Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Secretary Clinton Takes Blame for Benghazi, Obama and Romney Spar Once Again

I have to admit that I really am behind with my watchdog duties these days, but I've been doing my best to keep up at least on the presidential campaign. I have to admit that the  initial results of the polls had me wondering whether or not we'd have a new president by January of next year, but with recent developments clearly shifting in favor of Mitt, not the least of which was his nuclear payload of a victory against The Manchurian Moonbat, I'm much more enthusiastic about the outcome of the race in November.

I've been hearing a lot about a supposed "October Surprise" that usually hits in the aforementioned month, almost always to the detriment of the challenger, from what I understand. The reason I say "almost" always is because this particular surprise that I've discovered doesn't affect Romney, but rather The Won. What is it? Read on, fellow patriots.

According to Fox News, the Obama administration has decided to make Dear Leader look tough on terror again by using special forces and other assets to take out a few of our old buddies in AQ. Oh, did I mention that these are the guys that initiated the attack on our Benghazi embassy? I didn't, did  I? Well, they are. Convenient timing, no?

Of course it's convenient timing. Not to mention the news that Hillary has decided to throw herself under the bus in order to save the Almighty O. Will this help Obama? No, no it won't. Why? Because we're three freaking weeks out from the election and the Obama campaign is trying to shore up their base. This is the electoral equivalent of bailing out a sinking cruise ship with a thimble. Hillary, to use a more classical analogy, is now the boy who has put her finger in the dike to stop the leak. I seem to recall that the dam burst anyway and drowned the young boy after the townspeople made their way to safety, so one can expect that in this situation the same will happen to Mrs. Clinton and her fellow cronies in the administration.

The question of Mrs. Clinton's movies also comes to light in this development. Did she do this to help stop the bleeding, or did she try to exacerbate the situation by showing leadership where President Obama has previously shown none at all? Only you, the reader, and the facts as they come to light, can decide that. Unfortunately I don't have enough information at this point to make a call on what her motives were.

On the debate front, I must admit that I wasn't able to watch the whole thing given that I was busy working to support our bloated federal government, but I did catch a lot of the post debate coverage and have already seen the spin mills try to frame Obama as the Comeback Kid. Already Google turns up 12,000+ news items alone carrying that phrase, some of which are those of El Rushbo and other conservatives predicting the media's desire to paint Barack Obama as a sort of Rocky Balboa figure circa Rocky 2 or 3. Still, 12,000 hits in less than a second? Sounds like the Rushmeister was pretty prophetic to me.

But while the Media decided to give Obama a "comback" narrative to try to help bolster his flagging campaign, the citizenry who saw that same debate are largely giving the debate to Romney on the crucial issue of the economy. Hotair points to a focus group done by Dr. Frank Luntz, wherein about half voted for The One in 2008, and now only about four or five still plan on voting for him after this latest attempt to make it seem like he has a vision for a second term.

That's another thing: Obama did nothing, according to the coverage on both sides, to lay out an agenda for a second term. Here's the video, which aired on that bastion of Conservative thought, MSNBC: 


As Morrissey notes in the post I linked earlier, this is a big problem for President Obama. Why? Mainly because it leaves voters asking the all important question "why should I vote for you again"? If you can't answer that question with three weeks left to go before Election Day, you're in a heap of trouble.