Is 2012 the Most Important Election of our Lives?

Charles Krauthammer, writing in the National Review Online, believes it just might be. 

An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state. 

If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal. 

A Romney win, however, 

...could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago. 

Krauthammer concludes: 

Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.

A brief but insightful analysis. Here's the entire article. 

 "The Choice," by Charles Krauthammer (National Review Online, November 1, 2012)

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. 

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.

Change We Can No Longer Believe In?

Wow. Pretty powerful ad put out by Crossroads Generation SuperPac, building on something Paul Ryan said in his acceptance speech this week:

“We are four years into this presidency. The issue is not the economy that Barack Obama inherited, not the economy as he envisions, but this economy that we are living. College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."

The Next Vice President of the United States

Maybe Mr. Romney misspoke when he introduced Paul Ryan as the "next president of the United States." Then again, maybe not. After two terms serving as President Romney's vice president, the next logical step would be two terms of President Ryan. Why not?

Here he is, speaking in front of the U.S.S. Wisconsin on Saturday, August 11th:

Best line? "But America is more than just a place...it's an idea.  It's the only country founded on an idea.  Our rights come from nature and God, not government.  We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes."

Second best line? "We won't duck the tough issues...we will lead! We won't blame others...we will take responsibility! We won't replace our founding principles...we will reapply them!"

A Tablespoon of Truth

The delineation between journalism and propaganda gets blurrier the closer we march to November. Left-leaning people, including members of my extended family, will accept without skepticism any news reports disseminated from news outlets like NPR, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and their ilk. Perhaps you can't blame them: there was a time most of us felt we could trust journalists to abide by some unwritten code of journalistic objectivity. No more.

Enter the new media, rapidly becoming my go-to source for clarification, explication, and debunkation. The latest character assassination about Governor Romney--that he's racist, inept, gaffe-prone, etc.--gets the full frontal media assault (aka "free campaign ad time for Barack Obama"). Thank heavens for the good people at Breitbart.com, in this case, Joel Pollack, who points out that the source for the latest attack against Romney, dutifully reported by NPR and Associated Press, is a Palestinian official named Saeb Ereka. NPR and AP accept at face value this Israel-hating official's take on Romney's speech to supporters in Israel and report Ereka's assessment as fact.

If only one of my left-leaning family members would be intellectually honest enough to at least consider the possibility that they're being spoon-fed not just a bowlful of lies about Romney but a cauldron of propaganda about their president, I'd rest a little easier. But I fear these people have been so brainwashed by the leftist culture they embrace, there's little hope of that.

Meanwhile, here's a tablespoon of truth, for those who crave it, as I do.

How AP, NPR Lied About Romney Jewish Donor Speech, Using Palestinian Propaganda

Election 2012: A Choice Between Competing Ideas, not Candidates

Plebiscite: a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or rule. (Had to look that word up.)

Dennis Prager makes an important point in this article. This election is not about individuals ("Romney" vs "Obama"). It's about ideas. Prager maintains that leftist values aren't American values, so a vote for Obama (a man of the left) is a vote for leftism, which is antithetical to America's core values. The 2012 presidential election is a choice between competing ideas, competing visions for America. Prager asks, What kind of America do we want to live in? The answer to this question can guide us in our decision.

I would add that even if we don't like the bickering and the partisanship, it's counterproductive to say, essentially, "a pox on both your houses" and either sit out the election or vote for a third party. Obama was elected on the idea that he would "fundamentally transform" America. If that's not what you want, then not only should you not vote for him, but you should vote for Romney.

Because like it or not, come November, one of these men will be our president. There's no idealistic, murky middle.

Whose vision of America do I want? I choose Romney's.

"A Plebicite, Not an Election," by Dennis Prager