In my earlier piece on yesterday's unfortunate events, I concentrated on the big picture issues, the meaning behind them and where things are likely going.
But I also promised you that I'd go into the political and strategic reasons later behind Obama's victory and Romney's defeat, and a few lessons we can learn.
I want to be very clear here. Mitt Romney, for the most part ran a disciplined and impressive campaign, and conducted himself well. However, he made several unforced errors that were blown out of proportion as they would be for any Republican, and there were a couple of big things he simply had no control over.
First, one of the big things he had no control over was what I call the media filter.From the every beginning a significant element of the media had obviously chosen sides, and until the first debate, President Obama had virtually free rein to cement a negative image of Governor Romney in his half of the electorate.
Examples? Here are a few of the more important ones:
As a matter of fact, the president's claim that he called Benghazi an 'act if terrorism' during his Rose Garden speech was in fact false (he made a brief, general allusion to 'acts of terrorism' the next day after the Rose Garden speech, at a fund raiser in Colorado)and Crowley herself admitted she'd made a mistake, conveniently after the debate was long over.
But it was enough to knock Romney off his stride for ten minutes or so and change the entire perception of the debate. Even worse, Romney didn't respond publicly and make an issue of it publicly, using the actual transcripts. And he downplayed Benghazi afterwards, with the media happy to go along with him.
CBS did something even more egregious, cutting out footage from an interview with the president the day after the Benghazi attack where the president refused to call it a terrorist attack, and then holding that footage until the day of the election.
Had I been Governor Romney, I would have realized that the fix was going to be in after Obama's failure and cancelled the second and third debates, saying simply that I saw no further purpose to them. And I would have been hammering Benghazi from day one.Lesson to be learned? Control the media and the agenda, not the other way around.
The second big thing Governor Romney had no control over was Hurricane Sandy. Fully 42% of the voter said that Barack Obama's little photo op affected their vote because he suddenly looked 'presidential' again. especially after that oaf Chris Christie essentially endorsed him.
But just imagine if Governor Romney, instead of waiting for Chris Christie's invitation had simply gone to the hurricane victims with relief supplies for his own photo op and his own camera men. Were they going to turn him down? True, Christie wouldn't have been along for the ride, but given his attitude, I see that as a plus. Lesson? Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Third, Governor Romney was far too gentle when it came to exposing how President Obama, the so-called 'middle class warrior' was actually crushing the middle class with higher taxes and prices on energy, food and goods. Governor Romney never adequately articulated that for President Obama to pay for his socialist nirvana, to fund ObamaCare, the student loan boondoggle, the green energy scams, the entire agenda, he was going to have to punitively tax not just 'the rich' but the middle class.
In fact, the governor's oppo research staff was either ridiculously inept or Governor Romney refused to take advantage of what they gave him to paint Obama in entirely different colors.
Instead of shying away from the president's chest thumping about 'saving the auto industry', Romney should have nailed him on the $80 billion it cost to gift GM to the president union political allies that the taxpayer will never see again.
Instead of allowing the president to get away with lying about how he 'funded' Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, he should have revealed that the president actually wanted to cut it to the bone, and that it was congress that revolted and insisted on funding it.
He could have asked the president why he fought so hard to deny medical care to infants that survive an abortion.He could have even made a campaign ad out of it, featuring the president's own voice.
And those are just a few of many,many examples. Lesson learned? There's a fine line between appearing presidential and allowing your opponent to get away with murder. Find their weaknesses and don't shy away from exploiting them.
Fourth, the governor dropped the ball totally on a large group of Latino voters. Governor Romney got most of the Cuban vote and some of the Caribbean Latino vote, but he failed when it came to most Mexicans and central Americans. And it was totally unnecessary.
Here's a clue.Some of these people are grifters, a few are leftist ideologues, but the vast majority are hardworking, socially conservative religious people who came here for the same reason most other immigrants did - economic opportunity and the chance to raise their children in a free society with upward mobility.And very pro-military and national defense, by the way. We have lots of Hispanic veterans and more Hispanic Medal of Honor winners than any other group.
In other words, a natural conservative constituency. In fact, after a generation or so, a lot of them start drifting that direction anyway.
If I were Mitt Romney, instead of talking about people 'self-deporting' I'd have been on Telemundo and Univision talkng about the issues that matter to them. Explaining why ObamaCare was going to lead to rationing and less availability. Touting school choice and vouchers, a hot button issue for Latinos with children now stuck in the dysfunctional public schools. Talking about the good paying blue collar jobs and lower gas prices that would result from my energy program.Explaining how Obama's HHS mandate attacks their religious freedom, and revealing the president's position on infanticide for newborns who survive abortions. I'd speak to them about how lower taxes equal prosperity and economic freedom an dhow Obama's policies limit it.
And I would have made a promise most of them already know Barack Obama failed to keep. I would have promised to work with congress on a bill to address immigration reform as a priority during my first term.
Most of the Latinos concerned about the issue of migration come at it from the standpoint of family members and friends from the old country who are here illegally or want to be here. I'd refuse to commit to details so as not to make promises I couldn't keep, but I'd mention things like guarantors to allow pending but legal status, increased opportunities to earn citizenship in the military or other forms of national service, use of E-verify, even a realistic and fair points system to allow clear guidelines.
And I'd be doing rallies in their neighborhoods, with Latino Republicnas.
Had Romney done that, sincerely and humanely, I have no doubt he would have taken a chunk of the Hispanic vote. According to the exit polls, they were ten percent of the electorate.
Lesson learned? Don't be afraid to talk to anyone honestly about the issues that concern them. Find the areas you agree on and build on that consensus. Because you might have more in common with them than you think.
Mitt Romney would have been a superb president for this country. His defeat was unfortunate, to say the least, but as education it's priceless.
20 comments:
I believe Romney lost due to his age in comparison to the voting populous and his religion. I think most people were uncertain about how Romney would handle a government crisis if it violated his religious principals. Many people are not familiar with the Mormon teachings. Basically, Mitt ran a campaign which was too nice to the opposition. Mitt is a nice man and people took advantage of it.
Rob: As a matter of fact, the president's claim that he called Benghazi an 'act if terrorism' during his Rose Garden speech was in fact false
Obama (Rose Garden 9/12/2012): "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
Umm, no.
Here's the exact transcript, word for word, from the White House site as tweeted to me by Jake Tapper 1 minute after this whopper was uttered:
I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.
Of course, we also have the unaired CBS video of Obama denying Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the same day, 9/12, that they conveniently sat on until election day.
Note also that in your reference, he did not specifically refer to Benghazi.
Um, go to 4:18 in the video you linked to for the exact wording we provided.
Obama (Rose Garden 9/12/2012): "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/09/12/president-obama-speaks-attack-benghazi
The transcript you list doesn't claim the attack was spontaneous. That is the gist if your argumentation I take it.
The debate on whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack is retarded. The details were contradictory and sketchy. Whatever the white house said in early could have easily been revised on basis of additional knowledge - had there been a mistake originally. Only the completely heartless republican party hacks, like Josh, who work tirelessly on ripping the nation apart can possibly claim it was knowing obfuscation of facts - to what end would that serve anyway?
Whatever the administration were to say, the Republicans were sure to lambast it regardless of the realities.
I of course fully expect Josh to censor this contribution like all the others, as he finds it too embarrassing to really hold an open debate.
But I am glad to read that Rob supports presidential candidates extending their hand to immigrant population of the USA by appearing on Spanish speaking televisions.
The transcript you list doesn't claim the attack was spontaneous. That is the gist if your argumentation I take it.
No, not at all. My point is that the president openly lied and was aided and abetted by a so-called 'journalist/moderator'.
Nor is this a 'retarded argument' Michal. Regardless of what the president says NOW, for a full week afterwards we were lied to and told this was a spontaneous 'protest' over a video.
The coverup was done for one reason..it gave the lie during an election to the narrative that foreign policy was President Obama's strong point.
As we now know, the president was aware as of 5 PM September 11th that this was no 'protest', but an organized attack utilizing heavy weapons from Khaddaffi's armories that AQ and their affiliates only got their hands on because of the president's ill-advised intervention in Libya. He also knew or should have known with 24 hours that AQ was involved.
We also know now that we had assets available that could have saved those men, and the president did nothing.
You OK with giving President Obama a pass on all that Michal?
Somehow, if this was something President Bush had done, I have a feeling you wouldn't be.
That's the essential difference between us..I'd be screaming bloody murder regardless of whom did it, and you need merely do a search on some of the things I wrote about Dubbyah to find out for yourself.
Interesting that you have the stones to call ME a partisan hack.
BTW, RE: Spanish Speaking TV..you go where the voter are, and you speak to them directly.
If I were running for office, you'd also find me speaking in black churches.In fact, I've done it, although not on politics.
The last president we had that actually took the trouble to explain conservative (AKA classic Liberal) principles effectively to people and show them why they work and leftist dogma put into action doesn't was Reagan.
It will take someone who can communicate these ideas to to get a competent president in office again.
Okay so according to your theory, the white house administration knowingly lied about nature of the attack, because saying it was terrorist attack would supposedly reveal a weakness of president's foreign policy. How is that so? The attack happened, the people died; whether the attack was a result of spontaneous demonstration or a terrorist strike, the deaths occurred regardless. Surely we wouldn't say Bush administration was soft on terror because of attack on USS Cole - where servicemen also died. These things happen.
And that's why I find the attempts to "nail" Obama's administration on the basis of confused claims about whether it was a terrorist attack or not so pointless. There's no need to obfuscate or lie.
The link which you claim to contain an information that the embassy was known from the start not under spontaneous attack actually says what I did: "U.S. intelligence officials have said the information was just one of many widely conflicting accounts, which became clearer by the following week. "
Thereby confirming what I said: there were a number of conflicting and sketchy accounts that administration had to make sense of, and if there really was a change of initial version, it was on the basis of additional investigation efforts.
Furthermore, the US forces actually did send units underway to help the Benghazi consulate, both from Benghazi and Tripoli. If they couldn't send units from elsewhere, there probably were reasons. You talk about sending in aircraft - but that's taking a cannon at a mosquito and really just clutching at straws. You talk about sending in forces from Sicily, but this assumes there weren't other obstacles in the way and that the unit truly was available. It's purely speculative and hypothetical and in my experience, things just aren't that simple in real life.
Zachriel,
I linked to a transcript from the White House site and a CBS news video that they deliberately sat on that is 3:17 in length.
Either you're referring to something else entirely or there's a video on the White House site that differs from the official transcript.
Even if it's the latter, it was a general reference to acts of terror, and as we see in the video I did link to, President Obama was denying to CBS as of 9/12 it was a terrorist attack and claiming he was still 'investigating it' when in fact he knew at 5 PM DC time on 9/11 that it was an organized attack, not a 'protest' or a 'mob' and knew within 24 hours that an Al-Qaeda affiliate was involved.
Had CBS released the video I linked to, say, after the 2nd debate, it would definitely have affected the election.
For nine days afterwards, he and high level members of his administration openly lied to the American people about that and claimed it was a protest due to a video..
There's no getting around that. And it's not going away.
Michal,
First of all, the attack on the USS Cole occurred during the Clinton years.
Okay so according to your theory, the white house administration knowingly lied about nature of the attack, because saying it was terrorist attack would supposedly reveal a weakness of president's foreign policy. How is that so?
Do I really need to spell this out for you?
Two of president Obama's so-called achievements are assassinating bin-laden (remember this president's chest thumping... 'bin-Laden is dead an al-Qaeda is on the run')and his intervention in Libya.
What happened in Benghazi showed that both actions were far from achievements, first because killing OBL put Egyotian born former Muslim Brotherhood leader Ayman Zawahiri in charge and led directly to Al-Qaeda's relocation back to the Middle East.
Second, that relocation occurred in large part because the president's encouragement of the Islamists and their salafist allies provided a fertile environment.
And third, because taking out Moamar Khaddaffi when he was actually helping us round up members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb(AQIM)allowed AQIM and their affiliates to get their hands on the RPGs, shoulder fired Stingers and other heavy weapons in Khaddaffi's arsenals.
None of the forces that were sent in were comparable to the CIF forces in Sicily that were available. They're designed for exactly this type of operation.And they were indeed in Sicily and less than two hours away.
There were also helicopter gunships available in easy range, as well as fighter aircraft, and with an ex-SEAL in the CIA annex with a laser sight phoning in coordinates, it's not exactly like shooting a mosquito with a cannon.You're simply wrong. Somehow they never left the ground either.
As for the forces that were sent in the one from Benghazi was an ad hoc force led by the two ex-SEALs that died and according to some of the cables that have leaked, they disobeyed orders to stand down to do it, although they saved most of the people trapped in the compound.
The Administration disputes this admittedly, but it's never given a satisfactory answer as to why easily available assets weren't used to rescue the Ambassador and his information officer.
In view of the other falsehoods they've told about this, I'd love to hear their explanation, and I think they owe it to the American people, not to mention the dead men's families.
My guess is that that they were either overly concerned about possible Arab casualties instead of rescuing our men( which wouldn't have polled well in America) or that it was simply easier to try for a concerted cover up.
Believe me, I get it...you simply want to give the Obama Administration a pass on this, precisely because it's the Obama Administration.
I beg to differ.
-Rob-
I am glad you spelled this out for me, because pretty much the same "Obama's foreign policy just failed" statement could be made for pretty much the same reasons, whether it was factually or nominally either spontaneous attack or terrorist attack. Had it been a spontaneous attack, the republican spin could again trumpet this as a proof of Al Qaeda influence in Libya, worse, it would not be just terrorist cells but touted as a proof of Al Qaeda's stranglehold upon the population, the failure of the intervention because of ungrateful Libyans and so on and so forth. It would no longer be the affair of just some marginal extremist group, but a truly popular resistance. In my opinion, this would be the worse scenario.
I don't want to give the administration a free pass - why should they get one? - I am just stating my belief regarding why neither commandos nor aircraft came in. The link you've linked leads to another blogpost and so on, until there's just your article saying the special forces in Italy simply were ready. How can you know that for sure? I don't. Had they believed it to be a mob attack, dropping bombs and mowing down scores of Libyans wouldn't be exactly a strategic move anyway.
But that's just speculation. My point was to prove that no, Obama's administration didn't know from day one for sure that it was a terrorist attack, and the news piece contained that information, sourced towards the intelligence officials, as well.
Rob: Either you're referring to something else entirely or there's a video on the White House site that differs from the official transcript.
Not sure why you're having troubles with this. The phrase "act of terror" and the exact text as we provided it is right in the video you linked at 4:18.
Rob: Even if it's the latter, ...
We can discuss that once we are on the same page with regards to what the President said he said in the Rose Garden.
Actually, the presence of AFRICOM's CIF force at Sigonella is pretty common knowledge by this time.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/
There were also two AC-130Us gunships deployed to Libya that could have been used, especially since you had an ex-Seal phoning in exact coordinated from less than a mile away with a laser sight.And F-18's within less than an hour's ride.
Again, you had the embassy and the CIA annex talking to the Situation Room live, as well as real time video from an overhead drone.The White House knew very well what was going on.No 'mob' shows up wit that kind of weaponry.
If, as you say, they made the decision that "dropping bombs and mowing down scores of Libyans wouldn't be exactly a strategic move", that's not too much different than my saying that they were either overly concerned about possible Arab casualties instead of rescuing our men(which wouldn't have polled well in America) or that it was simply easier to try for a concerted cover up.
The point is, they've lied about it consistently, which is actually pretty much SOP for the Obama Administration.
Zachriel,
I already told you exactly what I linked to,,a transcript, and a CBS News vid that runs 3:17.
Anyone reading this thread can follow the links.
In the event you found a video of the president's Rose Garden speech somewhere, I already addressed that.Make of it whatever you want.
As for us being on the same page, ain't never gonna happen..thank G-d.
Go masturbate somewhere else. I have better things to do.
Well Rob, RPGs, machineguns and submachineguns are common in Libya as dirt. Some people have AA guns in their backyards.
RPGs, mortars and Stinger shoulder fired missiles are 'as common as dirt'? AA guns in the backyards? In what was a dictatorship?
My my, Moamar Khaddaffi must have truly been unique, the only dictator in history to allow his people to remain heavily armed like that during his reign. And in a tribal society yet!
And of course, when Khaddaffi was overthrown, his arsenals...which just as an amazing coincidence had items exactly like that in stock, along with lost of ammo and spares..just magically melted away in the warm sunlight of the Arab Spring. The rebels never got their hands on them, especially the al-Qaeda and salafist elements.Ri-ight!
I'm afraid I had to revert to sarcasm here. Because your comment makes no sense whatsoever.Next, you'll be telling me this wasn't a meticulously planned attack.
Here's a clue..mortars ain't like daddy's shotgun or a Daisy air rifle. It takes a lot of training to teach someone how to read fire coordinates, dial them in, calculate the angle of fire and aim a mortar correctly and quickly in combat conditions. These attacks were done by people who knew what they were doing.
The rebels were only able to loot Khaddaffi's arsenals because we took him out, and a shipment of shoulder fired stingers from Libya was actually intercepted by the Egyptians en route to the al-Qaeda contingents in the Sinai and Hamas.And that's just one they happened to intercept.
Benghazzi was the result of Obama's ridiculously bad decision to intervene there, just as his decision to empower Islamists is going to result in serious consequences for the region and America as well.
I you like him, want to continue to make excuses for him and wish to ignore the obvious, you're certainly entitled.But please don't insult my intelligence.
Regards,
Rob
No Rob, Gaddafi didn't let people have AA guns and heavy weapons. They looted the armouries and then distributed the weapons among themselves. There were about 17 000 rebels fighting in the war, but probably more. Pretty much every single household owns a gun. Note that the mortar attack didn't come initially, that came along later, when the refugees hid in another building. The initial attack utilised RPGs and assault rifles, possibly AA guns, which ARE widely proliferated. Guess what Josh, even the presence of trained users of these weapons is compatible with a mob.
The rebels were only able to loot Khaddaffi's arsenals because we took him out, and a shipment of shoulder fired stingers from Libya was actually intercepted by the Egyptians en route to the al-Qaeda contingents in the Sinai and Hamas.And that's just one they happened to intercept.
I don't know why you're babbling about Stingers, but guess what: not everything in the world revolves around the US of A. Benghazi for example looted the armories right in early february when the uprising took place. The war was going on for a month before the international coalition headed by the French intervened.
Benghazzi was the result of Obama's ridiculously bad decision to intervene there, just as his decision to empower Islamists is going to result in serious consequences for the region and America as well.
I am so sick and tired of your spin trying to force the facts to conform with your twisted vision of the world. The Libyans in 2006 looted the Italian consulate in what was actual mob assault. Obama didn't empower the islamists. The people got up and burned out the base of the militia involved in the attack on US embassy. The people who wouldn't lift their finger for the Italians in 2006 now believe US is their ally, and the US gets security dividends from what. How many of them are going to go out and blow themselves up in Iraq now? Certainly not the entire city that participated in what was popular backlash against the islamist assault. Hello and wake up, Josh, there's a whole world around you that you're unaware of.
But we're arguing completely pointlessly. You pretty much yourself admitted that administration couldn't know what's going on when you linked the news article and touted it as holy truth claiming administration knew from start that it wasn't a spontaneous attack, even though the article itself says the intelligence was contradictory. Thank you for defeating yourself, Josh. Hope you remember that article next time you're claiming administration immediately had to know exactly what was going on.
Guess what Michal...as far as I'm concerned everything DOES revolve around America. Aside from the fact I'm a patriot, the U.S. is the singular greatest force for freedom in the world. The Islamists are just the latest totalitarian ideology to come along.
I personally wouldn't care if all they wanted to do was to despoil their own hellholes, but the Islamist ideology is both genocidal and expansionist.
I'm not concerned with what some mob did in 2006 to their former colonial ruer when Khaddaffi was in power and likely looked the other way. I'm concerned about American interests today.And even your buds the Obama Administration now admit is was a preplanned attack, not a mob protest over a video.
As for the intel, you're doing the exact same thing with Eli Lake's article the Obama Administration did after the fact with the intel on Benghazi..you're cherry picking the parts you like as opposed to the reality, just as Lake's sources say the Administration did.
Check out the testimony of those two State Department officials in front of Congress on this. THEY claim the White House was fully informed.
One more thing: Obama didn't empower the islamists. The people got up and burned out the base of the militia involved in the attack on US embassy. The people who wouldn't lift their finger for the Italians in 2006 now believe US is their ally, and the US gets security dividends.
You think so, Michal? Think back to Iran and talk to some Iranian expatriates who were there.
You'll find that few of them thought they were rebelling to put a repressive theocracy in place in 1979. Khomeini was a cleric deeply respected as a symbol for his anti-Shah stance, but he was not any kind of designated leader of the entire resistance to the Shah except to his own followers.
But those followers were dedicated, well organized and ruthless, (just like the Muslim Brotherhood) and when it came time to push Mehdi Bazargan and the secular moderates who originally took over from the Shah out of the way and take power, they were easily able to do so.
If you don't think President Obama empowered the Islamists by saying it was time for Mubarak to go and signalling to the army which way to jump if they wanted to keep getting their $1.2 billion in aid to fund their private enterprises, if you think Obama's intervention in Libya didn't ultimate empower Islamists and Salafists and lead to the relocation and rejuvenation of al-Qaeda and their affiliates into the Arab world, I think you're the one who has the twisted view of the world, not to mention reality.
And you see this as 'a security benefit for the U.S.' ?
You're quite correct, we're arguing pointlessly. The future will show who's right.
He didn't get the all-important robot vote! :D
That's why he lost.
Post a Comment