BET: They have an excuse, but this is a bit much

Economy:
President Obama came to office during a time when the economy was in steep decline. He pushed for bailout loans to auto manufacturers, allowing the industry to bypass a total collapse and saving more than 1.4 million jobs. Despite all his efforts, the economy continues to struggle.

via bet.com: http://www.bet.com/news/features/vote-2012/candidates/barack-obama.html

See also the Mitt Romney items: http://www.bet.com/news/features/vote-2012/candidates/mitt-romney.html

-jR

BET: telling it like it is! LOL. Might have been nice if they mentioned that the economy might have been better if he had actually inspired a FOCUS on it instead of divisive politicking, Obamacare passage, and other things that were going to be better served, ultimately, by an immediate and targeted focus on the economy. But he didn't focus on the economy. And, thus, no one could focus on the economy. He focused on being a political change agent. He focused on speeches with lots of "I" in them.

Compare the Obama nuggets (first link) to those regarding Romney (second link). The briefs offered are laughably sycophantic for Obama, and the others are always dragging Romney down. They target Romney's record and what he says on the stump, while they, mostly myopically, soft-paw Obama on his record as president. As if Obama's words and deeds had never been contrary.

While this is the Black Entertainment TV network, I could give them a pass for bias. But they aren't alone, and they are way too generous to Obama and his record. I think it would be ridiculous to try to believe that they are biased toward Obama only because he is black. They are biased for him because he is liberal, black and against controlling the explosion of government that is going to drag us all down. Because that is what is easy: keep taxing a successful minority and avoid dealing with the waste in government. Easy.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Debbie Wassie-Schu clueless and snotty about the Obama 'Kill List'

On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama's "kill list". It detailed the president's personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama's secret, unchecked decree that they are "terrorists" and deserve to die.

Based on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers", the Times' Jo Becker and Scott Shane provided extraordinary detail about Obama's actions, including how he "por[es] over terrorist suspects' biographies on what one official calls the macabre 'baseball cards'" and how he "insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list'". At a weekly White House meeting dubbed "Terror Tuesdays", Obama then decides who will die without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight. It was this process that resulted in the death of US citizen Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, and then two weeks later, the killing of his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, by drone.

The Times "kill list" story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators. Among other outlets, the New York Times itself harshly editorialized against Obama's program in an editorial entitled "Too Much Power For a President", denouncing the revelations as "very troubling" and argued: "No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield - depriving Americans of their due-process rights - without the consent of someone outside his political inner circle."

That Obama has a "kill list" has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010. A major controversy over chronic White House leaks often featured complaints about this article (New York Times, 5 June 2012: "Senators to Open Inquiry Into 'Kill List' and Iran Security Leaks"). The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.

But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his "kill list" and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.

Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real:

Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It's almost inevitable to become cynical - even jaded - about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president's abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That's a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that's par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

via guardian.co.uk

The paragraph that makes it all worth it is that last one (condensed by me here):

"One expects corrupt partisan loyalty ... but one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history...."

DWS is kinda FOS. No room for open-minded facts.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Bimbos for Obama

The Lovely and Talented Eva Longoria

via foxnews.com

Eva Longoria apologizes for retweeting offensive Mitt Romney message after kind of blaming Twitter

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/10/18/eva-longoria-apologizes-for-r...

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Obama exposed himself as using Benghazi for politics in 2nd debate: 'Please proceed, Governor'

Obama was helped in setting up one of his best put-down speeches of the second debate, thanks to moderator Candy Crowley's chiming in when Obama refused to speak. This portion of a Washington Times Communities blog post by Henry D'Andrea makes the point I hope anyone can agree to, at least silently (liberals and Obamasexuals, maybe not):

"...an audience member asked the president, "We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama gave a lengthy response which never addressed the question. During his rebuttal Romney said, “I think it’s interesting, the president just said something which is that the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this is was an act of terror?

"It was not a spontaneous demonstration; is that what you’re saying?” 

“Please proceed, governor,” Obama replied. 

Romney looked at him with consternation as the president didn’t say whether he called the Libya attack an act of terrorism on September 12. " 

-----

As we all have heard, moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and muddled things since Romney was trying to outline the facts and Obama refused to chime in as Romney was seeking confirmation. For me this action by the seasoned (thus someone who ought to have known better) CNN host was the most disappointing part of the debate, not considering omissions and a few obvious attempts to demonize Romney. The candidates had their low moments, but this involvement ruined the debate. People will, however, simply make of it what they wish, facts and order of events need not affect them. If they are of a certain stubborn mind to begin with. 

Importantly, you could extend Crowley's offense to Obama as well: He could have easily confirmed the order of things -- or just stuck with the spin, rather than voting present on it at that stage in the debate -- when given the chance by Romney. When Obama said, "Please proceed, Governor," I think it's clear that Obama was counting on a lead-in, from Romney, to what proved to be a prepared, over-the-top campaign cheap shot minutes later. 

Here's how: I believe Obama was hoping Romney was going to take more of a cheap shot at him on the Benghazi affair, or at least talk about it in a way that didn't include requesting a clarification from Obama. The President didn't get the lead-in he might have preferred, since Romney sought clarification from Obama of some of the what-where-when of the Benghazi attack. We heard a request for agreement by Romney, and Obama's "Please proceed, Governor." Yes, please proceed, without my confirming anything, because I have a great diatribe prepared once you're finished setting me up for it. 

Obama was interested in giving one of his prepared gotcha attacks, to take some heat off of himself. Since Obama is well informed about speaking -- much more informed than he is about economics, military matters, security, and the varied threats from Muslim extremists -- he fashioned the debate himself to get to his prepared outrage. It happened to be in part thanks to Crowley's feckless assistance.

Obama gave what I believe was a well-prepared rant about his being insulted by any suggestion that he or his Administration was lackadaisical about the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three former military men. He used it, it just wasn't as perfectly set-up as it could have been, because Romney wasn't taking a cheap shot. There must have been some slight disappointment about Romney's taking a higher road in the Obama camp.

Watch the Benghazi attack portion from the second debate again, and consider Obama's chess game, holding the complete facts like cherished pieces and moving forward all of his self-protecting rhetorical pieces -- his pawns. Ironically, I should add, because he tried to refute any idea that he was making political hay of Benghazi, when it seems, no matter how he feels about it, that he has been doing exactly that, and in the debate did it once again. 

I think it's a clear effort to make a political game of the Benghazi event, using games to put his own failings on the back burner by trying to suggest his opponent is making it political, not he. 

This intentional, political gaming by Obama with the facts of Benghazi -- and his embarrassing handling of it -- is similar to a child claiming his little sister was at fault for his being grounded for a broken cookie jar because she pointed out to the parents that he had broken the jar. It's childish head games.

Obama had no humility regarding the Benghazi attack and his errors in handling that event while his fundraising trips were not taking a break. Obama was not interested in admitting the facts of his unseemly preference to campaigning over being the president. He went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and onto TV shows in the attack's immediate aftermath. 

Fact is, Obama was not admitting to a direct challenge to the United States, treating it as an upswelling of a popular demonstration. For many days. He didn't want the Arab Spring to turn so cold. But it did. He's doing clean-up now, attempting to throw his shame on his political foe. How could the president ever be convinced that a shoulder-fired missile might have been part of a popular demonstration? Is there such a thing as a sudden, unplanned militant action? I don't think so. 

Obama is trying to make political hay of the Benghazi deaths. Romney has pointed out what was done wrong, if he is doing anything with this event. Mostly detached, guilt-ridden and fanatical masses are taking Obama's bait to attack Romney unreasonably for Benghazi, when they should be wondering why Obama kept avoiding the use of the word "terror" connected directly to the Benghazi attack.

Obama cares about our embassies and the Americans serving in them, I'd imagine, but he seems to be equally interested in using the event to his political advantage.

I wonder if the folks at that Las Vegas fund-raising event that followed the Benghazi attack felt like Obama cared about them? Or, at least, that he cared about their money? I think they should have felt honored by his desire for campaign cash. 

-----

Read more of the Wash. Times blog: Candy Crowley gets it wrong: Obama never called Benghazi a ‘terror attack’ in Rose Garden speech | http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2...
Follow them: @wtcommunities on Twitter

---

- jR @airfarceone on Twitter

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

The Joker assaults 'Kid' Congressman

The POLITICO piece noting broad Twitter reaction to Joe "Chuckles" Biden's jocularity at the VP debate Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012: Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan were the two candidates on stage at Thursday’s vice presidential debate, but a third character emerged: Joe Biden’s laugh, which didn’t escape the notice of tweeting politicos. (And led, of course, to at least three satirical Twitter accounts: Laughing Joe Biden, Biden Smirk, and yet another Laughing Joe Biden.)

Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway: “Joe Biden’s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?”

Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: “Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Biden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.”

Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Dayspring: “Joe Biden needs to realize this isn’t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.”

Radio host Neal Boortz: “Looking like Biden’s gameplan is to laugh his way through this.”

Townhall.com’s Guy Benson: “Will Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?”

Movie critic Roger Ebert: “Joe! Stop smiling and laughing!”

Washington Times’ Emily Miller: “Biden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82313.html#ixzz295qQXO4V

Funny, Twitter generally burst with reactions that Biden's grinning, laughing and general condescending attitude at the table was distracting at best, certainly awkward, and even disturbing.

Yet, Politico's own Roger Simon was all jolly over the weird display of hyena-like aggression (verging on rabid-like, too): "Biden smirked, sneered, and openly laughed at many of Ryan’s responses. It could have looked rude, but Biden made it look tough.

"After all, Biden was the 69-year-old defender and Ryan was the 42-year-old challenger. But by the end of the evening, Joltin’ Joe had done real damage to his opponent." (Read Simon's adoring piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82323.html#ixzz295ssBwhL )

"FORWARD" THIS, Obama-Biden folks: I hear Biden's up for playing an aging Joker in the next Batman movie reboot. I wonder who should be Two-Face? The Riddler? Catwoman might be Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (not meant in a sexy way, I assure you). Hmm, I see a parody coming on... David Zucker, are you reading this?

-jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous