Sunday, October 14, 2012

Cruising the Web

The answer is clearly no. David Axelrod's spinning to a simple question as to whether President Obama met with his national security team to try to sort out conflicting information as to what had happened in Benghazi before going off to a fundraising event in Las Vegas reveals that the President cared more about raising money for his campaign than getting to the bottom of what had happened as quickly as possible.

The visible contempt that Biden showed for Ryan and his arguments during their debate helps to explain why the Obama administration has never shown any interest in crafting bipartisan proposals that would meet Republicans even part of the way.
Biden’s eye-rolling, dismissive laughter and what all observers agree were smirks were his way of telling his opponent that the Obama administration finds opposition views worthy only of derision, and unnecessary to consider because we have the muscle to do as we damn please -- “We won,” as the president put it in his best Chicago-style hardball manner when negotiating with Republicans.

That’s why we are where we are. Of course Republicans seem stuck in their no-new-taxes rut: Any ideas they might have to offer as part of a compromise deal will produce smirks from the Vice President, distortions from the Senate Majority Leader, and “We won” from the President.

Anyone who is wondering about America’s future should consider just what our fiscal condition will look like with a man in the White House who thinks it’s “terrific” that his Vice President treated his opponent with unconcealed contempt.
It's all in line with the Democrats' contempt for the Republicans.

Fred Thompson, who as senator served Joe Biden, writes that the Joe Biden we saw on Thursday night is the Joe Biden he came to know.
I met Joe Biden almost 20 years ago and served in the Senate with him for eight. In private conversation among equals he can be candid, introspective and thoughtful. But when he puts on his political hat he has no inner voice that tells him, “Joe, you’re going on too long. Joe you’re being a bully. You’re being discourteous to your colleagues. Joe, that makes no sense. It’s obviously not true. Don’t say that.” He either has no idea how he comes across to normal people or he doesn’t care. I’ve never figured it out.

Is the Obama campaign out of ideas on how to see their candidate and knock down Romney? They certainly do seem to relish stale, discredited lines of attack and have no positive message of their own.

Over at Heritage, they remind us that we should forget about cuts to PBS and consider the cuts that are coming our way if sequestration goes into effect.

The arrogance of Barack Obama knows no bounds. He now has an ad out saying that few presidents have faced so many challenges. Oh, and he inherited all of them so he must continue to blame others for his lack of success in meeting those challenges. He is so solipsistic that he ignores the wars and economic crises faced by many of his predecessors. It is always about him and his special uniqueness. And his campaign and staff apparently buy completely buy into his ahistorical self-absorption.

No surprise that Vice President Gaffe-athon misstated the Obama administration tax proposal.

Ross Douthat ponders why the Obama administration so badly mishandled the attack in Benghazi.
Perhaps, then, the real explanation for the White House’s anxiety about calling the embassy attack an act of terror has less to do with the “who” than with the “where.” This wasn’t Al Qaeda striking just anywhere: it was Al Qaeda striking in Libya, a country where the Obama White House launched a not-precisely-constitutional military intervention with a not-precisely-clear connection to the national interest.

In a long profile of President Obama published last month by Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis suggested that the president feared the consequences of even a single casualty during the Libyan incursion, lest it create a narrative about how “a president elected to extract us from a war in one Arab country got Americans killed in another.”

How much more, then, might the president fear a narrative about how our Libyan intervention helped create a power vacuum in which terrorists groups can operate with impunity? That’s clearly happened in nearby Mali, where the ripple effects from Muammar el-Qaddafi’s overthrow have helped empower a Qaeda affiliate. In this context, it’s easy to see why the administration would hope that the Benghazi attack were just spontaneous mob violence rather than a sign of Al Qaeda’s growing presence in postintervention Libya as well.

Betsy Woodruff explains why PBS always wins whenever there is an effort to cut their budget.

Oh, and another Democratic talking point has disappeared. The White House now is walking back the attack that Republican cuts to the budget were responsible for the inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate. But don't worry. The lie served its purpose to obfuscate the Obama administration's own share of blame for not protecting our diplomats in Libya.