The Daily Gouge, Monday, October 29th, 2012

On October 28, 2012, in Uncategorized, by magoo1310

It’s Monday, October 29th, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!

First up, more on the story the MSM would have you ignore, but which refuses to go gently into that good night:

Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen

 

 

Which could explain The Dear Misleader’s continuing refusal to answer even the simplest Benghazi questions, particularly those regarding what he knew….

….and when he knew it.  The only date and time The Obamao seems certain about is when he’ll have the answers; “sometime” and “after”….as in “sometime after” the election”!

Here’s the Juice:

But unlike the last time they watched people die….

….this time….

….they can truly and accurately claim complete responsibility….having practically pulled the trigger!

As Max Boot notes at CommentaryMagazine.com:

“….Assuming this account is accurate, it is downright mystifying–and alarming–that in spite of real-time knowledge about the assault as it was happening, and the presence only a short flight time away of considerable military resources, someone in the government (one wonders who?) decided to limit the response to sending 22 lightly armed personnel from Tripoli. Someone at a senior level needs to be held to account for this failure.

And the buck stops….

Er,….sorry:

In another election-related item, the WSJ offers yet another reason why 2012 is unquestionably the most important since 1864: 

Harry Reid’s Graveyard

Senate Democrats are promising pre-emptive gridlock for 2013.

 

Even if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan win on November 6, his agenda will be stymied if Republicans can’t pick up at least three more seats than their current 47 and control the Senate. That’s clear from the last two years, when Harry Reid’s not-so-deliberative body became the graveyard for fiscal and other reform.

House Republicans won an historic midterm election in 2010, picking up 63 seats. They also gained six Senate seats, but a handful of week GOP candidates (Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O’Donnell) cost them control of the upper body. Back in charge in 2011, Mr. Reid proceeded to stop nearly everything that House Republicans passed. President Obama hasn’t even had to sweat a veto fight because nothing escapes Mr. Reid’s lost world.

Consider the record. In 2011 and 2012 the House passed more than three-dozen economic or jobs-related bills and with only a few exceptions they died in the Senate without a vote. The bills dealt with regulatory relief, tax reduction, domestic drilling for energy, offshore drilling, a jobs bill for veterans, repeal of ObamaCare and many more. Many passed the House with significant Democratic support, as the nearby list shows.

Then there is the Democratic failure on their constitutional obligation of passing a budget. House Republicans passed their budgets in each of the past two years in the spring. The latest one, crafted by Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, contained $4.5 trillion in deficit reduction—at least twice as much as Mr. Obama’s budget proposal.

By contrast, the Senate failed to pass any budget in 2012. Or 2011. Or 2010. The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in more than 1,200 days. Sorry, Harry, you can’t blame that on a Republican filibuster, because it takes only 51 votes to pass a Senate budget resolution. In 2011 and 2012 the Senate Budget Committee never even drafted a budget, thus inspiring a House bill to dock the pay of Senate Budget Committee Members for not doing their job.

Mr. Reid even declared in 2011 that it would be “foolish for us to do a budget,” no doubt because he thought that would allow voters to see that what Democrats really want is even more spending and higher taxes. This would have made life difficult for vulnerable Democratic incumbents who pass themselves off as moderates in election years, such as Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, Montana’s Jon Tester and Florida’s Bill Nelson.

So Democrats simply sat back and took shots at the Ryan budget. Meanwhile, these same incumbents are now campaigning at home as champions of domestic energy, lower taxes, spending restraint and regulatory relief—everything the Democratic Senate helped to kill.

The Senate also failed in 2010 and 2012 to pass a single appropriations bill. According to an analysis by Senate Republicans, that hadn’t happened before in the 150-year history of the current spending process. This year the Senate even failed to enact a national defense authorization bill, which almost never happens.

The House passed a bill to avert the tax cliff looming in January, but the Senate failed to act on that too. Last week Mr. Reid’s chief Senate lieutenant, Chuck Schumer of New York, warned that Democrats will stop any attempt at bipartisan tax reform next year, calling the idea “obsolete.” He’s essentially promising pre-emptive gridlock in 2013 no matter who wins.

Voters can be forgiven for not knowing all this because the media mostly ignore Senate obstructionism these days. Instead, they dutifully follow Mr. Obama’s lead when he says of Congress that “I think the American people will run them out of town because they are frustrated and they know we need to do something big and bold.” He means Republicans.

But if it’s big and bold that voters want, House Republicans have passed it. What stands in their way are Senate Democrats. One reason the Reagan policy revolution became law in 1981 is because Republicans scared enough Democrats into cooperating by picking up a net gain of 12 Senate seats in 1980 to gain control 53-46.

If voters want to break the gridlock of the past two years and start addressing the country’s urgent fiscal and economic problems, they’re going to have to elect a Republican Senate as well as Mr. Romney.

Which brings us to our next item, courtesy again of Randy Jugs and Michael Goodwin writing at the New York Post:

Why I’m voting for Romney 

 

Each time I mention that I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, I get a blast from some who didn’t. “How could you be so dumb?” is a typical response to my confession. It is certainly a confession — of error. Obama fooled me once, but not twice. I’m voting for Mitt Romney Nov. 6th.

To understand why I’m switching, it helps to understand why I backed Obama four years ago. I am a Democrat, but vote as an independent. I see people, not parties, so Obama’s label played no role. My choice involved a simple calculation. Would John McCain or Obama be more likely to forge a consensus on big issues? America was dangerously polarized, and unable to act in ways that even 60 percent of the public could support. History shows that paralysis leads to disaster.

The war on terror was falling out of favor, despite the continuing threat. Good ideas were getting thrown out with the bad and Republicans had squandered the chance to govern.

When the financial crisis hit, McCain stumbled. He wanted to postpone a debate and rushed back to Washington — but had nothing to say or do. Obama kept silent and followed the lead of congressional Democrats. While not exactly great statesmanship, he at least looked steady. McCain, a genuine American hero, often revealed his maverick streak, his choice of Sarah Palin being Exhibit A. Despite doubts about her readiness, I found myself defending her against the vicious attacks from the left, especially by women.

McCain was my real problem. Mavericks make good whistleblowers and lousy CEOs. Upsetting the apple cart is not a qualification for the Oval Office(Unlike having “community organizer” as the only real experience on your resume!)

Obama’s soaring rhetoric enticed me at first, and I agreed that a restoration of the Clinton presidency would be a bad idea. Still, I got a jolt of Messiah Alert when he said his rise marked the moment “when the planet began to heal.”

Where he totally fooled me was his claim to be a pragmatist, not an ideologue. He spoke of uniting the country and I believed he was capable and sincere. That he won 70 million votes and more than two-thirds of the Electoral College spoke to his appeal. (More to Americans’ gullibility.)

He failed as president because he is incompetent, dishonest and not interested in the actual work of governing. His statist policies helped consign millions of Americans to a lower standard of living and his odious class warfare further divided the nation. He had no intention of uniting the country — it was his Big Lie.

I don’t hate him. But I sure as hell don’t trust him. As for the desperate charge that opposition to Obama makes me a racist, let me note that he was black when I voted for him.

Which brings us to Romney. A year ago, I thought he might be acceptable, maybe the only one in the GOP field. Now I see him as much more than acceptable. During the long slog, Romney revealed qualities that could make him a very good president. There is not a hint of scandal in his life or career, and his economic policies could spark real growth in jobs, not in food stamps.

He keenly recognizes the danger of the growing debt. With Paul Ryan, he chose a youthful, smart No. 2 who possesses deep knowledge of the budget mess and yet an optimistic view of America’s future.

On the foreign stage, Romney is a novice, but his instincts about American power are right and his remarks in the last debate about Obama’s apology tour were a defining difference. It is impossible to imagine Romney going abroad to criticize his country, or lying about the murder of an ambassador. The challenger is right when he says Obama has made the nation less safe.

Mitt: not only better than nothing, but one helluva lot better than Obama!

Romney is no “movement conservative,” but is moderate and prudent in the everyday ways of most Americans. As he proved in Massachusetts, he can work with Democrats to get things done. As for being a Mormon, to hold that against Romney is pure bigotry. His election would knock down one more barrier to equality of opportunity.

Finally, there is temperament. Romney’s firm, steady demeanor during Obama’s rancid attempts at character assassination demonstrates the presidential character lacking in the incumbent. That’s the change I want for my country.

To which we can only add….

On the Lighter Side….

And in the Entertainment Section, things are looking up for Romney in places one would never expect:

Madonna booed after touting Obama in New Orleans concert

 

Finally, in the Automotive Section:

GM to Invest $450M in Argentina to Manufacture Global Chevy Vehicle

 

General Motors will invest $450 million to manufacture a new global Chevy vehicle at its Rosario Automotive Complex in Argentina. The investment will be made between 2013 and 2015 at the Rosario facility, which produced more than 136,000 vehicles in 2011. The announcement was made following a meeting at Government House of GM CEO Dan Akerson with President Cristina Fernandez. Under the code name Project Phoenix, GM will manufacture a global platform car exclusive for Mercosur and the region.

“We are pleased to be making this investment in Argentina, which remains a very important market for us,” GM Chairman and CEO Akerson said in a statement….“This new model to be based on a global platform will run in addition to the models we are currently manufacturing in our plant and will allow us to supply the regional and domestic market with even more high-quality, high value Chevrolet products, said GM Argentina Ms Costantini.

Chairman Akerson went on to assure American consumers despite the investment of their tax dollars in more profitable overseas facilities, GM’s unionized domestic factories would continue churn out automobiles of the same value and quality we’ve come to expect from Chevrolet!

Magoo



Archives