Skip to comments.Michael Medved: The Consequences of Defeat (Read this!)
Posted on 10/21/2008 10:42:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Despite the fact that leading polls continue to indicate a close Presidential election, and point to the very real chance of an upset victory for the McCain-Palin ticket, too many conservatives have begun to embrace a bizarre form of defeatism. According to this destructive logic, a Republican defeat in 2008 counts as not only inevitable, but necessary; some disgruntled voices on the right argue that a decisive win for Barack Obama might actually help the conservative cause in the long run.
This notion contradicts both common sense and historical precedent and rests on five deeply damaging and ultimately demented myths.
MYTH #1: If Obama gets elected, his extreme liberalism will make him a one term president
TRUTH: Whoever is elected in 2008, will almost certainly win re-election in 2012--the business cycle will inevitably allow him to preside over recovery
The current financial crisis is painful and unpredictable, but no serious economist believes it will last more than four years. That means that President Obama (or, for that matter, President McCain) will be able to campaign for re-election with the claim that he arrived during the worst economy since the Great Depression and brought America back to prosperity and growth. If the next President handles our economic challenges with skill and wisdom, we will likely see the beginnings of recovery by the end of 2009 or early in 2010. If the new chief executive responds in a clumsy, misguided manner (with a heavier tax burden and more government spending, for instance) it could delay the inevitable comeback till 2011 or even 2012. Of course, a recovery that begins in 2012 (a likely development under Obama) would leave the incumbent perfectly situated for a landslide re-election.
In American politics, incumbent presidents almost always win re-election. Even Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, despite angrily alienating big segments of the public, won solid re-election victories in part, because of the healthy economic conditions at the time of their campaigns. In the last 75 years, White House incumbents have run for re-election thirteen times, and ten of those times theyve won. The only losers limited to one term (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush) suffered from tough economic circumstances and spirited primary challenges in their own parties (from Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Buchanan, respectively). If Obama wins in November, theres little chance hell face either economic hardship or opposition from a fellow Democrat. In other words, hes a sure winner for re-election.
In the remote chance that the current recession morphs into something much, much worse than a typical downturn, and the nation fails to even commence recovery within four years, then we will face a situation so extreme, insecure, revolutionary and painful that Presidential politics will represent the least of our concerns.
MYTH #2: Whatever damage Obama does to the country can be quickly and effectively repaired by a strong conservative successor.
TRUTH: The most significant and sweeping changes of an Obama presidency would be permanent and irreversible.
Its true that some changes by liberal presidents can be erased by future conservatives for instance, George W. Bush cut the top marginal tax rate to 35%, after it had risen to 39.6% under Clinton (its sure to go back up to the Clinton rate or higher under Obama). Yes, the President and Congress tinker endlessly with details of the tax system or the levels of appropriation or regulation so that the growth in government and spending under President Obama could be adjusted, if not reversed.
But conservatives need to face the fact that Barack Obama has promised profound systemic changes that will be irreversiblepermanent alterations of our economy and government where there is no chance at all that Republican office-holders of the future could in any way repair the damage.
For instance, consider two sweeping new entitlements that Obama plans to offer for all Americans universal (but, he insists, voluntary) federally-funded pre-school for all children starting at age three, and a low-cost, heavily subsidized federal health insurance plan for every low or middle income American who wants it.
A President Obama would no doubt promote such proposals in his first year in office and a compliant, heavily-Democratic Congress would approve them promptlyperhaps making the benefits even more generous. This means that before the next election, tens of millions (probably hundreds of millions) of American families will take advantage of free pre-kindergarten education (and day care), as well as cheap, subsidized (to the tune of at least $160 billion per year) health insurance. The chances of ever taking away such goodies are nilPresidents may come and go, but entitlements are forever. New government give-aways may accomplish nothing constructive but theyre all but impossible to eliminate once theyre up and running.
Consider Jimmy Carters horribly misguided establishment of two vast new cabinet level departmentsthe Department of Education and the Department of Energy. When the indignant public swept out of office the worst president of modern times, Reagan took the White House with talk of eliminating one or both of these two wasteful bureaucracies. Even the Great Gipper failed in this endeavor, and the Departments of Energy and Education continue to soak up hundreds of billions of tax dollars and to employ tens of thousands, despite their abject failure at improving either public education or our energy supplies.
Obamas new entitlements will similarly survive all attempts to eliminate them. If he becomes President well be permanently stuck not just with federal pre-school and a subsidized health insurance guarantee (Obama described it as a right in the last debate), but with a $4,000 annual check (a so-called refundable tax credit) to all non-wealthy college students, a doubling of the Peace Corps, vast increases in AmeriCorps, new billions for National Service, a tripling of the foreign aid budget (a specific Obama promise) and much, much more. For those who believe its easy to reduce or erase such spending in future administrations, consider the example of Bill Clintons cherished service program AmeriCorps (which pays its volunteers close to $30,000 a year). Gingrich, George W. Bush and countless other conservatives recognize that this is a wasteful, crooked, outrageous effort to use taxpayer money to fund leftist activism, but even when the GOP controlled all levers of government they made no progress in slaughtering the monster.
Or think about Lyndon Johnsons federal initiative for a National Endowment for the Arts in 1967. By now, this appalling program has wasted many billions of taxpayer dollars to fund the ugliest and most puerile sorts of artistic expression. No one can make a serious case that the NEA has accomplished anything worthwhile in uplifting or enriching our culture (in which more than 98% of all cultural spending comes from private sourcesdonations, opera tickets, sales of paintings, museum admissions, or corporate grantsrather than government initiatives at the federal, state or local level). Despite the endlessly demonstrated uselessness and insipidity of the National Endowment, it continues to flourish and even won increased appropriations in recent years.
Aside from the ongoing growth of government and the waste of public money, other changes brought about by President Obama will prove to be unalterable and devastating: in his first year, he will authorize gays serving openly in the military, and hasten the national imposition of homosexual marriage (hes pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act).
He will also get the chance to appoint at least two, and perhaps as many as four new justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. All legal observers expect Obamas nominees to embrace an even more activist, leftist view of the Constitution and legal system than Clintons appointees, Breyer and Ginzburg. The damage from the remaking of the court could prove incalculable. There is also no chance of impeaching any Supreme Court Justice (short of a credible murder or rape charge) even if Republicans re-take control in some future Congress. The GOP (led by Jerry Ford as House Minority Leader) tried to gain traction for impeachment efforts to counteract the wildly destructive excesses of the Warren Court but got absolutely nowhere and managed, mostly, to embarrass themselves.
Finally, and perhaps most fatally, a President Obama will radically revamp our already broken immigration system and permanently remake the country, politically and demographically.
Many conservatives passionately opposed the sweeping immigration reform promoted in 2007 by President Bush and Senator McCain (and, it must be noted, a majority of Republican members of the US Senate). Opponents of the comprehensive Senate compromise objected to the bill because it granted a complicated path to legalization for some of the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here. Those concerned citizens who celebrated victory last year with the collapse of the immigration compromise should prepare themselves for a much more liberal, forgiving reform under Obama (and his supportive Congress) that will make legalization far easier, and will include far more illegal future voters and citizens.
Of course the Democrats will push such changes, knowing that they can thereby claim sole credit for welcoming millions of new citizens to the voting roles, and with the expectation that such freshly minted Americans will vote Democratic for the rest of their lives. The Democrats will also cut back immediately on the workplace immigration raids and enhanced border security that has enabled the Bush administration to sharply cut back on illegal entries in the last year Obama has specifically condemned these efforts and might even halt or slow ongoing work on the border fence.
In any event, weve been down this road before: the Republicans claimed credit for the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, all but eliminating the flow of humanity from Eastern and Southern Europe, and as a result vast numbers of ethnic voters (Italians, Poles, Jews, Greeks and more) became loyal Democrats for a generation or more.
This shift in immigrant voters played a huge role in the establishment of the New Deal Coalition that won five Presidential elections in a row (1932 through 1948) and totally dominated Congress for an appalling fifty years (1930-1980).
As Amity Shlaes shows in her necessary new book The Forgotten Man, FDR failed miserably at turning around the US economy (the Depression lingered until the beginning of World War II) but succeeded brilliantly in achieving long-term power for the Democratic Party. The innumerable government programs launched by the New Deal may have done nothing to advance the overall interests of the nation of the economic system, but they performed magnificently at creating dependent interest groups who voted reliably Democratic for decades. If the government hands out goodies to various constituencies, those segments of the population will continue to support the idea of enriching themselves with other peoples money.
Thats the biggest threat of an Obama presidency: the creation of vast new groups of dependent Americans who will comprise an unassailable new coalition that will enjoy iron control of our politics for a generation or more. If you start with newly legalized immigrant voters (with as many as 10 million new Democrats totally beholden to Obama and company) and then add the beneficiaries of government pre-school, the new nursery school teachers, the recipients and administrators of federal health insurance, federal college grants, the businesses wholl enjoy the $150 billion in promised subsidies for alternative energy, the companies and employees of the vast increases in infra-structure spending (lots more bridges to nowhere), the non-tax payers who will suddenly receive a $1,000 per household check (under the guise of refundable tax credit,) and many, many more.
In his first years in office, a President Obama could easily succeed in buying so many interest groups and constituencies with expensive new governmental favors, that conservative dreams of rebuilding a small government majority will go absolutely nowhere.
MYTH #3: An Obama win in 2008 will set up a far more significant conservative triumph in 2012 (or 2016); after all, isnt it true that we had to go through Jimmy Carter to get Reagan?
TRUTH: In fact, Reagan would have been elected President in 1980 whether or not America suffered under Jimmy Carter, and theres no potential 21st Century Reagan waiting in the wings.
Some of my talk radio colleagues insist that an Obama victory might be a blessing in disguise in the same way that Carters victory over Gerald Ford paved the way for Reagans election four years later. The common (and historically illiterate) formulation claims: We had to go through jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan. According to this logic, a disastrous Obama presidency will prepare the electorate for a future, Reagan-like conservative champion.
The most obvious problem with this analogy and this argument is that Ronald Reagan would have won the presidency in 1980, regardless of who won the general election in 1976. Remember, if Jerry Ford had bested Jimmy Carter in what turned out to be a very close race, he would have been term-limited under the 22nd Amendment. Reagan, who had lost to Ford in a breathtakingly close primary struggle, would have been his obvious successor due to his strong base within the party, national popularity, and support for the Ford-Dole ticket. His well-advertised policy and personal differences with Ford would have allowed him to offer a change in direction in 1980, even if Ford had been his predecessor. The idea that Reagan required the disastrous Jimmy Carter regime in order to capture the White House falls apart when considering his campaign of 1976when, without the benefit of Democratic disgrace, he nearly captured the GOP nomination against a moderate incumbent and would have likely defeated Carter in the general election nearly as soundly as he did four years later.
Reagan, in other words, won the presidency on a pro-Reagan vote (with tens of millions of loyal supporters) at least as much on an anti-Carter vote. This undeniable historical truth leaves an obvious question: whos todays Ronald Reagan, waiting in the wings to lead a united GOP and to unseat President Obama? The lack of any prominent conservative contender with a formidable national base is one of the most obvious arguments against the peculiar notion that this year Republicans can win by losing.
MYTH #4: If McCain loses, Sarah Palin becomes the obvious leader for the reborn Republican Party
TRUTH: If McCain loses, Governor Palin will enjoy no future in national politics, but if he wins, then she could become a very plausible successor.
Many conservatives support and admire Governor Palin, and cherish the hope that after an Obama victory she would emerge as the natural, inevitable leader of the GOP. Unfortunately, political history and current circumstance make it highly unlikely that shed survive the defeat of a McCain-Palin ticket as an enduring figure of national stature. While its certainly true that any candidate who wins election as Vice President becomes an instant Presidential possibility, defeated Vice Presidential candidates almost always disappear as contenders for party leadership. Consider the four most recent losing nominees for Vice President: John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Dan Quayle all tried to run Presidential campaigns after their losing VEEP bids and all three failed miserably. Meanwhile, the previously well-regarded Jack Kemp (Bob Doles running mate in 96) left politics altogether after his ticket went down in flames. In the last eighty years, a losing Vice Presidential bid has been a virtual guarantee of future frustration and obscurity. Does anyone remember the names John Bricker, or John Sparkman, or Estes Kefauver, or William Miller, or Thomas Eagleton? All of them won nomination as Vice Presidential candidates and then quickly dropped from sight in national politics.
The last time a defeated VEEP candidate actually made it to the White House was with the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in 1920, Franklin D. Roosevelt. After losing that race (to the ticket of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge), FDR waited twelve years, went through polio, then won election as Governor of New York, before he finally re-emerged as the Democratic Presidential nominee and, ultimately, President of the United States.
For obvious reasons, Sarah Palin would most likely follow the frustrating example of John Edwards or Jack Kemp, rather than FDR. After the election of 1920, nobody blamed young Roosevelt (who attracted widespread praise for his brisk, effective campaigning) for the crushing Democratic defeat. If the McCain-Palin ticket loses the election, many Republicans will blame Palin (shes already attracted more than her share of mean-spirited intra-party critics), or at least blame McCains choice of Palin, for undermining GOP chances. If the party attempts to regroup after a prospective loss, its impossible to imagine this dispirited remnant somehow rallying around Palin.
If, on the other hand, McCain and Palin shock the smug Democrats and win a come-from-behind victory, the new Vice President would emerge as an instantly plausible presidential possibility. During four or eight years as the second-ranking officer of the government, Sarah Palin would enjoy an excellent chance to silence all doubters and mockers and demonstrate her competence and preparation on the world stage. Its easy to imagine her touring world capitals and dazzling the populace as well as foreign leaders. Assuming (as I do) that the skeptics are wrong about Palin, and that shes a gifted politician and solid conservative leader, the Vice Presidency would provide the perfect opportunity to prove her stature and mettle.
MYTH #5: A GOP defeat in 2008 will help get rid of the moderates and country club Republicans who damage the party, and Republicans will emerge as a more pure, conservative and successful political force in the future.
TRUTH: After a crushing defeat, all parties move to the center, not to the right or left; in U.S. politics, you can only build a winning coalition by addition, not subtraction.
Its amazing that some smart conservatives still cling to the winning-by-losing strategy, refusing to surrender the lunatic idea that you can build a partys strength by reducing its numbers. No movement in U.S. political history has ever benefited from a purification process; purges always weaken or destroy a partys vitality and viability, as even 1930s Communists could attest. Nothing is more obvious in the American political process than the proposition that you win elections by attracting wafflers, moderates, dissenters, and independent spirits to your side; you lose elections by driving away such uncertain souls.
The greatest conservative of them all, Ronald Reagan, always understood this principle. At the moment of his greatest triumph, when he finally captured his partys nomination in 1980, he didnt turn to a pure conservative or a true conservative as his running mate. Instead, he chose party unity and selected George Herbert Walker Bush, a prime example of the Ivy League, country club Republican many right-wingers instinctively despised. Reagan also used Bushs friend and aide, the notorious moderate James Baker, as his chief of staff. Unlike his mentor Barry Goldwater (who lost in a landslide), the Gipper understood throughout his career that a party that achieved pure conservative status would become a pure loser in competition for swing voters.
Moreover, history shows conclusively that a bitter defeat never pushes a conservative party farther right, or pushes a liberal party further left. Instead, political organizations that experience harsh rejection from the electorate move instinctively, inevitably toward the center in quest of precisely those middle-of-the-road voters who abandoned them in the previous contest. After outspoken conservative Barry Goldwater led the GOP to an overwhelming defeat in 1964, the nominees that followed (Nixon twice and then Gerald Ford) clearly represented the more moderate wing of the party. When unapologetic liberal George McGovern brought the Democrats a ruinous 49-state drubbing in 1972, they followed with a long series of relatively centrist, purportedly non-ideological candidates (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore), reliably shunning the strong leftist contingent within their coalition.
There is simply no historical model for the process of party defeat, purification and rejuvenation that some deluded conservatives recommend. Consider the sad state of the Republican Party during the 1930s and 40s. In 1928, Herbert Hoover represented the most moderate, or even progressive, nominee since Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. When Hoover got crushed by FDR in 1932, the Republicans didnt turn back to solid conservatives in the Coolidge tradition. Instead they kept nominating moderates (Alf Landon, former Democrat Wendell Wilkie, New York progressive Tom Dewey twice, and then the non-ideological General Eisenhower) in the often forlorn hope that they could woo wavering independents or conservative Democrats away from the New Deal coalition. Not even five consecutive defeats on the Presidential level led the Republicans to shift to a more conservative, ideologically rigorous posture.
Today, Barack Obama is running an unusually explicit liberal campaign, and if he loses the presidency the Democrats will almost certainly adopt a more centrist, New Democrat image for the next campaign. If, on the other hand, McCain and Palin lose, political operatives will (for better or worse) steer the Republican Party even further toward the middle of the road, seeking a more moderate (or at least inclusive) image to attract the centrist, independent, undecided voters who decide almost all elections.
In other words, a McCain victory would force the Democrats to turn to the right, while a McCain defeat would almost certainly send Republicans scurrying toward the mushy center. Since most right-wingers rightly hope for a more moderate Democratic Party, and a less moderate Republican Party, they should seek a rousing GOP victory and help avoid an historic defeat that would shrink and cripple the conservative cause.
With less than two weeks left before a fateful Presidential election, committed conservatives should abandon the toxic myths suggesting that defeat could somehow help our movement. The refusal to recognize the obvious rebuttals to such twisted logic, and to acknowledge the huge stakes in this campaign, counts as nothing less than suicidal.
|Obamas Past Will Haunt American Security?|
|Imagine, Bin Laden & Achmedinajad if ever questioned by President Obama about their terrorist activities, or developing nuclear weapons program?|
|Their response which is a reasonable response is going to be, "who are you to tell us anything!"|
|Don't you remember Mr. President, you sat with Rev. Wright who did noting but put America down for 20 years. Oh,
and you lived and worked with a terrorist Bill Ayers who pretty much did same thing in 60's what we did in 2001.
|Farrakhan, Rezko, Auchi, Alsammarae, the list goes on. So President Obama, spare us your higher than thou show!|
|In this world it is only the American people who can be fooled over and over and you did a great job with them.
We will see who the next president is going to be in 4 years. Until then, hey Muslim brother, welcome to the real world.
|This is a real scenario and though it would be nice to have an African American become the President of the United States, let us just choose the right American.|
I’m thinking more along the lines of Baghdad Bob—my fear is if Ubama were to win, he’d be palling around with all those petty dictators (Iran, Venezuela, etc.), making politically correct nice-nice with them, right up to the moment they defeat our nearly non-existent military he is sure to decimate—and America will be no more! :*(
Preach it, 2ndDV!
That is exactly what Obama will do. Those guys will eat him alive. Obama is a naive fool.
I disagree with some of Medved’s points - I think Palin could emerge as a future leader even if McCain loses - but overall I agree with him. I can’t see why anyone would gamble that Obama would be a one termer, or that his policies could be reversed easily by a successor. And in foreign policy, there’s the potential for real disaster (Biden actually hit on the truth when he said Obama would be tested).
McCain’s not perfect, but he’s infinitely better than the alternative.
No one is perfect.
Every election is about getting the best person in to protect the integrity of our Constitution and who can honorably serve as Commander in Chief of our military forces.
In this election that person is John Mc Cain.
And this doesn’t even cover the very real possibility of an Obama presidency subverting government agencies to silence dissenting opinion.
For instance, I am only interested in the Birth Certificate question before the election because if he gets in I am absolutely certainly that, whatever the truth of it, it will be made to disappear from view.
I would be completely embarrassed if I had to count on someone like Ms. Parker to support my views.
An Obama victory will bring more progressive city councils and school boards. They will silently, or even loudly, proclaim society has “progressed.” Conservatives, traditionalists and even moderates will be ignored or silenced, especially in matters of education and community affairs.
Liberals always bring more bureaucracy and more programs. Eliminating a government program is nearly impossible.
Society and culture will suffer as well. The Liberal media and entertainment industries will flood our screens with progressive messages; even more than now.
The gay agenda will be revitalized; climate change will return as a major issue. References to faith and morality will be nonexistent in the media and entertainment.
So, now we know why Obama is the Left’s “Messiah.” They've been working towards this point in time for decades. If Obama is president and the Democrats control Congress, he will enable social and cultural “change” by making more people ignorant of reality and dependent on the government in their everyday lives.
I believe McPalin will win handily. Here are the under-reported reasons I have collected visiting FR way too much.
1) Polls that show Obama ahead tell a different story when internals are studied. Please see http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/an-eeyore-free-zone for a primer on how polls are cooked. UPDATE: Rasmussen saying McCain ahead in Florida and Ohio.
And now, a brief history lesson of ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS:
1980: Reagan 50.75%, Carter 41%, (+9.75 Reagan) Reagan won 45 states.
1984: Regan 58.77%, Mondale 40.56% (+18.21 Regan) Reagan won 49 states.
1988: Bush 53.37%, Dukakis 45.65% (+7.72 Bush) Bush won 42 states.
1992: Clinton 43.01%, Bush 37.45%, Perot 18.91% (+5.66% Clinton) Clinton won 30 states.
1996: Clinton 49.23%, Dole 40.72%, Perot 8.40% (+8.49% Clinton) Clinton won 31 states.
2000: Bush 47.87%, Gore 48.38% (Gore +0.49%) Bush won 30 states.
2004: Bush 50.73%, Kerry 48.27% (Bush +2.46%) Bush won 31 states.
NO WAY is Obama up 14 points!
2) Hillary and Bill are not acting like they want Obama to win, since she wants to run again in 2012, despite what she alludes to.
3) Hussein being Obamas middle name is still news to most people.
4) A picture of Obama dressed as a Muslim (there are at least three) is still worth 1000 words (3000 in this case). Man your email station! Post bills!
5) The PUMAs who know the hows and whys of Hillary getting cheated, will vote Palin, and will pull others. Check out http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=33711&page=3 and http://democrats-against-obama.org
6) [Bitter Clingers] to [Religion and Guns], will vote McCain, so much so that 22K of the 45K in Grand Junction, Colorado came out to see her http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110920/posts.
7) The Palins ARE America and the conservative base. America and the conservative base will vote accordingly. According to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2106836/posts parts of the country that were not fired up about the election, are working for Palin. She draws THOUSANDS at every campaign stop.
8) The NRA has 8 figures of ads to unload in swing states
9) At one point, Obama was only 5 points up in New York! New York!
10) The Democrats were talking about Democratic consultants freaking out over Obama mis-managing his campaign before they settled into poll alteration.
11) The Enemedia is already spreading the meme that if Obama loses, it is racism. They see the tea leaves ...
12) The Media was calling the election for Kerry ELECTION MORNING in 2004, and Carter and Reagan polled evenly on election day! SOMEONE is trying to buffalo us with these polls! For more on the history of polls leaning Democrat, please see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2106669/posts Both Zogby and Mike McCurry predicted a Kerry win.
13) McCain has only started to play the Ayers card. McCain has not yet played the Tony Rezko, Odinga, ... more at http://www.barackbook.com
14) Plenty of long-time Democratic voters are unimpressed with Obama, and will not vote for him. Two midwestern transplants have volunteered to me that they know lifelong Democrats who WILL NOT vote for Obama. The 1st hand accounts here on Free Republic about lack of enthusiasm for Obama relative to Kerry similarly bodes poorly for Obama.
15) Obama has only 60% of the Jewish vote last I checked, compared to the 75% Kerry got (comfortable R win), and the 90% Gore got (close R win). Please see http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_and_the_jewish_vote.php and http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08293/921167-470.stm
16) The Christian base that re-elected Bush in 2004, knows Sarah is more than a Sunday Christian, and is praying for her.
17) McCain opened 50 offices in California. Its in play! It should be the bluest of the blue, and it is not.
18) Google Bradley Effect. Obama is getting poll votes hell never get on election day. PUMAs have also agreed to lie to pollsters about supporting Obama, and are encouraging others to do so.
19) Operation Chaos resulted in an overlarge quantity of Democrat registrations that will never ever vote Democratic.
20) Obamas spread the wealth line to Joe the Plumber will cost him undecideds not ready to etch the current class structure in stone.
21) The Enemedia overstating Obamas popularity will cut two ways. The lazy, and the youth, (core Democrat constituencies) will not brave traffic and lines to vote on election day, since they were lied to by the KGBMedia to believe that Obama has a gigantic lead.
22) There is a group playing Jeremiah Wrights ads. Read more about it http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2108462/posts, and to donate visit https://www.completecampaigns.com/FR/contribute.asp?campaignid=OCDBPac.
23) The Obama crew already knows theyre going to lose. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110803/posts and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2103037/posts
24) Kerry won the Nickelodeon kids vote 57/43, and Obama won it 51/49! If you dont think kids vote like their parents, then you got another thing coming! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110843/posts
25) Polls are meant by the Enemedia, to SHAPE public opinion, not to accurately report it.
Fellow Freepers, please feel free to post this list every time you see a Freeper or anyone feeling down, anywhere. No need to credit me or ping or write me.
If you do start spreading this list, it might not be bad for you to check back for updates since Freepers are always kindly giving feedback to this list.
Let me know if you have any other under-reported reasons for the coming McCain/Palin win.
Mantra: Taxes kill businesses kill jobs kill people
Please tell me if you think there are mistakes.
If Obama becomes President, he will turn America into an athwistic, Communist, Islamic Republic where Sharia law is enforced on everyone and a new era of racial segregation is imposed on the populace, but this time the Blacks will be over the rest of us. That cannot be tolerated.
After eight years of an Obama presidency talk radio will be obliterated, equal time for contrasting points of view will be mandated on the internet -- which will most likely come under control of the television networks, and their broadcast rights will be divied out to the highest most politically correct bidder.
Under those circumstances, where conservatives cannot congregate nor disseminate, what makes anyone think freedom will survive under an Obama presidency? It won't.
Radical socialists are playing the Democrats like fiddles. The Dems don't get it.
Radical socialists hate you -- that means YOU!
They don't give a damn about what you call your rights. They call it ignorance. You are the enemy and they want you obliterated.
The bottom line: A Democrat win will seal the fate of not only the Republican party, but more importantly the American experiment in capitalism and democracy. A permanent communist Chavez/Castro type dictatorship will then be all but inevitable, as the Democrats rush to lock down the already submissive media, consolidate their stranglehold of the educational system, and work toward a massive state takeover of the economy. This will all be set in stone, as ever-increasing millions of illegal aliens are given full voting rights.
Look, I don’t advocate an Obama win, but let’s not go hysterical here.
Yes there are some things we still have to deal with today, that Jimmy Carter F’d up during his term in office.
The Cold War isn’t one of them.
Good things can actually come from a defeat. If we lose this time, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We frittered away so many chances to do good things between 2000 and 2006, it turns my stomach.
And now heeeeere’s Johnny. If McCain wins or loses, we have some grave self examination that is extremely overdue.
I hope that takes place. If it doesn’t, Obama will be the least of this nation’s problems.
If we can’t select better people to represent Conservative views, this nation is doomed Obama or not.
Palin is the best thing to happen to the party in two decades. Two fricken decades ladies and gentlemen.
Who do we have to blame for that? I’d suggest we figure it out but quick!
Just go to DU, Kos, Huffington, etc., some time and read the threads. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
I'll quibble a bit over this. In 2010 there will be a census. In 2012 the electoral college map will change as a result. It will give more congressional seats and electoral votes to the South and Plains and take them from the Northeast and upper midwest. This will probably favor the GOP as states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan will become less important to get elected.
garbanzo: Small problem with your theory. Immigrants and a Democrat controlled congress.
The Constitution requires a census to be taken every ten years. Nothing they can do about that. It also requires reapportionment. It is possible to change the formula but the population shifts are real and any attempt to game the system too much will result in court action. It’s also unlikely that even with massive immigration, that naturalization will happen at such a rate to alter the effects of the 2010 race.
And now, a brief history lesson of ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS: 1980: Reagan 50.75%, Carter 41%, (+9.75 Reagan) Reagan won 45 states. 1984: Regan 58.77%, Mondale 40.56% (+18.21 Regan) Reagan won 49 states. 1988: Bush 53.37%, Dukakis 45.65% (+7.72 Bush) Bush won 42 states. 1992: Clinton 43.01%, Bush 37.45%, Perot 18.91% (+5.66% Clinton) Clinton won 30 states. 1996: Clinton 49.23%, Dole 40.72%, Perot 8.40% (+8.49% Clinton) Clinton won 31 states. 2000: Bush 47.87%, Gore 48.38% (Gore +0.49%) Bush won 30 states. 2004: Bush 50.73%, Kerry 48.27% (Bush +2.46%) Bush won 31 states.
Hmmm, the bad thing about that history lesson is that it shows polls have been historically pretty accurate, or at least good predictors.
You're more optomistic than I. I don't think the "naturalization" process, as you and I know it, would last more than 18 months under an Obama presidency.
The most significant and sweeping changes of an Obama presidency would be permanent and irreversible.
the business cycle will inevitably allow him to preside over recovery
I agree with the first statement. Once Obama, Pelosi, and Reid do their dirty deeds, there will be no recovery.
Medved may be right, but if we lose and all this comes to pass, he will have only himself to blame.
bookmark for later
bookmark for later
“That is exactly what Obama will do. Those guys will eat him alive. Obama is a naive fool.”
He’s a put up job who knows he’s dancing with the devil. It’s not about him, but the forces behind him Massive $$$. Aspirations for total control. No holds barred abortion, with euthanasia to follow. Silencing debate, free speech, religious speech and believe. Harassment for dissention. “Education” camps.
He’ll have to kill those who know the back story. Quickly. We’ve had a couple of car crashes here in the last month.
And armor up, guys.
The national pollsters will love you for that. The truth is their ‘predictions’ were made AFTER a concerted effort of trying to dispirit Republican voters just as they doing in this election.
They manipulate the numbers until the last minute of the last hour THEN show the ACTUAL numbers to remain a factor in the next election.
MYTH#6: The Obama movement is not part of a conspiracy
bump for later
And if Obama wins, who thinks the dems will leave Gov. Palin alone? They’ll demonize her and her family until the cows come home. They know perfectly well what she is and will do everything in their power to marginalize her forever. With Obama’s suppression of free speech and installation of the ‘fairness’ doctrine, the MSM will make sure she’s never heard from again. Along with the rest of the republican party.
America’s enemies are attempting to buy the Presidency. Much cheaper and surer than trying to win militarily.
If Obama is elected, he will end up planting the seeds of a new civil war down the road.
...And it could all blow up in their faces BIGTIME. See the previous posting.
An Obama White House would be sadly a “Titanic” administration which would sink after hitting its own “iceberg”, making it one and done in four years.
...And with a bloody civil war that will result in time which would tear America apart.
ACORN and Tony Rezko didn't put us where we are today.
What did it was eight years of "compassionate conservatism".
After watching Weather Channel’s “How Weather Has Changed History” last night about the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, I cannot help but think that a possible Obama White House could become a political “Titanic” down the road.
But he assured us there was no sinister conspiracy involved.
Now with socialism about to enter the White House and Obama and his VIP endorsers flashing Illuminati hand signs with nudges and winks at his "transformative" leadership, maybe there will be a different spin. Now the house is falling in and the cards all look the same.
Either he was lying, or he doesn't get it, or he in fact is correct. Which do you think it is?
He was told the deal was done at the last meeting?
I hate the idea of an Obama election, but McCain is losing precisely because of
A) He is too old
B) He is a compromiser, not a Conservative
C) Fear of confrontation with the truth about his opponent
D) Has not been pounding Obama about his flip flop on campaign financing, or asking him directly, who will he owe for his election
E) Will not stake out any differences between himself and his opponent, beyond taxes. He ignores same sex marriage, supports amnesty for illegals, has not publicly pressured Congress to move quickly on new sources of energy, or questioned Obamas ties to a high number of radicals, including as a youth.
F) He could have easily taken the side of Conservatism during the bail-out debate, but compromised his so called principles again.
In short, though I will most likely vote for McCain, he is a poor candidate, with little chance of governing. Wrong man, wrong time.
Read Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter With Kansas". (Franks, BTW, now has a regular WSJ column!).
This book, which plagiarizes and updates Lenin's classic "What Is To Be Done", outlines the whole theory.
The central Leftist problem is that the proletariat does not make revolution. According to Marx, proletarian revolution in response to capitalism is inevitable, one of the "iron laws of history". Is Marx wrong?
Lenin (and Franks) say "no". The problem is "false consciousness". Browbeaten by the bosses, the proles are brainwashed and cannot see their "true" interests.
So, what's needed is a revolutionary vanguard to seize power and to (this is very important) CHANGE THEIR THINKING TO APPRECIATE, INSTEAD OF TO CONDEMN, COMMUNISM.
To put it in a slightly different way, they will need to be forcibly taught to stop clinging to their guns and their religion before they can see the light. Children first.
This is the significance of Ayers. And Klonsky the Maoist.
Lenin's great innovation was his discovery of the method to change the thinking of the working classes. He called it the red terror.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Obama is surrounded by advisers and semi-clandestine handlers who are 100% committed Leninists who seek to control the schools, brainwash the masses, repress or eliminate the kulaks (entrepreneurs) and to FIX "what's the matter with Kansas" once and for all.
Of course, this is not Russia, crushed and defeated by world war. The question is, what event, or series of events, will cause the People of the United States to assert their original right to alter or abolish forms which have become destructive of the ends for which governments are instituted among men?
By any means necessary, to quote Minister Malcom.
If you love the USA, then you vote for McCain/Palin. If not, then you vote for 0bama, or stay home. It’s that simple. The damage though, with a 0bama presidency will be enormous
Good point....and NO CONSERVATIVE will EVER STEP INTO THE BREACH ANYMORE...NONE.....Not Joe the Plumber, No WRITER, No POLITICIAN....NO ONE will want to stick their neck out and be DESTROYED by the LEFT MEDI!!!
I disagree. We're seeing it now. We had Clinton. Then we had Gore (more liberal). Then we had Kerry (much more liberal). Now we have Obama (VERY liberal). Perhaps they're all equally liberal, and some were better at hiding it than others, but I doubt it.
If McCain loses, Governor Palin will enjoy no future in national politics...political history and current circumstance make it highly unlikely that shed survive the defeat of a McCain-Palin ticket as an enduring figure of national stature...defeated Vice Presidential candidates almost always disappear as contenders for party leadership. Consider the four most recent losing nominees for Vice President: John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Dan Quayle all tried to run Presidential campaigns after their losing VEEP bids and all three failed miserably. Meanwhile, the previously well-regarded Jack Kemp (Bob Doles running mate in 96) left politics altogether after his ticket went down in flames.
I'm seeing apples and oranges here. Edwards was little more than a used-car salesman with an expensive haricut. Lieberman proved to a LOT of potential fans that he was nothing but a political whore. Quayle was completely neutered by the press. Kemp was a good conservative, like Palin, but, let's face it--he wasn't the most exciting person in the world. Sarah Palin energizes people, LOTS of people. While Mr. Medved could be correct in his assertion of her disappearance, it will be an inside job by the blue-blooded "intellectuals" who feel she has no place at their table, certainly not by the electorate.
You’re wrong...ACORN DID get us to where we are today...VOTE FRAUD has piut in a LOT of DEMOCRATS.
Hello Newbie......if Obama wins a LOT of GREAT MILITARY PEOPLE will retire and a LOT won’t sign up.......DRAFT COMING WITH WOMEN INCLUDED!
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.