Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Today is the Turning Point

Mitt Romney will win this election.

I am not saying that because I am a Mitt Romney fan.  Far from it.

I am saying that because swing voters will recognize that it's not the business of the American Government to apologize to mobs of terrorists because an American citizen, in exercising his free speech, hurt their "religious feelings".   

Romney has pointed that out. 

The media is trying to claim that he's trying to politicize the attack and murders in Libya.  They are trying to blame Romney for quite rightly drawing our attention to Obama's dreadful bungling of foreign policy and common sense in this case.  It won't work.  Normal people, formerly on the cusp, will swing in his direction.

Unless something else happens between now and November, today marks the day that Romney has won the election.

... and by the way, I echo Mark Shea.  "Why are we over there?"


Stephen said...

This is by far the most delusional thing you've ever posted on this blog, which is saying a lot.

I'd like to first say that I agree that the statement from the embassy was an embarrassment to freedom and free speech. I'm offended by the inane and cruel statements and actions that come out of the Islamic and Christian churches on a daily basis, but I don't ask that they stop. I understand that they have a right to their beliefs.

Moving on, are you trying to imply that Obama had anything to do with the embassy's statement? If so, you are completely wrong. Also, if you cannot understand why the embassy tried to preemptively temper the anger of the nearby citizens, you are a fool. Sorry for the ad hominem, but if you don't think that the statement was uttered with practical concerns in mind--namely, the safety of everyone working there--you are a fool, plain and simple. Remember, the statement was released BEFORE the attacks. It was intended to try to quell the anger of the admittedly crazy and violent muslims who committed this outrageous attack.

As for Obama, he strongly condemned the attacks in his statement today. Go look it up. He did not, by any objective measure, sympathize with the terrorist or even suggest that the fault lied with the film maker. The reason the press is attacking Romney because what he said was a bald-faced lie, not to mention outrageously callous. Obama did not express any sympathy for the attackers, he condemned them viciously. Anyone (Romney) who says otherwise is a disgraceful liar. That's what he's being attacked for.

Again, I agree that the statement released by the embassy was unacceptable, although I believe it was done for practical rather than philosophical reasons. It is an absolute joke to try to say that Obama had anything to do with that statement, or that he sympathized with the attackers in any way, shape, or form.

As to your point about Romney winning, there's basically a zero percent chance of that happening. Even his own polls show him with little to no chance at winning the electoral college. The other point to be made is that this is how it's been since 2010. At no point in the past two years has the Republican candidate been leading the electoral college polls, and yet conservatives seem to be deluding themselves into believing that everyone hates Obama as much as they do and that they are going to win this election. Nate Silver, who has a nearly flawless track record in elections since he started has Romney's chances at 23%. Intrade, another organization with historically good predictive abilities, is more generous and has Romney at around 30%. Anything can happen between now and November, but you are lying to yourself if you think Romney is in good position right now.

The majority of Americans are going to see this for what it is; a disturbingly slimy attack that has precisely zero basis in reality. I'm no fan of Obama, but I do have to admit I'm going to be insanely happy when he wins reelection, if only to see conservative heads explode. The country as a whole does not share your values, and this is how democracy works. Obama will almost certainly be President for the next four years, so get ready to be angry for a while. I wish you good luck.

Also, I haven't commented in a long time, so I hope you won't take this as an angry condemnation of you. I just really, really think you're way off base on this one. Also, I'd like to thank you sincerely for your brave stand against the apologists for sexual abuse and your truly admirable stance on the issue as a whole. The world needs many more Catholics like you when it comes to this issue. Again, thank you.

Stephen said...

A couple of things to add. It isn't just us liberal crazies condemning this. Boehner and McConnell have both refused to endorse Romney's statement. John McCain (one of the biggest hawks ever) went as far as to praise the White House response to the attacks. Tony Perkins, quite possibly the most reactionary human in America, publicly repudiated Romney's comments. Peggy Noonan put it mildly when she said Romney's statement, "didn't do him any favors." No serious political commentator, left or right, thinks this is good for Romney.

Also, this is worth looking at. I referred to the attackers as "crazy". It's good to see many Lybians agree.

Stephen said...


Stephen said...

Also, where in the name of Russell do you get off saying Obama has "bungled"foreign policy? It's widely agreed upon, even by Bush's former national security advisers (minus Cheney), that Obama has been nothing short of ruthless in the war on terror. He has absolutely decimated al-qaeda. Out of the top 30 al-qaeda operatives when he took office, there are 6 that are still alive, and none of the top leadership remains. If Bush had that record, conservatives would be asking for a giant Bush monument in the middle of DC. The respect for America has gone way up around the world since Obama has been President. I'm not saying this is impressive; it was almost impossible to decrease that stat after Bush made the entire world minus Isreal hate us. That's barely hyperbole by the way.

If you are suggesting that diplomatic attacks are a sign of weakness, you are demonstrating your ignorance of history. There were 11 major attacks on embassies in the Bush administration. There have always been attacks on embassies. I don't care if you're the God of foreign policy, you aren't going to be perfect in preventing attacks.

Sorry for commenting so much, but this post highlights everything I hate about the modern conservative movement. I could write you a 10,000 word essay on why Obama doesn't deserve to be reelected, but the criticisms you give of him are simply not based in reality.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Stephen, quit trying to paint me as a delusional conservative. For one thing, I think Romney is the worst man ever nominated by the Republicans, and I remember Nixon.

As for your points - the executive branch runs the embassies. The responsibility for the statement lies with Obama. He did not write it, clearly; but the embassies function under his authority. I know it was issued before the attacks - and it was issued out of cowardice. You can't separate the selling out on the free speech of American citizens from the issue of trying to stay alive. Yes, they were trying to ward off an attack - but they were selling our souls to do so. It was despicable. If you're worried that the Muslims are going to kill us because we can make movies critical of them, we've already lost the war. Let's just get sharia law in place and forget about it.

Romney is not politicizing this event. The administration is busy apologizing for the free speech of American citizens, and our embassies are attacked.

A better question is - why are we over there? What on earth positive is coming from our diplomatic presence in these countries, or from our continued military presence in Afghanistan?

Anyway, glad we both agree that Obama is a waste. Romney is too. I just think the crime here is the media trying to make the story about him. He was well within his rights as a candidate to point out the bad policy behind the Cairo statement. And the swing voters will swing on this. Barring another big event before November, this will give Romney the victory.

And the electoral votes all hinge on the swing states. No poll gives either candidate a clear electoral victory. But Obama's done for in 2012, IMHO.

Stephen said...

"As for your points - the executive branch runs the embassies. The responsibility for the statement lies with Obama. He did not write it, clearly; but the embassies function under his authority. I know it was issued before the attacks - and it was issued out of cowardice. You can't separate the selling out on the free speech of American citizens from the issue of trying to stay alive. Yes, they were trying to ward off an attack - but they were selling our souls to do so. It was despicable. If you're worried that the Muslims are going to kill us because we can make movies critical of them, we've already lost the war. Let's just get sharia law in place and forget about it."

That's really, really easy to say from the safety of a home on a computer. As I said, it's disgusting that they made the announcement, but you're just living in a fantasy world if you think everyone is going to martyr themselves for free speech. You don't get to make moral decisions for other people. And I've read your opinions of Mitt Romney. You've linked an article written by Alan Keyes stating that not only is Obama an obvious communist, but Romney is a closet socialist. That doesn't exactly scream "reasonable moderate" to me. Also, you've come to believe that Presidents personally oversee PR statements for foreign embassies. Where are you pulling this nonsense from? Seriously, in what universe did you take civics?

"Romney is not politicizing this event. The administration is busy apologizing for the free speech of American citizens, and our embassies are attacked."

This is just a lie. Both Obama and Clinton released statements strongly condemning the attacks. Neither ever said anything close to what you are dreaming of. Perhaps delusional was too strong. But you are stretching for something that isn't there. Here are the President's full remarks:

"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward."

Stephen said...

Sorry, but if you can find "apologizing for the free speech of our citizens" in there, I'll eat my shoe. I'm sorry that he didn't come out and call for holy war against muslims. I'm sure you'll be enraged by the “we reject attempts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” but that's really reaching. This isn't a game. Geo-politics, it turns out, has a political component. You can complain about political correctness, and maybe in some abstract way you're correct. That doesn't make it intelligent for the state department to make inflammatory statements.

"A better question is - why are we over there? What on earth positive is coming from our diplomatic presence in these countries, or from our continued military presence in Afghanistan?"

Money. As always. Lithium in Afghanistan, oil in some other places. Also, the military-industrial complex is a very real thing. People make lots of money from defense contracting and arms manufacturing. Not only do we sell dangerous weapons to other countries, we give them to ourselves as well. Profit all around! But this is by far your best point, it's completely idiotic to be in most of these countries.

Give it up. The only people defending this are the lunatic right Right now, you are in the company of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Reince Priebus, and Michelle Malkin. These are not moderate figures, they are the far right of the party. Like I said earlier, lefties such as John McCain, Peggy Noonan, Tony Perkins have all repudiated the comment and have even credited the Obama administration's repsonse, particularly the State Department's. This isn't because we're being cowards and apologizing for American values (whatever that means), it's because it was an idiotic statement that was completely devoid of truth. This idea that Obama has been apologizing to our enemies has been a major talking point of this Romney campaign. This talking point has been thoroughly debunked time and time again, but it keeps coming up. (He named his book /No Apology/. It made me want to throw up. Firstly, because Obama has not done this to the extent that conservatives dream he has. Secondly, America has A LOT to apologize for. We could use some contrition for our past foreign policy actions in the White House. This freakish commitment to American exceptionalism is terrifying, approaching fascistic.)

I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously when you try to claim that someone falsely accusing a President for apologizing for the murder of Americans isn't politicizing an event. Here's what not politicizing a murder looks like:

"This was a tragedy. The victims' families are in our thoughts and prayers."

Mitt Romney has every right to politicize this issue; he is, after all, running for President. But it's disingenuous to claim that he isn't politicizing the event.

Stephen said...

Haha, didn't exactly say Obama was a waste. He's protecting the country from Mitt Romney, for example. The Republican Party is insane and must be stopped if America wants any shot at a future. Both parties are leading us straight to destruction, as no one is addressing climate change or the nearly complete financial takeover of the economy. Both parties love their corporate masters and hate the American people. Still, Democrats are wusses and Republicans are psychopaths living in an alternate reality. (Todd Akin's comments about the vaginal superheros who destroy rape sperm were common on the radical pro-life forums.) I'll chose the corrupt wusses over the corrupt psychopaths for the time being, thank you very much. Also, Obama signed equal pay for women into law, ended don't ask don't tell, and we've seen 30 straight months of private sector job growth. We have more jobs now than we did at the start of the Obama administration. The things that piss me off about Obama is that he's continuing the civil liberties abuses continued under Bush, committing war crimes (like every other President), passed a far too weak stimulus bill (should have been 1.8 trillion dollars, was only 800 billion) and then pretended that the economy was going to recover fully, didn't prosecute criminal bankers, didn't prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes, hired the same people who caused the financial crisis to positions of power (Geitner), passed a conservative health care plan (invented by the Heritage Foundation and supported by many conservatives until around 2009 for whatever reason) without even attempting to include liberal ideas such as the public option or Medicare buy-in, didn't fight the ridiculous Bush tax cuts hard enough, has worried way too much about the deficit and way too little about jobs. Huh? Didn't Obama go on the most irresponsible spending spree of all timez??!! No. Not according to those commies at the Wall Street Journal's "Market Watch". In fact, spending is increasing at the lowest rate since the 1950s.

Stephen said...

Sorry for that digression. But as for your opinion that it comes down to swing states, you're right! That's exactly why Romney has almost no chance to win. By his own polling, Romney is down by 9 in Ohio. Real Clear Politics, a polling aggregater, has Obama up 8 in Pennsylvania. He's up 4 in NH, up 4 in NV, up 4 in CO, and is ahead in FL, IA, and WI. Out of the states listed with postal codes, Romney has to take them all or else he loses. That's assuming that he wins Viriginia and North Carolina. He's up .5 points in VA and 4 in NC. As of now, that's just about the entire map as far as avaliable electorates go. So while anything is possible, Romney is not in good position at all. Nate Silver has Obama at 80% chance of victory now. This is not some liberal propagandist; he made a lot of people a lot of money with his crunching of baseball statistics. He got 49 of 50 states in 2008, 34 of 36 senate races in 2010. He has a very good track record. I wouldn't bet against him. I'll take statistics over gut feelings 100/100. Again, you can think what you want to think, and you may be right. It's not like there are any guarantees here. All I'm saying is that if Obama wins, I don't want to see a bunch of conspiracies about voter fraud popping up (especially because of the fact that it's the Republicans who are passing all of the voter suppression laws, which are being struck down as violations of the Voting Rights Amendment as we speak.) According to all conventional methods of polling, which have proven fairly successful in the past, Obama is in really good position to win this. Seriously. I'm not lying. Maybe the polls are, but I'm not.

And why must you hate on Nixon? I mean, sure, he was a paranoid mass murderer who would do anything for power, but that's par for the Presidential course. In all seriousness, Nixon is one of my favorite Presidents in the past 50 years from an economic angle. He signed OSHA and the EPA, taxes on the upper bracket were above 70%, and Keynesian economics were fully embraced. I'd literally fight a war to have the chance to go back to that. If we had done real Keynesian spending over the past 4 years, the economy wouldn't suck nearly as badly as it does now. Instead, we pointed a free money bazooka at the banks and fired at will. This is perhaps the most egregious thing Obama has done with the exception of the war crimes and the ordered murders of civilians. And by the way, Romney is a far, far worse political candidate than Nixon. He's approaching Dukakis and McGovern territory here. However, I sincerely believe he was the best option the Republicans had besides Ron Paul and John Huntsmen. Anyway, nice shooting politics with you, I genuinely wish you good luck. It seems as though you will be very unhappy if Obama wins. Then again, it seems as though you'll be unhappy either way. So will I. If it's any consolation to you, us radical leftists will be just as miserable as everyone else when this election is over.

Stephen said...

By the way, do you not appreciate Waiting for Godot? I think it's quite a fine piece of work, myself. Oh well.

Stephen said...

Sorry about the long post. What I really want to know is why in the world do you think this helps Romney? The internet was ablaze with condemnations today, and the internet is America. This is going to do the opposite of what you think it is going to do. It's going to rile up the base and turn off swing voters intensely. I've already read multiple accounts of undecideds who have decided to vote Obama because of this inane statement. I've even seen a couple who were planning on voting for Romney who are now switching. This kind of garbage does not appeal to swing voters.

Stephen said...

By the way, the White House has officially disavowed the Cairo statement. Want to keep reaching? Or will you admit that they had nothing to do with this?

Stephen said...

Also, not that it matters, but the maker of that movie is a total scumbag. He didn't tell the actors what the movie was about. The entire crew has released a statement saying they were misled about the content of the film. Legal action is being threatened. This isn't some hero exposing the very real evil of fundamentalist Islam. He's just your run-of-the-mill bigot.

Kevin O'Brien said...

Stephen, quit holding back. Tell us what you really think.

Anonymous said...