« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A SAD POST-ELECTION ASSESSMENT

Unfortunately, my pre-election premonition was correct. Re-elected was an individual no one really knows, understands or even if he is eligible to be our President. Many fear that by 2016  our Country will cease to resemble that willed to us by our founding fathers. Also, forgotten, is Pres. Kennedy’s appeal that “Americans ask not what their country can do for them but rather, what they can do for their country”.

“ What’s in it for me” will be the new clarion call. Reliance on government paternalism, Karl Marx’ theory of wealth distribution and Class Warfare will predominate.

Republicans nominated a good, decent man with a fine background and experience particularly suited to reverse America’s economic quandary. The problem was that Democrats  better understood both human psychology and its relationship to the art of politics.

They devised a superior political strategy dependent on “killing Romney” politically. First, they spent $200 million dollars to destroy his character, image and background and were assisted by the mainstream media. Romney was relegated to responding to their diversionary issues such as a phony War on Women, contraception and Baine Capital. Minimized, was serious discussion of the economy, jobs, home foreclosures, taxes, Obamacare, job destroying regulations and foreign policy failures.

Ignoring 57 million Americans who rejected Obama, democrats will claim a landslide victory and mandate for change. Republicans will be called obstructionists, three more liberal members of the Supreme Court will be appointed and Executive Orders will rule the land.

COMMENTS

  • revtm

    “even if he is eligible to be our President”

    no more of this, this is rhetoric that causes people to not take us seriously

  • crimsonchampion

    Chill out with the birther stuff. Also, keep in mind that Obama’s vulnerability was partially offset by the baggage Romney brought to the table. I’m talking about his healthcare bill in Massachusetts. Yes, I agree that it’s legal under the 10th amendment for states to have an individual mandate, but why did people think it was okay to pretty much protect Obama from the best argument conservatives could’ve leveled against him (argument: ObamaCare sucks!) by nominating Romney, the de facto original architect of the law?

    • arthurjake

      We lost this election when Romney won the primary. Health care law in Mass not included and his record was still far from conservative. We reaped what we sowed as a party by nominating him.

  • Pingback: and another « o3811236

  • Pingback: Lane Reindeau

  • Pingback: Stan Benzee