Peggy Noonan's first post-Bilderberg column declares Obama is toast

[InsideJob]

"There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452793597495290.html

[InsideJob]

She writes:

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the "avalanche of leaks," according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. A terrorist "kill list," reports of U.S. spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden's DNA and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the California Democrat, put "American lives in jeopardy," put "our nation's security in jeopardy."

This isn't the usual—this is something different. A special counsel may be appointed.

Noonan attends Bilderberg, gets her marching orders, and immediately maps out that Obama is going to have to deal with a special counsel investigation

[Waltraut]

here are photos from Bilderberg 12

http://cryptome.org/2012-info/bilderberg-2012/bilderberg-2012.htm

[InsideJob]

Here she is going into Bilderberg:

[InsideJob]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/calls-grow-for-special-counsel-to-investigate-leaks.html

Pressing for Leak Inquiry by a Special Counsel
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 7, 2012

WASHINGTON — Calls for a special counsel to investigate leaks of classified information by Obama administration officials gathered momentum on Thursday after the Justice Department’s national security division partly recused itself from the inquiry, apparently because of the possibility that the department might have been a source of some of the disclosures.

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed the recusal of the division, which usually oversees leak investigations, at an unusual news conference at which the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House intelligence committees denounced what one called “a cascade of leaks” to the news media about classified programs like drones and cyberwarfare....

[InsideJob]

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/231721-mccain-drafting-resolution-to-press-for-special-counsel-on-leaks

McCain drafting resolution to call for special counsel on security leaks
By Jeremy Herb    - 06/08/12 09:50 AM ET

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is planning to introduce a Senate resolution calling for a special counsel to investigate a spate of recent national-security leaks.

McCain said in an interview Thursday evening with Fox News’s Sean Hannity that he intends to unveil a "sense of the Senate" resolution as early as Monday in order to press for a special counsel to investigate the leaks from recent stories about a U.S. cyberattack on Iran, a “kill list,” an underwear bomber and more.

“There are some of us who will be seeking a resolution, sense of the Senate calling for the appointment of a special counsel,” McCain said. “I hope maybe as early as Monday.”

The FBI launched an investigation into the leaks this week, but the White House on Thursday rejected the need for a special counsel.

“This is something that the president insists, that his administration take all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk our counterterrorism operations,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.
McCain’s resolution would be non-binding, but it could pose political problems for Democrats and the White House if it were to come to a vote, a move that McCain and his aides have not yet indicated whether they are seeking.

Democrats have joined Republicans in expressing outrage over the leaks — highlighted by a press conference Thursday with the four heads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees — but Republicans are leading the charge for a special counsel to investigate.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she didn’t know yet whether she supported a special prosecutor, and other Democrats have not signed onto the plan, either.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said Thursday that the Justice Department’s national-security division was recusing itself from investigating part of the case because of the potential that the source of the leaks came from the department.

“You’re going to have to have at least some sort of outside look because of the nature [of the leaks],” Rogers said.

McCain has also accused the White House of leaking information for political gain to boost President Obama’s image in an election year, a charge that Carney called “grossly irresponsible” on Wednesday.

Democrats in Congress have rejected McCain’s accusations, but the Arizona senator has stood by them as other Republicans have joined him this week.

In the Hannity appearance on Thursday, he questioned why the White House was rejecting the special counsel.

“Suppose nothing came out of the White House. Let's just suppose that,” McCain said. “Why wouldn't the administration want a special counsel to investigate this because of the gravity and the size of this compromise of national security?”

[InsideJob]

This thing is moving fast. Definitely a Bilderberg-influenced event.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/attorney-general-eric-holder-names-attorneys-to-investigate-leaks/2012/06/08/gJQANhGiOV_story.html

Attorney General Eric Holder names attorneys to investigate leaks
By Sari Horwitz and David Nakamura, Friday, June 8,

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has appointed two U.S. attorneys to lead investigations into the possible White House leak of classified information, even as President Obama challenged suggestions that his administration was involved in such disclosures.

In a statement issued late Friday, Holder said that he has notified members of Congress that he has assigned the U.S. attorney for the District, Ronald C. Machen Jr., and his counterpart for Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein, to lead criminal investigations into the “possible unauthorized” leaks to reporters for several recent news articles and books.

Holder said the investigations will be conducted separately from the probes launched in recent days by the FBI into the possible disclosure of classified information to reporters. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division will be involved in both inquiries, a law enforcement source said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter...

[America2]

There were FOUR eyewitnesses that saw Mitt Romney at the Bilderberg meeting.

Bill Clinton attended the Bilderberg meeting in 1992, and you know the rest.

Obama and Hillary attended at the last minute in 2008, and you know the rest.

Tony Blair attended shortly before he was "elected" PM of England.

Again, Romney was AT the Bilderberg meeting this week. *hint hint*

Yes, could these be the "scandals" brewing that "bring down" Obama? 

[America2]

This obviously is not out of "incompetence" either...

http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-marc-anthony-ad-another-embarrassment-campaign-224400209.html

Obama's Marc Anthony Ad is Another Embarrassment for the Campaign
By Tara Dodrill | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Thu, Jun 7, 2012.

COMMENTARY | Yet another celebrity advertisement for President Barack Obama was unveiled earlier this week.
 
While Marc Anthony may be an attractive and accomplished singer, he likely does not have much in common with the typical Latino voter. Anthony's impassioned plea that Obama needs another term to continue "making progress" and that he "has our backs" during the video clip republished on The Blaze neglects to mention that Anthony himself has proven he cares little about the nation's debt.
 
According to document excerpts published by the Washington Free Beacon, Anthony is a "tax-dodger" who owed more than $3 million back taxes.
 
Obama staffers should check into the backgrounds of the celebrities they use in campaign commercials. Although Anthony negotiated a settlement with the government on his back taxes in 2010, it reflects poorly on Obama's character that he would befriend the scofflaw singer.
 
more

[CheneysWorstNightmare]

Is Obama's decline somehow tied to Rand Paul supporting Romney?

[America2]

Is Obama's decline somehow tied to Rand Paul supporting Romney?

Hard to say what's going on - IMHO, it seems like it's another case of "people don't learn from their mistakes".

No, I'm not trying to indict anyone here(I myself am guilty of this as well), but I'm talking about "evangelical" voters, in particular. 4 years ago, they continued to have this mentality that "As Christians we are commanded to vote Republican no matter what", despite the fact that McCain was never no Christian(yes, I know the others weren't, but McCain himself has always professed to NOT be Christian prior to '08). And yeah, I know McCain lost big.

And despite Romney being on the ticket, it looks like they're going to follow down this dark path yet again(at least from a mainstream christian end times MB I follow). And for that matter too - don't know if you guys listen to Chris Pinto's Noise of Thunder Radio show, but Pinto has been slyly throwing out this attitude that if Romney or any other Republican wins, this country will have a prosperous economy and Christians will be safe(and this is a big surprise b/c Pinto has done a thorough job exposing the Jesuits, Vatican's, Mystery Babylon's, etc secret plans to form a NWO).

Anyhow, this is just one aspect I see growing - it's as if the repetitive phrases of "Anyone But Obama" is being thrown out.

[America2]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-groups-top-democrats-tv-spending-far-130628921.html

[] = emphasis mine

GOP groups top[outspend] Democrats in TV spending by far
By DAVID ESPO | Associated Press – 2 hrs 17 mins ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Independent Republican groups are heavily outspending their cross-party counterparts on television advertising in the campaigns for the White House and control of the Senate, eating into President Barack Obama's financial advantage over Mitt Romney and prompting expressions of alarm from top congressional Democrats.

The disparity is most evident in the race for the White House, where Crossroads GPS, Restore Our Future and other organizations aligned with the Republicans spent nearly $37 million on TV ads through the first few days of June, most of it attacking Obama. That compares with about $11 million by groups supporting the president, with much of it from Priorities USA Action.

Senate campaigns also have been affected, notably in Ohio, where Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown's commanding lead in the polls began to erode this spring after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others started a televised attack. Overall, Republican-aligned organizations have spent roughly $30 million on ads in key races, compared with about $11 million for groups supporting Democrats.

more

[InsideJob]

ABC Report:
"Make no mistake, this could get quite ugly."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/national-security-leaks-crackdown-16531551

Watching this whole thing unfold is like watching a magician when you know the trick.

[kidA]

There were FOUR eyewitnesses that saw Mitt Romney at the Bilderberg meeting.

Bill Clinton attended the Bilderberg meeting in 1992, and you know the rest.

Obama and Hillary attended at the last minute in 2008, and you know the rest.

Tony Blair attended shortly before he was "elected" PM of England.

