I honestly find this to be an unbelievable statistic.
According to the Gateway Pundit, Republicans turned out in fewer numbers for this year’s election than in 2004 and in 2008.
The enthusiasm gap that we heard so much about leading up to the election was supposed to be a double-edged sword – a drop in voter turnout for Obama, and a groundswell of support for Mitt Romney.
Only one edge lived up to the hype. President Obama received 10 million fewer votes than in 2008.
But his Republican challenger saw no edge on his side, earning roughly 5 million fewer votes than President Bush in 2004, and even receiving 3 million fewer than the hapless John McCain campaign in 2008.
So I have to ask my fellow Republicans – Where the hell were you last night?
Not showing up just granted four more years of absolute failure to this President.
It’s four more years of trudging off to work knowing that a majority of your paycheck will be going to support government programs that benefit those who see no benefit in working.
Four more years of 8% unemployment being the norm in America.
Four more years culminating in over $20 trillion in debt.
Four years of further creating an entitlement society, one in which our children will live their lives predominantly dependent on government.
Four more years of having to accept the President’s own mantra – that American exceptionalism is a thing of the past.
Where were you when liberals took your country from you?
Now we get to sit back and find out what America would have looked like had Jimmy Carter won a second term – fasten your seatbelts and hold on to your misery index, it’s going to be one hell of a ride.
As for our Democrat counterparts: It shouldn’t bother anyone to hear you shouting “Four more years!” But it should bother you that every other America-hating leader around the globe is now chanting the same thing.
They’re normally just so obedient.
But the Obama administration’s lies are obvious, and the cover up is becoming more scandalous on a daily basis.
Via the Washington Examiner:
Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration’s handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an “accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.
The letter marks the first time congressional Democrats have so directly expressed their dissatisfaction with the administration’s response to inquiries about the attacks, which resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and raised questions about U.S. security throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.
A Kerry aide confirmed that the committee intended to enlist the support of Republicans and Democrats and said the letter would likely be sent Friday. Another aide told The Examiner that the panel’s 10 Democrats and nine Republicans plan to sign it.
In other words, recognition of obvious bulls*** has now gone bipartisan.
Gabriel Malor in the Daily News writes:
It has been 15 days since the attack in Libya. And where are we? President Obama, who first confidently (but incorrectly) declared that the attack grew spontaneously out of a protest over a YouTube video, has finally admitted that it was an act of terrorism directed against Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. There was no protest before the attack, we now know.
We now know this because of journalists in Libya. We know this because of Libya’s own officials. But we know hardly anything from our own government about what happened in Libya because most of what we were told by the White House was a lie.
The President boldly vowed that the perpetrators — he declined to call them terrorists at the time — would be brought to justice. To that end, he called in the FBI. More than a week later, the FBI flew a team to Tripoli, but that is as far as they got. They have not traveled to Benghazi. They have not examined the scene. They have not collected evidence. They have not interviewed the people the Libyans have arrested. It has been fifteen days since the attack.
Why is this not a scandal yet?
The answer is that the President’s name is no longer George Bush. Had this obvious cover up occurred under W, it would be an epic media played scandal. But today, the media provides cover for a President coming under attack from even his closest political friends, such as Kerry.
That said, it’s actually worse than simply not providing answers that the American people deserve. It’s the active lying prior to, and since, the ensuing attacks.
CBN News Terrorism Analyst Erick Stakelbeck called Benghazi an al Qaeda “hot spot” and agrees that there was threat there well before the film’s release.
“For the Obama administration to continue to argue that these attacks were just spontaneous flies in the face of reality,” Stakelbeck said.
“One day before the attacks, Ayman al-Zawahri — who’s al Qaeda’s global leader — specifically called for al Qaeda attacks in Libya,” he explained. “One day later we see those attacks.”
This is a cover up of the highest order. The Obama administration knew that attacks were possible and left U.S. consulate buildings unprotected. The administration is directly responsible for the magnitude in which those attacks became successful.
And now, they know that there is evidence that something could have been done to prevent the deaths of these four Americans.
As Ed Morrisey writes, the administration “got caught flat-footed on the anniversary of 9/11 in the one part of the world where an American diplomatic mission would be most vulnerable — and they’ve been trying to deny it ever since.”
The American people deserve the truth.
There are reports tonight that a radical left-wing organization is responsible for helping to free a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay named Abu Sufian bin Qumu. Bin Qumu has been cited by multiple sources at Fox News as at least being involved with, and possibly playing the lead role in the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Those attacks resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American diplomats.
Michelle Malkin has revealed that the Center for Constitutional Rights represented Qumu and helped lead the charge in freeing him back in 2007.
Longtime readers know that I’ve extensively covered the troublesome conflict of interest at the Department of Justice involving Attorney General Eric Holder and his former law firm, Covington and Burling, which has represented a score of Gitmo detainees. See my archive of posts on the matter here. Many readers have asked whether the firm represented Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the former Gitmo detainee released in 2007 — and now named as the possible lead plotter in the bloody attacks on our consulate personnel, staff, and private security contractors in Benghazi.
The left-wing organization that helped spring Qumu was the Center for Constitutional Rights. Last April, the group issued an indignant press release painting Qumu as a harmless victim and blasting those concerned about his unrepentant jihadi ways. After a trove of Gitmo documents found their way to Wikileaks and were published by the New York Times, CCR rose to Qumu’s defense and parroted jihadi propaganda that the aggrieved Qumu was actually a friend of the U.S.
President Emeritus of the CCR, Michael Ratner, has long advocated for closing Guantanamo Bay’s doors, and for the right of Gitmo detainees within. In a 2009 article for the Huffington Post, Ratner sings the praises of his organization’s efforts, calling the release of two thirds of Gitmo detainees an “amazing success”.
While feeling that terrorists caught on the battlefield were privy to the same rights as ordinary Americans, Ratner also repeatedly advocated for the prosecution of senior-level Bush administration officials, calling the detention of those terrorists, like bin Qumu, unlawful. His op-ed for CNN made a case for prosecuting former President George W. Bush for torture under the War Crimes Act.
In other words, terrorists captured on the battlefield were being held illegally, but the Bush administration officials who were gathering intelligence from those terrorists should be tried for war crimes.
In 2008, Ratner signed an endorsement for Barack Obama in his presidential bid, based on a belief that Obama would best represent the rights of Gitmo detainees. He and 79 other lawyers said in a joint statement, that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration’s detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to “restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.”
Ratner, on the same day as endorsing Obama in word, also endorsed through donation, sending $2,300 to the Obama campaign.
Not too shabby for a guy who hasn’t officially held a campaign rally yet. White House correspondent Mark Knoller, indicates that the President is really only fooling himself, having already held twice as many campaign fundraisers than George Bush did during his entire 2004 re-election bid.
Via the Daily Mail:
According to Mark Knoller of CBS News, unofficial keeper of presidential statistics, Obama has held 124 fundraisers – about one every three days – since he launched his re-election bid last April compared to the 57 Bush held to raise cash for his re-election bid eight years ago.
Obama’s frenetic fundraising schedule had prompted the Republican National Committee (RNC) to lodge a formal complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about misuse of taxpayer money.
Speaker John Boehner ripped the President, demanding that he ‘pony up and reimburse the Treasury’.
‘Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House … for the president to make a campaign issue about it and then travel to three battleground states,’ he said.
‘This one does not pass the straight-face test. You know it, and I know it. It’s time for the Obama campaign to pony up and reimburse the Treasury.’
He added that ‘the president keeps trying to invent these kind of fake fights because he doesn’t have a record’ and ‘the emperor wears no clothes’.
What exactly has this administration accomplished that does pass the straight-face test?
So how does he get away with using your money as opposed to his own? RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, explains.
‘Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as “official events”, thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his re-election efforts.’
The rate we’re being stuck with? Air Force one costs roughly $180,000 an hour to operate, and the President has unlimited power to use it for his campaign tour stops.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder – A mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. (Mayo Clinic)
See also – Liberalism, Obama.
From the National Review:
It appears one of the great challenges that President Obama has had to overcome in office is that no one around him is as good at his job as he is.From Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas, page 66:
Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
How can you be better than everybody on your own staff, and still be so much worse than your predecessor? You’re only as good as your teleprompter, Mr. President.
Is there anyone who can deny the transformation of our country into an entitlement society? President Food Stamps seen proudly nodding in approval…
Christie spent most of his 30-minute speech on New Jersey budget issues, but brought up national policy toward the end. He said it is the least optimistic period he’s ever seen for the nation.“It’s because government’s now telling them, stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you. We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally,” Christie told Bush, Henry Kissinger and an assortment of Republican governors in a theater at the New York Historical Society.“When the American people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check,” Christie said.Christie never mentioned President Obama by name, but in the past has spoken about the need to reign in entitlement spending for programs like for Social Security and Medicare.
Tina Korbe at Hot Air adds:
Christie wasn’t content to merely point out the negative, though: He launched rapidly into an articulation of an alternate vision, the vision he’s implemented in the state of New Jersey. He cited his recent veto of a millionaire’s tax and his current push for a 10 percent income tax cut as examples of pro-growth policies.
He also had interesting words about the importance of in-person interaction with those with whom we disagree. ”We developed relationships with the other side of the aisle that allowed them to trust us. And that doesn’t happen overnight,” he said.”Day after day after day you have to sit with our colleagues and convince them of the goodness of your spirit and of the understanding that compromise is not a dirty word.”
Here’s where I have to disagree with the Governor. Isn’t compromise what took place in 2006 when Democrats took over in Congress? Isn’t compromise what led George W. Bush to abandon his free market principles, leading us down the economic path we’ve been on for several years now? Here’s an idea – stand on principle. Don’t compromise for the sake of saying ‘I reached across the aisle’. Do what’s right.
Bush himself spoke at the conference, refusing to – as he called it – undermine the current President.
Via Weasel Zippers:
Bush said the topic of the conference is how to grow the private sector. He introduced Christie by complimenting his “enormous personality” and “belief in the individual,” saying even Texans had taken note of the governor.
“We admire the courageous stance you take,” said Bush, who nominated Christie to be U.S. Attorney.
“I was a proud member of the Bush administration for seven years,” Christie said, later adding that Bush “inspired a whole new generation of conservative Republican leaders.” […]
“I have decided to stay out of the limelight,” Bush said. “I don’t think it’s good, frankly, for our country to undermine the president and I don’t intend to do so. But I do intend to remain involved in areas that I’m interested in.”
Isn’t it remarkable to see the former President afford Obama a fundamental courtesy that he was never granted during his term? All class…
I wonder if Abraham Lincoln ever sat around blaming the Civil War on Buchanan because of the high level of tension he inherited from the previous administration.
No wait, Lincoln was actually a leader who was busy saving a country…
Biden and Obama however, have plenty of free time to dream up excuses as to why they are abject failures.
From CNS News:
At a campaign event in Iowa on Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden blamed the continuing high level of unemployment in the United States on what he called “this God-awful recession we’ve inherited.”
According to the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research, the last recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009—just five months into President Barack Obama’s term in office.
In the 33 months since the recession ended, according to the NBER, the U.S. economy has been in a period of expansion. One of the current members of the NBER committee that determines when recessions begin and end is Christina Romer, who formerly served as chairperson of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.
Obama reportedly set to blame the results of the study on Bush.
Via the Washington Examiner:
Most of the soaring $1 trillion federal deficit is the blame of President Obama’s spending and political deals according to a pro-Obama think tank that pegged former President George W. Bush’s responsibility at just 35 percent.
While opening its analysis by blaming Bush and showing pictures of Senate GOP leaders, the Center for American Progress said that the other 65 percent of the deficit surge came on Obama’s watch, a combination of high spending, extension of the Bush tax cuts and additional defense spending.
“The analysis reveals that events that occurred before January 2009, including the onset of the Great Recession and increased spending—especially on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—attributed to 35 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit,” said the center founded by long-time Obama advisor John Podesta.
“The remainder of the deterioration did happen after 2009…”
File that under ‘duh’.
To be sure, Bush is not without blame for abandoning free-market principals, but Obama’s European-style socialism has made the economy infinitely worse.
The man apparently believes he was contacted by the former President ‘spiritually’.
The Secret Service agents reportedly stopped a man who tried to get past the security gate leading into Bush’s neighborhood. He tried to follow a car that had opened the gate, sources told FOX 4 News.
The sources said the man claimed he was there to pick up a package that Bush told him to come and get. That message was conveyed spiritually, according to the man.
Dallas police are holding the man and apparently still trying to decide what to do with him.
He was carrying a gun in a locked box in his car, but he does have a concealed handgun license.
Officals are concerned about his mental state, the sources said.
At this time, the Dallas Police Department says it has no reason to hold the man, however the Secret Service is continuing to question the man for more information. They do not believe the man was a threat to the former President.