Obama’s Math Mish-Mash, Romney’s Expertise, Speaks on ECONOMY in Ames, Iowa

Mitt Romney has criss-crossed the nation many times listening to and speaking with small business owners and everyday Americans deeply concerned about the economy. He’s pictured at such a meeting at Brewery Bar IV on June 19, 2011 in Aurora, Colorado. (Photo – John Moore/Getty)

A couple of nights ago, President Obama admitted his MATH challenges to Jay Leno. Do you think his deficiencies just might have something to do with his economic challenges? Like his bullheaded thinking that government is the engine behind America’s economy? (Notice: I did not use Obama’s “bull******” word.) What about his failure to understand that continually spending more than we take in has put us on the rickety road to ruin? Does his aversion to arithmetic prevent him from grasping that he’s added almost as much debt held by the public as all prior American presidents in history? How about the President’s choking on things like, oh… say, a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET?

Take a look:

Leno: Here’s Samantha from Colorado: “When you help your daughters with their homework, is there a a subject you struggle with?”
Obama: Well, the math stuff I was fine with up until about seventh grade.
Leno: Yeah.
Obama: But Malia is now a freshman in high school and — I’m pretty lost.
Obama: Fortunately, they’re great students on their own. and, you know, if something doesn’t work, I’ll call over to the Department of Energy and see if they have a physicist to come over.

How about we call Mayflower moving company and get the math mish-masher out of the White House? We’ve got someone running for president whose passion for numbers, economic analysis, and results is part of his DNA. Undergirding it all is his passion for helping people. It’s helped him turn around failing businesses, a state in trouble, and an entire troubled winter Olympics.

How did Romney learn so much about numbers, economic analysis, and business? Glad you asked! Here’s how:

Romney attended Stanford University for a year before serving 30 months as a missionary for his church. He then headed to BYU (where Ann was attending) to study English and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Mitt wanted to pursue a business career, but his Dad advised him that a law degree would be helpful to him, even if he didn’t become a lawyer. So, he enrolled in a grueling, newly-formed, joint four-year Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated by Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. It was a rigorous, dual course of study. (He and Ann were married by then and were busy parents to two small children. Ann also determinedly finished her undergraduate work by taking night courses at Harvard University Extension School. In 1975, she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree with a concentration in French language from BYU.) With hard work, discipline, and dedication, Romney graduated in 1975 cum laude from the law school in the top third of the class. He was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent in his business school class.

★ Also worth noting: We’ve got a vice-presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, who also runs arithmetic circles around Obama and Biden.

You’ll like this: Romney for President today launched four excellent new videos on SterlingBusinessCareer.com. It’s a NEW website highlighting Governor Romney’s successful achievements in the private sector. When you stop by, you’ll hear from folks who worked at businesses benefitting from Romney’s work. Romney for President says, to date, the campaign has released 17 different videos documenting The Gov’s private-sector experience. The videos have been viewed over 125,000 times.

Here’s one of the new vidoes: ‘Uniquely Qualified’

Learn more about Romney’s record of building, fixing, and growing business; see the other three new videos here.

If you missed it, Romney delivered a fantastic economic speech today in Ames, Iowa. Watch it here!

★ While Romney was standing with a stalwart crowd of patriotic Americans in blustery, chilly Iowa today, speaking on matters of great importance, and while further incriminating news about Benghazi was breaking, President Obama put on his suit to rock with MTV host Sway Calloway. No calling in (like he does for those pesky security council meetings); MTV deserved his presence! Listen to this hard-hitting question and how Obama rambles trying to give a presidential answer:

Get More:
Music News


Now, contrast that with Romney’s speech today. Here’s a helpful transcript:

Newspaper Endorsements Pour In for Romney/Ryan: NH, MA, WV, TX, MI, VA, NY, D.C.

Photo – Al Behrman / AP

Like a waterfall, newspaper editorial board endorsements for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan continue to pour in…

Foster’s Daily Democrat (NH)
Editorial
October 24, 2012

http://goo.gl/9AhMb

It’s Now Time To Decide

If you had already made up your mind going into Monday night’s presidential debate, nothing said probably changed your mind. But for those who were undecided, there certainly was some food for thought.

But what was lacking on the part of the president was a vision for the future and credibility based on the past. The current commander in chief repeatedly accused Romney of reaching back into history for failed policies of the past both home and abroad. The president summoned images of President Herbert Hoover and others which history has deemed failures. In doing so, Obama tried to gloss over his own history of failed promises — on unemployment, on balancing the budget, cutting the deficit and — as we believe — earning the respect of our overseas allies.

Admittedly, Obama’s failures center mostly around domestic policy — Romney’s strength. But as Romney pointed out Monday night, in order to be strong and respected on the international stage, the United States must be strong economically.

As readers know, there is no doubt on the part of the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat new leadership is needed from the White House. We believe all three debates — but especially the first — support that notion. We believe that, on balance, the debates have shown Mitt Romney to be the more capable and with a vision for the future — a vision President Obama has failed to offer.

On Nov. 6, we urge voters to give Mitt Romney a chance to offer the nation real hope and change.



Boston Herald
Editorial Staff
October 23, 2012

http://www.bostonherald.com

Romney’s The One

Four years ago the voters put their faith in a man who offered vague promises of hope and change at a time when any change looked like a good idea and hope was in short supply.

What this nation got in Barack Obama was a president who used an economic crisis to further his redistributionist agenda — and, not surprisingly, failed miserably at restoring American prosperity. Oh, he brought change all right — to a government-knows-best philosophy that has given us four years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, a $16 trillion deficit, and a job-killing regulatory environment.
..
Enough! This isn’t the kind of change anyone can believe in.

The other simple fact is that in Mitt Romney voters have not merely a safe and steady alternative but a proven leader and an extraordinarily skilled expert in the art of the economic turnaround.

He did that all over again for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

What Romney knows at the core of his being is that sometimes government must step aside and sometimes it must lead.

Last night the nation saw a man who in the area of foreign policy is prepared to lead, who knows that for the United States to remain safe it must reclaim its place on the world stage.

During the last four years the world has become a more dangerous place. We can’t afford four more years of a leadership vacuum.

Not when in Mitt Romney voters have the choice of a strong, smart hand on the helm, a decent, caring man, who lives his faith, who loves his country and would serve it well. For all of those reasons, the Boston Herald is pleased to endorse Mitt Romney for president.

So much more! Click here.

Obama Foreign Policy: Seriously Sub-Optimal

Pictures of Barack Obama bowing courtesy of today’s Drudge Report.

Overview.

I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”

So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.

His One Argument: bin Laden

Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”

First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.

Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.

Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.

Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots

1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.

Judge Jeanine of Fox lets it out here:

(more…)

Romney: More to Gain Than to Lose in Last Debate

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

Even those formerly on Obama’s foreign policy team decidedly do NOT see this as a strength for him (be sure to read that scathing rebuke!).

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.


Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

Obama Just Doesn’t Understand

November’s election will likely come down to how people feel about the candidates…what their gut tells them.

Unfortunately for the president, jobs numbers and anemic economic growth continue to be, as Mitt Romney has put it, a continual “kick in the gut.” Despite finally pulling to even compared to when he came into office at 7.8% unemployment, after taking into account everyone who stopped working due to Obama discouragement, the unemployment rate would now be over 10%. Not acceptable.

In addition, it’s clear Obama just doesn’t get it when it comes to job creation. At Tuesdays’ debate he kept incredulously saying Mitt’s tax plan didn’t work because it contained trillions in cuts (that Mitt says aren’t even accurate), and he doesn’t understand how they’re paid for. Is anyone surprised Obama just doesn’t understand? It’s clear from his record. Why should we be surprised he scratches his head when looking at Mitt’s plan? Mitt knows: cutting taxes will help create jobs. It worked for Reagan. Paul Ryan pointed out it worked for Kennedy. It’ll work for President Romney.

If you think President Obama is a friend to the middle class, and you have a job, congratulations, you’re in better shape than many. But you need to watch this video from back in April to understand just what will happen to you under Obama’s planned tax increases. Not just for the wealthy, but everyone.

President Obama’s response to anemic job growth? Raise taxes. Apply leaches to the patient of the economy. As the growth of the economy has been slower the longer he’s been president, he’s still said he’s taken “step[s] in the right direction.” Tiny steps, getting shorter.

It makes me wonder, after all of President Obama’s attempts to label Mitt Romney as a job outsourcer or out-of-touch rich guy, who is the real friend of the middle class? Even if President Obama is really trying, nothing he’s doing is working. Past reports have said the Obama recovery ranked dead last in modern times, at that time ten out of ten for both jobs and economic growth. I haven’t found an updated report, but I understand growth has slowed, not improved, since. During the period measured, jobs had grown only 4.1% since the recession’s low point. Reagan’s record during the same period was 10.7%. So it’s not like it can’t be done. It’s been done before.

(more…)

Presidential Debate #2: Crowley Butts In, Backs Off, Luntz Focus Group Liked Romney

Taking a cue from the Biden playbook, Barack Obama pulls a face and acts like he’s going to spring from his chair as Mitt Romney makes a point at the presidential debate held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY on Oct 16, 2012. (photographer unknown)

The presidential debate action at Hempstead, New York, is in the can…

There were tense moments.

Pundits and politicians will be talking for days about the ‘terrorism’ Libya moment – the one where Obama water carrier moderator Candy CNN Crowley interrupted Mitt Romney to side with Obama by injecting her jaw-dropping version of fact-checker. Cutting off the Governor, she sided with the President on remarks he claimed he made in the Rose Garden the day after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Obama said he labeled the attacks as “terror” right away. After the Crowley butt-in, Obama then called from way back on his stool for Crowley to repeat her “fact” louder. Turns out, Obama and Crowley have nothing to crow about:

Democratic strategist Joe Trippi later said on FOX News that it looked like “the ref just threw the flag.”

After the debate, Crowley, who repeatedly cut Romney off, and when all was said and done, bequeathed Obama with 3 minutes and 14 seconds more speaking time than the Governor, tried to back off. She conceded that Romney was “right in the main.”

There’s so much I want to say about Ms. Crowley’s moderating, but I’ll constrain myself and just say she made a disgusting hash of it.

Someone else agrees with me:


After the debate, Frank Luntz (FOX News) conducted a focus group in Nevada of mostly former Obama voters. Romney impressed them. Here is Part 1:


Luntz began the discussion by asking participants for a word or phrase to describe Romney’s performance:

Forceful, presidential.”

Confident and realistic.”

Presidential.”

Presidential and enthusiastic.”

Our next president.”

Dynamo! Winner.”

Knowledgeable and sincere.”

Steady and articulate.”

Part 2 may be viewed here.

The 82 voters in the town hall setting were chosen by Gallup and Candy Crowley selected the questions. Romney walked into a stacked game but didn’t back down. Voters saw him as someone with strength, leadership, and a common-sense plan to move America forward. Obama was aggressive, pulled a few Biden-style faces, did a lot of bluffing, and threw in some blaming. He offered NO plan.

No wonder Independent swing-voters like Mitt Romney.

If you missed the fireworks, click here to watch the entire debate.

Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech (VIDEO, full text): Confidence, Clarity, Resolve

Mitt Romney delivers a foreign policy speech at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, VA., today, Oct 8, 2012. (Photo – Charles Dharapak/AP)

In a sweeping critique of Obama’s lead-from-behind foreign policy, Governor Mitt Romney today delivered a powerful, robust foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute. Speaking of the recent explosion of violence and upheaval in the Middle East, Romney said it is “time to change course in the Middle East.”

Punctuating his national security positions before his next presidential debate on October 16th with Obama (foreign policy will be the topic), Romney said, “That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.”

Foreign policy expert and columnist, K.T. McFarland, today on television program ‘The Five’ (FOX News) enthusiastically exclaimed, ”I’ve been waiting 20 years for this speech! He [Romney] was channeling Reagan!” She also went on to say Romney’s “speech was actually really phenomenal and I commend him for doing it!” (MccFarland served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1985 and speech writer for Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.)

‘The Mantel of Leadership’:


Transcript:

I particularly appreciate the introduction from my good friend and tireless campaign companion, Gov. Bob McDonnell. He is showing what conservative leadership can do to build a stronger economy. Thank you also Congressman Goodlatte for joining us today. And particular thanks to Gen. Peay. I appreciate your invitation to be with you today at the Virginia Military Institute. It is a great privilege to be here at an Institution that has done so much for our nation, both in war and in peace.

For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation’s defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead — murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

(more…)

What They’re Saying About the Presidential Duel in Denver – Obama: “Four Snore Years”

The first debate is over!

It was remarkable…

for Romney.

The day after the first presidential debate of 2012 in Denver, CO, this headline from the Boston Herald says it all… (Oct 4, 2012)

I was going to begin this article by saying Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama went eyeball to eyeball last night in Denver, but that wasn’t the case. It was a night of Romney focusing on Obama, looking directly into his eyes, while Obama’s eyes were oft-times focused… downward… as if he was willing the lectern to morph into his teleprompter. And, in my opinion, as if he knew Romney was on to him. The Boston Herald headline above encapsulates the evening.

Romney seemed to relish the opportunity to speak to Americans without the filter of the nefarious news media. He was the man we know and admire – very well-prepared, precise, focused, in control, filled with conviction and compassion, showed humor, aggressive while affable, and was completely at ease.

Obama was flat, subdued, distracted, passive, at times churlish and bewildered that his royal-highness-stature-and-personality wasn’t cutting the mustard. At one point Obama asked moderator Jim Lehrer to move off a topic (a first!).

From the get-go, Obama attempted to set the campaign narrative as not what has happened in the last four years, but what will happen if he’s given four MORE years. He couldn’t be standing on shakier, flakier ground.

Some Obama proponents today are claiming moderator Jim Lehrer was weak or favored Romney. Not so. Obama was given four more minutes of speaking time – over Romney. The Governor delivered far more substance in his allotted time than Obama with his extra OVERtime. And, Lehrer appeared at times to attempt to coach Obama via his questions, trying to prompt him to give a more cogent response.

Last night’s debate aptly illustrated by Gary Varvel, Oct 4, 2012

Clash of the titans? The only titan present in this race is Mitt Romney.

I’m delighted at what is being said about the Duel in Denver (from Mitt Romney Press):

Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter: “And I Think That Mitt Romney, Yes, He Absolutely Wins The Preparation. And He Wins The Style Points.” (CNN’s “CNN Live,” 10/3/12)

ABC News’ Jake Tapper: “It Was Not A Strong Performance By [President Obama].” ABC’s JAKE TAPPER: “Well, I’ve covered President Obama for about six or seven years now and I’ve seen him inspire crowds of tens of thousands and then I also recall the summer of 2007 when he was listless and flat and uninspired and his campaign manager had to knock some sense in him and get him back in the game. Unfortunately for the Obama campaign that’s the Obama I saw on the stage tonight. It was not a strong performance by him.” (ABC, 10/3/12)

Bloomberg’s Joshua Green: “Dominating…” “On Wednesday night, Mitt Romney attempted a hostile takeover of the presidential campaign … dominating President Obama.” (Bloomberg, 10/3/12)

Politico’s Glenn Thrush: “How Tough A Night Was It For The Incumbent? He Even Muffed Some Of The Basics Of Debate 101…” “How tough a night was it for the incumbent? He even muffed some of the basics of Debate 101, struggling to find the right camera to address once or twice during the mostly civil 90-minute exchange.” (Politico, 10/3/12)

After Mitt Romney’s debate performance, his sweet granddaughter rushed on stage to give him a big hug. Oct 3, 2012 (photographer unknown)

Time’s Mark Halperin: “A Performance That Will Both Delight The Republican Base And Make Undecided Voters Take Note. Was The Dominant Figure On The Stage On Almost Every Exchange.” (Time , 10/3/12)

ABC News’ Russell Goldman: “Romney Came Out Swinging In The First Presidential Debate…” “Mitt Romney came out swinging in the first presidential debate, challenging President Obama over his health care reforms, treatment of the economy, taxes and funding for Sesame Street’s Big Bird.” (ABC News, 10/3/12)

BuzzFeed’s Michael Hastings: “For Weeks, President Obama’s Advisers Have Been Lowering Expectations … Maybe The Expectations Weren’t Low Enough.” “For weeks, President Obama’s advisers have been lowering expectations for the debate tonight, both privately and publicly forecasting that the Commander in Chief could deliver a dud. Maybe the expectations weren’t low enough.” (BuzzFeed, 10/3/12)

Time’s Joe Klein: “Mitt Romney Won This Debate. Barack Obama Lost It. I Mean, He Got His Butt Kicked.” “Well, I’m with all the other talking heads: Mitt Romney won this debate. Barack Obama lost it. I mean, he got his butt kicked. It was, in fact, one of the most inept performances I’ve ever seen by a sitting President.” (Time , 10/3/12)

Bloomberg’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “Romney Made The Most Focused Appeal To Middle-Class Voters On The Basis Of How His Agenda Would Help Them…” “Romney made the most focused appeal to middle-class voters on the basis of how his agenda would help them — on energy, on health care, on jobs — that he ever has.” (Bloomberg, 10/4/12)

Read more and SEE PHOTOS by clicking here.

PANDER ALERT: Obama Thinks We’re Stupid, Tries to Get Tough with China Right Before Election

Obama Tough on China?

We’ve seen it time and time again on issues like gay marriage on immigration reform, but the latest last-minute Obama pander comes on an issue that he’s been proven to be weak on: China.

Nearly 4 years into his presidency, and conveniently before the debates, Obama will be in my state (Ohio) today to announce a trade case against China over illegal subsidies for automobiles and auto parts. What took him so long?

This is an issue that is central to the Romney message, one that he has hammered away at since the early days of the Republican primary — and Obama clearly sees that the message is resonating, thus the pander.

It’s no secret that Ohioans trust Romney on this issue:

It is almost offensive to me that Obama would wait until the last months of his presidency to do something that he could have just as easily done years ago — and all to try and get a boost in the polls before reelection.

His flip-flop on gay marriage earlier this year and his ultra-pander on immigration are similar ways of saying, “Hey voters, I think you’re stupid enough to not see what I’m doing here.”

But the voting public recognizes these stunts for what they are and we’ll be damned if we don’t call him out on it.
(more…)