Again, Romney was AT the Bilderberg meeting this week. *hint hint*

Yes, could these be the "scandals" brewing that "bring down" Obama? 

I know that Mitt was here in Los Angeles last Thursday for a dinner. My dad works this wealthy ass banker. He must've taken the red eye or something.

[InsideJob]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jun/9/mccain-rejects-holders-leak-probe-calls-outside-co/

McCain rejects Holder's leak probe, calls for outside counsel
By Susan Crabtree

Sen. John McCain, the leading critic of the recent spate of national security leaks, rejected Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s appointment on Friday of two U.S. attorneys to investigate the breaches, arguing that only an outside counsel would be independent enough for such a task....

..."These breaches of national security have compromised operations, strained relationships with allies, and put lives at risk. It is imperative that an independent investigation be conducted where the results could be accepted with a high degree of confidence and without a hint of political considerations," they said. "We are confident the two U.S. attorneys hand-picked by Attorney General Holder are fine men. However, if there was ever a situation where we needed an outside special counsel that would enjoy bipartisan acceptance and widespread public trust, it is now."

[Mr Grinch]

[InsideJob]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/11/house-moves-hold-holder-contempt/

House moving to hold Holder in contempt
By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times

The House of Representatives is moving forward with proceedings to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress — a major escalation in the separation-of-powers battle over “Fast and Furious,” the Obama administration’s botched gun-walking operation.

Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said his panel will take up the contempt issue next week, and the move has the blessing of House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

“The Justice Department is out of excuses,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement Monday morning. “Either the Justice Department turns over the information requested, or Congress will have no choice but to move forward with holding the Attorney General in contempt for obstructing an ongoing investigation.”

[America2]

Coincidence this is moving at a faster pace since Bilderberg?

[egypt]

I believe we should be holding the Judiciary Committee to the fire and completely responsible for what we expect.  The Committee should know that we realize they are softening the whole deal because Bush is involved.

Here they are:
http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html

Subcommittees?  No wonder they get nothing much done {but they sure can ramrod through legislation - time to ramrod the obvious}:
http://judiciary.house.gov/about/subcommittee.html

Where's the stuff on Holder?
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_judicialimpeachment.html

http://judiciary.house.gov/about/contact.html
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
p/202-225-3951

One thing that bothered me that Ron Paul said.  He said we couldn't prosecute ~everyone~ on their treasonous acts in Congress because "...we'd *have* to arrest almost all of Congress and we just couldn't do that..."

Why not?

If I did something wrong, I would get arrested.  They finally were fed up with it in France and not only arrested the elite perpetrators, they chopped off 40,000 heads!

[Constitutionary]

The Bilderbergs are fed up Obama and his Birth Certificate issues.

This is why Romney was Bilderberg's pick.

[InsideJob]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/could-leaks-sink-the-obama-white-house

Leaks Could Sink Obama White House
Republicans call for an independent counsel, while the FBI and two federal prosecutors are already on the case. Clapper was furious — and now the White House is “very nervous.”

Posted Jun 12, 2012 7:00pm EDT
By opening an investigation into the leaks of classified information, the Obama White House appears to be entering the kind of perilous Fill-In-The-Blank-Gate terrain that has eventually engulfed most administrations in the modern era.
The pattern: an initial investigation launched to relieve mounting political pressure snowballs into a much larger scandal, leaving a trail of broken careers in its wake.
And the beginnings of that pattern are in place: Attorney General Eric Holder Friday appointed two federal prosecutors to oversee multiple FBI investigations into leaks involving stories in recently published books and articles in the New York Times, AP, and Newsweek. The move deflected, but didn't end, a rising, bipartisan tide of Congressional criticism of the leaks. Republican senators Tuesday called for a vote in Congress to recommend that an independent counsel look into national security secrets that have appeared in the media.
“It’s going to be trouble, “ says Steve Clemons, an influential policy analyst who has close ties to the administration. “It’s going to be like the search for who leaked Valerie Plame’s name. If the truth does come out, I suspect it will be a major player. Of course the White House is very nervous.”
Those major players are some of the most powerful figures in Obama’s Washington.
The scandal has the potential to drag in a cadre of senior administration officials, both former and current, who have extensive contacts with the press.
The short list could include Leon Panetta, Ben Rhodes, Tom Donilon, Gen. David Petraeus, John Brennan, Jim Jones, and General Doug Lute, among other heavy hitters....

[TheHiveMind]

It looks like the next puppet will be Mittens.

[InsideJob]

Peter King says it will be "Worse than Watergate"
http://radio.foxnews.com/2012/06/12/worse-than-watergate-audio/

[America2]

It looks like the next puppet will be Mittens.

Just to throw this out there too - notice the states recently out there that have put out gay marriage ammendments on the ballot for November?(ie, North Carolina, and now Washington)

No, I'm not part of the "war on the family" crowd, but this is nothing more than BAIT to get pro-family/evangelical conservatives to the ballots in Nov, and from there will get them to vote for Romney. Don't think for one minute that they will go to the voting booth for ONLY this reason.

Yes, I understand these elections are rigged, but there are many ways they do it other than rig the ballot boxes(and electronic machines).

[InsideJob]

Surprise, surprise - her 6/15 column was all about the leaks..."Shut the [blank] up"

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Noonan: Who Benefits From the 'Avalanche of Leaks'?
They seem designed to glorify President Obama and help his re-election campaign.

What is happening with all these breaches of our national security? Why are intelligence professionals talking so much—divulging secret and sensitive information for all the world to see, and for our adversaries to contemplate?

In the past few months we have read that the U.S. penetrated al Qaeda in Yemen and foiled a terror plot; that the Stuxnet cyberworm, which caused chaos in the Iranian nuclear program, was a joint Israeli-American operation; and that President Obama personally approves every name on an expanding "kill list" of those targeted and removed from life by unmanned drones. According to the New York Times, Mr. Obama pores over "suspects' biographies" in "what one official calls 'the macabre 'baseball cards' of an unconventional war."

From David Sanger's new book, "Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power," we learn that Stuxnet was "the most sophisticated, complex cyberattack the United States had ever launched." Its secret name was "Olympic Games." America and Israel developed the "malicious software" together, the U.S. at Fort Meade, Md., where it keeps "computer warriors," Israel at a military intelligence agency it "barely acknowledges exists."

Martin Kozlowski
The Pentagon has built a replica of Iran's Natanz enrichment plant. The National Security Agency "routinely taps the ISI's cell phones"—that's the Pakistani intelligence agency. A "secret" U.S. program helps Pakistan protect its nuclear facilities; it involves fences and electronic padlocks. Still, insurgents bent on creating a dirty bomb, if they have a friend inside, can slip out "a few grams of nuclear material at a time" and outwit security systems targeted at major theft. In any case, there's a stockpile of highly enriched uranium sitting "near an aging research reactor in Pakistan." It could be used for several dirty bombs.

It's a good thing our enemies can't read. Wait, they can! They can download all this onto their iPads at a café in Islamabad.

It's all out there now. Mr. Sanger's sources are, apparently, high administration officials, whose diarrhetic volubility marks a real breakthrough in the history of indiscretion.

What are they thinking? That in the age of Wikileaks the White House itself should be one big Wikileak?

More from the Sanger book: During the search for Osama bin Laden, American intelligence experts had a brilliant idea. Bin Laden liked to make videotapes to rouse his troops and threaten the West. Why not flood part of Pakistan with new digital cameras, each with a "unique signature" that would allow its signals to be tracked? The signal could function as a beacon for a drone. Agents got the new cameras into the distribution chain of Peshawar shops. The plan didn't catch Osama, because he wasn't in that area. But "traceable digital cameras are still relied on by the CIA . . . and remain highly classified."

Well, they were.

There was a Pakistani doctor named Shakil Afridi who was sympathetic to America. He became involved in a scheme to try and get the DNA of Osama's family. He "and a team of nurses" were hired by the U.S. to administer hepatitis B vaccinations throughout Abbottabad. The vaccinations were real. Dr. Afridi got inside Osama's compound but never got to vaccinate any bin Ladens.

In the days after bin Laden was killed, the doctor was picked up by Pakistani agents and accused of cooperating with the Americans. He was likely tortured. He's in prison now, convicted of conspiring against the state.

No word yet on the nurses, but stand by.

Mr. Sanger writes that President Obama "will go down in history as the man who dramatically expanded" the use of drones. They are cheaper than boots on the ground, more efficient. But some of those who operate the unmanned bombers are getting upset. They track victims for days. They watch them play with their children. "It freaks you out," a former drone operator told Mr. Sanger. "You feel less like a pilot than a sniper."

During the Arab Spring, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was insistent that Mr. Obama needed to stick with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, even, Mr. Sanger reports, "if he started shooting protestors in the streets."

King Abdullah must be glad he called. Maybe he'll call less in the future.

***
All of this constitutes part of what California Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls an "avalanche of leaks." After she read the Stuxnet story in the Times, she was quoted as saying "my heart stopped" as she considered possible repercussions.

Why is this happening? In part because at our highest level in politics, government and journalism, Americans continue to act as if we are talking only to ourselves. There is something narcissistic in this: Only our dialogue counts, no one else is listening, and what can they do about it if they are? There is something childish in it: Knowing secrets is cool, and telling them is cooler. But we are talking to the world. Should it know how, when and with whose assistance we gather intelligence? Should it know our methods? Will this make us safer?

Liberally quoted in the Sanger book is the White House national security adviser, Thomas Donilon. When I was a child, there was a doll called Chatty Cathy. You pulled a string in her back, and she babbled inanely. Tom Donilon appears to be the Chatty Cathy of the American intelligence community.

It is good Congress has become involved. They wonder if the leaks have been directed, encouraged or authorized, and by whom. One way to get at that is the classic legal question: Who benefits?

That is not a mystery. In all these stories, it is the president and his campaign that benefit. The common theme in the leaks is how strong and steely Mr. Obama is. He's tough but fair, bold yet judicious, surprisingly willing to do what needs to be done. He hears everyone out, asks piercing questions, doesn't flinch.

He is Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer.

And he is up for re-election and fighting the constant perception that he's weak, a one-man apology tour whose foreign policy is unclear, unsure, and lacking in strategic depth.

There's something in the leaks that is a hallmark of the Obama White House. They always misunderstand the country they seek to spin, and they always think less of it than it deserves. Why do the president's appointees think the picture of him with a kill list in his hand makes him look good? He sits and personally decides who to kill? Americans don't think of their presidents like that. And they don't want to.

National security doesn't exist to help presidents win elections. It's not a plaything or a tool to advance one's prospects.

After the killing of bin Laden, members of the administration, in a spirit of triumphalism, began giving briefings and interviews in which they said too much. One of the adults in the administration, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, reportedly went to Mr. Donilon's office. "I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend," he said. What? asked Mr. Donilon.

"Shut the [blank] up," Mr. Gates said.

Still excellent advice, and at this point more urgently needed.

(Note: This column has been edited to remove an imprecise reference to a book by Dan Klaidman.)

[Valerius]

They're not going to do squat. They picked an issue the public doesn't care about yet again to make sound and fury over and make a mockery over the notion of opposition party. May as well have another hearing over pro sports players doing drugs to yell shocked, shocked, shocked over.

[InsideJob]

Peggy Noonan says Romney VP Choice could be John Thune.

Mitch Daniels is not being talked about much anywhere.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7411974n&tag=showDoorFlexGridRight;flexGridModule

[InsideJob]

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/

It "Feels" like a Romney Win


We begin with the three words everyone writing about the election must say: Nobody knows anything. Everyone’s guessing. I spent Sunday morning in Washington with journalists and political hands, one of whom said she feels it’s Obama, the rest of whom said they don’t know. I think it’s Romney. I think he’s stealing in “like a thief with good tools,” in Walker Percy’s old words. While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney’s slipping into the presidency. He’s quietly rising, and he’s been rising for a while.

Obama and the storm, it was like a wave that lifted him and then moved on, leaving him where he’d been. Parts of Jersey and New York are a cold Katrina. The exact dimensions of the disaster will become clearer when the election is over. One word: infrastructure. Officials knew the storm was coming and everyone knew it would be bad, but the people of the tristate area were not aware, until now, just how vulnerable to deep damage their physical system was. The people in charge of that system are the politicians. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to have the Marathon, to show New York’s spirit. In Staten Island last week they were bitterly calling it “the race through the ruins.” There is a disconnect.

But to the election. Who knows what to make of the weighting of the polls and the assumptions as to who will vote? Who knows the depth and breadth of each party’s turnout efforts? Among the wisest words spoken this cycle were by John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate, who said, in a conversation the night before the last presidential debate, that he thought maybe the American people were quietly cooking something up, something we don’t know about.

I think they are and I think it’s this: a Romney win.

Romney’s crowds are building—28,000 in Morrisville, Pa., last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio, Friday It isn’t only a triumph of advance planning: People came, they got through security and waited for hours in the cold. His rallies look like rallies now, not enactments. In some new way he’s caught his stride. He looks happy and grateful. His closing speech has been positive, future-looking, sweetly patriotic. His closing ads are sharp—the one about what’s going on at the rallies is moving.

All the vibrations are right. A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: “I joined because I was anti Obama—I’m a patriot, I’ll join up But now I am pro-Romney.” Why? “I’ve spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He’s a genuinely good man.” Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant “Three more days” and “Two more days”—it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney.

Something old is roaring back. One of the Romney campaign’s surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd “I worked the rope line, people wouldn’t let go of my hand.” It startled him. A former political figure who’s been in Ohio told me this morning something is moving with evangelicals, other church-going Protestants and religious Catholics. He said what’s happening with them is quiet, unreported and spreading: They really want Romney now, they’ll go out and vote, the election has taken on a new importance to them.

There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same.

Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us.

And there is Obama, out there seeming tired and wan, showing up through sheer self discipline. A few weeks ago I saw the president and the governor at the Al Smith dinner, and both were beautiful specimens in their white ties and tails, and both worked the dais. But sitting there listening to the jokes and speeches, the archbishop of New York sitting between them, Obama looked like a young challenger—flinty, not so comfortable. He was distracted, and his smiles seemed forced. He looked like a man who’d just seen some bad internal polling. Romney? Expansive, hilarious, self-spoofing, with a few jokes of finely calibrated meanness that were just perfect for the crowd. He looked like a president. He looked like someone who’d just seen good internals.

Of all people, Obama would know if he is in trouble. When it comes to national presidential races, he is a finely tuned political instrument: He read the field perfectly in 2008. He would know if he’s losing now, and it would explain his joylessness on the stump. He is out there doing what he has to to fight the fight. But he’s still trying to fire up the base when he ought to be wooing the center and speaking their calm centrist talk. His crowds haven’t been big. His people have struggled to fill various venues. This must hurt the president after the trememdous, stupendous crowds of ’08. “Voting’s the best revenge”—revenge against who, and for what? This is not a man who feels himself on the verge of a grand victory. His campaign doesn’t seem president-sized. It is small and sad and lost, driven by formidable will and zero joy.

I suspect both Romney and Obama have a sense of what’s coming, and it’s part of why Romney looks so peaceful and Obama so roiled.

Romney ends most rallies with his story of the Colorado scout troop that in 1986 had an American flag put in the space shuttle Challenger, saw the Challenger blow up as they watched on TV, and then found, through the persistence of their scoutmaster, that the flag had survived the explosion. It was returned to them by NASA officials. When Romney, afterward, was shown the flag, he touched it, and an electric jolt went up his arm. It’s a nice story. He doesn’t make its meaning fully clear. But maybe he means it as a metaphor for America: It can go through a terrible time, a catastrophe, as it has economically the past five years, and still emerge whole, intact, enduring.

Maybe that’s what the coming Romney moment is about: independents, conservatives, Republicans, even some Democrats, thinking: We can turn it around, we can work together, we can right this thing, and he can help.

[America2]

I'm hearing and reading all kinds of rumors and stories, and from BOTH ends of the spectrum.

I guess we will see...Redskins lost their last home game yesterday(and looked pretty flat in doing so). According to the so-called "Redskins Rule", this means the incumbent party will likely lose the election.

Guess we will see - will say this...the same groups("evangelicals" and Tea Partiers) who once vowed they would stay far away from Romney as possible, are NOW the same ones who are acting like Romney is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And it's been recently(that is since 1-2 months ago, and not since before the primaries started).

[Old Style]

I'm hearing and reading all kinds of rumors and stories, and from BOTH ends of the spectrum.

I guess we will see...Redskins lost their last home game yesterday(and looked pretty flat in doing so). According to the so-called "Redskins Rule", this means the incumbent party will likely lose the election.

Guess we will see - will say this...the same groups("evangelicals" and Tea Partiers) who once vowed they would stay far away from Romney as possible, are NOW the same ones who are acting like Romney is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And it's been recently(that is since 1-2 months ago, and not since before the primaries started).

They decided on Romney way back imo, I suppose its been only recently that certain groups you mention have fallen into line (under pressure no doubt).

[larsonstdoc]

I'm hearing and reading all kinds of rumors and stories, and from BOTH ends of the spectrum.

I guess we will see...Redskins lost their last home game yesterday(and looked pretty flat in doing so). According to the so-called "Redskins Rule", this means the incumbent party will likely lose the election.

Guess we will see - will say this...the same groups("evangelicals" and Tea Partiers) who once vowed they would stay far away from Romney as possible, are NOW the same ones who are acting like Romney is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And it's been recently(that is since 1-2 months ago, and not since before the primaries started).

  Yes we will see.  Maybe tomorrow.  Maybe in a week or a month.  I have been hearing a lot about the troops not getting to vote,  New Yorkers not getting to vote, etc.---all leading to massive voter fraud.  Don't be surprised if Obama wins.  John Hogue has been predicting presidential elections since 1968.  He has predicted every one right since 1968.  HE IS IS PREDICTING AN OBAMA WIN.  I hate this but that's what he said on the Jeff Rense Show last week.
          http://www.hogueprophecy.com/2012/01/predictions-for-2012-by-john-hogue/

[America2]

*ugh* can't believe the Monday Night Football halftime show in its entirety interviewed both of these puppets.

[InsideJob]

*ugh* can't believe the Monday Night Football halftime show in its entirety interviewed both of these puppets.

I'm still trying to decide if Obama was completely exhausted or utterly depressed.

[PeaceAndFreedom]

If Romney loses I'll be happy, and if Obama loses, I'll be happy. Neither puppet deserves to win. I think the election was set by the power elite to go to Obama months, if not years ago. the The current scowling stance of Israel, and internal disappointment in O by the Bilderbergs (over his not being servile enough) may have caused them to flip the planned script, we'll see. Sandy might have been O's doing, via weather modification tech, might have been his own 'October surprise' attempt to head off the script change.

[jerryweaver]

If Romney loses I'll be happy, and if Obama loses, I'll be happy. Neither puppet deserves to win. I think the election was set by the power elite to go to Obama months, if not years ago. the The current scowling stance of Israel, and internal disappointment in O by the Bilderbergs (over his not being servile enough) may have caused them to flip the planned script, we'll see. Sandy might have been O's doing, via weather modification tech, might have been his own 'October surprise' attempt to head off the script change.

If Romney wins it will take a year or more for the US to figure out it is business as usual. If Obama wins at least the Benghazi Gate treason has convinced some folks. We don't have to wait for the learning curve if Obama wins. Sick, ain't it?

[Valerius]

If Romney wins it will take a year or more for the US to figure out it is business as usual. If Obama wins at least the Benghazi Gate treason has convinced some folks. We don't have to wait for the learning curve if Obama wins. Sick, ain't it?

I think that analysis is about right.

[InsideJob]

I'm still trying to decide if Obama was completely exhausted or utterly depressed.

Here that is. Look at his eyes - he can barely keep them open:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS4_UE5njUY

[shipgeek]

For as much as I dislike that crazy Mormon cult it would not bother me a bit to see Obama out.

I was just looking at this. I have no idea if it's got any value or not.

http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/11/karl-roves-electoral-college-map.html

I just hope Obama will be out of the way.

The man is too wicked. We have seen enough of him.

Send him to Hawaii or Mars but get him out. Then we will fight the Mormon.

 

[America2]

If Romney wins it will take a year or more for the US to figure out it is business as usual. If Obama wins at least the Benghazi Gate treason has convinced some folks. We don't have to wait for the learning curve if Obama wins. Sick, ain't it?

Yeah, my concerns if Romney is elected is that the masses may have this misperception that everything's going to get gooder and gooder, which may allow him to quietly push through agendas, even selling this country's interests to the Mormon Church. Even the Churchianity/"evangelicals" crowd have WARMED UP to him(when it was only a year ago they vowed to not even think twice about voting for him), which is why they could very well blindly follow the NWO agendas like they did under Bush II.

With Obama, at least there's some awareness over his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and his attempts to push Sharia Law in this country.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter. If Romney wins, he's going to quietly push through NWO agendas under everyone's noses b/c the core GOP voting blocs will blindly support him. If Obama wins, well, 2nd term President with nothing to worry about...he'll be a loose cannon and do whatever he wants without worrying about re-election.

[larsonstdoc]

For as much as I dislike that crazy Mormon cult it would not bother me a bit to see Obama out.

I was just looking at this. I have no idea if it's got any value or not.

http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/11/karl-roves-electoral-college-map.html

I just hope Obama will be out of the way.

The man is too wicked. We have seen enough of him.

Send him to Hawaii or Mars but get him out. Then we will fight the Mormon.

 

  I agree.  As Obama said 4 years ago--We need change.