« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It’s open line Friday and this caller’s discouragement stumps Rush

The political use of camouflage and why Obama gets three terms.

By: WmCraig (Diary)  |  February 15th, 2013 at 03:54 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It is open line Friday on the Rush Limbaugh show and a caller makes the case that there is no hope to defeat Obama. So Rush asks him, “do you think that the administration will continue to deficit spend and that the debt will continue to grow?” to which the caller replies yes! Rush follow up with a second question asking “do you think that the administration tax policies and spending policies will continue to cause the private sector to shrink?, and again the caller agrees.

Rush can not understand why when a majority of people think the country is getting worse why anyone would believe that Obama could get elected to three terms. Rush doesn’t reject the callers position, he seems genuinely interested in understanding because if everything is true to form, this shouldn’t be possible. Rush worked this point with a number of questions, but even though the callers conclusions didn’t seem to jive with what the “polls” indicated should happen the caller was unswayed by the questions. And the caller continued to see worsening scenarios that Obama would somehow turn to his advantage.

Let me offer a suggestion.
1. A lot of people think their jobs or their income depend on the government, and so we focus on “liberalism” or “Progressive socialism”, maybe even blame “big government” advocates and we posture our policy against these things.
2. A majority of the population earns at least a part of their income from the government so they vote Democrat supposedly. We think this is bribery of the lazy and we posture our party against this idea.
3. We see the Democrats giving rewards to what we think are single issue voters, such as amnesty for illegals, or Gay marriage, and many would have us posture our party NOT to oppose these things, or worse, are engaged in a public brawl over what we should do.

We have decided that Obama is a big government, liberal supported by progressive socialists, and that the policies of socialist liberalism dictate Obama’s action. In my opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth. And that is Obama’s camouflage. He kinda of looks like what we think we should see, so we never get a true outline of what really motivates Obama’s actions.

Red State voters should understand this. You are all familiar with the hunter, dressed in his Mossy Oaks, standing along the wooded edge of a field, floating along in his hide boat, or waiting patiently in his tree stand for the right shot. His prey in the mean time is cautiously looking around, and his eyes glancing over our camouflaged hunter see what they want to see, so the prey reacts accordingly. Seeing nothing unusual it continues on the course that will reward the hunter.

People see what they want to see. Obama knows that. Each time the Obama administration does something (such as abandoning the defense of DOMA but not overturning the laws) he creates barriers. He isolates and oppresses in the name of “freedom”. Granting this charter as a personal license, Obama creates a loyal “virtual fiefdom” of followers who have much to loose by his departure. But this too can be misinterpreted. It is assumed this is a bribe, but in fact it is a “gilded cage”. For there is no freedom, except that which Obama grants. And that which Obama grants, Obama can take away. This is kinda of like socialism, but not. It is kinda of liberal, but it is not. It is something else. Because socialism theoretically is about collective power, not personal power, and liberalism is about freedom from government power, not the concentration of power in a single person’s control.

President Obama is not a communist, socialist, or liberal. I am not sure that he is even a statist. Though like the Mossy Oak camouflage he wears a cloak that can be mistaken for all these things.
Obama is something else. I have an idea what that is, but I would like you to name it.

If we can name the threat we might defeat the camouflage, and exposed it should be obvious that there is no one safe from Obama, especially not for those that Obama “rewards”.

Can you tell me what we should call this?

WmCraig

L’État, c’est moi – Attributed to Louis XIV

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • NoTeaForMe

    So the entire point of this article is that we should be afraid of the things that we think Obama MIGHT do? If republicans stop their finger-pointing and pants-wetting…and maybe come up with a few new ideas then maybe they will win another election.

    • PowerToThePeople

      Bet you think liberal one, that you own politics forever. Bet you think the White House is yours from now to the end of days.

      Bet you are wrong. Those on the left are just too stupid to be successful for too long. Once the “we will give you everything” does not pan out and the people remember you are full of BS, things go back to the way they should be.

      • NoTeaForMe

        It’s a sad state of affairs in the Republican Party when someone stating facts that disagree with FoxNews talking points is tossed aside as a Liberal. This is why you’re losing elections. Look at the trends. Those who favor same-sex marriage, increased taxes on the wealthy, infrastructure spending, comprehensive immigration reform and any other “liberal” positions are indeed going to own American politics for quite some time. It’s time for new idea, not excuse making for the last election.

        • Bill S

          NoRedstateForYou

    • WmCraig

      No, the point of this post is to stop thinking about what Obama might do by applying labels, and look at what he is actually doing. He is imposing a government sanction system of segregation by demographic, patronage rewards and intimidation that is effective because of low job creating, a powerful system of street level organizers and government bureaucracies with political patronage agenda. In short he is building a personal power base and is playing both sides.

  • NoTeaForMe

    Want to guarantee Obama won’t get elected again? Disavow the Birther, John Birch, self-deportation, money is God, tin-foil hat brandishing nuts who make the rest of us look bad. Have positions on social issues but don’t attempt to force them on the rest of the country. Acknowledge that straight white Christian men have been in power since our nations founding and maybe it’s time for some other voices at the table. Until this happens we will lose every national election and it will be nobodies fault but our own.

    • celador2

      In other words what you describe is a call to vote for Democrats.

      Voters still need an alternative to welfare statism of DNC. We constitutional conservatives provide one that does have continuity with founders and their federalist rule of law of a self governing people.

      A rallying self searching quote from Mr Patrick Henry of Virginia comes to mind. when they were debating Independence. Those precious liberties founders so valued are still in need of our nurturing and protection.—

      “…. I know what course others may take but as for me give me liberty or give me death.”

      • NoTeaForMe

        Believe it or not, one does not ( or I guess, should not) need a tin-foil hat to be a republican. If you think the only two options available are attaching tea bags to your founding father hat or being a progressive, then RIP Republican Party. Like it or not 12 swing states decide which direction this country goes. As long as mainstream republican ideals continue to turn off major swaths of voters in these states, then you will hand every election to the Democrats.

        • celador2

          Ah come on, show some tolerance and diversity, buddy with the language which I speak.

          I reject your characterizations of’ ‘tin foil’ and that does not charactere much of anything to me of value and see I am stepping into it with a troll. For purposes of the discussion one more round –
          Obama won because his vision promises of welfare statism was OK with somevoters who are not concerned with high unemployment or any costs.

          2012 was a voter base choice and more voters wanted subsidies eventhough there is no money in the bank to fund them. More people chose to go deeper into debt and allow someone else to pay for what Obama borrows.

          Not all did so vote to destroy the ups and downs of free markets for welfare statism like the Soviet Union or UK, And that top down government ACA take over of an economic model such as Health care must be clear to even the most aviid supporter of Obama and DNC. We have work to do on Obamacare. and need be rid of it.
          .
          Obama spoils and its possible growth is the topic of concern since guaranteed subsides so destroys the market place and freedom of choice. Subsidized lifestyles has not been the American way nor an indictor all is well until 2012. Obama masks prosperity’s decline by adding people to welfare rolls of some kind who were not there before. Growing welfare roll is not an indicator all is well.

          And we were once the shining example for the world. in term of production.and wealth creation. JOBS now and real ones are the remedy , not make work from crony stimulus oBama so loves..

          . As long as Democrats buy votes and provide state funded guarantees where market forces need provide wealth creating jobs Democrats will continue to win as pay back by voters. In that you may be correct unfortunately.

          The founding values will lose includng freedom. Only a moral self governing people are fit for a republian model of government. That iis a guiding principle we must keep alive.

          Let there be continuity with liberty foundations not this radical departure into a welfare state!

          If you are so sure DNC has the next presidential election in the bag in swing states or anywhere why bother to argue or change minds here?

          • NoTeaForMe

            My issue with that entire line of reasoning is that Obama put people on welfare. Even if you don’t like the guy you have to acknowledge that massive job losses before and just after he took office took place. If these unemployed people didn’t get on welfare, they would lose their homes, go hungry and resort to the kinds of things all people do when thrust in that position.

            To suggest that Obama put these people there or even wants them there doesn’t really tell the whole story, and also carries lots of racist overtones. The reality is that a lot of people with second homes still aren’t hiring. In 2010 the Tea Party insisted we renew the Bush tax cuts or else companies wouldn’t hire. Well they got renewed and nothing happened.

            It is possible to disagree with Obamas positions and not blame him for every single thing that conservatives don’t like in this country. If you say otherwise then Bill O’Riley calls you a bone head and you get primaried during the next election by a flat-earthier who will lose a winnable election.

          • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

            Just to add some facts for all of us, the situation he mentions of “12 swing states decide which direction this country goes” is nothing new. It’s happened many times before, with different states, and even fewer. It’s the nature of a Republic.

            The reason Obama is causing so much turmoil is that he seems not to care anything about the good of the country. So for WmCraig’s question, I say the answer is an “anti-American.”

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    I’d agree with you, but all the leftists were in a tizzy while W. was in office that he would do something to become emperor for life or something. Except he never did anything to even suggest that was on his mind. The Won, OTOH, never does anything to suggest that ANYTHING is on his mind, unless it’s Fatburgers and golf.

    The leftists love that, because he’s always telling them what they want to hear, naming scapegoats, with “the 1%” substituted for “the Jews.”

    Still, the government purchase of all that ammo raises questions, and governmental policies are continuously making everything worse, not better. And then we throw in the stock market, and nobody can figure out anything.

  • ipolitics

    I happen to think that Dinesh D’Souza pegged Obama completely and correctly in his book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” later made into the film “2016: Obama’s America.” Obama is an anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-colonialist at heart. Obama is only appearing as a big-government liberal because he needs to in order to win elections. When given the chance, he is dismantling (or smashing) as much of America as he can.

    People who disagree with the anti-colonialist theory and point out that Obama “never knew his father” are missing the point. Obama was raised by his MOTHER, who, as a privileged, left-wing, and (possibly) self-hating white woman from Kansas, made anti-American choices at every step of her life. She married a non-American, non-white man, and fled the continental US, getting as far away as she could (Hawaii) to still have an American child. Then she went, LITERALLY, to the opposite side of the globe to raise that child. (Look at a globe: Indonesia/America.) You don’t have to look hard to see anti-Americanism in any of that. The child is the father of the man: Obama hates America because he was raised to hate America.

    • WmCraig

      Excellent assessment, but I don’t think he wants to destroy America. He wants to turn it into his fiefdom. Destroying it would not give him the same joy as watching it suffer and languish. Besides, he could then plunder its resources for “the good of all those that were oppressed” or put another way properly redistribute the wealth (though not necessarily to fellow Americans)

  • cbartlett

    I think he is a classic, self-centered, narcissist. Every action is intended to keep enough power to have everyone adore him. He does not understand why you don’t agree with him and think everything he does is just absolutely wonderful. He (and the wife) are taking every opportunity to enjoy the high life – expensive vacations, elaborate parties, lots of golf with celebrities. Things he would have never had as a community organizer or mediocre attorney. He pops up for air just long enough to say something “meaningful” for the media to run with. He doesn’t care about America or the Constitution. He has said and done so many things that just scream “classless”. There are way too many people voting for Santa Claus. I’m afraid we will have to hit bottom before anything changes.

  • WmCraig

    There are demographics in the blue states that think it is a damn good idea. The caller felt expressed exasperation because no one would consider it. The question becomes if there is enough riots and enough turmoil what do we do. I think I know what Republicans officials will do if it comes as a surprise. But that is not the point of the post. The point was that there is there is something else going on that could be worse than just becoming another European style semi-socialist state. As if that isn’t bad enough.

  • WmCraig

    He did. But the counter was basically that Obama’s supporters would tear the country to the ground before they submitted.(Paraphrased, not the actually statement)

  • WmCraig

    Good one!

  • WmCraig

    You are right he is a democrat pure and simple. But there is more to Democrats than just entitlements Historically all forms of patronage not just entitlements made up only one part of their tool kit. The other two parts were divide and conquer (aka segregation) and suppression of opposition (aka intimidation). From Tammany Hall to the 9th ward of New Orleans, democrats packed the ballot box with Democrats, lynched, mugged or otherwise intimidated and suppressed Republican votes to gain or maintain power. Obama is putting all three tools to work in the blue states and big blue cities. The caller was discouraged because there is no support for people who try to defend against the second two:intimidation and segregation because that doesn’t fit the scenario of liberal or leftist big government ideologue.