Obama To Win Second Term…

Loading

A few bright spots…one big dim spot. Hello Iran…goodbye Isreal. Hello taxes…goodbye freedom. Hello free stuff….goodbye responsibility.

Hello status-quo election with 8% unemployment.

Amazing.

Stanley Kurtz:

Barack Obama has won re-election. Will America now lose it’s distinct characteristics and be transformed into a Euro-style welfare state? Quite possibly, yet there remains one way out. At this point, only a sweeping new grassroots rebellion on the model of the Tea Party could change things. In the wake of a presidential election so discouraging for conservatives, a massive new Tea Party wave may not appear to be in the cards. Yet a resurgent second-term challenge to Obama from populist conservatives is far more likely than it seems.

That’s because the president’s first term hasn’t really happened yet, at least not in the conventional sense. Ordinarily, a president enacts various policies in his first term, the public test-drives the changes, and the president’s reelection campaign is a referendum on those new policies. The difference in Obama’s case is that in order to secure reelection, he has backloaded nearly all of his most transformative and controversial changes into a second term. Obama’s next term will actually put into effect healthcare reform, Dodd-Frank, and a host of other highly controversial policies already surging through the pipeline, yet still barely known to the public.

Obama’s transformative changes to date have been far more theory than practice. While reelection may bring sullen public acceptance when Obama’s most controversial policies actually take effect, the reverse is equally possible. Once people actually begin to experience de facto healthcare rationing, for example, they might get even angrier than they were in 2009-2010 when rationing was only a prospect. The same principle applies to a host of other issues (cap-and-trade via regulation, financial regulations, comprehensive immigration reform, national school curriculum, urban-suburban policy). And this time the public could be angered not only by the policies, but by growing recognition that actual enactment of Obama’s agenda was delayed for political purposes.

The fact that Obama has only very narrowly secured reelection–unusual, since reelected presidents normally expand their initial electoral margins–might seem to contradict this high-conflict scenario. You can certainly argue that a barely-reelected president would be smart to pull in his horns and govern from the middle. Yet that’s not who Barack Obama is, and it’s certainly not the premise upon which he ran his campaign. Obama took the intentionally risky path of alienating half the country with an in-your-face negative campaign because he believed that demographics now allow him to cobble together a leftist majority in support of transformative change. Whether that demographic vision is valid or not, Obama and his advisors believe that it is, and so will govern with relative disregard for opposition, however vocal.

The reelection of a Republican House of Representatives might also seem to have a moderating impact on the president, and to a limited degree it does. Yet Obama has cast aside conventional restraints on executive power with his pre-election orders on welfare reform and immigration. He will thus interpret reelection as a license to rule by executive order–well beyond the traditional limits on executive power. In the absence of intense populist pressure on a Congress facing another Tea Party electoral wave in 2014, it will be impossible to prevent Obama from abusing his executive authority.

Exit thought-

2004 Bush wins re-election, Senate R-55/D-45 with a GOP House
2012 Obama wins re-election, Senate D-55/R-45 with a GOP House

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
176 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Bobachek: Too Late

@Mully: 40 years too late

@Tom: Their is no “right wind base” to the repukic party — your “right wing” boogiemen vote for repukics only because they are usually seen as non-marxists

the fun is just starting — The republican Party is DEAD.

@Budvarakbar:

Their is no “right wind base” to the repukic party — your “right wing” boogiemen vote for repukics only because they are usually seen as non-marxists

Semantics. Whether the base is “of” or “for”, it’s a reliable voting block (and candidate pool) for the Republican party. The article’s point goes to that perception.

Tom Good morning from S.Cal Was happy to see The Commonwealth of Va, follow the lead of The Commonweatlh of Mass, Hopefully after 2 straight loses we won’t have George Allen Jr. to kick around anymore,
Larry Tea Party a one hit wonder and a Gift to the Dem Party and BHO. Exactly, They were the gift that kept on giving–O’Donnell,Angle.Moordach,Allen,Aitken,ALLEN WEST. More good news for Dems if Sarah hangs around.

Pundits like Morris and Rove—-jokes
Thanks for the Dylan song.Hope to see you soon.

Semper Fi Go Irish

Obama winning against Romney wasn’t a surprise for some of us. Although, I admit, that I had some hopes there near the end of the campaign.

Obama won with smoke and mirrors, much like he did in 08′. Painting a man whose record, as governor, was about as close to the middle of the road as you could get, as a far-right “conservative”, worked.

Romney moved to the right? On what, I may ask? Taxation? That is about the only difference between Obama and Romney. Hell, most lefties were criticizing Romney for having virtually the same foreign policy ideas as Obama. No difference there. Romney gave MA residents Romneycare. Obama gave all of us Obamacare. No real difference between them, even if one points out that Romney promised to repeal Obamacare. The only difference was Romney insisting that it’s a state’s decision to pursue such legislation.

So what did Romney move too far to the right on?

“Obama won with smoke and mirrors, much like he did in 08′.”

No. Obama won with Sandy. According to Fox exit poll, Sandy response was the MOST important factor in deciding the vote of 15% of the people. Obama won by only 1%.

Sandy and the presidential election

@crosspatch:

I understand what you are saying, crosspatch. But that doesn’t discount the fact that Obama and his campaign team were adept at painting the most liberal of GOP candidates as being “far right”, and “extreme” in his views, that gained them the majority of their votes.

This race was about as dead even as it could be. It wasn’t a repudiation of the right, as the lefties are trying to make everyone believe.

@johngalt:

So what did Romney move too far to the right on?

Whether or not you take Mitt Romney at his word, doesn’t change the fact that he did indeed change his positions running for President compared to his time as governor. Romney moved to the Right on a host of issues during the primary season, up until he belatedly pivoted back to the center the night of the first debate (in tone if not in substance). If you’re comparing Romney the Presidential candidate to Romney the governor of Massachusetts, a short list of issues on which he went right would include healthcare, abortion, gun control, and climate change. More important than individual issues, I believe, is that he painted himself as a “severe conservative” in the mold of most of those he shared the stage with during the Republican primary. The taint of positioning himself as an ideological ally of the Bachmann wing of the Party is, in my opinion, far more costly than any individual policy shift. Romney seemed to think that it would be enough to be the alternative to Obama, that the entire election would solely be a referendum on the economy and Obama’s handling of it. That belief dearly cost him. This is what I mean when I suggest that the Party hamstrung him. If Romney could have stood on that stage and successfully cast himself in contrast to Bachmann, Perry, etc. – as John Huntsman tried to do – who knowns how that might have translated to the Presidential race.

“The republican Party is DEAD. ”

Uhm, no. Had the election been held before Sandy or had Sandy not happend and Mitt continued to build momentum, I sincerely believe the result would have been different. Obama squeaked out a 2% victory overall. He won by about the same margin of votes that Gary Johnson managed. That’s pretty darned slim.

What people need to understand is that the “tea party” candidates don’t play well to the general population. Both Allen West and Mia Love lost. The Republicans lost two Senate seats they could have had last night, too. If the Republican Party is dead, it is due to emotional “knee-jerk” politics rather than strategy.

It is people such as Mark Levin who have done the most damage to the Republican Party, in my personal opinion. When you combine a press that is in the tank for the Democrats with self-destructive popular rhetoric such as his, you end up being marginalized. Remember when Levin was shouting the praises of Sharon Angle? How’d that work out? The point is that the MAJORITY of the people don’t want to hear that baloney.

The best thing a Republican candidate for national office can do when asked what their stance is on abortion, for example, is to say “none of your damned business, lets talk issues pertinent to my office”.

Romney was exactly the right candidate with exactly the right skill set for the problems that face us. Trouble is, we have an electorate that has a political maturity of 15 year-olds on both right and left.

The one single issue the Republicans should be focused on is economics. That is the one issue where they are correct. The people are going to get a belly-full of Democrat economics pretty soon. Leave the social issues alone. Democrats really don’t have a problem electing “plutocrats”. They elected Feinstein. She and her husband are twice as rich as the Romneys and his firm, Blum Capital, does the same thing Bain Capital does.

The problem is letting the press define the candidate. You need a candidate who simply does not respond to the questions on the social issues. I really do not give a rat’s pair of hips what a national office candidate’s religion is or what their stand on abortion or contraception are. I want economic growth. ALL social problems are diminished when more people are working.

openid aol?

You suggested if Gore was elected we wouldn’t have had the financial collapse? Really?

It was not Bush’s policy for banks to sell worthless instruments, nor was it his policy that people loose their homes because they could not afford the mortgages they were given. The fact that people in his admin f’d up and “failed” at their jobs of overseeing this…was not a policy.

Bush’s unpaid for war debt? At the time Obama took office the running total (deficit) spending for both wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) after 8 years was less less than 1 trillion dollars. The total running debt when Obama took office was 5 trillion…(meaning there was 4 million in OTHER spending than wars). You don’t hear much talk about that debt because it was mainly from entitlements and disasters..including 9/11. The debt right now is 16 trillion and growing.

IF the 5 trillion in debt he inherited left the car on the road run out of gas with flat tires….Obama just pushed it off a cliff and set it on fire for good measure! The mantra was that “we can’t go back to the policies that caused this in the first place”. Really? What policies would that be? Obama continued both wars well into his first term…drew down one..and doubled down on the other…going after “The people who actually attacked us on 9/11”. I’ll leave it for thought that the Afghan people and Taliban and their gov at the time…did not attack us on 9/11 nor have they attacked us since. And we aren’t set to withdraw from Afghanistan for at least another year into his SECOND term.

How about Bush tax cuts?? Obama has continued those as well. They aren’t set to expire until the end of this year. So, I’m just wondering here…if gov spending, wars, entitlements (Bush’s medicare prescription drug benefit), tax cuts..etc…(Bush’s policies) caused all the problems Obama inherited…..why then did he not only continue those policies….but double and triple down on them? Further…that 5 trillion debt from Bush was accrued over “eight” years…(2 terms). Obama more than tripled it his first term. If Democrats truly think that 5 trillion in national debt bankrupt this country….what do you think 16 trillion will do? How about 24 trillion (projected after his 2nd term)? Yes, Bush ran up 5 trillion in debt..paying for 9/11, wars, entitlements and expansion of gov agencies and regulations (homeland security). Let it be known…this is “not” what conservatives were after when they signed on …those are DEMOCRATIC/Liberal bastions…not republican. But, we worked “together” to create those things after 9/11 for the good of our country. Right? Now…you blame those same things…for being the very “Bush” policies that bankrupted America. Then…you congratulate Obama for not only continuing those same policies…but doubling down on them (if not tripling). Even AFTER we’ve seen the results of them for the last 4 years continue down the same path. What exactly is “different” now?..other than doubling down on the same things you claim caused the problem in the first place?

We did stop torturing and interrogating AlQueda prisoners. We just splatter them now.

He even hired the foxes that were watching the banks hen house (Geithner, Bernanke, etc) to try and help clean things up — the reasoning at the time was they were the only people who knew where all the bodies were buried.

Taking the liberal logic of “spending” and debt being the “cause” of the financial crisis….The FIRST Thing he did during our debt and financial crisis was to institute the largest gov expansion (healthcare) since FDR. The reasoning behind this was somewhat akin to my wife when she wants a new sofa….we are saving money down the road by spending/buying it now..so actually…it was on sale even though it’s twice what we needed to pay for it and we had to put it all on credit. Once that was rammed through in a very partisan manner without a single RNC vote….he THEN turned to “jobs” and spent trillions more in debt claiming “green shoots”. He since has “refocused” on jobs 3 times after missing the mark every time. His 2nd term…he says..he will spend even more to start a new administrative office for economic/business. I guess after fumbling the ball three times…he’s decided to just do what he does best (spend money and expand gov) hoping that will again spark the economy and create green growth.

Then again…he’s promised he won’t do anything different. That everything is actually “moving forward” ……Bush tax cuts and all. I guess we shall see shortly. And I agree with the idea that there is no turning back from any of this. Once people start getting handouts from gov…any candidate who runs on the idea of stopping it or reducing it is going to loose. Just ask any EU country. I have friends from Italy, UK, France, Germany, etc..who’ve all seen this. It just becomes the new standard to live under. And somebody has to pay for it. We are…right now…no longer the country that I grew up in. The people are different. Attitudes are different. Everything is different. It doesn’t have the same freedom, nor the same desire for self achievement, competition, nor is that something even rewarded today in the same manner it was.

We are loosing what made us great and different as a nation, what has sustained us all this time…..the very reason that so many came here for a better life. We’ve fought hard to try and preserve it. But, I think we all realize at this point….it’s never coming back. I personally find that sad. I don’t think young people today even realize it…nor ever experience it. So, it seems as no great loss to them. I guess it’s just part of growing old.

@Tom:

I respect your opinion, Tom, but disagree with your assertions. The conservatives within the Republican party, and those like me who don’t belong, but tend to vote conservative, didn’t vote FOR Romney. We voted AGAINST Obama. Why?

Well, it’s because it’s hard to get excited about someone who you know, by his record, resembles a Democrat more than a Republican (especially one like Reagan was). His “hard tack” to the right was seen as disingenuous by conservatives. And, what’s more, it surely felt as if this man was thrust upon us as our choice for President by people who didn’t represent our voices. We conservatives are just as dissatisfied with the establishment GOP as we are the Democratic Party.

So, that being the case, it’s hard to be excited enough to vote FOR the man. And if we cannot get excited enough to do so, how hard do you think it is to excite enough independents to vote FOR the man. Extremely hard, if you ask me.

@Tom:

If Romney could have stood on that stage and successfully cast himself in contrast to Bachmann, Perry, etc. – as John Huntsman tried to do – who knowns how that might have translated to the Presidential race.

He would not have made it out of the primaries. Here is my rant at the republican party:
Get over the social issues. Namely, immigration and abortion.
Immigration – namely illegal immigration. Undocumented people in the country are not going anywhere. Document them. Guest visas, guest workers, whatever you want to call it. You eliminate off-the-books income and broaden the tax base. There are a lot of illegal immigrants that start their own businesses; they pay no payroll taxes or income taxes. Some do through the TIN set up, but not that many. Also by documenting them, law enforcement can track and deport criminal elements of the community. Oh, and Rubio is almost certainly going to put a DREAM Act together. Allowing kids that have been here all their lives to go to college or join the military is a bad idea, why? There are some people that don’t want them to pay in-state tuition in a State they’ve live in, why? At least Rubio won’t be putting in a blanket amnesty provision. The Hispanic community shares many of the same values as conservatives, yet they see us as the enemy. Even legal Hispanics wonders why the GOP hates them.
Abortion – it’s legal and it is going to remain legal. That battle is lost and has been for years. There is a better fight to pick. The fight should be in changing the attitudes about abortion. Stopping the procedure from being used as birth control. And seriously, as appalled as I am with the number of abortions that take place, why would anyone be against emergency contraception pills?
If the GOP can get a fix on those two issues and remain true to their fiscal policies, it will be a major turn-around. Unless and until that happens, we’re doomed on the national stage.

By the way……30, count them 30, Republican Governors. And unless they’ve been called and I don’t know it, Washington State and Montana are still too close to call.

Everytime Republicans put their nose anywhere near the abortion issue…they are going to get reamed. When they try and just put out a legislation or ideas to require notification for minors or those tests, or that no public money be used for them (except rape, incest and life of mother)….it is framed by Democrats as reversing Roe v Wade and removing the womans “choice” to have an abortion (even though it is not). And it’s an easy sell given no RNC candidate can get through a primary without saying it.

They can’t win.

Did anybody see the DNC ad having children say they are glad their mommies are voting for Obama to insure children a future where they will have a “choice” to have an abortion when they grow up? Guess nobody saw the irony in that? Aborted babies don’t have a future.

@crosspatch:

What people need to understand is that the “tea party” candidates don’t play well to the general population.”

Well, crosspatch, not withstanding that you seem to be as wrong here as you are over at AJ’s, perhaps you would like to explain the electing of the newest Senator from the State of Texas. A “tea party” candidate who was little known, a minority and who was outspent 4 to 1 by his well known, established Lt. Governor opposition.

As to your personal opinion that those like Mark Levin harm the Republican Party, as a Republican, if the national GOP is any indication of what Levin is harming, I say more power to him. It is long past time that middle America be dictated to by a bunch of northeastern squishes that would be considered flaming progressives in any other area of the nation except for perhaps Loonafornia. Oh yeah, Mark Levin shouted the praises of Ted Cruz. But hey, vision through your foggy glasses is all you know.

No, Romney was never the right candidate. He was the loser who simply ascended into the position via attrition just like John McCain was the loser who ascended into the position via attrition. That needs to end, TODAY. Hopefully the GOP will learn (although I doubt it with Boehner in charge) that the Beast/Left coasts do not represent America conservatives and that playing to the left, covering our own values, is not a winning senario. You gain nothing by feeding fish to an insatiable alligator thinking he will never eat you.

@johngalt:

The conservatives within the Republican party, and those like me who don’t belong, but tend to vote conservative, didn’t vote FOR Romney. We voted AGAINST Obama

Very true. I should have been more specific that I’m talking about moderates and/or Independents. I think there are many people, more than you might imagine, for whom conservative economic principles are attractive, but they’re scarred off by the Santorums and Bachmanns. That’s just my opinion of course.

@crosspatch: The GOP establishment in Florida Gerrymandered Allen West into a new district he was always meant to loose in. The TEA party isn’t well tolerated by big government types in the GOP, they do quiet well in the “general public”.

@Aqua:

Most conservatives that I know are quite willing to discuss allowing paths for illegals to become legal, once the border is made more secure. And the security of the border has virtually nothing to do with preventing people who wish to come to America, from coming here. It is fear of the narcotics gangs, easily gained access by terrorists, and rampant corruption of the Mexican government. Secure the border, then discuss the remaining illegals in country. That should be something anyone, with any sense at all, should be willing to engage in.

@Aqua:

He would not have made it out of the primaries. Here is my rant at the republican party:

I agree. Therein is the problem for the Right because they can’t win nationally as things are currently configured.

Get over the social issues. Namely, immigration and abortion.

Everything you wrote to support these points is very convincing and makes a lot of sense to me. That might not be a ringing endorsement around here though!

OBAMA DID NOT CLOSE THE BORDERS HE BROUGHT THEM ALL FROM 150 COUNTRIES AND GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO VOTES
WHY DO WE HEAR OF THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHY
THOSE ARE THE DEMOGRAPHY WHO CHANGE THE REAL AMERICA,
AND VOTE FOR A GUY WITHOUT THE CORE TO LEAD IN THE RIGHT.
INTELLIGENT DIRECTION, HE campaign to them repeating the same words, rubbing their ego, showing he feel for them THEM TO BELIEVE ANY THING,
BLINDLY AND IGNORANTLY TRUE
as long as he say it, he give them papers to legalize them , they are happy,
and get the same welfare the local poor gets and vote for OBAMA, just look at FLORIDA,
JUAN SAID THE OLD VOTED FOR ROMNEY, BUT THE YOUNG FROM ALL THE SOUTH AMERICA,
ARE VOTING OBAMA, EVEN MORE ILLEGALS VOTING THE BETTER WITH THE HELP OF DISHONEST LATINO WHO MAKE A BUCK FOR THE EFFORT,
YES AMERICA IS MISERABLY CHANGING AND IT WILL KILL HER IF YOU LET THAT HAPPEN.
THERE WAS A CHANCE THIS LAST DAY, YOU BLEW IT,
AND FOUR YEARS IS TOO LONG IT GIVE TIME TO FINISH THE AGENDA OF
CHANGING AMERICA FOREVER.,
MITT ROMNEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT, HE HAD A PLAN TO BRING JOBS BACK,
THE UNIONS FREAKED UP, THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW MITT TO SUCCEED, THEY USE THEIR INTIMIDATION AND RESOURCE TO SAVE OBAMA’S JOB, IN ALL THE STATES THEY OWN POWER, AND VOILA,

AQUA #64 If more Republicans thought like you our country would be richer for it, and Dem. candidates would have something to worry about. Thanks

@Tom:

I think the women’s health issues are more of an explosive issue than conservatives realize, as is being discussed above by Aqua and Dc. And it is quite easy to make an innocuous comment that gets charged by certain groups and made into something people vote against, as was evidenced by Mourdock in Indiana. Before that comment, Mourdock was a likely winner.

@johngalt:

Just out of curiosity, what state do you live in and have you ever had to attend the funeral of someone who was murdered by an illegal alien?

How do you propose securing the southern border? Are you going to have Border Patrol agents every 50 yards sitting in the middle of the Rio Grande? I am really interested in how you intend to acheive a secure border when the lure to come here remains so great, be it for a job or to run drugs?

You want to end illegal immigration? End the lure. If a company is found to hire illegals, fine them out of business. If you are caught paying an illegal under the table, jail time.

The problem of illegal immigration is partly our fault. We have raised a generation of slackers who thinks that with their very first job they deserve a corner office with a view. Or the flip side of that is a generation that can live quite well on the largess of taxpayers and not be forced to work. There are jobs. Those jobs need to be filled. And as long as we continue to raise a bunch of pantywaists who think they are worth more than they really are, those jobs will go to illegals.

No, the answer is not amnesty.

@Dc:

Everytime Republicans put their nose anywhere near the abortion issue…they are going to get reamed.

@johngalt:

Most conservatives that I know are quite willing to discuss allowing paths for illegals to become legal, once the border is made more secure.

I agree with both of these. DC, it is true that republicans get reamed when abortion is brought up. All we have to do is look at Akin and Mourdock to see why. Check out what Bush said in his debate against AlGore:

Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. This is a very important topic, and it’s a very sensitive topic because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is promote a culture of life in America. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born and unborn, ought to be protected in law and welcomed into life. What I do believe is, we can find good common ground on issues like parental notification or parental consent. And I know we need to ban partial-birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreements. I believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward reducing the number of abortions in America.

No threat of overturning Roe, no demeaning language at all.

JG, that is not the message we are putting out. The only message getting out is “seal the border and deport the illegals.” Romney said this at the Town Hall debate:

Self-deportation says let it — let people make their own choice. What I was saying is, we’re not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented, illegals, and take them out of the nation. Instead, let — make — people make their own choice. And if they — if they find that — that they can’t get the benefits here that they want and they can’t find the job they want, then they’ll make a decision to go a place where — where they have better opportunities.

Now I say he had the right idea, wrong message. Documenting illegals puts them on the same field as other workers. No advantage in under-the-table payments, income and payroll taxes are implemented on them just like everyone else, and then let them decide.

J.G. A majority of Indiana voters and American voters did not believe Mourdock’s comments ‘innocuous”
Same is true of Akins’ in Mizzou.

“SELF-DEPORTATION” Huge mistake by Mitt. Lost 70% of fastest growing demographic.

@retire05:

It’s not the “amnesty” that I was necessarily talking about, retire05. It’s border security. I don’t pretend to have the answer to how that can be accomplished, but until and unless that is discussed, any question of what to do with the illegals already here is a moot point, correct?

Maybe the answer is removing the incentive to come here. Kinda hard to do, though, when our economy, even as bad as it is now, is still preferable to what Mexico has.

Maybe the answer is to actually make it easier to become legalized here, but crackdown on the companies hiring the illegals, as you suggest. Change the incentive, so to speak. I don’t know.

All I know is that any kind of amnesty plan won’t work until the border is secure, either by hard security, or changing the willingness to come here, or a combination of both.

@Tom:

Everything you wrote to support these points is very convincing and makes a lot of sense to me. That might not be a ringing endorsement around here though!

I’m not looking for endorsements, I’m looking for wins. I was looking at a post Ace wrote over at Ace of Spades HQ. He puts it perfectly:

Let me offer this observation: If there’s something you believe, but have no chance whatsoever of passing into actual law, then it’s really not a political belief. Politics is not philosophy. It’s about passing (or repealing) actual laws with actual real-world coercive effect.

http://www.ace.mu.nu/

@Richard Wheeler:

A majority of Indiana voters and American voters did not believe Mourdock’s comments ‘innocuous”

It was, if one actually understood what was meant by it. Of course, Mourdock’s mistake was to not make the point clearer than he did, giving Donnelly and the Democrats the ammunition needed to torpedo Mourdock by lying about the comment. You, apparently, believe the leftists narration on the comment. And you couldn’t be more wrong about what was meant by it.

@Aqua:

JG, that is not the message we are putting out.

That is not the message the GOP is putting out, you are correct. But conservatives? Like I said, the ones I know believe that.

@johngalt:

I love it when progressives claim that the number of illegals entering our nation is waaay down due to the Lightworker. It is down for two reasons: a) we don’t calculate the number of illegals crossing over in this administration like it has always been done before and b) Mexico’s unemployment rate is lower than our own.

It is also b/s when the left tells you that they just come here to be citizens. That is one of the biggest lies going promoted by the left. Pew Hispanic Research did a survey a couple of years ago and ask that very question: is the reason they came here to become citizens. The answer was a resounding “No” they just want to work, send their money back to the nation of their birth and when they have a nice house or a nest egg, go back.

Are you aware that more Americans died at the hands of illegal immigrants every year than all those who died on 9-01-2001? What would the national opinion be if the headlines read: 4,500 Americans murdered by illegals in the year 2010? Would there be any outrage? I think so. But even when the press does report a murder by some Hispanic in New York, they never mention that murderers legality. Have to be political correct, you know.

@retire05:
I completely understand what you are saying retire05. In military strategy, you can only send your troops charging up a hill repeatedly and fail the objective before they yank you out of command and replace you with someone with fresher ideas. No one is saying you should change your philosophy, just your tactics. You said we need to take away the incentive to come over. OK, there are those that actually want to come here for a better life and live the American dream. Weed out those that don’t. Documentation is not a path to citizenship or permanent legal residence. Take away the illegal trade, you take away the criminal elements that work in the trade.
I don’t have all the answers for this, but I think it is a debate that should happen.

@Budvarakbar: Yep and the House remains and is strengthened by the Republicans this election cycle-JERK!!

Ron H.
shut up yourself and swallow your spit

@Aqua:

You talk about those who “come here for a better life and live the American dream.” I have no problem with that, none what so ever. One of my best friends is a woman who was born in Mexico while her parents waited the five years it took them to come here legally. She is one of the most dedicated, patriotic women I have ever known. So for those who come here to gain “a better life and live the American dream,” I say welcome. But they need to do it legally.

You see, if you have no respect for the laws of the nation you break into, you will never have respect for that nation’s laws. It is just that simple.

You also don’t [seem to] understand the mindset of the vast majority of people who enter our nation illegally. These are people who have been raised in nations that are basically socialist. It is all their know. And people do not change just because they cross a sovereign border. Why do you think that 70% of all Hispanics vote Democrat? It is because the left wing platform of the Democrat Party is more greatly aligned with what they were raised with; nanny government, limits on freedom, etc. I suggest you read Allegory of the Cave and understand that people are comfortable with what they have been taught is the norm and distrust that which was not normal for them.

You also said: “documentation is not a path to citizenship or permanent legal residence.”

So what? Do you think when they are swimming across the Rio Grande that becoming a citizen of the United States is their primary concern? And what do they gain by being citizens? The right to vote? Whoopie! Pew was very clear that citizenship is not even on the radar for the illegal. Permanent legal residence? And if they don’t have it? So what? They are under no threat with this administration, and they know it. And in the event they are deported, they just sneak back in and most of the time they are home free, back at their jobs in less than a week.

Take a look at all Hispanic speaking nations other than Spain. What have they acheived outside of having revolutions that traded one dictator for another dictator. We can whine and cry about how bad their nations are, but the reality is that we, too, once had an oppressive government with its boot on the necks of the citizens. Did we run off to other nations and say the hell with it? No, we armed ourselves, citizen soldiers, and took on the greatest western power at the time with some, albeit shakey, help from France. Those dictatoral nations will never know democracy if their citizens simply flee to leave others behind to be oppressed.

Immigration laws are designed to benefit the host nation, not the immigrant. Remember that.

It’s not very often, in fact never, that I’ve agreed with anything Rachel Maddow says. Not anymore.

Talking about Obama, she says;

Had this president been a one-term president, those policies would have been dialed back, along with the rest of his legacy. Those policies will now be held onto in this country as we experience what is almost an inevitable economic rebound that would’ve happened with anybody as president… as the economy gets better, those policies will be in place, and they will become part of the new normal in America.

The new normal leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion, but that’s what will happen. The economy will “recover”, if not in reality, in the minds of those spoonfed their “news” by the media. And as such, Obama’s policies will wrongly be seen as the catalyst for the recovery.

JustAl
hi,
I think they better respect the ELECTED TEAPARTY,
because now, nothing stop them to start a new party, and they would really be dynamic with it,
with SARAH PALIN IN IT ALSO, THEY WOULD FREAK OUT ANY OTHER PARTY.
by the way, did you have anything to do with ROMNEY LOST?
I came to think about how RON PAUL WOULD HAVE DONE,
IF IT WOULD HAVE BEING HIM,
BYE

Hi John, Obama got undeserved blame for the bad economy and he’ll get undeserved credit for the improved economy. I heard an economist/talking head going on about Romney’s claim that he’d add 12,000,000 jobs. The economist said that this was going to happen, no matter who won the White House.

Clinton will be forever beloved because he was likable as a person and because he had the good fortune to ride an economic wave. Obama may well end up in the same place.

The other thing is this: the most enduringly popular Canadian PM was/is Lester Pearson, because he’s viewed as the father of the Canadian national health system. ObamaCare has gained significantly in popularity, now that very early provisions kicked in (donut hole elimination; kids on family policy, etc.).

National health insurance is popular around the world. I think that, down the road, after the bugs have been worked out, people will think back and see how Obama did a very unpopular thing in what seemed to be an inopportune time (but at the only time when it could have been done) and did what other Presidents had tried and failed to do, since it was first proposed by Theodore Roosevelt. I think it will one day be viewed the same way Medicare is viewed today — praised even by Paul Ryan, on behalf of Ryan’s Mom. And that’s going to be Obama’s real legacy.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@retire05:

You also don’t [seem to] understand the mindset of the vast majority of people who enter our nation illegally.

That’s funny. My wife is from Mexico. It took her eight years to become naturalized because she wanted to do it on her own; without listing me (an American citizen) as a sponsor. She felt she should be able to prove she deserved to become a citizen on her own merits. She’s a conservative also. So is everyone in her family as far as I can tell. And the mindset of the community you mention….I actually spend time in that community. My wife is a certified interpreter for the State. I spend a lot of time with the Hispanic community. I can’t tell you if some are illegal or not; it’s not generally the first question our of my mouth. The ones I meet are not here to promote socialism, they’re trying to run from the results of socialism.
Why did 70% of Hispanics vote democrat? Because the GOP has the worst messaging on immigration ever.

Immigration laws are designed to benefit the host nation, not the immigrant. Remember that.

And we have. We benefit greatly from undocumented workers. But hey, let’s keep trying your solution, it is working great! And next presidential election, they can just call it for the democrats when the polls close on the east coast.

California doesn’t have a good reputation on this blog. At one time, California was the lynchpin of the GOP electoral college map. Nixon and Reagan were Californians. As recently as the early 1990s, California was definitely still in play at the State level. Jerry Brown was beaten by a Republican. We usually had Republican governors thereafter. Then came Pete Wilson. The Father of the GOP bash the immigrant strategy. He single handedly turned California from purple to True Blue.

One of my favorite sayings from the medical research field: “any experiment which has failed a thousand times should be viewed with suspicion.” The more familiar expression is that insanity is doing the same dumb thing over and over and expecting it to work.

More than anything, it was the GOP primary debates which sealed Mitt’s fate. I couldn’t believe the degree of thinly disguised Latino demonization which went on in those debates. You think that people don’t hear that stuff and react viscerally?

Immigrant bashing was a California invention which ended up being a really bad idea, from the point of view of people who like to win elections.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

People are going to love the free stuff in Obama care until it comes time to pay for it!! That hasn’t kicked in yet. Just wait till all those young people and people who have chosen for whatever reason NOT to carry a full coverage health policy because the cost vs benefit was not worth it to them…are forced to buy FULL coverage policies that cost thousands of dollars that includes prenatal care, etc…. I can’t wait to hear the 20 something’s whine giving up their Belize vacation because they have to throw down thousands for a policy like that when they are fully healthy and rarely need more than routine checkups. Those checkups will be free. But, the policy that goes with it won’t be. And if you have the means to pay for it…(determined by Obama and company)…you are gonna be stuck with one heck of a bill that you can’t opt out of, and that will grow.

This system of a gov mandate for purchase in open market without price controls….is not the same as a gov run/owned health system in other countries you mentioned.

Medical research suffers in countries with gov run not for profit health care systems because there is no money or incentive to continue to innovate anything other than systems that provide “bulk” care and treatments. There are many people from the countries you mentioned how may have their routine care done in their home countries…but come “here’ seeking treatments or procedures that are simply not available (at any cost) in their home countries gov run health systems.

It’s like the Soviet shoemaker. He was told to make shoes. It doesn’t matter if he makes 20 or 100 pairs…the pay is the same. It doesn’t matter if they same style or not. So, where is the incentive to do anything for the person making the shoes? He works as little as he can (same pay), and doesn’t spend his waking hours thinking about how to make better shoes. He just makes them the same way he was taught every time..and only as many as needed to fill his quota. That’s it. There are examples of this all over the world. Where the lights are on, vs where they are off. Where there is achievement and advances …and where there is not.

Obamacare is a camel (a racehorse designed by a committee). IT’s got parts of this and parts of that…seeking to try and fix all the various issues and problems with several different systems by cobbling them all together. It’s not remotely efficient. And its going to be an unmitigated disaster once it fully is implemented (which was purposefully designed to kick in the way it has….free stuff first….bad news after the election is over).

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Larry, I don’t think so. About Obamacare. I may be wrong, but looking around at other countries’ healthcare systems, and their popularity, I don’t think so.

There are some good things about Obamacare. Conservatives will admit this. Many of the ideas were co-opted from conservative suggestions. Overall, though, there is too much government power and influence written into the law for me or any conservative to feel comfortable with. You may like it. Other liberals may like it. But then, you all are fairly comfortable giving away freedom in exchange for comfort, even when that comfort is minimal.

I am still upset over the election. But, here is my take on it. I will hold my head high as a conservative because the Republican party did NOT commit a crime by bribing people to vote democrat by providing free cell phones, free pizza, or any other free item. We ran a decent, lawful campaign, unlike the lies, deceits, and downright psycho ramblings of the Obama administration. I am proud to be a conservative. I refuse to lower myself to their standards by making things up just to smear someone. One thing I feel is important for everyone to know, is what Michael Moore, the fat filmaker said. (I’m paraphrasing now): Thank God for Hurricane Sandy because it got Obama re-elected”. Excuse me? Thank God for death and destrution to millions of people to get this Marxist POS re-elected. I am outraged that Obama or anyone in his admin did not call Michael Moore out on that remark, but then again, this is the Obama admin who wouldn’t know what the truth was if it walked up and introduced itself to them.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:

The Tea Party is the path to irrelevancy.

I actually care about the country. I don’t want the choice to be between a socialist and a Tea Party flat Earth troglodyte.

What is it about the Tea Party that you hate so much?

Since when is wanting our government to be fiscally responsible, strong on national defense and adhere to the Constitution a bad thing?
.
.

@crosspatch: You said:

Well, I agree that you do NOT win a national Presidential election with someone hard right.

You couldn’t be more wrong. A true Conservative is someone who can appeal to all segments of the electorate; someone that uses the left’s language against them and deconstructs their arguments. You don’t have to be a moderate to appeal to the other side.

Name one moderate that has been successful in national politics.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:

Without Nader, Gore would have won. And there would have been no Iraq. And no great recession of 2008.

At least Obama will have won the majority of the popular vote. Unlike Bush. Circa Y2K.

But, as I wrote. Think as you do. You can go with Ryan in 2016. Or you can go with a (hopefully slimmed down) RINO like Chris Christie (my new favorite Republican). You could have by now been toasting the election of President Huntsman.

For a supposed intelligent person, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. But you are an indicator of one thing, if you like Christie, then the GOP should run screaming the other way from him as fast as they can.

President Huntsman?? LOL

@Ron H.: Once again, Ronnie is soooo tough behind the anonymous interwebz….

ROFLMAO, you’re pathetic Ronnie. Lighten up, we’re all entitled to our opinions, even slugs like you.

@crosspatch: Allen West lost because he was redistricted into a very liberal area.