Much has been made of how Obama is the first President since 1956 years to get elected twice with over 50% of the vote. Left alone, that figure seems pretty impressive. After all, even Reagan and Clinton, both of whom were much loved by their respective parties and many in the other parties, couldn't manage this.
However...
Multiple news sources have reported that a much smaller electorate came out to vote than is normal. Yes, the 2000 was smaller (54%), as voters on neither side could muster up enthusiasm for their candidate, but in this really heated election, only 57% of eligible voters got excited enough to come out and vote.
Now, I still wonder if all votes that went to Obama were legit, but nearly everyone who's looked into this (on both sides) suggests that if there were fraudulent votes cast for Obama, there weren't enough of them to really turn the tide. However, I keep hearing reports that there were numerous counties where the number of votes exceeded the number of eligible citizens from those counties, and it's a plain fact that every state that required voter ID went to Romney. That last in particular keeps screaming at me.
But I'm not gonna call shenanigans, mainly because I have been poking fun at conspiracy theorists on the left for years, and I'm sure I don't look any better doing it myself. But the fact remains; only 57% of eligible voters actually voted in 2012.
So, when Obama supporters talk about how "loved" he is, and that he's the first president in over fifty years to get 50+% of the vote twice, they need to remember that he's only "loved" by 51% of 57% of the country. That explains why even though he won, it's still possible to drive from one coast to another, and one border to the other, and not even drive through a county that went to Obama, much less a state. To be honest, I'm not even sure the 29% of the country that actually voted for Obama "loves" him; they just didn't like Romney. Oh, sure, the liberal establishment voted for Obama, but rank-and-file voters? No, I can't believe they voted out of loyalty. They just got afraid their welfare, free healthcare, Obamaphone, etc. would be taken away if Obama lost.
So what happened to the other 43%? What kept them from voting? Well, some blame voter apathy. Not me; I blame voter despair. The fact is that as much as I, and others, talked about Romney morphing into a viable candidate, he never inspired much enthusiasm among the electorate. Many said he was as bad as Obama. Others said that he may not be as bad, but he wouldn't be appreciably different. I don't know, perhaps he wouldn't have been. Many are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and don't want to vote at all until they can vote for someone they believe in, and not just as a stop-gap measure. They're tired of establishment types who could never, even at gunpoint, truly relate to them and understand their issues. Obama could fire up people who were afraid their free ride would end, or just were afraid of Republicans in general. Romney simply didn't have the same ability to motivate voters.
The problem, as I've said before, is that Republicans can't look past the next election. Already I hear people talking about who can run in 2016 that will inspire the voters; why aren't they talking about inspiring people RIGHT NOW? You can't tuck your tale between your legs for every two-to-four-year period and then try to get people excited for a brief period, just long enough to convince them they should vote for you. We don't have many fighters on our side, and we're apparently trying to get rid of the few we do have. Allen West, Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy; we should be rallying behind these people and anyone of like mind who are fighting for the conservative cause, not just trying to get a career in Washington. And we should start fighting NOW, not when there's an election at stake.
We can start by impeaching the guy who just squeaked back into office thanks to a mere 29% of the country. Since his re-election, Obama has behaved as if he's invincible, what with the attempted gun grab, openly slagging his opposition using more open rhetoric than before (he used to act like Repub's were just curmudgeons; now he openly calls them the enemy), the IRS scandal, etc. He does this, I assume, while believing that enough people will blindly worship him that he can do whatever he wants. This is not true, but it could be if good men and women continue doing nothing.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Has Obama Finally Over-reached Himself?
Battered spouses. We've all met a few. They stick by their man as he ignores her, smears her and cheats on her. He may even beat her a few times. But eventually they snap. There's the odd story you hear of a woman just up and shooting her husband (or cutting off his...Bobbit). Far more common are the spouses who wake up and realize that they're slowly losing themselves. "I wasn't me anymore; I'd lost everything that made me who I am." And then they leave him.
Sometimes it's just a bunch of instances piling up, and sometimes it's one thing; one straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. "After that, I realized I couldn't do it anymore." It happens usually when the husband becomes so complacent, so sure that his wife will always support him no matter what he does, that he ends up finally crossing that last line; the one that wakes the wife up. Maybe he was always verbally abusive and disloyal, but never hit her, until the day his abuse ceased to be just words and became a physical blow. Maybe he beat her regularly, but this time he put her in the hospital. Maybe she accepted his beating her (on some level may even have felt that it was her fault) but turned on him when he started beating the kids, too. Maybe she was able to live with anything he did as long as no one else knew, but then he either beat her in public or another woman announced she was pregnant with his kid.
Whatever the case may be, the battered spouse that is the media has been putting up with its husband Obama's abuse and disloyalty for years now. Obama would never have gotten where he is without the media, and on some level, they know it. They buried his past and told America that it didn't matter when he was running for president the first time. All the while, they played up the foibles and odd past of John McCain and Sarah Palin, all while suggesting we pay no attention to that Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Frank Marshall Davis or Tony Rezko behind the curtain. They failed to ask him any hard questions, openly fawning over him, even helping him destroy Hillary Clinton.
Once their initial mission (get Obama elected) was accomplished, they moved on to phase two; protect him at all costs. They covered for Cash for Clunkers, a failed program that they insisted "worked". They talked up the Stimulus, another failed program that they, along with the Administration, claimed "worked". They praised Obamacare to the high heavens, acting as if it was the answer to everything, including unemployment. As for unemployment, they acted like that was no big deal, and faithfully reported that it was still at 8%, not counting those who had quit looking for work and had gone on welfare.
When one of the biggest scandals to ever happen to a sitting president first hit the blogs, the main press first tried ignoring it entirely, and then later acted as if it wasn't, couldn't be, the scandal that "the Right" was insisting it was. Of course, I'm talking about Fast & Furious. The fact that at least Eric Holder, if not Obama himself, isn't sitting in a jail cell right now awaiting his trial for treason to begin is a testament to just how thoroughly the Obama-obsessed media managed to make this story go away; a story that should have been front-page news. Of course, had it been, Holder, and likely Obama, would be completely done for, and if Obama managed to escape trial, he would have at least been made to look like a fool, and people would have started asking the wrong questions. It would have unquestionably cost him the election. So, like the faithful spouse they were, the same media that played up 9/11 as though they really believed the Truthers (all while denying they did) and talked endlessly about Hurricane Katrina as if Bush had personally created it, refused to touch a story about the Justice Dept, with full knowledge of the Attorney General, who reports directly to the president, who just about had to have full knowledge, delivering unmarked guns to Mexican drug cartels. When they finally had to talk about it, they decided it was just the fall-out from Bush's Operation Wide Receiver, despite the fact that Wide Receiver had been done in collusion with the Mexican government (the Mexican government had ZERO knowledge of F&F), the guns were marked and tracked (there was no way to track F&F guns, and the DOJ lost them until they were found having been used as murder weapons at crime scenes), and best of all, no one died as a result of WR, while hundreds died as a direct result of F&F.
Then there was Benghazi. For several months after the embassy attack, Obama refused to call it terrorism, refused to acknowledge there were terrorists present, blamed a youtube video, even arresting the filmmaker. And the press either didn't talk about it at all, or tried to act as though it didn't matter. Some are still talking this way.
In all that, the press stuck by him, and in fact, kept sticking by them while he fooled around behind their back. He denied them answers to legitimate questions. He frequently barred them from accompanying him in circumstances that the Press Corps always had. He would often hold "press conferences" where he would refuse to take questions. He even trash-talked "the media" in general when one or two "mainstream" journalists actually dared to ask questions that he was uncomfortable answering.
But now he may have gone too far, and the press is finally starting to notice.
I'm not talking about how a number of credible Benghazi whistle-blowers that the press simply are unable to discredit are now coming forward.
I'm not talking about how the IRS has been caught specifically targeting conservative groups for audits (including religious groups).
I'm talking about the revelation that the DOJ has been keeping tabs on the phone records of the Associated Press. Yes, it took Obama spying on them before they'd wake up and realize what sort of monster they married.
Now Obama isn't just attacking "them". Now it's not a scandal that they can shrug off because it doesn't directly affect them. Obama has stopped merely cheating on his wife and is now beating her, and the public has witnessed it.
To use another metaphor, the media has, up until now, been Obama's partner in crime (and I don't exaggerate when I say "crime"). But all they're really guilty of is being an accessory by covering for him. When the police catch a criminal who could "rat" on some much bigger criminals, one tactic they use is to assure the perp they've caught that their partners are going down, and when they do he'll go down with them, or he can talk, and let them take the fall while he gets a lighter sentence.
The media may just be at a point where it's considering "ratting" on Obama. At this point, they have to know that their credibility has been almost irrevocably damaged by the constant ass-covering they've been forced to do to support their partner. Now, they can either go down with him, or they can start singing. Recently I think they've been deciding on the latter course.
All that's needed is for Congress to call for Obama's impeachment, which is long overdue (he could have been impeached over his Cordray appointment alone; add on F&F, Benghazi and the IRS issue and he would be impeached in short order). We'll see, if that happens, how, or if, the press chooses to cover for him.
Sometimes it's just a bunch of instances piling up, and sometimes it's one thing; one straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. "After that, I realized I couldn't do it anymore." It happens usually when the husband becomes so complacent, so sure that his wife will always support him no matter what he does, that he ends up finally crossing that last line; the one that wakes the wife up. Maybe he was always verbally abusive and disloyal, but never hit her, until the day his abuse ceased to be just words and became a physical blow. Maybe he beat her regularly, but this time he put her in the hospital. Maybe she accepted his beating her (on some level may even have felt that it was her fault) but turned on him when he started beating the kids, too. Maybe she was able to live with anything he did as long as no one else knew, but then he either beat her in public or another woman announced she was pregnant with his kid.
Whatever the case may be, the battered spouse that is the media has been putting up with its husband Obama's abuse and disloyalty for years now. Obama would never have gotten where he is without the media, and on some level, they know it. They buried his past and told America that it didn't matter when he was running for president the first time. All the while, they played up the foibles and odd past of John McCain and Sarah Palin, all while suggesting we pay no attention to that Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or Frank Marshall Davis or Tony Rezko behind the curtain. They failed to ask him any hard questions, openly fawning over him, even helping him destroy Hillary Clinton.
Once their initial mission (get Obama elected) was accomplished, they moved on to phase two; protect him at all costs. They covered for Cash for Clunkers, a failed program that they insisted "worked". They talked up the Stimulus, another failed program that they, along with the Administration, claimed "worked". They praised Obamacare to the high heavens, acting as if it was the answer to everything, including unemployment. As for unemployment, they acted like that was no big deal, and faithfully reported that it was still at 8%, not counting those who had quit looking for work and had gone on welfare.
When one of the biggest scandals to ever happen to a sitting president first hit the blogs, the main press first tried ignoring it entirely, and then later acted as if it wasn't, couldn't be, the scandal that "the Right" was insisting it was. Of course, I'm talking about Fast & Furious. The fact that at least Eric Holder, if not Obama himself, isn't sitting in a jail cell right now awaiting his trial for treason to begin is a testament to just how thoroughly the Obama-obsessed media managed to make this story go away; a story that should have been front-page news. Of course, had it been, Holder, and likely Obama, would be completely done for, and if Obama managed to escape trial, he would have at least been made to look like a fool, and people would have started asking the wrong questions. It would have unquestionably cost him the election. So, like the faithful spouse they were, the same media that played up 9/11 as though they really believed the Truthers (all while denying they did) and talked endlessly about Hurricane Katrina as if Bush had personally created it, refused to touch a story about the Justice Dept, with full knowledge of the Attorney General, who reports directly to the president, who just about had to have full knowledge, delivering unmarked guns to Mexican drug cartels. When they finally had to talk about it, they decided it was just the fall-out from Bush's Operation Wide Receiver, despite the fact that Wide Receiver had been done in collusion with the Mexican government (the Mexican government had ZERO knowledge of F&F), the guns were marked and tracked (there was no way to track F&F guns, and the DOJ lost them until they were found having been used as murder weapons at crime scenes), and best of all, no one died as a result of WR, while hundreds died as a direct result of F&F.
Then there was Benghazi. For several months after the embassy attack, Obama refused to call it terrorism, refused to acknowledge there were terrorists present, blamed a youtube video, even arresting the filmmaker. And the press either didn't talk about it at all, or tried to act as though it didn't matter. Some are still talking this way.
In all that, the press stuck by him, and in fact, kept sticking by them while he fooled around behind their back. He denied them answers to legitimate questions. He frequently barred them from accompanying him in circumstances that the Press Corps always had. He would often hold "press conferences" where he would refuse to take questions. He even trash-talked "the media" in general when one or two "mainstream" journalists actually dared to ask questions that he was uncomfortable answering.
But now he may have gone too far, and the press is finally starting to notice.
I'm not talking about how a number of credible Benghazi whistle-blowers that the press simply are unable to discredit are now coming forward.
I'm not talking about how the IRS has been caught specifically targeting conservative groups for audits (including religious groups).
I'm talking about the revelation that the DOJ has been keeping tabs on the phone records of the Associated Press. Yes, it took Obama spying on them before they'd wake up and realize what sort of monster they married.
Now Obama isn't just attacking "them". Now it's not a scandal that they can shrug off because it doesn't directly affect them. Obama has stopped merely cheating on his wife and is now beating her, and the public has witnessed it.
To use another metaphor, the media has, up until now, been Obama's partner in crime (and I don't exaggerate when I say "crime"). But all they're really guilty of is being an accessory by covering for him. When the police catch a criminal who could "rat" on some much bigger criminals, one tactic they use is to assure the perp they've caught that their partners are going down, and when they do he'll go down with them, or he can talk, and let them take the fall while he gets a lighter sentence.
The media may just be at a point where it's considering "ratting" on Obama. At this point, they have to know that their credibility has been almost irrevocably damaged by the constant ass-covering they've been forced to do to support their partner. Now, they can either go down with him, or they can start singing. Recently I think they've been deciding on the latter course.
All that's needed is for Congress to call for Obama's impeachment, which is long overdue (he could have been impeached over his Cordray appointment alone; add on F&F, Benghazi and the IRS issue and he would be impeached in short order). We'll see, if that happens, how, or if, the press chooses to cover for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)