© 2010 TexasDarlin/TDBlog
“I take responsibility….for making an argument that people can understand.”
Voters read the wrong manual
~~ Barack Obama, Nov. 2010
Last month, in anticipation of the impending 100 year Republican flood that would wipe out his party’s majority from sea-to-sea, Barack Obama had already identified the source of the problem: frightened and ignorant voters.
This week, in the wake of that bloodbath, our most intelligent and articulate president ever! continues to offer sage analysis:
“Leadership is a matter of persuading people.”
You see, the voters did not reject his policy agenda at all.
What happened was just a colossal misunderstanding. If we actually understood the Obama program and all those big bills that were passed in stealth Congressional sessions by elected officials who did not read them, millions of voters would be grateful to Obama’s leadership team for saving our nation from ruin.
Got that? Let me repeat it for the slow readers: YOU THE VOTERS DID NOT REJECT OBAMA’S POLICIES. YOU JUST DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEM. OKAY?
And, please get this part, especially: Obama is really really sorry that he did not realize how stupid you were from the get-go. If he had realized that you are such low-information slow learners, he would have put simpler words on the teleprompters for his 65 health care speeches and 55 townhalls.
“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”
Thank you, Mr. President. From now on I will try listening even harder and taking more careful notes so that I can follow what you are telling me. Thank you for saving our nation! Thank you for keeping the oceans from rising! Thank you for healing our planet! Thank you for being the One I Have Waited For!
The One We Should Be Grateful For
Obama’s mid-term election loss, and QE2.
November 3, 2010 by politicalsnapshots.wordpress.com
Obama’s mid-term election loss, and QE2.
It was not unexpected that Obama and his party would get a spanking from disillusioned U.S. voters, in fact, the Democrats should be thankful that they were able to keep a slight majority in the Senate.
About a year ago, I had mentioned some of the reasons as to why Americans had become disenchanted with President Obama’s policies.
* High unemployment, (in spite of 10,000 points at the Dow and so-called economic growth ballyhoo.)
* The disappointment of the progressive forces that helped put Obama in the White House. (Especially young white voters).
*Disparity between campaign rhetoric and reality.
* The uncertain, dim future of the U.S. economy.
* The unpopularity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
Since then, Obama has elected to continue with the same failed policies which have not been able to reduce neither the unemployment nor the deficit. At least, one would have assumed, that the main reason for the stimulus package would be to reduce the unsustainable unemployment rate in the U.S.
This time around, the Federal Reserve Bank of the U.S. is coming up with quantitative Easing 2, to boost the very weak economic recovery which could not reduce the high unemployment. By the way, according to the White House, recession had ended about fourteen months ago. How funny and unrealistic the White House could get ? Continue to be this funny, Obama could become one of the irrelevant U.S. Presidents. Only hype, but no substance. The majority of the people that voted for Obama, voted for him hoping that he would be a different type of a leader. He is proving them wrong. Like the rest of most of the past U.S. Presidents, Obama is more interested in the welfare of the greedy bankers who are actually destroying America, than he is in fighting for the interests of the millions of common people that actually put him in the White House.
According to Charles Hugh Smith, of Two Minds:
“the “problem” in the U.S. economy is not a lack of credit or high costs of credit: the problem is too much debt and the fact that there is no market demand which requires expanding business. Indeed, everyone already has everything, and replacement of existing goods in a bloated consumer economy cannot generate GDP growth of 3-5% a year. Rather, replacement instead of expansion means the GDP will contract by 3-5% each year–a fact that is already visible if you emoved the 12% of the economy that is Federal spending generated by the $1.6 trillion annual Federal deficit.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/quantitative-easing-fail-spectacularly-2010-10#ixzz14DSdwyRc
By the way, I am not against government stimulus per se, I am only against when billions of tax payers’ dollars is handed to U.S. banks and other financial institutions who happen to be the creators of the economic mess the U.S. is in, to begin with.
As long as stimulus money is not used on programs that directly benefit the citizens, Quantitative Easing 2 would not add a single U.S. citizen to the employed list. As usual, QE2 also would continue to prolong the misery and tragedy of the American people by giving more stimulus money to the banks, so that, they continue with their greed of amassing more profits while the deficit becomes insurmountable and life becomes desperate for the average U.S. citizen. Here is the truest example of neo-liberalism in action.
Professor Mekonen Haddis
I am still waiting for an explanation as to what’s in the health care bill. When will Barry give us the dummie’s guide?
good question
I will try to explain Obama’s unpopularity by extension-the little that remains of the Democratic party.
The people of the United States want an annulment from you since this was not a valid marriage in the first place, we would have said divorce but since the marriage was invalid on day one, annulment is how it has to go. You came into the marriage with bad intentions/defects and lies, ergo no valid marriage could be possible.
“An ecclesiastic annulment is a declaration by the Church that a marriage which was thought to be valid was not legally binding. This might be because of some defect in the consent given on the day of the wedding, or possibly a defect in the psychological capacity of one of the parties.”
http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/sep1998/feature1.asp
Yeah, maybe I need to be smarter to be represented by this POTUS.
I think Obama can be defeated if the Republican candidate can frame the debate as a choice between Obama as ideologue on one hand, and American renewal on the other. David Brooks wrote about this recently, that Americans fear our national decline. Obama thinks it’s a messaging problem; actually, many people feel that our problems are the result of his policies. National decline vs. national greatness, much as in 1980.
Is it me or does Obama already feel stale and boring?
Oh, and I think Obama and his sycophants will say that, We can’t defeat our first African American president. We MUST give him two terms, otherwise think of the message this will send to all the new voters he brought in. (a losing argument I expect to hear).
Agree, Bud.
Texasdarlin-I don’t know if you caught this-ironic, hilarious, justice-poetic/other. We tried to tell them all through 08 continuing through present.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-barack-obama/2010/11/07/id/376266
Poll: Hillary Would Defeat Obama by 20 Points
Sunday, 07 Nov 2010 03:45 PM
Hillary Clinton would trounce fellow Democrat President Barack Obama by a 20-percentage-point margin in a head-to-head race for the presidency, according to a Newsmax/SurveyUSA poll conducted after Tuesday’s midterm elections.
Newsmax has conducted the survey to find out how several well-known political and celebrity figures, ranging from Clinton, Sarah Palin and Bill Gates to Warren Buffett, Donald Trump and Glenn Beck, would fare if they ran against Obama for the White House.
The survey of 1,000 registered voters was conducted Oct. 3-4, after Republicans won the House and gained six seats in the Senate — results widely interpreted as a rejection of Obama and raising questions about whom the Democrats might field as a candidate in 2012.
(more)
Who’s surprised?