He has done it again. Romney has played the game his Neocon
bosom buddies know well, and use all the time. They took over America by
pulling a Smart Alec trick that suits every moment, but has one and the same
purpose each and every time. It is to reserve for themselves the right to
exercise free speech while denying it to others. The Neocons did it to America and
took it over; Romney tried it on Obama and failed miserably.
As he did many times before, Romney told the President, yet
again, that attacking him was not a strategy while he was himself attacking the
President with unprecedented viciousness. Nothing could be more Jewish than
that, except maybe the Fox News Network where there are more than Jews running
the joint. But whatever their creed, most of them look and sound like a sewer
pipe that never stops flushing.
Whether or not President Obama was aware of it, there
remains the fact that when the editors of the Wall Street Journal (which is the
printed sister publication of Fox News) critiqued the second presidential
debate which took place on October 16, 2012, they concentrated on the points
that were brought to the fore by the candidates with regard to the economy and
to foreign policy. But the editors understood not a word of what the President
was saying as demonstrated in the editorial they published under the title: “A
President Without a Plan” and the subtitle: “A more spirited Obama. But he
still has no agenda for the next four years.”
And what happened last night, October 22, 2012 in the third
debate between the same two candidates is that the President hammered the
points he made in the second debate with such vigor this time, he could not
have failed getting through the thick skull of the editors. If they did not get
it in the second debate, they should get it now. But if they don't, well maybe
they should consider taking up another profession. And so, let us look at that
infamous Journal editorial while discussing last night's debate.
At one point, the editors described Obama's plan with these
words: “The paucity of this promise.”
And this prompts you to ask what the promise was. Well, here it is as they
enumerated it themselves: “He wants to hire 100,000 teachers.” And there is
this: “He wants to invest in solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient
cars.” And also this: “He wants to raise taxes on the rich.” And this too: “He
wants to pass immigration reform.” And there is this as well: “He has a plan
for manufacturing and education and reducing our deficit in a sensible way,
using the savings from ending wars to rebuild America and pursuing the energy of
the future.” Does this represent paucity? Of course not. And these were the
points that the President made again last night while Romney was trying to
silence him. No paucity last night either.
It is normal that
when you see something like this, you wonder what would constitute abundance in
the eyes of these people. But you do not have to go too far looking for an
answer because the editors of the Journal inadvertently gave their own. Since
they were discussing the debate between Obama and Romney, they were compelled
to contrast the plans that were presented by each man. And so you look closely
at what the editors of the Journal have called the Romney plan. After all, they
complained that “Mr. Obama spent most of his time attacking Mr. Romney … his
tax plan … or the statement he made last year.” And guess what, my friend; this
is what happened again in last night's debate. It is as if the third debate was
a carbon copy of the second.
You comb the editorial anyway and hit on this passage: “The
Republican followed by reciting the economic failings...” and you let out a
loud scream: Whoa! They say Obama attacked; and say the Republican recited? Is
this what it comes down to? Are these editors – like their Fox counterparts --
unleashing on their President the set of words they were using to describe the
Vietcong and the Taliban who always attacked and never defended? Are they
reserving for “the Republican” the nice words they were using to describe America 's
friends and allies who democratically described and never attacked? Are the
editors of the Journal implying that the Democrats are enemies of America ; and
the Republicans its friends?
This is so disconcerting, you ask yourself: Why did they see
the need to resort to this kind of language? Do they think that Obama is this
bad, and Romney this good? Or is it something else? And you find the answer right away. It is that
there was nothing else they could do to attack their President. In fact, here
is what they said in this regard: “Mr. Romney could have done better making the
case for his agenda.” As to the exchange over Benghazi , they had this to say: “We agree was
Mr. Romney's weakest moment.” And they ended the editorial like this: “Mr.
Romney will have a chance to do better … next week.” Well, guess what, he
didn't last night.
Instead, what Romney did was deny that he vehemently
advocated letting the car companies go bankrupt – having seen that Obama's decision
was the right one for the country and for the American workers who are also
voters. But then look what this incorrigible man did: He employed the same
vehemence he denied he employed in the past to now attack Obama for assisting
the companies that work to develop electric cars, and the batteries that power
them. Well, let's call a spade a spade: this guy has a low IQ.
And yes, those editors of the Journal and their audio-visual
clones should consider taking up another profession.
As to Mr. Romney, he will do well to withdraw from the presidential race
instead of seeking to make of America
a mess as big as the mess that his surrogates have made of journalism.
The world yearns for a bit of quality time; something we can
achieve by cutting and raking the weed.