Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

Pretty good interview posted over at Real Clear Politics.

It’s interesting to watch, not just for the discussion, but to hear the crowd’s reaction.


Alfonso Rachel is a very, very sharp guy.

Can we have Colonel Allen West in 2016, please?

He may not be busy, depending on how many extra votes the Democrats find.

Last Friday, Obama spoke in front of a crowd in Ohio.  In one of the few non-teleprompter unscripted moments, he had this to say:

Obama made the remark at a Friday rally after supporters booed Romney. “No, no, no. Don’t boo. Vote,” Obama told a crowd in Springfield, Ohio. “Voting is the best revenge.”

Let’s read that one more time.


Romney responded on Saturday by not just sounding, but being presidential:

“Vote for revenge? Let me tell you: Vote for love of country,” Romney said to cheers.

There was plenty of talk from Obama later trying to cover for his statements, including accusing Romney of making attacks based on Jeep’s threats to move to China.  Thing is, no one was discussing that when the revenge comment was made.

But a transcript posted on the White House shows that Obama was not speaking in the context of Romney’s controversial ads about Chrysler, bailed out by the U.S. government, adding production of Jeeps in China.

Obama has (sic) not mentioned the Jeep issue when he talked about ‘revenge’. Rather, he had spoken about Hurricane Sandy, the U.S. economy, national security and Clinton’s record.

Jonah Goldberg at NRO notes that it’s a very strange, narcissitic, bizarre thing to say.

I’m not so sure that it’s that bizarre.  In the context of an anti-colonialist who believes his life is a struggle against phantom oppressors, reliving the dreams of his father – an anti-colonialist anti-western communist radical, it’s not so strange.  If you see him as an angry street agitator, furious at the perceived oppression, viewing the success of anyone as a strike against him in his zero-sum game mentality, then yes, he really does want revenge against Romney.  He wants revenge for everything Romney stands for, much like he wants revenge against America for everything he thinks they did to “his people”, the same varying, fluctuating masses that every leftist claims to want to avenge (though the leftist keeps them down to perpetuate their own existence).  You can see it in who he identifies himself with, who he learned from, and who he allies with.

It’s actually quite sad.

On Bayonets and Horses

Posted: October 23, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Politics, US Military

One of the highlights of last night’s presidential debate was Obama, who can’t pronounce corpsman, smugly insulting Romney about what the military uses and doesn’t use.  The highlight of the highlight, was of course, horses and bayonets.

We don’t use horses, either, according to Obama.

This is where Obama’s stupid really meshes with other types of stupid.  The saying is that you always fight the last war.  For those unfamiliar with the saying, what it shows is that your military acquires experience based on one war, and then tries to reapply it.  Sometimes it works, other times it doesn’t.  Civil War and Napoleonic tactics weren’t up to the task of The Great War, WWI tactics and strategies and tools weren’t up to use in WWII, WWII tactics had to change for Korea, Korean ideas didn’t work in Vietnam, Vietnam didn’t work in Gulf War I, Gulf War I didn’t work in Afghanistan, Afghanistan didn’t work the same in Iraq, and Iraq’s successes don’t translate back to Afghanistan so well.  Generals had years to train on what they just fought, though, with up-and-coming officers and NCOs who set the culture of the military being those who fought the last war, so they apply that expertise and often forget the past.

Obama’s spiel about aircraft carriers was not only insulting to Romney, but it ignores that there are ways to make carriers go away.  A couple ASBMs and suddenly the carrier is a white elephant.  And with Obama’s pledge to slow development of future weapons systems and missile defense, we know we won’t have a defense against ASBMs.  The technology he wants to rely on he also wants to keep undeveloped.  You can’t have it both ways, Mr. President.   And you certainly can’t lecture us on technology you’re halting as the solution.  A large navy is very important to power projection.  Numbers of ships are important.

This dovetails into the recent news story about Congress putting money away for tanks the military says it doesn’t need.

Congress doesn’t want to kill any jobs in their districts and argue that tank production is “necessary to protect the industrial base.”

Not so necessary on the battlefield though, since the last real tank battle occurred in the First Gulf War. Since then tanks have largely been used for anti-personnel purposes, or for making new doors in structures to aid the movement of ground troops. Nevertheless, the U.S. hasn’t halted production since before World War II.

Congressmen not wanting to kill jobs and “protecting the industrial base” is stimulus and earmark pork nonsense.  They’re speaking Keynesian gibberish and want to keep govt. money flowing into their districts and that’s the best they can come up with.  Maintaining tooling and factories for production certainly isn’t a bad idea, but that has to be balanced with what the country should and should not be spending.

On the other hand, the argument that “the last real tank battle was 20 years ago” is precisely the “last war” mentality.  The “last war” is now Iraq and Afghanistan.  Suddenly, smart men with no wisdom declare we will never again need tanks because we didn’t need them this week.  There’s some semi-famous quote saying how military men are like children and how they’ll drop blankets when it’s warm and rain gear when the sky is clear because they can’t think for tommorow; and there are plenty of proverbs about prudent men vs foolish men.  Exactly opposite the article, we should be keeping up tank production and refurbishment exactly because they’re valuable military tools.  That they provide jobs in some congressman’s district is entirely irrelevant to the inherent military usefulness of a tank.

While it doesn’t float and is ultimately crewed by DATs, it’s a very useful tool.

Obama’s ignorance of the military isn’t just that we still use horses and bayonets, it’s that he doesn’t understand why we use them, nor does he understand that technology (that he’s trying to stop, no less) is not magic.

Update: HotAir has an excellent piece on how horses, bayonets, and most importantly ships still matter.  Ships are power projection, and that piece goes into much greater detail.  It’s worth the read.

During the first presidential debate, Romney mentioned that he’d cut public funding for PBS, which really is kinda outside the mandate of the Constitution.  Sure, there might be a way to squeeze it in under Article I Section 8 with “promoting science and the useful arts”… if you completely ignored the end of that sentence, but basically the point was that PBS’s 7% or so funding received from the government is a waste of money.  It’s especially a waste when the govt. needs to tighten its belt and leave taxpayers more of their money, in order to leave people to spur the economy on.  Big Bird can stand on his own two huge feet because he’s plenty marketable, and something like 93% of Sesame Street’s money comes in from merchandising.  What’s merchandising, you ask?

Heck, as a coworker pointed out to me, Abelardo Montoya, as in Big Bird in Mexico (from Plaza Sesamo) is so well off as to have a section of a Formula One track running through (or immediately adjacent to) the big Sesame Street theme park in Monterrey.  He also has a nice fountain.

This guy survives through being something people love and want, and are willing to buy stuff from.

Why does American Big Bird make $314,000/year and still need money from taxpayers?

It was all meant as an explanation of how spending taxpayer money is supposed to be for important constitutional functions, not for just throwing at “things we feel we want”.

And naturally, the Dems took it overboard, to the point of alienating everyone.

And now, as HotAir reports, they’re doubling down on stupid.

As prominent Democrat Dick Harpootlian put it, “Big Bird is iconic. He — or it — she — I don’t know what it is — is an icon with a whole generation or two of Americans.” Well said. If Mitt Romney won’t stand up for giant muppets, who will he stand up for?

And Dems are running with it even though Sesame Street wants nothing to do with this and sent a cease-and-desist order.

Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.

Big Bird is successful without government money.  Oh, and Big Bird in the US also has theme parks.  Big Bird doesn’t need big government subsidies.  He’s not too Big Bird to fail, he’ll fly on his own.

It’s real.  Really real.

From the story:

The U.S. has created 12 million jobs in 4 years 3 times before.  The first was during World War Two, from August 1939 to July 1943.

More recent history provides us with two examples. The first was from September 1983 to August 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s term in office, when economic growth averaged 4.5%.  The second time was between August 1996 and July 2000, under Bill Clinton, when GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

The U.S. is nowhere near that now, and won’t be anytime soon.

Well, wait, how did Reagan pull that off, after inheriting Jimmy Carter’s stagflation?  CNN isn’t bothering to look at the stark difference between Obama’s anticolonialist anti-American anti-jobs policies and those that Romney (while imperfect) would get started, which might parallel Reagan’s – Republican governor of leftist state who offers compromise to get good things done.  (Of course also bad things, like closing the MG registry, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.)

Obama’s Smirk

Posted: October 4, 2012 by ShortTimer in 2012 Campaign, Barack Obama, Politics