Irrespective of what you think about Mitt Romney and his positions (and I disavow Mitt’s “repeal-and-replace statism“), what he is in the process of demonstrating in this first of 3 debates, at the time of writing, is his superior intelligence, his ability to store immense amounts of information and apply it to bolster his arguments.
Abilities his rival, Barack Obama, manifestly does not possess. Romney has just demolished Barack Obama.
Ann Romney knows of what she speaks when she said, “One Thing I Know About Mitt. He Doesn’t Fail.”
This picture (of Obama, in particular) says it all:
The media, however, will prove blind to the effects of Mitt Romney’s superior intelligence in this demolition of a debate because they are rooting for the one candidate.
It matter not how well or how poorly Mitt Romney performs in Wednesday night’s “first of three presidential debates.” On the morrow, the headlines the media scrum will run with will approximate these:
• “Romney tries to match BHO’s hipness, but sounds hollow.” (That is if Mitt dares to crack a joke. And Romney IS funny.) • “Once again, Romney attempts to connect but falls flat.” (That is if if Mitt mentions any of life’s travails, or if he makes a logical argument, instead of sticking to emotions, as BHO does so well.
On and on. It’s tiresome.
Why don’t you have at it? Write “Tomorrow’s Headlines Today.” Pretend you too are a pre-programed journo pack animal.
Intimately familiar with the way information flows in and from the White House, Pat Buchanan relates that the day after the Benghazi attack, the intelligence community would have known this was terrorism. Yet 2 days after that, Jay Carney was talking a spontaneous attack. Who was it, asks Buchanan, who briefed Carney, and told him to go out and lie? In the White house Buchanan worked in it would have been the chief of staff and the NSC (National Security Council) adviser.
Next, 4 days on, out Susan Rice was trotted , she too a (willing) tool (in more than one ways) of deception. The FBI never went in to investigate the scene of the attack because Benghazi is an “utterly unsafe” city, although fifteen days following the attack, Rice promised the FBI was in there. That never happened, says Buchanan.
There is nothing new or particular galling, on the political scale of ethic, about what Buchanan has outlined.
The bigger scandal in all this is the “cover up of the cover up.” And the real tools (of deception) are the media Mafia, focusing as they are on poor Mitt Romney’s assorted hiccups, so as to cover for their Godfather Obama.
UPDATE (10/2): The consulate in Benghazi was, of course, a typical US government operation. There was full-on access to anyone who wanted it after the attack as before it. Arwa Damon of CNN tells of a scene unsecured after the attack, locals coming and going, rummaging through the compound and taking mementos (paid for by US taxpayers). Would that this manifest hostility to American presence in Libya deterred future diplomats from “duty,” but it won’t. What the fiasco in Benghazi means is not that America will divest from democratizing the word, but, rather, that the American taxpayer will fork out for fortresses, for Green Zones everywhere.
Like the late Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan lacks a philosophical core. Unlike Hitchens, Sullivan is not a formidable intellect, rhetorician and writer. Hitchens didn’t have to struggle to stay interesting. Sullivan does. The fruits of Sullivan’s Struggle are splayed on the latest cover of Newsweek, provocatively titled, “President Obama: The Democrats’ Ronald Reagan.”
Like any liberal who doesn’t have to worry about a pay cheque, crunchy con Sullivan is still convinced that Barack Obama can “hold his staff out” over stormy waters, and divide the sea so that the people may pass through “with a wall of water on either side.”
Obama’s “tally of achievements is formidable,” declares Sullivan, who then proceeds to praise every thing BHO has done to cripple the American economy (including extending or entrenching US hegemony abroad):
…the near-obliteration of al Qaeda, democratic revolutions in the Arab world that George Bush could only have dreamed of, the re-regulation of Wall Street after the 2008 crash, stimulus investments in infrastructure and clean energy, powerful new fuel-emission standards along with a record level of independence from foreign oil, and, most critically, health-care reform. Now look at what Obama’s second term could do for all of these achievements. It would mean, first of all, that universal health care in America—government subsidies to people so they can afford to purchase private insurance and a ban on denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions—becomes irreversible. Yes, many details of the law would benefit from reform, experimentation, and fixes—especially if Republicans help to make them. But it’s still the biggest change in American health care since the passage of Medicare in 1965.
Sullivan’s piece tells you about the degree to which neocon and left-liberal political “thinking” have converged.
Senator Hillary Clinton and neoconservative blogger Andrew Sullivan share more than a belief that “Jesus, Mohamed, and Socrates are part of the same search for truth.” They’re both Christians who won’t confess to their sins.
Both were enthusiastic supporters of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, turned scathing and sanctimonious critics of the war. Neither has quite come clean. Both ought to prostrate themselves before those they’ve bamboozled, those they’ve helped indirectly kill, and whichever deity they worship. (The Jesus-Mohamed-and-Socrates profanity, incidentally, was imparted by Sullivan, during a remarkably rude interview he gave Hugh Hewitt. The gay activist-cum-philosopher king was insolent; Hewitt took it .)
I won’t bore you with the hackneyed war hoaxes Sullivan once spewed, only to say that there was not an occurrence he didn’t trace back to Iraq: anthrax, September 11, and too few gays in the military—you name it; Iraq was behind it. Without minimizing the role of politicians like Clinton, who signed the marching orders, pundits like Sullivan provided the intellectual edifice for the war, also inspiring impressionable young men and women to sacrifice their lives and limbs to the insatiable Iraq Moloch.
