A lot of people seem to want to believe that all the talk in Israel about an imminent attack on Iran is just Bibi et al bluffing - but to what purpose? I just don't see it - you talk the big talk about doing what's necessary to secure the country and then you don't follow through on it and 'allow' Iran to go nuclear, well, that amounts to a big show of weakness and Israel, probably more than any other country in the world, is a firm believer in dynamic that perceived weakness invites aggression. No, to me this is the leadership preparing its people for the dire days to come - and possibly one last effort to convince Obama that, yes, we're serious about this.

"... Chinese media slams Romney... that's like an endorsement, right?... that's them saying our plans include a diminished America and we trust Obama to serve that agenda quite nicely, Romney not so much... and that Ryan guy, boy... him we don't like..."

I read two things this morning that seemed to capture the sad absurdity of the Syria problem - one story about a missing young American reporter, ex-marine, who waded into that mire motivated by an angry idealism and found himself admiring the insurgents because unlike his lazy, fatted, self obsessed countrymen they were willing to die for something 'noble' - and then the story of one of these captured 'freedom fighters' who apparently, in all seriousness, thought he was in Palestine making war on the Jews - frightening thing is one has to assume there are many more like him because otherwise you'd think at some point someone would have lowered the AK-47 for a moment and whispered to him "ah... sorry, my friend, this is Syria and we're here to kill Alawites... more or less... gist of it anyway".

I wonder if the redoubtable idiocy of 'legitimate rape' moron Akin can in the long run prove a good thing for republicans. Of course in the short term it's a disaster - given Obama's horrible, indefensible performance as president the media is desperate for some excuse that will justify in their minds the continuing bias in support of him - Akin has now handed it to them - and it's not only that his comments were astoundingly stupid, it's also that his stubborn absolutism in refusing to acknowledge the damage he has done conforms exactly with the kind of intolerant extremism liberals will now stigmatise all conservatism with - Akin is basically a perfect confirmation of all the evil intent liberals want to believe motivates the right.

So, yes, this is bad and may cost Romney the election - but in the long run, if it forces conservatives to rethink the indulgence they too often show to an Akin-like mindset, some good may come of it. After all, you want to survive against a media controlled by left wing sympathies, anything that sounds like intolerant absolutism is not the way to go.

It says a lot about how deep, pervasive and utterly disturbing media bias is when it becomes a big story that one of its own almost reluctantly admits to it, as Jack Tapper recently did on Laura Ingraham's show - well, becomes a big story outside of the liberal media. How ironical the age of Obama is. But not in a funny way - unless you find the tired political musings of late night TV funny [I used to find Stewart and Colbert sort of funny - then they turned into shameless advocates if not indeed fawning acolytes of Obama, and not with the goal of defeating an evil conservative, but to defeat Hillary for christ sake - it was at that point I realized there was something desperately wrong with American media and the vain, dreamy liberal ideal made manifest in the Obama had exposed it in a very disturbing way - I imagine it will take a good war ripe with existential threat and doom to straighten things out - that would be Netanyahu's cue to light a fire... or is the kindling in the Senkaku Islands...?]

The glee democrats are expressing about the pick of Ryan suggests one of two things: by over reacting they're trying to make it seem obvious how awful the man and his ideas are so the lazy and ignorant just accept it as fact; or, trapped inside the liberal echo chamber, they really can't see the virtues of the guy or how his abilities truly threaten to reveal just how inept at everything but lies and demagoguery the Obama presidency has been.

Although I guess there's another option - their glee is justified, because people like me who have been enthused about Ryan for a couple of years now fail to understand that the value of the man will be lost on a simple minded electorate - which would be ironic since I constantly talk about how an ignorant and unsophisticated electorate threatens the viability of a democracy in complicated times. In that sense, I guess my hope for a Ryan success [interesting that I'm talking about a Ryan not a Romney success] would amount to something of a plea to our better angels. Didn't know I was such a romantic.

A couple of quick reactions to liberal response to Ryan as VP. One, the claim he's an extremist. Compared to Obama, yes that's true - because you have to come a very long way back to the right to get away from how far left Obama and his ilk are. Compared to Clinton, or even better Kennedy, not so much. If you're a far left ideologue then indeed Ryan will seem extreme - but remember America remains a right leaning country - and remember as well, since the problems we face are extreme, weak kneed solutions will not suffice - my experience of Ryan is that he's very good at defending himself and very good at selling message that what liberals call extremism is just strong leadership engaging a crisis in a responsible way.

The other charge I'm hearing from liberals is one I actually agree with, ie that making the 'risky' choice is an admission of weakness by Romney. This is exactly why I all along urged making the 'risky' choice - Romney has obvious flaws - but let's understand that Romney's flaws have nothing to do with his qualifications for the job - anyone voting for Romney in a rational way is doing so based on his resume and how awful at the job Obama has been - problem is most people [who are not set in stone viz their opinons] vote based on some instinctive, superficial, gut level response to a candidate - Romney has trouble connecting on that level. So yea, Romney has flaws - but unlike Obama's myriad flaws, they're not of the nature that would negatively impact his performance as president - they may stop him from actually becoming president though. Ryan will help in several ways I believe to mitigate effect of these flaws - the man exudes decency, integrity, likeability [not to mention he's an expert outdoorsman and hunter, attributes much prized by important demographic] - and he should force the debate going forward to be about policy rather than tax returns and all the other crap Obama has tried to make the issue of late - whether Ryan can compensate enough for Romney's shortcomings, guess we'll see.

Now, for sure, I'll be branded a scurrilous racist for saying this - and no doubt the reason serious writers are not saying it is because they know full well they'd be branded scurrilous racists and their careers would be over - but I don't have a career so I can say it - and furthermore I think I can say it because I'm pretty damn sure it's true - but Obama's unconstitutional reinterpretation of the welfare reform law is an attempt to mobilise the minority vote in general and the black vote in particular, right? And it was done in concert with the move on gay marriage, yes? because the Obama people know full well the gay marriage move could suppress black and hispanic turnout [you just know Obama and the boys are all smiles gloating over the cold cunning behind this ploy].

I mean I'm beating a dead horse I guess but if you're Romney and you don't realize the kind of no holds barred political fiend you're up against here in Obama and you think you can just stand back and let the supposed 'objective facts' of the economy win the election for you, then you're gonna lose - sure, if the press was a fair and even handed arbiter holding Obama to account for his bad behavior and poor record, then yeah, maybe you could get away with such a strategy - but that ain't ever gonna happen. The press is co-opted, they're deeply invested in the bullshit liberal dreamy land made manifest in the ideal of Obama - sure many of them may be at this point holding nose and closing eyes - but they're completely bought in and it's simply a case for them now of the end justifying the means.

It may be a sad, sad commentary on the state of our democracy - and that's a conversation we can have later since there's much to worry about in that respect - but right now the bitter reality is the bitter reality - Obama needs to lose, and if Romney can't go to the mattresses and figure out how to make that happen, then... well, good luck to us.

"... when you think about it, ask yourself if Obama has ever shown himself to be good at anything other than manipulating the naive, idealistic sympathies of weepy white liberals for the purposes of promoting his own career... awful president, mediocre senator, both at national and state level... no indication of being an especially good professor... a mediocre student I'm assuming since he won't release his academic records and I don't see why a person would do that unless there's some embarrassment in desperate need of being kept hid... possibly as a person who had read Finnegans Wake twice before leaving high school my standards are a little outside the norm but his books read like the affected literary posturings of a modestly talented undergraduate... they impress only if you're an indoctrinated liberal looking to be impressed by such drivel... and that's my point, has Obama ever shown himself to be good at anything other than manipulating such types in order to promote himself?... there's a little bit of Gatsby to Obama, no?... the needy soul who figured out what lies to tell to whom and how to tell them in order to secure the attention they craved..."

Heartening to see many coming over to my long held point of view regarding a VP choice - namely, it would be a mistake for Romney to go 'safe' and pick someone that just doubles down on what Romney already is [example, Portman] - rather, he needs someone who will compensate effectively for all the things he isn't - specifically, that means someone who can wade into a crowd or stand in front of the cameras and come across not only as skilled, knowledgeable, competent but also as appealing, likeable, engaging, someone who can sell or embody an invigorating message, a vision - and, just as importantly, given the no holds barred take no prisoners leave no lie untold nature of the Obama campaign, someone who can counterpunch with style. My first choice was Ayotte because as a woman she would without having to say a word be appealing in a way Romney cannot - but, although quite smart and competent sounding, her TV performances were lacking the 'it factor' as far as I was concerned and I therefore crossed her off my list - which left basically just Christie, Rubio and Ryan. I never thought Rubio a realistic option - and Christie, although I'd love to see him on the stump, great counterpuncher, just too big of a personality - you'd always be looking at him and Romney together and wondering who the real presidential candidate was.

Which leaves Ryan - he was always my favorite [well, he and Christie], I wanted him to seek the nomination - he's the only one left that satisfies my criteria and others are coming to this conclusion too - so many in fact that if Romney goes with a Portman the disappointment in the base could reverberate in a very bad way.

[Petraeus? Well... that would be a choice that would generate a lot of interest and excitement and energy at first - but I think as the campaign wore on would look less inspired - not because he lacks substance of course, but rather because, one, it's unlikely foreign policy will play much of a role in the election - in fact you really don't want it to be about foreign policy - and two, he has no political experience so it'd be a crap shoot as to how he'd perform on the stump. Would certainly make for an interesting few weeks though if he was the choice]

