Election 2012: The Great Divider

After scoring an impressive debate victory over a president who ascended to the nation’s highest office through his gift of gab, Mitt Romney’s campaign has made its first significant forward progress in the general election campaign.

And his timing could not have been better with early voting already taking place in some states.

Though the “who won the debate” insta-polls swung heavily in Romney’s favor, it took several days for the national and battleground state polls to digest Romney’s triumph.

What was once a column of solid blue (the president’s leads in various surveys) on Real Clear Politics’ poll page now has splotches of red.  Rasmussen, considered to have its sample calibrated to reflect the expected 2012 voter turnout, has Romney at 49% (+2) in the national poll. 

Public Policy Polling, which has been affiliated with the Daily Kos, has Romney at 47% (-2) in Wisconsin.  On the day of the debate, a Marquette University poll had Obama with an 11-point lead in the home of the GOP’s candidate for vice-president.

Another benefit from the Denver debate registered practically overnight: money.

CNN reported that money was pouring into the coffers of Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney Super PAC, within 24 hours after the debate and its founder estimated that it would be one of the most successful fundraising days for the political committee.

Smarting from the humbling at Romney’s hands, President Barack Obama has gone on the offensive, showing more cheek before friendly audiences than he did when sharing the stage with his Republican challenger.

And with Obama’s poll numbers tumbling and Romney’s fundraising numbers on the rise, America will see presidential rhetoric burrow to a new low. 

The president and his allies have already hurled everything and the kitchen sink at Romney since it’s easier to destroy his opponent than to defend his record.

Women are told that Romney will outlaw abortion and have their birth control pills ripped from their hands. 

The Democrats even have a line for those women who are pro-life or don’t think the taxpayers should be footing the bill for their birth control as they claim that Romney opposes “equal pay for equal work”.

Blacks were informed by Vice-President Joseph Biden that a Romney Administration would “put y’all back in chains”.

And when not being threatened with being thrown in manacles, black voters along with Latinos have been alerted that the GOP is trying to disenfranchise them by requiring the presentation of photo identification at polling stations. 

Young voters are warned that Congressman Paul Ryan wants to double college student loan interest and to older voters that the Romney-Ryan ticket seeks to sacrifice their Medicare and Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, specifically Donald Trump.

The only time President Obama paints his message with a broad brush is when he engages in his now standard class warfare rants, trying to turn renters against owners, employees against bosses and the “have not as much” against the “have a bit more”.

Gender, class and race baiting is all the Democrats have left to offer the country aside from doubling down on reckless spending that has added over $5,000,000,000,000.00 to our national debt since Obama took the oath of office in January 2009.

President Obama has shown a willingness to be as fiscally vulgar as he has been rhetorically and a desperate last-minute taxpayer funded “giveaway” should be expected if things look bleak in late October.

My money is on a “blanket” student loan forgiveness that turns out to be the size of a “dishrag” once the details are revealed. 

In Obama 2.0, hope has been replaced with fear, citizenship swapped with victimization and the promise that “things will get better” substituted with a warning “things could get worse”. 

If voters cannot be “inspired” then they can be stampeded with scare tactics.

Or rented via government programs. 

And as unseemly (at best) and pathetic (at worst) this unprecedented presidential demagoguery sounds to the objective observer, Obama & Co.’s divisive fear-mongering has registered with the populace, especially in the environment the current administration’s policies have created. 

President Obama has no business enjoying even a slight lead aside from the states that have immersed their heads in the blueberry Kool-Aid trough considering the number of Americans who are out of work, the spike in the price of gasoline under his watch and the administration’s sizable contribution to the national debt.

Romney and the Republicans cannot dismiss the Democrats’ “sum of our parts” strategy but must directly address the incendiary charges made against them from president’s mouth and the pro-Obama Super PACs’ direct-mail houses.

The two demographics that will decide the election are women and young people. 

Romney will carry neither group but he must close the gap significantly with the former and marginally with the latter to win in November.

Looking Back at Past Vice-Presidential Debates

John Nance Garner has been attributed as the source of the famous estimation that the vice-presidency was “not worth a pitcher of warm piss”. 

