Election Not Shifting Towards Romney

October 27, 2012 2 Comments

A Presidential election is often decided based on the trajectory of the campaign. There is no doubt that after the first debate the trajectory favored Romney. He went from being down 3-4 points in most of the national polls before the debates to being up 1-3 points today. In the swing states he has been able to shift the polls several points. Today North Carolina and Florida appear to be solidly in his camp whereas they were even or slightly Obama before the debates. Unfortunately the race isn’t going to be decided in North Carolina and Florida.

Those of us who support Romney need to stop deluding ourselves about this election. We cannot pretend that Romney is winning, we cannot rely on the Dick Morris theory of undecided voters. In Ohio RCP shows Romney down 2.3 points. In Nevada Romney is down 2.5 points. In Wisconsin Romney is down 2.3 points. In Pennsylvania Romney is down 4.8 points. In Michigan Romney is down 4 points. Take a look at all of these states, what trend do you see in all of them? Romney isn’t up in a single poll in any of these swing states. It only gets worse for Romney, Colorado has gone from being a 1-2 point lead to tied this week.

Romney hasn’t been able to pull any closer to Obama in states like Ohio. Sure, there are a couple polls that show a tie. We can always discount some of the absurd polls that are conducted with a D+9 model. But the fact remains that even at the reputable polling outfits like Rasmussen, Romney isn’t ahead. Worse for Romney, he hasn’t gotten any closer in any of these states over the last week. The trajectory of the race isn’t shifting towards Romney, at best it’s become stagnate. A stagnate trajectory at this point is a victory for Obama.

We’re now only ten day before the election. Romney is losing at this point. We have to trust that Romney has some sort of ground game in the swing states that can remotely compare with Obama’s. We have to trust that spending $150 million on ads in swing states the next ten days will put Romney over the top. Some of these swing states, Ohio in particular, may be immune to ads at this point. These poor people have been bombarded with ads for the better part of the year. Do we really think a barrage of Romney ads is going to sway people in Ohio in the next ten days? Maybe in Wisconsin it could work since they haven’t been subjected to a year of Presidential ads but not in Ohio.

Unless these state polls begin to shift next week in the same manner as the national polls we’re looking at an easy Obama victory. We can no longer hang our hat on Obama being under 50% in polls or on a history of undecided voters breaking against the incumbent. It’s easy to justify faith in a Romney victory based on those points during the summer. But we’re ten days before the election, at this point these polls really do matter. They represent votes and right now Romney doesn’t have the votes to win. What can he possibly do to change that ten days out?

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

White House Failed To Act In Benghazi

October 26, 2012 7 Comments

The White House sat and watched the Benghazi attack for seven hours and did nothing about it. CIA agents  who were at a CIA annex only one mile from the Benghazi consulate was told to “stand down” rather than aid the soon to be killed people at the consulate. We had two drones over head, which could have dropped a bomb or two that would have either ended the siege or allowed the four Americans to escape. Instead the White House did nothing. In fact the White House won’t even release any information about where the President was during the seven hour siege. Was Obama even paying attention?

Leon Panetta claims the administration couldn’t do anything because we didn’t know enough about what was going on. That’s curious considering they could have watched the siege in real time via security cameras at the compound or watched live video from the drones flying over head. They had direct phone and email contact with the people inside and we know they had contact with the CIA annex one mile away. Yet we’re to believe the administration simply couldn’t do anything because they didn’t have enough intelligence. What more information did they need?

The father of Navy Seal Tyrone Woods who died in the siege doesn’t appreciate the cowardice in the Obama administration. While the Obama campaign is busy creating pictures of Mitt Romney in a dunce cap, the Obama administration is spinning stories about what happened in Benghazi. It’s becoming clear that the administration is engaged in some sort of cover up in this matter. It isn’t clear why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi but it is becoming clear that the administration failed to protect him and the three others who died that day when they in fact could have been protected. Telling the CIA agents a mile away to stand down while drones fly over head and do nothing while an ambassador is murdered below is the height of incompetence.

Here’s what probably happened. The administration was afraid of having some sort of blackhawk down incident less than two months before the election. As such, they told the CIA to stand down and refused to allow the military to attack via the two drones flying over head. Perhaps the White House thought the Navy Seals in the Benghazi consulate could hold off the attack. When after seven hours it the terrorists had killed our ambassador and three other Americans while burning down our consulate the administration as stuck coming up with an explanation for the attack. They had all night to come up with it. That’s when the video was declared the excuse.

The Obama administration knew all along this was a terrorist attack, they knew that they were the ones who made up the video story. They counted on radical Muslims in other parts of the middle east piggy backing on the video story, which is why the media initially took the word of the White House. Ambassador Rice went on 5 Sunday talking head shows claiming it was the video, Obama said it as the video numerous times including at his UN Speech and Secretary of State Clinton said it was the video. Now it’s clear it wasn’t a video, it was a terrorist attack.

We know now more of the truth than we have before. We know the administration knew this was a terrorist attack within two hours after it started. We know that people in the White House can and did watch the attack in real time. We know the administration could have ordered the CIA, which was just one mile away, to counter attack. We know Obama could have ordered the military to fire via one of the two over head drones. We know the administration did nothing to protect these four souls during a seven hour siege. We know after their failure to act led to the deaths of four people, the administration made up the video story to cover for themselves. This isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking, four people died and the administration is lying about it to protect Obama’s chances for re-election. Will anyone be held accountable?

UPDATE: CIA director David Patraeus seems to be throwing the President under the bus by denying that anyone at the CIA refused to aid those under attack in Benghazi. So that means that the “stand down” order had to come directly from the White House. This wouldn’t surprise me at all. Patreaus is a long time military man and it’s highly unlikely he would refuse to save these guys if it was possible. This order came from the White House, likely the President.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Mannish Woman: Lose Your Voting Virginity To Obama

October 26, 2012 2 Comments

Have you seen Obama’s latest ad aimed at female college students? It features what on first glance looks like a 12 year old boy but her tattoo gives her away as an ugly adult woman. This mannish creature discusses losing her voting virginity to Barack Obama. Why is she voting for Obama? Apparently she’s concerned about keeping government freebies, homosexual marriage and of course abortion because you know all women believe in baby killing. Won’t you be excited as you discuss the titillating details with all your girlfriends, acting like a creepy 16 year old boy who may be embellishing the details of a romantic encounter had in the back seat of his mother’s Prius.

You want to talk about a war on women, let’s talk about the Democrats war on women’s intelligence? To listen to the Democrats you would think that women don’t care about anything other than abortion and birth control. The latter is a made up issue as no one in the GOP has proposed banning or restricting birth control. As for abortion, a majority of women are pro-life. These aren’t even winning issues for Democrats, but since they’re stuck in the 50′s and 60′s they think women will rally around them. The vanishing gender gap suggests however that the Democrat’s war on women has failed.

But their war on women’s intelligence continues forward. This ad is offensive on any number of levels. That voting for women is reduced to little more than a quickie sex act must be at the highest level. In this ad we see everything that is wrong with left-wing society. Sex is the focus, women have turned into the cliché version of men in liberal society. This particular woman even looks masculine, there is no beauty to be seen on this tattooed Justin Bieber look alike. Denying women beauty, turning their focus to sex and reducing their vote to little more than a crude sex act sums up what the left thinks of women.

This ad isn’t going to work of course. There isn’t a man in college who is going to run out and vote for Obama because this beast convinced him to lose his voting virginity to Obama. It might excite some of the Democrats college base: lesbians and ugly feminists. But those people were going to vote for Obama anyway. What it isn’t going to do is convince the legions of women in college who don’t spend their day taking political stands to run to the polls and vote for Obama. Most of these women will take one look at the ad and assume it’s intended for lesbians, thus it isn’t intended for them.

The Obama campaign must be getting desperate if this is the sort of ad their peddling. They badly need college students to come vote for them, especially in Ohio. If Obama’s vote goes down among those in college, he may very well lose the election. But this crudely put together, offensive ad isn’t going to convince many college kids to go vote. Men won’t even pay attention and most women will be turned off by the brutish looking lesbian. The left still doesn’t understand that women think beyond the issues of abortion and birth control. The election is about jobs and the economy. College students care about those issues, after all most would like a job after they graduate. They aren’t going to be sexually titillated into losing their voting virginity to Obama. He has the social disease of a 50% unemployment rate for new college grads after all.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Could Michigan and Pennsylvania Matter?

October 25, 2012 2 Comments

We’re only 12 days away from the election, can you believe it!? This is the time when polls become more interesting because they represent a closer snapshot to what we’ll actually get on election day. If you look at the national polls Romney is up between 1-4 points. Of course we all know that the nationwide popular vote doesn’t matter very much. What matters is the electoral college vote, decided on by the states. There appear to be more states in play than previous thought. That doesn’t mean per se that Romney is going to win those states or even lose within 2-3 points. But the polls indicate that Obama is going to have to spend some money defending his turf, which means he has less to spend in Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa.

It appears fairly likely that Romney is going to win 257 electoral votes. He has a lead in North Carolina and Florida while Virginia and Colorado appear to be tilting towards the Republican. That means in order to win Romney either needs to win one big swing state or a combination of two or more smaller swing states. Ohio is essentially tied right now according to Rasmussen and Suffolk. Time put out a poll yesterday showing Obama up 5 but if you look at the internals it’s a D+9 poll. In 2008 Ohio was a D+8 state, in 2010 it was a R+1 state. Conventional wisdom is that Ohio will be somewhere in the middle of 2008 and 2010. If we adjust the Time poll to D+4 the result is a tie, just like Rasmussen and Suffolk.

Here in Michigan a poll came out yesterday suggesting a tie. There are other polls here in Michigan showing Obama up, RCP has Obama up by a 4 point average. In Pennsylvania there are two polls which show Romney up 3-4 points while other polls show Obama up 3-4 points. Wisconsin has Obama up a point according to Rasmussen. What are we to make of these polls which show the race tightening in states that should be Obama’s? It will force Obama to shift money away from Ohio, a state where Romney seems to be picking up momentum. Because Obama has to defend Michigan and Pennsylvania, he’ll be less able to stop Romney’s momentum in Ohio.

Obama should be very nervous about Michigan and Pennsylvania. He and Romney have spent almost no money in those two states until very recently. Speaking for Michigan, we had almost no ads during the summer. Because of this, those who don’t pay close attention didn’t get to see Obama demonize Romney like the folks in Ohio did. As such, our first glimpse of Romney was either at his Convention or more likely at the first debate. We didn’t go into those events thinking the guy was a demon, we got to see him at his best as our introduction to him. As the debates have played out, people here in Michigan and Pennsylvania see Romney as Presidential, as someone who could do a good job as President. We didn’t have to get past the baggage of Obama’s personal attack ads because we never saw them.

This of course doesn’t mean Romney wins Michigan or Pennsylvania. These two states have built in Democrat advantages. But it does mean that independents are gravitating towards Romney, thus making this a race. In making it a race, Obama is being forced to pull resources from Ohio to defend Michigan and Pennsylvania. What should really make Democrats nervous is that if the polls showing a tie are accurate, most of the undecided vote will go against the incumbent and thus to Romney. If this happens, if these polls are accurate, Romney could take Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

But of course lets not get ahead of ourselves. There is a lot of time left in this election, an eternity. The Democrats advantage in Michigan and Pennsylvania is real and likely insurmountable for Romney. Obama can get his troops to the polls in Cleveland, that may be the difference between winning and losing. We’re still down in Wisconsin without a lot of undecided voters. We’re down by 2+ in Iowa and Nevada. This is still Obama’s race to win, make no mistake he still has a 66% chance of winning. But also make no mistake, Romney has a shot.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

October Surprise? More Like October Stupidity

October 24, 2012 2 Comments

It’s late October, we have only 13 more days before the election is over. Most of us are waiting around for the big October surprise that shakes up this election. It’s happened before, most notably in 2000 when reports of Bush’s DUI arrest when he was a kid were leaked four days before the election. The report cost Bush a 4 point lead in the polls and ultimately the popular vote. Most Republicans are waiting to see what the Chicago gang comes up with on Obama’s behalf. So far though the October surprises that are being rumored sound a lot more like October stupidity.

Gloria Allred is in Boston today trying unseal documents in the Thomas and Maureen Stemberg divorce proceedings from a decade ago. Mr. Stemberg is a friend of Mitt Romney’s and a Staples CEO. Romney apparently testified in a deposition as well as at trial. From all accounts this was a messy, years long divorce. However Romney didn’t testify about any of the mess. He allegedly only testified about the value of Staples stock. The divorce happened before Staples went public, Romney sat on the Staples board and had sufficient knowledge of the value of the stock. This is an October surprise? Romney’s attorney’s didn’t even oppose the motion, they don’t care if the dep or the trial testimony is public.

Not to be out done, Donald Trump claims he has information about Barack Obama. The rumor is that Trump has a copy of Michelle Obama’s divorce filing from a little more than a decade ago. Considering that the divorce complaint was withdrawn, there likely isn’t much there. From all accounts Mrs. Obama was outraged that her husband ran for Congress and lost. He spent a lot of money and allegedly created some personal debt. She got over it, he ran for Senate and now he’s the President. Unless the divorce complaint alleges that Barack committed adultery or that he beat his wife, getting hold of the divorce petition is rather pointless. Truth be told, most complaints for divorce don’t even allege a cause because we have no-fault divorce. There’s nothing here.

Trump claims the divorce petition isn’t what he has. He also claims that he’s not involved in the story being put out about Obama using and selling cocaine when he was in college. A supposed classmate of Obama’s is peddling this story, he even claims that he spoke with people in the Romney campaign. Unfortunately for him the Romney people weren’t interested in this sort of story. There are plenty of ways to attack Obama, he has a four year record as President after all. Romney’s campaign knows that he doesn’t need to alleged Obama was a cocaine dealer to win. We already know Obama was a drug user in high school and college. He admitted as such in his first book. If voters didn’t care in 2008, why would they care in 2012?

The October surprise has become a pathetic cliché. Voters don’t care that Romney testified about the value of stock in a divorce suit. Voters don’t care that Michelle Obama filed for divorce over a decade ago before withdrawing her petition. Voters don’t care that a seedy drug user claims the President sold cocaine in college. Voters care about the state of the economy, they care about the national debt and they care about other issues that matter. None of these “surprises” are relevant, none of them will sway a single voter. There is a surprise coming up that will sway voters though. The October unemployment report will be issued on November 2nd. That will be a November surprise, it will be relevant and it will likely determine the winner. The unemployment report matters, none of this other stuff does.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

White House Knew Benghazi A Terrorist Attack Within Two Hours

October 24, 2012 2 Comments

Romney’s base was driven into a state of panic on Monday night when he failed to attack President Obama’s response to the Benghazi attack. We wanted to hear Romney call Obama a politicizer, we wanted to hear him attack Obama for calling the death’s “not optimal.” Instead Romney let Benghazi slide and shifted topics. He may turn out to be right in doing so. By not going on the attack, he didn’t allow Obama to act incredulous. We can’t forget that Obama and his team are disciples of Saul Alinsky, they’ll outright lie if it gets them to their end. If Obama lied, the media likely wouldn’t report it and Romney will have looked bad for attacking the President unjustly.

Romney likely decided that debates aren’t really the place to attack specific actions. We’ve all heard the President’s explanation for Benghazi, we all remember the UN speech. Romney is banking on the truth coming out, preferably before the election. Reuters reports that the White House had emails which said the Benghazi attack was being claimed by a Jihadi group two hours after it began. Keep in mind it took the White House nearly two weeks to admit the attack was a terrorist act. UN Ambassador Rice went on 5 Sunday talk shows claiming the attack was a riot caused by a You Tube video, Obama said the same thing at his UN speech.

The truth is slowly trickling out on Benghazi, Romney clearly wants Obama to hang himself on his own words and explanations. Romney didn’t need to do it on Monday and arguably couldn’t do it without facing the snearing scorn of Obama directly. This isn’t a foreign policy election, it’s a domestic policy election. People aren’t going to vote for Romney because Obama screwed up in Libya. But Benghazi could be the minor background issue that tips the scales for voters, it may be the last straw for an electorate that is 95% focused on the economy.

If Romney wins, this is the genius of his decision not to attack Obama on Benghazi during the last debate. (of course if Romney loses then he’s a complete idiot, such is politics) He didn’t allow Obama to go on national television, not answer the question yet again and point the finger at his opponent with indignant outrage. As such, he has no opportunity to go before the country and amend his story, he has no opportunity to make excuses and perhaps more importantly he can’t blame the Republicans before a captive audience of 60 million voters. As such, the last two weeks of the election will be driven by news stories on Benghazi and we’ve already seen they aren’t positive for Obama. Obama won’t be able to respond with such a large audience of voters watching. He might even have to waste money on ads. If this works, it’s pure genius by Romney.

