Admittedly, I was one of the moderate conservatives who was wooed by Obama during his PR campaign to become the country’s next president. Sadly, even though I was still unsure of my vote until the week before the election, I know better now. I truly had no idea he would turn out to be the radical tax and spend liberal he’s revealed. Since the beginning of his presidency, Obama seems more interested in making policies and decisions that grab headlines than those in the best interests of the country. The announcement of his whopping $3 trillion budget, trailing the $800 billion bank bailout, was shocking and yet the media seemed to rally around him. The president wants to do everything at one time, national healthcare, economy, taxes (wealth redistribution), clean energy, infrastructure, education and more. He acts very king-like, expecting Congress to endorse everything he floats their way, but his high octane PR strategy–loaded with smiles and good oratory may be fading.
Mr. Obama spends money like its coming out of his own piggy bank and expects Congress to rubber stamp his agenda at every turn, which they have been doing except when it came to the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison. This is when the pie in the sky headline grabbing Obama style of governing met reality. Mr. Obama asked Congress for $80 million to build a new prison (it’s just more money to pile on the ginormous debt) but they paused, scratched their heads and couldn’t just go along with this brazen request without more details from King Obama. Even more hilarious was when the administration said it would just relocate these terrorists to state prisons but governors stopped that bad idea — “not in my back yard.” Even FBI Director Mueller nixed the idea as highly risky because terrorists could easily plot attacks on the US from within prison, recruiting other terrorists, organizing, fundraising etc.
Before this miscalculation, the President listened to his faithful servant Rahm Emanuel and released CIA memos about harsh interrogation tactics used on terrorists under the Bush administration. Many people including Defense Secretary Gates thought this was a bad idea and would endanger our troops needlessly not to mention reveal interrogation methods to our enemies. Once again, the president got great headlines from the partisan press which bashed President Bush and the interrogation methods he endorsed during his administration.
But as the reality of keeping this headline grabbing story going began to sink into President Obama’s head, he started walking backwards on the topic weighing the risk in the reality of the situation. This is when the administration had Attorney General Eric Holder tell the media that the Justice Department wasn’t going to prosecute former Bush officials. Shortly after this, the president announced he wouldn’t release photos of detainees being interrogated. Why engage in any of this in the first place? Releasing interrogation memos and detainee photos only harms our intelligence community and puts American’s at risk. Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal was the only paper to relentlessly criticize the administration about taking this action.
These recent events, the planned closing of Gitmo and “CIA-gate”, have made the president look very inexperienced and unpolished in his ability to lead the nation and only widened the partisan bickering in Washington. Oh, yeah and Speaker Pelosi’s memory lapse over when and what she knew about waterboarding looks sloppy, as if she’s trying to hide the truth. It doesn’t help the president and certainly doesn’t look like change we can believe in or need.
On a side note the president’s comments about his nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, are also cause for pause. He said he picked her because she would show empathy. While Supreme Court justices are human and bring experience to their work, they’re tasked with finely reviewing cases, considering the Constitution and using their intellect to arrive at rulings. Emotion isn’t part of the job. Even more disturbing are Judge Sotomayor’s comments that judges make policy.
It seems like the president’s image is unraveling in recent months and we’re getting a look at the real Obama underneath the PR, razzle, dazzle veneer he sports so well. I think Americans are growing weary of the sparkle, shine and high-spending policies this president is selling and want to see something more. Every week he is on TV holding a press conference for this or that announcement on funding, bailouts or programs to expand government exponentially. As my father exclaimed recently, “when does he have time to run the country, if he’s on television everyday.” This is a question to be pondered. Team Obama may have won the presidency through an innovative public relations campaign but winning over the confidence of Americans and setting the country on the right course will require careful thought, temperance and bipartisan collaboration.
A smile and eloquent speech won’t make it all right.
108 responses so far
1 hist // May 28, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I have a question to ask you, and it’s a serious one, not a “gotcha” question.
Did you hear/read all of the things that many conservatives were saying about Obama during the campaign? I’m just wondering if you didn’t hear them all or if you willfully disregarded them.
It makes me sad the number of conservatives who were taken in by him. I did not like McCain, but there was no way in hell I was voting for Obama.
2 krove // May 28, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Here we have a whole litany of lies and half truths. I’m not even going to refute them as it would waste my time.
You might however take a look at the Presidents approval ratings which are in the high 60’s and steady then take a look at the GOP in the 21% range and falling. Then ask yourself who is loosing support.
3 yojake // May 28, 2009 at 1:36 pm
agree with HIST – Where were you during the campaign? Could you not see through the “telepromter” ? As the previous person, I still voted for the person who most closely held my views….definitely not 100% or proably even 80%…but McCain was much closer than Obama – who doesn’t come close to any of my views. And if you are a “moderate” conservative I would think you would have overwhelming voted for McCain since that is what he espouses – so I can only assume some other reason….maybe to say you were part of history? I’m just hoping you won’t be on the wrong side of it now
4 nextgennow // May 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I’m confused
Pre-Election
1. Close Gitmo
2. Universal Health Care
3. Diplomacy with enemy’s
4. Stimulus Plan
5. SCOTUS- Empathy valued in nominee
6. Cap n’ Trade
7. No Torture
8. End Iraq War
9. TARP
10. Middle Class Tax Cut
11. Support of (Bush) Bailout
12. Increase taxes on top earners
Post- Election
1-12 Same
Not much new
Did you not visit his website prior to Nov, 4th?
I can understand if you disagree with any or all of the above but you seem to be suggesting they are a surprise, they should come as anything but a surprise.
5 William Teach // May 28, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I agree with HIST, too.
But, I gotta say a little harshly and with a bit of “we told you so!”, we ALL said this was going to happen. When we looked at Obama’s history vs his campaign trail rhetoric, it was easy to see what was coming.
What were lies and half truths, Krove? You kinda forgot to qualify that with any proof or substance. MoveOn forget to send the email this morning?
So what about the approval ratings? You folks love your polls when they help you, but throw tantrums when you lose (2000, 2004, Prop 8, etc.) They are meaningless in terms of what Obama is doing and attempting to do, but, hey, nice strawman argument.
6 ModerateGal // May 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The author states: “It seems like the president’s image is unraveling in recent months and we’re getting a look at the real Obama underneath the PR, razzle, dazzle veneer he sports so well. I think Americans are growing weary of the sparkle, shine and high-spending policies this president is selling and want to see something more.”
Huh? What makes you think that? His high approval ratings?
7 balconesfault // May 28, 2009 at 1:57 pm
You know, I was going to guess this was another piece by a college kid, or maybe even high school … and was surprised to read a bio line that this is a 15 year media consultant in Washington. Really?
“King Obama”? Seriously? His “faithful servent” Emanuel? Sheesh. This kind of stuff might sound fine in the midst of some talk show bloviating to kill time, but it looks really unserious in print
Finally, I’m pretty sure that Obama stated that he wasn’t planning on pushing for prosecution of those involved in torture at the operational level … but that Holder hasn’t made such a declarative statement.
8 lightduty // May 28, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Glad that the scales have fallen from your eyes. The information on Obama’s background and past votes was there, you just had to dig deep to find it.
It’s important to remember that many Dems run to the right during campaigns. Obama will make the same move in 2011, and many people will say “he must have changed, let’s give him another chance.” But he’ll just be tacking towards the center for votes.
His PR wasn’t the only reason he won, of course. He also raised more money than any candidate ever. And we’ll never see an accounting of his fundraising, because he declined to take public financing (one of his first broken promises).
Many folk raved about Obama’s pragmatism. But pragmatism means doing whatever is best. For whom? Clearly, Obama is doing what’s best for Democrats, and for himself. Not the nation as a whole.
9 balconesfault // May 28, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“And we’ll never see an accounting of his fundraising, because he declined to take public financing (one of his first broken promises).”
You’re kidding, right – do you really believe that the FEC gives a pass on reporting fundraising because someone doesn’t take public funds?
10 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 2:16 pm
krove: “You might however take a look at the Presidents approval ratings which are in the high 60’s and steady then take a look at the GOP in the 21% range and falling. Then ask yourself who is loosing support.”
I do, and I also take a look at opinion polls on specific issues. The country as a whole doesn ‘t seem to dig Obama’s agenda. Which would mean, support for him is 3,000 miles wide and and inch deep. Thin ice.
11 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 2:17 pm
balconesfault: ‘ “And we’ll never see an accounting of his fundraising, because he declined to take public financing (one of his first broken promises).”
You’re kidding, right – do you really believe that the FEC gives a pass on reporting fundraising because someone doesn’t take public funds?’
Can you direct me to a site where I can see a full accounting of Team Obama’s finances?
12 balconesfault // May 28, 2009 at 2:21 pm
You said fundraising, right?
Fundraising is a subset of finances.
Are you asking for an accounting of exactly how all the money was spent during the campaign? Nope. I can’t, though I have to admit I haven’t looked.
If you’d like his fundraising:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338
13 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 2:21 pm
ottovbvs: “He’s as popular as ever, the economy is showing signs of improvement, he’s dominating the political scene, and the country is not about to dump him in favor of Gingrich or Limbaugh. Your father sounds as deluded as you.”
That popularity can be fleeting, especially if unemployment hovers at around 10% or higher for very long. As for “dominating the political scene”, I think the scene is more dominated by discussions about what the GOP is going to do (aside from Obama’s adopting so many policies of the hated Bush).
Gingrich and Limbaugh were hairy nasty monster ogres in 1994, too. I remember.
14 EHS ZONE // May 28, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Typical Obamabot, you quote stats on THE ONE’s “popularity” which is supposed to somehow prove what a great leader he is and how superior his executive prowess is, yet you citing his popularity stats only prove you were fooled by his oratory, his “coolness” and his “celebrity!” Now you and the other 47% of Americans (those that saw through his BS and didn’t vote for him) are stuck with an inexperienced empty suit! Seriously, are you that naive as to believe someone’s popularity translates into sound executive experience and leadership abilities?!?! If so then you’re more of a sucker than I thought and I have a bridge to sell you!
At least the author of this piece has the strength and integrity to admit to her buyers remorse and that she may have made a mistake voting for THE ONE.
Despite all the facts pointing to Obama being inept and over his head as president (facts the author pointed out, not “lies and half truths” as you say) you Krove continue to defend Obama (with lame “popularity” stats) despite it becoming more and more apparent with each passing day that Obama is not a leader as a president must be but instead is what most of us with a functioning synapse knew he was from the start, an inexperienced empty suit, a smooth talking celebrity of no substance!
If you cannot see the truth Krove then you are either still blinded by THE ONE’s celebrity, still in denial, don’t have enough mental capacity to tell when you have been duped, or you don’t have the integrity and strength to admit you thought you were voting for “An American Idol” instead of president! Personally I think you suffer from all of the above!
Keep your hope and change Krove, HOPE you don’t choke on it and the crow you and all the other Obamabots that voted for him will be eating with each passing day!
15 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“You said fundraising, right?”
Yeah. Do we now know who Good Will and Ghdfgstgfdrs Kjhasgydga were?
16 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“You said fundraising, right?”
Yeah. Do we now know who Good Will and Ghdfgstgfdrs Kjhasgydga were?
17 Urkidingright? // May 28, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Are you telling us that you did absolutly NO research before voting? He is doing exactly what he said he was going to do? How can you be surprised? The only thing that is surprising is the he was honest! Quit rare in a politician. Please do America a favor and don’t vote anymore.
18 balconesfault // May 28, 2009 at 2:34 pm
You said fundraising, right?
Fundraising is a subset of finances.
Are you asking for an accounting of exactly how all the money was spent during the campaign? Nope. I can’t, though I have to admit I haven’t looked.
If you’d like his fundraising:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338
19 ottovbvs // May 28, 2009 at 2:50 pm
folderol
wrote 20 minutes ago
“That popularity can be fleeting, especially if unemployment hovers at around 10% or higher for very long. As for “dominating the political scene”, I think the scene is more dominated by discussions about what the GOP is going to do”
……My political memory goes back to late Eisenhower and this guy is dominating the political scene like no president since Kennedy and early Johnson…..as for the GOP dominating the political scene…..well they are certainly dominating the political humor scene which is rather different……And unemployment is nowhere near 10% and shows signs of bottoming…..by late next year the economy is going to be in full recovery mode and whose going to get the credit?…..Boehner, Cantor (where’s he gone lately?) and the party of no who will be starring in all those democratic campaign commercials.
20 ottovbvs // May 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm
EHS ZONE
wrote 27 minutes ago
“Now you and the other 47% of Americans (those that saw through his BS and didn’t vote for him”
…..Actually it was 46% and the biggest dem margin of victory since Johnson’s landslide in 64……and positively huge by comparison with anything Bush junior achieved
21 ktward // May 28, 2009 at 2:55 pm
‘Buyers Remorse’? Right sentiment, wrong admin.
I’m so laughing. The remorseful reality is that after 8 years of Bush et al, O is left cleaning up the horrific domestic and international mess and after only 100+ days of clean-up you’re whining after having voted for O, knowing full well his agenda.
Ahh, that’s rich,. Thanks for the laugh.
22 ktward // May 28, 2009 at 3:18 pm
ottovbvs:
Well, I can only take the author at her word, and she certainly implies she voted for O. Even if she, in fact, did not, it doesn’t affect one iota the chuckle value of her column’s absurdity. ‘Buyers Remorse’ indeed; that belongs to those who voted for Bush/Cheney.
If the Republican Party had leaders and legislators of Powell’s and C. Buckley’s ilk, I might consider rejoining.
23 flyoverland // May 28, 2009 at 3:23 pm
You are probably too young to remember this song, but I think it pretty well explains it
“The Snake” By Al Wilson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ZBqpEUbik
Regards,
fly
24 beedubya // May 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm
It’s because of ill-informed voters like yourself that we are in the situation we are. Your soul cleansing may make you feel better, but those of us who had seen the obvious cannot forgive that you helped elect this disaster of a president.
25 graywolf // May 28, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Was this person awake during the campaign?
To his credit (and little else), Obama didn’t really hide his socialist/pacifist views.
Anyone who thought they were voting for a centrist is just…….dumb.
As for those who claim that Obama is “cleaning up Bush’s mess”….
He is replacing a multi-billion dollar deficit with a multi-TRILLION dollar deficit.
LMFAO
26 cheesehead // May 28, 2009 at 3:47 pm
As “hist” stated in the very first comment, and others have since echoed, wasn’t Ms. Wright listening during the campaign?
None of the post facto criticisms in her post is a surprise to those of us who WERE listening.
This post would have been much more interesting if Ms. Wright had explained at length why she voted for Obama in the first place, and why those reasons have been negated.
27 EHS ZONE // May 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm
ottovbvs Said:
“…..Actually it was 46% and the biggest dem margin of victory since Johnson’s landslide in 64……and positively huge by comparison with anything Bush junior achieved”
The numbers I have seen quoted were 47%, not 46% but if it makes you feel better then we’ll say 46% for arguments sake.
Regardless, all that means is an additional 1% of Americans are what PT Barnum described of as being born every minute. It doesn’t take away from the fact anyone that voted for THE ONE was duped and with each passing day more and more people (those strong and honest enough to admit it) like the author of this piece will be coming down with a major case of buyer’s remorse, especially when it comes to foreign policy issues.
Our enemies know THE ONE is in way over his head not to mention he’s a major pacifist, something the North Koreans are obviously well aware of based on their provocations this week and many other enemies of the west are already licking their chops as they too become more aware of what a spineless and inexperienced empty suit THE ONE really is.
Face it, you and other Obamabots bought is BS hook, line, and sinker, it’s unfortunate that the whole of the US will suffer for the ignorance and gullibility of 54% of the nation!
28 HLMencken // May 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Stop the presses! A wingnut doesn’t like Obama!
29 cheesehead // May 28, 2009 at 4:02 pm
As “hist” stated in the very first comment, and others have since echoed, wasn’t Ms. Wright listening during the campaign?
None of the post facto criticisms in her post is a surprise to those of us who WERE listening.
This post would have been much more interesting if Ms. Wright had explained at length why she voted for Obama in the first place, and why those reasons have been negated.
30 gloriasteinberg // May 28, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Rahm Emanuel is a hatchetman for Obama, and he makes Karl Rove look like the Dali Lama. He learned his trade in the gutters of the Chicago political machine of Mayor Daley. Totally corrupt.
31 MaureentheTemp // May 28, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Please tell me you haven’t spawned. How could someone who is supposedly a media strategist be taken in by some speeches and a pretty smile?
32 McCainVoter // May 28, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Kudos to you for speaking up, and welcome back to the conservative tent. Instead of looking backward, I’d like to look forward. This is no time for ridicule, but a time to take action. A time for conservatives to stand together, share our principles every opportunity we can, and draw more people into the fold.
Just today I read of a proposed Constitutional amendment to end presidential term limits: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5 Unbelievable!
We the people must stand together and take back our country!
33 Are you Kidding // May 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm
OMG. I live in Australia and could see from my house he would govern EXACTLY the way he is. All you needed to do was check the facts that were available everywhere on the internet. All you had to do was read, watch anything other than the MSN and you would have known this was going to happen. Anyone with half a brain knew this was going to happen. God Almighty how can anyone be surprised now!!! Paaalease!!! How does it go, “you bought it you own it!”
34 choccity2005 // May 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm
AS a black conservativ,i didn’t vote for obama,I didn’t vote for mccain either.i saw them both as progressive and progresive light.I love the fact that he’s a decent husband,great father and a extraordinary orator.
But….he is a liberal.liberals can’t govern without a strong conservative congress,senate.(see bill clinton).With the majority of dems leading the nation is it no wonder we have massive debts.
george bush was NO CONSERVATIVE,he was a republican.Conservatives don’t do debts.(see texas).
See conservatives can run states and the nation(see ronald reagan,see guiliani,see governor palin)…they can run government b/c they believe in less,They believe in paying for what you spend.
liberals….can’t run cities,states or a country unless checked by a true conservative legistaure.(see california,new york,jersey,michigan,massachusettes).
Name the liberal legislature and government that doesn’t have debts….if you find 1 or 2…you’ve found alot.
So i never boght into obama,loved his speeches…but speeches isn’t going to drive down my property taxes or give me more money in my pocket.
pretty soon…the whole nation will know what i knew all along.
35 ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I really don’t understand Republicans voting for Obama and there is a lot of anecdotal info around.
Today on Rush’s show a caller said he was a long-time listener to Limbaugh and yet voted Obama – turned out he detested McCain (understandable) and thought Obama more of a centrist, but was mostly enticed by the idea that Obama would heal racial wounds and animosities in our country. He has since realized that isn’t the case at all and that Obama is not post-racial by any means and is still playing the same racegames every Democrat uses.
Then we have this guy from NM, Bruce Bartlett who also voted for Obama.
From now on I’m conducting an informal poll of all the writers on this blog. Who they voted for and why. So far I would tell you that the first step to a “new majority” is voting for the more conservative candidate.
It seems that NM is the home of the special-ed class for politics.
36 Dustin Ferrell // May 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Thanks for sharing, Crystal. I think this story is being told by many remorseful voters.
That said, I think the critics here in the comments section overstate the case – we did, after all, allow such a candidate to win, so “I told you so” isn’t adequate.
37 ChristianMiller // May 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Crystal Wright,
You say you are a “moderate conservative” what is that exactly? Obviously your political acumen is not very keen.
You look very young and needless to say you are naive. Be careful with men, young lady, they aren’t always what they seem (women too, btw). I hope your naivete ends with your political choices. I’m not trying to bash you. I don’t care who anyone votes for, so no personal rebukes from me just a nudge. You look like a nice young lady by your pic and you are a “media strategist” whatever that is.
Read Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek and you will understand nearly everything.
38 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 5:03 pm
ottovbvs: “……My political memory goes back to late Eisenhower and this guy is dominating the political scene like no president since Kennedy and early Johnson…..as for the GOP dominating the political scene…..well they are certainly dominating the political humor scene which is rather different……” Conservatives may only look dead to you. Believe me, they are not. MSM besottedness with Obama doesn’t mean he’s Mr Dominating Daddy to the country as a whole. Reagan was far more of a shake-up.
“And unemployment is nowhere near 10% and shows signs of bottoming…..by late next year the economy is going to be in full recovery mode and whose going to get the credit?…..Boehner, Cantor (where’s he gone lately?) and the party of no who will be starring in all those democratic campaign commercials.”
Unemployment is 8.9% right now. Short-term projections don’t look good.
Now explain to me how an Obama economy is geared toward high-employment. PRIVATE SECTOR employment, I mean.
39 sinz54 // May 28, 2009 at 5:44 pm
ottovbvs: Reagan couldn’t help dominating the political scene more than Obama. Reagan was the victim of an assassination attempt on 30 March 1981. If folks had stopped paying attention by then, they sure started paying attention again.
40 sinz54 // May 28, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Sigh. All that we’re seeing is that the honeymoon period is wearing off; the novelty of “America’s first black President” is wearing off; and now the job of hard governance is starting for real. North Korea’s provocations, the mess in the Middle East, health care reform, etc. What happens from here on out will depend on real results from Obama–or the lack of them.
BTW, “ottovbvs,” I remember vividly how Lyndon Johnson began to “dominate the political scene.”
On 10 August 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
On 8 March 1965, U.S. Marines landed in Vietnam to begin direct ground combat with the enemy. (I remember that day vividly; I had been ill and I read that newspaper’s headlines while waiting to see the doctor.)
Given that we still had a military draft back then, the fact that Johnson was about to send half a million troops to Vietnam certainly enabled him–and his policies–to “dominate the political scene.” Let’s hope that kind of “domination” never occurs again.
41 mickster99 // May 28, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Liberal commenter here: Not much in this post that isn’t straight talk show radio here. I am hoping that a new conservative blog would be more than just a rush limbaugh echo chamber. I am thinking I should be reading some well thought out counter proposals and vision for what conservative thinkers can do after their massive failures of the last 8 years. Bush’s last budget had trillion dollars worth of deficit and included his Treasury Secretary asking for trillion dollar bailout for the banks with no oversight at all. Conservatives seem to spend all their network bandwidth blowing hard into the right wing noise machine. How about every bloviating post about how bad Obama is also includes a well thought out post on what a conservative would be doing better and why. No talking points but some substantive policy weighing pros, cons, and what americans (all of us) need from our government (and we do need a government that can’t be drowned in the toilet). Now that you have the benefit of 8 years hind sight. Please show me some substance and what conservative thought is all about.
42 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 6:45 pm
mickster99: “I am hoping that a new conservative blog would be more than just a rush limbaugh echo chamber. I am thinking I should be reading some well thought out counter proposals and vision for what conservative thinkers can do after their massive failures of the last 8 years.”
No, what you’re wanting is more of that MSM-HuffPo-Daily Kos “Obama is the most brilliant thinker of our time and better than that failure Bush” echo chamber. What I would like to see is liberals giving cogent arguments without resorting to “failure of the past 8 years” talking points. Tell us how high taxes and quadrupling the debt is going to lead to high employment and productivity. Your guys are the ones in charge now.
43 folderol // May 28, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“Bush’s last budget had trillion dollars worth of deficit and included his Treasury Secretary asking for trillion dollar bailout for the banks with no oversight at all…”
Hank Paulson is a Democrat; and I didn’t hear Obama complaining about TARP or the lack of oversight at the time. The Democrats were pushing the thing.
44 JLawson // May 28, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Crystal –
You got scammed. You went into the scam with your eyes wide open, determinedly ignoring all the little things that were apparent to anyone who even BOTHERED to look at Obama’s record with a critical eye.
He was a self-confessed failure as a community organizer. The Annenburg Challenge he co-managed spent hundreds of millions to no educational effect. His only really ‘effective’ action as a State senator produced the lovely area called Grove Parc, which he seems determined to reproduce nationwide. His time spent as a US senator was spent running for the Presidency.
He’s eloquent – but he can’t lead, can’t manage, and doesn’t seem to be aware that he’s deficient in those areas. He ignores our friends, sucks up to our enemies, and is surprised when folks like North Korea and Iran tell him to stuff it.
As far as money goes, he’s spending on OUR credit card, and isn’t worrying about repaying it. HE’s going to be out of office with a generous pension. WE are going to be eating Alpo. (And maybe Fido and Fluffy, too.)
You say you’re a media strategist – you didn’t have any inkling that there was something behind the “PR, razzle, dazzle veneer… the sparkle, shine”?
Well, it’s nice you’re confessing you got scammed, and helped elect someone who’s driving this country’s economy off a cliff. So what the hell are you going to do about it?
45 paulsur // May 28, 2009 at 7:42 pm
What in the heck is a moderate conservative? Someone more smarter than I, please educate me. Does this mean there are also liberal conservatives? Is Obama a socialist capitalist?
46 Ron Aldof // May 28, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Crystal
]
Who would you have voted for if you didn’t vote for Obama? McCain? That wouldn’t of been a conservative choice at all. The true conservative in the race was a Libertarian. Ron Paul. I think before you try to start the conservative cause over. you must sit back and read the constitution. Obama, McCain, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, etc. Are all for a bigger and more intrusive government. The only true conservative in the Race was again Ron Paul.
The Republican Party at the moment is lost. It does not know which way to go. To the Neo Conservatives, McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel, Arnold, or the True Constitutional Conservatives Ron Paul, Adam Kokesh, Pat Buchanan, R.J. Harris, Peter Schiff Etc.
The thing about it, the old gaurd, the Neo Conservatives, cannot win unless they broaden their tent. I for one will not vote vote a liberal in Neo sheeps clothe..And there is a growning amount of people joining our column.. See you in 2010.
47 balconesfault // May 28, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I really don’t get this whole line of thinking. Obama made it very clear during his campaign that he was going to “do everything at one time, national healthcare, economy, taxes (wealth redistribution), clean energy, infrastructure, education and more”. He stated quite clearly during his campaign that (a) he considered most of these things to have either been severely neglected for too long, and (b) that most were integral to dealing with the immediate dire economic situation. He even explicitly laid out his intention to allow Bush’s tax cuts to expire. I mean – what did you think you were getting?
And “King Obama”? Seriously – after the Bush Presidency, which started with the premise that Presidential powers needed to be reclaimed?
I suspect that most of the 69 plus million people who voted expected him to “do everything at one time, national healthcare, economy, taxes (wealth redistribution), clean energy, infrastructure, education and more”. That’s why they voted for him – because they believed that these things needed addressing at once, and because they thought Obama the best person for the job.
There is a great argument to be made for limited government. Unfortunately, it really helps the case if the last people who made the argument didn’t break the country. Had the Bush era ended with a booming economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wrapped up years ago, Bin Laden executed or locked up, and with oil prices not climbing above 100 a barrel during the election cycle, Duncan Hunter could have gotten the Republican nomination and walked away with the election.
48 jptwofive // May 28, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I am sure we’re going to see more of this “buyer’s remorse”. The question I have for everyone who voted for Barry is this:
Rather than tell me what you’re unhappy about NOW, I want to hear what you expected from Barry when you were heading to the polling station?
Over the last number of years, Barry has continually broken his promises. Remember the one when he won the senate seat about how he would not run for president? Ooops. Getting a commitment from McCain on accepting federal campaign funding thus creating even footing for presidential campaigns? Ooops.
He is in over his head. The cronyism and corruption he was versed in would almost be acceptable if we were in a period of incredible prosperity. Take a look at someone like Buddy Cianci in Providence, RI. He went to jail for all the corruption and shenanigans he pulled, but here’s the kicker on him. People in Rhode Island LOVE the guy still. Sure he stole basically, but as a whole, the city benefitted more during his reign than he did personally.
Now let’s look at Barry. He is concerned with paying off his cronies. UAW, SEIU, ACORN all lined up to benefit from the “stimulus” It pays to be Barry’s Buddy.
I personally think Barry will face a huge decision. What happens when the media starts responsibly reporting that some of the policies are having an adverse effect on America and it’s citizens? Will he stand by his pals and continue to try to dupe the public, or will he look at for his own ass and dump his pals? (Ask Jeremiah Wright what he thinks)
Why do the Chrysler/GM bondholders have to sacrifice their claims, but the unions are not mandated to cut their wages or the ridiculous benefits that make union autos impractical?
Sorry for the rambling, but please, honestly, if you voted for Obama, provide me one belief you held when you made your decision. Oh yeah, “he’s better than bush/cheney” doesn’t count. What ONE single thing did you think Barrack Hussein Obama was going to acheive for the betterment of our country?
49 balconesfault // May 28, 2009 at 9:27 pm
See – all that ranting with all the proper buzzwords (ACORN, Wright, unions, etc) is not going to convince anyone that Republicans actually have a plan for governance, after the last 8 years.
I know it sounds well in an echo chamber, but last fall people were afraid that if government didn’t step in and do something to stabilize the lenders and their insurers, small businesses across America were going to start missing payrolls within a matter of weeks.
Now, there is an argument to be made that such things are acceptable parts of the natural economic cycle. That small businesses shouldn’t be relying on loans to maintain inventory and make payroll. That big banks and insurers should just fail when they’ve made bad decisions, compounded many times over. That some times, the economy is going to suck for awhile, like a forest fire that clears away the old sick vegetation and allows new better competitive vegetation to grow in place.
You could actually make that argument, if the US wasn’t needing to maintain the largest military the world has ever seen. You can’t do that and continously fund the military at those levels – economic downturns eliminate your tax base, and DOD contractors expect to be paid. That’s what the Paul camp keeps repeating – and that’s what the rest of the Republican Party keeps refusing to hear.
50 mickster99 // May 28, 2009 at 9:40 pm
folderal: Paulson is a republican (google it). TARP was created by Bush Admin/Treasury. TARP was initially voted down in 9/2008 with enough reps and dems voting no. Result: Market lost 700 points in 1 day. 10/2008 TARP passed after house reps/dems got feedback from constituents I presume. Bush Admin presented problem as potential demise of our economy. Dems support prez. but reps didn’t until they saw the results of their no voting.
51 mickster99 // May 28, 2009 at 11:06 pm
So this blog post is an example of the new conservatism and the rebirth of the right. republicans are on the march. Every blog on this sound like the SOS to me. With Obama at 66% approval rating. Boehner: 16%. Republican congress at 20%, Republican party affiliation 20% I can feel the ground swell for conservative thought and policy growing even as I speak. But only on talk-radio my dear, only on talk-radio.
52 mickster99 // May 28, 2009 at 11:09 pm
So this blog post is an example of the new conservatism and the rebirth of the right. republicans are on the march. Somehow your rant sounds like the SOS to me. With Obama at 66% approval rating. Boehner: 16%. Republican congress at 20%, Republican party affiliation 20% I can feel the ground swell for conservative thought and policy growing even as I speak. But only on talk-radio my dear, only on talk-radio. Spouting all the talk-radio talking points wont’ make the right right.
53 gary4205 // May 28, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Crystal, all I can say is I admire you for admitting this. Many other so called moderates, who shilled for Obama will never admit their huge mistake.
Of course, being a hard core conservative, of the Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, common sense wing of the party, I could have told you all of this as far back as 2007!
It never ceases to amaze me that the American people, let alone journalists fell for this guy’s smoke and mirrors.
I’m just a regular guy, with a regular life, but found out about all of Obama’s radical ties to communism. (His mother, father, step father and grandparents, the white ones, were all practicing communists)
I found out that Obama was tutored by radical Black Panther and admitted pedophile Frank Marshall Davis, before he was sent off to hook up with domestic terrorists William Ayers and his convicted cop killing wife, Bernadine Dohrn.
Dr Stanley Kurtz wrote VOLUMES on Obama’s ACORN street thug days and his ties to the bogus loans, through Carter’s Re-investment Act, the sub-prime mess that has our economy in the crapper now!
Obama was a trainer, who trained the ACORN “mob for hire” street thugs to go and scare the crap out of bankers at their homes!
Similar to the effort that the SEIU paid ACORN to mount at the homes of AIG executives recently. Scaring them into giving up their bonuses!
FYI, ACORN and the SEIU share the same office space in that old funeral home in New Orleans that is now in the news as a thug money drop. And the world headquarters for ACORN!
Read what Dr Kurtz has to say about Obama and thuggery:
http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.81,type.1/pub_list.asp
Dr Kurtz gets to the REAL problem with the long term Ayers/Obama partnership. And yes, they REALLY knew each other. They are basically next door neighbors for goodness sakes. Michelle actually worked with Dohrn at one point.
Again, if a “civilian” can find out all of this, and a heck of a lot more out about Obama, in less than a day, it is really scary to think a professional journalist missed it all.
Of course, this is the problem with moderates. Moderates are simply too squishy. Too wishy washy. Too busy worrying about finding some mythical middle ground to pay attention to what is going on.
This is why conservatives are no longer going to tolerate moderates in a leadership position in the party, or in elected office. Moderates screw it up every time.
Now is a time for strong, principled, no nonsense, common sense leadership. Moderates need not apply. Not if we are to save America from disaster, and send Obama to the ash heap of failed presidents along with losers like Jimmy Carter.
54 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 12:10 am
See – all that ranting with all the proper buzzwords (ACORN, Wright, unions, etc) is not going to convince anyone that Republicans actually have a plan for governance, after the last 8 years.
I know it sounds well in an echo chamber, but last fall people were afraid that if government didn’t step in and do something to stabilize the lenders and their insurers, small businesses across America were going to start missing payrolls within a matter of weeks.
Now, there is an argument to be made that such things are acceptable parts of the natural economic cycle. That small businesses shouldn’t be relying on loans to maintain inventory and make payroll. That big banks and insurers should just fail when they’ve made bad decisions, compounded many times over. That some times, the economy is going to suck for awhile, like a forest fire that clears away the old sick vegetation and allows new better competitive vegetation to grow in place.
You could actually make that argument, if the US wasn’t needing to maintain the largest military the world has ever seen. You can’t do that and continously fund the military at those levels – economic downturns eliminate your tax base, and DOD contractors expect to be paid. That’s what the Paul camp keeps repeating – and that’s what the rest of the Republican Party keeps refusing to hear.
55 clayusmcret // May 29, 2009 at 3:12 am
I admire the folks coming out and admitting their mistake, while at the same time holding them in high contempt. Obama was very during the primary exactly what he was planning. He made no bones about doing exactly what he’s done. His ranking as the most liberal U.S. Senator for his 140+ days in the senate wasn’t merely a headline, it was earned. So at this point I’m torn between congratulating newly aware conservatives and hoping they’re the first in line in the bread lines. And you think it’s bad now?! Obama said it himself the other night. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
56 Geministorm // May 29, 2009 at 5:27 am
Is this the part where I say, “Told you so”?
OK…
Told you so.
57 Mr. Big // May 29, 2009 at 6:10 am
Congrats, you are the poster child for all the ill-informed American women who voted on pure touchy-feely emotion and installed this afro-Leninist muslim usurper illegal alien into the White House.
58 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 6:20 am
EHS ZONE
3:54 PM
“The numbers I have seen quoted were 47%, not 46% but if it makes you feel better then we’ll say 46% for arguments sake.”
“Face it, you and other Obamabots bought is BS hook, line, and sinker, it’s unfortunate that the whole of the US will suffer for the ignorance and gullibility of 54% of the nation! “
……Wrong again… it was only 53% of the nation who were ignorant and gullible. The point is not the pedantry of your unfamiliarity with the precise numbers but your inability to understand statistical trends. It was the bigggest Dem win since Johnson and by far greater margins than Bush ever achieved. Personally I’ve no doubt as things stand at the moment he’s going to win an even bigger margin in 2012.
59 ottovbvs // May 29, 2009 at 6:27 am
I keep saying it but the opinions being expressed here by movement conservatives by their irrationality and total disconnect from reality are a measure of just how much trouble the GOP is really in. Facts, empirical evidence, have no meaning for these folks some of whom really sound as if they are in flying saucer land. Occasionally I read crazy comments by movement liberals but movement rightists are operating in a wholly separate universe.
60 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 6:30 am
I’m impressed – criticizing “pure touchy-feely emotion” and labelling Obama an “afro-Leninist muslim usurper illegal alien” in the same sentence.
Beautiful irony. Bravo. An illustration of the recent tendency in the Republican Party to revert to a private dialect that is utterly alien to most Americans. Not only that, but buzz phrases intended to distance about 30% of Americans from listening to the more serious part of the conservative message.
61 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 6:42 am
If I could inject some cold reality here:
Bruce Bartlett, Douglas Kmiec, and other noted right-of-center Americans also voted for Obama. (They might have voted for Ron Paul instead, if Paul didn’t come off as a reactionary flake endorsed by Truthers.) But they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for McCain who promised to basically continue the Bush war policy.
Some here have claimed that no one could intelligently vote for someone whose political philosophy differs from theirs, and therefore Ms. Wright was just being foolish. Well! Doesn’t anyone remember the so-called “Reagan Democrats?” Doesn’t anyone remember when Roy Innis of the Congress on Racial Equality–long considered a black militant organization–endorsed Reagan? Along with Democrats like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ben Wattenberg (who was a liberal Democrat)? Along with many blue-collar union members, some of whom had never voted Repub before Reagan?
When someone jumps from another ship onto our ship, they’re “profiles in courage, with a conscience”–but when someone jumps off our ship to another ship, they’re “fools and sellouts”?
The Democratic Party did not smear the so-called “Reagan Democrats” as sellouts, or yelled that the “Reagan Democrats” weren’t welcome in the Dem Party anymore and they should just become Repubs and be done with it. Rather, the Dem Party has worked to bring the Reagan Democrats back into the Dem fold.
Party loyalty has to be a two-way street. This is America, not the USSR with its Communist Party. Nobody is *obligated* to belong to a party that they believe has betrayed them–and their cause. If noted conservatives have such trouble with the GOP that they can’t stick with it, the first thing the GOP should do is *ask* them what’s wrong with the GOP and what they think should be done to change it.
62 southsidered // May 29, 2009 at 6:44 am
Hey, moderates or Obama-voting conservatives thinking about supporting the GOP, here’s a sampling of what you’ll be greeted with, all gleaned from comments on this page:
“Please tell me you haven’t spawned.”
“…those of us who had seen the obvious cannot forgive that you helped elect this disaster of a president.”
“Please do America a favor and don’t vote anymore.”
“Could you not see through the ‘telepromter’?”
“Anyone with half a brain knew this was going to happen… ‘you bought it you own it!’”
“Obviously your political acumen is not very keen.”
“I’m torn between congratulating newly aware conservatives and hoping they’re the first in line in the bread lines.”
“Told you so.”
“Congrats, you are the poster child for all the ill-informed American women…”
Brilliant! Hey, “real conservatives”: what part of YOU NEED THESE PEOPLE IF YOU’RE EVER GOING TO WIN AGAIN don’t you understand?
63 EMR76 // May 29, 2009 at 6:45 am
How did you miss the fact that the guy sat in a racist church for 20 years, hung out with terrorists and felons, supported infanticide, would strangle our economy with enviromental regulations, planned on raising taxes and spending to a level not yet seen by humanity, and instead of walking softly and carrying a big stick, would walk like a gay guy in Bath and Body Works and carry a pink rose. How did so many miss the mountains of evidence that this man would govern from the far-left as he always has?
Anyways, congrats on you revelation. Too bad you didn’t realize this before the 4th of Nov. Now we’re stuck with this tool for the next 4 years. The damage that could be done to this couintry could be irreversible.
64 EMR76 // May 29, 2009 at 6:49 am
Ugh. It all just seemed so obvious to me. Crystal, I’m glad you realized you made a mistake. Hopefully, you’re wiser now and won’t make another decision like the one you made on Nov. 4th.
65 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 6:50 am
Unfortunately, Ms. Wright did not explain precisely what caused her to support Obama over McCain. Yes, Obama tried to sound moderate during the campaign–but so did McCain.
So I remain puzzled as to just what it was about the McCain candidacy that Ms. Wright didn’t like.
66 AlexK // May 29, 2009 at 6:52 am
Some of these comments are breathtakingly inane.
If she wants to join us, how about “Glad to have you”? Not “You moron! It’s thanks to you we’re stuck with him!”
Do you want to be a majority party again or not?
67 AlexK // May 29, 2009 at 6:54 am
“So I remain puzzled as to just what it was about the McCain candidacy that Ms. Wright didn’t like.”
It probably boiled down to issues of temperament. Sarah Palin’s lack of depth was utterly horrifying and spoke to McCain’s judgment. Obama’s rhetoric was about coalition-building, pragmatism, and moderation.
I’m sure you aren’t so stuck in the echo chamber that you can’t think up a few reasons why a person might have been attracted to Obama’s candidacy.
68 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 7:03 am
EMR76: Polls show that some 63% of Americans know that Obama is a liberal (i.e. further to the left than they are)–and yet a roughly comparable percentage approve of his job performance so far.
That should tell you that when judging a President’s job performance, ideology is less important than other factors–like competence.
Remember Reagan’s classic test: “Are you better off now than before”.
So far, the economy seems to be recovering a bit; and Iraq has not turned into the catastrophe that the McCain folks were predicting would happen under Obama.
So most folks, except us political junkies here, have turned off the political news and gone back to their own personal lives.
69 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 7:04 am
AlexK sez to me: “I’m sure you aren’t so stuck in the echo chamber that you can’t think up a few reasons”
No, and I also stopped beating my girlfriend yesterday too.
70 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 7:07 am
AlexK: That’s why I brought up the so-called “Reagan Democrats”–Democrats who couldn’t stomach President Jimmy Carter and voted for Reagan, despite concerns about his right-wing philosophy.
If the Dem Party had told those Reagan Dems “Go away, traitors, and don’t come back!”, the Dems would never have won a national election again.
71 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 7:08 am
“I’m sure you aren’t so stuck in the echo chamber that you can’t think up a few reasons why a person might have been attracted to Obama’s candidacy.”
Some here aren’t, some here are.
Here’s a tip-off. If they mention Reverend Wright, or ACORN, or Ayers, or call Obama a Muslim or an illegal alien or a Communist/Leninist/Socialist … there is a pretty good chance they’re locked away in the echo chamber to the point that any rebuttal you may make, no matter how reasoned or calm or carefully worded, is interpreted by them as you getting in their face and screaming at them.
The echo chamber doesn’t only resonate everything spoken inside – it also distorts anything that’s spoken on the outside.
72 EMR76 // May 29, 2009 at 7:35 am
sinz, he has a decent approval rating for two reasons – people are cutting him slack due to the situation, and I admit, he does come across as a likeable guy. At least to people that don’t pay much attention to politics. His policies however, are much less popular than “Obama the man” is.
As far as his competence goes – I’m not so sure about that either. It’s been quite a trainwreck thus far. Between the torture debacle, tax cheat appointees, and flip-flopping, he’s managed to tick off about everyone. I honestly think the guy is in over his head. His entire career has been defined by doing one thing – obtaining power by promising people free stuff at the expense of others. It’s the Chicago way. And he’s doing the same thing in Washington, and this path will turn this country into a giant California. And we don’t want or need that.
73 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 7:40 am
ktward sez: “The remorseful reality is that after 8 years of Bush et al, O is left cleaning up the horrific domestic and international mess”
Aye, there’s the rub, as Shakespeare wrote:
Polls show that a majority of those in the GOP base still approve of Bush’s job performance. Of course, that’s not the view of everybody else in the nation.
Why the GOP base is still so positive about Bush, given all that happened during his administration, is a topic that I really wish David Frum would start a discussion about sometime.
74 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 7:49 am
southsidered
“Hey, moderates or Obama-voting conservatives thinking about supporting the GOP, here’s a sampling of what you’ll be greeted with, all gleaned from comments on this page”
Listen, this is not a cult. Voting for a Republican does not entitle a person to warm fuzzy’s from other Republicans.
Someone calling themselves a “moderate conservative” and then voting for an overt leftist when McCain, a moderate conservative if there ever was one, is the alternative is baffling.
The whole idea that permeates this site, how “we” appear and appeal to moderates, as though being a Republican is some kind of fraternity, club or cult that is trying to attract members because we are all such nice people is absurd. And it becomes even more ridiculous when these folks ignore the many vile and nasty people who belong to the other club, if you will. They seem to believe that Democrats can be nasty, ugly, underhanded and insulting, but Republicans must be ever-so-nice or we bleed membership. This implies that people are not voting on principle or conscience but as some form of solidarity with a group of people who are nice folks – our little coffee clatch that meets and discusses politics oh-so civilly and politely. These comments are going to drive her away from voting her principles? A very silly notion indeed.
If she isn’t thick skinned enough to take these gentle barbs, how is she going to handle the left’s nastiness when they find out she’s no longer an Obama supporter?
75 EMR76 // May 29, 2009 at 7:53 am
sinz54….
of course repubs still give bush ok marks. most of us were ok with the majority of what he did. other than the war being improperly prosecuted and excessive spending, i think he was decent. partisan support isn’t a new phenomenon. Ray Nagin and Marion Barry have both been re-elected too. It goes both ways.
76 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 7:55 am
“other than the war being improperly prosecuted and excessive spending”
Aside from that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?
“Ray Nagin and Marion Barry have both been re-elected too”
The Republican base comparing itself to the electorates of New Orleans and Washington DC. Never thought I’d see the day.
77 EMR76 // May 29, 2009 at 7:56 am
sinz54….
of course repubs still give bush ok marks. most of us were ok with the majority of what he did. other than the war being improperly prosecuted and excessive spending, i think he was decent. partisan support isn’t a new phenomenon. Ray Nagin and Marion Barry have both been re-elected too. It goes both ways.
78 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 7:58 am
“other than the war being improperly prosecuted and excessive spending”
Aside from that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?
“Ray Nagin and Marion Barry have both been re-elected too”
The Republican base comparing itself to the electorates of New Orleans and Washington DC. Never thought I’d see the day.
79 EMR76 // May 29, 2009 at 8:02 am
balconesfault, and that is why the reps lost in ‘06 and ‘08. I’m aware of that.
ps – simple point with the Nagin/Barry reference – the base of each party supports their guy, and sometimes to a fault from a political standpoint, pragmatically speaking.
Hopefully you get that point and understand that I’m not comparing republicans (or anyone really) to the moronic N.O .residents that sat in a bowl surrounded by water and waited for 3 days on the gub’mint to give them a bus ride out of town instead of leaving themselves.
80 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 8:03 am
EMR76: That’s my point–the total disconnect between how the GOP base viewed Bush and how everybody else viewed Bush.
Bush left office with about a 30% approval rating from the general electorate. Remove the GOP base from the general electorate, and he would probably get only about a 20% approval rating from the rest of the electorate.
And that rest of the electorate was so disgusted with Bush that they were willing to take a chance on a liberal Dem, just as in 1980 they were so disgusted with Carter that they were willing to take a chance on a conservative Repub (Reagan).
Factoid: Not since the election of 1876 has a highly unpopular incumbent President been succeeded to the White House by a candidate of that incumbent’s party. Every time the incumbent President was that unpopular, his party lost the White House, no matter which candidate they offered.
81 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 8:33 am
Franco sez: “Someone calling themselves a ‘moderate conservative’ and then voting for an overt leftist when McCain, a moderate conservative if there ever was one, is the alternative is baffling.”
Ms. Wright has not stated her reasons, unfortunately.
But in the cases of Doug Kmiec and Bruce Bartlett, they sincerely believed that the Bush war policies were NOT “conservative.” These men are from the libertarian wing of the GOP. Like Ron Paul, they regarded the Iraq War as Woodrow Wilson-style adventurism to “make the world safe for democracy.” And they regarded the PATRIOT Act as an unnecessary intrusion on Americans’ rights to privacy.
When George Will addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference, he made similar points.
82 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 8:42 am
“balconesfault, and that is why the reps lost in ‘06 and ‘08. I’m aware of that.”
And I understand how a conservative would vote against Obama, no matter how much damage Bush did to the economy, or how poorly he managed the war – even if McCain was able to clearly articulate how he’d do a better job on either count.
What I can’t understand is what Sinz pointed out – that a majority of the Republicans favorably view Bush’s Presidency, despite, as you put it, “the war being improperly prosecuted and excessive spending”.
This suggests that contrary to the core principles that Republicans talk about – fiscal responsibility, and strong/competent national defense – a majority of the Republican Party is willing to overlook gross incompetence in those areas.
What’s that leave? Red-meat issues. Anti-regulatory fervor. Anti-tax fervor. Anti-gay marriage fervor. Anti-abortion fervor. Anti-illegal immigrant fervor. Anti-gun-control fervor.
Imaginen someone who wants greater fiscal discipline in government, including a more cost-effective global military strategy so that we’re not borrowing from China and the Saudis so we can act as global policeman.
Imagine now that that person actually favors environmental regulations, doesn’t like abortion but doesn’t consider every woman who has one a murderer, is cool if the guys living down the street get married, is more immediately concerned about the deficit expanding further than about eliminating the capital gains tax, views immigration law as way too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker, and supports both gun ownership and some governmental restrictions on ownership.
Like it or not – Obama is talking to those people, and telling them that he’s listening to their concerns. And Republicans are telling them “sit down and shut up, and maybe you’ll learn something if you’re not too stupid to”.
Where do you think those voters are going to end up being most comfortable?
83 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 10:02 am
balconesfault sez: “Red-meat issues….Anti-illegal immigrant fervor. Anti-gun-control fervor.”
In fact, it was on the Bush/McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill that the GOP base finally revolted against Bush–in 2007.
Bush had wanted to give illegal aliens a path to citizenship.
But that was where the GOP base finally drew a line in the sand and said “no”.
84 southsidered // May 29, 2009 at 10:51 am
Franco said: “The whole idea that permeates this site, how “we” appear and appeal to moderates, as though being a Republican is some kind of fraternity, club or cult that is trying to attract members because we are all such nice people is absurd.”
Here’s a question, then. I presume you subscribe to the idea that America is a fundamentally conservative nation and that Obama pulled some sort of bait-and-switch to get people to vote for him.
Did he do that by cranking up the obnoxiousness, and telling people what idiots they were?
The Republicans of the Contract with America/Gingrich era were much scarier to me because even those ideologues were able to sound more or less reasonable to average Americans. That’s how they won Congress. Today’s GOP crew, which seems to think they can win votes through the power of condescension and bullying, just gives me the giggles.
85 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 11:02 am
sinz: But that was where the GOP base finally drew a line in the sand and said “no”.
That is the point. It would have made sense had Republicans drawn that line when Bush pushed through an expansion of the Medicaide Program that was going to balloon spending over the long haul. Or when reports came back that billions of dollars were disappearing on pallets of US currency from the airfields in Iraq. Or hell – maybe someone would have asked “what if Iraq doesn’t just acquiese to being occupied … how much might this thing end up costing?” Or any number of places that would reflect fiscal conservatism.
But instead, it appeared that much of the Republican base didn’t give a hoot about spending, so long as their tax cuts weren’t touched. It’s hard to take them seriously at this juncture.
86 balconesfault // May 29, 2009 at 11:06 am
Whoops – Medicare program.
87 ktward // May 29, 2009 at 11:13 am
sinz54:
You may be correct when you state, “…it was on the Bush/McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill that the GOP base finally revolted against Bush–in 2007 … that was where the GOP base finally drew a line in the sand and said “no”.
Nevertheless, today the GOP ‘base’ has sand lines all over the place. The base wants to become MORE conservative and rally around the very hot-button social issues balconesfault characterizes as ‘red meat’ (does a rational thinking GOPer even like the implications of such terminology?).
It seems to me the GOP base, such as it is today, should just migrate en masse to the Constitution Party where their ideologies are much closer aligned.
So why don’t they? I suspect they don’t want to lose the ‘Republican’ brand, which still has plenty of capital to offer.
I don’t envy the GOP the conundrum they’re in. The base simply refuses, apparently on ‘principle’, to reconcile itself with the rest of the party. So it remains splintered into electoral obscurity, with no hope of drawing back centrist voters such as myself.
88 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 11:50 am
southsidered, “Here’s a question, then. I presume you subscribe to the idea that America is a fundamentally conservative nation and that Obama pulled some sort of bait-and-switch to get people to vote for him.
Did he do that by cranking up the obnoxiousness, and telling people what idiots they were?”
You mean besides the “clinging to guns and God” comment? – just kidding, that wasn’t meant to be heard by the regular Pennsylvanians
Well obviously he got some people to vote for him who are now discovering he wasn’t as he presented himself, but I’m not saying he fooled everybody. Of course there are left-wingers who knew Obama was not a ‘centrist” and voted for him on that basis.
But there is a difference between political pundits, operatives and other public figures, and actual candidates. Candidates need to be nice and respectful, but not too respectful as McCain was and not attack his opponent.
“Today’s GOP crew, which seems to think they can win votes through the power of condescension and bullying, just gives me the giggles.”
In case you didn’t realize you are on a site that is arguing for the future of the Republican party, obviously there is disagreement. Which “GOP crew” are you talking about? Name names.
89 ChristianMiller // May 29, 2009 at 11:53 am
ktward,
“The base simply refuses, apparently on ‘principle’, to reconcile itself with the rest of the party. So it remains splintered into electoral obscurity, with no hope of drawing back centrist voters such as myself. “
You’re a centrist? Please tell us where the center is in your view. From my reading of your posts I seem to have you pegged as a partisan Democrat. I may have you confused with someone else so please advise me if I am wrong.
90 Geministorm // May 29, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“Brilliant! Hey, “real conservatives”: what part of YOU NEED THESE PEOPLE IF YOU’RE EVER GOING TO WIN AGAIN don’t you understand?”
I counter that the liberals/Democrats need people whom are ill-informed in order to win. Because, if people knew that Obama would enact the policies in which he has, would they again vote for him? Or, perhaps those people have been taught that these policies will make the US a better place, a stronger nation, a safer nation, a more educated nation, a healthier nation, a more prosperous nation, a peaceful nation friends with all others….so, again, ignorance.
I’m sure some here will disagree with me, and that’s great because the coming years will show us whether these policies are successful or will lead to the failure of this nation. The Democrats are in complete control now, so its their country to build or destroy. Nationalized healthcare, ownership in corporations (GM, Chrysler, Bank of America, et al), Cap-n-Trade, restrictions on energy production, cuts in military…all of this will be detrimental to the US IMHO.
Of course those of us that foresaw what Obama was all about will give those who voted for him a hard time (hence, my “Told you so”) and those people that realize their mistake need a little shaming. Look at why Ms. Wright voted the way she did, she admits she was fooled into believing, so she should get a little chastising for not taking this matter more seriously! Your vote is a duty and a responsibility, you need to show diligence in making these decisions because they will have an impact on peoples’ lives. So, take your punishment and then get back in there and fight with renewed vigor Ms. Wright.
91 Dustin Ferrell // May 29, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Welcome Crystal. We’re glad to have you.
92 durrettd // May 29, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I too am baffled at how someone (specifically someone involved in media) could feel duped by Obama, but c’est la vie. What’s done is done. Continual dogging will only ensure she contributing author never writes again (which perhaps some posters here might be hoping for).
But I do have to agree with sinz54: to truly learn from 2008 we don’t need a pep rally or public shaming when the prodigal son (or daughter as it were) returns to the conservative family. We need to know why she left in the first place. What about Obama seemed so appealing? Or perhaps, what about McCain was so distasteful as to result in an Obama vote?
Because guess what… we are all here huffing and puffing about Obama and predicting his demise, but if Republicans (and let’s admit, conservative or not, we have to vote for em if we want Obama out) don’t figure out how to frame their message, promote their agenda across gender, ethnic and age demographics, etc. we’ll be a party without a future.
American politics shifts back and forth. The pendulum swings. We’re not finished here, but we do need to learn from our current situation. The worst thing that could happen is that we get beat again and the RINOs decide that the GOP needs to change message.
Our message is good. Conservatism works. It’s practical, fair and effective. The problem is our delivery.
Let me collect my soapbox and I’ll get out of your hair.
93 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Geministorm asks: “if people knew that Obama would enact the policies in which he has, would they again vote for him?”
The current polls show that some 63% of Americans agree that Obama is a liberal. And those polls show that Americans do have concerns about one or another of Obama’s policies.
But those same polls also give Obama an approval rating over 60%.
The fact that Obama is perceived as liberal, by an electorate that has more self-described conservatives than liberals, has NOT turned off the electorate to Obama. Rather, they are prepared to weigh other factors besides ideology.
Such as competence, character, communication skills, etc.
94 sinz54 // May 29, 2009 at 3:59 pm
durrettd sez: “But I do have to agree with sinz54: to truly learn from 2008 we….need to know why she left in the first place. What about Obama seemed so appealing? Or perhaps, what about McCain was so distasteful as to result in an Obama vote?”
Thank you.
Ms. Wright has not explained herself.
But other conservatives, like Douglas Kmiec and Bruce Bartlett, have been willing to explain their rationale. They were disgusted by the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act.
And while George Will didn’t leave the GOP, he did sharply criticize those things when he addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference.
95 joescannura12 // May 29, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I am just like the author of the article. This President blows, and quite frankly i feel really dumb. But I’m also really mad, because the republican party put up such a horrible ticket. One of the reasons I didn’t vote republican, and couldn’t, was Palin. It almost seemed important enough to say no to her, and make her loose, in the hopes she will go away. I like the republicans economic policies, there successful and get out of the way, while obama is now going to try and kill the economy and become overly involved. But to have this crazed evangelical on the ticket, who knew nothing to boot, made it seem crazy to vote for Mccain. It said a lot about him as well that he would pick this woman. What was he thinking? It ruined his whole campaign. If republicans come back with a smart ticket, of sensible people who can deliver a speech and destroy the democrats on there horrible economic policies, then they can win in 4 years. Please, no Palin.
96 InTheMiddle12 // May 30, 2009 at 3:19 am
Weird. I have zero buyers remorse voting for the President. I think he’s showing himself a deft executive who is moving his agenda swiftly and competently.
I may not agree with all of it but I voted for him because I felt, after 8 years of bad leadership, we needed a significant change for the good of the country.
Things will swing back again but for now, I’m with the 60% that think he’s doing a good job.
97 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 8:30 am
just saw this post, thought it was worth reiterating:
Wrote nextgennow
5/28/2009
1:46 PM
I’m confused
Pre-Election
1. Close Gitmo
2. Universal Health Care
3. Diplomacy with enemy’s
4. Stimulus Plan
5. SCOTUS- Empathy valued in nominee
6. Cap n’ Trade
7. No Torture
8. End Iraq War
9. TARP
10. Middle Class Tax Cut
11. Support of (Bush) Bailout
12. Increase taxes on top earners
Post- Election
1-12 Same
Not much new
Did you not visit his website prior to Nov, 4th?
I can understand if you disagree with any or all of the above but you seem to be suggesting they are a surprise, they should come as anything but a surprise.
98 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 8:52 am
I think you’re grasping at straws, Wright.
Many of the instances that you cite as Obama’s fading PR are in fact examples of some of the most clever political maneuvering we’ve seen in decades, managing clear “lose lose” situations down to minimal damage.
For example:
“…the Justice Department wasn’t going to prosecute former Bush officials. …he wouldn’t release photos of detainees being interrogated. Why engage in any of this in the first place?”
-because the executive doesn’t need to spearhead the prosecution of Bush officials. Whether Obama actively supports it or not, his administration will have only a signatory role in the prosecutions; he doesn’t even have to get his hands dirty, and look, Crystal Wright will argue that he doesn’t want the prosecutions! His opposition doing his work for him?
-”On a side note the president’s comments about his nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, are also cause for pause. He said he picked her because she would show empathy”
-this is clearly a case of Obama and Sotomayor baiting repubs into bigoted rhetoric (seems to have worked) which will undermine the many valid criticisms that they may have of Sotomayor’s actual credibility. Should Sotomayor fail the confirmation Obama can proceed to put his #1 choice into the office, a win win.
-”These recent events, the planned closing of Gitmo and “CIA-gate”, have made the president look very inexperienced and unpolished in his ability to lead the nation and only widened the partisan bickering in Washington.”
-closing Gitmo is really an impossible issue. But one that Obama could not back down from on his own. To presume that the Obama team didn’t see coming the lack of funding (via dems) from the beginning is naive. All of this was foreseen months ago.
“Team Obama may have won the presidency through an innovative public relations campaign but winning over the confidence of Americans and setting the country on the right course will require careful thought, temperance and bipartisan collaboration.”
If you think the Obama PR team is faltering you are deluding yourself. It’s only been five months, and things have largely gone as one might have expected. The PR is in full swing, still effective (check the polls).
99 NotFooled // May 30, 2009 at 9:40 am
I don’t buy it.
There is no difference between Zerobama the candidate, and the information available about him, and President Zero.
No conservative of any stripe, with enough intelligence to graduate eighth grade could be taken in by the affirmative action Kenyan.
On the bright side Crystal, tell ‘em you voted ‘bama. You’ll get invited to the best Washington parties, and of course, THAT’S where it’s at.
100 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 12:14 pm
NotFooled: Noted conservatives Douglas Kmiec (who is a pro-life Catholic), and Bruce Bartlett (who had helped Gingrich write the Contract with America), explained why they supported Obama in 2008 instead of McCain:
They were disgusted by the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act.
Unfortunately, Ms. Wright did not give her own reasons.
101 sinz54 // May 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Oops, Bruce Bartlett didn’t help write the Contract. It was another noted conservative, Larry Hunter, who helped write the Contract with America–and in 2008, he endorsed Obama. Same reason. He didn’t like Bush’s policies.
102 greg_barton // May 30, 2009 at 1:16 pm
So Bush spends like a drunken sailor and it’s OK? Bush suggests that Gitmo should be closed and it’s OK? But Obama does the same things and it’s somehow wrong?
103 bens // May 30, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Welcome aboard Crystal- one more for the good guys!
104 WINDe // May 30, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Re: NotFooled
“No conservative of any stripe, with enough intelligence to graduate eighth grade could be taken in by the affirmative action Kenyan.”
This statement is so vague and generalized, so beleaguered by bigoted linguistic earmarks, that it’s impossible to agree with unless you’re just as bigoted as NotFooled is.
if you had said “any conservative who thought Obama was going to cut taxes for the wealthiest 5% and enact a spending freeze on all facets of government isn’t much of an attentive conservative” I could have agreed with you.
Of course, it’s a pointlessly obvious statement to make, but good work NotFooled, way to point out the obvious with such bigoted vitriol that even another conservative can’t agree with you.
105 jjv // May 31, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Welcome, back. As for the comments Christopher Buckley is not an idiot and he voted for Obama. Bush fatigue was real. Young people want to be new and inclusive and Obama embodies “the United Colors of Benneton.”
106 Hamiltonian // May 31, 2009 at 10:30 pm
We shouldn’t give up on Obama, yet. The fact that he’s taking so much flack from the activist left suggests that he’s doing something right. Although we should complain about the stimulus, huge deficits as far as the eye can see, and a very questionable cap and trade scheme, we also have a lot to be thankful for: troop increases in Afghanistan, modest (and necessary) tax increases, sensible policies concerning detainees, a let-sleeping-dogs-lie attitude toward abortion and gun control, and a general lack of hard-left policy pushes. Again, if the lefty bloggers adnd activists are whining, then we should be reassured.
107 palomino70 // May 31, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“As my father exclaimed recently, “when does Obama have time to run the country, if he’s on television everyday.” This is a question to be pondered.”
The only question to be pondered here is how a media consultant with 15 years of experience could write such drivel. Like him or not, Obama clearly has the intellect and skill to give a weekly presser AND carry out the rest of his duties, i.e., walk and chew gum simultaneously. (Remember, he’s not clearing brush or getting fellated in his office, so he can “waste” some of his valuable time to communicate with the public.)
That Ms. Wright would posit this “argument” as the conclusion to a long post suggests a lack of seriousness and/or depth. Some commenters here want her axed for ideological impurity; but it’s simpler than that–just give her the boot for crappy writing.
108 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:09 am
Hamiltonian: A couple other things: Obama has endorsed military commissions to try terrorists (though with different rules than Bush). And he actually accepts the principle of preventive detention: If it comes down to keeping a terrorist locked up vs. freeing him on grounds of illegally obtained evidence, Obama will keep him locked up.
For this, he has gotten slammed by the ACLU and the left-wing blogosphere.
Obama hasn’t exactly gone to Gitmo and freed all the detainees there. He’s at least *trying* to thread the needle on them, which I do give him credit for.
I disagree with Obama’s handling of economic stimulus. But I do *NOT* think Obama is some kind of American Josef Stalin, a Marxist dictator plotting to take away all our freedoms, as RedState.com and the Freepers seem to think. Rather, this is just life under a liberal administration, like the LBJ or FDR administrations.
You must log in to post a comment.