What Do We Do Now? Focus on Obama

RUSH: So what do we do now, folks? That's the question. Everybody wants to know what do we do now? And what we do now is what we should have been doing all along. I'll give you an example. Obama's on TV this morning. He was in Falls Church, Virginia, doing a campaign speech. And in this appearance he announced yet another plan to bail out people who are underwater in their houses. I don't know what this is, HARP 2, HARP 3. We alluded to this a few weeks ago where Obama was gonna take people that were underwater and basically refinance their mortgages and have a monthly payment max out at something like six or seven hundred dollars. Not quite forgive everybody's mortgage, but the effort was to make them think that was going to happen. That's the reason, one of the many reasons, Obama's out there saying, "Vote for me today."

We predicted this a few weeks ago, promising the government will refinance everybody's loans. No credit checks. No proof of anything. All you have to do is promise to vote for him. And that's implied. That is understood. I mean that's the whole point of it. So how do you fight this? What do we do? The only thing that has ever had a chance from the first days of this election, this campaign, has been to make it about Obama. Every day, in every which way possible, on issues, on Obama's record, on the things you can't defend. That's what needs to happen. That's what our chance is. Our team is not all that good. You know it and I know it. They're just not.

We had the CBO projections yesterday. Folks, the latest CBO report projects the US economy to only grow at a rate of 1% in 2013. That is the year, whoever the next president is, is inaugurated. This is the ostensibly nonpartisan CBO. And the projection rate for GDP is 1%, 2.2% for this year. Some of this is due to Obamacare kicking in in 2013. In addition, ladies and gentlemen, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire in 2013. That's not a coincidence that the economy is only gonna grow at 1%. There is going to be, at minimum, a 30% increase in revenue to the government. In other words, 30% more money is gonna come out of the private sector in the form of tax increases or tax cuts ending. Let's put it this way, tax rates being raised, is what's gonna happen, is gonna result in 30% more money headed to Washington.

Also, there's a story here in the stack, it's from Rasmussen. The federal deficit for this year is going to be closer to four trillion rather than the published $1.1 trillion. The focus needs to be on Obama. Whoever you were for, are for, in the Republican primary, at the end of the day Obama remains the target. Obama is the ultimate political target. The White House is the ultimate political objective. They don't have a single thing they can defend. If they want to try buy votes, which they will, go ahead. If they want to go negative on whoever the nominee ends up being, they will, but that record can't be denied. This is not 2008. The magic is gone.

I have a story here in the stack about racial tensions in the schools. So what does that say about all our vaunted diversity training for the last 25 years? All of liberalism is a mess. It's a gigantic failure, and it needs to be pointed out each and every day. This needs to be an ideological campaign aimed at Obama. This from Rasmussen, just put up today at noon. "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) yesterday reported that the federal budget deficit is projected to reach $1.1 trillion in 2012. That number is troubling enough but the reality is much worse. The United States will actually go about $4 trillion further in debt during the year.

"The difference comes from the fact that government accounting procedures simply ignores the cost of benefits being promised for future Social Security and Medicare recipients. While precise estimates vary as to how much these promises cost, they are in the range of $3 trillion annually. ... The government does not recognize the debt piling up for future Social Security and Medicare benefits because they have officially determined that no such liability exists." The old off-budget trick. It's not there. "As explained in the Federal Budget, 'The Federal Government uses the term "trust fund" very differently from the private sector.'" I'm reading to you from the federal budget. "'The beneficiary of a private trust owns the trust’s income and may own the trust’s assets.'"

For example, you who have trust fund kids and have trust funded your babies $25 million when they hit age 25 or 30, they own it. In the private sector that's what a trust fund is. "However, 'the Federal Government owns and manages the assets and earnings of most federal trust funds.' As if that wasn’t enough, the government 'can unilaterally change the law to raise or lower future trust fund collections and payments or change the purpose for which collections are used.'" And that's why they can go out and play games on the payroll tax reduction, game, trick, whatever.

"Rasmussen notes that 'The simplest way to get people to make bad decisions is to give them bad information. That’s the way con men work, and that’s how America’s Political Class led America into a fiscal crisis. For several decades, the federal government has consistently and systematically misled the American people about federal spending, deficits, and the federal debt.' Rasmussen notes that the actual federal debt is closer to $120 trillion rather than the $16 trillion."

That's all these promises 50 years out, all the unfunded pensions and liabilities, all of it: $120 trillion. That's everything. The $16 trillion is just the sum total of all the annual deficits since the founding of the country. The $120 trillion is that plus all the promises that have been made to people not born yet. For example, with their Social Security and their Medicare and their Medicaid and what have you. Food stamps, you name it. That's what's owed. Now, there will be revenue against that at some point.

There's not yet because some of that money is just waiting for revenue in the particular year it's due to be paid. It's still gonna be big, still gonna be huge. So the answer here: Focus on Obama. It's always been what this has been about. Every time I've heard Republicans from various corners of the political class and the establishment say, "Well, I don't want to nominate this guy. I don't want to nominate that guy. Because that guy is gonna be the focus! I mean, the focus has to be Obama." Yeah, well, make the focus Obama. Don't tell us! Don't start whining and moaning about which nominee is gonna be. The way I look at it, every damn one of these nominees has been the focus. That's what happens in a primary.

What gives you the idea that I would want to vote for Romney? Did you miss my post in #21? All I did was tell camle if he doesn’t want to vote for president, that is his business, but he shouldn’t sit the election out

I am not a newt fan at all... but I just hope that newt can beat romney. He would do some things that would be productive and help return America to a “can do” mentality. “Shining Hill” stuff. Santorum would also be leagues better than romney. romney would be as bad as obama... even on his best day.

LLS

My post was written poorly. I was speaking out from a soapbox and not directly to you. I apologize. I am so upset today... America has a republican leadership that is just a corrupt and infected as the dim party's brood. I can handle the corruption and elite blue blood snot faces... but when they assume that we are all as stupid as they actually think that we are... then my blood boils.

We have paid party hacks that are on FR today... already beating the drum of “get behind romney... beating obama is all that matters”.

Sorry... we cannot save America with mitt romney or obama. I am not certain that any of the candidates in the republican primary can save America... but newt or santorum at least offer hope. romney is an assured loss to obama and if he actually were to win the White House... he would be worse than obama on some issues... and boehner and mcconnell stand ready to pass every manner of big government republicanism. There will be no stopping it if they give the dims some table scraps. Kaslin you're the best... not part of the problem.

LLS

Yeah, I can see how my ongoing support for Santorum would lead you to the conclusion that I support Obama. It’s more like you are a Liberal if you are willing to vote for Romney. At least I am not abandoning Conservatism to do that.

if you want me to vote for you, gimme something to vote FOR. don’t campaign as “not as bad as the other guy” and expect entheusiasm. i can’t vote FOR romney, adn i won’t. if the party elite can’t get the message then they deserve to lose, and let the tea party go on their own. the republican party will pass into the night, and the people will have a true conservative to chose.

I will not vote for Romney either, and I did not tell you to vote for him. But to sit the election out and not vote at all is ridiculous and will assure that arrogant, lazy, lying pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is being reelected. Besides there is still a long way to go. Florida was only the 4th state that had an election in the primaries. Just because Romney has won 2 states does not guarantee him the nomination. So far he only has 84, or perhaps even less if it turns out that Florida can not be a take all state and that he has to share the delegates with Gingrich.

i wont’ subsidize my own destruction, adn if i’m going down, i’d rather it be at the hands of my enemy rather then he who calls himself my friend. the RNC thinks that they can take me for granted, that I’ll support whichever schlum they parede before me.

I won’t. and if the RNC took me, and all like me seriouslty, they’d look for another candidate. the fact that they think that they can make me vote THEIR way shows their arrogance.

I'd be willing to vote for Spongebob Squarepants if I thought he could beat Obama. I voted for Newt in SC--even though I think Santorum is the best guy for the job. It was a tactical vote to make life as hard on Romney as possible. Your guy just can't get traction.

But, yeah, if Mittens wins I'm voting for him. I used to say before 2008 that I'd stay home rather than vote for McCain, a declaration I had to eat. I'm not eating my words again. ABO. ABO.

I do not think that Romney will be in as good a position to show his contempt for conservatives that GW Bush did. He had our goodwill for his statist domestic agenda and MR won't have that goodwill. If he tries to go for a Medicare Drug Plan or No Child Left Behind people like me are going to be on him like a duck on a June bug.

re: if you want me to vote for you, gimme something to vote FOR. don’t campaign as “not as bad as the other guy” and expect entheusiasm.)))

Give me, give me, gimmee? This is so much childishness. Puerile, babyish demands. How is Kaslin in any position to give either you or me what we want? I wanted Sarah Palin. If I stay home and let Obama win, I don't get Sarah Palin.

Grownups have to work with what is--we don't get a corner to pout in.

I'm even seeing a GOP president without the support of his base, worrying constantly about a third party and a furious Tea Party. We stopped GW from turning over the US to Laura's Mexican housekeeper because Poppy's boy was so sentimental about the servants who brought him up and taught him Spanish. That's when the Tea Party got its real start, fighting off the Brit Humes and GWs and, sad to say, Tony Snows. It wasn't fighting Democrats.

We can do it again, and better, because we don't trust the Rinse Prebus and Bill Kristols...

I hear ya and I respect that. I just won’t. I mean, I’ll never vote for Obama, but I have been around so many years that I’ve seen where the enemy is in your camp, and difficult to Identify, it is MUCH tougher to get rid of them than if the enemy is outside and identifiable.

Romney will kill conservatism as we will be diluted beyond recognition. I’d rather rally to fight Obama than to sit back and wonder where it all went wrong with 4-8 years of the GOP’s Obama.

But, again, I certainly respect your opinion on the issue.

What if GW Bush had had the Tea Party to contend with? It's only been around by name since 2009. The GOP establishment doesn't like us, which is an understatement.

I think he might have thought twice before opening his silly mouth about "compassionate conservatism." I think if it has to be Romney, he's not going to find DC as receptive to soft socialism as W did.

is is more purils babish, etc. to be led by the hand by your party and told that you’ll vote for their choice no matter what, or to take a stand for what you beleive in.

you cannot simply force someone to vote, or whom to vote for. if the republicans cannot offer viable alternatives to the crap that is drowning us in debt, than they deserve to die out, to fade away.

you may think of us as sheep who will do whatever because you tell us to, but we aren’t.

and yes, GIMME!!! the party isn’t shy about sending me ‘gimme yer dough’ letters and solicitations. but until they respond to the nation’s calls for a conservative, they won’t get a dime. you cannot force me to contribute either.

romney can go to hell, and if he takes the republican party with him, then that’s thier choice, isn’t it?

if you think romney is any different from obama, than let him win adn you’ll see. he gave birth to obamacare, and if you htink that he’ll repeal it, then who has the brain of a child?

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.

Florida primary might not be a done deal