I'm on Twitter! More Must Reads
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Sunday, November 9, 2014
4. The stock market continues to set new records since President Obama has been in office.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Point 2 is: "We are currently enjoying the longest period of private sector job creation in American history."
Point 3 is: "Unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in October of 2009 to 5.9% and projected to reach 5.4% by summer of 2015."
But, I want to thank the Left for finally acknowledging that Reagan's economic record is the benchmark against which all others should be judged. After arguing with them for 30 years about it, it's nice to see them coming aboard.
On to the analysis:
"1. We've now had 63 straight months of economic expansion."
This would cover the period June 2009 - September 2014, when this article was written, and is in fact, wrong. Contraction and Growth in the economy is measured by GDP, which is reported quarterly. In the 63 months preceding September 2014, Q2 of 2010 and Q12014 both experienced negative growth. Thus, by a technical definition of expansion/contraction, the statement is false. Perhaps the author is conflating economic expansion to a not being in a recession. Economists consider a recession to be when there are at least 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, and that, indeed, has not happened since this recovery began. However, the statement does not say we've had a 63 month recovery, which would be true. It says, instead, we've had 63 months of economic expansion, which is a falsehood. Later in the article, Hartung uses another measure to claim the 63 month expansion, but, it's really not the classical definition, and represents cherry picking.
"That’s right, for 63 consecutive months the US economy has gotten progressively better. That includes 54 consecutive months of private sector job growth. Forbes magazine, no fan of President Obama, crunched the numbers and demonstrated how the economic recovery under President Obama has been better in just about every measurable way than the recovery under President Reagan."
The author is not a Forbes writer. It is penned by Adam Hartung, a Forbes online contributor. Forbes caveats: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Thus, Forbes magazine does not give Mr. Hartung's analysis their imprimatur, therefore, it is also false to claim that Forbes magazine says this. Adam Hartung, a Forbes Contributor, is making this case, not Forbes. It's kind of like saying if I get my letter to the editor published in the Greensboro News & Record, it reflects their views, or, because my Dad worked there for 30 years, anythign I say reflects the editorial view of the paper. That would be lying. No different than this group passing this off as Forbes' work.
But, even though I have demonstrated that the statement in the posting is false, let's still give the analysis a look and see what it says.
The headline is "Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing" but the article really focuses on jobs. I am going to stipulate that taken from the incredible shellacking the stock market took in the wake of the financial crisis, DJIA/S&P500 growth has been extremely good in this recovery, as it also was in the Reagan recovery. I'll concede the point that stocks performed very well in both, and that $1 invested at the beginning of this recovery has returned a (slightly) better return than $1 at the beginning of the Reagan recovery.
But, not everyone is an investor, and while I appreciate Hartung's argument for privatizing social security, the reason the Dems just got killed is the jobs situation, and here, his analysis is off base.
Let's look at it.
On the surface, we have a similar, and typical unemployment curve in both cases, and, indeed, measured solely by the unemployment rate, which is that top line number we all see, the Obama graph looks pretty good, even outpacing Reagan's recovery.
But that's not the entire story. And Hartung knows this. Unfortunately, his explanation lays the entire decrease in labor force participation at the hands of demographics. However, many economists peg that number as explaining about 25% of it. The rest is due to people in school, people on disability (in fact, today there are a record number of Americans receiving Social Security disability benefits), and people who have simply dropped out of the workforce.
This article is a detailed discussion on the factors driving decreases in labor participation and is worth a read.
The point here is that there really is no doubt that a focus on the larger labor participation decline may actually help explain why, despite these good top line numbers, people don't feel good about this recovery, and it may explain why they voted as they did Tuesday last. While the numbers look good, a deeper analysis reveals flaws with them, and people actually feel that.
Let's look at jobs from another angle, because Hartung is all aflutter over the awesome 200k/month increases averaged during the Obama recovery. Some number of new jobs are required just to keep the unemployment rate steady due to population growth and new people entering the workforce.
These numbers vary widely based on the actual population and economic conditions, but somewhere between 100k-180k/month.
I will make two points from here:
- There are about 7M more people working today than June 2009, the last month of the recession. That's an average, per month increase of 110k.
