[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: Obama isn’t getting the message (wants more government "investment") Barack Obama was right in 2008 when he said “elections have consequences, and I won.” He took that sentiment to heart and consequentially used his majorities and super-majorities to cram a boatload of legislation down our throats. On Tuesday, Obama and the Democrats endured what the president described as a “shellacking.” Pretty accurate. But what are the consequences of this shellacking? Gridlock is likely because Obama is resolute in his belief that more government is the answer to everything, and the new majority will oppose anything that even smells like more government or more spending. Obama’s strategy in the next two years, if nothing gets done, will be to blame the Republicans, again describing them as the “party of ‘no.’” This won’t work because if nothing happens, the economy will still be in dire straits, and Obama will lose in 2012. The nation’s resolve against larger government will have only strengthened. If he wants to win in 2012, Obama has to get something done. He has to be able to point to some improvement and say, “I did that, so vote for me.” Herein lies Obama’s problem, and a decided advantage for conservatives. To the core of his being, his definition of progress is more government and more spending, both of which were rejected by the voters on Tuesday. Here also is where conservatives can hope that Obama’s idealistic resolve will actually preclude any chance of his re-election in 2012. He is unlike Bill Clinton in that he is true to his convictions (despite what he says about helping businesses). Obama’s beliefs and policies don’t fluctuate with the polls. Hopefully, Obama’s genuine belief in larger government will continue to be revealed over the next two years, to the point that if anything of value does come out of this Congress, the Republicans can rightfully claim the credit. The president’s press conference on Wednesday showed that he is vulnerable to his own ideals. His tone was humble and he talked of changing his ways. But the substance of his remarks contradicted this sentiment. Time and again he was asked whether he admitted the elections were a rebuke against his policies, and time and again he dismissed these ideas and blamed the slow economy. When asked whether he accepted the fact that the Republicans will not allow any more spending bills, he (quite unbelievably, given the circumstances) responded by rattling off several areas in which he thought legislation and “investment” were needed. The reporter, again offering some reality, stated: “things that you just called investments they call wasteful spending.” At that point Obama officially started the blame game, saying that “without any Republican support on anything, then it’s going to be hard to get things done.” Here again is Obama’s reelection conundrum: his idea of “getting things done” is government stepping in, and the majority of American voters’ think it is government stepping out. The Obamacare disaster was an issue the president repeatedly and stubbornly defended. He refused to acknowledge any threat of repeal, or that it was the wrong thing for this country. He mourned the loss of Democrats who voted with “courage and conviction” for the bill, and said “it was the right thing to do.” He still doesn’t get it. This is one of the most understated positive realizations for conservatives after the elections. If Tuesday’s historic shellacking didn’t knock any liberal out of him, then nothing will. Obama continues to think that he knows better than others what’s best for people and that he has a higher calling, no matter what anyone says. Let’s hope he doesn’t change his mind anytime soon because elections have consequences, and we’ve got one coming up in 2012.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#4. To: hondo68 (#0)
Is it really "investing" when the money is borrowed?
#6. To: Abcdefg (#4)
Apparently it's ok to borrow to cut taxes but not to spend.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|