And no, that last word is not an error. 

The “pee word” was substituted with “spit” so as to take some of the edge off the rough description on what is constitutionally the nation’s second-highest office.

The vice-presidency matters if only because its occupant is only a heartbeat away from occupying the Oval Office.  Funny how someone who holds such a mocked position could become the de facto leader of the free world in the blink of an eye.

And since Franklin Roosevelt’s fourth term, five vice-presidents have ascended to the presidency, four of them advancing directly.

The League of Women Voters pushed for the initial square off between the major parties’ candidates for vice-president, which took place in 1976. 

Since then the vice-presidential debates have been more consequential for the later presidential ambitions of the participants than they’ve been for overall ticket in the election, with rare exception.

President Gerald Ford’s running mate, Kansas US Senator Bob Dole, and Jimmy Carter’s choice for vice-president, Minnesota US Senator Walter Mondale, squared off in Houston and the debate did not go well for Dole, who came off bitter and angry. 

Dole’s most infamous moment was when he referred to World Wars I and II, the Korean Conflict and Vietnam as “Democrat wars”.  Mondale replied “that Senator Dole has richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man tonight”. 

Mondale, whose ticket was well ahead in the polls, did his best not to lose the debate rather than trying to score a decisive win. 

Since the Republican ticket lost the 1976 election by a sliver (just over 11,000 votes in Ohio and just over 7,000 votes in Hawai’i), it’s possible that the vice-presidential debate did as much to cost the election as the Polish vote in Cleveland and Honolulu. 

Only two years removed from the brooding administration of Richard Nixon, Dole’s negative performance did not do his cause in 1976 nor his own presidential bids in 1980 and 1988 any favors.

Arguing over the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson and his running mate Patrick Lucey led to the scrapping of the planned vice-presidential debate and one of the three scheduled presidential debates as President Carter refused to participate in any event where Anderson was invited.

The 1984 vice-presidential debate between then-Vice-President George Bush and New York Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro attracted over fifty million television viewers, a record for a veep debate that would stand until 2008. 

Bush questioned Ferraro’s experience, having been a US Representative less than six years when selected for the Democratic Party’s second spot on the ticket.  Ferraro took umbrage at Bush’s “patronizing attitude” and blasted him for being condescending.  One of the more memorable comments about the debate came from Bush, when the vice-president commented that he “tried to kick a little ass last night”.

The debate and the vice-president’s self-assessment had zero effect as Ronald Reagan cruised to a second term with 49 states.

The 1988 debate between Indiana US Senator Dan Quayle and Texas US Senator Lloyd Bentsen will forever be remembered for, and vice-presidential debates will always be associated with, Bensten’s admonishment to Quayle for claiming he had as much experience as Kennedy had when he sought the presidency in 1960.

Bentsen replied to Quayle’s boast with “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy.  I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Now for a post-debate reality check. 

Quayle had served in the US House of Representatives for four years and was on his eighth year as a US Senator when Vice-President Bush invited him on to the GOP ticket. 

JFK was elected to Congress in 1946 and elected to the upper chamber in 1952.

Quayle had served on Capitol Hill twelve years while Kennedy served fourteen years. 

But another point that was lost- Kennedy was frequently hospitalized for medical maladies and had missed a number of votes.  Last rites had even been performed on the Massachusetts senator.  In all actuality, Quayle probably had more experience performing his duties in Congress than Kennedy. 

Bentsen had served with Kennedy in the 435-member US House of Representatives for four years before Kennedy left for the senate.  The two were not friends and Bentsen had not even been invited to Kennedy’s wedding in 1953.  Bentsen was guilty of a gross exaggeration at best and outright deceit at worst.

In politics, facts can be stubborn and at other times conveniently forgotten.

Furthermore, Bentsen knew Quayle was going to make the Kennedy self-comparison so he had the line in the can, ready for release.  And to the Texan’s credit, he delivered it masterfully though it did not even act as a breakwater in the Bush tsunami in 1988. 

The three-way dance in 1992 is best remembered not for anything said by the major parties’ veep candidates but for the confused performance by Ross Perot’s running mate retired Admiral James Stockdale, who rhetorically asked “Who am I?  Why am I here?” 

Quayle acquitted himself far better in the 1992 debate against Stockdale and Tennessee US Senator Al Gore, the Democrats’ nominee for vice-president.  Once again, the vice-presidential debate had no effect on the outcome of the presidential election.

The 1996 vice-presidential debate between then-Vice-President Al Gore and former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp was irrelevant to the 1996 campaign but marked the end of whatever hope the ex-football star had at becoming president (more on this tomorrow).

The 2000 Dick Cheney-Joe Lieberman face-off attracted the second lowest television audience for a vice-presidential debate.  Cheney outperformed his Democratic opponent and the results of Florida were agonizingly close, but Lieberman’s performance in the debate was not considered a reason why the Democratic ticket lost.

If anything, Lieberman’s presence on the ticket was an asset that likely made Florida more competitive than most observers expected it to be.  Lieberman’s fellow Democrats apparently did not share this assessment as they scuttled his 2004 presidential bid early and Gore endorsed Howard Dean over his own running mate.

The 2004 debate between Cheney and North Carolina US Senator John Edwards had a major awkward moment when Edwards casually mentioned Cheney’s lesbian daughter Mary, perhaps in a bid to irritate social conservatives who opposed gay marriage. 

Edwards only succeeded in coming off as unseemly in the exchange. 

Social conservatives didn’t budge from supporting Bush-Cheney, the vice-president was visibly displeased and Mary later referred to Edwards as “total slime”.  Edwards did not deliver his homestate of North Carolina for John Kerry.

In retrospect, Mary may have been more right then she knew.

Finally there was the 2008 debate between Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Delaware US Senator Joe Biden.  Seventy million Americans tuned in to one of the most watched political debates in broadcast television history.  Palin needed to do well in the debate to make up for unfavorable interviews that led to questions about her qualifications. 

Biden, observing a “do no harm” posture”, pulled his punches and seemed to have a wide yet insincere smile plastered on his face most of the debate. 

With the housing and financial crises overshadowing the campaign, Republican nominee John McCain’s panicked reaction to the situation and President George W. Bush’s staggering unpopularity, Palin could have run circles around Biden and it would not have mattered.

Though Palin gave an uneven performance at times, she proved not to be the lightweight she was portrayed by the media. 

Biden, who had been a US Senator since the seventies, botched the section of the US Constitution that deals with the executive branch, but was never called out on his “constitutional potatoe”. 

The debate was a tactical victory for Palin as the poll gap between McCain and Obama shrank a bit. 

However Palin’s debate performance provided more fodder for the folks at Saturday Night Live to further mock the vilified veep candidate.  More significantly, she failed to establish herself as the natural GOP standard bearer for 2012. 

  

Election 2012: Romney Resets Election in First Debate

One looked like a president, the other like a state legislator running for president.

The former being Mitt Romney, the latter a clearly flustered Barack Obama.

I’m not surprised that the former Massachusetts governor performed strongly in the first presidential debate- as a supporter of Rick Santorum in the GOP primaries my candidate was vexed by the polished Romney, particularly in what turned out to be the all-important Arizona debate where the Bain Capital executive effectively saved his floundering candidacy.

Romney came off as confident and comfortably commanding facts and figures better than the man who was charged with running the country for the past four years.

The Republican candidate did not speak above the television viewers but described the state of things in a manner people could visualize. 

Instead of Gross Domestic Product, Romney talked jobs. 

In lieu of rates and percentages, Romney reiterated the number of Americans who were unemployed and seeking work. 

Rather than referencing economic indexes, Romney cited the actual increase of people who are on food stamps over the past four years.

Romney did exactly what he needed to do: he told the American people the true state of affairs in the country and then asked them to go in a different direction by replacing the president.  The election wasn’t about candidates but national direction.

Romney even worked in some soaring rhetoric of his own eloquently discussing the federal government’s obligation to protect life, liberty and people’s right to pursue happiness sans interference.

And the most important thing, he contrasted how a Romney Administration would differ from another four years of an Obama White House. 

The former Massachusetts governor may have turned in the most masterful debate performance by a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.

The best Obama could muster is recycling some of his worn class warfare talking points and to imply that the GOP had some kind of secret plan that they were afraid to share with the American public.  The president also made a clumsy attempt to emulate former President Bill Clinton’s math rhetoric from the convention. 

The president looked desperate when running behind Clinton’s record (which he had nothing to do with) and petty by mocking Donald Trump by name. 

After a slow start, the president did pick up steam when the discussion turned to health care before flaming out towards the end, with body language that shifted between dour facial expressions and smug smirks. 

The only thing President Obama forgot to do wrong on Wednesday night was check his watch.

Without control of the line of questioning and sans teleprompter, the president looked out of his element, as if he did not belong on the stage or for that matter the Oval Office. 

What the American public saw on Wednesday night was the shock and bewilderment of a man who has not truly been challenged politically since Hillary Clinton ended her presidential bid. 

After over four years, someone has finally told the emperor that he has no clothes.

The debate was a game changer. 

For many Americans, the face-off was the first time they have actually seen Romney speak and it was a great introduction for Romney to voters who only knew of him from soundbytes and 30 and 60-second television ads, most of them negative.

Romney will likely see some positive movement in the polls but more importantly reap a handsome bounty via internet donations from fired up Republicans excited to see their nominee taking the fight to the president rather than standing there like a tackling dummy (see John McCain, 2008).

And though the debate lacked a defining moment that stood out such as Reagan’s “They’re you go again” line to President Jimmy Carter or the Gipper’s “youth and inexperience” poke at Walter Mondale’s expense, the hit of the night was Romney’s deft counter to President Obama’s decrying of so-called subsidies of the oil industry by citing the billions that have been run to green energy outfits that have been better at supporting the president’s re-election than in actual business . 

When prefacing his closing statement, President Obama remarked that he thought “it was a terrific debate” and he was right, though not for him but for his replacement as the instapolls and pro-Obama talking heads soundly gave round one of the presidential debates to Romney.

Election 2012: On the Tundra in Wisconsin

Milwaukee- Wisconsin has been a battle-ground state in presidential elections since Ralph Nader's Green Party bid almost threw the state's electoral votes to the GOP in 2000.

After coming close then, the Republican Party dumped substantial resources in Wisconsin in 2004 but without vote siphoning from the consumer affairs advocate, the Democrats managed to pull off another win in the highly competitive state.

Mitt Romney upped the political ante in his play for the state’s electoral votes when he tapped Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate.  Ryan was considered a double threat, combining national appeal and strong local support as he has received at least 60% of his district's vote in re-election bids, even when Barack Obama carried it in 2008.

Either by design or coincidence, President Obama has worked in a Wisconsin element into his own campaign: his reelection slogan, Forward, is the motto of the Badger State.

The nomination of former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, who has enjoyed success as a statewide candidate, for an open US Senate seat should have further increased the ticket's chances in November, yet Romney-Ryan and Thompson are trailing their Democratic opponents in polls.

The Democrats' advantage is counterintuitive when considering that Romney-Paul-Thompson have directly inherited the same political apparatus that defeated the union-driven recall of Republican governor Scott Walker only a few months ago.

In fact the office in Milwaukee being used by the Romney Victory operation still has pro-Walker posters from the recall campaign on its walls.

Madison college activists excepted, Wisconsin voters tend not to be very expressive in their politics.  In three days there I could count on both hands the number of yard signs for presidential candidates I saw and came across about as few bumper stickers.

The high-octane retail politicking one would typically see outside Tiger Stadium during a gubernatorial election year was nowhere to be found around Lambeau Field on game day.  Despite that tens of thousands of people were milling about a relatively compact area, there were no rallies nor was there anyone handing out campaign lapel stickers.  

Apparently Wisconsin residents where their Packer Green and Gold and Badger red Ws on their sleeves, not their politics.  

The small town of Lake Mills, in Jefferson County, is in the middle of the battleground. 

Twelve years ago Jefferson County, which is on the Milwaukee-Madison corridor, voted for George W. Bush by a modest margin (53%) and voted for his re-election by a slightly higher majority in 2004 (56%). However, Jefferson County by less than a percent (352 votes) went for Obama in 2008.

On the corner of a busy commercial intersection, a small group of retirees gather, as they do every day at noon, to wave their Romney placards for an hour to show their support for the GOP nominee for president. The signs differ from the official logo and were made independent of the Romney campaign by a local 

supporter after being unable to procure yard signs even in that swing state (!).

Dennis, accompanied by his chocolate lab Chili- who is sporting a small homemade Romney sandwich board sign across her back, believes Wisconsin will finally go Republican in 2012 due to outrage over the 16 trillion dollar national debt and the poor state of the economy. 

Just down the street from the band of volunteers is a house with a hand-painted sign on the lawn that reads "Re-elect the President Obama Cares".  In a state with a rich history of progressivism and social consciousness, emphasizing compassion will go far politically.

Wisconsin is wired differently from any other state, perhaps in part to its Scandinavian heritage.  

Outside of Lambeau Field, mixed in with the ocean of tailgaters, were numerous charities collecting donations for the less fortunate. Near the stadium's entrance gates were booths where attendees could receive $15 flu shots.

A mile away a Green Bay Catholic Church's request for household goods for folks in tough times was being met with overflowing generosity from parishioners.

Sharing seems to be as ingrained in Wisconsin as being nice.

 The culture of Wisconsin is favorable to Obama, though the economy isn't.

Despite the massive political investment he has made there, Romney must overcome the voters' inclination to vote for Obama.

The former Bain Capital executive's chances of carrying Wisconsin rest on his ability to make a strong case that his economic plan will benefit the 47% as well as the 53%.

And he must do so nicely.

Election 2012: Louisiana- A Battleground State Then, Not Now

Twenty years ago (!), I volunteered for my first presidential campaign, helping out then-President George H.W. Bush’s bid for re-election at the LSU College Republican table on weekdays (and inevitably during class time) and in New Orleans on weekends. 

At that time, Louisiana was a battleground state hotly contested by both major parties, despite having voted Republican by wide margins in 1980, 1984 and 1988. 

Part of the reason for the competitive nature of things in 1992 was Ross Perot’s self-funded populist independent candidacy, which ultimately bled more votes from the GOP column than the Democratic side of the political ledger.

The Bush campaign operated from a large office suite in Metairie and was led by former governor David Treen, who was not just chairman of the campaign but an active participate who took his duties seriously.  The Bush-Quayle headquarters was abuzz with activity, from yard sign assembling to phone banking. 

The main participants invested not only resources in Louisiana but face time as well. 

Tennessee US Senator Al Gore made an appearance before a large crowd in downtown Baton Rouge.  Future First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at gathering outside of the Superdome and closer to Election Day the Arkansas governor rolled his bus caravan through New Orleans and held a large rally on the banks of the Mississippi River.

Vice-President Dan Quayle appeared at a well-attended rally in Kenner and the president himself spoke at what would be his final campaign event as a candidate in a hanger in Baton Rouge’s airport on the eve of Election Day.

When voters went to the polls the next morning, neutral grounds across the state were flooded with paper signs pushing the Bush-Quayle and Clinton-Gore tickets.

Bill Clinton won a plurality of the vote in Louisiana, besting President Bush by just under five points.  Four years later, Clinton carried Louisiana with majority but by a landslide margin over Republican nominee Bob Dole and Perot.

Come 2000, the bottom fell out of the Louisiana’s Democratic presidential vote.

Texas governor George W. Bush returned the GOP to victory in Louisiana and nationally then, winning 52%, a slightly better share of the vote than Clinton’s state total four years prior.  Bush expanded his Pelican State majority to 57% in 2004. 

Arizona US Senator and 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain raised the party’s share of the Louisiana presidential vote to 59% despite lacking W’s proximity advantage and spending little time or money in the state. 

As we enter the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, one would be hard pressed to find any sign of a major election happening in Louisiana. 

Mitt Romney’s majority in Louisiana, and there is little doubt he will receive one, might approach Ronald Reagan’s showing of 61% in 1984, the second highest vote share a Republican presidential candidate has ever received in the state.

Hence both sides have largely abandoned the state.  Romney has visited Louisiana a few times since locking up the GOP nod, but those were confined to some money runs and visiting an area that was flooded by Hurricane Isaac.

President Barack Obama, in addition to the obligatory disaster site inspection though to a different area from where Romney went, has also limited his political time in Louisiana to fundraising activities and speaking at the Urban League convention.

About a week ago Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan flew into New Orleans, though not to speak at a local GOP rally but to address the AARP conclave (in other words, tourists from other states).

The dozen or so undecided states are commanding almost all of the candidates’ time and money. 

In addition to the end of the national campaign strategy, tactics have significantly changed as well, as campaigns continue to drift away from retail politics and towards primarily electronic media. 

The yard signs, bumper stickers and campaign buttons that were so plentiful in Louisiana in 1992 now need to be ordered from online “campaign stores”. 

If you want to advertise your support for the Romney-Paul ticket in front your house, that privilege will cost you the princely sum of $15. 

Want to invite some knucklehead to key your car by sporting the “wrong” bumper sticker?  That’ll be a $3 donation. 

Perhaps residents of Wisconsin, Virginia and sacred Ohio receive such tchotchkes gratis though I wouldn’t trade my mild winters for their free t-shirts.

Election 2012: Hope for Conservatives

Attention conservatives and moderates who believe America needs a new president: the sky is NOT falling.

Admittedly this week has not been good for Mitt Romney.

To be honest, the Republican nominee hasn’t really had a good week since polishing off his intraparty rivals many months ago. 

Romney’s running mate announcement and the GOP convention provided a minimal bounce for the Republican ticket and the Bain Capital executive has spent more time in President Barack Obama’s rearview mirror than in front his windshield.

And the recent delayed released “gaffe” (the media’s interpretation of what Romney said and not my own) has not helped matters, not because he said anything offensive but because the networks have overplayed the story to distract from the true state of the American economy and the blatant Obama White House foreign policy bumbling.

Before writing the election off in despair or believing the media hype, here are a few things for Republicans to consider.

First, the polls are not nearly as bad as they seem.  While a perusal of the national and state polls on the Real Clear Politics site reveals far more blue text than red, there is something noteworthy in many of the numbers: in the states that are actually up for grabs, the president rarely breaks 50%, which is relevant.

When an incumbent seeks re-election, whether he is the President of the United States or town alderman, and polls at 50% or below, he’s typically in trouble when the ballot boxes open. 

And in the case of a presidential election, the challenger matters less in the outcome than the president as a bid for a second term is a referendum on the first term.  Which is why Obama and his allies have worked so hard to spin the 2012 election as a second referendum on George W. Bush’s last term in office.

This past week alone, polls have given Romney leads in the swing states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado and Florida.  And there have been polls this past week that have given the president a lead in those same states.

Polls in Nevada, Virginia and Michigan have the president under 50% and holding no more than a three-point lead over his Republican opponent.

Furthermore, in the national polls, Romney and Obama have either tied or traded leads pending on what day and which poll you look at.  Rasmussen has generally had the Republican nominee with a slight lead over the president while Gallup has given an edge to Obama.  And sometimes they flip.

The point is, the polls show a fluid race, which is not very reassuring for a sitting president at this juncture. 

Secondly, Romney has remained competitive despite the reality that the mainstream media and entertainment industry that attempts, and sometimes succeeds, to pass themselves off as news programs have acted as an offensive line for the Obama Administration, burying bad news on the president and hyperventilating the negative on Romney and the GOP. 

The producers and frontmen at ABC, the Daily Show and MSNBC cannot shill enough for Obama to convince someone who has been out of work for months that things are fine in the country, at least for everyone else. 

Third, and most importantly, are the October debates, which apparently will be the only time the president will actually have to defend his record in office with follow up questions. 

It will be within the confines of the University of Denver (October 2^nd), Hofstra University (October 16^th) and Lynn University in Boca Raton (October 22^nd) where Romney will make his case for a change in government directly to the people while Obama will not be able to phone in Bill Clinton for a lifeline. 

