romney never characterized fuel efficiency standards or green energy as a "socialist plot" but since the Obama camp lies so effortlessly about everything else they may as well set up this straw man also.  In fact, it was just the other day that Romney said in a very public forum: "I like green energy" but that his objection is squandering the taxpayers' money into green energy boondoggles that have no viable future.

Obama's little schtick may get a laugh and open Hollywood wallets but it's a dollop of self-satisfying slop that falls into the category of "making stuff up."  I guess when you've got no record to run on, it's time to get "inventive."
What's Spanish for "pandering?" - Ruben Navarrette: "Obama hits a foul by honoring Cesar Chavez."

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Saturday, October 06, 2012

Wisconsin is in play, oh yeah

PPP reports that the Badger State is now a virtual tie: O 49% - R 47%

Just a reminder, PPP predicted Governor Scott Walker would win his recall vote by 3% - he won by 7%.

Coming up: a Wisconsin Republican wallops old Joe Biden.  Cheeseheads rejoice.
Cookie Monster will not be deprived of Oreos - Daily Caller: "Big Bird can make it rain on his own."
You saw this coming - Big Government: "Team Obama blames John Kerry for debate loss."
You can ring my bell curve - I checked out Nate Silver's latest analysis on the Presidential race and he's updated his "chance of winning" for Obama to 80% meaning he's still a 4-to-1 favorite over Romney.

I know that Silver is following his model but you'd be hard-pressed to find a bookie to give you those odds even before the debate.  Very small changes in the likelihood of winning certain states (e.g. Ohio) will shift these projections rapidly since we're on the steep side of the electoral vote distribution.  Stay tuned for the big update after the new polls come rolling in.
Compare and contrast - Hot Air: "Pre-election media on jobs reports, then and now" "In 2004, a jobless rate of 5.4% “cast doubt” on the economy, and suddenly 7.8% is a sign of “a steadier recovery.”  In 2012, the NYT never even mentions the need to grow jobs by 150,000 each month to keep up with expansion in the labor force.  Not even once."
When you've lost the New Yorker...

Unintentional hilarity ensues at the New Yorker in "Obama's old friends react to the debate."  (Hat tip: Twitchy).  Essentially, O lost the debate because he's just too wonderful for us mere mortals to fully grasp his wonderfulness.  The comments are a collective eye-roll:
Lawrence Tribe tells us that "...Barack Obama’s instincts and talents have never included going for an opponent’s jugular." False. Obama is perfectly delighted to go for an opponent's jugular - when that opponent is unable to respond. See, e.g., Obama railing about the Citizen's United decision at a State of the Union speech - in a highly sharp & personal manner - secure in the knowledge that the members of the Supreme Court in the audience were unable to respond (and had to endure Senators jumping up around them, cheering like idiots); Obama's demagogic attack on Paul Ryan, during a speech in which Ryan - a guest invited by the White House - sat mute, without the opportunity to respond. So Obama is a very enthusiastic verbal warrior, except when he encounters an actual opponent. Another thing about President Obama: He's not particularly smart. He's ideologically inflexible & intellectually incurious. That's why he lost the debate with Romney so decisively, and that's why David Remnick's feelings are now so hurt, causing him to spin unconvincing rationalizations about what a sensitive guy this Obama chap is.
Yeah, remember Obama's blistering "social Darwinism" speech delivered as Ryan sat a couple feet away?  Obama could have toned down the rhetoric but, you know, the speech was already loaded into the Teleprompter - whadda ya gonna do?


The chair would have been better.
Here come the zingers! - Daily Mail: "Obama finally gets in his witty replies to Romney - 48 hours late."  Yes, amazing what the man can do with a staff of writers and two teleprompters.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

I was told there would be teleprompters

No contest: Romney won.  You can tell by the reaction over at MSNBC.  Legal Insurrection has a roundup of the best tweets of the night and I liked Andrew Sullivan's: "This is a rolling calamity for Obama."

Extra - More tweets from Hot Air.  Bill Maher: "Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter" and Chris Matthews (as quoted): "What was Romney doing?  He was WINNING!"  Oh my.

More - Charles Krauthammer: "Romney won by two touchdowns."

And more - Maggie's Farm: "Slap down."

Plus - Victor Davis Hanson "A bad night for Obama": "For so long has assumed Barack Obama has assumed that he will not face cross-examination from the media that he simply has little grasp of policy details, and in exasperation seems to look around for the accustomed helpful media crutch. But there is no such subsidy in a one-on-one debate, and only now it becomes clear just how the media the last six years have enfeebled their favorite."

This last point is in line with my prediction after "the private sector is doing fine" that Obama wouldn't have another press conference until after the election and, certainly, the laptop media wouldn't demand one.  Obama's ability to explain and defend his record has atrophied and it showed tonight.
On to stage two - Legal Insurrection: "Scott Brown challenges Elizabeth Warren on lack of Massachusetts law license."  I, for one, welcome a reprieve from the Fauxcohontas commercials playing around the clock here in the Bay State.

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Calm before the storm

There's no shortage of advice as to what Romney needs to do in the debate tomorrow night but, as for me, I'd like to hear some variant of the following:
"The President never tires of telling us how hard he's working to create jobs for Americans.  But as unemployment stays firmly above 8%, Mr. Obama hasn't met with his jobs council in almost nine months, during which time he's had ample time to attend over a hundred fundraisers.  What that tells us is that the President cares intensely about exactly one job: his own."
For most Americans, I think this resonates on a more fundamental level than economic policy differences.  Obama seems to have no interest in doing his job - why should he get another chance?
Positively Nixonian - More dirty tricks, via Big Government: "Obama urges companies to break federal law for his re-election."  That's right: back in 1988 Democrats in Congress passed the WARN act to force companies to give notice of pending layoffs.  Now...not so much.
People told me if I voted for McCain, we'd have a dimwit gaffe machine for a VP - And they were right!
Can we please stop paying attention to Drudge - And start paying attention to this?  Zero Hedge: "US Debt Soars To $16,159,487,013,300.35, +$93 Billion; Or How To Kick Off Fiscal 2013 With A Bang."  Well on our way to $17 trillion - pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Monday, October 01, 2012

Doesn't play well with others - Greg Mankiw "The price of fiscal uncertainty": "If Baker et al. are right that [policy] uncertainty depresses the economy, and if Woodward is right that the uncertainty we now face with the upcoming "fiscal cliff" is attributable mostly to the inability of Barack Obama to work with Congress, then the implication is clear: The meagerness of this recovery is not simply a hangover from a financial crisis, but rather a reflection of a fundamental political failure."