This foul mouthed head of state has got to go. Does this make good politics never mind anything else. This is a family blog but I’m afraid you will have to read the words of the President of the United States here. From the story:

As he left the Oval Office, Eric Bates, executive editor of ‘Rolling Stone’, told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president and she had responded: ‘Tell him: You can do it.’

According to Bates, Obama grinned and said: ‘You know, kids have good instincts. They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bull***tter, I can tell.”‘

Projection has been the single most evident characteristic of this president. He calls others just what he himself is, and has done it from Day 1. Well he has the six year old vote sewn up. It’s now time for the adults to decide.

At least we find that a New York paper endorses Romney in its editorial. This is from The New York Post:

America needs more than hope. It needs leadership. That is why The Post today endorses the candidacy of Mitt Romney for president of the United States.

Alas, given the ways of the world, New York along with California and Illinois, are not states in play, and that in itself is incredible. But at least The Post is showing sense where most of those who live in the Empire State do not. Punks.

And there are more punks at The Washington Post. They naturally endorse Obama for president but you almost have to read what they write as satire. This is the conclusion from their editorial. You cannot trust a word these people say:

So voters are left with the centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s campaign: promised tax cuts that would blow a much bigger hole in the federal budget while worsening economic inequality. His claims that he could avoid those negative effects, which defy math and which he refuses to back up with actual proposals, are more insulting than reassuring.

By contrast, the president understands the urgency of the problems as well as anyone in the country and is committed to solving them in a balanced way. In a second term, working with an opposition that we hope would be chastened by the failure of its scorched-earth campaign against him, he is far more likely than his opponent to succeed. That makes Mr. Obama by far the superior choice.

“By far” the superior choice! Punks, punks and more punks.

I have an article at Quadrant Online which looks at the third debate in which the core of the argument is how Obama has structured his expertise around continuing the policies of his predecessor. The central point:

But to the extent we have not been driven farther back than we have, to the extent that there has actually been some advance made on four years ago, it is only because of the continuation of policies introduced by President Bush following 9/11. Guantanamo remains open, attacks on al Qaeda have continued, Osama bin Laden has been killed, Iraq has been stabilised and Afghanistan is on its way to being able to maintain an army in the field to defend itself against further attacks by jihadists. All of the policies to achieve these ends were in place on the day of Obama’s inauguration. The only step he needed to take was to do nothing at all but allow the past to roll into the future.

So when I see the usual crowd on the left say that Obama won the debate, you have to wonder what they mean, since everything Obama said represented exactly the kinds of things that would have been said by George Bush eight years before and by John McCain in 2008. Obama, who became president on the back of his promise to unwind all of the war efforts commenced by President Bush, now argues for re-election because he has been able to complete each of his predecessor’s initiatives. Had Obama run on promising to continue the war in Iraq, extend the war in Afghanistan and prosecute a war in Libya, those who support Obama now as they did then cannot explain their support other than because Obama is a man of the left. It’s certainly not because he did what he promised to do.

Does the left like liars and being lied to? It’s a mystery.

George McGovern passed away yesterday at 90. The man who ran against Richard Nixon in 1972 and lost every state but one and also winning the District of Columbia. The LA Times begins its story in characteristic media fashion:

Democrat George S. McGovern, a war hero who opposed the Vietnam War, was crushed by President Richard Nixon’s Watergate-tainted campaign. A die-hard idealist, McGovern inspired scores of budding politicians.

The story is not surprisingly to a large extent devoted to Nixon and to Watergate, not to the way in which McGovern was throttled in the election itself or the reasons why that was. It is the media reliving its glory days while once again raking over the Nixon coals. The most notable aspect of McGovern, however, is that he helped begin the descent of the Democrats into the party of the left that it has become. Without McGovern and the media there could be no Obama today.

He’s still president until January even if he loses the election in November so what’s the hurry, but more to the point, what’s the reason? Being reported:

Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted US President Barack Obama as acknowledging Iran’s nuclear rights.

Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Livia Leu Agosti attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from the US president to Tehran leaders.

Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi told FNA that during the meeting, Agosti had told the Iranian officials that President Barack Obama recognizes Iran’s right of access and use of the nuclear technology.

‘There are a couple of points with regard to this (US) message (to Iran),’ Ebrahimi said and added, ‘Firstly, during the session to submit the message, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran quoted the US president as saying that “we (the US) recognize your nuclear rights”.’

As regards the second issue, the lawmaker said that the Swiss diplomat had also quoted Obama as saying that ‘I didn’t want to impose sanctions on your central bank but I had no options but to approve it since a Congress majority had approved the decision.’

Also from Drudge: “Chavez, Castro, Putin endorse Obama…“.

The foreign policy debate tomorrow – SBS at noon – should be extraordinary.