Friday, November 02, 2012

Cruising the Web

Charles Krauthammer hits home what is at stake in this election.

Jake Tapper writes of the steady "drip, drip, drip" of information that we've received on the attack on Benghazi and all the questions that the White House is refusing to answer. Sadly, Obama is getting away with stonewalling while pretending to wait for an investigation to be completed after the election. But he doesn't need much of an investigation to tell us what was done in the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and CIA here in Washington, D.C. He should be demanding answers not waiting a couple of months for the news to come out. Sadly, the media have been mostly compliant in allowing Obama to continue his stonewall in order to allow the election to proceed without a full accounting to the American people of what did and didn't happen. But there are cracks in that stonewall so CBS, as well as Fox, reported last night that Obama never convened the Counterterrorism Security Group which is the rapid-reaction group set up to coordinate action in such a foreign emergency.
Information shared with CBS News from top counterterrorism sources in the government and military reveal keen frustration over the U.S. response on Sept. 11, the night Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

The circumstances of the attack, including the intelligence and security situation there, will be the subject of a Senate Intelligence Committee closed hearing on Nov. 15, with additional hearings to follow.

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack.
Perhaps the very name of the group as "Counterterrorism" was why he didn't convene it. Obama started off wanting to deny that the attack on the consulate was terrorism. It's hard to continue saying it is about a video if you've convened the Counterterrorism Security Group.

Peggy Noonan laments how Barack Obama squandered the opportunity facing him when he first came into office. It all comes down to Obama's arrogance and self-love.
It is one thing to think you're Lebron. Its another thing to keep missing the basket and losing games and still think you're Lebron.

And that really was the problem: He had the confidence without the full capability. And he gathered around him friends and associates who adored him, who were themselves talented but maybe not quite big enough for the game they were in. They understood the Democratic Party, its facts and assumptions. But they weren't America-sized. They didn't get the country so well.

It is a mystery why the president didn't second-guess himself more, doubt himself. Instead he kept going forward as if it were working.
Matthew Continetti has a sobering look at the challenges facing whichever candidate wins on Tuesday and makes the argument how Romney is better suited to tackle the mess awaiting the winner.

Reid Wilson has a dispassionate look at how the parties have different assumptions built into their turnout models for the election and that is why we've seen such striking differences in polls. In Ohio, the Republicans are in the position of trying to argue that all the polls showing Obama ahead are working from a poor turnout model that assumes Obama will replicate the turnout of Democratic voters that he had in 2008. And the rest of us are left trying to game out which side's vision of turnout is correct.

Meanwhile, Jay Cost says, don't look at the head-to-head matchups in the polls. Look at how each candidate stands on the economy and who is winning independents.

Charlie Cook argues that the difference between the swing state polls and the national polls is that the swing states saw all those negative ads attacking Romney all summer long and so it is harder for those voters to be comfortable voting for Romney. Whichever way the election turns out, there will be a lot of second guessing about that Obama strategy and the Romney choice to hold his fire in the face of that barrage. If Romney wins, it will look like a smart decision. If he loses, it will look like a major error.

It's the battle of the candy lobby against the sugar lobby and the consumer is losing.

The Obama administration is trying to stave off further media questions with a "modified limited hang out."

Lovely. Non-union utility crews who came up from Alabama to help restore power in New Jersey were turned away from helping by N.J. crews because they aren't union members. Virginia crews are ready to come up and help but have been told their non-union help isn't needed. Now we see what union workers truly care about. Doesn't Chris Christie have something to say about that?