===
I think Romney is calling on The Count. As Reagan demonstrated with a Democrat Congress, it was possible to lower taxes and increase spending because a smaller take of income can be more than offset by a larger investment pool. Which is how wealth creation works. I am reminded of a laughable mistake Reagan made when he increased vastly expenditure on Maths and Science education. The weak analysis research showed that the US was falling in international competitiveness in Maths and Science through longevity studies. However, an analyst noted that every single ethnic subgroup had improved over the same time in studies. The reason for the overall fall was weaker ethnic subgroups had larger numbers. So in fact education was working well. The issue translates to the modern problem of deficit government. Romney's investment banker approach is the method the works, while wealth redistribution favored by Obama fails.
===
===
Mitt Romney is the smartest guy in the room
Published October 04, 2012
FoxNews.com
Four months ago I made a bold prediction: that Mitt Romney will win in a landside. I called it a repeat of Reagan’s landslide over incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Don’t look now, but after last night’s debate that prediction is becoming reality.
Do you hear the air hissing loudly? That’s the air coming out of Obama’s balloon Wednesday night. Mitt Romney is not only the smartest guy in the room (by far)…he proved it on that presidential debate stage.
Romney schooled Obama. He made Obama look weak, small, and childlike. Obama was listless and uninspiring. He could not look Romney in the eye, and worst of all, could not muster the confidence or energy to defend his own record.
The whole nation saw it. It was almost as if Romney was debating an empty chair.
Worse, an empty chair without the benefit of a TelePrompter.
Romney was at ease. He was smiling and willing to look Obama right in the eye, debunk his lies, and take the fight to him. Mitt stayed on message. It was as if Mitt’s debate coach was James Carville -- the message was “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Mitt debunked the lies that the media has allowed Obama to tell. It’s easy to lie when you are speaking to a journalist who is on your side. It isn't so easy to lie on that stage, with the nation watching, with your opponent staring at you. Obama’s lies, myths, and misrepresentations about Romney’s tax and budget plans were all debunked on that stage Wednesday night.
Of course the great zinger that exposed Obama’s lies was when Mitt said that raising five boys had prepared him for hearing things that aren’t true, and then hearing the lie repeated over and over again to try to make it appear true.
Every parent in America was smiling and nodding in agreement.
Mitt looked presidential and stayed focused on distinct targeted messages.
Do you hear the air hissing loudly? That’s the air coming out of Obama’s balloon Wednesday night. Mitt Romney is not only the smartest guy in the room (by far)…he proved it on that presidential debate stage.
Romney schooled Obama. He made Obama look weak, small, and childlike. Obama was listless and uninspiring. He could not look Romney in the eye, and worst of all, could not muster the confidence or energy to defend his own record.
The whole nation saw it. It was almost as if Romney was debating an empty chair.
Worse, an empty chair without the benefit of a TelePrompter.
Romney was at ease. He was smiling and willing to look Obama right in the eye, debunk his lies, and take the fight to him. Mitt stayed on message. It was as if Mitt’s debate coach was James Carville -- the message was “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Mitt debunked the lies that the media has allowed Obama to tell. It’s easy to lie when you are speaking to a journalist who is on your side. It isn't so easy to lie on that stage, with the nation watching, with your opponent staring at you. Obama’s lies, myths, and misrepresentations about Romney’s tax and budget plans were all debunked on that stage Wednesday night.
Of course the great zinger that exposed Obama’s lies was when Mitt said that raising five boys had prepared him for hearing things that aren’t true, and then hearing the lie repeated over and over again to try to make it appear true.
Every parent in America was smiling and nodding in agreement.
Mitt looked presidential and stayed focused on distinct targeted messages.
First, that he will cut taxes without adding to the deficit, and will never raise taxes on the middle class. Ever.
Second, that what matters above all else now is jobs. That is Mitt’s priority. He stressed that you can only create jobs by growing the economy and you can only grow the economy by keeping taxes low, cutting regulations, and reducing the size of government.
Third, that Obama is the one hurting seniors by cutting over $700 billion from Medicare. Mitt made it clear he will protect Medicare and change nothing for current recipients. Obama is endangering it. Suddenly every senior in America was reassured this is not a man with a radical plan, nor should they ever fear losing their Medicare or Social Security.
Fourth, that Obama promised to cut the debt in half, but instead doubled it. Romney called it immoral to keep spending more than we take in. Did you see the look on Obama’s face? Did you see his body language? He looked like a defeated man. He looked like he wanted to be anywhere, but on that stage defending his record. Of course that's because his record on debt and spending is indefensible.
Fifth, Romney pointed out that ObamaCare will cost $2,500 more per family annually and that it will kill jobs. ObamaCare will make it less likely that small business will hire people. On Wednesday night Romney used something that befuddles Obama: FACTS. He pointed out that the CBO predicts 20 million Americans will lose their current insurance under ObamaCare.
You could hear millions of Americans who are happy with their current insurance, standing and cheering for Romney.
Second, that what matters above all else now is jobs. That is Mitt’s priority. He stressed that you can only create jobs by growing the economy and you can only grow the economy by keeping taxes low, cutting regulations, and reducing the size of government.
Third, that Obama is the one hurting seniors by cutting over $700 billion from Medicare. Mitt made it clear he will protect Medicare and change nothing for current recipients. Obama is endangering it. Suddenly every senior in America was reassured this is not a man with a radical plan, nor should they ever fear losing their Medicare or Social Security.
Fourth, that Obama promised to cut the debt in half, but instead doubled it. Romney called it immoral to keep spending more than we take in. Did you see the look on Obama’s face? Did you see his body language? He looked like a defeated man. He looked like he wanted to be anywhere, but on that stage defending his record. Of course that's because his record on debt and spending is indefensible.
Fifth, Romney pointed out that ObamaCare will cost $2,500 more per family annually and that it will kill jobs. ObamaCare will make it less likely that small business will hire people. On Wednesday night Romney used something that befuddles Obama: FACTS. He pointed out that the CBO predicts 20 million Americans will lose their current insurance under ObamaCare.
You could hear millions of Americans who are happy with their current insurance, standing and cheering for Romney.
Then Romney went for the kill. He pointed out that Mr. Obama wasted his first two years on ObamaCare, something the majority of Americans didn’t even want, in the middle of an economic tragedy, when jobs should have been his priority. He squandered his two years when he should have been fighting for jobs for the American people.
But the line of the night that completely emasculated Obama was, “Yes, Mr. President your spending does show your priorities. You spent $90 billion on green energy tax breaks. That’s like 50 years of tax breaks to oil companies. You gave $90 billion to companies like Solyndra. You could have hired 2 million teachers with that money.”
But the line of the night that completely emasculated Obama was, “Yes, Mr. President your spending does show your priorities. You spent $90 billion on green energy tax breaks. That’s like 50 years of tax breaks to oil companies. You gave $90 billion to companies like Solyndra. You could have hired 2 million teachers with that money.”
Bullseye.
Romney looked and sounded like a president. He showcased his CEO leadership skills. Obama was depressed, befuddled, stumbling, bumbling, and fumbling throughout the night. He wasn’t presidential, even though he IS the president. He was a man out of his league.
In the end Jim Lehrer had the best line of the night when he tried to stop Obama from going over his allotted time. He said, “Mr. President, your time is up.”
How prophetic.
Romney looked and sounded like a president. He showcased his CEO leadership skills. Obama was depressed, befuddled, stumbling, bumbling, and fumbling throughout the night. He wasn’t presidential, even though he IS the president. He was a man out of his league.
In the end Jim Lehrer had the best line of the night when he tried to stop Obama from going over his allotted time. He said, “Mr. President, your time is up.”
How prophetic.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/mitt-romney-is-smartest-guy-in-room/#ixzz28PWiK9PM
===
The questions Lehrer didn't ask
Published October 04, 2012
FoxNews.com
Debate moderator Jim Lehrer framed most of his debate questions Wednesday night to draw out and make clearer the policy differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Lehrer, of PBS, might have theorized that highlighting the differences and letting the candidates explain them in their own words would help voters make more-informed choices on November 6.
If that was the goal, the approach worked fine. It forced the candidates out on the major domestic issues of contention in this 2012 campaign – jobs, taxes, entitlements, deficits, health care, the role of government and the art of governing. And it produced some spirited, pointed and revealing exchanges.
On paper, such loose structuring of the questions – or lack of structuring -- would appear to favor Obama, who going in was viewed by the media cognoscenti as the more-polished and articulate speaker, the more-knowledgeable-and-confident executive, the quicker-on-his-feet thinker and the more-likable person.
And Obama handlers might have figured that a debate in which the questions are free-form instead of specific should be a slam-dunk for the president.
They figured wrong.
Instead, they gave Romney a chance to show his articulate and knowledgeable sides because the open-ended questions allowed him to repeatedly put Obama on the spot by challenging his four-year record, sharply criticizing his plans and programs and contrasting them with his own proposals.
Where Lehrer refrained from challenging the president’s record, Romney jumped into the breach and forced Obama off his game, which seemed to be to run out the clock and get back on the campaign trail, where he seems more comfortable.
Normally, when a debate is held between a sitting president and a challenger seeking to unseat him, the moderators’ questions often force the incumbent to defend his stewardship over the past four years.
For example, in the first 2004 debate between incumbent President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry, Bush was repeatedly pushed onto the defensive by questions asked by the moderator, who again was Lehrer.
Lehrer asked Kerry, “Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?”
He later asked Bush, “Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?”
And at another point Lehrer asked Kerry, “You've repeatedly accused President Bush…..of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.”
We heard no such tough questions from Lehrer Wednesday night about Obama’s management of the economy, the effectiveness of his $787 billion stimulus plan or the fact that unemployment has been above 8 percent for nearly four years.
Instead, we got questions such as these:
• “What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?
• “What are the differences between the two of you as to how you would go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?”
• “Mr. President. Do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?”
In news reporter parlance, such questions are considered “softballs” -- tailor made to allow an incumbent president to avoid his record and sail into the talking points he has repeated many times before.
If that was the strategy behind the questions, it backfired. By most accounts, Romney came out the winner. Obama seemed off balance. And Lehrer got credit for -- accidentally or intentionally -- producing a pretty good debate.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/questions-that-lehrer-didnt-ask/#ixzz28PXV3nQS
===
Take the red button off Obama when flying
Al Gore’s excuse for Barack Obama’s bad performance in the presidential debate:
I’m going to say something controversial here. Obama arrived in Denver at 2pm today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don’t know ...
Cabin pressure in the President’s Air Force One: equivalent to altitude of between 6000 and 8000 feet.
Hope Obama makes no big decisions when flying.
(Thanks to reader Dennis Jensen.)
===
How bad was Obama against Romney?
UPDATE
His problem? No teleprompter:
Absolutely true. Warming worrier Al Gore blames the high altitude:
Obama’s disaster described by Taiwanese animators:
The great James Taranto . . . long ago posited what is called the “Taranto Principle.” In short, it means that the liberal media so coddles liberal politicians that they have no idea how to cope outside that liberal media bubble. . . .
Barack Obama has been so totally coddled by the liberal media that he looked absolutely shell-shocked in this debate. Stunned, unhappy, angry, sour–and at some points genuinely incoherent.Romney has had nowhere near that kind of treatment. He had serious opponents in the primaries–all of whom in their own way forced him to confront his ideas in a serious fashion. Conservatives were on his heels. The Obama media never let up. The man went through the political equivalent of boot camp.Tonight, the Taranto Principle kicked in. Big time.
Outside the liberal bubble–forced to be alone on a stage with a very serious, very prepared candidate–Barack Obama was in trouble. Big Trouble.
Deflated:
Eastwood nailed it:
===
Only an issue if Abbott does it
Phillip Coorey misses a very obvious example of a politician trotting out their partner:
Therese Rein has become a staple of Kevin Rudd’s rollercoaster career; Janette Howard was a permanent and important part of John Howard’s success.
A less sexist analysis - or one less pro-Gillard - might have mentioned stories like this:
(Thanks to readers Dani, Peter and others.)
===
He said what?
He’s the Speaker of Parliament? Really? Still?
===
I feel anger at this mother, not pity for her
I am appalled by the mother who staged such a scene when police took her four daughters to the airport to be reunited with their Italian father.
How dare she inflame a situation so distressing to her daughters? It is so in keeping with the rest of her actions - essentially abducting the girls from their father, allowing them to be hidden when the court ordered their return, apparently having them coached into not wanting to go back, and refusing to accompany them back to Italy to at least ease any distress, despite the girl’s father offering her $8000 and immunity from prosecution if she did so.
I said my piece on 2GB last night, quoting from the judgment of the Family Court.
Richard Ackland takes much the same view, and I fully endorse Ackland’s opinion about some of the reporting:
What has been striking is the campaign by parts of the media. A parochial press hitching its circulation drive to an emotional play of the plight of a fearful mother and distressed children. Indeed the family pitched its case to the media once it ran out of legal juice.
Some excerpts from the Family Court orders this week:
The very public nature of the campaign has been very disturbing. I am satisfied that they have definitely not been shielded from the dispute and have clearly, I find, been significantly influenced in their views and their conduct by their mother and other members of her family. Examples of extremely inappropriate and sometimes bizarre things said to and in the presence of the children can be found in statements made by the maternal great-grandmother that were recorded by police in the immediate aftermath of the children being found after being hidden by her.
Unashamedly, she was recorded saying to one of the children “How exciting. Who’s going to play you in the movie? ...” She also said to the police, in the presence of the children, “everyone is on their side except their father …....He doesn’t love them. He just owns them. They’re chattels.” She then went on to say “… because he is a liar – please tell me you’re not Italian – because he is a liar, and all Italians are bloody liars…”.The fact that the youngest child could go from stating in May last year that she wanted to go home to Italy to her home in the Tuscan countryside to now asserting that “Italy’s a scary place. I don’t feel comfortable” and writing that she would stab herself if she was sent back to Italy, when she has not been back to Italy in the meantime, causes me to conclude that she has probably been subjected to considerable influence by persons close to her…It is very important to remember that the children’s objections to returning to Italy are principally founded in a ...belief, instilled in them by their mother, that she cannot and, therefore, will not return to Italy with them.The mother continues to assert ... that she is unable to return to Italy. She maintains that economic reasons prevent her from returning, but also the fear of being arrested, criminally prosecuted and imprisoned in Italy for her actions in wrongfully retaining the children in Australia in the first place.. In my original decision, I considered and dealt with the mother’s case that economic reasons prevent her from returning. The evidence now is that she is undertaking full-time tertiary studies in Australia and receives income in the form of Centrelink payments from the Commonwealth Government which she uses to support herself and the four children. In Italy, ... the mother had employment in a few different unskilled jobs. Although she asserts that it would be difficult to get employment if she returns, and that Italian social security is problematic and unreliable, I cannot say that I completely accept that evidence or, if I did accept it, that I consider it as anything other than the basis for a preference not to return, as opposed to a complete and real impediment.My original return order did also condition the mother’s return with the children on the payment by the father of AUD$8,000 to assist in the immediate financial support of the mother and the children upon their arrival and he has provided that…I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that arrest, charge and imprisonment actually awaits the mother on return to Italy.
Copies of some documents produced in English by the Italian Ministry of Justice ... says: The absence of any criminal complaint against Mrs. [...] by Mr. [V] (in spite of the long time elapsed since his daughters’ removal by their mother) as well as the absence of any criminal
proceedings against Mrs. [....] make all her alleged fears of being arrested, should she come back to Italy with her four children, specious and delaying.
The Courier-Mail can reveal that their journey to Australia in June 2010 with their mother was planned, co-ordinated and partly financed by the Commonwealth, the culmination of three years of consistent consular support.
The Family Court of Australia ruled the move was an abduction ... but their departure from Italy marked the end of a three-year taxpayer-funded “consular emergency” triggered by the mother’s claims in 2007 that her husband was abusive and had cut off financial support.Diplomatic cables show officials from the Rome Embassy advised Canberra it was in the children’s best interests for them to take a one-way trip to Australia…“One-way travel documents would be sufficient to meet the children’s welfare needs, it being in their best interests to return to Australia where their mother might have greater job prospects and the means to support them."…The Australian Government loaned the mother a few hundred dollars to cover expenses during their journey from Florence to Rome, making her sign undertakings to repay the money, the documents show.The cables show the Rome embassy first planned the group’s passage to Australia in April 2009, obtaining quotes for the cost of international flights and train travel within Italy…Other messages detailed claims that the mother was a suicide risk and that the father had said he would kill himself if the children were removed…
The cables describe how the girls’ mother and grandmother threatened that year to go to the media in Australia, prompting a “priority” message from Canberra for diplomats to deal with the problem.
This stinks. Embassy official help a woman described as a suicide risk to remove her daughters to Australia even though the father warns he’ll kill himself? The embassy takes upon itself the right to make a judgment on the girls’ best interests, based on claims a court later finds dubious?
Italy has the appropriate courts and counselling services. Why did our diplomats intervene in a process so potentially explosive - and ultimately unlawful?
“I’m overcome by emotion,” he told his local newspaper Corriere Fiorentino.
“Justice has prevailed after a long Calvary of more than two years. This is a beautiful moment for me, my family and the children. But until I have news they are on a plane I will not be happy.” ...There is a slim possibility that the children’s mother could appeal to the juvenile court in Florence to have them returned to Australia and when asked about this the father said: “I have always said that if the children return I would never stop their mother from seeing them.”
He furiously declined to speak with Australian media.
===
Why be patronised?
Aboriginal artist Dallas Scott on self-described “professional Aborigine” Kerryn Pholiburning her certificate of Aboriginality:
You see, simply by virtue of creating a stream of opportunities available to only a small minority of the population - you breed resentment in those who are excluded from taking up those opportunities. You don’t have to participate in the largesse to feel the blowback, rather, simply because of physical identity or how you identify yourself to others, you are forever guilty by association. That is the price we will continue to pay for as long as there is preferential treatment for Aboriginal people and benefits for a select few based solely on racial identity alone.
Most Aboriginal people have probably experienced that annoying situation where your pride in an achievement, or possession of something you have worked hard to own has been dismissed as ‘trappings of the freebies for Aboriginals’ or similar. Been there, done that a million times over. Why any Aboriginal person would want their child to go through high school being taunted about the extra money they don’t get from Abstudy is beyond me, but as long as we demand that Abstudy exist, our kids will spend another generation having their hard work and achievements dismissed at a time when we need them to find self-esteem and build pride in their abilities the most.
(Thanks to reader Martin.)
===
Carr accused
Foreign Minister Bob Carr probably had other things on his mind - like sliming Tony Abbott and weeping with Bob Ellis:
THE aid worker Pippi Bean endured a seven-day nightmare last week at the hands of Libya’s shadowy security forces - but it was Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who delivered the ‘’lowest point’’ of her ordeal.
Ms Bean was questioned by Libyan investigators under threat of arrest, pressed to admit to a fictional rape or sexual affair with a senior government member, and repeatedly asked to sign a statement in Arabic that she was unable to read.
When she refused, then tried to leave the country on a scheduled business trip for her employer, the International Organisation for Migration, she was detained by seven men in a downstairs room at Tripoli airport and her passport taken away.
Not long after this, when she was still under threat of arrest, Mr Carr commented on the ABC program 7.30 that Ms Bean did not ‘’require further [consular] assistance’’.
The comment came when, in fact, her requirement for assistance could not have been greater. In an exclusive interview with the Herald, she said the comment had made her feel abandoned by her country.
===
Abbott’s wife hits out a Labor’s smears
Labor’s campaign of sliming Tony Abbott has goaded his wife into action:
FED up with claims that her husband has a problem with women, Tony Abbott’s wife of 24 years has taken the extraordinary step of speaking out against his critics.
Margie Abbott will make a public appearance in Western Sydney today with an Abbott’s Angels-style line up, which will include their daughter Frances, his mother and two of his sisters.
The appearance of the Abbott family women and Mrs Abbott’s attack on his critics marks the start of an aggressive bid by the Coalition to explode Labor’s claims the Opposition Leader has a problem dealing with women.
Margie Abbott writes in News Ltd papers today:
In recent weeks, it has become clear to me and the girls that there is a deliberate campaign under way trying to raise doubts about Tony and his relationship with women. As the woman who knows him best and who has lived with Tony Abbott for over 24 years, I know these distortions are not true.Tony gets women. He is surrounded by strong women. He grew up with three sisters, has three daughters, is supported by a female deputy in Julie Bishop and has always had a female chief of staff.Our daughters are living the life that feminists aspire for every woman. Bridget is studying radiology, Frances is studying design and Louise is now working in Europe.Our girls are educated, confident, grounded and happy young women making their own way in the world and the love and support of their father has played a big part in that…The people who run the negative arguments about Tony do women a disservice to suggest that somehow, because a man has the cauliflower ears of a rugby player, continues to play sport and spends a fair number of weekends volunteering as a firefighter or lifesaver, that somehow it is all proof that he is a boofy bloke who is anti-women.If Tony was anti-women why did he cycle 1000km this year raising $150,000 for the local women’s refuge? That same ride also raised over $500,000 for Carers Australia.Tony does get women, he just doesn’t get bad policy and a bad government. He was a minister for nine years, so he can debate issues on their merits.
It is issues that face families daily and the challenges facing our nation should be debated and not untrue, personal attacks. I’m not a politician and I enjoy a private life, but I won’t stand by and let others claim that the man I love has some agenda against women. Bridget, Louise, Frances and I know it’s not true.
Dennis Shanahan says the real question may be “what’s Gillard’s problem with men?”:
When Abbott become Leader of the Opposition in 2009, the Labor Party embarked on a concerted effort to entrench the view of him as being conservatively Catholic, opposed to abortion, old-fashioned and misogynistic…[But] Abbott’s problem with women is of a lesser extent than Gillard’s problem with men… On the question of preferred prime minister, the issue when both leaders are pitted against each other in surveys, the [last three] quarterly figures for Gillard over Abbott among female voters are a lead of four points, seven points and six points while Abbott leads Gillard as preferred PM among men on a steady seven points.
UPDATE
Video here of Lisa Wilkinson interviewing Margie and Tony Abbott, and letting too much of her anti-Abbott agenda show.
===
Now what about Roxon’s little mate?
ATTORNEY-General Nicola Roxon has been forced to apologise for giving Peter Slipper special treatment by allowing him to enter the Federal Court through a back door to avoid the media.Ms Roxon’s office yesterday admitted she had direct involvement in granting the Speaker’s ComCar access to the Sydney Law Courts carpark - a manoeuvre slammed by a judge for undermining public confidence in the court…
The blunder is the latest to hit the nation’s first law officer as questions are raised over her handling of the sexual harassment scandal involving Mr Slipper and his former staffer James Ashby…After the government reached a $50,000 settlement with Mr Ashby last week, Ms Roxon faced claims from the staffer’s legal team that she had defamed and victimised him and was in contempt of court by repeating earlier claims against him.
In June, she attacked Mr Ashby’s claim as being politically formulated by the Coalition to hurt Mr Slipper.
===
Romney takes foreign policy swipe at Obama, calls Libya attack 'tragic failure'
Mitt Romney, fresh off what by most accounts was his victory Wednesday night in the first debate with President Obama, said in a Fox News interview that the deadly consulate attack in Libya was a "tragic failure" of security and that the Obama admiration's explanations have been "misleading."
The comments on Libya, made in an interview Thursday night with Fox News' Sean Hannity, served to underscore Romney's foreign policy attack on Obama, after a first debate that focused solely on domestic policy.
Obama claimed Thursday on the campaign trail that the Romney of the debate had tried to "dance around his positions" from the trail. Romney countered, "It's the same message I've been saying across America."
"Obviously the president wasn't happy with the response to our debate last night," he said.
As for Libya, Republicans have been vocal in questioning the Obama administration's response to the attack last month that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Sources have described the Sept. 11 attack as a coordinated assault by extremists that appear to have ties to Al Qaeda, but an investigation still is under way.
"Let me note my condolences and sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives," Romney told Fox News in a joint interview with his running mate, Paul Ryan. "I believe obviously what happened there was a tragic failure. There had been warnings of a possible attack, there were requests ... to have additional security forces. They were turned down."
Romney also accused the Obama administration of giving "misleading information" about the attack.
The administration initially suggested it was an outbreak of "spontaneous" violence tied to protests over an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S. But Obama's advisers gradually backed away from that explanation, increasingly describing the attack as an act of terrorism.
"This was a terrorist attack. Lives were lost," Romney said. "We expect candor and transparency from the president and from the administration, and we didn't get it."
Romney is scheduled to deliver a foreign policy speech next week, and international issues will be the topic of the final presidential debate, Oct. 22 in Florida.
But the race still is expected to hinge largely on jobs, the national debt and the other economic issues like the ones addressed in Wednesday night's debate, and domestic issues will be on the agenda again at the second debate, Oct. 16 in New York.
"Right now what America needs more than anything else is more jobs," Romney said in the Fox News interview.
He argued the rich have been doing fine under Obama but the middle class is hurting. And he echoed a point he made at Wednesday's debate in saying that raising taxes, including on top earners, was not the way to grow the economy.
"If you raise taxes, then people have less money of their own, particularly businesses," Romney said. "They have less money to spend and to hire people with. The best way to get a balanced budget at the federal government level is to have this economy grow so that more people are working. If more people are working, more people paying taxes. ...
"The most powerful way to get it to a balanced budget is to grow the economy."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/romney-takes-foreign-policy-swipe-at-obama-calls-libya-attack-tragic-failure/#ixzz28PgMdjGu
===
Govt to assess ASIO decision implications
THE government is assessing the implications of a High Court ruling which found an asylum seeker deemed a security risk could still be granted a refugee visa and released into the community.
Attorney General Nicola Roxon said the judgment confirmed the assessment process conducted by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in the case of a Sri Lankan man identified only as M47 was procedurally fair.
But the High Court found a related regulation under the Migration Act to be invalid and M47's application for a protection visa needed to be reconsidered.
"The government has previously indicated that it would implement a review process for refugees who remain in immigration detention because of an adverse security assessment," she said in a statement.
"The government is carefully reviewing the reasoning of the High Court to determine the implications of the decision including for the implementation of that review process."
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the decision meant the government had no power to keep known security risks out of the community.
The coalition was willing to work with the government to restore its power to decide such cases.
"I have contacted (Immigration) Minister (Chris) Bowen's office to indicate our support to work with the government to restore the powers needed to protect our national security," he said in a statement.
