|
| |||||||
« Romney's mea culpa on his '47%' remark |
| Email shows State Department rejecting Libyan embassy security assistance »
October 5, 2012
Obama's Debate Con?Barack Obama has always been a fine actor and Wednesday night he deftly played the role of a debate loser with Oscar-worthy brilliance. I think it was a con. During my college days I hustled pool to make ends meet. The "hustle" was to give the "mark" enough adrenaline that he really thought he could beat me with money on the line. That meant losing decisively, with feigned emotion, early and often. Isn't that what's happening now, after the first debate, a simple hustle to create the appropriate emotions in the Obama base? The Obama campaign can then channel these amped up emotions into a much stronger turnout than his miserable performance in office would otherwise generate. America loves the underdog, the bottom-of-the-ninth inning home run and the Hail Mary pass with two seconds left in the fourth quarter. The $750 an hour Democratic political consultants also know this phenomenon well. So, perhaps there were paid focus groups this past spring that batted around what kind of big come-from-behind "wins" in October might look like for Obama; big enough to overcome all the truly lousy economic news and a resurgent Republican? Does anyone doubt that this Administration has already coordinated a series of well-planned domestic and foreign policy "October surprises" during the final month of the Presidential campaign? To believe otherwise is naïve at best. Manipulation of the public mood with the cooperation of the media is what the Obama political team does best. One possible October surprise could be, as WND.com speculated:
A second (brietbart.com) October surprise has also been surmised:
Perhaps these strikes are to be the October surprise intended to make a flailing foreign policy president look strong? And a third October surprise too. From breitbart.com
Can you imagine the MSM headlines and cable news bulletins? " The O's Magic Is Back!" There would be 24-hour wall-to-wall coverage on these stories. $4.60 a gallon gas, who cares? Manufacturing down, so what? Our guys just wiped out some bad guys and there was live video from the UAV! Mitt who? On a much more serious note, let's ask the question that stalks this election. Is it possible that the Libyan and Egyptian attacks occurred through a selective negligence by senior members of the Administration, so that the follow up military strikes would be timed to influence the election? Knowing what we do about the character of this President and his hand picked amoral sycophants, is there any doubt that such ideas are not only warranted, but demand a further exploration. |
||
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
|
|