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 …

A Campaign About…Nothing (and other thoughts)

Is Obama intentionally, in the words of Reince Priebus, or John Ransom, running a Seinfeld campaign “about nothing,” hoping to win solely on likeability? In listening to XM Sirius’ “POTUS” channel Wednesday in my car I was struck by Julie Mason’s comment that this presidential campaign has lacked serious substance. We did get a brief glimmer of hope when Mitt chose Paul Ryan, as folks seemed encouraged by the boldness of the pick and Mitt’s staking ground in the debate about the size of the Federal budget. Ms. Mason lamented that the campaigns, however, have seemed to retreat from that attempt, and that if she craves something like a debate about the proper size and role of government it must mean there’s a real deficiency in her diet, like when she craves spinach. I agree, and quickly responded with a tweet reminding her that Mitt has a proposal, just one of many not responded to in any way to my knowledge by the Obama campaign (while they focus on attacks on Mitt’s personality), to limit government spending to 20% of GDP. Meanwhile Obama ducks the traditional bi-lateral meetings surrounding the UN General Assembly in New York to be filmed on The View. The administration’s quietly stated reason? Too much room for error. So not having meetings to build international relationships and help avoid little things like war over Iran was a a political calculation. The president is likely to make a gaffe or make a promise he can’t deliver on. So he decided to just keep away from problematic stuff like doing his job so he could cultivate his celebrity image. According to Time:

Of course, meeting with world leaders when you don’t know if you’ll still have your job in the next few weeks, can be potentially awkward. It can lead to unfortunate hot-mic gaffes, of which Obama has not been immune (for example, in Seoul earlier this year he asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to be flexible on missile defense until after the election, when Obama would have more space to maneuver–too much diplomatic candor for the sensitive electoral season). Still, ignoring the opportunity to meet one-on-one with world leaders underlined where Obama’s attention is fixed: the campaign. And it was the election that dominated the taping of The View. That, and the inside skinny of the Obama family’s schedule.

So he seems to want to float above the fray and not engage in the discussion, just repeating the same old lines about Bain Capital and exporting jobs. On that point, if you haven’t seen it yet, read this article in the New York Post pointing out just whose money is at Bain. Hint: unions, retirement funds and academic institutions are who trusted Mitt to make money for them. Turns out corporations he helped succeed are made up of people (their investors) and the left has known it all along! (more…)

Operation Hot Mic – Agent Flexible

Although American Crossroads video is laced with humor, the fact remains frightening! With an agenda contrary to American interests, Obama unchecked in a very dangerous world is frightening. A Foreign Policy of appeasement and accommodation is not a Foreign Policy – it is, however, a road to ruin. Mitt Romney said it on 60 minutes tonight – this is about FREEDOM!

White House Losing All Credibility on Foreign Policy

Yesterday’s headlines were all over the map on this, and yet I get the impression this is viewed as a minor story by the main stream media.

Despite claims to the contrary early on, and President Obama’s reticence to use the actual words, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney both admitted yesterday that what happened in Libya was a terrorist attack, not just a protest gone wrong. Meanwhile questions are arising about what the White House knew and when, and whether this was about a hack job of a movie at all.

CNBC asks “Did White House Lie About Libya Attacks?” The answer appears to be yes.

Here’s a link to the video of an interview the House Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, and the text of the related article:

Larry Kudlow is hearing from his beltway sources that the President may have put politics ahead of national security in the wake of the Libya attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Kudlow, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and other skeptics charge the administration deceived the nation when it said the attacks had not been planned in advance.

Those same skeptics say the administration via UN Ambassador Susan Rice deliberately downplayed events in Libya to preserve Obama’s image as the President who had won the war on terror by killing Osama Bin Laden.

“They sent (Susan Rice) out for political reasons,” said King on The Kudlow Report. “The Obama administration wants people to believe that the war against terror is over.”

In other words, if the White House admitted Libya was a terror attack – it would have called the campaign message into question – something Democratic strategists didn’t want to do.

Instead, the GOP says the administration shifted attention to a movie that depicted Islam’s prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light – a movie that sparked protests in Egypt – knowing that was not the catalyst.

“They wanted people to believe the violence was caused by a few malcontents,” King explained, but it was actually something much more sinister.

“They don’t want the appearance that Al Qaeda has come back but the truth is Al Qaeda has never gone away,” said King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

“I see this as nothing short of a cover up,” added Larry Kudlow.

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton shares the sentiment.

“The administration could have said from the beginning, ‘We don’t know all the facts, and therefore, we’re not ruling out any potential explanation,’” said Bolton in a published interview.

“But that’s not what they did. They came down in the midst of great uncertainty and said it was spontaneous. It was not terrorism.”

Now, however, as reported in the Examiner, the White House is quietly admitting that yes, it’s “self-evident” this was a terrorist attack. And they expect this change in tone to go unnoticed. As reported in the Examiner:

“You know what else is self-evident? That the Obama administration is full of liars,” Twitchy said Thursday.

“For a week, they lied to the American people and blamed a movie, condemning free speech time and time again, for the murder of four Americans in Libya and for embassy attacks across the globe,” Twitchy added.

CBS reported Thursday morning that witnesses said “there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account of the incident.”

The CBS report also said “that the public won’t get a detailed account of what happened until after the election.”

[emphasis added]

Here’s that CBS report:

A major question is whether the film had anything whatsoever to do with the attack, or if it was a White House distraction from the beginning.

In a Boston Herald op ed entitled “How the Truth Hurts Hence White House Avoids it,” Michael Graham says Jay Carney’s explanation of events doesn’t pass his “teenage son” test. (more…)

Russian Warships used by Democrats as Backdrop at DNC

We’re not making this up! This photograph of Soviet-era combatants used at the DNC is a composite. As such, I find it impossible to believe that the inclusion of not one, not two, not three, but four Russian warships as the central figures of military power was a mistake. Right… Whoever compiled the different images into one photograph had to know the source of the warships photo. This was no mistake! Don’t let them tell you it was.

Retired Admiral John Nathman speaks on stage with military veterans during the final day of the Democratic National Convention on Sept. 6 in Charlotte, N.C. Experts say the ships in the background are Russian.

Sam Fellman of Navy Times wrote:

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets.
[...]
“I was kind of in shock,” said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.
[...]
But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

Polmar, who authored “The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy,” recognized the blue ‘X’-mark: “The X is the Cross of St. Andrew’s, which is a Russian Navy symbol,” Polmar said. (An anchored U.S. warship, by contrast, flies the American flag on its stern.)

[emphasis added]

There is no way this is a mistake. The joke is on the American people! The photograph of Russian naval ships is obviously a stock image and as with any stock photograph, rights have to be purchased in order to use the image in any public forum. The person that procured the license to the image would have been completely informed of the source of the image. That is a fact. There is no doubt about that. Let’s watch how Obama’s team dances around this one! They are probably laughing about this.


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

Romney: “Obama’s ‘Reset’ Policy Toward Russia Has Clearly Failed”

Kremlin in Moscow, Russia


From Mitt Romney Press:

Mitt Romney today made the following statement on President Obama’s failed Russia policy:

“President Obama’s ‘reset’ policy toward Russia has clearly failed. Russia has openly armed and protected a murderous regime in Syria, frustrated international sanctions on Iran, and opposed American efforts on a range of issues. This is an unfortunate failure of President Obama’s foreign policy.”


Obama met Putin in 2009.




March 25, 2012 - Caught on mic unbeknownst to President Obama at a press conference with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Seoul:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space.”

Medvedev: (then out-going Russian President): “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”


May 18-19, 2012: Vladimir Putin did not attend the G-8 Summit hosted by Obama at Camp David.

Dmitri Medvedev & Vladimir Putin



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Obama to Russia’s Medvedev/Putin: ♫ Let’s Stay Together ♪♫

Artist/cartoonist Sal Velluto doesn’t miss a beat.

