Taking Back America!
† BHO blooper reel: The WaPo's Chris Cillizza predicts that President Barack Hussein Obama’s gaffe characterizing the private sector as “doing fine” will hurt his campaign because it “plays directly into the story that Republicans are trying to tell about him – that he is a big-government liberal who thinks the answer to all problems is expanding the federal bureaucracy and who lacks even a basic understanding of how the private sector works”:
Look back at the past two presidential elections and you get a clear sense of how dangerous a single gaffe can be if it’s effectively sold as a sign of who a politician really is.
In 2004, the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), responded to a question about opposing funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq by declaring “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Republicans pounced (and kept pouncing) on the comment, arguing that it was evidence that Kerry lacked core beliefs and would say and do anything to get elected. The strategy worked as President George W. Bush (R) won a second term despite the fact that the country had already begun to sour on his leadership.
Four years later, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” even as the financial sector teetered on the brink of collapse. The Obama campaign seized on the remark as evidence that McCain was badly out of touch and lacked the understanding necessary to help fix what ailed the country. …
For Obama, winning in November is entirely dependent on two things: convincing average Americans that he understands their economic struggles and turning the race from a referendum on his handling of the economy into a choice between the two candidates' views on how best to manage the country’s financial situation.
Obama’s private-sector comments undermine both of those arguments.
† Prediction: Christians Will Be “Extinct” In The Holy Land Within 60 Years (related article, third item on the page): American Thinker publisher Thomas Lifson would like to see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “grilled” about excising “statutorily required” sections on religious freedom from the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights:
The ugly truth is that jihadists – the very people who attacked our country on 9/11 – aim to forcibly convert, exterminate, or reduce to dhimmitude non-Muslims whenever or wherever they have the political muscle to do so. They have won big victories in the so-called Arab Spring, and are now taking advantage of the power they have to burn churches, behead Christians, and force submission to their faith, whose very name means "submission." …
Defending Christianity may be a thankless task, but if our State Department refuses to even comment on the persecution of Christians, there ought to be a public debate on why this change has been made. Americans deserve an answer.
Noting Hillary’s “reputation for ferocity,” Lipson asks, “What happened to her to make her so indifferent to religious freedom?” That’s easy: She is carrying out the foreign policy of our non-Muslim president whose BFF is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
† Every bubble bursts eventually: Political strategist Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, notes that “Obama may have difficulty leading and governing but has been considered an effective campaigner” – at least, until last month, which he calls “a bad month” for his re-election campaign:
In 2008, Team Obama ran a first-rate campaign. They made relatively few unforced errors and capitalized on openings. Things look very different this time. The re-election effort is off-key and off-balance, making the president's strategic weaknesses more apparent. His record is uninspiring. He has no explanation for his first term and no rationale for a second.
The Daily Beast reports Dems privately agree with Rove, and are fretting that “If the next five months are anything like the last two, Barack Obama is toast”:
“Our real concern is that they’re just sleepwalking,” says a Democratic strategist, who did not want to be quoted by name criticizing the Obama campaign. His fear, echoed by many, is that Obama’s responses to the dire economic conditions fall far short of the bold leadership needed.
According to Politico, “since Obama officially launched his reelection campaign, he not Romney “is the one with the muddled message – and the one who often comes across as baldly political”:
Romney has surprised his many critics with a clear and consistent focus on the economy, hands down the issue of the race. After months of missteps, the guy looks steady and disciplined again, much like he did in the early days of the GOP primaries. By playing to his strength, he has masked his weaknesses – for now.
By contrast, Obama has looked unsteady. Some Democrats have watched with dismay as the focus of Obama’s public comments bounced from student loans, to tax cuts for the rich, to trade, to Bain Capital. …
“This guy’s narrative is to be big,” complained one veteran of the 2008 campaign. “How do you capture that in a campaign when all anybody is focused on is the daily tit-for-tat? He has to get up and out of it. … The campaign jumps so quickly into these fights that it distracts from what the president is doing.”