By Myra Adams
Watching President Obama’s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina outline his re-election strategy left me as a patriotic American outraged, offended and confused.
First the outrage.
This feeling can be attributed to Messina’s use of the word “insurgent” to describe Obama’s re-election campaign.
“We have to act like an insurgent campaign that wakes up every single day trying to get every single vote we can.”
Does Mr. Messina actually realize the message he is sending by using the phrase “act like an insurgent campaign?”
Perhaps he should have consulted Webster’s for the definition of “insurgent,” and since he didn’t, I did.
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party
Examples of INSURGENT
1. Insurgents are trying to gain control of the country’s transportation system.
2. <the government subjected the insurgents to the most inhuman torture imaginable>
Second, I was offended.
According to the definition of insurgent, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign will be “revolting against civil authority or an established government,” because that is what insurgents do, or at least what Mr. Webster said they do in order to proudly call themselves insurgents.
So one must ask the question, does “acting like an insurgent campaign” mean President Obama plans on taking over Congress, the Supreme Court, state governments, the press, and the military?
He already controls the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, so as an insurgent doesn’t his team need to lead a revolt against an “established government” or those parts of government they do not already control?
Or… as part of revolting against civil authority does Obama plan on canceling the 2012 election and declaring himself a dictator or king?
After all, insurgents are known for acting unpredictably that is why they call themselves insurgents as opposed to president, prime minister or senator.
Now here comes the confusion.
As stated in Webster’s definition #2, insurgent means Obama must “act contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party.”
Could this mean that Obama is planning on running in 2012 as a Republican?
Perhaps this is good news because the Republicans right now don’t seem to have anybody who can defeat him.
And, if Obama acts like an insurgent contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party, does that mean for 2012 he plans on accepting Paul Ryan’s budget plan for reducing the deficit, lifting all the oil drilling moratoriums, reducing government regulations and thus throwing this nation a life preserver so we can continue as the greatest nation on earth, as opposed to a nation drowning in its debt.
So if the GOP now has a surprise insurgent candidate for 2012, that means the Democrats need to find someone who can run on and defend the Obama administration’s record with the highest deficits in our history, high unemployment, slow growth, high gas and food prices, and an additional war that Obama did not inherit.
Do you think there is anyone in the Democrat Party who is willing to take on that record?
No wonder Obama wants to be in insurgent for 2012.