♫ Here’s America’s Crooner-in-Chief… ♪♫

*Let’s Stay Together

I’m, I’m so in love with you
Whatever you want to do
It’s alright with me
‘Cause you make me feel so brand new
I want to spend my life with you
Things just ain’t the same, baby, since we’ve been together
Ooh, loving you forever
Is what I need
Let me be the one you come running to
I’ll never be untrue

Ooh, baby, let’s, let’s stay together
Loving you whether, whether times are good or bad, happy or sad
Whether times are good or bad, happy or sad

Why somebody, why people break up?
Oh, turn around and make up
I just can’t see
You’d never do that to me (Would you, baby?)
So to be around you is all I see
Is what I want us to
Let’s, we ought to stay together
Loving you whether, whether times are good or bad, happy or sad

Let’s, let’s stay together
Loving you whether, whether times are good or bad, happy or sad…




*Written by Al Green, Al Jackson Jr., Willie Mitchell

► Jayde Wyatt

Romney: Obama’s Comments To Medvedev Are Very Troubling (Video), Open Letter / More Questions

Obama bared his soul in Seoul yesterday.

Except, he didn’t mean to.

It was a flub.

A big one.

Speaking to soon-to-be-booted-out Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a hot mic caught Obama revealing a secret agenda for Russia (after claiming he’ll be re-elected this fall):

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space.”
Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”
Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

(Did you catch the body language between the two presidents…?)

Obviously, Obama and Medvedev didn’t know the world would hear their exchange. By the way, Putin (recently elected under dubious procedures) is expected to appoint Medvedev as Russia’s Prime Minister.

Governor Romney addressed Obama’s telling revelation yesterday while speaking to an audience in San Diego, CA and talking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Hugh Hewitt also got The Gov’s take on it. LISTEN TO AUDIO of Hewitt’s interview here.

HH: So the President says, Governor Romney, this is my last election, after my election I have more flexibility. And President Medvedev says I understand, I will transmit this information to Vladimir. Your reaction, Governor Romney?

MR: Well, it is revealing, it is alarming, it’s troubling, it suggests that the President has a very different agenda with the Russians than he’s willing to tell the American people. And for that reason alone, we ought to vote him out of office. This is a very disconcerting development.

HH: What do you think he has in mind, Governor, when he says I will be flexible? Is it missile defense? It is the number of our warheads? Is it Iran? What is he talking about?

MR: Well, he says missile defense, but we’re talking about one of those two issues, either missile defense or warheads. What he’s done on warheads, of course, with the new START Treaty, he took warheads down to 1,500 on strategic nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians were already at 1,500. They didn’t have to have any reductions. We were at 2,200. So the only reduction in his missile defense treaty was a reduction at the U.S. level. And of course, he ignored the tactical nuclear weapons, which are of course the same nukes. They’re just on smaller rockets. He ignored that, where Russia has an advantage of five or ten to one over us. So this is a president who continues to try and appease and accommodate, and believes that the best interests of America are to bow to the interests of Russia. And it’s very, very troubling, and I mean, I’m very disturbed by this. I hope the American people understand that what we heard from the President is revealing about his character in terms of what he tells the American people, and revealing about his direction and sentiment with regards to Russian, which is after all our number one geopolitical foe. They don’t represent a military threat to us at the present, but they oppose us at every turn in the United Nations, and oppose us in every one of our efforts, whether in Iraq or Iran, North Korea. They’re on the other side. And for him to be cozying up with them with regards to missile defense is simply unacceptable.

HH: How do you expect this aside from the President will be understood in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, and Georgia, and other front line states facing a newly-expansive Russia?

MR: Well, I think our friends around the world have been reevaluating their relationship with the United States, in part because of this president’s treatment of friends relative to the treatment of enemies. I’ve heard from more than one foreign leader that it seems to be preferable to be an American foe than an American friend to this president.

HH: Now Governor Romney, the press will of course attempt to dismiss this as not a big issue. Will this remain a front line issue? And do you think that the President has got to spell out with great detail what he has in mind here?

MR: You know, I don’t think he can recover from it, to tell you the truth. I mean, I think he will try and spin something. But I don’t know how you spin from an open mic, where you’re talking about having more flexibility after the election, which means quite clearly that you don’t want the American people to hear what you’re really planning on doing, and that you’re going to be able to do more when you no longer are accountable to the American people. You know, the mainstream media may try and put this to bed, but we’re going to keep it alive and awake. And we’re going to keep hammering him with it all the way through November.

Full transcript may be found here.

Here’s video of Romney discussing Obama’s comments with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (The Situation Room):

Text and UPDATES are included below the fold.

(more…)