Obamaitis is contagious and spreading. Back in 2007 when we first warned about Barack Obama’s record of voting “present” little did we know it was an infectious disease.
By voting “present” instead of “yea” or “nay” Barack Obama fled from responsibility. Barack Obama was physically “present” but absent from the fight.
Wisconsin Obama Dimocrats have taken the Obama germ and fled to states governed by other Obama Dimocrats. Today we learned that Indiana Obama Dimocrats are now “Fleebaggers” too though we are sure they are in luxury quarters not a fleabag hotel.
Tactical retreats have an honorable history. Washington retreated across the Delaware, Allied armies avoided devastation at Dunkirk, and even in political history there are many instances when it was intelligent to live to fight another day. But considering that the Big Fight of the year will be the potential federal government shutdown (think debt ceiling and budgets that need to be passed) Obama Dimocrats in the states are undercutting Obama Dimocrats at the national level. How will national Dimocrats denounce a government shutdown when they are praising a government shutdown at the local level?
The Fleebagging tactics of the past few days are shutdowns or legislative filibusters by another name. We respect shutdowns and filibusters but it was Obama Dimocrats that have vigorously denounced both tactics. From appearances, these legislative gimmicks are all they have left. It didn’t have to be this way. What happened was the voters voted and elections have consequences. Isn’t that what Obama said in 2009? “I won.” “Elections have consequences.” Didn’t Obama say that?
The fact is that elections do have consequences. What Obama Dimocrats are witnessing is the consequences of drinking the poison called Obama. Last year, in an article called “The Obama Death Threat – You Got Me” we quoted from a Weekly Standard articled called “The Clinton Voters Jump Ship“:
“For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee. [snip]
Instead, it may be that his general election triumph was the aberration—that his coalition was never as strong as the financial panic of September 2008 made it seem. It would mean that he is now returning to his natural base of support and that the Jacksonians and others who resisted him in the primaries have turned away once again from his charms.
But it also suggests something more, that the Democratic party is now the party of Obama, for good and for ill. While the president is no Jacksonian, his party has many in its ranks. Democratic officeholders should be concerned about their voters fleeing not just from Obama but from their party as well. The president may be in the process of trimming the Democratic base back into something that looks an awful lot like his own primary base.
A few weeks ago Representative Marion Berry, a Jacksonian from Arkansas’s First District, recounted an exchange he had with the president. Asked how he was going to prevent a midterm disaster on the scale of 1994, Obama replied, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Which may be precisely the problem.”
As the article noted, those of us who consider ourselves Democrats, not Obama Dimocrats, are “fleeing not just from Obama but from [our] their party as well.” The party ran away from us and we are running away from the party. In 1994 the economy was recovering but the voters did not believe it yet or did not credit Bill Clinton. But by 1996 and even during the off year elections in 1998 (as Republicans prepped to impeach him) Bill Clinton led Democrats to victory.
Barack Obama has led to defeat after defeat. As more Obama Dimocrats retire from the Senate and redistricting consequences come into play it is almost a sure thing (many commentators consider it a sure thing for sure) that Republicans will win the Senate in 2012 and keep control of the House. Because many of the same factors (many more Dimocrats will again be up for reelection in the Senate in 2016) will be in play in 2016 as in 2012 the future is very bleak for Obama and his Dimocratic Party Obamination.
Elections have consequences. In February 2010’s Mistake in ’08 – The Power Of Hillary Clinton Supporters quoting from the same source, we discussed some significant election results from the primaries of 2008:
“For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee.
On February 5—Super Tuesday— Obama did poorly in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, losing to Clinton by 10 and 15 points, respectively. The exit polls were in line with Obama’s performance throughout the primary race: He did very well with blacks, wealthy voters, highly educated voters, and very young voters. He did poorly with working-class whites and older voters.”
Why review this election history? At the time we wrote those articles Republican Scott Brown had just won in Massachusetts the “Kennedy seat” and Republican Chris Christie had just beaten Jon Corzine in New Jersey. In New Jersey Christie won because of “defections among the same groups who had been against Obama in the presidential primaries.” In Massachusetts Scott Brown won in the “ethnic, blue-collar strongholds that went heavily for Clinton in the primaries.”
When Obama went campaigning in Massachusetts and New Jersey it was a death sentence for the Dimocrats running in those states. When Obama said “You’ve got me” to those running for election in 2010 it was also a death sentence.
Scott Brown’s election was a rejection of Obama’s health scam and that rejection came from true blue Massachusetts. Obama and his Dimocrats ignored the people and the Massachusetts vote and rammed through the health scam. Now they complain that the Republicans in Wisconsin are ramming through legislation even though the people of Wisconsin voted for the Republican governor (and dumped the Dimocratic legislature for Republicans too) who specifically ran on that issue.
The Republican victory in New Jersey has been even more consequential:
“Now, Christie’s playbook has become standard reading for many of the Republican governors that were elected in 2010.
In Wisconsin last week, Gov. Scott Walker upset state public sector unions so much that Democratic lawmakers fled the state to avoid a vote on his budget, and teachers joined in solidarity by effectively going on strike.
In Ohio, Republican Gov. John Kasich vowed to take on public sector unions even before taking office. And now, the state’s legislature is considering a bill that would restrict collective bargaining rights and implement a merit pay system for teachers.
In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Haslam has presented plans to make it harder for public school teachers to achieve tenure. Almost immediately, teachers’ unions pegged the plan as being ‘anti-teacher.”
But the Christie effect isn’t just rippling through states where Republicans made major gains in the 2010 midterm elections.
An unlikely face of union reform and fiscal hawkishness can be found in recently-elected Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York. Cuomo, the son of a Democratic icon, has even vowed to take a hard look at state employee pensions.
The proposed reforms have union members seething in fury, but no state has been immune to budget difficulties. By taking on union contracts as a way to balance the budget, governors like Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Bill Haslam are following in the footsteps of Chris Christie.
So did Christie start a trend?”
The Republican takeover in states like New Jersey and Wisconsin (and Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania) are a direct consequence of Barack Obama being gifted the Democratic nomination in 2008. It is the Obama failure of leadership that had led to the current political and economic crisis. Instead of leading Obama has fled from the tough decisions. Instead of leading Obama has fled from economic reality. Instead of leading Obama has fled from those duped into voting for him and even from an honest conversation with those who have never trusted him.
Obama’s foolish Dimocrats are going to have to accept the consequences of having Obama as their “leader”. Obama Dimocrats are going to have to stand and fight or continue to run away. Running away like fleas from a dogcollar is not the answer. Obama has fled from any real leadership on fiscal policy. Obama’s only answer is to spend and spend. Once it comes to frugality it’s off to Vail, Spain, or the golf course.
The opposition party to the Republicans has to lead not flee. If there is a case to be made for more spending – make it. If there is a case for cutbacks – make it. But stop running away. Things are not going to get better by running away. Obama’s latest antics are causing a downturn in support for him:
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).
That’s the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.
Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.
Most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law.”
If these sometime lawmakers want to flee they should flee from Obama.
The fiscal problems of the country and the states are not going to disappear. This is not Egypt and Governor Scott Walker is not Mubarak. In Michigan, not a state run by Republicans, the disaster for Detroit schools is not in the future. The disaster has arrived. Blaming unions or running away from the problems posed by unions is not the answer. The problems are going to have to be confronted (in Wisconsin after today the Fleebaggers will have to earn their paychecks and collect them in person). Running away is not the answer.
Running away? We do wish Barack Obama would flee to Libya and plant a wet one on Gaddafi/Kaddafi who has vowed to stay in the country and “die a martyr.” In the land of camels, Daffy would rather fight than switch.
Obama has been near silent on Kaddafi/Gaddafi even as he was vocal about ousting dictator/American ally Mubarak. Perhaps it is because Libya has oil and Egypt has none. Maybe that is why Gaddafi/Kaddafi/DaffyDuck is supposedly threatening to blow up oil pipelines. George W. Bush was denounced for supposedly waging “war for oil” and Obama is waging “appeasement for oil”.
Why do we want Obama to go to Libya? It is not to rid ourselves of Obama by afflicting the long suffering Libyan people. No, we hope Obama goes to Libya and infects Kaddafi/Qaddaffi/Daffy with the contagion of Obamaitis. Once infected, Kaddafi will flee from Libya.
Obama can then rule Libya and Michelle can wear all the garish costumes previously worn by the madman of the Mideast. That would be a win/win for the world.