« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A One-Term Wonder?

By: Dave Poff (haystack) (Diary)  |  February 16th, 2010 at 09:29 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Hill’s “Blog Briefing Room” suggests that is exactly the reality our beleaguered President finds himself staring at:

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

The reelection numbers are slightly more sour than Obama’s approval ratings, which are basically tied. 49 percent of people told CNN that they approve of the way Obama is handling his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

The temptation to mock, while great, will be resisted. No personal fan of the man, I almost feel bad for him…almost… as I think back to the doom George W. Bush was told he faced in the run-up to his own re-election and remember how badly I hoped the experts were wrong back then. I’m sure Obama’s fans feel the same way today, so in deference I’ll back off for now.

I will add, though, that drawing comparisons between what Bush faced during his first term then and what Obama has faced during his own first term now is instructive. Bush started 2 wars with a fair amount of success (take it easy…I said fair amount) and Obama has failed to end them as he promised to. Bush inherited a decent economy (however much it was built upon a house of cards) that fairly quickly collapsed before having a full-bore stroke after 9/11. Obama inherited a struggling economy that had some potential for improvement until he chose to bail out everyone and take them over… Bush’s post-9/11 economic stroke would look good now compared to what we’re faced with today. We were afraid back then…now we’re just fiscally cynical and wholly distrustful of the Federal Government.

Like Bush, Obama now finds himself having to glad-hand his political opponents. I think (and I’m prepared to be corrected on this) that there is a fundamental difference between the two however; Bush gave in a little without having to abandon his agenda while Obama appears ready to give up all he stood for a year ago just to cling to his political life – agenda be damned.

Having even some Executive experience really does mean something when you wake up one morning and find yourself assigned the task of being President of the United States…Governor (I suggest here) offers a bit more of that than Community Organizer and hand-wringing political activist. It makes one wonder, yet again, which is the better President…or at least which of these two will be better remembered for having given the job a try.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • 10ksnooker

    When they ram health care through. Then all bets are off, the Democrat loses will be dramatic.

  • http://twitter.com/JoeKenHa joekenha

    Say it again.

    One term.

    I like it.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Obama and the failed policies of the past four years

  • RedBeard

    But Obama is perfectly awful.

    There were many presidential traits to admire in George Bush, but I’m hard-pressed to think of even one in Obama.

    • DONTREADONME

      I saw the title and said OK here we go someone’s going “Glenn Beck” on Bush (blah, blah Bush is a progressive, blah, blah 0bama) then you followed up with a great 2nd line. Sorry about the threadjack but I had to point that out.

      • RedBeard

        Just wanted to give my honest view on two very different presidents.

        My honest opinion of President Bush is that he was, overall, a good chief executive. He was very wrong on some domestic issues, right on others, and right most of the time when it came to foreign policy. He respected the people and his office, and continues to do so, unlike a couple of blabbermouthed ex-presidents I can think of.

        The man now sitting in the Big Chair, putting shoe heel scuff marks on the Oval Office desktop, respects no one and nothing but his own ultra-leftist agenda and his reflection in the mirror. He has been wrong, painfully so, on just about everything he has done. His vision for my country is one of destruction and rebuilding as the ultimate fool’s errand of a socialist utopia. His foreign policy is weak or non-existant, and in most cases dangerously foolish. He considers productive Americans his enemies, layabout Americans as his tools, and American exceptionalism is anathema to him. His entire collection of philosophies, associations, and agenda are more akin to those of a tin pot communist dictator of a third rate banana republic than they are to America.

        I don’t know where Mr. Bush will be ranked by history, but I’m guessing somewhere on the plus side of the ledger. Obama deserves no ranking but the rock-bottom of the negative side. He is the only man in politics who can make be yearn for the good old days of Jimmy Carter. And that makes me ill.

      • Scope

        Glen Beck is the keynote speaker at CPAC? He has trashed the Republicans almost as much as the Democrats. I understand that CPAC is conservative, but, it is Republican just as much. I can’t imagine what he will say in his speech.

        • RedBeard

          …the Tea Party folks told Michael Steele at their “summit” meeting.

          Conservatives are flexing their muscles, justifiably so, and the GOP is starting to listen after years of being lost in the wilderness.

          No 3rd party – reform the Republican Party.

          • Scope

            that the GOP is starting to listen to the conservatives. There are some that I’m not so sure about. I believe that someone poured cement in McCain’s ears.

  • vamoose

    Obama is quickly becoming the patron saint of lost causes: cap-and-trade, health care reform, the 2016 Olympics, campaigning in VA/NJ/MA. Like Wiley Coyote trying to catch Road Runner, Obama pursues health care reform in vain. After each set back he simply orders Acme rocket-powered roller skates in an attempt to fail more craptacularly than the last time. I sure hope it’s one and done for Obama.

    • haystack

      I spewed beer on my poor laptop screen at the image of Bambi opening his box of Acme rocket-powered roller skates with the brainstorm cloud over his head…awesome-

  • sethduncan

    I have no doubt that Obama will be a one term president, but it all hinges on the 2010 election. Conservatives (not just Republicans) need to take back Congress. One race that is shaping up to be a Rubio vs. Crist-like race is the SC-03 race. Moe, would you take a look at the race and give us your analysis? I’d be happy to help arrange an interview with the leading conservative candidate, Jeff Duncan. Just let me know.
    Thanks,
    Seth

  • SteveLA

    Except there’s no Reagan out in the wings ready to beat the snot of his Obamaness. Sadly.

  • realskinny

    Bush did not inherit a decent economy. Numbers show the economy went into recession the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2000. The Commerce Dept. put out figures for Corporate profits about 30% higher than actual to cover it up but revised numbers show the economy diving well before the election. Also though there was negative growth the third quarter of 2001 (9-11), there was a slight recovery to positive territory the fourth quarter—-hardly a full bore stroke.

    There’s no question Bush’s action in getting tax cuts through a hostile Senate—the Democrats held the majority 2001-2002—was instrumental in putting the economy back on a growth track that by 2007 saw 3 straight years of record GDP and record federal revenues.

    We all hope the Marxist in chief will be gone by 2013 but it will take a lot of work. If Conservatives can do well enough this year, we may begin repairing some of the damage but remember who will take credit. Twice before Republican Congresses have forced prudent policies on Democrat Presidents only to see them re-elected—Truman in 1948 and Clinton in 1996.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      I’m not blaming the tech bubble on Clinton, as the tech bubble was a rare systematic mistake by highly correlated actions of diverse private investors. (Unlike the govt-abetted housing bubble.) But the tech bubble’s inevitable popping was coincident with Bush’s election.

      • realskinny

        The Tech Bubble “popped” in ’99 and 2000. By the time Bush was in office, Jan.,2001, the market was already well south. There weren’t many good places to put your money—I remember. Enron was still flying high. But they went south about a month before 9-11. With hindsight it would have been a good time to pickup Apple.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          nt

          • 6eorge Jetson

            of the 1970s

          • E Pluribus Unum
          • 6eorge Jetson

            when Gore tried to phyically intimidate Bush in one of the debates…

            Oh, wait…Bush DID do that :)

  • saltlick

    …while Obama appears ready to give up all he stood for a year ago just to cling to his political life – agenda be damned.

    I would argue that Obama is indeed an ideologue and will not give up all he stands for just to stay in office. The small feints toward the middle we are seeing now are tactical. The goal is to engage the GOP, make it look corrupt and stupid (how hard is that?), and remind the public Obama was elected because the alternative looked so bad. Just watch — his numbers will rise after the upcoming tar baby summit. And no, that’s not a putdown of Obama based on his “race” — it’s a prediction of what’s going to happen.

    Let’s not get cocky. One year ago, even Rush LImbaugh was musing aloud on the radio that maybe America had become a nation ready for socialism. One year ago, the Dems were expected to maintain political control for generations to come. NOBODY can predict where we and Obama will be next year.

    • Scope

      “The goal is to engage the GOP, make it look corrupt and stupid (how hard is that?)” Sure, the Republicans have had their moments, but, it seems you have missed the fact that Obama, and his beyond corrupt czars and administration, the tactic of everyone of them to just lie, even when the lies are obvious to everyone, his Executive Orders when he doesn’t get his way in Congress, and his willingness to turn the country over to the UN, his unwillingness to accept that Global Warming is a hoax, and mainly his moving half of Chicago’s thugs, including self-avowed Communists to DC is less egregious than a Republican that had a “wide stance” in a bathroom, or another that cheated on his wife? You give Obama, and the Progressives way too much credit, while giving the Republicans none. Again, just who’s side are you on?

      • realskinny

        Can’t stand those who say there is no difference between the parties. The crimes of the Dems are so much more egregious than the Reps. It’s one thing to hate those Reps who betray the voters who sent them to Congress and quite another to cut off your nose to spite your face. We ALL pay the price when these Bolsheviks gain power.

        I just can’t see BHO and Pelosi giving up their agenda. They are committed Marxists. Their whole reason for being is to establish Totalitarian government. If they aren’t doing that, they may as well go home. They have no other reason to be in politics.

        • Scope

          they have no other reason to be in DC.

  • maddog

    One term is looking more and more likely.

    One of my fears is that in the short time remaining, we see a liberal line change (to borrow a hockey term) in the Supreme Court. I hope Stevens and Ginsburg hold on for a few more years. Granted their leaving, and Souter for that matter, will not change the ideological make up of the court. That’s the problem. We cannot over turn Roe v, Wade with the current make up, If Stevens and Ginsburg go, combined with Sotomayer, the liberal block will have many more years on the court.

    • Scope

      will have at least one more appointment by Obama. It very well be replacing one of the liberals. To think that the Supreme Court will take up Roe v Wade, anytime in our lifetime, is to believe that there really is a pot of Gold at the end of Rainbows.

  • solvoreor

    The only thing worse than re-electing President Obama might be NOT re-electing President Obama. You think Jimmy Carter was a loose cannon, this guy is a missing nuclear weapon.

    Personally I still think he is running for international office of some kind and the thought of him heading some international organization with what he knows about the U.S. government frieghtening.

    Even more horrible is the thought of him returning to acorn and his role as community organizer.

    The disaster is that he will be a young man when he is through, whenever that is, with a long life of tormenting the rest of us and all those who follow him. This is where his lack respect for America and anyone not Obama will felt the most. I would not want to be the next president.

    • Scope

      in other countries, what global role do you think he would be accepted into? He has gone from “savior of the world” to arrogant, incompetent idiot in just a year. I don’t doubt that he has higher aspirations, but, he blew those chances.

      • Scope

        about the removal of his statue in Jakarta, and, it wasn’t done with anything remotely resembling respect.

  • maddog

    I am 100% convinced that Barak Obama will lose in 2012 . I told my firends this after the 2008 election and before inauguration. These still hold true. Based on what happened during the 2008 election This doesn’t even factor in all the stuff since actually being President- health care debacle, Cap & Trade hoax, forced unionization, sky high debt, etc

    Look at all the advantages that The Zero in 2008 and will not in 2012. I will enumerated them below.

    1) Historically low approval ratings of opposition party President (Bush)
    2) Worst financial panic since the Great Depression
    3) Two wars
    4) Democrats enjoyed 8-10% advantage in generic Congressional ballot leading up to the election
    4) Historic pattern of party in power rarely winning third term (GHWB was the second in 100 years- I exempt FDR because that was unusual case with 4 terms, WWII, Depression, etc)
    5) Fawning media that was so blatantly biased it is embarrassing (remember Chris Matthews commenting about ?getting a tingle down his leg when he hears Barak speak)
    6) Dispirited, demoralized opposition party
    7) Opposition party had oldest nominee in the history of the Republic which contrasted with the rock start aura of the Zero
    8) Opposition party base not solidly behind nominee
    9) Opposition party nominee ran lackluster and at times ineffective campaign
    10) Opposition party nominee chose public funding and to hamper himself with the regulations and limitations that come with it.
    11) Zero’sundraising ran circles around opposition nominee and set records
    12) Zero outspent opposition party nominee 7-1 in final month
    13) Ran on vague warm, fuzzy ?hope and change.? Next time around he won?t be able to evade specifics and will actually have record to defend. He didn?t have much of a record this time around and what little he did, the media never held him accountable. Not so next time.

    That is a seriously long list. Yet despite all of those major advantages, Zero managed to just eke out only razor thin wins. Look at some key states. NC was 50-49 in Obama. That?s only 14,000 votes out of 4.4 million cast. Now that?s a mandate if I ever saw one . Barak won OH and FL with 51%. VA was the Obama?s biggest ?thumping? in my small list of key states with his staggering 53% ?blow out.? Those 4 states account for 75 electoral votes before reapportionment. A minor change of 2-3 percent (not a whole heck of a lot in the grand scheme of things) suddenly brings zero Electoral College margin down to 278- perilously close to the 270 minimum required to win. These are Republican states that have consistently voted Republican. Sure, some people mention demographic trends, but that?s all it is a trend and the recent elections in VA, NJ, and MA.

    My whole point is the Zero did not win by much. He had a lot of wind in his sails in 2008 that he won?t have in 2012. 2008 was no landslide.

    • Scope

      to also say that because he was a half African American, it was seen as an historic election. If the minority voters are really honest with themselves, they must know that there were other African Americans that would have been much more qualified to become president, and, they would have been just as much historic. I consider Thomas Sowell and Clarance Thomas to be brilliant, rational and constitutional scholars. It would have been interesting to know if they would have won the presidency, based solely on their skin color, rather than what party they aligned with.

      • ZootSuit

        but Barack Obama is not half African-American; he is half African, Kenyan to be exact. I have contended that Obama is more of a “White liberal in blackface” than a “Black” liberal in his political/cultural outlook. Indeed, I still have old friends in Chicago that really did not like him until he became a U.S. Senator and then President: they considered him a “carpetbagger” who really did not understand the communities that he represented.

        However, make no mistake that his election as President understandably became and is a great source of pride with them. And for the record, I see nothing wrong with that (e.g. John Kennedy’s election marked a great source of pride for many Catholics) even as I don’t agree with Obama’s policy.

        Without going into details — and I admit that it is somewhat unfair to make the following statement without going into details — there is are significant differences between generic “White liberals” and generic “Black liberals”; differences that are often overlooked by conservatives.

        As an analogy, think of the differences and often animosity between “beer Republicans” (as exemplified by Sarah Palin) and “wine Republicans” (as exemplified by Mitt Romney). That same type of “cultural” conflict within the Republican Party and amongst conservatives is similar to that between “White” and “Black” conservatives.

  • bigmaude

    website just for fun. They are soooo angry with O. Kinda feel bad for Mikey, sniff sniff, say it ain’t so mr. President. Conservative will not have to do much in ’12, the libs are so mad at him because of the wars and not getting their agenda crammed, well you know where. Gonna be fuuuunnnnnyyyy!

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    and his inability to recognize the fact that people are catching on to his lies, means that in 2012, he will be saying this, “I have a dream…..a dream where this nation will start anew. A dream that this nation can discard the failed policies of the past and move on to a bright progressive future. The previous president failed. His policies, while well intentioned, did not go far enough. I intend to bring the American people into the 21st century, out of the darkness. The seas will unfreeze. The glaciers will retreat. The sun will come out…..tomorrow. Tomorrow. Tomorrow, the sun will come out tom…..damned teleprompter……”

    Can a President be a lame duck in his first year.

    • Scope

      to try to take up the mantle and goals of Martin Luther when he hasn’t yet held to his promise of filling up his supporters gas tanks, and paying off their mortgages. I doubt he remodeled the Fla. ladies kitchen yet either. Obama’s goals are to break the back of everyone he can, no matter what race they are. And, he has taken race relations in this country back to at least the MLK days.

  • renny

    need to be ready to undo the “law” invented by the czars (no bank official can make over $500,000 is Sustein’s new take), executive orders O churns out by the hours (about the only pres. work he appears to do), and even Cong. missteps like not confirming anyone like Sotomayor again.

    Cong. and most presidents (altho’ not O) are loath to change the votes and legislation and exec. Orders passed by earlier colleagues. They like to “tweak” and “mold” former mistakes but not actually outright kill previous errors made under other administrations.

    These new people will also have to have the guts to face a hostile press and media, that I do not see changing much soon. They have still not really acknowledged the climategate scandal or the collapse of the “green” tide. They are sticking by Obama like superglue on sticky fingers.

    I do keep hoping that the press that usually follows the pattern of what it builds up it tears down will eventually see O’s fall. Hasn’t really happened to Obamanation yet. If and when it does, then, we should finally see his school and college records (the way Joe the Plumber?s DMV records were leaked within 34 hours of his appearance on tv), O?s baptismal certificate, his law school clients, his real work history (if one actually exists), and yes, the real birth certificate. (He is actually a member of Phi Beta Kappa, something I am surprised never is made much of by the left, which believes he is brilliant, altho’ no transcripts are available to back up their fervor.)

  • throwback59

    What planet have the 44% who think Bambi should be re-elected been living on?

    • RedBeard

      Planet Socialism and Planet Ignorance.

  • Scope

    included that the economy Bush inherited was a “house of cards.” If nothing else, the housing bubble was building rapidly under the Clinton admin. He didn’t just allow it to mossy along as previous administrations did (after Carter), he keep blowing more hot air into the bubble. All those toxic assets were sitting there when Bush took over. Granted, Bush should have shouted from the roof tops of the danger they posed, just as McCain should have. They allowed people like Dodd and Frank to fool everyone into believing that Fannie and Freddie were flush and fine. It was a critical mistake to allow the situation to get to the point where it exploded.

    As to saying that Obama appears ready to give up all he stood for a year ago, a year ago most still believed he would fullfill his campaign promises, and that that was his agenda. His campaign promises were a heck of a lot more moderate than what his agenda has actually become. I honestly don’t believe that Obama gives one hoot for his political life, nor that of any of his Democrats in Congress. He holds the reins of power now, and, he will continue to push for his radical goals. He, and, even more so his handlers, have come too far to back off now. If he Emmanuel and Axelrod thought that he could be president for life, by Executive Order, they would do it. He is saying words now like bi-partisan, and, we must work together, but, everyone already knows the lying Emperor has no clothes.

    • haystack

      was, if you recall, the tech bust. Remember when the internet startups all came tumbling down? I don’t recall W. spending nearly the amount of time blaming Clinton as Bambi has spent blaming Bush. He certainly did…but not nearly as much and not nearly as long into his first term.

      At some point you have to (as has been said elsewhere) “man up” and be accountable. Thus far, we don’t see that in this young man from Illinois.

      • Scope

        You have to be a man, in order to man up. Hard for a fancy speakin’ eunuch to accomplish that.

        • realskinny

          responsibility for his own actions in his life. He’s not going to start now. What a throughly vile despicable human being.

  • ZootSuit

    The Republicans must put up a candidate to oppose him. And quite frankly, as bad as Obama is, I don’t think there is a Republican candidate out there who can beat him.

    Look at the current top three or four Republican “candidates”:

    Mike Huckabee — is nothing more than a pro-life liberal. In fact, despite his rhetoric, I think his liberalism is on a scale approaching Obama’s. And considering his support of the pro-abortion candidate in NY-23 (sorry, can’t remember her name at the moment), I have my doubts about whether he is really pro-life. And honestly, I think Mike Huckabee has even less integrity than Barack Obama. Personally, I would rather vote for Obama than Huckabee, Huckabee is that bad. ‘Nough said.

    Sarah Palin — fairly or unfairly, she just has too many negatives. Yes, even more negatives than Obama. An extremely loyal base of followers but her base of followers probably isn’t even half of the “conservative movement” let alone the Republican Party and let alone the nation as a whole. And most people who are not part of her base have already made up their mind against her. Even in 2012, I think she loses to Obama big.

    Mitt Romney — is just unlikeable. Despite everything, when you really look at his performance in the 2008 Primaries, he did poorly. The only primaries he won (as opposed to caucuses) were the ones where he had a strong personal tie: Michigan (where he grew up and his father was governor, Massachusetts (where he was governor) and Utah (where Mormons are a significant plurality of the Republican electorates). And the big story of Super Tuesday was not the Southern states that Huckabee won, it was the fact that Romney came in a poor third in all of them. Plus, I personally do not trust Mitt “RomneyCare” Romney. As bad as Obama is, I still just do not see enough people preferring Romney.

    Tim Pawlenty — is currently an unknown: which, ironically, is probably the best thing going for him. That’s why I give him the best chance of unseating Obama in 2012. But as an unknown, Pawlenty must first win the Republican nomination and then still become “known” enough to beat Obama. It may happen — and I personally would want Tim “AGW-or-not” Pawlenty to beat Obama — but I’m not willing to put any money on it.

    The bottom line is that if could just get a “no confidence” vote on Obama, he would be out tomorrow. But the unfortunate truth of the matter is, the Republicans must put up an alternative. And as bad as Obama is, all the known Republican alternatives have enough bad baggage that many people will still prefer the “devil they know” (Obama) to the “devil they don’t” (the potential Republican nominee).

    • Common_Cents
      • Ausonius

        Crypto-RINO Retreads like Huckabee and known RINO retreads like Romney leave many Conservatives cold: I know a good number of sympathetic Conservatives who think Palin should not have resigned from the governor’s office, and who therefore are highly skeptical of her.

        Michelle Bachmann, Thaddeus McCotter, Peter King: I agree, they are not very well known, but a few million dollars gets them some name recognition fairly quickly!

        Robert Jindal (??? please, not “Bobby,” even if he is in a good ol’ boy state), or did that gee-whiz face on national TV do him in?

        Elizabeth Cheney???

        Rick Santorum anybody? Anybody? Anybody?

        Too bad Bill Miller died back in ’83! :)

        • nessa

          …we won’t need a few million dollars if they step up to the plate, day in and day out, barring the progressives agenda. they can make themselves a name and a reputation in one fell swoop.

    • Beasley Beesmeal

      yawn…

    • hickorystick

      there may be hope for that bunch yet!

    • Brian Hibbert

      I don’t completely agree with you on Sarah, and don’t agree with you on Romney, but it’s still over a year before we seriously start picking 2012 candiates.

      Also Obama’s only 1 year into his term. A LOT can happen in the next couple of years and can work either for or against him. I’m betting most events are going to work on the “against” side given his performance so far, but you never know what will happen. So far people are starting to realize that there aren’t any rainbows and unicorns.

    • bs

      Look, the next election is 2.5 years off. Barack Obama was barely on the radar in 2005. He had been a Senator for a grand total of 5 months at this point before the 2008 election. Virtually no one said anything at that point about him being POTUS.

      To look at that crew that you list and consider them the core group of candidates for the GOP in 2012 is short-sighted and most likely totally incorrect. It is quite possible that another “unknown” could emerge at some time in the next year or so and blow us away. Until then, this kind of analysis is counterproductive.

    • penguin2

      it is as bleak a picture. Absolutely true we cannot run on the notion of “anyone but Obama” but neither do I think that all of our known and unknown candidates are that weak. There is no perfect candidate out there, and there is no “savior” candidate either, nor should there be, but I believe we have more going for our side than being so down on our choices. IMO, 2012 is not going to be the typical presidential cycle, no more than 2010 is going to be for Congressional and Senate seats. Strong currents are moving in this country right now. CNN, a Leftist polling group has Obama at the lowest ratings in history since since they started doing polling. All of that has happened in one year, without any new and traumatic events to actually drive those numbers down.

      I know we cannot just be ‘we’re not the other guy” but Obama deftly won using both the “evil George Bush” and look “how great and smart and wonderful I am” mantra. Yes, he ran a superb campaign and the people bought it easily because they wanted, “anyone but Bush and the Republicans.”

      That said, I think it is important to focus and promote the idea that we can beat Obama, and we will try to find the best candidate possible. IMO, we presently have a president and administration that is Leftist/Communists/Socialist, they have taken over the country. He is an ideologue and has nothing in common with what I think and value in a traditional American sense. He and his cohorts are wielding unprecedented power, something our side is trying to resist. Unless everyone crawls back into their comfy place they were in before Nov. 2008, I think there will definitely be a mind-set of “anyone but Obama.”

      One last thought, a little more than a year ago, Nov. 08 and for several months after I and many others thought things were very bleak and we felt powerless. In fact, if someone had said things would have changed in the way they have, I would have laughed cynically, yes, even though I am optimistic by nature, I could not see one thing to believe in….

      In fact, one year ago, Rush gave his famous speech at CPAC and the Left and media tried to crucify him for it. One year later, they are running and stumbling, more and more people standing up and speaking out, and people are listening. We are no longer powerless, that is where I draw my optimism from.

  • factapple

    The single most effective technique the liberal media uses to convert kids to liberalism is mockery of conservative values. The liberal media has essentially banned the conservative view of the majority of Americans from the airwaves. The global warming lie has been promoted by mocking not learning and understanding. We conservatives need to humble ourselves and start mocking liberals in the supermarket, on air, at universities, make them defend the indefensible in public. We can not let them get away with this 24/7 mockery of conservatives, they have already stolen the hopes, dreams, and faith of too many young people with this technique. Mock! Mock now! Mock Often!