I'm a bit worried that republicans in general and the Romney team in particular are missing the point when it comes to economic performance under Obama - of course it's fine to criticize how poor that performance has been, but to me the real thing you want to hit on here is the failure of a left wing approach embodied in Obama doctrinal proclivities to fully maximize the potential of American business and entrepreneurial dynamism - that's the key to America's future, not simply some marginal improvement in a few indicators, but rather it is the threat of economic potentiality being suppressed by leftist obsessions - and Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the GM bailout that rewarded unions and screwed bond holders, an ill conceived and utterly mismanaged stimulus that was a walking talking manifestation of how wasteful and incompetent big gov't tends to be - all these things fit very nicely into a line of attack that focuses on lost or significantly impaired potential.

What worries me is that incumbents are given much benefit of the doubt by voters and this tendency will be even more in play when it comes to Obama because those insipid, misguided voters who were motivated by the superficial allure of an African-American as president in 2008 are gonna be very reluctant to come off that position and admit failure - even a small uptick in economic data that in objective terms may be meaningless could prove enough of a pretext for these deluded types and allow them to embrace once again a comforting illusion - and let's not forget, even the faintest whisper of an upturn on the economic front come October will be amplified into a symphonic cascade of good news by the media.

For this reason republicans have to be sure not to get caught up in mere numbers - they have to hit on 'the vision thing' and sell the message of lost potential - in other words, moderate voters whose allegiances may be pliable, need to believe it as a fact that 2 percent GDP growth is not even remotely close to being good enough - they must feel it in their hearts that America under Obama is not living up to its full potential and the world as a whole suffers as a consequence - or, put another way, pretty speeches full of lofty platitudes and sweet nothings may win you the fawning praise of a liberal press, the catamites attending the imperial bedchamber - but that's not true leadership, that's not true power - that's a pretense, a pantomime that cannot last, an empty show.

Well, that's funny - I praise a Romney performance and then he runs off to London and gaffes his foreign proto presidential promenade to death in its febrile infancy. He has an unfortunate knack for making awkward statements - although in many ways they're awkward only in the sense of not being perfectly attuned to the dictates of political correctness, because his Olympics gaffe was a simple statement of truth - but that's not to excuse the misstep, you just can't say what he said unless it was your intent to piss off England - which is actually what I thought at first, a response to the sad embarrassment of Cameron's obsequious fawning over Obama when he was in Washington - but there's no way it was deliberate [although as way of compensation Romney's taunt that he would like the bust of Churchill back was a nice touch].

Saw Romney on Kudlow last night. Best I've seen him: rational, confident, precise, exuding executive prowess and competence, just enough personality on display - with his resume, if he carries that performance through to November, assuming current malaise continues [and some are predicting things to actually worsen] any person who votes for Obama given all that is either an idiot or an inveterate liberal trapped in an ideological stupor. Regardless, if Obama manages to win given the above dynamic it will be very hard to avoid conclusion that American democracy is broken because a marginally dominant plurality will have chosen to act against the rational best interests of the country in order to serve needs that are to be generous grossly naive, to be harsh ruinously short sighted - in other words, if Obama indeed does manage to win, there'll be no positive way to spin it without digging deep into delusion and what one can only describe as willful ignorance.

[Wall Street Journal poll released this morning points directly at what I'm talking about - strong majority view the economy as deeply troubling, country heading in wrong direction, hold Obama responsible, see Romney as best suited to fix problem - and yet Obama leads by significant margin because he's better liked, meaning no doubt that a lot of people still enjoy having a black guy as president because it makes them feel good - any reasonable person not suffering from ideological dementia should read a poll like that and shake their head in sad disbelief at the utter foolishness of the species and wonder how it is democracy can possibly rise above its own shortcomings to meet the challenges ahead.

