Saturday, October 27, 2012
Seems like a fair question, tho I'd agree with John Sununu that it's because the former general shares the same race as Barry:
This week, Colin Powell, a retired four-star U.S. Army general perhaps best known for having served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, endorsed Barack Obama's bid for re-election during an interview with "CBS This Morning."
Given that Powell had enthusiastically endorsed Obama in 2008, his decision to back him yet again shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Yet Powell's endorsement of a Democratic candidate is seen as significant because he describes himself as "a Republican of a more moderate mold," who laments that GOP moderates are "something of a dying breed."Powell expressed discontent with the Republican stance on climate change, immigration and education, and he seemed more comfortable with Obama's approach to achieving fiscal balance than Mitt Romney's. Powell is also, among other things, a defender of racial preferences in college admissions and abortion rights.While it is certainly true that Powell's views were not uncommon among moderate and liberal Republicans of an earlier era, it is not entirely clear why he chooses not to identify as a Democrat or as a liberal-leaning independent. One assumes that Powell has some residual loyalty to the party of Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford, which is, of course, fair enough.But would American democracy be better and healthier if we had more Republicans such as Powell and more Democrats such as, say, former U.S. Sen. Zell Miller, the Georgia Democrat who famously endorsed President George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention?
Friday, October 26, 2012
Since the Far-Left started their ass-backwards "War on Women" campaign to impugn Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential has pulled even with female voters in the polls. In other words, women aren't that stupid and like most liberal, Hollywood actresses Lena Dunham is an idiot:
The other day, a study came out suggesting that the advertising being released by President Obama's re-election team is actually having the opposite of its intended effect. Instead of firing up his former 2008 voters to cast their ballots again for him, the ads that Obama's people are putting out are actually firing up former John McCain voters to turn out against Obama.RELATED: Woman Sells Her Virginity in Online Auction for $780,000; Sad Male Counterpart Only Nets $3,000
It's tough to argue with that conclusion after having viewed the campaign's latest spot, a dopey attempt at humor featuring little-known hipster actress Lena Dunham comparing voting for Obama to having sex.
"Your first time shouldn't be with just anybody. You wanna do it with a great guy," Dunham begins. "It should be with a guy with beautiful--someone who really cares and understands women. A guy who cares whether you get health insurance, specifically whether you get birth control."
Naturally, she does not state that the birth control will be paid for by other people, regardless of whether or not they have religious objections to it. No mention also that religious hospitals and charity organizations who insure their own employees are going to have to actually pay for their employees to have abortions.
"You wanna do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq," Dunham adds later, echoing a previous idiot celebrity ad put out by the Obama camp starring the ever-irritating Sarah Jessica Parker.
The ad is below. Watch it if you have the stomach to listen to a nauseating spiel from the creator of the awful HBO show Girls as she patronizes young women voters.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Remember folks, to liberals killing innocent Americans is only good when it's a Democrat who's doing it:
After being cornered by activist reporters at Lynn University, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered a misleading defense of the Obama administration’s use of a “kill list” to determine which target should next be evaporated by a drone strike, and offered a truly pathetic justification for the drone killing of an innocent 16-year-old American citizen.RELATED: S.E. Cupp’s Debate Advice For Romney: Attack Obama’s Foreign Policy Failures ‘From The Left’
Gibbs initially dodged several questions about President Obama’s hypocritical support for the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, but was eventually cornered by We Are Change reporters, who provoked the following exchange:
REPORTER: How will Obama defend his secret ‘kill list’ at next week’s debate?As the Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf notes, this defense is especially misleading because “since the kill list itself is secret, there’s no way to offer a specific counterexample. But we do know that U.S. drones are targeting people who’ve never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities…. The vast majority would never make their way to New York or Washington, D.C., and the Obama Administration would never agree to rules that permitted only the killing of threats to ‘the homeland.’”
GIBBS: Look, this president has taken the fight to al Qaeda.
REPORTER: Does that justify a kill list?
GIBBS: When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we’ve taken that fight to them.
REPORTER: Without due process of law?
GIBBS: We have taken the fight to them.
Nevertheless, Gibbs wholeheartedly defended the unauthorized drone strikes and dismissed the reporter. But later on, that reporter’s colleague Sierra Adamson was able to ask Gibbs to defend the drone strike killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.
For some background: Abudlrahman was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born terrorist who was killed by a drone in Yemen in early September 2011. The elder al-Awlaki was a known terrorist who had left American for Yemen to join up with al Qaeda. During his time as a leader, he accrued a body count by inciting multiple violent terrorist acts against Americans. The Obama administration celebrated his assassination, and “targeted killings” became a frequent topic of discussion culminating with the New York Times story revealing the administration’s use of a secret “kill list” for drone targets.
But the younger al-Awlaki was on no such list. As Esquire reported, he was not a member of al Qaeda when he was killed by a drone strike two weeks after his father. “Nor was he ‘an inspiration,’ as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone ‘operational,’ as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests. He was a boy who hadn’t seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding,” the magazine explained.
The night the 16-year-old was killed in Yemen, he was reportedly saying goodbye to his second cousin who had temporarily housed him during his search to find his (unbeknownst to him) already-dead father. He was seated on the side of the ride, eating dinner over an open flame. An American drone appeared in sky and killed everyone there.
With that story in mind, Adamson confronted Gibbs and the following exchange ensued [emphasis mine]:
ADAMSON: Do you think the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son is justifiable?
GIBBS: I am not going to get into Anwar al-Awlaki’s son. I know that Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship.
ADAMSON: His son was still an American citizen.
GIBBS: He did great harm to people in this country and was a regional al Qaeda commander hoping to inflict harm and destruction…
ADAMSON: But it’s an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he’s underage. He’s a minor.
GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
American Crossroads has a new ad out today, one that features a familiar face and voice — Clint Eastwood. Taking a distinctly more serious approach than his lighthearted, extemporaneous skit speech at the Republican Convention, Eastwood warns about rising dependence on China’s credit and the prospect of another four years of Barack Obama. America needs a turnaround artist, Eastwood says, and fortunately we have one at the ready:RELATED: Stacey Dash Casts Early Vote For Mitt Romney
The reference to China will play well in Ohio and Pennsylvania, I’d bet — and I wouldn’t be surprised to see this ad go into heavy rotation in those states, as well as Virginia and New Hampshire. Eastwood’s iconic status may or may not impress Obama voters, but among older independents, Eastwood might be quite effective. It’s a smart move to roll this out in the final two weeks.
Update: The New York Times reports that American Crossroads will run this in seven states — and that testing showed the ad to be very effective (via Michael Warren):
After some testing, Crossroads found that potential audiences, who are often wary of celebrity endorsements, still appreciated Mr. Eastwood as an American icon and liked the idea of his appearance in the ad as long as it did not seem overdone. So while Mr. Eastwood narrates the entire ad, he appears on camera only at the very end.Not Pennsylvania, as I first thought — but that could change, too.
Mr. Eastwood, in an e-mailed statement, explained his motives. “I did the ad because I’m concerned for our country,” he said. “I really believe Mitt Romney is the kind of leader we need right now. He’s an experienced businessman, and he knows how to work with people to fix problems. It’s time to give someone else a chance to fix our country.”
The ad starts running Wednesday in seven states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.
Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly revealed that, while she watched the final presidential debate from the press room at Lynn College in Florida on Monday night, the assembled journalists burst into laughter and applause when President Barack Obama landed a rhetorical blow against Mitt Romney. When Romney said that Obama has presided over the downsizing of the Navy, Obama shot back “We also have fewer horses and bayonets.” Kelly claims that reporters exalted over this chiding of his Republican opponent.RELATED: When Gotcha Goes Horribly Wrong: Pataki Swats Back at MSNBC's O'Donnell
“I think Gov. Romney maybe has not spent enough time looking at how our military works,” Obama said Monday night in response to the charge that he had refused the Navy’s request for more assets. “We also have fewer horses and bayonets because nature of our military has changed. “There are these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”
Speaking with conservative radio host Michael Reagan, Kelly said that she said that she observed the media’s satisfaction with that comment first hand.
“I was in the spin room in Boca when the president made that comment and I can tell you that the media literally erupted around me – laughing and many clapping,” said Kelly.
Reagan said that the comment revealed the president’s level of arrogance, as opposed to his father, President Ronald Reagan, who he said did not ‘talk down’ to those he was negotiating with or debating against.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Liberal Lawyer Gloria Allred Heads To Court To Try And Discredit Mitt Romney and Sway Election To Barack Obama
Obama and his far-Left surrogates will say and do anything to win, but you already knew that. Now comes word that the "October Surprise" from notoriously corrupt attorney (and famewhore) Gloria Allred is her attempting to unseal the sworn testimony given by Mitt Romney in a prior court case. Of course, if Barack Obama was leading in the polls two weeks before the election, Allred and her morally bankrupt on the Left cronies would have no need to pull stunts like these. But since Mitt Romney has overtaken Obama in every major poll, this "October Surprise" serves as nothing but the last gasp of a desperate campaign:
Famed civil rights attorney Gloria Allred will be in a Boston area courtroom Wednesday in an attempt to unseal the sworn testimony given by Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, in a prior court case, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.RELATED: Financial Pundit Claims To Know Donald Trump’s Big Announcement: The Obamas’ Divorce Papers
"The Boston Globe is headed to court tomorrow morning for an emergency hearing in an attempt to obtain a court order to unseal the sworn testimony given by in a prior court case and to lift a gag order so that the parties can speak about Romney. Gloria Allred will be in court representing one of the parties in the case," a source close to the situation tells RadarOnline.com.
The emergency hearing will take place at the Norfolk Probate & Court in Canton, Massachusetts, and Justice Jennifer Ulwick will oversee the proceedings which will begin at 9 a.m. EST.
As previously reported, Drudge Report founder and respected politico, Matt Drudge, tweeted Thursday: "Here she comes. Hearing Gloria Allred out there again, about to make a move. After all, it's her time of the campaign. Team O at the ready!!"
Allred, an outspoken supporter of President Barack Obama refused to confirm, or deny, Drudge's prediction, telling RadarOnline.com: "I have no comment at this time about Mr. Drudge's Tweet. I don't discuss meetings with potential clients."
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney are locked in a dead heat according to most polls.
Maybe Romney just decided that he didn't want to politicize Libya and Ambassador Stevens' death, but he still could've went harder on Obama for all the missteps and contradictions we've seen on Libya the past couple of weeks from the Obama administration. As for Obama, he clearly played to win, while Romney just played it safe, too safe:
The focus of Fox News’ immediate post-debate reaction was largely on Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s “complete pass” on attacking President Obama over his administration’s handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya, the GOP candidate’s struggles to distinguish his foreign policy positions from Obama’s, and Romney’s presidential behavior.RELATED: Neil Cavuto: Mitt Romney ‘Botched A Lot Of Things Tonight’
Co-anchor Bret Baier began the post-debate coverage noting that while the first question of the night was focused on Libya, “the fireworks predicted on that topic never materialized” and “Governor Romney did not press the administration’s handling of Libya.” Baier also noted that, in several instances, Romney “struggled to put distance between his policy and Obama policy” on issues like dealing with Syria.
Megyn Kelly agreed that Romney seemed to struggle at putting a distance between himself and the president, and she agreed with Baier that the GOP candidate “took a complete pass on Libya.”
Even liberal commentator Joe Trippi hit Romney for how he “literally walked away from the question without really engaging” Obama on the administration.
Trippi also called the debate “the big hug” because of how much he felt Romney tried to agree with Obama on policy after policy, possibly as part of a “strategy to not let Obama paint him as the reckless guy who is going to take the country to war.”
Conservative panelist Stephen Hayes agreed with his liberal counterpart, noting that it was “striking” how Romney “tried to be presidential bipartisan, sort of above the fray in obviously an effort not to sound like George W. Bush. And the result, I think, was that in this effort not to sound like George W. Bush, he spent a good part of the night sounding like Barack Obama.”
Chris Wallace added that if “I had been on the desert island for the last four years and I had just been parachuted into this debate, I would have thought the guy that had turned out to be Mitt Romney was the president protecting a lead and that Barack Obama was the challenger trying, somewhat desperately to catch up.”
Chris Christie: If Barack Obama Can’t Change Washington, ‘What The Hell Is He Doing’ Asking For Re-Election?
Over the weekend, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, during a speech in Richmond, Virginia, took aim at President Barack Obama‘s comment about how he’s learned he can’t change Washington from the inside. If the president believes that, Christie said, “what the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”RELATED: Chris Christie Barnstorms For McMahon
“You may not know this, but the president loves me,” Christie said, eliciting laughter from the audience. “So since he loves me, I want to help the president.”
Thus, Christie noted president’s remark. “You can’t change Washington from the inside,” Obama said back in September. “You can only change it from the outside.”
“If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, then let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you have earned,” Christie said, asking, “I mean that is a scary thing for the President of the United States to say, isn’t it?”
Christie continued: “It shows his arrogance. If he really believes that, if he believes that, then what the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”
The governor said the comment not only reveals Obama’s arrogance, but also his refusal to take the blame for anything. He’ll blame anyone but himself, Christie said, pointing to names like George W. Bush as well as Republican lawmakers. And yet, Obama still asks for another term so he can “figure it out,” Christie said.
Coming to his broader point, Christie criticized Obama for lack of leadership skills, arguing that he barely spent any time in the Senate before moving to the White House — that he simply has no leadership experience.
So now, “he’s blindly walking around the White House,” Christie said, “looking for a clue.”
Monday, October 22, 2012
Hey, it's something that conservatives can recall well. When it came to twice getting an opportunity to pick a Supreme Court justice, qualified men around the country had zero chance of getting selected. Because Barack Obama, in bowing down to his far-Left, liberal base (rather then seeking the best candidate regardless of gender) was going to pick a woman no matter what. Thanks to Justice Kagan for confirming what conservatives already long knew:
Justice Elena Kagan said she was “not sure” if President Barack Obama would have nominated her to the Supreme Court if she had not been a woman.RELATED: Now That Scalia Has Corrupted Kagan, What Progressive Pastime Should Kagan Make Scalia Do?
During a talk before law students on Friday at the University of Tennessee Law School, Kagan said, “And to tell you the truth, there were also things that I got because I was a woman. I mean I'm not sure I'd be sitting here.”
“I'm not sure that I would've been President Obama's nominee if I weren't a woman,” she said. “And if he wasn't as committed as he was to ensuring that there was diversity on the Supreme Court.”
“So, mostly what I think when I think about this question is how far we've come and how much I owe -- and all the women who have come after me owe-- to people like Justice Ginsburg and Justice O'Connor,” she said.
Kagan was initially asked by Dean of Tennessee Law School Doug Blaze, “It’s been a remarkable career, and you’ve been quite a pioneer along the way. [The] first woman to be Dean of the Harvard Law School, first woman solicitor general of the United States. You’re now the fourth woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court and one of three presently serving.”
“Along the way, what challenges have you faced as a woman and what changes have you seen in the legal profession, if any, over that period of time?" he said.
Kagan replied that most of the challenges of being a woman in the legal profession were already overcome by the women who preceded her.
“Well, I feel pretty lucky that I haven’t had to surmount all that many barriers or leap over all that many hurdles that were there because I was a woman,” said Kagan. “And I think that that’s because of the time I came along where a lot of the women who preceded me had done a lot of the hard work to make sure that women and men were evaluated equally and had the same opportunities as each other.”
MSNBC's Matthews Claims it's Unconstitutional for Romney to Challenge Obama
Libya, Iran Likely to be Main Points of Contention in Final Debate
Mom of Slain Diplomat: 'My Son Is Not Very Optimal — He Is Very Dead'
Ten Common Sense Reasons to Vote Romney/Ryan
An Open Letter to Obama Voters
Bill Clinton Thinks Americans Are ‘Impatient’ for Recovery
Lesbian Soldier Begins Sex-Change Process During Deployment to Afghanistan
TV’s ‘New Normal’ is Obama Ad with Punch Lines
Radio Crackdown: Australian Radio Jock Forced Into 'Factual Accuracy Training' on Global Warming
Male-Female Wage Gap a Myth
Obama Bagged Over $2 Million In Invalid Donations For September
Psst, Taxes Go Up in 2013 for 163 Million Workers
Hollywood Can Be a Lonely Place for Mitt Romney Supporters
If Obama Loses, Will Democrats Blame Racism?
Sunday, October 21, 2012
One of the largest and most influential newspapers in Central Florida has abandoned its 2008 support for Barack Obama and has announced its endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. From the Orlando Sentinel's powerful editorial:RELATED: Major Florida Newspaper Flips From 2008, Endorses Romney
Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate. Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009. And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall.We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race. Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years. Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way.
The Sentinel isn't alone. The New York Observer surprised many of its readers with a Romney nod last week, as did The Tennesseean, a perennially liberal outlet. That paper's editors picked Obama four years ago, but are changing their tune in 2012:
President Obama’s steps to get spending under control and reduce the debt are too tentative, and again hark back to his inability to possess the leadership to break the partisan gridlock in Congress ... Should President Obama, as some suggested, have devoted his early political capital to jobs and debt reduction and pursuing Wall Street criminals, instead of health reform? Time will tell. But it’s clear whatever shaky bridges were burned in the push for health reform only emboldened Republicans to oppose his subsequent economic proposals. That has rendered much of his presidency ineffective. Barack Obama was elected in 2008 with a call for hope and change. Perhaps the change he spoke of could only come with the help of Mitt Romney.Tennessee is not a battleground state, but early signs point to a major Romney blowout there on November 6. Finally, here's a portion of a new Romney endorsement from Barack Obama's hometown Jewish newspaper:
With his executive experience, belief in the enervating potential of the private sector, proven ability to deal with opposing views, positive outlook and quiet but admirable religious and charitable persona, Mitt Romney is the candidate who can best guide our country in the years ahead. We like Mr. Romney- and strongly endorse his candidacy for president- because of his moderate, small-government views We like Mr. Romney because he is able to travel to a hot-bed area like Israel and- openly, unapologetically, and accurately- commend the Jewish state for its achievements, while frankly acknowledging that it is Palestinian recalcitrance which has denied peace to the area. We like Mr. Romney because he understands the need to create jobs by providing the right environment for the private sector to do so.