Debate Three: Advantage Romney !

Mitt Romney had a strategic victory in the third debate today, which Barack Obama needed to win.

Romney decided to smile and be the moderate that Obama wanted to claim he was not. He did not say a single thing to support Obama's attack that he was risky and prone to war. He didn't savage Obama even on Libya, reserving his one real attack (other than on the economy) on the Obama ''apology tour'', with plenty of damning examples of Obama having signalled weakness.

He was also very effective in repeatedly bringing the economy into the argument on foreign affairs, making the point that a weaker America could not command respect or project the power to make it safe. He also had the second best line of the night, which helped to neuter Obama's barrage of attacks: ''Attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges of the Middle East.''

Romney also avoided making any mistakes in an area in which the incumbent usually has the advantage. He spoke fluidly on all areas, without spelling out any profound difference with Obama on future policy. Overall impression: Romney was a very pleasant, confident, ''sunny'' man -- a bit of Reagan -- who could bring that famous ''morning in America'' feeling. He was capable and had his eyes firmly on creating jobs -- more central to the election than foreign affairs.

Barack Obama did not do badly....pushing his socialist government-will-fix-things line. In fact, he had the best single line of the night in picking up Romney for his complaint that the navy hadn't had so few vessels in a century. Obama pointed out things had changed: ''Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.'' -- a sharp put-down spoiled only by an unpresidential rudeness. Indeed, Obama's aggression throughout, trying to paint a contrast that Romney largely wanted to paint out, verged on the snarky, but at times Obama seemed more familiar with the issues under discussion. This was more a  result of his direct exposure to these issues over his term.

But what will voters think most important to them? Obama's foreign policies subtleties or Romney's program to restore America's economy? What style would impress most -- Obama's aggression, nuances and condescension or Romney's genial optimism and air of the practical man? Given those two questions, Romney gained most from this debate.

The Way I See It....you can score this debate a win on energy for Obama, but a win on the facts and the long game for Romney. Moderator Bob Schieffer was probably the best of the three presidential moderators. Both candidates got roughly the same amount of talk time, neither got the patently false Candy Crowley fact check.

Mitt Romney accomplished what he set out to do today. He went toe-to-toe with the sitting, snarking president three times and acquitted himself well enough to have the majority of thinking Americans see him as the next President of the United States.

UPDATE:  President Obama got a Twitter drubbing tonight as a result of comparing U.S. Navy ships to obsolete war horses and bayonets. One Twitterer said, ''We're sure that all of our fine sailors appreciated hearing their Commander in Chief  (now being called Commander McSnark) declare them obsolete.''  As for those denizens of the interwebs, well, someone should have told the president how memes work before they gave him that line. Oh...right, he was being prepped by John Kerry.  Never mind!

Obama's Second Term: The New World Dis-Order !

As many of you know I have extensively researched Barack Obama's life, his numerous ties to radicalism and socialists, and I have written about it over the past year on this blog site leading up to this crucial presidential election. Now with only a few weeks away I am saving the worst for last. By that I mean, the worst is yet to come if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected president of the United States. As an Ex-Pat I am fearful that all those brain-washed University Zombies, the Hollywood airheads, the lazy illiterates on welfare, the Marxist Jews, the beholden Blacks, the backdoor Hispanics and now let's not forget the thankful Gays, will vote this Manchurian Candidate back into another 4 years of  power. It's time for me to reveal the closely guarded second-term policy initiatives this far-left president fully intends to impose on America after his re-election, when he will have -- as he told the Russian president --''more flexibility.''

Back on August 23rd I posted an article entitled, ''Can America Survive 4 more years of Obama? in which I listed some of the 900 Executive Orders Obama signed during his first term that sounded absolutely devious. These EOs, which don't need Congress' approval, cover everything imaginable including a list of emergency powers, power to nationalize (not seize) private assests and even a sinister one he signed (EO 13618) in July called the ''National Defense Preparedness." Upon further digging I came across the shocking plans behind this EO. I will be laying out the shocking details in my next blog posting. But first let me give you a prophetic look into exactly what will happen in a second term with Barack Obama.

Former President George W. Bush was fond of the expression, ''Fool me once, Shame on you....fool me twice, Shame on me.''  I have just finished Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott's chilling new book, ''Fool Me Twice: Obama's Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed'' (WND Books). I recommend it as must-reading for all Americans, but particularly for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In their run for the White House, the GOP standard-bearers don't seem to realize what they are up against and by extension, what lies in store for all citizens if they are not victorious this November. This book is Klein & Elliot's third in-depth political study of Obama (something not found in the lame-stream media) that'll inform the American public of his agenda should he capture another term.

Their first book, ''The Manchurian President'' (2010) examines Obama's lifelong ties to anti-American radicals; the ''The Red Army'' (2011) explores Obama White House links to the Marx-inspired policy world where, in ''progressive'' legislation, the foundations of Obamacare, for example went unnoticed for years before being passed in 2010. In ''Fool Me Twice" they examined thousands of documents, including inititives from the Center for American Progress, or CAP (the Obama administration's ''idea factory'', as Time Magazine calls it); many pieces of legislation introduced by ''progressives'' in Congress; and both well-known promises and those sneaky executive orders I told you about. The authors describe the ''secret template for Obama's next four years.'' -- the one actually created by Obama's own top advisers and strategists.

Just as Obama concealed the true plans for his initial term behind rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the Federal deficit, Obama's re-election theme FORWARD (using an iconic 100 year old Communist slogan) of creating jobs conceals more than it reveals about his real agenda.  In meticulous detail, the authors lay out the plans of Obama and his allies, plans that seek to permanently remake America into a government-dominated socialist state. Here are just a few samples from dozens of specific schemes unveiled here:

• Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the Federal government regardless of any Supreme Court decision to overturn Obamacare.
• The recreation of a 21st Century version of FDR's Works Progress Administration (WPA) program within the Department of Labor (more like forced-labor using EO 11000) that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new Federal jobs.
• Further gutting of the U.S. military in shocking ways, while using the savings to start a radical increase in spending for a green stimulus program and the founding of a Federal green bank to fund so-called (but actually useless) environmentally friendly projects.
• The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat ''global warming,'' (even though warming hasn't increased in 16 years!) fight global poverty, remedy ''injustice,'' bolster the U.N. with more ''peacekeeping'' deployments.
• An expansive new amnesty program for illegal aliens linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S, Border Patrol and plans to bring in untold numbers of new immigrants with the removal of caps on H-18 visas and green cards.
• You can look forward to a slew of job-killing EPA regulations that will strangle economic growth, destroy millions more jobs and dramatically raise the price of goods, the cost of electricity and the price of gas at the pump. Welcome to living in the third world!
• A campaign, by stealth, which ''progressives'' (let's be more accurate and call them anti-American bastards!) started in 2006, is under way to change the very nature of American presidential elections. Under the title ''National Popular Vote'', this organization of leftists are pushing a plan that would disallow the traditional Electoral College System and allow the 14 most populous States, mostly majority-Democrat, to determine the outcome of future presidential elections and disenfranchise the 36 less populous States. Under a second Obama term its chances for success are enormous and would give Americans less democracy, all in the name of given them more. This is the ultimate in vote fraud.

The Way I See It....Obama is not merely the presiding instrument of American decline, he is the architect of American decline. He wants America to be downsized, He wants Americans to consume less, and he would like to see the standard of living decline relative to that of other nations. He seeks a diminished footprint for America in the world. He detests (like he father did) America's allies, like Britain and Israel and seeks to weaken them; he is not very worried about radical Muslims acquiring a nuclear bomb or coming to power in countries like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. He is quite willing to saddle future dollars and generations toward this end and if he had been permitted, he would have spent trillions more.

This president has shown no inclination, and has no desire, to protect America's position as number one in the world; he would be content to see America as number 18 or number 67, just another second-tier economy with other nations, where China, India and even Brazil are wealthier and dominant. It is completely congruent with who Obama is and what he does. We don't have to assume that he is always unlucky in getting results opposite to what he intends; we simply have to see that he intends the results he is getting. He emphasized in his inauguration speech his goal of ''remaking America'' --and he is doing it, recognizing that in order to remake America he must first unmake America. He and Joe Biden must be killing themselves laughing at the many suckers that believed in their Hope and Change conspiracy. The only question is whether Americans approvce of their country being diminished and downsized and whether they are too stupid to give Obama another four years to finish the job.

The danger is that 2012 may not only be the most important election ín American's lifetimes, but that it will be the last chance they have to save liberty as Americans have known it since 1776.

Attention Obama-Lovers: The Truth is Not Racist !

It's bad enough when you have leftist-media idiots trying to find racist ''code'' in Republican candidates speeches. Like referring to ''Chicago'' is anti-black because Obama was a community organizer there, or ''apartments'' because most blacks live in apartments, or even ''inner city'' for the blacks in those neighborhoods. God-forbid Romney or Ryan come up with referring to apartments in Chicago's inner city.....the media will have a field day!

Now, I hear of a Australian douchebag living and blogging in New York City telling Australian readers she's also just heard racist speak in the U.S.A. This new-wave professional feminist, Chole S. (for Stupid) Angyal  writes:
          The United States is possibly about to grant its first black president a second term in office. And yet, in the nearly four years since he was elected, coded racism has become a part of the natural conversation like never before.
          Romney stood up in front of a television audience of 60 million people and said that gun violence in America happens because poor black single women are bad mothers.

What Mitt Romney actually said about gun violence and families is this:
          But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. There are a lot of great single moms and single dads. But to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone. It's a great idea, because if there's a two parent family, the prospect of living on poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will be able to achieve increases dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence, giving them opportunities and bringing them in the American system.

Romney said nothing like what this smart-ass twit claims. Moreover, if he is a racist then so is Barack Obama, who seconds after Romney spoke, added:
          I think that's one area we agree on is the importance of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts.

Susan Olden is astonished it is now racist to speak the truth about the link between the disintegration of families and crime.  She points out just a few of many studies:
          When children born to a single mother, they tend to show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Source: Osbourne, C. & McLanahan, S. (2007) Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083
          Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were a higher risk of committing crimes against property and people. Source: Anderson, Amy, Journal of Criminal Justice (11/2002)

It is Angyal who imposes on Romney's identification of a real social problem - and social tragedy - a racial spin, knowing statistics reveal the breakdown in families has been particularly devastating in the African-American community. Almost 70% of black children are born to single mothers and more likely to be poor and pass that poverty on to their children.

So I guess Bill Clinton must be a racist, too:
          In his 1994 State of the Union Address, he announced: ''We cannot renew our country when, within a decade, more than half our children will be born into families where there is no marriage.''

The great (black) comedian Bill Cosby must be a racist, too:
          No longer is a person embarrassed because they're pregnant without a husband. No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child. The lower middle class are not holding up their end in this deal.  These people cry when their son goes to prison. I ask them...where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen and how come you didn't know he had a pistol? And where was his father and why didn't he show up to talk to his son?

The Way I See It....the only person who seems keen to peddle negative stereotypes seems Ms Chole S. Angyal herself, damning Romney as one of the fabled racists of the Right for saying what Obama, Clinton, Crosby and the many research papers with their facts all support. She has drunk from the trough of biased swill of the American leftist media and has lost her Australian breeding of giving a Bloke-a-Fair-Go, but then again, blokes according to her feminist moral radar are mainly mysogynist anyway.

Of course, Barack Obama has never been too far away from playing the Race Card. A liberal group, sanctioned by the govrnment, called ''The Message'' made a YouTube video saying that Romney is so white he makes ''Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel.'' The president often aids and abets the divisiveness, even setting up a national campaign organization, ''African-Americans for Obama."  This attitude of his and the media supporting him is divisive and does nothing in uniting the country to deal with the current economic crisis.

     

Too Small A Win For Obama !

The second presidential debate, held at my old alma mater, Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York saw a much more aggressive Barack Obama in this brawl of a debate..... un-presidentially so. At times he seemed even to unsettle Romney with it. This will cheer his side, but I doubt it will much impress anyone else. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, once again seemed likable, capable and purposeful. This will confirm the impression he gave in the first debate, where to many voters he would have introduced himself for the first time. This second encounter will cement that good presidential image he naturally has.

In pure debating technique, Obama probably won. But the overall impression will not help him, because Romney was strong in pointing out the President's real weakness - a lack of performance over the past four years. Romney was very strong in his central pitch - ''we don't have to live like this.'' But if Obama won, it was because Romney failed to seize his big chance on the Benghazi scandal. First, he didn't point out Obama's failure to answer a blunt question from the audience; who in the Administration turned down the request from the State officials in Libya for more security before the September 11 attack and why? Even worse, Romney did not pick up on an Obama fudge - a fudge outrageously endorsed by the CNN hostess with a hooker's name; Candy.

When Romney pointed out that it took a least 10 days before for Obama to even call the events in Benghazi an act of terror, Obama responded that he did call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden on 9/12. Candy Crowley jumped in, interrupting Romney to support Obama's statement with, ''Yes, he did.''  Actually he sort-of did, but it was used as a generic ''act of terror'' term at the end of his remarks in which he repeatedly referred to the attack being a response to the Mohammed YouTube video. Specifically, Obama said, ''No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.''

Crowley's intervention to support Obama, in my opinion, was inappropriate, unfair, and lop-sided. She acted like a cheerleader, true to her ass-kissing media company (CNN) and as a result of her unprofessional conduct, she provoked pro-Obama zombies in the audience to clap. But Romney has only himself to blame for not knowing exactly what Obama had said that morning after the Benghazi attack and not for asking Obama: ''well, if you really did say it the morning after the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens that it was an act of terror, why this?'':

          But four days later, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists. Saying that the best information the government had was the fact that it was not a preplanned, premeditated attack but a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.

Why did you later say this, Mr President?:

          Obama taped an interview on ABC's ''The View'' on September 24th, nearly two weeks after the attack, in which he declined to label the attack terrorism when asked. Instead, he would only go as far as to say the attack ''wasn't just a mob action.''  That said, this will keep the debate going and hurt the president.

The Way I See It....I suspect in the end, voters will focus more on the economy, their bills, their jobs and the crumbling of so many of Obama's promises four years ago. And they will vote for hope - which this time isn't Obama. Not the Obama they saw today. To decide who won the debate, it should be critically scored based on which candidate did a better job of actually answering the questions.

To quote an American friend, James R. Tyrer, who agreed with the above comment, saying, ''my first impression is that it was not Obama, since at times he seemed like he had been stuffed with too many of the Democrats National Convention sophistic talking points and so just started spewing them out. Once, I think that early in the debate he strung 3 or 4 of them together with no relevance to the question asked of him.   So, scoring this as a REAL DEBATE, I would say Romney won, but not by a large margin.''   I agree with James and that is why I titled this posting Too Small A Win For Obama.

The Shiite Crescent Recedes; Iran's Power Wanes !

With global attention fixated on Iran's nuclear program, an equally significant development for Iran's strategic outlook is being overlooked. The Shiite Crescent that began to take shape in the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq has effectively receded. Regardless of the outcome of the nuclear issue, Iran poses a much smaller threat to the region than it did just a few short years ago. A number of events have converged to put Iran back in the box it now finds itself in. The most obvious and consequential of these are the onset of the Arab Spring and the uprising in Syria.

The concept of a Shiite Crescent was predicated on an unbroken chain of Iranian influence stretching into the heart of the Middle East via Iraq and Syria, and continuing on to the Levant and Palestine through Tehran's ties with Hezbollah and Hamas. Given its location, Syria was always the lynchpin of this crescent. The loss of a friendly government in Damascus would deny Iran an overland route to ferry supplies to Hezobollah in Lebanon. Iran's only option would be to supply Hezbollah by sea.......a perilous course given that the waters in between are dominated by Tehran's adversaries. In either scenario, then, Iran's aid to Hezbollah is set to steadily decline.

Significantly, this decline in aid will coincide with Tehran demanding more from its Lebanese ally as its low level conflict with Israel and the U.S. intensifies. Hezbollah's willingness to continue shouldering these costs cannot be taken for granted, especially given its growing domestic troubles. Without Hezbollah''s support, however, Iran's ability to wage an asymmetric campaign against the West is very much in doubt. Indeed, this year's string of failed attacks on Israeli diplomats and interests has demonstrated quite clearly the limitations of Iran's asymmetric capabilities. Also, the Arab Spring has significantly curtailed Iranian influence in Palestine by straining Iran's relationship with Hamas...likely irreversibly. The relationship between Tehran and Hamas, a Sunni group, was always built more on mutual necessity and Hamas' new links with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has allowed it to pivot away from Iran.

The Syrian uprising and the Arab Spring, important though they are, are only the most prominent examples of Iran's diminishing fortunes. Nearly as consequential are Iran's growing economic woes. Instead of using the extra revenue from high energy prices to address the structural defects of the Iranian economy, the government exacerbated existing problems by increasing subsidies to he lower classes that comprised this peasant dead-shit President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main constituencies. This policy's weakness became evident when the global financial crisis caused a sharp drop in the price of oil and natural gas, forcing Ahmadinejad to revamp his generous entitlement spending. Iran's economic outlook remains dim for the foreseeable future, in part due to the Western sanctions on its energy, shipping and banking sectors.

According to recent estimates, sanctions have already caused Iran's oil exports to decline by 45% and reduced the value of its currency, the rial, by 80% relative to the dollar, including an incredible 40% drop in the past week. The people are growing restive. Furthermore, the sanctions' impact are likely to be magnified by the economic downturn that the world's largest rising powers, including China and India, are now facing. As their own economic production declines in the near term, these states will have less incentive to cheat and circumvent the West's sanctions against Iran. Additionally, as the global economy slows, whatever oil Iran is able to sell ill come at a lower price, further draining the Iranian treasury.

The Way I See It....Iran's regional position has suffered due to greater pushback it is encountering from regional and extra regional states. Some of this is inevitable given the anxiety Iran's post-2003 rise caused among the Arab states, Israel and the United States. Nonetheless, Iran's own policies have only added to its troubles. In particular, its stupid threatening to push Israel into the sea or just wipe it out militarily. Also threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil supplies travels, has proved to be a major strategic blunder. It caused jittery Arab states to more openly align with the U.S. against Iran, as evident from, among other things, their reported willingness to consider hosting larger missile defense systems, as well as their participation in the massive U.S.-led naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz last month.

I see that Iran's continued support for the Assad regime has sapped its soft power in the Arab world, which has afforded Arab leaders greater freedom of action in balancing against Tehran, in part by strengthening regional organizations that exclude Iran, including the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, while undercutting organizations that Iran is a member of, such as OPEC. While the world continues to focus on Iran's nuclear program, Iranian political standing in the Middle East has suffered a string of serious setbacks. Iran's centrifuges may continue to spin, but the sun has set on the Shiite Crescent, for now at least.

OBAMA Throws Hillary Under the Benghazi Bus !

Two battles could kill the presidency of Barack Obama-- one with al-Qaida and the scarier with Hillary Clinton. We all know by now that on September 11, a heavily armed Islamist militia linked to al-Qaida launched a coordinated attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Bizarrely, the White House for 10 days insisted this attack with machine guns and mortars was just one more protest against as anti-Islamic video clip on YouTube.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters during a press conference last week that responsibility for the consulate in Libya fell on the State Department, not the White House. However, Sen. Lindsey Graham leveled conspiracy charges against the White House for attempting to cover up the terrorist attack.  Graham said on CBS' Face the Nation he knows for a fact the administration was told within 24 hours of the incident it was carried out by al-Qaida operatives. He said, ''They're trying to sell the narrative that the mid-East wars are receding, and al-Qaida has been dismantled and their silly leading-from-behind didn't work. When something goes bad, they deny, they deceive, they delay then the blame-game starts while the real truth is, we're not safer. Al-Qaida is alive even if bin Laden is dead.''  Yesterday, Hillary Clinton's State Department released the transcript of a briefing on the Benghazi attack that makes Barack Obama seem a liar.

It seems Obama doesn't mind biting the hand the feeds him. Former president Clinton has been working overtime to drag Barack's butt across the election finish line. Clinton, using his substantial credibility, has been hands-down President Obama's most effective advocate. So how is Obama awarding Clinton for his heavy lifting?  By throwing Hillary under the Benghazi bus it appears. To save his political career, Obama would more than likely even throw his own grandmother under the bus. And Biden's 2016 presidential ambitions (no, I'm not joking) provide him with an extra incentive to see Hillary become the fall-gal for Benghazi.

With tensions between President Obama and the Clintons at a new high, former President Bill Clinton is moving fast to develop a contingency plan for how his wife should react if Obama attempts to tie the Benghazi fiasco around her neck. Ed Klein, best-selling author of "The Amateur", says, ''I'm sure Bill Clinton is furious. He is not taking this lying down.'' Klein says that sources close to the Clintons are telling him that Bill has assembled an informal team to discuss how Hillary should deal with the issue. ''If blame for the security failures falls to Hillary Clinton, it's possible that she would even consider resigning over the issue,'' Klein said.

But as for the chance that Hillary would resign, Klein said in an interview; ''At this moment, it appears unlikely that she's going to do that. I men it would be an extreme step for her to take. Not only would it be hard to predict how it would play out as far as Hillary is concerned in the future, but it would certainly damage Obama's chances for re-election if she resigned.''

The Way I See It....if Hillary resigned before the election, Democrats would never forgive her for undermining Obama's election chances in a fit of pique. If she resigned after the election, assuming an Obama victory, the president probably would happily accept it, and she would be out in the cold. That might not be a terrible place to be considering what a second Obama term likely would hold in store. However, Hillary would be leaving under a cloud. If she is left with this stain on her reputation, it could seriously damage her chances for election in 2016. And this is what is really bothering Bill more than anything.

UPDATE: Today (16 October) Hillary Clinton decided to fall-on-her-sword and called a press conference to take the blame for the Benghazi fiasco. She said it was her State Department's responsibility for security matters and the President and Vice-President didn't handle those matters directly. She also said that her coming forward would avoid ''a gotcha'' moment with just 3 weeks till the election. I guess Hillary saw on what-side-her-bread-was-buttered  and sucked-it-up to stay in the Democrats goodbooks. How it will reflect on her political future is anybody's guess. For Obama, it's not over yet...I can assure you.

OBAMA: Clueless on Debate Performance !

According to an article in the Daily Mail (U.K.) last Thursday, President Obama walked off the stage after his underwhelming debate performance convinced he was the winner. Against viewers and a breathlessly fawning press who winced through it he was sure he delivered the rhetorical goods. He only realized he sank like a Chevy Volt dropped in water after his senior aides broke the news to the surprised and disturbingly oblivious Commander-in-Chief. Apparently the most transparent President in history is also the least self-aware. It  does raise the question of whether Obama's political success has owed more to luck than skill.

Those very same senior aides had been wrought with anxiety for weeks that Obama wouldn't fare well since he stubbornly (read stupidly) refused to rigorously prepare: ''President Obama made it clear he wanted to be doing anything else -- but debate prep. He kept breaking off whenever he got  the opportunity and never really focused on the event.'' Obama even poked fun at his own reluctance to hunker down; ''It's a drag. They're making me do my homework." Some aides anonymously revealed that Obama's disdain for Romney runs so deep he considered preparation for the debate beneath him. His dripping contempt was palpable on the stage, as he refused to make sustained eye-contact with Romney, looking down at his shoes as if they were outfitted with a teleprompter.

In fact, it was obvious that he did not adequately prepare but now we know it wasn't the the altitude or a demanding schedule (the day before the debate he visited the Hoover Dam much to his advisors' chagrin). He shirked what would seem like a top priority duty because he couldn't muster even the duplicitous feint of respect for an opposing viewpoint, disgusted that someone has the audacity to challenge his official proclamations. We had our growing suspicions confirmed, despite all the contentless folderol about the virtue of bipartisan cooperation he spouted during his first campaign for resident, Obama loathes dissent and only begrudgingly and condescendingly tolerates being contradicted. His brand of strident confidence (read arrogance) crosses a line into elitist hubris, shorn of every follicle of humility, convinced that all who disagree with him are benighted fools or evil adversaries. See my Aug/Sept postings on Obama's Un-Holy Trinity to see how well he was mentored.

In other words, there is something at the heart of Obama's animating ethos that abhors democracy (his Marxist upbringing), which necessarily gives free reign to a spirited exchange of competing ideas. His famous thin-skinned hypersensitivity (see July posting Mr & Mrs Cranky Pants), is a symptom of a lack of self-reflection -- criticism shocks him like a personal offense since it never really occurs to him that he might be wrong. And given our persistent economic doldrums, our embassies being attacked across the globe, Iran's inexorable march towards a nuclear bomb, the increasingly bombastic assertiveness of China and Russia, and an unemployment rate that remains too high, there are good reasons for him to reconsider his convictions. But alas, he marches on into blissful oblivion, convinced he's winning the war of ideas effortlessly, assured his floundering is perceived by the world as triumph.

The Way I See It....this raises even shouts out, the question: what other issues only appear to him through the filter of happy self-deceit? Does Obama really believe our enemies in the Middle East are so charmed by his swagger that they would ever coordinate an attack on our embassies? Is he convinced we are grateful he has kept us unburdened by the crushing demands of regular employment?   Is he under the impression Americans are thrilled with debt going into the stratosphere and managed by a socialist bureaucracy?

It is hard to imagine Obama will do much better in the next debate, unless better means meaner and more aggressively mendacious. his biggest vulnerability at the podium is his dour resentment for having to be there in the first place, piqued that he should have to account for himself before the people that elected him, that he purportedly represents.Obama will attempt to feign interest but will only manage angry indifference -- debates are for disciples of democracy, not technocratic kings.