Must have been quite the party. About two weeks ago, the Democratic National Conventions committee reported to the Charlotte police that almost $500,000 in electronics went missing during their convention last summer. About 13 percent of the electronics they sent are gone.
President Obama’s political party – the Democrat National Committee – will not repay millions Duke Energy provided to help pay for the September, 2012 Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Our old “friend” Stephanie Cutter, Øbama deputy campaign manager, in yet another Romney attack, cited “a strongly worded anti-Mitt Romney editorial” from the official state news agency (read it: propaganda wing) of the Chinese Communist Party, Xinhua. (UPDATE: Joe Biden also cites this Chinese article to attack Romney.)
I know what you are thinking. Yes, even though parts of it read like a Democrat press releases or talking point memos, or a New York Times editorial, once you get past the obvious “why is the DNC citing ChiCom controlled news agencies?”, the rest of the article makes you wonder who is really being criticized. Sure, they lambasted Romney for “China battering”:
“While addressing a rally in the U.S. state of Virginia on Thursday, Romney, just as what he has done along his campaign trail, opened fire on China, claiming that it was Beijing’s undervalued RMB currency that forced U.S. manufacturers out of job.
What is more sensational is that this millionaire GOP candidate has vowed to declare China a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency if elected.
Yet it is rather ironic that a considerable portion of this China-battering politician’s wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics.”
And the latter is, of course the “money line” that Cutter wants you to hear and stop reading, but if you take the time to actually read the rest of the article, it is a real stretch to apply most of it to Romney: it actually turns out to be a criticism of Øbama’s policies:
“However, the U.S. economy is still undergoing one of the lousiest recoveries in history, while its unemployment rates remain staggeringly high and trade deficits with China continue to rise.”
“It has also become a handy tool for U.S. politicians who try to court the votes and support of ill-informed voters by ratcheting up antagonistic sentiment towards China, while truly serious social and economic woes within the United States have been left unfixed.”
Isn’t it obvious who is really making the “outsourcing” attacks? Who is supposedly in charge of the economy? You sure can’t say Romney is. And more:
“To cure its economic ailments, the United States needs to put its own fiscal house back in order, substantially slash its tremendous military expenditure, and optimize its economic structure.”
Now that sounds more like a condemnation of the past four years of this administration than anything else. But that isn’t the message Xinhua wants to put across. Notice how the name of Øbama is only mentioned in a Romney quote? One can understand why China doesn’t like “China battering”, and seeks to defend against it, but it is the Democrats who squeal loudest about job outsourcing, while Romney’s criticism is focused on the monetary manipulation of the Chinese yuan to further advantage the Chinese economy.
Could the lack of serious criticism of Øbama himself by Xinhua reflect a likely Chinese preference for the acquiescent, apologizing-for-America and bowing-to-foreign-leaders Øbama and his “disarm America” (directly and indirectly) as opposed to a pro military Romney? Could Øbama’s rank ineptitude in fixing the American economy (ironically borrowing from China to fund his schemes) be more beneficial to China than an economically revitalized economy under Romney?
If, as they claim, “a considerable portion of this China-battering politician’s wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics”, that would be in China’s favor. Why would they be criticizing Romney and not the Democrats and Øbama in particular?
Perhaps because these claims are an exaggeration or aren’t really true? What is “a considerable portion”? They don’t say. Isn’t anyone buying a cheap Chinese DVD player “doing business with Chinese companies”?
Here is an interesting point: a search of Xinhua’s site for “Obama” reveals news from the Middle East, a pro Øbama article, another attack on Romney, lots more ME news, more pro Øbama post convention news (here and here), and it continues on and on. Check for yourself. You really get the impression that the Chinese are hesitant to criticize Øbama too much. Or at all.
Considering that Øbama has done more than any other president to put us in China’s thrall, and China’s subtle appreciation of that, do you think it might have been a mistake (on several levels) by the Democrats to cite Xinhua?
Maybe they should stick to reading and citing domestic propaganda sources, like the NYTimes and the Washington Post….
I think the title says it all.
Drudge posted a well substantiated story (and here) about the backdrop images used to “honor” our veterans on the last night of the Democratic convention. It was an image of four Russian Federation ships that are part of their Black Sea Fleet. It also contained seven American F-5 trainer jets that appear to have been Photoshopped into the erroneous image. The image was a backdrop for both Adm. Nathman and John Kerry. In the case of Kerry, it made me laugh out loud.
Either the use of these images was deliberate or an act of incompetence. I will give the Dems the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter. I am sure that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC’s version of Baghdad Bob, will insist that they are American warships, and there were no Russian ships.
The DNC finally concocted an “apology“, blaming it on some “vendor error” using the opportunity to slam Romney and demonstrate Øbama’s “strong record on issues that impact those who have served our nation”. Of course, they couldn’t explain what a “vendor error” was, or how the American F-5’s flying overhead got there, since they aren’t used by the Russian Federation. Clearly, they couldn’t find any military personnel to use as consultants.
The Navy Times article was a masterful attempt at restrained disbelief, although the attached comments say it all:
Many Navy Times readers have cite the image’s erroneous broadcast as evidence that the Democratic Party was out of touch with veterans.
“A retired admiral with a shot of Soviet-era ships behind him,” one reader, who said he was a Navy vet, commented via Facebook. “Is the Democratic Party that far removed that they can’t check up on a simple picture?”
[Added by Steve] This is a minor issue, that certainly will tick off sailors and Navy retirees. I almost guarantee some graphic designer plucked the image of a warship from iStockPhoto or something and used it for the slide. They got a bit creative and layered on a few fighter jets. That graphic design “professional” would not know the difference as to what is what. That said, if the same mistake was made by the RNC, the DNC and the press would be all over it.
In other words, I don’t expect the head of the DNC and/or the leader of a political party to review every word and slide used at a convention or a campaign appearance. It’s a fun poke, but really does not tell us anything new or important about the DNC or their candidates.
UPDATE: The Daily Caller has discovered that, based on the paint scheme and the flying formation, the seven jets in the backdrop were actually Turkish jets, old F-5’s sold to Turkey and other countries.
Maybe they should stop using teenagers to cut and paste together their backdrops….
Some people think the location for a political parties national convention is a pretty big deal. It’s like any other big convention I guess … with millions and millions of revenue pouring into the city. Michelle Obama was kind enough to send me a note and let me know they are heading to Charlotte in Sept. 2012.
Limos. Caviar. Chartered jets. Private parties. Drinks. Entertainment. The reason both Republicans and Democrats spend millions of dollars each year is directly tied to the billions of dollars flowing from the federal government to union gigs and special interest groups.
A few months ago I took one for the team and subscribed to e-mail alerts from the Obama campaign and family. It was so nice to get personal e-mails from Michelle reminding me I only had until midnight to donate to the campaign for a chance to have a front row seat to history on election night. Goody.
Anyway, yesterday I got an e-mail from David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama. He asked for all of us to donate directly to the Democrat National Committee since they are broke.