Obama and Romney Tied In First Returns Out Of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire

  Bookmark and Share  As is the tradition, the people of this isolated village in the Northeast corner of New Hampshire provide us with the first Election Day returns as they gather at their polling place in the The Balsams Grand Resort Hotel and cast their votes just after midnight.  And as if on cue, the voters of the small unincorporated, Coos County village saw 5 ballots cast for Barack Obama and 5 for Mitt Romney.  it was the first time in the Notch’s history that neither major Party candidate received a plurailty.

In 2008, the voters of Dixville Notch gave then Senator Barack Obama an overwhelming victory over Republican presidential nominee John McCain.  Back then Obama received 15 votes to McCain’s 6.  This time around, the tie vote seemed to only confirm everyone’s worst nightmare about this year’s presidential election being extremely close.

While Dixville Notch’s early returns are seen as about as reliable an indicator of the national election results as Punxsutawney Phil is of an accurate weather forecast, the historic tie gave anxious Americans little reason to expect an early decision in the presidential election on Tuesday night.

As intriguing as the vote total may be, what I find even more interesting is the fact that since 2008, the population of Dixville Notch has been reduced by more than half the size it was in 2008.

By law, no polling place can announce results until 100% of the registered voters have had the opportunity to cast their ballots.  So by mutual accord, all voters in Dixville Notch agree to show up and vote at midnight so thet election officials can be certain that every eligible voter has cast their ballots.  So we know that there was a 100% voter turnout in town.  Which leads me to my question which is, what happened to the other 11  people who voted in 2008?  Did the Obama economy wipe out more than half the population of that town?

Bookmark and Share

.

The Obama Sex Tape: The Desperate Attempt to Lure Virgins Into the Voting Booth With Barack Obama

Bookmark and Share   No, it’s not what you think, but it is an Obama video that uses sex to try to get young women, more specifically brainless, young women, to vote for Barack Obama. (View the ad in the video beneath this post)

The new ad entitled “Your First Time” features Lena Dunham, a rising star among Hollywood’s liberalatzi, who compares a young woman’s decision to have sex for the first time, with a young woman’s first time voting.   Afterall, it’s a very natural comparison, right?

The ad is perhaps the most desperate attempt yet to try to make sure that Barack Obama’s base turns out to vote for him  in the same historic numbers that they did in 2008.  For Barack Obama’s campaign that apparently means he must target a demographic that is not usually sought after… stupid people.

That is the only logical conclusion which one can draw from this latest commercial approved by the President and his campaign.  In it, writer/actress Lena Dunham starts out by very suggestively saying “You’re first time shouldn’t be with just anybody”.  Then she discusses the qualities a girl wants in the first guy she sleeps with.  In this case she says you want a guy “who cares about whether you get healthcare, specifically birth control”.  At one point Dunham even states; “You don’t want to do it with a guy who say’s ‘oh hey, I’m at the Library studying”, when really he’s not out there signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act.”

While the ad is not the x-rated porn flick intentionally suggested by the title of this post, it remains to be as inappropriate as any attempt to sincerely describe this new Obama ad as a sex tape.  But with an election that is suppose to be about the future of our nation and the issues important to its future, does anyone really believe that it is appropriate for any serious political candidate to be actively comparing a young girls decision to have sex for the first time, to her first time deciding who to vote for?    It is bad enough that our President runs around talking about Big Bird, binders and bayonets, instead of balanced budgets, block grants, and explaining Benghazi, but do we really need his campaign interjecting sexual intercourse in to the political intercourse?

The ad tries to be creative in a way that is similar to the eclectic HBO series that the actress in the ad writes and stars in.  The series is called “Girls”. 

One critic described the show as…

 “a television program about the children of wealthy famous people and shitty music and Facebook and how hard it is to know who you are and Thought Catalog and sexually transmitted diseases and the exhaustion of ceaselessly dramatizing your own life while posing as someone who understands the fundamental emptiness and narcissism of that very self-dramatization.”

In other words, it’s a ridiculously stupid show about ridiculously stupid characters who put more thought into what they want to wear to bed than who want to go to bed with.

Yet here we have the Obama-Biden campaign using the person who writes and stars in this sleazy piece of pop-culture crap, trying to get young women to pick our President the same way they would if they were picking a partner to sleep with.  Afterall, that’s how I decided who I wanted to vote for the first time I was able to cast my ballot for President back in 1988.  It’s well known that back then I really wanted to sleep with George Herbert Walker Bush, so he got my vote.  And in 1996, I was dyeing to go to bed with Bob Dole.  Isn’t that the determining factor behind all of our votes?

Throughout this election, Barack Obama and his campaign have been doing everything they can to get women to vote for him.  They have tried to paint Mitt Romney as a woman hating, slave driver, who will enact Sharia Law, wrap women up in burkas and cut their tongues out.  They have tried to claim Romney discriminates against women, wants them to receive less pay than their male counterparts, and that he practically wants to rip their uterues out and ban the practice of abortion from sea to shining shining sea.  What they don’t tell you is that while this White House pays its female staff 14% less than women, the Lilly Ledbetter law they brag about had nothing to do with equal pay for women but everything to do with giving women more time to accuse their employer of not giving them equal pay for equal work.  What they don’t tell you is that all Lilly Ledbetter is, is a boondoggle for trial lawyers who can now make tons of money through the litigation of cases that exceeded their statute of limitations.

What they don’t tell you is that over the last four years, women have actually been victims of President Obama’s policies, not beneficiaries of his failed policies.  Under President Obama women are suffering more than men when it comes to our continued stagnant economy.As recently pointed out by Paul Ryan, the poverty rate among women is at a seventeen year high and over five million women have recently been forced out of the workforce because of job killing policies.

What you don’t hear the Obama campaign telling you is the truth about the fact that fewer women are working today than there were when he took office.  You don’t hear them telling the truth about how even if Mitt Romney did want to outlaw abortion in the law under all circumstances, he couldn’t because the most he could actually do is make it possible for the states to decide if they will or will not allow abortions to be conducted within the confines of their own borders.

But while you don’t hear such truths,  you do hear the President’s campaign telling young girls to think with their private parts instead of their smarts.

In many ways the Obama approach to getting women to vote for him is down right insulting.  In addition to making it seem as though women are helpless victims who require the government to prop them up, he is also making women out to be a gender that thinks about nothing else other than sex.  Hence the new ad equating a first time decision to vote to a first time having sex.

Fortunately, most women are not quite as dumb as the President and his liberal compatriots would like to think.  Oh sure, there are the dumb as nails Debbie Wasserman Schultz-like dim wits and Nancy Pelosi-like nincompoops out there in Liberal Lala land.  But most women have more self-respect, integrity, and brains than those two liberal hacks.  Most women would rather support themselves than have the government limit their opportunities and future by forcing them to become dependent on a behemoth government bureaucracy that is ethically and economically bankrupt.   Which is why most women have begun to stop supporting Barack Obama.  They see through the President’s shallow pitches to them and even more than that, they are beginning to be offended by the very shallow characterization of them that is created by the ignorant messages his campaign is sending through their attempts to win women over.  And that’s a good thing because it’s nice to know that unlike Lena Dunham, most women will not have the need for condoms when they step in the voting on Election Day.

Bookmark and Share

Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech at VMI – Full Video and Transcript

  Bookmark and Share  In what was an extraordinary statement of American leadership and strength, Mitt Romney offered the nation a major foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute which echoed a forceful call for peace through strength and clarity of purpose.  Romney’s speech presented a national security and foreign policy vision that starkly contrasted with President Obama’s failing and muddled, lead-from-behind policy direction by outlining a definitive role for America in the community of nations. (See video and transcript of the speech below)

Romney’s well delivered and eloquent outline of his foreign policy vision focused on the turmoil brewing in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, where he said Obama has “failed” to lead but he also outlined his intention to restore and maintain America’s strength, especially in the case of America’s naval force which Romney pointed out is currently  at a level  not seen since 1916.

While the speech may not get the attention that it deserves, those who do take the time to listen to it will find themselves walking away with a sense of Mitt Romney that leaves them feeling confident in Mitt Romney and what is his unambiguous foreign policy direction for the nation.  Romney’s speech presented him with an opportunity to be presidential and he took full advantage of that opportunity by proving to be a clearheaded leader with the ability and plan to put the nation on a foreign policy path that will put America in  control of circumstances rather than place America at the mercy of circumstances.

Complete Transcript of Romney’s Speech

For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation’s defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

We saw all of this in Benghazi last month—but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, “The Ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya is sorry.” They chanted “No to militias.” They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, “We are not going to go from darkness to darkness.”

This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people—men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers—all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.

We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts.

Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.

This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.

I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.

The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.

Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation’s capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, “Are you with us, or are you with them?”—the American President was silent.

Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.

The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.

America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.

The President is fond of saying that “The tide of war is receding.” And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today—with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”

It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.

I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.

And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.

The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities… to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary… and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.

I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.

I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.

In Libya, I will support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.

In Egypt, I will use our influence—including clear conditions on our aid—to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.

In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.

There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America’s friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin’s Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are “pivoting” away from them … in Asia and across the Pacific, where China’s recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region … and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: “Where does America stand?”

I know many Americans are asking a different question: “Why us?” I know many Americans are asking whether our country today—with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading.

I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively—to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better—not perfect, but better.

Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves—that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events.

Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: “He … always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion.” That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.

The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty – and honor – to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Bookmark and Share

Romney’s Crushing Defeat of Obama in the First Debate: Analysis and Reaction

Bookmark and Share  The first presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney produced a surprisingly lopsided victory for Romney that made President Obama look like the empty suit that most Americans have come to see him to be.  (See the complete video of the debate below this post)

From beginning to end, Romney was confident, commanding, and concise.  For his part, President Obama was a rambling mess who reiterated shallow DNC talking points that even he did not seem to believe anymore.  And while Mitt Romney came across as eager to address the President, President Obama often seemed uncomfortable and even annoyed.  Pained looks  to cross the his face as he continuously looked down at the podium with a strained smile or uncomfortable and exaggerated smile on his face as Mitt Romney often schooled him on such things as the economy and the constitutional role of government in America.

To make matters worse, even though President Obama addressed the audience 4 minutes longer longer than Romney did, his long winded responses actually did little more than provide listeners with a meandering mess that never seemed to arrive at a valid point. It drove home the fact that in politics, when you’re explaining, you’re losing.  In last night’s debate, President Obama was explaining a lot.

Viewers of the debate couldn’t help but feel that the President was running scared and even the most casual of political observers concluded that President Obama was caught off guard by Romney’s command of the issues and seemingly natural confident persona.  With nearly universal unanimity, viewers of last night debate saw a President that should have studied harder.   Of course the President will probably blame his poor debate performance on Bush, but when all was said and done, the first thought to strike me was that once again, Massachusetts Senator and 2004 Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry failed to accomplish another mission.  As President Obama’s debate prep partner, Kerry who stood in to play Mitt Romney during debate practice with the President, obviously did not do a good enough job because President Obama was far from ready for this first encounter with Romney.

The Reaction.

Probably the most dramatic result of last nights debate was the universal agreement on how each candidate fared.  Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that Mitt Romney was the clear winner and by wide margin.  Romney’s superior performance was even well lauded by the some of the left’s lowest of players.

Bill Maher spent the night in tears as he took to his iPhone to tweet the following gems;

Leading liberal blogmeister Markos Moulitsas‏ from the scurrilous Daily Kos had a few tweets denouncing President Obama’s weak debating skills;

Perhaps the gloomiest of gusses last though were the cast of clowns over at MNSBC.  There the liberal minions were apoplectic and unable to contain their frustrations.  The always lying and perpetually perplexed Chris Matthews was so distraught at the President’s inability to defend his failed liberal policies that it sparked within him a sense of anger that left him frothing at the mouth and offering a diatribe of the President that was at times violent.  The most notable example of that sentiment came when Matthews claimed that the President needs to watch his show and the rest of the programs on MSNBC because they have “the knives coming out. ”  Matthews added  “We go after the people”.

Over at the liberal lala land called Current TV, Al Gore’s leftwing propaganda mill, Gore himself sat in the center of his hand picked puppets and socialist supporters and confirmed that this first matchup with Romney for President Obama was not his finest moment.  But Gore defended the President by turning to a scapegoat that Gore has built his career on… the environment.  According to Gore, the high altitude of Denver where the debate took place was responsible for throwing the president off.

As for the right, Romney exceeded expectations and provided his base with some much needed enthusiasm.  Across the board, conservatives offered what was uncharacteristically high praise for Romney.  Conservative Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol credited Romney with what he called the “Best Debate Performance By a GOP Presidential Candidate in More than Two Decades”.  Over at the American Conservative, Scott Galupo offered the following eloquent assessment;

President Obama was listless, exhausted, halting. When he should have been vigorously twisting the knife, he would pause, search for words, and take 15 seconds to make a point that should have taken five seconds. Romney, by contrast, was gamely and ultraprepared; he never once seemed caught off guard. Romney came into this debate knowing he needed to alter the dynamic of the race. If he didn’t do it tonight, then it couldn’t be done.

What it All Means

While last night’s debate has provided Mitt Romney with at least an undeniable but possibly only temporary boost , with 30 days left in the election, it cannot be said that this first of  three presidential debates changed the game for him or Obama.  Most people who watched the debate walked away supporting the same candidate that they were supporting before they sat do to see the debate.  Romney did however at least help himself among the small but significant undecided voters who will be critical to his winning or losing the election.  Thanks to the way in which Romney handled himself, these voters did walk away without any reason to vote against Romney.  If anything, they left the debate still willing to give Romney a chance to earn their vote.  At the same time, another portion of that voting bloc saw a President who was unable to effectively defend his failed economic policies and who struggled to define what role government should play in our lives.  Combine that with the confident, poised, energetic, and convincing way in which Romney defended his own policies and these voters left the debate leaning closer to finalizing their support for Romney than at any other point in this election.

Still, despite the overwhelming consensus describing the first debate as a big win for Mitt Romney, at the moment the victory simply keeps him in the game.  It has provided the Romney campaign with a new narrative, one which gives his candidacy some much needed momentum.  But politics is dynamic, not static and as such Romney will have to work quite hard to keep the momentum flowing in his direction.  In addition to the need for a strong performance by his running mate Paul Ryan on October 11th in his debate against Vice President Blunder…I mean Biden,   Romney will also have to repeat his strong performance not just one more time but twice more in the the two debates yet to come on October 16th and October  22nd.  That will be a tall order, especially now that President Obama has learned that Mitt Romney is no pushover.

So Romney fans need to avoid the temptation to believe that last night was a game changer. When all is said and done and the benefit of hindsight allows us to analyze the entire election in retrospect, it could prove to be a so-called game changer but only if Romney can continue to outperform the President and not just in the debates.

As the remaining weeks of this campaign unfold, Romney must convince voters that he has a plan to turn our economy around and he must offer some details that demonstrates his vision includes much more than just the smoke and mirrors that President Obama’s 2008 “hope and change” campaign was based on.   After last night’s night debate Romney certainly has the opportunity to do that.

By Sunday, the first real in-depth polls based upon this debate will make their way into the public domain.  If those polls do not show at least some minimal change in Romney’s numbers in the right direction in critical states like Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Iowa and New Hampshire  than we will know that Romney has a bigger mountain to climb than some already think. If the numbers do show a swing towards Romney, than the pressure will still be on him as an Obama inspired target on his back gets bigger than ever.

Bookmark and Share

Al Gore and Friends Blame Obama’s Poor Debate Performance on the Altitude

  Bookmark and Share After spending more than 4 years  blaming everything on George Bush, the left, under the leadership of liberal icon Al Gore has now turned to a new scapegoat…. the altitude.  (See video below this post)

After last night’s tragically disappointing debate performance by the liberal messiah, President Barack Obama, Al Gore claimed took the opportunity to to use his obscure, irrelevant, and barely watched cable network, Current TV, to the high altitude of Denver, the locations of last night’s debate, for President Obama’s losing debate performance.  Gore predicates his charge by making it clear that his opinion will be a controversial one but not so according to the cast of clowns gathered around Gore on the panel, who all agreed that the altitude was certainly part of the President’s problem.

The unintended result of this theory is that if President Obama has a problem with high positions, than he obviously is not capable of holding the highest position in our nation.

Bookmark and Share

Last Night WAS a Game-Changer…you’re hearing it here first!

Just google “presidential debate not a game-changer” and you’ll find there lurking the liberal media’s true response to the debate. But, as James Carville said on CNN, “Obama just debated with a chainsaw” and lost. Chris Matthews went on yet another crazed rant, while Bill Maher tweeted his disgust, no doubt wondered what he had wasted a million dollars on. President Obama and the liberal media were severely beaten up last night.

A significant victory for Romney in first debate

Had Romney lost the debate, the liberal media would have been quick to place an RIP tombstone on their coverage of his presidential campaign. This is the headline they’ve been building up to in recent weeks. Romney is unknown, lackluster they said. Last night, they learned some unknowns about the President and if they didn’t know it before they realized that teleprompter-less he is the lackluster one.

Mr Obama’s arrogance was that he assumed the RIP sign was already set in stone. Perhaps he thought he only had to do a Clint Eastwood and debate with an empty chair. Or, was he just trying to give a performance to make Jeo Biden look good next week? All sorts of excuses were offered on Twitter under the hashtag #ObamaDebateExcuses, and if this doesn’t give the comedians great material to take the plank out of the eye of their election humor, then I don’t know what will.

Joking aside, Obama found Romney on the top of his game and ready to show the electorate his strengths. What was surprising was not the fact Romney won, but the scale of his victory. CNN released a poll that gave the Governor a 67% win vote on the night.

Of course, Romney had to win, but what will put the wind into the sails of his campaign is the scale of victory. Charles Krauthammer, who I so often agree with, said this was no game-changer, but I have to qualify his statement. True, there is no immediate real game-changer, but if Romney wins on November 6 the suddenly wise media will look back on last night and say “yep, that was a game-changer.”

 

 

New Sleep Disorder Hits American Voters

There are widespread reports across America that voters are suffering from a newly discovered sleep disorder called INROMNEYA. Symptoms are that folks cannot sleep at night for fear that President Obama will win another four years, but Governor Romney is not doing enough to help voters feel rest assured that he will win office and introduce real change.

INROMNEYA is derived from the Latin “Romnus”, the name of the Roman god of success, with the incorporation of the prefix “in” to show contradiction. Voters are being asked the two

Another INROMNEYA Voter Faces a Sleepless Night

litmus questions of INROMNEYA: “Do you experience difficulty voting?” or “Do you have difficulty going to vote?” To which many who voted for Obama in 2008 and said “yes, we can!” are now answering “No, we can’t!”

There is fear among the Governor’s supporters that he may not be able to bed down the economy and nurse voters back to health. Meanwhile, the Obama spin doctors are offering newly patented lies every day to try and help INROMNEYA sufferers.

However, many voters who have tried the newly patented lies have experienced a side effect sickness called Oblamia, which involves throwing up the lies when meeting INROMNEYA sufferers. This leaves both parties feeling nauseous, and leaves behind a very distinctive odor. Some Oblamia sufferers have even reported cases of Mad Biden’s disease, whereby the sufferer starts to drool at the mouth and then bark like a mad dog.

Paul Ryan-again-in-2016, says if Obama wins then we’ll be 2016 and deeper in debt, enough to keep anyone awake!

One international expert, Dr. Poll, says “we may just have to ride this one out, and let the disorder take its course.” However, Dr. Ron Paul-the-other-one-its-got-bells-on-it, says all the diagnoses are wrong and speculative. He explains that voters are not actually awake and lacking sleep, but sleep-walking into the election.

Someone, wake me up when November comes…..in 2016.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: