October 31st, 2012

The Benghazi ooze

Is it happening, slowly but surely? And will it be fast enough to affect the election on Tuesday?

There are a couple of signs that the Benghazi furor may have reached enough critical mass to actually enter mainstream consciousness. The first is that Jay Leno made a joke about it. The second is that the WaPo published a David Ignatius column dealing with it.

Pretty small potatoes compared to what ought to be happening. But it’s an indication that the dam might not be holding, even if only a trickle of water is coming through right now. And although Ignatius’ column does refer to the Fox reporting on the subject, he spends quite a bit of time making excuses for the administration and leaving out important facts that would tend to implicate Obama and company. Nevertheless, Ignatius is at least asking some hard questions, too, and refusing to ignore the story entirely.

It’s a sad thing when weak tea such as Ignatius’ column becomes praiseworthy, but that’s the way it is with the MSM these days—the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign. As big as the Benghazi story is (or should be), at the moment the story of the press coverage (or lack thereof) of it is bigger.

97 Responses to “The Benghazi ooze”

  1. expat Says:

    PJ Tatler has a list of retired military endorsements–a must see. Obviously, a lot of these people don’t trust Obama’s approach to foreign policy.

  2. carl in atlanta Says:

    Link to that PJ Tatler list of endorsements is here. Pretty impressive. I wonder whether the left can produce a similar list of lefty retired military brass enorsing Obama?

    I figure the MSM ooze that Neo describes is just a bunch of bet-hedging they can roll out just about this time next week.

  3. Curtis Says:

    There’s also the efforts of Senator McCain and his letter, signed by three other senators, to the President demanding information.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/31/Senators-issue-letter-WH-Benghazi

  4. Ackler Says:

    Quite frankly, nobody cares about Benghazi. It’s all about Sandy and Obama’s strong, “Presidential” leadership. What I predicted on Monday is starting to play out. Granted, even I didn’t anticipate Chris Christie gushing with shameless praise. In any case, the Presidential election is over. The only question now is this size of the Obama landslide and the length of his coattails. I’m standing by my prediction of 390-400 in the college/55-56 in the popular vote and a Democratic House.

    The next six days will be pure agony for Republicans. But, the end is near and like the Atlantic shore, they will rebuild.

  5. thomass Says:

    Ignatius was just doing a pressure release so they can claim they are not ignoring the story…

  6. carl in atlanta Says:

    Ackler:

    Are you related to Alhouse’s commenter, “America’s Politico”?

    Just asking…

  7. Ackler Says:

    Carl:

    Nope. I only read Althouse occasionally and have never posted there.

  8. Oldflyer Says:

    Just received an email from a friend with a story that General Ham of Africa Command and the Admiral Commanding the USS Stennis Strike Group were both relieved for ignoring orders to not assist at Benghazi. Of course, neither of them actually assisted, but according to the story they declared their intention. Supposedly, Ham was relieved on the spot.

    The Stennis Strike Group was in the Persian Gulf, so any support would have been at very long range, and certainly several hours after the commitment.

    I was not provided with the provenance of the story. It looks like a professionally created piece, with a picture of the Strike Group Commander.

    I wonder if anyone else has seen anything? You never know what to believe on the internet without some kind of corroboration. I have forwarded it to, and requested comment from, a couple of friends who retain Navy contacts, and are tuned into the “old Admiral’s network”.

    If this is accurate, and someone speaks for the record, it could become big.

  9. Oldflyer Says:

    Should have mentioned in case anyone doesn’t know; the Stennis Strike Group Commander was in fact relieved for “faulty operational judgement”. No details given. General Ham is leaving African Command early, although it is described as routine rotation.

  10. Steve D Says:

    ‘And will it be fast enough to affect the election on Tuesday?’

    Wait, you mean it can get worse for Obama?

  11. Ackler Says:

    “If this is accurate, and someone speaks for the record, it could become big.”

    Nope. Benghazi has been buried under the Sandy wave. At this point, absolutely no revelations about the attack and the response are of interest to the mainstream media or the public at large. And after Obama is re-elected in a landslide, it will become moot.

  12. Curtis Says:

    Oldflyer, try the link below and when you get there, scroll down for a review of the Gen. Ham rumors.

    http://www.blackfive.net/

  13. carl in atlanta Says:

    Ackler:

    You ought to go over there and read his stuff; check it out!

  14. Curtis Says:

    Actually, Oldflyer, here’s a direct link with comments:

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/rumors-of-general-officers-arrested-relieved.html#comments

  15. turfmann Says:

    @Ackler Says: October 31st, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    You should care about it. Every American should not only care, but should be outraged at the actions of the White House on 9/11.

    As further details trickle out, the circumstances only get worse, not better. If Obama, et al, were running weapons into the hands of AQ as is being reported, that is an act of treason – giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies is well within the definition of treason.

    And as for your fanciful prediction that Obama is going to win, can I have some of what you’re smoking?

  16. Steve D Says:

    Romney is up six points in the early voting. All the poll numbers seem to favor him. Unless something changes quickly impeaching Obama will soon be off the table. (Unless they can do it quickly between the election and inauguration day)

  17. Ackler Says:

    Steve D:

    Unless something changes….something DID change today. Something massive. Chris Christie tearful Obama praise exemplified it. A political Gestalt Shift. Obama is going to win by a huge margin.

  18. Ackler Says:

    turfmann,

    I was commenting on the “is” not the “ought”. I agree, every patriotic American, regardless of partisan affiliation *should* care as should any responsible journalist. But…they don’t. They might, at least to a certain extent, were it not for Sandy. There’s nothing you or or I or Romney or anyone else can do about it.

    I acknowledge the MSM has been negligent (possibly even willful) in their lack of coverage up to now. But at present, their negligence is secondary. Benghazi is being ignored largely because of Sandy. And while the long term effects and implications of the former are far deeper and more damaging, it’s hard to explain that to anyone who has just lost their home (or has a loved one who has) due to Frankenstorm.

    By the time the Sandy coverage dies down, Obama will have his landslide victory. By the time the buzz from this unexpected lanslide dies down, Benghazi will be stale news and any efforts to revise it will be dismissed as sour grapes by a defeated political party and its fellow travelers.

    And I’m not smoking anything; just watching the last (and biggest) twist of a truly bizarre Presidential campaign unfold, slowly but deliberately.

  19. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Actually, Romney’s going to win in a landslide. The election is over and ended when Obama shut up and sat down in the first debate.

    The real question is what the Senate’s composition will consist of in January.

    Benghazi is of huge importance, the Obama doctrine is that American lives count for far less than diplomatic maneuvers. That American lives will be sacrificed for political gain.

    Republicans got the message out on Benghazi on all the political talk shows, every republican guest should continue to do so, hold the MSM’s feet to the fire. Repeatedly ask them why, other than bias, they’re not covering the most important story of Obama’s Presidency.

    Come January, because it would be counter productive, no charges should be filed against Obama administration officials but all relevant emails, recordings and documentation should be released.

    Let posterity know their disgrace.

  20. Steve D Says:

    ‘something DID change today.’

    Too little too late is my opinion. But we’ll see.

  21. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “I acknowledge the MSM has been negligent (possibly even willful) in their lack of coverage up to now.”

    Possibly? Other than FOX, not one major news outlet’s political show covered Benghazi prior to Sandy. The lack of coverage is entirely willful.

    You’re either willfully obtuse or an apologist.

  22. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Forgetting all the stuff in the middle, we know that Zero said he gave to order to do whatever’s necessary take care of it. Nobody did.
    Somebody is either lying–Zero–or disobeyed orders.
    Like to know which and who.

  23. Ackler Says:

    Geoffrey,

    Okay, I’ll concede. It was willful and deliberate. The MSM is by and large a disgrace, as you said. None of this changes the reality of where we are at and what is about to happen. The absurdity of it all!

    A majority of Americans understand the dangers our country faces in regards to the debt, entitlement reform, high unemployment, economic stagnation, statist policies, etc. Moreover, a majority of Americans agree by and large with Governor Romney’s positions on most of those issues. After the first debate, a majority of Americans started to see Romney as Presidential material and the best candidate to handle the aforementioned crises.

    And yet, all of that is evaporating almost instantaneously. Not because of anything Romney said or did, nor because of any scandalous or questionable issue with his past. Not because of Obama’s record, nor anything he has offered for a second term agenda, or specifically anything he has said or done up until today. No, because of an act of God (and the Democrats very adept means of exploiting the same).

    That’s pretty darn absurd! And yet, it is reality. No one ever said politics was rational. Far from it. Yet this election carries the irrational to the level of ludicrous.

  24. CV Says:

    Ackler:

    I can’t stand seeing Obama grab this opportunity (and his slicker and galoshes) to act “presidential” by rushing to the aid of the states hit hardest by Sandy. And while I like Christie I think his effusive praise was a bit over the top given the timing of the election. Can’t fault him too much however, given the circumstances in NJ.

    But while this turn of events might look to benefit Obama right now, this week, it may not play out that way. Voter turnout will be affected on the east coast and mid atlantic and not to the Dems advantage. The committed Romney voters are the more motivated group. They are not as likely to be deterred from voting by the aftermath of the storm. Not the same story with likely Obama voters. Plus independents are already breaking Romney’s way, etc.

    No landslide for O but it’s going to be a nail biter on Tues.

  25. Kurt Says:

    Slightly off-topic, but I must add that the title of this post made me think of this video which I just saw embedded on Instapundit. It is rather amusing.

  26. southpaw Says:

    Thomas Sowell writes soemthing interesting about this at Townhall, claiming the whole strategy Obama has employed is deliberate and well known

    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/30/cooling_out_the_voters

    He seems to indicate their con-artist technique to diffuse the situation has worked about as well as it could, and implies it will blow over regardless of the election. I’m hoping he’s misjudged the situation, but he seldom gets much wrong.

  27. parker Says:

    Acting presidential is not the same as being presidential. BHO’s appearance in NJ is of little consequence. BHO will not feed the multitudes, raise the dead, restore electricity, suck water out of floodplains and subways back into the heavens, or miraculously reconstruct destroyed private property and infrastructure by Tuesday. People in the areas of devastation do not care whether or not BHO ‘cares’. They are looking at a few weeks and in so cases months before their lives return to normal.

    Oh, and least anyone failed to notice: http://tinyurl.com/czh37so The unemployed and the underemployed are well aware they are unemployed or underemployed. Only those who are willfully ignorant believe BHO has a clue about how to improve the economy.

    And yes, Benghazi matters and it will matter for weeks of hearings and investigations. Benghazi is not about oral sex in the White House or witness tampering. It will taint the messiah for all of his days. Benghazi is about 4 dead, refusal to assist, and lying after the fact.

    No one disobeyed an order from BHO to assist the consulate in Benghazi, although others disobeyed orders to stand down. Benghazi is a flaming tire around BHO’s neck. Get used to it ‘progressives’. Get used to it MSM. Get used to it Acker.

  28. JFM Says:

    A just punishment for Obama would be for him to be reelected and for the Republicans to get majorities in both the House and Senate. The result would be Watergate x5.

    It would be a terrible punishment for the United States if Obama got reelected. I’m not wishing for his reelection.

  29. neo-neocon Says:

    Ackler: I still think you’re a concern troll. But I’m willing to entertain an alternate theory, which is that your critical thinking skills might have gone missing.

    Benghazi not being covered or paid attention to by voters because of Sandy? That’s some long-range forecast the MSM must have gotten, because this story (and the MSM’s malfeasance about it) began about seven weeks ago. It’s been building for weeks. And if Jay Leno is noticing, America is noticing by now.

    First we had the ridiculous focus on Mitt Romney’s criticism of the Cairo communications about the video. The we had week after week of the MSM allowing Obama and his minions to blame it all on the video, without challenging this obvious lie. Then we had the second debate and its aftermath, in which Candy Crowley (and the MSM) backed up Obama’s falsehoods about what he actually said in the Rose Garden.

    All of this took place long before Sandy, and it’s hardly an exhaustive list of the MSM coverup of Benghazi, either.

    As far as whether the MSM’s negligence has been willful or not—are you joking? How could it not have been willful? Does the MSM not recognize a story when it sees one? Or was the entire MSM kidnapped en masse and held in a large closet, isolated from all communication for the duration? Perhaps the MSM was placed under an evil magician’s spell? Because I can’t think of anything else other than willful dereliction of duty on the part of the MSM to explain their behavior.

    I see that in a later comment you conceded that it was “willful,” but how could you have doubted that in the first place? And your extreme emphasis on Sandy is very odd, as well. I see no indication—none—that minds have changed about Obama as a result of him doing what virtually any president would do regarding Sandy. Do you really think voters would chuck four years of disappointment on all fronts because he flies to the scene of some floods? I don’t think people operate that way. If Obama wins (perish the thought), it will not be because people suddenly forgave him everything because of Sandy.

    Most of the country isn’t involved in Sandy and although they watch a bit about it, it’s not really on their radar screen. As far as I know, except for some parts of eastern PA, not a single Sandy-affected state is a swing state (and I’m not at all sure that PA qualifies for that status, either, and NH was quite minimally affected). The most-affected states are Democratic strongholds. It’s possible that this will even depress the vote for Obama rather than help it, since New York City, for example, is strongly for Obama, and people there might have trouble voting.

  30. carl in atlanta Says:

    I want to believe* that Ackler’s running more of an irony-troll satire routine, making a mockery of the left’s transparent and intelligence-insulting talking points [a la "A P" over at that other salon-type blog]. The act’s a good one, but it’s been taken…

    *or hope?

  31. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    ackler @ 5:43,

    One of us is seriously mistaken. We’ll know who in 6 days. If I should be right, it will be interesting to see if you return to this blog after the election. If you don’t, it will confirm that you are indeed a ‘concern troll’.

  32. parker Says:

    I think Acker is a discouragement troll. As GB notes if he fails to show up after a Romney victory, well, a troll is a troll is a troll.

  33. Curtis Says:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/31/pew-on-early-voters-romney-leads-obama-running-far-ahead-of-mccain-08/

    In which the end (see the embed at the end of the link) meets the beginning and coves the point in between.

  34. Kyndyll Says:

    Given all that has happened to motivate the people who will be voting against Obama, it is unlikely that a merely typical response to a natural disaster is going to result in any meaningful change in voting. Since Obama actually bothered to show up, I wouldn’t expect any defections from the Obama-voting camp over it, but how does one day of doing what we hired the guy to do make up for four years of being an abject failure?

    Frankly, I, like many Romney voters, would hike through broken glass and snow, past rats and snakes, over hill and dale, to vote for Romney. Except that I won’t need to – I already had plans to be traveling on election day so my vote is already cast with the early ballot I sent last week.

  35. holmes Says:

    Here is the internal rationalization that I think is happening with MSM journalists: “You know, it really wouldn’t be fair to harangue Obama on this issue and swing the election to Romney. It’s really just unfortunate timing and the truth will come out eventually. After all, we are neutrals and swinging elections is not what we do. The end.”

  36. neo-neocon Says:

    parker: a concern troll is a discouragement troll.
    Same thing. “Concern trolls” masquerade as people on your side who express “concern” about something that will do your candidate in.

  37. parker Says:

    Thank you neo, I’m not up on the various species of trolls and I stand corrected.

    Kurt,

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Lots of trick or treaters in my neighborhood on a clear and chilly end to October. I’m on the porch doling out candy and surfing on my laptop. Its great to be alive and to be an American.

  38. Oldflyer Says:

    Ackler needs to think a little deeper.

    So, the people who support Obama will say “look he cares. He went to NJ and burned a lot of jet fuel, (He took the 747 for God’s sake, and he also took the helos), he distracted the people who are trying to cope with the disaster, and he gave away a lot of other people’s money. How Presidential. And look, Christie that weird guy welcomed him, along with our checkbook.”

    But, here is something to think about. If the vote in Philadelphia is suppressed by the aftermath of Sandy, then Pennsylvania really comes into play since Philly is Obama’s stronghold there. If the vote in the Virginia suburbs of DC is suppressed, then Virginia is really solid (I have faith in the Old Dominion anyway, but it helps). Could Maryland go for Romney if Baltimore doesn’t turn out? Then, it will be fun to see what New York looks like if NYC doesn’t vote big. Whoo! Whoo! Sunami alert. Those are the real questions about the effect of Sandy on the election.

    Playing Presidential is what Obama has been doing for nearly four years. I think most people have seen enough of his act.

    Fortunately, we don’t have long to wait.

    Oh, and if it does come out publicly that two Flag Officers were fired because they wanted to use their considerable Command assets to help in Benghazi, we will see if the American people have any moral fiber. I don’t think it will play well in Peoria.

  39. Ackler Says:

    Hi Neo,

    First off, thank you for your reply to my comments. I’m really flattered. :-) And no, I am not a concern troll, but I understand how I could be seen as one and that’s okay. But truthfully, I am voting for Romney and I live in a swing state, so my vote actually matters. Or, it would have, anyway. I no longer think my state (Wisconsin) or any of the “swings” will be close. Romney is likely to be limited to much of the south (sans Virginia, North Carolina and Florida) along with the plains and part of the Rockies.

    Benghazi. I meant it is not being covered “currently” because of Sandy. Yes, I conceded the lack of coverage prior to Sandy was willful. My previous comment where I said “possibly willful” was largely just to give the media the benefit of the doubt. I try to be fair minded and presume that people have good intentions most of the time, unless very strong evidence shows otherwise. But, your summary certainly is persuasive, so I agree, it’s been a willful lack of coverage.

    My point, however, is that even if CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times (nah, strike that one, would never happen!) started reporting on Benghazi aggressively right now, it would capture little attention of, and be of very little interest to, most voters. And this is not because it isn’t important, nor because voters wouldn’t find it important and highly disturbing under different circumstances. However, right now they would not have the time, patience or interest, because of Sandy. A month from now? Absolutely. A week from now? Maybe. However, a week from now, Obama will be discussing cabinet shifts for his second term and meeting with Speaker-designate Pelosi (yes, I’m sorry) to lay out God knows what for the opening weeks of the 113th Congress.

    So, yes, the media is to blame for squelching Benghazi for seven weeks. But now that very disturbing details are emerging, Sandy is primarily to blame for the lack of interest.

    As for indications of a titantic shift in this campaign will be coming, but slowly. Due to the storm, it is going to be hard to conduct national polls up until almost election day. But I expect to see state polls to shift slowly, but dramatically over the course of the next several days. I think Ohio already has. Yes I know, we can talk about oversampling Democrats until we’re blue in the face. But the bottom line is, Romney was slowly but steadily climbing and finally seemed to fight his way to a tie or even a small lead, until today with a sudden +5 for Obama. What changed? Sandy. We see it potentially in Wisconsin with the Marquette poll suddenly showing Obama +8. As yet, an outlier. But again, what changed?

    In any case, my conclusions are based little on a change in poll numbers (of which, there are few as yet), but on the symbolism of the last two days and what is likely to come for the rest of the week. No, I do not think voters are forgiving Obama merely because of his image and behavior this week. But, they are forgetting. At least temporarily. I do not think most voters are stupid, but I do think they have a very short attention span. They easily forget events, policy positions, arguments, past misdeeds or gaffes of candidates etc., unless these are hammered into them incessantly. The last four weeks have been great for Republicans and Romney hammering their arguments home. The last two days and up until election day will be impossible.

    The Democrats have so far, maneuvered Sandy to their advantage perfectly, abetted by the media, of course. The canard that Romney wants to abolish FEMA and leave people to fend for themselves in a disaster is ridiculous. Under normal circumstances, it would be laughed away and forgotten quite quickly. These are not normal circumstances. The Democrats are crafting a Manichaean picture here: Obama = A helpful, supportive, attentive and efficient government in times of crisis; Romney = The State of Nature. If you’re wealthy, you will be able to afford relief by private means; if you’re poor or middle class, you’re out of luck. And they are extrapolating, using Sandy as a metaphor for society writ large. And I believe it is working. The Christie/Obama image juxtaposed with Romney’s talk of more control to the states in regards to disaster relief is powerful and will resonate.

    Resonate…for a few weeks. Sometime in late November or early December, Americans will start to collectively ask, “Wait? Why did we re-elect Obama? The economy is still anemic, entitlements are still out of control, and Benghazi…” Buyer’s remorse. I know there’s plenty of talk of Democrats wanting to postpone the election. But honestly, a postponement would almost certainly advantage Republicans. When Americans act on impulse, follow their emotive instincts, Democrats tend to do better. When given a chance to think arguments through slowly and deliberately, Republicans have the advantage. There is no time for the voters to think carefully. They will act impulsively and regret it later.

    You are correct: the states most affected by Sandy are Democratic and, due to that, voter turnout may be down there. But even if it is, and even if the downtown is disproportionately among Democrats, this downturn won’t change the winner in any of those states. The rest of the nation may not be following Sandy minute by minute, but they are sufficiently to be exposed to the imagery and subtle arguments Obama and the Democrats are presenting. Romney has offered little in response and from what I understand, he’s running to Florida for a campaign event tomorrow with no concrete plan to visit the affected area. Goodness, why is he campaigning during this? He has surrogates for that, as does Obama! In any case, if he doesn’t go to the affected states at some point, he will indeed lose in a landslide. If he does, he will still lose, but it might be within five points and maybe, just maybe, the House will hold by a few seats.

    So there’s a broader picture of where I’m coming from. Have at it, folks!

  40. Ackler Says:

    Geoffrey,

    If you are right, I guarantee you I will return to this blog, happily concede I was wrong, and buy you a nice bottle of scotch (or whatever you prefer) as a fitting reward for your perceptive analysis.

    Alas, I’m not at all anticipating such a turn of events.

  41. Curtis Says:

    Gagdad Bob observes:

    I predicted several years ago that Obama’s fake coolness would crack under the pressure of actual expectations. Again, the facade of coolness could be maintained so long as he was borne upward on nothing more substantial than the winds of white liberal guilt.

    But look what he has now become: petty, peevish, vindictive, brittle, petulant, small-minded, mean-spirited, acid-tongued. In short, our soon-to-be ex-wife.

    Indeed, in recent weeks Obama has gone full Garofolo on us. Again, some people no doubt find this attractive, just as, at the other end, some people find pathological masculinity attractive.

    http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/

  42. parker Says:

    “Obama has gone full Garofolo on us. ”

    I hadn’t thought about our messiah in those terms, but yes it fits.

    “No normal man would be attracted to, say, Janeane Garofalo. And yet, she probably has a boyfriend, poor bastard.”

    Ugh! I do not want to imagine Garofalo mating with a male homo sapiens. If she does have a ‘boyfriend’ lets hope its a sea cucumber. That puts her out of the gene pool.

  43. Curtis Says:

    Sandy could not have been better timed to wash away the very recent peevishness of Obama and distract attention away from Benghazi. They call Benghazi a tragedy. It wasn’t. Sandy will be the tragedy if it does result in a win for Obama. You can bet the media will portray picture after picture of Obama hugging people.

    But Mitt still has the momentum, the undecideds are few, and there is still a week to go. But I think the election got a little closer.

  44. texexec Says:

    “I’m standing by my prediction of 390-400 in the college/55-56 in the popular vote and a Democratic House. ”

    Ackler:

    A Democratic House? What chu’ been smokin’?

    390-400 college?

    I don’t drink but I want some of this bet in some form.

  45. George Says:

    He actually backed off a little from his initial October 29 prediction:

    “Obama will win between 400 and 450 electoral votes and about 56-58% of the popular vote. Democrats will win 60 seats in the U.S. Senate (at least), losing none of their own, while picking up Arizona, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas. They will gain about 60-70 seats in the House, a comfortable majority, restoring Pelosi to the Speaker’s chair, feistier and more determined than ever.”

    “Brace for it, folks. I am as sure of this outcome as I am of anything I have ever seen in politics. It is coming.”

  46. parker Says:

    “… restoring Pelosi to the Speaker’s chair, feistier and more determined than ever.””

    That is the tell. I call bluff or dementia.

  47. Ackler Says:

    Yep, I backed off a little. But only a little.

    This picture, folks:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/christie-obama-vows-not-quit-until-done-214410192–election.html

    It is more potent than thousands of campaign ads or a strong performance in 20 debates. It is 100 times more persuasive than even the most eloquent and compelling arguments for limited government Paul Ryan can muster. And there will be many more like it in the coming days.

    And where, exactly, is Romney? I’m asking that over and over. As I predicted on Monday, he is MIA. Naively thinking that staying aloof, passively soliciting donations for storm relief, is sufficient. I came very close to believing he “got it” when it comes to how politics really works in this country. He certainly seemed to in October. But he doesn’t. He’s still pretty much clueless as to the nitty gritty of politicking and is on the precipice of being battered (and taking down his party with him) because of it.

    How I just want this over and done with! Alas, five more days of watching the slow, steady collapse. :-(

  48. jamie Says:

    Except that the timing is TOO close. Too many people will still be miserable next Tuesday; Romney clearly isn’t to blame for that (nor is Obama, but if Ackler is f’real and also right about the short-sightedness and stupidity of the electorate, then they won’t know that).

    But there was that Pelosi tell.

  49. Curtis Says:

    HERE’S WHAT IT IS BROTHER. IT IS MORE POTENT THAN THOUSANDS OF CAMPAIGN ADS OR A STRONG PERFORMANCE IN 20 DEBATES. AND, AND, AND, AND, AND ALL THAT AND MORE!!!!!!! OKAY?

    Uhh, yeaaaaaahh, right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfzwFloVqA

  50. Steve D Says:

    ‘And yet, all of that is evaporating almost instantaneously.’

    Ackler: When I first heard about the storm I realized that this had to be in Obama’s favor. Still I don’t see this changing the election that much at least not enough to reelect Obama. We should see polls in the next two or three days which if you are right should reflect the change. Let’s wait and see.

  51. Paul in Boston Says:

    Um Ackler, Nancy Pelosi was originally telling the Democrats in the House they needn’t bother showing up at the convention at all. She eventually reversed herself, but if you remember, even after moving Obama’s speech from the 80,000 seat stadium to the convention hall most of the 20,000 seats were filled with press members. Pelosi may be a nasty stupid bitch, but she’s very shrewd about politics and was clearly telling her members to save themselves from the coming disaster.

    I’m not surprised at the slow start over Benghazi. My memory of Watergate is that it took a long time for the genuine investigations to get going because of the Congress’ ponderous ways. There was a lot of screaming, especially from the McGovern partisans, but not a lot of action at first. Expect the true investigation of Benghazi to begin after the new Congress is sworn in. The Republican House, Ackler, will do an investigation, but the real action will be in the Republican Senate, Ackler, since there are fewer committee members and they can focus better.

  52. Curtis Says:

    Please have fun with your new Ackler toy. The product sponsors want you to have the following information. Ackler is made with plastic and will not hold its shape if held over fire, left in the sun, or sat on by a big fat woman or man, as the case may be.

    There is a six day warranty card attached. Please fill out the card and mail within 30 minutes of your purchase.

    Ackler has been designed to be your friende. No istakes or pwadect dafects were discovereed benow him shp.

    thip msg frm artfcil bacterium farm. WE are comming for yu. (hey, don’t sai that. why not. they don’t know yet)

  53. Ackler Says:

    Paul, I’m utterly confused by your response. You’re talking about an upcoming investigation of Benghazi by a Republican House and Senate. If Obama is defeated, there will be no investigation (at least of significance). So, are you saying he will be re-elected, but the GOP will take the Senate? To me that seems the least likely outcome (a Romney win, but with a Democratic Senate, while highly implausible at this point, still seems more likely).

    Or are you saying Obama will win with Democratic majorities, but the GOP will comeback in 2014? That’s definitely possible, but I doubt the Benghazi scandal will maintain significance sufficient for a detailed and publicized investigation over two years later.

  54. holmes Says:

    Ackler is here to demoralize. Obama’s win is inevitable. He hates that it is so, but alas….

    400 electoral delegates for Obama, you say? The storm making him look so Presidential, is it? Why, it’s a lost cause. Romney will take down the whole party? It’s a disaster!

    Until Romney wins.

  55. Curtis Says:

    1000 grams of Akler toy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=pXVHwfuVY1k&feature=endscreen

    Not a problem.

  56. Curtis Says:

    Aint America great? Only in America. America the Beautiful. America. Love it or leave it. America. She will endure. America. Because freedom burns in the soul of men. America. America. America.

  57. Curtis Says:

    At minute 1:20:

    Are you from New York?

    I’m from America.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nHm4F4ldXU

  58. Curtis Says:

    Paul, I am utterly confused by your accusation of breach of contract. We agreed that I would do the penetration, but in the alternative, the markets would decide.

    It seems we have an impasse; however, the floral arrangement by Jerry Falwell has made my day and I can overlook your ‘event’ on my chair.

  59. Curtis Says:

    Once more to the White House.

    with Ackler:

    I did what you told me.

    Yeah, so what. So did many. What makes you different.

    I made a difference.

    You will be rewarded. You have a pension which is a concrete cell and every Tuesday, cooked meat.

    Is that all?

    Unless you want less.

  60. Oldflyer Says:

    I think Ackler is worthy of ignoring.

    I will say that every day from this point on that people in the Northeast continue to suffer; and every day that the national media is obsessed with the difficulties of life in NY (their hometown) will make Obama look less Presidential.

    No matter how much he might wish it, he cannot wave his fairy wand, or scatter his pixie dust, and make it all go away.

    There will be a lesson that begins to soak in about the 4th or 5th day, and that is government–no matter how damn big it is– is pretty helpless in the face of a major catastrophe. I saw O’Reilly tonight warning people that they must be prepared to take care of themselves. Say what?

  61. baklava Says:

    Ack is impressed by the legacy press photo ops people.

    Conservatives are impressed by substance.

    Romney does.
    Obama talks.

    Romney builds
    Obama is an empty chair.

    Ack is typical of a legacy press watching fool like I was in 1991.

  62. baklava Says:

    People do NOT forget what the 2000+ page Obama care bill does to people and business. People do not forget the 716 billion removed from Medicare. The trillion + per year deficits with NO hope in sight of food stamp recipients going down, percentage of people employed going up, or Obama doing anything to remove barriers for business.

  63. Curtis Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFA1RJ5MWu0&feature=fvwpb

  64. Harry the Extremist Says:

    Man, I dont know why all of you are treating Ackler with so much disdain. I think he’s right and i thought the same thing days before the storm hit. The press is going to play up Obama as the super commander in chief in the same fashion the made Abu Grabass a daily in-your-face parade. I also think Ackler is correct when he says Sandi buried Benghazi. Its what the MSM wants. They know average people have a short attention span and they will work that in their favor.
    Like Ackler, I hope Im wrong but after seeing the press in action how can you doubt there’s very real danger that Obama gets reelected off this?

  65. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Some stories do bury others. Some years ago, a Palestinian living in the US shot up a Jewish community center in Seattle, killing one woman and wounding, iirc, five more.
    Fortunately for the press, Mel Gibson was arrested for DUI and being a drunken boor to the officer. That got the ink.

  66. Paul_In_Houston Says:

    Criminally negligent manslaughter …
    … occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment.

    So, who would that apply to?

    It appears that for weeks before the attack in Benghazi, we had plenty of warnings in the form of:
    1) Other attacks
    2) The importance of the anniversary of 9/11.
    3) The Brits closing their consulate and pulling their people out of the area.

    (But, of course, what would the Brits know? They’ve only had centuries of experience at this sort of thing. And of Special Ops – our Delta Force is largely modeled on their SAS. So why should we take any heed of their actions?)

    During the attack, we had real-time intel from two Navy SEALS at the site providing all the info needed for support that never came. One of them was even using a laser to designate a mortar location for a gunship that never showed up.

    We had a Predator drone overhead, providing live television of the event.

    And our boy who would be King was watching all this in the Situation Room.

    We had assets in Italy (and also on the John Stennis Carrier Group) that could have been sent in for support and rescue. Units created for that very purpose — It’s what they DO!

    They just had to be ordered in.

    But, they never were.

    I believe, to the depths of my soul, that Barack Obama (like a deer in the headlights) simply froze and could not make the decision to act. Perhaps he was fearful of another Blackhawk Down incident less than four weeks before election.

    It’s a Hell of a tough job, and one could sympathize.

    BUT …

    George Soros conspiracy theories to the contrary, Barack Obama was not drafted into his job.

    He actively sought it and succeeded in putting himself there.

    A position he was not remotely qualified to occupy.

    And this is the result: Four Americans dead.

    How different is it really from driving while under the influence and killing someone while doing so.

    When it was necessary, when his duty required him to act, he defaulted to doing what he does best: nothing.

    But, the very next day, he took action.

    He flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.
    -

  67. Ackler Says:

    Thanks, Harry. I know I sound either like a “concern troll” or an alarmist, but I am neither. I’m trying to explain what I believe is a very real, very big game changer, which is about to shift the electoral map by epic proportions. I don’t want conservatives to be utterly shocked and caught completely off guard when it happens. Neo started a thread yesterday about this election as one event in the wider battle of ideas. She is right. The coming Romney loss is going to be rough; but if conservatives are ready for it, expecting it, they will bounce back much quicker. If they’re caught by surprise, they will be relegated to a state of utter confusion and despair, which the left will exploit mercilessly.

  68. texexec Says:

    Ackler is clearly a troll.

  69. Steve D Says:

    ‘Neo started a thread yesterday about this election as one event in the wider battle of ideas.’

    There is no battle of ideas because both parties believe in the same ones. The battle of ideas was lost decades ago. Now the fight is over the leftover loot.

    As proof, please note that neither presidential candidate proposes to balance the budget. Yet our debt (along with our declining military) represents the single most important existential threat to America.

  70. texexec Says:

    Slightly off topic but kinda’ on topic in terms of why the hell would anyone vote for a Democrat:

    The decline of blue America…

    http://freebeacon.com/post/34751278736/the-decline-of-blue-america

  71. davisbr Says:

    Obama wins in a landslide???

    HAHAHAHAHA.

    Good one.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    You’re serious?

    Seriously serious?

    Because of …Sandy?

    So the final Kool-aid flavor is Sandy.

    Which is going to result in a huge “Bama Slide” of almost epic proportions.

    Hooooo-kay.

    I’m not sure which alternate reality that particular scenario actually comes into play with, but it could give a whole new meaning to political misanalysis.

    This election has been, and continues to be, about the fundamentals.

    Its been the economy, it continues to be the economy, and it’s going to be the economy on Tuesday.

    It’s always about the economy …in this kind of economy (hell, even when the economy is better than this one), even moreso.

    All Sandy has done for the economy is point out to [some] people that they’re now in even more economic distress than they were a few days ago.

    You are sooo whistling past the graveyard.

    And your numbers are being pulled from your nether regions.

    Imminently ignorable.

    Hmm. Are you related to Allahpundit? You sound laughably like him …on one of his seriously Eyore-ish days.

    Great troll persona though. I’ll give you that at least.

  72. GayPatriot » Benghazi breaking through into “mainstream consciousness”? Says:

    [...] neo-neocon thinks it just might be: There are a couple of signs that the Benghazi furor may have reached enough critical mass to actually enter mainstream consciousness. The first is that Jay Leno made a joke about it. The second is that the WaPo published a David Ignatius column dealing with it. [...]

  73. Charles Says:

    As one who just got out of the Sandy mess, I do think that “looking Presidential” can help Obama. (It doesn’t sway me, I still think he is a jerk) The question is how much will it help?

    As for Christie “praising” Obama – he has to! If he doesn’t he runs the risk of looking partisan or runs the risk of Obama not having the feds help us in NJ quickly. Sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

    As for this Benghazi story being “buried” by Sandy – I’m not so sure. I just got “back on the grid” today and have noticed that the news is not 24/7 Sandy. Americans will tune out of Sandy by the weekend or by next week, that might be enough time for other stories, such as Benghazi, to become an issue again.

    Which brings up another question – Yes, to some Obama might look like a leader because of his showing up in NJ for photo ops while at the same time look like less of a leader (and a down right jack*ss) because of Benghazi. But, Sandy is a domestic issue while Benghazi is “foreign.” More Americans might not care about foreign affairs but will care about domestic affairs. So, I fear that there might not be enough time for Benghazi to become a game-changer issue. But, I do hope that I am wrong.

  74. thomass Says:

    Ackler; the whole ‘your going to LOOSE’ thing doesn’t work on republicans as well. Sometimes it produces net gains as we think ‘crap; my vote might count since we are down!’. Us older ones, btw, are just used to being the underdog. Middle aged one’s remember a different Florida election where republicans lost because they were told they were behind in part of the start (so now we don’t want to repeat that). Plus we’ve noticed paid trolls before on pjtv sites. No matter how you paint em into a corner they just keep going off a script (example: no women spoke at the committee meeting because democrats walked out before they were scheduled to talk… response: exactly, no women spoke!).

  75. neo-neocon Says:

    Harry the Extremist: no, I don’t. As I said, if Obama is re-elected, it won’t be because of something so minor and so stupid. People don’t operate that way. People understand that presidents go for photo-ops during disasters, and everyone plays kissy-face.

    Which isn’t to say Obama won’t be elected. I’ve always thought it will be a close election, and I still think so. The beauty of Ackler’s prediction is that, if Obama is elected, you and he will say it was because of Sandy, and there will be no way to prove you right or wrong unless a bunch of polls come out researching the question, and lots of people say they would have voted for Romney except for Sandy, which changed their minds.

    Remember also that Ackler has predicted a landslide for Democrats in Congress as well, both House and Senate. Do you also think that will happen?

  76. Ackler Says:

    davisbr,

    Yes, I am very serious.

    Yes, this election is about the economy; along with the deficit, entitlement reform, healthcare, job-creation, etc. However, more than any “fundamentals” issue-wise, every Presidential election is fundamentally about which candidate voters feel is more capable, more able to lead, more able to govern, more likely to understand them and their perspective and implement policy accordingly.

    Obama had a huge advantage in this regard up until the first debate. Ultimately, a majority of voters have seen him as likeable, capable and most importantly, compassionate. They may not agree with all of his policies (or even really understand what they are), but they were simply far more comfortable with his character and persona than Romney’s. Why they were and whether it was in any way a realistic assessment is irrelevant. They were.

    And then, the first debate happened and Obama’s whole facade, carefully and intricately constructed though it was, seemed to crumble. Romney’s performance at that debate, and throughout October (until Monday) was almost flawless. The left’s depictions of him seemed entirely debunked. He was articulate, forceful, unflappable, very much a leader. He did not seem cold, distant or disdainful, but genuinely concerned about the state of the economy and related issues and eminently qualified to address it.

    Nothing in regards to the state of the economy or anything related therein changed significantly from September to October. And as we have discussed, Benghazi was being well kept under the radar then. So, why? Why did Romney suddenly surge and Obama tank? Because the public’s perceptions of both changed dramatically.

    Esse est percipi. Never more true than in a presidential campaign.

    And those perceptions are changing again, even more dramatically and rapidly.

    The Democrats have exploited Sandy perfectly, abetted by the MSM of course. I invite you to take another look at the picture I posted yesterday:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/christie-obama-vows-not-quit-until-done-214410192–election.html

    Here’s what that picture, and the events of this week it encapsulates, says to many voters:

    “Well, Obama has made many mistakes; unemployment and the deficit are huge problems at least in part because of him, he has offered little in regards to a second term agenda and it is possible it won’t be much different than his first, but at least he cares! At least he is trying!Unlike Romney, who isn’t there and apparently doesn’t care!”

    I ask again, where is Romney? Why isn’t he visiting the afflicted regions? Because the press will excoriate him for “politicizing” the tragedy? They are already excoriating him! They would do the same to any Republican; Romney and his handlers know that. They key is, to expect the press to frame you in a poor light, but go over their head, directly to the people. Romney is failing, utterly, at that right now. He’s letting the left and the MSM (I know, one in the same) frame how the public perceives him and is operating within that narrow framework; a recipie for utter disaster.

    As I said yesterday, I almost believed Romney “got it” as to how politicking works in a Presidential campaign; he certainly seemed to for four weeks. This week, he has been back to his old reactive, milquetoast, aloof persona, we all were so used to.

    Throughout this whole campaign, Romney has been slandered as a rich, elitist snob who has no knowledge of, or interest in, working and middle class Americans and, quite frankly, is rather disdainful of them. And that’s exactly how he’s been acting this week. He does a charity event in (conveniently) Ohio, ducks questions about FEMA, then runs off to campaign. The suffering people on the coast are not worthy of his precious time, not worth even an hour or two to listen to them, to stand with them, to let them know, yes he does care and is just as passionate about helping them as Obama claims to be.

    It’s pure foolishness, and he and the GOP are going to pay a high price for it on Tuesday.

