Chatting About Democrats … and Strategies

There I was, starting off the year 2014 on what seemed like a good note, enjoying a latte at my favorite java joint and reading a good book by Amity Shlaes. However (I’ve found there’s always a ‘however’ qualifying the start of a new year), I sat next to my reliably hardcore liberal pal, Vilmar. Hadn’t seen him in months, but there he was, again reading from the New York Times, and I was thinking to myself, “This guy really needs to get a clue,” when he suddenly leaned over and whispered, “Just wait.” So, I took the bait.

“For…?”

“November. It’s gonna be a slaughter.”

“You talking about the elections?”

“Oh, yeah! Your guys are goin’ down!”

“You must know something I don’t know.”

“We have a theme. 2014’s all about … Inequality.”

“Inequality, eh? … Now that’s about as clear-cut as ‘Hope and Change,’ don’t you think?”

“You forget, we won with that.”

“That’s right, you did, how silly of me. But seriously, when people didn’t know what ‘Hope and Change’ meant, they just gave Obama a pass on that, because he was so cool. If they’d known he was hoping to destroy our health care system and wanted to change America into a socialist state, I doubt he’d have done so well with that theme. Just saying.”

“You want context? Fine. Income inequality.”

“Ahh, yes, well, that’s another sticky wicket. Since income inequality has actually increased since Obama became president. You knew that, right?” … silence … so I continued … “These Democrat geniuses run their polls and conduct their focus groups and then decide to build their campaign around a problem that’s actually gotten worse since their guy became president? Wow. That’s just brilliant.”

He went back to his left-wing rag of a newspaper, I to my book, and I’ve not seen old Vilmar since that day. Nor have I heard a great deal lately about ‘income inequality’ — what seems important in January can often recede into relative insignificance come November.

Grim realities of a dangerous world . . . not focus groups . . . have that effect.

Advertisements

‘No Victory’ Obama

President Bush handed his successor military victory in Iraq, on a silver platter. President Obama proceeded, as if by design, to squander it.

He apparently didn’t feel victory was worth defending, or a stable Iraq worth maintaining, because it was ‘Bush’s victory,’ in a war that Obama never supported, not even as it was being won. And so, given the opportunity, Mr. Obama chose to withdraw all American troops from Iraq, leaving behind no residual force to insure stability.

Iraq is now turning into another Viet Nam, in that America’s political left has come to power and squandered politically what had been achieved militarily. By doing so, they allow terrorists to lay waste not only a country and its people, but drive an entire region toward increased danger and uncertainty.

Mr. Obama now is re-deploying our military, on a mission to Iraq. But he’s dressing it up in a guise of humanitarianism. Worse than misleading, it’s unseemly and clumsy. First, use the military to defeat the enemy; then, provide humanitarian aid to help the innocents. Mr. Obama seems to have it backwards; because he has hamstrung himself, having earlier politicized and then squandered America’s hard-earned victory.

And in a classic case of adding insult to injury, the Obama administration blames Iraq’s ongoing disintegration not on Mr. Obama’s own plodding miscalculations, but on the actions of his predecessor. Forget the heavily promoted presidential moniker, ‘No Drama’ Obama. As considerable drama unfolds all about him, this president should perhaps be called, ‘No Victory’ Obama instead.

Obama … in a Word … or Two (Part 3)

For the worst of Mr. Obama’s transgressions are the vast corruption of his administration and its contempt for the essential functioning of our constitution. Mr. Obama doesn’t hesitate to make substantive unilateral changes to federal legislation (in effect re-writing such legislation, as he has done more than twenty times with ObamaCare); to decline enforcing our immigration laws and securing our national border; or to re-allocate spending from one budget item to another; and to do so without consulting the U.S. Congress – which is solely vested by the U.S. Constitution with the power to write laws and pass budgets.

Our president compromises the functioning of our democracy when his Internal Revenue Service targets private citizens and citizen groups, because of their political persuasion, to inhibit their exercise of free speech in the months leading up to an election; and when officials of the IRS attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility for their misdeeds and mislead the Members of Congress charged with investigating such misdeeds.

Mr. Obama further disregards the rule of law by engaging in crony capitalism, fattening an ever burgeoning federal bureaucracy and enriching his political allies, on the backs of American taxpayers (recall Solyndra and the General Motors bailout, as prominent examples); and with warrant-less spying by the National Security Agency on a scale that, had it been pursued by his predecessor George W. Bush, would’ve prompted a reaction nothing short of apoplectic from the liberal establishment, including Mr. Obama himself.

But how upset can one become over a president’s hypocrisy …

                                                                                                       (to be continued)