- During the Reagan Recovery (Nov 1982 - Jan 1989), the economy added 15M jobs, for an average of 214k/month. Keep in mind the workforce population was about 50M (about 20% less people) than today.
Obama has quite a bit of work to do in the next 2 years to approach this job creating record.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Monday, June 30, 2014
So, Democrats will try to make hay of this decision by claiming it's furthering a Republican #waronwomyn by denying the women who work for Hobby Lobby contraception, and they'll go on to claim that this decision denies all women the right to birth control, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THE GOP IS AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL AND JUST WANTS WOMEN TO HAVE BABIES AND STAY HOME AND COOK FOR THE PATRIARCHS.
You do know that, right?
What, you say, the decision doesn't actually do that? That doesn't matter to the Liberals. They were unable to read the Arizona RFRA changes that did nothing to promote discrimination against gays, and lied about that law until Jan Brewer vetoed it, and they won't speak the truth of this decision, either. I can't blame them, because if people knew the truth, they'd really wonder why we were here in the first place.
The truth is this law permits Hobby Lobby to not include 4 abortifacients in their health plan, while still providing a benefit for birth control methods more commonly (much more commonly) used by women. It is the abortifacients that the religious nuts at Hobby Lobby object to, and that's all.
But, as Mark Steyn points out today, the Left really pushes these things (like the Arizona law) because they are opposed to religious liberty. Steyn correctly describes the administration's (and most Liberal's) view on this:
"In Obama's view, "religion" is fine for a once-a-week hymn-sing with a couple of scripture readings but it cannot inform your life. Leave it in the umbrella stand by the front door as you head off to work on Monday morning. There is literally no point to "religion" under this shrunken definition, as the Europeans have begun to figure out. Eventually, even that Sunday-morning private members' club gets opened up to the Bureau of Compliance. Breaking news from our friends across the pond:
Denmark Forces Churches To Conduct Gay Marriages
It would be interesting to read the headline "Denmark Forces Mosques To Conduct Gay Marriages", but that's probably what it's going to take to bring a halt to the shriveling space for religion in the public sphere."
Monday, June 23, 2014
Tonight I have learned that the government has some pretty screwed up information retention requirements, and that the IRS in general is about where the rest of America is in IT maturity. Democrats want to make it clear that the IRS's email problems are not anything a few hundred million bucks couldn't fix.
I can empathize with the IRS's data retention problems. They have massive volumes of email and like most businesses and organizations they have to manage that volume. Server capacity and storage capacity is always a limited resource, so, they force their end users to save email locally (on their hard drives), which, apparently, in Lois Lerner's case, is what she did.
This, of course, coupled with users who do not back up their hard drives regularly, leads to crashes and loss of data. That's what conviently happened to Lois Lerner. Of course, the IRS is attempting to find all her emails by going through the email of those she may have sent them to, or been included on, and, with luck, they'll find most of them.
I have some questions:
- Did Lois Lerner routinely back up her hard drive, which would have included the impacted emails?
- What was IRS policy regarding the back-up of hard drives at the IRS?
- If Lois Lerner's hard drive was backed up, what has become of that back-up, and why hasn't it been restored? What are the retention requirements for these back-ups? Are back up tapes re-used (as is common), or are they archived?
- What exact efforts were made to retrieve the data off Ms. Lerner's hard drive, including forensic activity after it was not restored using traditional means?
It's not unreasonable to believe that Lois Lerner's hard drive failed and that it took email with it. It's convenient timing, but it happens. The response to it is a typical IT response and a typical user wanting all their crap back from a drive they know they shouldn't have been relying on. I really see no fault there on the IRS's part, except this is a particular agency we'd expect to be a little more careful in their data management.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Friday, June 13, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
See Nye taken down on the links here.
The Leaf is really the first truly usable purely electric car. Unlike the Chevy Volt, which uses a gas engine as a range extended to keep its electric powertrain running, and the Toyota Prius, which uses the battery really to take over tasks from the gas engine and extend range (i.e. mileage), the Leaf relies solely on it batteries for locomotion.
Unlike the Volt, it has roughly an 80 mile range before requiring a recharge (the Volt is good for 37).
They're kind of 2 sides of the same coin. The Volt can be taken on a trip of some length, because it's gas engine will power an electric motor to continue to run the car. You get about 400 miles before it's time to refill. GM says this makes it the equivalent of a 37MPG car in this type of driving.
I will point out that nearly all turbo diesels sold by VW and Audi beat this easily, pushing 45-50MPG in highway driving. So, if you're interested in highway efficiency, with the Prius hybrid (which pushes 50MPG) or a TDI is a more efficient choice.
If all you're doing is local driving, and you can suffer the 4-8 hour recharges required on these things using normal household current, then most people estimate you're looking at about $2 worth of electricity to restore to full charge. Until gas/diesel is back at $2/gallon prices, that makes the plug-ins more efficient, but, you need to understand the other trade-offs with these, which include the dwell time while they charge, the loss of efficiency in the summer months, and the ultimate super charge when you replace your batteries at $8000 after 6-8 years.
Top that off with the still real risk from fire with Lithium Ion batteries (google Chevy Volt fires and check out the 787 Dreamliner's problems with this same technology), and I still think people are buying these for vanity reasons, and not because they're either better cars, or even more fuel efficient over the long haul.
As for me, I did choose a TDI, and I got a car I know will give me 38-50 MPG consistently, and will not require an engine replacement at the 100-150k mile mark.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 30, 2013
Workers at auto dealership come face to face with Obamacare trade-offs).
They won't be impacted until 2014, like many of us in the employer provided market.
As many of us on the Right told you, Obamacare would result in increased costs for most, and worse coverage for nearly everyone already covered.
That is exactly what is happening to those in the individual market and those in the small group market. Yes, there will be "winners" amongst the previously uninsured and underinsured, at the low end of the spectrum, due to subsidies. The problem is that people who had health insurance, the vast majority of whom liked their plans and doctors, are being displaced.
We told you so.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
I think Jonah Goldberg sums up the Phil Robertson mess the best:
"Maybe the best way to avoid such problems in the future is to demand that all reality-show casts be made up of professional actors. That way, reality will never disappoint us."
Read the whole thing:
Friday, December 20, 2013
This is Piers Morgan's entry into the Phil Robertson kerfuffle.
I like it, because it gets so much wrong about our Constitution, describes Liberalism to a tee, and even brings some clarity to those who may wonder why 2nd Amendment defenders are so serious about that one.
What Morgan and Liberals in general fail to understand is that the First Amendment exists specifically to protect vile speech, and the "bigots" (with "bigot" being a term wholly defined by the user) who utter it. Yes, the Founders were primarily concerned with political speech, but, this protection extended to anyone, saying essentially anything.
You can see the problem for the mythical Everyman here - if we don't have such protections, then WHO will be the arbiter of speech? WHO will define what's vile? WHO will point to the bigots?
Leftists are none to happy to stand up and say, gleefully, "We will!!!!!"
And that's the problem, and that's why we have a First Amendment, and that's also why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment. Because they had lived through a world where their weapons were threatened, and they lived at a time when the only thing standing between them and an oppressive government were their rifles. So, the Second Amendment should, and does, protect assault rifle devotees. The Left has had far more success in limiting that Amendment, but those who defend it are doing God's work just as much as those who defend the First.
To my left-leaning friends - if you don't like the Constitution, the Founders gave us a process to change it. Instead of judge shopping, or electing presidents willing to ignore it, try to change it. If your ideas are so damn great, can't you convince people on the merits?
BTW - this is my first post using ifttt.com to simultaneously post to Facebook an Twitter. Let's see how it works...
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
Yes, it was a big deal that an American president was murdered.
But, 50 years out, do we still have to persist in the mythology that surrounds this event?
The Left (who might have a hard time accepting JFK as a Democrat these days) has even tried to re-write history to claim that the right wing element in Dallas was responsible for JFK's death (although an avowed Communist killed him), but, of more annoyance to me are the people who try to say ridiculous stuff like:
- "America lost its 'innocence' that day." We were only 18 years removed from the end of WW2, and 10 from Korea. Had the brushes with Hitler and the action in Korea not erased our innocence by 1963?
- "It changed the course of events." Exactly how? I wish the people who say this (who usually want to act like JFK's death led directly to the Civil Rights movement) would explain. Seems the three biggest things to happen in the 60's were the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and the Moon Landing. I'd posit that ALL of these had their die cast before November 1963, and LBJ was being forced by politics (not JFK's death) to carry through on all of them.
- "He was such a great president." His legacy is helped by his death, since he never had to actually fight for anything, or serve as a lame duck. In all honesty, his term was just too short. You really need to judge him and LBJ together, and when we go there, I thing we find it's a little more average.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
asked how is Obamacare hurting them personally.
Link at bottom, but first, my rant:
I realize the Left loves to deal in these personal tragedy, anecdotal
vignettes to sell their latest attempt at expanding the modern welfare
state, but, read these (and this is a
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong post) and talk to your
self-employed friends, or your friends who work for small businesses,
and discover for yourself what is happening beyond the faux government
shutdown and the disastrous, incompetence-laden Obamacare rollout.
It'd be nice if reporters who cover, perhaps, the insurance industry,
would explain how it's the lower and middle, middle-class who are
going to get hosed the most from this piece of crap legislation.
Those of us who work for Fortune 500 companies, I expect we'll get to
keep the health insurance we like (though I lost the insurance I
"liked" last season, so we'll see what Obama has in store for me Nov 1
when we have open enrollment for 2014).
Since the Obama administration is nothing if not Fascist (in the
traditional sense of the word, not the modern, incorrect pejorative
sense), so if you work in Corporate America, consider yourself amongst
the privileged few.
Those who choose security over freedom shall have neither.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Sent from my iPad
Friday, October 18, 2013
SPOILER: It's bad.
NAPOLITANO: A rising torrent of debt and destruction - Washington Times
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Saturday, December 22, 2012
I am lucky I don't have young kids anymore, because I can only imagine the angst I would feel at that.
Let's get to the issues here.
First, there are crazy people. I don't recall exactly when, but my recollection is that in the early '80s or late '70's civil libertarians succeeded in their quest to prevent society locking people who are demonstrably nuts away. It contributed then to the large growth in the homeless population, but it has made it ever harder to put people in asylums where they can hurt no one. All the revenge shooters fit a profile - they are young, male, white, and disassociated from society. Could we have identified the latest shooter and put him away? I think so.
Second, there are guns.
Yes, the easy availability of guns makes this a bit if a turkey shoot for the determined mass murderer. But, this murderer did not buy his own weapons, in fact, was unable to purchase his own guns, so, instead he stole his mother's legally purchased weapons.
Sadly, he had enough training to be proficient with them, and he used that, with his crazed psyched to do what happened last Friday.
I know many (including our president) are itching to start putting restrictions in place on ammunition and "assault weapons." While limiting magazine size may have helped reduce the death toll in Newtown, these were not "assault weapons" by CT state law, and probably not in the defunct federal assault weapons bill that lapsed years ago. Again, that is only a proposal that would have mitigated he death toll here.
NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre was roundly lampooned for suggesting that we stick an armed officer in every school in the country. I heard no one lambast it for the efficacy of such a solution, but for the cost, both in money, and in (I guess) the loss of innocence it portends.
There are, to me , 2 workable solutions to the gun violence problem, and LaPierre's prescription is not that far off from mine. But first, the liberal proscription must be the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and the total banning of guns, with confiscation of 100% of them. Nothing short of that makes much sense to me.
My solution is that we do away with stupid things like "gun free zones" where we don't have the capability to enforce them (like in courthouses or airports equipped with metal detectors). All those do is tell the gunman that he's protected until the cops arrive.
We need to make guns MORE prevalent in our citizenry. Just posit if in Newtown a teacher, a janitor, or a coach had a gun close by. In their car, even. At hand, they may have been able to stop this thing. We rely today on first responders, yet, who are the real first responders? Yes, those are the people who are there, as evens unfold. Law abiding, honest, citizens. And we hamstring them by preventing them from defending themselves and other innocents.
If you tried to develop a situation where it was a certainty the max damage could be inflicted, you could do no better than what modern Liberalism has wrought.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Silver's a veteran of the Baseball Prospectus crew and a former baseball sabremetrician.
You may know him as an Obama partisan and hack who correctly predicted 49 of the 50 states (he missed Indiana) that went for Obama in 2008 and all the Senate races that year. Of course, we later learned he was privy to internal polling of the Obama campaign, so, well, whatever.
His predictions in the 2010 races were ok, too, but, my problem with Silver isn't really in his expertise as a prognosticator. I find that to be of really little use to me. Any idiot can read polls, apply some weighting to them and extrapolate the results to election day. This is problematic because polls are not elections. Polls do not reflect what would happen exactly if the vote was today. They are an estimation of that. Unlike baseball, where we have real data every day to work with (the actual results), a poll is an estimate. It's as though we asked everyone going to a Yankees series and asked, "What will Jeter do this series?" and then we based his season stats on the fact that 1000 people told us he'd go 4 for 11 with 2 walks, 2 RBI's and a double and a homer. More on this later.
My problem with Silver is that he grew up as a sabremetrician, yet he has evolved and become famous for really just being an accountant. There are literally tens of thousands of smart people working in Finance departments all over Corporate America who can whip up Excel spreadsheets and manipulate numbers to predict the future. They do it every day to predict corporate profit, loss, revenue projections, etc.
What Silver does in election prognostication is nothing special, and it really is completely dependent on the quality of the data input. If Silver does hold some special idiot savant skill, it is in accurately recognizing the correct weighting of the input data. However, like works of Shakespeare, a room full of monkeys could achieve the same results given enough time, or,we could outsource it to a computer. Polls are subject to two major biases. First, they are taken at a given time. As they age, they become stale, and less reflective of the mood of the public on the actual election day. Second, they are subject to selection bias. This is the pool of people that pollsters use to take the actual poll. You can see these biases in every decent poll released. If you don't see them, someone has suggested you are looking at an op-ed. Selection bias is something we rarely see reported in the top-line, horse race number, but it is a key way pollsters can skew their polls. Sometimes you have to dig in to the polls to find this. Pollsters will tell you they try to use pools of people that reflect the expected election day electorate. They would, ostensibly, be hurting their reputation to do otherwise. But, in this day and age of budget cuts at universities and media outlets who pay these pollsters, maybe they can't refine their pools as well as they'd like, and they go with a group that is D+9 (9 percent more Dems than Reps), in a state that has never voted that way in its history. I can't give you the reason this cycle the samples seem to overly skew to Dems. You'll have to figure that one out for yourself, but look for it in any poll. There are websites and analysts who try to remove this bias, but, Silver does not.
So, personally, I think predicting the 2008 election, once you admitted to yourself it was a wave, would have been pretty damn easy. I think this came easier for Silver, since he was already predisposed to favor Obama politically, and he was getting data from their campaign. In other words, I am not that enamored of the guy's skills.
What would I like Silver to do?
I'd like Silver to apply his sabremetric skills to his analysis, as I think that would be useful, and interesting.
As I said, anybody with some excel skills can do what he's doing. It ain't rocket science, as we say.
What makes sabremetrics so compelling in baseball is that it takes all those old traditional ways we have of measuring people's performance, and says that they are not enough, and that, in fact, we largely measure by accounting, rather than using measures that help us predict future performance.
In old baseball world, we used statistics to validate what we saw on the field, but we didn't use statistics to tell us what we would see on the field. Sabremetricians stood this on its head, and wanted to answer 2 questions - Why do we see what we do, and, if we can answer why, we can also predict what will happen (future performance).
When I look at the internals of polls, I see all sorts of data that is largely unbiased data. Sure, it still suffers from the selection bias, but, because that data is in depth, there is much more that it tells us about future performance than just the horse race number. I'd like to see people of Silver's ilk look at that data, and there's a lot of it historically, and let's see if we can use it to predict what will happen, rather than the way we're doing this.
Why do I say this, because when we look at things like independent voter splits, and the horse race numbers for D's or R's, we are starting to unskew the top line results. These have meaning precisely because they are unskewed, and unbiased. Right Track/Wrong Track and other questions that get routinely asked suffer less from this bias.
When I look at these numbers in pretty much every poll I see this cycle, I say to myself, how does Obama win? The country hates him. It's not just my friends, it's evident in the internals of these polls. And clearly his campaign saw this, too, as they have run a campaign based on these internals. Do everything you can to NOT speak about the record, and demonize the opponent. The fact that the needle has moved so little says something to me.
But, I could be wrong. I will admit that. But, I am heartened and validated that on Face the Nation today, David Gergen and the entire panel there basically agreed with me.
