Obama’s been in the Bubble for Too Long

Obama’s been in the Bubble for too long. Far be it from me to agree with the mega-moron, Dana Milbank, on much of anything. But so he indicates in today’s column, and he appears to nail it fairly well here, so far as he dares to go. He says, in part;

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too. And, especially since Rahm Emanuel’s departure, Obama is surrounded by a large number of yes men who aren’t likely to get in his face.

This insularity led directly to the Denver debacle: Obama was out of practice and unprepared to be challenged.

What Milbank dares not say, is that what Obama was selling… four more years of failure by way of leftist policy ala Obama,  was unsaleable. That it wasn’t just a lack of practice, but also a lack of intellectual truth that led Obama to stand in the corner, eyes downcast like some schoolboy being read the riot act by his teacher.

If Milbank had the stones and the honesty, he might have told the truth on that point, as well.  But Milbank’s a leftist, so who could expect that level of truth, when the el;election hangs in the balance?

I’ve been making some changes to the site, mostly in the way categories are stored.
With Art’s help, we’ll also be working on streamlining some of the linkouts to Facebook, (Particularly the fan page) and Twitter.
Just so you know what’s going on when you see the changes.
If you run into problems, let us know.

The White House this morning, is serving up fake jobs numbers… again.  And they read like a fairy tale.

7.8% unemployment.

But notice… the U6.. the real unemployment number…  isn’t listed in the reports we all see…  It stood at 14.6% as of last month. That’s a fact that has not moved substantially, for months. Here’s the breakdown from the BLS.GOV website

They’ve been faking these unemployment reports, using the U3 numbers in the reports you and I see… and the ones the press fawns over,  all along, and hiding the U6 for years… The reason is that the U3 has been the far more attractive number if you’re Obama. The U6, you see, lists those who have given up looking for work in this Obama economy. (Note the advisory on the bottom line of the chart)  Notice that U6 number hasn’t moved outside a reasonable margin of error for many months.

Now, after the dismal performance the other night, how are we to believe that they’ll not offer more fake jobs numbers as they have for months?

Oh… and here’s another point, by way of the AP:

Still, many of the jobs added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million.

Of course, that little tidbit is buried waaaaaay down on the very last line of the story.  What  they’re admitting here, is that underemployment of the individual is an issue. One Obama and company would rather you not know about.

And one wonders what the numbers will look like once the layoffs start happening at defense plants around the country, hmmm? You remember… the pink slips Obama’s people didn’t want going out until after the election.

They’re doing everything they can at the White House to keep the word from going out that the Obama economy is a Obama-made disaster.

Addendum; (Eric)

IS the Administration DIRECTLY fiddling with the numbers?  Likley not, though I’d not put it past them, given tyhe level of untruth we’ve been seeing out of the WH these past nearly four years. I’m sorry gang, but I just can’t put it past them.  The level of cynicism coming out of this white house and its protectors in the press have made me Cynical on this the point.  the level of trust simply is not there.

But on the whole it seems more likely to me that it comes down to how the numbers are touted by the WH and the press. Kevin Hassett nails this pretty well:

The report, of course, reveals the results of two surveys, one of households, one of establishments. The professional economists and the press usually emphasize the establishment survey because it is viewed as less volatile. The establishment survey was terrible. The 114,000 number of jobs created on net in September is well below the average for this year (146,000) and the average for last year (153,000). This is wholly consistent with the story that the economy is decelerating sharply as we head into the fall.
The household survey, on the other hand, portrays a September that was booming, far more so than could possibly be true given the other indicators. According to it, the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8 percent, with total employment jumping by a whopping 873,000. I wish it were true, but it will likely be a blip when we have a few more months of data.
Back when President Bush presided over a jobless recovery, the household survey tended to show better news. At the time, every media organization carefully emphasized the establishment numbers, and warned that the household numbers are suspect. That, of course, is what happens when a Republican is in office. For President Obama, you can expect a household survey lovefest. The AP story that went up at 8:33, of course, emphasized the household survey, even adding, “The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate against Mitt Romney.” Get ready for more of the same.

Indeed. Lots of it. Are we really to think that now, with their hold on power slipping away, and their history of lying to the American voter, that this jobs report isn’t being misrepresented by the Obama administration and their minions in the press?

Is it just me, but does it look like the Romney campaign’s  John Sununu is spiking the football and the football is Barack Obama?

“When you’re not that bright you can’t get better prepared,”

Hat tip: Stink Progress.

Watching the Denver Demolition last night, the thought struck me that the attempts by the Obama people to lower the expectations going into this thing, didn’t do the job nearly as well as they needed to. This is clearly a case of expectations not being set low enough.Obama’s people tried, as you’ll recall to lower the expectations of Obama’s performance in the first debate, giving all sorts of excuses. The excuses didn’t work well enough, didn’t lower the expectations to the reality of Obama’s failure, last night.

Obama was floundering the whole night. It had even that snake James Carville admitting “Romney came with a chainsaw” and Andrea Sullivan admitting it was a disaster for Obama.  The MSNBC morons were in full meltdown mode last night… great comedy television, I tell ya.  I forget who it was, but some wonk on Twitter suggested they’d not seen so enthusiastic a beating since Paul Reubens and Fred Willard went to the movies together.

There are those of course who will blame Obama’s overwhelming loss  last night on a number of things … he didn’t have his teleprompter…. some will blame his debate coaches … — they’ll blame the moderator…  they’ll say Romney bullied his way to more talk time…(Untrue of course… Obama got a total of four minutes more talk time than Romney did.) …and like good Democrats… they’re going to blame everything but what needs to be blamed for the problem.  Specifically, the message is the issue.  The content.

Look, I don’t care if you’re the best salesman in the world… if what you are selling is radioactive waste, you’re not going to get a line to your door to buy the stuff, no matter how good a job you do. That’s what Obama’s problem was last night. He was faced for the first time with someone willing to make the case that the policies of the left have failed. And, predictably,  Obama couldn’t defend against it.

Try as he might… and he did try…he couldn’t make the sale for four more years of failure.  But then again, who could? I mean, look, I’ll give him the Bill Clinton defense here. Nobody could have done a better job with what Obama policy left Obama himself to defend.

Oh… and the early polls?  Romney picked up about half the respondents of post debate polling, and even those not saying they’re voting for Romney said he won the debate. Credit where it’s due… The Jersey Fat Man got it right.

And just think; The Biden Smackdown is only days away. Personally, I”m stocking up on popcorn.

-=-

Addendum:(Eric)

Based on some offline comments, I guess I’d better make this clear;

I’m no huge fan of Romney.  He’s not a conservative. Not even close. No conservative would have ever uttered words to the effect that “Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation.” You either have a free market or you have a regulated market. Ne’er the twain shall meet.

That said, let’s be honest here… anything to the right of Obama… granted, a huge field… would have defeated Obama. Such was the case last night.

So much for the tingle, Chrissy Matthews melts down on cable television, video

Shame nobody saw it.

About that 2007 Obama Hamptons Video…

Here it is.

I should warn you, that the draw  on the servers at the Daily Caller is apparently quite high. I’d be interested in seeing how many millions have seen the vid. I’d also give a lemon cookie for a peek at their security log. I’m willing to bet there’s a concerted effort to mount a DOS attack or something to silence them.

Based on the official, and somewhat harried reax from the left, and particularly from the Obama White House,  running a full, unedited video of Obama speaking and doing what Obama does, in terms of race baiting, and being divisive, is a “Desperate attack”. As Glen  Reynolds mentions, you know how much they know their attempt at re-election has been hurt by how much they squeal.

This vid shows several things;

• First, it shows a case of extreme pandering by Obama.
• Secondly,  it shows race baiting and flat out lying by Obama. He’s trying to whip up racial fear of the white candidate. From The Hill:
  

  “This is not a dog whistle, this is a dog siren. These are appeals to racial solidarity,” (Tucker) Carlson said. “He is making a very clear case on again on the basis of his racial solidarity to this audience that they are getting shafted by a racist federal government.”

  And again…

  Former GOP presidential nominee Newt Gingrich weighed in on the speech on Fox’s “On the Record,” saying that he does believe it will have some impact because of what it indicates about Obama’s party.
  “It’s a reminder of the depth of dishonesty, the appeals to racism, the factual falsehoods that are at the heart of the modern Left,” he said.

  He said that the speech was “clearly divisive.”

  “There is no way you can listen to the speech and not hear it as a deliberately divisive speech that pits Americans against each other, and does so largely with racial innuendos that are very, very clear when you hear the speech,” he said.

• Thirdly, it shows, given the time frame it was recorded in, Lamestream media collusion. It’s the kind of pandering that would have killed his campaign, back then, had it been shown. But of course, the Lamestream Media decided not to bother. It would have prevented their guy from winning the election. Ask yourself, why were the most inflammatory remarks never related to the voting public? You KNOW why, don’t you, really?

Look, I know that there are those among our readership that will consider this to be simply another distracting squirrel in the field.  But I suspect and suppose that the Obama people will be similarly distracted.  They will not recover from this one. They’ll be constantly fighting this one, now that it has popped up.

That’s true on three fronts.  The perception of Obama has changed over the last three and a half to four years because of the disastrous results of Obama policy.  As Glen Reynolds says, this morning:

Ah yes, remember those heady days back in 2008, when Americans of all races voted for a young Senator named Barack Hussein Obama in the sincere hope that he would heal this country’s racial divisions, ushering in a new, post-racial era?  Fuggedaboutit. It was merely a carefully crafted illusion, intentionally designed to tug on the heart strings of well-meaning, ordinary folks hoping for a color blind society

But Obama showed his real face-the Billy Joel “Stranger”-type freaky face (“Well we all have a face that we hide away forever. And we take them out and show ourselves when everyone has gone.”)- in this Daily Caller video, in a 2008 speech to an audience of black ministers.  Copping an insincere, absurd, stereotypical black “accent,” then-candidate Obama repeatedly suggests that the federal government behaves in a purposefully racist manner.  In its response to Hurricane Katrina, for example, Obama says the following:

Now here’s the thing, when 9-11 happened in New York City, they waived the Stafford Act — said, ‘This is too serious a problem. We can’t expect New York City to rebuild on its own. Forget that dollar you gotta put in. Well, here’s ten dollars.’ And that was the right thing to do. When Hurricane Andrew struck in Florida, people said, ‘Look at this devastation. We don’t expect you to come up with y’own money, here. Here’s the money to rebuild. We’re not gonna wait for you to scratch it together — because you’re part of the American family.

What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!

Sound familiar? Rapper Kayne West’s made an eerily similar, racist claim that, because of the Katrina response, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

We might expect this attitude from an uneducated, uncouth rapper, but someone who wants to be President of the United States- all of us- black, white, and purple with pink polka dots?  I dare say that if this video had been played by the mainstream media and candidate Obama had been vigorously questioned about it, many Americans’ idealism about the post-racialism he purported to represent would have been irreparably shattered.

Quite so. And I expect they will not recover from this, today, with so many failures over the last four years added to it.

Then, there’s the press…. the DNC’s house organs… ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN. Those J-school grads who worked so hard to being their candidate to the White House in spite of the facts. The majority of voters in this country already do not trust the lamestream media. They’ve been starting to see the collusion even back in the day. But that perception has changed with the failures of Obama policy over the past four years.  When that changed perception is added to the true picture of what Obama is by way of this video, a side of him the lamestream media has intentionally hidden from us,  the combination is not something that can be blown away by rhetoric, particularly when those leftie house organs called “The Press”are not trusted, either.

That said, Allen West, last evening made an interesting point, also in the article from The Hill:

 “The only thing that comes out of this is, I believe, what everyone knows is when the president gets off of script, gets off of his teleprompter, you see a different type of president,” he said. “We saw that just recently in Virginia when he got off script…and started talking about small business owners ‘didn’t build that’ and he had to retract that and make better hay of it.”

Which would seem to explain the slavish reliance on teleprompters. When he gets off the prompter, the real, racist, lying, socialist comes out.

Still, those comments from West not withstanding, what is clearly happening, is that many Obama voters are seeing this duplicitous racist that is Obama, for the first time. They’re also getting confirmation that the press has been covering for him.  And of course, the Democrats are going to be screaming about that.  Let them scream.

In politics, a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tell the truth. Joe Biden is a waking talking gaffe machine, and he finally told the truth, from Amie Parnes, Hill:

“This is deadly earnest, man. This is deadly earnest,” the vice president said. “How they can justify, how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years — how in Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these tax cuts.”

I’ll leave to Strutting Delaware Blue Hen to explain just how tax cute raise taxes. Then I never accused Biden of being smart.

Me at OTB just now… a place that is becoming depressingly leftist in it’s tilt…

Of course, the pattern starts before this, but

• Let’s start with FDR, who extendedthedepression with his policies.  The only thing that got him out of trouble was the attack on Pearl Harbor… which historians tell us he very likely knew about well in advance and covered it up afterward.
• Then along comes Johnson and his expansion of government power and taxing with his “Great Society”, which was an unmitigated disaster for the American economy. .
• Next up, Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was marked by massive inflation,reaching up toaround 15% (Part of which, admittedly was caused by Johnson) massive taxes and massive spending, and an economy which looked hopeless in terms of recovery. When presented with these problems, Carter did what a good little leftist would do… he increased taxes and grew government to theretofore unprecedented levels. He thus made the problems worse.  And in typical leftist fashion when presented with these facts, blamed the American people for their “Malaise”.  What a leader!
• Next up was Bill Clinton who inherited an economy coming off the longest upswing in the history of the world.  By the time he got done, and for the final year of his two-term presidency, the economy was in downward spiral, so much so that the Clinton White  House was forced to using accounting tricks to keep a label of “recession” being tied to the result of his policies. The reason he didn’t get us into worse shape was simply that we were in so strong a position from Reagan/Bush when he took over. It took years to recover from his misdeeds.
• And now, of course Obama and company.  He’s certainly made a mess of things. And like FDR, may have seen his only means of escape from the noose he’s set himself, being to arrange for a little military action.  He knew of the Benghazi attack well in advance and in spite of this actually pulled back the defenses and offered up US personnel to the enemies of the US  and afterward, engaged in a coverup about it.

In  all these cases, the stated object of the leftist policies imposed was to create a situation of greater “Fairness’ on the income side of the equation. Yet, every single one of the Democrat presidents saw their policies kill off income gains in every income group BUT the rich… among whom, the Democrat pols count themselves.

Every time we’ve elected Democrats to the White House, the economy takes a decidedly southward turn.

Every single time.

With the pattern this firmly established, why on earth is anyone so shocked at our current situation?

The patterns are well-established. When the left gains power first thing it does is wage war on the successful.  When you make enemies of the successful, when you wage war on those who make money, those who create, those of who know how to make a buck, and those who are thus contributing the most to this society, in order to support those who do not, why is anyone surprised when the economy takes a dump?

The Snark of the Day, from an undisclosed location.

Democrat Sluts Can’t Do Math

Robert Stacy McCain. Other McCain

Stacy explores the question in party of women like Mrs. B.J. Clinton, Sandra Fluke and Lizzy

Warren how any woman could spend eighteen thousand dollars on birth control.

Imported, duty-free Canadian snark:

Jesus raised a nine year old girl from the dead. Mohammed had sex with one.

Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

Democrats  love abortion, but as nation we still demand that abortionists have medical licenses.

A horrible story from Jason Howerton, Blaze:

Horror: Florida Teen, 14, Charged With First-Degree Murder After She Chokes Newborn Son to Death and Stuffs Him in a Shoebox

Polk County Sheriff’s Office booking photo of Cassidy Goodson (source:WJXT)
A 14-year-old girl in Polk County, Fla. was arrested Thursday for allegedly choking her newborn son to death and storing the body in a shoebox after she secretly gave birth in a bathroom at her home earlier this month, WJXT reports.

[…]

Deputies say Cassidy Goodson, 14, went into the bathroom, covered her mouth with a towel and ran water to hide the fact that she was in labor. Goodson admitted that she used a pair of scissors to “pry the baby out” and the 9.5 pound, 20.4 inch baby was delivered alive into the toilet, according to WJXT

Just what is the appropriate word to describe a fourteen year old mother who is alleged to have murdered her own son?

Hat tip, Karen, Lonely Conservative

Me at Q&O just now, in reax to their weekly podcast

Excellent show, guys, as always.
But I wonder a little at one topic… the reason the real story on Obama hasn’t been told by the press…

I wonder, frankly, if a majority of, shall we say “less than politically attached” Americans, would think that such reporting was fantastic and beyond the pale.  So fantastic in fact that they wouldn’t believe it…  Particularly after years of the mainstream press telling them what a great guy Obama was, and what great things he was doing, how he was lowering the ocean levels etc..
I suppose that such a dramatic turnaround from the hype to the lowdown truth of the matter would strain credulity in such people’s minds.   And who could blame them?

Then too, it has become clear to me within the last few months that the supposed mainstream press is finding itself increasingly challenged playing the role of Obama cheerleader.  This, particularly, given some of the stuff that has been coming out lately, such as fast and furious, Benghazi, and so on. The quandary for the press at this point is how to begin telling the truth again, without being called a liar either then, or now.  It becomes an issue of credibility which of course is needed to maintain their cushy jobs. (grin)
At the same time, the issue for us, as in, we Americans, is do the politically unattached as I’ve described them believe the truth when it’s finally offered up to them from Obama’s former cheerleaders?  History would seem to suggest that they will not.  After all, as Mark Twain observed, it’s a lot easier to fool someone that it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled.
It’s my view that the truth of the matter will not fully be told, much less absorbed by those unattached until such time as Obama is out of office.  If ever. In any event, the whole truth of this thing will never come out before the next election.  The press certainly doesn’t have the stones for it, and I have my doubts that Romney/ Ryan does, either.

Could be wrong about that, but at the moment, I doubt it.

Quickly,  read Dick Morris on the subject. His comments are spot on, here.

I will quote the whole of the article, here because it doesn’t break out easily.

Republicans are getting depressed under an avalanche of polling suggesting that an Obama victory is in the offing. They, in fact, suggest no such thing! Here’s why:

1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.

Dick Morris

In English, this means that when you do a poll you ask people if they are likely to vote. But any telephone survey always has too few blacks, Latinos, and young people and too many elderly in its sample. That’s because some don’t have landlines or are rarely at home or don’t speak English well enough to be interviewed or don’t have time to talk. Elderly are overstated because they tend to be home and to have time. So you need to increase the weight given to interviews with young people, blacks and Latinos and count those with seniors a bit less.Normally, this task is not difficult. Over the years, the black, Latino, young, and elderly proportion of the electorate has been fairly constant from election to election, except for a gradual increase in the Hispanic vote. You just need to look back at the last election to weight your polling numbers for this one.

But 2008 was no ordinary election. Blacks, for example, usually cast only 11% of the vote, but, in 2008, they made up 14% of the vote. Latinos increased their share of the vote by 1.5% and college kids almost doubled their vote share. Almost all pollsters are using the 2008 turnout models in weighting their samples. Rasmussen, more accurately, uses a mixture of 2008 and 2004 turnouts in determining his sample. That’s why his data usually is better for Romney.

But polling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama’s core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president.

If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality.

2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.

But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.

An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.

So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!

Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll — one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is.

And since these are professionals, they know this. They KNOW the results are not accurate.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the polls are so biased.  They want to suppress the GOP vote. As Guy Benson explains:

Public polling is supposed to predict and reflect public opinion, not drive it.  But by the looks of two consecutive national surveys, it seems as though certain media organizations are far more interested in achieving the latter end than the former.  Yesterday, the Washington Postand ABC News published a poll purporting to show the presidential race tied at 47 percent.

Benson

As Dan mentioned, the poll ‘s partisan sample was a D+9, with a D/R/I of 33/24/36.  This is preposterous.  That would mean that this fall’s electorate will be two points more Democratic than the Democrat wave year of 2008.  As a point of reference, the 2010 midterms showed Democrats and Republicans represented exactly evenly.  In spite of this terrible sample (for which WaPo polls are becoming infamous), the race is all knotted up.  One crucial note from the internals: Romney is beating Obama among independents by 14 points.  Let’s be frank — if Mitt Romney wins indies by anything close to 14 points in November, Barack Obama will be a one term president.  It’s that simple.  But one risible poll wasn’t quite enough for this week apparently; Reuters has gotten in on the action as well.  Their samples have been notoriously bad all cycle, too, and this latest survey is no exception.  Like its WaPo counterpart, Reuters’ polling outfit concocted am identical, ludicrous partisan sample of D+9 (among adults, D+5 among registered voters).  The new poll’s findings?

(1) Barack Obama “leads” Mitt Romney by 6 points overall, with independents woefully under-represented.

(2) Obama’s job approval rating is 48/47, a +1 result in a D+9 sample.  That’s bad news for the president.

(3) Worse news for The One: Of the few independents sampled, only 41 percent approve of his job performance.  As Jay Cost notes, that’s worse than Dukakis territory.

(4) The president is 10 points underwater on the economy — again, with a sample skew that should really goose his numbers on every question.

(5) Almost inexplicably, Republicans hold a four-point advantage on the survey’s generic Congressional ballot.  I repeat, D+9 sample.

On item (3), I’ll direct you back to my point about the WaPo survey: If Obama drops that group by a somewhat healthy margin — let alone 41-59 — he loses.  Period.

Any questions, class?

At some point during this next week, you’re going to hear one of the Democrats, either Obama or Biden mouth the words “Two wars we didn’t pay for”. Likely at the debates scheduled for this week, but outside those venues as well. After all, this is a mantra they’ve been chanting for the last four years.  Generally, it’s a phrase Obama’s defenders have used almost as a reflex action, in an attempt to explain why we are still in such bad financial shape as a nation.

Of course, the implication is that these are wars as we should not gotten involved with had we not been able to pay for them.  And it’s a mantra that’s been chanted since forever, as a shield against the charge of Obama financial policy not working.

But in answer, imagine with me if you will,  FDR wringing his hands over whether or not we could “pay for” the military response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Or, for that matter, whether or not Lend Lease was ‘paid for’.  Or, if our Nuclear program was ‘paid for’. Indeed, I don’t recall “paying for war” ever being in our lexicon previously.

The comparison of 12/07 to 09/11  seems to me precisely direct because Pearl was the most recent previous attack on America directly. The response to Pearl, as with the response to Islamic aggression, falls under the category of “emergency response”.  As a nation, we have no choice but to respond , regardless of the cost and financial impact.

Imagine, if you will, how left would have howled had Bush not responded.  Remember, gang, that for the first several weeks of our response in Iraq for example the Democrats were on the front lines with torches in their hands, and would have raised hell about the Bush Administration and his inaction had he not so responded.  To a man, they each were cheerleaders for our actions in Iraq, as an example.   And back then, they were not tremendously worried about how it was going to be paid for either. Not a word was mentioned of that aspect.

There’s something more… a practical application of the repercussions of their claim;  Which one of their social programs would they be willing to cut , both now and historically, because it wasn’t “paid for”?  History tells us that the democrats of never cut any government program, save for the military. So, their concern of payment for the wars we were forced by world events to involve ourselves in seems highly disingenuous at best.  In truth, politically opportunistic.

Having lived through that era and having been a keen student of that history, I don’t recall Johnson or Kennedy for that matter,  worried about “paying for” Vietnam.  Indeed, there is nothing in history that suggests any of our wartime responses were “paid for in advance”.  And can you imagine the response of the left to the meme “Well, what the hell, we can afford it, let’s bomb the snot out of Syria”, as an example?

And is being able to financially cover an act of war, the arbiter of the necessity of it? Can you imagine the reaction of the left to such a set of events? And of the right, for that matter, and properly so.

When Obama went inadvisedly into Afghanistan, I don’t recall there being any debates about how that was going to be paid for, either, do you?

So, what we have, is a Democrat party cynically investing itself rather deeply in what is little more than a prop.

I say that if this administration trots this old, tired, disproved claim out of  “Two wars we didn’t pay for”, Romney/Ryan should be cutting them off at the knees, before the echo dies.