March 6, 2009
Opposition to Obamunism Rallying Already
The audacity of arrogance will be Chairman Zero's downfall. In six weeks he has managed to do more damage to the US economy than any president in history, has nationalized what was until now the world's best healthcare system, has imposed crippling energy taxes, and looks forward to vastly strengthening the terminal cancers known as unions. But 52% does not make a mandate, especially when the vast majority of Obama voters were deliberately duped by the leftist media into thinking he was a moderate. As Ted Van Dyk acknowledges, opposition is forming fast:
Last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, and the ensuing media coverage, have focused attention only six weeks after President Obama's inaugural on a fast mobilizing political opposition. This is record short time, after a national election defeat, for a rallying of the out-party.
As a lifelong Democrat, I am concerned that President Obama could come out of his first 100 days decidedly weaker than when they began. His November victory was not as strong as anticipated, given the unpopularity of the outgoing Bush administration, a weakening economy, and an often inept McCain-Palin Republican ticket. Yet Obama has proceeded as if he were a landslide winner, like Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and Reagan in 1980, and has pushed forward a costly and ambitious domestic agenda even though we remain in a severe economic downturn.
Obama's audacity — I consider it politically dangerous overreach — has energized Republicans and, in particular, conservatives as they would not have been had Obama followed the bipartisan, consensus path he promised on taking office. The politically polarizing economic-stimulus package and his proposed federal budget have done it.
Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has drawn the most media attention, and White House counterfire, after the CPAC conference. Almost no notice, however, has been given to the fact that post-conference polling among the some 8,000 conservative participants found that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was their most favored candidate. … Romney, runnerup to Sen. John McCain in the 2008 nominating race, would have run a far stronger general-election campaign than McCain — especially since his financial/economic credentials were far stronger than McCain's. Those credentials, now, make him a natural spokesperson for the out party in a time of financial/economic crisis.
Is there any reasonable person who wouldn't rather have Mitt Romney in charge of the economy right now? Already even some Democrats long to have a grownup at the wheel again:
Why has Obama rushed forward with a costly domestic agenda when the country is in economic crisis and when federal deficits already are at record level? I am mystified.
Why did the Republican Party go with the clueless "maverick" McCain — politically almost indistinguishable from the unpopular centrist Bush — instead of a conservative? I'm mystified too. But if we can drive out the RINOs and prevent the mistake from being repeated, we may be able to right the ship before moonbats manage to sink it.
On a tip from Kevin R.
Posted by Van Helsing at March 6, 2009 8:30 AM
Any "Republican" that was given accolades in the New York Times ever... bad choice for nominating for higher office. I hope the American people take that advice.
Posted by: Atomic Lib Smasher at March 6, 2009 8:39 AM
Romney is not the answer he is a d-bag and a bad choice to run anything. he changes his opinions as the wind blows he is a GOP version of Joe Biden
Posted by: victoryphoenix at March 6, 2009 8:53 AM
Why McCain? Well, if you were part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, you would know that this was done so Obama could win and show the country how bad things can get under Marxism so almost nobody will think about putting Democrats back into power for at least another 50 years. Let alone a total tool like President Hussein. Its all part of the wider plot to allow DemoMarxists to implode under the weight of their own audacity. Better to get the pain overwith in a few years than have it linger on and on for far longer.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2009 8:54 AM
Romney is not the answer he is a d-bag and a bad choice to run anything.
So, you're saying you prefer Hussein to Romney? Yeah, there are much better guys than Mitt who could be president, but are you honestly saying Hussein is preferable to Romney?
Romney had a real job once, and he helped create companies like Staples that employ thousands. I agree with the criticism that he shifts positions, but I still think he would be preferable to Hussein.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 6, 2009 9:15 AM
Opposition Potus CAN BELIEVE IN!!!
Posted by: Artfldgr at March 6, 2009 9:36 AM
Just because someone doesnt think Romney is the right choice does NOT mean they think Obama is better. Romney has his good points but he also created ROMNEY CARE, the socialist medical plan in Massachussetts.
Romney would be good in a cabinet level position like Commerce.
Besides, its way too early to speculate about who will run in 2012. Concentrate on 2010 first and get real conservatives elected to Congress to try and thrwart the plans of uber marxist Obama.
Posted by: Name at March 6, 2009 9:42 AM
This is what happens when you are elected by fraud and not actually the will of the people!
Posted by: TED at March 6, 2009 9:51 AM
Speaking of opposition rallys, I don't know if you ladies and gentlemen are into this sort of thing, but if you watch Glenn Beck, you'll have heard of his "We Surround Them" movement, with viewing parties forming all over the country for a Friday 3/13 rally.
If you go to "Wesurroundthemmap.com, you can see if there's a party in your area. I checked it out, and there's one at our Buffalo Wild Wings sportsbar. They're all over the place! I think it sounds like great comradery (no pun intended) and I'm going. I've only been to one other rally in my life (a support-the-troops rally) and it was great, very soul-lifting.
Posted by: Karin at March 6, 2009 9:55 AM
"as if he were a landslide winner, like Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and Reagan in 1980"
It's no wonder Johnson won buy a landslide in 1965, there wasn't anybody else running. Someone needs to tell that Democrat that the election was held in 1964.
Posted by: Darrel at March 6, 2009 11:20 AM
This opposition is just going to keep growing. The people that were asleep during the election have just woke up and found their 401K gone and their taxes going up. And...they are TICKED!
In reference to McCain, that is what the "PARTY" wanted, a candidate that would be attractive to the moderates in the nation and not the Conservative base. That is what they got and it did not work.
Posted by: Franklins Locke at March 6, 2009 12:02 PM
I prefer the collectivist king to Romney because at least Obama doesn't have the audacity to pretend he supports individual rights.
Posted by: Ken at March 6, 2009 12:55 PM
A real conservative would have won; 0bama is the luckiest politician alive; he always seems to run against lame candidates.
McCain lost because if you want a socialist, you'll vote for the real thing -- not an opposition kissy-face, "bi-partisan," 50/50 socialist.
McCain was a true war hero and earned everyone' respect for his actions as a P.O.W. I voted for him.
But as a candidate, he was a dud.
What's the problem with the way the Republican Party chooses its candidates?? Whatever it is, they need to change it...
...or maybe we need another Reagan, who went onstage, grabbed the mike, and said, "Mr. Chairman, I earned this microphone!"
Posted by: Smokey at March 6, 2009 1:01 PM
Im getting so sick and tired of seeing obamas ugly mug everywhere i go these stupid liberal weenies are treating him like some kind of freakin god when all he is is a charlaten and a fruad
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 6, 2009 2:54 PM
You guys have the right(see what I did there?) of this one. Obama has smacked me around and taken my lunch money. I'll admit I was played. Nothing would make me happier then to see the budget back in the hands of fiscal conservatives.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2009 5:16 PM
Ted, the life-long Democrat, you still don't get it, do you? Chairman 0 loves the crisis, and is doing everything he possibly can to make it worse (much, much worse). He wants the DJIA at 100, if he can't get zero; he wants everybody, you idiot Democrats included, penniless, your IRA's and 401(k)'s near worthless, so you'll come running to the government to save your ass.
Once you do that, you're his slave for life, and so are your spouse and children (and their children). Next up, national health-care, so he, and his minions, will control both your material being and your physical being.
Gotcha! Wish you'd voted ABO right about now, Ted? [Anybody But Obama]
Posted by: jc14 at March 6, 2009 7:56 PM
"Why did the Republican Party go with the clueless "maverick" McCain - "?
Far too many states allow anybody to cast a vote in the Republican primaries. I think the GOP was heavily "influenced" by non-Republicans voting in the primaries. Fix that.
Then find some actual Conservatives with guts and backbones to run. Good luck with that one. Maybe look outside of the Ivy League squad for once?
Posted by: drew458 at March 6, 2009 8:36 PM
The Republicans should drop out of the public primaries in any state that has an open primary system. They should then run their own private primary with only registered Republicans allowed to take part. I still don't know why my tax money is being spent to fund the primaries of two PRIVATE political groups. These parties are not part of the government and should not get any tax money for them to choose their candidates.
Posted by: Boatdesigner at March 6, 2009 10:37 PM