Obama (Jedi) Mind Trick

I was talking with a colleague who is vehemently intent on voting for Obama, and when I inquired why, the response began, “Because Romney.”

Ironically, the reason I intend to vote for Romney also begins with “Because Romney.”

I find it interesting that neither Obama’s record, nor his future prospect during a second term seem to be used to convince voters to vote for him. Voters are being asked to pay no attention to what Obama has done or failed to do and not to worry about what Obama plans to do; just fear Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

The only thing that is more amazingly unbelievable than the strategy is the fact that many Obama supporters (including media) are actually accepting it.

Remember folks, fool you once, shame on him. Fool you twice, shame on you.

Blame Media...Specifically, YouTube

Based on the information available, it is unclear why the Obama administration would have chosen to actively avoid acknowledging the likely possibility that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

Sure, Obama used the words “act of terror” once in a sentence during an initial statement surrounding the event, but his administration specifically dodged owning such an assessment for at least 14 days afterwards (or rather after-words).

Such active avoidance was purposeful, but no one in the Obama administration will take responsibility to expose or own that purpose. Who made the decision to actively avoid acknowledging terrorism as the culprit, vice the video, and why?

The mainstream media’s satisfaction with the Obama administration’s Benghazi narrative is confounding.

During Abu Ghraid, the mainstream media frothed at the mouth at the opportunity to scandalously tie to the highest levels of the Bush Administration the unquestionably despicable behavior performed at the lowest levels of the military.

In contrast, with respect to Benghazi the mainstream media has refused to ferret out what the administration knew, absolved the administration of what it should have known, and have responded to the administration’s deplorable lack of answers with an equally deplorable lack of questions.

Discerning Americans cannot help but wonder how Obama’s international policy plays into the big picture.

Was it the video; a video expressing one crackpot’s opinion? Could a YouTube video really cause such turmoil?

If a simple video could spark regional unrest and instability, empowering our adversaries to strike out at our diplomatic representatives, I’d hate to think what damage could be done by the policies of a U.S. President who is more comfortable denigrating U.S. intent and integrity than acknowledging terrorism or Islamic extremism.

Maybe that’s what made the President and his media advocates so intent and content to blame the video.

“Rape is Rape.”

Barack Obama is clearly getting desperate to score points with women in his bid to retain the Presidency for his party.

Earlier this week, in an email to reporters, and also during a taping of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Obama revisited gaffs (or what some might call Biden-isms) by Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock and Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, both of whom oppose abortion even in cases of rape. Obama didn't need anything close to 28 days (more clear cut than Benghazi, I guess) to take advantage of Mourdock’s and Akin’s recent missteps to imply that Mitt Romney and Republicans somehow find rape acceptable.

At one point Obama capped off his stance declaring (self-)righteously,

“Rape is rape.”

Obama seems to imply that there is an unequivocal moral standard that can be applied to rape, elevating it to the most absolute categorization of evil beyond any discussion or debate. Well said, indeed.

It is puzzling (and revealing); however, that while Obama is willing to recognize and invoke such an absolute moral standard to the benefit of his personal political campaign, he is unwilling to do so on behalf of human life. Apparently, for Barack Obama, human life does not warrant such lofty moral consideration.

According to Obama, extinguishing a human life growing in the womb is merely a decision of “choice,” like dessert or ice-cream; “chocolate or vanilla?” Abortion for Obama is simply an arbitrary decision about food, fashion, fad, or fancy, which of course is understandably why he feels no law should intervene or infringe upon any woman’s exercise of such a trivial decision.

What a contrast that Obama is allegedly capable of such lofty, honorable concern about human dignity in one breath, and then completely, casually callous about human life in the very next breath.

It actually makes it very clear for those who are not wearing blinders or Roe’s colored glasses; for Obama, human life only has value in certain situations (such as when that life can vote…for him). I would surmise that Obama doesn’t believe human life is human life any more than he genuinely believes rape is rape. What Obama really meant is,

Rape is politics (just like an abortion is just a choice).

Do Over!

So, does anyone else think Barack Obama is that kid who wastes his turn and then starts making excuses to justify not stepping aside to let someone else try?

“Wait wait wait; that’s not what I meant to do.”

“Dude, I get another turn, that wasn’t my fault.”

“That doesn’t count, you messed me up.”

Amazingly that kid never sees any problem with blaming someone else and taking an additional turn, though that wasn’t the initial agreement, he obviously failed to get the job done on his first try, and nothing he did or says is convincing you he will be any better the second time.

And as you attempt to pry the controls from his steely, greedy, glory craving grip, he is doing his best to extend his arms to keep it beyond your reach, still trying to convince you that he deserves another try, “No, no, no…c’mon, really…I know how to do it…..just let me try one thing…..seriously, I can do it.”

Give it a rest, Barry…you had your turn.

The buck still hasn't stopped.

The more I learn about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, the more respect I have for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens as a true American hero.

He was well aware of the score. He knew the stakes. Most importantly, he knew he would very well lose, and still he carried on the diplomatic mission on behalf of his nation…and his President.

Of all the rhetoric and punditry I’ve heard, “sobering” is undoubtedly the best description of the recently released State Department cables depicting Ambassador Stevens’ accurate assessment of the environment and his very real concerns for his team’s safety. As Ambassador Stevens’ insights are sobering, the State Department’s and the Obama Administration’s lack of awareness and ostensible disregard for that insight is sickening.

So, what next?

What action can President Obama and Secretary Clinton endeavor to take that would be worthy of the sacrifice that they have asked of Ambassador Stevens? What foreign policy or campaign was worth the careless risk and callous loss of life?

During the second Presidential debate, President Obama made an effort to appear to be a leader and stated, “Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened [than I].”

Secretary of State Clinton not only works for Obama, she was hand picked by Obama, and she undoubtedly worked closely with him to develop his foreign policy, as well as the plan to implement that policy.

Those grounds alone are sufficient for a reasonable citizen to hold Obama accountable for every aspect of what happened in Libya, even if…especially if…as Joe Biden testified, the White House “did not know they wanted more security there.”

I cannot fathom that President Obama had no awareness of the security situation at all.

If Clinton did an extraordinary job as Obama claims, why was he unaware of the situation on the ground in Libya? If Obama sent Clinton out into the world to do his bidding and she failed, as his handpicked envoy, her failure is his failure. If Obama simply failed to interface with Clinton, Obama has little choice but to own that as his failure, too.

This is what it means to be a leader. You ARE responsible. Now own it.

Bin Laden is dead, and so is Chris Stevens. When bin Ladin was killed Obama was quick to take responsibility. When Chris Stevens was killed…

…not so much.

Medicare Choices?

I’m a bit confused on the Medicare issue.

According to Bill Clinton and CNN, criticism of Barack Obama on Medicare is unwarranted, and there is no reason to choose the Romney/Ryan plan, as it has a similar immediate effect on Medicare as the Obama/Biden policy.

Similar immediate effects, but a very major difference: the Obama/Biden plan is a government controlled, tax-payer funded, short-term solution (I use “solution” loosely)  that will need to be re-addressed again as Medicare continues inevitably along its acknowledged path to insolvency (not to be cliché, but visualize a can flying down the…well, you know), and the Romney/Ryan plan is a free-market model designed to spark competition and provide a long-term solution to Medicare within a dynamic market.

Seriously, there’s an actual choice here?

You’ll have to forgive me, but I’m working with the information given by Obama supporters, so I’m naturally a bit confused.

While briefly explaining the Romney/Ryan plan, a CNN correspondent indicated the free-market model would “in theory” promote competition and bring down prices, giving seniors more choices and greater freedom. In theory? Considering that free market dynamics have been proven to promote competition, bring prices down, and offer greater selection, why emphasize the word “theory?”

The correspondent went on to explain that the Obama/Biden plan would cut the over $700 billion from wasteful spending rather than benefits as the Romney camp had accused.

… what the…CUT $700 BILLION IN WASTE?

Why didn’t we think of that before? No wonder this guy is president, he can find his nose on his own face.

Really, that’s the master plan? Are we to believe no one has ever considered shaving the wasteful spending of Medicare, and there just happened to be over $700 billion in low hanging fruit just ripe for the picking?

If there was no mechanism within Medicare that considered wasteful spending prior to Obama taking office, then shame on him for not throwing that softball out there for Congress to crush over the 400 yard center field wall the day after he was sworn in. Way to go Mr. Unifier.

Obama, you’re fired!

Realistically, there are already mechanisms for cutting waste, and they have failed to impact spending. If CNN can be trusted on this issue and the Romney/Ryan plan is theory, then the Obama/Biden plan is a fairytale.

I must be missing something, because right now I am picturing Obama and Biden standing in an elevator and they keep lifting the “out of order” sign and pressing the button, while reassuring the folks standing in the lobby that they will send the elevator back down to pick them up.

Polite?

With regard to the first presidential debate, in an interview on the "Tom Joyner Morning Show," Barack Obama’s explanation for no new ideas, no answer to Mitt Romney’s challenges, and a complete and utter lack of substance was that he was “just too polite.”

I might have to agree with Obama on this one issue.

Often, when I have attempted to debate issues with liberals, when they lack ideas, answers, and substance, as Obama did, they make up for those shortcomings by yelling at me, calling me names, attacking my character, and either talking over me or storming off angrily without giving me an opportunity to rebut. Interestingly enough, their liberal counterparts watch and conclude they had held their own nicely. (i.e. Joe Biden vs. Paul Ryan)

I hope that’s the strategy Obama uses at the next debate; I think that would work for him nicely. If not, he can blame me for the poor advice.

Speaking of blame, I think it’s worth noting that this may be the very first time I’ve heard Barack Obama take any measure of responsibility for some detrimental aspect of his presidency. Granted, it is a very backhanded admission, but it’s a stark contrast to the usual “someone else’s fault.”

Of course, while it was almost completely Mitt Romney’s fault that Obama did so poorly, in this case blaming the Republican might be too much like giving him credit. So, Obama would rather just chalk it up to “I wasn’t enough of a jerk.”

I’d beg to differ, but that’s a softball…and I’m just too polite.

Game Changing Debate

People keep asking whether the first presidential debate was a game changer. The answers are typically diplomatic, usually focusing on the dynamics rather than the answer to the question.

Please, allow me:

  Yes, it was a game changer…for certain…no doubt.

Prior to the debate, Barack Obama had the world believing that while “maybe” he wasn’t doing a very good job, there was no reason to believe Mitt Romney could do any better (what a courageous strategy). Romney’s performance went a great distance toward clearing the air on both points: there is no “maybe,” and Romney is the better choice.

I was amused and shamefully delighted by the response from Obama supporters; “What happened?” “Where was Obama?” “Why didn’t he….”

I saw the same Obama I've seen since 2007, and I heard the same dead accusations. Obama was the same soulless, broken record I expected him to be, and I brook no excuses.

The only difference between the Obama at the debate and the Obama everyone is used to was Mitt Romney standing right in front of him armed to the teeth with passion, conviction, knowledge, and good old-fashioned accountability. Obama was that guy at the bar talking a big game about his time in combat only to be suddenly confronted by an actual combat veteran.

Of course, it seems Obama’s struggles usually occur under those circumstances. On talk shows and in interviews, where his presence is enough, he does great. On the stump, on the road, at town halls, when he is simply orating, he’s just fine. When confronted by someone who would not be satisfied by a catchy phrase or too oft repeated slogan, however, Obama stumbles; and we have seen him on his face before.

Only the folks with rose-colored glasses are actually surprised, but of course since they aren’t concerned with his substance, their votes haven’t changed.