DEBATE BREAK

FRANK CAMP

Going into the debate on Wednesday, the common wisdom among the anointed press was that Obama was going to smash Romney with his message. Interestingly enough, the reverse happened. Mitt Romney absolutely crushed Obama in the first debate, and the press is reeling. Not only is the press feeling light headed, the administration is feeling ill as well.

Every reaction following the debate fits a pattern that smacks of desperation and fear. Lets break it down. The press is throwing everything up against the wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately, what they’re tossing is some of the most ridiculous rhetoric that I have ever heard.

1. It has been said that Obama couldn’t be aggressive because he would be perceived as “an angry black man”.

2. It has been said that perhaps the altitude in Colorado was the cause of Obama’s abysmal performance. That gem was proposed by Al Gore.

3. It has been said that Romney cheated by bringing notes on stage. It is clear in the video that these supposed “notes” are nothing more than a handkerchief.

4. It has been said that Romney simply lied his way to victory. But if so, why didn’t Obama call him out on any of them in any significant way? Because Romney has the facts on his side.

These are just several of the many excuses that are being made by the Liberal press in the wake of Obama’s dismal debate performance. These ridiculous excuses for the debate are simply the most obvious indicator in recent history that the press has become irreversibly corrupted.

Besides several of the conservative media outlets, these excuses are not being treated as if they are absolutely insane, which is exactly what they are. If Romney had lost the debate in such a way as Obama did, and conservative media outlets made accusations that were as outrageous as these, they would be mercilessly skewered.

Our press has become so insular, so within itself that it has become a mockery. The press has become a cabal that has no other reason for existence besides propping up whatever democrat is in the running.

The democrats (partially using the press) will cheat to win this election. They will block voter I.D. Laws so that non-legal residents can vote, they will register dead people, as they have done in the past, and they will disseminate false information to change the outcome of this election to favor their leader. The only way that Romney can win this is if he remains aggressive, specific and passionate. Romney has the facts on his side, Obama does not.

On CNN, the day after the debate, Erin Burnett got Stephanie Cutter to admit that Obama’s $5 trillion dollar tax break accusation, which he repeated endlessly during the debate, was false. Yet the Obama campaign continues to use the $5 trillion lie. That’s just one example of many. Romney can dissect Obama’s policies with a scalpel, and the democrats will continue to repeat the same old lies.

So, here’s the solution. Romney must continue to keep Obama on the defense, he must be methodical and exacting in his dissection of Obama’s failed policies, and he must be able to counter every one of Obama’s lies in a specific and aggressive manner. If Romney does these things, which he has already started to do, he will win this election by enough of a margin that any foul play by the democrats will be rendered moot.

 

COPYRIGHT © 2012 FRANK CAMP

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics2012. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to DEBATE BREAK

  1. John H says:

    One of Romney’s PAC’s should simply run an ad showing Al Bore, uhmmm I mean Gore giving his “high Altitude” excuse complete with the two other voices agreeing with him, They should play this “Al Bore ad” 24/7 through the election. This man could have been President and this is the cr#p he spews?

    Another GREAT PAC ad would be to have Susan Rice saying that the movie trailer was the cause of the Consulate attack all the while showing footage of the facts, Libyan President’s interview, General Wood’s interview – “It was like they (Hillary Clinton) was asking us to play the piano with only two fingers”, etc.

    One & Done now has a GREAT opportunity to prevail!!! We need more young Americans like you to actually “get it”!!!!!! Thanks.

  2. Eric says:

    Great take on the debate!…I think Obama will come out snarling in the next debate. Romney will be OK as long as he remains the adult and just stays himself. Obama is acting like a child with this this latest big bird attack.

  3. Pingback: DEBATE BREAK « RubinoWorld

  4. Riddlemethat says:

    No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, blindly supporting a candidate who distorts information while berating an opponent for doing the same is the kind of hypocritical nonsense that renders your entire blog “moot”. There is simply too much information out there completely available to the public (e.g. YOU) for you to rave hysterically that the “media” cannot be trusted to accurately report the facts. You will find no arguments here that MSNBC and CNN have an obvious liberal bias, but if you believe that FOX news is unbiased, you may need a hearing aid and need to snap out of your hypnosis. There is no doubt that both Obama and Romney have misrepresented a great deal of information in order to try and swing the few undecided voters who would prefer to vote for neither. It does not, however, cancel out, justify retaliation or make it in any way right.
    You speak of political insulation, yet have no idea how insulated your own opinions are. You speak of voter fraud by democrats, have you ever heard of Strategic Allied Consulting or a guy by the name of Nathan Sproul?
    You reference Obama’s underhanded calculation to reach the “5$ trillion tax cuts” that I agree was untrue, but you don’t think to mention Romney’s misinformation regarding green energy, where he claimed that “In one year, (President Obama) provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world … into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1.”
    Only 21 of that 90 billion was earmarked for solar and wind energy over SEVERAL years, not one. And less than 40% was allocated to “green energy” including clean coal (which Romney supports), biofuels and advanced battery initiatives. The remainder was divvied up between weatherization of low income homes, updating the electrical grid and a high speed rail system.. Much of this stimulus money was also in the form of loan guarantees, not tax credits or cash as you might believe and many of these loan guarantees went unclaimed.
    EVIDENCE:(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/)
    He also claimed “I think about half of them… went out of business.” The truth is closer to 12%,in 3 companies, Beacon power, Solyndra and Abound which together borrowed 681$ million. BTW, Over 70% of the 43$ billion loaned to Beacon power is expected to be returned.
    He clearly fudged the numbers to make it seem like much more of a colossal mistake simply for the effect the number 90 Billion (which he said 5 times) would have on the audience. Which is exactly what Obama tried to do with the 5 trillion number. Where’s the media flare up about Mitt’s lies?
    EVIDENCE:(http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/)
    You consider yourself an informed American patriot, but how much are you willing to dig up on the people you support? Are you afraid of what you might find? Do you think that politics are a utilitarian game of power where the means (lying, smearing, shifty donations, etc.) justify the ends? If you do, you’ve forsaken the very role that we the people play in politics, that is: keeping politicians honest.
    Do us all a favor and do your research before you put this kind of brainwashed garbage out where people might read it and believe it.

  5. “A hearing aid to snap out of my hypnosis?” What a brilliant comment. Anyway, I normally wouldn’t comment back on comments like this, but I figured I would have a go. I’m going to address your comments one by one.

    1. You say that I “rave” about how biased MSNBC and CNN are, yet claim that FOX is unbiased. Firstly, it is clear, as you said that both MSNBC and CNN are, in fact, biased (though CNN is much much better). Second, I don’t think fox is unbiased, but I think that they are the LEAST biased. I think that for several reasons. First, they have a full day of “hard news” prior to their nightly programming (which is more opinion and analysis). MSNBC does not. Second, FOX analysis shows always have those with opposing views on their panels. Something MSNBC cannot say. And third, I think the less biased nature of FOX is demonstrated in their ratings. They dominate.

    2. The $90 billion comment. First, when he said he thought about half of them went bancrupt, he was speaking of the companies he had mentioned specifically. Second, though the money was spread out, it was still allocated within one year. Third, that’s not even Romney’s point. His point is government intervention is an extreme gamble. That selecting “winners and losers” based on your own pet causes with taxpayer money is dangerous. His point is that government shouldn’t be intervening in the private sector in such a way. Another example of this is the failure of the government promotion of the Chevy Volt.

    Link: http://news.yahoo.com/romney-zinger-obama-backs-green-energy-losers-061300060.html

    Link: http://www.policymic.com/articles/5308/chevy-volt-failure-shows-why-government-subsidies-are-bad

    3. Believe me, I research my beliefs in the extreme. I have my views because I have researched both sides of the arguments. That is why I not only watch FOX, but MSNBC and CNN as well. I read all over the Internet to gather opinions on both sides of the spectrum. Beyond that, I do my best to use my sense of logic to cut through whatever rhetoric that may be said to understand the point beneath the words. Like with the solar energy comment, Romney’s point was not the money itself, but government moving in on the private sector, selecting its favorites.

    4. Your comment is unnecessarily rude and surly. I don’t appreciate it. If you’d like to argue with me, I would ask that you remain polite. Thanks.

  6. Riddlemethat says:

    I will admit my closing statement was a bit rude. I apologize for that.
    Whether or not Fox is less biased than it’s competitors is a highly subjective area outside the bounds of polling. I have already said that MSNBC has an obvious liberal bias and pundits such as Rachel Maddow are clear spinster supremes, but Steve Doocey and Bill O’Reilly also share a equally strong bias to the right.
    I find it necessary to disagree so strongly with you on the issue of media coverage because you use equally uninhibited language to detract from it’s efficacy.
    “The press has become a cabal that has no other reason for existence besides propping up whatever democrat is in the running.”
    Let’s try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Concerning the statements you listed, I agree they are complete nonsense and are no excuse for Obama’s disappointing performance. But don’t dismiss entire networks based on specific instances, when equally embarrassing gaffs can be found discrediting FOX and it’s affiliates.
    However, not at one point during your lengthy response do you concede a single point of what I claimed is truthful. You seem to cleverly circumvent the idea that Romney is just as much of a liar as Obama in the way he misrepresents information he presents to the public as “fact”.
    This is apparent in the way you give Romney a pass on the 90 billion comment because you “cut through the rhetoric” but don’t extend the same incisive logic to Obama on his 5 trillion dollar comment. If you did, you’d see he’s implying Mitt is going to drastically decrease tax revenue, regardless of removing tax deductions. Whether or not Barack’s or Mitt’s claims are true are completely another story.
    Nor do you address the allegations of voter fraud perpetrated by Sproul and his agency.
    On another note, Obama’s failures in investment are blunders. No doubt about it. It has made me question the governments decision making in giving grants and whether or not they should have a role in this sort of investment. I have honestly had to change my mind on this particular issue. That’s why people debate, not to prove their own point, but to come to informed conclusions based on accurate information. But we cannot receive accurate information unless we stop making excuses for our favorite candidates or parties and demand facts, not “half-truths” or rhetorical statements.
    I hope this was in some way interesting and hope you do not perceive it as an attack. I did appreciate your response and do hope opposing points of view will lead to greater understanding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s