My Closing Argument, and This Ain’t Just Rhetoric

Overview: My Main Philosophical Reason I’m Voting For Mitt.

I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.
(more…)

UPDATED: Media Finally Coming Around: Benghazi Raises Questions of Obama’s Fitness to Lead

UPDATE: In the wee hours last night after posting this article two important events were brought to my attention:

1. CBS just released the rest of the 60 Minutes interview with President Obama the day after the Benghazi attack. See what it says here at Fox in a post by Brett Baier, who I gave kudos to below. In it the president refused to call the attacks terrorism, notwithstanding his statement at the debate he’d called it that from day 1. It shows the president did not, in fact, take that position until much later, vindicating Mitt Romney in the debate and showing the president deceived the American people (with Cindy Crawley’s help). Byron York and Ari Fleischer both tweeted to ask “why sit on this information until now?” Makes me want to watch the Caddell video again…

2. I received a tweet last night pointing me to the website for Congressman Kelly of Pennsylvania. He’s a co-signer, along with over fifty other members of the House, of a letter sent to the president Friday demanding answers about Benghazi. More evidence people are starting to ask the right questions.

ORIGINAL POST:

As Vic Lundquist reported, some in the media (Fox) have not let this go. Brett Baier in particular has done a great job. And I was moved when I saw Pat Caddell’s comments (video in Vic’s post, and re-included here below).

But today I finally, finally saw a headline that gave me a glimmer of hope about our media and Benghazi. Two mainstream papers are asking the right questions about what happened and why.

The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have just, in the last two days, asked some pointed questions to the administration about what happened. Do we expect an answer before Tuesday? I don’t. And for that it’s difficult to forgive the media, as Pat Caddell says. They sat on this too long to allow the truth to get out in time for it to have an impact on people’s choices Tuesday. Unless you vote for Mitt and don’t let the president off the hook for hiding the ball.

In the Washington Post piece, the editorial board asks the reasons why the facility was so under-prepared when the threats of violence were so obvious?

Fox News reported this week that a secret cable described an Aug. 15 “emergency meeting” at the consulate, at which the State Department’s regional security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support and the overall size of the compound.”

Fox reported that the cable, dispatched to Washington, said the emergency meeting included a briefing about al-Qaeda training camps in the Benghazi area and Islamist militias, including those that allegedly carried out the Sept. 11 attack. In another cable on Sept. 11, hours before the attack, Mr. Stevens described “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the local militias and police, to which the State Department had entrusted the consulate’s defense. Separately, according to a report on ForeignPolicy.com, Mr. Stevens may have dispatched a letter to Benghazi authorities, complaining that a policeman assigned to guard the consulate was photographing it on the morning of Sept. 11.

Even if you believe what the Post is willing to, that the ultimate US response was all that could be mustered (there seems to be evidence to the contrary due to assets being available in Italy and a drone flying overhead), they still ask the key question:

…why [were] the various agencies … not better prepared for such an emergency, given the clear warnings. Did the Obama administration’s political preoccupation with maintaining a light footprint in Libya lead to an ill-considered reliance on local militias, rather than on U.S. forces? Given the region’s instability, why were no military rapid-reaction assets — such as Special Forces or armed drones — within reach of Northern Africa?

While the agencies separately defend themselves — or not — the White House appears determined to put off any serious discussion of Benghazi until after the election. Sooner or later, however, the administration must answer questions about what increasingly looks like a major security failure — and about the policies that led to it.

Yes, it appears to be a major security failure, resulting from seriously flawed policies. But “sooner or later” is not really satisfactory to me, since I firmly believe that how the Obama administration planned for, responded to, and reported about this event is highly relevant to whether we should be voting for President Obama’s re-election.

(more…)

Obama Left Them to Fight Their Guts Out for Seven Hours! (#Video)

In all candor, I actually believe Barack Obama thinks most of us Americans are stupid regarding the decisions he made and his inaction regarding the Benghazi assassinations. Those four Americans absolutely knew help was on the way and that it would be just a matter of an hour or two before they would be rescued. They had no doubt we would answer the call! They knew we would never leave them high and dry. I am furious that the person we grant authority to as commander in chief would leave an American Ambassador and three other great American patriots to fight their guts out for seven hours as he watched through high definition TV screens from a drone!

We will never forget!

Barack Obama, Commander in Chief?


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Obama II: My Halloween Nightmare

On Halloween night six days before we choose our next president, I must confess that I realized inside me there resides a real fear of what would happen if Obama won next Tuesday. In the spirit of Halloween I decided to give in to that fear, like going to a horror movie, and allow myself to be really, really frightened by the specter of an Obama re-election. So here’s my Halloween Nightmare: Obama II, the sequel.

Like in a horror movie, things may look fine on the surface, but then the ominous music starts playing and you know something’s just not right. This close to the election I feel like I’m watching the American public in the role of that poor teenager, innocently wandering in the dark alley by himself, not knowing the danger right around the corner. The entire audience knows it’s there, and it seems anyone with half a brain would know as well. Yet the teenager doesn’t see it. And so the drama builds…will the hapless teenager keep moving toward danger, or will he turn at the last moment? The suspense is killing me.

But unlike those horror movies, where the fear is contrived and you can calmly go home afterward, my fear is real. The threats to our economy and freedoms are real, and there may be no going home afterward. Obama II may be a nightmare we don’t wake up from. Why am I so worried? What is this ominous music I’m hearing? Tonight I give in to the fear and try and give it a voice. Tonight I try and give a name to what lurks in the dark corners of my mind:

Maybe I’m worried that the next four years will be like the last four. I sat and watched from my position as an attorney for startup companies and venture capitalists as the economy slowed, investment ran dry, and people just didn’t get jobs back, even after reports of an improving economy.

Maybe it’s the fact so many people gave up looking for work. They don’t count in that 7.8% unemployment number anymore but they’re still unemployed.

Maybe it’s the passage of Obamacare, with its thousands of pages, new taxes and failure to reduce costs. When it seemed our economy needed an energy boost, the president was sucking more blood from it.

Maybe it’s the statements I hear from founders of large and small companies that if Obama is re-elected they’ll move those companies, either out of my state or out of the country.

Maybe it’s my dismay at Obamacare’s constitutionally-questionable mandate that some employers do things against their conscience and pay for their employees’ contraception.

Maybe it’s the use of constitutionally-questionable executive orders to do an end-run around Congress on immigration law.

Maybe it’s President Obama’s convenient conversion on same sex marriage.

Maybe it’s my worry about the fiscal cliff, and that President Obama has shown no ability to work with Congress in the bipartisan manner we’ll need to avoid the real horror movie of that un-natural disaster.

Maybe I’m horrified by all those rounds of golf President Obama played. Not that I object to a guy taking a break, but when I saw what happened in the first debate, I saw a pattern. President Obama only shows up when it really suits him, like when his job’s on the line. Maybe I’m worried nothing will motivate him if he’s re-elected and has no accountability. And maybe I’m not only worried about what President Obama won’t do, but what he will do without accountability to the voters.

Maybe I’m worried with no attention being paid, and no real admission of culpability, there’ll be a Benghazi II. How do you avoid repeating a problem you don’t take responsibility for?

Maybe I’m worried about what Supreme Court justices a 2d term President Obama would appoint. Would they interpret the constitution as it was intended, or would they fall in line with the other liberal justices on the court to act like a new legislature rather than limiting Federal power.

I realize I’m letting things get away from me. Mitt’s still neck and neck with President Obama, and maybe we won’t be forced to live through Obama II. There’s a good chance, given the polling data, Mitt even wins in a landslide. But tonight, on Halloween, I’m letting myself be terrified. I’m just sick that this nightmare has any chance of really coming true.

BREAKING: CIA Told To Stand Down In Libya; Father of Killed ex-SEAL Calmly asks Why

Fox News today released two more disturbing reports about the events at Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

First, Fox reports:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Here’s the video:


Remember that the attacks came in waves and lasted for six and a half hours. Drones were in position to watch. Teams could have been deployed from Italy and arrived in time to help. What happened?

Reacting to this news, Charles Woods, the father of killed ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, didn’t mince words:

The father of a former Navy SEAL killed in the Libya terror attack last month said Friday that U.S. officials who denied a request for help while the diplomatic compound in Benghazi was under attack “are murderers of my son.”

Charles Woods was reacting to accounts by Fox News sources that a request from the CIA annex for backup was denied by U.S. officials. His son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in the Sept. 11 assault.

“They refused to pull the trigger,” Woods said. “Those people who made the decision and who knew about the decision and lied about it are murderers of my son.”

Woods said he forgives whoever denied the apparent request, but he urged them to “stand up.”

Here’s his son’s story, and the father’s reaction:


Glen Beck also interviewed Mr. Woods today. He asked Mr. Woods about his interactions with the president, vice president and Secretary of State Clinton. He was not impressed that any of them were terribly sincere in their expressed apologies. Our vice president even made a couple less than appropriate remarks (surprise), and Mrs. Clinton explicitly said they’d go after the guy who “made that film” is arrested; not the attackers. Here’s that video:

When can we expect the administration to respond to these, and other inflammatory allegations, or should we expect to be kept in the dark until after the election?

