The Not Quite Knute Rockne Moment Of The Romney Campaign

"Play like you're positive on the victory, even though
they're leading big now." 

- Knute Rockne

In sport, the coach usually has an inspirational talk with his team before sending them out on the field. Typically, he and his assistant coaches have also spent more than just a bit of time pumping up the media and fans before the big game.

In that vein, this letter has been sent to the mainstream media and other interested parties by the Mitt Romney campaign in advance of the first Presidential debate. Give it a read and then we’ll chat.

From: Beth Myers, Senior Adviser

To: Interested Parties

Date: September 27, 2012

Re: 2012 Presidential Debates

In a matter of days, Governor Romney and President Obama will meet on the presidential debate stage. President Obama is a universally-acclaimed public speaker and has substantial debate experience under his belt. However, the record he's compiled over the last four years – higher unemployment, lower incomes, rising energy costs, and a national debt spiraling out of control – means this will be a close election right up to November 6th.

Between now and then, President Obama and Governor Romney will debate three times. While Governor Romney has the issues and the facts on his side, President Obama enters these contests with a significant advantage on a number of fronts.

Voters already believe – by a 25-point margin – that President Obama is likely to do a better job in these debates. Given President Obama's natural gifts and extensive seasoning under the bright lights of the debate stage, this is unsurprising. President Obama is a uniquely gifted speaker, and is widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history. This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first.

Four years ago, Barack Obama faced John McCain on the debate stage. According to Gallup, voters judged him the winner of each debate by double-digit margins, and their polling showed he won one debate by an astounding 33-point margin. In the 2008 primary, he faced Hillary Clinton, another formidable opponent – debating her one-on-one numerous times and coming out ahead. The takeaway? Not only has President Obama gained valuable experience in these debates, he also won them comfortably.

But what must President Obama overcome? His record. Based on the campaign he's run so far, it's clear that President Obama will use his ample rhetorical gifts and debating experience to one end: attacking Mitt Romney. Since he won't – and can't – talk about his record, he'll talk about Mitt Romney. We fully expect a 90-minute attack ad aimed at tearing down his opponent. If President Obama is as negative as we expect, he will have missed an opportunity to let the American people know his vision for the next four years and the policies he'd pursue. That's not an opportunity Mitt Romney will pass up. He will talk about the big choice in this election – the choice between President Obama's government-centric vision and Mitt Romney's vision for an opportunity society with more jobs, higher take-home pay, a better-educated workforce, and millions of Americans lifted out of poverty into the middle class.

This election will not be decided by the debates, however. It will be decided by the American people. Regardless of who comes out on top in these debates, they know we can't afford another four years like the last four years. And they will ultimately choose a better future by electing Mitt Romney to be our next president.

It’s a damn good thing that Ms Myers is not a football coach because Knute Rockne she ain’t. Imagine any football coach contacting the media and advising them that his team was probably going to lose on Sunday because the other team had better coaching, a better quarterback and….well….were just better at it the game than his team even though their record sucked.

While she did take the obligatory shots at the record of President Obama, she spent as much time positively fawning over his rhetorical and debating skills, even detailing his past successes.

Everything Ms Myers wrote is true. President Obama is an experienced debater and an excellent orator. It is equally true that his record in office is one of the worst in modern history. It seems to me that if you want to win the election, you just keep pounding away on that record rather than laying down in front of the world and admitting that your ‘boy’ doesn’t stand a chance in the big game. You might just as well toss in the towel and admit that your campaign is done.

I’m  wondering why in hell anyone would be supporting someone they think is going to get the stuffing kicked out of them in a debate with his opponent. Does Ms Myers lack confidence in her candidate to the point where she believes he is incapable of holding his own against President Obama? If that is the case, how could she possibly believe he could hold his own with Congress or world leaders, especially with the likes of the President of Iran? (I’d use his name but I can’t pronounce or spell it properly.)

What would ever possess an election campaign to publicly undercut its own candidate and lower expectations of his performance? I suppose some will think that it is a devilishly clever strategy to create a bit of over-confidence in the Obama ranks with the intent of blind-siding him during the debate. Give me a break. If that was the strategy it was clearly poorly thought out and the result of desperate over-thinking…..or perhaps not thinking at all.

