MEGA-DONOR FOR DEMOCRACY GEORGE SOROS: NAJIB’S NECK ON THE ROPE

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said he does not think that PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang will contest in his (Najib’s) Pekan parliamentary constituency in the next general election.

“I don’t think it will happen,” he told Malaysian journalists after attending the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit at the National Convention Centre, here.

Najib was asked to comment on reports in Malaysia that Hadi had expressed his intention to contest anywhere PAS fielded him, even if it were to be the Pekan constituency.

“Whoever wants to contest (in Pekan), let him,” Najib said.

Najib has been the elected representative for Pekan since 1976. Hadi is the MP for Marang.

Few in UMNO were surprised when Prime Minister Najib Razak recently announced the formation of a special committee to take charge of ‘sabotage issues’ within the intrigue-filled party. The message from Najib, who is the UMNO president, was clear – any member caught sabotaging his or her colleagues especially those contesting seats in the coming general election would be SACKED!

Now, is such a message anything new in UMNO? Not at all. Face it, the infighting in UMNO is common knowledge and widespread from the lowest level to the topmost hierarchies. Even the top UMNO leaders admit that sabotage in their party is real and frightening. Envy, rivalry and disgruntlement are often cited by many including former party president Mahathir Mohamad as being among the main reasons why UMNO and its BN coalition lost so many seats in the 12th general election.

Political ‘livelihood’ at stake

So why the big brouhaha? What is Najib trying to achieve with such a threat, who is he trying to scare and who are these mysterious saboteurs he wants to warn off?

Actually, most of those in UMNO who have the ability and means to wreak internal havoc are the established leaders with their own grass root supporters. They know the ‘ins and outs’ of UMNO politics and hence, pose a real threat to Najib. If they feel their own political livelihood is being threatened, they will definitely sabotage him and their own party because they have so much to lose.

But are they not afraid of being sacked? The answer is – not in the least bit! Some are even publicly albeit indirectly telling Najib – ‘Sack if you dare!’ If they cannot get what they want, then they won’t let Najib have what he wants too! That’s rule no.1 in UMNO.

However, for the time being the tussle between Najib and his critics from within UMNO appears to have hit a stalemate. None of those that he had hoped to cow have been intimidated into obedience. Instead, mutiny is in the air and it is only a matter of time before Najib finds himself kicked off from the party’s topmost post.

Indeed, if the issue – which actually is all about who gets to contest in G13 – remains unresolved or is not accepted by those who matter in UMNO, it will definitely turn sour and backfire badly on Najib.

Muhyiddin quick to jump in

His deputy Muhyiddin Yassin, whom many believe will challenge Najib for the presidency, has been quick to jump into the fray, saying that it was necessary to define what constituted sabotage as well as make known the type of punishment that would be meted out to guilty parties.

Muhyiddin also stressed that sacking should only be done upon finding concrete proof. Now, this really raised eyebrows. To many UMNO watchers, Muhyiddin was once again publicly challenging Najib – ‘prove it… if you can’.

According to UMNO pundits, an uneasy compromise has since been reached to the effect that apart from defining what would be regarded as sabotage as well as furnishing proof, any sacking should be carried out only after the 13th general election.

Foolish to imagine he could control the warlords

To be fair, Najib brought this problem onto himself. Infighting and sabotage have always existed in UMNO but now with the stakes so high, it has become even worse.

It did not help that Najib had maneuvered to secure a mandate from party delegates to be the final decision-maker as to who should be on the final list of UMNO candidates in GE13. This move alone alarmed rivals and ratcheted up party infighting by several folds.

But Najib was foolish enough to believe that such a ‘green light’ would enable him to ride roughshod over fractious warlords and replace them with his own men.

His naivete has indeed cost him the opportunity to call for a quick GE13 as well as exposed him to members’ wrath at the coming UMNO assembly. UMNO warlords have not only staged a fierce fightback but are now publicly thumbing their nose at him and his cousin Hishammuddin Hussein, the UMNO vice president and Home Minister.

Lip service

To head off further animosity against himself and his camp, Najib has assured that, since the UMNO party polls will be held after GE13, most of those chosen to contest for seats in the Parliament and state assemblies would come from the present set up.

But this is only lip service to pacify those who fear that they will not be selected them because of their affiliations with other top UMNO leaders who may not be ‘that close’ with the Najib camp. To be precise, those who fear they may be sidelined are those who support Mahathir, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, former premier Abdullah Badawi or Kelantan prince Tengku Razaleigh. These factions are all watching Najib closely.

It is an undeniable fact that as far as possible Najib will want to field all of his people. Najib also knows it is good strategy to make sure that those who are their own men like Tengku Razaleigh are retained in the UMNO-BN lineup – partly to prevent them from cooperating with the Opposition and partly to ensure he retains their goodwill, even if he cannot win their 100% loyalty.

Many incumbents especially in Sabah including unpopular Chief Minister Musa Aman will also be retained to stop them from helping the Opposition. Of course, this may have the counter-productive effect of chasing away those BN leaders completely disgusted and disillusioned by Musa’s autocratic and allegedly corrupt ways. But that is another story.

The question remains – is Najib agile enough to keep everyone in a good mood and the BN a ‘happy family’. Given that the majority of UMNO-BN leaders have become so pampered and accustomed to bountiful largesse through the decades, it is highly unlikely. A mandate to decide who gets to contest in GE13 is no magic wand indeed. It is more like possessing a piece of paper to contain a FIRE!

In truth, the split in UMNO happened in 1988 when UMNO Baru was formed and had riven further in 1998 when Anwar Ibrahim was ousted as deputy prime minister and UMNO member. UMNO has never been cohesive since then and has to depend on the support of non-Malays to survive in elections.

The frailty of the present UMNO Baru administration can partly be blamed for the wrong choice of leaders within the party since 1981. UMNO has not been able to find able, selfless, clean and sincere leaders after the departure of her first four leaders – Jaafar Onn, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Abdul Razak Hussein and Hussein Onn.

Money politics

What has torn apart and ruined UMNO Baru most today is money politics. Money politics and business interests are taking such an important role in the political reality of the party. Leaders climb up the political ladder not because of their honest intentions in struggling for the welfare of the rakyat and nation.

Status, financial standing and the use of money to buy support from members have clouded UMNO Baru.

The era of nationalistic struggles has long past in UMNO Baru. Since 1981 the frailty of UMNO administration can be attributed to the wrong choice of leaders within the party. Money politics started to rear its ugly head since then.

Political and business interests in UMNO have made the party irrelevant to the ordinary Malays. UMNO is seen more for the Malay elite groups more often than not supported by rich non-Malays.

Money politics is no more considered evil in UMNO. Aspiring UMNO candidates are seldom poor. They have to resort to money to survive and in many cases wealthy non-Malays will be behind these candidates and of course not without rewards after the candidates have come to power.

There must be a wealthy Chinese

A former UMNO leader cynically jibed, “Behind every rich UMNO Baru politician today there must be a wealthy Chinese”.

For this reason, it is seldom found UMNO leaders who are not filthy rich today. They drive posh cars, live in palace-like mansions, stay in exclusive hotels when overseas, own huge properties and businesses and their family members can be seen enjoying the same.

Some even go to the extent of boasting to the media that they are “rich and powerful”. They become a “celebrity” of sort in the eyes of some feudal Malays.

With power they have known to have demeaned critics as insignificant “mosquitoes” and feel that they have become the “untouchables” in the society.

This sort of arrogance by some UMNO leaders has made the rakyat abhor UMNO Baru. Today, the desire of every UMNO aspirant is to enrich oneself, get elected as leader and with some luck become a minister or hold high positions in government bodies. To prop them to higher positions in politics money is needed.

When they have achieved this, they surely have to pay back those they owe – those who have helped them financially to be where they are in now.

Not a culture in Pakatan Rakyat

Money politics has not become a culture in PAS or PKR. The trend among Malays today is to appreciate the way PAS and PKR approach politics.

PAS is essentially a “poor” party where leaders have shown more integrity in their struggle for the past 55 years. In PAS, politics is seen as part of religious obligation. It’s this humble factor that has made PAS more acceptable by the rakyat today.

Those who get elected to higher posts in PAS are not bought with money. For this reason they have become unpretentious leaders. “Behind every PAS leader cannot be found a wealthy Chinese”. The ordinary Malays are aware of this.

PAS being an Islamic party is against any form of bribery or corruption. Buying votes or money politics is against their faith and struggles in politics. Since the 2008 general election not a single PAS lawmaker has crossed over to any other political party or could be “bought” over with money to leave PAS.

Party members work for the party selflessly expecting no monetary rewards for their sacrifice. They serve the party as part of their religious obligation. This has made many Malays and non-Malays begin to cherish PAS more than UMNO Baru. PAS is perceived as a clean party with clean leaders.

As for PKR, this party is still young, having been born in the aftermath of the jailing of Anwar Ibrahim. Yes, it was founded to fight for justice for Anwar but the party has since expanded and grown.

Initially, PKR was the butt of jokes for its messy organization compared to the established political parties including DAP and PAS – its partners in the Pakatan Rakyat opposition front.

But PKR has managed to capture the interest of the young professionals of all races, notably the Malays, and this is a core worry for UMNO Baru which has failed miserably to top up its talent bank with credible and youthful leaders.

PAS and PKR do not condone money politics and they remind the rakyat of UMNO before 1981.

Less of UMNO Baru’s concern

The ordinary Malays are less of UMNO Baru’s concern. UMNO leaders understand the psyche of the ordinary Malays who are feudalistic. The rich politicians with the help of rich businessmen can easily “buy over” the ordinary Malays with little cash given to them before an election.

Bribery comes in different packages. Of late, it has also come to be known under different brand names – BR1M. 1Malaysia People’s Taxi (TR1Ma), 1Malaysia book vouchers etc.

Paying a one-off RM500 to the ordinary poor Malays, they believe is enough to make them vote for UMNO Baru.

To convince the taxi drivers just give them tyre vouchers. And to sway students, give them book vouchers. The list goes on just to entice the rakyat to vote for UMNO Baru. But the amount given to the needy is pittance when one considers the escalating costs of living in the country.

Despite all these gestures the ordinary Malays feel that they are not being cared enough by UMNO Baru. They perceive that top leaders are playing with big money when the ordinary poor are given pittance.

Political analysts opine that this modus operandi is not going to ensure votes for UMNO Baru or Barisan. Those given the money in any form would accept the “gift” but this will not guarantee that they will vote UMNO or BN in the next general election.

They are aware that the money given to them does not come from UMNO but the rakyat. It’s the rakyat’s money UMNO Baru is disbursing.

Backed by wealthy non-Malays

UMNO since 1981 has been closely intertwined with money and business interests. Today money has taken such an important role in UMNO Baru leaders’ political life. This has often been backed by wealthy non-Malays who have huge business stakes in the country.

Of late, the UMNO leader has even the gut to declare that RM40 million was “donated” to UMNO Sabah by some “unrevealed” sources. But the people of Sabah know that the state is being exhausted of precious timber almost every day.

They know who are involved in this timber business and trading. And they can guess where the RM40 million ringgit or more comes from.

UMNO Baru values are dominated by attitudes that are money oriented which are, more often than not, associated with some shady outside characters. This is ruining the party more than anything else.

Willing to spend millions of ringgit

Gone were the days of nationalism and the struggle to help the poor in UMNO. Past leaders of pre – and post-independence eras considered their political roles as a form of sacrifice and a struggle for the ordinary Malays and the country.

UMNO then was dominated by school teachers and village elders who perceived their leadership roles as a calling and an obligation. Money politics did not cross their minds at all. In fact, the three post-independence prime ministers of the country – Tunku, Razak and Hussein – passed on relatively poor.

They were leaders of the rakyat and had no bad records in embezzling the nation of its wealth.

UMNO Baru politicians of today are willing to spend millions of ringgit just to gain position of leadership in the party. And behind them will be some rich tycoons – Malays and non-Malays. Position in the party is no more considered a form of sacrifice and a commitment to serve the people.

This obnoxious characteristic of money politics in UMNO Baru is fortunately not found in PAS

UMNO Baru has been transformed from community type leadership based on respect, personal and informal qualities to politics of rewards. Some wealthy non-Malays are aware of this faintness in UMNO Baru and they exploit on this weakness for their selfish ends.

There is no free lunch

It’s not uncommon for UMNO leaders to rub shoulders with rich and opulent non-Malays and the latter will have no qualms about “footing the bills” for them. Of course there is no free lunch in political friendship and business. Help and support do not come free but with a “fee”.

Those who have helped them will be rewarded financially when comes the right time.

Money in UMNO Baru has become the evil that is nursing the devil. The devil cannot survive without the help of this evil.

UMNO Baru’s struggle is no more a struggle for the ordinary people but for the privileged, those with social and class status, the financial providers, cronies and family members. Nationalistic ambitions or social significance has become secondary.

It’s now all the hurry burry within the party among members to catch a ride on the gravy train.

Every individual in UMNO is being cultured to look forward for financial rewards by being a party member. The poor ordinary Malays are left out in this game involving the financial Philistine warriors associated with the warlords in UMNO Baru.

UMNO Baru has been reputed to entertain the concerns of selected Malays and non-Malays in the business community denying the fact that the kingmakers are the ordinary Malays in elections. And these peeved ordinary Malays have gradually abandoned UMNO for PAS.

Pave the way for PAS and PKR

UMNO has never been united since 1981 and had to depend on the support of the non-Malays in past elections. There are factions within the party and this has made UMNO Baru rather insubstantial and fragile.

With PAS getting more support from the disenchanted Malays, UMNO will soon have to pave the way for PAS to represent the majority electorate in the country – the Malays. In the present scenario, PAS is also getting the support of the ordinary non-Malays.

With a population of about 60 percent the Malays and the much touted NEP UMNO Baru claims not have to have achieved the needed equity ownership for the race. But the rich among UMNO Baru members, leaders and cronies are getting richer by the day.

Blame UMNO Baru for this misfortune. When leaders and their associates are well-heeled the ordinary Malays are living scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

UMNO has been in the midst of a spiteful internal power struggle since 1981 and money has played an important role in deciding who among the members would reign supreme – a culture deeply entrenched in the party now.

Apparently money talks in UMNO Baru when members jostle for party posts.

PR has earned the respect

Going by the perception index of money politics, the political leadership as a form of selfless service, sacrifice and struggle has become irrelevant in UMNO Baru. Monetary expedience has turned the party into a peripheral entity in the eyes of the ordinary Malays.

They have today lost respect for UMNO Baru leaders.

PAS being a party based on religious values has stayed away from money politics and has earned the respect of ordinary Malays as well as the ordinary non-Malays.

PKR is making waves with the dynamism displayed by its youthful and talented Malay leaders. It is a beacon of hope for multi-racialism in Malaysia and is leading the charge for change to a more equal and equitable society, where what you can do counts more than who you know and whether you are a Malay or not.

Both PAS and PKR are ready to replace UMNO Baru as the party that will represent the majority electorate.

Voting is your civic duty. It can also get you free stuff. Here’s a list of election day giveaways for voters (and non-voters, since deals for voters technically constitute bribery):Koch Brothers Linked To Secret Money Funding Massive GOP Grassroots PushThere’s so much secret money in conservative politics that even volunteers are getting paid — and paid well.Grassroots activists who used to knock on doors and make phone calls for free are the latest beneficiaries of the historic spending spree to defeat President Barack Obama and elect GOP lawmakers.“The ground game on our side in 2008 left a lot to be desired. If we had a repeat of that this time around, and it was a close election, we virtually were assuring ourselves of losing,” said Ned Ryun, president of the conservative nonprofit American Majority Action. “The outside groups are filling in the grassroots ground game that in 2004 was the deciding factor in Bush winning.”

The outside groups, including many backed by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, don’t have the contribution limits that parties and candidates have. And they don’t have to tell anyone — let alone the Federal Election Commission — where they got their cash or how they’re spending it, so it’s tough to know just how much they’re paying for canvassing.

Deep-pocketed nonprofit groups — funded by unlimited, and mostly undisclosed, contributions — are offering canvassers and phone bankers wages upwards of $15 an hour and dangling perks such as performances by 3 Doors Down, drawings to win iPads and the chance to stay in a “posh hotel,” POLITICO has learned.
The privatization of the conservative ground game — perhaps more than any organizing by the actual Republican Party — could give Mitt Romney the boost he needs to overcome what Republicans feared would be a huge advantage for Obama’s vaunted volunteer army and his allies in Big Labor, which has long paid canvassers and is doing so again this year in some states.

Liberals, in fact, blazed the path for paid independent canvassing, with unions and environmental groups routinely compensating door-knockers — to say nothing of the 2004 effort by America Coming Together, which used a good portion of the $137 million it raised from rich liberals like George Soros to pay activists to go door-to-door.
Republicans this year were determined to catch up. It’s the free market at work — and a fitting conclusion to an election where a network of independent super PACs and nonprofit groups that form a sort of shadow Republican Party is in the final stages of a planned $1-billion campaign.But there’s mounting evidence that their efforts — including improved high-tech voter contact systems — are making an impact, especially given that tea partiers and parts of the GOP base are less-than-thrilled with Romney. And some Republicans worry that the privatization of get-out-the-vote efforts is encroaching on the traditional turf and activist base of the official Republican Party.

for us not to share with you the company’s position on just a few of the critical issues and, at the same time, how each of the two candidates compare to our position.”

An email attachment shows that Romney’s positions on energy and taxes clearly line up with those of Saddle Creek.

Otto, who did not respond immediately to requests for comment from The Huffington Post, did reply to “Up w/ Chris Hayes” that “Saddle Creek’s communication was respectfully directed to its employees for whom it has the greatest appreciation. It was provided in the spirit of ensuring that they are fully informed on this subject. We feel the document speaks for itself and we have no further comments.”

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney speaks at a campaign rally in Dubuque, Iowa. (Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder)

The president of a Florida-based warehousing and logistics company that employs more than 3,000 people across the country sent an e-mail to his employees earlier this week implying that their jobs may depend in part on Mitt Romney winning the election on Tuesday. In the e-mail, obtained by Up w/ Chris Hayes, Cliff Otto, the president of Saddle Creek Corporation, wrote to his employees:

In the past, Saddle Creek has not felt it imperative that we communicate with our associates regarding the political issues that affect our business. This year the positions taken by the two presidential candidates with regard to these issues are starkly different. As such [we] feel it would be wrong for us not to share with you the company’s position on just a few of the critical issues and, at the same time, how each of the two candidates compare to our position. … We do not support candidates based on their political affiliation. We do support candidates that share our positions with regard to the key issues facing our company and our country. Thank you for considering what Saddle Creek believes is in the best interest of our company, and therefore our jobs and our future.

Courtesy of Up w/ Chris Hayes

Attached to the email was a flier (posted at left) which read:

We are getting close to a very important election and every vote counts. Never before has a Presidential election posed such a contrasting view on how to achieve success for the most Americans. Saddle Creek has a clear position on very important issues that have a profound effect on our company and the future opportunities for all who work at Saddle Creek.

The flier then lists the company’s positions on two key issues, energy and taxes, and indicates that it supports Romney’s stances on both. In a statement to Up w/ Chris Hayes, Saddle Creek President Cliff Otto said, quote,

Saddle Creek’s communication was respectfully directed to its employees for whom it has the greatest appreciation. It was provided in the spirit of ensuring that they are fully informed on this subject. We feel the document speaks for itself and we have no further comments.

Otto joins the ranks of Westgate Resorts CEO David Siegel, billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch and many other CEOs of small and medium-sized businesses across the country who have attempted to marshal their employees to support Romney. As Up w/ Chris Hayes has reported, Arthur Allen, the CEO of Florida-based software company ASG Software Solutions, has sent several emails to his employees exhorting them to vote for Romney and donate to his campaign.
Similar emails, letters and even election booklets from CEOs to employees have emerged, particularly after Romney himself encouraged such communication in a June conference call with the National Federation of Independent Business. “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections,” Romney said. “And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope, I hope you pass those along to your employees … Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision.”

Other CEOs taking that lead include David Siegel, the founder and CEO of timeshare company Westgate resorts, who sent an email to his employees stating, “If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.”

Richard Lacks, CEO of Michigan-based Lacks Enterprises, a car-part manufacturer, wrote a letter warning that if employees did not vote for Romney, an Obama reelection could result in higher taxes, lower pay and skyrocketing health care costs. “It is important that in November you vote to improve your standard of living and that will be through smaller government and less government,” Lacks wrote.

Steve Wynn, owner of Wynn Resorts, the third-largest casino operator in the U.S., went a step further than email, mailing a 67-page booklet to its 12,000 employees in Nevada, leaving some employees feeling pressured. Wynn told The Huffington Post, “It would be a complete disaster if Obama wins, which is why I’m urging my employees to vote for Romney.”

This election has always been a referendum on Barack Obama. For some, not on matters of substance. They can’t have it both ways. It’s hypocritical to distribute a vicious, false narrative about him while fancying yourself a patriot and a great American. Vilify a sitting president of the United States with fiction and innuendo, and you are neither.

I objected when George W. Bush was the subject of undeserved, hyperbolic criticism, but the baseless scorn heaped upon President Obama makes Bush’s detractors look diplomatic. The president, the office, and our nation deserve better.

It’s been unrelenting. The day after Obama took office, Rush Limbaugh told Sean Hannity he wanted him to “fail.” Later, Glenn Beck called the president a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred of white people.” Donald Trump’s birtherism took hold while words like socialist were uttered with increased frequency. And a prairie fire of falsehoods spread through the Internet suggesting, among other things, that Obama is a Muslim or that he refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, paving the way for Dinesh D’Souza’s fictionalized “documentary” 2016: Obama’s America, which characterizes Obama as fulfilling the anticolonial agenda of his father — a man he literally knew for just one weekend!

Among the usual memes used to undermine the president is the threat of some apocalyptic cataclysm, usually in the form of an assertion of federal power, like the seizing of guns. These predictions demand unthinking acceptance of the notion that the president, like a bizarre Manchurian candidate, is saving his nefarious agenda for a second term that might never arrive. By my count, the website Snopes.com has evaluated and debunked 103 of 124 Internet assertions about Obama. Just before Hurricane Sandy hit, Ann Coulter called our sitting president a “retard,” Sarah Palin mocked his “shuck and jive shtick,” and John Sununu openly questioned Gen. Colin Powell’s weighty endorsement as being motivated by race. At least earlier in the campaign there was some effort at camouflage. Such as when Mitt Romney aired an anti-Obama welfare commercial that falsely suggested Obama supported handouts (“they just send you your welfare check”) when, in fact, Obama was accommodating requests of several governors, two of them conservative Republicans, to try new ways to put people back to work. A similar sentiment was expressed by Romney when he maligned the 47 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes, overlooking that 83 percent of that group are either working and paying payroll taxes or they’re elderly.

And, almost daily, there have been dire warnings about Obama, often with sirens, from the Drudge Report. Example: the Sept. 18 edition featuring a hideous picture of Obama (eyes closed) emblazoned with the all-capped quote: “I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN REDISTRIBUTION,” a 14-year-old excerpt that conveniently excised the future president’s explicit embrace of “competition” and “marketplace.” No wonder I routinely field calls from radio listeners who, with no hint of embarrassment in their voices, say things such as “I call him ‘comrade’” or “he’s not my president.”

Their best evidence? Obamacare — crafted by the same people who wrote Romneycare. Critics ignore that the Affordable Care Act is premised upon personal responsibility and was born in a right-wing think tank. Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning website of theTampa Bay Times, called the idea that Obamacare represents a “takeover” of the health care system the 2010 Lie of the Year. And while some have also labeled the president a “socialist” for signing the $831 billion stimulus, no one ever used such language when Bush acted similarly with the $700 billion TARP.

In the final days, the critics have turned to Benghazi, drilling down on the shifting narrative regarding the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, but ignoring that, as theWall Street Journal reported on Oct. 22, “The CIA was consistent from Sept. 13 to Sept. 21 that the attack evolved from a protest.” There’s another problem with the criticism. Romney now gets intelligence briefings, too. Perhaps that’s why he took a pass on this kerfuffle when Libya was the first question at the final debate.

So why the attention on the recent 9/11? Perhaps to deflect attention from Obama avenging the first 9/11. Most disturbing, the president’s critics have sought to diminish that achievement by treating his order as a no-brainer. As a candidate in 2008, Obama was roundly criticized when he said (to me and others) that he would act on intelligence regarding the al Qaeda leader even if he were in Pakistan. To Bush that was “unsavory.” To John McCain, that was “naive.” Hillary Clinton said this was “a mistake.” Joe Biden said Obama “undermined his ability to be tough.” And Romney regarded that pledge as “ill-timed” and “ill-considered.” Imagine the criticism Obama would have faced if the mission had failed.

The reality is that there is much to be admired in the president and his rise to power. Replace Kenya with Poland or Germany, and you’d have observers rightly saying that only in this country could such a career path be possible. He is a loving husband and father who, with the first lady, is ably raising two daughters in the glare of the White House. He is an intellectual heavyweight. And his personal ethics have been above reproach.

Real patriots vote for or against candidates based on substance, not smears.