Make no mistake; should he succeed in
vanquishing Obama come Nov. 6, Romney’s brand of “repeal-and-replace
statism” -- not to mention maniacal militarism and Sinophobia -- will be
no victory for liberty.
RETURN TO REASON
Winning a battle of wits with a
half wit
by Ilana Mercer
It was hard not to feel sorry for President Barack Obama during what was
the first of three presidential debates. The dejected demeanor and the
perpetually lowered gaze conjured an unprepared student peppered by a
pedantic teacher with questions he could not possibly answer.
The president’s pose spoke to the beating he was receiving at the hands
of his opponent, Gov. Mitt Romney.
Obama campaigner Chris Matthews -- a proxy for this president, who cloaks
himself in the raiment of a newsman -- demanded to know: Why was Obama
staring down at his “notes” and scribbling? What was he waiting
for?
To describe what Gov. Romney had done in the course of the 90-minute
debate, Matthews, who possesses a nimble intelligence his candidate is
without, reached for wild man Charlie Sheen’s zinger: “What was Romney
doing? Winning!”
Moderator Jim Lehrer is an old-school newsman who has never in the course
of a long and distinguished career revealed his own political bias. Now
the pack men of the media were piling on the PBS anchor for not
controlling the debate’s outcome, and for allowing a free to-and-fro
between the men.
And since Mitt won hands down, the moderator must have been bad. Or so
goes the loser’s lackluster logic. Never mind that reasoning backward is
an error in logic. So how does
post hoc
ergo propter hoc work? Had Obama won the debate under the same
emcee’s minimal intervention, Lehrer would have been lauded.
“Passive and unprepared,” chimed another MSNBC regular.
“I was stunned,” confessed thug extraordinaire Ed Schultz of “The Ed
Show.” The vulgar and venomous Schultz has openly and repeatedly referred
to Republicans as “the enemy,” on his MSNBC extravaganza. If what we saw
was indicative of what was to come, Schultz lamented, Obama was in
serious trouble.
Arrogant to the end, press pack animal Chuck Todd conceded that Romney’s
debate on Oct. 3 qualified him for the first time as a “credible
candidate.”
In the left’s
peanut gallery,
comedian Bill Maher is a philosopher-prophet. Tweeted Maher: “I can’t
believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a
teleprompter.”
Also at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow provided the ultimate rationalization, which
her co-hosts on the network and elsewhere quickly embraced. “The
presidency spoils your ability to be a good debater.”
“In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses)
is an unconscious defense mechanism,” writes Wikipedia. It is intended to
shield the fragile ego from reality.
Like Maddow, presidential hagiographer Douglas Brinkley took cover from
real life on Fox News’ “Cavuto.” The yang to Lincoln idolator Doris
Kearns Goodwin’s yin, Brinkley diminished Romney’s intellectual victory
by applying that most stringent historical test to the governor’s
performance: It was without a Reaganesque zinger. Obama, however, had not
damaged his brand, claimed Brinkley. He was still a gifted “retail
politician.” (Read community organizer.)
Indeed, CNN’s ecstasy meter -- a monitor of women’s response to the
candidates -- crescendoed whenever Obama noodled on aimlessly.
To their credit, the groupies at MSNBC were far more cognizant of the
failures of their man than their colleagues at, say, the Huffington Post.
“Obama played offense and defense admirably well,” diarized one
diarrhetic blogger during the Wednesday night “wipeout.” Or the New York
Times, which framed the president’s intellectual flubs as no more than a
tactical or stylistic tic. “Cool Hand Barry” they continue to call
him.
Once an enthusiastic supporter of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, crunchy con
Andrew Sullivan has for some time struggled to stay relevant. (I won’t
bore you with the hackneyed hoaxes Sullivan once spewed for Bush, only to
say here that there was not an occurrence he didn’t trace back to Iraq:
anthrax, September 11 and too few gays in the military -- you name it;
Iraq was behind it.) Sullivan’s latest (always forgiven) faux pas
was splayed on the cover of Newsweek, just the other day, and was
provocatively titled, “President Obama: The Democrats’ Ronald
Reagan.”
The ever-wrong Sullivan is no longer salivating for the guy “I love.” “…
this was a disaster for Obama,” he tweeted. (Never mind, Andy. America
loves you, whether you urge her sons to go to war needlessly, or make
literary love to her dictators. And love means never having to say you’re
sorry.)
For one reason only was Obama on the ropes, while Romney floated like a
butterfly and stung like a bee: Romney’s superior intelligence, his
ability to store immense amounts of information and apply it to bolster
his arguments -- abilities his rival, Barack Obama, manifestly
lacks.
The belated scoop is this: The Child was not born in a barn and was never
a brainiac.
Four years after his election -- and a week since
CNN’s Jessica Yellin revealed nothing but her own adoration in
“Obama Revealed,” an agonizing hour with the president -- a
Washington Examiner investigation divulged the following facts,
belatedly:
Obama was a child of privilege, not of hardship. He lived in Jakarta’s
most exclusive suburb. His white grandmother
(
whom he once tarred with the taint of racism and with whom he lived
in Hawaii) was a bank vice president. She sent him to an exclusive
private school. Later on he was a shoo-in at Columbia and Harvard Law
School. During his 12 years as a lecturer at the University of Chicago’s
Law School, his student-approval ratings were low. In fact, he was one of
the lowest-ranked professors in his last five years at the university.
There, did he teach tort law or bankruptcy law or civil liberties or
civil procedures or criminal appeals, or, perhaps navigate the shoals of
intellectual property law? No. Obama taught “racism” related law. He left
no record of legal, scholarly writings.
Make no mistake; should he succeed in vanquishing Obama come Nov. 6,
Romney’s brand of
“repeal-and-replace statism” -- not to mention maniacal militarism
and Sinophobia -- will be no victory for liberty.
If not for liberty, last night was, however, a small victory for
reality.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/winning-a-battle-of-wits-with-a-half-wit/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
