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.

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.”

 

 

Chris Matthews Melts Down While Playing the Race and Class Warfare Cards

   Bookmark and Share   Let me start off by first saying that Chris Matthews needs to kiss my ass.  Now I know that is a rather vulgar way to address readers of this post, but the bottom line is that it is the most appropriate way to respond to the type of deceitful, slanted, disingenuous, and thoroughly unintellectual rhetoric of Chris Matthews, a talentless and brainless buffoon who infamously had an on-air orgasm over a speech made by President Obama before telling listeners that it sent a tingle up his leg and then added, that the thrill he felt running up his leg was an “objectivbe assessment” of the President.

The latest demonstration (see video below) of Chris Matthews’ objective opinion came this morning on Morning Joe, a liberal liberal cesspool that airs weekday mornings on the low rated MSNBC. On this particular show, Matthews appeared on a panel discussing the Republican National Convention along with program hosts, Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough, Willie “Who” Giest, and guests Tom Brokaw and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.  As the discussion took place, Matthews leaned forward in his seat, pointed finger at Priebus, and stated that he had to call the RNC chairman out for suggesting that the Obama campaign has been running a negative campaign and that the Romney campaign hasn’t.

Matthews than proceeded to enter into a hate filled monologue that blamed the G.O.P., Mitt Romney, and his campaign for playing the race card by having Mitt Romney make a joke about President Obama’s birth certificate and by claiming that President Obama has changed the work requirements for welfare.

With his already ugly mug distorted by anger and the tone of his already irritating voice oozing contempt, Matthews continued his rant by not only being the one who actually did play the race card but by also throwing down the class warfare card.

According to Matthews Romney’s awkward joke about not having to see his own birth certificate because everyone knows where he was born, was a very public attempt by Romney to appeal to racists.  He further contended that a recent Romney commercial that claimed President Obama tried to get rid of the work requirement that makes individuals eligible for welfare was also an attempt to interject race in to the election.  Then adding insult to injury, the hapless Matthews broke into an unrealted chorus of Swing Low, Sweet Chariot by playing the ever present class warfare strategy that Democrats are heavily relying on to pull them through in November by adding this little gem;

“And this thing about,….. yeah your name is Romney, yeah you were well born, you went to prep school. Yeah brag about it.  And this guy has an African name and he’s got to live with it.  Look whos gone farther in their life. Who was born on third base”.

The incident was a perfect example of the liberal logic, or lack thereof , which refuses to allow real issues to be discussed without interjecting sham arguments that are designed to avoid the issue or issues at hand.   In this case Matthews tired to deny the negative tactics of the Obama forces which have gone on record accusing Romney of being everything from a felon to a murderer by claiming that Mitt Romney is running a negative campaign because of his disagreeing with the Presidents attempts to rollback welfare requirements by eliminating a work requirement.  As for the attempt to make Romney’s recent birth certificate joke a racist remark, Preibus and others on the panel quickly explained it as an attempt to to make light of the whole Obama birth certificate issue, not to question the President’s place of birth which both Mitt Romney and Reince Preibus have repeatedly stated they firmly believe took place in the United States.

Nonetheless, Matthews could have probably scored points for liberals had he left his accusation against the Romney campaign there.  The silly joke that Romney about everyone knowing where he was born, may have been innocent but it was politically naive and worthy of criticism, especially when it comes to Romney’s momentary lapse of judgement in using that line.  It provided propagandists like Matthews with the material they needed to exploit their race baiting and fearmongering. But as usual Chris Matthews couldn’t control himself and so he interjected the workfare requirement into his argument.  In that line of argument Matthews and his liberal allies try to claim that the charge that Obama dropped the welfare work requirement is a lie.  They cite partisan Washington Post denials of the truth as proof that Republicans are lying about the Obama record on that issue.  However; the truth is that after Democrats and the President found themselves unable to actually eliminate “workfare” through the legislative process legislatively, they employed a bureaucratic trick that made it possible to gut the work requirements by granting waivers that allows states to avoid requiring welfare recipients to have to work for their assistance checks.

The issue is a legitimate one to raise.  It was legitimate enough for a majority of Americans to want work requirements added to welfare legislation and it was legitimate enough for House Republicans to convince President Bill Clinton to sign the work to welfare requirement into law back in the mid 90’s.  However, now that Democrtas face an uphill battle to maintain any of the power that they have left,  discussing the President’s rollback of those reforms is suddenly a blatant act of racism.

The most glaring hypocritical aspect of Matthews sililoquy was his own prejudices which he articulated when he argued that referring to foodstamps and welfare were obvious reffernces to race.  That argument is a sign of Matthews’s own racist incliniations.  He is the one suggesting that African-Americans are the only people recieving foodstamps and welfare checks.  When Romney or for that matter all other Republicans address those two govenrment programs, they do not refer to them in terms of race, but liberals like Chris Matthews do.  So who are the racists here?  The liberals who discuss welfare and foodstamps as progrmas for African-Americans, or Republicans who talk about making them effective programs designed to offer temporary assistance to all Americans who are in need?  But Matthews trudges on in typical hypocritiacal liberal fashion and accuses the right of playing the race card.

