« Ripped at the seams |
| RoS100 »
If I was with the Obama campaign or a friendly SuperPac, I'd be running ads with clips of Christie and Romney this weekend, maybe especially in eastern NC, Tidewater VA, and Florida.
Oct 31, 2012 at 10:32 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017c32f691a8970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference October surprise:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Translation: "Yeah, those sucker Republicans! We get to politicize this. They don't!"
Oct 31, 2012 at 01:19 PM
Yeah that's the ticket. Politicize a natural disaster like he has been spiking the ball over his wishy washy decision on OBL.
And if I was with the Romney campaign I would be running clips of comments from the father of American hero Ty Woods (killed along with Ambassador Stevens and 2 others in the attack on our Consulate ) saying in no uncertain terms that the Coward -In- Chief left his son behind.
I would couple that with clips of Obama twice dodging a staightforward reporter's question about Benghazi with incoherent doublespeak.( Kyle Clark, a reporter for Denver’s WUSA-TV, Obama was asked a two-part question: “Were the Americans under attack at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya denied requests for help during that attack, and is it fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and we’ll all find out after the election?”)
I would conclude with a voiceover of this quote:
"You could argue that [Hurricane Sandy] takes Libya off the front pages, but then again, it wasn't on the front pages in the first place. It is the mainstream media, who spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of articles on the supposed outing of a CIA agent in the Bush administration, in which she was safely in Washington and never in danger, has an epidemic of incuriosity about the murder of an ambassador.”
-- Charles Krauthammer
Yeah, that's what I would do.
Just curious, would you have run the (patently false and all time ugliest) ad suggesting that Romney was responsible for the death of Joe Soptic's wife ?
Fred Gregory |
Oct 31, 2012 at 01:40 PM
Fred, your post-modern wit in complaining about politicized tragedy and then trying to change the subject to Libya is much appreciated.
But what's at issue here is the way government responds to natural disasters, a completely valid campaign issue.
Romney staked out a position, Obama is doing something very different. As I said often after Katrina, the old Reagan line about the scariest sentence being "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" died in New Orleans.
Pretending to get the vapors over the discussion of appropriate responses to disaster doesn't change that reality.
But clutch your pearls and head for the fainting couch as you wish, it's entertaining and also shows your lack of any other argument.
Ed Cone |
Oct 31, 2012 at 02:21 PM
I pointed out Obama's 2007 hypocrisy re the Stafford act waivers in an earlier post comment. Your silence on my comment speaks volumes.
I didn't chage the subject which is what you would do if etc.
I thought bringing up Obama's incompetence and cowardice fit nicely under the heading of what I would do if I were working for Romney.
It is really all about not wasting a crisis. Right ?
So having established that here is an essay along those lines.
Big Storm Opportunism
Did you know Hurricane Sandy favors higher marginal tax rates?.
" Citizens in the Northeast aren't turning on their TVs, if they have electricity, to hear Mr. Obama opine about subway flooding. They're tuning in to hear Governor Chris Christie talk about the damage to the Jersey shore, Mayor Mike Bloomberg tell them when bus service might resume in New York City, and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy say when the state's highways might reopen.
Energetic governors and mayors are best equipped to handle disaster relief because they know their cities and neighborhoods far better than the feds ever will, and they know their citizens will hold them accountable. The feds can help with money and perhaps expertise.
The larger liberal fallacy here is that effective government requires bigger government. Americans expect a government, at whatever level, to do its core functions well. But the bigger and more costly the government, the more likely it is to do more things poorly.
The rush to use Hurricane Sandy to justify a bigger federal government makes us wonder if there's an excuse liberals won't use to grow Leviathan? The reality of the federal fisc is that whoever wins next Tuesday is going to have to choose between functions best done by the federal government and those that can be done better by others. A government that can't distinguish between a big storm and Big Bird is simply too big."
Fred Gregory |
Oct 31, 2012 at 03:07 PM
"and those that can be done better by others"
Oct 31, 2012 at 03:30 PM
This is the kind of issue that makes conservatives become unhinged. Apparently natural disasters don't bring out the best in everyone.
At least we haven't heard claims or innuendo (yet?) that Obama did something to seed the Atlantic with hurricanes and thereby make the storm more likely.
Is it unfair that Obama gets to, and in fact has to, act presidential, while Romney is forced to twiddle his thumbs for a few days? Yeah, I guess it is. This is yet another reason it's hard to unseat an incumbent. Besides, I thought conservatives were the ones lecturing the rest of us on how life is unfair sometimes and we've got to suck it up.
Andrew Brod |
Oct 31, 2012 at 04:45 PM
"Apparently natural disasters don't bring out the best in everyone."
Apparently lies, failure of will and lack of courage come out in commanders-in-chief when their political legacy and the lives of Americans are on the lines as a result of a situation said sorry commander-in-chief created.
Oct 31, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Don't bring GWB's codpiece into this.
Oct 31, 2012 at 05:44 PM
I've seen anything but a "lack of will" on the part of Barack Obama these last few days.
Oct 31, 2012 at 07:50 PM
"But what's at issue here is the way government responds to natural disasters, a completely valid campaign issue."
In other words, how the government responds when American citizens are in peril is a valid campaign issue.
I think Ambassador Stevens and those Seals in Benghazi were American citizens in peril. It follows that how our government responded is a completely valid campaign issue.
Ed hasn't said much about Benghazi accept to attack Romney the day after the attack. There is a reason for that. Whipping out the ol' reliable "now you're changing the subject" when calling into question the consistency of he and others is par for course.
They don't care about Benghazi because it didn't happen on a Republican's watch and any focus on the subject hurts Obama. The "Cause" is always more important than stated values.
Oct 31, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Isn't what is being called Obama's leadership following Sandy really an automated response from FEMA?
Is it leadership to watch bureaucrats do their thing? This is leadership to Obama.
Unlike Obama and apparently others on this blog, I believe leadership is only found when navigating the unknown, that for which there can be no automated response.
Benghazi required leadership but there was none. Indecision guided Obama toward leaving 30 Americans behind to die; four did.
That is context.
Pointing to Obama's mechanical obedience to a planed response as evidence of leadership is empty. Obama will get no bump from it.
Benghazi and Sandy. More evidence that the past four years are what one gets from a bureaucrat attempting to lead, when an individual rises beyond their ability.
Oct 31, 2012 at 10:15 PM
"Is it leadership to watch bureaucrats do their thing? This is leadership to Obama."
I don't know about the semantics of what is and isn't leadership. But everyone knows that the president gets both credit and blame for what the federal bureaucracy does. And when the specific bureaucracy in question has been rebuilt after a well-publicized fiasco (Katrina, of course) and works effectively, the credit is deserved.
As for Spag's usual game of they-did-it-first, congratulations on proving that Benghazi is a valid campaign issue. I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise, but hey, good job! Of course Benghazi is a valid campaign issue. But to conservatives, it appears to be nothing but a campaign issue.
Andrew Brod |
Nov 01, 2012 at 12:12 AM
I take it the "unknown unknowns" speech wouldn't placate them this time.
Nov 01, 2012 at 08:03 AM
"Ed hasn't said much about Benghazi accept to attack Romney the day after the attack. There is a reason for that. " -- Spag
Is Ed's reason different from Romney's?
Nov 01, 2012 at 08:05 AM
"Energetic governors and mayors are best equipped to handle disaster relief because they know their cities and neighborhoods far better than the feds ever will, and they know their citizens will hold them accountable. The feds can help with money and perhaps expertise."
Which is pretty much how the current system works.
Nov 01, 2012 at 08:31 AM
Is Ed's reason different from Romney's?.. ROCH
Well Roch the answer is found in here. Your question BTW is beyond imbecilic. RTWT and think about it hard.
Libya Story Line Still Crumbling With This Disclosure :Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected ( !!!!! )
Hint others are pulling back the curtain such as Jennifer Griffin, John Bolton, Congress and WAPO columnist Jennifer Rubin just to mention a few.
"This ( 8/16 cable ) is yet another contradiction of the White House narrative. If the president had spent a fraction of the time he is now play-acting as Sandy disaster commander to the deteriorating situation in Libya, would the pleas from Ambassador Stevens have gone unheeded?"
"It is hard to escape the conclusion that the president either refused to accept facts that undermined his “success” in Libya or that he was so absorbed by campaigning that he was entirely disconnected from national security matters. In either case, it is the triumph of politics over policy. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute minces no words in blasting the willful indifference to our security threats. She asserts that “presidents who want to lie about the threat we face end up sacrificing decent, hardworking Americans for their own political interests. Al-Qaeda is back, they want to kill us, and the sooner we admit that we know they’re out there, planning, working, the better off we’ll be. The first part of winning is admitting that the enemy is alive.”
"In the closing days of the campaign, Mitt Romney has shied from this issue, for reasons that escape many conservatives. Whether recklessly indifferent to events in Libya or intentionally attempting to miscast events to protect his administration, Obama has failed at the task he says is his most important: keeping Americans safe. He didn’t keep four Americans safe and didn’t pay heed to a growing al-Qaeda presence in Libya and elsewhere. No amount of strolls on the beach with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is going to conceal that."
Fred Gregory |
Nov 01, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Oh Roch, and you too Ed, among others exposing Obama's incompetence and and dishonesty is former Attorny General Muskasey. This is scathing !!!!
The facts are simple, they are known, they are available; the only thing that remains is to disclose them.
Fred Gregory |
Nov 01, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Fred, your link doesn't answer my question of why Romney is avoiding the issue, although I'm in agreement with this part:
In the closing days of the campaign, Mitt Romney has shied from this issue, for reasons that escape many conservatives.
Nov 01, 2012 at 04:56 PM
Do you agree with the rest of that quote???
"Whether recklessly indifferent to events in Libya or intentionally attempting to miscast events to protect his administration, Obama has failed at the task he says is his most important: keeping Americans safe. He didn’t keep four Americans safe and didn’t pay heed to a growing al-Qaeda presence in Libya and elsewhere. No amount of strolls on the beach with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is going to conceal that."
Fred Gregory |
Nov 01, 2012 at 07:34 PM
No, Fred I do not. Any idea why Romeny is avoiding the issue?
Nov 01, 2012 at 07:46 PM
To answer your moronic question again. Please read for comprhension.
Most of the middle of the road newspaper editorials are doing his work while he holds their coat . Got it son ? Are you brain dead or what ?
Like the largest paper in Nevada which just unleashed a blistering editorial ripping the POTUS.
Benghazi Blunder: Obama Unworthy Commander-In-Chief
" When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another "gaffe," for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America's reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?
This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy -..... Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday."
Fred Gregory |
Nov 01, 2012 at 08:16 PM
"Perhaps he couldn’t hear the question over the din of the chopper’s blades, but either way the smile and wave – almost Reagan-esque in style – underline the apparent strategy the president specifically and his administration in general have seemed to adopt when it comes to the myriad inquiries about the decisions that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens: they are deferring detailed answers to the investigation and – critics say –running out the clock until Election Day"
Nov 01, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Fred, if people didn't know how much you and I actually like each other, they might mistake you for a mean old fart. I know you were probably just drunk and having some good natured fun.
Romney isn't making this a campaign issue because when he dipped his toe in that water, he embarrassed himself. He's not dumb. The facts are not all in, and those that are are being cherry picked and augmented with unsubstantiated speculation to create the narrative you have bought into.
Nov 02, 2012 at 10:17 AM
You know that I am a Carolina Gentleman and to suggest that a mean old fart lives in me is simply stoopid.
No! The facts are known. I really doubt that you watched my link, the interview of former AG Mukasey. Did you ? He persuasively lays out the case against Obama's dishonsty and incompetence beyond any reasonable doubt. A high standard nonetheless one he met with certainty. I would like an answer to my question.
Furthermore in this week's Rhino Orso Card makes the arguement perhaps even more pwerfully.
" There are none so blind as those who will not see"
( * Jeremiah 5:21 )
Fred Gregory |
Nov 02, 2012 at 01:24 PM
Fred, I did watch your link. What question have I left unanswered, am I brain dead?
Nov 02, 2012 at 01:42 PM
"What question have I left unanswered, am I brain dead?"
Don't stop believing in your Fantasyland brand of logic, Roch. You wouldn't be nearly as amusing to read without it.
Nov 02, 2012 at 03:14 PM
Great read and reminder of the Obama Failure....and a great reference for those "living in denial" Obama supporters, like maybe Roch.
Why Was There No October Surprise? Because Every Freakin’ Day for the Last Four Years Has Been an October Surprise
"Sure, there was Hurricane Sandy. But that doesn’t count. Sandy was a natural disaster that dominated the headlines for a few days, but it wasn’t a scandal. And yes, there was Benghazi. But that happened in early September, and it wasn’t so much a political scandal uncovered by partisan operatives as it was the umpteenth example of Obama’s incompetence. Whatever Benghazi blowback he’s gotten damaging his election chances are entirely his own responsibility for bungling an international crisis. So, no, neither one of those counted as an October Surprise.
Which left many people scratching their heads. Why wasn’t there one? For either candidate?
In Mitt Romney’s case, the answer is pretty obvious: He’s squeaky clean. His entire adult life has been like a boring treatise on Mormon moral rectitude. His political career has long been an open book — moderate, bipartisan, essentially uneventful. The Democrats have tried to squeeze some droplets of outrage over Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, but those attacks came earlier in the summer and turned out to be extremely slim pickin’s. There are no skeletons in Romney’s closet, otherwise we would have heard about them.
But in Barack Obama’s case, the situation is reversed: Everything he’s ever done is scandalous. The reason there was no October Surprise for Obama is that we’re all scandaled out. Anyone’s who been paying attention since 2008 has literally been in paralytic shock every single day. We spent October 2012 exactly as we’ve spent every month of the last four years: Our jaws on the floor, aghast, stupefied, unable to breathe. Almost every single thing Obama has done since he’s been in the national spotlight could have been and should have been a career-ending October Surprise. But the mainstream media, as we all know, has devoted itself to protecting him."
Fred Gregory |
Nov 03, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Wow, you're a fan of Zombie? He sure is a class act.
Dave Ribar |
Nov 03, 2012 at 07:01 PM
That's it? That's all you got in response to the failure, incompetence and dishonesty of Obama? Pretty weak !
Now this is your crowds
Fred Gregory |
Nov 03, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Fred broke his humor-bone.
Andrew Brod |
Nov 03, 2012 at 08:50 PM
A shot across the bow, from the owner of the GOP's communications arm, I mean, Fox News.
Andrew Brod |
Nov 03, 2012 at 10:10 PM
The nursing home potty mouth old ladies ad. So you thought that was laughable ? No, it was bottom feeding classless. Your sense of humor is seriously warpped .
As they used to tell Fibber on the radio .. " Ain't funny, McGee "
And This is even more tasteless.
Fred Gregory |
Nov 04, 2012 at 03:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.