My Rational Case for Conservatives to Vote For Trump

Donald Trump was near the bottom of my candidate choices during the primaries. I was among those who thought that his intemperate remarks would spell the end of his campaign, but they did not. That his campaign consisted of a few slogans rather than policies disturbed me. As someone who follows the Kremlin’s perfidy closely, Trump’s offhand praise of Putin was more than disturbing and elicited warnings from me. As a committed small-government conservative, I worry that Trump’s instincts do not mirror my own. In a word, I am an unlikely Trump voter, but come November I will pull the Trump lever without hesitation.  I consider my reasons rational and want to share them in this forum.

My reasons for voting for Trump:

First, there is no doubt that a Clinton regime will nominate Supreme Court justices who meet the demands of her extreme left-wing base. With a Supreme Court dominated by proponents of a living constitution, the protections of the Bill of Rights and the final check on an out-of-control executive will be lost and lost for decades.

Second, although Trump is a high variance candidate, we know that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, a known liar and, through the email scandal and Clinton Foundation’s wheeling and dealing, she places personal interests above national interests.  If Putin has her emails, we could have a president subject to Kremlin blackmail. Trump may have blemishes in his background, but none compare to Hillary. Where she anyone other than a Clinton, she would be under criminal indictment.

Third, Trump’s foreign policy cannot be worse than Hillary’s failed years as Secretary of State. He has stated clearly that his foreign policy will be dictated by the national interest, not by the Obama-Clinton “citizen of the world” approach.

Fourth, Trump is correct in promising to solve the free-rider problem with America’s allies. If NATO countries are not willing to contribute their fair share to the common Trans Atlantic alliance, they should suffer the consequences. Hopefully, Trump will allow for a designated transition period to give NATO members time to contribute their share.

Fifth, Trump has tapped into mainstream America’s disenchantment with Washington’s domination by special interests. The American people understand our national politics are broke and that both sides of the aisle are complicit. The people understand the problem is not a lack of cooperation but of corruption. A Clinton administration would mean even more of a broken Washington. Trump will have to battle the odds, including many in his own party, to make the basic changes in Washington that the working people of America want.

Sixth, economists of virtually all persuasions, including myself, favor free trade. Thus my initial reaction to Trump’s attack on trade (much of which had the wrong target such as exchange rates) was negative. However, one needs only to read the business-page headlines (such as China’s deplorable treatment of Apple and banning of American chicken) to see that Trump’s call for fair trade is not without merit. We do perhaps need better negotiators to achieve fair trade, and Trump might actually improve free trade in the end.

Seventh, if a nation does not have control of its borders, it is no longer a nation. Nations must determine who they wish to enter the country for work and eventual citizenship. Most wealthy countries, like the US and Europe, need immigrants for their labor force and economic growth, but the choice of whom to admit should be determined by sensible rules, such as admitting very large numbers of highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Who gets into the United States should not be determined by unguarded borders, human traffickers, and family relations. America’s high school drop outs understand what Washington does not. Open borders drive down their earnings. We know that Hillary would not pursue a “rational” approach. Trump has promised he will.

Eighth, Trump has street-fighter instincts that the Republicans’ last two presidential candidates lacked. John McCain refused to go after Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres, and Mitt Romney insisted on playing the role of gentleman candidate. The Democrats can only be beaten by a candidate who is able to outpunch them. It is important that Trump’s attacks not be sui generis, but should focus on specific weaknesses, like Hillary’s sullied history and her failure as secretary of state.

Ninth, Trump has done the conservative and Republican causes a service by attacking political correctness and media bias head on. He has shown that fighting back rather than cowering in a corner or trying to place is the only way to deal with the twin curse of media bias and political correctness run amok.

\

My reservations about Trump include:

First, he has not demonstrated an ability to run a viable general-election campaign. To do so, he must focus on the opposition and not on fellow Republicans. On important policy issues, he should keep his mouth shut until he has thought through his positions with competent advisors.

Second, I do not know the depth of his anti-government, strict constitutionalist convictions.

Third, he must demonstrate that he is willing to do the study and work which is required to be a viable national candidate.

But my Trump reservations are minor relative to the alternative. Rational voters have no choice but to look at the alternative. On this, Trump wins hands down.

go to ricochet.com

What Russia's DNC Hack Tells Us About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Server

The Post seems on board with the benign nature of the attack: “The intrusions are an example of Russia’s interest in the U.S. political system and its desire to understand the policies, strengths and weaknesses of a potential future president…”

The Post admits that such hacked information could prove of operational significance to Russian policy makers. For example, Russia might use Donald Trump’s foreign investments “to indicate where it can get away with foreign adventurism.”  In other words, the greater concern is not Russian hacking but whether Trump may place his business interests above national interests as President. In reality, the exclusive indirectly speaks to a more sinister aspect of Russian cyber spying.  

go to Forbes.com

President Obama Revives “Leave It To Beaver's” Eddie Haskell For the Sequester Debate

Eddie Haskell was the real star of the 50s classic TV series “Leave It to Beaver.”  Eddie constantly stirred up trouble, blamed the hapless Beave and Wally when things went wrong, but  whose misdeeds were found out in the end by Ward and June Cleaver. That was a different day and age, but the Eddie Haskells are still with us, and they are in very high places.

Barack Obama is our first “Eddie Haskell President.” He stirs up mischief, for which he blames the rascally Republicans, while professing his own innocence or non-involvement. He levitates above the fray while his operatives do the dirty work. He offers grand bargains, then moves the goal posts, and blames his jilted adversaries for obstructionism.  He extracts costly concessions and then berates the conceders for not giving enough. He promises a post-racial society but conducts a campaign of class warfare. Wall Street bonuses and Cayman accounts disqualify opponents but are “not important” for his own nominees.

Our media is supposed to play the sensible Ward and June Cleaver in exposing such antics, but it acts instead as Eddie’s accomplices and enablers. Where are Ward and June when we really need them?

go to forbes.com

Sorry New York Times, Tax Flight of the Rich Is Not a Myth

James B. Stewart writes “Common Sense” for the Business Day section of The New York Times. A Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and a professor of journalism at Columbia, Stewart’s The Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes is either amateurish economics or deliberate distortion to pursue a political agenda.

Stewart writes to dispel, as a myth not worth thinking about, the notion that high marginal tax rates in one municipality, state, or a country push the wealthy to move to lower-tax locations. He assures his readers that although the notion “on its face seems to make sense…it is not the case. It turns out that a large majority of people move for far more compelling reasons, like jobs, the cost of housing, family ties or a warmer climate.”  (Stewart: Stop the “Strawmanism.” No one claims tax rates are the primary determinant of where we live).


go to forbes.com

Media Democrat Bias: Headlines You'll Never See in the Mainstream Media (Part II)

This is the second installment of “Headlines You’ll Never See in the Mainstream Media” (see first installment). I add sources so readers can see I am not making these things up.  I encourage readers to supply their own favorite headlines in the comments box.

Here goes the second round:

Democrats Claim Minor Sequester Cuts of 2.5 Percent Will Destroy the Economy (source)

 Obama and Hillary Both AWOL on September 11, 2012 (source)

 Under Obama, America’s Global Competitiveness Has Fallen from First to Seventh (source)

 Most Murders Committed With Unlicensed Handguns (source)

 CBO Study Sets Obama Care 2014-2024 Cost At Two Trillion and Obama Care Taxes at Half a Trillion (source)

go to forbes.com 

Is The Mainstream Media Truly Biased Toward Democrats? Headlines You'll Never Se

Here is my list of headlines you will never see in the Mainstream Media. At best, you may find the information buried deep within a news article. Only two are fanciful. I’ll let you guess which ones.

“Democratic Senate Defies Constitution:  Fails to Pass Budget Third Year in a Row”

“’Fact Checkers’ Disclosed to be Democrat Front Groups”

“Justice Investigation Finds No Minority Voter Suppression in 2012 Election”

“Another Obama Advisor Admits Middle–Class  Taxes Must Go Up to Pay for Entitlements”

go to forbes.com

Headlines You Will Never See

“Democratic Senate Defies Constitution:  Fails to Pass Budget Third Year in a Row”

“Justice Investigation Finds No Minority Voter Suppression in 2012 Election”

“Another Obama Advisor Admits Everyone’s Taxes Must Go Up to Pay for Entitlements”

“OECD Study Finds Affluent Americans Pay World’s Highest Income Tax Rates”

“State Keeps Benghazi Survivors Secluded From the Press”


go to forbes.com

We Have Met the Left and It's Obama

“What is motivating (Obama) primarily is ideology. And an ideological opening. He doesn’t like the malefactors of great wealth. He wants to “spread the wealth around.” Peggy Noonan

Anyone who dares to characterize Barack Obama as a leftist radical is heaped with scorn and outrage.  Only crazy, hateful talk-show entertainers like Rush Limbaugh stoop so low, but reasonable people do not listen anyway. Whether Obama harbors socialist views is a valid topic for intellectual conversation, but, other than errant bloggers (Is President Obama Truly a Socialist?), polite people avoid it.

