Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category

Trump: The Good, Bad, and the Ugly

March 7, 2016

Donald Trump tapped into the frustration many have concerning lack of leadership and the direction this country has taken. His refusal to bow to political correctness has been a breath of fresh air for a populace weary of rhetorical gymnastics, guarded speech, and fear of offending. He opened the door to realistically discussing illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, and the runaway progressive agenda – issues that have been blanketed by PC foolishness far too long. This is the ‘good’ that Trump brought to the presidential campaign.

His ego and thin skin, however, cause him to lash out with personal attacks against anyone daring to criticize or challenge him. These attacks have brought a lot of media attention that has helped his rise in popularity; therefore, they have continued and become a major tactic of his campaign. Other candidates have begun emulating the personal attacks in an effort to gain media attention and, consequently, issues and policies are not being given the attention they need. This is the ‘bad’ Trump has wrought.

The entrenched establishment of the GOP does not like Trump and is trying to derail him, splitting instead of unifying the party. Sophomoric insults between candidates along with Mitt Romney’s out-of-character speech attacking Trump have brought ugliness to the GOP campaign – and that can only alienate voters.

Trump may very well end up to be the GOP candidate but he will lose to Hillary if he does not get his ego in check, eliminate the brash insults, and provide substance rather than empty, feel-good rhetoric. He has certainly been entertaining but he is running for president of the United States, not auditioning for a role in a Hollywood movie. We need serious leadership.

It is sad that running for president has become such a circus that only a fool would enter the ring. Thus, we may end up having to vote for Hillary or Trump. This is not the best we can do; it is just what apathy has allowed.

David J. Hentosh

Denying Threats

October 5, 2015

When Romney said that Russia is the U.S.’s biggest geopolitical foe during a 2012 presidential debate, Obama scoffed, saying: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Voters ignored Obama’s inexperience and naiveté and he became president with a failed policy arrogantly and egotistically treating Putin as an insignificant threat.

During a recent GOP candidate debate, Marco Rubio (accurately) predicted Putin’s current actions in Syria and he, too, was ridiculed. President Reagan was vilified for daring to call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire. Pie-in-the-sky ideology does not recognize the existence of evil-doers – unless they are Republicans.

The Left downplays or completely ignores real threats to America because recognizing them would result in taking action and that could require use of military might which they loathe. In Obama’s case, it would also mean admitting his weak foreign policies have failed, especially with regard to Russia where relations have been “re-set” by his administration. The Left picks targets that are politically correct and safe.

During Obama’s administration our troops were prematurely pulled out of Iraq; the “red line” in Syria was crossed and ignored; ISIS developed and now violently rampages in the Middle East; Iran received more time to develop a nuclear weapon unimpeded; Putin invaded the Ukraine; illegal immigrants were encouraged to and allowed to invade our country; North Korea increased threats to South Korea; and China increased expansionist activities.

The Left, meanwhile, has concentrated on threats from: Israel; Christmas and crèches; traditional marriage; FOX News; border security; profiling terrorists; decreased government spending; voter ID cards; the Tea Party; a strong military; displaying the American flag; the Washington Redskins; limits on abortion; the police; school lunches; Republicans; lower taxes; the 2nd Amendment; Confederate flags and statues; Uber; coal; the Keystone pipeline; male and female rest rooms; and even children playing tag.

Feeling Safe?

David J. Hentosh

Voter Ignorance

October 15, 2014

On the “Morning Joe” show, longtime NY Democrat Donny Deutsch said: “There is a psychological reason to go to Mitt Romney…We kind of made a mistake four years ago. We get to do a do-over. He was right about Syria, he was right about a lot of things.” This is much more than just voter remorse; it is an admittance of voter ignorance.

The “we” Deutsch refers to are those who wanted to make history rather than make sense and those who refused to believe that experience counts. It was just plain stupid to vote for someone who had absolutely no experience at anything. Voting for Obama the second time was little more than blind partisanship.

Far too many people are ignorant of the issues and end up casting votes based solely on single issues, party affiliation, or just appearance. In national elections, that is irresponsible and dangerous. Deutsch foolishly thinks he gets a “do-over”, but some of Obama’s “transformation” is not reversible and the damage already done will take years to repair.

Obama tells crowds exactly what they want to hear and he uses emotionally charged issues to rally support. Nationalizing health insurance (Obamacare) and bringing our troops home from Iraq were the two issues he focused on and negative consequences of both were ignored. Those consequences were predicted but ignored by voters and we are in turmoil because of it.

Democrats are now campaigning as if they never agreed with Obama’s failing policies, but they all did. Many voters are unaware of this duplicity but it is a major factor in November’s elections because if elected, many of those Democrats will shed their denial and continue with Obama’s failed policies.

Much is said about the right to vote but little is said about the responsibility that comes with it. Voters are responsible for understanding the issues and the candidates. Stay home if you can’t shoulder that responsibility rather than cast an ignorant vote. The future of our country depends on it.

David J. Hentosh

Obama Worse Than Carter

July 10, 2014

Jimmy Carter has been acknowledged by a majority on both sides of the aisle as being an ineffective, weak president, particularly on foreign affairs; therefore, increasing comparisons of Obama to Carter are a sure sign that Obama is failing badly. With more than two years remaining in his term, Obama is on a path to earning a worse legacy than Carter.

A recent poll found president Obama to be the worst president since WWII with more voters feeling that Romney would have been better. This places Carter above Obama, making a mockery of the continued positive spin coming from unconditional Obama supporters.

The economy shrank at an annual rate of 2.9% during the first three months of 2014, the worst non-recession contraction in over 40 years. The liberal New Republic magazine, however, ignores this and wants us to believe that a monthly job report for June shows the economy skipping first gear and kicking into second gear when, in fact, it is going in reverse.

Our southern border is being overrun with children crossing illegally into the country because of Obama’s personal immigration policy and reluctance to act, creating an overwhelming situation. CNN’s Sally Kohn, however, assures us: “This is not a border crisis. These kids are coming to the border, they are getting stopped, the border is working”. If this is considered “working”, one wonders what a non-functional border looks like to Kohn.

The Daily Kos, just four months ago, argued that Obama’s foreign policy made a lot of sense and was advancing our interests around the globe. This is the same foreign policy that is proving worse than Carter’s, reducing confidence and credibility in the US in all our allies and emboldening our enemies to act aggressively.

Emotional investment in Obama has blocked reality for many, but comparisons to Jimmy Carter have to take a toll. If those comparisons shred the blinders unconditional supporters wear, they could end up being a positive for Carter’s legacy. That, of course, would lower Obama’s legacy even further.

David J. Hentosh

Like Mother, Like Daughter

June 24, 2014

Hillary has taken a lot of flak for her claim of leaving the White House broke. Her attempt to ingratiate herself with the common man fell flat and backfired, planting her firmly and forever among the elite. Being out of touch with reality is a common trait of the elite and it seems that Hillary has passed that onto her daughter, Chelsea.

In a recent interview, Chelsea tried to compare herself to an average 34-year-old millennial bouncing from job to job trying to find a true calling. Leaving a $600K job at NBC (A typical job for a millennial with no experience, right?), she settled on working for her parents’ philanthropic foundation, saying she felt she had a calling for this work.

Not only does Chelsea seem blind to the enormous advantage she has because of her parents, she seems to have a need to pass herself off as “one of the guys”, just like her mother. She seems to have no clue, saying: “I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t”. Most would be embarrassed to admit this in public, understanding how such an elite, privileged viewpoint sounds. Chelsea, like her mother, doesn’t see it.

Those born with a safety net under them often do not appreciate what that means. Fear of failure is not a factor in their lives and money is not a constant source of anxiety, therefore, they lack an appreciation of the difficulties most face.

Chelsea, like her mother, is part of the elite. This is the same elite railed against by Chris Matthews when Mitt Romney, another elite member, campaigned for president. Now, hypocrite Matthews pleads for us to back off his beloved Hillary, asking: “Why don’t we accept them as they are, and stop making them like us?”

Perhaps acceptance first needs to come from the elite. Like mother, like daughter, Chelsea needs to appreciate how fortunate she is and learn to handle it with more dignity and grace. Chelsea is still young enough to learn but it is clear it won’t come from her mother.

David J. Hentosh

“Journalism” Was the Loser in the Second Presidential Debate

October 17, 2012

Many so-called “journalists” completely in the tank for Obama have long claimed they were not. Hiding behind delusional and transparent walls, they convinced themselves no one could see their bias and they refuted, vehemently, any claim to the contrary. The second presidential debate on Tuesday shattered that pretense.

Representing biased journalism was debate moderator Candy Crowley. As Romney began taking Obama to the woodshed for falsely stating how quickly he labeled the murderous attacks on our embassy as terrorism, Crowley threw Obama a lifeline by arrogantly interrupting Romney to take Obama’s side. She couldn’t control herself, seeing Obama on the ropes.

Crowley also allowed Obama more time, interrupted Romney often (three times more than interrupting Obama), questioned several of Romney’s answers, and prevented Romney from elaborating on points. Crowley was as wrong as Obama on the embassy issue and wrong in moderating.

Unfortunately, Crowley was not alone in displaying bias. Reporters in a room set aside for watching the debate broke into applause after Obama ridiculed Romney’s wealth, a continuous class warfare tactic of the Obama camp. Such a display by reporters was once taboo and considered highly unprofessional. That, of course, was during a time when “journalists” were actually professional.

Over at MSNBC (a veritable Obama campaign headquarters), commentators were eager to call Obama the clear winner. That was not so clear when a later segment aired showing a Luntz focus group, consisting mainly of former Obama voters, expressing their switch to Romney after watching the debate. It seems the commentators may have jumped the gun.

Another example occurred at ABC where Romney was declared to be “not quite factual” about oil production being down on government land. However, while Romney’s percentages, “facts”, were conceded to be totally accurate, an attempt was made to make Romney look like a liar because he did not relate facts showing a slight increase in production on private land. It should be embarrassing for a newscaster to label accurate facts as “not quite factual”.

One can spin the debate however one likes, but the real loser was, clearly, modern “journalism”.

David J. Hentosh

Bird-Brained Obama Campaign

October 11, 2012

The Obama campaign is finally being recognized to be empty of substance, even by some hardcore believers. Losing badly in the first debate gave many a glimpse of Obama they have refused to see and, consequently, the smoke screen of his re-election campaign is becoming evident.

The new ad from the Obama campaign this week based on Romney’s insignificant Big Bird comment in the first debate has magnified the campaign’s tactic of shifting focus from real issues to personal attacks and irrelevant sideshows. Even Chris Matthews, one of Obama’s staunchest advocates, found the ad to be silly, calling it “Mickey Mouse”, and Democrat strategist Bob Shrum admonished that “We need to be talking about who is going to save Medicare, not who is going to save Big Bird”.

It is one thing for politically clueless and shallow celebrities, such as will.i.am, to use such bird-brained tactics as he did Tuesday at an Obama rally when he played the Sesame Street theme. It is quite another for a so-called professionally run campaign to do so. Incumbents have always focused on achievements before personal attacks in their re-election campaigns. Obama is sadly lacking in achievements and this ad makes that clear even to those with blinders on.

Supposedly, Big Bird was added to the Obama campaign’s bag of tricks in order to shed doubt on Romney’s seriousness. It backfired and, instead, highlighted their own lack of seriousness. If that is the most critical point from Romney during the debate to attack, Romney’s win must seem even bigger than it was in the eyes of voters – and many of those eyes are opening for the first time.

This has been brought to you by the letter “B” – for Bird-brained.

David J. Hentosh

Blind Media Stunned by Debate

October 5, 2012

The infallibility of Obama was created, sustained, and fully invested in by the media, so to see him on stage looking foolish, stuttering instead of filling the airwaves with imperious rhetoric, was an enormous shock.

To those with no blinders, Obama performed like…well…Obama. His answers were the same type of answers he always gives and there was just as little substance in them as always. To believers, though, it was a slap in the face.

The difference was the environment and ego, or lack of. There was no teleprompter to supply answers to questions rarely asked of him, no cheering audience inflating his ego, and no way out. Obama was on his own, challenged by one doubting his superior intelligence and prepared to rip down the protective media curtain hiding his inadequacies.

Fear of that exposure stifled Obama, and the debate moderator, surprisingly, made no effort to save him. Having no achievements to blunt Romney’s tacit accusations, Obama’s inferior understanding of business and economic issues was evident. He didn’t even have his usual flip answers prepared. Perhaps that’s because he was conditioned by the media to believe he would never be challenged.

