Friday, August 10, 2012

Yes, Obama really is suppressing military vote

Exclusive: David Kupelian exposes most despicable form of election fraud yet

by David Kupelian / WND
  military
We’re all daily witnesses to Barack Obama’s two-pronged, slash-and-burn re-election strategy:
1) Tell astonishingly bold lies about your opponent;
2) Bribe the heck out of all your constituencies in hopes of cobbling together a winning voting coalition in November.
Thus, voters daily hear that Mitt Romney is a felon, has neglected to pay taxes for 10 years and gives people cancer.

Simultaneously, Obama bribes every group he can, wooing female voters by ridiculously conjuring up a Republican “war on women,” endearing himself to homosexuals by embracing same-sex marriage, making an audacious play for Hispanic votes with his surprise amnesty edict – an executive action he himself previously claimed would be illegal, alluring college students with promises of student-loan rate extensions, homeowners with mortgage aid programs, union member exemptions from Obamacare requirements, and on and on.

But to put himself over the top – to capture that last few percent of votes necessary to win a close election – Obama needs one more voting bloc on his side. That would be the shadow group comprised of non-citizens, illegal aliens, repeat-voters, multiple-state-voters, dead people, felons and others ineligible to vote but who will vote anyway – for Obama.

To help this last “constituency,” Obama’s administration is currently engaged in what can reasonably be called a massive nationwide campaign to enable voter fraud. The current issue of Whistleblower magazine, which I serve as editor, tells the whole insane story – but don’t read it if you have a heart condition.

However, what I want to focus on here is without doubt the most despicable tactic the Obama camp has yet pursued in its efforts to stay in power through tampering with America’s hallowed election system. I’m talking about something even more outrageous than the Holder “Justice Department” attempting to block states from enforcing Voter ID requirements or purging dead people from their voter rolls – and even more corrupt than the left’s ACORN-style “swamping” of election officials with thousands of new (and often bogus) voter registrations at the very last minute and their national campaigns soliciting foreigners to vote.

As you may know, last month the Obama re-election campaign sued Ohio state officials in an attempt to suppress, in that pivotal swing state, the votes of America’s military men and women – people who traditionally lean conservative and vote Republican. (CNN exit polling data from 2008 show voters favored Republican John McCain over Obama by a 10-point margin, 54 to 44 percent.)

Now, the Obama camp vehemently denies any and all suggestions it is suppressing the military vote, claiming it simply wants an even playing field for all.

Let’s look at it: Current Ohio law – being challenged in the lawsuit brought by Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party against Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted and the state’s Attorney General Mike DeWine – includes a special provision to allow military voters to cast their ballots during the last three days (Saturday, Sunday, Monday) immediately prior to Election Day.

However, according to the Obama lawsuit, Ohio’s special concession to military voters – an
acknowledgment of the difficulty soldiers deployed overseas often encounter in trying to get their vote in on time – is “arbitrary” and has “no discernible rational basis.” Remember those words, for as we’ll soon see they are the key to understanding this grand deception.

Because the Ohio situation is somewhat complex and involves several different bills and a bit of recent legislative history, I will only touch on the highlights, but will commend to you a good RedState blog posting if you’re up for an in-depth, play-by-play review of the relevant Ohio voting laws.

However, beyond a few right-thinking bloggers, reporters and talk-show hosts, the vast, perpetually mesmerized pro-Obama media – and even the establishment’s arbiters of All Truth On The Internet, Snopes, Politifact and FactCheck – side with Obama and characterize as “shameful” the comments made by the Romney campaign and the few analysts who see the Obama lawsuit for what it is – an attempt to restrict military voting.

Indeed, the elite press currently overflows with articles accusing those claiming the Ohio lawsuit is bad for the military of being both wrong and dishonest.

Really?

Is that why no fewer than 15 military organizations have joined together to fight this particular Obama-machine lawsuit in court? I’m talking about:

The National Guard Association of the United States
The Association of the U.S. Army
The Association of the U.S. Navy
The Marine Corps League
The Military Officers Association of America
The Reserve Officers Association
The National Association of the Uniformed Services
The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S.A.
The Army Reserve Association
The Fleet Reserve Association
The Special Forces Association
The U.S. Army Ranger Association, Inc.
AMVETS
The National Defense Committee
The Military Order of the World Wars

Are America’s armed forces wrong and dishonest? Do the Army, Navy and Marine organizations listed above not understand the issues of military voting as thoroughly as the experts at Snopes and Media Matters? Are the Special Forces and Army Ranger groups just plain dumb?

Or – is it just possible our military knows something about military voting that Obama and his sleazy lawyers don’t know? Yes, “sleazy.” The lead counsel on this case is none other than Robert Bauer, who author/analyst Matthew Vadum reminds us, “asked the Department of Justice to prosecute Obama critics and fine television stations for daring to carry an ad about Obama’s close personal friendship with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer, Obama’s former White House Counsel, is married to Anita Dunn, the Mao-loving former director of communications in the Obama White House. Bauer has been instrumental in whitewashing Obama’s radical roots by filing lawsuits keeping a bewildering array of the president’s personal papers hidden away.”

Should Team Obama prevail in the Ohio lawsuit, there are several possible outcomes: The judge could overrule Ohio’s Legislature and governor and resolve the issue by eliminating the three extra voting days for everyone, including military voters – something even the plaintiffs concede could be the result. That would hurt our soldiers. Or the judge could overrule the Ohio government, but impose the opposite remedy, forcing all voting precincts in the state to stay open all three days prior to Election Day for all voters in the state, not just military voters. That would hurt our soldiers even more.

What?, you may ask. How could everybody, including the military, having three more days to vote hurt our soldiers? Indeed, “what’s the matter with everybody having three extra days to vote?” is the current establishment refrain, its purveyors claiming incorrectly that all Ohio voters used to have those same three days for early voting. They didn’t: Although state law allowed it, local voting authorizes could decide if they wanted to implement early voting or not. Only “six counties had weekend voting and extended hours and 82 of them didn’t,” lead defendant and Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted told the Associated Press.

And why was that? Husted explained, in a Bloomberg Businessweek interview, that setting limits on early voting for most Ohioans – other than the relatively few in the armed forces – is necessary so Ohio’s election boards can synchronize the early balloting records with those at 9,800 polling places to prevent voter fraud – people voting more than once. And as Ohio’s state GOP chairman, Bob Bennett, said in a written statement: “Nobody is being disenfranchised here, as Ohio’s voters who choose to vote early can do so by mail 24 hours a day, seven days a week or at early voting polls.”

The REAL issue at stake here, the one virtually no one is talking about, and the reason it hurts the military if the judge forces Ohio to open all its polling places for all voters for the final three days, is the legal precedent that will be set – namely, that our soldiers cannot constitutionally be given a break, a few extra days, to get their votes in.

Friends, you can’t obtain “reasonable results” through abominable means and then call it good. (That would be like me robbing a bank and then going home and saying, “Dear, I made a lot of money today.”) The price America will pay to obtain in Ohio a totally unnecessary “three extra days for everybody to vote” (if the judge rules the way Obama for America is asking it to rule) is the creation of a new legal precedent that it is unconstitutional to give any special consideration to military voters. After all, that is precisely the plaintiffs’ legal argument.

But as the Ohio defendants’ legal response points out so eloquently, America has always made special concessions for its soldiers to assure their opportunity to vote, going back to the Revolutionary War.

“Unfortunately,” argue lawyers for the Ohio defendants, “throughout history military personnel have been prevented from … [exercising their right to the franchise] due to both procedural and logistic hurdles, resulting in their franchise being effectively ‘hollow.’” They explain:
The problem of how to allow those serving in the United States Military to cast a ballot has been with us since the time of our nation’s war for independence.
Dating as far back as the Civil War, President Lincoln issued an executive order declaring a cessation of military operations in order to allow military personnel to travel home so that they could cast their ballots.
In order to make sure that those serving in the Civil War had access to the franchise, many states authorized elections officials to travel to units in the field to set up polling locations and to collect ballots from soldiers.
Military voters – the shocking truth

Putting aside arguments pro and con, is there or is there not a serious problem in today’s America with active-duty members of the armed forces having enough time to vote?

Here’s a one-question quiz: During the 2010 election, what percentage of America’s military and overseas voters do you think were able to cast a vote that actually counted in the election results?

If you guessed “5 percent,” you’re too high.

“Tens of thousands of service members’ votes not counted” was the headline of a June 27, 2012, McClatchy newspaper article detailing just how seriously flawed the current system is for enabling the millions of men and woman in the U.S. military to vote.

