The Wave!

I desperately want this to be true.
(American Thinker)

Can you feel it?
The wave, that is.  I speak of one that will wash away far more than just a failed presidency.  This wave will have the torque to rock the entire liberal bubble -- the political/media/crony bubble -- leaving it forever exposed.  Ironically, those inside this bubble will be the last to know -- which is precisely why it will happen.  Those who would rule over us, and insult us with outrage over Big Bird, academic debate-scoring, "binders" memes, and specious jobs statistics know nothing about us.  This includes those inside the bubble who purport to represent our views.
But we know them well.  For the record, "we" refers to the quarter of the country that never bought into the fraudulent vapor of Obama and who lost respect for anyone who did.  Even post-election, when 70% plus of the nation was in this stupor, we knew it was Marxist voodoo that could not last.
It did not.  Early in 2009, per Rasmussen, another 25% got over the phony high of Obama's election.  Since then, Obama's been underwater on approval .
Millions more have joined this narrow majority in the past weeks.  Debates have been the catalysts, but this epiphany has been building for much longer -- and now it's reached critical mass.  There is now understanding of the shallowness of Obama and of liberalism.  Everything said by the supposedly racist, mean-spirited conservatives has been validated.
Doggone it...I think they've been right all along.
We were, and not just about Obama.  We've been right about the academia elites, the Jurassic media, the elitist conservative pundits, the establishment, the "obama foam" class, and Occupy and union thugs, too.  This includes anybody who makes his living from government -- and the reporting thereof.  It encompasses those who live inside the bubble, plus those who depend on them.  These people are all intertwined, co-dependent, and out of step with America.  Recent events have finally connected dots for a lot of people in ways they can no longer deny.
Consider a quick history:
Rush Limbaugh opened his show that day saying that "the new tone has come home to roost" and, seconds later, "I'm already on the field."  Many scratched their heads, yet others knew exactly what he meant.  The diluted conservatism of Bush, Karl Rove, and John McCain was destined to fail -- allowing a fresh start to take its place.  This was explicitly Rush's point.  Game on!
It mattered not that Bush and McCain couldn't stand each other; reaching across the aisle and the new tone were different names for the same perception failure.  Thus, the end of Bush/McCain felt like termination from a bad job.  Awful, and yet liberating.  Many were "on the field" with Rush that day.  The wave began.
Yes, Romney uses some McCain language -- and Rove is part of efforts to defeat Obama.  Consider them collateral beneficiaries of a wave they don't understand. 
The wave grew in February 2009, when Rick Santelli reintroduced the term "Tea Party" into our vernacular on CNBC -- and his rant went viral thanks to Matt Drudge and Limbaugh.  The phrase "Tea Party" was everywhere.
Thus, when people connected in spring '09 at town hall meetings opposing ObamaCare, Tea Party groups organically sprang up.  David Axelrod, who has never been part of any movement that he was not paid to dream up and fabricate, immediately projected his counterfeit style onto the Tea Party.  He still doesn't get it.
In November 2009, Jon Corzine was decisively beaten by Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell won Virginia big.  People were seeking refuge from Obama in the safety of Republican governors.  In the bubble, they ignored these and bitterly clung to an oddball race in New York 23.  Hey, no big deal -- you won two, but we won one.  Nothing to see here.  By the way, did we mention that Obama is personally popular?
The wave then crashed at Hyannis months later and washed the Ted Kennedy seat out of Democrat hands.  Scott Brown is no Reagan, but his campaign was anti-ObamaCare and pro-Tea -- even as he avoided the term.  The excuse from the bubble?  Martha Coakley was a poor candidate.  True, but poor libs win safe seats all the time.  Those in the bubble missed the point and passed ObamaCare anyway.
They even promised to read it...if Nancy Pelosi would take her 200-pound gavel off it.
Then came 2010, which, like 1994, was fought ideologically.  With Pelosi predicting victory, Democrats lost 69 seats in Congress, 700 state seats, lots of governors -- and damned near every dogcatcher.  Pelosi lost her gavel, too.
Undeterred, the bubble-dwellers then put all their chips on the table in Wisconsin, where they had unions, a hack judge, and the sacrosanct teachers on their side.  This was their slam-dunk.  They were sure they could sink Scott Walker, and the world would be right again.
Uh-oh.  Walker won the absurd recall easily.  The bigger story is the damage done to  public unions.  The infantile behavior of so-called dedicated educators was seen nationwide.  "Public servants," greedy?  Who knew?
In the bubble, they dismissed this.  They said the problem was simply their messaging and the evil Koch Brothers.  Forget Brown, Christie, McDonnell, 69 seats, 700 legislators, lots of governors, and Walker (twice).  Forget that the entire nation watched the Democrats flee the state to avoid a vote!  Obama is still inevitable.  Everyone (in the bubble) knows it.
They really believe this, and they really believe that the world revolves around them.  For years, it did -- as most power, communication and information originated inside the bubble.  Three networks, two wires, one cable, and three dailies ruled the bubble and the opinions of the world.  We know the rest: along came Rush, Drudge, Fox, Hannity, Levin, Savage, Beck, and the conservative websites.  Breitbart emerged and inspired millions to embrace tech toys to expose the "racial Marxism" of the Democrat-media complex.  Thanks to the delightful capers of O'Keefe and Giles, we all know ACORN.
Liberal mischief was exposed.  A union thug fakes racism at a Tea Party -- it goes viral.  SEIU members confess to being paid to protest -- and it goes viral.  A Democrat congressman insults a youngster -- it goes viral.  Chris Matthews wets his pants, and it goes viral.  Weiner...well, you know -- and it goes viral.  The entire bubble is intellectually naked, and everyone sees the political porn without the networks, cable channels, or newspapers that once controlled access.
In the bubble, where politics is but a game, they miss the cumulative effect of all this.  They have no sense of the undertow pulling on many.
Fast forward to last week.  As Candy Crowley and the pundits are finding out, winning the optics of the moment is no longer enough.  Now events are won and lost in the days following.  It's not over 'til the fat lady goes viral.  She went viral, and now Crowley, Obama, and the entire media coterie are being exposed on the web.
Those in the bubble never see these tectonic shifts.  They were in denial after Drudge nearly brought down Bill Clinton.  They stayed in denial after bloggers retired Dan Rather.  Everyday reality brings down more newspapers and magazines, and the pioneer of cable is now only airport fare.
Hello?  Anyone in the bubble spot a trend here?
No, and this includes some good guys.  Limbaugh and Mark Levin hammered Charles Krauthammer and George Will last week on their groupthink.  Even bubble conservatives speak of four-dollar gas and dead ambassadors as mere debate topics.  How can they miss that four-buck gas, soaring food prices, and 11% unemployment are ruining lives?  These are not points awarded because a guy sounds elegant.
Crowley's antics are a sample of incidents that cause light bulbs to go off for voters who may not know the issues but who do know that a president who has to be rescued by a B-list journalist is indeed an empty chair.  They know that the B-list journalist is not worth listening to, either.  This is the kind of event that can put the last four years into instant perspective for someone.
Different dots connect for different people.  For some, it may be Obama snarking, "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" after blaming the video for weeks.  Add this to Big Bird, binders, and contraception for middle-aged students, and even unserious voters can tell that Obama is unserious.
For others, it may be the pipeline and gas prices.  Or the cancer ad, the phony Harvard Cherokee, or fat union perks.  Whatever the dots, they all connect those inside the liberal matrix of Obama, all Democrats, the media, unions, Occupy, and the pundits.  Nothing they have said for years is actually true.
If such realizations have hit critical mass, we have a wave.
Gone will be Obama and the Democrat Senate.  More than that, however, will be the exposition of the entire liberal myth.  Obama has been the face of liberalism, and the bubble has been his support system.  When this vapor gets blown away, the propagators will see their credibility blown away as well.
Even at this late date, many assign credence to polls with laughable 2008 turnout models.  This includes Fox, Rasmussen, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as the liberal outlets.  (Gallup excluded this week.)  It will be fun to watch the horror, the denial, and then the spin after election day.
That's why the wave will be so satisfying.  Oh, saving the country from four more years of Obama will be important, too, of course.  But that will be challenging at the same time.  Remember that John Boehner was a collateral beneficiary of the 2010 elections, and he still does not understand the movement that gave him the speaker's gavel.  The same might be true for Romney and Paul Ryan.  Rove will also get more credit, more airtime, and more wealth as a result.  He may think he is driving the wave, but he is merely riding it.  These winners are very likely to miss the message of this election, just as the liberals have misinterpreted every election since 2009.  Inside the bubble, they always miss it.
All of this will present challenges and frustrations, of course, going forward.  To paraphrase a sentiment of Levin's, we'll "deal with all of that later."  And we will.  In the meantime, enjoy the wave.  It's coming.  You can feel it, too.  I know you can.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/the_wave_that_breaks_the_liberal_bubble.html#ixzz2AJUTq4Vh