This recent incident with Chris Matthews is further evidence of just how sleazy, ignornat, obnoxious, and far out in the fringe that Chris Matthews is.  And after seeing how abolsutely juvenile, bitter, and irrational he was in his arguments this morning, I predict that Matthews will be among the first casulaties of the 2012 election cycle.  It is obvious to me that liberals like Matthews have begun to see the writting on the wall and copme to realize that their messiah, President Obama, has little chance at getting reelected.  They realize that Americans are worse off than they were when Obama took office and without a decent argument to make for reelecting the President, Matthews and his ilk will only get more bitter and more angry.  Each percentage point that Mitt Romney gains over President Obama as Election Day approaches will infuriate and frustrate them even more than they clearly are already.  And between the time that Mitt Romney wins on election night and the Friday immediately following election night, Chris Matthews will lose total control and make such an ass out of himself that even the clowns at MSNBC won’t be able to defend him or excuse his conduct.

Bookmark and Share

How Will The Media’s Double Standard Play Out Regarding Obama’s Osama Ad?

Bookmark and Share   To mark the anniversary of Osama bin Laden receiving his just desserts, President Barack Obama decided to air an ad which suggested that his all but officially nominated Republican presidential opponent would not have given the go to the operation that allowed SEAL Team Six to do the job that brought bin Laden down.

The ad entitled “One Chance”, is based entirely on one quote made by Mitt Romney in an Associated Press interview back in April of 2007, some five years ago. The ad shows an incomplete quote from that interview as it reads “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person…”.

On its own, those words may seem to suggest that bringing justice to Osama bin Laden was not a priority for Mitt Romney, but for the record, the inference created by Team Obama after some very careful and artful political editing is totally incorrect.  When asked by the Associated Press,“Why haven’t we caught bin Laden in your opinion?”, Romney offered the following response;

“I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person… Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates.”

In other words, Romney suggested that while the capture or execution of bin Laden was desired, the AP reporter asking the question should try to not lose focus on the broader War on Terror which involves many more people than just Osama.  Clearly though, Mitt Romney did not suggest that he would not pursued bin Laden or that he would not have approved of the operation that led to his death, as inferred by the President’s ad.

But the story here is not that a rival candidate and his political campaign took his opponents words out of context.  This is politics folks and if you don’t know it yet, politics is all about perception.  Truth has little to do with it and reality is merely what those we elect can convince the majority of voters of.  Sad but very true.  And besides, Mitt Romney already did a similar thing to President Obama back in late November of 2011, when one of his own ads used a statement by the President to mislead voters.  Back then, the Romney campaign used video of the President giving a speech in which viewers saw and heard the President say;

“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”

The problem is that those words actually came from candidate Obama in 2008 when he was quoting something supposedly said by the McCain campaign.

Then Senator Obama’s full quote was;

“Senator McCain’s campaign said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”.

So I guess you can say that the President’s new ad was simply payback to Romney.  Or you might say it is just politics as usual.

Or is it?

The story here is not that politicians are playing politics.  The story is all about what President Obama is playing politics with.

By exploiting the efforts of the the mission to bring justice to the ring leader responsible for one of nation’s darkest days in history, with a deceptive, misleading, political campaign ad, President Obama has demonstrated that nothing, absolutely nothing, is sacred in his attempt to hold on to power.  He could have been the better man here and accepted the nearly unanimous approval and credit he deservedly received for doing the right thing and allowing SEAL Team Six to do their job and not making a Bill Clinton-like call that allowed Osama to live another day.  He could have accepted that feather in his cap which Seal Team Six handed to him after they succeeded at their mission. But instead the President decided to suggest that only he was brave enough to make the decision that allowed our Special Ops forces to risk their lives and take down the most wanted man in the world.

President Obama deserved credit for making the right decision.  Afterall, I would have been the first to blame him if he made the wrong one.  The decision to go through with the operation was one of the only right decisions this President has made and as such, it could have been one of the few things he could legitimately get some praise for.  However, now that the President has taken the anniversary of the end of bin Laden’s rule of al Qaeda and used it to exploit the real heroes behind the event in such a nefarious and unscrupulous way, he now opens himself up to criticism for the one achievement during his Administration that most Americans can agree was good.

After this disgraceful interpretation of the effort to capture bin Laden I can’t help but wonder if getting bin Laden was really a priority on this President’s agenda for the nation.  It now seems to me  that it was merely a priority for his eventual reelection effort?  Afterall, President Obama was simply carrying out the search and search process for bin Laden that his predecessor, George W. Bush already had in place.  You do remember George W. Bush, the guy that President Obama blames everything on?  The guy who’s policies in the War on Terror and in Iraq and Afghanistan he criticized and contradicted but ultimately followed through on?  All of which begs the deeper question which is, does Barack Obama have his priorities straight?

Such criticism relating to the Osama bin Laden capture and kill mission might not have ever been raised had President Obama not been so willing to act so unpresidential and spike the ball after doing cartwheels on the field of play.  But the decision by the President and his campaign team to run this disturbingly tacky and dishonest ad in connection with such a sensitive topic, reveals to me that both he and his staff are nothing but disingenuous, tacky, and incompetent custodians of the Oval Office.  It also shows me that this President is scared.  So scared that he will go to any lengths to try and create a fictional national narrative that paints him in a positive light regardless of how dim, dismal, and debilitating he and his policies have been for our nation.

In the end, politicians taking politicians out of context is nothing new and the practice won’t come to an end anytime soon.  So maybe we really can’t attack either candidate for playing politics as usual.  But we can attack them for what they play politics with and for crossing any new lines that their lack of judgement allows them to.  This is just such an occassion.

Still, it would be nice to see the media do their job and hold President Obama accountable for his disingenuous conducts and deceitful distortions.  Just as we see here, when Communist Chris Matthews, the DNC bullhorn who moonlights as a responsible commentator on MSNBC, went after Mitt Romney when he took President Obama out of context this past November.  But who am I kidding?  Does anyone honestly expect the media to drop their liberal bias and give up their double stereotypical liberal double standards?

Bookmark and Share

Libs Divided Over Barbour

Bookmark and Share

Bad Joke or Serious Threat?

Most of the liberal commentators roll their eyes when they hear about Haley Barbour.  Alex Pareene at Salon wrote yesterday, “I can’t believe people are seriously talking up a corrupt, corpulent tobacco lobbyist’s chances at winning the presidency.”  A similar theme echoed from The Guardian‘s Michael Tomasky, “But Barbour is as southern-fried as they come. And deeply reactionary, and an old tobacco lobbyist, and porcine, and governor of a state that’s 49th or 50th in everything and perfectly happy about that, and just the kind of guy you can picture being most at home hanging around in a corporate hospitality tent at Augusta National during Masters week.”  Even Politico‘s piece which Tomasky called a “puff piece” was critical of Barbour in the same vein.  It’s authors wrote, “A portly Southern conservative who represented tobacco firms and made millions building a lobbying firm isn’t the ideal profile for a Republican nominee in this or any political environment.”

The Politico piece did however cover some of the good points of Haley Barbour.  It was probably because it wasn’t all negative that it was derided as a puff piece.  The strengths Barbour possesses were the focus of Susan Estrich’s piece at newsmax.com.  Unlike the grade-schoolers at Salon and The Guardian, Estrich skipped the name calling and focused on Barbour’s long history in politics and his record in Mississippi.  The result was a piece that looked at Barbour as a potential candidate rather than a caricature.  Estrich summed up writing that, “If I had to pick a Republican I wouldn’t want to run against, it would be him.”

So which version of Haley Barbour is the real one?  The answer to that question can be found by looking at the writers of these articles.  Alex Pareene is gossip writer who knows about as much about politics as she hears on “The Daily Show”.  Tomasky doesn’t have any real political knowledge or experience either, but he probably gets his views from MSNBC.  Politico‘s writers are a little more experienced with Jim VandeHei having experience in the White House press corps and married to a former political staffer, Ken Vogel staffed House Committees, but Andy Barr pretty much just hangs out on liberal TV shows.  Susan Estrich clerked for the Supreme Court and was the campaign manager for the 1988 Michael Dukakis Presidential campaign.  Hmmm, which of these actually knows anything about Presidential campaigns and insider politics?

Right now, liberals are trying to salvage their self-esteem.  They got everything they wanted and things are worse than they were before.  The people are angry.  The Democrats’ approval ratings stink.  About the only thing liberal writers can do is call people names and hope that they can make the Republicans look even worse than the Democrats already do.  Some writers, like Estrich and part of the Politico team are looking beyond the current disaster the Democrats face.  They’re considering the 2012 election from the perspective of all the problems the Democrats will still face when that time comes.

No one can know who will win the nominations in 2012 or the general election.  Will the economy be better, worse or the same?  What will our foreign affairs situation look like?  What other issues could become important to the voters?  It is far too early to know the answers to those key questions that will greatly impact the outcome of the election.  A writer with some common sense, let alone experience, will recognize that fact and focus on potential candidates’ ability to adapt to changing political landscapes, weather criticism and maintain a solid network.  While those things don’t guarantee victory, they certainly have a lot more to do with it than whether or not Chris Matthews gets a tingle up his leg.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: