Much as been made recently of Obama being better on National Security than Romney, mostly having to do with the killing of Bin Laden occurring while he was golfing currently occupying the position of President. But isn't the number one threat to our National Security our growing, out of control debt? Back in 2010, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs Of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen Thought So. So how does the President handle our number one National Security threat? Why, He Blows Off A Mandated Deadline To Detail The Defense Spending Cuts that are required for sequestration. And why exactly are we left with sequestration? Because the President's own party has failed to pass a budget in over 3 years and Obama essentially killed The Debt Deal With Boehner. The President's National Security policies seem to be Taking The Easier Path To A Worse Place.

The most important national security problem facing our nation -- the crushing load of debt that will crowd out discretionary spending by our government -- was addressed in the context of cutting military spending. The president who has doubled our national debt in three years now claims "I will use the money we're no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways, because after two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it's time to do some nation building right here at home." That is, defense is the bill payer for his domestic programs. He claimed "I'm still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission," but he has taken no action at all to bring the Simpson-Bowles Commission's recommendations into effect -- they weren't in his budget, they weren't in his proposals during the debt limit negotiations last summer.

Posted by: CDR M at 05:43 PM | Comments (715)
Post contains 920 words, total size 8 kb.

Disaster.

Meanwhile, Obama's best bet is lowered expectations. Which is pretty much the story of his life. If he can get people to accept that the best we can hope for is just shy of catastrophic, people might sign on for four more years of Hell.

This may be the best he can do, but it's not the best we can do.

The DemocratsÂ’ message to wavering, undecided voters was summarized by Bill Clinton Wednesday night:

“No president — not me, not any of my predecessors — no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.”

This is as good as it gets: A crappy recovery, 8 percent unemployment as far as the eye can see, constant talk of tax hikes and chronic class envy, and another trillion dollars of debt thrown on the backs of our children each year.

ThatÂ’s it? The best we can do? There were no better ideas than Barack ObamaÂ’s failed stimulus, no leader who could have gotten us better results?

Republicans are quick to point out that at least one president already did: Ronald Reagan. He inherited an economic collapse, an energy crisis, inflation around 18 percent, interest rates at 21 percent — all with the constant threat of an expanding Soviet empire looming in the background.

Four years later, America had the fastest growth and the lowest inflation in the Western industrialized world.

Liberal Tim Noah didn't care for Obama's speech.

Watching President Obama give his nomination speech last night, it occurred to me for the first time that he might actually lose.

Rereading the speech this morning, I find that (as Mark Twain once said about Wagner) it wasnÂ’t as bad as it sounded... But the speech still possessed several glaring faults.

Stuff omitted. He then quotes Obama's new "Long Hard Slog" mantra.

We’re dangerously close to Jimmy Carter territory here. First, there’s the boast (“You elected me to tell you the truth”) disguised as an expression of humility (“I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy”).

....

Worst of all, though, was Obama’s statement that “not every problem can be remedied with another government program or dictate from Washington.” It combined an opportunistic (and probably insincere) echo of Bill Clintons irritating pronouncement in 1996 that “the era of big government is over” (which wasn’t even true) with a hint of Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech assertion that the country’s crisis of confidence was too big a problem for a president to solve on his own. Even when it’s true that the fault lies in our selves, not in our stars, who wants to hear it from the country’s biggest star?

A reader wrote to me that he thinks Obama's new favorite pronoun -- "you, you, you" instead of "I, I, I" -- is intended to be a subtle indication that it's not Obama that's failed, it's that you need to do more. We -- meaning you -- really have to get our acts together so that we (you) can fix this.

We've seen this before from him, too.

Obama of course is now claiming he "never told you this was going to be quick or easy," or words to that effect. But he did previously offer a 3 year deadline:

Seems to me that three and a half years ago he thought it would only take three years. Now he's telling us that it'll take four, five, six, seven. Who knows. And as he says this, he says "I never told you any differently."

Meanwhile, even Jon Stewart realizes that Obama has failed to deliver.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:02 PM | Comments (510)
Post contains 746 words, total size 6 kb.

Allah's not in full Eeyore mode, because this poll wouldn't include the one-two punch of Obama's empty speech and miserable jobs report.

I'm a little more Eeyorish -- because Clinton killed. He must be vigorously rebutted.

Let me tell you the main, mostly dishonest claims Clinton made which must be vigorously rebuked.

1. Obama didn't really take $716 billion from Medicare. Somehow Clinton made this sound as if Obama put more money into Medicare.

He didn't. He cut it. He did not "use the money to close the donut hole" as Clinton claimed (or, rather, only a part of it is used for that; the rest is for the new clients of ObamaCare).

It's very simple: Obama robbed $716 billion from Medicare, and Clinton's Velvet Fog on this point must be refuted.

2. Clinton also claimed, bafflingly, that if Romney puts the $716 billion back into Medicare, that makes the system go broke more quickly.

What? You put more money into an underfunded entitlement and it goes bankrupt more quickly?

This is a lie, of course. What I think is cover for the lie is this: Obama did two things. He mandated that Medicare pay out less to doctors and hospitals and insurers, then he also took the "savings" from that mandate and used it for ObamaCare.

Now, stay with me: First of all, Obama is claiming that he can use that $716 billion to both shore up Medicare's future and pay for ObamaCare. He cannot.

Clinton is basing his "strengthening Medicare" argument on the claim that when you take both the mandate in reduced outflows plus the $716 billion used to "strengthen" Medicare, in increases its period of solvency.

But the $716 billion being used to "shore up Medicare" has always been a lie. You cannot spend the same dollar twice. Now, an accounting method permits this, but the accounting method is itself flawed on this point. Obama is trying to exploit a flaw in an accounting system to claim that which is obviously impossible, to wit, that $716 billion can be spent on ObamaCare, and also, that that same $716 billion can be spent to "shore up Medicare."

It can't. It's a lie.

3. Clinton fudged facts to suggest that Obama's Miracle Economy was just around the corner. It was no accident that Clinton fudged dates to claim that people "didn't feel" the recovery in 94-95, but then suddenly felt it in 1996. He is trying to convince people that Obama's own economic miracle is just six or nine short months away.

In fact, Clinton inherited a growing economy -- the Bush recession ended the quarter before the election -- and the economy grew far more strongly in Clinton's first three years than it has in Obama's. Something like 4% vs. 2%.

And it's not true people "didn't feel the recovery" until 1996. No, they felt it for years before then; that's why Clinton was believed to be a lock for reelection (which he was).

What Clinton is talking about is in 1993 there was some doubt if the economy was real. I remember reading the WSJ: The GDP growth numbers said we were growing -- and at a nice clip -- but people still didn't believe it.

Well, a year of 4% growth and they do feel it. And, in fact, they did feel it in Clinton's first term. And not in 1996. But in 1994.

See, when you have a real recovery, with solid numbers, adding jobs above the rate of population expansion, the unemployment rate falls dramatically, because it must.

Let me put it like this: Clinton had a strong fundamental number (good GDP growth). Now, there is always a lag-time between good GDP growth and increased hiring (when people "feel it"). Thus, there was about a year before people felt it.

In Obama's case, people aren't feeling it and won't feel it because, unlike Clinton, Obama also has a very weak fundamental number (GDP growth rate which is essentially a couple of tenths of a point above the rate of natural population growth).

There is no "lag time" between good numbers and good jobs here. Because Obama has bad numbers -- thus, his jobs reports accurately reflect the fundamentals.

And to make that clear, run ads contrasting Clinton's economy vs. Obama's. Make it clear that, as Paul Ryan just declared, Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Now, I think the above is crucial. I said at the time of watching Clinton that his speech, while dishonest, was powerful.

In one speech he rebutted 90% of Romney/Ryan's work until now. Now, they have to counter-rebut it in order to get that work back.

Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble.

Posted by: Ace at 01:17 PM | Comments (549)
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.

Oh. My. Wow.

speech is Obama rising above - disdaining the process - and trying to make the choices bigger, not smaller. #DNC2012

See, when I made this sandwich for you, I went out to the yard and got some dried up old dogshit and cut the dogshit into slices, like deli meat.

And the reason I did that? I wanted you to really savor this new orange-flavored soda. It really has a invigorating kick to it, doesn't it?

F***ing hysterical. Oh, my goodness, I'm not sure if I really want the media to stop being such liberal shills. It's so funny. What would we do without them?

Lots of other liberals get the word from Team Obama that he had all sorts of Good Tactical Reasons to give a bad speech (euphemized as a "sober" or "subdued" speech), they begin echoing it and praising Dear Leader for his wisdom.

Meanwhile, people who aren't stupid shills disagree.

For years, complaints that President Obama is a failure have been met with reminders that he is an inspiring man who can make a damn good speech, and requests for patience. Worry not about the unemployment numbers, we have been assured, for he is just about to revive the economy — this summer, or next summer, or maybe the one after that . . . Whether with Obamacare, the unemployment figures, or the stimulus, the president always seems to be just one pivotal oration away from convincing the electorate that his policies are attractive to them. He shares the conceit: When asked what his biggest mistake was, he answered that he had not communicated well enough.

There is a teeny-tiny problem with this: It’s not true. Barack Obama can make precisely one speech, and he has been making it for years now. He can make a speech in which — playing the youthful and exuberant outsider — he asks to be elected president in order to fix America’s problems — problems that have ostensibly been caused by a combination of minarchist Republicans, ubiquitous straw men, and the cynical nature of a politics that he somehow transcends. So well practiced is this speech that at the beginning of every sentence last night, those who follow such things knew precisely what was coming next, cadence and volume changes included.

And stage whispers. Don't forget the stage whispers. I know that "volume changes" references this but please don't forget the fakey stage whispers.

Jay Cost wonders where the post-partisan spirit went.

This is one of the great ironies of the Obama administration. He promised to unite us around common themes and values that we all share, but by connecting them so directly to his controversial agenda, he has time and again divided us. He has a Manichean view of American politics – he and his allies embody all of the goodness and light that America represents and his opponents represent nothing but the darkness.

There has been a growing polarization in this country over the last few decades that moves beyond matters of simple partisan support. Increasingly, it seems, one side of this great divide views the other side as somehow illegitimate. No leader since at least Richard Nixon has done more to exacerbate this dangerous tension. By inevitably redrafting shared values as Democratic ones, he feeds the impulse on the left that the right is un-American, he infuriates the right for what are vicious insults, and he leaves those in the middle of the country scratching their heads.

He is the most partisan president in generations.

Tony Harnden canvasses reactions, and finds almost all people not named "Howard Finemann" and "Rick Klein" thought the speech was flat at best and vapid and dishonest at worst.

By the way, Joe Biden wants to remind you that a President has one job above all others:

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (284)
Post contains 693 words, total size 5 kb.

Brit Hume notes that even people accustomed to dishonesty in politics are taken aback by DWS's "unusually brazen" untruths.

I read an article yesterday, at Politico, I think. I don't want to link it, but I don't have to: The information in it is simply reiterated.

Dirty Debbie's stint as Chair of the DNC is coming to an end. No one is happy with her performance. As you might remember, when Obama's team polled the effectiveness of his various surrogates, Dirty Debbie came in "dead last" as far as persuasiveness, likability, credibility. I think John Nolte at Breitbart has taken to calling her "Dead-Last Debbie." Actually: It's Bryan Preston at PJ Media's The Tattler.

Her other avenue of advancement would be some gig with the Obama Administration, but 1, he doesn't want her (Dead Last), and 2, his ability to distribute sinecures to Democrats needing a job will probably soon come to an end.

This leaves statewide positions. Trouble is, people don't like her. It seems improbable that this loathsome hack could remake herself into some sort of centrist that could win in Florida. Add to that she just doesn't seem that bright. So you'd be looking at very much lesser offices. No one's trusting the governorship or AG post to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, of course.

So where does that leave her? She's apparently coming to peace with the idea that there is no higher office for her, so she's attempting to gain power in the House. Few problems: She'll continue to be in the minority, and people don't like her.

But then, the Democratic Party can, does, and will reward Good Soldiers who are otherwise stupid and repulsive. Look at Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

So that's Dirty Debbie's future. She's got that going for her.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Tough ad. The "Thousand years of darkness" has obvious resonances for anyone who believes the Book of Revelation, but, as Sheena Norris cites it, the usage as a political trope comes from Ronald Reagan's 1964 "A Time for Choosing" speech.

It's all good reading, but here's the last part, containing the line. Note well the part I'm bolding.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

You can listen to Reagan himself speak the line here.

I didn't know about this ad until Keith Olbermann and Media Matters told me it was a "dog whistle."

I actually like the ad a lot. I guess because it's racist. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (260)
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Last week, the media damaged the Republican's message by embargoing speakers like Mia Love.

This week, the media damaged the Democrat's message by........showing speakers like Sandra Fluke.

I don't think this thing's in the bag yet, but I also don't think we need to go all Corporal Hudson* with the "GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER!" just yet.

* (yeah, I know. PRIVATE Hudson. Well, I gave him a battlefield promotion. After all, he WAS one of the last 4 marines left along with Hicks, Vasquez and Lt. Gorman. )

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 10:42 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Instapundit's page is currently a massive data download of all sorts of important stuff.

I'll never get to half of this, so I'm just going to link it and suggest you at least read the excerpts there.

On workforce participation, and Obama's Miserable Failure at even mentioning the unemployed.

Green Energy (that is, not energy) vs. Brown Energy (that is, actual energy) and Obama's problem in championing the imaginary over the real.

Klavan and Drudge disagree with Krugman that there is "nothing to see here." By the way, click on Drudge's site to see a Flood the Zone 40-point-slammer download on the "bleak" jobs report.

Workforce smaller than at any time since 1981. Previously, the workforce had been smaller than at any point since 1982, but as Obama says, "We're not done yet."

Also, for those of you advocating a more forward-leaning assault on Obama, bear in mind, Romney's plan is to convince disappointed Obama voters to pull the lever for himself, and a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

You may want to just tell these people they're dumb but they don't want to hear that, and will stop listening to you if you say that.

I like Eastwood's formulation that this is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and that we've had "the wool pulled over his eyes."

Years ago now, I think, I wrote that people are very, very reluctant to find fault with themselves. If you insist they confess they made bad errors, they will refuse, and begin justifying those errors.

However, if you can give them a scapegoat, they may agree with you. "You made a very bad choice in voting for Obama" is hard for them to hear. But Obama misrepresented himself and swindled you will go down easier -- in that formulation, Obama's the bad guy.

Now, actually, Romney isn't doing that, either. I think he should.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (296)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Another cold splash of water that may hopefully force this dope out.

Solid D hold until he does.

Posted by: CAC at 09:47 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

So, four things we're to not talk about:

1. Obama's convention speech. Who cares about speeches? It's results that matter.

2. Obama's results. Who cares about results? We should be talking about Romney's vague statements about Afghanistan.

3. Obama's declining popularity requiring him to shift his speech from a 70,000 seat arena to a 20,000 seat cafetorium. It was the weather, guys. The night was cool and clear but no one could have predicted such a strange weather pattern.

And now, 4: The jobs report. Krugman opines:

Nothing to see here.

And that's not a parody. He actually wrote that. You can check if you don't believe me.

NBC Becomes MSNBC: They've been almost-MSNBC for a while; now the tail is wagging the dog.

Check this headline out:

Weak jobs growth beyond government's control

No matter who ends up occupying the White House in January, many of the forces that have kept unemployment high and jobs growth slow will be beyond his control.

With employment growth stuck a slower pace than in any recovery in the last half century, the presidential campaign now turns on which candidate -- President Barack Obama or Gov. Mitt Romney -- has the better plan to boost employment. The latest jobs data will do little to change the debate.

As Krugman said: Nothing to see here.

thanks to @tsrbLke.

BTW: Drudge seems to disagree with La Krugman that there is "nothing to see here." Check his huge headlines.

Posted by: Ace at 09:26 AM | Comments (233)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.