Friday, November 6, 2009

A New Jersey (and Virgina)

On Monday, the day before this week's elections, the White House wanted to make sure we all knew that the results of the elections were in no way a reflection on Obama. In fact, on election day the press secretary even said that the President would not be watching the results. [I am trying to figure out how it would be good for Obama’s image to say that he was not concerned with what was happening around the country, specifically in races for which he had spent so much time campaigning. But then again why am I assuming that they actually thought this through and some how concluded that it would be good for his image. And you know what they say about what happens when one assumes. (It kind of feels like Obama is assuming all day long.)]

This indicated to me how fearful Obama was that the Governors he spent hours campaigning for would lose. Also, he is not a stupid man and he knew that it most certainly did have to do with him. What amazes me is how he could not let himself be associated with a loss. Like a small child who needs his parents to remind him that it was not his fault that the team lost, for he pitched great. I think it is his oversized ego that was the motivation for this disclaimer. He needed to make sure that everyone would be saying (and he knew that his media pets would be saying whatever their master told them to,) that it was not him who lost.

They were trying to say that people were voting here based on the economy. Well Mr. Obama, the economy is you. You have made this very clear. With your stimulus, your banks, and your car companies. I mean after all you are the President, you are responsible, right? In fact, you won your election, in a big part because of how you promised you were going to fix the economy. Evidently people are not happy with how you are following up on this promise, which can be seen with Christie's win in New Jersey, and McDonald's in Virginia. These are both states that are usually blue, yet now they are red. If people were satisfied with how you were doing your job, would they not have listened to your phone calls and voted for your candidates? If they liked what were doing would they not have made sure to elect Governors who were claiming that they would be doing the same? Specifically now with healthcare reform, since there is talk of individual states being able to opt out. If people really wanted your healthcare reform would they not have made sure not to risk that (even if you do somehow take over the lives of many Americans) their state would not be included?

I think what is really happening here is that you have properly shown people what democrats really are, and they don't like it. There are many people who vote democrat with the (unfortunately false) belief that they are performing a good deed by doing so, and you are losing their support for your party. I personally have heard lifelong democrats say that 'they want to be a democrat, but that they are now finding it so difficult to do so.' You are showing them what the left truly is, and they are running right back home. I know these results are a direct reflection on you; those who voted know this, and so do you. Are you going to blame this on Bush? (Of course that would make it worse, but habits are hard to break.)

America was founded as a Conservative country, and it has, and will always be one. You prove that statement as well as anyone could. True we might get caught up in a historical campaign and make a foolish mistake (also proven by you.) But the fact that the most liberal President ever can make the country as conservative as ever, guarantees that we will be forever, no matter how hard you try to change it, a conservative nation.

PTP: One of the recent health care bills includes a provision that will penalize physicians who give their patients too much care (no rationing, right?) This is done to ensure costs will be kept down. This practice used to be done by insurance companies until it was ruled a risk for the well being of the patients. Really? Why is it then not risky now? Maybe this was banned from the insurance companies solely to harm their business? Or is this just proof that the government does not really care about you, and that the push for healthcare reform is not about making sure that Americans are well cared for?


  1. compare what Palin did for Hoffman's campaign to what 0bama did for Deeds and Corzine. Palin issued one Facebook endorsement, within 24 hours Hoffman's campaign received $116,000 in donations, a flood of endorsements from all over the country, and his percentage of the polls rose from last place at 25 percent to 45 percent in just 2 weeks, knocking out Scozzafava (who by the way was endorsed by the loony left Daily Kos because she was the most liberal candidate running) and bringing him to within 3 points of winning.

    0bama personally campaigned for Corzine, making I believe 5 campaign stops for him including 3 on the Sunday before the election, had the DNC pumping in millions of dollars, and Corzine's numbers barely moved. 0bama also made a couple of campaign stops for Deeds, and all Deeds' numbers did is go down.

    All Axelrod was left with is bragging about how they had beaten the candidate endorsed by Palin, a private citizen with a Facebook account, she didn't go there and campaign personally, if she had, I'm sure Hoffman would have won.

  2. Exactly. And I can testify to the power of Sarah Palin's fb page. Her fans there are very active. That is where I get the most hits from.

    And about Dede endorsing the Democrat, that was horrible. It shows us what the Rinos really are. And I mean not just liberal Republicans, but I think possibly even Democrats under disguise. The GOP is also at falut here as for some reason she remained on the ballot as the Republican. If she 'dropped out' and even endorsed the Democrat, should the GOP have not took Hoffman as their condidate?