Well, live by the media, die by the media – and Obama died, at least for one night. That doesn’t mean, however, that the media won’t recover. It certainly was bad enough to turn Chris Matthew’s leg tingle into a nervous tic, but the spin has already begun. Desperate excuses for Obama’s poor showing abound, the dumbest coming from Al Gore who blamed the high altitude of Denver. That’s better than blaming global warming, but not by much.

Before hopes begin that the media has seen the light, one must recognize the reason for its disappointment. It was not the substance of Obama’s responses, or lack of, that caused panic. It was his failure of delivery, style, and command or, in other words, his façade. Substance was never an issue for the media concerning Obama. It never has been and never will be.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Dangerous Campaigning

September 30, 2012

Obama’s prime occupation for the past year has been campaigning for re-election. Refusing to ask hard questions, the biased media has been a willing partner in Obama’s attempt to hide his failures in order to get re-elected. Rather than investigate the administration’s glaring missteps and blunders, the media has focused on finding fault with Romney while echoing administration spin. This obsession with re-election has become a danger to the country.

Afghanistan, Obama’s “right” war, is failing and the American death toll is approaching 2000 at a current rate of approximately one per day. That’s slightly less than half the toll from 8 years of the Iraq war, and neither Obama nor the press mentions it. This is a far cry from the nightly reports of war deaths during the Bush administration. Afghanistan, for Obama’s sake, has become a silent, hidden war – and it is failing.

The economy, a definite smear on the Obama administration, continues to be spun as “recovering” in spite of all data and statistics, and voters are being told Obama has saved us from disaster. One need only look around to see the fallacy in this, yet, the spin continues in the hope of repetition becoming fact in voters’ minds.

Perhaps the most dangerous failure of Obama has been on the international front. Iran sneers at Obama and is on the verge of having nuclear weapons. Recent embassy attacks and deaths have been determined to have been planned terrorist actions and the administration is still immersed in blaming them on a video clip. The cover-up is part of a re-election campaign considering danger to the country as irrelevant.

We have had an absentee president for the past year and it is taking a toll. There is no national budget, immigration reform has been ignored, the Middle East is exploding, the economy is failing, class warfare is raging, the race card is alive and well, “green” policies hamper economic recovery, the deficit is increasing, and the media has lost all credibility

Obama’s solution is fund-raising, appearances on “The View” and “David Letterman”, ignoring national leaders, cover-ups, Romney bashing, and empty rhetoric. Four more months of this kind of irresponsible neglect is frightening. Four more years would be disastrous.

David J. Hentosh

Media Spins Embassy Attacks

September 14, 2012

Stop the foolishness and charade. The attacks on our embassies in the Middle East were not caused by a stupid movie. The root cause is hatred of the US that has been deliberately planted and nurtured by Islamic militants wanting to control not only the Arab world, but the entire world.

Their goal is to eradicate both Israel and the US, the two biggest impediments to their mission, and erase centuries of world progress that reduced Arab influence. The desired result is the forced implementation of their distorted version of Sharia Law.

Blaming a filmmaker, as blaming a cartoonist, for violent protests is a smoke screen. Apologizing for an individual’s freedom of expression in a free society is not an appropriate official, or media, response.

The movie was just another excuse for violence against the US. Yes, many Muslims were offended by the movie and decided, or were coerced, to protest. However, the current media debate about whether violence was premeditated or not is just a politically correct attempt to spin reality. Bringing RPG’s to a “peaceful” protest does not require a deep analysis of intent. Doing so on 9/11 is too obvious to be a coincidence.

Furthering the media’s folly has been the intense focus on Romney’s remarks rather than on the administration’s response, or lack of. Turning this into an all-out Romney-bashing event is a transparent low for the media. Attempts to appease Islamic sensitivities are the main thrust of so-called “journalistic” queries that do not center on Romney. Protecting Obama from pre-election negativity is foremost.

There are now rumors circulating about foreknowledge of the attacks by the administration, but the biased media will not tarnish Obama. Those rumors will have to be vetted by independent investigators and, if true, forced onto the mainstream media for reporting. Until that time, we will be subjected to more appeasement attempts, praise for Obama, and Romney-bashing rather than journalism. In other words, the same old daily news casts.

David J. Hentosh