The Obama regime, his surrogates, and the current progressive movement are an affront to intelligent people everywhere. Just this morning, two of the more offensively stupid surrogates of the Obama campaign, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Stephanie Cutter, were on the equally offensive MSNBC network spouting simplistic childish garbage that they evidently seem to think are relevant issues in this campaign. First there was DWS who was contradicting herself trying to hurt Romney in terms of foreign policy first by claiming that Romney was a warmonger and wanted to take us back to the “cowboy” policies of Bush, but then just minutes later stated that there was little daylight between Romney and Obama on foreign policy. To his credit, Chuck Todd called her on that mind numbingly stupid assertion to which DWS responded by saying that that was the problem – no one knows what Romneys positions are. And this woman is the head of the DNC.

Up next was Stephanie Cutter, the co chair for the Obama campaign and one of the emptiest heads I have ever seen. Her contention was that the binder comment by Romney was a big issue, and indicative of how out of touch he is with women’s issues like contraception and equal pay. Let’s just put aside the fact that younger, professional women are already out earning their male counter parts, the Democrats treat women, and every other group for that matter, as some monolithic voting block who only care about special interest issues that only affect them. It’s offensive. Women on the whole are vastly more intelligent than Cutter, and care much more deeply about a whole range of issues other than contraception, which is widely available and affordable. Let’s look at Cutter’s other assertion which was Romney’s big bird comment of which she characterized as Romney’s only plan to balance the budget – which is to cut NPR. Well anyone with a 5th grade comprehension level knows that that is not the case, but that doesn’t stop her from making the claim on national TV, which again is highly offensive to thinking people everywhere.

Of course when you don’t have a successful record to run on, then you have to deflect and I think Obama said it best – “if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.”

The third and final debate is tonight and Obama will do his best trying to scare voters, and I can’t think of anything more terrifying than a second term for Obama. Feel free to discuss what’s on your mind and please keep it civil.

Update:

My apologies to Ed Schultz for not including him in the band of mindless Obama followers. He is after all, the King of mindless Obama followers insulting people everywhere especially last Friday when he said:

“I’m getting more burned up the more I think about this! All right, now this is the locker room today. If this is too much for you, don’t listen to the radio show, I’m warning you. Women! Are you awake?! Do you know what this radical outfit wants to do to your rights in the workplace?!  Do you want them managing your vagina? Do you want them rolling back women’s rights 50 years? I don’t know! I’m just asking the question!There’s so many questions that we have to ask today!”

Just wanted to bring up some things I saw – so how about an open thread?

The San Francisco TEA Party (yes, there is such a thing – and its larger and more visible than you’d think) protested Obama’s recent fund raiser.  The most telling thing about it?  The gathered Obama-bots made a mess – strewing trash all over the place – and it was the TEA Party activists who cleaned it up.  One does wonder – do liberals know what “citizenship” means?

There is a report that there is joint US-Israeli planning for a strike at Iran’s nuclear program.  There are two things, in my view, which this can be:

1.  Eye wash to the Israelis to keep them thinking we’ll do something until after the election – then if Obama is re-elected, Israel will be left in the lurch.

2.  A desperate ploy by Team Obama to have a rally ’round the flag moment late in the game – we bomb Iran, Americans feel better about Obama, Obama wins re-election (it won’t work – but I don’t put making such an attempt past the Obama people).

No, there is no chance that clear eyed  national security reasons would motivate anyone in the Obama Administration about this.

You know you’ve won the gun control debate when the argument is whether or not the cops have a right to assume that your concealed weapon is un-licensed.  They don’t, in my view, but I do see the point:  95% of firearms are not licensed for concealed carry but, on the other hand, the chances of someone carrying a concealed weapon who is un-licensed to do so is also very small.  Long way from demands that all handguns be banned or that the 2nd amendment only secured the right to bear arms to police and military personnel.

Iowahawk strikes again:  White House scientists fight outbreak of the dread disease scrutonium.

Yes, there are bags of polls showing Romney surging.  I won’t bother linking them – you can find them everywhere right now.  My prediction of a Romney win was never based on polling, so I’m not about to start citing polls.  It is the fundamental dynamics of the race asserting themselves – so much so that now, even with a lot of polls heavily over-sampling Democrats (some have stopped doing so in such an egregious manner), Romney is coming out in the lead.  Remember:  Obama never has had much chance of winning.  He’s not this super-genious who felled our best in 2008 and whom we could only beat by a string of massive good luck.  He’s a lousy President (meaning, on an executive, decision-making level) who’s policies have failed and who is running for re-election as America is on the cusp of renewed recession.  If we can’t beat Obama in 2012 then it might be time to fold up the tents and go home – not since 1980 has a political party been handed to many advantages when trying to take out an incumbent.  Obama can still win; it ain’t over until its over…but it was always an uphill climb for Obama, not for the GOP (I just wish we had had more guts and had worked out better plans to challenge Obama and the Democrats even in the bluest States).