I’m also wondering how Mitt is feeling after this underwhelming public endorsement from one of his senior campaign advisers. Imagine that metaphorical football coach getting the lads together in the locker room and telling them they were about to get the Bejesus kicked out of them on Sunday because they weren’t as good as the other team. That’s definitely not one of those inspirational speeches that gets recorded for posterity or that drives a team to strive for victory.

Hollywood doesn’t make too many movies about coaches who announced in advance of the big game that their team didn’t have the experience or measured up to the other team; so for pity’s sake, don’t expect much from them.

It continues to amaze me at just how bizarre this election campaign continues to become.

Personally, I think the entire problem with elections is exemplified by this presidential campaign. There is too much money, too much spin and too much strategy. What is lacking is a rational discourse on the record of the current president and specifics about policy to get America back on its feet from his challenger. Somehow that doesn’t seem important though. There is so much focus on winning that the actual purpose of the election has been long forgotten.

It’s more of a popularity contest now than a process to select the best person to govern the country. It’s like an America’s Got Talent audition without the good will, the humour or the talent but an overabundance of stage moms behind the curtain.

Churchill was right. Democracy is the worst form of government, it’s just better than all the rest. Isn’t it a shame that it’s the best we could come up with? I hate to admit it but some days, dictatorships and monarchies start to look attractive to me. Even if kings, queens and dictators didn’t govern all that well; we wouldn’t be any worse off than we are now and at the very least we wouldn’t have put up with a year-long circus of division and stupidity at horrendous expense.

I think we should just elect a king or a queen and divide the $10 billion being wasted in this election campaign amongst everyone. Those in favour raise their hands and say aye. Those opposed can go ahead and tune in to the debates next week although we already know who will win; the Mitt Romney campaign has made that clear.

You don’t think Ms Myers actually is a Democrat do you? Nah, me either…but….

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Follow The Bear on Twitter: @maggsbear or connect on Facebook: Maggie's Bear

The Response To The Attacks On American Embassies In The Middle East

Two American Embassies were attacked yesterday. The first attack, which the administration called a protest of a small group of Muslim extremists, took place in Cairo. Thousands massed outside of the embassy, eventually scaled the walls intimidating embassy staff and tearing down and burning the American flag. Hillary Clinton referred to this as merely a protest demonstration. Apparently she has forgotten that the taking of the American Embassy in Iran a few decades ago started in pretty much the same manner.

For its part, the embassy released the following statement which the Obama campaign is now saying was not authorized by the White House.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of

free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Within hours of the ‘protest’ at the Cairo Embassy, a protest began at the American Embassy in Libya. Unfortunately, the protesters did not carry signs and chant slogans; they employed rocket launchers and grenades to attack the embassy. Many were injured and one American embassy employee was killed.

By international law, a country’s embassy is considered part of its sovereign territory. An attack on its embassy is considered no different than an attack against the country itself. The Obama Administration and the re-election campaign can label what happened yesterday as protests or isolated incidents but that doesn’t change what they were.

Nor does it change the fact that the President was silent.

Except for the apology to Muslims issued early in the day and a few diplomatic-type comments from Hillary Clinton, the administration in general and the President in particular were missing in action. Even Bill Clinton had more to say than President Obama but then, it seems that Bill Clinton is the surrogate candidate for president these days.

It was very late in the day when the President’s re-election campaign finally issued a statement. Unfortunately, it wasn’t to denounce the attacks on its embassies, it was to deplore the Romney campaign for trying to politicize the issue.

“We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”

I’m not sure what they’re smoking and drinking at the President’s campaign office but criticizing him for being invisible when his nation’s embassies are being violated and Americans are threatened, injured and even killed is not a political attack. It is a legitimate questioning of the President’s ability and willingness to lead when his nation is threatened, especially on the the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil by terrorists in the nation's history.

This lack of response by the Obama Administration is consistent with its erratic Middle East foreign policy. Iran continues its nuclear weapons program unabated and definitely unafraid of the current American administration; Syria is a bloodbath, Israel (America’s only ally in the Middle East) is confused by an inconsistent level of commitment to its safety and security by what had always been its foremost ally and now, two American Embassies have been attacked and an American embassy employee killed.

It would appear that the Administration's policy of trying to 'tone down' the seething situation in the Middle East isn't working out too well.

Where is the president in all of this; who knows? Clearly, however, it is a sad day when a former president has more to say than a sitting president from the same party and an even sadder day when the only statement to come from the President's campaign office is criticism of his opponent rather than of those who attacked American embassies.

The conventional wisdom of the chattering class is that it is the economy that will decide the election. I believed that up until yesterday but now I believe it will come down to whom Americans believe will stand up and defend their nation; Governor Romney or former President Bill Clinton. Clearly both Romney and Clinton were front and centre to speak to the nation while President Obama was not and did not.

I believe Americans not only deserve better, they had a right to expect better from the President's glib promises in 2008. 

They were promised and expected leadership but the President demonstrated again yesterday that they are not going to get it while he is in office.

-----------------------UPDATE-----------------------

Since posting this commentary early this morning, the situation has evolved in the Middle East. The death toll at the American Embassy in Libya now stands at four, including the Ambassador. The statement of apology issued by the American Embassy in Cairo has been removed from the embassy's English web site but remains on its Arabic website. Perhaps the administration is hoping nobody who votes speaks Arabic or will notice.

In what can only be characterized as a day late and a dollar short, the President has finally spoken out against the attacks on his nation's embassies.


"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

"I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."


One wonders why that statement could not have been made yesterday or why the President couldn't have issued a statement to the American people to assure Americans that he was on top of the situation.

That would be leadership. Invisible silence is not.

The film that supposedly sparked the attacks was produced in the U.S. by an Egyptian Coptic Christian who goes by the name Sam Bacile, and backed by Terry Jones, the wingnut Florida pastor who outraged Muslims two years ago by threatening to torch the Qur’an. The film has been in release for months and it is becoming clear that it was used as an excuse to forment attacks on American embassies on the anniversary of 9/11. The film maker has since gone into hiding. There is a film being shown at the Cannes Film Festival that features a young woman lugging around a statue of the Virgin Mary and masturbating with a crucifix. I seriously doubt that we will see Catholics storm an American Embassy and kill Americans because of it.

For its part, the United Nations has typically made no statement about the attacks.

Many are now blaming Islam and all Muslims but that would be no different than blaming Christianity and all Christians for the actions of the IRA or wingnuts like Terry Jones. The simple truth is that more Muslims have been killed by radical Islamists than any other group. Earlier today, Muslims Facing Tomorrow released this statement.

"The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow is saddened by the killing of the US Ambassador and staff in Libya and the unprovoked attack in Egypt. We at MFT strongly believe in individual freedoms, freedom of speech and even the freedom to offend. As such we strongly condemn any violence and killing in the name of religion however controversial the reasoning may be. 
Since the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, Muslims should stop being hooked by publications or films that they find offensive and as a personal choice can avoid viewing them."

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Can We Not Do Better Than This?

"There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children."

Nelson Mandela

You can tell a great deal about a society by what it does and what it talks about. What it talks about represents what it holds to be important; what it does demonstrates its level of commitment to it. Together, they underscore a society's values.

In Canada and the United States, it appears that we hold a number of things to be very important. Politics is at the top of the list followed closely by the economy, the environment and various entitlements. Nothing galvanizes action like a threat to our entitlements as we have seen recently with the absurd student riots in Quebec over a planned increase in tuition that is the daily equivalent of half the cost of a bad cup of coffee.

Do you know what is not on the list? Protecting our children!

We Are Canadian, eh? - We are coming. Expect Us!

Empires rise and fall, colonies break away to form independent nations and new empires and superpowers are born. Britain, Russia, Austria, Rome and many others including our friends to the south in the United States have had their turn as the world’s leading empire or superpower. Now, it is Canada’s turn.