If the economics are as bad as they seem to be in the United States (and they are very bad), why are the presidential election polls running so close, as in neck and neck? How can that possibly be? Many of the pollsters have the incumbent Barack Obama ahead of Rockefeller-style liberal Republican Mitt Romney (who is actually the inventor/progenitor of the contentious Obamacare bill all the Repubs are raising Hell about).
Are we in a position again, as we sere in 2008, where we don’t have a real choice in presidential candidates? John McCain was (and is) an open borders, join the opposition when it’s politically expedient leftist who mendaciously claimed to be a soldier of the Reagan Revolution. He had, and has, absolutely no understanding of the jihad threat we’re facing from the Muslim Brotherhood. McCain should have followed through with his thought about becoming a registered Democrat – and done so.
Now we have Mitt Romney – another very polite “moderate”, who is stuck in the position of having to repudiate the idea he created and implemented as governor in Masachussetts. And if you think the campaign is ugly now, wait until the debates begin. No one has ever challenged Barack Obama on his origins, religious beliefs or his purported life history, and no one in the MSM will ever do that. It’s verboten territory. On the other hand, my money says that Romney will be utterly crucified about his Mormon doctrine and beliefs. As if that’s not enough baggage to sink him, he doesn’t believe that the jihad movement is representative of true Islam. Which means that he also misunderstands Muslim doctrine, as abjectly as did George Bush, John McCain and Bill Clinton.
So, once again, as it was in 2008, what’ll it be? Obama or Diet-Obama?
All that above being the case, I still wonder what’s going on that so many people would want to continue down the road we are travelling with Barack Obama, who is surrounded by a hard-core gang of left-wing revolutionaries the likes of which this nation has never seen. He does like to spend our hard-earned money, doesn’t he.
Last night I watched a few minutes of Fox News (a few minutes is all I can stand these days). Laura Ingraham was sitting in for the Obama-shilling bully who masquerades as a middle of the road moderate, Bill O’Reilly. She was hosting a mini-forum with several guest speakers. The topic was the nation’s unemployment rate, which I’ve read is as high as 34% in some areas of the country.
The Democrat (I can’t remember his name) insisted that, economically, things are getting better, everything’s fine, and Obama’s doing a good job. More stimulus money is the sure fire short-term fix for the economy. Ingraham countered that Barack Obama refuses to accept responsibility for anything negative that’s happening. It didn’t seem to matter to the leftist what numbers Ingraham cited to support her contention that it might be time to change course and get someone else into the White House before the Ship of State capsizes and sinks. The Dem was robotic in his responses. It’s not Obama’s fault.
So, I guess we should continue to blame George Bush, the obstructive Republicans (believe me, I have my issues with what they’ve contributed to the mess we’re in), Europe, global warming, industrialists, corporations, big oil, coal, rich white men, capitalism, colonialism, and anything else you can think of, for all that ails us - but not any of Barack Obama’s fiscal policies. It’s not his fault that things have gotten much worse since he took office nearly four years ago. If we give this man another four years at the helm, he can fix what’s wrong with the United States.
If you believe that line, then by all means vote for Mr. Obama. Or, you can have Diet-Obama and vote for Mitt Romney. Ain’t life grand?