A few interesting statistical facts about this newspaper insert being put out by Mitt Romney:

Research from Scarborough Research found that ‘old-fashioned newspapers represent an undervalued political advertising opportunity’ because ‘newspaper readers are more likely to vote than users of other media.’

The annual survey of over 200,000 adults nationally found those who watch television most regularly in addition to those who read newspapers most regularly are more likely to vote, consume news and information about politics and tend to be older.

On the other hand, the heaviest internet users are likely to be younger and therefore less likely to vote, the study found.

The research also found ‘the partisan profile of national newspaper readers is slightly left of center, making it an effective vehicle to reach disaffected 2008 Obama voters and the older Reagan/Clinton ticket-splitter.’

They also included a crossword puzzle. It is only a cryptic crossword if you base your news on The New York Times or The Age:

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will create 12 million more ____

Since Obamacare, insurance rates ___ very fast

First name of the teenage girl whose life was saved by Mitt Romney

Obama’s message to small business (goes with 24 across)

Mitt Romney can __ the country out of the economic mess

Hmmm. A two word clue on “Obama’s message to small business”. Many possibilities come to mind, but I suspect they’re not the ones the Romney campaign included.

You have the president of the United States being asked for assistance during the raid on the consulate in Benghazi on September 11 but because he is running for re-election in part based on his having defeated al Qaeda he refuses to send support and instead heads off to a fund raising dinner in Las Vegas. Meanwhile, for two weeks or more, he insists in public that the reason for the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous demonstration about a Youtube video on the birth of Islam. He therefore does not do what he was elected to do, he fails to defend his ambassador when under attack when he could have done so, has the maker of the video which had nothing to do with the raid arrested and put in jail and then lies repeatedly for the following two weeks about what he had known almost from the very first hours of the attack.

There is something so sickening about this that it defies my ability to understand such duplicity and deceit. Not only should the American people not re-elect this man; he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. He should be shunned by all decent citizens. He should become an electoral pariah, poison to any other Democrat who might in any way be associated with him.

The story of Benghazi is coming out and in a rush. The mainstream media, Obama’s enablers, are still doing what they can to cover up but this is now so far beyond the political normal that it will very soon become impossible to deny what is now evident beyond argument to anyone who has been following the story up until now. Here is an excerpt from just one such story of the many that are now rushing into the daylight from the few remaining media outlets in the United States that are not themselves lying and suppressing the fact in order to save this scoundrel of a president from becoming the ex-president in a few weeks’ time.

With all this information – from frantic messages sent by operators on the ground to highly detailed overhead battle-scene video – who invented the asinine idea that the attack was collateral damage from a flash-mob reacting to a provocative video? The record there is incriminating. For weeks afterward, the administration party-line was that the video, not al Qaeda, was responsible for the disaster, a major point of President Obama’s September speech to the United Nations. But when that story had morphed into an indefensible fiction, the party line shifted again, memorably summarized by Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. during his debate with Congressman Paul Ryan: ‘We didn’t know’ because the intelligence establishment was still beavering away.

What I cannot understand is the nature of the greater good the media see in Obama relative to Mitt Romney that doing all they can to hide these disastrous and dishonest actions they are hoping to preserve in having this man re-elected.

Clarice Feldman says the same: This is from The American Thinker where Clarice is trying to make the same point of exasperation. Where will the line be drawn for some people? If this isn’t beyond the realm of acceptability in a President, then when can a president be said to have gone too far? Over to Clarice:

In the simplest of terms, we knew there was general danger and had made inadequate security arrangements. When those arrangements failed (as they were almost certain to) we had a number of opportunities to protect the Ambassador and others — nearby military support, assistance from a nearby Spectre gunship and from teams stationed 2 hours away at Sigonella Air Base, All of this help was denied as coldly as the earlier requests for additional security and 4 Americans were murdered, giving our enemies an unwarranted victory.

From which she concludes in much the same was as I did:

Stand Down, Obama and your administration. All of you. Stand Down. You’ve failed to carry out your responsibilities of office. You treated American lives, including that of an ambassador — the official representative of your country — with utter disregard for their safety. You’ve lied to us about this tragedy so many times and in so many ways you can no longer credibly lead. You’re crass and vulgar and without regard for truth, law or common decency and deserve to be drummed out of office.

I don’t know what else there is to say other than to thank Token for the suggestion to include the above cartoon as well. The core of the mainstream American media are themselves beyond disgusting.

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.