The story includes the following shocking statistics:
In 2010, of the approximately 2 million military and overseas voters accounted for in data reported by the states to the Election Assistance Commission, only 4.6 percent of those voters were able to cast an absentee ballot that counted, according to the Military Voter Protection Project’s analysis of that data from the federal Election Assistance Commission, which tracks participation in voting. That compared with 5.5 percent in 2006, which was also a midterm election, the organization concluded.
The overall national voter participation rate for the 2010 election was 41.6 percent, authorities said.
According to that report, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted – yes, the same Jon Husted being sued by Obama for America – was so disgusted he told county election boards “it would be considered grounds for removal of board members if their agencies should fail to electronically send out absentee ballots 45 days prior to an election” to all military voters who requested one.

Maybe Team Obama didn’t like Ohio’s zeal to make sure our brave soldiers get to vote along with all the illegal aliens, dead people and others the left is so eager to have vote “early and often” this November.

It’s the same thing every election

This problem is not new. Ever since the Bush-Gore Florida recount in 2000, every election cycle has brought with it controversy over the counting of overseas military votes – which traditionally lean Republican.

Two weeks after Election Day 2000, Mark Herron, a Democrat lawyer in Florida, circulated a memo to members of his party throughout the state instructing them on how to disqualify overseas military ballots. The entire five-page memo, obtained and published by the Drudge Report, included tips on how to lodge protests against military ballots which were thought to heavily favor Republican George W. Bush.

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded the Coalition Forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, led widespread condemnation of the Democrat memo, saying: “It is a very sad day in our country when the men and women of the armed forces are serving abroad and facing danger of a daily basis … and are denied the right to vote for the president of the United States who will be their commander in chief.”

Thousands of overseas military members registered to vote in Florida complained that they either never received requested absentee ballots, the ballots arrived too late or their votes were rejected. In an election won by Bush by just 537 votes, Florida officials had disqualified 1,527 military votes for lack of a postmark.

In 2004, the same sorts of complaints arose. And in 2008, legal complaints, news stories and studies showed dozens of states failing to allow soldiers enough time to vote.

Then in 2010, ex-DOJ attorney M. Eric Eversole spoke out against the Obama Justice Department for its failure to safeguard the military vote.

Although Congress had passed in 2009 a law mandating that military personnel overseas be given sufficient time to participate in U.S. elections, the DOJ’s Voting Section was ignoring the new laws, potentially allowing thousands of uncounted ballots to fall through the cracks, said Eversole, a former litigation attorney for the DOJ Voting Section.

And according to a 2009 Pew Center report, more than one-third of states did not provide military voters stationed abroad enough time to vote or were at high risk of not providing enough time. The study found six states provided time to vote only if their military personnel overseas return completed absentee ballots by fax or email – a practice with privacy and security vulnerabilities.

Although current law requires that absentee ballots be shipped to military voters overseas a minimum of 45 days prior to Election Day, Eversole said in a Washington Times column that tens of thousands of soldiers received their ballots too late to ensure their votes could be counted in 2010. After the 2010 midterm elections, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission released data showing less than half of the 119,000 overseas military votes cast were counted.

Leftists are masters of projection; they reflexively accuse others of the evil they themselves commit. So when Occupy protesters display widespread anti-Semitism, rape women and defecate on police cars, the leftist media ignore it and accuse tea partiers of similar misbehavior, utterly without evidence.

In the same way, while leftist-engineered vote fraud is a genuine problem in today’s America, the left denies it and instead projects its guilt onto Republicans with indignant cries of “voter suppression” in response to the most mild and reasonable attempts on the part of state officials to identify who people are before they vote.

Yet there is one form of voter suppression that is real and vexing. It is being perpetrated by the left. And its target is the one group that deserves, more than you or me or anyone else in America, to be able to vote for our next commander in chief. And that’s our fighting men and women.

The Obama team is at it again

Dear Friend,

Disgusting -- that’s the best word that can be used to describe the latest attack ad funded by my Democrat opponent Patrick Murphy’s father.

I spent my life in uniform fighting for our great nation and protecting all Americans. The ad being run against me by my opponent's family depicting violence against women and senior citizens is reprehensible. It plays on stereotypes and fear to divide Americans, and it cheapens the very real and tragic occurrences of violence against women and seniors.

Stand with me and take a stand against the politics of personal destruction by donating here: https://www.allenwestforcongress.com/contribute.

The American people are suffering from crushing debt, horrific tax and regulatory policies, and epic unemployment. This classless ad shows a lack of regard for the issues plaguing our nation.

This ad reflects the sad state of politics in our Republic with those who seek to destroy a person's character to cover for their lack of intellectual ability and integrity.

Liberals have proven they will stop at nothing to defeat me in November. Help send the message you're ready to fight back. Will you donate $35 or more to take a stand against these shameful ads?

Donate here: https://www.allenwestforcongress.com/contribute.

Steadfast and Loyal,

LTC (R) Allen B. West
Member of Congress

P.S. We still need your help to reach our $50,000 goal by Tuesday. Now is the perfect time to donate and take a stand against these reprehensible attacks. Donate here: https://www.allenwestforcongress.com/contribute.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Remembering the Significance of VJ Day 

By: Marvin Folkertsma  / Townhall.com

Remembering the Significance of VJ Day
Consider this fictitious scenario: In the summer of 1950, President Thomas E. Dewey faced a national security crisis of extraordinary proportions—one that his advisors agreed likely would define his presidency. After beating his Democratic opponent in 1948 by a comfortable margin, Dewey received news that Soviet-backed armies in Korea, Hokkaido, and Northern Honshu had mounted a massive invasion of Southern Honshu, with the goal of unifying Japan under a single government. He knew that American occupation forces—under strength, dispirited, and still fighting insurgencies loyal to the emperor in Kyushu and Shikoku, as well as other scattered parts of the former Japanese empire—were hardly in a position to resist.

Although he based much of his election campaign on a “Truman Lost Japan” platform, he now lamented the fact that the war dragged on through the spring of 1947 instead of ending in the summer of 1945. That brought in the Russians, who took over all of Korea and carved out an occupation zone in northern Japan, transforming it into one of their notorious “people’s republics.” The United Nations could do nothing—the Russians had the veto—and Americans were sick of war. What was the United States going to do? Use atomic bombs to stop the invasion? Unthinkable! Especially not with the Russians also having tested an atomic weapon during the previous fall.

The new American president slumped in his chair in the oval office, disconsolate—and angry. China, Russia, Korea, and now probably Japan—all communist dictatorships. Where else would Joe Stalin press his advantage? In Europe again, against Germany? Central Asia, perhaps? Iran? Pakistan? Victories whet imperialist appetites. And America was losing the Cold War. If only that novice Harry Truman had acted as tough as he talked…

Of course, the fact that Truman did, spared us this nightmare version of an early Cold War alternative history. In fact, in the months leading to the actual surrender of Japan, which occurred on 14 August 1945 (Washington time), a variety of morbid statistics on estimated casualties haunted the president’s thoughts. On Okinawa alone, American casualties ran to 75,000. And a horrendous battle it was—replete with flamethrowers torching caves filled with suicidal Japanese soldiers and terrified Okinawan citizens, tanks attacked by enemies with bombs attached to their heads, endless mortar and artillery bombardments—it was the worst battle in a war that had also included Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima.

Then there was the kamikaze. From April 6 to June 22, when the island was finally declared secure, the Japanese staged 10 big attacks involving 1,465 aircraft, inflicting tremendous damage, in terms of ships sunk, lives lost, and morale depleted. Indeed, historian Max Hastings notes in his superb account, “Retribution,” that “For the sacrifice of a few hundred half-trained pilots, vastly more damage was inflicted upon the U. S. Navy than the Japanese surface fleet had accomplish since Pearl Harbor” [italics added]. What was the number of aircraft available to Japan to defend the home islands against an American invasion? Answer: 10,000. Half of those were kamikaze. That’s not to mention suicide boats, human-torpedoes, human-bombs, and swimmers with bombs.

No doubt pondering this information worsened the soul hollowing-out nature of casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan, which President Truman had been receiving since August 1944. The most recent figures from the last week of July 1945, were provided by General George C. Marshall and entailed the loss of anywhere from a quarter million to one million Americans. Likely, Japan would lose all of its nearly three-quarter-million man army in the region, along with millions of civilians. For numbers like these, the word “intolerable” barely gnaws on the edge of one’s imagination.

Which of course brings to mind the way the war actually ended, with the dropping of two atomic bombs, the Russian invasion of Manchuria, Emperor Hirohito’s dramatic radio message to his people, and the signing of the surrender terms on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945. In the final analysis, by the emperor’s own words, it was the atomic bombs, and not the Russian invasion of Manchuria, that forced the issue: “The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”

So the greatest war in history finally came to an end. And not just to an end, but to the best conclusion that could be expected, considering the circumstances. And for the millions of lives, Americans and Japanese alike, saved by Truman’s decision, no better expression of relief can be found than in the words of notable historian and former combat soldier, Paul Fussell: “For all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live.”

Thanks to him, President Truman, and millions of other brave men and women, so are we.

The Rich Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes — And Then Some 

By: Jeff Jacoby / Townhall Daily

The Rich Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes — And Then Some

"We should ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more," he urged a White House audience last week. "We're talking about folks like me going back to the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton.… And here's the thing -- there are a lot of well-to-do Americans, patriotic Americans, who understand this and are willing to do the right thing, willing to do their part to make this country strong."

An Obama campaign ad summarizing "President Obama's plan" drives the point home succinctly. "Wealthy Pay More," the on-screen title says; "Middle Class Pays Less."

Meanwhile, the union-funded activist group Americans United for Change is out with a quarter-million-dollar preposterous accusation that Mitt Romney "has not paid taxes for ten years," thanks to the "many tricks" for avoiding taxes that "people who make as much money as Mitt Romney have … at their disposal."

Few things get liberal Democrats salivating like populist red meat. But if voters generally shared the left's weakness for soak-the-rich nostrums, Nancy Pelosi would be speaker of the House, the Occupy movement would be riding high -- and Republicans would still wince at the memory of Ronald Reagan losing the White House to Walter Mondale in a 49-state landslide.

But voters, by and large, don't yearn to see the wealthy stripped bare by the tax collector. In a new nationwide poll, Gallup asked Americans to rank a list of policy proposals for the next president to address. Respondents gave highest priority to "creating good jobs," "reducing corruption in federal government," "reducing the federal budget deficit," "dealing with terrorism and other international threats," and "ensuring the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicaid." Raising taxes on the wealthy placed last. Even among

Obama supporters, no issue on Gallup's list was deemed less important.

Blasting the wealthy for not paying their "fair share" in taxes may rev up what Howard Dean called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." But measured by any reasonable yardstick, rich Americans pay their fair share. And then some.

One reasonable yardstick might be the average rate paid when all federal taxes -- including not just income taxes but also payroll taxes -- are considered. The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that in 2009, the top 20 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 23.2 percent of their income in federal taxes -- more than double the 11.1 percent paid by the middle quintile, and 23 times the 1 percent paid by the lowest quintile. Even within the top 20 percent, average tax rates rose with income: The richest 1 percent paid 28.9 percent of their earnings in federal taxes.

Or perhaps a more reasonable yardstick would compare the share of federal taxes paid with the share of national income earned. The CBO ran those numbers too. In 2009, the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers earned approximately 5 percent of the nation's income but paid just 0.3 percent of all federal taxes.

Households in the middle quintile, which earned almost 14.7 percent of national income, paid only 9.4 percent of federal taxes. Yet Americans in the top quintile, who earned 51 percent of the nation's income, paid a whopping 67.9 percent of all federal taxes.

And the much-demonized 1 percent? They took in 13.4 percent of all income in 2009 -- and shelled out 28.9 percent of all federal taxes.

Reasonable minds can debate whether income inequality is good, bad, or neutral; whether "fair" tax rates should be flat or graduated; whether income-redistribution is a legitimate function of government. But what's clear is that wealthy Americans pay plenty -- far more than plenty -- in taxes. Maybe that's why voters aren't clamoring to make them pay even more.

Former Ohio-based Muslim cleric: People worldwide "thirst for the blood of the Jews"

From: Jihad Watch

Sultan has previously said that "every Muslim who meets a Zionist is entitled to kill him." He is the former imam of the Ohio mosque attended by the famous convert from Islam to Christianity, Rifqa Bary, and her parents. And what do you bet that when he was there, local politicians and non-Muslim clerics courted his favor, certain that he was a "moderate" and anxious to prove their multiculti bona fides?

"Egyptian Cleric Sallah Sultan: People Worldwide 'Thirst for the Blood of the Jews,'" from MEMRI, n.d.:
Following are excerpts from two Friday sermons delivered by Egyptian cleric Sallah Sultan, the founder of the Ohio-based American Center for Islamic Research. The sermons aired on Al-Aqsa TV on July 27 and August 3, 2012. 
Sallah Sultan: I travel all over the world, and I met supporters of Al-Aqsa, of the prisoners, of Jerusalem, and of Palestine – people who thirst for the blood of the Jews, and who are eager for the promised war against the sons of Zion, until Palestine is liberated in its entirety. .
[...].
Under the previous [Egyptian] regime over 30,000 Zionists entered Egypt every month, defiling its land. The Egyptian police were forced to protect them, while they were getting drunk and picking fights. .
There was a great scandal, when [alleged Israeli spy] Misrati and some Jews entered Egypt, in order to commit all kinds of crimes here: counterfeit dollars, taking photographs of military bases, girls with AIDS seducing young Egyptians in order to infect them, and the vilest act of all – for the price of one Egyptian pound Misrati and his gang would seduce young Egyptian boys from Cairo, Alexandria and Upper Egypt. They took young children who did not know any better and sodomized them.
Click here to see the video of this speech here:  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/former-ohio-based-muslim-cleric-people-worldwide-thirst-for-the-blood-of-the-jews.html
To my blog followers...

There will be no Op-ed today due to a personal matter.  My Op-eds will return tomorrow.  Thanks.
Obama's Bad Aim
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com


Romney has proven remarkably resistant to Obama's negative attacks.  While they are freezing the race in its current pattern, they are not eroding the Republican vote share.  The GOP candidate needs to rebut these attacks by pointing to the good deeds he has done at Bain Capital, but the larger question is why aren't the Obama negatives working better?

I believe that they are poorly aimed.  If you believe all the garbage about Romney that the Obama campaign is broadcasting, what do you have?  You've got a candidate who only cares about the rich.  You'd have to believe he's hard-hearted and not conversant with the difficulties the average family faces.

That's not the real Mitt Romney.  But neither is it a portrait of a candidate you can't vote for.  You don't have to be warm and fuzzy to be a good president.  You don't have to feel the pain of every American.  You've got just to be a competent, smart, energetic, activist who has the right answers for the economy.  And there's nothing in the Obama barrage that would disabuse anyone of that notion of Mitt Romney.

Look at the negative campaigns that have worked at the presidential level.  Each succeeded in depicting the target as a threat.  Barry Goldwater, in 1964, came across as a man who might plunge the world into nuclear war.  George McGovern, in 1972, was portrayed, successfully, as someone who would denude us of our military defenses.  Walter Mondale, in 1984, was a man who would raise taxes to new heights.  Mike Dukakis, in 1988, would release dangerous criminals back onto the streets where they might rape and kill again.  John Kerry, in 2004, wasn't up to protecting American in the war on terror.  His concern for civil liberties and his weakness, the negative ads suggested, would make another 9-11 more likely.

But what is the threat that Mitt Romney represents in the Obama ads?  That he'll give tax breaks to rich people?  That he'll salt away money in his off-shore accounts?  There's no threat there.  No looming danger.  No worst case scenario.

Why not?  Because Romney is too elusive a target to make him a threat.  He'll repeal Obamacare, but people want that.  He'll cut government spending but that will reduce the deficit and that's popular.  Obama can accuse him of gutting Medicare, but Romney has explicitly distanced himself from the intial Ryan Plan and embraced only the amended version that lets people keep their current Medicare if they wish.

The price Obama has to pay for his dismal record is that he can't win merely by painting his opponent as hard hearted and out of touch.  His supposed hands-on understanding of the problems of America's families hasn't done them much good as unemployment continues and economic growth slows.

Romney, on the other hand, has failed to transform his negative attacks on Obama's record into personal shortcomings.  It is not enough to say that Obama's programs haven't worked and that he has not kept his promises.  You must then say that he is incompetent and hasn't a clue about what to do.  Romney needs to show that Obama is, indeed, an "amateur" as Bill Clinton allegedly called him, in over his head, with no solutions.

Romney needs to ask what skills Obama brought to the job of saving the economy?  He's a lawyer, after all, and a community organizer after that.  The failures of the Obama record need to become evidence of his incompetence for them to have their full effect.

Oddly, even as both campaigns get more vicious, none is going for the jugular.  Obama paints Romney as remote, cold, and out of touch, but not as a danger or a threat.  Romney says Obama has bad ideas and ill conceived policies but he doesn't go the next step and call his competence in economics into question.

But Obama has a problem.  Romney is really not a threat and Obama really is incompetent.