M47, a former member of the Tamil Tigers, arrived in Australia in 2009 and has been in immigration detention ever since.
He was deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka and was therefore a refugee.
But a protection visa was refused after ASIO assessed him as a security risk.
M47's legal team challenged both the refusal to grant a protection visa and his ongoing detention, arguing he was denied procedural fairness.
The High Court found he was not denied procedural fairness over the ASIO assessment because he was given the opportunity to address ASIO concerns.
But the judges said a section of Migration Regulations was inconsistent with the Migration Act, as it effectively placed the power to decide on a protection visa in the hands of an ASIO agent rather than with the minister or his delegate as the legislation stipulated.
The High Court ruled M47 could still be held in detention while his application was considered.
M47's lawyer David Manne said the ruling was a significant victory.
"Firstly our client should be granted a refugee visa and freed from detention so he can rebuild his life in the community," he told reporters in Melbourne.
"We also call on the government to also do the same ... to the other 50 refugees in a similar predicament so that they too are granted a refugee visa and granted their freedom instead of being left in limbo."
The decision has important implications for some 50 mostly Sri Lankans given adverse ASIO security assessments who remain in indefinite detention.
They can't be sent back to their home country and neither can they go to any third country.
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said she would introduce a private member's bill in the Senate on Wednesday to establish a review mechanism for adverse ASIO assessments.
Some families with young children were in detention centres because of these adverse ASIO assessments, Senator Hanson-Young said.
"These are all refugees ... they have fled war, torture, persecution. This unlawful detention has only made their trauma so much worse," she said.
Amnesty International said it was now up to the government to ensure that the uncertainty surrounding their future is resolved.
===
Judge questions Slipper court attack
AN emotional parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper has told the Federal Court he loves his wife and he is devastated by James Ashby's sexual harassment claim.
He said he believed Mr Ashby was a friend because Mr Ashby bought him strawberries as a gift and visited his house at "unusual hours".
"I'm beside myself, I love the position of Speaker of parliament," he said.
"I'm sorry I'm getting upset and worked up," Mr Slipper said, his voice breaking up.
"I apologise if I'm expressing emotion that one should not express in a court, but sir I really, I apologise your honour, I obviously feel very strongly about this matter," Mr Slipper said.
Mr Slipper conceded had had asked Mr Ashby if he could kiss him and colleague Karen Doane, but said it was an entirely innocent request.
"I may well have made those comments," Mr Slipper said.
"It was concerning a you-tube video on the use of the (parliamentary) Mace," Mr Slipper said.
"Mr Ashby as very good in the area of social media... this you-tube video was quite skillfully done. We had lots of hits and it looked as though it was going viral. I stood at the door of my office and looked straight through and said 'This is absolutely great then the words were said," he said.
The words were "Can I kiss you two?".
Mr Slipper said he did not make the comment in an "inappropriate" way.
"Mr Ashby never raised with me or anyone else any level of concern. The relationship in the office was very polite and very pleasant. In the evening when the house sat late everyone had a glass of wine. Until proceedings were filed (Ashby) appeared to be friend. I was in a state of absolute shock when these proceedings were filed.
Mr Ashby (allegedly) told someone 'This is going to bring down the government'," Mr Slipper said.
"Ive been incredibly distraught as a result of these proceedings, they have been amazingly expensive. I believe these proceedings have been brought as an abuse of process for an improper purpose. It may have been dressed up as sexual harassment but the reality is they are an abuse of process.
(Law firm) Harmers is funding the proceedinsg but costs have built up and what has happened is they have been brought for improper purpose and they are an abuse of process Im particularly upset at the publicity that has been given when these proceedings were not taken through the genuine process in a confidential way through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
"A number of (claims) were put in the original document were (later) withdrawn."
Mr Slipper said when he first learned of the lawsuit against him he was in New York and had woken up a 2am to go to the toilet.
He saw an email from Mr Ashby's lawyers. Later that day when he was flying home from New York he read the article in The Daily Telegraphabout the case.
"I was absolutely gobsmacked," he said.
"He had not spoken to me, he had not spoken to anyone, or made comments."
"Your honour it is really hard to express how upset I am at what has happened in the last six months since the proceedings were filed. I had no idea that there was anything untoward since I was returning from a delegation.
"I got up at 2am or 3am to go to the bathroom and found a communication from Harmers law firm.
"That was the first indication I had that Mr Ashby in any way, shape or form was aggrieved by anything. He didnt speak to my senior advisor or go through the usual process of the government or department,"
"He went to the media and my political opponents, it was designed to cause the maximum (harm), very hurtful to me and my family."
"Mr Ashby was a friend who I thought was a friend. He did his job of social media very well. I was absolutely shocked and amazed when these proceedings occurred."
"Your worship, sorry your honour, there is no way I would want to sexually harass someone like, anybody because the thing is I'm so focused on my role as speaker," he said.
"I've been subject to all sorts of political vilification when I accepted (the role of speaker and left the LNP)", he said.
"There's no way I would want to sexually harass anybody because I'm focused on the job."
"There's no way I would want to sexually harass anybody because I'm focused on the job."
The extraordinary emotional speech lasted about seven minutes and started with Mr Slipper describing how he met Mr Ashby.
"Prior to Mr Ashby coming to work for me ... he ingratiated himself with my wife and me as a friend, at a time when I was under political attack. I was perceived as flat-footed in social media and he was able to assist me re: youtube videos enabling me to put forward my point of view. He became or seemed to become a friend, he went to my wifes party, to a ball.
"Communications between us were on the basis of what I thought was a friendship, he had the skills I needed in the area of social media. He was a friend who came to work for me.
"He was perceived to be a friend. There was not a great power difference, he was a friend who came to work in my office. Your worship he turned up at unusual hours at my home, he brought us gifts of strawberries.
"There was a sugestion that he found the relationship to be untenable yet in March this year he asked to accompany me on an overseas trip to Hungary.
"He was prepared to pay his own costs to come along. This was not long before my wife and I went overseas. I enquired if he could come as well and I was told it was not possible."
An allegation that James Ashby is "a Manchurian candidate" sent in by political "conspirators" to trigger Peter Slippers "political demise" is baseless, Mr Ashby's lawyers say.
Michael Lee, SC, counsel for Mr Ashby says that Mr Ashby was not part of a conspiracy to bring down Mr Slipper.
The Manchurian Candidate was a 1962 Hollywood political thriller involving brainwashing and a murder plot.
Judge says court process may have been abused
His outburst comes after the judge hearing the case indicated Ashby and his legal team may have abused the process of the court by alleging Mr Slippper committed Cabcharge fraud.
The allegation of misuse of Cabcharge dockets was made by Mr Ashby in documents filed at the start of the case in April, but it was dropped a month later when further documents were filed.
Justice Steven Rares today told Mr Ashby's barrister Michael Lee SC that allegations of Mr Slipper's "questionable conduct in relation to travel" as a breach of Mr Ashby's work contract were serious claims to make in a court, then to withdraw.
Lawyers are subject to strict professional conduct regulations which can see them disciplined for making serious allegations in a court pleading without a proper basis.
Justice Rares said no evidence had been provided to support the allegations of fraud or misconduct by Mr Slipper.
"How do you get to a breach of contract let alone reporting it to the police?" Justice Rares asked.
Lawyers are subject to strict professional conduct regulations which can see them disciplined for making serious allegations in a court pleading without a proper basis.
Justice Rares said no evidence had been provided to support the allegations of fraud or misconduct by Mr Slipper.
"How do you get to a breach of contract let alone reporting it to the police?" Justice Rares asked.
"How is it going to be proved there's anything wrong (with the use of Cabcharges)... it may well be wrong, I don't know," Justice Rares said.
"(You alleged) It was a suspected crime, that's the point," Justice Rares said.
Mr Ashby alleges he saw Mr Slipper hand over Cabcharge documents three times, and Mr Ashby believed Mr Slipper was doing "something wrong" or "questionable" or "irregular".
In other evidence heard by the court Mr Slipper claims that Mr Ashby’s decision to give his legal claim to the media in April was “severely and unfairly burdensome” and was done for an “illicit purpose” of harming his political career and helping boost the political fortunes of rival Mal Brough.
Mr Slipper says that by providing to the media and subsequently abandoning these claims Mr Ashby and his lawyer Michael Harmer intended to expose Mr Slipper to maximum degree of vilification and to cause maximum damage to his reputation and give political advantage to the Liberal National Party and Mal Brough.
Michael Harmer and Mr Ashby deny these claims.
Mr Slipper alleges Mr Ashby acted improperly when he calculated that his lurid allegations would achieve "significant coverage", but Mr Ashby says this claim of abuse of process will fail if Justice Rares rules Mr Ashby was only seeking to "have his rights vindicated".
Mr Slipper also alleges Mr Ashby allegations went beyond what was necessary, that they were "gratuitous, salacious and immaterial".
And the only purpose was to give sensational allegations made in the originating application an appearance of reliability.
The abuse of process case is continuing in the Federal Court today. It is expected to finish this afternoon.
The allegation of misuse of Cabcharge dockets was made by Mr Ashby in documents filed at the start of the case in April, but it was dropped a month later when further documents were filed.
Justice Steven Rares today told Mr Ashby's barrister Michael Lee SC that allegations of Mr Slipper's "questionable conduct in relation to travel" as a breach of Mr Ashby's work contract were serious claims to make in a court, then to withdraw.
Lawyers are subject to strict professional conduct regulations which can see them disciplined for making serious allegations in a court pleading without a proper basis.
Justice Rares said no evidence had been provided to support the allegations of fraud or misconduct by Mr Slipper.
"How do you get to a breach of contract let alone reporting it to the police?" Justice Rares asked.
"How is it going to be proved there's anything wrong (with the use of Cabcharges)... it may well be wrong, I don't know," Justice Rares said.
"(You alleged) It was a suspected crime, that's the point," Justice Rares said.
Mr Ashby alleges he saw Mr Slipper hand over Cabcharge documents three times, and Mr Ashby believed Mr Slipper was doing "something wrong" or "questionable" or "irregular".
In other evidence heard by the court Mr Slipper claims that Mr Ashby’s decision to give his legal claim to the media in April was “severely and unfairly burdensome” and was done for an “illicit purpose” of harming his political career and helping boost the political fortunes of rival Mal Brough.
Mr Slipper says that by providing to the media and subsequently abandoning these claims Mr Ashby and his lawyer Michael Harmer intended to expose Mr Slipper to maximum degree of vilification and to cause maximum damage to his reputation and give political advantage to the Liberal National Party and Mal Brough.
"(You alleged) It was a suspected crime, that's the point," Justice Rares said.