Many moderate Republicans bought into the media narrative that Obama is a centrist, who moves left only to placate his base. Were it not for them, the true Obama would govern from the center, or tilt only ever so slightly to the left.

Indeed,  the carefully scripted Obama masterfully masqueraded as a centrist during his two presidential campaigns, while governing from the left. The complicit media characterized him as a softy, too ready to yield to the obstructionist Republicans.  But if the Left would only “Watch what I do, not what I say,” Obama already delivered for them the moon, and now wants the stars as well.

go to forbes.com

Let’s Stop Beating on Romney and Talking About the 2016

Instead of beating on Mitt Romney, we should thank him for a valiant campaign in which he had to contend not only with an incumbent president but also a cheer leading mainstream media. His debate performances were good but not perfect. It is always possible to nit pick. His campaign speeches in the last three weeks of the campaign were good to excellent, and he proved a tireless campaigner. It is not good form or a good incentive system to throw a losing candidate to the wolves, as many are doing.

We would be in good hands had he been elected. What a shame.

It is my layman’s impression that Romney would be president elect without Hurricane Sandy, without Candy Crawley, and without the overheard 47 percent remark.  There is no telling how many equivalents to the 47 percent remark that the press did not report for Obama.

It is sheer craziness that the press is already watching every move of possible 2016 Republican candidates. Give it a rest, please.

The Giant Sucking Sound Is Hostess Jobs Moving to Mexico (And Media Give Democrat Private Equity a Pass)

November 21, 2012 was a dark day for us Gen X-ers, who grew up with calorie-rich Twinkies and Ding Dongs in our school lunch boxes. (Nowadays, they would probably be confiscated by the food police, but that is now not then). After a failed mediation, Hostess Brands announced last Tuesday it would proceed with liquidation after 82 years of operations. Its various brands – among them, Wonder Bread, Twinkies, Dolly Madison, and Home Pride – go on the auction block as Hostess’s competitors, such as Flowers Foods, ConAgra, and Mexico’s El Grupo Bimbo, are poised to pick up Hostess’s iconic Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Ho Hos, and Dolly Madison brands.

A successful bid from Grupo Bimbo, the world’s largest baker, means Twinkies labeled “Hecho en Mexico” – the ultimate insult to the American baker and delivery man. News reports claim this result is likely. Twinkies can return as a highly profitable Mexican expat free from U.S. tariff-inflated sugar prices and unions.

The liquidation leaves Hostess’s 18,500  workers, most members of the Teamsters or bakery workers union, out in the cold. They are probably asking: President Obama: Where are you when Twinkies and Ring Ding Juniors need saving rather than Detroit?

go to Forbes.com

Obama Knew by 2PM on September 12 but Invented a False Narrative Nevertheless (and the media does not care)

The American people must believe in the veracity and forthrightness of their commander in chief. Barack Obama concurs (November 2, New York Times): “You do want to be able to trust your president.  You want to know that the president means what he says, and says what he means. And after four years as president, you know me.”

We’ll we may know more than we wish to.

Despite the media’s confusing Fog-of-War” coverage of the Benghazi tragedy, we know the President deliberately provided false and misleading information on the  most important security failure of his administration. He misled the American public for political advantage by asserting that the Benghazi attacks were caused by an anti-Muslim video and carried out by a spontaneous mob. He knew this narrative was false by 2PM September 12 at the latest, but he continued to spread it for personal political gain.
The Washington Post in its Security breakdown in Benghazi is not interested in whether Obama told the truth about the video and the spontaneous mob. Such questions raise what the Post calls a “political and mostly pointless issue.” Since when is the president’s veracity “pointless?”

Only Fox News, with its “aggressive reporting,” addresses Obama’s veracity, but Fox is automatically discredited “by the blustery and often scurrilous commentary” of Bill O’Reily and Shawn Hannity, among others. Serious media need pay no attention to such amateur rabble rousers, despite Fox’s Jennifer Griffin’s stellar investigative reporting.

go to forbes.com


Paul’s recommendation: Read Good Intentions, By Bob Zeidman, before voting.

Obama's Own "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Destroys Foundation of Campaign

Mitt Romney’s factually-accurate but mischievous Jeep ad baited the Obama campaign into admitting that the charge against Romney (“Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”) on which its campaign is based is false.

Romney’s TV spot: “Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China,” is 100% factually accurate. That is its beauty.

Yes, it is true that the Obama administration took GM and Chrysler through Chapter 11bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler shares became worthless and their creditors lost most of their investments. Chrysler was indeed sold to Italy’s Fiat. Chrysler’s Jeep has indeed announced that it intends to produce Jeeps in China.

The Jeep ad brought forth a furious counter attack by Obama operatives, media allies, and self-appointed “independent” fact checkers. In its cry and fury, the Obama juggernaut made a fatal mistake: They admitted that Obama “let Detroit go bankrupt,” as Romney proposed. Staunch Obama supporter, the LA Times, could not bring itself to utter the dreadful word: “Chapter 11.” It chose instead to call what happened at GM and Chrysler “brief bankruptcy restructurings.”

A self-declared (but really democrat) independent fact checker really stepped in it with its dismissal of the nefarious and outrageous (but true) Romney ad:
“It’s also misleading to say ‘Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy’ without mentioning that Romney, too, advocated a bankruptcy plan. In fact, Romney wrote a 2008 op-ed that said: ‘A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs’.” At last, we have the two candidates agreeing on a truly important issue. (FactCheck.org: I guess you would love to take that back).

Note the irony: After three years of “I saved the auto industry and Romney wanted Detroit to go bankrupt” in his stump speeches, the Obama team is using Romney to defend the Detroit bankruptcies Obama orchestrated. You mean Bain capitalist Romney did not want to decimate both Detroit and the Ohio auto industry as you have been telling us?  So Obama “saved” millions of auto jobs by following Romney’s advice?

But wait, the LA Times is ready with the standard Obama comeback:  Obama forced GM and Chrysler through a government imposed Chapter 11 because “other sources of financing became unavailable during the recession.”  Not true at all. The treasury could have provided a neutral bankruptcy court with the small amount of creditor-in-possession financing at no taxpayer risk needed to reorganize GM and Chrysler at a small fraction of the $80 billion it actually spent.  With its recognized brand, billion dollar revenues, and inflated costs begging to be pared, GM would have attracted bidders out of the Gazoo, even in 2009.

When cornered with this truth, Obama supporters will play the blame-Bush-game: “Well Bush provided government funds to keep GM and Chrysler running as he passed the baton to Obama. Yes, but then Obama should say: “Bush saved Detroit, not me.” Strange, but I have yet to hear these words.
Although the two candidates are on the same “let Detroit go bankrupt” page, their approaches could not have been more different. Obama used government pressure and blackmail to reward his UAW allies. He knew that the UAW wage and pension contracts could not survive the regular bankruptcy proceeding that businessman Romney wanted. Obama is now getting his payback. Organized labor is his biggest contributor and the organizer of the fabled Obama “ground game.”

Main Stream Media: Where were your fact checkers when Obama was distorting Romney’s “let Detroit go bankrupt”? You seem to notice only when Mitt finally played hardball and reversed the tables.

Where is the Obama apology:  “American voters: Forget what I said earlier. Both Mitt and I agree to ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’.”

Paul’s recommendation: Read Good Intentions, By Bob Zeidman, before voting.

go to forbes.com

New York Times Mentions Benghazi For the First Time in Four Days

In its Libya Warnings Were Plentiful, but Unspecific, the New York Times broke its four day embargo on the use of the word “Benghazi.” Those expecting a discussion of a possible cover up by the administration and the curious sticking to the “video story” were due for a disappointment. The article was exclusively about security arrangements and the difficulty of gauging the security threat to our embassy facilities in Libya.

American voters know about the changing administration accounts in the month following the Benghazi attacks and are curious. They must look elsewhere from the Times to get answers.

There You Go Again: New York Times Trying to Save Obama in Ohio

 In its GOP Turns Fire on Obama Pillar, The Auto Bailout, the New York Times engages in a blatant distortion to prop up Obama’s waning fortunes in Ohio. 

The Times rehashes a November 18, 2008 Romney editorial entitled Let Detroit Go Bankrupt as follows:

“Mr. Romney wrote an Op-Ed article in the New York Times — given the title by the newspaper “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.’’ In the piece Mr. Romney wrote that in the event of a bailout, “You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.”

Notice that the Times admits it chose the misleading headline (“Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”), which served as campaign fodder for Obama for the next three years.

Anyone who bothers to read the Romney piece knows he is arguing against a federal bail out (not bankruptcy) of GM and Chrysler. A bailout would leave both unable to compete, and, indeed, you could “kiss the American automotive industry good by.”

Instead, Romney advocated a court-managed Chapter 11 bankruptcy to realign GM and Chrysler’s costs with competitors to save GM and Chrysler.  The Obama administration agreed. Obama’s car czar pushed GM and Chrysler through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Chrysler was, in effect, sold to Fiat.  The bankrupt “old” GM’s shares became worthless, and its assets were transferred to a “new” GM owned primarily by the unions and the federal government.

The Times somehow forgot to tell its readers that Obama agreed with Romney to “let Detroit go bankrupt.”

Romney wanted a regular bankruptcy preceding to put in place  “new labor (UAW) agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors.” Alarmed by his UAW allies, Obama rushed to strong arm through a political bankruptcy at taxpayer expense that shortchanged bond holders, preserved union contracts and gold-plated pensions, and made the federal government the largest single shareholder.

Do not take my word: The Washington Post’s Fact Check: Letting Detroit go bankrupt rejects Obama’s references to Romney’s  wanting Detroit to go “bankrupt.”  I quote:

“This statement is drawn from a headline — ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’ (chosen by the Times)— on an opinion article written by Romney for New York Times. But he did not say that in the article…Although ‘bankrupt’ often conjures up images of liquidation, Romney called for a ‘managed bankruptcy.’ This is a process in which the company uses the bankruptcy code to discharge its debts, but emerges from the process a leaner, less leveraged company.”

Confronted with this truth, Obama’s supporters can only claim: “But there was no money for a regular bankruptcy.” Yes, there was. If the federal government could throw $80 billion at the GM-Chrysler bankruptcies, it could have put up the small amount of creditor-in-possession funds required for a regular bankruptcy.

Ohio remember:  Obama’s political bankruptcy of GM did not rescue jobs. It rescued union pay and benefits.

published in forbes.com 

Wow! The New York Times Tells the Truth on the Benghazi Blunder (PS Obama Is Losing)

Op-ed writer Ross Douthat is a rare truth teller among the New York Times’s writers’ stable. Columnist Paul Krugman spouts daily left-wing fact-uninformed economics. Token conservative, David Brooks, pens trivia about the latest book he read. Maureen Dowd jokes about women’s issues. Only Douthat  questions the Times’ ueber-liberal party line and tells the truth.

In his Sunday October 14 Mystery of Benghazi, Douthat dissects why “White House officials continued to stress the importance of the ‘hateful’ and ‘disgusting’ video, and its supposed role as a catalyst for what Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, insisted was a spontaneous attack” even as “it became clearer that the Benghazi violence was an al Qaeda operation” --- a narrative “pushed on Sunday morning programs, on late-night talk shows and at news conferences, by everyone from Rice to Hillary Clinton to the president himself.”  Per Douthat: “When Obama spoke at the United Nations shortly after the attacks, the video was referenced six times in the text; Al Qaeda was referenced only once.”

Douthat, for the first time on the pages of the venerable Times, clearly lays out the time line of what he terms the administration’s “strange denial” that the Benghazi consulate attack was a planned terrorist action.

Douthat rejects two common explanations for Obama’s “self defeating strategy,” before coming up with his own. 

go to forbes.com

Why Did British Investigators Prosecute Only the Murdochs When Everyone Was Doing It?

From the press coverage of the British tabloid hacking scandal, it seemed that only News of the World engaged in dirty tricks. All other British tabloids were clean as the fresh driven snow. This struck me as rather suspicious, and I wrote so at the time.

I knew that British tabloids compete against each other fiercely. If only one uses sleazy techniques to get juicier stories, the others would lose out in the competitive struggle.

As an economist, I posed a hypothesis: If only the Murdoch papers (News of the World and the Sun) used underhanded and illegal methods to get news scoops, their share of the tabloid market would be rising over time. Only they had the really salacious stories. Other tabloids would be boring in comparison.

British tabloid circulation statistics do not support the hypothesis. Both News of the World’s share of Sunday tabloids and The Sun’s share of daily circulation remained stable against a backdrop of declining overall tabloid circulation.

This statistical fact tells me that “everyone did it.” But why were only the Murdochs being investigated? I guess no one likes their power and politics.

Well, it looks as if the truth is finally coming out. According to a news report, a suit was filed against the Daily Mirror and covers the time when Piers Morgan was the editor. Morgan, CNN’s replacement for Larry King, previously denied involvement in phone hacking activity, but this scandal is spreading from Murdoch to the Mirror Group. The Associated Press reported late Monday: “Four alleged phone hacking victims have filed suit against the publisher of Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper, a tabloid once edited by CNN’s Morgan, prominent lawyer said late Monday.” An actress, a former nanny to David Beckham’s children and two sports figures are seeking damages due to alleged phone hacking.

It is rather late for the British public to learn that “everyone did it.” News of the World is gone. The Murdoch media empire has been under constant assault, while his likely-equally-guilty competitors have gone about their merry way.

I might also note that the fact that “everyone did it,” is not making headlines. In fact, the story is buried and will likely remain so.

Obama on Benghazi: Believe Me or Your Lying Eyes (Or At Least Wait Until After the Election)

In Duck Soup, Groucho Marx pleads his innocence to his wealthy matronly fiancé, who catches him smooching with a show girl: “Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

Since September 12, the Obama administration has been asking us to believe him, his press secretary, and his proxies that our Libyan ambassador and three other consulate officials were killed by a spontaneous mob driven into frenzy by an anti-Muslim film produced by an unknown Christian film maker.  He asks that we not believe his state department or top intelligence officials who testify that this narrative is false. Nor should we notice the coincidence of the attack taking place on 9/11 or that this was revenge for the fifteen top al Qaeda leaders killed by drones under Obama. Of course, Obama spiking the “I-killed-Osama” football at the Democrat convention had nothing to do with this either. Nor did the Libyan President warn of impending violence three days earlier.

go to forbes.com

Why The Shock That Obama Lost?

The Mainstream media and the Democrat Left are traumatized by Obama`s clear loss of the first presidential debate in Denver. Obama campaign operatives blame Jim Lehrer for letting the debate get out of hand.  Others use the excuse  that Obama`s famous debating skills are rusty. Both sides seem to agree that Obama played defense to protect the lead the polls are giving him. The most zealous Obama fans pulled their hair and asked “Where was Obama tonight?”

Being in Berlin, I watched the debates this morning on YouTube, immediately after reading the pundit consensus that Obama had an off night and had lost the debate. After watching the entire debate, my take was quite different. I saw the regular campaign-trail and White-House-press-conference Obama and a slightly energized Romney, not much different from his better primary debates. I would have judged the debates a tie, putting myself in the shoes of the average viewer. Obama made his usual points. Romney made his, although in a better prepared manner. Both Obama and Romney performed as I expected, except that Romney seemed more energized and comfortable.

If my impression that both performed up to capacity is on the mark, why the media and Democrat shell shock about Obama`s disastrous performance?



go to forbes.com

What If 'President' McCain Was Running For Re-Election Against 'Senator' Obama?

Imagine John McCain, having eked out a narrow victory in 2008, running for reelection against Illinois Senator Barack Obama under today’s economic and foreign policy circumstances. The following would be  a sample triumphant press report – New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, what have you — dated Friday September15.

“President John McCain’s reelection bid is tottering on the verge of collapse. The raising of the black flag over the Cairo Embassy, the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya, and the outburst of violent protests throughout the Mid East appear to be the coup de grace to McCain’s faltering campaign. Yesterday, reporters pelted the visibly dispirited McCain on the campaign trail with pointed questions about the Middle East: ‘Did you really say Egypt is no longer an ally? Did a major UK newspaper not present evidence that we had credible reports of security breaches at our Libya compound and you did nothing about it? You have not held a press conference for months. When do you intend to stand before the press and answer our questions?

go to forbes.com

New York Times Downplays U.S. Decline

In my World Economists Confirm America's Decline Under Obama,  I stressed the headline that the World Economic forum’s Global Competitiveness Index lowered the United States’ world ranking from first to fifth during the first three years of Obama’s term.

Unbeknownst to me, the World Economic Forum published its 2012 ranking the next day. With the U.S. election just two months off, the true headline should have been: “U.S. Decline Continues as We Fall from First to Seventh Under Obama.”

The New York Times ignored this headline by emphasizing the growing competitiveness gap within Europe. In its Competitiveness Gap Widening in Europe, the venerable Times gives one brief mention to the further collapse of U.S. competitiveness hidden in the middle of the article:

“Switzerland, which is not a part of the European Union, takes top place in the global table, with Singapore second, the United States occupying 7th position — down two places from last year — and Canada at 14th. China, in 29th place, is rated the most competitive among large emerging markets.”

And the Managing Editor of the Times denies any form of media bias in her newspaper.