Liberals are running scared. As the elections of November 2010 come ever closer, the ardent believers in liberalism are speaking out in a shotgun like fashion by spraying unfounded accusations against the American public. They are doing so because they cannot understand why their point of view has not been met with total agreement. They truly believe that President Obama was elected with an open ended mandate to change the social landscape of our nation. Such a belief is erroneous. Barack Obama was elected to fix the economy and after 20 months we've traveled nowhere so it is not surprising that the public is pissed off. We didn't elect him to tackle health care. We wanted jobs, not social re-engineering. We wanted leadership, not political vacillation. The impending recession worried people in 2008 and guess what, we're still worried. Contrary to the editorial observations of the Atlanta Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, we're not frightened by the "browning" of America. It seems to me that a high percentage of liberals are the primary individuals who are totally trapped within their own sphere of racial isolationism. The people that I know who are opposed to the President's ideas never even think about these philosophies in relation to the color of his skin. We want spending reined in, some idea of what our long term income tax rates will be, and a sense that the President and Congress are more interested in country than self. Unfortunately, none of these are evident at this time. These beliefs are not liberal or conservative in nature; they are merely human responses to the world around us. Liberals would do well to consider reality before they condemn nonbelievers like me.
President Obama was elected with 53% of the popular vote. He earned a mandate from the American public to fix our economic plight. His administration gave us an imprecise stimulus package and a promise that unemployment would not exceed 8%. Last time I checked, unemployment still hovers at just under 10%. Under the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Congress has given President Obama almost every penny he has asked for. Yes my liberal friends, I did say that Congress gave President Obama almost every penny he has asked for. I find it convenient that liberals remain enamored with the whole idea of blaming George W. Bush for all of our country's ailments. Of course he must bear some of the blame but as the old saying goes, it takes two to tangle. This Congress took power in 2006 thus, they bear much of the blame for our current economic predicament. You see, our constitution is a prickly thorn for either side of the political spectrum. The Democrats, and liberals in general would have us believe that President Bush bears sole responsibility for this recession. Section 9, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States states otherwise. Presidents offer annual budgets to Congress however; Congress controls the purse strings. The paragraph outlining this reads as follows:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
As you read this paragraph, it is almost impossible to believe that Senator Harry Reid recently stated that he bears no responsibility for our economic downturn. The Congress elected in 2006 has spent money like there is no end to it and by the way, they were in control in 2007 when our economy turned upside down so, they bear a large portion of the blame for being ineffective legislators in a time of action. It is no small wonder that John Q. Public is irritated with Washington D.C.
So, what is really going on here? Liberal thinkers, politicians, and progressive media commentators are in a frenzy of self absorbed disbelief. While it is common for a president to incur mid-term election losses in the Congress, most polls indicate that this administration will suffer a calamitous rejection of their endeavors. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, the President's popularity now hovers at 46%. 57% of poll respondents disapprove of the President's handling of the economy while, 58% are critical of our nation's massive deficit and yet; the administration seems oblivious. None of us should be surprised by this. My sister in law accused the Republicans of being the party of "no". She threw independent conservatives into the same pool. Does this charge hold merit? According to her, President Obama has more than reached out to his opposition in order to get bipartisan legislative measures passed. Unless he has turned over a new leaf, and nothing I've seen has shown me that he has, our President has been everything but bipartisan. A quick study of his actions while serving as a senator can be found at www.votesmart.org. He hardly ever crossed political lines to forge partnerships for the national good. As the junior senator from Illinois, he was a strait party line hack and in my opinion, he has run his administration in like fashion.
When your political opponent is weak and backed up against the ropes, you needn't do anything more than say no for it will only be a matter of time before your opponent self implodes. It seems that this will come to fruition in November. If it comes to pass, the Republicans will only be provided with a limited amount of time to act. Hopefully, just saying no will no longer suffice and our nation's see saw attempt at checks and balances will once again function properly. The ball will then be in the President's side of the court. Will he choose to extend a hand to the opposition and lead or will he become yet again, just another lame duck in the White House?
De Oppresso Liber
No comments:
Post a Comment