Wednesday, November 5, 2008

A Blind Leap Into The Future

(Note: This post deliberately avoids social issues in order to appeal to the entire political spectrum, which runs contrary to most of the articles on here.)

What has Obama done to earn the Presidency?

Seriously, what? Throughout the primaries, Obama won delegates based on his charisma, on race, and the general negativity associated with Hillary Clinton. He did not win this race on substance, or on the issues. He won it on the way he presented himself and the way he was. He won it with speech.

Seriously, what do we know about his record in the state senate and the US Senate? Was Barack Obama a member of a major committee on the Senate? Was he even remotely important in either Senate? Did he work with other senators on any major legislation? The answer is NO.

Barack Obama did not win because of his knowledge or his intelligence. He won because everything in this election worked for him. In 2004, he was the only speaker that had any charisma. John Kerry, John Edwards, Carter, and Gore were terrible speakers. The Clintons were polarizing, and the media particularly hated them. Ted Kennedy was a dinosaur, and was little more than a complete echo of the Platform. And Ron Reagan had no political aspirations. Obama was the highlight of the Convention, and that explains why he became the media's darling child.

The Media likes starry eyed, positive candidates. They don't attract controversy from endorsing those kinds of people like they would running a smear campaign. When someone has great charisma, the media will rush into endorsing them, for all they have to do is analyze his speeches to no end. But what does this accomplish?

The Media also likes the fact that Obama is black. If Obama wasn't black, would he have gotten so far, so fast, without at least having accomplished something major in the Senate? Would he have received so much support by young people, who are typically motivated by ideology and charisma, if he didn't set himself apart from the rest of the Presidential candidates with his race?

Although the liberals will deny it to no end, the media really is liberal. The media is run by journalists, who often come from Leftist academia. Journalists love candidates that usher in the 'new era': that is, multicultural, hostility to religion, and equality for all. If you don't think the media is liberal, you're going to have to explain why newspapers historically back Democrats, why media coverage of Democrats was significantly more positive than normal, and why Obama and Biden were barely questioned in the media.

How did Obama win the Democrat nomination? The other candidates, when viewed objectively, suck. Kucinich and Gravel pander to the 9/11 Truthers and the truly paranoid, with Gravel receiving a lot of support by libertarians turned off by Ron Paul's connections with the John Birch Society and other religious connections. Neither has charisma, Gravel hasn't held office for about 28 years, and Kucinich is routinely rated as one of the worst mayors of all time. Richardson has NO charisma, and was probably too libertarian for the tax-and-spend liberal base. Dodd was a boring candidate, and his connections to Freddie and Fannie would have lead to his demise. Edwards was useless for Kerry as a VP candidate, and he wouldn't be a better President. Biden had a history of being for the Iraq War, and a single gaffe could cost him the election. Finally, Hillary Clinton is just a controversial, polarizing figure that would easily drive otherwise apathetic voters to vote against her.

Therefore, Obama was chosen for political reasons. Daschle and the rest of the moonbats that endorsed him often did so on the fallacies of Clinton. Obama's charisma, combined with his massive grassroots support, would be the best chance for the Democrats to win the election.

None of the Republican candidates were really seen as legitimate. Anyone other than the fivefront runners would (and were) smeared by the MSM as 'far right'. Thompson had no real drive to be President, Giuliani came off as an elitist dick, and Romney/Huckabee split the conservative vote, which gave McCain the nomination. Huckabee was far too conservative for the MSM, Romney's credentials were dubious, and McCain was unpopular with the base, and his campaign almost imploded several times. Yet, for the refusal of conservatives to rally around one candidate, McCain won the nomination. He only managed to woo the conservative base with Sarah Palin, yet she turned off the Independents that liked him, and also held several positions contrary to her running mate.

So, Obama won because of media backing, charisma, his race, and the incompetency of the rest of the candidates and speakers. His positions on the issues have played NO role in his nomination, and his associates have tempered him to be a raging Marxist, the most liberal member of the Senate, and his willingness to vote 'present' on issues shows just how much he really cared about thinking issues over.

I should also note that Obama won because of mindless Bush bashing that the media started and the public latched on to immediately. In my mind, Bush bashing is little more than a fashion statement, and I guarantee you that 100% of people that blame our current problems on Bush have no idea what they're talking about. Bush bashing is a fad, flaunted by popular culture and the media in order for them to make a story out of nothing.

Those who think that Obama actually knows what he is doing probably have no idea about the state of the economy themselves. The world only went to hell in a handbasket when the DEMOCRATS took over Congress. Watching the Democrats chant inane slogans during the inauguration of their Messiah only reinforces my viewpoints.

Democrats are wanting to have a gentle foreign policy with Iran, a country that has threatened to reduce Israel to ashes, and a country that would laugh at us if we used Hippie rhetoric to tell them that they need to stop their nuclear program. They rush to blame economic slumps on businesses, when solutions actually take more than simply raising taxes. They want to put doctors and medicine quality at risk, all in the name of ensuring that not all patients go bankrupt; yet a simple observation shows that the reduction of quality in doctors and medicine harms us all, while a bankrupt patient only harms the patient.

You see, when you stop looking at things in such a utopian view, one sees that personal responsibility by the body politic is the only way to actually have a working country. People need to realize that the government isn't going to take care of them, especially since the government is often lead to corruption. People need incentives to work, and we can start by having a society that mandates that people live on their own. Social Security would work better for the smart investors if it were privatized, and if you're too stupid and/or too lazy to learn how to invest your money, you don't deserve to be a drain on the successful people's money. Private enterprise has always, in the end, to be proven to work better than the government, for private enterprise can adapt to the worker on its own accord.

We also cannot simply have a 'live and let live' policy with the rest of the world, while they want to kill us. Why are liberals so disinclined to try the first experiment in bringing democracy to the Middle East? Why are they so opposed to bringing the same freedoms we enjoy to other countries? The liberals tend to argue that a democracy cannot be maintained by people who do not care; however, these people haven't even experienced it, so they wouldn't really know all there is to know about democracy. The same goes for Iran: if you want to allow such a barbaric society to exist on this Earth, and if you support allowing them to have nuclear weapons, and if you support leaving them to be, when the stability of the Middle East would be completely annihilated by them, then you are scum.

Barack Obama doesn't have a logical, pragmatic view of society. He just has utopian ideals, and thanks to the MSM's promotion of him and his party, the Democrats will soon have a filibuster-proof majority. Our nation will continue to be pushed farther to the left, and as experience has shown, Left wing countries have less influence on the world, and less significance.

What especially worries me is that, if this Democrat administration screws up, the liberals will still try to blame it on Bush. Even if Bush did screw up, which hasn't realistically been proven, he isn't going to hold any responsibility on the actions of Obama and his sheeple. Yet the Obamabots will surely defend their Messiah to the bitter end, and when our economy collapses, it will still be blamed on Bush.

This man has NO idea how to run a country, yet our idiot voters, through our idiot culture, have approved him. Maybe the End Times are nigh.

No comments:

Post a Comment