Ronald Reagan vs George W. Bush

Obama screwed up.¬† Instead of portraying Romney as George W. Bush, which has been a major campaign goal of the left, he instead tied Romney to Ronald Reagan.¬† Oh, Obama was so clever.¬† “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”.¬† The modified version of the old high school punchline is backfiring.

The problem with tying Romney to 1980s foreign policy is that we didn’t fight any major wars during Reagan’s Presidency.¬† Instead, our greatest enemy sat across the ocean with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, not daring to attack out of fear of mutual destruction, until eventually they just collapsed under the weight of their own oppressive economic system.¬† That’s a foreign policy I could live with.

Biden Smiling

The real reason we are out of Iraq

Contrast that with Obama, who defended the Bush doctrine with his surge in Afghanistan and his own foreign policy which came across as a comedy of errors.¬† Obama praised himself for getting us out of Iraq.¬† The truth is, he barely managed to keep to Bush’s timeline.¬† Then Obama tried to negotiate to keep some of our intelligence troops in Iraq, but he sent “Chuckles” Biden to secure the terms and we ended up getting kicked out of the country.¬† After all the work, and blood, we have little influence over the direction of Iraq and we share their friendship with Iran.¬† Great job, Mr. President.

Romney was no cowboy in the debate.¬† He was calm, collected, and unfortunately even pulled his punches.¬† But I would feel much more comfortable with Romney sitting across the table from our foreign leaders than Obama.¬† Obama’s cowboyish attacks and disrespect showed the greatest evidence for why his foreign policy is a trail of failure and disaster.¬† We can only pray that his meetings with foreign leaders didn’t follow the same tone.

And of course we saw arrogant Obama in the debate last night too.¬† When he talked about killingsmiling obama Bin Laden and having Bin Laden in his sites, I had to laugh.¬† I’m picturing Obama with a sniper rifle.¬† I wonder if it was just a Freudian slip when Bob Scheiffer accidentally said “Obama’s Bin Laden”.

Commentators can say what they want about Obama’s new found aggressiveness and ability to attack Romney with zingers, truth be damned.¬† But I think most American families watched last night and saw a clear choice between which candidate they would like to see sitting down with Assad’s replacement to discuss the future relationship between our country and Syria, or which candidate they would like to see negotiating how we end our involvement in Afghanistan.¬† Or perhaps which candidate they would like to see negotiating trade with China.¬† I think we would prefer Reagan-esque Romney to arrogant Obama and “Chuckles” Biden.¬† The 21st century called, and we could use a little 80s foreign policy.

Advertisements

Vice President Biden is Laughing… But Are You?

¬† Bookmark and Share¬† Ol’ Joe may¬†find the facts about such things as a nuclear armed Iran, the irresponsible leadership that left 4 Americans dead in Benghazi, and 24 million Americans out of work to be¬†funny, but most Americans can’t seem to find the lighter side of those issues that allowed our Vice President to laugh, chuckle, and cackle his way through the first and only vice presidential debate that took place this past Thursday.

That point is driven home in a recent ad from the Republican National Committee.  (See ad at the bottom of this post)

The commercial powerfully states “Vice President Biden is laughing…”, before stating “Are you?”

The ad is an ingenious use of the extraordinarily smarmy and disrespectful demeanor exhibited by the Vice President during the debate.  And it goes a long way in driving home the point that his unstable attitude is not exactly what most American want to see in a Vice President.

Bookmark and Share

Ryan Wins Debate as Biden’s Bizarre Laughing Grabbed the Spotlight

  Bookmark and Share    The first and only vice presidential debate consisted of substantive questions that were occasionally met with equally substantive answers, at least in the case of a well prepared Paul Ryan.  Unfortunately the content in the answers were overshadowed by the awkward, bizarre, and often discomforting laughing fits that Vice President Biden consistently launched in to for the first three quarters of the forum. (See video of the full debate here)

Each time Paul Ryan offered an answer to a question, ol’ Joe reacted with a¬†disturbing, uncontrolled, obnoxious, laugh that often made him look like the crazy guy on the bus that mother’s shield their children from.¬† At one point, Biden’s grimaces and forced cackles made him a perfect candidate for Jack Nicholson’s role in a remake of Stanley Kubric’s¬†“The Shining”‘.¬†¬† All that was missing was a wild eyed¬†Biden writing¬†“Redrum” across the¬†desk that he sat behind on the stage of debate.

In between Biden’s exaggerated¬†and disrespectful, chortling and snickering, the two men did¬†ignite fireworks as they hammered each other¬†on such issues as Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, taxes, and Medicare.

The sparks flew immediately after moderator Martha Raddatz asked the first question on the hot button issue of the terrorist attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of 9/11.  Raddatz essentially asked if there was a failure of intelligence leading up to the attack.  For his part Biden, never directly answered that question but he tried to claim that the Administration knew everything it needed to know and acted responsibly and appropriately to the circumstances leading up to the attack, and in the response to the attacks in the days following them.

Congressman Ryan took the opportunity to hammer the Obam-Biden ticket on the issue as he launched in to a familiar but well stated criticism of the way Benghazi was handled.

“It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack,”

 Ryan said;

“This Benghazi attack would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it’s indicative of a larger problem,” adding that Obama’s policy toward the Middle East is “making the world more chaotic and us less safe.”

Ryan also charged;

“What we are watching on our tv screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,”

Laughing Joe responded ‚ÄúNot true,‚ÄĚ and added;

‚ÄúWith all due respect, that‚Äôs a bunch of malarkey,‚ÄĚ

The Vice President continued his attack on Ryan’s remarks by also falsely¬†suggesting that proposed Republican cuts in embassy security of $300 million were the reason for the lack of security that made the attacks possible.¬† Biden further lied by claiming that the Administration¬†knew of no requests for additional¬†security in Benghazi.

Paul Ryan came back by making it clear that we now know there were requests for additional security but the  requests were denied by the Administration.

One of the best lines of the night came from Ryan who reminded voters of just how often Biden puts his foot in his mouth.¬† After the Vice President tried to distort Mitt Romney’s past controversial remark at a fundraising about 47% of voters, Ryan fired back;

“With respect to that quote,¬† I think the Vice President very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way”

To which a still laughing Joe responded”

“But I always say what¬†I mean”.

For his part, throughout the debate, Paul Ryan was articulate, knowledgable, convincing, respectful, confident, and firm.  As for the Vice President, he was quick but disingenuous, as he performed in a way that was childish, disrespectful, arrogant, smarmy and at times goofy .  While Biden often made remarks that contained a perfect working class pitch to his base, between his demeanor and attempts to interrupt Ryan a total of 82 times, any possibly strong statements made by the Vice President were overshadowed by his disrespectful, cocky and often flippant attitude.  All of which was compounded by his disconcerting, wacky fits of laughter.

It was clear to me that after President Obama’s¬†disasterous debate performance last week, several strategic decisions forced the Obama-Biden campaign¬†to approach this debate in a way that was intended¬†to make Ryan seem like he did not know what he was talking about and that his ticket was detached¬†from reality.¬† So they decided to have Biden go on the attack.¬† Then they also decided to try to take advantage of Biden’s lengthy¬†political career and advanced age as compared to the younger Ryan¬†who was only four years old when Biden was first elected to the Senate.¬† They had hoped that by laughing at Ryan, Biden would look like the experienced¬†elder statesman¬†who was facing off against¬†the clueless, young punk.¬† The strategy could have work were it not for two things.¬† The first being that Ryan knew what he was talking about and lacked the type of arrogance that could have allowed him to fall into that trap.¬† The second problem with the Biden strategy was that Biden’s laughing was taken¬†to a level so exaggerated and flamboyant,¬†that it came off as unnatural , dismissive, and inappropriate.¬†¬† In the end, the strategy backfired on Joe and his ticket.

In the final analysis¬†this debate did not reveal anything¬†new to us about the candidates or their positions.¬† But it did go a long way in¬† leaving¬†voters with ¬†another negative impression of the Obama-Biden ticket and another positive impression of the Romney-Ryan ticket.¬† And while¬†¬†Joe’s shots at¬†Paul Ryan did¬†whip up liberals who were already voting for Obama, he failed to make the case for why another four years of Obama-Biden will be any better the last four.¬† As for Paul Ryan, his steady demeanor and performance combined with his command of the issues, went a long way in convincing the all important independent and undecided voters that the Obama-Biden ticket is failing us.Bookmark and Share

Why Obama Thinks Romney is Lying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illegals Debacle Shows The President Has No Clothes

Too true to be funny anymore?

The famous poem is inviting:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Is this the spirit behind the president‚Äôs announcement of an immediate end to the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the US as children? Obama thinks so, saying this is “the right thing to do,” just like everything else he decides.

The true spirit behind this action is the hubris of a President with no clothes. This announcement and the anger it has sparked gives an anatomy of how the president does things, to the point of obscuring the issues involved. Let’s look at the anatomy which is exposed:

 

First, Obama speaks objective truth which he then feels pragmatically he has to contradict.

It was only a year ago at a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admitted it is beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because there are laws he’d be breaking by doing that, and would be a breach of separation of powers. If he believed this then, then today he must believe he is violating the separation of powers. You can see the clip here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-video-obama-admits-he-cant-do-what-he-did-today/?utm_source=co2hog

Did the law change since? The jurisprudence? Of course, stupid me, last year was not election year. This year, Obama is naturally addressing a key Latino concern….in an election year.

 

Second, he ignores due process in an increasingly monarchical sense of self

As Charles Krauthammer explains: ‚ÄúHe proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation‚Ķ He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.‚ÄĚ Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/krauthammer-new-obama-immigration-policy-out-and-out-lawlessness-video/#ixzz1xwzPGJip

The plan goes into effect immediately, affecting some 800,000 people, without discussion. He hath spoken, it is done.

Justification? Speaking at the White House, Obama said the initiative was “the right thing to do,” adding that “it makes no sense to expel talented young people” from the US. Is it me, cynicism, or are we really to believe there are 800,000 talented people out there, surely some of them are duds?

 

Third, a Machiavellian Prince who seeks to control and coerce rather than convince

Maybe the real story is the sense of visible shock when the President was interrupted by a Daily Caller reporter during his announcement. How dare anyone interrupt, that’s, well that’s like someone interrupting a monarch, just not done! The reporter ought to be expelled from the country!

The reporter, Neil Munro, explained Munro says open press events at the White House are ‚Äúwell designed by the president and his staff‚ĶHe comes out of the Rose Garden, gives a short statement and then turns his back and walks away very quickly without taking questions,‚ÄĚ he said. ‚ÄúSometimes he takes questions. He took a question on Trayvon Martin in March. Sometimes these shouted questions at the end work ‚ÄĒ not today: He refused to answer an obvious and conventional question about the impact of his policy on American workers at a time of record unemployment.‚ÄĚ

Munro said ‚ÄúTiming these things is a little awkward. He speaks very well, very smoothly ‚ÄĒ very nice delivery. It‚Äôs hard to know when he‚Äôs about to end. I thought he was going to end today. I asked my question too early. He rebuked me. Fair enough.‚ÄĚ ¬†In the future, Munro hopes the White House will ‚Äúarrange events so the reporters can ask the president or his senior staff about the important policy changes.‚ÄĚ

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/video-neil-munro-explains-his-exchange-with-president-obama-in-rose-garden/#ixzz1xx05KPCS

 

Finally, he sets himself up as a savior, but watch out for those “sell by “ dates folks!

In order to be eligible under the new initiative, illegal immigrants must:

  • have arrived in the US when they were under the age of 16
  • have lived continuously in the US for at least five years
  • be in school, or have graduated from high school or be honourably discharged veterans of the US military
  • have no criminal record
  • be under 30 years old.

If successful, applicants would receive a work permit for two years that can (note my italics) be renewed an unlimited number of times. In other words, they’re safe until after the election and the end of Obama’s long-running campaign for office and re-election.

 

In running for this office, Republican opponent Mitt Romney needs to highlight this shameful anatomy and he himself must be: consistent, truthful and make long-term commitments. His reaction to this latest move from the White House was a good one: “I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and it should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future will be in this country‚Ķ.I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution.”

More of this please, Governor!

Too Bad The Debate Won’t Matter

It is way too late in the game for the groundswell of Santorum supporters to turn back and take a gamble on Newt.¬† At stake is handing the Republican nomination to an establishment Republican with a liberal tax plan, timid economic plan, and nothing more than a strong business reputation to run on.¬† But after last night’s debate, the choice for the Republican nominee is as clear to me as the day I endorsed him.

I was proud of Newt for making a supremely important point in the debate over contraception.¬† The issue isn’t a debate between someone who wants to keep birth control pills legal and someone who wants to ban all contraception and chain women to the kitchen sink.¬† The debate is between someone who voted to make it legal for doctors to kill babies after they are born and the eventual GOP candidate who simply wants to protect religious organizations from having to pay for abortion pills.¬† The radical here is most definitely Obama and both Newt and Mitt pointed that out.