Mr Ashby alleges he saw Mr Slipper hand over Cabcharge documents three times, and Mr Ashby believed Mr Slipper was doing "something wrong" or "questionable" or "irregular".
In other evidence heard by the court Mr Slipper claims that Mr Ashby’s decision to give his legal claim to the media in April was “severely and unfairly burdensome” and was done for an “illicit purpose” of harming his political career and helping boost the political fortunes of rival Mal Brough.
Mr Slipper says that by providing to the media and subsequently abandoning these claims Mr Ashby and his lawyer Michael Harmer intended to expose Mr Slipper to maximum degree of vilification and to cause maximum damage to his reputation and give political advantage to the Liberal National Party and Mal Brough.
Michael Harmer and Mr Ashby deny these claims.
Mr Slipper alleges Mr Ashby acted improperly when he calculated that his lurid allegations would achieve "significant coverage", but Mr Ashby says this claim of abuse of process will fail if Justice Rares rules Mr Ashby was only seeking to "have his rights vindicated".
Mr Slipper also alleges Mr Ashby allegations went beyond what was necessary, that they were "gratuitous, salacious and immaterial".
And the only purpose was to give sensational allegations made in the originating application an appearance of reliability.
The abuse of process case is continuing in the Federal Court today. It is expected to finish this afternoon.
The allegation of misuse of Cabcharge dockets was made by Mr Ashby in documents filed at the start of the case in April, but it was dropped a month later when further documents were filed.
Justice Steven Rares today told Mr Ashby's barrister Michael Lee SC that allegations of Mr Slipper's "questionable conduct in relation to travel" as a breach of Mr Ashby's work contract were serious claims to make in a court, then to withdraw.
Lawyers are subject to strict professional conduct regulations which can see them disciplined for making serious allegations in a court pleading without a proper basis.
Justice Rares said no evidence had been provided to support the allegations of fraud or misconduct by Mr Slipper.
"How do you get to a breach of contract let alone reporting it to the police?" Justice Rares asked.
"How is it going to be proved there's anything wrong (with the use of Cabcharges)... it may well be wrong, I don't know," Justice Rares said.
"(You alleged) It was a suspected crime, that's the point," Justice Rares said.
Mr Ashby alleges he saw Mr Slipper hand over Cabcharge documents three times, and Mr Ashby believed Mr Slipper was doing "something wrong" or "questionable" or "irregular".
In other evidence heard by the court Mr Slipper claims that Mr Ashby’s decision to give his legal claim to the media in April was “severely and unfairly burdensome” and was done for an “illicit purpose” of harming his political career and helping boost the political fortunes of rival Mal Brough.
Mr Slipper says that by providing to the media and subsequently abandoning these claims Mr Ashby and his lawyer Michael Harmer intended to expose Mr Slipper to maximum degree of vilification and to cause maximum damage to his reputation and give political advantage to the Liberal National Party and Mal Brough.
Michael Harmer and Mr Ashby deny these claims.
Mr Slipper alleges Mr Ashby acted improperly when he calculated that his lurid allegations would achieve "significant coverage", but Mr Ashby says this claim of abuse of process will fail if Justice Rares rules Mr Ashby was only seeking to "have his rights vindicated".
Mr Slipper also alleges Mr Ashby allegations went beyond what was necessary, that they were "gratuitous, salacious and immaterial".
And the only purpose was to give sensational allegations made in the originating application an appearance of reliability.
The abuse of process case is continuing in the Federal Court today. It is expected to finish this afternoon.
===
- News Limited Network
- October 05, 2012
CHILDREN have been asked to shower their favourite teachers in praise in a move the federal Government hopes will draw more standout students to the profession.
Innocent child would be raised to become a faithless fornicator - ed
Julia Gillard today used a schoolaged and pigtailed photo of herself to reminisce about her own school days, and launch a six-week competition to find the country's best teachers.
The winner will score a visit by the Prime Minister to speak at their current or old school.
Past and present pupils are asked to post a photo of themselves and a message or video on Ms Gillard's Facebook page telling of their favourite teachers of all time.
Already more than 100 people have gone online to share their stories, including one woman who said her old primary school teacher gave up her lunch hours to help teach her to walk again after she was in a terrible accident.
The Government hopes the social media campaign will start a national conversation about the inspiration role the best teachers can have, and their lasting legacies.
The competition comes amid Ms Gillard's "education crusade" in which she wants to improve teaching by only letting the brightest into teaching courses, and see Australian students among the world's top performers.
"We want Australian schools back in the top 5 schooling systems in the world by 2025 and we know that great teachers are the key to getting there," she said.
Under a $6.5 billion-a-year plan - the funding of which is still being debated with the states - Government money allocated to every school would increase.
Ms Gillard also wants only those with year 12 literacy and numeracy marks in the top 30 per cent of their grade to be allowed to study to become a teacher, and more training and support for teachers throughout their careers.
===
MT RETRORAMA
Tim Blair – Friday, October 05, 2012 (2:59pm)
2008: A column calls for retro V8 Supercar paint schemes – complete with an artist’s impression of how such a scheme might look:
2012: Ford finally complies. Check the paint on this year’s Ford Performance Racing entries for Bathurst:
The retro look is also in for Vodafone and DJR entries, among others.
2012: Ford finally complies. Check the paint on this year’s Ford Performance Racing entries for Bathurst:
The retro look is also in for Vodafone and DJR entries, among others.
No comments:
Post a Comment