Romney Opens Up Decisive Lead in Florida

At the Tampa Bay Times, "Times/Bay News 9/Herald exclusive Florida poll: Romney 51, Obama 44":

Barack Obama's lackluster debate performance last week has dramatically altered the presidential race in Florida, with Mitt Romney opening up a decisive 7 percentage point lead, according to a new Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald poll.

The survey conducted this week found 51 percent of likely Florida voters supporting Romney, 44 percent backing Obama and 4 percent undecided. That's a major shift from a month ago when the same poll showed Obama leading 48 percent to 47 percent — and a direct result of what Obama himself called a "bad night" at the first debate.

The debate prompted 5 percent of previously undecided voters and 2 percent of Obama backers to move to Romney. Another 2 percent of Obama supporters said they are now undecided because of the debate.

"There's no question in my mind that debate made people stand up and pay attention, and it really wiped away any questions people had about Romney, whether they were undecided or soft for Obama," said Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the poll for the Times and its media partners.

Keep reading.

And see Alana Goodman, at Commentary, "New Florida Poll Bad Omen for Obama."

Very bad.

Alana breaks it down, especially on the Hispanic vote, purportedly the Democrats' biggest constituency after the "back in chains" blacks.

Smokin' Britney Spears Steps Out in Slinky Tight Grey Dress as She Attends Whitney Houston Tribute

Lovely.

At London's Daily Mail, "Simply beautiful: Britney Spears steps out in fitted grey dress as she attends Whitney Houston tribute."

Lindsay Lohan Endorses Mitt Romney

No surprise, but Robert Stacy McCain got right on that story.

See, "Further Proof That Chicks Dig Mitt UPDATE: @Tawny_Kitaen, Too? OMG!" (Via Memeorandum.)

More at Business Insider, "Lindsay Lohan Endorses Romney, And It's Actually a Really Big Deal."

Stephanie Cutter Won't Resign

From Katie Pavlich, at Townhall, "Exclusive Video: Cutter Stands by Libya Comments, Refuses to Resign."

She really does need to go. The noose is tightening.

Previously: "Bret Baier Slams Stephanie Cutter Over Politicizing Libya Terrorist Attack."

Bret Baier Slams Stephanie Cutter Over Politicizing Libya Terrorist Attack

At Gateway Pundit, "BLOWOUT!… Obama Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter & Bret Baier Clash on FOX (Video)."

Expect more of this as the Obama campaign unravels.

Four Americans were murdered – Including the US Ambassador in the 9-11 massacre.

The Obama Administration blamed it on a YouTube video – a lie.

Also at Hot Air, "Video: Bret Baier grills Stephanie Cutter on her Benghazi comments."

Republican National Committee Messaging Memo

From Lynn Sweet, "Biden's 'Smirking'."

Jerk With the Smirk Bombs Badly

At Jammie Wearing Fools:

If the aim of Joe Biden Thursday night was to win over the base of the Democrat Party, then he certainly succeeded. Crude, boorish, offensive, condescending and belligerent, he encompassed the trademarks of the angry left.

When you’re unable to debate the issues, then shout down your opponent, interrupt and act like a buffoon. In other words, he represented a party that has nothing to offer but smear, distraction and lies. He told whoppers that went unchallenged by the incompetent moderator Martha Raddatz and can’t possibly have endeared himself to independents on the fence.

FNC’s Chris Wallace, certainly no partisan, though it was the crudest performance he’s even seen...

Almost unbelievably bad. Almost.

Previously: "Blowhard Biden Bombed," and "Paul Ryan Beats Blustering Buffoon Joe Biden in Vice Presidential Debate."

Blowhard Biden Bombed

From Fred Barnes, at the Weekly Standard, "Biden Bombed" (via Memeorandum):

You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious.  You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard.  You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.

That’s why Vice President Joe Biden didn’t win the one and only debate last night with his Republican rival, Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan.

In fact, though Ryan had several weak moments—one of them was on Syria—the only conceivable takeaway from the veep debate was Biden’s out of control conduct.  It will be long remembered—and not favorably.

There’s one person who should be delighted with Biden. That’s Al Gore. He had the honor of having delivered the most over the top and weird performance in a presidential campaign debate when he sighed and frowned and acted frustrated in his first debate with George W. Bush in 2000. Now Biden has taken that crown—or dunce cap—from Gore.      

The only good thing about Thursday night’s debate for the Obama campaign was that it involved Biden rather than Obama. As a result, it’s not likely to have any impact in the election and may not even affect the polls over the next few days.

Keep reading. Actually, the result will be to keep the Romney momentum alive, as I noted last night. But see also Robert Stacy McCain at the American Spectator, "Crazy Uncle Joe":

Vice President Joe Biden took Americans on a one-way trip to Malarkey-ville last night, with a weirdly aggressive debate performance in which, according to one count, he interrupted his Republican rival 86 times. Even many of those who generally approved of what Democrat spinners referred to as Biden's "happy warrior" act expressed concern that the vice president was, to quote CNN's Gloria Borger, "condescending at times" toward Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

Make that "condescending at all times," and you may have a consensus that would include even the debate's liberal moderator, Martha Raddatz of ABC News. Biden's behavior resembled the hypomanic phase of bipolar disorder, as he grinned incongruously or faked laughter in reaction to Ryan's answers, rudely scoffed at the Republican's policy proposals as "bluster" and "loose talk," and bulldozed past whatever feeble attempts Raddatz made to halt his repeated filibusters.

Arrogant? Overbearing? Angry? If those are your ideal qualities in a vice president, Biden's your man...

More at Big Journalism, "Media Hits Biden: 'Stop Smirking!' 'Weird,' 'Jerk'" (at Memeorandum).

Paul Ryan Beats Blustering Buffoon Joe Biden in Vice Presidential Debate

I knew right away that Vice President Biden was going bully his way through the debate, looking to shut down Paul Ryan as a punk upstart without the credibility to challenge an alpha vice president. He scored only on the bullying part.

Like the first presidential debate, I wasn't so sure my instinct would be fully shared by the chattering classes of the Democrat-Media-Complex. But the results are coming in: Ryan won the debate. He remained cool and collected, knowledgeable on the issues, and got a couple of zingers in edgewise when Biden wasn't shouting down the entire production, including moderator Martha Raddatz.

AoSHQ has the big headline: "Ryan Wins CNN's Poll of Undecided Likely Voters, 48-44%Also Wins on Likability, Ryan 53% Biden 43% AP Poll: Ryan 51%, Biden 43%." And at CNN, "CNN Poll on debate winner: Ryan 48%, Biden 44%" (via Memeorandum).

And here's Mark Tapscott at Instapundit, "VEEP DEBATE THOUGHTS":

Vice-President Joey Giggles did himself no favors with constant laughing at Ryan, and may have done his boss some damage with his condescending finger-pointing and shouting at moderator. And Rep. Paul Ryan displayed an admirable level of composure, equanimity and grace under pressure.

Also from Michael Barone, "Thoughts on the vice presidential debate":

Joe Biden appealed to Democratic partisans, firing them up by attacking and, even more often, smirking at Paul Ryan’s arguments. But smirks only work when your audience starts off agreeing with you. That would be the case with strong Democratic partisans, but it’s not at all that clear that it appeals to Independents, or to those who are undecided or moveable. He was trying to dismiss Ryan’s arguments as ridiculous, in line with Democratic talking points that no rational person could possibly agree with him, but I think that only works with people who are already convinced. He may have increased Democratic voters’ enthusiasm—down in the dumps after Barack Obama’s performance eight days ago—but he didn’t do much in the way of converting those who are not already converted.

More at that link.

And Robert Stacy McCain reports, "PAUL RYAN SCORES CRUSHING VICTORY OVER BIDEN IN DEBATE."

Now over at Twitchy, "Why so serious? Biden’s debate grimace creeps out, angers viewers," and "Who’s sighing now? Joe Biden 2012 = Al Gore 2000?"

Also, "Chris Wallace on Joe Biden: I have never seen such a disrespectful debater," and "Biden lies: ‘We weren’t told they wanted more security’ in Benghazi."

Between the bullying and smirks, topped off with Ryan's cool demeanor, the post-debate spin is only going to get worse for Team Obama.

Bottom Line: Paul Ryan more than exceeded expectations. It's a big win for the GOP ticket and will keep the Romney momentum alive. More than ever, folks will say the race is Romney's to lose.

(Expect updates...)

Ed Driscoll links at Instapundit. Thanks!

Has Anyone Heard From Sam Tanenhaus Lately?

From Robert Stacy McCain, at the American Spectator, "Whatever Happened to Sam Tanenhaus?" (via Instapundit):

HAS ANYONE HEARD from Sam Tanenhaus lately? Many weeks have elapsed since his byline has appeared in print, no one can remember the last time Tanenhaus appeared on TV, and certainly his friends must be deeply worried about him by now. Has Tanenhaus succumbed to chronic depression? Has he gone off on a binge in Las Vegas? Has he met with foul play? The thought of fi ling a missing person’s report has crossed my mind.

Readers may not remember the name Sam Tanenhaus, and may need to be reminded that three years ago the editor of the New York Times book review section was almost ubiquitous as a political commentator. In February 2009, a few weeks after President Obama was inaugurated, the New Republic published a cover story by Tanenhaus entitled, “Conservatism Is Dead: An intellectual autopsy of the movement.” The article was perhaps as remarkable for its length—nearly 6,700 words—as for its argument. According to Tanenhaus, what we had become accustomed to think of as conservatism is not actually conservative at all. The beliefs that animated the American conservative movement from its post-World War II origins to the triumph of Ronald Reagan’s presidency had somehow been replaced by a false consciousness, and the failure of this ersatz imitation produced the fatality to which Tanenhaus presumed to apply his forensic skill, thus: “After George W. Bush’s two terms, conservatives must reckon with the consequences of a presidency that failed, in large part, because of its fervent commitment to movement ideology: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market; the harshly punitive ‘culture war’ waged against liberal ‘elites.’”

Any disagreement with the conclusions of this autopsy was brushed aside with a few sentences about conservative leaders who had not “absorbed the full implications of their defeat” and who “offered little apart from self-justifications mixed with harsh appraisals of the Bush years.” This was unacceptable, said Tanenhaus: “What conservatives have yet to do is confront the large but inescapable truth that movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead.” From there, he waded into the bogs of antiquity, in that misty dawn of conservatism’s emergence from the fever swamps of reaction.Tanenhaus went all the way back to Edmund Burke and then carried readers forward through more recent history to tell a narrative that, strange to say, located the point at which the movement went wrong in its unquestionable victories: the Reagan presidency and the subsequent capture of Congress in 1994. ConServatism was only respectable, it seemed, when it was powerless. Reagan’s success was a triumph of “revanchism” over “realism,” Tanenhaus asserted, while he likened Newt Gingrich—who led the GOP to its first congressional majority in 40 years—to French revolutionary Georges Jacques Danton. “The right, which for so long had deplored the politics of ‘class warfare,’ had become the most adept practitioners of that same politics,” Tanenhaus declared. “They had not only abandoned Burke. They had become inverse Marxists, placing loyalty to the movement—the Reagan Revolution—above their civic responsibilities.”

Continue reading.

A Den of Lying Liars and Crapweasels

Michelle just unloads on the administration. Must-see TV:

One of Worst Cover-Ups in the History of the Republic

I don't think it's "probably" one of the worst, but Liz Cheney hammers the administration all around:

Does Rush Deserve to Be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

From Randall Roberts, at the Los Angeles Times:

... And then there's Rush, one of the most prominent groups of the 1970s and '80s prog rock movement whose fans have been screaming at the proverbial windmills for the 13 years that the band has been eligible. Forty-four years after it formed, the band responsible for songs such as “Tom Sawyer,” “The Spirit of Radio,” the epic concept album “2112” and dozens of gold records has made the first cut on its way to the theoretically hallowed walls of the Cleveland historical institution.

It couldn't come too soon for the group's very vocal fan base, which has waged campaigns over the years to have Rush — singer-bassist Geddy Lee, guitarist Alex Lifeson and drummer Neil Peart — acknowledged. With each denial, Rush's fans had become more embittered. Petitions had been signed. Fans on Twitter raged nearly every day. The frustration is understandable.

The Hall of Fame's indifference to progressive rock is akin to the literary establishment's relationship to science fiction. With bands such as King Crimson, Yes, Jethro Tull and Emerson, Lake & Palmer unrecognized (Genesis is the exception, having been inducted in 2010), Rush's inclusion suggests a committee begrudgingly willing to acknowledge prog rock as creatively valid — but ultimately unimportant when discussing greatness and the “canon.”

Me? I respect Rush's vision way more than I actually like its music, and it's for a single inarguable reason, one that I suspect is true of many others: I can't stand Lee's voice. It's silly, annoying and detracts from the band's ideas and lyrics. “The Spirit of Radio,” the band's best pop song, would be perfect were it sung by someone singing in an octave (or four) less ridiculous.

And here's the playlist from yesterday afternoon's drive time, at The Sound L.A.:

3:02 - Refugee by Tom Petty

3:05 - Rock 'n Me by Steve Miller

3:08 - Show Me The Way by Peter Frampton

3:13 - Hey You by Pink Floyd

3:17 - Born To Be Wild by Steppenwolf

3:27 - Silly Love Songs by Paul Mccartney And Wings

3:33 - Gimme Shelter by Rolling Stones

3:38 - Down On The Corner by CCR

3:40 - Tom Sawyer by Rush

3:45 - I Hear You Knocking by Dave Edmunds

3:54 - Spirits In The Material World by Police

3:57 - Riders On The Storm by Doors

And here's a shout-out to Linkmaster Smith, at The Other McCain, "World’s Youngest Blogger Dances to Muse."

Charles Krauthammer on Libya Cover-Up

At RCP, "Krauthammer On Libya Cover Up: Hillary Clinton Told Video Story While Body Of Ambassador Was Next To Her."

Vice President Joe Biden Gets Thumbs Down From Voters in Pew Research Survey

Folks better be careful. Biden'll put 'em all "back in chains."

See: "Biden Viewed Unfavorably, Divided Opinions about Ryan: No Clear Winner Expected in VP Debate."

Paul Ryan gets a 44 percent approval. And from the report:

By a 42% to 25% margin, more independents expect Ryan to do better than Biden in the debate. Most members of both parties predict victory for their party’s candidate, but Republicans are more confident than Democrats. Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) Republican voters say Ryan will do the better job in the debate. Fewer Democrats (62%) expect Biden to do better.

It's gonna be good.

Image: Hey Girl, It's Paul Ryan.

Security Cut Before Libya Raid

This is the most inconvenient story for the morally-bankrupt progressive left, especially Rachel Maddow, at the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—The State Department scaled back U.S. security staff in Libya in the weeks and months before the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, despite requests for additional personnel, former U.S. security officials told a politically charged congressional hearing.

The requests were detailed on Wednesday in testimony by two former security officers in Libya to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and in diplomatic correspondence released by the panel.

Republicans and Democrats scrutinized the testy, four-hour hearing for its potential impact on the Nov. 6 presidential election. Republican Mitt Romney alleges President Barack Obama failed to safeguard diplomatic personnel overseas and ignored signs that an al Qaeda affiliate was preparing for terrorist attacks in North Africa.

The State Department's regional security officer in Libya until July, Eric Nordstrom, in testimony and in State Department cables, described his concerns that the administration was moving too quickly to pull out U.S. security agents and replace them with Libyan staff.

A focus during the hearing was a State Department decision resulting in the removal of a 16-member security detail from Libya in August, part of what the administration said was a move toward a more normal diplomatic presence in postrevolution Libya.

That security detail's former commander in Libya, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, contended that the Tripoli-based squad, known as a Site Security Team, could have proved crucial in fending off the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

"Superior weapons and superior tactics, that is what the SST brought," Col. Wood told the hearing. "Why they would turn that asset down is best answered by themselves."

The State Department disputed Mr. Wood's formulation. A senior State Department official noted the SST—lent to the State Department by the Pentagon—was based in Tripoli, not Benghazi, and rarely had any staff traveling with Amb. Stevens. "The notion that all 16 of them were going to go with him is lost here," said the official.

The official added that the 16 members were replaced "shooter for shooter"—though the majority of the replacements were Libyans trained by State Department Diplomatic Security personnel. The official said it was difficult to assess the total number of security staff working in Libya, because it wasn't a "static" situation.

The hate-America Democrats. What a disgrace to this nation. Thankfully the American people are seeing the light, if the polls are a good indication. With good fortune we'll be rid of this depraved Democrat administration on January 20th.

Project Veritas Exposes DNC Staffer in Double Voting Fraud

At Small Dead Animals, "Omigod, this is so funny! It's cool though..."

And at Instapundit, "BUSTED: New O’Keefe video: Obama campaign staffer caught helping activist vote twice.

Another Sucker-Punch Video Shows Black Thugs Viciously Attacking Teacher

At least they've got the suspect in custody.

At Fox News, "Teen arrested in sucker punching of teacher in Pittsburgh alley."

PREVIOUSLY: "Black Teenager Punches, Knocks Out Bus Driver in Kansas City."

Just walk the other way when you see a gang of black thugs. It's unsafe. And it's not racist to say it, despite the depraved rants of the morally-bankrupt progressive left.

David Paleologos of Suffolk University's Research Center: Obama Can't Win Florida, North Carolina, or Virginia

At The Hill, "Pollster pulls out of Fla., NC and Va., says Obama can’t win there."

Obama Denies Cover-Up, Blames 'Faulty Information' for Administration's Libya Clusterf-k

This is at the Los Angeles Times, "Obama says faulty information went out about Libya attack."

WASHINGTON -- President Obama on Wednesday acknowledged that his administration passed faulty information to the public about last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, but suggested those reports came in the interest of keeping the public abreast of what they knew at the time.

In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that aired Wednesday night, Obama said that “as information came in, information was put out,” and that those reports “may not have always been right the first time.”

There's portions of Diane Sawyer's interview with the president here, although the discussion focuses on the campaign, not Libya.

Here's Jack Tapper's report on yesterday's developments on Capitol Hill: