In my lifetime, I have never seen a President win re-election based only on outright lies, smears, and cynicism by the winner. Mitt Romney did garner 3 million less votes in 2012 than John McCain did in 2008; but, Obama won on 10 million less votes this year compared to four years ago. If Romney had been able to pick up half of these, especially in the swing states, we'd be looking at a Romney as President of the United States. Instead, we have Obama holding the office for another four years. But he certainly isn't my President, nor the President of a United States of America.
Obama is President of these various constituent groups:
- Deadbeats of all ethnicities
- Wealthy people who bribed Obama for personal financial gain
- Whites suffering from white liberal guilt over the racism promoted by Democrats
- Media people
- Slutty women (ie., Sandra Fluke)
There are tens of millions of these people. Like Al Capone selling a product that was in great demand during Prohibition, Obama provides the people of these various constituencies the items they each want; unlike Capone, who wanted to be paid for the product by the people who used it, Obama has taxpayers pay for the goodies he dishes out to his constituents. Why work hard or work at all when you have Uncle Sugar giving you stuff for nothing other than your vote. Plus, he played on each of these groups fears to falsely demonize his opponent and the half of the country's voters that didn't vote for him.
This, my fellow conservatives, is what we're up against. But again, let's remember that 10 million less people voted for Obama this year than in 2008. In the 2010 mid-terms, Obama wasn't on the ticket and it showed; 64% of 2012 Obama voters voted in the 2010 House elections, while 78% of 2012 Romney voters voted in the 2010 House elections. It is readily apparent to me that depending on what goes on, 2014 can be a big deal for conservatives to regain some of the 2012 losses and potentially expand on what happened in 2010. And without Obama on the ticket in 2016 (hopefully, the 22nd Amendment will remain in place as is), the number of people voting for a Democrat President will likely drop even further, provided voters for a Republican President pick up quite a bit. We also need to make sure we pick smart Republicans with spines to hold to conservative principles.
Our message is the right message, whether it has to do with social conservatism or fiscal conservatism. What we need are smarter and tougher politicians who A) hold Democrats accountable for their extremism (e.g., with Obama, he wants all taxpayers to fund all abortions, all the way up until birth, even those of wealthy people; Obama also wants taxpayers to fund all contraception, regardless of taxpayers' religious beliefs); B) knows how to present the conservative message from a liberty and Constitution point of view (e.g., Presidents can't overturn Roe v. Wade and that if the Supreme Court does overturn it, abortion is still legal; also argue that it is the people who decide these things, not courts; these are the arguments Akin and Mourdock should have used instead of saying the dumb things they did); and C) not turn tail and run when other Republicans say dumb things, as they did with Akin and Mourdock. Right now, Republican politicians and pundits are spinelessly quick to assist Democrats with the latter's demonization of Republicans' own. As we've seen, Democrats have enough assistance in the media.
We, as conservatives, have to make sure we hold Republicans in line to stand up to Obama and the Democrats. If that means not raising the debt ceiling and potentially shutting down the government, so be it. If that means everyone's income taxes go up in January, it is easy to blame Obama for this since he sits in the office of President. Republicans had a mandate in 2005 after Bush was re-elected and Republicans expanded their majority in Congress. But when Democrats and their media sycophants started lying about what Bush wanted to do with Social Security, the collective spine of Republicans went away and they joined in to defeat their own leader. As of today, Obama has no mandate, although Democrats will attempt to say there is (discount any talk of bipartisanship from Democrats; they're lying, they want Republicans to cave). But he will if Republicans give in to his and Democrats' demands.
Obama is not my President, and he isn't the President of a United States of America. He is the President of people in one or more of the groups listed above.
UPDATE: Reader sbradsha rightly wonders where I was going with this post. I forgot to mention something about that list of groups Obama is President of.
One of the things that really frosts me about Democrats, especially "progressives", is how they see their various constituencies as just that, separate. Blacks are blacks, Hispanics are Hispanics, women are women, homosexuals are homosexuals, and Democrats, including Obama, promise every one of these constituencies they are working for each and every member of those groups. This is a lie, as Hispanics reminded Obama that he broke his promise to give illegal aliens of that heritage full amnesty (he did illegally implement a version of the unpassed DREAM Act, but apparently that wasn't enough) and now demand he do so. Homosexual activists will demand that Obama and the federal government recognize same-sex "marriage"; Obama's recently cynical "evolution" to now support them was done to mollify these constituents (although he also cynically said he supported it at the state level knowing like-minded "progressive" judges all over the country have illegally amended the Constitution in order to impose upon all Americans that they recognize these relationships). What it shows is that Obama and Democrats will use the people in these groups to A) play one off against the other to keep them all in line; and B) use them to strike fear if Republicans are elected.
Real conservatives see Americans as Americans. We believe the Equal Protection Clause means every American, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs, wealth, or whatever, are subject to the same laws, with equal chances to succeed. Democrats, on the other hand, want equality of outcome, and are ready, willing, and able to push aside, as has been frequently done, the Equal Protection Clause to make sure something other than talent and character, something superficial, determines who is to be allowed to succeed. By this method it makes it appear that Democrats care, even though we know that is not the case.
This is how Obama won re-election. Not to be President of a united country, the United States of America, but only of the people in those groups I listed above. He is not my President.
Cross-posted at Scipio the Metalcon.