Category Archives: Democrats

UPDATED: Romney’s Debate Strategy: Try To Throw Obama Off-Scent (What Was Obama Doing? Winning)

Democrats, Economy, Elections, Foreign Policy, Republicans

Barack Obama has made a strong start to the final presidential debate at Boca Raton, Fla., and is already winning this foreign-policy debate. Where the one man’s policies start and the other man’s policies end is anyone’s guess. What we do know so far is that both Romney and Obama care a lot about women and democracy … all over the world. I don’t.

Romney is being smart in as much as he is throwing Obama off-scent and directing the debate away from foreign policy to the economy. Romney’s foreign policy, after all, offers nothing new.

Later.

UPDATE: FROM MY DEBATE NOTEPAD (transcripts are here):

What was Obama doing? Winning.

Romney took the place Barack Obama had occupied 2 weeks back: that of loser.

While Obama stutters each time he attempts to conceptualize about economic issues, Romney does a similar thing when trying to differentiate himself from the president on foreign policy.

The degree of convergence between the candidates? Romney, like Obama, loves drone action, loves nation building across the globe, bitch slapping China, helping da Afghan women, making foreign aid conditional (rather than eliminating it); approves of state-assistance following bankruptcy procedures and state investment in R & D.

Obama had a nice line (upon which I’ve riffed a bit): “No reason why Americans should die, if Afghans can do their own dying.” Romney was, obviously, a little reluctant. If Americans are not dying in defense of borders not their own—someone must be leading from behind. (All presidents should, in my opinion, lead from behind, unless they are taking the lead on how not to lead very much at all.)

Oh, and with heels, Michelle Obama is as tall as Mitt Romney. On the sartorial front: Mrs. Obama wore a cute dress; so did Ann Romney. (I’m glad Ann took off the red garments. While I love a deep burgundy, red is such an ugly color that it colors everyone who wears it ugly.)

To Be Or Not To Be In Benghazi; That’s The Question

Barack Obama, Democrats, Foreign Policy, Republicans, Terrorism, War

Benghazigate is a minor issue in the grand scheme of American politics. The Dems and Republicans are arguing not over principles but over procedural mishaps. In other words: What happened? How did it happen? Who covered it up? How do we go back to doing what we did before IT happened. (“IT” being the Sept. 11 attack on the American embassy that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.)

Viewed through the two-party prism, America wants to know how it can get diplomatic immunity from the dangers of occupation and interventionism. That’s all.

Likewise, the megalomaniacal media is not for peace; it’s for Barack Obama. They’ve depicted this war president as your good kind of killer; a thoughtful, great leader who agonizes over his kill lists with excruciating care.

Tomorrow’s final presidential debate at Boca Raton, Fla., will revolve around foreign policy. Unless Mitt Romney flip-flops to articulate a patriotic, non-interventionist policy; one that is antithetical to BHO’s—he’ll be playing second fiddle to Obama, as far as the American people are concerned (mainstream media already hates him).

It’s inevitable.

The other, more realistic strategy that might see Mitt Romney tied for the trophy is to go for the president’s jugular on Benghazigate. This might work for him.

The Perils of Presidential ‘Yellow Peril’ Fever

BAB's A List, Business, Capitalism, China, Democrats, Republicans, Trade

The quote is from the current column, “The Perils of Presidential ‘Yellow Peril’ Fever,” now on WND:

“In the course of the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney was asked to differentiate himself from the justifiably despised George Bush. The Republican presidential contender, who has surrounded himself with neoconservative heavy hitters—and has called Dick Cheney a ‘person of wisdom and judgment’—listed a number of inconsequential distinctions.

Left off was a distinction that reflects favorably on Bush. Like Mr. Obama, George W. Bush did not ‘label China a currency manipulator,’ something Romney has promised to do on his first day in office. This dubious distinction, if anything, belongs to ‘the Clinton administration,’ also the only administration to ever so do.

Labeling China a currency manipulator, to quote Mr. Romney, ‘would allow me as president to be able to put in place, if necessary, tariffs where I believe that they are taking unfair advantage of our manufacturers.’

The same executive-branch omnipotence allowed Barack Obama to go all-out on matters menstrual. Judging by the questions culled by moderator Candy Crawly, America’s female lobby wants a sugar daddy in the White House. Such sentiments, with their attendant wish lists, are easily gratified, given the plenary powers of the presidency.

Yes, feelings are Barack Obama’s forte; facts not so much. The president, poor man, is up a stream without a paddle. Obama is working with all he’s got. It’s hard to blame him for his inability to explain the inexplicable.

And it is this. On the topic of the imagined perils of the ‘Yellow Peril,’ here’s what escaped Obama, who was as eager to impress voters with his me-too Sinophobia …

… Ultimately … Both the president and the incumbent flout freedom and flirt with fascism when they threaten to come between Americans and their cheap, Chinese, consumer goods. …”

The complete column, now on WND, is “The Perils of Presidential ‘Yellow Peril’ Fever.” Read it.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

UPDATED: Republicans Desperately Need To … Flip-Flop On Foreign Policy (Entrenched, Un-Rothbardian Meta-Perspective)

Democrats, Elections, Just War, libertarianism, Liberty, Middle East, Military, Old Right, Political Philosophy, Politics, Republicans, War

Democrats and Republicans are warring over who won last night’s vice presidential debate. Democrats say Joe Biden; Republicans Paul Ryan.

While I agree with Daniel Pipes’ impressions of Biden’s repulsive demeanor (excerpted below); to the impartial observer, the outcome was clear. This time around, Ryan took the place Barack Obama occupied last week: loser.

Or, rather, relative loser (BHO was an absolute loser).

Ryan, of course, was never as bad a loser as Obama, as he is far more intelligent, studious, and quicker on his feet than the president. But overall—and during most of the bickering—Ryan lost.

Here’s Pipes on “Joe Biden’s smirk”:

Actually it was not just the smirk – it was also the false hilarity, the 82 interruptions of Ryan, the finger pointing, the preening arrogance, and the talking down to the audience – that overshadowed all else in the debate. Not until the last fifteen minutes did Biden talk like a normal human being, and then he became quite effective. Before then, however, his ugly demeanor overwhelmed his words, leaving a powerfully unpleasant impression. In contrast, Ryan spoke earnestly and respectfully, even while getting in a couple of sharp elbow jabs.

Dr. Pipes and I diverge over the nature of the principles mentioned, but Pipes correctly points to the absence of any in the debate, writing that, “With only a few exceptions, both candidates (as was also the case in the presidential debate) stayed aloof from principles, preferring to make the case as to who is the more competent manager. … those endless numbers and the disagreements over small facts meant the discussion verged on the tedious.”

Particularly painful (to longtime observers vested in an Old-Right, non-interventionist foreign policy) was Ryan’s deer-in-the-headlights look under Biden’s relentless barrage of,

“You gonna go to war (Iran)? You’d rather Americans be going in doing the job instead of the [Afghan] trainees? You wanna send our soldiers to the border with Pakistan; let the Afghans step-up. We’re leaving! Let them step-up. The last thing America needs is to get in another ground war in the Middle East …”

I’ll say this much: Poor Paul Ryan knows his Afghan mountain passes.

His boss’s behind Biden saved.

The debate dovetailed with “Desperately Seeking A Flip-Flop On Foreign Policy,” this week’s column, now on RT. It pointed out that “in fact, there is little daylight between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, as far as foreign policy goes.”

UPDATED (Oct 14): ENTRENCHED, UN-ROTHBARDIAN META-PERSPECTIVE. In reply to the Facebook thread, and Myron Pauli’s entrenched meta-perspective.

Myron, you mean you would not wish to hear and see Republicans commit to not launching wars and leaving all foreign bases? What kind of libertarianism is THAT!? Not Murray Rothbard’s. He was a tireless political junky, never one to sit on the fence lazily and feign disinterested piety. Alas, we have this debate every week, Myron. It’s not a debate. You adopt the same meta-perspective on politics; I cut and paste a characterization of your response, and it is this: “… We libertarians must not comment on policy, for it compromises our precious libertarian purity. We must not apply the mind to the issues of the day to enlighten our readers and bring them closer to liberty, for no enlightenment other than the immediate and absolute application and acceptance of the non-aggression axiom can be entertained.