Category: Barack Obama

Romney Debates Crowley And Obama On Benghazi, Wins

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Benghazi was the pivotal moment in the town hall debate, in my opinion, and that of some others:

 

Via BlueGrass pundit:

What a sad, pathetic joke that Obama has to have a woman attempt to stand up for him. Romney’s five sons were no doubt writhing at the raised eyebrows at 0:20 in the clip, recalling their own sad attempts at sliding one by dad, and getting thoroughly crushed by the Brows Of Doom.

The Administration’s pathetic attempt to walk back the 12 September Rose Garden speech is thoroughly debunked here. If Obama’s claim is true, that he properly labeled Benghazi terrorism initially, then shifted ‘narratives’ to call it a spontaneous riot due to Nakoula’s handiwork, then Obama’s sordid performance would be an example of postvarication, where the truth shifts to a lie upon the retelling, instead of the truth remaining in the forefront.

However, what we have here is a creep show Administration that owes Americans straight answers, but can’t even tell itself a straight story. Maybe Petraeus could offer such. Where is that guy? Stuffed under the bus behind Clapper?

Kudos to Mitt. You could see that hours of preparation that went into this debate on display. That the topic would come up was fairly obvious. But the delivery was polished, and Obama’s body language and shout to Crowley for a lifeline were sweet, sweet tells. Romney should have ended his exchange with Crowley by saying “Thank you, Madame President.” As graphically put:
And Crowley then walked back her shilling. Fortunately, these Lefty creeps no longer retain an iron grip on matters. While viewers at the time called it a draw or gave the edge to #OccupyResoluteDesk, further analysis is going to show that, as in the previous debates this season, the Republicans are holding their own despite having two opponents.

Say whatever else you want about the debate: seeing Romney have the sack to call out Obama for lying, to his face, was pure chewing satisfaction. As with the previous debate, I may have to trundle over to the Romney campaign site for a wee donation, I’m so pleased by this. And as for Candid Candy, I hope she doesn’t spend all 30 pieces of silver in one place.

Further linkage at Instapundit, but don’t miss Michelle, violating the rules, clapping in support of falsehood. I’m not ashamed of my country, in general, but the 2008 election sure was a hiccup. And, for those wondering what the debate would have looked like if you dropped some acid before viewing:

In the second presidential debate, President Obama stood up proudly for his record, offered a positive vision, called out Romney’s lies in a calm and cool way, and, most importantly, showed some real fire in the belly.

Update: Memeorandum thread, also linked at Protein Wisdom, Daily Pundit, WyBlog, and Obi’s Sister.

‘STAKE THROUGH HIS HEART’: Your Official Town Hall Debate Thread

Posted on Comments

UPDATE 10:50 p.m. ET: Watching MSNBC so you don’t have to:

UPDATE 10:22 p.m. ET: WHAM! Mitt just hit Obama with “Fast and Furious.”

UPDATE 10:16 p.m. ET: That was a very long back-and-forth about Libya.

UPDATE 10:11 p.m. ET: Obama gets specific question about failure in Libya, and doesn’t even begin to answer, but instead lectures about how AWESOME his policy is.

UPDATE 10:07 p.m. ET: Obama LOVES him some illegal immigrants.

UPDATE 10:03 p.m. ET: Obama loves him some illegal immigrants.

UPDATE 9:58 p.m. ET: Now for Romney, immigration question from El Votera Del Undecidia.

UPDATE 9:54 p.m. ET: Obama is now ahead 5:34 on the time-split.

UPDATE 9:51 p.m. ET: As Obama ends this answer, he is ahead 2:55 on the time-split.

UPDATE 9:46 p.m. ET: A Bush-hating woman asks Romney how he’s not like Bush. She’s an “uncommitted voter” (nudge nudge).

UPDATE 9:40 p.m. ET: Some chick asks a question about the alleged “pay gap” between men and women — straight out of the bogus statistics they teach in Women’s Studies classes — and we’re supposed to believe she’s an “uncommitted voter.”

UPDATE 9:35 p.m. ET: Candy Crowley always gives Obama a chance to talk back to Mitt, but keeps cutting off Mitt — or trying to cut him off — when Mitt tries to answer.

UPDATE 9:30 p.m. ET: Obama slams “top-down economics.”

UPDATE 9:25 p.m. ET: Now Mitt gets to talk numbers. He loves him some numbers.

UPDATE 9:21 p.m. ET: There was all kinds of fireworks now. My wife and kids thought they were getting ready to fight.

UPDATE 9:16 p.m. ET: Romney “I was in coal country and people grabbed my arm and said, ‘Please, save my job.’ ”

UPDATE 9:15 p.m. ET: Romney: “Let’s look at the president’s policies, instead of his rhetoric.”

UPDATE 9:11 p.m. ET: Obama just said Romney “doesn’t have a five-point plant, he’s got a one-point plan.” And Obama’s got 57 states! When Mitt wants to argue back, Candy cuts him off.

UPDATE 9:04 p.m. ET: “First-time voter” is college student named Jeremy who asks about jobs — straight into Mitt’s wheelhouse. This is encouraging.

UPDATE 9:02 p.m. ET: And we’re live! Candy Crowley introduces her close personal friend The President of the United States, and also, that Republican guy over there.

* * PREVIOUSLY (8:30 p.m. ET) * *

Let’s start with this: The very notion of undecided voters in New York three weeks before Election Day is implausibly absurd. So we’re probably going to see a steady barrage of lefty “gotcha” questions aimed at Mitt Romney, while Barack Obama gets questions like, “Mister President, why do these hateful racist homophobic Republicans want to steal Social Security checks from Grandma?”

Can Mitt possibly win this debate? Can Obama possibly stink it up worse than he did in the Oct. 3 debate? This seems too much to ask, so you need to pray very hard right up until the debate at Hofstra University starts at 9 p.m. Eastern, and don’t stop praying until it’s over.

Miracles sometimes happen, and this is what Ace is describing:

So there was, I think, a preference cascade potential. But that potential only became real during the debate.
If Romney had not given what could well be the most dominating debate performance in the entire modern age of politics (since TV, in 1960), it seems very possible — possibly likely — that none of this would have happened.

Read the whole thing. Events can’t be predicted, but contingencies — the “if/then” consequences of events — are predictable.

Going into the Oct. 3 debate, nobody expected such a one-sided win for Romney, but we could have predicted that if Mitt did exceed all expectations (and if Obama disastrously underperformed) then the polls would shift dramatically toward Romney.

The interesting thing? The polls were already starting to shift toward Romney before the first debate. Check the RCP national average, and you see that Obama’s lead maxed out at 4.3 points on Sept. 29, and by Oct. 3, had shrunk to 3.1 points. Why?

It’s got to be Libya: By early October, it was becoming obvious that the Obama administration’s “blame the YouTube video” excuse was false, and that the administration was trying to hide its failures in the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi counsulate. So Obama’s lead was already fading and his disastrous performance in the first debate exacerbated growing perceptions of his incompetence.

Romney moved ahead in the RCP average Oct. 9. Beginning with the first full three-day track by Gallup after the first debate, five polls have shown Romney ahead, three have shown Obama ahead and two have shown a tie. So while there has been a shift toward Romney, the bottom hasn’t fallen out for Obama . . . yet.

A few headlines from Memeorandum:

Romney Holds Advantage Tonight,
Regardless of Format
— Real Clear Politics

Obama feels ‘fabulous’ in advance of second debate
— Politico

Tuesday’s debate moderator confirms
plan to ask follow up questions
— The Hill

And finally, from Toby Harnden at the London Daily Mail:

The Romney campaign goes into tonight’s second presidential debate confident that the race has shifted decisively in their direction and that a below par performance by Barack Obama could doom him to defeat on November 6.
A senior adviser to Mitt Romney told MailOnline: ‘The President could drive a stake through the heart of his own campaign tonight if he’s not careful.
‘If he doesn’t give a vigorous enough defence of his last four years in office, if he tries to place blame everywhere else, if he doesn’t articulate what the next four years will look like beyond just giving away free stuff – if he fumbles all that, he drives a stake through his own heart.’

The debate starts at 9 p.m. Eastern, but Duane Lester and the Campaign Trail Report have begun their debate hangout already, so check it out, and I’ll be back to do some live-blogging, as well as the usual Twitter snarkfest.

 


BHO: “We Got Back Every Dime”

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

This blog must leap to the defense of #OccupyResoluteDesk for his claim: “We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system. . .”

Actual number of $0.10 pieces used in the rescue: 0.

So, the taxpayers got back every actual coin used in the rescue. This blog salutes BHO, and hopes he can continue his winning streak of strictly, literally factual claims.

“The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke.

Why does the CBO have to be staffed with humorless buzz-kills?

Hillary Dives On Benghazi Grenade? HillBuzz Hardest Hit

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

CNN, via Drudge:

“I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru, for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, was the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.
“I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.

Stunned. Still nothing at HillBuzz. Wow. I mean, Hillary permitted herself to be set on a shelf in 2008, and now this? One can only speculate on the nature of the dirt #OccupyResoluteDesk has on her, to twist out that kind of mea culpa from Hillary.

Why am I not a Presidential candidate? Because if I was Mitt, I’d be all: “I’d like to congratulate the President on his choice of Secretary of State. After the better part of four years, somebody in the Administration finally took responsibility the way leaders do, on one of those hopefully rare occasions when it involves confessing a shortcoming. In this case, one that involved the butchery of four Americans. Hopefully this President isn’t too old to learn something from all this. Better leaders plan so as to minimize these sorts of tragedies. Lesser men play the Casablanca card and locate a usual suspects for a round-up. How is Nakoula doing these days, Mr. President?”

The bad news here is that a post I had in mind “Workin’ Hard, Tryin’ To Help The Administration Come Up With New Benghazi Lies” is going to have to become a footnote. I had in mind:

  1. High-Order SWATting: Blame Karl Rove for spoofing the White House and having Nakoula arrested.
  2. Tehran Redux: Unnamed Administration officials imply the Romney campaign somehow paid for a smaller strike in Benghazi, to embarrass the President in time for the election.

That was all I had. You need some more material, but this is kind of a hard topic to be light and silly about, in the face of four corpses. Sail a vee.

Update: via Melody:

“[Clinton] seemed to push back against claims of a cover-up, blaming the “fog of war” for the Obama administration’s shifting explanations for the attack.”

When they say there is no cover-up, that, too, is part of the cover-up. They are akin to a scorpion getting a lift on a frog, cover-ups.
More at The Pirate’s Cove

Does This Explain Something?
UPDATE: What a Cover-Up Looks Like

Posted on Comments

Why is Obama still leading Mitt Romney in Ohio, but trailing in Florida? This puzzle might be explained by the early blitz of attack ads the Obama campaign laid down against Romney in Ohio back in May and June, which created a sort of “opinion deficit” that Romney has had to try to make up during the past four months.

Yet Obama also hit Mitt early in Florida, and Romney has bounced back pretty strong there in the past two weeks.

Is it Libya? And is it possible that the deadly Bungle in Benghazi has raised concerns about the administration’s Middle East policy among a key constituency in Florida? A friend on Twitter called attention to an article by my American Spectator colleague Jay Homnick:

MIAMI — The Jewish outreach of the Romney campaign leaves a great deal to be desired, about which more on another day. One good thing this wing of the overall effort has been doing is involving Ambassador John Bolton in presenting to Jewish groups. His powerful pro-Israel record and reputation make his name a good draw in the circles of the more knowledgeable Jewish voters. It does not hurt that he has astonishing breadth of knowledge, pristine clarity of thought, and crystalline clarity of expression.
Sunday night he appeared here in Miami at a synagogue bordering the two communities of Surfside and Bal Harbor. The biggest concentrations of Jews in the Miami area are not near that spot, but its equidistance from Miami Beach and North Miami Beach situate it perfectly for such events.
The room was packed to the rafters, and there were no hecklers or provocateurs. The crowd listened raptly and applauded lustily. It is difficult to extrapolate from this to voting patterns on Election Day, but this much was clear: there is a strong Romney-Ryan contingent among both the religious and secular Jews of Florida. . . .

Go read the whole thing. And while we’re at it, remember during last week’s debate, when Joe Biden laughed while Paul Ryan talked about the seriousness of the Iranian nuclear threat?

Biden’s dismissive attitude toward the danger of a nuclear Iran, accusing Republicans of reckless warmongering for taking that threat seriously — how did that play with Jewish voters? Biden’s bulldozing aggression against Ryan may have cheered up demoralized Democrats, but the unseriousness of Biden’s attitude hurt Democrats among undecided voters. Jim Geraghty examines a poll that found the Republicans gained a 3-to-1 advantage from last week’s debate.

But why trust the polls, when we’ve got the word of the Lord?

“And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee . . .”

You never want to get on the wrong side of a thing like that.

UPDATE: The big problem with the scandal now becoming known as “BenghaziGate” is that the Obama administration evidently decided to tell The Big Lie from the start, and so many officials repeated that lie so often that, once it became obvious they were lying, coming up with a plausible new lie was difficult. Ultimately, however, their problem is not their shifting lies, but rather the ugly truth of the administration’s failure. Even such a master of deceit as David Axelrod can’t hide from the facts:

Q. How soon after the attack did the President meet with the National Security Council, with people from state, with people from the…, the Director of National Intelligence, with all of the various people to try to sort out what happened in Benghazi?
A. Look. We are sorting out what happened there. Understand that the President the day after the attack called it an act of terror and charged everyone with responsibility for getting to the bottom of what happened. . . .
Q. Yes, the president made a statement and then he went to a fundraiser in Nevada. Question: Before he went to the fundraiser in Nevada, did he meet with his National Security Council to try to sort out the shifting stories. Because State says they never said it was a spontaneous demonstration; Intel, you are quite right, did. Did he meet with the National Security Council before he went campaigning in Nevada?
A. Chris, I assure you that the president was in contact with all those who had information and responsibility in the national security chain about this incident.

Via Memeorandum.

 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Libya Cover-Up: Hillary Clinton Throws Obama Under His Own Benghazi Bus

Posted on Comments

The Benghazi blame game has been going on for more than a month since the Sept. 11 attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Last week there were signals that Team Obama was trying to make Hillary Clinton’s State Department the scapegoat, but anybody who knows the Clintons could have predicted she wasn’t going to take the fall. Today, Hillary struck back:

A confusing array of contradictions concerning the murders of four Americans, one of which was a U.S. ambassador, was made worse by Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks during the debate with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan Thursday evening.
Today the confusion only worsened yet again when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that her agency was not the source of misinformation concerning the attacks, charging instead that the White House was the source of the false mantra that the murders were spurred by an anti-Muslim film made in the  United States.
Clinton told reporters that when Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her rounds on every Sunday morning news show to claim the film motivated the attacks, the information had been fed to her by the White House and not the intelligence community in the State Department or the CIA.
Not only does Clinton’s statement contradict early White House accounts but directly contradicts statements made by Vice President Biden during the debate.

If Obama thinks he’s gonna throw Hillary Clinton under his bus, he’s going to find out the hard way his bus ain’t big enough. He’s not looking too good in the polls lately — even PPP has him trailing Romney in Florida now — and rather than playing the Good Soldier in his doomed re-election campaign, why shouldn’t Hillary kick off her 2016 campaign by helping expose Obama’s bungling? And here’s a good laugh for you:

Axelrod defends White House on Libya,
says Romney seeking to ‘exploit’ issue

Oh, sure, like David Axelrod never exploited an issue . . .

 

 

The Obama-Clinton “Prisoner’s Dilemma”

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

While they have a senior-subordinate relationship, at that altitude, Obama and Clinton are more like peers, especially in the broader scope of the Democrat Party, where Barack is hoping Bill will loan enough luster to Obama to somehow win re-election. Thus, Benghazi-quiddick (we should limit the -gate suffix on scandals lacking a death toll) resembles the classic game theory example The Prisoner’s Dilemma:

Two men are arrested, but the police do not have enough information for a conviction. The police separate the two men, and offer both the same deal: if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates with/assists his partner), the betrayer goes free and the one that remains silent gets a one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail on a minor charge. If each ‘rats out’ the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept secret from his partner. What should they do? If it is assumed that each player is only concerned with lessening his own time in jail, the game becomes a non-zero sum game where the two players may either assist or betray the other. The sole concern of the prisoners seems to be increasing his own reward. The interesting symmetry of this problem is that the optimal decision for each is to betray the other, even though they would be better off if they both cooperated.

Here, we have two public figures who both look negligent over a tragedy. And they hold grudges against each other going back. They can both get hammered together, or can try to minimize their damage by pinning blame on the other.

Clinton absorbs Obama accuses
Clinton accuses In this variant, Clinton steps up and takes responsibility for failures as Secretary of State, scuttling her 2016 hopes, with the idea of saving Obama’s re-election.
I’ll point you to Kevin DuJan at HillBuzz for that analysis.		 If they both escalates the accusatory posturing, then the bleeding may not stop until both are completely ruined.
Yet, accusations are their stock in trade. They just have to do it subtly.
Obama absorbs They both stand there and take the hit. Re-election now, and possible election in 2016 for Hillary only happens if the electorate enjoys some truly raging outburst of amnesia.
Unlikely in Internet Age, thank you, Al Gore.
Taking responsibility is something you make your opposition do. Never apologize, never explain. Which outs both of them as lousy leaders.		 Obama steps up and admits how badly he tubed Benghazi-quiddick, in order to save Hillary’s 2016 presidential hopes.

The bad news about this ‘game’ is that the price of admission is four human sacrifices. Those deaths were tragic for the four, and their families. The shame for the United States, and the increased boldness of our enemies, is far worse. Then there is the damage done to the validity, the basic confidence the people have in our government, brought on by the shameless deceits of the Obama Administration.

No good can come of the Obama-Clinton game. Beyond the entertainment value, the best we can hope for is minimal collateral damage.

More at Granite Grok, and Roger Simon analyzes the electoral impact and the general pulse of the Left.

via Breitbart

Update: thank you for linking, Instapundit, Hogewash, Victory Girls, and Dinocrat.

Update II: linked at God’s Own Crunk. Also, for those who dislike the labeling in the table, please feel free to offer an improved version somewhere on this vast internet. Otherwise, my guess is you’re firing for effect. In the wrong direction.

Update III: more at Daily Pundit:

Some people think Barack Obama is cold and calculating. I don’t. I think he’s a tangled ball of twisted emotions, primary among which are fear and hatred. Some part of him might understand that he’ll damage himself by trying to damage the Clintons, but I just don’t think he’ll be able to help himself.

Getting inside that noggin isn’t the least bit interesting to me. I just want to see BHO distanced from levers of power.

The Libya Question: What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?

Posted on Comments

We seem to be looking at a classic Washington cover-up scandal:

The State Department is now telling a new story about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11. It’s completely different than what we heard from President Obama and other officials in the days after the terrorist attack.

It’s amazing the things you can learn when you start issuing subpoenas and requiring people to testify under oath under penalty of perjury.

UPDATE: Hard-hitting new ad on the Libyan scandal:

UPDATE II: If you’ve seen a few cover-up scandals like this over the years, you know that the next thing that happens — once it becomes obvious that the liars won’t get away with it — is that the administration finds a Designated Scapegoat to take the fall.

Whose résumé will get updated with the unfortunate “resigned in disgrace” entry? I nominate the odious disgrace that is Susan Rice.

Trust me: Hillary is waaayy too powerful to take the fall for this.

UPDATE III: The pattern of such scandals makes the course of events fairly predictable. First of all, the people who did the right thing — the honest, competent professionals — have an inherent interest in establishing the fact that they weren’t the ones who screwed up. Take, for example, former State Department security officer Eric Nordstrom:

[N]ot only did Nordstrom repeatedly request more security for the diplomatic mission, the State Department didn’t even bother to respond to his last two requests

UPDATE IV: Joel Engel at Legal Insurrection:

In yet another story that you won’t find in the New York Times, Charlie Spiering in the Washington Examiner reported that Hillary Clinton was scheduled to meet President Obama at the White House today “as more damaging details about the terrorist attack against a United States consulate in Libya emerge.” . . .
Their story is unraveling, and only the acquiescence of the mainstream press has kept it from becoming a full-blown scandal.  So what did the president and his secretary of state discuss today?  Foreign affairs?  Or better lies?  My guess is better lies.
Clinton’s State Department, and therefore in all probability the White House, had forewarning of at least a growing danger when“foreign fighters” began flooding over the Egyptian border prior to the attacks.  And, worse than doing nothing, they actually prevented security from being beefed up, though they had been warned that the level was “inappropriately low.”

Don’t expect this story to go away. There is a limit to the media’s ability to ignore such a scandal, when people like CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Jake Tapper are so clearly fed-up with the administration’s routine incompetence and brazen dishonesty.

UPDATE V: Despite months of constant practice, Jay Carney still isn’t very effective in his capacity as Official White House Liar:

 

PREVIOUSLY: