Wednesday, October 24, 2012
- Finish the job
- More “flexibility” in foreign affairs.
- What “job” are we talking about? Effectively nationalizing our health care—one seventh of our GDP with a projected result of more expensive (rather than less) and arbitrarily rationed treatments (yes, Virginia, there will be “death panels”)? Effectively handcuffing our fossil fuels industry with extremely restrictive environmental and other regulations in order to make “green” energy economically competitive? (Remember, “Under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket”?) Drawing down our military to a lower capability than existed before WWII (when US Army trainees drilled with wooden mock rifles)? Imposing crippling taxes and regulations on business with the result that the number of US citizens on food stamps and welfare continues to increase while at the same time the aggregate skill set of our workforce atrophies? Centralizing all power in the federal government in blatant disregard of the Constitutional structure that has worked well since 1789?
- Flexibility toward Putin's Russia translates, in my mind, to bending over and kissing your a** goodbye. In other areas, does flexibility include allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons capability, by which I mean the ability to manufacture nuclear bombs and deliver them to a target? Does flexibility mean continuing to spit in the eyes of our allies while kissing up to our adversaries? Does flexibility mean accepting the creation of an Islamic Caliphate in which al-Qaeda or something like it rules the Levant, Southwest Asia and the northern half of Africa?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
First, it was probably the most obvious topic for the third and final debate on foreign affairs and America's place in the world. It was, after all, the first question posed by Bob Schieffer. I am absolutely sure that Obama and his handlers anticipated a tough question from the moderator and even tougher comments from Romney, and had prepared a Really Good Response to the question.
Second, given the trap that Obama laid for Romney on the "terrorist attack" statement that he (didn't) make on 12 September, Romney probably anticipated that Obama would be loaded for bear on the issue and would no doubt try to spring another such trap. (He did, on the GM bankruptcy issue, but fumbled badly--Obama provided a great example of what happens when you try to be a smart-ass without being smart.)
But most importantly, with two weeks to go in the campaign and facts still coming out about Benghazi, I suspect that Romney didn't want to give Obama the opportunity to give an explanation of what happened in a situation that didn't lend itself to follow-up questions by knowledgeable questioners, and which would permit Obama to deflect all future questions with "I've already addressed that--it's old news, let's move on." I think Romney wanted to leave Benghazi as an open wound to fester until Election Day. The strategy would have the added benefit of having others not standing for election to be the tough interrogators, and Romney looking "presidential". The MSM is in the tank for Obama, but I suspect in the end it's more important to them to be seen as not supporting a loser than it is to be loyal to their idol to the bitter end.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
A nice little Easter egg for the new president and the American people.