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

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".

The Perfect Tone

Everybody knows that politics can be nasty business and managing a Presidential campaign is basically a giant PR endeavor. You have to make your opponent look bad while making yourself look great. And this goes way beyond policy issues, in fact policy positions are basically just things used to create slogans and catchphrases during the campaign.

That holds true for this year, but this year it is especially important because there are so few actual undecided/independent voters out there. I mean Romney has the Republicans and, with the selection of Paul Ryan as running mate, the conservative Tea Party votes sewn up. Obama has the Liberal Democrats and the special interest group voters(ethnic, gender, age etc). The biggest actual swing voter group are the moderates(Repubs and Dems) who swung heavily for Obama in 2008. The reasons for the swing are as numerous as they are various. Some wanted to be part of a movement, some had white guilt(it's true), some didn't like McCain, some fell for the DC outsider talk, some fell for the fiscally conservative rhetoric("I'll go line by line through the budget"), some just thought Sarah Palin was dumb.

Whatever the reason, a lot of these independents have soured on Obama. Mostly because they have felt or realize that they will feel the direct results of his policies. The task then is to make them feel comfortable voting for a Republican. Remember these are moderates who are not going to be motivated by positions on polarizing social issues, unless it is to be turned off by the passion and negativity(I'll get back to that in a sec).

Romney already has the first part down, the making himself look good, he knows what image he's going to project: business man who can fix the economy. But how to define Obama is the issue. Going hard negative on personal issues is NOT going to do it, things like calling him a socialist, Muslim, foreigner, an abortionist etc will just turn off moderates and drive them back to Obama - or else they will stay home. So what to do? Here is what HotAir is reporting will be Romney's stance:

"After dumping the “nice guy but failed President” argument in the overwhelming volume of nasty attacks from Barack Obama and his campaign, including insinuations of being a felon, a murderer, and a modern-day slaver, Romney tells Politico that the theme will return at the Republican National Convention this week in Tampa:"

Perfect! Portraying Obama as a guy with good intentions but who doesn't really know things work or how to get them done is exactly the right tone. First off, and most importantly, it puts the focus back on his record, which is terrible and the last thing Obama wants(Obamacare, environmental policy, tax the rich, debt). Second EVERYONE knows someone similar, a family member, a friend from high school or wherever who has good intentions but is just naive and/or a slacker who constantly puts up a facade to make themselves seem cool. Third, they can shine a light on his past, something that was not done in 2008 because everyone was obsessed with which newspaper Palin reads first.

Romney can portray him as not a good President, ignoring his jobs counsel, investing tax money in things he thinks will "save the planet", playing a lot of golf, giving the Queen an iPod(seriously?). Basically someone that it would be fun to have a drink with(or smoke some weed with...ahem!) but not someone you would let anywhere near your credit card.

Obama on the other hand has already shown how he will try to make Romney look bad. His main argument is going to be that Romney is a radical crazy person who is not fit to hold a job let alone be President. There's been the "war on women" (I will write a post on this very soon), his campaign manager implied he was a felon and hiding his tax returns, the advertisement that basically said he caused someone to die from cancer because his company laid off workers, and have used the terms "too extreme" and "too radical" over and over and over. And they aren't wasting any time, they have spent more money on tv ads than they have raised, despite a record number of fundraisers.

If Romney feels the need to go negative, he has plenty of Obama subordinates to hammer. Geithner will be one, so will Holder, and probably Valerie Garret and Stephanie Cutter. Those people represent the bureaucratic and political side of Obama that turns people off and feeds in to the anti-incumbent sentiment that is always present when things aren't going well.

So Romney is in a great position, he has a cash advantage, he will use the convention to hammer the "nice guy but failed President" message, and the contrast in tone will make it extremely tough for Obama to paint him as an extremist.