BREAKING: White House Told During Benghazi Attack That It Was Terrorism

UPDATE: Greta van Susteren and Liz Cheney discuss the president’s debate statement he did all he could to protect our people during the attack, while our forces only an hour’s flight away in Italy weren’t deployed during any of a 7 hour, multi-wave attack our leaders were able to watch from drones overhead. Even an F-18 flyover may have scared the attackers off, but nothing was done. Meanwhile on one occasion Reagan acted within 90 minutes to scramble fighters to take down a possible terrorist threat in the sky. Decisive leadership can get things done. The question is: where was the president? Where was the Secretary of State? Wouldn’t the Secretary of Defense have given the president a choice of assets to deploy in the region? Nothing was done, and our president says he did all he could? Greta: “we just sat and watched.”


This reported tonight by Reuters, CBS, Fox and others.

Watch Fox’s principal report here:


Reuters reported:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Three emails were obtained.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Were these just a few emails lost in the rush? Nope. According to the Examiner:

“Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding,” van Susteren added. One of the addresses that received the emails “is the White House Situation address,” she said.

What else do we need to know? Hundreds received these emails, including the White House situation room. There’s no room for confusion. Immediate reports did not suggest a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video. They clearly indicated a terrorist attack.

While I have a hard time calling anyone a liar, it’s getting harder and harder to come up with plausible excuses for how the White House could possibly have maintained in all honesty a position that the attack in Benghazi, which they watched through military drones, was a reaction to the YouTube video. It’s getting nigh impossible to come up with any possible explanation other than utter incompetence or dishonesty. For all Obama’s bluster in Monday night’s debate about “one thing [he] learned” is the need as Commmander-in-Chief to send clear messages and avoid changing positions, his record on this point is disastrously inept.

With this information, how can the White House get to a place where it blames an irrelevant YouTube video for 2 weeks rather than saying it was a terrorist attack? How can it send out the UN ambassador to perpetuate this story with such certitude?

While officials did [early on] mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

It would be one thing to come out and say “we just don’t know what happened, we are investigating and will let you know when we know something.” But it’s clearly another to blame a cause the evidence before you indicates is wrong.

Here’s CBS’ video report:

If, as this report suggests, the president really thought terrorists were behind the attack, why didn’t the administration slow down and say they just didn’t know? Why take such a definitive position contradicted by the evidence?

Something is really off here, and the president needs to come clean. Was it that the White House truly believed the CIA report mentioned by the Washington Post that suggested the Benghazi attack was a result of the video? If so is this a case of willingly believing the story that suits you best despite significant evidence to the contrary? What does it say about the president or his administration that he’s willing to ignore facts staring him in the face? My bottom line is that it’s getting tougher to find ways to let the White House off the hook 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 …

Third and Final Presidential Debate Between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama

Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Debate

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama Debate

Topic: Foreign Policy
Date and Time: Monday, October 22, 9:00-10:30 PM EST
Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida
Elevation: 13 ft.
Moderator: Bob Schieffer – Host of Face the Nation on CBS

The debate will focus on foreign policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

Source: 2012 Election Center

Go Romney!

The Libya Moment in Debate #2

That Libya moment during the debate is something we Romney supporters need to hammer on a daily basis for the next three weeks. Romney told the audience it took two weeks for Obama to call the Libya event an act of terror, which Obama disputed by claiming that his Rose Garden speech (the day after the attack) called it an act of terror. The moderator stepped in an backed up Obama’s claim despite its inaccuracy, which helped Obama get away with the false claim. This is a must-read article on the topic, written September 30.

Obama’s Rose Garden speech was far from calling Benghazi attack an Act of Terror.

“Obama said during the speech that ‘No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation’ — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. ‘Acts of terror’ could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”

It seems like a mere technicality, so why is this even an issue? Here’s why (from the last paragraph of the article):

“Actually, this is much more than an issue of semantics. Calling it a terrorist attack would have given Obama powers under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) to use military action, including drone warfare, against the perpetrators. If he were serious about “bring[ing] to justice the killers,” which he vowed to do in the speech, then labeling this incident a terrorist attack (if he believed that’s what it was) would have been critical. Instead, we now have the FBI sitting with its hands bound in Tripoli, unable to move forward with a serious investigation.” (Emphasis added)

In other words, once the president officially designates the event as an “Act of Terror” — there are a lot more options “on the table” to forcefully respond and bring the perpetrators to justice. That is the decision that Obama “uhm’d and awe’d” about for weeks before making up his mind as the administration went back and forth between the “act of terror” conclusion vs. a “minor protest over a video” conclusion. It was September 11, our country had a crisis on its hands, and Obama made sure he didn’t miss his Las Vegas fund raiser that day.

The Libya event is the epitome of Obama’s failed leadership that has become the hallmark of his presidency…and Obama dodged a bullet with this issue in last night’s debate (with a little help from a moderator who has since corrected herself.)

Page 1 of 212