GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Did Obama supporters assume that their guy’s election meant opposition would cease*?

by

One of the things I love about driving cross country, particularly when I traverse the beautiful empty spaces of the American West, is the opportunity let me mind wander.   I listen to books on CD, then sometimes pause the narrative to let my mind wander.  This time, I brought along a digital recorder so I don’t have to risk losing my thought or unnecessarily slow by journey by pulling aside to record the idea a piece of paper.

And pausing from listening to the conclusion of a biography of Lincoln, William F. Buckley, Jr.’s reflections on the Reagan he knew, Tolkien’s recitation of some of his work and now a history of Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, I recorded notes about things to do, ideas for my dissertation, images for my fantasy epic and thoughts about politics.

And from those thoughts I may cull a few ideas for blog posts.  One such thought (which I recall from memory not recording as my digital device is in the car) is how in various ways Obama supporters “repeat” his attempt to push one of his initiatives by waving his 2008 victory in their face by saying “I won” as if electoral victory should serve to ensure legislative victory, closing all debate.

We see this in the media incredulity at the protests against Obama’s big government initiatives and in the anger of left-wingers that conservatives refuse to let a Democratic victory silence them.  And we see it on this blog in such comments as “The ‘national consensus’ on health care reform that you claim doesn’t exist is called the 2008 Presidential Election.”  As if an election means a national consensus has been forged on all the issues the victorious candidate addressed in his campaign. (By that line of thought, there’s a national consensus for a “net spending cut”).

Do these people really assume that because Barack Obama won the presidential election he is entitled to see enacted whatever legislation he proposes?  And that conservatives should just accept it because the candidate most of us supported and the party most of us backed lost last fall?

Now, as you consider this notion, please note the opening paragraphs to this post and the way I expressed it, as a question, not a conclusion.  I put the idea out there for your consideration.  And expressly included it in this blog’s Random Thoughts category.

——-

*except when ginned up by Republicans and the evil corporate interests who back them.

Comments

  2. By that line of thinking the consensus on invading Iraq to protect Americans and to interrogate enemy combatants is called the 2000 AND 2004 Presidential elections.

  3. And pausing from listening to the conclusion of a biography of Lincoln

    Hope its a good one. Cus Hollywood is preparing <a href=”http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/” it’s own Where Lincoln will undoubtedly be portrayed as a Democrat, and slave owners as Republicans.

    DO these people really assume that because Barack Obama won the presidential election he is entitled to see enacted whatever legislation he proposes?

    Yes. You have to remember the natural order of things in the liberal mind: government is god, Obama is its son, they are the saints, and people are silly little mortals who don’t know whats best for them. Obviously, anyone who would oppose “god” and his saints must be the devil and his evil minions! So anyone who opposes the dictatorial government they offer is by definition racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful and everything evil.

    Part of the reason they hate real religion so much — it teaches that theirs is wrong.

  6. Besides, how bad can it be. The guy who wrote the screenplay for Munich wrote this one and Liam Neeson is playing the president, so you KNOW it will be accurate.

  8. “By that line of thinking the consensus on invading Iraq to protect Americans and to interrogate enemy combatants is called the 2000 AND 2004 Presidential elections.”

    Yes, of course. But the True Democrat Believers get around that by saying that Bush didn’t really win either election. The Supreme Court stole 2000 for him, and the black boxes in Ohio stole 2004.

  9. If my memory doesnt fail me, I recall the Democrat controlled Congress signed on to the Iraq War (they wanted to “appear” patriotic of something” at the time. Then, at a later point in time, they changed their “collective mind” and started to whine about it. Kind of like the way the Barney and Buffoons did the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac catastrophe – they were in charge and told Americans that the FM’s didnt need regulation. Later, they blame all the mortgage crisis on “lack of regulation” and point their fingers at the Republicans. Pelosi mouths off about wanting a “truth commission” and her fellow Dems vote it down – dont want to check on anyone too closely. Humm…now, they believe that they are the ones who “know it all” and the John Q Citizen is an idiot. Problem is – most of their constituents who did vote for them do lack the necessary smarts to understand that they are despised by their leaders. It almost seems like they believe this statement – “If you are stupid enough to vote for me, than you are too stupid to understand and therefore deserve to be exploited. Here is a factoid – Who used biological warfare first in the North American Continent? The good old US of A – giving blankets with small pox to the Indians.

  10. #9, Duffy FYI, the House was controlled by Republicans at that time; however, the Senate was in control by the Democrats. I remember discussing–with Democrats I know–about the Patriot Act and asking them why the Senate passed it, if for it they were not? LOL, one guy tried to tell me they didn’t control the Senate. I said, then why was Tom Daschle Senate Majority Leader in 2001 and 2002? Go check the congressional record; you can find out here at thomas.loc.gov. It wasn’t until 2003 when the Senate went back to Republican control.

  11. Speaking of the hypocrisy of “the FMs don’t need regulating”/”Bush’s refusal to regulate caused all this,” I visited the acorn.org web site yesterday, looking for a Handbook for Teachers I was told ACORN has written. On the site I found ACORN’s brag that they SAW that mortgage meltdown coming [well they might, as they bludgeoned the bankers into making more and more risky mortgage loans] but that after years of federal inaction [read Bush didn’t care], Obama is now going to fix the problem by stopping the foreclosures.

    There was more, and I don’t doubt Obama will interfere even more in the free market, just to be sure the super-deserving poor will have houses. But did Bush and the Democrat Congress REALLY ignore the mortgage crisis for “years”? And what legislation did Nancy & Harry pass, only to have it vetoed by Bush (his what, 2nd ever veto?)?

    I never did find the teachers handbook. It’s just as well; my stomach is feeling a little queasy and I’m afraid such a teacher-helping tool might push it over the edge.

    But certainly Obama’s ACORN buds will play a big part in our future. God help us.

  12. The liberals really do think that the natural order of things is that they govern, and everyone else just nods his head, or, if he must, speak meekly. They viscerally hate that Republicans where in control of Congress for as long as they were, and, particularly grating, that the “cowboy” Bush was in the White House for eight years.

    Now it’s payback time, and they will brook no opposition! This will get much worse before it gets better. As good “statists” when their plans don’t go as they want, they will look for villians, which, of course is you and I.

  15. Did I hear today that President Obama was going to take another week off because his vacation was interrupted by too many events? Maybe his handlers noticed that the poll ratings for liberal health care reform stopped plummeting when Obama stopped talking about it. When he stopped doing faux town hall forums. Interesting. Guess the magic is gone.

  17. Good point, Ash. I would not be the least bit surprised if the movie portrays Lincoln as gay — especially with Sally Field as Mary Todd. She has so much experience with gay storylines. Unfortunately, there’s no credible evidence that he was gay and no credible historian that believes he was.