Now, they tend to think it will be a close Obama win, but they all agree the Republican enthusiasm gap is real and palpable. Either the Obama ground game really is that great, and they'll pull our Ohio, and win, or it's not and Romney wins.
I happen to think if Romney does win, and the enthusiasm gap is something that is being missed by the polling and the MSM (they're ignoring it), that Romney will win every battleground state but Nevada (taking FL, VA, NC, OH, NH, IA), and he'll add new BG's MI, WI, PA and may take Oregon as well.
If Obama wins give OH and IA to him and the new BG's. It'll be a small victory, just like his campaign, and Pyrrhic.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Today on Twitter, I noticed that many liberals were trying to minimize the Obama lie on Libya.
We're talking about Libya a lot more than we talked about Mitt Romney's taxes, and I know this is driving liberals absolutely nuts.
I agree with many on the right who feel that Romney failed to drive a stake through Obama with this. I think the blatant lying of Obama, and the moderator's save of him, really threw him off.
However, to Liberals chagrin, the mere fact that we are still discussing it is kryptonite to the Obama campaign. The additional fact that we got to see a biased moderator remove Obama from the fire by helping him perpetuate his own lie helps mitigate Romney's surprise that Obama could so easily lie about his own words.
Even the offending Candy Crowley had to admit later that Romney was right on the facts and Obama was lying about his 9/12 comments on the Benghazi attack. The fact check of the faux fact check will keep this alive for another week, and trust me, that is bad, bad,bad news for Obama.
Here's why this is important to the campaign and in helping Americans choose their next leader. Obama is running ads accusing Romney of lying about various things and ending it by saying " if we can't trust him here, how can we trust him here [in the Oval Office]."
The fact, and that's what it is, that Obama lied about what he said on 9/12, goes to the credibility of our current president. On a matter of national security, life and death, Obama was willing to lie to deflect attention from his administration's foreign policy failings. He was willing to develop a false narrative about a "video" to make it appear as though there was nothing the administration could do, this was all a random event, caused by some crazy American, no less.
So, he was willing to throw an American citizen and the 1st Amendment under the bus for political gain. The Left doesn't want that to be something we continue to talk about. They want this discussion ended. The "I killed OBL" meme was Obama's final trump card in the foreign policy arena, one of the last refuges of his approval rating. The Libya attack breaks all that down, and exposes Obama for what he is, a weak, feckless man who knows little of the realities of the world, and whose first instinct has always been, and remains, to blame America first. He is a man who believes America is just one of many countries in the world, no better than France, Mexico, or Trinidad.
Our ambassador and 3 others were killed in Benghazi.
To Obama, that MUST be our fault, and because he believes that, he crafted a narrative around it, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The disgusting thing is that they persisted in this lie. They sent the UN Ambassador to make rare TV appearances to perpetuate it, then had Obama himself peddle the story at the UN, all while Hillary Clinton was apologizing for a video no one had seen on Pakistani TV.
We know now that this was no reaction to a video. These Americans were killed in a pre-planned, well orchestrated terror attack on the 9/11 anniversary. There was no demonstration, there was no outrage at a video, there was no spontaneous outbreak of violence. There was a terror attack, and this administration knew that very soon after. What did our president do? He went to bed during the attack, then decided he needed to proceed to Las Vegas to do what he does best, raise money for himself.
Liberals want to act like this is a non-story. It is a story. It will remain a story, and Obama and Crowley have unwittingly made sure it will continue to be a stir until next week's foreign policy debate, when trust me, Romney will be much better prepared to stop Obama's bullshit, and a moderator will not be able to assist in the lie.
I am absolutely outraged by the administration's response to this. Barack Obama can make this a joke and act like he's all lily pure that he used the phrase "acts of terror." Note that he didn't actually call this attack a terror attack in that Rose Garden speech. In fact, he alluded to the video in his speech saying "we reject efforts to denigrate the religious faith of others." Later in the speech, he said, 'No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation.” Now, you can attempt some Sunday morning quarterbacking and say that means he thought this particular act was an "act of terror," but, more likely, that was intended as a standard line tossed into the speech. Certainly on September 12th, the administration could have said clearly, "This was an act of terror, committed by terrorists, that will not stand, and our resolve will not be shaken." THAT would have been absolutely clear.