Ah, I'm glad to see that Diplomad is back!
But the Obummer is not the main problem - the 40% of our fellow citizens who voted for and continue to support him is a bigger one. And taking back pop culture is the biggest project of all. (I'm doing my bit, of course - trying to teach readers a more fact-based American history.)
I have recently finished a re-read of Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With a Thousand Faces". Against the backdrop of Campbell's book, Diplomad's comments and those posted herein are particularly revealing. "Symptom, not disease" indeed.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
I'm betting that people were duped by media cheerleading and a real desire for change after two wars for ungrateful popluations combined with massive spending and housing malfesance that killed the economy (similar desire for change after the cold war led to the Perot deal that killed Bush Sr.)
This go around I'm expecting the Bradley effect and slanted polling is skewing everything to keep Obama afloat.
Dirty tricks are the Democrats only hope and luckily for the Republicans sex and drug scandals aren't going to be believable on Romney and attempts to smear him with polygamist or foriegn ancestors also comes up dead because Obama has those same faults.
I see a tsunami coming. I wish Romney was more like Reagan but after 3.5 years of Obamanomics he doesn't have to be.
But screw it: after re-reading it I've come to the conclusion that this is exactly what Mitt Romney should do, each and every time Champ and his minions (particularly and especially the odious Harry Reid) demand to see Romney's tax records.
Mitt Romney has been forthcoming. He's released a lot of financial information about himself. There's little doubt that he's wealthy, that he has paid taxes, and that he has a comfortable income. There's also little doubt that he's complied with the law: that's what tax accountants are for, and he's hired the very best. Digging through his tax records might find an issue or two that could be twisted by the Washington Post, but there is nothing remotely illegal.
Mitt Romney also has been forthcoming about his personal life. We know the details of his birth, his childhood, his young adult years, his work at Bain Capital, and his work as a governor. We know about his family life. Not all of it is complementary; that is normal for any good person.
Mitt Romney also is well vetted: he ran for President in 2008, he's been a governor, he ran for the Senate (and lost to Kerry), and he's been CEO of a US Olympic committee. If he had skeletons in his closet we would have heard about them by now. He might not be squeaky clean, but he's remarkably transparent.
So why the drumbeat about his tax records? Three reasons come to mind. First, it's a diversion. The longer the Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) talk about this, the less they have to talk about the horrendous economy and unemployment news. Obama desperately wants to talk about anything, anything at all, other than the economy.
Second, it's part of Obama's way of politics, refined over the years by David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. In 2008 they planted stories about McCain's supposed mistress -- not true but the New York Times didn't care, they were just "asking questions" after all. In the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois they unsealed Jack Ryan's divorce records. There's a reason why courts seal divorce records, and sure enough a week after the records were released Mr. Ryan was out of politics. Perhaps Mr. Obama would have won that election anyway, but it didn't hurt at all that the Illinois Republicans imploded completely. Obama managed to get his old mentor knocked off the ballot when he first ran for the Illinois state Senate.
In short: Obama is dirty. He's a Chicago pol. This is what they do, and so it's no surprise that he and Axelrod and Plouffe and the campaign are looking for a way to dirty up Romney.
But finally and most importantly, it's a diversion away from Obama's own issues. Remember, the best defense is a good offense. The more the Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) can accuse Romney of some hidden malfeasance, the longer they can avoid talking about Obama's completely opaque history. It's not just the transcripts, though (as the article posted by Beavis makes clear) those would be interesting to review. It's the trip to Pakistan -- how did he do that? It's the attendance at Trinity United Church. It's the overlap between his path and that of the Chicago socialists like Bill Ayers and the New Party. It's the various grants for the Chicago public schools that he controlled. Who wrote his books? What was his citizenship when he attended school in Indonesia, and was that changed when he returned to the U.S.? And just how did he afford Columbia University?
Obama won in 2008 because he and a compliant media ensured that anyone who asked about these things would be seen as a fringe person -- a 'birther'.
We won't doubt or contest that he was born in Hawaii. That is clear and it is not the issue.
The issue is a simple one: what about the rest of his life?
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air makes a good counter point: that by doing this Mitt Romney would in effect be punching below his weight, and that this would be a distraction at a time when "it's the economy, stupid" resonates with voters. Fair enough, and perhaps Mitt doesn't need to be the one demanding that Obama open up his past. Campaign surrogates could do this, but they wouldn't get the attention. We certainly can't count on the MSM, and conservative media (e.g., the Weekly Standard) don't have the required heft.
It's frustrating because we'd like ALL our presidents to be well vetted. Obama wasn't, and apparently he won't be.
They're all good questions, but part of the problem is that you're walking into a battleground that's already prepared against you.
Even if you _do_ start asking the Unanswered Questions, there's someone ready to answer in a manner that's superficially conservative _but_ echoes all the standard communist/islamonazi talking points... over on the other thread someone's drooling forth the typical talking points, that we invented the Taliban then (never mind that the Taliban didn't start up until Bhutto decided they were a great idea for taking over Afghanistan in the mid-90's), that the CIA is behind the Taliban today (Which is both the typical communist and islamonazi talking point today, their top people never repeat it outright, only infer, while the proxy spokesmen at the bottom and at pravda.ru do. They spread the real bile, which the people at the top avoid, but always manage to say something that rhymes with the bile)...
I think you probably had a lot of this with the birther crap... he kept it going because it was a way to suck his critics into a nonproductive dead alley.
I doubt he was a CIA agent, even the CIA isn't that incompetent.
July 17, 2012 -Spc. Krystal M. Fitts July 17, 2012 26 Houston, Texas, USA Female Engagement Team (FET) member
I watched senior leaders lure these innocent 21 year old female soldiers into the FET's and send them out on patrols and Shuras [useless Afghan townhall meetings], or to laise with indigenous females. It was just a matter of time before they turned up KIA. Very, very sad.
I merely took exception to the by-now standard piece of propaganda that the US (via its intelligence agencies) was (and still is) responsible for the existance and prosperity of the Taliban. I doubt you really care about Obama one way or another, as long as you can use it to deliver your real payload to the audience.
Our people are getting slaughtered and the Obama re-election MSM is covering it up.
The Obama re-election committee is pulling out all the stops to re-elect this murky Manchurian Candidate. They don't want the economy, any off-teleprompter comments, the war, anything to upset his applecart. Only the ends are important to this bunch not the means.
Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask "What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America's voters see? If it's THAT bad, maybe it's something the voters ought to see." Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.
My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you'll never hear about Mitt's tax returns ever again.
Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.
If anyone should have questions about Obama's record at Columbia University, it's me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of '83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I'd heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.
But don't take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.
Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn't the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama's records as Romney's? Shouldn't they be digging into Obama's past--beyond what he has written about himself--with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt's?
The first question I'd ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let's assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He's president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He's commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who'd care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what's the problem? Doesn't that make the media suspicious? Something doesn't add up.
Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how'd he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?
Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?
I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.
Here's my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I'm betting not.
If you could unseal Obama's Columbia University records I believe you'd find that:
A) He rarely ever attended class.
B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.
C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.
D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
"I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery."
You got it.
Except at that time the CIA was looking for Muslim students (especially listed as foreign exchange students) at Columbia University who could funnel money to the Taliban via Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to push out the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Obama's initial roommate was Pakistani. The CIA changed Barry Soetoro's name to Barak Hussein Obama and put him into service. The Taliban won. They are in the process of now inflicting the largest casualties to our troops ever after Barack/Barry announced our scheduled pull out.
Barry/Barack has been in the business of regime change ever since on behalf of Islam (Egypt, Lybia, Syria).
America is not immune to his old clandistine habits. Hillary got her dream of universal health care so she carries the water for him in regards to Egypt, Lybia, Syria in exhcange. Domestically his former Chief of Staff owes him, won mayor of Chicago with Obama's support, so Rahm turned some areas of the crime problem in Chicago over to The Nation of Islam. And when the CIA owes you, records can be cleaned up for you. The softening up of border control and piggy backing on anything contrary to the foundations of America's super power, freedom, constitution, capitalism and Christian traditions is just, IMHO, another mission/power play of a narcistic individual with the highest connections and a shadowy background.
I actually think his grades are decent but not great. That's a problem for him: the LightWalker isn't allowed to have a gentleman 'C'.
Remember, he's smarter than the rest of us. A college transcript that shows him to be average won't do.
Posted by: Steve White ||
I do agree with the premise of Romney saying I'll show you mine if you show me yours. If nothing else it would end all of this nonsense or put the burdon on Obama.
Personally I think Obama had average grades, grades that would not have looked super-smart next to most other Presidential contenders so he decided to keep them shut knowing the media wouldn't push. Then it leaves that open as a 'gotcha' later (like the birth certificate) when later revealed to be nothing.
Some of his Obama's professors have been found and have relatively good things to say about him.
I think one thing he may be ashamed of is that he may have gotten only a 'C' or 'D' from Professor Ed Said in literary theory. That would ruin his cred with his radical buddies.
Posted by: lord garth ||
I said before the election that Obama had everything handed to him. He was never properly vetted. This can of worms will be opened and he will be given a pass. We have a con artist in the White House. I suspect he will go through his personal money fast and will peddle himself off like a carny sideshow act. Yes, I see no hope for his reelection. Sad history for this country.