Romney does comedy

This is pretty funny, especially the designated driver bit.

Obama takes a Right Hook to the Chin From Romney, Then a Left Jab From Liberals

By all accounts Romney won last night's debate going away. And it wasn't even close. It's rare for there to be a clear winner in these kinds of debates because every little aspect will be spun so hard by both sides(and the 'journalists' usually spin for the Democrats). Winning usually has more to do with presentation than actual debate. But in this case, Romney smoked Obama both on presentation and substance.

From the Daily Caller:

Mitt Romney emerged as the decisive winner of the first presidential debate with President Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a reality even the president’s surrogates were unable to spin.
No defining moments emerged from the debate, which lasted 90 minutes. The zingers from both sides were underwhelming. During the evening, the two candidates mainly wonked out and discussed their differences on everything from Medicare to taxes to deficit reduction.
But style, more than substance, led to Romney’s clear advantage. The former Massachusetts governor was aggressive, and he made his arguments without any sign of hesitation. He repeatedly asserted himself and even interrupted moderator Jim Lehrer occasionally to ensure that he could respond to the president’s remarks.
Obama, by contrast, seemed tentative. Where Romney launched straight to his answers, the president often stuttered and rambled, as though struggling to figure out what point he ought to make. Romney regularly directed his comments against the president, but Obama repeatedly turned to the American people to ask, “Does anybody out there think …?”
The president failed to land punches on health care, and he did not even mention Romney’s “47 percent” comments about the number of Americans who do not pay income tax, which were used to damning effect in a recent campaign ad.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/obama-surrogates-cant-quite-spin-a-win-after-denver-presidential-debate/#ixzz28LP7IcvI

To understand how soundly Obama was beaten look no further than the liberal pundits:

You might want to pop some popcorn, then sit in your favorite Lazy Boy and watch in glorious HD as the leftosphere melts down like a stick of butter at a midsummer Grant Park picnic.
National Journal: "Liberals livid with Obama's debate performance":

How bad was it for Obama Wednesday night? Even some of his biggest fans were livid that he let Mitt Romney walk away with a win, and they were not suffering in silence.
Within an hour of the debate ending, liberals and longtime Democratic operatives and pundits took to the airwaves and Twitter to lament the lost opportunity that was the first presidential debate.

Politico: "Obama hit with left hook on TV, online":

"I don't think he explained himself very well on the economy. I think he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight," Ed Schultz said.
Matthews said Romney addressed Obama "like the prey. He did it just right. I'm coming at an incumbent. I've got to beat him. You gotta beat the champ, and I'm gonna beat him tonight. And I don't care what this guy moderator, whatever he thinks he is, because I'm going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning."
"It does remind you that the last debate Mitt Romney had was seven months ago and the last debate that Barack Obama had was four years ago," said Maddow.

Newsbusters: "Dem Debate Meltdown: Stumbling Obama Surrogate Speaks Of 'President Romney":

How resounding was Mitt Romney's rout of Barack Obama tonight?  In the post-debate spin room, a hopelessly muddled Martin O'Malley, Dem guv from Maryland and supposedly an Obama surrogate, wound up referring to "President Romney"! Freudian slip, anyone?

For good measure, pressed by MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell-clearly dismayed by Obama's dismal performance-to suggest what he'd recommend the prez do differently next time, a demoralized O'Malley could only mutter "uh, I don't know."

Andrew Sullivan:

Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.
Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.
The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/liberal_heads_exploding_all_over_the_net.html#ixzz28LQNcD7U

And honestly this is the real victory. We now get many news cycles about how good Romney was in the debates and how bad Obama was. This kind of press affects swing voters and Independents, among which Romney was doing very well anyway.

In the polls Romney was behind on the personal likability areas even though Obama approval was low. I took this to mean that people were unhappy with Obama, but were not sold on Romney and that the Democrats were being at least somewhat successful at painting Romney as a rich, out of touch, Gordon Gekko type who doesn't care about the common man. But now I believe that impression has been shattered, Romney's image will get a big boost.

I was surprised at Obama's poor performance. I agree with one commentator who said that Obama prepared a bon fire for straw men but he was surprised when his opponent didn't let him get away with misrepresentations. He seriously needed a teleprompter.

Enjoy this one people, it's not very often that the liberal media admits to a victory for the Republicans.

We are not electing an Emperor

If you read only one thing today this should be it:

In a way it is a twentieth century brand of nonsense, at least for the United States, the idea that a superior man will be found who will embody the virtues of the republic and flawlessly lead the people. Let’s face it, until World War Two showed us the horrors behind the curtain, Western Civ had got all jiggy with genetic superiority and the idea of the great man. And even World War Two didn’t wipe it out completely. FDR was to an extent our Caesar, the man who was perfect to take the ship of state and sail it to a “progressive” future where only the enlightened would make decisions and all would be as it should be.

Easy Rebutals to Obama Talking Points

Read and digest this entire article, simplicity is key to winning arguments and convincing people you are correct.

Daily Caller Opinion Section:

False Narrative No. 1: Romney would return us to the “same old” Bush policies that got us into this mess.
This is a false narrative “two-fer,” because (a) Romney is not proposing to return us to President George W. Bush’s policies and (b) the Bush policies that Clinton complained of are not what got us into this mess.
First Rebuttal: Romney would not return us to Bush’s policies. Bush used tax cuts to help us overcome the economic shock of 9/11. Romney is proposing comprehensive tax reform — eliminating deductions so tax rates can be lowered and the tax base can be broadened. Although the details are different, Romney’s general approach is identical to that proposed by President Obama’s own debt reduction commission — the commission that Obama has ignored.
Second Rebuttal: The financial crisis was caused by the housing bubble, which was fueled by government pressure on banks to lend to the less creditworthy. No president was more responsible for the housing bubble than Bill Clinton. Investor’s Business Daily calls Clinton “the architect of the financial crisis,” and likened him to a “housing arsonist” now trying to pass himself off as a “heroic firefighter.” Obama likes to blame the financial crisis on deregulation. But the deregulation legislation in question was signed into law by Clinton, who also refused to regulate the complex financial instruments that helped transform the housing crisis into a financial crisis.
Third Rebuttal: Obama rejects the pro-growth tax reform favored by Romney and by Obama’s own debt commission. Instead, he wants to raise taxes. But President Obama himself used to say that the “last thing you want to do is raise taxes” in a down economy. Bill Clinton used to say that too. And they were right: Ernst & Young estimates that Obama’s tax proposals will cost us 710,000 jobs and will reduce wages, investment and economic output.
False Narrative No. 2: Romney, like Bush, would cut taxes only for the “rich.”
Rebuttal: Romney’s comprehensive tax reform plan would result in an across-the-board 20 percent tax rate reduction for all taxpayers. Romney’s tax rate on the middle class would be the lowest since the Great Depression. The Bush tax cuts, by the way, were also across-the-board cuts for all taxpayers.
False Narrative No. 3: We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when President Obama took office; his policies stopped the bleeding and put us on the path to recovery.
Rebuttal: Job losses in the last recession peaked at 741,000 (not 800,000) the month President Obama was sworn in. Job losses immediately started a steady decline when he took office, before the president even had the chance to pass his stimulus plan. The recession ended in June 2009, when stimulus spending had barely begun. Obama likes to imply that without his stimulus, we would have continued to hemorrhage jobs at the same rate that was occurring when he became president. The timeline proves otherwise; credit for reversing the damage more likely goes to the emergency measures put in place by Bush. But while Obama cannot take credit for ending the recession, he can certainly take credit for what liberal CBS News calls “the worst economic recovery that America has ever had.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/quick-and-easy-rebuttals-to-obamas-false-narratives/#ixzz26GdpoqA3

Worst Jobs President Ever

Obama has presided over the worst recovery in recent American history, despite claims of "4 million jobs created"

Check out this video

Obama should not be able to brag about jobs created and he should not be able to claim "progress" on any front. Also this gives lie to the talking point of "Bush policies got us here in the first place".

Why we get called Nazis

This is an excellent article by actor Michael Knowles about why Democrats call us Nazis:

The answer lies in the intellectual heterogeneity, or lack thereof, within the two major parties. Since the Reagan Revolution, the Republican Party has counted in its ranks at least four distinct political groups: traditionalists, neoconservatives, libertarians, and the religious right. In his excellent piece “Four Heads and One Heart,” political scientist James Ceaser observes that these four major factions of the Republican Party often approach politics from fundamentally different points of view. In order for libertarians to share a “big tent” with the religious right, they must force themselves to consider an opposing point of view, understand the merits of its arguments, make ideological concessions, and compromise.

The Democratic Party has no such philosophical disagreements and therefore no such reason to compromise, at least in the years since Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama brought the party back from the brink of practicality. Conservative “Blue Dog Democrats” and Clintonian “New Democrats” have almost entirely abandoned ship: all that remain are ideologically pure progressives. Devoid of any internal challenges to their ideas, the so-called progressives are left in a Democratic echo chamber, finally free to, well, progress.

 Read the whole thing.

Do you want him to succeed?

Today Buzzfeed - a reflexively liberal site, normally - took the Daily Show to task for "mis-characterizing" Romney on the subject of if he wanted the President to succeed(warning: bad language). Here's an exerpt

The clip, however, seems to entirely mischaracterize what Romney was saying, and at the very least takes him completely out of context in the short clip.
In the seconds immediately before the clip Stewart aired Romney said — discussing comments by Christina Romer, the Obama Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors — that he wanted President Obama to succeed.
"Republicans want to do what's right for America, and want to get this economy going again. We want the president succeed," Romney said.
Later, in the fuller context of the partial clip Stewart aired, Romney argues the he doesn't want the President to install failed policies for the very purpose they won't succeed.

This all goes back to when Rush Limbaugh caused an uproar right after Obama was inaugurated by saying that he did not want this President to succeed. Now you could mark this down to the press taking things out of context and the Democrats wanting to be able to say "that guy hates Obama so much that he wants America to suffer just so that he will look bad".

But if you look a little closer you can see how liberals think. The Obama presidency, and candidacy for that matter, has always been about celebrity. He made great speeches where promised many things in a vague enough manner as to allow people to project their wants on to him. He promised things without going in to detail as to HOW he would accomplish them. But he definitely WANTED to change things, and so did voters.

Well fast forward to today and we have seen the 'how' and also the results. So to us saying "I want him to fail" means: "all those things he wants to do to try and make things better, I don't believe that they will work, and so I want his effort to implement them to fail". But all a liberal hears is "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" or something to that effect, they mix up the 'how' with 'who'. They think it's personal, because to them Obama being in office IS personal, it's all about 'who' he is. Celebrity.

For example. Cap and Trade. Obama wants a Cap and Trade system in place to save the environment. I personally think that a Cap and Trade system will be disasterous for our economy and way of life, furthermore I do not believe that a Cap and Trade system will actually benefit the environment or nature in any meaningful way. Thus, I want any effort to implement a C&T to fail. But a liberal looks at that statement and sees Obama wanting to save the earth, but I'm against it, so they think I am willing to trash the environment just because I don't like Obama(also how could anyone not want to save the environment?).

For liberals it's never about results, it is always about intentions.

They probably honestly believe that Obama's policies would succeed if the Republicans would just get out of the way. This allows them to blame all failures on "Obstructionist Republicans".