That being said, right up to a mere couple of weeks before the election it looked like Carter was going to beat Reagan - yet, when push came to shove, enough idiots realized they could no longer live in absolute denial of reality and made the right decision. Still, I think you could go down a list and not come up with one single compelling reason as to why Obama should be reelected and yet it will not surprise me at all if he is - and, sorry, I just find that sad, depressing]

Not to seem callous, insensitive, heartless... whatever... but it's interesting to compare the four score of people killed in Iraq today with the orgy of empathy going on in America over the 'Batman' shootings. It was sad what happened in Colorado, troubling in certain specific ways - but all this 'nation in mourning' and 'national tragedy' stuff is absurd, especially when set beside truly horrifying violence - and not simply a brutal level of violence that dwarfs what happened in Colorado but a violence that is also accompanied by the very real threat of quite disturbing political, sectarian, cultural upheaval that could potentially escalate into regional war depending on what happens in Syria.

I'm wondering if Americans in general have indeed become this addled by simplistic sentimentality or whether this is just the media engorging itself on a 'compelling' story and accordingly driving up the ridiculous hyperbole. Still, Obama has turned it into a 'tragedy' requiring presidential attention - but is that him just playing politics per usual, or do Americans actually believe that the nation has suffered such a grievous wound here that of course the chief executive must go all weepy in communal consolation? Ya know, the Japan tsunami was a national tragedy - this is nothing compared to that - it's of course horrible for the people involved and your heart goes out to them - but aside from that this is a tiny blip on the radar of existential dread.

I find myself being less interested in what Colorado has to say about violence in America and the attendant issue of gun control and more interested in what the response to the violence reveals about the American character of today. Is this really the same nation that endured the slaughters on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima, that stood with solemn humility beside Lincoln at Gettysburg? If I was a Marine who had crawled door to door through the carnage of Falluja I'd be shaking my head with uneasy disbelief at the drivel spewing forth here in the name of a callow sympathy. Is this what we've become or is this just what the media wants to believe we've become? And if the media and narrative makers have decided what they want us to be, is it still possible to resist becoming the thing they've chosen for us?

Now, it's revealing how the press paints recent defection by Syrian general as unalloyed positive sign - no mention of him being a Sunni, no mention of his relatives already having departed and his loyalty to the regime therefore suspect to begin with, no mention that as a Sunni collaborating with the Alawite regime he probably didn't have much of future in Syria regardless of how things play out - not sure why media treats conflicts in this part of the world in such simplistic terms. Find it hard to believe reporters et al don't know better, at least to some degree - so is it politically motivated? [in service to which ideology I don't know - I suppose it would be to Obama's advantage if the perception is out there that maybe Assad quietly now goes away and change is ushered in without full scale civil war erupting and this all happens without America having to fire a shot - problem is seems extremely unlikely any of those things is gonna happen].

But possibly I don't know what I'm talking about - look at Libya - holds elections, a secularist apparently 'wins' - problem is there is no government and these elections are virtually meaningless - now, that elections did happen regardless and a secularist may have 'won' is more progress than I would have predicted, that's true - I view what we did in Libya with great scepticism - but the fact remains that regardless of election the country is still controlled by militias, there's still an insuperable east/west tribal divide, unsavory types still maneuver in the shadows for power - whatever this election was, to me it's not the truth, to me the truth is roiling beneath the surface and the election was merely a manifestation of the militias et al jockeying for position - but the fact they got even that far [ie actually holding an election] surprises so maybe I've gotten this whole damn thing wrong. [I will have to wait til people I listen to who understand the dynamics involved here much better than me have passed judgement on these 'elections' before I can form a definitive position - but fact remains, democracy, liberty and the empowering of the individual, is about much, much more than merely casting a vote - it's about culture and institutions first - and the only culture or 'institutions' of any import of real significance in Libya right now are the Islamic faith - hardly a vanguard to an emerging open society - the militias and sundry tribal affiliations - that doesn't amount to democracy regardless of who voted for what - doesn't even remotely amount to what usually passes for civil society in the mideast - but I'll wait and see before passing proximate final judgement].

Watching the political talk shows yesterday seemed to galvanize impression that Romney campaign is asleep at the wheel - Obama surrogates were plying talking points with a religiosity so intent as to have the hint of ideological blood lust to it - basically their goal was to portray Romney as evil rich guy who outsourced jobs with satanic glee and hid all his ill got gains from this destructive harvest in evocatively secret foreign accounts - Romney surrogates did not respond to this character assassination, instead simply reiterating in various ways Obama's awful stewardship of the economy. This says one of two things to me: Romney campaign was/is not prepared to counter quickly and effectively this Obama campaign tactic, a tactic that has been obvious for quite sometime; or they feel they don't have to counter it - the economy will decide the election. Both conclusions are troubling - the former certainly much more than the latter - but the latter seems like a mistake to me and suggests possibly a failure to really understand how the average voter forms a judgement on 'issues'. It is possible that Romney's economic advisers have looked at the numbers and have come to the conclusion [shared publicly by others] that indeed the economy come the fall will be so bad as to possibly be slipping into recession again and therefore a cautious campaign will suffice. Still, most voters need an emotional context within which to 'think' their choice through - in other words, voters don't so much think as feel their way to an answer - America in decline may indeed be enough of an emotional spur to tip a critical mass of independents to Romney - but I think it's a mistake to underestimate Obama's ability to mudsling and dissemble his way to victory regardless of a bad economy. Lying with ruthless conviction is a great political attribute and as I've said before Obama is one of the best - he's a master of the art form - allowing him to practice his art unconstrained by effective counter measures is to invite defeat.

[as example of why I think this way, Michael Moynihan subbing on Jen Rubin's blog has this nice little post - it's not only that Obama will say and do whatever is necessary, no matter how cynical and without substance it may be, to get reelected - the man is quite simply shameless - it's that the press will let him get away with it - hell, they'll amplify, augment the message - fill in the blanks for him - for the Romney camp to lazily sit back and think 'objective facts' will drown out this nonsense seems rather ill advised to me]

"... well, a status quo by definition is not sustainable since it presumes the things it isn't but will perforce become - but I quibble - the question is what existing state are you talking about, ours or theirs? And how many theirs are there? Because Israel has a set of parameters all its own [quick, someone construct a game tree]. Anyway, one existing state will eventually out last the others. Now, I don't know the Ayatollah's view of game theory but still we can guess one thing with modest certainty here I think: unless you're kneeling on a carpet with Khamenei several times a day and talking nonsense with him over tea and flat bread it's very hard to know what he [they] really want to win and what exactly he is [they are] willing to risk to get it - or, alternatively, what exactly an acceptable loss from their [his, its] point of view would look like viz negotiations.

We can extrapolate from prior actions and guess at what such says about the motivations that brought the regime to this point and then speculate on how fungible or pliable if at all those motivations may prove in the end or the likelihood those motivations through political upheaval or intrigues might be overturned by a less annoying 'something else' [the putative Arab spring has not filled me with optimism when it comes to 'the good' wrought from political upheaval in the lands of Allah] - and extrapolating thusly I don't hold out much hope for sanctions [nor does the history of sanctions extrapolate well for those fond of fancying otherwise].

So the real questions become: does the Obama administration actually believe in the efficacy of the sanctions or rather see them as a probably doomed but necessary state one must be seen occupying before moving on to the dreaded inevitable next - or are they merely playing a delaying game - and if so, is that game designed to win an election or to take Israel out of the mix? Most importantly, if Israel extrapolates Iranian behavior as cynically as I do, given their perception of the status quo - do they trust Obama to do the right thing as they see it when it comes to that - or do they think instead they're being played? My guess its the latter - in which case, are they now simply waiting to see who wins the election...?"

How is it possible the Romney camp didn't have a politically astute and thoroughly vetted answer to the Roberts decision on Obamacare? Now, granted, no one thought the ACA would be passed by the chief justice rewriting the mandate into a tax, a sort of reverse alchemy of conservative gold being turned into lead - so I guess maybe that was a bit of a monkey wrench - still, it seems clear Roberts felt he could get away with playing upside down alchemist because calling the mandate a tax would prove more curse than blessing for Obama, that Obama et al would accordingly be constrained and limited government in theory preserved - so how is it the Romney camp then comes out and says, no, it's really a mandate? And then a few days after witnessing how this tin eared foolishness was being cheered by liberals and ridiculed by conservatives Romney then comes out and says well actually I guess it is a tax? How can this happen?

