« One (Dim) Light Bulb at Time | Main | Sarah Palin Will Join Fox News »

Revenge Of The American People

What a difference a year makes.

Barack Obama and his liberal henchmen were riding high in the clouds with a sense of invincibility. The public expectations which had been placed in the One were at stratospheric levels.

Unfortunately for Obama, these high expectations were not just the result of a naturally hopeful electorate, but one which was duped into feeling a sense of renewed faith in government. This was a complete, purposeful propaganda operation, where Obama and his charlatans inflated the abilities and visionary wonder of Obama, manipulating a disenchanted populace into thinking all that glitters about him was gold.

Now, after a year of unbridled arrogance and blatant narcissism exhibited by Obama, the American people are coming to the realization that the problems this country faces cannot actually be transmogrified with a wave of Obama's magical hand. They have faced a hard reality that this man, his administration, and his policy initiatives are, at the base level, dangerous to the stability and tradition of this country, its proud existence, and its future successes.

Try as he might, his one-trick-pony strategy of blaming Bush's past failures for his current ones no longer wash. He was elected on a platform of change. Instant change. And he has failed miserably. Using history as a crutch for this failure is not the way to rally a people forward into better days. More and more, it serves to amplify his impotent leadership skills, and his compulsive lying.

Obama's poll numbers have fallen to levels unthinkable a year ago. According to Rasmussen Reports, his approval rating has dropped to 46%. His ineptness concerning everything from the economy and jobs, to terrorism has not only affected his perceived abilities, but also those of the liberal wing of his party, who purposefully display their lack of respect for the American people through their addiction to ramming unwanted legislation down the throats of the people who put them there.

This unrepentant, political flogging of the American people has caused a growing, widespread revolt. Poll numbers of the Democratically dominated congress are at historic lows. Faith in the draconian legislating of the past year has eroded to a loathing of the politicians enacting it. Some of these power-drunk Representatives are in disbelief at how low they have sunk in the esteem of their electorate. Yet that disbelief is morphing into a grim reality that they can no longer survive politically while inflicting this unrelenting rape of our country.

Many democrats are now calling it quits. Realizing that they cannot proudly campaign on anything noble of which they have accomplished, they have no choice but to reluctantly retire. Their disgraceful actions in support of issues contrary to the wishes of the American people have become too much for them to overcome, so slinking away, damage done, they hope to pass forgotten into the graveyard of political has-beens.

Senators Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Roland Burris, and Paul Kirk have decided to either retire or not face the prospect of defeat.

Democratic Co. Gov. Bill Ritter is retreating, Michigan Lt. Gov John Cherry will not seek the Governorship, and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle is retiring.

These along with at least four democratic representatives are all not seeking election.

Are there Republicans retiring also? Yup. But the tide has slowly turned in favor of the minority party. Republicans who realize another candidate will fare better are choosing to step aside, allowing a hurricane of democratic disgust to help sweep them into office.

The political Cerberus of Obama-Pelosi-Reid has spelled doom for the careers of their fellow democrats, and has endangered the chance for future continued congressional domination.

Perhaps this year of trial and hardship of which the American people have suffered will not have been in vain.

While all victory is fleeting, hope springs eternal.

In 11 months, this will prove true.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37832.

Comments (24)

You have a mistake in this ... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

You have a mistake in this post. Paul Kirk is the Democrat hack who took Ted Kennedy's old seat as 'interim' senator pending the special election, which is going on right now in Massachusetts. (GO, Scott Brown!) Kirk is not a candidate in that election. Leaving office is not his choice and never was.

'revenge'?Odds are... (Below threshold)

'revenge'?

Odds are that Democrats will still have majorities in both the House and the Senate. Odds are that Obama will win re-election in three more years.

Yes, the 'public' isn't happy but it's a mistake to assume that will lead to the results you're hoping for. Most Democrats are in safe districts. Most Democratic senators are either in solid blue states or not up for election for at least two more years. And public unhappiness doesn't necessarily lead to voters choosing the out-of-power party. And Obama and Reid and Pelosi have shown a willingness to ignore public sentiment to push policies favored by the hard left and there's nothing to suggest that any of them are going to change their mind anytime soon.

And finally, it's humorous to see Republicans who supported Bush's misadventures in Iraq notwithstanding public opposition to the war now complaining the the Democrats are ignoring the public.

Hopefully the GOP gets rid ... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Hopefully the GOP gets rid of the big spending and liberty intrusive RINO's and get back to conservative principles like balance budget and state rights. Do that and they will regain power.

Brucie is being delusional ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Brucie is being delusional again. Call 911.

SSAs I recall, the p... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

SS
As I recall, the public supported and almost all Senators even Dems supported the war in Iraq prior to going in.

Wayne: I wasn't talking abo... (Below threshold)

Wayne: I wasn't talking about then, but rather when things went sour and a majority wanted our troops out. Remember, there wasn't a lot of public support for the surge, but Bush ignored the public and did what he thought right - and he was cheered by the right, just as Pelosi and Obama are now being cheered on by the left.

Note: I'm not defending the substance of Obama's programs

steve s ...domesti... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

steve s ...

domestic vs foreign policy ...

The public dislikes Obama domestic policy ... you know the ones who will be affected ...

The public support for the surge was higher than the publics support of ObamaCare ...

Wayne,The reason y... (Below threshold)
WorldCitizen:

Wayne,

The reason you think the public supported the invasion of Iraq is:

Among the major findings in a two-week study (1/30/03-2/12/03), one week before and one week after Colin Powells UN speech, of on-camera network news sources quoted on Iraq:

•Seventy-six percent of all sources were current or former officials, leaving little room for independent and grassroots views. Similarly, 75 percent of U.S. sources (199/267) were current or former officials.

•At a time when 61 percent of U.S. respondents were telling pollsters that more time was needed for diplomacy and inspections (2/6/03), only 6 percent of U.S. sources on the four networks were skeptics regarding the need for war.

•Sources affiliated with anti-war activism were nearly non-existent. On the four networks combined, just three of 393 sources were identified as being affiliated with anti-war activism--less than 1 percent. Just one of 267 U.S. sources was affiliated with anti-war activism--less than half a percent.

Odds are that Oba... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:


Odds are that Obama will win re-election in three more years.

huhh?? err ok?

"Odds are that Democrats wi... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Odds are that Democrats will still have majorities in both the House and the Senate. Odds are that Obama will win re-election in three more years."

I wouldn't count on it.

As for Obama's "impotent leadership skills, and his compulsive lying"; ya got one part right, the lying. As for the other, he's never displayed any "leadership" so it'd be damned hard for it to be 'impotent'.

Try as he might, h... (Below threshold)
Stan25:
Try as he might, his one-trick-pony strategy of blaming Bush's past failures for his current ones no longer wash. He was elected on a platform of change. Instant change. And he has failed miserably. Using history as a crutch for this failure is not the way to rally a people forward into better days. More and more, it serves to amplify his impotent leadership skills, and his compulsive lying.

The Dems under Franklin Roosevelt did this to Hoover to a very successful conclusion in the aftermath of the stock market collapse of 1929. Oh to be sure, the press had their hand in the demonetization of Herbert Hoover, but they were following their hero in the White House. The Dems still have Hoover on their list of bad guys, along with Reagan and George W and will continue to blame them for their screwups.

SteveI would be wi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Steve

I would be willing to make a bet with you.

If in 2012 Unemployment is 8% or above (pretty much a given) then Hillary will be the democratic nominee.

If Michael Steele does not ... (Below threshold)
UncleZeb:

If Michael Steele does not resign and the repubs start razing money then all the anger will be for nothing.

If Obama continues as he ha... (Below threshold)
Michael:

If Obama continues as he had in the last year, for another 3 years, he is not even going to run for a 2nd term. His ego is to big to risk a defeat.

two kinds of people: those ... (Below threshold)

two kinds of people: those who dislike Obama but are realistic and those who dislike Obama who are delusional. Thinking that he won't run in 2012 or that he'd lose the nomination to Hillary falls into the latter.

Obama will run. He would lo... (Below threshold)
greyrooster:

Obama will run. He would love to be a lame duck. That is if he doesn't pull a Hugo Chavez on us. After all. 98% of blacks, welfare recipients, socials and union members can't be wrong.

Steve" Thinking th... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Steve

" Thinking that he won't run in 2012 or that he'd lose the nomination to Hillary falls into the latter."

Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Hey fascist stevie...he won... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Hey fascist stevie...he won't run if he is under 40% in the polls, unemployment is over 8%, a successful terrorist attack has occured, the Reps nearly control the House and Senate. Hillary wil get the nomination because Obama bailed out. Don't you understand that your side is in heap big trouble? You are so dim.

"two kinds of people: those... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

"two kinds of people: those who dislike Obama but are realistic and those who dislike Obama who are delusional. Thinking that he won't run in 2012 or that he'd lose the nomination to Hillary falls into the latter"

If for no other reason Steve, his monstrosity of an ego wouldn't let him quit. Even if it means pulling the dems down the tube with him. He is, after all, THE messiah. Like he told Reid, "Harry, I've got a gift". LOLOLOL

I'd much rather see the Repubs face him than Hillary.

s strum "Most Democra... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s strum "Most Democrats are in safe districts."

So you think the dems won't lose wither house?

Silly you, you've ignored the reality of 48 Congressional Districts that were won by John McCain and that currently have a Democratic Representative.

Keep on dreaming buddy, a butt load of those are up for election in 2010.

Actually Marc all Reps are ... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Actually Marc all Reps are up for re-election in 2010, it's 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years.

The Prob with the Republicans is they are still led by the same ole, same ole. The Maverick, Tanning Booth, Snow Flake, etc., Poll after poll is showing that a majority of Americans are "Conservative" Unfort., the R's like the D's are more concerned with the status quo and playing political games than they are about presenting the country with 2 opposing visions and letting us choose. Tanning Booth, The Maverick's, Snowflakes, etc., vision of the "Big Tent" is not what we want, but that's what were getting.

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion

That is the definition of Facism, I ask anyone is that not what the modern "progressive" movement seeks to do? Is there any politician out there willing to call a spade a spade? Of course there isn't, they are so afraid of the negative perception that would cause and proves it's all about gaining power so they can put their fingers in the cookie jar instead of the other guy.

MarcAgree that there... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Marc
Agree that there are plenty of unsafe seat but the entire house is up for reelection as they serve two year terms.

36 Ssenate seats are up with 19 being held by Dems. IMO a net gain of 5 would give the Reps at fair deal of influence because of the filibuster rule. One or two wouldn't cut it since it would be easy for the Dems to pick off someone like Snow or McCain.
.

They thought they were invi... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

They thought they were invincible but now they have found they have a achillies heel and were going to use it to ruin them

Many democrats are now c... (Below threshold)
John:

Many democrats are now calling it quits.

Senators Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Roland Burris, and Paul Kirk have decided to either retire or not face the prospect of defeat.

These along with at least four democratic representatives are all not seeking election.

Are there Republicans retiring also? Yup. But the tide has slowly turned in favor of the minority party.

It would have helped if you had done just a little actual analysis of the races that you cited, rather than just count up the Democrats and wave your hand at the Republicans.

Fortunately, someone else did.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2010/Senate/Maps/Jan08-s.html

Well not quite. First Connecticut. The result of Dodd's retirement is to turn a seat the Democrats were very likely to lose into a sure winner. Unless the new candidate, AG Richard Blumenthal is caught on video in bed with a nine-year-old, he is going to be the next senator from Connecticut. Linda McMahon can spend $50 million if she wants to, but Blumenthal is still going to be the next senator. In North Dakota, Dorgan would probably have lost to Gov. John Hoeven, so his retirement turns a probable loss into a guaranteed certain loss for the Democrats. In Colorado, Ritter is not terribly popular, so his retirement turns a probable loss into a tossup if Denver mayor John Hickenlooper runs, as is likely. So these retirements turn three probable losses into a win, a loss, and a tossup. All in all, it's been a good week for the Democrats. A more accurate headline would have been: "Democrats luck out: unelectable candidates quit in Connecticut and Colorado."

As to running for the exits, currently four Democratic senators (Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, and Kauufman) are retiring this year. But six Republican senators (Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Judd, LeMieux, and Voinovich) are calling it quits. All ten of these races except in Connecticut, North Dakota, and Kansas are tossups at this point. Two competitive races, one easy win, and one sure loss for the Democratic seats and one sure loss and five competitive races for the Republican seats is hardly a disaster for the Democrats. Of course some of their incumbents (notably Lincoln and Reid) are in trouble, but that has nothing to do with the Dodd-Dorgan-Ritter retirements.

In the House, we have 14 Republicans retiring and 10 Democrats retiring. Again, this is a mixed bag and presents both parties with dangers and opportunities. Among governors who could have run for reelection and chose not to, four are Republicans and three are Democrats. Again here, to characterize the Democrats as running hell-bent for the exits is simply not true.

What is true is to say that as a rule, the party controlling the White House generally loses seats in Congress during the midterm election and this year will probably be no exception, but far too much has been made of the three retirements this week that actually strengthen the Democrats by getting rid of weak candidates.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy