Archive | November, 2012

Another “Historic” Election Results In — Status Quo Ante

13 Nov

Well, after about 18 months of campaigning, including the Republican primary season, a lot of political rhetoric, nearly three billion (yes, with a B) dollars collectively spent by both campaigns, three presidential debates, dirtier attack ad after dirty attack ad, countless robo-calls to countless households, not to mention all the political mailbox clutter and front door hangers, plus much angst on all sides of the political spectrum, the 2012 presidential election is finally, thankfully over. And the result after all that? Well, aside from all the robo-calls and mailbox stuffers finally and mercifully stopping, it’s status quo ante — pretty much the same as things were before.

So, Obama’s back in the White House, Democrats made small gains in retaining control of the Senate and Republicans made small gains in retaining control of the House. What’s new, Pussycat? All and sundry will claim this election gave them a “mandate,” but although Obama tromped Romney in electoral votes, the popular vote difference of only about two million votes, yielding a mere margin of 50 to 48, and 58 million-plus Americans voting against Obama, despite this year’s turnout being overall less than in 2008, all means no one really has any kind of mandate.

Obama will say, as he already has, that his winning means “the American people approve of my approach” and that he has a mandate to perhaps go even more liberal crazy than we’ve already witnessed. House Speaker Boehner will say, as he already has, that the American people still want fiscal responsibility and less big government interference. Obama will play his hand as if he and his ideology have been validated by winning reelection, whereas Boehner and Republicans would be wise to confront Obama with the fact that now he must make changes to get any cooperation from them and to enhance his presidential “legacy.” Obama’s first four years were largely spent on retaining his own job. His next four years, if he serves all of them, will determine how he is remembered as a president.

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who predicted a Romney blowout, now says this: “Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place. McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly. Obama’s dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney. That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America. This is not your father’s United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.” Gee, Dick, wish you could have told us all this before the election. Then, we would really believe you had a crystal ball.

“Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.” (Barack Obama, Democratic Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech, Denver, Colorado, August 28, 2008).

Exactly what Obama denigrated in that 2008 speech is what he, in fact, did to win the 2012 election. He never offered any fresh ideas, only incessant attacks and fear mongering about Romney. He knew he didn’t have a real record to run on, so he hardly mentioned it, instead distracting the public with this or that shiny object, making the election about small things — Romney’s taxes, Romney’s wealth, Romney’s wife’s horse, Big Bird, Binders of Women and Bayonets.

I don’t know if Obama’s success in getting reelected is due as much to his “brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America,” as Dick Morris said, or, more sadly, to the dumbing down of the electorate who are so easily distracted from the real issues by this or that shiny object and seemingly so increasingly enthusiastic about entitlements and “free stuff.” JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” seems not only long ago, lost in the media’s mystical mist of a Camelot which never really was, but also all but forgotten in today’s entitlement tipping point society.

The only “good” things about Obama getting reelected are that all and everything which Team Obama and its compliant, complicit, liberal lamestream media kicked down the road or hid until after the election are all back on the table now, out from behind the curtain now, and Obama’s got four more years to have to deal with them, while at the same time now having to worry more about his “legacy” as a president than his previous concern of constantly campaigning just to hang onto his own job.

The anemic economy he has to deal with now is his own economy, no longer Bush’s, if it ever really was instead of that of the 2006-2008 Democratically controlled Congress, and Benghazi-gate looms on the congressional investigation horizon and is even finally creeping into the liberal lamestream media coverage, especially now that it’s taken the salacious turn of CIA Director Petraeus’ alleged affair and subsequent resignation, the evolving details of which are equally as conflicting and confusing as Team Obama’s ever-changing Benghazi-gate story.

It’s a shame, after Fox News’ Pulitzer prize worthy and consistent reporting on Benghazi-gate over the last two months, that it seemingly required Benghazi taking a “bimbo turn” for the mainstream media to start showing some interest. Of course, the other reason was that they had to wait until after Obama was reelected, but now they will try to treat it more as a mere sex scandal than the national security breach and possibly criminal negligence incident that it actually was. Just watch the slant of their coverage to see what I mean.

However, I personally don’t think Obama will get to serve out his second term, but we’ll see. Remember, though, you heard it here first as an early “prediction.”

And, if you want to get more “down in the weeds” about why Obama won and Romney lost, Real Clear Politics gives a pretty good and objective rundown of 21 reasons at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/07/21_reasons_for_obamas_victory_and_romneys_defeat_116090.html.

Obama — Words to Haunt You…..or Words to Vaunt You?

10 Nov

“Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.” (Barack Obama, Democratic Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech, Denver, Colorado, August 28, 2008)

Remember the big, open air venue, with the fake Greek columns and Jesse Jackson in the audience with a tear running down his cheek? You almost thought Zeus himself would send down a lightning bolt, just for more dramatic effect. I now wish he had, aimed directly at the podium, but that’s just me.

Well, there was a big stretch between Candidate Obama and President Obama. Candidate Obama promised Hope and Change. Four years and a lot of broken promises later and our only hope was that getting President Obama out of the White House would be the real change we needed. And there’s been a long time between August 2008 and now. Almost four years of a failed presidency and a man consistently shown not to be up to the job.

But, in order to be reelected, there’s no disputing that Obama did exactly what he so eloquently criticized with some of his soaring rhetoric in that 2008 acceptance speech. And I thought it would backfire on him, and I was wrong.

“Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters.” Obama had no new, fresh ideas. His grand schemes, massive government takeovers, congressional and presidential overreach and upside-down economics have already cost our country more in his first term than all previous presidents in our history. And he didn’t propose anything really new if elected for another term.

Does anyone with any sense really think Obama will suddenly change, move to the center and become a fiscal conservative now that he’s been reelected? No, if anything he will consider himself more “validated,” more unshackled, or, as he said to Medvedev for Putin, more “flexible” to do whatever the heck he wants. He will be the liberal left Obama we’ve already seen, but on steroids.

And stale tactics? There are fewer longer-used and stale political tactics than class warfare, class envy and fear-mongering. Team Obama has been repeatedly guilty of all of these stock-in-trade but stale tactics. Romney was rich, so he couldn’t possibly understand anyone who isn’t and blah, blah, blah.

Well, Obama’s a multi-millionaire, too, as are most of his elitist, liberal Hollyweird and Noo Yawk buddies and contributors. And I think FDR and JFK were pretty rich, too, right? Oh, and John Kerry, too. No, sorry, that’s his wife, the arrogant and abrasive Heinz Ketchup Queen.

Anyway, I don’t remember much of a fuss being made in the liberal lamestream media about these guys being rich as such an out-of-touch disadvantage. After all, they either were rich because of their daddies or, in Kerry’s case, because he married rich, whereas Romney at least earned his own. Wonder why? Oh, that’s right, they’re all Democrats, which equals liberal, which equals favorable coverage from the liberal m-e-e-e-d-ya. Besides, the really sad fact is that you almost have to be rich nowadays to even run for president, much less have any real prospects of winning.

Obama hasn’t worked at an honest job since he was a Baskin and Robbins ice cream scooper as a teenager. Romney’s earned his own, so he knows what it’s like to work for it. When he and his family take a vacation, even a lavish one, they pay for it, not we taxpayers. In those respects, he has a lot more in common with most, everyday Americans than Obama does.

And, talk about making a big election about small things, Team Obama has done that this election season — in spades. Team Obama has established a new low in modern day political campaigning and perfected the politics of personal destruction.

By the time Romney came out of the Republican primary debates, Team Obama was already well on its way to painting him as a rich, white guy who was out of touch with regular Americans, who cheated on his taxes, who was either a felon or a liar, who was a rapacious, vampire venture capitalist who didn’t save companies and turn them around but who only closed companies, threw people out of work and made himself big profits, who was responsible for the death of a laid off steel worker’s wife, etc., etc.

Team Obama members repeatedly went on national TV and serially and shamelessly lied to the American people — from (a) DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claiming she didn’t know the political orientation of the Obama Super-PAC which was co-founded by former Obama insiders and whose board members she, as DNC Chair, should have had on her speed dial if she was doing her fundraising job at all; to (b) Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter saying she didn’t know anything about the laid off steel worker’s story, when in fact she had hosted a conference call with him only a short time prior, on which he told his story and she thanked him for sharing it with her; to (c) a whole host of Obamatrons either lying or being astoundingly uninformed about Benghazi-gate and Obama himself still trying to burnish his feckless and failed foreign policy by persisting that Osama bin Laden was (still) dead and al-Qaeda was decimated, although al-Qaeda affiliates had spread from nine countries when Obama took office to over 30 when he was making those claims, AND he himself was being burned in effigy, along with our flag, all across the Muslim world; to (d) Obama falsely claiming during the second debate, on national TV and straight in the face of the American people, while even faking indignation over anyone suggesting otherwise, that he called Benghazi an act of terror in his brief 9/12 Rose Garden address, when he clearly did not, as evidenced by a critical examination of the address itself and further disproved by CBS “mysteriously” releasing only two days before the election the rest of its same day, 60 Minutes interview in which Obama was asked directly why he avoided calling it terrorism that morning, to which Obama responded by saying, “Right” and then explained he didn’t call it that because he didn’t know who had attacked us — and through it all, Obama’s cravenly compliant and complicit, liberal, lapdog media for the most part repeatedly failed to call any of them out on any of it.

Then, as if all that weren’t enough, in the latter days of Team Obama’s campaign, they resorted to really irrelevant and distracting, really small “shiny objects” — Big Bird, Binders of Women and Bayonets — any- and everything to keep the voting public from looking backwards at Obama’s abysmal record in office but to once again believe in his soaring rhetoric and the renewed promise of another (or continued) era of hope and change, the details of which he never specified.

To any liberal, this article surely seems like sour grapes, but that is not the case. This former soldier and conservative will soldier on, and I encourage all of my fellow conservatives to do the same, for we have many battles yet to fight and win — arguably more so now than ever before.

No, this article is meant as an analysis of how and why Obama won, despite having one of the worst records of any modern day president to run on. He did it by using exactly the tactics he decried in his 2008 acceptance speech and amazingly made it work. The Obama campaign did significantly lower the bar for modern day political campaigns. They ran a dirty and dishonest campaign, pure and simple. But their “brilliance,” if one could call it such, was in that they made it work and they won with it.

The very words he used in 2008, which should have been used by Republicans to repeatedly haunt and taunt Obama’s campaign tactics, became the actual road map for his whole 2012 campaign — to instead vaunt him back into the White House.

I have described Obama’s 2012 campaign as the dirty and dishonest campaign that it was but will leave it to political pundits (poldits) more wise and experienced than I to explain what that type of campaign’s success says about our modern day politics and/or the state of our mainly disengaged, ill-informed and seemingly entitlement-enthused electorate.

%d bloggers like this: