Obama Won Promising Change, Not Overspending
In last fall’s campaign, particularly those parts which drew the most public attention, the presidential debates, then-candidate Obama often sounded like Ronald Reagan, promising to cut the waste out of the federal government. In the third presidential debate, he said, “what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.“
Just after his victory, he repeated that commitment, promising to “scour the federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts.“
Not only has he given us the opposite since his election, but he’s done so on steroids.
Now, Jen O’Malley Dillon, the new Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee takes issue with Rush Limbaugh for taking Obama, pointing out that “Americans voted in November for the very kind of change the President is bringing to Washington.“Â So, I’m wondering, isn’t Rush, in challenging the president on government spending, doing a better job of promoting the kind of change the American people voted for in electing Obama, given that Democrat’s rhetoric on spending?
Even our critics want to end the debate on the president’s policy proposals, contending “Engage in a debate over which policies will lead us? Didn’t we just do that? I think it was called an election.” But, given the president’s campaign rhetoric, it seems the president has changed the terms of that debate.
He seems to think that his victory in the fall gave him a mandate to do whatever he wants now that he’s in the White House. Kind of sounds like how George H.W. Bush treated his campaign rhetoric on not raising taxes and staying the Reaganite course. And look where that got him.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I think maybe America did vote for this kind of change. The media went to lengths to avoid discussing how much neo-Marxism was going to cost, much less, what the impact on the economy would be. And the McCain campaign was unable to articulate either an alternative or a coherent criticism. But those who voted for Oblameless knew what they were voting for, even if they had no idea what it would cost.
That, in no way, means that those of us who opposed it all along are obliged to shut up. Also, if people voted with the idea that Oblameless would not be as radical as he had campaigned and are now waking up, they also don’t have to shut up.
We are allowed to disagree with the direction Dear Leader is taking the country. We are allowed to criticize. And, yes, we are allowed to want *him* to fail.
And maybe his supporters should spend more time explaining why his policies are going to work (this time) instead of attacking those of us who, with history on our side, say they are going to fail.
Comment by V the K — March 6, 2009 @ 12:55 pm - March 6, 2009
For those who are now waking up to it, feel free to join.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 6, 2009 @ 2:08 pm - March 6, 2009
Dan, I’m not sure if Americans voting for Obama really knew what his program entailed or how he would respond to the econ-crisis… but I do know that the disaffected conservatives who sat on their hands on Election Day, helped contribute to Obama’s win and turned over the govt to the farLeft DID know what they were doing and they did it anyway –with a good deal of spite tossed in.
Some, even on this blog, waxed that McCain losing would be a good thing for America, a wake up call to the GOP, a likely rallying cry for the new conservative movement rising up like a phoenix from the ashes. For them, it was “teach ‘em a lesson” time –like politics is some schoolyard game with no real consequence.
Maybe the average Obama voter didn’t know what (sorry about this) “pig came with the poke”. But the more sophisticated and supposedly better informed value-voting conservatives who sat home on Election Day sure knew.
I still think the reason that conservatives wanted Obama to win was because, for them, political commentary is all about gettin’ to pitch a bitch… whether it’s over coffee and donuts, a meatloaf blue plate at Mary Lou’s American Diner or pounding down some brewski with the boys at the bowling alley after work.
Well, maybe they’d have found a way to pitch a fit even if it was McCain and Palin… but Obama’s win gives a waaaaay better selection of topics and there wouldn’t have been a “teach the GOP” a lesson time if McCain/Palin had won. Well, they did stay home and now we have to suffer Obama, Reid & Pelosi unchecked and likely 1-2 nominees to SCOTUS and hundreds to the lower federal courts.
What was that line that Rev Wright the bigot liked to use: the chickens have come home to roost? Yeah, that’s the ticket.
On your concluding point: “Kind of sounds like how George H.W. Bush treated his campaign rhetoric on not raising taxes and staying the Reaganite course. And look where that got him.”
I was on the floor of the convention when Bush 41 said that. I remember how it enegerized many conservatives on the floor; heck, I cheered because it sounded like Bush 41 was getting some spine.
I also remember Clinton’s camp running ads in ‘92 featuring that line to attack Bush’s credibility and trustworthiness, not to defend some new Democrat principle of holding the line on taxes. Did conservatives toss the election to Clinton because of “Read my lips” and staying home? Not exactly.
There’s an interesting debate about that myth connecting “Read my lips” to conservatives exacting some retribution via muscle flexing.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=AIA2008030601
FYI.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 6, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 6, 2009
#3 – Good points MMatt, but don’t forget the Perot factor in both 1992 and 1996. That is why Clinton won both times with less than 50% of the popular vote.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 6, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - March 6, 2009
Peter, you’re right of course. I’ve been on panel discussions at conventions since where we’ve examined the Perot influence on 92 at least… which was his strongest showing, right?
The best stats come from exit polling –which, back then, was even worse than 3rd rate– but the polling where aggregate stats are pulled, it appeared that Perot pulled about equally from Bush-Quayle as the little big-eared Texan did with Clinton voters. And I think part of the Electoral College overleaf concluded that Bush would have had to take 12.5% of Perot’s 19% –in at least 2/3rds of the states where SlickWilly was ahead less than 5 pts– in order to win in 92. Kind of tough odds.
But the one thing I walked away with was that the “Read my lips” led to a conservative revolt on Bush wasn’t much more than a myth… and I’ve heard it ascribed to Brent Bozell, most notably. Who, no one could contend, didn’t have a vested interest in making the myth appear real.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 6, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - March 6, 2009
This post is exactly on target. When Nancy Pelsi defended her unpopular stimulus bill by claiming “we won”, I wondered who she was talking about. Obama, his surrogates, and the media spent the entire election claiming he was a moderate and that anyone suggesting otherwise was an ideologically blinded fool. Now that the election is over Obama, his surrogates, and the media insist these policies were the reason people voted for him. Well if so, why did they deny these policies were his goals?
It’s almost like liberals expect that no one will notice. Luckily we have the media to keep them honest.
Comment by MJ — March 9, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - March 9, 2009
#6 – “It’s almost like liberals expect that no one will notice. Luckily we have the media to keep them honest.”
That’s a joke, right? The DNC MSM couldn’t even vet their candidate properly! How on earth will they be responsible enough to keep them honest?
(Shaking head)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 11, 2009 @ 11:02 am - March 11, 2009