Banner ad

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Cruising the Web

Rich Lowry debunks the whole canard that Romney lied his way through the debate. It's all the Obama campaign has got left to explain their guy's rotten performance and it's a lie.
When Obama aides say that the real Romney didn’t show up in Denver, what they really mean is that he failed to live down to their rank caricature of him. The deception, though, isn’t the flesh-and-blood Romney, but the one-dimensional version broadcast far and wide by the Obama campaign. As he showed during an hour and a half of high-pressure television, Romney is a capable and intelligent man who is ready to be president and has a substantial reform agenda. The Obama campaign’s response to his debate victory basically was, “Don’t believe your lying eyes — believe our super PAC ads.”
In fact the Princeton economist that the Obama campaign is using to base their accusation on that Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or vastly increasing the deficit has come out publicly to say that the Obama campaign is mischaracterizing his work.

Typical of Obama's stimulus. Sesame Street received $1 million from the stimulus bill. And that money provided 1.47 jobs. The stimulus was never about creating jobs but all about shoveling federal money to approved recipients.

Fred Barnes notes how the media are covering Obama as if he's a candidate instead of truly examining Obama's record. It's notable that the way they try to help the President's reelection effort is to ignore what Obama has already done in office.

James Capretta debunks the accusation that Romney's health care proposals would not cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Peter Kirsanow and Carissa Mulder point out that the major argument used to uphold affirmative action in college admissions was the benefits of having a diverse student body, but those benefits have not materialized.

John Fund laments the disappearance of a common election day.

John Podhoretz explains why the results from polls released yesterday demonstrate how nonsensical polling has gotten to be when we have only 9% of those called agreeing to be polled.

Erick Erickson demonstrates how porous the Obama campaign's processes are for accepting donations as they successfully accepted a $5 donation from him from a phony address in Moscow. No wonder the Obama campaign is striking back hard on the story that broke yesterday on how the way that the Obama campaign set up their online donation collection without credit checks has made it possible for foreign citizens to donate to his campaign and that the Obama.com site is owned by a fundraiser whose business is located in China.

Isn't it cozy that the "ObamaPhones" are being given out by a company that is owned by one of Obama's big donors. Crony capitalism coupled with more welfare dependence.

Dennis Prager explains why Romney was able to so clearly triumph in last week's debate. Obama has been living in a left-wing bubble and so isn't used to having to defend his policy choices against a well-spoken conservative. And without the cushion of protection provided by the media, Obama was revealed to be what he is - a relatively inarticulate liberal who just isn't all that "intellectually deep." He is, as Andrew Klavan writes, a "mystery Obama—the hollow receptacle of out-sized fantasies left and right."

The 2007 tape that surfaced shortly before the debate has seemed to be lost in the shuffle as most revelations that told us something more about Obama did before the 2008 election did. I wasn't as impressed with it as some on the right were, but Andrew McCarthy does highlight this one despicable aspect of what Obama was telling his audience of African Americans.
To be generous, Obama’s performance is disgusting. Cynically adopting the black dialect of the American South, a dialect utterly alien to him, he demagogues against Washington’s supposedly selective waivers of the Stafford Act — legislation that requires communities hit by disasters to match 10 percent of federal aid. They waived it for 9/11, he tells the crowd, and they waived it when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida: Those communities were allowed to keep their one dollar for every ten federal dollars. But when he comes to Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the largely African-American population of New Orleans, Obama implies that Congress refused the waiver: “What’s happenin’ down in New O’leans? Where’s yo’ dollar? Where’s yo’ Stafford Act money? . . . Tells me that somehow the people down in New O’leans they don’t care about as much.”

In fact, ten days before Obama gave that speech, Congress had waived the Stafford Act requirement for Katrina. He was well aware of that fact, too. After all, he was one of only 14 senators to vote against the waiver. It was part of a bill to fund the war effort in Iraq. That is, to pander to his Bush-deranged, anti-war base, Obama decided that squeezing New O’leans was a price worth paying. Then, he lied about what happened in order to foment racial resentment — an atmosphere that he calculated would help his presidential bid.

3 comments:

Rick Caird said...

"Obama decided that squeezing New O’leans was a price worth paying. Then, he lied about what happened in order to foment racial resentment "

Obama lying. To this day, it seems to be a common thread in his life.

equitus said...

OFA's response to the weak credit card restrictions also mentioned these steps they're taking:

"All credit card contributions are processed using AN Address Verification System (AVS) to ensure their legitimacy.

OFA invests significant resources into a manual process to review any transaction that’s been flagged by the campaign’s credit card processor’s fraud detection services.

Though not required by law, OFA requires a copy of a valid passport from any contributor who has been affirmed as eligible but donates with a mailing address outside the U.S. If they do not offer in one in a timely manner, the donation is returned.

OFA screens all online credit card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address and, if any questions arise regarding the contributor’s U.S. citizenship, the campaign requests proof of a current and valid U.S. passport in order to be in compliance with the FEC’s safe harbor guidelines."

I wonder if anyone is checking these claims out.

equitus said...

Powerline blog responds to OFA's claims I posted above. It mostly comes down to the fact that the Address Verification System they're using is set to a very low setting - so even most bogus addresses will get approved.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/dubious-donations-peter-schweizer-responds.php