Tag Archives: 2012 election

IT WAS NOT ONLY ABOUT STUFF

Rush Limbaugh and much of the punditry have been charging forth with the exclamation that Obama’s victory was all about “free stuff.”  It was about free stuff but it wasn’t all about free stuff.

If it were all about free stuff how would you explain George Soros.  He didn’t back Obama to get a free phone and food stamps.  If color didn’t play a part how do you explain why 97% of voters in 13 heavily black Philadelphia districts voted for Obama?  If it was all about getting free stuff how do you explain the overwhelming support of millionaires and billionaires in Hollywood who stand to see their net incomes disproportionately reduced by Obama’s vow that he will raise their taxes?

It was about free stuff from phones to Obamacare, but it was also about color, guilt and a collection of true believers, the supporters who Lenin dubbed useful idiots.  The election was about a lot of things.

When over the years you have lost academia, the youth, the main stream media, the entertainment industry, voting immigrants, the Jewish vote and even the conservationists, by what reasoning do you think you can win an election against a black man who, in addition to the above has over 90% of the black vote?

The Great American Experiment lifted more people out of poverty than any other form of government in history but now we are going to try something else.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill the voters have chosen to abandon the path of unequal prosperity and start down the road to equal misery.

SNIPPETS FROM ELSEWHERE

Peggy Noonan, always interesting had this to say about the narcissism of Barack Obama.  Considering that his programs are not working, Peggy said,

It is one thing to think you’re Lebron.  It’s another thing to keep missing the basket and losing games and still think you’re Lebron.

That’s our President.  The Democratic Party has gone far astray from the days when the Party’s President kept a sign right on his desk that read “The Buck Stops Here” and he took that very seriously.  In case you are too young to remember who that was, here’s a clue or two.  His adult daughter played the piano and the President lived with his wife in a very modest home smack in the middle of that now disdainful fly-over country.  Mr. Barack H. Obama is the very antithesis of Harry S. Truman.

From Caroline Glick, denouncing the Dunham sex ad designed to appeal to young voters with the message that voting is like a woman giving up her virginity; it should be done with the right man and that man should be Barack Obama, Glick’s response is:

It is demeaning and contemptuous of women. It reduces us to sexual objects. When called on to vote, as far as Obama is concerned, as slaves to our passions, we make our decisions not based on our capacity for rational choice. Rather we choose our leaders solely on the basis of our sexual desires.

Beyond the ad’s bald attempt to impersonalize, generalize and cheapen the most personal act human beings engage in, the ad is repulsive because it takes for granted that what happens in our private lives is the government’s business.

That’s our President.  Here is one more snippet from elsewhere.

“Did you see what President Obama said today? He asked his supporters to vote for revenge — for revenge,” Romney said. “Instead I ask the American people to vote for love of country.”

That’s our next President.  How refreshing.  It is a breath of fresh air coming out of a world of pollution.

 

THE INCREDIBLE NEW YORK TIMES

Ten days prior to election day, or more significantly, after nearly four years of Obama’s governance, the New Youk Times looks at his record and has this to say.

President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him

In the Online edition a photograph of Abraham Lincoln appears beside that comment.  Subtle, isn’t it.  Those “sensible budget policies” were so outrageous that not one single Democrat voted for the his Budget Proposals.

In the poisonous atmosphere of this campaign, it may be easy to overlook Mr. Obama’s many important achievements, including carrying out the economic stimulus, saving the auto industry, improving fuel efficiency standards, and making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.

Sadly the day is past when the New York Times editors had a little class and knew enough to call their own candidate President and not Mr.

Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression. Mr. Obama championed [programs] like the $840 billion stimulus bill. Republicans say it failed, but it created and preserved 2.5 million jobs and prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent. Poverty would have been much worse without the billions spent on Medicaid, food stamps and jobless benefits.

Obama “prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent.”  Isn’t that just dandy.  Give him another four years and he may do twice as well; he may prevent unemployment from reaching 24 percent.

Foreign Affairs. Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership.

Mr. Obama deserves credit for his handling of the Arab Spring.

These statements are understandable if the only news the editors read is what’s printed in their own newspaper.

Civil Rights. The extraordinary fact of Mr. Obama’s 2008 election did not usher in a new post-racial era. In fact, the steady undercurrent of racism in national politics is truly disturbing.

Yes, it’s very disturbing.  And as the Times implies, it has worsened over the last four years, yet this is somehow Bush’s fault.  The editors must have struggled over this one to no avail if the best excuse they could come up with was to blame Bush again.

For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need (emphasis ours).

The endorsement of the Democrat was fully expected.  The Times endorsed Lincoln and he was probably the only Republican endorsement the paper ever made.  Their star correspondent Walter Duranty did give a hearty endorsement of Joseph Stalin but I don’t think Stalin was a Republican and Duranty wasn’t an editor.

LET’S CALL IT A DRAW

President Obama needed a clear win to stem the slide.  He didn’t get it.  As in the Biden-Ryan debate, the Republican came across as a gentleman, the Democrat as more articulate and assertive.  It is difficult to judge the net effect on the election without knowing how well informed the undecided are.  Polls show unwavering support for each candidate at around the 47% level.  It is the relatively small group of undecided voters who will determine who the next president will be.

Right out of the box Obama painted his administration as one that gave strong support to the increased use of coal, the pipeline to Canada and made expansion of exploration and drilling for domestic oil and gas a priority.  Every one of those assertions is exactly the opposite of the truth.  But how many of the undecided viewers know that?  Obama also said that what we need is efficient energy.  How many undecided voters know that wind and solar are the least efficient and that’s why they need government subsidies to exist?  How many know the Solyndra story, not just the headlines but the full story?

Two down, one to go.  If the third is anywhere close to a draw, Obama’s record on the economy will cost him the election as well it should.

WHY ARE OBAMA’S VOTER POLLS SO STRONG WHEN HIS RECORD IS SO BAD? Part II

In our first post exploring the dichotomy between Obama’s poor record and strong support we explained that with true believers his record doesn’t count.  He’s a Democrat and he is black, and that is good enough.  But there is another and more disturbing reason for the apparent dichotomy.  We are approaching Tocqueville time in America.

The answer may lie in the very nature of democracy itself.  If that’s the case, we can’t say we weren’t warned.  Aristotle said democracy would lead to great corruption.  Plato warned that the demos (the masses) lacked sufficient understanding to differentiate the charmers from the honest and capable candidates and they would choose the charmers.  Given the nature of man and the fact that in any society the masses will outnumber the elites, both philosophers held that democracy would lead to the demos voting largesse unto themselves from the nation’s accumulated wealth to the ultimate detriment of the entire society.

Aristotle and Plato did not have the benefit of history to confirm their opinions because democracy was a new concept in their day.  But Alexis de Tocqueville, a noted French writer and historian who came more than 2,000 years later did look back on the rise and fall of great empires some of which were limited democracies.

Tocqueville was born to French aristocracy and lived during the period of the French Revolution.  He was a keen observer of the American Experiment that combined free markets, rights to private property and a level of democracy theretofore unknown.  The young Frenchman noted at the time that the “experiment” was a great success.  However, as our long running sidebar suggests, he also warned that over time the public will vote themselves more and more benefits until the government’s treasury is depleted and the system collapses in fiscal insolvency.  Usually to be followed by some form of despotic governance.

Obama is a charmer, Romney is not.  Obama promises ever greater largesse to the people, Romney does not.  The combination of true believers and largesse voters forms a base of unwavering support.  The stable of true believers is relatively static; but the percentage of largesse voters grows over time.  The time Tocqueville gave for the American democracy to run its course was about 200 years; we are well beyond that.  The 2012 election will answer the question, have we reached Tocqueville time in America ?

THE POTENTIAL FOR A LANDSLIDE

Gallup says the Presidential race is in a dead heat.  No doubt they are correct, but that’s now and now is not November.  Pollsters report the present and they record the past.  Pollsters shy away from doing something dumb like trying to predict an election.  They are smart.  I will predict the election.

Barack Obama will go down in a resounding defeat.  That’s where I am; here’s how I got there (thanks, Glen).  The President has lost some support among voters across the board except for blacks.

1. He has alienated the U.S. Military anew.  With timing that would be the envy of Jack Benny, buddy Barack slighted the heroes of the Bin Laden operation by conferring upon himself a metaphorical medal for gallantry in decision making.  In doing that he alienated a lot more that just a few Navy Seals.

2. Obama has lost a good piece of the support he had from the Catholic Church.  Catholic leaders know he deceived them; parishioners know Obama’s policies are at odds with their beliefs.

3. The Jewish vote is fading fast.  Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008.  The latest poll shows Obama at just 61% against Romney.

4. Campaign funding for Obama is falling significantly short, while at the same time money is pouring in at record rates for the Republican candidate.

5. The youth have suffered the most from the high level of unemployment.  They know Obama has had 3 ½ years to do something about it but has failed to bring about any visible improvement.  He has lost the enthusiastic support that the Democratic candidate customarily gets from young people in a presidential election.  Few will switch their vote but many may stay away in droves (thanks, Yogi).

6. Blue collar workers have seen the light.  The President, yea even the Democratic Party itself has given up on courting this voting group.  These workers have been thrown under the bus and they know it.

7. Core Democratic voters, those who always vote Democratic because it’s always the only thing to do, they will still vote Democratic but only if they vote.  Many are very disappointed with Obama but will never voice it.  Turn out could be low.

8. Paul Krugman says the election will be very close and Paul Krugman is never right.

SANTORUM SUPPORTS ROMNEY, LET THE HEALING BEGIN

Rick Santorum has given his full blessing to his campaign manager’s decision to work in the Romney campaign to bring Santorum’s constituency into Romney’s camp.  Santorum is expected to follow up with a full endorsement soon.

Mike Biundo’s decision to join the Romney campaign is a significant step in the healing process after the hotly contested primary race.  If the other Republican contenders also show support, as some surely will, Romney’s chances of ousting Barack Obama will be very good indeed.  Even hard core Democrats have lost a lot of their enthusiasm for the President.  They will not vote against Obama but many will not bother going to the polls.  Republicans, on the other hand, see the 2012 election as the most important vote they will cast in their lifetime and not succumb to the same lethargy.

Santorum’s support is the first pickle out of the jar.  The rest will come easy.  Obama has a little over six months to pull off a miracle on jobs and the economy.  What he could not do in 3 ½ years he is not going to do in 6 months.  Money is pouring in to fund the fight.  Mitt Romney is beginning to look like a winner.