Acts of Terror

Via Legal Insurrection.

Meet Mitt Romney's Binder Babes

Well, the progs are in fits about Mitt Romney's "binder full of women," and boy, are they jonesin' to debunk the idea that Mitt's got creds with the ladies. See the idiots at Mememorandum and especially David Bernstein, "Mind the Binder."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Revealed: The high-flying women in Romney's 'binder'... but was he telling the truth about his cabinet selection process?" And also at the Hill, "Binders' remark shines spotlight on Romney appointments as governor."

Big Bird. Binders full of women. The progs are really struggling to come up with something, just like President Clusterf-k.

Talk about playing "small ball." These people are complete losers.

Smokin' Alessandra Ambrosio's in Victoria's Secret's $2.5m Fantasy Bra

That fashion show is coming up soon, I'll have full coverage.

Meanwhile, at London's Daily Mail, "'I was worried. I was in total mother mode': New mom Alessandra Ambrosio's race to get in shape to model Victoria's Secret's $2.5m Fantasy Bra."

Attempted Terrorist Attack at New York Federal Reserve Bank

At the New York Post, "Terrorist attempts to blow up Federal Reserve Bank."

And at WABC-TV New York, "Plot foiled to attack Federal Reserve in Manhattan" (via Memeorandum).

More at the New York Times, "Man Accused of Plot to Blow Up Federal Reserve Bank of New York."

Expect updates...

The Morning After: Obama Takes Second Debate 'On Points'

Charles Krauthammer is a tad more charitable than I would be, but his basic gist is in the same park as my comments last night. Obama had a good night. He was aggressive and clearly wanted to make up ground. And my main agreement with Krauthammer is on the point that Romney was in his wheelhouse on the longer soliloquies. But he mentions that Romney missed his chance on Libya. I too was waiting for Romney to bring up Obama's appearance on Letterman, where he was still talking about the so-called anti-Muslim video two weeks later, and about the same time he was on Univision, where the Mexican journalists stood in as the fourth branch for the American media. Clearly, in the president's mind it wasn't an "act of terror" at all, but a "spontaneous" event, just as Susan Rice was tasked to argue nearly a week after the deaths of our countrymen in Benghazi.

Because it was close, the leftist media will spin that Obama trounced Romney. The New York Times is up to the task this morning, "For the President, Punch After Punch":

But the Wall Street Journal comes back with the sober big picture analysis, "A President Without a Plan":

President Obama bounced off the canvas with a more spirited debate at Hofstra University on Tuesday night, as everyone expected he would. He was animated and on the attack. The question we kept asking as the evening wore on, however, is what does he want to do for the next four years?

At least two questioners put the point directly, yet Mr. Obama never provided much of an answer. Sure, he wants to hire 100,000 more teachers, as if there is the money to hire them or it would make much difference to student outcomes.

He wants to invest in "solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars," which probably means more Solyndras and A123s (see nearby). He wants to raise taxes on the rich—that's one thing he's really passionate about. Oh, and he does want to pass the immigration reform he said he'd propose four years ago but never did propose in his first two years when his party controlled Congress and he might have passed it.

But otherwise, what's his case for four more years? Judging by Tuesday's debate, the President's argument for re-election is basically this: He's not as awful as Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama spent most of his time attacking either Mr. Romney himself (he invests in Chinese companies), his tax plan as a favor for the rich ("that's been his history") or this or that statement he has made over the last year ("the 47%," which Mr. Obama saved for the closing word of the entire debate).

Continue reading.

More at Memeorandum and Politico.

And at Twitchy, "Romney right, Obama and water-carrier Crowley wrong on ‘act of terror’ claim."

Hofstra Presidential Debate — FULL VIDEO

Here's the complete debate clip:

PREVIOUSLY: "Candy Crowley Shills for Obama at Hofstra Debate!"

And the inevitable, "CNN Poll: Nearly half say Obama won showdown." (Via Memeorandum.)

As I noted earlier, I thought Obama was holding his own, but clearly, he got some help from the court shill Candy Crowley.

Indeed, see Astute Bloggers, "WOW: LUNTZ INDIE GROUP SWINGS TO ROMNEY AFTER DEBATE #2."

And FWIW, here's the report at NYT, "Obama and Romney Turn Up the Temperature at Their Second Debate." (Via Memeorandum.)

President Obama and Mitt Romney engaged Tuesday in one of the most intensive clashes in a televised presidential debate, with tensions between them spilling out in interruptions, personal rebukes and accusations of lying as they parried over the last four years under Mr. Obama and what the next four would look like under a President Romney.

RTWT.

Bottom Line: The president will have slowed Mitt's momentum a bit, with the help of the moderator. The later polling data might find Romney on top, especially if there's a big controversy over the moderator's bias. But the ultimate sparks are going to fly when the final debate of the season is held on October 23rd, which will be on foreign policy. Romney will be ready. He won't let Obama get propped up by the so-called "impartial" debate moderators. It's going to be an epic smack down.

Candy Crowley Shills for Obama at Hofstra Debate!

I saw the pre-debate criticisms of Candy Crowley, and I held back from commenting. I wanted to give her a chance. But I can honestly say now that this was the worst debate moderation in presidential debate history --- and I've been watching them since 1988. The moderator's jobs is to moderate, which means to act as a referee and keep the proceedings on track. A moderator is never a participant, for to do so means inevitably to take up sides. So for President Obama to call on Crowley for a fact check during the debate is like asking the NFL refs to give you a favorable spot for the first down in the 4th quarter of a game that's all tied up. No one would ever countenance it, and as the post-debate spin picks up, especially over the next couple of days, CNN's going to come in for enormous criticism for propping up the president and violating the announced rules and advanced directives of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Ann Althouse has this at Instapundit:

CANDY CROWLEY INSERTED HERSELF INTO THE DEBATE, OUTRAGEOUSLY, to break up Romney’s most dramatic moment, when Romney was questioning what Obama said the day after the attack in Benghazi. Obama had said he’d called the attack an “act of terror” and Romney was staring him down about it. Crowley broke up the showdown, saying “He did in fact call it an act of terror,” which took the wind out of Romney’s sails. We were advised to check the transcript, but the dramatic moment was lost. The transcript shows Romney was right, and Crowley and Obama were wrong.

Althouse updates with Patrick Brennan at National Review, "‘An Act of Terror’?" (at Memeorandum):

President Obama claimed tonight that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror the day after it occurred, in the Rose Garden. Mitt Romney seemed skeptical, and asked him whether he stood by that statement — that he’d called it terrorism, rather than a spontaneous act arising out of a demonstration.

But here are his remarks....

One could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to label it an act of terrorism. One reason why this might be: According to U.S. law, acts of terrorism are premeditated. The Obama administration’s line for days following Obama’s Rose Garden statement suggested that the attack wasn’t premeditated.

Read the whole thing for the context. And while it's clear that the president only made an oblique reference to "acts of terror" ---- and not an explicit, purposeful condemnation of a premeditated attack ---- the exact wording provides presidential wiggle room, and then progressives will just continue to shill for the administration's cover up.

This was a new low in presidential debates. If folks will remember, as I always argue, we're no longer in a media environment where professionalism demands strict impartiality. We've long returned to a "partisan press" in which media outlets take sides. What was entirely new tonight is that a debate moderator who was charged with the trust of objectivity and fairness injected herself into a debate to deflate the momentum of the Republican challenger. It was as if Candy Crowley was of the monarch's cortege, and she juggled a court performance to place the king in the best possible light, not allowing a glimpse of true frailty of the man behind the throne. It was the spectacle of feigned impartiality in the service of entrenched power. In this case, the president was being brought down low, with truth to power charging from the challenger's attacks, then only to be deflated by a "fact-checking" moment that works to the default advantage of the incumbent. That alone made the debate a travesty of democracy.

There in fact had been a good number of back-and-forth rounds between the candidates, and I was expecting that folks might, some more moderate folks, call it a draw. But on the economy, on taxes and ---- especially ---- on energy policy, Mitt Romney was eviscerating the president. It was almost no contest at those moments. Romney, like during the first debate, was in his wheelhouse. And Crowley clearly sensed the president's trouble and gladly shilled for him at key points, shouting down Romney's attempts to get in brief clarifications and then, of course, taking sides when it came to the president's request to "check the transcript." Seriously. I've never seen such an outrageous thing at a debate. But clearly, Obama needed help.

More at Memeorandum.

Expect updates.

9:29pm Pacific: Fact-checking the debate fact-checker, at WaPo, "Fact Check: Libya attack":

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.

But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.

Romney was right.

9:42pm Pacific: Here's the headline at Astute Bloggers, "HUGE BREAKING NEWS: OMFG: OBAMA LIED AND CROWLEY SWORE TO IT: OBAMA DID NOT UTTER THE WORD TERROR AT THE ROSEGARDEN SPEECH!"

And over at Althouse's blog, "'The moderator will not... intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period'":

That was the contractual term that Candy Crowley agreed to and blatantly violated in the debate tonight. She let us know in advance that she wasn't going to follow it...

More at the link.

And boy, like I said, she sure did blow off the advance directives not to deviate from the impartial script. It's a staggering assault of the process, and a blow to the decency and sense of fair play of the average voter.

9:55pm Pacific: At Breitbart, "CROWLEY'S FALSE FACT CHECK SAVES PRESIDENT, DERAILS DEBATE - UPDATE: CROWLEY BACKTRACKS."

This is a scandal; a total and complete media scandal committed by a woman who promised to violate her contract and to insert herself into the debate. All she did for weeks was brag about how she intended to grab the spotlight -- and boy did she ever.

Absolutely disgraceful.

The Buck Stops In the Oval Office

Althouse has been hammering on Hillary Clinton's "I take responsibility" moment.

See, "Hillary in '08: 'The Buck Stops In The Oval Office'."

See this one as well, "Drudge depicts women turning away from Obama."

President Baracky Secures the Highly Coveted Honey Boo Boo Endorsement!

Seems to me that Honey Boo Boo's family's more the religion and gun-clinging demographic, but hey, no doubt O will take what he can get.

At London's Daily Mail, "Fidgeting Honey Boo Boo endorses 'Marack Obama' in hilarious Jimmy Kimmel appearance."

Emma Kuziara Calendar Bikini Beach Photos at Egotastic!

Here's another one of those British beauties for some pre-debate Rule 5.

At Egotastic! "Emma Kuziara Topless Calendar Bikini Photos for a Perfectly Proper Introduction."

And don't tell Scott Eric Kaufman. The asshole will probably launch another attempt to get me fired.

Topless British bikini babes --- the horrors!

Five Years and Four Million Visitors

This blog's 5th anniversary came on October 7th.

I actually forgot about it at the time, although I was planning to write something to mark the occasion. It's not that big a deal, frankly. Folks like Jeff Goldstein have been blogging over ten years (and it's not getting any easier over there, it turns out). But longevity in the blogosphere is worth noting, since so many come and go. And "AmPower" also recorded 4 million visitors on Sitemeter a week or so back, so that's another milestone. But again, compared to Althouse, it's still a tiny number of hits.

Yesterday I was excited to get home from work so I could do some blogging, and tonight I'll be excited to post my thoughts on the presidential debate. So I guess that's the best sign that it's been worthwhile: I still haven't burned out, and that's after years of leftist attempts to shut me down.

I could do a huge roundup of thanks to all the big bloggers who've helped me, but I've been there done that. Instead, folks should check out Swedish Meatballs Confidential (pNSFW)." The guy was one of the first dudes to actually read my blog and provide feedback.

In any case, here's to another five years, and by then I will have said far more of moral significance than political scientist Daniel Drezner, who just posted his 10th anniversary post in the most anodyne iteration one could imagine. It's so nice not to worry about the academic prestige hierarchy of the political science profession. Most of those folks bore the hell out of me, but there's still a few good souls left in the field, so I'll stick around a little longer.

Lara Logan Speaks Truth to War on Terror

An amazing speech, via Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage Magazine, "Lara Logan: “Our Way of Life is Under Attack” (VIDEO)":

The quotes and excerpts of Lara Logan’s speech don’t really properly capture it the way that watching the video does. This is an emotional speech and it’s unusual because it’s been a while since we’ve heard anyone talk like this. It’s a speech that takes us back ten years to the early days of the War on Terror. And those ideas are apparently a core part of what she believes.

Lara Logan’s theme is that abandoning Afghanistan will turn it back over into a base for Islamic terrorists. And in between advocating serious engagement with Afghanistan and blasting the refusal to talk about Pakistan’s role in Al Qaeda, she slips in the occasional dangerous unexplored idea about the nature of the enemy.

'I Take Responsibility'

As I noted previously, I'm not sympathetic to Hillary playing the scapegoat. She was there at the service for the four dead Americans, as Charles Krauthammer argued. Now she's throwing herself under the bus, it turns out, but it's not two separate administrations. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the buck stops in the Oval Office. More on that at the Wall Street Journal, "Hillary's 'Responsibility'":

Hillary Clinton ducked questions Friday about what and when she knew about the nature of the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, and then she got the heck out of D.C. The Secretary of State, who flew to Peru Monday for a conference on women's empowerment, is savvy enough to smell political trouble.

Throughout the fallout from Libya, she has taken a low profile. But this position is becoming increasingly untenable. The focus of Congressional attention and debate has shifted to her shop. Even as they defer to an internal investigation—whose conclusions won't be out before Election Day—Joe Biden and the White House last week dumped responsibility for the security and intelligence failure that led to the assault on the Benghazi mission on the State Department and CIA. Does the Secretary care to comment?

On the day after the September 11 attacks, Mrs. Clinton stood alongside President Obama at the White House without speaking. When the Administration needed someone to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows the next weekend to discuss Libya, Mrs. Clinton was the natural choice. Yet she made no appearance and was replaced by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice.

An early Obama supporter and candidate to replace Mrs. Clinton in a second term, Ms. Rice offered the now infamous view that the attacks were a "spontaneous reaction" to an anti-Islam YouTube video. For eight days after the assault, the Administration stuck to that story....

In Thursday's Vice Presidential debate, Mr. Biden claimed, "We did not know they wanted more security again." A White House spokesman said on Friday that the Veep was referring only to the White House, not State.

Asked about this on Friday, Mrs. Clinton passed on the opportunity to clarify what she was doing the night of the attacks, when she knew about changed intelligence, and what she told Mr. Obama. She said a review board is looking into it, and in passing she defended Ms. Rice whom she said "had the same information from the intelligence community as every other senior official did."

CNN reported Monday night from Lima that Mrs. Clinton finally addressed the White House comments by saying "I take responsibility" for what happened in Benghazi. She added that "I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha" so close to an election. That's nice, but it still leaves many questions, such as why her own comments to the U.N. differed so much from the substance and tone of Mr. Obama's. Saying you take "responsibility" in brief interviews from faraway Peru is a long way from acting as if you're responsible.

And see Memeorandum.

Jew-Hatred at Occupy Wall Street's Facebook Page

Via Pamela Geller, "#OWS OCCUPY JEW-HATRED."

Here's Occupy's Facebook page.

PREVIOUSLY: "Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III and Progressive Evil: Denial of Israel-Hatred Enables Exterminationist Anti-Semitism," and "Occupy Wall Street and the Jews":

Walter James Casper III has to answer for his ugly endorsement of the hate. Walter James Casper III has endorsed the anti-Semitism of the Occupy movement. Add this on top of his anti-black racist sentiments and the sponsorship of hatred at his blog under "free speech" pretenses, and it's beyond clear the depths of evil this man will go to destroy decent people, Jews and racial minorities especially, because they don't toe the collectivist line.

The New Blacklist

What I've been saying for a long time now.

From John Fund, at National Review, "Some proponents of gay marriage would rather intimidate their critics than debate them."

Romney Donations Surge to $170 Million for September

Romney's planning on burying the Democrat ticket in the last couple of weeks, and they've got the cash for it.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Romney's donations hit $170 million, close to Obama's":

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney saw a surge of donations in September, bringing in $170 million, a major cash infusion that will help pay for a deluge of advertising in the final weeks of the White House contest.

Romney came close to matching the $181 million that President Obama raised last month — and he did so during a rocky period for his candidacy and before his solid performance in the Oct. 3 debate, an event that greatly energized the Republican base.

Campaign officials indicated Monday that October was shaping up to be even better on the money front. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul tweeted that the campaign had raised more than $27 million in online donations in the first two weeks, better than any month's total so far.

The rapid contribution pace set by the former Massachusetts governor in September puts him on track to join Obama in raising more than $1 billion for his presidential bid by election day, with both surpassing the previous record.

As of Sept. 30, Romney had pulled in nearly $839 million through his campaign, the Republican National Committee and a joint fundraising committee, according to Federal Election Commission data and the Campaign Finance Institute.

And the details of the ad blitz at the Washington Post, "Romney tries to bury Obama in ads":

Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his allies are banking heavily on a high-risk, high-reward media strategy in the final weeks of the campaign, hoping that burying President Obama in ads will give them a crucial edge on Election Day.

Ad purchases in the presidential race doubled or in some cases tripled last week in swing states such as Colorado, Florida, Iowa and Virginia, tracking data show. The surge is being driven by Romney and well-funded allies, who decided against running more ads earlier in the campaign in favor of a big bang at the end.

Restore Our Future, a super PAC dedicated to helping Romney, has booked $14 million worth of ads in nine states for the final week of October — more than it spent on ads during the month of September. The group is also ramping up its spending, airing a mix of ads criticizing Obama and extolling Romney in Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia.

Charles R. Spies, the super PAC’s treasurer, said conservative groups “have been very effective in leveling the playing field” with Obama. “That effort will continue at an increasing level going forward,” he said.

The GOP effort has gained momentum with Romney’s advance in the polls since the first presidential debate in Denver, where Obama turned in a widely panned performance. The Oct. 3 event sparked an influx of donations to Romney’s campaign and to conservative groups supporting him, giving them more resources for the final push, strategists said.

The ramped-up advertising by Republicans left Obama behind his GOP foes in total ad expenditures last week for the first time since the summer, though he has massive cash reserves after raising $181 million in September. Obama and his key outside ally, the Priorities USA Action super PAC, have kept up a steady barrage ads attacking Romney in Ohio and other battlegrounds.

It's not like they'll be hurting for material, or anything:

Pew Poll: Independent Voters Say Ryan Bested Biden in Debate

The Weekly Standard reports:

A new Pew poll of registered voters shows that independent voters who tuned into the vice presidential debate last Thursday preferred Paul Ryan to Joe Biden by an 11-point margin:

Six-in-ten voters say they watched at least a little of last Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan at Centre College in Danville, KY. Among debate watchers, as many say Biden did the better job (47%) as say Ryan (46%)....

Republican voters overwhelmingly say Ryan did the better job in the debate (88%); a comparable percentage of Democrats (89%) say Biden did the better job. Among independents, 50% say Ryan did better, 39% say Biden.

PREVIOUSLY: "Polls Show Joseph Biden — 'Malarkey McSmirk' — Losing Debate to Paul Ryan."

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "The VP Debate: A True Horror Story."

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty Resigns

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Dalton 'Tranny' McGuinty Resigns: 'It's time for renewal,' 'It's time for the next Liberal premier', It's time for someone else to take the fall for the shit I caused Ontario."

Gas Prices Compound Obama's Agony

Well, it's collapsing all around the Democrat ticket, no doubt.

And here's this, at The Hill, "Obama faces dilemma over gas prices as presidential campaign hits homestretch":

President Obama faces a dilemma as Mitt Romney bashes him over high gasoline prices in the final weeks of their close race.

Obama must decide whether to address the attacks head-on, or stay the course on a messaging strategy that has recently been addressing prices indirectly.

Democratic strategists and other experts argue that three weeks before voters go to the polls, Obama should steer clear of big messaging or policy pivots on gas prices.

“Bringing the issue up this close to Election Day would be self-defeating at this point,” said Paul Bledsoe, an independent consultant who was a climate change aide in the Clinton White House.
Dramatic action on energy appears unlikely before the election even as the campaigns tweak their closing arguments.

White House officials have said in recent months that a release from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an option on the table. But speculation about the prospect has dimmed in recent weeks as oil prices have fallen off their summer highs that reached around $100-per-barrel in mid-September.

Prices closed Friday at $91.86-per-barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Democratic political strategist Michael Stratton said that tapping the SPR would damage Obama.

“Anything with gas prices that would be perceived as manipulative at this point would work against him, and would be perceived by everybody so cynically that it would be ineffective,” he said.

Average nationwide gasoline prices are currently $3.79-per-gallon and have for weeks been setting records for the highest prices on specific days of the year, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA). Prices, though, have been dropping in recent days.

Also, the current national average has been skewed upward by the major recent price spike in California, which saw average Golden State prices jump a half-dollar in a week to reach $4.67 on Oct. 9 before falling back, according to AAA.

Well, it just sucks to be Obama, doesn't it?

At the photo, the ARCO station at the corner of Del Amo and Woodruff in Lakewood, where I fill up on the way home from work. Regular unleaded is $4.47 a gallon, down about 10 cents or so from the last time I filled up over there.

The Debate Jerk

Via Legal Insurrection.

PREVIOUSLY: "Polls Show Joseph Biden — 'Malarkey McSmirk' — Losing Debate to Paul Ryan."