I really wanna believe Romney is up to the challenge of winning this thing - but as I've said, regardless of how bad things may seem, Obama has so many built in advantages [power of incumbency, compliant media and press, locked in constituencies that are utterly incapable of seeing him in anything but a positive light etc etc] that you're simply not gonna beat him unless you run a very aggressive and very smart campaign - you cannot make mistakes like this and hope to beat the guy. Rupert Murdoch made news a few days ago by biliously opining that Romney needed to replace his inner circle - seemed a bit angry and vindictive at the time but maybe he was right on because what this blunder tells me is that they still haven't figured out how to talk about Romneycare - that's inexcusable if true.

Two points on Syria that change the math and that I missed entirely in my considerations. One, there's sundry unsavory characters and interests populating the insurgents, the opposition - if the regime falls there's gonna be a lot of high end military hardware, some of it of the mass killing kind, suddenly up for grabs to whomever can get to it - it will be the chaos of Libya times a factor of ten, twenty - leading from behind will not be an option [and it was really only an option in Libya if one was willing to hold breath and look away, which the American media did with great alacrity] - someone, meaning the US military, is gonna have to step in and secure those weapons. This is a nasty problem - which means standing back and letting it all play out does not look like a smart move, no sir. I think Obama may have to choose a side here - accept Assad staying since I really don't think Russia will agree to anything else [although hard to believe opposition will agree to anything less than Assad's removal] and then find a way to negotiate a truce, which may possibly involve a splitting of the country [problem with that is both sides are gonna want Damascus and only one can have it] - or jump into bed with the insurgents to some degree so at least you know who you're dealing with, have a sense of the terrain, so if the worst case scenario comes, ie failed state and anarchy, you've got a leg up on it.

The other problem that I failed to properly heed is the make up of the Syrian military - I was under the impression that Alawites controlled it - and certainly they do control the officer corp, intelligence apparatus, elite troops - but the mass of enlisted are apparently Sunni - I missed that one - dynamic like that definitely does not work in Assad's favor.

"... wow, what horrible analysis - are you on the Obama payroll or something Fred? I'm not gonna defend Romney's foreign policy statements per se since they don't really matter at this point and will have virtually nothing to do with who wins the election regardless - but your defence of Obama's record vis a vis Romney's statements is so weak as to be unconscious with a bit of drool spilling from the mouth.

Obama deserves credit for bin Laden the way Truman deserved credit for Victory in Europe - and the killing of OBL said one of two things about Obama that liberal sycophants like yourself ignore:  to wit, he was either lying about 'winning the good war' in Afghanistan since because once you've gone behind Pakistan's back to get OBL you've lost Afghanistan - or they didn't really care much for the negative fallout of embarrassing the Pakistani military this way, which amounts to a grievous strategic miscalculation.

As for the putative Arab Spring, the Obama administration did not seem to have a clue as to what was actually going on over there - Israel understood on day one of unrest that Egypt was heading towards an Islamist not a democratic revolution but Obama seemed to understand nothing and acted accordingly - true, there were not a lot of options viz Egypt, but there were some - but only if you understood what the hell was actually going on!

As for Russia, Putin is obviously a lot more savvy than you - but then he's not an Obamaphile so his judgement is unimpaired by excessive supplication. Putin understands that Russia's power is enhanced by a weakened, disunited Europe and an American retreat from the Mideast. True, seems unlikely he will be wielding this power in conventional 'boots on the ground' terms - but very likely he will be wielding it with a Machiavellian delight in strategic mischief. History is full of examples of weaker powers exerting great influence through cunning manipulation of circumstances - look at England during the early years of Europe. Putin seems to get this - maybe Obama should put down the Aquinas [hope the maenad who put that lie out got a nice raise] and pick up a book on military history..."