Elections Have Consequences

Since the day Obama won I have heard the words in the title more times than I care to remember. The same people who told me that Bush was evil and did not have a mandate to carry out an agenda are the ones who tell me Obama was elected for this reason or that and that he has a mandate to do what he wants to achieve his agenda. Elections have consequences, they say.

Yes, and just as those who did not favor Bush’s agenda (and I did not like some of it) were free to oppose him, we are free to oppose Obama. It does not make us racists or obstructionists or anything else. I recall the left telling us dissent was patriotic when they were the ones dissenting. Now it is racist. It is only true in the world of moonbats who see racism in every thing that a tea party gathering does but never once denounced the vile behavior of the Che T shirt wearing moonbats who opposed Bush and wished violence on him at every turn. I remember visiting the site of one person who comments here just after that grenade was thrown (or found) near Bush (the grenade did not go off) and the people commenting at that site were happy that Bush was not killed. Not because he was president or any thing other than they were worried that Bush being assassinated in another country would give us an excuse to have another war. They were OK with him being murdered here.

Well, elections do have consequences and even though many Democrats said (before the Massachusetts election) that a Brown victory would mean little and that they would still ram health care through (and they would try to do it before Brown was sworn in) they are now doing a 180. The support for the plan among Democrats has diminished and it is very unlikely that they will have the bill before Obama in time for the State of the Union Address.

While some Democrats are vowing to go full speed ahead (most notably, Obama) many are rethinking their position. Some are saying they need to take a month off from the issue, some are saying that the public must really be serious about not wanting it and others are saying that they might need to pare the bill down to the things that Republicans in Congress and the general public can get on board with.

The election of Republican Scott Brown in Democrat stronghold Massachusetts has turned the Democrats upside down. They are worried about their jobs and they are now trying to find a way to scuttle the health care bill without disgracing Obama (though they are more concerned with keeping their seats). Don’t be surprised to see the House and Senate reconcile a bill and send it to the Senate to have Republicans vote it down so they can blame it on the right and save face for Obama.

They went from ramming it through to trying to avoid it in the course of a week all because an unknown Republican won a Senate race in a very blue state.

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post has a great piece entitled; End of O’s cowardly lyin’, which begins:

We the people of the United States owe Scott Brown’s sup porters a huge debt of gratitude. They didn’t merely elect a senator. They ripped the façade off the Obama presidency.

Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in “The Wizard of Oz,” the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there.

It’s all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement.

At the center is a young and talented celebrity whose worldview, we now know, is an incoherent jumble of poses and big-government instincts. His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches.

As the Cowardly Lion would say; “Ain’t it da troot, ain’t it da troot?”

America owes a debt of gratitude to the people of Massachusetts for electing Brown. That one act has the Democrats scurrying like the rodents they are.

The unraveling is fun to watch.

They might pull it together before the next election but I would not bet on it. They will tact to the center but can we trust them after what they did during Obama’s first year in office.

James Carville said that the Democrats would be in charge for 40 years after Obama was elected. At the rate they are going they might not make it a whole two years.

Who knows what will happen? They might change their game plan and get things right. Of course they can always drop back tot heir fail safe position.

Blame Bush.

Related:
FT.com

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “Elections Have Consequences”

  1. Adam says:

    “…the people commenting at that site were happy that Bush was not killed. Not because he was president or any thing other than they were worried that Bush being assassinated in another country would give us an excuse to have another war. They were OK with him being murdered here.

    It’s been 5 years but you’re still lying about that? Give it up. There was not a single comment saying we were “OK with him being murdered here” but there was plenty of fake outrage by yourself pretending that’s what we wanted. I even clarified my statement to fix any confusion. Of course you don’t remember that part. You’d rather just tell lies as usual…

    • Big Dog says:

      It’s all too close for comfort if you ask me. Last thing our nation and the world needs right now is for Bush to get assassinated in a foreign country.

      Last thing we need is for him to be assassinated in a foreign country implies it is OK here and it being too close for comofrt had nothing to do with how close the grenade was but how close it came to him being assassinated in another country. And then this gem from one of the commenters:

      Unfortunately, the result of him being assassinated within the US would be the same. A group of people who most likely didn’t do it would be blamed and Bush’s neocon friends would push another war forward. Somehow the Iranians, the Syrians, or the North Koreans would have been found guilty. Voila! Another war.

      The unfortunate result is not that he would be dead but that it would still result in war even if it happened here.

      • Adam says:

        Regardless of what you think I implied, I clarified my statement to make sure you knew what I meant:

        There is no “veiled message” Big Dog. I don’t want Bush to be murdered anywhere. What part of “I have no hate for the man himself” says I want him to be killed? Good grief…

        But again, you have to leave that part off in order to make the lie stick. Stop lying.

        • Big Dog says:

          I did not say you said it, I said your commenters did and the first quote is what you wrote in th epost and the second is what someone else wrote about it.

          It remains true that commenters at your site were more concerned with where he would have been killed rather than he would have been killed.

          It is true and you are lying about others. You might not have intended to write it the way uyou did but the others who commented made clear what they thought.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “Last thing we need is for him to be assassinated in a foreign country implies it is OK here…”>>

        DAR
        No it doesn’t. That doesn’t follow at all (non sequitur fallacy). It may be that for him to be assassinated here is the “second to last thing we need.”

        What a ridiculous interpretation.

        D.

  2. Big Dog says:

    You are taking it personally as if I said that you were the one. I said those COMMENTING at your site, as you noted in your first comment here.

    They wrote what they did and none of them changed it even after you clarified your comment. And you certainky seem to have hatred for the man despite your assertions to the contrary.

  3. Adam says:

    The page is there for all of us to read and to see how wrong you are. You were making an assumption based on how you read the comments when clearly that sentiment did not exist. You were wrong 5 years ago and you are still wrong now. Stop lying about it.

  4. Adam says:

    “…but the others who commented made clear what they thought.”

    There was one other commenter on that subject other than me and you. I can’t speak for that person but I can speak for myself, which I did at the time. We were not saying it would be OK for Bush to die in the US. Stop lying. The record is there for all to see.

  5. Big Dog says:

    There were several including the second person and Daniel, now who is it that is lying. Surfside chimed in as well. Then let them see and make up their minds. I know what you wrote and I know what the response was. I called you out on it then and I stand by it now.

    • Adam says:

      Daniel did not state any opinion related to the assassination of Bush in a foreign country or at home. His comments, like Surfside’s, were only indirectly related to the topic of the post.

      It was only myself and Smith in conversation and we were not debating anything. You fabricated the whole “debating where the best place for our President to be assassinated” bit and your faux outrage. Five years later you apparently STILL cannot stop lying about it? Get over it. Stop lying.

  6. Blake says:

    All I hear on the talking heads is, “Will O be able to “pivot”?”
    No, I don’t believe he can, for two reasons-
    1)- He is a Socialist, and he hews to that philosophy very ardently, and
    2)- He is a Narcissist, and truly cannot believe that he is wrong- in his mind, he is right, and everyone else who opposes him is wrong.

    • Adam says:

      I love the way you and other conservatives paint Obama as such a narcissist, unwilling to admit he’s wrong despite Obama admitting mistakes several times this year. Now, Bush on the other hand, (you know, the humble Christian man) couldn’t come up with an answer when asked about mistakes but he did finally get around to admitting he’d made a few, after he was leaving office.

    • Adam says:

      I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet….I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

      —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004

      • Big Dog says:

        Of course, it is just possible he was trying to figure out which one was the BIGGEST, the qualifier the question uses. If they had asked in advance he could have decided which was the biggest.