October 10-12, 2012
Oct 10 02:18 Nolan living in a bygone era Oct 10 07:19 How low will Graves campaign stoop? Oct 10 13:34 Administration's story changes prior to sworn testimony Oct 10 16:12 Explosive testimony at Benghazi hearing Oct 11 10:47 National progressive organization targets King Banaian Oct 11 11:51 Cravaack leads Nolan Oct 11 19:52 Liveblogging the VP debate Oct 12 02:25 Debate analysis: First rule of holes is stop digging Oct 12 17:26 Mitt extends lead in Florida
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Nolan living in a bygone era
The first thing that's obvious from this video is that Rick Nolan is still living in the 1970s and 1980s:
For instance, this statement leaps off the page:
NOLAN: We need to revise our trade policy. Fifty thousand manufacturers in this country have moved out of this country in recent years and along with that, millions of jobs. And it's because of unfair competition. An American manufacturer has to adhere to good health and safety standards for its workers, good environmental standards to protect the air and the water, not to mention Social Security and Medicare and workers comp and unemployment. And it was never fair to those manufacturers to say 'Now we want you to compete with the rest of the world where, in many cases, they don't do any of that. It's unfair competition.
It's insulting to manufacturers to say that they can't compete with the rest of the world if other countries don't implement the same regulations and programs as the U.S. has. That's provably false.
American manufacturers outcompeted the rest of the world with those programs in place. The dirty little secret is that there's fewer manufacturing jobs in the United State but that there's more manufacturing, thanks to greater automation. If anything, that's proof that manufacturers have outcompeted the world because they're great innovators.
Here's another mindless Nolan rant:
.
AARON BROWN: How would you reconcile the debt and the deficit to secure the solvency of the nation over the long haul?
NOLAN: There's a number of things that need to be done. One is put an end to the wars of choice. They've cost several trillion dollars over the past decade. They're going to cost us trillions more dollars going forward. That's trillions of dollars that can be used to balance the budget and to reinvest in America.
There isn't a thoughtful person who thinks Rick Nolan is serious about deficits and debt. That's a serious question in search of a serious candidate.
First, "wars of choice" haven't cost the U.S. "several trillion dollars over the past decade." Democrats considered Iraq the war of choice. That was shut down before Christmas, 2011. Afghanistan, Democrats told us, was the location for the real war on terror. Two days ago, Lara Logan, the pre-eminent war correspondent in the business, delivered some sobering news about the war against the jihadists :
Eleven years later, 'they' still hate us, now more than ever, Logan told the crowd. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished, she added. They're coming back.
'I chose this subject because, one, I can't stand, that there is a major lie being propagated...' Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America's military might has tamed the Taliban.
'There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,' Logan said. It is driven in part by 'Taliban apologists,' who claim 'they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,' she added sarcastically. 'It's such nonsense!'
Nolan's war of choice is fiction. President Obama is essentially declaring the war in Afghanistan won. Lara Logan has reported from the front lines. She's seen what the Taliban have done. This fight isn't over. It's true that President Obama is calling a ceasefire in Afghanistan but the Taliban hasn't agreed to the ceasefire.
The reality is that Rick Nolan is still the same pacifist, 'give peace a chance' hippie wannabe he's always been. The only thing that's changed is that he's wearing better suits and his hair is grayer these days.
Tags: Rick Nolan , Manufacturing , Fair Trade , Wars of Choice , Deficits , Iraq , Afghanistan , Hippie , Liberalism , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:18 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Oct-12 06:47 AM
Good for Nolan. Bush wars on the credit card were inherited by Obama. His error was not declaring victory and leaving two years ago. If that's your beef with Nolan it is more cause to hope he wins.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Oct-12 07:51 AM
President Obama put tens of billions of dollars on this nation's credit card for PEU bailouts. President Obama put hundreds of billions of dollars on the national credit card in the form of Solyndra-style loans. All that the loans gave us were mountains of debt and an onslaught of bankruptcy filings.
It's insulting to hear liberals talking about declaring victory against the terrorists a month after al-Qa'ida killed a U.S. ambassador in the Consulate compound.
Apparently, it's more important to Democrats to declare victory than it is to defeat the terrorists. Here's a hint to the Democrats: Don't stop fighting until you've destroyed the terrorists and their sanctuaries.
This is why liberals can't be trusted with the levers of national security. They're cut-and-run specialists. They aren't particularly skilled at finishing fights & winning wars. See Viet Nam & Somalia.
Comment 3 by Dan Shielding at 16-Oct-12 01:02 AM
I love your passion for freedom and how you question what politicians say. I wish everyone would. In the same spirit, I'd like to ask some questions to make sure we take the right path toward freedom.
You mentioned the global war on terrorism. From my perspective, a global war involves taking my wealth using threats of imprisonment (taxes) and using it to send soldiers, equipment and supplies to distant places to follow the arbitrary orders of a politician like Obama who has a record of making me less free.
So aren't we less free as a result? I'm no longer free to retain that portion of my wealth. The soldiers in the military have very little freedom. They're told where to live, what to do, what to wear, etc. by a central authority, basically like the oppressed people in a Communist dictatorship.
Perhaps the military could defend my freedom if it was led by a guardian angel who respected my rights and private property. I know many of the soldiers do, but the Commander in Chief setting the agenda, Obama, and the Congress funding the war clearly do not... There may be a few exceptions, but the majority of these politicians are untrustworthy. They consistently violate my freedom to benefit their friends in return for political donations they use to spread dishonest political ads to get re-elected. That's politics as far as I can tell.
Even if politicians were honest and represented the people who voted for them, which I think is wishful thinking, I still cannot trust them to protect my freedom, because there are plenty of voters who want to control me and take my money too. As the saying goes, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. So Democracy doesn't make me free. In practice it makes me a slave to politicians, bureaucrats and or the voting majority.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like a dictatorship or a communist one-party system either!
I don't mean any disrespect. I'm just trying to understand your perspective on the GWOT. I've heard the argument, "terrorists aren't killing me here, because our military is over there keeping them on the defensive." But how do I know this is being done effectively. I can trust my friends who are military veterans or active duty, but I cannot trust the people setting the agenda. And as far as I can tell based on your thoughtful critiques of politicians, which I enjoy by the way, neither do you.
When you think about all the people involved, hundreds of millions of families here and abroad. Is it advisable to place the life and liberty of so many people into the hands of D.C. politicians, to give them the centralized power to send battalions of our men and women into harm's way? Are these politicians using the military responsibly to defend our freedom effectively or are they serving their own political interests at our expense? What does history show? Do the expressed intentions of government match the results of their programs and policies? I'd say never. Why would the government's Global War On Terror be any different?
Just a few questions that came to mind. I want to thank you for all that you do to promote freedom and individual rights. I respect and admire you for keeping the conversation going, and for informing the public. Thank you!
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Oct-12 03:04 AM
Get out of the philosophical world. You're spending way too much time there to be free.
How low will Graves campaign stoop?
The content of this article is disgusting from the standpoint that it questions documented fact. Here's what I'm talking about:
Lyle Fleck doesn't appreciate being called a liar.
That was Tuesday's message from the president of the union for workers at Sartell's shuttered Verso paper mill and other mill workers who appeared in a recent campaign ad for congressional candidate Jim Graves, DFL-St. Cloud.
The ad criticized Graves' opponent, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., for what the workers call her failure to personally reach out to them after an explosion halted most mill operations on Memorial Day. Verso announced in August that it would permanently close the century-old paper mill, leaving more than 250 employees out of work.
At Tuesday afternoon's event, the mill workers in attendance reacted to Bachmann labeling the Verso ad 'a lie' in an interview with the Times last month.
Mr. Fleck needs to wise up. KSTP put Mr. Graves' ad through their Truth Test to see if the claims in it were accurate. KSTP's final grade for the ad was a D :
'Bachmann was in the district on Memorial Day weekend in Stillwater attending events when the explosion happened but didn't go to the scene. However, a Bachmann staff member was there within an hour.
The ad said Mrs. Bachmann didn't care about the workers. That's verifiably false. Mr. Graves knows it's verifiably false. Mr. Fleck knows that's verifiably false.
First, a Bachmann office staffer there in less than an hour on a Sunday morning of Memorial Day Weekend. Second, that was just the first of many contacts between Rep. Bachmann's office and plant workers:
'Meanwhile, the Bachmann staff member said she attended meetings at Sartell City Hall focused on the Verso plant on June 4th and June 11th. On August 2, Verso announced that it wouldn't re-open. Later that day, Bachmann issued a press release offering assistance to the city and workers.
Within hours of Verso announcing their decision, Rep. Bachmann issued a statement offering assistance to the city and the workers. Mr. Fleck insists this was a PR stunt:
Fleck called that meeting 'an orchestrated photo-op' and said he and other mill workers were miffed that union officials weren't invited. 'The whole thing seemed staged, too little, too late,' Fleck said.
If Fleck is truly upset with politicians doing photo ops, then Sen. Klobuchar should top that complaint list, not Rep. Bachmann. I know the staffers in the Bachmann congressional office. I've attended some of their meetings with the community.
They're detail-oriented and thoughtful. They stay at the event or meeting until the last question is answered. In short, they're consummate professionals.
Mr. Fleck needs to get his head screwed on straight. Rep. Bachmann didn't call him a liar, as he insists. Rep. Bachmann simply agreed that many of the statements in Mr. Graves' ad weren't accurate. That's a far cry from calling Mr. Fleck a liar.
It isn't a stretch to wonder if Mr. Fleck and/or Mr. Graves are engaging in a bit of political gamesmanship. Graves certainly has the motivation after having his content ad given a D for content. Mr. Fleck certainly has ample motivation for such a PR stunt because unions have frequently fought with Rep. Bachmann because she didn't hesitate in saying she wouldn't support EFCA, aka Card Check. Card Check was the unions' highest priority in a generation or more.
Finally, it's interesting that this is the first complaint I've heard about Rep. Bachmann's attentiveness to constituent services. Purely by coincidence, the first complaint about Rep. Bachmann's office is part of a paid political ad by her opponent.
What are the odds?
Tags: Verso Paper Mill , Lyle Fleck , Unions , Jim Graves , Amy Klobuchar , Photo Ops , DFL , Michele Bachmann , Constituent Services , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:30 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 10-Oct-12 11:33 PM
Fleck called that meeting 'an orchestrated photo-op' and said he and other mill workers were miffed that union officials weren't invited. 'The whole thing seemed staged, too little, too late,' Fleck said.
So...Bachmann is solely responsible for inviting union officials? Obviously, Amy Klobuchar is the queen of photo ops. Where is the outrage? Is the Times that desperate to make their own news?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Oct-12 12:40 AM
Jethro, I'd put the blame on the unions, not on the Times. WJON carried the same story.
Administration's story changes prior to sworn testimony
The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and others in the administration didn't hesitate in using fiction to mislead the press. Their stories are changing now that they're about to testify under oath:
Senior State Department officials, meanwhile, now say the Sept. 11 evening was a quiet one in Benghazi that became very suddenly violent about 9:40 p.m. when officials at the compound heard 'gunfire and explosions.'
Within seconds, a camera monitoring the main gate of the compound revealed 'a large number of men, armed men flowing' through the gates, one of the senior State Department official said on a Tuesday night conference call on the condition of anonymity.
The officials described an intense series of events in which the compound's main building was set ablaze while a firefight ensued outside. Four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed.
People immediately knew the administration was lying or spinning about the terrorist attacks on 9/11. People understood that an anti-Muslim video that nobody had heard of wasn't the reason for a terrorist attack, espcially on 9/11. People didn't buy the thought that it was purely coincidental that an anti-Muslim video triggered violence throughout north Africa on the anniversary of 9/11.
The Obama administration had said the attack was a spontaneous response to the anti-Islam film 'Innocence of Muslims'; it later claimed there was a protest against the film that terrorists suspected of al Qaeda links took advantage of to launch their attack. When asked about those varying explanations, the State Department official said 'that was not our conclusion' and that unspecified 'others' could answer for their words.
Bit by bit, the Obama administration's story is crumbling in public. Their fictional accounts are getting exposed as this administration's attempt to do anything to not call terrorists terrorists. This administration's unease with fighting to defeat the terrorists is famous.
Yes, they've killed bin Laden and other HVTs. Kudos to the military for their operational expertise.
The Benghazi terrorist attack proves that al-Qa'ida is adjusting and prospering. The figurehead is dead. The enterprise continues pushing their hateful ideology despite President Obama's overtures to non-existent 'moderates' in the Taliban.
Apparently, this administration won't admit al-Qa'ida didn't get the memo that they were essentially shut down. While killing terrorists one at a time with drone strikes is great PR, it isn't effective in diminishing the terrorist networks' capacity.
Benghazi is another national security disaster for an administration that's known as a foreign policy/national security lightweight. They can point to splashy headlines. They just can't point to things that made the U.S. secure.
To steal a phrase from Joe Biden, "Bin Laden is dead and al-Qa'ida is alive and well."
Tags: Benghazi , Terrorist attack , al-Qa'ida , bin Laden , President Obama , Susan Rice , Appeasement , Video , Testimony , Hearing , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:34 PM
No comments.
Explosive testimony at Benghazi hearing
This afternoon's hearing on the terrorist attacks to the Benghazi Consulate have been explosive. One such exchange happened between Rep. Raul Labrador, (R-ID), and Patrick Kennedy, the Undersecretary of State for Administration. Here's the transcript of that exchange:
REP. LABRADOR: Ambassador Kennedy, you said that, if any administration official, including any career official, had been on television on Sunday, Sept. 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said. The information she had from the intelligence community -- I see how specific you're being -- from the intelligence community -- is the same information that I had at that point. Can you explain to me how it was that, on Sept. 12, you told congressional aides that you thought it was a terrorist attack?
AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: Congressman, I told them that because that was my personal opinion and that I also believed that, because of the nature of it and the lethality of it, that it was a complex attack.
REP. LABRADOR: So how can you sit here today and say that the following day, you had an idea that it was a terrorist attack, and you have said that you aren't a security expert, how can you claim today that you would have said the same thing as Ambassador Rice said?
This is explosive because it's telling us this administration used Clintonesque wording to spin the terrorist attack into a simple impromptu uprising, something it clearly wasn't.
Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom, both security experts, said security experts knew almost instantly that this was a terrorist attack. The question then turns from why Ambassador Rice relied on the narrowest, Clintonian spin rather than telling the nation that this was a terrorist attack.
The most obvious reason Ambassador Rice didn't say that was because that didn't the storyline Democrats spent a week in Charlotte creating. At their convention, speaker after speaker said that we couldn't trust Gov. Romney on national security, that President Obama had lots of national security experience and a lengthy list of national security accomplishments.
This terrorist attack happened just days after the Democratic National Convention. It would've demolished Vice President Biden's line that "bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."
The truth is that bin Laden is dead but al-Qa'ida and other terrorist organizations are regrouping. The Benghazi attack is proof of that. Another truth is that President Bush's strategy of taking the fight to the terrorists is the only strategy that's capable of stopping terrorist attacks long before they're set into operation.
President Obama won't admit it but that's the truth.
What's apparent from the hearing is that security experts like Mr. Nordstrom and Lt. Col. Wood painted a dramatically different picture of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate than did the political appointees in the State Department.
Tags: Congressional Oversight , Eric Nordstrom , Andy Wood , Security Experts , Patrick Kennedy , State Department , Diplomat , Terrorist Attack , Benghazi , bin Laden , al-Qa'ida , President Obama , Hillary Clinton , Coverup , Joe Biden , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:12 PM
No comments.
National progressive organization targets King Banaian
Conservatives have long known that the people in the progressive messaging machine aren't the brightest bulbs in the political chandelier. Still, it's difficult to think that they'd sound this foolish:
How the mighty have fallen. Paul Wellstone and Hubert Humphrey were great debaters. By comparison, Carrie Lucking, Denise Cardinal and Javier Morillo-Alicea are best known for their name-calling, not for fidelity to the truth.
Progressives are still peddling their storyline of Republicans shutting state government down. They won't admit that Gov. Dayton shut state government down :
June 30
- Shift school aid payments from 70/30 to 60/40 for $700 million.
- Increase per-student aid to cover borrowing costs.
- Issue appropriation bonds to cover the remaining gap, if any gap remains, between the Governor, Speaker and Majority Leader.
- Add $10 million to University of Minnesota funding.
- Restore funding for the Department of Human Rights and the Trade Office
- Special session: lights-on thru July 11. Return to pass budget bills on July 11.
Notice that last line. The GOP and Gov. Dayton agreed to a special session to pass a lights-on funding bill that would've kept funding government through July 11. Further, they agreed to finish negotiations, then pass the budget bills funding government for the rest of the biennium.
Gov. Dayton initially accepted that offer, then broke his promise. Note that this was the second time Gov. Dayton reached agreement with the GOP legislature on the budget, then slithered away from their agreement at the insistence of Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk.
Another of this ad's claims is that the GOP insisted on preserving tax cuts for the wealthy. Here's another dose of reality. The tax rates haven't changed since Jesse Ventura was governor. That means the Margaret Anderson-Kelliher-Larry Pogemiller led legislature kept the tax rates for the wealthy in place.
Another 'accusation' in the video is that King voted to kill Gov. Dayton's 'jobs bill' that would've "put Minnesotans back to work." Yesterday, I read this report from MMB concerning revenues. Here's the key takeaway:
Net non-dedicated general fund revenues totaled $3.750 billion during the first quarter of fiscal 2013, $145 million (4.0 percent) more than projected in February . Each of the major taxes showed a positive variance for the quarter. Individual income tax receipts exceeded forecast by 2.2 percent, sales tax receipts were up 1.7 percent and corporate tax revenues were 15.3 percent more than anticipated in February.
Government revenues don't rise when people aren't working. The fact that non-dedicated revenues rose by 4% during Q1 indicates that jobs are being created. In fact, it suggests that lots of jobs were created under the GOP's stewarship.
The truth is that progressives' attacks on GOP legislators are mythical, not reality. They've accused GOP legislators of shutting down government. Documents prove that Gov. Dayton shut government down. Progressives accuse GOP legislators like King Banaian of voting against job creation. Official reports prove that jobs are being created at a fairly brisk pace, which is leading to increased revenues.
Progressives insisted that it wasn't possible to balance the budget without creating one of the highest income tax rates in the nation. The GOP refused to create that highest-in-the-nation tax rate. Revenues are up 4%.
If I didn't know better, I'd think that doing the opposite of what progressives are demanding is a pretty smart idea.
Tags: King Banaian , Jobs , Taxes , Revenues , Surplus , MNGOP , Mark Dayton , Paul Thissen , Tom Bakk , State Government Shutdown , Tax Increase , School Shift , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:47 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 11-Oct-12 07:00 PM
Gary:
I think why the revenues were picking up is that in July everyone realized that taxes weren't being increased in the state of Minnesota (at least until 2013) and it was okay to spend and hire.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Cravaack leads Nolan
After it's properly weighted, this KSTP-SurveyUSA poll shows Chip Cravaack leading Rick Nolan. Forget about the horserace tally because it's dramatically overtilted to the Democrats.
First, this KSTP-SurveyUSA poll oversamples Democrats by a 7-point margin. That can't be justified, especially considering the fact that the Cook Report listed MN-8 as a D+3 district in 2010 . Chip's won over more Iron Rangers, meaning the Cook Report's PVI rating is more like D+2 this year.
Second, Chip gets 89% of MN-8 Republicans, 6% of MN-8 DFLers and 53% of MN-8 independents.
Third, the proper weighting of the district is 35% DFL, 34% GOP, 31% independent. That means Chip gets 30.2 votes from Republicans, 2.1 votes from DFL voters and 16.5 votes from independents for every 100 voters. That's 48.8 votes per hundred for Chip. That's assuming there isn't an enthusiasm gap, which there is. That enthusiasm gap favors Chip by a pretty solid margin.
Fourth, Rick Nolan gets 7% of Republican votes, 87% of DFL voters and a pathetic 36% of independents. That means Nolan gets 2.4 votes from the GOP, 30.5 votes from the DFL and 11.2 votes from independents per 100 votes. That's a total of 44.1 votes per 100 for Nolan.
After factoring the enthusiasm gap that favors Chip, this race isn't as close as the horserace figures indicate. This race is still competitive. Still, this snapshot must have Chip's campaign smiling.
The other thing that's sure to have Chip's campaign smiling are his fundraising totals:
(North Branch) - Today, the Cravaack for Congress campaign reports that $471,183 was raised for the third quarter (July-September). This election cycle, Cravaack has raised $1,929,176, with $1,131,433 cash on hand as of September 30.
Chip's GOTV operation, combined with this significant fundraising advantage and a significant enthusiasm gap, means Mr. Nolan is facing an uphill fight down the home stretch.
Tags: Polling , Chip Cravaack , Independents , Enthusiasm Gap , Fundraising , MNGOP , Rick Nolan , Base , DFL , The Cook Report , PVI , Election 2012
Originally posted Thursday, October 11, 2012, revised 20-Oct 12:58 PM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 11-Oct-12 01:12 PM
I like these numbers.
But you know what bothers me? 7% of GOP'ers would vote for Nolan.
What type of GOP'er would vote for Nolan?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Oct-12 06:13 PM
Arne Carlson
Comment 3 by #6 at 11-Oct-12 06:34 PM
You forgot one very interesting, and amazing result of this poll: The final question is on the vote for President, and Governor Romney leads President Obama 47-45 in the poll. That is an amazing result to me, considering the DFL history of the district.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 11-Oct-12 06:52 PM
#6
I think the reason why Romney is ahead just because the indie's have already broken for Romney. I was suspecting that Romeny was going to carry six congressional districts and the only Obama wins the state is if he can get enough votes out of the 4th and the 5th.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by #6 at 11-Oct-12 07:29 PM
I'd have to agree Walter. I don't have the Presidential vote data in front of me (at work, data at home), but over the cycles, the difference between the Republican, and Democrat has closed up recently. This seems to be a continuation of that trend.
Liveblogging the VP debate
7:50 CT -- Welcome to LFR's VP debate liveblog.
8:00 -- Ed Rollins "Paul Ryan will get the job done." I agree.
8:02 -- Martha Raddatz introducing the debate. Nine segments, alternating between foreign, domestic policy.
8:03 -- Starting with Libya, Biden promises "We'll get to the bottom of this." Now Biden is talking about President Obama's foreign policy accomplishments. "President Obama
8:06 -- Ryan: "First they blame the Youtube video for the attack, now they're blaming the Romney-Ryan ticket for the terrorist attack."
8:08 Ryan: We shouldn't have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he's aligning with the Russians.
8:15 -- Biden: These are the most crippling sanctions in history.
8:22 -- Biden is being unbearably smug. I hope it's coming across that way at home.
8:29 -- Ryan: I think Vice President Biden knows what it's like for the words to not come out right.
8:38 -- First Biden gaffe : I heard that death panel stuff from Sarah Palin. It seems like every vice presidential debate, I hear this stuff.
8:40 -- Ryan is now asserting himself. He's pouring it on about Medicare, citing Ron Wyden, Alice Rivlin & Sen. John Breaux as proponents for premium support for Medicare.
8:58 -- I thought I'd give Martha Raddatz a fair shot. The only time she interrupts, she interrupts Ryan right before he finishes his point.
9:00 -- BIDEN'S SECOND GAFFE: We went there for one reason, to get that killed Americans.
9:25 -- Best tweet of the night from Jonah Goldberg: Biden: We don't have litmus tests, but I guarantee we'll appoint pro-choice justices.
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:54 PM
No comments.
Debate analysis: First rule of holes is stop digging
Tonight's debate wasn't the substantive debate that conservatives were hoping for. When Vice President Biden rolled his eyes the first time, I wondered if that was a signal for what was ahead. It was.
Let's be clear about this. Vice President Biden was the aggressor tonight. That's almost automatically a sign of who won the debate. Tonight was the exception to that rule.
It isn't that I think Paul Ryan won tonight's debate, though he showed he's more than capable of being a heartbeat away from the presidency. It's that Joe Biden was consistently dismissive of Ryan.
There's no question that the MSNBC crowd is ecstatic tonight. If I got a sawbuck for each of their internal and external fistpumps, I'd have enough to pay for a lavish month-long vacation in the Carribbean. There's equally no question that Vice President Biden's antics turned off independents and women. This video of Greta van Susteren interviewing Brit Hume says everything:
Vice President Biden didn't just turn off Brit Hume and Greta van Susteren. He turned off Chris Wallace, too:
That's only part of Vice President Biden's problem. When asked about additional security forces for the Benghazi Consulate, Vice President Biden said that the administration didn't know about requests for additional security. That's a bald-faced lie according Wednesday's testimony:
"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.
First, this administration's insistence that they didn't know about the requests is frightening. Either the administration is lying about not knowing or they weren't interested in the security conditions at a consulate in a growing terrorist hotspot.
If Vice President Biden wants us to believe that this administration didn't pay attention to the escalating terrorist threats near the consulate, then he's asking us to believe that they don't pay attention to growing terrorist threats around the world.
That's frightening.
The good news for Democrats about tonight's debate is that it fired up the progressive base. The bad news is it turned off the other 70+ percent of the voters.
Tags: Joe Biden , The Base , Red Meat , MSNBC , Arrogance , Condescension , Benghazi , Terrorist Attack , Democrats , Paul Ryan , Debate , GOP , Brit Hume , Chris Wallace , Greta van Susteren , Election 2012
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 2:25 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 12-Oct-12 07:04 AM
I watched it. It would surprise me greatly if it has any effect whatsoever on the election outcome. It confirmed many impressions I had. Biden talks a better story than many in his party will deliver. Obama has that problem with it being a diverse party, having too strong a right wing. Ryan opposes Romneycare. Ryan wants fat cats fatter.
So?
What did you think of out of Afghanistan by date certain, vs yes and no and maybe with provisos?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Oct-12 11:26 AM
Biden was a total jerkweed. His performance was exactly what the Nutroots at MSNBC called for last week. Biden's performance turned off independents & women. They just haven't learned. When they amassed in Wisconsin to protest Scott Walker's bill, they closed the enthusiasm gap but turned off independents. They didn't learn.
Last night, Biden acted like he was programmed by the Nutroots.
As for Afghanistan, I thought Democrats always said that that's where the real war on terror should've been fought. Apparently, this inept administration thinks that wars are meant to be lost, not won. Apparently, this administration thinks it's better to cut & run than to do the right thing.
Bin Laden is dead but al-Qa'ida is thriving, especially in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya & Yemen. Following the OBama-Biden Doctrine leads to defeat, humiliation & appeasement.
Comment 2 by eric z at 12-Oct-12 07:14 AM
About Libya, it really reminds me of William Buckley in Lebanon during Gipper years. The difference is back then the opposition party proved to be better Americans, and did not undermine the Gipper's options and approaches.
Comment 3 by eric z at 12-Oct-12 01:47 PM
Here is something we can agree on, Gary.
Since they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union they should pay them the prize in Euros. And good luck.
Comment 4 by eric z at 12-Oct-12 02:03 PM
Gary, it was your guy Nixon who declared Vietnam a victory, and boogied. With your guy, Kissenger. Precedent setters. Leaving chaos on the embassy rooftop. So show a sense of history. Remember pushing the helicopters off the carrier deck so the pilots would not make any more rescue runs? Your guys.
Gary, in that decision, Nixon did the right thing. Your Guy W, he started and ran two wars on the credit card with Ryan cheering it on. Both did the wrong thing. Ron Paul will tell you that. In clear terms.
Your guys.
But with Nixon having the good sense to disengage from a dumb thing. Also, Nixon respected and funded Medicare and Social Security, being less egregious than some these days.
Shifting --- From the comment I read it as a belief that Ryan did well and that you think having the VP debate will make a difference. I don't know that I agree about that, but it is interesting to see how you feel.
I am unsure whether I will watch anymore.
Vulture vs CHANGEman is unimpressive. We need a third and fourth party. We need real choices. Not more of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 12-Oct-12 03:18 PM
First, Nixon & Kissinger weren't my guys. Nixon resigned before I cast my first vote 4 months later. PS- I voted for Hubert Humphrey.
W's strategy to keep attacking terrorists where they live is the right strategy. When Nixon left Vietnam, there wasn't a chance they'd attack San Fransisco.
There's a 100% chance that AQ will attack us if we leave Afghanistan. Are you prepared to accept additional terrorist attacks?
As for Ryan's performance, it wasn't great. Romney's performance was dominating. Ryan made some important points but it wasn't a dominant performance by any stretch.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 12-Oct-12 07:07 PM
Eric:
Um Biden in effect totally undermined every argument he made later in the debate by the answer that he gave on Libya.
If you don't believe me:
* The tough sancations on Iran are working. Oh that's right we know that's right because the intelligence community which can't figure out we were victimized by a terrorist attack and needed to upgrade the security tells us that is the truth.
* Iran is years away from having nuclear weaponws. Oh that's right we know that's right because the intelligence community which can't figure out we were victimized by a terrorist attack and needed to upgrade the security tells us that is the truth.
* Afghanistan in 2014 will be okay when we leave. Oh that's right we know that's right because the intelligence community which can't figure out we were victimized by a terrorist attack and needed to upgrade the security tells us that is the truth.
Ryan all during the debate was using an element of intelligence which any President has to count on, COMMONSENSE! Commonsense which might be needed if your intelligence community misses a key fact.
Under the commonsense approach of Romney-Ryan:
* We need to pay attention to the day 9-11 because that is a special day which terrorists will love to perform an attack.
* Um the British ambassador in Libya was attacked does that place the life of our ambassador in danger?
* Egypt and Libya have new governments which might allow their citizens to do things they haven't done in the past so maybe we should be more worried about our security in Libya and Egypt.
* Iran leaders if they think we are protecting weakness (which we are, but Biden is listening to intelligence reports that says we aren't, but those could be wrong since we know that they got Libya wrong) that could encourage them to do more things bad.
I can go on Eric, but you didn't see that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Mitt extends lead in Florida
This morning, the Romney-Ryan ticket got great news. Scott Rasmussen's polling in Florida must have President Obama worried:
Mitt Romney has crossed the 50% mark for the first time to widen his lead to four points in Florida. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Voters finds Romney with 51% support to President Obama's 47%. Two percent (2%) remain undecided.
That's terrible news for the Obama campaign but it isn't the only polling difficulty he's experiencing. Reliable polling in Virginia indicates a major shift away from President Obama:
According to a McLaughlin & Associates poll that had an R+.02 sample, Romney leads Obama in Virginia 51%-44%. Among independents, Romney beats Obama by 11 points, 50%-39%.
If these leads stabilize over the next week, that will give the Romney campaign time to shift focus to a new set of states to compete in. By doing that, they'll force President Obama to defend more states with a limited amount of cash on hand. If President Obama is forced to defend more states than first anticipated, that might spell disaster for the Obama administration.
The last spate of polls shows Mitt Romney opening up significant leads with independents. If that trend continues, it wouldn't be a stretch to predict President Obama being on the defensive the rest of the way. That's why it isn't unreasonable to think Mitt could successfully compete in states like Michigan and New Jersey.
Tags: Polling , Florida , Virginia , Rasmussen , McLaughlin , Mitt Romney , GOP , President Obama , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-Oct-12 06:56 PM
Gary:
I think it's kind of hard to say that Obama has limited cash with the $181 million he got last month (a lot I suspect illegal and improper because of the way he handles his credit card donations).
Still I think the field is expanding that Obama has to defend unlike 2008 and it won't matter at all if he is outspending Romney everywhere.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
