Found it on Facebook: Liberals claim Americans should vote for Obama because “the world” wants him

In the endless parade of images that my liberal friends feel compelled to put on Facebook, this was my favorite for the day:

I honestly cannot understand a mindset that says the world popularity is the metric Americans should use for electing their president.  Certainly a president who is conversant with world affairs and who has diplomatic skills is a good thing.  However, it doesn’t seem to occur to Progressives and others of their ilk that the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily have America’s best interests at heart.  Indeed, considering that the rest of the world has long resented America for her success, the fact that “the world” wants Obama might be a good indicator that Obama is a poison pill for America’s future.

When I look at the rest of the world — broke, racist, antisemitic, and socialist Europe; increasingly totalitarian (and antisemitic) Russia; frequently poverty-stricken Latin America; mostly devastated (and antisemitic) Africa; and ferociously medieval, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic Muslim Middle East — my first thought isn’t “Gee, I should follow their lead when selecting my nation’s executive officer.”  Instead, I tend to think that these other parts of the world have shown singularly bad judgment in selecting their leaders.

As Groucho so memorably said, whatever they’re for, I’m against it.

Is the Obama campaign going to “announce” victory to depress the vote?

If true, this is a very effective (and completely immoral) tactic:

New York Times best-selling author Brad Thor, based in Chicago, tells TheBlaze that the Obama campaign may be planning to preemptively announce victory in the presidential election based on early voting numbers in an attempt to “demoralize Mitt Romney supporters.”

Citing a “very solid source” in Chicago, Thor says the Obama campaign is looking to make it appear to voters that they have “this thing sewed up and are less than 24 hours to victory,” according to his source.

Meanwhile, team Obama will also urge voters to get out and vote so they can say they were part of the important 2012 election that resulted in a second term for Obama.

No matter what you hear in the news, VOTE.  In an election that has the possibility to be very close, every vote counts.  Do not let the other side play mind games with you.

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

Top 7 Post-Breakup Anthems for Democrats who Vote for Romney

I’ve got a new post up at PJ Media:

In the last few days before the election, many moderate Democrats are contemplating breaking up with Barack Obama. Parting with a political party or candidate can be every bit as wrenching as severing a personal relationship with a girlfriend or boyfriend. The problem whenever one walks away from a serious breakup is that doubts keep creeping in: “Am I doing the right thing?” “Will there be someone else for me?” “Was there something wrong with me that I was attracted to such a manipulative, unkind person?” “Will I be ridiculed for being blind to his/her faults?”

Republican political groups (the Romney campaign, the RNC, PACs) have recognized that there are a lot of voters out there who need permission to change their minds about Obama. The Independent Women’s Voice has recently released several videos that recognize that political relationships are just as real and deep as romantic relationships. These videos address people’s struggle to balance a sense of loyalty with a belief that their survival depends on leaving a damaging relationship:

Because this election is going to depend on people breaking away from their toxic relationship with Obama and the Democrat party, we should acknowledge their emotional pain and extend a helping hand. This doesn’t just mean helping them decide to break-up, it also means validating their feelings and inspiring them after the breakup.

We need to remind them that they’re stronger and better for having abandoned a damaging relationship. It’s not their fault that they were charmed by a shiny smile and a glib line. We’ve all been there, but the smart ones walk away, having learned from the experience. Here, then, are the top seven “I am so done with you” breakup anthems.

You can read the whole thing here.

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.

A video telling Jewish voters that it’s okay not to vote for Obama in 2012

There are two constituencies on which Democrats can always count:  Jews and blacks.  And Jews, unlike blacks, give lots of money to their favorite party and they get out and vote.  For many Jews, being a Democrat is an integral part of their identity.  Voting for a Republican is anathema.  It turns them into a heretic who must be shunned by polite society.

But what happens when the Democrat president repeatedly engages in conduct that is hostile to Israel, the Jewish homeland?  And what if this conduct occurs at a time when Israel is facing several enemies that will have the capacity within a short time to extinguish her existence?

For those of us who have already decided that Jewish and Democrat aren’t the same word, the answer to these questions, and others like them, is easy:  don’t vote for Obama.  Not only are his actions towards Israel hostile, he has, in both word and deed, proven to be overly anxious to curry favor with radical Islamists.  This last matters not just to Jews, but to all Americans.  Radical Islamists do not wish us well.  They are explicit in their desire to destroy or subjugate our people and our culture.

As I said, for us, it’s easy.  But for those Jews who cannot separate their core religious and racial identity from the Democrat party, crying foul on Obama is almost impossibly difficult.  Fortunately, help is on the way, in the form of a very thoughtful video, narrated by and focusing on Irina, a 23-year old New York Jewish woman and Democrat, who takes a serious look at what Obama means to Israel and the Jews and, by extension to America:

Something interesting in Marin

I do not expect Marin to vote for Romney.  Indeed, if I had to predict the race, I would say that Romney has a snowball’s chance in Hell of taking Marin.  Nevertheless, something interesting is happening in Marin:  No new bumper stickers.

Marin-ites do have Obama/Biden bumper stickers, but they’re almost all leftovers from the 2008 campaign.  I think I’ve only seen about ten or twenty stickers for the 2012 election.

I’m not prepared to say whether Marin’s naked bumpers bespeak apathy or over-confidence.  I just believe that either condition might depress voter turn out.  I also hope in my heart of hearts that, if we are indeed l0oking at apathy, we’re seeing voters who, while they would never dream of voting for Romney, have already made piece with a decision not to vote for Obama.

No, the polls aren’t bothering me

We conservatives are very fragile.  One SEIU house polling organization (that would be PPP) and one White House press organ (that would be Politico), both of which trumpet Obama’s staggering 5 point post-convention bounce, and we’re already donning sackcloth and ashes.

Yes, it is frustrating that a president with the worst employment numbers since Jimmy Carter nevertheless still seems to be in the game.  But as Drudge and others remind us, at this time in 1980, Carter was still in the game too.  The parallels to 1980 are actually striking.

Both Carter and Obama presided over a dismal economy that utterly failed to recover on their watch.  Both of them presided over the steepest, quickest increase in oil prices in the post-war era.  Both of them made love to the Muslim world at Israel’s expense.  And both of them got a lot of media protection.

Things are a bit different nowadays.  Carter’s love for Muslims and ill-hidden disdain for Israel offended Democrats as well as Republicans, and his flailing about over the Iran Hostage Crisis didn’t help him a bit.  As the delegate floor vote at the DNC shows, Obama’s love for Muslims and ill-hidden disdain for Israel sits badly with only about half of the Democrats in this country.  Still, polls show that more than 50% of Americans believe Israel deserves American support.  What they may lack in philosemitism, they probably make-up in 2012 pragmatism — a pragmatism arising from the fact that both America and Israel have been attacked by Islamists who proudly state their desire to rid the earth of these two nations. The process is more attenuated than the Iran Hostage Crisis, but also more ugly and dangerous.

Also, in 2012, the media love is more blatant than it was in 1980.  In some way, that helps Obama more than Carter, because Obama gets such fervent support, whereas the media’s support for Carter was tempered by its old-fashioned belief that it had to appear objective.  Nowadays, the word “objective” frequently come out of media talking heads, but no one believes it.  And that means that Obama is slightly less well situated than Carter.  Nowadays, aside from the true believers, people take what the media says with a grain (or sometimes a shovel) of salt.  In addition, the internet means that anyone who is interested can investigate a subject more deeply, whether that means watching the entire speech that the media cut and spliced into scary nonsense, or reading thoughtful analyses that the media would rather die than publish.  And of course, there’s Fox (although some have noticed that Fox is embracing the antisemitic side of conservativism, which is very disturbing.  One wonders if this is an inevitable result of a major Saudi shareholder.).

Things are also the same now as they were in 1980 on the other side of the aisle:  The media loathes Romney every bit as much as they loathed Reagan.  In 1980, we were told Reagan was an idiot.  In 2012, we are told that Romney is an evil plutocrat.  In 1980, even without the internet, voters were able to cut through the noise.  In 2012, Romney is pursuing a slow but steady course aimed at cutting through the noise as well.

I think that, as happened with Reagan and Carter, the debates will be a turning point in public opinion.  Yes, the media interlocutors will throw softballs at Obama and try to tie Romney up in knots, but that will fail.  First, Americans will recognize this cheating for what it is.  It will be too blatant and they’ll resent that and root for the underdog — which, in the debate context, will be the beleaguered Romney.  Second, Obama will fumble the softballs and Romney will handle the knots.  Obama isn’t as smart as he thinks he is; Romney is indeed every bit as smart as he appears to be.  With the two men on stage all alone, even in the artificial, biased constraints of a debate, Obama will struggle.  Romney may not have Reagan’s wit and charm, but he’ll still run rings around Obama.

So, no, the polls aren’t bothering me.  A little less than two months is an eternity in politics and, as things heat up, Obama cannot run forever from his own record.

A matched set: one from the gutter, one explaining the gutter

Joe Biden sent me an email the other day, one that was remarkable for the complete absence of substance, and the overwhelming presence of 1930s, Daddy Warbuck-ish invective:

Starting now, we can expect even more wealthy, right-wing ideologues lining up to support the Romney-Ryan ticket.

The people on the other side who are trying to buy this election are putting nasty, deceptive TV ads on the air right this very minute. They’re not going away. They’re getting worse.

If we don’t do what we can to keep this close, right now at this crucial moment, we risk letting the other side run away with it.

If you’re thinking about making a donation to the campaign, please don’t wait — donate $5 or more today, and let’s win this together.

Every single day from now until Election Day matters. At the end of it, we’ll all ask ourselves if we did everything we could to make sure that we are able to keep fighting for change.

I know how I want to answer that question. I hope you’re with me — because we’re up against the kind of outside spending never seen before in modern politics.

And without people like you, this could get to be a pretty lopsided fight.

November 6th will be here sooner than we think. Donate $5 or more today:

Somehow I missed the part where Biden explained what he and Obama have to offer the voters, other than more of the same failed policies.

And then I read George Will’s theory about the true reason Romney picked Ryan, above and beyond Ryan’s obvious qualifications.  Incidentally, this is the most heated I’ve ever seen George Will, and I’ve been hearing and reading his editorials since the 1970s (emphasis mine):

Romney embraced Ryan after the sociopathic — indifferent to the truth — ad for Barack Obama that is meretricious about every important particular of the death from cancer of the wife of steelworker Joe Soptic. Obama’s desperate flailing about to justify four more years has sunk into such unhinged smarminess that Romney may have concluded: There is nothing Obama won’t say about me, because he has nothing to say for himself, so I will chose a running mate whose seriousness about large problems and ideas underscores what the president has become — silly and small.

He on whose behalf the Soptic ad was made used to dispense bromides deploring “the smallness of our politics” and “our preference for scoring cheap political points.” Obama’s campaign of avoidance — say anything to avoid the subject of the country’s condition — must now reckon with Ryan’s mastery of Obama’s enormous addition to decades of governmental malpractice.

Will the general American public — not the blood thirsty ideologues, but the ordinary, vaguely interested people — care that they are the subject of a sociopathic demagogue’s emotional manipulation? I hope that Romney’s and Ryan’s innate sunny-ness, and the manifest respect they have for the intelligence of the American people, will triumph over some of the most filthy lies an American political party has ever produced. It’s time for the American people to stop letting Democrats fool them some of the time or all of the time.