Last week, Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan gave a serious speech on upward mobility in Cleveland, Ohio. A few days later, presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the man who tapped the fetching Wisconsin Republican to be his running mate, gave a serious economic speech in Ames, Iowa.
Meanwhile, the Obama team released yet another ad attacking that accomplished former governor and business executive. Today, the Democrat’s top campaign strategist repeated his mantra about not going back to the failed policies of the past, without offer a clear sense of what his guy wants to do in the near future. Three weeks ago, I asked, “How can a man who has run such a divisive campaign manage to unite the nation?”
Among the many (many, many) reasons to defeat Barack Obama, a number stand out, particularly how his campaign reflects his attitude toward his ideological adversaries. Just as he has attacked his partisan adversaries from the bully pulpit of the White House, he has attacked them on the campaign trail.
And with Republicans are all but certain to hold he House and standing a good chance of winning the Senate, he has continued to distance him from the legislators with whom he needs to work to craft legislation to address our nation’s press economic and national security challenges.
His 2008 rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama has not shown an ability to reach across the aisle and work with his partisan adversaries. He has campaigned as he has governed. Unlike Bill Clinton in his 1996 reelection campaign, Barack Obama has not shown any intention of working with Republicans after the election.
Perhaps, he just thinks victory is enough. And then, after the election, when he pushes his agenda, whatever it is, he can justify it by saying, “I won.“
If Obama wins reelection, he and the MSM and all the Obama wingnuts will proclaim that Obama has a clear mandate to fundamentally transform America, to continue to shred the Constitution and to govern by Executive Order and intrusive regulations.
His second term agenda is more of the same, but piled and deeper. The Department of Justice will be even more steeped in their quest to enforce “social justice” on their enemies and overlook the misdeeds of their comrades.
We make the mistake of looking at the Obama Presidency through the lens of American tradition. Obama lives in a bubble of his own ideological making and draws like-minded around him. His “reality” views America as an unwanted, unjust, unnecessary intruder on the world stage. He is predisposed to see exceptionalism the end game of power grabbing, cheating and greed. (Which is a fair description of Obama’s rise to power and fortune.)
Notice that the Democrats are painting Romney as unexceptional and just another rich guy grabbing for power to increase his fortune.
John Bolton had this to say on FoxNews:
Obama believes that America needs to be “cut down to size” and have the same place in the scheme of things, or even less, as the average European country.
Now, to be clear, there are vastly wealthy people in all major nations and the “inequity” between them and the regular man on the street is enormous. Obama is OK with that so long as he is in the wealthy group, and of course, he is. Like all Marxists, he favors an elite class that has the task of herding the sheeple. It was ever thus among demagogues, dictators, tyrants and socialist party grandees.
His view of “what needs to be done” is hardly the view of any American who believes in freedom and the individual. It is entirely possible that the Obama crowd can corrupt the republic into a politburo type system of watchers and regulators who parse the matters of the moment and manage individual liberties against the power and “necessities” of the state.
Somebody watched the tragedy in Benghazi in real time and sat on his hands in terms of sending in support. It was a calculation. Four lives were the “not optimal” cost in Obama’s belief that the War on Terror is over, Al-Qaeda has been defeated and Libya is in the stormy adolescence of establishing a democracy. But, Obama is unable to see beyond his ideology and worldview to face the 7 hour reality of what happened to the Ambassador and his protectors which was available in real time.
And now question arises: Has General Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, been fired for defying Leon Panetta on Benghazi?
In the Arab world, there is an old admonition that if you kick the king, you must kill the king (because his vengeance will be swift and terrible. If Obama is reelected, he will be vengeful for the hard work he was given in pulling through.
I think it’s pretty simple.
Obama and Michelle want to get re elected because think of all the state dinners they can have at a million dollars a pop. Think of how many rounds of golf BHO can play in between the executive orders he issues. Imagine how many armed drones he can unleash in the middle east, killing only a few insignificant women and children as coleteral damage. Imagine the beer summits, the 3 on 3 games of basketball,
you know…. just another four years of the Obama accomplishments.
Barack is lazy. Given re election and no more campains to come, I suspect he’ll be hard to find. Just like on the night of 9/11/12….where’s Barack??
Dan’s question is important one for voters to weigh and all the more reason the Benghazi coverup needs to settle in with Americans.
If, as reported, Obama issued a “stand down” order and allowed brave fighting men to die while he watched via live video…. the President will most certainly face impeachment hearings.
So a vote for Obama is now a vote for a significant crippling of his Administration and our Federal Government.
There are serious negative economic consequences as well to that scenario.
Barack Obama won’t govern since he can’t lead. He will rule by executive order fiat, although the House & Senate are more than likely in GOP control.
While the question is an amusing thought experiment, it doesn’t matter. Barack Hussein Obama is NOT GOING TO GET RE-ELECTED. Our long national nightmare is just about over.
As an all-too-regular commenter on this site, I have come to a rather simple question that is rife with nuance.
Does anyone else think that Axlerod is just a little too Hitler/Nazi looking?
The man is sinister enough without the leather jacket and swastika. If a Republican had a Charlie Chaplin Little Dictator look-alike, would the MSM just ignore him?
We all know what Axlerod is. For enough money the Fred Phelps could hire him to clean up the image of the Westboro Baptist Church. For even more access to the US Treasury, Axelrod would get Phelps on the Supreme Court.
NRO had an excellent article that outlines, in my opinion, exactly what Barack Obama and the Obama Fascist Party are attempting to do.
The thought has crossed my mind.
Now that you mention it…
As to addressing the main question of the article: Be serious–it’s Valerie Jarrett who has been / would be governing. Remember, Barry said it himself: “I’m just ‘eye-candy'” [gag]