Sunday, September 18, 2011

Why Obama Should Withdraw... Or Should He???

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Returning late from a visit with family in upstate New York this weekend my first stop was to visit the Left Coast Rebel, something I highly recommend to all who frequent Rational Nation USA.

As usual LCR cut to the chase exposing the current occupant of the oval office for the dismal failure {not unlike GWB} he has turned out to be.

The mega Leviathan socialistic cures he has applied to the problems of the USA's economy in the hope of curing it's ills have proven to be abject failures. Failures not unlike the those witnessed by many socialist countries.

It goes without further commentary that on the field of economics and business management Barrack Hussein Obama has the intelligence, experience, and ability of a Fidel Castro, Mao Tse Tung, or Hugo Chavez. Which is quite disconcerting to say the least.

The foregoing aside the real issue of most urgency, and the one LCR addresses, is whether BHO ought to save the nation from another tortuous campaign and withdraw allowing some other democrat {presumably better equipped to handle the nations economic woes} to emerge and carry the democrats banner.

Certainly there is viable rationale as to the benefits of the POTUS making such a decision. From the Chicago Tribune...
His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

Skip

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It's hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn't, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first."

Skip

If he runs for re-election, Obama may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning. But he might arrange things so it will be Clinton who has the unenviable job of reviving the economy, balancing the budget, getting out of Afghanistan and grappling with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Obama, meanwhile, will be on a Hawaiian beach, wrestling the cap off a Corona. {Read the Full Story}

Given the above one thought comes to mind. Those of us who believe in limited effective Constitutional government ought to be 1) supporting the candidate that best exemplifies a true understanding of our constitution and the benefits of limited government, and 2) hope that the failure that has occupied the Oval Office for the past thirty two months decides to try his hand at failing again.

2012 may well be the opportunity of a generation to reform government in the mold intended by our founding fathers. Whether the nation succeeds in grasping this historic opportunity rests entirely on who the country selects as the next president, as well as who it elects to the next congress.

I assure you neither Rick Perry nor Mittens Romney are leaders who understand and believe in limited constitutional government. If this nation is to return to the rational principle of limited constitutional government it must reject both the current occupant of the Oval Office as well as the big government GOP candidates that merely offer a different, yet just as dangerous a Leviathan as the Dems offer the nation.

There are choices. Americans must focus on the candidate(s) that truly represent an understanding of limited constitutional government and have a track record which demonstrates their commitment to these principles.

Failing that prepare for different variations of the same big brother/sister Leviathan that has us in the shape we are in today.

Via: Memeorandum

16 comments:

  1. Obama deficit plan aimed at Democrat Base--
    from Reuters:
    -------------------------------

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will lay out a plan on Monday to cut the U.S. deficit that will raise taxes on the rich, striking a populist tone to motivate his Democratic Party base before the November 2012 election.

    Obama will vow to veto any cuts proposed for the government-run Medicare health program for the elderly unless Congress agrees to lift taxes on companies and the wealthy.

    His plan, which has little chance of getting through Congress in one piece, sets up the congressional and presidential elections as an ideological battle over taxes and spending.

    With opinion polls showing most Americans disillusioned with his economic leadership, winning re-election may hinge on his success in painting Republicans as the party of the rich.
    ---------------------------

    Read here: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-propose-3-trillion-deficit-cuts-021925332.html

    Because we ALL know that only the GOP is wealthy and ALL Republicans are rich. Down with the rich folks! Long live the poverty-stricken Democrat base!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just love the total lack of logic...

    Obama is GWB and yet the folks that voted for GWB TWICE now are claiming that Obama is a socialist!

    Makes all the sense in the world to me! Like everyone claiming to be a Libertarian and then supporting Rick Scott rather than the Libertarian candidate when given a chance.

    Oh, yeah, we hate socialism unless its our guy and our socialism.

    To which the only response will be "Yada, Yada, Yada" which is in reality all you can say....

    ReplyDelete
  3. @TAO,

    You said:
    "Oh, yeah, we hate socialism unless its our guy and our socialism."

    True story. Your hypocrisy is tedious at best, and laughable at worst.

    You also hate religion in government unless it is one of your guys. (I have yet to see The Freedom from Religion Foundation or the ACLU scream out whenever Obama says, "God Bless America". How dare the President force God on me!!)

    You also hate tax cuts, spending cuts, individual freedoms, the US Constitution, and GWB, even though your President makes GWB's spending look like nickels and dimes, AND even though GWB is no longer the President yet apparently he still rules the White House.

    *yawn* We need a better class of liberal around here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh listen to the whiner, ecc 102, wants to criticize a liberal for not respecting personal freedom, yet the folks on the right were responsible for the Patriot Act.

    Then goes on and wants the world to forget that GWB ever was president! Okay no problem, we will forget Bush was ever president once the medicare prescription drug program is no longer the law of the land, once TARP is over, once the Afghan and Iraqi wars are over, and all the folks that died in those wars are brought back to life, and once the tax rate is returned back to before bush cut taxes.

    In fact lets just go back to when the budget was balanced, which was in 2000 and we promise to never mention GWB again!

    Yeah, can't get the stink out of your nose from voting for that train wreck twice can you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @TAO,

    I didn't ever say I voted for Bush. I am merely bringing light to the fact you liberal puppets cannot seem to remember he is no longer the President, while your President has outspent every single one preceding him. Me defending Bush in the light of your President's follies is hardly an admission of fealty to the man.

    Stick to taxing the wealthy to make up for your failed social experiments known as liberalism and don't ever try to presume upon my sensibilities again. I'm a true Conservative, not some GOP gimp, and I've been around the block a few times and I know all the dance steps.

    2012: The year New Camelot implodes. Your emperor has no clothes, TAO. The mainstream media is turning on their messiah, and the black caucus is ready to throw him out. Your world is crumbling around you. Sucks, doesn't it?

    Yep, we definitely need a better class of liberal puppet 'round here. Where's that Jersey McJones fella, anyhoos?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tao, the Patriot Act passed 99-1.......As for my preference/"guy", I'd really like to see Mr. Bloomberg get in. No, I don't agree with him on everything but at least he doesn't put his flippin' finger in the air 24/7 (a la, Romney, Obama, etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Will, and that proves my point very well thank you!

    Feingold, a Progressive voted against the Patriot Act both in 2001 and in 2006. In 2006 the extension was passed 89 - 10 and the 10 against it were all liberals.

    Not a single conservative or republican voted against the Patriot Act in the Senate.

    Thus a lecture on the loss of our freedoms by a conservative on this blog is pathetic isn't it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. @TAO,

    And you merely proved my point. You still lament GWB as, erroneously, a "Conservative", for surely he was not, and you still bring him into the conversation as an attempt to deflect the failings of your President.

    For every one mistake GWB made, I could easily bring up three Obama has made. Shall we play this game?

    Stop seeking to compare a failed "Conservative" President of the past with the current progressive, America-hating, Socialist dictator in the White House at present. It was a tired strategy a month after Obama took power and it is even more so now.

    When will you face the fact that Obama is destroying America, and is even worse than Jimmy Carter was?

    You would be hard-pressed to find anyone here on this blog who waved the GWB banner.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Of course I do not expect to find anyone who waves the GWB banner on this blog, thats because no one on this blog had any reason to begin blogging until after GWB left office!

    Pretty hard to blog for the guy and its pretty hard to blog against someone you voted for.

    Even by your own comments you admit, when you say, "For every one mistake GWB made, I could easily bring up three Obama has made." that GWB was a better president.

    The reality is GWB came to office with a balanced budget and Obama did not. If fiscal responsibility is so important to you, then you should have been blogging back in 2001. If personal freedom was so important to you, you should have been blogging in 2001 but were not.

    Nope, GWB lost his appeal to conservatives in 2008 when they found themsleves in the minority.

    Thats partisanship not principles...

    ReplyDelete
  10. @TAO,

    I am tired of this tedious back and forth with you, for you are not my equal. However, consider this:

    You said:
    Even by your own comments you admit, when you say, "For every one mistake GWB made, I could easily bring up three Obama has made." that GWB was a better president.

    Not at all. GWB was simply a less sucky President than Obama. GWB was a train wreck, while Obama is a 7.5 earthquake. Again, you seek to spin my words to imply I support GWB. Tsk, tsk, TAO...really, you should know better.

    Have the last word. I know you need it. I shall be moving on to other subjects, and will leave you to your disbelief.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @TAO,

    And by the way, in 2001 I was in the service of our military, far removed from the comforts of American culture and the Internet. Starting a blog or corresponding electronically was a luxury for the non-combat personnel of the military. I was actually out in the field, doing real work.

    What were you doing in 2001?

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Have the last word. I know you need it. I shall be moving on to other subjects, and will leave you to your disbelief."

    Only to immediately follow up with this:

    "@TAO,

    And by the way, in 2001 I was in the service of our military, far removed from the comforts of American culture and the Internet. Starting a blog or corresponding electronically was a luxury for the non-combat personnel of the military. I was actually out in the field, doing real work.

    What were you doing in 2001?

    Exactly."

    ReplyDelete
  13. @TAO,

    I had neglected to slam your insinuation that I had nothing better to do, unlike yourself, than to start a blog in 2001.

    But, if it makes you feel any better, NOW you are allowed to have the last word.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.