...continued from page 1
Also, the White House has refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Obama has been as rude to Netanyahu as one head of state can be to another, and now he is trying to say that he believes Israel is our closest ally. You simply don't treat your friends the way Obama has treated Israel. As president he has never visited Israel.
, , ,
It was also amazing that Obama let Romney keep talking about the US economy in the debate that was supposed to be about foreign affairs. The president, any president, has a huge advantage in talking about foreign affairs.
For the past four years Obama has been receiving detailed briefings daily on what is going on in the world. According to some reports Obama tends to skip some of these briefings, but still he has far more information at his fingertips than anyone else in the world. It is an advantage that incumbents have over challengers and is magnified many times in the presidential race because it is what the president has been doing for four years. And even if he has skipped some briefings a lot of that information has to stick.
But in the debate it certainly didn't appear that Obama knew more about foreign affairs than Romney. In fact, Romney did what presidents often do and mentioned some obscure groups and movements that may be big news in national security briefings but haven't made the daily newspapers. It made Romney seem like he was more knowledgeable.
Obama's comment about horses and bayonets was just rude. It was a good idea, but the way he said it was rude and mean. No one doubts that Romney knows all about aircraft carriers and submarines. But Obama is a rude man. He is rude to our allies, rude to the people he should be working with in Congress, rude to his political opponents and rude to foreign heads of state who visit him in the White House.
Romney once again didn't take the bait.
But Romney's big advantage in this race is the economy. The question that people are going to be asking when they go into the polls is, "Am I better off than I was four years ago?" And for the vast majority of Americans the answer is no.
Not only did Obama allow Romney to talk about the economy, he got sucked in and started talking about it himself.
, , ,
The liberal mainstream media are having a hissy fit right now. The liberal media have figured out that their candidate is not going to win and they are beside themselves. The attitude seems to be, how can the American people ignore all the horrible things they have written about Romney and vote for him?
So they are really piling on, and one of the biggest complaints you hear from the left is that Romney has changed his position. There is plenty of truth there, but what all of these pundits know is that presidential candidates run the same way in election after election.
The people who vote in primaries are more partisan that the general population. The Democrats who vote in the Democratic primary are farther left and the Republicans who vote in the Republican primary are farther right than those who vote in the general election. To win the primary a Democrat has to run left and a Republican has to run right. To win the general election the candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, has to appeal to voters in the middle. So both Democrats and Republicans run toward the middle in the general election.
It is as much in how they say things as what they say. There is a difference this year in that Obama didn't have a credible primary challenger, so he didn't have to run left. However, Obama is already so far left that there isn't much more room on the field.
, , ,
The New York Times Sunday magazine did a hit job on Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan this week. It is amazing what they manage to weave into an article like it belongs. But the reporter, Mark Leibovich, seemed to dislike Sen. Rob Portman even more than Ryan.
Here's one phrase about Portman, which is really interesting if you have a few facts: "One mark against the wealthy senator was that he might be perceived as too much of a Grey Poupon Republican …"
Here's the problem. Portman is certainly wealthy, and he is a senator, but he is not a "wealthy senator." He is kind of average by Senate standards. Portman doesn't even make the list of the 50 wealthiest members of Congress. Portman, according to Roll Call, is worth about $6.72 million.
The top of the list of the 50 wealthiest members of Congress is: Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $294 million, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) $220 million, Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) $193 million, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) $82 million, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) $76 million, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado) $66 million, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) $55 million, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) $53 million, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) $45 million and rounding out the top ten Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Florida) $44 million.
So of the top 10 richest members of Congress, three are Republicans and seven are Democrats. And Portman doesn't make the top 50, yet The New York Times refers to him as a "wealthy senator." How many times have you read – wealthy Sen. Dianne Feinstein, wealthy Sen. John Kerry, or wealthy Sen. Frank Lautenberg?
Even our own wealthy Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) beats out Portman. She comes in at number 47 with $7 million.
The article is an incredible piece of liberal Democrat propaganda, but very smoothly done. It makes it sound like offering someone barbecue sauce is a bad thing. The tone is really incredible.