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.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Obama — Words to Haunt You…..or Words to Vaunt You?”

  1. Invisible Mikey November 10, 2012 at 8:14 PM #

    You’ve left out the ground game, and the fact that the O Team had better tech than the R Team. Even if everything you said is accurate, Obama had 100 more field offices in Ohio, for example. Team Romney derided them for spending so much on the face-to-face, block by block campaign effort. The Dems expanded the percentages of all their key constituencies by forging personal relationships, while Romney didn’t even maintain McCain’s percentages with minorities and women.

    And then there was the debacle of ORCA, the GOP super-database app that crashed and burned on Election Day. Because of that Romney couldn’t even monitor his own numbers, or direct field workers toward action! Imagine the embarrassment of having to watch it all unfold and collapse on CNN, like an ordinary viewer.

    • RME KRNL November 11, 2012 at 1:09 PM #

      Thanks for commenting, Invisible. Good points all. But I didn’t try to cover everything. I was concerned the article had gotten a little long as it was.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: