Inscrivez vous à la newsletter :
Voici, en quatre parties, l’intégrale de ce premier débat qui a vu s’écrouler le Président Obama.
On peut le voir également et intégralement (avec sous titre anglais) sur cspan :
Merci pour ces vidéos, même si je ne comprend pas l’anglais, je peux lire sur le visage de Hussein Obama qu’il a perdu
Vive Mitt Romney !
y a t il quelqu’un qui pourrait faire une synthèse du débat svp.
moi je suis une grosse quiche en anglais.je vous en remercie par avance.
bonne journée et merci a dreuz vous faites un travail admirable.
Part I & II :
Globalement, les deux candidats ont exposé leurs conceptions économiques.
Mitt Romney propose de réduire les taux d’imposition de tout le monde, afin de permettre aux petites entreprises de développer leur activité et par conséquent engager plus de gens.
Il finance ses propositions par le fait qu’il accroîtra le nombre de gens actifs et payant des impôts et par le développement de la production énergétique (pétrolière, charbon, etc…) aux Etats-Unis créant ainsi les conditions d’une indépendance énergétique et par la suppression des exemptions (quasi niches fiscales).
Obama propose d’augmenter les impôts et les exemptions. Il propose d’augmenter les taxes pour ceux qui gagnent plus de 200.000 dollars par an. Il propose d’investir massivement dans l’éducation et dans les énergies renouvelables.
Obama répète inlassablement que Romney va, en augmentant les réductions de taxes (tax cuts) et en dépensant plus dans le domaine militaire, augmenter le déficit de 5.000 (plus tard il dit 7.000) milliards de dollars. Romney le reprend à chaque fois en disant que sa proposition ne consiste pas à augmenter les « tax cuts » mais à diminuer les taux pour tout le monde.
Obama prétend qu’il est mathématiquement impossible de diminuer les taxes et de stabiliser le budget (il raisonne en système fermé) et se réfère en permanence à des études qui tendraient à dire qu’augmenter les tax cuts se répercuterait sur la classe moyenne qui devrait financer pareille entreprise.
Romney lui rétorque que d’autres études ultérieures disent le contraire. Il répond que diminuer les taux pour tout le monde va créer de nouveaux emplois et par là augmenter le nombre de gens payant des impôts (il raisonne en système ouvert). C’est en partie ce qui financera les baisses de taux.
« Romney lui rétorque que d’autres études ultérieures disent le contraire. » : Romney a fait mieux. Il a répondu que « d’autres études disent que votre étude est fausse !. »
Part 3 : Obama s’est lamentablement pris les pieds dans le tapis en cherchant à expliquer son Obamacare, et il a été tellement minable, a tellement tourné en rond, qu’il a changé de sujet en plein milieu de son explication. Romney s’est expliqué d’une façon bien plus claire sur l’Obamacare auquel beaucoup de médecins eux-même ne comprennent rien, et son projet d’assurance santé.
Romney a dit qu’il était hostile à l’idée d’un conseil d’administration de 50 personnes non élues décidant pour les américains comment ils devaient se soigner.
I don’t speak English!
You sure ???!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voici la transcription traduite (automatiquement par google, avec les fautes que cela suggère) :
J’ai assiste du canada au débat en direct. Une véritable déculottée pour Obama. je ne l’ai jamais vu aussi nul. Surtout qu’il n’avait pas de téléscripteur.
CNN a effectue un sondage juste après le débat et 67% admettent que Romney a largement gagne contre 25% favorisant Obama.
Il en va de même pour un sondage sur Fox News qui eux visaient les indécis et majoritairement, ils se sont déclarés incroyablement surpris par la performance de Mitt Romney et envisageraient même de voter Romney.
Je peux vous dire que j’ai passe une nuit superbe après ce débat.
From the Romney campaign:
LIE #1: OBAMA SAYS HIS PLAN REDUCES THE DEFICIT BY $4 TRILLION
THE CLAIM: Obama: « I’ve Proposed A Specific $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan. » OBAMA: « I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: « Virtually No Serious Budget Analyst Agreed With This Accounting. » « But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. Obama’s $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank. » (Glenn Kessler, « Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012, » The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 10/4/12)
LIE #2: OBAMA CLAIMED HE WOULD RETURN AMERICA TO TAX RATES UNDER CLINTON
THE CLAIM: Obama: « We Should Go Back To The Rates That We Had When Bill Clinton Was President. »
OBAMA: « But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: « Obama Repeated A Favorite Talking Point » But Americans Will Pay More Under Obama Than Clinton Due To New Taxes In ObamaCare.
« Obama repeated a favorite talking point, saying that his tax plan would return rates for the wealthy back to where they were during economically prosperous times under President Bill Clinton. But those making over $250,000 a year would actually pay more than they did under Clinton due to new taxes imposed on upper-income people to pay for the health care law. » (Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Ben Finley, « Dubios Denver Debate Declarations, » Factcheck.org, 10/4/12)
LIE #3: OBAMA SAYS ROMNEY’S MEDICARE PLAN WOULD COST SENIORS $6,000 A YEAR
THE CLAIM: Obama: « The Problem Is That Because The Voucher Wouldn’t Necessarily Keep Up With Health Care Inflation, It Was Estimated That This Would Cost The Average Senior About $6,000 A Year. »
OBAMA: « The problem is that because the voucher wouldn’t necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year. Now, in fairness, what Governor Romney has now said is he’ll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it . » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker: « He Still Clung To An Outdated Estimate Of An Earlier Version Of The Plan, Claiming It Will Cost Seniors An Extra $6,000 A Year. (He Had Previously Earned Two Pinocchios For This Claim.) »
« In the debate, Obama acknowledged that the GOP Medicare plan, authored by Romney running mate Paul Ryan, has been changed. But he still clung to an outdated estimate of an earlier version of the plan, claiming it will cost seniors an extra $6,000 a year. (He had previously earned Two Pinocchios for this claim.) » (Glenn Kessler, « Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012, » The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 10/4/12)
LIE #4: OBAMA SAYS ROMNEY’S PLAN WOULD RAISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
THE CLAIM: Obama: Under Romney, « The Average Middle-Class Family With Children Would Pay About $2,000 More. » OBAMA: « And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: « Romney Says His Plan Wouldn’t Raise Taxes On Anyone, And His Campaign Points To Several Studies By Conservative Think Tanks That Dispute The Tax Policy Center’s Findings. » « Romney says his plan wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the Tax Policy Center’s findings. Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney’s tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class. » (Calvin Woodward, « FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps, » The Associated Press, 10/4/12)
LIE #5: OBAMA SAYS HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS ARE BECOMING MORE AFFORDABLE
THE CLAIM: Obama Said « Health Care Premiums Have Gone Up — It Is True — But They Have Gone Up Slower Than Any Time In The Last 50 Years. »
OBAMA: « The fact of the matter is that when Obamacare is fully implemented, we are going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it is true — but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. We are already seeing progress. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: Obama Was Wrong To Say That Care Premiums Have « Gone Up Slower Than Any Time In The Last 50 Years. » « Obama wrongly said that over the last two years, health care premiums have ‘gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.’ » (Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Ben Finley, « Dubios Denver Debate Declarations, » Factcheck.org, 10/4/12)
LIE #6: OBAMA SAYS GOV. ROMNEY’S PLAN IS A $5 TRILLION TAX CUT
THE CLAIM: Obama Said « Gov. Romney’s Central Economic Plan Calls For A $5 Trillion Tax Cut. »
OBAMA: « Gov. Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut – on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that’s another trillion dollars – and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for. That’s $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: Obama « Is Off Base Here. » « The president said Romney was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut and Romney said he wasn’t. The president is off base here – Romney says his rate cuts and tax eliminations would be offset and the deficit wouldn’t increase. » (Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Ben Finley, « Dubios Denver Debate Declarations, » Factcheck.org, 10/4/12)
THE FACTS: « Romney Is Not Proposing A $5 Trillion Reduction In Taxes. » (Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Ben Finley, « Dubios Denver Debate Declarations, » Factcheck.org, 10/4/12)
LIE #7: OBAMA SAYS HIS PLAN IS BALANCED IN THE MANNER OF SIMPSON-BOWLES
THE CLAIM: Obama Claimed His Deficit-Reduction Plan Was « Balanced. » OBAMA: « Now, we all know that we’ve got to do more. And so I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. It’s on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for a dollar of additional revenue, paid for, as I indicated earlier, by asking those of us who have done very well in this country to contribute a little bit more to reduce the deficit. And Governor Romney earlier mentioned the Bowles-Simpson commission. Well, that’s how the commission — bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested we have to do it — in a balanced way with some revenue and some spending cuts. And this is a major difference that Governor Romney and I have. (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: « Obama Made The Deficit-Cutting Plan He’s Offered Sound Comparable To The Plan From The Chairman Of The Simpson-Bowles Debt Cutting Commission. But It’s Not…. » « Obama made the deficit-cutting plan he’s offered sound comparable to the plan from the chairmen of the Simpson-Bowles debt cutting commission. But it’s not: his proposal doesn’t save as much money as Simpson-Bowles and doesn’t offer the kinds of detailed entitlement cuts the panel’s leaders did. The president’s $4 trillion plan, including $3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in tax hikes from allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, is spread over 10 years-a year longer than Simpson-Bowles. It sounds like a minor difference, but cuts and spending balloon in the so-called out years. Also, Obama doesn’t touch Social Security in his plan. And the tax changes and war spending are accounted in ways that make Obama’s plan substantially less aggressive. » (Josh Gerstein and Darren Samuelsohn, « Fact-Checking The Denver Debate, » Politico, 10/4/12)
LIE #8: OBAMA SAYS HE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO SIMPSON-BOWLES FOR HIS OWN PLAN
THE CLAIM: Obama Said He Had Made Adjustments To The Simpson-Bowles Commission Recommendations.
JIM LEHRER: « Governor Romney, do you support Simpson-Bowles? »
MITT ROMNEY: « I have my own plan it is not as Simpson-Bowles. But in my view the President should have grabbed it. If you have some adjustments, make it, take it to Congress, fight for it. » BARACK OBAMA: « That’s what we’ve done. Made some adjustment to it. Putting it before Congress right now. $4 trillion plan. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: « Just Ask Alan Simpson Or Erskine Bowles Whether President Obama Embraced Them In The Rose Garden. » MSNBC’S ANDREA MITCHELL: « And then President Obama saying that he went with Simpson Bowles. Well we know that he didn’t. You know I flew out on the same plan as Alan Simpson. Alan Simpson is on the debate commission. Just ask Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles whether President Obama embraced them in the Rose Garden. Instead he walked away and sort of gave them a pat on the back. » (MSNBC’s « Morning Joe, » 10/4/12)
LIE #9: OBAMA REPEATS THE WAR SAVINGS « FISCAL FICTION »
THE CLAIM: Obama: It’s Important « That We Take Some Of The Money That We’re Saving As We Wind Down Two Wars. »
OBAMA: « I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we’re helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take some of the money that we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker: « This Is Fantasy Money. »
« This is fantasy money. The administration is counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. In other words, by projecting war spending far in the future, the administration is able to claim credit for saving money it never intended to spend. And Obama would still be borrowing [sic] the money to ‘rebuild America’ (Imagine someone borrowing $50,000 a year for college-and then declaring that they have an extra $500,000 to spend over the next decade once they graduate.) » (Glenn Kessler, « Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012, » The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 10/4/12)
LIE #10: OBAMA SAYS HE HAS CREATED 5 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS
THE CLAIM: Obama: « Over The Last 30 Months, We’ve Seen 5 Million Jobs In The Private Sector Created. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: « That Statistic Tries To Obscure The Fact That The Overall Job Record So Far In This Presidential Term Has Been Negative. » « He claimed 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector in the past 30 months; that statistic tries to obscure the fact that the overall job record so far in this presidential term has been negative. » (Glenn Kessler, « Fact Check: Obama’s Jobs Stat, » The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, 10/3/12)
LIE #11: OBAMA MAKES FALSE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT GOV. ROMNEY’S ECONOMIC PLAN
THE CLAIM: Obama Attributed The Financial Crisis To Policies That Governor Romney Supports.
OBAMA: »The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years, we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: The Washington Post ‘s The Fact Checker: « Here, The President Comes Close To Repeating A Line That Just This Week Earned Him Three Pinocchios. » « Here, the president comes close to repeating a line that just this week earned him Three Pinocchios. In a new television ad, Obama said that tax cuts and deregulation led to the crisis. But in the debate he broadened his language, bringing in the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the deficit and not directly linking the policies (‘it all culminated’ versus ‘led to’) to the financial crash. » (Glenn Kessler, « Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012, » The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 10/4/12)
LIE #12: OBAMA SAYS SOCIAL SECURITY IS « STRUCTURALLY SOUND »
THE CLAIM: Obama Claimed That Social Security Is « Structurally Sound. » OBAMA: « Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound. » (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Said That « But According To The Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Will Run Into Financial Trouble Too. »
MSNBC’S ANDREA MITCHELL: « President Obama said that unlike Medicare Social Security does not have to be fixed to remain solvent but according to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will run into financial trouble too. By 2030 the amount Social Security pays out will exceed the tax revenue coming in. So in about 20 years the program will not be able to pay for itself through the payroll tax that’s we all pay in. So Brian, the debate will continue on twitter and everywhere else as these facts are checked and counterchecked. » (NBC, 10/3/12)
Swing State Polls Are Rigged
By Dick Morris, dickmorris.com, October 5, 2012
After Wednesday night’s smashing debate victory for Romney,
we may expect the national and swing state polls to change in the Republican’s direction. But not by as much as they should.
These polls are biased in favor of Obama and here’s the data to prove it:
From noted Republican pollster John McLaughlin comes a clear and convincing exposé of the bias of media polls in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.
McLaughlin reviewed exit polls in each state for the past four elections. From this data about who actually voted, he found that the party divisions manifest on election day have little to do with the samples upon which the media is basing its polling.
And, coincidentally, it is always the Republican vote that tends to be undercounted.
In Florida, for example, McLaughlin finds that the average of the last four elections produced a turnout of 37% Democrats and 38% Republicans. But here is the partisan distribution of the most recent Florida media polls:
9-26: CBS/NY Times = 36% Dem / 27% Rep
9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 29% Rep
So the media polls reflect a 9 point and six point Democratic edge even though the actual experience of the past four elections has been a 1 point Republican advantage.
Things are no better in Ohio.
Here, McLaughlin finds a 2 point Democratic edge in the past four elections (38% Dem, 36% Rep). But the media polls show vastly more Democrats and fewer Republicans in their samples:
9-26: CBS/NY Times = 35% Dem / 26% Rep
9-23: Wash Post = 35% Dem / 27% Rep
9-11: NBC/Wall St Journal = 38% Dem / 28% Rep
Once again, the actual exit poll-measured vote in Ohio shows a 2 point Democratic edge, but the polls reflect Democratic advantages of 9 points, 8 points, and 10 points respectively.
In Virginia, it’s the same story.
The last four elections have a combined 1 point Republican edge, 37-36. But the media polls show a big pro-Democratic bias:
10/2: Roanoke College = Democrat 36% / Republican 27%
9/17: CBS/NYTimes = Democrat 35% / Republican 26%
9/16: Washington Post = Democrat 35% / Republican 24%
9/11: NBC/Wall St Journal = Democrat 31% / Republican 26%
So instead of showing a 1 point Republican edge, these media poll samples show Democratic advantages of 9,9,11, and 5.
The correct conclusion to draw from all these polls is that Romney is comfortably ahead in Virginia and Florida while he holds a slight lead in Ohio. And, remember these polls are all pre-debate!
Also, bear in mind that the undecided vote in all of these polls usually goes against the incumbent.
That’s the real story.
On vous dit : « I don’t speak english, svp traduisez ! ou, please une synthese ! » et au lieu de donner une traduction vous donnez une interprétation qui vous est propre. Je suis pantoise
Je découvre Dreuz qui est un site que ma soeur m’a conseilé me le présentant comme sérieux et me voilà d’ores et déjà très déçue… Sorry
« … So all you blacks who voted for Obama should feel pretty betrayed. The Left submitted a far-left racial empty-suit for your “first black president” and you fell for it. From the very beginning, the mainstream media exempted Obama from the usual vetting process of candidates seeking to be president of the United States.
« To this day, after fours years into his reign of terror, we still know very little about this man.
« In the political movie thriller, The Manchurian Candidate was brainwashed to be an assassin. Obama has been groomed to be the Left’s perfect teleprompter controlled front man for its Socialist/Progressive agenda. His black-skin suit of armor protects him from all opposition. Democrats orchestrated every appearance and his sycophant mainstream media lobbed Obama softballs at every press conference.
« But in an mano-a-mano live presidential debate, there was no place for Obama to hide his incompetence. The Democrats and MSM could do nothing to protect their unqualified Affirmative Action president and it was embarrassing.
« This is why you should never promote people to positions in which they are not qualified in order to meet racial or gender quotas. Numerous black Americans are extremely qualified to be president of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama is not among them.
« Free from the immoral slavery of feeling that I must rally around Obama no-matter-what because we share the same skin-color, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Mitt Romney kick Obama’s Socialist/Progressive derrière by simply articulating rock solid Conservatism. It was truly refreshing… »
Dick Morris is Pulling a Landslide Change
Hilarious: SNL spoofs MSNBC’s post-debate meltdown
The Right Scoop, October 7th, 2012
Nothing can top the real thing but SNL did a great job spoofing the meltdown that happened at MSNBC after Obama lost his first debate:
DAILY DOOM ANTIDOTE:
Five Lies the Media Tells You About Barack Obama
by Kevin DuJan, Hillbuzz, October 8, 2012
« … A favorite tactic of “Minitrue” is to conveniently rewrite the past in keeping with the narrative that Barack Obama is an unbeatable God-King and brilliant campaigner.,. Obama did not have as clear or decisive a win four years ago as Minitrue pretends currently.
Here are Five Lies That Minitrue Repeats Endlessly About Barack Obama, hoping you don’t ever look into the reality behind them for yourself.
5. Very commonly, you’ll see lazy writers in Minitrue say “Barack Obama routed Hillary Clinton in the primaries”…
… In actuality, Hillary won more votes than Obama in the primaries… almost 500,000 more! …
he was awarded the nomination by the Democrats’ super delegates and some improper shenanigans that transpired at the Democrats’ Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting on May 31st, 2008 where a good number of the delegates that Hillary actually won were stripped from her and given to Obama instead… many Democrat super delegates were aggressively threatened with accusations of — what else? — RACISM if they didn’t jump ship from Hillary to Obama.
… The race for the nomination ended on June 7th of that year when Hillary was at last forced to surrender… but even after that many of her delegates attempted to stage a revolt and orchestrate some sort of an upset at the Convention…
[until Bill Gwatnewy was murdered and Chelsea's life threatened]
4. The fundraising numbers from 2008 were all rigged and the money was never properly accounted for.
… I will always believe that the Obama campaign funneled its own money through a network in Martinique and then redonated it to itself to show more donations than they really took in
… This is separate from the scandal that’s supposed to break today in Newsweek where we’re expected to look at the foreign donations to Obama’s campaign that are not being properly verified or inspected because they’re coming in under $200.
… The speculation on the ground here in Chicago at the time was that Martinique was being used as a hub and a bank of computers there (supervised by a young woman who was prominent in fundraising for black candidates) facilitated transfers of large sums of money from Muslim donors overseas into bogus accounts created for the sole purpose of splitting that money up into $199-and-under donations to the campaign…
3. Obama trailed McCain for a while after the introduction of Governor Sarah Palin to the campaign… and Obama only recovered his lead after the September financial crash that George Soros orchestrated.
Minitrue FERVENTLY tries to rewrite history on this in particular… and what’s worse is that a lot of Cocktail Party Republicans try to help them by claiming Governor Palin was a drag on the ticket. In fact, she was anything but. This woman single-handedly saved McCain’s campaign and came very close to dragging that tired, old wimp across the finish line when he basically gave up completely in September…
Minitrue worked in concert with both Soros and Democrats on this…with reporters refusing to investigate (to this day) Soros’ role in the financial collapse…
2. Millions of Republicans sat home on Election Day in 2008 to “teach the GOP a lesson” but realized how stupid that was in 2009 and formed the Tea Party… these people will now teach Minitrue a lesson in four weeks’ time.
This is a really important point because… Minitrue is pretendin… that the Tea Party… is no longer a factor in the election… despite being the driving force of the Democrats’ big defeat in 2010.
It makes absolutely no logical sense that the people who worked hard to defeat Democrats two years ago would decide “Oh, we love Obama now” and decide to sit out this election like many of them did in 2008…
Minitrue and even some in the Cocktail Party GOP establishment have maligned the Tea Party spirit since it emerged in 2009 but that has not diminished it in the least. On the contrary… the nonstop assault on Tea Party Americans has made these people more resolute to defeat Barack Obama…
People are MAD… In four weeks there will be a strong reckoning for all the nastiness aimed at the Tea Party… for the last three years…
1. … Obama actually won because so many white people either sat home on Election Day or decided they wanted to feel good about themselves for voting the first black president into office.
… Minitrue believes its own hype that 2008 was “a transformational election” and that a coalition of blacks, Hispanics, college kids, union members, and women who want to kill their babies is 51% or more of the population when that’s not really the case. Minitrue sees everything through the prism of IDENTITY while Americans actually vote mostly because of ideology…
I am going to say this every day between now and November 6th so get used to it: the only way Barack Obama wins reelection is if we let him and if we fail to expose the lies Minitrue keeps pushing.
TV Shows Pretending Obama Doesn’t Exist or Mocking His Reelection Chances
… Think about that. Shows airing RIGHT NOW in October 2012 will be re-run at least twice… When Obama loses reelection, he’ll be out of office in January before sweeps… so mentions of Obama in shows will feel weirdly stale in just a few months.
This episode of New Girl was very Romney-centric… I repeat: absolutely no mocking of Romney takes place and the Romney boys are painted as sexy and desirable.
Another show, Glee, made an anti-Obama joke in the episode “Makeover” that aired two weeks ago. There’s a new character on the show who is a biracial… A character who had a beef with him came by and they exchanged words…with the other character stomping away after saying, “And by the way, Obama’s going to lose”. The looks on the kids’ faces was one of “Yeah, we know he’s going to lose”. It was really strange since Glee is a very pro-Obama show…
A new show, The New Normal, features two very lefty gay guys in LA…
Barken’s character is a Republican and… you’d be surprised by how fair the show actually is to Romney supporters. Obama is painted as a disappointment and many of his supporter… are depicted as very low-information who just vote Democrat because … they are gay and were taught that Republicans are evil. The last new episode I saw featured a dinner party where the gay guys were challenged to produce any black friends they might have… Of course, the gay guys had no black friends… It really captured the hypocritical Left in action.
Speaking of which…I’m not seeing Mormons ridiculed in TV shows the way I thought they’d be at this point in the election…. the Romney campaign must have told Obama’s people in no uncertain terms that if a perfection of Mormons was on the table then the campaign would also be about what goes on at Trinity United Church of Christ…
Here’s a cut-and-paste of an email I got today from a friend in Alabama who voted for Obama in 2008 (unedited except for adding quotation marks):
“I continue to get emails from the Obama campaign and despite asking numerous times to be taken off their mailing lists, they still come and I just delete them.
I just had to open one this morning from Obama. The subject was “hey.” I thought maybe he would give some sort of excuse for his poor performance last night. Maybe say he was sick or something. But, no. He said “I hope I made you proud last night sharing my vision.” Whoever wrote that email must have written it before the debate although it was sent out after 11. Or maybe they are just delusional. I don’t see how even his strongest supporters could be proud.”
Cathy in Alabama
Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech at VMI
– Full Video and Transcript
by Kempite, October 8, 2012
… at the Virginia Military Institute… Romney’s speech… focused on the turmoil brewing in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, where he said Obama has “failed” to lead but he also outlined his intention to restore and maintain America’s strength, especially in the case of America’s naval force which Romney pointed out is currently at a level not seen since 1916…
WhiteHouse12.com: Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech at VMI
Complete Transcript of Romney’s Speech
For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation’s defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.
Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.
General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.
Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.
The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.
The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.
The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.
We saw all of this in Benghazi last month—but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, “The Ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya is sorry.” They chanted “No to militias.” They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, “We are not going to go from darkness to darkness.”
This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people—men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers—all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.
We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts.
Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.
This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.
I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.
The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.
Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation’s capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, “Are you with us, or are you with them?”—the American President was silent.
Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.
In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.
The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.
America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.
The President is fond of saying that “The tide of war is receding.” And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today—with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.
I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.
The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”
It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.
I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.
I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.
I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.
And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.
I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities… to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary… and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.
I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.
I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.
In Libya, I will support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.
In Egypt, I will use our influence—including clear conditions on our aid—to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.
In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.
And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.
Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.
There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America’s friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin’s Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are “pivoting” away from them … in Asia and across the Pacific, where China’s recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region … and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: “Where does America stand?”
I know many Americans are asking a different question: “Why us?” I know many Americans are asking whether our country today—with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading.
I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively—to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better—not perfect, but better.
Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves—that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events.
Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: “He … always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion.” That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.
The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty – and honor – to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.