Make no mistake, the issue of Benghazi isn’t going to bring down President Obama. As outrageous as the situation is, as evident to Republicans that Benghazi is an example of Obama’s foreign policy failure this issue isn’t important to the American voter. Voters care about the economy, they care about the national debt. Foreign policy is a minor side issue this election. But with the economy not going Obama’s way and $5 trillion in new debt, voters who are on the fence might look at Benghazi and think to themselves ‘even his foreign policy hasn’t worked’ and vote Romney. The more news coming out of Benghazi the worse it is for Obama, they clearly spun a tall tale about what the attack was. The more we learn about Benghazi before the election the more likely it is that Obama loses.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Firing Obama Isn’t Racism, It’s Equality

October 23, 2012 2 Comments

Today’s Rasmussen poll shows Romney up 50-46., in swing states Rasmussen reports Romney is up 50-45. Those polls were conducted prior to the debate last night. Focus groups from last nights debate seemed to indicate that undecided voters are breaking towards Romney. While slim majorities believe Obama won the debate last night, insta-polls indicate Romney leads overwhelmingly on the most important issue: The economy. Those polls also indicate that he’s tied with Obama in appearing capable of being Commander in Chief. We’re hitting the last two weeks before the election, we’ve had the debates and it appears that on some level undecided voters are breaking towards Romney.

So what is the Democrats response to this? Chris Matthews suggests its racism. To believe that a nation that elected a black President would suddenly become racist and fire him is a little bit hard to believe. In 2008 the people who voted for John McCain were more or less entrenched Republicans who were never going to vote for a Democrat no matter who he or she was. Obama won independents and this year at least for the moment it appears that independents are breaking towards Romney. Does that mean that these 2008 Obama voters now voting for Romney are suddenly racists? It’s just a touch hard to believe. In fact, by voting to fire the President independents are holding Obama to the same standard they held Carter and Bush 41 to. That’s not racism, it’s equality.

We’re two weeks out from the election and it seems clear the Democrats are getting desperate. These people really believed that Obama would put away Romney at the first debate. He obviously didn’t and they’ve been in a panic ever since. Obama wasn’t able to win decisively in the other two debates and thus he hasn’t been able to stop Romney’s momentum. Shocked by these developments, the left is now going to resort to name calling and baseless accusations. Racism is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Next up they’ll want to talk about the racist history of the Mormon Church.

Playing the race card during the last two weeks would be the height of desperation for the Democrats. It would also likely cost Obama the election if he hasn’t cost the election for himself already. We fired Carter in 1980 because the economy stunk and the country looked like fools abroad. We fired Bush 41 in 1992 because he raised taxes and the economy stunk. It would hardly be shocking if in 2012 we fired Obama because unemployment is at 7.8% or higher, we have added $5 trillion in new debt over the last four years and middle class families have lost $4,000 in real income. Couple all of that with Obamacare, which raises taxes and remains unpopular and it should come as no surprise that the country would consider firing Obama. Why would voters treat Obama any differently than Carter or Bush 41?

The left is going to spend the next two weeks crying racism, trying to scare undecided voters into voting for Obama lest they be called racists. It won’t work. If Obama wins, it’s because he’s able to get his base out to vote. If he loses it will have nothing to do with the color of his skin. An Obama defeat will have everything to do with his poor performance as President and the failure of his policies to spur economic growth. Race plays no role here. Our nation is willing to elect a black man as President, 2008 proved that for all of eternity. In 2012 the country has the opportunity to fire a black President because he just didn’t do a good job. It’s called equality. It works both ways.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

3rd Presidential Debate Review

October 23, 2012 2 Comments

What to make of last nights debate. Romney spent the whole night agreeing with Obama on Syria, Pakistan and Libya. He never attacked Obama on his handling of Libya. But while he seemed to agree with Obama on substantive issues he attacked Obama for his apology tour and his handling of China. Who won? It all depends on how you look at it. Romney agreed with Obama on so many substantive issues you’d think Obama won. But what exactly was Romney’s goal tonight? He wanted to make it clear he wouldn’t take the country to war. He was successful in that. He came off as a potential Commander in Chief. So in that regard Romney looked very good.

But of course foreign policy wasn’t the only issue discussed tonight. The economy was discussed in detail as it is a foreign policy issue. Romney strongly attacked the policies of the past four years, burdening Obama on his record. How can we be strong abroad when the nation is so weak at home? Obama did a terrible job responding on economic issues. He did a terrible job telling us what the future would hold for the country. So in that regard, Romney perhaps came out slightly ahead. Especially in his attacks on China and his defense of his position on the auto bailout.

Let’s talk about semantics. Obama was definitely forceful tonight and there’s no doubt that forceful comes off better than passive, which let’s be honest Romney was when he agreed with Obama. But like with the VP debate, we got to see the candidates reaction to the other guys comments. Obama looked angry, he smirked a number of times. He had some very sarcastic arguments on the military. For some reason we shouldn’t invest in Navy ships because we don’t need bayonets or horses in the military anymore. Incidentally bayonets aren’t an old timey military item, they still use them. Apparently we have something called aircraft carriers, we wouldn’t have known about this but for Obama. That sarcasm wasn’t Presidential.

So on semantics Obama looked angry and sarcastic while Romney appeared Presidential and he appeared like someone who isn’t a wild Bush style cowboy looking for a war. Romney did a good job avoiding that. But let’s look at their closing statements, which I think might determine the winner. Romney asked the country for our vote, Obama did not. That might seem small but it says something about their character. People will notice. So on semantics Romney won, in that regard people who might be leaning towards voting for him are likely to do so now.

Let’s face it, this is not a foreign policy election. As such foreign policy doesn’t matter as much as it did in an election such as 2004. The economy is the #1 issue. As such, Romney needed to look capable on foreign policy which he did. Obama needed to defend his position, which he largely did. But the big issue here is the economy and on the economy it’s becoming abundantly clear to voters that Romney is winning that debate. Voters aren’t particularly interested in Pakistan or Syria, they’re interested in the fact that the economy is in rotten shape.

So who won the debate? My initial thought is that it was a tie because while Romney clearly won on the economy he agreed with a lot of Obama’s foreign policy and he failed to go after the President on Benghazi. But when looking at the whole debate, I think Romney barely squeaked out a victory. Obama looked angry, he didn’t ask us for our vote. Romney looked Presidential, he sounded like a capable Commander in Chief who wasn’t looking to take the country to war. Most importantly he asked for our vote. He’s earned mine and he won the 3rd debate.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

3rd Presidential Debate Preview

October 22, 2012 4 Comments

Tomorrow will be the third and final Presidential debate. It will focus on foreign policy and will be moderated by Bob Schieffer. On one hand this isn’t a foreign policy election so on first glance one wonders how this debate could change things for either candidate. Foreign policy is a subject matter that tends to favor the incumbent President. For whatever reason Americans don’t like debating foreign policy with a sitting President. We want to support the Commander in Chief, we want to support the foreign policy currently in place. So on that front Obama has a built in advantage. Romney is already behind the eight ball.

On the other hand foreign policy has suddenly come into play in this race. The terrorist attack in Libya which cost the life of our Ambassador there has made foreign policy a more important issue than it otherwise would have been. Couple that with the administration’s claim that there wasn’t a terrorist attack but instead a riot in Benghazi caused by an obscure anti-Muslim video on You Tube and suddenly foreign policy seems to matter. Romney is obviously going to go after Obama on Benghazi and this time he knows the President’s line of attack. Expect Romney to attack Obama hard on this matter. After all, the President’s UN Ambassador said it was the video on 5 Sunday talking head shows and the President said as much in his UN speech. Yet it was a terrorist attack, by al Qaeda no less.

There are reports today that Iran has agreed to enter direct negotiations with the United States concerning its nuclear weapons program. The White House has denied these reports. Some have thought the potential October surprise of this election would be something with Iran. Either something secretly negotiated or an agreement to negotiate. Iran obviously would rather deal with Obama than with Romney, so perhaps they’re the ones floating this story in the hopes that they can affect the US election. This issue will come up, or at least it should, in the debate tomorrow. How the candidates respond will be critical, especially for Romney.

The NY Post reported yesterday that the Obama campaign is violating election law by accepting foreign donations. This has been discussed before, the Obama campaign doesn’t use a credit card program that requires that the address provided to the web site and the one the credit card company has matches. This means anyone can provide a fake address to the Obama campaign web site while using their own credit card. Obviously this means that a foreign national could use their own credit card and provide the Obama web site a fake address in the United States. Schieffer might not ask the question but Romney ought to ask Obama if he can guarantee that all the donations to his campaign are legal. Romney could create a wedge issue here and he could score some points because Obama can’t make such a guarantee.

Romney is going to have a few issues to go after Obama with tomorrow. How he handles those attacks and how Obama responds to them will decide the winner of the debate. These two have clear differences in foreign policy but they won’t be as clear to causal voters as their differences in domestic policy. As such it will be these attack issues that will be the difference between winner and loser. Benghazi may very well decide the winner. Obama won’t have Candy Crowley to save him, Schieffer wouldn’t dare at this point. I wouldn’t bet against Obama. As such, I’m picking him as the winner. But it won’t matter in the polls because foreign policy isn’t going to decide this election.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Big Bird, Binders And Romnesia: Obama Increasingly Desperate

October 20, 2012 2 Comments

There seems to be a growing sense of desperation within the Obama campaign. The first debate obviously unsettled the Obama campaign. Since that point they seem to have really begun to panic. First it was the ridiculous Big Bird ad accompanied by Obama and Biden barking about Big Bird both on the stump and during the debates. The President looked incredibly small barking about Big Bird, but that hasn’t stopped them from playing the Big Bird card for a second straight week. The Big Bird attacks had an air of desperation. It didn’t feel Presidential, when a President starts doing and saying things that feel unpresidential it’s likely because they’re entering desperate territory.

This week the President and his campaign have gotten sillier than the Big Bird ad. They won’t stop talking about Romney’s line about “binders full of women.” Obviously Romney was talking about resumes of women submitted for potential jobs within the Massachusetts government. Apparently the Obama campaign thinks this was some sort of huge gaffe, for reasons unknown to anyone over the age of 12. Joe Biden even showed up to a stump speech with a bunch of binders. These guys seriously believe they’re making some grand point. In doing so they look petty and childish, never good qualities for people running for high office.

Yesterday Obama accused Romney of having “romneisa.” President Obama has often done things that historically haven’t been very Presidential. Name calling on the stump can now be added to the list. It’s one thing for Obama to argue from the stump that Romney flip flops on issues. It’s another thing entirely to name call from the stump. It reminds me of George Bush, 41, in 1992 when he called Bill Clinton and Al Gore bozo’s during a stump speech. It was unpresidential, it showed how desperate Bush was. Surely at that point, a week or two before the election, Bush had a pretty good idea he was losing the election. He was desperate, his arguments weren’t working. What do desperate people do when their arguments aren’t working? They call their opponents bozo’s and dive into childish arguments.

Obama is entering Bush 41 territory. Big Bird and binders seem to make the bulk of his argument against Romney. Obama hasn’t laid out a plan for the next four years, he’s barely bothered to defend his indefensible first term record. He and his campaign thought they could destroy Romney during the summer, setting him up to look like Scrooge McDuck meets Thurston Howell III. Obama thought this election was in the bag, there was no way he could lose. Then the first debate happened and it sucked all the air out of his campaign. He and his campaign have been desperate ever since.

Obama’s campaign doesn’t engage arguments, they never planned on needing to do so. With the polls tightening across the country, they’ve become desperate. Unprepared and unable to engage Romney on the issues, they’re creating false issues and name calling. Big Bird, binders and “romnesia.” It sounds a lot like bozo’s, it sounds a lot like Carter’s last week when he spent his time trying to scare people by telling them Reagan would start a nuclear war. This of course doesn’t mean Obama is going to lose but it does suggest that within the Obama campaign they’re very concerned. The polls are tightening and Obama is running out of money. (the campaign got a $15 million loan from Bank of America) Desperate times call for desperate measures and in the political world that means name calling. Unfortunately for Obama, Americans tend not to think very highly of candidates for President who name call.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers