Filed under: barack obama, campaign, Democratic Party, election, elections, GOP, McCain, obama, politics, Republican Party
Many of us still had hope that McCain would pull a surprise victory last night. In the end it wasn’t even really close. Even without all the ACORN fraud and intimidation tactics at polls, Obama had this election easily.
Libs will no doubt be expecting anger coming from this side. Maybe a little hatred and venom. Sorry to disappoint… we’re just not as good at that as some of you are.
And so… congrats to Barack Obama. He ran a brilliant campaign and a majority of Americans decided they wanted him to be president. And in many ways this election is historic.
No I haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid… the guy’s still a socialist and probably the most radical man to ever be elected to the Oval Office. And yes I believe he will take this country on a dangerous course and attempt to undermine the Constitution for which he admittedly has little regard. So this blog and others will continue to be vigilant during his presidency.
But on the other hand, I don’t have to be reminded by some pompous-ass news anchor with a raised eyebrow and lilting voice about the significance of this event. We have officially reached the point in this society where a man’s race is no longer a hindrance to his reaching the highest office in the land and for THAT at least… I am very proud. Wrong guy for the job but it really is quite remarkable how far we’ve come in 40 years.
The demographics of this election have been interesting to observe. A good many of these voters were college kids… those of the ‘know it all’ variety (bless their rambunctious little hearts). Some of them liked Obama for no other reason than that he was young and hip — the antithesis of stuffy old GOPosaurs like McCain. Others did know about Barry’s radical leanings but they decided they kind of dug that. The mere excitement of change can sometimes override any serious consideration for the consequences of that change.
And let’s not forget the influence that liberal college professors have on the impressionable skulls full o’ mush who attend their classes. These kids emerge with a good education but no life experience and often a very skewed view of the world. For most, these beliefs are shaken off when the reality of everyday life takes over. In some, however, it never departs. These people go on to be academians, journalists… sometimes even U.S. Presidents.
Another large part of the demographic consisted of what the dems like to refer to as “the little guy”. They are part of a generation who has been brought up to believe that government is responsible for their happiness and that the sole purpose for it’s existence is to meet their basic needs. This is where we get folks like Peggy Joseph, who is convinced that Barack is going to pay her mortgage and put gas in her car. Many on my side felt anger at seeing that YouTube clip. I just felt a kind of sadness at witnessing the result of years of liberal indoctrination on full display — from someone who is obviously otherwise a nice person. She’s looking for a hero and is convinced that Barack Obama is that man.
So how do you convince someone like Peggy of her own power and potential to achieve great things without the help of a politician or bureaucrat? It’s damn near impossible when that’s all she’s been taught for her entire life by parents, peers, teachers, and politicians. They truly believe they are where they are because others are holding them down. They really think that the reason they are struggling is because the jaded, uncaring “Grey Poupon” class hoards all the wealth and refuses to give them their fair share.
For those who buy into this, I have a recommendation: get your hands on a copy of The Pursuit of HappYness. Read it. Learn it. Love it. Live it. Chris Gardner’s story is America in all it’s glory and spirit. The man went from homelessness to being a millionaire, folks — without any help from the government and without once blaming anyone else for his circumstances. He shows what pressing on in the face of all odds and refusing to make excuses will accomplish in a person’s life. He exemplifies the fruits of hard work, sacrifice, vision and most importantly an attitude that refuses to recognize defeat.
This attitude — contrary to what many of you have been told — is how most of the well-off in this country attain their wealth, by the way. You get out what you put in, folks. You can choose to embrace that now and set your own goals or you can continue to vote for smooth talking politicians who promise to lift you to higher ground. If you did the latter yesterday… get back with me in a couple of years and fill me in on how much better your financial situation is under Barack Obama.
But I digress…
Let’s get to the real reason Obama won the presidency and Democrats won congress: Republicans. They’ve become the party of blue-blood moderate weenies. Is it any coincidence that the only instances where the GOP has been markedly successful in the past three decades is when they have moved decidedly to the right? Ronald Reagan, Contract with America… show us a genuine commitment to shrink government and you’ll win every time. The Republican Revolution of 1994 didn’t occur as the result of reaching out to the opposition in an effort to get along. It occurred because the GOP decided for once to reach out to the people and listen to them. The result: a clear, point by point, conservative agenda… and an overwhelming shift in the balance of power in the ’94 elections.
But in the years that followed, they got complacent. They relaxed, stopped listening to voters and become drunk with their own power. As a result there is little to distinguish them from Democrats now in their behavior or their campaign promises. Problem for them is that this will not — nor will it ever — get them a lot of votes. When it comes to getting the support of liberal and centrist voters, you can’t out-Democrat a Democrat.
So that’s where we stand. If the GOP keeps foisting moderates such as McCain on us who want to be liked by their political enemies and treated nicely by MSM, this is what they’re going to get every time. But give us someone who truly appreciates the importance of individual liberty and rugged individualism and who can articulate his or her case in an interesting and inspiring manner — and we will have our next Republican Revolution.
If the party doesn’t accomplish this in coming years, the next revolution will likely involve libertarians… and I may very well be fighting front and center when the time comes. Time to shape up, Republican party or we will ship you out.
Filed under: barack obama, campaign, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Invesco Field, obama, politics | Tags: barack obama, campaign, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Invesco Field, obama
Amidst all the breathless buildup from a swooning MSM over Obama’s acceptance speech at a packed Invesco Field tonight, at least the New York Post gets it right:
DENVER – Democrats will kneel before the “Temple of Obama” tonight.
As if a Rocky Mountain coronation were not lofty enough, Barack Obama will aim for Mount Olympus when he accepts his party’s nomination atop an enormous, Greek-columned stage – built by the same cheesy set team that put together Britney Spears’ last tour.
Sigh… this strays so far from any ideal I have ever had for a president — any vision I’ve ever entertained for the person I want at the helm of this country. Sir Barrogance displays all the charisma of a rock-star and all the cockiness of a know-it-all Ivy-League schoolboy. Not impressed. And yes, if a Republican candidate ever came upon the scene who conducted himself the way Obama does I would be very, very, very put off.
Libs will point out that Bush also made his 2004 acceptance speech in front of a similar, but scaled down backdrop. Sure, but to him they were just props. I don’t think the symbolism carried anywhere near the personal meaning for Bush that it will for Obamus the Great in the grandiose context of a full stadium.
The nicknames that Obama has earned, THE ONE, THE MESSIAH etc., are not just derisive terms to those of us on the right. They are a satirical means for expressing our frustration with what we see as blind adoration and hero worship. Tonight’s much anticipated mile-high love-fest is case-in-point. Barack has become more than a candidate in the eyes of his supporters. He’s grown into a catch all, fix-all valiant knight riding in to slay whatever dragons they have imagined to stand between them and their happiness. There is clearly a self- esteem crisis in this country when the masses look so longingly to one charismatic man as an answer all their problems.
Not that this collective uncertainty is anything new. Democrats have nurtured and encouraged this brand of “you can’t do it without us” thinking for years. After decades of conditioning, this dependency consciousness has become so ingrained in the psyche of the U.S. population, it’s hard to imagine there was ever a day when the people stood on their own (there was). Enter a magnetic personality such as Barack Obama into this climate of helplessness and he truly becomes a Christ-like figure.
Let’s take a closer look at the term “Obamamania” for a moment. It’s obviously a nod to the Beatlemania phenomena that occurred in the 60s (not dissing the brilliant lads from Liverpool here). Baby boomers will remember how fans packed stadiums to capacity so they could see the Fab Four play and then proceeded to scream at the top of their lungs for the duration of the show. So loud were their incessant wails that it completely drowned out the music.
Get the point? These adoring masses didn’t know or care what the Beatles were singing. They could have been crooning about the butchering of babies and the crowd would have been none the wiser (collectors will recognize the album-cover reference here). In fact, John could have smiled at the crowd and uttered his famous “we’re more popular than Jesus” line during one of these shows and he would have gotten clean away with it. I almost wonder if Obama could do the same. So why the screaming you ask? Not even the screamers themselves knew. They were caught up in the moment .
That gets to the root of what really eats at me and other conservatives about Barack Obama. He ALSO is caught up in the moment. He truly believes he is a child of desiny. The Greek backdrop for tonight’s speech will no-doubt look impressive… but last I heard Zeus’s throne is not up for grabs. Nonetheless, the hype is reaching mythical proportions.
Speaking strictly as a conservative: I don’t need a Herculean hero. I don’t need a Superman. I don’t look to any one person to give me hope. I don’t sit around waiting for someone to bring about change in my life — I make my own change. In short, I don’t need any one person or circumstance to give my life meaning or purpose.
Do you realize you much power you actually have within yourselves, folks?
Yes we need a leader who can project authority and command respect in these perilous times. But we don’t need a nanny and we don’t need someone who will “give” us what we lack at the expense of others. We need the type of leader who will inspire us… and then get the hell out of our way and let us live our own lives.
And as your next President…
Sorry, got carrried away there.
-- Cartoon by Gary Varvel
Filed under: barack obama, campaign, democratic, Democratic Party, democrats, elections, hillary clinton, obama, politics, presidential race, vice president, vp | Tags: barack obama, campaign, democratic, elections, hillary clinton, obama, politics, presidential race, vice president, vp
Barack Obama is a braver man than I thought. In a stunning and death-defying move, the Democratic nominee met with Hillary Clinton at her home last night.
Former Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton met Thursday evening at Clinton’s home in the capital, a surprise ending to a perfectly abnormal day.
Scheduled to fly home to Chicago after an evening rally in a Northern Virginia amphitheater, Obama diverted to huddle with his longtime primary foe, who is set to endorse him on Saturday, a Democratic source confirmed. Obama’s campaign released no details of the discussion and declined to confirm it even occurred.
I imagine she made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Has anybody checked to see of Barry still has his thumbs intact?
Filed under: campaign, Democratic Party, democrats, elections, hillary clinton, politics | Tags: barack obama, campaign, Democratic Party, elections, nomination, obama
As of today, Senator Barack Obama has effectively clinched the Democratic nomination. He has now secured all the delegates and super-delegates he needs — even picking up a couple of coveted super-duper-delegates along the way. And to further seal the deal, no less than God Almighty pledged His support for the candidate today saying “This is My Son, in whom I am well pleased… and by the way, Rev. Wright is a putz.”
So with these crucial endorsements in his pocket Senator Obama was able to safely declare victory in Minnesota Tuesday night:
“Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States,” Obama said during a huge rally in St. Paul, Minn. – the city where John McCain will accept the GOP nomination this summer.
Appearing overwhelmed, Obama paused for a long period as the crowd of roughly 17,000 people at the Xcel Energy Center erupted in wild applause and sign-waving.
Another 15,000 people were outside, and chants of “Yes we can!” – Obama’s catch phrase – were heard throughout his speech.
“Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another – a journey that will bring a new and better day to America,” he said.
Barack did attempt to give his opponent Hillary Clinton a buzz after the speech. But as Obama soon learned, you don’t call Hillary…. SHE calls YOU.
He tried to call her twice following the speech – but got her voicemail. She finally returned the call as his plane was about to fly out of St. Paul to Washington.
Hmmm… so would she really have answered her phone at three in the morning?
Incidentally I would just love to have heard the phone message Obama left for Hillary:
“Hi Hillary… Barack. Sorry I couldn’t talk to you in person but I just wanted say it has been a long grueling journey and a tough race for both of us. I would be remiss if I didn’t take this golden opportunity to say, LOOOO-HOOO-HOOOOOOZER! HA HA HA HA HA!! AH-HA HA HA HA HA! That’s about all. We’ll touch base on the Veep thing soon so that maybe you can save a little face over this… see ya… sweetie. CLICK”
“Alright lets catch that plane… where’s my smokes?”
Filed under: campaign, Democratic Party, democrats, election, elections, Harriet Christian, hillary, hillary clinton, politics, youtube | Tags: campaign, Democratic Party, elections, Harriet Christian, hillary clinton, Michigan, rules committee, youtube
A great rant from a Clinton supporter named Harriet Christian has surfaced on YouTube. Irate because the Democratic rules committee refused to count the Michigan primary results, this woman launches into quite an impressive tirade complaining that Hillary is being pushed out of the race because she is a white woman and referring to Obama as an “inadequate black male”.
Your peeps are doing you proud, Hillary:
Filed under: appeasement, barack obama, Democratic Party, democrats, george bush, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, liberalism, obama, politics, terrorism, war | Tags: appeasement, barack obama, Democratic Party, democrats, Joe Lieberman, liberalism, Lieberman, terrorism, Wall Street Journal, war, WSJ
“How did the Democratic Party get here?” This is how Joe Lieberman’s op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal begins. The former Democratic (now Independent) Senator pulls no punches as he takes his former party to task for their disconnect on national security issues. He laments what he sees as a drifting away from the values of the Democratic party he remembered growing up — in particular the firm stance they once took against America’s enemies. Even going so far as to mention Obama by name, this is guaranteed to ruffle a few feathers. Here are some excerpts:
Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.
This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.
Lieberman then very accurately pinpoints where the problems began:
This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.
And let’s not forget the McCarthy hearings from a few years previous which enabled the media to paint any future crusader against communism as a paranoid buffoon who was not to be taken seriously. Lieberman then goes on to nail the birth of what has become the current liberal mindset. See if this sounds familiar:
It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.
Sound like anything that’s going on today? The piece then takes a turn I don’t completely agree with. He describes what he saw as a ray of hope with the rise of the “New Democrat” in the 1980’s culminating in the election of Bill Clinton.
Then, beginning in the 1980s, a new effort began on the part of some of us in the Democratic Party to reverse these developments, and reclaim our party’s lost tradition of principle and strength in the world. Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change.
I’m sorry, but three months of NATO air-raids and tomahawk missiles lobbed from ships several miles away while the KLA does your dirty work on the ground is not my idea of a tough President. This same “brave” President — when we got a direct slap in the face from al-Qaeda in the bombing of the USS Cole — did nothing in retaliation. He was a complete wimp in handling the first WTC bombing as well. But I’ll forgive Lieberman for wanting to see something in Clinton that wasn’t really there in a desperate attempt to find a hopeful trend in the party he once loved.
Liberman also feels that Al Gore, like Clinton, was a strong proponent of defending our nation, and that George Bush was more soft in his foreign policy –at least at first. But then came what he saw as the big shift:
Today, less than a decade later, the parties have completely switched positions. The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
I have emphasized in bold the statements which illustrate the stark contrast between the conservative and liberal mindset when approaching the war on terror. We see an enemy overseas. They see an enemy in the Oval Office. We blame terror attacks on the twisted ideology of religious zealots. They blame terror attacks on our constant “meddling” in the Middle East.
Next Lieberman aims his darts at the leading Democrat Presidential candidate (yes Barack, he IS really talking about you this time):
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
Ouch! Hopefully Obama will step into it again and fire off another press release which will in turn give this excellent article the exposure it deserves.
After throwing a little praise John McCain’s way for his tough stance on foreign policy, Liberman fires a couple more rounds at Obama:
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
Neither can I. He is right on the money here.
The Senator then concludes his game with nothing less than a slam dunk:
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned “no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.” This is a lesson that today’s Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.
“Making themselves inoffensive”. That gets right to the heart of Liberal thinking. For them, offense is something to be avoided at all costs. Domestically, whole laws are now crafted around offense. It is now a crime in certain western countries to offend certain people. Internationally, libs believe that if America is not universally liked, then we must be failing somehow in our foreign policy.
No, if we are failing at anything it is PR — we haven’t done an adequate job explaining what we are trying to accomplish. What we are doing overseas is simply what we have done in countless wars past… defending our freedom. Trying to snuff out those who hold a warped ideology that considers the liberty we enjoy to be a great sin that must be crushed — and who has potential access to weapons that can do tremendous damage and further their cause. Most Democrats refuse to see this danger. Joe Lieberman sees it with 20/20 vision.
Great piece, Senator.