A Scandalously Under-Reported Story

Powerful, damning editorial in today's U-T San Diego. This story has been scandalously ignored by major news outlets. Only those who read alternative media or listen to a.m. talk radio have even the slightest inkling that this is a scandal of momentous proportions, made only worse by the media's collusion (there's no other way to say it) to not report on it. It goes without saying that if a Republican were in the White House, we would be saturated with stories, investigations, analysis, commentary, condemnation, calls for impeachment, you name it.

Thank you, U-T San Diego. Don't let up. The election is less than a week away. Questions need to be asked. Obama needs to be held accountable for his administration's actions, inactions, distortions, lies, incompetence, political calculations, or whatever the hell's going on.

"It has now been seven weeks since the terrorist attack. We deserve to know the truth."

Yes we do.

"You Have the Blood of an American Hero on your Hands" (U-T San Diego, Editorial, October 31, 2012).

Making Fun of Lena Dunham Ad

Julie Borowski--whoever you are, wherever you are--God bless you.

How Low Will This Party Sink?

I can't think of anything more despicable than this ad. 

"That guy on the stage, that's the real Obama"

Noonan on Obama. Fascinating. Especially her references to Bob Woodward's book.

Mr. Woodward's portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there's probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that's what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer. People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen. They didn't see some odd version of the president. They saw the president. And they didn't like what they saw, and that would linger.

"When Americans Saw the Real Obama," by Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2012)

Democratic Campaign Ads Targeting Women Voters: Then and Now

Comparing these two Democratic presidential campaign ads, the first targeting women voters in 1980 and the second targeting women voters today, one is struck not only by the obvious coarsening of our culture but how intellectually shallow the appeal to women voters has become.

It's insulting, really. If I were a registered Democrat, I'd be pretty offended. Between Lena Dunham's silly analogy about how voting for Obama is like losing your virginity and the Obama administration's depiction of the federal government as a woman's daddy/husband (The Life of Julia), one can't help but wonder what's happened to the so-called "feminist" party.

If the primary appeal to women voters coming out of the Democratic party has to do with finding a guy who will take care of you, maybe that's why polling is beginning to show a closing of the gender gap between Obama and Romney.

Third Time's a Charm

"Mr. President vs. Mr. Petulant." That's how some people are describing last night's debate. One person wrote the following: 

My 18 year old daughter watched the debate for no good reason. She's got the flu, she didn't feel up to playing a video game, and she was bored. Her impression? She thought that President Obama "came across like a bratty, bossy 7-year-old." She said that if she had known nothing at all and was basing her vote on this debate alone she'd vote for Romney because you can't put the  country into the hands of a bossy, little kid.

This was my sense, as well. At least three times when President Obama was speaking, I yelled at the TV, "Snark!" Obama was condescending, petty, mean, and yes, petulant. It's a good word, let's use it. Obama even came across at times as angry. He didn't just look at Romney when Romney was speaking--he glared. Contrast this with the first debate when he barely glanced at Romney. I guess with Obama it's all or nothing. Either ignore the guy or stare him down.

Romney's response to these odd mannerisms was fascinating. If Obama was trying to intimidate Romney or get under his skin, it wasn't working. It's been said that Mitt Romney is incredibly disciplined, both in his work ethic and in his self-control. That's what I noticed last night. No matter how sarcastic or condescending or demeaning the comment, Romney didn't react. He remained calm, eloquent, polite, mostly respectful. But he was not bloodless. I heard one analyst say Romney was playing chess while Obama was playing checkers. That's what I sensed, as well. It's as if he were three moves ahead of Obama, not just last night but from the onset of these debates. He refused to be predictable.

For instance, the opening question was about the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11th. Bingo! During last week's debate, most conservatives (including me) were disappointed when Romney missed an opportunity to draw blood on this debacle. Most of us anticipated a stronger response from Romney this time, especially since the focus of the third debate was on foreign policy. Instead, Romney answered this question in more sweeping terms: 

With the Arab Spring, came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life, and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead, we’ve seen in nation after nation, a number of disturbing events. Of course we see in Syria, 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in Libya, an attack apparently by, I think we know now, by terrorists of some kind against our people there, four people dead. Our hearts and minds go out to them. 

Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by al-Qaeda type individuals. We have in Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood president. And so what we’re seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. Of course the greatest threat of all is Iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. And we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda. 

But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism, which is certainly not on the run. It’s certainly not hiding. This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America, long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism. 

What was Romney doing? Why wasn't he calling Obama out on his administration's evasions and lies? If we conservatives were surprised that Romney didn't hammer away at this issue, how much more Obama? I imagine he expected a full frontal assault on the Benghazi incident from Romney, and no doubt had prepared and rehearsed extensively. 

Instead he got a vision, a long range goal to re-establish America's role in the world as a strong leader, a defender of freedom. And not just in that first response but throughout the evening. Romney lectured Obama on his "apology tour," scolded him for slighting Israel, chastised him for his surreptitious comment to Vladimir Putin caught on open mic, challenged him regarding budget cuts to the military. Obama didn't have an answer. All he had was sarcasm--stuff that plays well to adoring fans but comes across as mean and petty, yes, snarky, on the television screen in front of a silent audience. 

Who won last night's debate? The liberal media gives this one to Obama. But that's not what I saw. Obama came to the debate with his checker pieces, Romney with his bishop, knights, rooks, and queen. This is an easy call for me. Check mate. 

We May Need a New CEO

It's time for Mr. Obama to turn in they keys to his office, pack up his stuff, return to his Ivory Tower and let someone else take the reigns (I happen to have someone in mind). He really does not seem to know what he's doing. 

Here's a list of 36 green-energy companies that received government stimulus dollars that have either already gone bankrupt or are heading in that direction (see write-up here).  


Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*

(Note: an asterisk denotes companies that have already gone bankrupt). 

This list only represents green energy companies. It doesn't include companies that are currently being investigated for fraud and waste (see another write-up here). 

Incompetence or corruption? Who knows? All I know is this guy's gotta go. 

So Much for an Impartial Media

The reason Mitt Romney trounced Barack Obama during the first presidential debate was because the moderator, Jim Lehrer, allowed the candidates to answer questions in at least some depth (though two minutes doesn't seem like a long time, it's longer than a minute and a half, which is the time allotment during last night's debate), and then respond to one another, if they wished to follow up with comments or clarifications. Lehrer was trashed by liberals who felt he left Obama vulnerable to Romney's attack. But in reality, what Lehrer did was allow America to get to know the candidates, to hear them express their ideas in unscripted, even candid ways. This is why Romney out-shined Obama in that setting. Obama is barely able to communicate without a teleprompter and prepared remarks (unless he's talking to cheering crowds), whereas Mitt Romney seems to have not only a keen grasp on the issues but an ability to think on his feet.

The reason Obama seems to have "won" the second debate, at least according to today's polling, is because the debate setting, facilitated by the moderator, Obama supporter Candy Crawley, protected Obama from even the remotest possibility of vulnerability. Not only did Crawley allow little to no follow-up discussion (maybe only once or twice when one or the other candidate refused to back down), thus allowing claims to go unanswered or unchallenged, at one point she actually interjected herself into the debate and "corrected" Mitt Romney's claim that Obama had not referred to the attack in Benghazi as a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden remarks on September 12th. Crowley's interruption elicited illegal applause from the audience (possibly initiated by Michelle Obama herself), a shout-out from Obama ("can you say that again a little louder, Candy?"), and fawning adulation from the liberal media. Today's write-up in the Los Angeles Times, for example, includes Crawley's interruption in the first few paragraphs of their reporting as though it were perfectly normal behavior for a moderator, and in an accompanying write-up, Times' television critic Mary McNamara  actually gushes: "Moderator Candy Crowley, like Supreme Court justices, should be appointed for life."

If Mitt Romney lost this debate, it was because the stage was set for Obama to win. My personal take was that Obama was not the better debater. His answers, as always, were vague, non-specific, off-topic (he literally avoided answering the question about responsibility for lack of security at Benghazi! Listen to the question and then his response. He did not even remotely answer the question). By contrast, Romney at least had something to say. I do, however, agree with Dennis Prager who complains that people don't remember statistics (millions and billions and trillions), they remember ideas. I also agree with other conservative commentators who are saying that Romney missed quite a few opportunities to walk away with this debate. Even if the questions were loaded (the question about women's pay equity? A cynical ploy to reclaim the women's vote. Assault rifle bans? George Bush?), Romney could have turned them into strong arguments for his position, instead of going off into the weeds of statistical minutiae. And the Libyan embassy terrorist attack? This is a huge albatross for Obama, and the person who posed the question practically gift-wrapped an opportunity for Romney challenge Obama face to face on what his administration did or did not know, and why they've persisted in lying to the American people about this story. Why didn't Romney go after this like a pit bull? Instead, he whiffed. Then, to make matters worse, Crowley managed to deflect the attack (at least for now) by literally (OK, figuratively) getting on stage and wriggling her guy off the hook.

In short, the town hall format was a joke, the questions were (mostly) a joke, the moderator was a joke. Nevertheless, Obama "won," so say the polls.

There's still another debate. Romney can re-group. I hope he does.

Here's what I sent in to the LA Times this morning:

Dear Letters Editor, 

The Los Angeles Times has no problem with moderator Candy Crowley “fact-checking” Mitt Romney in the middle of his argument, yet what she did was an egregious violation of a debate moderator’s supposedly neutral role. Crawley’s inappropriate intervention got a shout-out from the president, unacceptable applause from the audience, and fawning adulation from the Times, even though she has since acknowledged that Romney was, in fact, correct. Crawley’s behavior is analogous to a referee helping shove the quarterback into the end zone. Yet rather than fault Crawley for this violation, your next day reporting celebrates your team’s win and hails the referee. So much for the myth of an impartial media.

Candy Crowley Gets it Wrong, by Henry D'Andrea (Washington Times)

Paul Ryan, the Gentleman. Joe Biden...?

Give me a gentleman over a jerk any day....





"The Jerk Won," by Michael Graham

"CNN: Ryan Wins on Style," by Eliana Johnson

Look, Ma, the Emperor is Naked!

Lots of rumblings on Facebook calling once and for all for Obama's college transcripts (did he really say "me and him" at one point? I missed that).

One of my friends texted me to say, "BO got schooled last night."

Exactly.

My reply: I hope the nation was schooled, as well. This was the Peter Principle President, the naked emperor in all his diminished, faded glory. With no raucous crowd to encourage him, his attempts at humor and snarkiness fell flat. It was just he (himself? him? grammar police, help!), the facts, and an opponent who actually knows what he's talking about.

Obama had nothing to say. What's been clear to most of us on the right from day one I pray is finally clear to at least some of those on the left, that Barack Obama is in over his head. He has no idea what he's talking about.

Other comments I've heard:

"The broader problem for Obama that surfaced tonight: He's acting like a liberal ideologue running against a pragmatic problem-solver" (Patrick Ruffini)

"This isn't breaking news to us, but to the rest of you who seem so confused, this is the result of an inept media. You didn't know either man" (The Right Dame).

"That faint sound? Millions of faded Obama posters coming down" (IowaHawk)

"That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car" (Mark Hemmingway)."

"Obama looked very tired. I'd be too if I spent all my time in partying in Vegas, chatting with Letterman, & livin' it up with Jay-Z" (Kevin Eder).

"Chance of unilateral US action in Libya in the coming fourteen days just went up by seventy thousand percent" (Josh Trevino).

Poor Andrew Sullivan. Start at the bottom and scroll up to the top. Pretty hilarious.

Jon Stewart, Ouch?

Laugh out loud funny.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook