Keep the Change, Mr. President
Looks like many 2008 “hope” and “change” poster carriers won’t be quite as psyched to rally behind our President in 2012.
According to an October 7-10 Bloomberg national poll, “More than four of ten likely voters who say they once considered themselves Obama backers now are either less supportive or say they no longer support him at all.”
Also noteworthy from the poll: “The erosion of backing for Obama among onetime supporters has been most notable among two groups of voters who were central to his election: women and independents. More than six of ten of the former Obama backers who have turned away from him are women; 53% of the onetime supporters are independents.”
It seems Barry is having a little trouble with the ladies. And with independents. And—dare I say—with any sane person who recognizes that a rising unemployment rate and swelling federal deficit are the kind of “hope” and “change” we can do without.
This November’s elections will mark big victories for the GOP. But don’t expect Democrats to abandon their absurd slogans in response.
In fact, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine revealed a new logo and website for the Democrat Party in September. He asserted, “I’d like to unveil the new symbol of today’s Democratic Party: ‘Democrats. Delivering the change that matters.’”
Kaine, I don’t mean to pop your party balloons, but the “new” slogan is—well, old. We’ve seen the change. We’re broke from the change. Can I suggest something more appropriate? I’ll even keep the whole “change” theme: “Democrats: We like the word ‘change’. Because ‘tax-happy spendthrifts’ tends to rub people the wrong way.”
You haven’t heard any new talking points from Democrats this 2010 election season. And don’t expect to hear anything new from our President as we approach 2012.
He will play the same haggard Bush-blaming cards. He will continue to vilify Fox News, to lecture about how he’s a protector of the middle class, and to try to convince our youth once again that big government is somehow the ally of their big dreams.
His rhetoric is weary. As are his schemes.
But weary can still be incredibly destructive, which is why it’s imperative for Barack Obama to be a one-term President.
What will it take to beat him? It shouldn’t be that hard.
His policies have been wildly unsuccessful, he has persistently sided against the will of the American majority, and he appears to be in outer space when speaking without a script. According to Rasmussen on October 14, a mere 27% of voters strongly approve of the way Obama is doing his job.
Obama’s ideal contender should be someone who isn’t afraid to talk tough and knows his or her stuff, someone who will call our President’s lies what they are and can contrast his vague, verbose discourse with specific, concise, hard-hitting retorts.
Strong executive experience wouldn’t hurt, as there is no better contrast to a man who theorizes about business from an ivory tower than someone who came to understand business by running one.
Obama’s challenger must appeal to independents, many of whom aren’t happy with the destruction his agenda has unleashed upon our economy. He or she will need to snatch the attention of our youth and set the record straight on the lies they’ve been fed by Obama and the Obama-loving media.
The man or woman who steps up to the plate in 2012 should stand for the transparency our Manipulator-in-Chief claimed to stand for, should be brave enough to make spending cuts that may not always be popular, and should be willing to reject business as usual no matter what he or she stands to personally gain or lose as a result.
In other words, what we need is a leader, something we’ve been lacking for some time.
2010 conservative victories must be fortified by the election of a new President in 2012. There’s simply no other way for our country to take two steps forward without taking two steps back.
So, yes, I’m focused on 2010, but I’m also looking ahead to 2012.
Because America simply can’t afford another term of Obama.