Posted on 08/04/2012 12:36:33 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Obama has met the enemy, and they are us (us, that is, if you are Caucasian). So reads the handwriting on the wall, according to BuzzFeed, which reports:
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has spent more than $100 million on advertising over the last 3 months. Much, if not most, of it has been produced to shred Mitt Romney’s reputation and suppress turnout among white voters who might vote for Romney.
That last sentence is worth re-reading. It links to a New York Times op-ed that notes with equal candor, not to mention nonchalance:
He is running a two-track campaign. One track of his re-election drive seeks to boost turnout among core liberal groups; the other aims to suppress turnout and minimize his margin of defeat in the most hostile segment of the electorate, whites without college degrees.
It’s a simple matter of arithmetic, the BuzzFeed article goes on to note. In 2008, black voter turnout reached its highest level ever. Hispanic and “youth” voters (ages 18 to 29) also turned out in record numbers. Obama captured 43% of the white vote, cinching a victory.
But with black unemployment reaching 14.4% in July and unemployment among millennials at 12.7%, enthusiasm is down. The dreaded “white vote” is now expected to account for 75% of ballots cast.
By most analysts’ lights, Obama needs to capture 40% of that voting bloc to win a second term. But a Quinnipiac poll released on July 12 shows him attracting just 29% of non-college-educated white males. Taken together with other recent polls, Obama’s share of the white vote as a whole is well shy of the 40% threshold.
The BuzzFeed piece predicts a “chemical warfare campaign, the war to end all wars” but doesn’t offer specifics on what that might translate to.
In the meantime, one might wonder how Obama supporters countenance speaking in such matter-of-fact terms about voter suppression, which Democrats consider the ultimate sin. The answer is provided in the Times op-ed by Thomas Edsall, who asserts that Obama is merely taking a page out of the Republican handbook. “Over the past two years,” he writes, “Republican-controlled state legislatures have been conducting an aggressive vote-suppression strategy of their own through the passage of voter identification laws and laws imposing harsh restrictions on voter registration drives.”
It is a fascinating admission. He imputes the basest possible motive to supporters of voter IDs laws, and one that is unprovable, to justify behavior that can’t rationalized as anything other cynical and anti-American. Just imagine the reaction if the tables were turned.
“And if we had elected McCain, we would not have Obamacare today.”
***
I wouldn’t bet on it. McCain is the great comprimiser, Mr. Bipartisanship. He might be more conservative on foreign policy matters, but on domestic issues, he’s a flaming liberal.
The reason McCain failed was that he was an awful candidate. He had all the charisma of a lawn chair. And he appeared to be a white version of Obama. People voted for Obama because they were intrigued by the thought of the first African-American president. Obama was and is an excellent mouthpiece, very adept at persuading the masses. Of course, that’s because they are so charmed by him, they don’t bother looking at his past and background (what little background there is) to find out what he’s really all about.
The Republican party had the opportunity to correct the mistake of nominating a putz for President in 2008 by allowing the people to select a real conservative to represent them. Instead they annointed yet another liberal. The party had already decided Romney would be its nominee even before the primaries began. So now, even though there are those who have seen the light on Obama, he may still win a second term because the alternative has no appeal.
If Obama wins again, you can blame the party for forcing another liberal candidate on us. And you can blame yourself for voting for the same liberal candidate. Nothing will ever change if you continue to vote party over principles or because the candidate isn’t Obama.
No. It is a fact that McCain would not have signed socialized medicine.
The Senate passed Obamacare 60 to 39.
NOT ONE SINGLE SENATE RINO VOTED FOR IT.
Not Olympia Snow.
Not Susan Collins.
Not even Arlen Specter
Not George Voinovich
Not Lisa Murkowski
Not Mel Martinez
NOT JOHN MCCAIN
SENATOR MCCAIN VOTED AGAINST OBAMACARE.
That is the fact. Not a single RINO voted for it. So stuff it.
I hate it some people just want to argue and can’t accept the facts when they are presented to them. Make a valid point, don’t create it from whole cloth.
It is a FACT that Pelosi and Reed NEVER could have passed Socialized medicine if McCain was President. Thank you all you conservatives who stayed home or voted 3rd party.
And now you all are going to do it again and hand the election to Obama.
Thankfully Obama is toast anyway because the economy has already beaten him. Romney is a lock for president. It is a done deal.
It means he is going to spray uric acid all over the white male population and hope that motivates everyone else to pile on at the polls. :)
Whatever.
Now, perhaps you should talk to a professional about your anger issues.
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.