The debates will mark the rare occasions where the American public, by this time engaged in the presidential election, can judge the candidates and their ideas without media interpretation. 

Though November 6^th is not far away, there is plenty of time left on the clock for Romney to catch up as the president’s lead in the swing states is marginal and the gap has shifted on a daily basis. 

While Romney isn’t winning, the polls show that he can still win.

And that’s more hope than Bob Dole had on his best day in 1996.

Obama's Libyan Red Herring Play

Eight years ago, a series of bombings rocked Spain’s passenger rail system killing 191 people and injuring over 2,000 more.

The explosions occured on the eve of Spain’s competitive national election and played a role in changing the government and that country’s foreign policy.

The governing conservatives, the Partido Popular, had positioned themselves as allies of then-US President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Spaniards opposed involvement including the Socialists, the leading opposition party.

Initially, the conservative government accused Basque separatists for the attack though it later became clear that north African Islamists with a professed affiliation with al-Qaeda were actually responsible. 

Spanish voters believed that the Partido Popular had manipulated the facts of the Atocha train station bombings to frame Basque terrorists (the usual suspects involved in domestic terror) so as to avoid creating a link between the attacks and Spain’s involvement in the unpopular Iraqi War and the party suffered for it at the polls. 

Not long after taking power, Spain’s new socialist government recalled the country’s forces from Iraq, though critics of the move argued that the withdrawal validated the terrorists’ actions as they accomplished their objective.

Fast-forward eight years to Benghazi, where an attack on the US consulate in Libya’s second largest city resulted in the murder (and allegations of other atrocities) of the US ambassador and three other Americans. 

Reacting to the deaths of American personnel in Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement where she claimed the violence was related to a third-rate You Tube video that mocked Islam and its main mortal figure.  In fact one quarter of the release is dedicated to speaking out against intolerance, in effect blaming an internet clip and a crackpot pastor for the killing of our ambassador.

At the arrival ceremony of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty’s remains at Andrews Air Force Base, President Barack Obama railed against “voices of suspicion and mistrust” that seek to divide countries and cultures, a reference to Pastor Terry Jones, who attained more fame than he otherwise deserved for burning some Qur’ans, and has promoted the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims”, which portrays Islam’s central prophet in a disrespectful light.  

And adding to the absurdity of it all, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally reached out to the rogue Florida minister to request that he end his association with the most controversial quasi-motion picture practically nobody has ever seen but thanks to the media and the US government, almost everyone has now heard of.

By their rhetoric and posturing, the president and his officials have attempted to publicly pin the anti-American violence in Libya and other corners of the Islamic world on a handful of nutcases and third-rate provocateurs.  

Pastor Jones makes a politically convenient scapegoat for the acts of Islamic rage and violence in a crass attempt to divert attention from the Obama Administration’s continued denial about militant Islamists’s war with the West and the White House’s failure to improve relations between the US and Arab governments, both old and new.

Now the White House is starting to backpedal a bit on the root of the evil visited upon our foreign service staff in Benghazi and the insult to our national dignity and violation of our embassy in Egypt and other locales. 

White House press secretary Jay Carney, while still maintaining that the online video disparaging the Prophet led to the protests, has conceded that armed “violent groups” may have exploited the furor to execute a preplanned attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Spain’s governing party misrepresented the true culprits of the 2004 Atocha bombings and was driven from office for it. 

If the Obama Administration did the same regarding the Benghazi assault, then Mitt Romney and objective journalists are right to question and criticize the deliberate misrepresentation of events and the White House and State Department’s mishandling of them. 

Even more so if intelligence provided by the Libyan government about an imminent assault on the anniversary on the September 11^th hijackings was dismissed and that a decision was made to not engage in visible security strengthening of the consulate in Benghazi and in other predominantly Muslim regions to avoid upsetting the sensitivities of those who loathe us.

The amateurish “pin the blame on the pastor” debacle on the highest levels should invite a closer review of President Obama’s other foreign policy blunders that have been diplomatically swept under the rug by the mainstream media.