[all that being said, the recent royal screw up of the the liberal super PAC ad that essentially blames a woman's death from cancer on Romney and which the Obama team then lied about by claiming to know nothing of the story even though the story is basically theirs - this incident sheds light on the VP choice because you see how you can view it two ways - people - even the media!! - are finally starting to realize what a vicious, self-serving political animal Obama is - so given that, do you make a risky VP choice in order to effectively counter that ruthless kind of campaign? - or do you make a safe choice because you feel that Obama by running a mean spirited campaign like this and completely undoing his whole 'hope and change' message of four years ago is essentially digging his own political grave here? Hard to say - but I still think the safe choice is actually the riskier choice for three reasons: one, you simply cannot trust the press to play fair, they're too invested in the whole bullshit Obama new world order liberal fantasy camp; two, the economy could manifest some slight improvement and even just a slight improvement can be milked to great effect, especially if the media endorses the message, which they will; and three, you can't know what a person who will say and do anything to win will pull out of their hat to do exactly that - for instance, I believe I'm the only person to state that when Obama refused to release the Bin Laden photos he did so not to avoid offending Muslims but rather so he could release them at a more opportune time ie in the run up to the election - I still expect those photos to be leaked sometime in October - hell, they've leaked far more sensitive national security info for poltical purposes already - I'm not saying such a gimmick would move the needle that much, my point is this is the way Obama works and I don't think you can beat a ruthless manipulator like him by playing it safe]

I'd like to think that Romney's position on the release of past tax returns is a clever ploy meant to lure democrats into making foolish claims and accusations, trick them into revealing just how much of their reelection strategy is based on demonizing Romney and demonizing wealth, goad them into putting on garish display just how much their core beliefs are founded on a distrust of business and the ambitious people who have found success therein - I'd like to think it's a clever ploy to trick Obama into the corner of portraying a failure to disclose as an admission of guilt and then turning the charge back on him as regards his sealed academic records - I'd like to think these things because I'd like to believe that the Romney team understands that Obama will do and say absolutely anything to win and the press will keep handing him the blank cheques to do it - but one just doesn't get the feeling such is the case.

Now it is true that maybe the Romney team has reasoned that the mean spirited and deceitful nature of the Obama campaign will in the long run turn off more voters than it turns on - and that's fine, that would be a strategy based on a clear eyed understanding of your opponent and may indeed be the smart strategy if it is in fact the strategy - I'm just not sure it is, and I go to the recent foreign tour as evidence - the Romney camp seemed to be sincerely shocked that the press would go out of its way to characterize the trip as a gaffe filled disaster - if this putative strategy is based on a clear eyed understanding of the obstacles in your way, how can it be you're shocked by the antics of a liberal biassed media?

It baffles - and concerns.

It still fascinates me how support for Obama among his ardent followers is not informed by his performance as president - when people who admire him extoll his putative virtues and qualities they do so as if how well he has done the job is beside the point - of course they will toss off excuses, rationalizations, they'll blame Europe and Bush and the Tea Party and racism etc etc - but as they speak you can tell these Maenads don't even care why or even if things are bad because for them the celebration is about something else - in other words, Obama is the point, the man himself and not the country per se - he is the manifestation, the embodiment of every naive, sentimental, speciously argued ideal they've ever held dear - he completes them, he is the dream they dreamt themselves to be - and what is reality compared to that?

Many times I've gotten into heated arguments with the true believers and always it ends with them spitting venom at me in an incoherent rage - and you begin to see why, for if Obama is a reflection of them, an emanation of their deepest faith and convictions, and he fails, is shown to be hollow or rotten or an insubstantial bauble or an incompetent pretender draped in the outlandish raiment of the fool, then what are they? Believers are not wont to imagine their gods as small and foolish and so when one comes along and is exactly that it's hardly surprising that denial becomes the currency of choice - not a coincidence, faith being as fragile as it is, that religions tend to be a wee bit intolerant of objective truths or facts.

The objective fact of the Obama presidency is one of failure. If he was CEO of a public company there'd be a strong consensus among shareholders for his removal. And yet the shareholders in the Obama presidency act as if the bottom line is meaningless, an illusion, as if true value existed beyond the facts - they act as if survival of the company itself is not particularly relevant when measured against the sanctity of their faith in the ideal of the CEO remaining inviolable.

New book on Obama stating that his dislike for Romney is fueling his drive for reelection - reporters seem to want to dwell on the dislike for Romney as a curiosity of interest - for me interesting part is suggestion Obama was not motivated to begin with - would something like this support my long held contention that the most important thing to Obama is Obama - that although he may be something of a leftist ideologue in the end the most important part of that agenda is how it serves to promote him? Dunno. And what is it about Romney that he finds so distasteful that he would consider it an insult to lose to him? Would he be offended as a lefty ideologue losing to a rich, white businessman? Or would the wounded sense of rejection be more personal, as in, given a choice how could people fail to see how superior he is to that man? Dunno. Does seem to be revealing - although the glimpse behind the curtain may come as a surprise to some, but not me - I've always considered his public persona to be a charade - I've long referred to him as a snake-oil salesman peddling a product that one could either view as a danger to the republic or an abuse of the seriousness of the office. I mean think about it: the suggestion in the book is that during one of the most troubling times in the history of the nation, with threats both domestic and foreign looming with fearsome aspect against us, Obama was bored with the job until managing to conjure up a hate for Romney. That sounds like disturbing news to me.