  77. davisbr Says:

    Okay ackler, I’ll take you seriously for a half minute or so.

    Your displayed inclination – the underlying basis of your argument – is to apparently give undue credence to Sandy, and rather less credit to the voter’s sense of what’s of importance here. Perhaps with a slight addition of belief that their long-term memory is rather less than acute.

    I’m not going to argue why you weight Sandy so high in electoral and current-event importance (I’ll give your motivation – briefly – the benefit of a doubt, for arguments sake), but merely point out that if Sandy is rather less important than you argue for, the basis for your electoral alarmism rather falls quickly apart.

    Quickly. Falls. Apart.

    Once that’s removed as THE election imperative, what do you really have though?

    Nothing, really.

    The numbers don’t seem to be moving (well, still showing a slight momentum to Romney, depending upon how you interpret the tea leaves and weight the mix of the polls), at least.

    And you offer as support for your thesis a restatement (albeit in rather more moderate terms than I’ve generally observed in what is a rather more vicious than usual campaign cycle) of what some 8 months and hundreds of millions in ill-spent campaign ads have rather spectacularly unsuccessfully tried to paint Romney with: ogre, out-of-touch, ignorant, unsympathetic, etc., etc.

    Interesting – well, to me – that you have attempted to cloak what amounts to a regurgitation of those failed ads as definitive, by comparing the current traipsing about of the president, as he attempts to establish this last ditch effort with The President Helps The Stricken And Displays His Deep-Felt Concern meme, as contrast to the Evil, Out-of-Touch, Hopelessly Ignorant Challenger meme in a kindler, gentler fashion (unusual, that …but deeply interesting).

    Whatever.

    But the underlying premise of your argumentum rests solely on the premise that Sandy has erased from the memory of the electorate some four years of presidential incompetence, greed, and malfeasance in the likely attitude of the electorate.

    …not buyin’ it dude.

    I can only conjecture that the likelihood of your believing that as being true as being due to an even greater degree of pessimism about the intellectual acuity of the motivated electorate than is usually so transparently obvious by typical pessimists OR – and here, I leave off giving you the benefit of a doubt as to your motivation – due to the manipulative cynicism of typical trolls.

  78. ConceptJunkie Says:

    Romney isn’t the perfect candidate by a long shot, but I think even the benighted American public sees that he is vastly more qualified for the position than Obama, despite his four years of “experience”.

    On the other hand, one of the most “low-information” voters I debate with is a successful big-shot lawyer in California. It frightens me that a lawyer, whose career should hingle on his ability to think and communicate clearly could be so ignorant and a lousy debater who relies on ad hominem attacks more than anything else. Fortunately, I have a thick skin and the ability to deliver a devastating criticism without relying on direct personal insults (or at least I like to think so).

    Similarly, I vividly recall the Zogby poll from 2008 that so shatteringly demonstrated the ignorance of the so-called “educated” with respect to national politics. In some cases, the answers to the four-choice questions were _worse_ than what you would get by choosing at random. And these were people specifically sampled because they had a college degree or better. Of course, we all know what a college degree is worth these days. My degree in Computer Science has served me well, but even when I graduated in 1987, I was convinced you could make it through the program without actually being able do much of anything but memorize.

    So I am of two minds, one I still have faith in the common decency and common sense of the American public, but on the other I despair of the complete ignorance and foolishness of the American people.

  79. Steve D Says:

    I love this story.

    From Wikipedia, here is the story of the worst ever forecast from a poll (it was Gallup by the way) in 1957. At the time of the election every single poll (Gallup or otherwise) predicted a huge liberal landslide. As the election approached, the polls predicted a greater and greater liberal victory. Wikipedia picks up the narrative of what happened next.
    The final Gallup poll before the election showed the Liberals ahead, 48% to 34%. Just before the election, Maclean’s magazine printed its regular weekly issue, to go on sale the morning after the vote, editorializing that democracy in Canada was still strong despite a sixth consecutive Liberal victory. On election night, the Progressive Conservative advance started early, with the gain of two seats in reliably Liberal Newfoundland. The party picked up nine seats in Nova Scotia, five in Quebec, 28 in Ontario, and at least one seat in every other province. The Progressive Conservatives took 112 seats to the Liberals’ 105: a plurality, but not a majority. While the Liberals finished some 200,000 votes ahead of the Tories nationally, that margin was mostly wasted in overwhelming victories in safe Quebec seats. St. Laurent could have legally stayed in office until Diefenbaker could defeat him on the floor of the Commons. However, with the minor parties pledging to cooperate with a Tory government, St. Laurent chose not to do so, making Diefenbaker Prime Minister-designate of Canada.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Diefenbaker
    Six months later the conservatives won what is still the largest majority ever in Canadian politics. As John Diefenbaker succinctly replied when asked about this election in 1971; ‘dogs know what to do with polls’ (or as it is often put; ‘polls are for dogs’)

  80. Steve D Says:

    ‘The numbers don’t seem to be moving’
    The polls might not show anything immediately since they usually lag. If Sandy is that important and the polls are correct, I would suspect that by Sunday (perhaps even by Saturday) they should be showing a huge differential for Obama.

  81. Harry the Extremist Says:

    The RCP average has Obama/Romney a tie today where Romney was leading by .9 and trending upwards before Sandy hit. I dont think it makes one a “concern troll” to point out a real concern just because the message is negative. (nor is being wrong about a previous prediction),Yes, Neo, the contest was always close and when you have the press on your side giving it an active nudge, any chance to blunt Benghazi with counter images of Obama being “presidential” those guys are going to take it and Sandy is the perfect opportunity. We’ll see and again, I hope Im wrong.

  82. davisbr Says:

    Harry the Extremist? – There’s a qualitative difference between pointing out a possible negative momentum to a poll and worrying out loud, and going all rubbery with something like

    I ask again, where is Romney? Why isn’t he visiting the afflicted regions? Because the press will excoriate him for “politicizing” the tragedy? They are already excoriating him! They would do the same to any Republican; Romney and his handlers know that. They key is, to expect the press to frame you in a poor light, but go over their head, directly to the people. Romney is failing, utterly, at that right now.

    Or how about …

    The suffering people on the coast are not worthy of his precious time, not worth even an hour or two to listen to them, to stand with them, to let them know, yes he does care and is just as passionate about helping them as Obama claims to be.

    …with the former RCP heads-up, you’ve expressed some worry. That’s okay. We get that. This thing could go south.

    But the quote is pure troll manipulation rhetoric from the fever swamps …and in essence (regardless of motivation) a trivialization of the core of the campaign AND the real damage from the storm.

    It sensationalizes unnecessarily …and the rhetoric used slants things to the point where we just naturally question the motivation.

    Here. Try this as answer to the strawman hits.

    How about …Romney is campaigning in Ohio because that’s where the race can be won?

    He’s not bothering to go to the coast and New York City because NYC is not in play …his time is better spent trying to win an election where the election is going to be decided, and he has a chance to win

    Saying Romney is “conveniently in Ohio” is silly as criticism. And the rhetoric used is purely maudlin hyperventilation.

    The only truth in the whole comment was “They are already excoriating him.” Well, yeah. They are. And if he goes, they’ll raise the pitch. Your point?

    …but your mentioning the RCP averages are down a bit are on a wholly different plane than what ackler’s being rather “blatantly devious” about (regardless of his intent: which, yeah, I question).

  83. Harry the Extremist Says:

    Hi David,

    Im an “extremist” cause Im a tea party kinda guy that wasnt happy with McCain getting nominated over actual Republicans the last time around.

    You’re spending a lot of time examining Ackler’s motivations when what should concern us is whether or not he’s right and I think he is.

    To me it doesnt matter what Acklers intentions are. I dont think he seriously believes he’s going to put any one off voting on election day. I’m not convinced thats his intent anyway. Nor does it matter. It would’nt dissuade me from voting and i dont think it will dissuade anyone here from voting. The only people who’s intentions Im concerned with is the press. Call me Harry the Alarmist. Again, I hope maybe Im over stating the fear I have and I hope so. I hate to think a storm led to the downfall of a nation. With Obama deciding on future Supreme Court judges and crafting new entrenched entitlements I think that might be so.

    Now all we need is for Betelgeuse to go nova before the end of the year and my paranoia will be complete.

  84. carl in atlanta Says:

    Ackler:

    Just out of curiosity, when did you post your very first comment on this blog?

    Just asking….

  85. Steve D Says:

    ‘whether or not he’s right and I think he is’
    My guess is that he’s right in the sense that the storm favors Obama and will buy him a few votes but as I said previously, I don’t think it’s going to matter enough, especially in the states that count.
    ‘We’ll see and again, I hope I’m wrong’
    Unfortunately, we will never see. Even if Ackler’s prediction comes to pass we will never know if he was right about the cause. Because political science isn’t science (no way to do the proper controls or separate cause from effect). To be exact, Ackler can be proven wrong in this case (falsified) but never right.

  86. JThoits Says:

    Benghazi in play tonight. Fox has new developments but it appears we finally have the attention of ABC and CBS.

    Re:Ackler…..the snarky tone gives him away. I give him credit for the long detailed posts, though.

  87. Steve D Says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/?pageNum=1&tag=page

    A scoop by CBS?

  88. Steve D Says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/politics/?tag=categoryNav;flyoutPoltab

    Please take a look at this photo. Then tell me what you think about the bias at CBS. Or in other words, who looks more presidential, Romney or Obama?

  89. neo-neocon Says:

    carl in atlanta: “ackler’s” first comment was on October 29 (this one). He has posted entirely on one topic: how Sandy will eclipse Benghazi and ensure Obama’s victory as well as a Democratic Congress.

  90. carl in atlanta Says:

    Neo: As I thought. Guess he’s part of OfA’s “ground game”.
    You must be on someone’s radar. Congrats (I guess).

  91. Ackler Says:

    Wow. I went from merely being a concern troll to being part of Obama’s ground game. I’m flattered (I guess). :-) However, I am neither. I’m just an ordinary guy from Wisconsin who is quite frustrated at seeing Romney sink, much (but not all) due to circumstances beyond his control, and taking much of the GOP down ticket with him.

    I’m also trying to soften the coming blow, to raise awareness, so that it does not come as a complete surprise. My biggest fear is not a large electoral defeat, but that the shock of it will leave conservatives dumbstruck, confused, angry and in denial. I worry most about the exessive finger pointing, conspiracy rumors, and downright resignation. I don’t want to give Obama a victory and a blank slate as well because the opposition is in utter chaos. I you believe, as I do, that the election merely one round in an ongoing match, when the blow hits, you will wince, shake it off and get right back in the ring. If the Benghazi scandal is as serious as it appears, there will be another round shortly after Obama wins on Tuesday. I just want to make sure we’re ready to come out swinging then

  92. ConceptJunkie Says:

    Ackler, it all boils down to the fact that your prediction is extreme and you seem so darned sure about it. This is why people are questioning your motives. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, but I think you are way off. I’m sure some people will be swayed by Sandy and Christie’s and Bloomberg’s endorsements, but frankly, someone so easily swayed would just as likely be swayed by what they had for breakfast or some butterfly in Mongolia or something.

    I can understand people not liking either candidate, and being indecisive because of that, but I think it’s ludicrous that something that happens at the last moment should have a significant effect on someone’s opinion. But as I said above, I am both optimistic and pessimistic about the judgement of the American people. I don’t think anything can shock me any more.

  93. Steve D Says:

    Ackler: Are you willing to post back to this site the day after the election and discuss your prediction regardless of the outcome? Bear in mind that that from your words, unless Obama basically beats Romney by more than he did McCain, you prediction is incorrect. You said landslide.

    If you are right and the populace is so shallow that a single storm can sway them that much – well in my opinion, that’s a very bad portent for the country.

    The overall spread has not yet changed much and certainly the race (if you believe the polls) is very tight.

  94. Ackler Says:

    Steve,

    Yes, I am willing to return here on election night, regardless of the outcome. And I know my prediction seems extreme, but I stand by it. As for it being a bad portent, I agree completely. That’s why conservatives should neither sulk nor rage when it comes. As I said, we should shake it off and come right back in swinging.

    I believe this is going to turn out similar to 1980. We may not see any significant shift in most polls (which have demonstrated their unreliable nature this election anyway). The shift is coming too late in the cycle to be measured accurately. But it is coming.

  95. Steve D Says:

    ‘As I said, we should shake it off and come right back in swinging.’

    The problem is, if after everything which has gone down the country still elects Obama, especially in a landslide, it would be hard for me to believe in the American people anymore.

  96. Ackler Says:

    Understandable. But if it does indeed happen (and I reiterate, I will not be happy if it does), neither you nor anyone should descend into despair. Obama is going to win (in my opinion) because of pure chance…a natural disaster. And, exploiting that disaster quite adroitly while Romney reacted poorly. This does not, in any way, shape or form, mean the American people actually endorse anything he has said or done outside of this last week. As I said, there is going to be an overwhelming nationwide buyer’s remorse, long before the inauguration. Benghazi will likely intensify it to the point of serious guilt and regret. If so, Obama will began his second term the lamest of lame ducks. I want conservatives rejuvenated and feisty if/when that happens; down, but by no means out.

  97. Steve D Says:

    ‘This does not, in any way, shape or form, mean the American people actually endorse anything he has said or done outside of this last week.’
    It means Americans are so shallow and so inattentive to notice that they are being pushed off the cliff. That’s a very bad sign. Once Obama gets finished demolishing the military and the economy, it will be game over for America. How close we are to the edge of the cliff is hard to tell but if Romney were elected, he might actually slow the pace and give us time to regroup.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20121101.html
    The latest poll up to 11/1 shows a possible tiny shift towards Romney.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge