Posted on 09/17/2009 12:39:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I think he’s got it right.
Till the republicans take charge again, then America becomes liberal again.
Try “American is a ‘what’s in it for me’ country”
The other point that the author of this piece should have made is that 0bama pretty well bought the Presidency. He outspent McCain by what, three to one?
I never put too much stock in the power of propaganda/advertising, but 0bama getting elected sure changed my mind!
What would the election have been like had there been no ACORN, no Black Panther thugs, etc.?
makes pretty good sense to me......
He says that self-identified "conservatives" outnumber self-identified "liberals" 40%-20%. But that leaves another 40% who do not so self-identify. And I think that the reason for the election of Obama lies there.That, and conservative vote suppression by John McCain . . .
Agreed,
RE :”The other point that the author of this piece should have made is that 0bama pretty well bought the Presidency. He outspent McCain by what, three to one?’
Yes but Honest John McCain followed the spirit of Campaign reform and took public funding. That got him many votes too, LOL .... jerk!
The article is accurate, it was anti- republican not pro-liberal , and much of 1994 vote was NOT pro-cut social spending as we hoped. The best election wins come from the other side having power.
Worth repeating--but we must not simply accept that it was due to the fact that it was primarily a result of the "liberal media." Even now, folks like many at Fox continue to claim that he campaigned as a centrist or moderate, giving cover to the claim that American citizens bought something other than what they are getting.
No, he campaigned as who he was--a part-term Senator whose voting record was the most liberal of any of the Senators, who appeared over and over at meetings of Far Left groups and stated the reasons why their members should vote for him.
Yes, he made, and continues to make, statements using the semantics and "words" of conservatives, but anyone other than the most gullible citizen must be held responsible for projecting upon him whatever their own views were. He certainly had no history or documentation for being anything but a person whose redistributionist ideas would dominate his presidency.
Fox's "fair and balanced" crew do a disservice when they misrepresent what happened, for it may tend to perpetuate the notion that voters are mere innocents who have no obligation to dig behind a candidate's words before they hand over the power that goes with political office at the highest level. Facts and records are powerful things. If ABC, CBS, NBC and the other now "fringe" media don't see fit to warn the citizenry of dangers to their liberty, then the media that is truly "mainstream" must step up to the plate and do a better job of alerting citizens to the contrast between the politician's words and all previous actions.
The Founders said "an enlightened and informed" citizenry would be required to protect liberty. Two hundred years is a long time, but their words remain legitimate guides today.
How do you explain all the people who are now against Obama’s policy. Do you believe these people would have still voted for him had “The Media” vetted him like they should have. I know friends that would not have voted for him if they knew he smoked! ...and thats just one small issue.
“America Remains a Conservative Country”
The people do, but not the government. Therein lies a big problem.
From what he says, it sounds as if many (too many?) people don’t pay much attention to politics, and when November Presidential election comes around after four years of not thinking about politics, maybe they think they can have a Liberal President believing like Ronald Reagan.
It’s absurd, but maybe true.
And I think that the reason for the election of Obama lies there.
You're exactly right.
Two major factors elected Obama.
1. Most of the squishy moderate middle bought his "Hope & Change" baloney, and
2. Many conservatives stayed home, even with the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket.
This same squishy middle are the ones most acutely afflicted with buyer's remorse right now. They're also the ones who will guarantee a return to sanity in the upcoming mid-term elections and the 2012 presidential election.
“The people maybe conservative, but they don’t pay attention and are very easily lulled into believing a politician who tells them what they want to hear ( hiding his true agenda ).
Thus, they vote for someone who does not share their ideology and then later suffer buyer’s (really, voter’s ) remorse.
But by then, the damage is done.”
That’s right.
It's just as I said at the time - you can run as "not-Bush" but you can't govern as "not-Bush." It isn't a position, it's a reflection.
As Rush says, Americans live right and vote left - this last time they voted more left than usual never dreaming the one would be as extreme as he’s been.
Here’s a good rule of thumb: disenchantment with the GOP is not the same thing as a shift to the left. Especially when the last guy in the White House was named Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.