Romney finds his inner happy warrior

One of the things that made Reagan such a winner in 1980 was the fact that he was a happy warrior.  Voters had a real choice between Jimmy Carter’s dour malaise (“it’ll be this way forever”) and Reagan’s ebullient optimism in America (“morning in America”).

This year, voters have that same choice.  Please share this video with those who are undecided or who are thinking third party or who just don’t believe in the process any more.  (Don’t bother sharing it with the liberals you know.  It’s like trying to wash a cat.  The cat certainly gets irritated, but doesn’t necessarily get clean.)

Hat tip: Lulu

Inert young people hint at a Romney victory

Glenn Reynolds says that the 2012 election has the possibility to be a “ground glass” election for conservatives:

Last week, I noticed this blog comment: “Romney was not my first, second, or third choice, but I will crawl over ground glass to vote for him.”

A lot of Republicans — and, judging from polls, a lot of independents — feel this way. If there are enough of them, Romney will win, and win big.

He then asks if the signs for such an election are really there, and then spends the rest of his column answering that conservatives are probably that desperate to see Romney in the White House.

In 2008, it was the Democrats who had the “ground class” demographic.  Excited about the possibility of making history by casting their vote for the first black president,  Democrats pretty much dashed and danced over that glass.

Would the outcome have been the same, though, if conservatives hadn’t been dispirited by McCain and independent hadn’t had a surfeit of the Bush years plus serious MSM-induced fear of Sarah Palin?  After all, if both sides are willing to crawl over ground glass, you’re pretty much at a stalemate.  This year doesn’t seem to be a stalemate year.  Instead, the energy that powered an Obama victory seems to have burned itself out.

A good indicator of the apathy amongst those who aren’t diehard Dems is an article in the Marin IJ examining ennui amongst Marin’s extremely well-indoctrinated young people:

When it comes to her top election issue — Israel and the threat of a nuclear Iran — San Rafael High School senior Yael Zoken doesn’t see much difference between President Barack Obama and his opponent, Mitt Romney.

Sir Francis Drake High School senior Anna Jones likes Obama but is disappointed in his lack of major climate change initiatives.

And her classmate, Nathan Harms, said rising debt has persuaded him to consider Romney even though he believes the Republican has been “fairly inarticulate about his plan.”

“In this instance I’d go with the devil I don’t know as opposed to the devil I do know,” Harms said.

As Marin’s newest voters prepare to cast their first ballots Tuesday, they are struggling like their peers around the country to muster the same excitement felt by young people in 2008. Four years ago, many rallied around Obama amid anger at the war in Iraq, a message of hope and change and a sense of history that came with electing the first black president. In the 2012 campaign, issues such as taxes and the economy have proven less electrifying.

If Obama has lost the youth vote — because he failed to deliver on the change he promised and then left them jobless to boot — he’s lost a significant part of the statistical advantage he had over McCain in 2008. In 2008, youthful voters couldn’t get to the polls fast enough. This year, it’s questionable whether they’ll be able to look up from their iPhones and androids long enough even to notice that an election is going in. And while I think people should take their civil rights seriously and vote (“use it or lose it”), having a liberal-leaning youth demographic revert to its ordinary disinterest is good for serious candidates and not so good for the hip, faddish ones.

Are you voting for love of country or revenge against an unnamed enemy within America?

I honestly think this is Romney’s best ad:

Incidentally, regarding Obama’s revenge remark, Jonah Goldberg had exactly the same thought I did: Revenge against whom?

If you watch the clip itself, it’s not clear at all what Obama’s supporters are supposed to want revenge for. Obama mentions Romney’s name in the context of his run for the Senate in Massachusetts — back when Romney was quite the moderate — and the audience starts to boo. Obama says “no, no. Don’t boo. Vote. Vote. Voting is the best revenge.” Revenge for what? Him running for the Senate? Revenge for Romney daring to challenge Obama? I understand Obama is bitter. That’s been obvious for a while. But it’s just a weird and narcissistic assumption that his supporters want “revenge” too. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, though. Which makes the whole thing even creepier.

The entire choice in this election is right there, in a nutshell:  Do we support the paranoid narcissist who sees enemies everywhere or do we support the man who has a deep and abiding love for the United States of America, everything it’s ever been and everything it still will be.

America’s retired military makes a strong statement for Romney

On Monday, November 5, an ad will run in the Washington Times with the names of almost 500 retired military officers from all of the different forces who support Mitt Romney.  I was lucky enough to get an advanced copy of the ad.  The same email forwarding the ad asked that it be shared with as many people as possible, so that is what I’m doing:

Romney–W

Bill Whittle’s appeal to those who intend to stand on principle and vote for a third party or not vote at all

Bill Whittle explains very clearly why it’s a mistake in this election for those who dislike Obama to a protest vote for a third party, or not vote at all, in order to protest the fact that Republicans are so far from perfect.  It’s a principled stand, certainly, but it is also one that denies the dangerous reality associated with a second Obama term:

If you are thinking of sitting out this election, or casting a protest vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, please watch this video and think very seriously about whether this particular election is the one on which to take a stand.  And if you know someone who is thinking of sitting this one out, or throwing away a vote, please suggest that they watch this video.

A way for both Romney and Obama to give millions to a Hurricane Sandy charity

The Ohio Democratic Party Chairman, knowing that Mitt Romney is a wealthy man, who might have some extra millions lying around, has suggested that Romney give those dollars to a charity that helps Hurricane Sandy victims:

Mitt Romney should have donated $10 million to the Red Cross instead of ‘taking advantage of a tragedy’, the Ohio Democratic Party chairman has said.

‘I think Governor Romney ought to be focused on things he could do and say on behalf of the victims, rather than going to Dayton Ohio – the most important swing state in the country – and taking advantage of a tragedy,’ said Chris Redfern according to the Washington Post.

‘Look, I’m a partisan. I’ll let others judge this. But I think someone of Governor Romney’s wealth could have just written a check for $10 million to the American Red Cross and then spent today with his family. He chose to do something much different. He chose to politicise this.’

That’s almost a good idea.  Here’s the really good idea:

Obama has waiting for him a $5 million check made out to the charity of his choice.  With that money out there, Mitt should make Obama a deal. Obama’s obligation under the deal is to produce his academic records and passport application, by Friday afternoon.  He can do this easily enough by authorizing Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the State Department to release the records on an expedited basis. For something this big, those organizations should be able to act quickly.  If Obama gets the records released by Friday afternoon, Mitt will donate another $5 million to that same charity.

I think that’s fair, don’t you?

Found it on Facebook: a poster summary of all the Left’s uninformed attacks on Romney

Here’s today’s Progressive Facebook offering:

Point by point, let me show why this poster is really, really stupid:

His support of the middle class by encouraging the auto-industry to go bankrupt?  If you’re not living in Victorian England, when bankruptcy meant that the man of the family ended up in debtor’s prison, while his family starved in the streets, you’ll discover that American business bankruptcies are actually very well-managed, humane affairs.  A company that is put into bankruptcy, not for liquidation purposes but for restructuring, often comes out much stronger.  The bankruptcy process gives it relief from overwhelming creditor pressure, it allows the company to renegotiate debts and labor contracts, and it provides for payment plans that lessen or spread out the debt burden.  Our bankruptcy laws are some of the best things in the Federal codes and regulations.  What Obama did by taking over GM was to screw the creditors and the shareholders, while handing the unions a free gift — all at taxpayer expense.  Hell yes, I supported Romney’s insistence that GM go into an organized bankruptcy.

His lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women?  I think it was Joe Biden who said it best, when he opined about what a minimal effect the Lily Ledbetter Act has on women’s working conditions:

Ryan voted ​against​ the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  All [it] said was if a woman finds out she’s been treated and treated wrongly– cheated in terms of her salary and benefits at work– that she’s able to sue from the moment she finds out.  That’s all it said.  Because they were locked out they said that if you didn’t learn within two years you were being cheated, then you’re out of luck.  But we changed the law.  It’s not a– it’s a big deal for women, but it’s not a big deal in terms of equal pay.  But it’s an important– and they couldn’t even support that.  Talk about being out of touch.

Keep in mind that Ledbetter’s only problem was a statute of limitations (i.e., the time within which someone can sue for a wrong).  Congress had made it short, the Supreme Court said that was Congress’ prerogative, and the Obama Congress then made it longer in a way that can be very damaging to American business.

His ability to make enemies upon every visit to a foreign nation?  The Muslim world hates Obama.  Obama insulted the Prime Minister of Israel.  He insulted Queen Elizabeth, the Prime Minister, and (when he sent back the Churchill bust) England itself.  He offended our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic when he reneged on a promise to provide them with protection against Russia.  Need I go on?

His experience in “running a business” that buys up companies, breaks them up, and sends jobs overseas?  Romney knows how businesses work.  When a company could be made stronger (Staples), he made it stronger.  When it couldn’t, he spared it (and its employees) a lingering death.  He also created millions upon millions of dollars in the free marketplace, money that benefited ordinary Americans (and their pension plans).  He took the Olympic balance book from red to black, and then he did the same with the Massachusetts budget.  Obama, if I remember correctly, wasted all of the Annenberg Challenge money.

His lack of support for college students and lower interest rates on loans?  Obama said yesterday that banks are evil because they’re in it to make money.  No, Mr. President, banks are not evil.  Banks are necessary, because they provide the funds people use to start and grow businesses.  No loans, no free enterprise.  (Just think of the Muslim world’s absolute prohibition on interest and its absolute paucity of true economic development.)  Interest is the way in which banks earn money on these loans.  I’m opposed to usurious interest rates, but forcing banks to provide low-interest loans to unqualified people is exactly what led to the financial collapse in 2008.  Romney doesn’t want to repeat that error; Obama does.

His hateful, arrogant, racist supporters like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?  Do I need to make the usual laundry list of hateful, arrogant, racist Obama supporters?  Okay….  Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, the Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un….

His ultra wealthy supporters like the Koch Brothers?  Two words:  George Soros.  Two more words:  John Kerry.  You can add others to the list, but I think those two say it all.

His ability to turn into a chameleon wherever he goes?  Cast your mind back to 2007 when Obama, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, went before a black audience and started speaking as if he just got off the plantation.  Interestingly, Hillary and Joe do the same thing.  Romney is never anything but what he is:  an upper middle class white guy who wears a suit.

His experience hiding his money in Cayman Island accounts?  I think we’ve already learned about Obama’s Chinese/Cayman Island pension.  Democrat policies make investing in the U.S. a risky business.

Or is it just because he’s a white dude and you just HATE Obama?  I don’t hate Obama’s color.  I hate his politics.  I couldn’t care less about Romney’s color or sex.  I like his politics.

Posters such as the one above work because people are ignorant.  They are ignorant because they want to be and because the MSM keeps them that way.  It’s up to us — the informed people — to spread a little knowledge around.

Found it Facebook: Obama, Romney, and the hired help *UPDATED*

A picture is making the rounds amongst my liberal Facebook friends, complete with the caption that “This says it all to me.”

I’m actually not sure what “all” the picture says. That Romney smiles at people performing a service for him while Obama gives them a fist bump?

If the Obama picture had shown him grabbing the mop from the janitor and himself scrubbing the floors, I might have been more impressed.  But the fact that he fist bumps for the camera really doesn’t tell me anything at all.  Likewise, I’d be interested in know what the tip and salary the tarmac guy helping Romney received versus what the custodian greeting Obama earns.  That information might actually tell us something . . . or not.

The one thing I can assure you is that pairing those two pictures tells me nothing about Obama’s and Romney’s individual merit or their ability to govern the United States of America.  It does, however, tell me a lot about Progressives that they can look at these two out-of-context pictures and seem to find some deep meaning — and what it tells me is that, if these voters prevail again in November — we’re in serious trouble.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Plain ol’ Charles, we now know that Romney wasn’t the effete rich guy having his shoes cleaned, he was getting a pre-flight security check.

Never argue with the crazy lady; or, why Romney had a good strategy for the third debate

We all know crazy people.  I don’t mean the kind of crazy people who believe that cats rule the world and that Satan is living in the begonia.  I mean the people with personality disorders who assiduously work to shape reality so that it matches their own warped and damaged inner world.  Many of these crazy people are very high functioning because their craziness leaves them driven, so they work hard, and manipulative, so they know which buttons to push to get other people to help them achieve their goals.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of these crazy people is that they lie.  Except that, as far as they’re concerned, they’re always telling the truth.  You see, for certain types of crazy people, truth is a fluid concept that is defined, not by stubborn facts, but by their emotional needs at any given time.  When people I know come to me griping about an unpleasant, reality-bending interaction with one of these people, I always say the same thing, “Never argue with the crazy lady.”

During the second debate, Mitt Romney tried to argue with the crazy lady.  Had Obama been completely sane when Mitt tried to get Obama to acknowledge that his administration pretended that the Benghazi’s deaths were a movie review that got out of hand, Obama would have embarked upon a long, circuitous explanation about his inadvertent failure to identify clearly September 11’s events in Benghazi as a terrorist attack.  Instead, Obama, who is the functional equivalent of a crazy lady, lied.  And because Obama had an enabler sitting there with a microphone, the lie got reinforced.  (And yes, I know that Obama used the phrase “acts of terror” in his Rose Garden presentation on September 12, but it’s very, very clear from reading the entire transcript that he was claiming that a video was what caused the events in Benghazi.  Only a crazy lady or an enabler would understand the tenor of his remarks in any other way.) Obama told other lies during the first two debates (about sequestration and Israel, for example), but that’s the one that sticks in my mind because Romney got so badly winded by the Obama/Crowley sucker punch — one belied by facts:

Mitt’s no fool.  He realized after the second debate that you can’t argue with the crazy lady.  And because the crazy lady has enablers all over the media, even if his arguments are entirely accurate and Obama’s entirely false, Mitt won’t get the benefit of second day analysis.  Were Mitt to challenge Obama directly, Obama’s crazy lady lies would live on, while Mitt’s truthful assertions would vanish.  And so a strategy was born:  Mitt simply ignored Obama.  Yes, he let lies go by, and yes it was irritating to those of us who know the facts, but Mitt understood that, whatever he threw at Obama, Obama would counter with a falsehood.  Heck, Obama’s entire debate performance was a falsehood, one that ignored years of speeches and conduct.  For a sane person, entering this kind of alternate universe and trying to function in it according to rational rules can only lead to disaster.

I think Mitt did the right thing, and I think the polls will support him.  He bypassed crazy-land and went directly to the American voters.  To them, he showed himself to be peaceful, intelligent, knowledgeable, and possessed of a solid vision of America’s place in the world.  It was a somewhat bizarre strategy, but in Bizarro World those are the only strategies that work.

Mitt versus Obama, or Ward Cleaver versus Eddie Haskell

When it became obvious that Mitt was going to be the Republican nominee for President, I started doodling around with my strong sense that the November match-up would look very much like a contest between Ward Cleaver and Eddie Haskell, of Leave it to Beaver fame.  In May, I put up a post, which was my first attempt at expanding on that image.

Usually, once I’ve written something, it’s out of my system.  This one, though, wouldn’t go away.  The more I watched the campaign progress, the more the Ward v. Eddie analogy seemed right on the money.  I eventually sat down and completely rewrote the post.  I then offered the expanded, rewritten, and updated article to PJ Media (after having advised them about the earlier iteration), and PJ Media kindly accepted it.

You can read my full-blown, up-to-date Ward v. Eddie analysis here.

Romney, even if he didn’t win the debate, walked out of the debate a winner *UPDATED*

What one can say with certainty about the last presidential debate is that it is not a game-changer — which is good for Romney, because the game is currently scoring in his favor.  In that way, it was a nothing of a debate.  Nevertheless, there were aspects of the debate that were fascinating.

Fascinating aspect No. 1:  Obama’s rhetoric had absolutely nothing to do with his presidency.  If I had never heard of Obama before last night and then tuned into the debate, I would have been impressed by what he said (except for the nasty tone, which I’ll get to later).  He spoke about a balance of diplomacy and might, he spoke of a strong military, he claimed to be a true friend to Israel, he understood that America is a world leader, he touted America’s responsibility to advance freedom, he recognized that one can’t be a leader with a disastrous home economy, he said he supported Iran’s abortive Green revolution, and he said that he would never allow Iran to get the bomb.  It was as if the last three and a half years never happened.

The Obama of the debate never had kill lists for Pakistan and crawl-on-the-belly lists for Russia.  He didn’t offend England, and Poland, and the Czech Republic, while making nice to Chavez and Morsi.  Nor did the debate Obama have anything to do with depleting the military to a point where it’s at its weakest since before WWI.

The talking head with saw last night is so tightly linked with Israel that, not only is there no daylight between the two, but he and Netanyahu will be the first in line when gay marriage is federally recognized.  This seems a little bit at odds with the insults, slights, demands, and cold-shoulders the administration aimed at Israel for more than three years.  Obama’s debate posture pretends that, when it came to Israel’s borders, Obama didn’t make a precondition for negotiations more extreme even than the Palestinians were demanding. This Obama, unlike the real world Obama, is BFFs with Israel.

The debate Obama was a champion of American exceptionalism, a man who never went around the world explaining to foreign countries that America isn’t so great and, if she leads at all, she should lead from behind.  This was not a man who boasted that he would fundamentally transform America.  Nor was this a man who made it plain that his fundamental transformation included attacking America’s core identity, many of her constitutional rights, and her economic system.

Finally, last night’s Obama was so tough, I’m surprised he hasn’t already bombed Iran back into the Stone Age.  Where was the man who stood aside while the Iranian people took to the streets demanding greater freedom?  Where was the man who has consistently worked to weaken the sanctions Congress has imposed on Iran?  And where was the president who has been so passive about Iran’s nuclear program that Ahmadinejad has endorsed him for president?

Frankly, I found this Obamabot irritating.  He’s like the guy who, behind closed doors, abuses his wife but, in public, calls her “Sweetie” and holds her hand,  He’s a brute, not because he doesn’t know any better (his public behavior shows that he does), but because he wants to be a brute.  That’s where his private inclinations lie.  Last night, Obama demonstrated that he knows perfectly well what is good for America and what Americans want, but his behavior over the past three years shows that he wants to be a weak, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-military leader.  He’s the presidential equivalent of a wife beater.

Fascinating aspect No. 2:  Romney ignored Obama.  After trying to go head-to-head with Obama in the second debate, Romney went back to his first debate strategy of talking directly to the American people.  It wasn’t as effective as in debate no. 1, because Obama was more animated but, in a funny way, it was the most insulting thing Romney could have done.  (And we’ll get back to insults in a minute.)

In the first debate, Romney focused on introducing himself to the American people, not as the Frankenstein Capitalist the Obama media and Obama himself created, but as an intelligent, thoughtful, humane individual.  Romney achieved that goal and then some.  In this second debate, though, Romney wanted to show the American people that he is presidential.  He talked to them about broad policy concerns, and treated Obama like a buzzing fly.  Romney swatted at Obama occasionally, but otherwise focused on having a dialogue with the voters.

I would have liked to have seen Romney challenge Obama more directly on some of his lies (and there were a lot of lies), but Romney’s approach was, as I said, peculiarly insulting on its own terms.  He essentially said Obama is so irrelevant he can be ignored.

Fascinating aspect No. 3:  Obama was unbelievably nasty and condescending.  The true believers were elated by his “wit,” but I wonder if the undecideds didn’t find it unpresidential.  This was not a frat party or even an Alfred E. Smith dinner roast.  This was a serious presidential debate.  Unloading the equivalent of “Yoo hoo, old fart, the 80s are calling,” was not statesmanlike, and Romney was wise to look at the camera (i.e., the voters) and ignore it.

The nastiest statement, of course, was Obama’s response when Romney made a lengthy argument about the problems with our depleted military.  Romney talked about the fact that the military can no longer fight a war on two fronts and about the Navy’s concerns that the Navy has too few ships.  With regard to that last, Romney noted in passing that we have fewer ships than we’ve had since 1917.  Obama ignored the overarching argument entirely (Obama’s policies are weakening our military during dangerous times for America), and got terribly excited about the whole 1917 (or, as Obama said, 1916) bit:

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Ouch!  In 7th grade, that would have been a great riposte.  At a presidential debate, not so much.  None of us  one likes someone who is condescending and arrogant, and that’s true whether the insult is directed at us or at someone else.  More than that, by making such a definitive statement about today’s military, Obama left himself wide open to corrections.  And it’s easy to correct his gross errors.  Yes, in 1917, the military mostly had battleships and now has aircraft carriers, but it also requires a host of supporting ships, from amphibious assault vessels to destroyers to supply ships, etc.  And as everyone except the president knows as of this morning, we use horses in Afghanistan and the military still trains with bayonets for close combat.

There is a difference between being witty and being nasty.  When I was 13, I didn’t know the difference and I wasn’t much liked.  Now, I’ve figured it out, and people enjoy my company.  Obama wasn’t witty, he was nasty, and that’s the one thing he couldn’t afford in this election.  After all, Obama’s never had anything to run on but his likability.  In 2008, he needed to be liked because he had no record; in 2012, he needs to be liked because he has a big record.

UPDATE: A friend sent me a link to an article from last year discussing the way in which bayonets continue to be useful in battle situations. My dad used bayonets at El Alamein (or maybe somewhere in Crete — I’m not quite sure), and he considered them his friends in battle.

Random thoughts

If this election was a romance novel, Barack Obama would be the bad boy who promises that, if you just let him have his way with you, you won’t get pregnant (honest!).  He then tells you that his friend Eddie will pay for your birth control.  Eddie doesn’t follow through, but Barry’s persuasive.  After Bad Barry has abandoned you and your baby, the manly, square-jawed Mitt comes along and helps you straighten your life out.  You fall in love with him and elect him president.

Have you ever noticed that Obama clips off the end of his words, as if he regrets having given them to you.  That’s why I don’t hear a great orator; I hear a guy with a poker up his . . . orifice.

If the October surprise is that Obama’s having talks with Iran, I don’t think that’s a good thing (“keep him in the White House so that the channels of communication open”), I think it’s a dreadful thing.  It’s scary thinking of what Obama will give away in such talks.

Romney had better find his inner aggressive guy tonight during the debate.  In the wake of the Benghazi debacle, Obama needs to be pushed against the wall, and Bob Schieffer won’t do it.  I fear, though, that Romney will sound more than usually tongue-tied, since foreign policy is something he knows in his head, but doesn’t feel in his gut.  I’m definitely a bit worried about tonight.  If Obama tells the truth, he’ll be in trouble, so he’ll lie — and I just hope Romney can handle that.