• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why Obama Won

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
November 9, 2012
Why Obama Won
By Gary Aminoff

On election night, as the camera panned the audience waiting to hear Barack Obama give his victory speech, what struck me was that the audience was primarily young people and minorities. My thought was, "These are the very people who will suffer the most under a second Obama administration. Don't they know they are voting against their own best interest?"

And then I thought about it and came to the conclusion: "No. They don't." They don't because they are, by and large, uneducated. Oh, some of them may have college degrees or even graduate degrees, but they are still substantially uneducated. I would bet that very few of them know the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics. I am sure that most of them have never heard of the Laffer Curve. I would guess that most of them aren't familiar with the first principles behind the origin of our country. I doubt that many of them know what evil lies in Socialism or Communism, or unbridled leftism. Or are even aware that Barack Obama is a man of the left, and what that means. They, for the most part, have no idea what the concept of individual liberty is, nor how a big, powerful central government reduces that liberty. I also am pretty sure that they feel that Barack Obama is someone who cares about the poor, women, minorities, and the "middle class," and that Republicans don't. I would stake my substance on the fact that they don't know what is meant by a limited government, or what the Tenth Amendment says. I am certain that most of them don't know anything about Benghazi. Substantially uneducated!

How is it that we have raised one or two generations of uneducated Americans? The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind. The answer lies in the curricula of our schools.

For the past several months, in my capacity in the Republican Party, I have been speaking at middle schools and high schools around Los Angeles. It has been very enlightening.

I love engaging with children. Most of them are very bright and ask brilliant questions. The questions give me insights into what they are most concerned about. It also makes clear what they are taught -- by either their parents or their teachers, or both.

To summarize -- children, for the most part, believe the following:

a) Republicans care about only the rich -- the top 1% -- and don't care about anyone else.

b) Republicans hate people of color and especially Latinos.

c) Republicans hate gays.

d) Republicans are racist.

e) It is the government that provides jobs. (I have asked that question many times in classrooms or assemblies. "Who is it that creates jobs in America?" The answer is invariably, without hesitation, "the government.")

f) Corporations are bad, and profits are very bad. Business shouldn't make profits; they should give any excess money they make to their employees.

g) Taxes are good; they provide the money for the government to take care of people.

h) Government should expand and take care of everyone in the country.

i) America, rather than being a force for good in the world, has been a force for evil.

j) Government has an unlimited source of funds. (When I ask, "Where is the government going to get the money to do all these things you want it to do?," the answer is "taxes.")

These children will soon be voters. How is it, in America, that we are raising children to believe that bigger government is better, that government is the engine that provides jobs, that profits are bad, that Republicans care about only the rich, that we are racist, and that we hate minorities and gays.

This is not something to be ignored. Our country is being changed forever by children who have had this type of indoctrination. We must figure out how to stop it. We need to create a love of country in our children as we once did. We need to have our children say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning, as we once did. We need to teach our children that America has been a force for good in the world. We need to teach them that it is not the role of government to "take care" of people. We need to teach civics once again, and the Constitution.

Until this problem is dealt with, and it needs to be soon, we will be raising generations of children who believe in an ever-larger government and who will permanently change America into Greece. There will be no Republican Party or conservative candidates who will win elections as more and more of the population is indoctrinated with leftist thinking. Goodbye to the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free if we don't act on this issue.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
As Hitler succeeded in indoctrinating the German youth, so have the schools and universities of the US and it's vulnerable youth. Slavery will have almost come full circle as for who's working for whom.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
How true, not just the kids anymore either, even grey haired old men.
The young people, the minorities, the unemployed, to some extent the re-tirees, and to some extent the women re-elected Obama. we could see this would happen way back about last July. We could see where the majority of these people lived and where they would vote. We could see where the electorial vote would come from.

After the first debate it looked like Rommey would do well with the popular vote. The popular vote is what tells the mood of the people, But his momention soon faded. He tried to use Benzghali to turn them back, but voters could see that he was doing this in desperation. It had little impact.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
You are right about the retirees. They are going to make sure "they get their fair share". remeber these ss have been voting all these years when congress kept passing spending program after spending program. They might have bee spendthrifts in their personal life but let congress spend money with no accounting. the seniors want their so called share ..grandkids be damned, they want theirs. have you noticed how they are always looking for ways to get their senior centers and the perks that go with it. They want cuts on taxes because of their age and yet are more financialy able to pay taxes than young people.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
left.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conservatives Try To Invent Reasons Why Romney Lost

Many conservatives genuinely believed the stories bouncing around the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News about how Obama was toast and Romney would win big. Pundit Dick Morris, for example, predicted Romney would crush Obama with a total of 325 electoral votes. He got 206. The election results came as a huge shock to many of them and they are searching for explanations. The obvious one: Romney was a poor candidate and people didn't like what the Republican Party has to offer is too painful, so there is a market for other reasons. Sabrina Siddiqui has compiled a list of the most popular ones.

•It's the media's fault: they reported only Romney's gaffes and not Obama's
•It was Hurricane Isaac's fault for wiping out a day of the Republican National Convention
•It was Hurricane Sandy's fault for giving Obama a chance to act presidential
•The fact checkers were biased
•Romney was too nice
•Romney wasn't conservative enough
•Chris Christie swung the election by praising Obama for helping New Jersey
•The Democrats suppressed the vote by attacking Romney's business record
•Americans are ignorant
•Liberals bought the election
•The 47% of the country who are moochers voted for Obama


Some of these things have interesting consequences. The Republicans were hit by two hurricanes, Isaac and Sandy. Does this mean God is a Democrat and was trying to send a message?

Wheres the Hagees, Buchanans, and rest of the right wing Bible-thumpers now :???: :wink: :p :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Losing Can Be Liberating
William Kristol
November 19, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 10

After his defeat in Britain’s 1945 general election, Winston Churchill’s wife Clementine consoled him: “It may well be a blessing in disguise.” Churchill replied, “At the moment it seems quite effectively disguised.”

As do any blessings to be found in last Tuesday’s election result. The country faces four more years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with an increased Democratic majority in the Senate, as a debt crisis bears down upon us at home and our enemies ramp up their efforts abroad. One hopes, for the sake of the country, that on some key issues the president can be persuaded to do the right thing—or, at least, that politics and reality will conspire to pressure the president to do the minimally acceptable thing.

It could happen. Obama won fewer votes than in 2008, and Republicans still control the House and have 30 governors. The public, according to the exit polls, still considers itself more conservative than liberal and, by about 10 points, prefers a government that does less to a government that does more. Obama, though no longer facing reelection, isn’t free of political constraints.

As for reality, it will continue to mug liberals. It’s true that they’ve gotten used to being mugged and resolutely refuse to press charges. It’s true that liberalism has constructed a set of policies, and the modern welfare state a set of incentives and patronage systems, that postpone paying the piper. Still, reality eventually has an effect. The piper’s bills do eventually come due.

Conservatives have a constructive role to play over the next four years in applying political pressure and calling attention to reality in ways that will mitigate the destructive impulses of contemporary liberalism. Conservatives can try to ensure the damage done by liberalism is reparable. But damage there will be. In 1777, following the defeat of General Burgoyne’s army by the Americans at the Battle of Saratoga, John Sinclair lamented to Adam Smith: “If we go on at this rate, the nation must be ruined.” Smith responded, “Be assured, my young friend, that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.” Over the next four years, we’re going to test that proposition.

But even if America can survive the next four years of Obama, we don’t want to push our luck beyond that. George W. Bush won about 62 million votes in 2004, John McCain about 60 million in 2008, and Mitt Romney about 58 million (as of this writing). If that trajectory of decline continues in 2016, it’s not just the Republican party that’s in trouble, and it’s not just conservatism that’s in trouble. America will be in trouble.

There have been notable moments of conservative triumph and Republican ascendancy since the end of the Cold War. In both 1994 and 2010, conservatives won decisive electoral victories as the country rose up against big government liberalism, and as the GOP channeled popular discontent into huge congressional gains. But in neither case was the off-year oppositional triumph converted to a positive mandate in the next presidential election. The necessities and responsibilities imposed by controlling one or both houses of Congress meant the task of coalition-maintenance took priority over developing a new and clear agenda. And the tactical challenges of dealing with the president of another party took priority over taking the long view in policy or politics. What’s more, the presidential nominating process in 1996 and 2012 produced traditional frontrunners without much interest in shaking up their own party.

So the GOP stayed with business as usual, conservatives had plenty of practical problems to organize around and deal with—and the rethinking of policy and politics was less bold, less comprehensive, and less heterodox than it might have been. Fresh thinking took a back seat. The critiques of big government liberalism in 1994 and 2010 weren’t followed by equally compelling articulations of the major elements of a governing conservatism. The analysis of the failure of what Walter Russell Mead has called the blue state social model wasn’t followed by the development of a compelling red state social model. Some Republican governors did have successes, but neither in 1996 nor in 2012 were those translated into national policies and presidential agendas.

The good news is that political parties are more receptive to change at certain times, and one of those times is after an establishment candidate loses in a year in which victory seemed possible. The Democrats turned away from Michael Dukakis’s aging liberalism to embrace Bill Clinton’s New Democratic agenda (however overhyped) in 1992. They chose Barack Obama and hope and change in 2008, on the rebound from the lackluster and stiff John Kerry. Now it’s Republicans’ turn to leave behind Mitt Romney’s stale and simplistic policy agenda, and his cautious and conventional presentation of it, for new ideas à la Clinton and new excitement à la Obama.

This won’t happen because a few GOP poobahs in Washington decide it should happen, or because a few conservative leaders decide on the future agenda of the movement. A revivified and rejuvenated conservatism won’t come from the top down. It will happen organically and spontaneously. The best thing “leaders” of the party and the movement can do is to stop thwarting policy heterodoxy and political entrepreneurship.

After all, for a party that claims to value entrepreneurship, Republican politicians at the national level these days show very little of it. The Romney campaign was the opposite of entrepreneurial. Congressional leaders discourage entrepreneurial efforts by backbenchers. And for a movement that claims to understand the dangers of Hayek’s “fatal conceit,” conservative leaders tend to embrace centralization, trying to enforce pledges upon and punish deviationism by the rank and file.

If a senator or a representative has a good proposal on immigration or monetary policy or education or tax reform, he or she should introduce it. If a candidate has an idea, he or she should run on it. Don’t worry about getting the go-ahead from leadership or from power brokers, from donors or from interest groups. The elected officials of a great political party shouldn’t play “Mother, May I?”

Will Rogers was famous for saying in the 1920s, “I am not a member of any organized party. I am a Democrat.” Those disorganized Democrats, full of vim and vigor and noise and conflict, subsequently controlled and reshaped American politics over the next four decades. The Democrats are now the party of oh-so-well-organized patronage schemes and grievance groups. Let Republicans embrace the spirit of Will Rogers. A few years of healthy, spirited, and fruitful disorganization could be an undisguised blessing.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/losing-can-be-liberating_662232.html?nopager=1
 
Top