Monthly Archives: October 2012

Debate #3: Romney vs. Obama, and why President Petulant came up short

A few things stood out from the 3rd Presidential debate Monday night:

  1. It was a closely battled 90 minutes; no clear knock-out came from either side.
  2. Obama has finished his transformation from the cool, calculated guy in 2008 to the peevish, whiny man we see before us today. The behavior he exhibited is never an attractive sight on anyone, but when it’s displayed by the President it’s downright pathetic.
  3. The President told a couple of whoppers which will undoubtedly come back to haunt him over the next few days.
  4. Mitt had the line of the evening.

First, let’s cover their behavior. Both men seemed a little keyed-up at the outset. Mitt almost seemed like he had too much info in his head, and he struggled to get it out for the first couple of topics. Reminded me of my oldest son when he’s really excited about something, and he can’t get his mouth to work as fast as his brain. Thankfully, Romney hit his stride after that.

In contrast, Obama was clenching his jaw so hard that he’s almost guaranteed to require emergency dental work by now. He also glowered and stared at Romney as if Mitt had just taken the last good tee time on Sunday. Do you remember Anakin’s face at the end of ‘Revenge of the Sith’? Obama didn’t appear even half that friendly.

Over the days that follow, the Lefty blogs will almost certainly be talking about a couple of lines that the President got off, with the one concerning the Auto Industry bailout likely leading the pack. That was a great sounding line, I agree.

If it had actually been true, it would have been even better.

From the American Thinker:

When Romney said, during the debate, that in 2008 he favored a managed bankruptcy for Detroit’s auto makers, with federal guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing, Obama directly claimed this was a falsehood, repeatedly saying, “Check the record.” 

Here’s the record, via Mitt Romney’s New York Times op-ed from November 18, 2008.  Allow me to quote one representative sentence from that op-ed:

“The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”

Romney was completely consistent with his 2008 position on this during the debate.  Obama attempted to thwart him using the typical leftist method: lie through your teeth, and hope no one notices.  Let’s hope enough people are noticing these days.

The entire 2008 New York Times op-ed can be found here, but the final two paragraphs summarize Romney’s view on Bailout:

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Gee, that almost sounds like the sort of logical, measured suggestion which a businessman would prescribe. Fancy that.


I said at the top that Romney had the best line of the night. That’s because even though Obama had a couple of zingers, they both were provably false (more on that later). In Mitt’s case, his best line was spot on:

Mr President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators,” Romney said. 

If Romney had that line in his hip pocket, good for him on playing it perfectly. If he came up with it on the spot, that’s just pure genius.

Obama was on the attack all night, a stance which went well with his “eyes-of-death” stare. However, as we’ve observed so often before, when pressured Obama simply lies. The following statement will cause some headaches for the Obama camp in the campaign’s final two weeks.

Courtesy of The

Romney accused Obama of allowing the military to be cut to historically low levels through $1 trillion in cuts set to occur over the next decade because of last year’s Budget Control Act and sequestration.

“Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1916,” Romney said. “The Navy said it needed 313 ships, now it’s down to 285, and it’s headed down to the low 200’s if we go through sequestration. That’s unacceptable to me.”

Obama responded by saying: 

“First of all, the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen,” Obama said. 

Two things wrong with that. First, saying that “it will not happen” doesn’t allow for a whole lot of wiggle room in the future. Seeing as how we still have Congress’ lame duck session coming up, that one statement could severely weaken his bargaining power during the upcoming spending & tax discussions when Congress is back in town.

Second, it’s all well & good for Obama to blame the sequester on Congress (George W. Bush must have slipped his mind for the moment), but according to Bob “Watergate” Woodward’s new book, it was the President’s idea.

From Politico:

The book “The Price of Politics,” by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward, makes it clear the idea for the draconian spending cuts originated in the White House – and not in Congress.

So, in one brief statement, he managed to create not one but two major problems for himself. Way to go, Sparky.

But the real question for the evening was: how did everybody ELSE react?

Over on MSNBC, they of course felt that President Perfect had done his normal dazzling job. We were also treated to the now clichéd explanation for what is behind the stupid, backwards Neanderthals (like me) who still steadfastly opposed their Hearthrob-In-Chief:

Chris Matthews: “I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred – hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the south and looking at these numbers we’re getting about racial hatred in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president. They want to get rid of this president.”

So, just in case you forgot, opposing Obama equates to your being a racist. I know I occasionally forget that about myself, so I’m rather grateful for the reminder. Gracias, Chris!

Over on Twitter, the reaction was somewhat different:

And Charles Krauthammer had this, which I basically agree with:


Oh, and here’s the full debate, as always:


Once again, the networks gave the edge to Obama. And once again, I think that won’t make a scintilla of difference. When you’ve lost the momentum, you need a big play to get it back. Monday night’s affair didn’t have it, and may have easily caused more headaches than it solved for President Petulant’s camp.

However, now that the debates are finally (thankfully) over, it all comes down to us. WE are in charge of who wins & loses. WE have the power to either fight or roll over and play dead (& in the case of Obamacare, that may well be literal). WE will be pulling the voting lever and continuing over the cliff, or trying to begin the slow, agonizing crawl away from the edge.

Call. Donate time &/or $$. Knock on doors. Talk with neighbors. Put up a sign.  Do something

Time is short. Use it wisely.

(VIDEO) – Networks somehow can’t find the time, so Fox News does their job for them

I’m glad that we only have to (God willing) put up with this guy in the White House for a little while longer, ’cause I don’t think I could handle another four years.

More and more, our Media sounds like a thousand cats-in-heat on your back porch: high-pitched, annoying and more than a little unsettling. They are systematically steamrolling any negative news for President Precious, while they continue to push that day’s narrative regardless of how provably false it may be.

Over the weekend, the best example of this came from George Stephanopoulos on his ABC Sunday show, as he asked this question during a discussion on Benghazi:

“Hasn’t the White House been relatively transparent?”

I saw that quote and thought, “Naaahh… can’t be”. So, I looked it up: the transcript is HERE.

He was serious. Stephanopoulos was defending Obama’s complete two-week sock-puppet show on Benghazi and the video by saying…that the Administration had been “relatively transparent”. George wasn’t just asking it rhetorically; he wasn’t trying to play Devil’s Advocate to make a point.

I repeat: He. Was. Serious.

Given all of the facts which have already come to light on Benghazi, I find that question stunning. Are we to believe that he has simply taken the White House’s newest claims, which fly directly in the face of ALL the facts, and decided,  “yeah, that sounds about right”?

I’ve seen more intellectual curiosity from my neighbor’s Yorkshire Terrier.

This is why I find it so laughable that Fox News is reviled by the Left for the high crime & misdemeanor of not being another outpost of DNC “Newspeak”. It’s like controlling almost the entire Monopoly board, and being miffed that you can’t get your mitts on Baltic Avenue, too.

Speaking of Newspeak, I was flipping through my copy of ‘1984‘ the other day, and I read a term which I’d forgotten. See if this parallels Mr. Stephanopoulos’s example above:

blackwhite– The ability to accept whatever “truth” the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as “…loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”

I’d say that’s fairly accurate.

So, in the interest of further infuriating the Fox News haters, please allow me to share with you a special that was on over the weekend, hosted by Fox’s Bret Baier. It covers the entire Benghazi travesty and eventual charade, with tons of back-story details, most of which I’d not heard or seen yet.

It is troubling; it’s frightening; …and it’s the truth.

(**Thanks to AceOfSpadesHQ for the heads-up on this**)


The entire show is 41 minutes, but at least watch the first 10. You haven’t seen any of this anywhere else, I assure you.

Final question: if lil’ old Fox News can find this info, and do such a thorough job providing context, history, and multitudinous facts surrounding a terrorist attack which cost us 4 American lives and has emboldened our enemies, …why haven’t the bigger, better funded, network news organizations been able to do so?

Of course, you already know the answer to that one.

A Higher Calling

I hope by this time, my Sunday posts have made the case that Christians have a responsibility to be informed about politics, but should maintain a balanced perspective…I guess that’s a fancy way of rewording the old cliché, “We are IN the world, but not OF it.”

Make no mistake, regardless of our future hope, the wrong men in power will make things very uncomfortable for us presently.    But today I’ve been thinking about something beyond our personal and national well-being as it relates to this election.  I’ve been thinking about a higher mandate than voting, higher than being a law-abiding citizen…even higher than civil disobedience, when and if called for.

It has become all too easy to view with contempt those in authority who:

  • abuse their power,
  • lie to their constituents,
  • act in self-serving ways,
  • and betray their offices.

Indeed, how could we possibly respect them?  Instead, we ridicule them, we call them names, we publish cartoons which highlight their foolishness.   We see them as the enemy.  We want them defeated.

And we neglect the higher mandate of every Christian.  Because what we’re commanded to do is pray for them.

Now I have to stop and tell you that I’m preaching this sermon to myself.  The last person I want to pray for just now is our president.  Insofar as I know anything about him, I’d say I hate him.  I’ve said I think he’s evil.  But what do I really know, and what can I justly say?  I can point to specific actions which seem to me to be unrighteous, unlawful or unethical.  I can judge his conduct, and his adherence to policies that I believe are heinous.

But I am not allowed to judge his heart.  I am not in a position to declare where President Obama (or Nancy Pelosi, or Bill Clinton, or….)  will spend eternity.  That is not my right.

What I’m commanded to do, whether I feel like it or not, is to pray for him, for all of those in public office with whom I disagree.  The apostle Paul says so:

I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone  –for kings and all those in authority–that we may live peaceful and quiet lives… I Timothy 2:1-3

More importantly, my Lord says so:

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

 “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Luke 6:26-28

My challenge to each believer who reads this today:  Every time you think about the election, between now and November 6, do not simply pray for “your” candidate to win.  Pray for the candidate the Lord chooses to win.  Meanwhile, pray that all those in power would rule in the fear of the Lord.  Pray that the Holy Spirit would convict each one of any sinful actions., and turn each erring heart back to the Lord.  Pray that God’s will would be done by each official.  Pray God’s mercy on our country.  Pray for wisdom as to how you can impact your community for His Kingdom, regardless of who is in office.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.  Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.  Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.  Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.  If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.   Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.  “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  

Romans 12: 14-21

Okay, 1st: Obama lied for 2 weeks about Benghazi. Now: he’s lying …about the lying

At this point, I’m really getting sick & tired of even hearing this disingenuous, illiterate drivel.

Unless you’ve been holed up in solitary confinement for the past two months, you’ve heard about the “did-he-or-didn’t-he” Benghazi discussion. President Obama and his team are pushing this retelling of history to

(A) insist he had “informed” the American people that Benghazi was terrorism in his 9/12/12 Rose Garden speech (he didn’t), and

(B) downplay the even bigger truth, which is Obama & Co lied to our face about a stupid video for two weeks AFTER the Rose Garden speech, and is now lying…about the lying.

Honestly, this has to be the most ridiculous argument I’ve seen in my adult life. We are being told to ignore what our eyes, ears and brain are telling us; to literally ignore an observable truth. I’m past incredulous that they’re even attempting this; now I’m just plain ticked off.

It’s not an insult to our intelligence; it’s insinuating that we have no intelligence whatsoever.

Here, watch the address again. Are YOU left with the impression that Obama is telling us the attacks in Benghazi were by terrorists?

Answer: NO, you’re not.

Now, why are you not? It’s because words mean things, and context matters. From Alana Goodman in Commentary Magazine:

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” …not terrorists.


By the way, speaking just for the English & Grammar nerds in the room, the phrases “act of terror” & “terrorist act” are not even grammatically interchangeable: one describes an act (which could be done by anyone), the other describes an action done by a specific person.

Big. Difference.


More from Alana Goodman:

Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that.

Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, …just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

By only focusing on the small, carved-out phrase “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” from the rest of the speech, it allows the media and the Obama Administration to shape the context more easily.

Less to deal with; easier to lie about.

If you skipped over the video, go watch it; it’s short. Because no matter what else Obama was trying to convey to us that day, the attacks in Benghazi being terrorism wasn’t one of them.

Benghazi: WHAT did the President know, and WHEN did he know it?

It’s been a loooo-ooong week: Unemployment looking as dire as ever, …..and the general silliness to which the Obama campaign has reduced itself.

So let me distill it for you: the most important thing to remember out of the week is, …THIS:

(video courtesy of HotAir & Stix Blog Backup)

Obama, Binders, and a failure of Leadership

This is leadership?

I won’t go into the whole “Binder” silliness which the Left is pushing, since it is just that: silliness. Ed over at HotAir put it into context, giving credit to Mark Halperin for “being one of the very few journalists that spoke out about Barack Obama’s lack of a second-term agenda or much substance at all after the debate on Tuesday night.”

We have exploding debt, ambassadors being murdered, no actual budgets having been passed in years, ‘Taxmageddon’ on the horizon, record unemployment for his entire 1st term, …and all Obama can do is make juvenile “Binder” jokes?

If it wasn’t so tragic, it’d be comical.

News flash to the President: what we really need to be concerned with is THIS (from

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months.

What else is there?

Agreed, Benghazi is horrific and we need something other than dissembling and semantics from President “Al Qaeda is on the run” Obama. We have a multitude of items to fix, both foreign and domestic, but if our folks don’t have jobs, …real jobs, …we simply can’t fix anything else.

So, Mr. President, are you going to continue to keep throwing mindless distraction upon distraction in front of the American people, or are you going to finally, once and for all, hold yourself to the standard you set four years ago?

“You know, a year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress but there is still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Yeah, …I think we all know the answer to that question.


Since President Binder wants this to be the conversation of the day, okay, …I’ll play along:

(***Image courtesy of Stix Blog Backup)

The State vs. the Individual

I was re-reading an old article by Dennis Prager called “The Bigger the Government, the Smaller the Individual” and I was struck at the wisdom of that phrase. It made me think of the many things which we’ve covered here over the past few months, certainly, but it also reminded me of several other items I’d recently seen and how Conservatism (both political & religious) is connected by that singular concept.

For example, J. E. Dyer had a post on her Patheos blog that concerned the rightful role & scope of  government. Below is the primary thrust of her fairly lengthy piece:

Continue reading

(VIDEO) – Obama yet again fails to answer question of Benghazi Security

From Revealing Politics:

Last night, during the second Presidential debate, President Obama and Mitt Romney engaged in one of the most heated exchanges of the campaign yet.  When asked by an audience member about the lack of enhanced security in Benghazi prior to the attack on the Libyan embassy, President Obama stammered through a lame response that ultimately failed to address the question.  

When Romney attempted to address the President’s inconsistencies in his excuse making, the moderator managed to forget her position and came to the aid of the President.

(Video courtesy of AceOfSpadesHQ and


It’s not like this is a complicated question. Actually, if either of my two sons avoided a question to this degree, I’d automatically assume they were guilty of whatever I asked.

Now THERE’s a thought…



UPDATE: Over at, Allahpundit weighs in on this:

The deep scandal is sending a U.S. ambassador into a jihadi hive protected by a skeleton crew of possibly treacherous locals supervised by a notably inexperienced contractor. Stevens was a sitting duck. And the next time the Unicorn Prince feigns outrage by claiming it’s “offensive” to accuse him of playing politics with what happened, Romney had very well better point that out.

On the offensiveness scale, leaving the U.S. ambassador to suffocate to death while jihadi degenerates overrun his threadbare security detail ranks a wee bit higher than accusing Barack Obama of — gasp — focusing unduly on his own reelection.

Read it all.