The year 2010 is an anxious time for all, especially Republicans and conservatives. Obama is breaking promises, and there will be plenty of angry folks this year seeking “hopenchange” again but not in the form of a light skinned guy named Barry. Like many Republicans I am looking forward to kicking some donkey butt in the 2010 elections. Or at least I thought I was like many Republicans or conservatives or independents…Which is it? Anyway after a long exchange on my Facebook page with some Tea Party Patriots, I was told that I am an uninformed Republican voter. Who was duped by the Democrats once and now I am being duped by Republicans. “Third Party is the only way to go”, they said.
“And it’s not going to happen either! The elites and the radicals have highjacked our country and they WILL NOT give it back by us dumb ass SHEOPLE voting in a bunch of corrupt REPUBLICANS!”…But if a good candidate were to decide to run on a 3rd party ticket, I would vote for him or her over the other two even if he/she lost and all of you gave me shit over it. I voted for Perot 2x, but not a 3rd party since because there was no strong runner. WE NEED NEW BLOOD! A WASHINGTON OUTSIDER! THAT ISN’T BOUGHT OR FINANCED BY ANYONE BUT THE PEOPLE!”
“I’m going to be the odd man out here. We have a Marxist because of the 2 party system as it currently operates. Nobody can deny it. The GOP is ‘almost ‘ as corrupt as the Democrats.And if the polls hold on the question of a “Tea Party” having a candidate in a three way race, the TP is smoking the GOP. So just who is splitting the vote. AS for… See More me I am not voting for Republicans. I may vote for a conservative who is a Republican- maybe.”
“I just lost all respect for Palin. F*ck the two party system! It sucks major ass! Parties are un-American. We’re not supposed to have them. Parties are for democracies. We’re not a democracy. We’re a republic. Parties have no place in republics. In a republic, politicians are supposed to be non-partisan aka independent. Republicans and Democrats are BOTH taking us down the wrong path. I only align myself with the Constitution!”
Yes, Obama failed many particularly those who voted for him.
Bush failed many as well. Let’s not lie about that granted it is not fair for the liberals to continue to use “Bush’s fault” as an excuse for everything under the sun.
But does this all mean that we adopt a third party?Because for the last 9 years we have elected flawed leaders to our nation’s highest office?
The independents seem to think so.
First let’s take a look at what Obama promised and did not deliver. Does it have more to do with him and his character than the Democratic Party in itself? The answer is yes and no. The Democrats chose the wrong nominee as the Republicans did in 2000. Every party is capable of the bait and switch described by Karl Rove in this article in the Wall Street Journal:
The President’s Bait-and-Switch Operation
Which campaign promises has he kept?
By Karl Rove
“Americans learned last year that President Obama discards campaign promises like most people discard used Kleenex. Among the pledges he cast aside were reducing the deficit, reining in federal spending, not allowing lobbyists to work in his administration, increasing taxes only on those who make more than $250,000, and opposing “government-run health care” because it is “extreme.”
This year, Mr. Obama is picking up where he left off.
Consider presidential signing statements. Since Andrew Jackson, presidents of both parties have told Congress that while they are signing a bill into law, they intend to ignore specific provisions because they involve unconstitutional restrictions on the executive branch or are otherwise problematic.
A president’s power to do this springs from his oath of office, through which each new chief executive promises to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
Because of Washington’s hyperpartisan atmosphere, President George W. Bush drew heated criticism from Democrats for his signing statements. Among his toughest critics was Barack Obama, who in a questionnaire for the Boston Globe in 2007 accused Mr. Bush of “clear abuse” in using signing statements “to avoid enforcing certain provisions . . . the President does not like.” He promised not to use signing statements to “nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.”
Yet Mr. Obama started issuing signing statements shortly after taking office. Democratic Reps. Barney Frank and David Obey called him out on it in a letter to the White House complaining that they were “chagrined” that Mr. Obama was issuing signing statements.
Recently, the Obama administration admitted that after receiving the letter from Messrs. Frank and Obey, it stopped the practice. But the president still has aides examine each bill to identify provisions the administration will disregard. It’s just that Team Obama isn’t telling Congress which provisions it is ignoring. It’s right for him to defend the office of the presidency. The problem is that he is doing it in a way that violates his own standards of transparency and accountability.
It was always puzzling to me as to why any logical person would believe anything that oozed from Barack Obama’s mouth. His previous record and experience never proved anything beyond his reputation for securing one position and shortly thereafter running for another position of higher profile before accomplishing anything of real importance. Liberals often love to brand Sarah Palin as a quitter because she resigned as Alaska’s governor before her term was finished. No one recalls that Obama was only the Senator of Illinois for a short time before he ran for POTUS. While a valid argument could be waged that Obama’s actions do not exactly constitute quitting , still closer attention should be paid to the motives behind his leaving his Illinois senate seat after accomplishing nothing. Sarah left office to unburden the people of Alaska with a lame duck and ever growing law suits against the state by greedy mean-spirits and opportunists. Obama ran for president because…. Oh I forgot, Michelle Obama supplied us with that answer:
“Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics.”
According to Webster, the definition of deign is: condescend: do something that one considers to be below one’s dignity. Oh gee thanks Barry. You see we should be thankful that God sent Barack Obama to us. Now we can be delivered unto the Promised Land. That was Obama’s motive, to give us the gift of his wisdom. To get in our faces.
Karl Rove continues:
“This hypocrisy has not gotten much attention. But another act of duplicity has. During his campaign, Mr. Obama pledged that any negotiations on health-care legislation would be broadcast on C-SPAN, “so the American people can see what the choices are,” and not conducted behind closed doors. “Such public negotiations,” he said, were “the antidote” to “overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who . . . will resist anything that we try to do.”
Internet publisher Andrew Breitbart collected videotape of Mr. Obama making the same promise eight different times in 2007 and 2008—evidence that this was not a hasty or ill-considered pledge. It was supposed to epitomize the “change” that was at the core of the Obama campaign.
Now, however, the final negotiations on health-care reform are being conducted behind closed doors and there’s no formal legislative conference between the House and Senate, which would guarantee Republicans at least a few seats at the table. This bill is not only being written in secrecy, it is being written by an anonymous group of Democrats. We can therefore throw Mr. Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship onto his mountain of broken promises…”
Here is the video by Breitbart that Karl Rove alludes to:
I am less surprised by the die hard liberals who fell for Obama’s crap than I am by voters who characterize themselves as “independents”.
In 2008, I helplessly watched as my independent voter friends emerged one by one from Obamabot pods covered in a Kool Aid purple slimy substance. There are some pretty intelligent thinkers among the independent voting block. Their modes of inquiry into the lives of and motives of presidential candidates are legendary.
So why did they fall for Barack Obama?
And why exactly should Afrocity follow them to the promised tea party land?
I want no misunderstanding here. I admire those who actively participate in the Tea Party Movement. Voices need to be heard. I am amused by it. I love the patriotism that Americans are displaying. Am I politically or emotionally committed to the movement…No. I am not exactly sure if we need a third party. I saw what Ralph Nader did for the 2000 presidential election. In theory, a multi-party system is very American. George Washington hated political parties. In reality, they can also screw up some really great elections and in 2012, I do not want our country to end up with a second term for Barack Obama. Thus I do not quite understand why some anti-Obama voters would want to support third party candidates during the 2010 and 2012 elections. Aren’t we playing right into the liberals hands?
Autographed Letter Signed,