Blaming Bush (Democrats are so much better at placing blame)

NRO ^ | Oct.24, 2008 | Mona Charon

[7MMmag]

The two candidates for president stood even in the polls when the financial tsunami hit around mid-September. Since then, the Democrat has pulled ahead.

Perhaps there was nothing John McCain could have done that would have changed things. It may be that voters are primed to blame the party in the White House for any bad news (to say “the party in power” when the Democrats control Congress is to say too much).

[snip]

What they should have done is to point out that Democrats love to give things away. Voters know that this is true. The thing the Democrats were intent on giving away this time was mortgages to those who could not afford them. When the Bush administration (with the strong backing of John McCain) attempted to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the Democrats’ sandboxes — Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama refused.

The McCain/Palin team should have driven home the idea that there is no free lunch, that when government attempts to create wealth by fiat — by simply declaring that “mortgages for everyone” is the new rule and let’s not look too closely at how we pay for this — reality will catch up with you in the end.

[7MMmag]

She's accurately second guessing here, when she says

but McCain would have looked statesmanlike if he had told voters that all of us must henceforth change our ways: from government relying on borrowing from foreigners to individuals running up charges on credit cards. He could have said that capitalism is the greatest engine of wealth creation the world has ever seen. But like democratic government, it requires discipline to succeed.

I borrowed this too from her (and NRO) for it is these concepts themselves, which bear repeating, even if it be like "preaching to the choir", to forward it here to FreeRepublic.

It strikes me that NRO has been doing such a good job, that as many of us here who can afford to, might think about signing up, subscribing to NRO.

More good articles at the link...many of them posted/linked to from there to FR.

[street_lawyer]

The question is whether there are more voters who take then voters who give? Are their more voters who believe that when the givers give they don't have enough to hire? I doubt it. It's all about education and when the media has 24/7 classes, 30 second sound bites are meaningless. Whoever controls the means of disseminating information will control the masses. Are there any challenges to this theory?

[combat_boots]

Bob

is Osama supporting Obama???
http://blip.tv/file/1397201

[7MMmag]

No challenges I can see. Not enough of us actually read, and what has been fed to the masses (Bush, and American business to blame for all the world's ills!) inspires nihilism & revolt.

Instead of critical thinking, we get partisan democrat party, cheerleading "talking points", offered as the solution.

Thinking over this and much else which now face us, I have discovered that it is possible to be both frantic and depressed, at the same time.

[7MMmag]

Aah, so you ask a rhetorical question?

Well, of course!

Everyone that hates Capitalism, "The West" and all that those ideas represent (whether or not such persons are currently enjoying the benefits of such, or not!) are indeed currently supporting the from the far, far left, Dhimmocrat Party candidate, Barack Hussein Obama.