Santorum struck out more than once.¬† He came across as arrogant, angry and mean.¬† He has already taken a great deal of heat for dismissing unprincipled votes as “taking one for the team”.¬† This is the opposite of what anti-establishment Republicans are looking for.¬† I will give Santorum one very good mark though for making clear that when he talks about what is wrong with the family in America, he id not proposing that we use the government to solve it.¬† I mentioned that a couple days ago as something Santorum has not done a good job making clear.

Romney did a poor job connecting.  He has put up a conservative facade, but his opponents consistently poked holes in it.  In the end, he will keep his diehard supporters and establishment Republican allies, but he continues to disappoint.

Ron Paul continues to live in a time machine fantasy world where we supposedly can ignore what Iran is doing because we made them do it in the first place and ignoring them will make them go away.  Ron Paul does not seem to understand that on a scale of rationality, radical Islamic terrorists make the communists and fascists seem like Locke and Des Cartes.  Mutual guaranteed destruction is no great incentive for peace when offered to suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, Newt does not have the ground organization to convince Santorum voters to switch back.¬† But after last night’s debate, we may be kicking ourselves for a long time for overlooking him in 2012.

The Republicans’ fading colours – The Spectator Magazine

Link to the original article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7648068/web-exclusive-the-republicans-fading-colours.thtml

 

Web exclusive: The Republicans’ fading colours

11 February 2012

CPAC Review essay by White House 2012 writer David Cowan published on The Spectator magazine website

 

Growing up in the 1960s, my primary school in Cambridge had an outdoor roofless boy‚Äôs toilets, and we happily enjoyed urinating up the wall. It was a sign we were getting further up the school when one day we were able to urinate over the wall itself ‚ÄĒ much to the annoyance of people on the other side. This memory came to mind this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington DC over the weekend, the annual gathering of some ten thousand political activists. This year CPAC was a pissing contest to see who was the most conservative.

The three Republican frontrunners, Santorum, Romney and Gingrich, in that order, sought to reach the base and convince activists about their conservative qualities. The themes they all offered were: what’s wrong with the Obama administration; a shopping list of what conservative policies would work better; an appeal to American exceptionalism; and a return to the founding principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The three candidates are looking for the right to fight an Obama administration seen as somewhat Carteresque, from failed election promises through to the ideological infighting. Obama, though personally liked (Ann Coulter joked he would make a nice neighbour, unless you’re Chinese, then he’d keep borrowing stuff), is seen as ineffective and evasive.

To reenergise America, the candidates laid claim to the mantle of Ronald Reagan, frequently invoking his name and sunny disposition. Yet herein lies the rub. Reagan defeated Carter with ideas for the economy and foreign policy, successfully combining a conservative vision and charm to appeal to swing voters. At CPAC 1974, Reagan gave his famous ‚Äėbold colours, not pale pastels‚Äô speech, asserting conservative principles. This weekend showed that some of the colours have long since faded.

Things were certainly off-colour last time I was here, back in 2009, as defeated activists sought to pick themselves up after Obama’s coronation. The biggest cheers then were for Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, as they offered succour. Newt entered to his incongruous theme tune ‚ÄėEye of the Tiger‚Äô, but instead of entering stage right he walked in through the crowd, parting them Moses-like, shaking hands and hugging supporters.

The danger three years on is, of course, an election that will see CPAC 2013 take place after a second Obama inauguration. Expect then a sinking sense of what might have been. For many American conservatives a Republican failure this year will exacerbate what they fear most: n irreversible dependency culture and Europeanisation. Daniel Hannan flew into DC to warn on just this point, expressing his amazement to rapt delegates that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror, overtaking them.

Back in 2009 something else happened at CPAC. Sarah Palin was slated to speak, but failed to appear either in person or via a hastily announced satellite link. This was the signal that Sarah was taking the celebrity high road, rather than the political low road. This year, however, she did appear as closing speaker to offer the benediction ‚ÄĒ but not the one most people expected. She did not endorse Gingrich, as he himself alluded to in his own speech by quoting her husband Todd. She called for unity, but convoluted as ever, Palin said ‚Äėwhoever our nominee is we must work together to get him over the finishing line, and then next year we will have a true conservative in the Oval office‚Äô ‚ÄĒ only to go on Fox news on Sunday afternoon to say she is still to be convinced Romney that is indeed a conservative.

Despite this, and despite the Santorum surge, Romney will see this conference as mission accomplished ‚ÄĒ reinforced by the CPAC Straw Poll narrowly backing his candidature. Out of the three candidates it looks seemed that Romney pissed the highest this weekend. And, while still divided, all the delegates would agree about who should be standing on the other side of the wall, on the receiving end.

%d bloggers like this: