Western Civilization is being led by "Cave" Men

Everywhere you look today, men who are entrusted with great political power, are caving. In 2006, President George W. Bush caved when CAIR pressured him to never again use the phrase 'Islamic fascists'. Just last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caved when Barack Obama pressured him to apologize to Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan for defending itself in the 2010 Gaza flotilla. There have been countless examples in between.

Before we get to some of them, consider what was taking place about this time nearly 2000 years ago. A man named Jesus was being arrested, thanks in large part, to elders and politicians, who on more than one occasion, attempted to get Jesus to cave. Had it not been for them, Pontius Pilate would have left Him alone. Even then, Jesus could have employed the desire for 'dialogue' with Pilate and the elders. He could have caved; he did not.

And he was even free of guilt and sin.

When it comes to Jesus' tortuous death, people reflect on His willingness to die for the salvation of all who believe in Him by rising again but there is another aspect to his death that is often overlooked. Consider the tremendous courage He had, standing there in front of Pontius Pilate, who was looking for a way to avoid what was coming. All Jesus had to do was cave and agree to the terms, which likely would have involved Pilate brokering a deal between Him and the Jewish elders and politicians.

Think of it. Pilate must have been beside himself. The Roman leader thought he had all the power! Human nature dictated that Jesus cave but Jesus transcended human nature because he was God in human form. Ultimately, it was Pilate who caved when he washed his hands.

This is not to say that the world's leaders today should be expected to have the same level of courage but if they're Christians, they are supposed to be as "Christ-like" as they can. These leaders are also not standing in front of Pontius Pilate, facing floggings and crucifixion if they stand their ground. If they can't be expected to have the same level of courage that Jesus exhibited then, shouldn't they at least be expected to follow the example of Joseph of Arimathea.

Via Catholic Encyclopedia:

He was a wealthy Israelite (Matthew 27:57), "a good and a just man" (Luke 23:50), "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, "a senator", whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John 2:23), but he did not declare himself as such "for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark 14:64).

Before one points to Joseph of Arimathea's "fear", consider that he did NOT succumb to groupthink and paid great honor to the Truth in the Flesh. Read on...

The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark 15:43-45).

While we're on the subject of the Catholic Church, let us consider the caving of its newly elected Pontiff, Pope Francis I, on two very significant fronts. First, in 2007, he signed a document which stated, in part, that elected politicians who are pro-abortion "cannot" receive holy communion. Yet, at his inaugural Papal mass in Rome, perhaps the two most prominent pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic - Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic Minority leader Nancy Pelosi - received communion. There are only two possible conclusions we can draw. Either Pope Francis did not mean what he said in 2007 or fear took charge in 2013.

A few days later, Pope Francis said that he wished to "intensify... dialogue with Islam". An important distinction must be made here. He didn't say that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Muslims so that they could be converted. This would be an example of what the role of the pope - any pope - is. No, he said that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Islam. In a word, he advocated caving. In essence, the pope appears to have succumbed to Chrislam.

Consider some other examples of what appears to be caving due to varying degrees of pressure...

House Speaker John Boehner: This is perhaps the most obvious example. Ever since taking control of the gavel in early 2011, Boehner has lost practically every showdown with his opposition. In several cases, he simply chose not to fight. Whether it involved not aggressively pursuing major scandals like Fast and Furious or Benghazi; expressing solidarity with Michele Bachmann over the latter's concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration; or choosing not to de-fund Obamacare.

Chief Justice John Roberts: When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Obamacare, Roberts twisted himself into knots by saying the law was unconstitutional but that it was constitutional under taxing provisions. Obama administration operatives did all it could to intimidate the court into ruling in its favor. There is no proof that Roberts was intimidated but his ruling was so bizarre that many believe he caved to relentless left-wing pressure.

Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney: Those unwilling to admit what really happened will say that Mitt Romney simply had a flawed strategy but that's not what happened. Romney took a dive at the third and final debate. He never challenged Obama on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or on why the Obama administration labeled the Fort Hood jihad attack as 'workplace violence'. Romney refused to fight Obama. Simply looking at the third debate confirms the cave.

Secretary of the Army, Gen. George Casey: Three days after the Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 14 and injured 32, Case went on ABC This Week and told George Stephanoplous that the loss of "diversity" would be a "greater tragedy" than those 44 casualties. In short, Casey caved.

House Homeland Security Committee Chair, Michael McCaul: When the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera was announced at the beginning of this year, Rep. McCaul (R-TX) had a duty to investigate it. He was sent a letter requesting that he convene hearings on this egregious act. He has chosen to ignore that letter and appears to be looking the other way, possibly because of a full-scale lobbying effort but then again, that's just another way of saying "cave".

For the most part, the Democratic Party has thrown in with wickedness; it is a party that went over the cliff years ago. At best, a controlling majority of the Republican Party has decided - consciously or otherwise - to follow the Democrats. At worst, that majority is an overwhelming majority. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are part of it.

Joseph of Arimathea is remembered today for choosing the right side at great personal risk. There are only a precious few who are willing to do so today. Unfortunately, none of them have enough power.

Ted Cruz Video: Romney 'French Kissed Barack Obama' in third debate

This is great on so many levels. First of all, our newly elected U.S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz is absolutely right here. Mitt Romney did french kiss Barack Obama in the third debate. The first debate between the two won a lot of people over to Romney's side because it was the first time we saw the Republican nominee actually fight. He surged in the polls, gaining about 5 percentage points.

In the third debate - which was supposed to be about foreign policy at a time when Barack Obama was on the ropes over Benghazi - Romney stopped fighting.

I can honestly say that as the sages were championing Romney's performance as brilliant and presidential, I was yelling at my television in real time and didn't even watch the entire debate. It was truly pathetic.

It's also nice to see someone talk like this after winning an election.

Via Washington Examiner: 

Why Romney lost the Hispanic vote

Mitt Romney is the latest in a long line of Republican establishment moderates who failed to win elections. George H.W. Bush rode Reagan's coattails into his first term and was sunk by reneging on his 'no new taxes' pledge; it was then Bob Dole's turn in 1996; that was followed by a conservative-talking George W. Bush who won on such talk but governed as a moderate, especially in his second term. We've also learned that his wife is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. In 2008, RINO John McCain was saved from a Walter Mondale-like thumping solely because of the energy Sarah Palin brought to the campaign; he still lost but Palin was blamed by Republican elites, as the reason, which is absurd.

It is that mentality which perhaps best explains the establishment's reaction to Romney's loss. That reaction?  It's the fault of allegedly unyielding conservatives, despite the fact that Romney was the establishment's guy. Those mean, uncompromising conservatives forced Romney to 'twist himself into pretzels' and then blamed him for losing, according to the likes of David Frum.

Make no mistake. This is nothing more than the establishment's unwillingness to admit that moderates don't win elections. A moderate was nominated at a time when a moderate supposedly couldn't lose. Instead of conceding to the reality, establishment types actually blame the base.

House Speaker John Boehner (RINO) now says things like it's long overdue for Republicans to work on comprehensive immigration reform, which is the politically correct way of saying 'lets cave on amnesty to get more votes'.

Boehner is saying this because he's thinking in terms of demographics and that if Republicans want to win more of the Hispanic vote, they'll have to pander to get it. If Boehner was truly concerned about the welfare of Hispanics, he wouldn't have sat by for nearly two years, doing all he could to minimize the work of House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa on Fast and Furious, an operation run out of the Obama administration that led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans (even more will die because so many of the guns are still in circulation). It was a scandal that Boehner wanted to dry up an blow away. Though there had been signs throughout, that was made patently obvious when he scheduled the Eric Holder contempt vote on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.

Where was Boehner when it was time for accountability relative to the murder of Hispanics instead of now eagerly pandering to them?

Candidate Romney expressed little to no interest in tackling the Fast and Furious scandal either. Earlier this year, after Barack Obama announced that amnesty would be granted to nearly one million illegal aliens living in the United States, Romney had the perfect opportunity to draw a contrast between an Obama that was pandering to the Hispanic vote with an Obama administration that wasn't coming clean on its role in the murders of more than three hundred Hispanics.

Instead, Romney punted. In so doing, Obama won the argument and his challenger came across as someone who wasn't able to formulate a cogent message.

Take a look at the list of victims in the Fort Hood jihad attack. It is strewn with women and minorities. In fact, one woman - a Hispanic named Francheska Velez - didn't just lose her own life but that of her unborn baby. Yet, when Mitt Romney had the opportunity to ask the President directly in the last of three debates why the massacre that killed 14 and injured 32 has still not been identified for what it is - a jihad attack / act of war - or why none of the victims were awarded purple hearts because the shootings had been identified as the result of workplace violence, he punted again.

Why? Because the establishment's political playbook told him to.

It's a failed playbook and its adherents are doing what too many losers do; they're blaming others.

Simply telling the truth about Democrats would have been a better strategy.

The odds of such a strategy being implemented would have gone up, had a conservative been nominated.

Video: Bill Maher jokes that blacks will act like the KKK

Whether he knows it or not, Bill Maher actually joked that blacks should behave like the KKK did nearly one hundred-fifty years ago. Before I get to what Bill Maher said, here is what I thought was a relevant excerpt from my book:

In 1865, the 13th Amendment was ratified; it abolished slavery. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified; it granted citizenship to former slaves and their offspring born in the United States. Since amendments to the Constitution don't require the approval of the President, the Republican controlled Congress was able to ratify them without the consent of (Democratic President) Johnson. In between the ratification of those two amendments was the formation of a hateful and racist group known as the KKK in 1866. It was agroup formed by Democrats who felt threatened by the freedoms blacks were realizing as a direct result of Republican efforts. 

The 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the right to vote, was introduced in 1869 and overwhelmingly supported by a Republican controlled Congress while being almost universally opposed by the Democrats in both houses. Not one Democrat in the House voted in favor of the Amendment, which was ratified in 1870. (Unsung Davids, p. 161)

The KKK was formed by Democrats so that blacks could be intimidated and persecuted. After the 15th Amendment was passed, blacks were threatened with torture and death if they voted for Republicans.

Keep that in mind as you watch Bill Maher joke that blacks are ready to behave on November 6th as the KKK did in the 1870's. The entire black community should be outraged that Maher would make such a comparison.

Via NewsBusters:

Video: 9 Year-old black boy in Daytona thinks Romney would send him to 'Crop Fields'

While in Daytona Beach, FL to see Michelle Obama, 9 year-old Brandon was asked why Obama needs to win on Tuesday. His response?

"If Mitt Romney wins, we'll be going back to the crop fields."

Via RightNewz:



Gee, I wonder where Brandon got that idea...

Third Debate: Mitt didn't take the Gloves off

Both sides are claiming victory in the third presidential debate. Unlike debate number one, no one will concede defeat. In debate number two, Obama's media hacks called the debate for their guy but that narrative was belied by Romney's surge in the polls afterward. The common thread that ran through both debates was that Romney was aggressive and showed the conservative base that he could fight.

That is also a trait that is contagious and even won over some independents.

The stars seemed to align for a Romney three-peat. The final showdown was on foreign policy as the Obama administration was on the ropes over its handling of Benghazi-gate.

Those expecting Romney to go for the knockout would be quite disappointed. The aggressive Mitt didn't show up. After the opening question, which was about Benghazi, the subject never really came up. At that, Romney's response to that initial question was quite vanilla. Some might argue that the opportunity never presented itself; that doesn't wash. Candidates are given quite a bit of latitude when it comes to answering questions how they see fit.

Just three days before the debate, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa sent a damning letter to Obama that singled out the National Security Council as the likely source of a policy of "normalization" in Libya over security. The evidence is mounting that a political decision to portray Libya as secure trumped the decision to protect our diplomats. Romney could have asked Obama about this but he didn't.

He took a pass.

As we approach the third anniversary of the Fort Hood Jihadist attack that killed 14 people, survivors have made it quite clear - in a video - that they are outraged that what Nidal Malik Hasan did on November 5, 2009 continues to be identified as workplace violence instead of what it was. As a consequence, those survivors are not eligible for purple hearts and are being told to accept a lie about the motives of a murderer they will never forget.

Asking Obama why Hasan's attack hasn't been identified as an act of war that involved correspondence between the shooter and Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, instead of workplace violence, would have been quite appropriate in a foreign policy debate.

It never came up.

Operation Fast and Furious is a foreign policy matter as well. A U.S. Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans have lost their lives because someone thought it was a good idea to put assault weapons into the hands of drug cartels there. Obama injected himself into the scandal when he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent congressionally subpoenaed documents from being produced. He did so on the day his Attorney General would be found in both criminal and civil contempt for not producing those documents.

Romney avoided that subject as well.

It's clear that Mitt Romney made a strategic decision to look presidential instead of looking to win. Did he win over some independents? Perhaps. Did he disappoint those in the conservative base who had finally started to warm up to him.

Absolutely.

When your opponent is on the ropes, it's never a good strategy to stop swinging.

Then again, what do I know?

I'm not a politician.

Video: Spring Break president

Devastatingly accurate:



h/t Fox Nation

Video: American Crossroads nails Obama administration over Benghazi

One of the unintended consequences of CNN moderator Candy Crowley running interference for Barack Obama at the second debate is that because her bias was on full display, the issue over which that bias revealed itself - Benghazi - is becoming a central point of focus. In attempting to diminish the scandal, Crowley appears to have called more attention to it.

Check out this latest ad from American Crossroads:



h/t GWP

CNN's Crowley comes to Obama's rescue on Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate

There are two scandals that Barack Obama desperately wants to avoid talking about. One is Fast and Furious. The other is Benghazi-gate. Both came up in last night's debate and both times, CNN's Candy Crowley came to the president's rescue.

First, on Fast and Furious. Mitt Romney took the opportunity to segue from a question about an assault weapons ban and discuss the failed gun-walking operation, which was quite relevant. ATF, with the knowledge of Department of Justice leadership, allowed assault weapons to walk into Mexico and be placed into the hands of drug cartels. Hundreds of Mexicans were killed as well as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The most credible argument for why the operation was implemented was to make the case that an assault weapons ban was necessary.

Evidence points to the administration creating a crisis it could exploit, to push its assault weapons ban treaty. That said, Romney was very much on point but Crowley didn't think so. In fact, watch as Obama makes eye contact with Crowley in this clip as soon as Romney starts talking about Fast and Furious. Finally, Crowley cut Romney off and essentially told him he was off-topic.

h/t Midnight Rider:



The next - and most blatant - effort to protect Obama by Crowley came on the matter of Benghazi-gate. Barack Obama asserted that on the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate there, he called it an 'act of terror'. Romney called him on it and when Obama told his opponent to look at the transcript, Crowley agreed with Obama, so much so, that Obama asked her to repeat herself in order to underscore the point.

The problem is that Obama never referred to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. In fact, for fourteen days, his administration - to include himself at the United Nations - repeated the lie that the attack was spontaneous and the result of a video.

Here is the exchange (h/t GWP):



In reality, this is what Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

While this may seem an exercise in semantics, it's really not. The difference between a terror attack and a spontaneous eruption is very simple; it's called premeditation vs. spontaneity. Not only did that statement in the Rose Garden not refer to Libya specifically but fourteen days later, at the United Nations, Obama was still pushing the lie that the Benghazi attack was the spontaneous result of a video.

For some reason, the way Crowley came to Obama's defense reminded me of this:

Video: Chris Wallace vs. a very Pale-looking David Axelrod

In this exchange between a very pale-looking David Axelrod, senior adviser to Barack Obama, and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Axelrod is asked to respond to Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter's remarks that the Benghazi attack is such a big story is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Expectedly, Axelrod doubles down and charges that Romney has politicized the attack and points to an interview Ambassador Chris Stevens' father gave to Bloomberg in which the senior Stevens denounced the politicization of his son's murder.

Axelrod then implies that anyone who discusses the attack isn't honoring the wishes of Stevens' father by saying everyone should wait until the investigation into the attack is completed. Forget the fact that the administration, at minimum, has a conflict of interest when leading any such investigation because it's shaping up to be a major scandal. Simply leaving it in the hands of people who answer to the administration is not acceptable.

Wallace, who was visibly agitated at the insinuation, stops him and points out that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told five different Sunday talk shows on September 16th that the attack was in response to a video, which proved to be demonstrably false.



h/t Free Beacon

Video: GOP ad sums up the debate

Just watch...

Video: Mitt loves Big Bird and only likes Jim Lehrer

At the debate, Mitt laid out his test for whether the government should fund any particular program. That test? If money has to be borrowed from China to pay for it, the program is shut down. Yeah, that's rhetoric he will have to do a lot to live up to but when he spoke about ending the PBS subsidy, he realized moderator Jim Lehrer worked at PBS. At that point, he delivered one of the best lines of the night:

"I like PBS, I love Big Bird. I actually like you too."

The look on Lehrer's face after that adds to the humor.



h/t GWP

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi speaks at Clinton Global Initiative

Yesterday, I posted about Mitt Romney's misguided decision to speak at Clinton Global Initiative annual conference. It appears that decision was more misguided than previously thought because in addition to Romney's speech, one was given by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Mursi. Here is the relevant excerpt Via GWP:

“Demonstrations and clashes recently broke out in a large number of Arab and Islamic countries in response to an incident in response to the defamation. We must acknowledge the importance of freedom of expression. We must also recognize that such freedom comes with responsibilities especially when it has serious implications for international peace.”

Here's the video:



Again, need we be reminded that Mursi's wife and the mother of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin are colleagues in their roles as two of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood?

Audio: Newt rallies behind Todd Akin, rails against establishment

Newt Gingrich appeared on the Jamie Allman show in St. Louis on September 24th to make the case for Rep. Todd Akin against Claire McCaskill in a critical Senate race in that state. The former Speaker nailed it when he referred to six seconds of an interview Akin would like to have back compared to six years of 'destructive' votes from McCaskill sensible people wished never took place.

Akin is a conservative, tea party kinda guy. The establishment doesn't like him. Karl Rove joked about his murder at a fundraiser. Gingrich nailed him on it. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus continues to insist Akin will not get a dime of RNC support. Ditto John Cornyn, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). It would seem that as the Republican nominee for President, Romney should have a bit of influence on the RNC and the NRSC. If he does, it doesn't appear that he's using any of it to help Akin.

But you know what Romney IS doing? As Newt is in Missouri, campaigning for Akin, Romney will be speaking at Bill Clinton's Global Initiative, perhaps the former president's biggest pet project. Some would argue - myself included - that what Akin said is less distasteful that what Romney is doing by lending voice to the CGI, especially when better use of his time might be spent in Missouri, showing support for Akin.

Here is a screenshot taken from the list of CGI Speakers between September 23rd - 25th:

Once again, the establishment shows that it's not willing to do what it insists conservatives should do - hold their nose and support the Republican nominee.

Here's Newt - otherwise known as the man who should have gotten the nomination - with Jamie Allman.



h/t GWP

Video: Newt hits Romney for not being tough with Obama

The Newt Gingrich presidential campaign peaked in South Carolina. In the days leading up to the primary, the former House Speaker was on offense. He was hitting Obama on Saul Alinsky, he was hitting CNN's John King on the debate floor, and he called out Juan Williams for the latter's obvious race-baiting. Gingrich was rewarded with a primary victory in that state.

Media outlets were reporting that candidates who win South Carolina almost always win the nomination. If Gingrich had proceeded to carry Florida one week later, he may have pulled away to victory. In the days after the South Carolina primary, the Romney campaign went to work, destroying Gingrich, who had a sizable lead in Florida shortly after that South Carolina victory only to see it eaten up by vicious Romney attack ads. It was essentially the end of Newt's campaign; he never recovered.

When it comes to destroying Obama, Romney has no interest and this fact is not lost on Newt who, during an appearance on Piers Morgan's show, called Romney out on it.

Good for Newt. He's right.



h/t Right Newz

Hillary won't explain her Mormon/Muslim double standard but Lawrence O'Donnell did

One could argue that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has directed more anger at the anti-Muhammad film that the administration has pointed to for rioting and murder in the Middle East, than toward the rioters and murderers of the Middle East. In fact, Clinton called the film "disgusting and reprehensible" but seemed to give the rioters a parental-like scolding.

So the standard is set, right? Criticizing religion is reprehensible and disgusting in the eyes of Hillary Clinton.

Uh, not so much.

The Wall Street Journal reported on her appearance last year at a Broadway musical that essentially shredded a different religion - Mormonism:

'Hasa Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year. What does the phrase mean? I can't tell you, because it's unprintable in a family newspaper.

On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.

The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.

Ok, so why the double standard? Don't hold your breath waiting for Hillary to tell you. She has an entire historical slew of things she can't explain - and doesn't attempt to.

However, perhaps MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell can tell us. Actually, he did just that during a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt in 2007. Here is a transcript of the relevant exchange via NewsBusters (audio follows):

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: I don’t think he [Mitt Romney] believes everything in the Book of Mormon. I think he’s lying about that. It’s an insane document produced by a madman who was a criminal and a rapist. [...]

HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.

O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

HEWITT: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

O’DONNELL: I agree.

HEWITT: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

CLICK HERE and fast forward to the 18:00 mark to hear the exchange.

By the way, O'Donnell's admission that he would like to criticize Islam but won't might be perceived by Muslims as 'hate thought'.

On a semi-related note, it would appear that we have another in a long line of opportunities for Mitt Romney to take the gloves off but... we also have a long line of squandered opportunities by Mitt to do so because, well, he's so concerned about those 5%-10% of independents who don't know what they want.

My problem with Romney's "47%" Video

Much is being made of Mitt Romney's speech at a private fundraiser during which he said that he will never convince the 47% of people who pay no federal income tax to vote for him because they are going to vote for Obama. You can argue all you want about whether that figure is accurate or whether there are segments of it that pay no income tax because they're living on social security.

Fine. That's not my problem with it. My problem is what Romney says at the end of this clip and what he necessarily implies without saying.

Here's the quote that gets my dander up:

"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

Implicit in that statement is that Romney believes the 43% - 48% of voters to the right of those independents don't have to be sold; they're already all-in; they've drunk the kool-aid. In my mind, it's this mentality on Romney's part that is preventing him from pulling away. By not fighting for that 43% - 48%, he's losing more than he thinks he's gaining by going after those fickle independents who might just jump on board if Romney exhibited some passion and showed a little fight. That kind of thing is contagious anyway.

Maybe if conservatives stopped drinking the Romney-aid, he'd actually have to fight for their votes by moving to the right. The independents can come along if they want to and they just might if they see a candidate with conviction instead of one beset on all sides by the political contrivances of campaign strategists.

Let's face it, Mitt Romney does not inspire people and he does not energize them. That is obviously the result of both his personality and his campaign strategy.

In any case, both are flaws at a time like this.



To illustrate my point, here is a Jerry Maguire metaphor. Cuba Gooding, Jr. represents the conservative base that Tom Cruise wants to just get off the phone because he thinks Gooding's character is a player he has in the bag and can get to later. All of those incoming calls represent the independents that ultimately didn't make Maguire successful.

Do you remember who did? Yes, the guy he had on the phone.



h/t Hot Air

Reagan: Soviet Union is run by nice guys; it's just failing

Yes, the headline is intended to prove a point and not to be taken literally. When Ronald Reagan was president, he referred to the Soviet Union as an 'evil empire' and said his strategy for dealing with them was simple: 'We win, they lose'. At summits like Reykjavik, the mainstream media was apoplectic when it reported on the palpably visible conflict that existed between Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Like a mother whose inclination is to chastise her husband for wanting to sufficiently discipline a disrespectful child, the media sought to blame Reagan instead of Gorbachev for the tension that existed between the two men.

Thankfully, Reagan didn't worry about what the media said or thought about him too much, especially when it came to dealing with the Soviets. Tough talk was backed up with tough action.

Fast forward to 2012 and an article at POLITICO that reports on an interview the liberal news site had with Mitt Romney. The presumptive Republican nominee is apparently going to continue the meme that says Barack Obama is a 'nice guy' but a 'failed president'.

Via POLITICO:

Ohio — Mitt Romney conceded President Barack Obama has succeeded in making him a less likable person, but he offered a defiant retort to those hoping he will open up this week: “I am who I am.”

Romney quoted that Popeye line three times in a 30-minute interview with POLITICO about his leadership style and philosophy, swatting away advice from Republicans to focus on connecting with voters in a more emotional, human way at this convention. Instead, he vowed to keep his emphasis — in the campaign and any administration to follow — on a relentlessly goal-driven, business-minded approach that has shaped his life so far.

“I know there are some people who do a very good job acting and pretend they’re something they’re not,” Romney said. “You get what you see. I am who I am.”

To press the point, he said the GOP would even try to turn Obama’s still-high personal favorability rankings back on him at its convention this week, by making the simple case to voters: nice guy, failed president.

Ok, so a base that is screaming for red meat is being told it will have to settle for tofu injected with Red Dye #5. Or, to continue with the parent / child metaphor, little Johnny is being forced to eat more liver instead of getting dessert, despite eating more than his share of liver.

Some might call it a stretch to compare a presidential election in the United States with a battle of wits between Reagan and Gorbachev but consider that Obama is steeped in Soviet-style Marxist ideology, beginning with the mentoring of Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member and Soviet agent Frank Marshall Davis, then continuing on with the likes of Marxist Bill Ayers and Marxist Jeremiah Wright.

The Republican base / Tea Party instinctively knows this; it also knows that Obama's gloves are off and Romney is hoping that by keeping his on, that the Obama campaign will eventually relent or suffer the self-inflicted consequences of its own wickedness. In fact, the Romney campaign seems to be doubling down on this by attempting to showcase Mitt's 'tender side'.

Furthermore, the choir that Romney will be preaching to is tired of lies, whether bald-faced or politically strategic; they want truth and the truth about Obama is that he is, at minimum, a socialist and at maximum, something much worse. Romney's base not only knows that Obama is not a nice guy, they see him for what he is - very dangerous for the future of their country. Calling him a 'nice guy' is more than just a little bit de-energizing. It's a lie.

Compare Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev to Obama's now infamous meeting with current Russian President Dimitri Medvedev. In it, Obama was caught off-mic telling his Russian counterpart something that should send chills down the spine of every American voter:



Calling Obama a nice guy is an insult to the intelligence of Romney's base.

Perhaps a few Rocky IV clips at the Convention would be in order. Then again, that wouldn't be "nice".

Video: Daughter of Mormon Jon Huntsman slams Romney for his... Mormonism

Well, this isn't going to help Romney when it comes to that war on women narrative the Obama campaign is going to carry into the election. Earlier this month, Jon Huntsman's daughter Abby trashed the Republican Party as being too "non-inclusive" and appeared to switch sides when former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm invited her to join the Democratic Party.

Abby Huntsman now works for the Huffington Post and appears to be a secret weapon for the Obama campaign. In fact, when it comes to the Obama campaign, Huntsman may be to the Mormon debate what Sandra Fluke is to the contraception debate. As the daughter of a Mormon (and former Mormon herself), Abby is qualified to talk about the religion and you can bet your bottom dollar the Obama campaign is going to exploit that to the utmost.

Huntsman goes after Romney over several issues:

• The Mormon church's secrecy
• The Mormon church's behind-the-scenes efforts to help the Romney campaign
• The Mormon church's belief that the leader of the Mormon church is a prophet who gets revelations and whether Romney will follow that leader's direction or the Constitution
• The Mormon church granting him permission to change his position on abortion in order to make a successful run for Governor of Massachusetts
• The Mormon church and polygamy; Huntsman says Mormonism still subscribes to it.

Yes, that's far leftist Marc Lamont Hill sitting next to Huntsman.

Via Breitbart:



On August 23rd, NBC interviewed Abby Huntsman for an anti-Mormon hit piece masquerading as objective journalism; it was narrated by Brian Williams:

For more insight into the Church, Williams turned to Abby Huntsman, daughter of former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who left the Mormon faith after meeting her future husband, a non-Mormon. She lamented: "It's very black and white still, there's no gray area. You either are in or you're out. And you live by the Mormon doctrine or you do not."

Picking up on that theme, Williams explained: "In this modern world, some old-school rules still govern the Mormon Church, and that means no non-Mormons allowed inside their temples." He then suspiciously asked Huntsman: "I can't get into the Mormon temple. Will that ever change?...What goes on in there?"

Huntsman regretfully replied: "I hope it does. But I don't think that it will....[It] causes a lot of people to feel maybe not good enough, 'Why am I not allowed in there?' So this idea of – maybe being more accepting and moving with the times a little bit is much needed in the Church today."

As the Democrats look to step up their attacks on Romney's religion, look for former Mormon Abby Huntsman to become the go-to expert on all things Mormon.

NBC's Brian Williams and the not-so-subtle hit piece on Romney's religion

The common refrain from the Republican establishment - as well as from conservatives who think it's best to get fully behind Mitt Romney despite his lack of appeal to them - has been that this election is too important and the nation cannot afford more of Obama. While that last part is true, the establishment insisted on Romney. One of the reasons I (and others) thought Romney was nowhere near the best choice was what we believed the liberal media and other Democratic apparatchiks would at some point do - go after his religion.

It was never a matter of if, only when.

NBC's Brian Williams, with his typical pseudo-objective, liberal nuance, delivered a one hour hit piece on Mormonism.

Via NewsBusters:

Opening an hour-long special on the Mormon Church for Thursday's NBC Rock Center, anchor Brian Williams proclaimed to viewers: "Most Americans say they know next to nothing about the Mormon Church. Tonight, a rare look inside the lives of modern Mormon families....A church still dealing with the issue of polygamy....And other issues of inequality."

Teasing a report on the history of the Church, Williams promised to answer the question of "why so many Americans still today are suspicious of the religion." Introducing that portion of the broadcast, Williams touted pop culture mocking the faith, starting with a clip of Fox's Family Guy in which lead character Peter Griffin declares: "I'm going to be a Mormon....Come on, nailing a different wife every night. That's a no-brainer."

Williams announced: "Comedy now takes liberties with Mormons, say nothing of the polygamy-based dramas and then there's Broadway." Footage appeared on screen of Comedy Central's South Park and the HBO series Big Love, followed by a clip of The Book of Mormon musical produced by South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

After briefly describing the founding of the religion, Williams quickly focused on negative perceptions of Mormonism: "Part of the history of the Church that they can't shake is polygamy....even though polygamy was officially banned a century go, it's something the Church still has to deal with....Critics in other religions have openly called them a cult."

For more insight into the Church, Williams turned to Abby Huntsman, daughter of former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, who left the Mormon faith after meeting her future husband, a non-Mormon. She lamented: "It's very black and white still, there's no gray area. You either are in or you're out. And you live by the Mormon doctrine or you do not."

Picking up on that theme, Williams explained: "In this modern world, some old-school rules still govern the Mormon Church, and that means no non-Mormons allowed inside their temples." He then suspiciously asked Huntsman: "I can't get into the Mormon temple. Will that ever change?...What goes on in there?"

Huntsman regretfully replied: "I hope it does. But I don't think that it will....[It] causes a lot of people to feel maybe not good enough, 'Why am I not allowed in there?' So this idea of – maybe being more accepting and moving with the times a little bit is much needed in the Church today."

Williams then turned to those "issues of inequality" that he hyped at the top of the program: "There is another part of Mormonism in the recent past that was late to change, and that's racism. African-Americans were not allowed to become full members until 1978."

Those who think Romney will fight back against these attacks by going after Rev. Jeremiah Wright offer no indication from the Romney campaign that he will do so. Where Obama is perhaps weakest - like Operation Fast and Furious - Romney has avoided.

Read it all.