The General Election Campaign Begins
The GOP Primary -- Over Except for the Shouting
First some catching up on week-old news. Paul Ryan’s endorsement of Romney: “I Have 2 criteria for who to vote for: who’d make the best president (best qualified), and who has the best chance to defeat Obama.” He said he’s never made an endorsement before, but the dire circumstances warrant it now.
Mitt swept Wisconsin, Maryland & Washington, D.C., and now needs only 40% of remaining delegates to secure the nomination, vs. Santorum needing 74%. In Mitt’s victory speech, he said that “Obama saying he likes the economy but not business, is like saying you like omelets but not eggs.” He noted new business starts are down – the lowest in 30 years. 30% of single moms are in poverty. He’ll spend the next 4 years rebuilding the foundation of an opportunity society (vs. Obama’s transformation to a government-centered society). When you attack business, you have less business, and less success. If you attack success, there’ll be less of it, and that’s not who we are – we reward effort w. success – we are Americans.
On April 2 Krauthammer said the general election campaign began today – due to Obama’s focus on Romney & vice-versa. He said Santorum should get out before Pennsylvania – there’s no upside for him there – Romney’s within 6 points there. He should get out graciously while he can as an investment in a future run – in 8 years?
It’s now April 10, and apparently Santorum finally listened to the voices of reason, and today “suspended” his campaign. That seems to be the standard term used now when they quit, although somewhat misleading. He gave his announcement ironically at Gettysburg, where another notable high water mark occurred -- also due to a string of Southern victories. He spoke of prayer and thinking about his role as parent, with an ailing daughter. And how nearly a year ago he entered the race out of concern for the future of America’s children. He again recounted his family’s story, and the stories of others he heard on the campaign trail. He said this presidential race is over for him, but he’ll continue fighting to defeat Obama and win seats in Congress. He described his race as “miracle after miracle.”
For all his outward religiosity, I seemed to detect a glaring un-Christian lack of graciousness towards his frontrunner opponent, not mentioning him by name or endorsing , well-wishing, showing any respect or deference as is the custom. Others have since backed me up. There seems to be a distinct lack of forgiveness for the wrongs claimed to have been done to him by his opponent, and lack of any feeling of responsibility for his own personal attacks against Romney, which have likely contributed to his negatives in polls, and may take some effort to repair. It all seemed to be about him (Santorum). And indeed, maybe it is – if he’s damaged Mitt enough that he loses, then he can claim in 4 years to be the party heir. And it’s hard to see any other rational purpose in his remaining in these last several weeks.
By contrast, in every public encounter I never saw Romney do anything of the sort. And recall the graciousness of his exit from the primary 4 years ago -- after having been savaged by McCain. He seems to show his religiosity and teamwork by actions rather than words.
Mark Levin today was full of sour grapes, saying that they who’ve supported those candidates [he named Perry, Newt, Santorum, etc.] who were slandered/savaged [supposedly by Romney – or at least PACs beyond his control] will now have to swallow the venom and go forward for the benefit of our children, and not out of anything good towards our frontrunner/nominee. He says this as if they – especially Santorum – didn’t throw at least as much venom at Mitt (I’d say much more, described in my last post), and as if they were the martyrs, by virtue of their underdog status, and lack of funding or organization. As if they deserved more respect and immunity from scrutiny than they gave, somehow, simply by virtue of their supposed “conservative purity,” as deemed by the self-proclaimed “anti-establishment.”
And Levin has the audacity to then, after all his own vicious attacks on Romney, talk about Mitt’s suffering from likeability & women gaps! A self-fulfilling prophecy, at least in part, or at least very sour grapes and self-justification (“see, I told you he was a loser!” – as if any of the other candidates were stronger). Many have noted the unusually vicious nature of this campaign, and that Romney’s polls have undoubtedly suffered as a result. Perhaps if there are any miracles in this campaign, it will be that despite prejudices against his faith, and blindness of those who refuse to see what Romney has to offer, Romney has prevailed so far, and hopefully for the benefit of the country, will prevail in November. Certainly any who do more than merely profess love of country, faith and conservative principles, will work and pray for that.
There was always plenty of blame for scapegoat Romney (& his money) for their own failings, and excuses for their own highly personal attacks on Romney. And on Santorum’s part way too much self-credit for having been the last unscrutinized, “flavor-of-the-month,” anti-Romney standing just at the right time of the first primary in Iowa. And having barely squeaked out a win there by literally several votes, and being the last best hope of like-minded anti-Romney types (incl. anti-Mormon evangelists) continued some wins especially in the South. Hard to step down from such a high throne as self-proclaimed miraculous savior of the party and country. Or to come to grips with the reality that maybe it wasn’t as miraculous or divinely destined as was thought -- if miracles have purpose and God prevails. But it does possibly explain the obvious depth of disdain for Romney, that perhaps they believe Romney was so evil and devious that he thwarted some divine anti-heretical favor & plan, and/or self-perceived great potential – the latter being perhaps more the case for Gingrich.
One good thing can be said of Santorum – he did help to sharpen Mitt’s skills in preparation for Obama’s impending onslaught. His exit absolutely assures that once again, California comes so late as to not be a player in the primary election.
Mitt’s being called the “presumptive nominee” by the media, and that it’s all but over. Accompanied by more speculation about his choice of VP. And Obama is now acting as if Mitt is his opponent, attacking him directly by name.
Obama Watch – “Mope and Estrange” vs “Hope & Change”
Mary Katherine Hamm noted Mitt’s disposition is much sunnier than Obama’s sourness on the Supreme Court & budget. I’d call Obama’s new theme “mope and estrange.” Rather than create hope, he’s created malaise and despair among the working class & business, and false hope for the poor that they’ll get more from government (i.e., taxpayers, especially the rich), only to have it pulled out from under them when the programs and government go bust because he’s wrecking the economy & burdening us with debt – downgrading our credit rating for the first time. As Mitt noted recently, when Obama ran for office, he said he’d cut the deficit in half – instead, he’s doubled it. One of a number of broken promises where he’s actually done the opposite.
And the change he’s created is described above, as well as his poor excuse for a health bill, budgets, stimuli, foreign policy, and attempts at uniting the country. On the latter, he seems to inject himself often and inappropriately in manufactured racial cases – lately the Trayvon Martin case, along with Reverends Wright & Sharpton, and the New Black Panthers, exploiting race for political purposes near the election. He’s also revisiting class warfare with the Buffett rule press conference the other day, rounding up more secretaries whose income tax bracket is higher than their millionaire bosses’ capital gains tax rates. He clearly doesn’t understand, or wants to capitalize on the electorate’s misunderstanding, of the difference between apples and oranges, and the purpose of lower capital gains rates. Chris Christie noted that we’re turning into an entitlement society, which is bankrupting us financially & morally, robbing us of our dreams, incentives and motivations.
And the one supposed area of expertise Obama actually might claim to bring to the office (besides community organizing) – constitutional law, having taught it – he has failed miserably at in the form of Obamacare. In the wake of his recent comments on the Supreme Court’s hearing on Obamacare, he should ask for his money back from whoever taught him constitutional law. And how many students that he taught are owed a refund?
He said, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He called the court “an unelected group of people [that might] somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” He’s also said that overturning it would be the very “judicial activism” that conservatives have long decried.
This is at least his second foray into menacing remarks to the court (another at the state of the union w. justices present), and it generated considerable criticism, including a sound reprimand by a district court judge demanding of a government lawyer a 3 page clarification by attorney general Holder as to whether they recognize the court’s legimate role in judicial review, and the separation of powers and checks and balances – back to basics.
Obama’s statement contains several Orwellianisms that only the truly gullible and ignorant true believers could swallow. First, a universally recognized prime function of the court is judicial review of laws as to their constitutionality, and it is hardly unprecedented or extraordinary for them to overturn laws deemed unconstitutional. Laws that were passed by much more truly strong majorities of elected Congressmen. Remember that Obamacare passed by the barest possible margin, by hook and crook, “pole-vaulting in if we have to,” by deceitful promises and arm-twisting, solely by members of one party, and in the face of overwhelming public opposition in the polls. It was passed without the promised transparency and weeks of time to review the 2700 page monstrosity. Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass it, so we can then see what’s in it.” Well, we’re seeing, and it’s not good – costs double the sponsors’ estimates ($1.7 Trillion), gutting of Medicaid, many doctors refusing to take patients, etc., etc.
The Empire Strikes Back
On April 4, Obama first attacked Romney by name, saying he’s out of touch (again with the class warfare), and showing his own elitism by mocking Mitt’s choice of words – “marvelous” – “a word you don’t hear very often” [by regular or cool folk, by subtle implication]. So he’s already setting the tone for a personal attack slugfest. Whereas Romney says Obama’s a nice guy, and father, but in over his head and misguided, going after his policies. Laura Ingraham complains Romney’s a bit too civil, and needs to get more down and dirty. And she’s not exactly Ann Coulter.
Obama called Romney a “radical.” Huh? After Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Dr. Bell, Van Jones, etc.? And he said that Reagan would disown the current GOP. Right, as if Obama’s the expert on conservatism. Oh, that’s right, Obama’s been claiming the mantle of Teddy Roosevelt, and admiring Reagan, etc. Obama’s tactics should be pretty obvious -- trying to make leftism the norm, and isolate conservatives and/or make them doubt their principles to join him. Nice try, slick-talking law professor.
The truly unseemly anti-Mormon attacks associated with Romney from the self-proclaimed lovers of diversity and tolerance continue to increase. Like Maureen Dowd (my recent post) and now Lawrence O’Donnell. We should expect more, perhaps as well as the usual from Evangelicals. Brit Hume notes, however, that lots of Mormons have served in high public positions (prominent senators of both parties, cabinet officers, governors, generals, NRO director, etc, etc.) over many years, and there is no evidence their performance or service has suffered because of their religion – to the contrary, they’ve been upstanding and effective.
I’ve noted another devious tactic of the media in its bias. When ABC shows stock face photos of Obama & Romney, the former is smiling and confident and looking at you, and Mitt’s is apparently on a cold day, squinting and looking off to the side, no smile, and looks older and weaker than about every other shot I’ve seen of him. And then they, too, love to blare the news of a likeability gap, having subtly helped contribute to, and promulgate it, at least among their highly impressionable and visually-oriented (vs cerebral) viewership.
Peggy Noonan points out in the Wall Street Journal April 7, that Obama continues by saying the GOP “will brook no compromise,” it is “peddling” destructive economic nostrums, it has “a radical vision” and wants to “let businesses pollute more,” “gut education,” and lay off firemen and cops. He said he is not speaking only of groups or factions within the GOP: “This is now the party’s governing platform.” Its leaders lack “humility.” Their claims to concern about the deficit are “laughable.” Noonan says “The speech was not aimed at healing, ameliorating differences, or joining together. The president was not even trying to appear to be pursuing unity.” No, this will be the tone of the election – gross misrepresentation and vilification. Just more of his community organizer rhetoric. No solutions – just blame and vilification.
By way of response to the foregoing, note how he turns everything on it’s head in attempt to deflect criticism. Exactly who has been uncompromising? Obama and the Democrat-controlled senate that haven’t passed a budget in 3 years. Who has peddled destructive economic nostrums? This administration that’s been crushing businesses and jobs with regulations & taxes, and the economy with failed Keynesian economic stimuli and staggering debt that’s downgraded our credit rating. Who has a radical vision? The left-most president in American history, with associates the likes of Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Prof. Bell, Van Jones, etc. It is the government bankruptcies he’s setting us up for that will cause even more austere cuts into basic services he mentions. Who lacks humility? Probably the one doing all the mocking, lavish and excessive vacationing and golfing, etc., and none of the compromising. The only one apparently unconcerned about the deficit is Obama, who only increases it, contrary to his promise to decrease it – the 2010 election was a popular uprising against his lack of concern.
So many of his pre-election promises have been proven lies (or at least flip-flops) that his lack of credibility alone warrants his removal from office, let alone the staggering debt, decline of our health care & economy. It reminds me of a college roommate I had who was pawning off the other roommates’ possessions, and whom we evicted after a council because we couldn’t trust him. Or of a teenager gone wild with a credit card.
Continuing in the divide and conquer theme, now Dems are charging the GOP with a war on women, regarding potential entitlement cuts in the Ryan budget that would affect women (daycare,...). But after Ann Romney has spoken out that she hears from women all over the country that are hurting and concerned because of the economy, A Democrat Nat’l Comm. Advisor trashed her, saying that she never worked a day in her life. This has raised the ire of many women across the country who rightly wonder who’s really waging the war on women. And Axelrod & others in the administration including Obama have quickly tried to repair the damage by disavowing the DNC official’s comments. But she also mocked Mitt for listening to his wife – is the great women’s libber suggesting she shut up? Mitt should continue to get more boosts as the Dems show their true colors, and grasp at personal attacks that will backfire.
Ann was interviewed last evening on Fox News & was articulate and gracious. Medved calls her Mitt’s secret weapon that should be used more, and speaks in glowing terms of her. I remember a group interview of all the candidates’ wives 4 years ago, and Ann stood out sharply, and head and shoulders above Michelle Obama.
Here’s a fun You Tube animated video of past & present presidents, with a great object lesson contrasting Reagan's & Obama's philosophies:
http://youtu.be/3h8O7V-WxWQ
More on the Live Mike Incident
From the Desk Of: Steve Elliott
We just finished a new radio spot that will air nationally on Monday to expose Obama's treacherous act before the Russian president. Go here to listen to the spot and see below for details. -- Steve
On Monday Barack Obama's presidency reached new depths of treachery.
As I'm sure you have heard by now, unbeknownst to Obama, his exchange with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was caught on tape, revealing a president who just needs to get through his "last election" before having the freedom to implement his real agenda.
Here is the exchange (source: ABC News):
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
As if four years of lies and distortions and deceptions were not enough, now we have our President admitting that ELECTIONS are getting in the way of his REAL AGENDA.
But what's worse is that this exchange is taking place with the leader of a foreign nation! Here's how Charles Krauthammer sees this exhange:
"That's [Obama's] way of saying with a nod and a wink, 'Look, you guys have a free hand because you run a dictatorship, your elections are rigged. Well, ours aren't rigged, but once I get passed my last election, I'm unleashed. I can do anything I want."
First some catching up on week-old news. Paul Ryan’s endorsement of Romney: “I Have 2 criteria for who to vote for: who’d make the best president (best qualified), and who has the best chance to defeat Obama.” He said he’s never made an endorsement before, but the dire circumstances warrant it now.
Mitt swept Wisconsin, Maryland & Washington, D.C., and now needs only 40% of remaining delegates to secure the nomination, vs. Santorum needing 74%. In Mitt’s victory speech, he said that “Obama saying he likes the economy but not business, is like saying you like omelets but not eggs.” He noted new business starts are down – the lowest in 30 years. 30% of single moms are in poverty. He’ll spend the next 4 years rebuilding the foundation of an opportunity society (vs. Obama’s transformation to a government-centered society). When you attack business, you have less business, and less success. If you attack success, there’ll be less of it, and that’s not who we are – we reward effort w. success – we are Americans.
On April 2 Krauthammer said the general election campaign began today – due to Obama’s focus on Romney & vice-versa. He said Santorum should get out before Pennsylvania – there’s no upside for him there – Romney’s within 6 points there. He should get out graciously while he can as an investment in a future run – in 8 years?
It’s now April 10, and apparently Santorum finally listened to the voices of reason, and today “suspended” his campaign. That seems to be the standard term used now when they quit, although somewhat misleading. He gave his announcement ironically at Gettysburg, where another notable high water mark occurred -- also due to a string of Southern victories. He spoke of prayer and thinking about his role as parent, with an ailing daughter. And how nearly a year ago he entered the race out of concern for the future of America’s children. He again recounted his family’s story, and the stories of others he heard on the campaign trail. He said this presidential race is over for him, but he’ll continue fighting to defeat Obama and win seats in Congress. He described his race as “miracle after miracle.”
For all his outward religiosity, I seemed to detect a glaring un-Christian lack of graciousness towards his frontrunner opponent, not mentioning him by name or endorsing , well-wishing, showing any respect or deference as is the custom. Others have since backed me up. There seems to be a distinct lack of forgiveness for the wrongs claimed to have been done to him by his opponent, and lack of any feeling of responsibility for his own personal attacks against Romney, which have likely contributed to his negatives in polls, and may take some effort to repair. It all seemed to be about him (Santorum). And indeed, maybe it is – if he’s damaged Mitt enough that he loses, then he can claim in 4 years to be the party heir. And it’s hard to see any other rational purpose in his remaining in these last several weeks.
By contrast, in every public encounter I never saw Romney do anything of the sort. And recall the graciousness of his exit from the primary 4 years ago -- after having been savaged by McCain. He seems to show his religiosity and teamwork by actions rather than words.
Mark Levin today was full of sour grapes, saying that they who’ve supported those candidates [he named Perry, Newt, Santorum, etc.] who were slandered/savaged [supposedly by Romney – or at least PACs beyond his control] will now have to swallow the venom and go forward for the benefit of our children, and not out of anything good towards our frontrunner/nominee. He says this as if they – especially Santorum – didn’t throw at least as much venom at Mitt (I’d say much more, described in my last post), and as if they were the martyrs, by virtue of their underdog status, and lack of funding or organization. As if they deserved more respect and immunity from scrutiny than they gave, somehow, simply by virtue of their supposed “conservative purity,” as deemed by the self-proclaimed “anti-establishment.”
And Levin has the audacity to then, after all his own vicious attacks on Romney, talk about Mitt’s suffering from likeability & women gaps! A self-fulfilling prophecy, at least in part, or at least very sour grapes and self-justification (“see, I told you he was a loser!” – as if any of the other candidates were stronger). Many have noted the unusually vicious nature of this campaign, and that Romney’s polls have undoubtedly suffered as a result. Perhaps if there are any miracles in this campaign, it will be that despite prejudices against his faith, and blindness of those who refuse to see what Romney has to offer, Romney has prevailed so far, and hopefully for the benefit of the country, will prevail in November. Certainly any who do more than merely profess love of country, faith and conservative principles, will work and pray for that.
There was always plenty of blame for scapegoat Romney (& his money) for their own failings, and excuses for their own highly personal attacks on Romney. And on Santorum’s part way too much self-credit for having been the last unscrutinized, “flavor-of-the-month,” anti-Romney standing just at the right time of the first primary in Iowa. And having barely squeaked out a win there by literally several votes, and being the last best hope of like-minded anti-Romney types (incl. anti-Mormon evangelists) continued some wins especially in the South. Hard to step down from such a high throne as self-proclaimed miraculous savior of the party and country. Or to come to grips with the reality that maybe it wasn’t as miraculous or divinely destined as was thought -- if miracles have purpose and God prevails. But it does possibly explain the obvious depth of disdain for Romney, that perhaps they believe Romney was so evil and devious that he thwarted some divine anti-heretical favor & plan, and/or self-perceived great potential – the latter being perhaps more the case for Gingrich.
One good thing can be said of Santorum – he did help to sharpen Mitt’s skills in preparation for Obama’s impending onslaught. His exit absolutely assures that once again, California comes so late as to not be a player in the primary election.
Mitt’s being called the “presumptive nominee” by the media, and that it’s all but over. Accompanied by more speculation about his choice of VP. And Obama is now acting as if Mitt is his opponent, attacking him directly by name.
Obama Watch – “Mope and Estrange” vs “Hope & Change”
Mary Katherine Hamm noted Mitt’s disposition is much sunnier than Obama’s sourness on the Supreme Court & budget. I’d call Obama’s new theme “mope and estrange.” Rather than create hope, he’s created malaise and despair among the working class & business, and false hope for the poor that they’ll get more from government (i.e., taxpayers, especially the rich), only to have it pulled out from under them when the programs and government go bust because he’s wrecking the economy & burdening us with debt – downgrading our credit rating for the first time. As Mitt noted recently, when Obama ran for office, he said he’d cut the deficit in half – instead, he’s doubled it. One of a number of broken promises where he’s actually done the opposite.
And the change he’s created is described above, as well as his poor excuse for a health bill, budgets, stimuli, foreign policy, and attempts at uniting the country. On the latter, he seems to inject himself often and inappropriately in manufactured racial cases – lately the Trayvon Martin case, along with Reverends Wright & Sharpton, and the New Black Panthers, exploiting race for political purposes near the election. He’s also revisiting class warfare with the Buffett rule press conference the other day, rounding up more secretaries whose income tax bracket is higher than their millionaire bosses’ capital gains tax rates. He clearly doesn’t understand, or wants to capitalize on the electorate’s misunderstanding, of the difference between apples and oranges, and the purpose of lower capital gains rates. Chris Christie noted that we’re turning into an entitlement society, which is bankrupting us financially & morally, robbing us of our dreams, incentives and motivations.
And the one supposed area of expertise Obama actually might claim to bring to the office (besides community organizing) – constitutional law, having taught it – he has failed miserably at in the form of Obamacare. In the wake of his recent comments on the Supreme Court’s hearing on Obamacare, he should ask for his money back from whoever taught him constitutional law. And how many students that he taught are owed a refund?
He said, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He called the court “an unelected group of people [that might] somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” He’s also said that overturning it would be the very “judicial activism” that conservatives have long decried.
This is at least his second foray into menacing remarks to the court (another at the state of the union w. justices present), and it generated considerable criticism, including a sound reprimand by a district court judge demanding of a government lawyer a 3 page clarification by attorney general Holder as to whether they recognize the court’s legimate role in judicial review, and the separation of powers and checks and balances – back to basics.
Obama’s statement contains several Orwellianisms that only the truly gullible and ignorant true believers could swallow. First, a universally recognized prime function of the court is judicial review of laws as to their constitutionality, and it is hardly unprecedented or extraordinary for them to overturn laws deemed unconstitutional. Laws that were passed by much more truly strong majorities of elected Congressmen. Remember that Obamacare passed by the barest possible margin, by hook and crook, “pole-vaulting in if we have to,” by deceitful promises and arm-twisting, solely by members of one party, and in the face of overwhelming public opposition in the polls. It was passed without the promised transparency and weeks of time to review the 2700 page monstrosity. Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass it, so we can then see what’s in it.” Well, we’re seeing, and it’s not good – costs double the sponsors’ estimates ($1.7 Trillion), gutting of Medicaid, many doctors refusing to take patients, etc., etc.
The Empire Strikes Back
On April 4, Obama first attacked Romney by name, saying he’s out of touch (again with the class warfare), and showing his own elitism by mocking Mitt’s choice of words – “marvelous” – “a word you don’t hear very often” [by regular or cool folk, by subtle implication]. So he’s already setting the tone for a personal attack slugfest. Whereas Romney says Obama’s a nice guy, and father, but in over his head and misguided, going after his policies. Laura Ingraham complains Romney’s a bit too civil, and needs to get more down and dirty. And she’s not exactly Ann Coulter.
Obama called Romney a “radical.” Huh? After Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Dr. Bell, Van Jones, etc.? And he said that Reagan would disown the current GOP. Right, as if Obama’s the expert on conservatism. Oh, that’s right, Obama’s been claiming the mantle of Teddy Roosevelt, and admiring Reagan, etc. Obama’s tactics should be pretty obvious -- trying to make leftism the norm, and isolate conservatives and/or make them doubt their principles to join him. Nice try, slick-talking law professor.
The truly unseemly anti-Mormon attacks associated with Romney from the self-proclaimed lovers of diversity and tolerance continue to increase. Like Maureen Dowd (my recent post) and now Lawrence O’Donnell. We should expect more, perhaps as well as the usual from Evangelicals. Brit Hume notes, however, that lots of Mormons have served in high public positions (prominent senators of both parties, cabinet officers, governors, generals, NRO director, etc, etc.) over many years, and there is no evidence their performance or service has suffered because of their religion – to the contrary, they’ve been upstanding and effective.
I’ve noted another devious tactic of the media in its bias. When ABC shows stock face photos of Obama & Romney, the former is smiling and confident and looking at you, and Mitt’s is apparently on a cold day, squinting and looking off to the side, no smile, and looks older and weaker than about every other shot I’ve seen of him. And then they, too, love to blare the news of a likeability gap, having subtly helped contribute to, and promulgate it, at least among their highly impressionable and visually-oriented (vs cerebral) viewership.
Peggy Noonan points out in the Wall Street Journal April 7, that Obama continues by saying the GOP “will brook no compromise,” it is “peddling” destructive economic nostrums, it has “a radical vision” and wants to “let businesses pollute more,” “gut education,” and lay off firemen and cops. He said he is not speaking only of groups or factions within the GOP: “This is now the party’s governing platform.” Its leaders lack “humility.” Their claims to concern about the deficit are “laughable.” Noonan says “The speech was not aimed at healing, ameliorating differences, or joining together. The president was not even trying to appear to be pursuing unity.” No, this will be the tone of the election – gross misrepresentation and vilification. Just more of his community organizer rhetoric. No solutions – just blame and vilification.
By way of response to the foregoing, note how he turns everything on it’s head in attempt to deflect criticism. Exactly who has been uncompromising? Obama and the Democrat-controlled senate that haven’t passed a budget in 3 years. Who has peddled destructive economic nostrums? This administration that’s been crushing businesses and jobs with regulations & taxes, and the economy with failed Keynesian economic stimuli and staggering debt that’s downgraded our credit rating. Who has a radical vision? The left-most president in American history, with associates the likes of Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Prof. Bell, Van Jones, etc. It is the government bankruptcies he’s setting us up for that will cause even more austere cuts into basic services he mentions. Who lacks humility? Probably the one doing all the mocking, lavish and excessive vacationing and golfing, etc., and none of the compromising. The only one apparently unconcerned about the deficit is Obama, who only increases it, contrary to his promise to decrease it – the 2010 election was a popular uprising against his lack of concern.
So many of his pre-election promises have been proven lies (or at least flip-flops) that his lack of credibility alone warrants his removal from office, let alone the staggering debt, decline of our health care & economy. It reminds me of a college roommate I had who was pawning off the other roommates’ possessions, and whom we evicted after a council because we couldn’t trust him. Or of a teenager gone wild with a credit card.
Continuing in the divide and conquer theme, now Dems are charging the GOP with a war on women, regarding potential entitlement cuts in the Ryan budget that would affect women (daycare,...). But after Ann Romney has spoken out that she hears from women all over the country that are hurting and concerned because of the economy, A Democrat Nat’l Comm. Advisor trashed her, saying that she never worked a day in her life. This has raised the ire of many women across the country who rightly wonder who’s really waging the war on women. And Axelrod & others in the administration including Obama have quickly tried to repair the damage by disavowing the DNC official’s comments. But she also mocked Mitt for listening to his wife – is the great women’s libber suggesting she shut up? Mitt should continue to get more boosts as the Dems show their true colors, and grasp at personal attacks that will backfire.
Ann was interviewed last evening on Fox News & was articulate and gracious. Medved calls her Mitt’s secret weapon that should be used more, and speaks in glowing terms of her. I remember a group interview of all the candidates’ wives 4 years ago, and Ann stood out sharply, and head and shoulders above Michelle Obama.
Here’s a fun You Tube animated video of past & present presidents, with a great object lesson contrasting Reagan's & Obama's philosophies:
http://youtu.be/3h8O7V-WxWQ
More on the Live Mike Incident
From the Desk Of: Steve Elliott
We just finished a new radio spot that will air nationally on Monday to expose Obama's treacherous act before the Russian president. Go here to listen to the spot and see below for details. -- Steve
On Monday Barack Obama's presidency reached new depths of treachery.
As I'm sure you have heard by now, unbeknownst to Obama, his exchange with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was caught on tape, revealing a president who just needs to get through his "last election" before having the freedom to implement his real agenda.
Here is the exchange (source: ABC News):
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
As if four years of lies and distortions and deceptions were not enough, now we have our President admitting that ELECTIONS are getting in the way of his REAL AGENDA.
But what's worse is that this exchange is taking place with the leader of a foreign nation! Here's how Charles Krauthammer sees this exhange:
"That's [Obama's] way of saying with a nod and a wink, 'Look, you guys have a free hand because you run a dictatorship, your elections are rigged. Well, ours aren't rigged, but once I get passed my last election, I'm unleashed. I can do anything I want."
Comments
Post a Comment