I found this on Nobama Blog. I totally get that Americans tend to vote for the more moderate candidate. I just can't figure out why in the hell they thought BHO was moderate!! Well, he did mislead the public - lied repeatedly, actually. And, MSM did represent him as the savior of all mankind and totally without guile, as well as post-racist, the new JFK, more enlightened than Gandhi, more benevolent than Mother Teresa, cuter than Brad Pitt, and on and on... Maybe that's why the public didn't really know BO. He actually served in a national office only about an hour and a half before running for POTUS - or I should say, before being run for POTUS by the uber-liberal pols.
August 30, 2009 What Voters Meant... By Steve Chapman Barack Obama came into office championing change, and he apparently assumed that if Americans voted for him, it was because they wanted the future to be different from what went before. Actually, what they wanted was a future much like the not-so-distant past -- before the financial crisis, before the recession, before the Iraq war, before the most unpopular president since the invention of polling. If voters had wanted a sharp ideological shift, they could have voted for Democratic candidates more identified with Great Society-style government -- Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or even Dennis Kucinich. Obama got the early endorsement of Ted Kennedy, but like Bill Clinton before him, he won because he distanced himself from Kennedy-style liberalism. His promise of change was eloquent enough to motivate the left wing of his party but vague enough to make him acceptable to people in the middle.
Among independents, Obama beat John McCain by an oint margin. The reason John Kerry lost and Obama won, as Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has noted, was not liberal voters: They voted for both in the same proportion. The difference was that while Kerry had a 9-point edge over his Republican opponent among moderates, Obama carried them by 21 points. Obama also did significantly better among conservatives than Kerry. After the election, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee Mike Duncan noted that the Democratic nominee supported offshore oil drilling, merit pay for teachers, a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, more troops in Afghanistan and an end to wasteful federal earmarks. "Put simply," he said, "Barack Obama just ran the most successful moderate Republican presidential campaign since Dwight Eisenhower." In the weeks after the election, amid talk of a second Great Depression, Obama was often compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt. But by the time FDR took office, the economy had been in free fall for more than three years, creating mass desperation. The recession that began in December 2007, though scary, never remotely resembled the Great Depression. During last year's campaign, the situation was more like 1952 than 1932, with the electorate sick of war and tired of a party that had dominated the presidency for too long. When Americans elected Eisenhower, they weren't inviting a radical turnabout -- just some modest improvements in the status quo. Likewise with Obama. But the 44th president apparently thought he had a mandate for the expansion of federal power and responsibility, which he has used on everything from bailing out automakers to showering the economy with stimulus dollars to trying to overhaul health insurance. He and his allies have therefore been surprised to face a surge of angry opposition, including some based on wild flights of paranoia. What they forgot is that the surest way to mobilize American political opposition, irrational as well as rational, is to enlarge the government's role in our lives. Liberals and conservatives disagree on when to distrust the government, but they share the same basic suspicion. More at - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/30/what_voters_meant.html
__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Susan B. Anthony
I don't mean this as a cut to Republicans, but I think one of the major reasons people voted for BO - and I'm not ruling out that he won because of cheating at the polls - is because of George Bush. He was destined to go down in history, in the eyes of many, as the worst president ever. The Republicans had to turn that around, and I think that's why Rove and Rush and Hannity are possibly letting this go on and on. Those bastards KNOW that Obama, the cruel, creepy, criminal Obama, is NOT eligible. When the time is right (ripe?), they'll let the MSM blast it all out there, and the Democrats will be ruined for the forseeable future.
Diabolical, eh? But no more out there than what we're seeing now: Congress and SCOTUS standing down while the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Bunch steal our money and our country. They WON'T succeed, in the long run - too many patriots are on to them, because they pushed the envelope too far this time. At least George Bush was a natural born citizen! I am totally against him and his presidency, but it was harder to extricate him. BO will be no problem to get rid of, once all the chess pieces are in just the right place. I just hope it will be the patriots that win, as opposed to the whacked-out people who set the whole thing up!
__________________
Barack/Barry: If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!
I don't mean this as a cut to Republicans, but I think one of the major reasons people voted for BO - and I'm not ruling out that he won because of cheating at the polls - is because of George Bush. He was destined to go down in history, in the eyes of many, as the worst president ever.
The media helped them with the "Bush is evil" narrative.
I don't care for the guy personally, but I also know the media doesn't tell the truth, and that for about 6 years of his terms, they painted him as the devil incarnate.
Was he really that bad? Hard to say, because the media doesn't tell the truth, and they spin things to manipulate people, and it ended up that a lot of people were really just voting against Bush, not for obama, because they believed everything the media told them.
Personally, I think Bush was too dumb to be that evil, and that he was a puppet of his administration, and people like Paulson (who paid back all his cronies on Wall St with TARP $) were really running the show.
I also think obama is a puppet, and that he is nothing more than a figurehead who Axelrod & Emanuel just push around and get their agenda out through. Axelrod & Emanuel are the puppet masters, because obama, just like Bush, is too stupid to have gotten where he is today on his own, and too stupid to run anything on his own.
__________________
Stand up for what is right, even if you're standing alone.
Interesting theory, Alex. I hope you are right about BHO being easy to get out of office. Everything was so .. well.. Freaky in the 2008 election. Not only was the Hill set up and the nomination stolen from her, BHO had little trouble "defeating" John McCain. Every Republican I talked to about the election prior to it, was so anti-McCain, I don't think they voted at all. Several Reps told me - "It doesn't really matter who wins the election. One candidate is as bad as the other." It was unbelievable. But, I will say, that most of the folks I talked to wore more concerned about social issues than economic or national security.
What an enormous mess Americans have on our hands.
__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Susan B. Anthony
I don't believe in any kind of conspiracy, I think personally the Move on crowd, the howard dean crowd, the George Soros groupies, the college kids voting for the first time, all got caught up in the media darling of Obama. Hillary was "old", she was a Clinton, she was a woman, she was so "old school". The youth and move on.org was too stupid to understand that experience was needed to clean up this mess. They thought Obama was the second coming and could just wave his hand and all would be right. The only thing I would agree with is that Axlerod and Emanuel are the puppetmasters pulling Obama's strings, just like Cheney pulled Bush's for the first term. Will bambi get a second term? I really hope not.
-- Edited by jdona on Sunday 30th of August 2009 07:56:38 PM
I read this earlier but the truth is people voted for him because he promised that he would be different and people were not doing research. I really was excited at the thought that I could vote for an african american if Hillary lost but I did my research into him and found out that he lied about his childhood saying his mother was poor and on food stamps when in fact his mother was never poor and food stamps didn't exist when he was living with his mom in the USA. I felt that he was trying to share an history with other african americans and frankly I found that to be racist. All black people aren't poor and all poor people aren't black. I would have loved to vote for the first african american president but I was offended when during the Jena six protests Obama cautioned the black protestors not to become violent. I found this to be racist and offensive. I decided in 2007 that McCain would be my second choice. I liked all the rest of the Republicans over him. I have always liked and respected John McCain who was the more moderate candidate.
oint margin. The reason John Kerry lost and Obama won, as Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has noted, was not liberal voters: They voted for both in the same proportion. The difference was that while Kerry had a 9-point edge over his Republican opponent among moderates, Obama carried them by 21 points. Obama also did significantly better among conservatives than Kerry.
absolutely NO!