Its been mostly out of the news lately, but Europe continues to melt down.  I’m astounded they’ve managed to keep it together this long.  I don’t know how much longer they’ll be able to keep it up.  Once it goes, though, the world will go through a very sharp financial crisis.

The previous thread has become discombobulated due to the necessity of deleting racist and anti religion remarks, which will not be tolerated. So we will pick it up from here, beginning with Mark’s final thoughts:

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Final Thoughts

Clearly Romney was in control through the whole debate.  You might be thinking that Romney actually talked more than Obama but from what I’ve read, Obama actually talked about 4 minutes longer than Romney.  That just shows how good Romney was.

Will it change things?  Not actually – you see, in my view, Romney came in to the debate ahead in the race.  Even some of the (still badly skewed) polls are showing a shift to Romney, but the basic facts of the race have not changed.  We’ve got a lousy economy, a reduced position in the world and a President clearly out of his depth – and there is no real argument Obama can make to convince a majority to award him four more years based upon his record.  Obama had to come out swinging tonight with a clear, rational reason why no matter how bad he is, Romney is worse.  Obama didn’t make that case – and Romney did all that was ever required of him:  present a credible alternative to Obama.

Romney can still blow it in the final debates.  Obama can still land a heavy blow.  Events can still develope which help or hinder either candidate.  Both men can win on November 6th.  My view remains:  Romney is likely to win, and may end up winning by a substantial margin.  But it ain’t over until its over.

Really looking forward to the debate tonight. My hope is that Romney ties Obama’s policies to the current economic malaise, ie; the failed stimulus, the denial of the keystone pipeline, the lack of domestic energy exploration and development as they relate to the high gas prices which hurt the lower and middle classes, the rising insurance premiums due to Obamacare, the continued high unemployment due to any real effort spent on regulatory reform or negotiating trade agreements, the increased tensions in the Middle East and murder of our Libyan Ambassador due to misguided and weak foreign policy, etc. etc.

In addition to that, I want Romney to lay out his vision of opportunity and growth, where we tap into our domestic energy reserves, lower corporate tax rates, encourage expansion, create well paying jobs for everyone, broaden the tax base, lower personal tax rates so more people can keep more of their own money, and create an economy where everyone becomes a victor, and not victims. Should be a fun night.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:  Excellent article about recent polling done in the “battleground” States.  Essentially it confirms what I already know:  it is Obama who is behind and has to land a knock-out punch tonight.

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Final Thoughts

Clearly Romney was in control through the whole debate.  You might be thinking that Romney actually talked more than Obama but from what I’ve read, Obama actually talked about 4 minutes longer than Romney.  That just shows how good Romney was.

Will it change things?  Not actually – you see, in my view, Romney came in to the debate ahead in the race.  Even some of the (still badly skewed) polls are showing a shift to Romney, but the basic facts of the race have not changed.  We’ve got a lousy economy, a reduced position in the world and a President clearly out of his depth – and there is no real argument Obama can make to convince a majority to award him four more years based upon his record.  Obama had to come out swinging tonight with a clear, rational reason why no matter how bad he is, Romney is worse.  Obama didn’t make that case – and Romney did all that was ever required of him:  present a credible alternative to Obama.

Romney can still blow it in the final debates.  Obama can still land a heavy blow.  Events can still develope which help or hinder either candidate.  Both men can win on November 6th.  My view remains:  Romney is likely to win, and may end up winning by a substantial margin.  But it ain’t over until its over.

Never before in my lifetime have I seen such a disconnect in this country between conservatives and liberals, and it’s important to point out that 95% of this current disconnect is driven by the media, ie; the liberal white media, and their purely agenda driven mission. There are some very important, and serious issues to have adult conversations on in this country, including but not limited to the recent embassy attacks in the ME, and the death of our Ambassador that coincided with September 11 and of which our President lied about. The ever growing and unsustainable debt, the soon to be bankrupt Medicare and Social Security programs, the $1 trillion dollar deficits that have established new unsustainable baseline government spending, the dramatically increasing food stamp rolls, the persistent high unemployment, the persistent high gas prices which financially hurt everyone, the reluctance by this administration to do anything serious about becoming energy independent, the labor force which is at an all time low, tax reforms, regulatory reforms, and the list goes on and on. But if you listen to much of the mainstream media, the top story of the day is the latest “game changing” gaffe by Mitt Romney of which the completely biased, and liberal pundits spend the next hour on,  coupled with more adoring coverage of what Obama did that day. The liberal media has abdicated all responsibility and I believe this fact needs to be seriously addressed at some other time, hopefully after the adults take over and start resolving the other more serious challenges to this country.

The first Presidential debate is just a few days away, and I for one am looking forward to it. Feel free to discuss whatever is on your mind and please keep it civil.

Really doing this because there are several things I want to shine our tiny spotlight on:

Andrew Sullivan actually writes and article entitled “President Obama:  the Democrats Reagan“.  Here’s the challenge – I had to stop at the end of the second paragraph because going any further would have brought on fits of laughter so extreme as to be health-threatening.  So, how far can you get in to it before you have to stop?

There is a poll for Pennsylvania showing Obama only up by 2 and under 50%.  My prediction?  Obama will win Pennsylvania…but if you do see the State called for Romney then we’re in for a Reagan-style, 1980 landslide.  And it could happen.

Now, just why would people turn to Romney in such large numbers?  Perhaps it is because our President is a complete fool?  Calling what has happened in Libya a “bump in the road” is an idiot’s statement.  Seriously – I see your “47%” Democrats and raise you this.

Or maybe its because our President lives in a fantasy world?

Why Wisconsin is in Play.  More important for me is the fact that Wisconsin is in play.  Obama won the State by 14 points in 2008.  It should be a walkover for him.  It isn’t – in fact, its probably no better than 50/50 that Obama will win it.  So, going from 14 point lead to zero point lead in a blue State and yet we’re supposed to believe that Obama’s on an easy track for re-election?  Sure, whatever you say…

Camden, NJ (Obama by 34.8 in 2008) our poorest and most crime-ridden city is looking to disband its police force because of budget constraints.  I haven’t been able to find the information so I will place a bet with anyone who asks:  I bet it has been at least 40 years since Republicans ran the place.  Any takers?  I’m sure of winning because it is only liberal Democrats who can take a prosperous American city and turn it in to a crime-ridden, impoverished pest hole.  And what liberals have done for Detroit, Camden, Los Angeles, etc, etc, etc, is precisely what they want to do to the rest of America.  Oh, do I hear a liberal whine of “no, we don’t”?  Ok, fine – then you explain to me why when you gain exclusive political control things always work out like Camden?

Recently on the other thread one of our resident liberals tried to define one of our regular conservative posters as typifying conservative thought. Ironically this liberal has never been able to define conservatism despite many calls from conservatives for him to do just that, so allow me to define what conservatism is to me on just four issues. Of course this is just me, I do not speak for any other conservative poster here but I would like to hear from the other conservatives on their thoughts, as well as the liberals. so here goes:

Government – I would like to see a more limited and a more constitutional federal government, with as many programs as possible pushed down to the state level, this would include Medicare, Medicaid, education,  etc.  In fact I would be open to discussing the possibility of having nearly every entitlement program administered at the state level. I would also like to means test social security and Medicare. Means testing would mean less benefits for the rich, allowing more aid for the poor, and if that aid were administered at the state level, it would be more efficient and effective. I would then like to evaluate every federal program and determine first the need, then the size and scope. In my opinion, we could eliminate many programs altogether and then trim every other department by a minimum of 10% without sacrificing a thing.

Economy – I am firm believer in competition. Competition improves people, product and service every time and brings prices down. Government stifles competition so naturally I would like to see as little government involvement as possible in the private sector. Obviously some industries need more regulation than others, but the best and most effective regulation government can exact, is the justice department. As long as the government ensures that everyone plays by the rules, the private markets will work just fine.

Abortion – life begins at conception, period. Therefore abortion is manslaughter, however, I do agree that this detestable practice should be made available in the event of rape, incest, or provable physical harm to the mother. Aside from that, I wish our society would stop glorifying this practice as a “choice” and start stigmatizing it, and educating both men and women on the numerous ways to prevent it. It is not a choice.

Gay Marriage – I fully support civil unions with all the legal rights therein, and not only for same sex couples, but for many other unions as well. I believe marriage should be reserved for the time honored tradition of the one man and one woman union. This is a union that is universal, and pre dates nearly all other institutions including many governments, so it should be left alone. Besides, marriage is not a right.

So this is just where I stand on these four issues. I invite everyone to comment on my positions, and include their own on not just these topics but others as well. Have fun.

Lot’s going on folks including:

– Iran’s support of Assad, will this be enough to allow him to keep power?

– Jimmy Carter to speak in support of Obama at the convention. Help or hinderance?

– Romney considering Gen. Patraeus as VP? Good move or not? In fact, the VP selection is expected soon – who do you like and why?

And last but not least, this little surprise regarding Obama’s time at Columbia. Or was he actually there?

Or anything else that’s on your mind. Keep it clean and civil.