where the writers are
CLINTON ‘96/OBAMA ’12: SMARTS, HISTORY AND A PREDICTION
images.jpeg

We are now into the 2012 Presidential campaign season, full swing. Every election, like every football season, every war, and every economic cycle, like everything else, offers its own perspectives and paradigms. Nevertheless, history remains the single best teacher and predictor. It is the educated guess, the hypothesis of experience, tempered by the as-mentioned “new paradigm” that may or may not be at play. The analyst is of course swayed by his or her biases and political sympathies, but like any good military commander, baseball manager or CIA desk chief, the stench of lies and false hope is the road paving its way to defeat.

 

2008-12 has the particularly seductive attraction of very strong resemblance to the 1992-96 political scenario. However, understanding what is similar and what is not is very instructive in attempting to predict an outcome.

 

President George H.W. Bush won election in 1988 on the strength of the Ronald Reagan years (1981-89). The economy was strong for over a decade. In 1990, President Bush accepted an offer of compromise from Democrat Congressional leaders, and went back on his central Republican promise to “read my lips, no new taxes.” None of that seemed to matter when he led the U.S. to as total a military victory as has ever been recorded; a swift, month-plus roughshod ride over Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s incursion into Kuwait. In June of 1991 Bush had 90 percent approval ratings. The possibility of defeat a mere 17 months later seemed as remote as anything, but this leads to the first political lesson of this theses: never under-estimate the ability of the Grand Ol’ Party to screw things up and rescue defeat from the jaws of victory!

 

The main Democrat contender seemed to be popular New York Governor Mario Cuomo, but he chose not to accept the aggravation. His party offered candidates derided as “the seven dwarfs,” all duking it out while Bush looked Presidential, basking in the glory of Persian Gulf War victory, CIA imprimatur, Chinese Ambassadorial experience, war hero glow, not to mention being a Yalie “Skull ‘n’ Bones” and the starting first baseman in two College World Series. If a BCS-style computer could crank out the most unbeatable Presidential candidate, it was Bush the elder.

 

Bill Clinton emerged. It seemed rather Quixotesque, basically a chance for the young Southerner to gain name recognition for the future. He was a “new Democrat,” of course, who formed something called the Democrat Leadership Council, meant to dissuade voters from the pervasive notion that his party rooted for Hanoi and sat on the their hands while Communism murdered 1.5 million victims in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, 1975-79. This seemed to pale in comparison to the Reagan/Bush combo, who claimed victory over Communism in the Cold War, 1989-91. Of course, if it was all this easy we could have simply accepted Francis Fukuyama’s assertion of the time that Reagan and Bush had won a battle so great it was the “end of history,” and anointed old man Bush without an election. It does not work this way.

 

What happened in 1992 was to the Right a slow motion train wreck, viewed with open-mouthed horror as it happened before their very eyes, all of it in retrospect seemingly easy to stop in its tracks, except nobody lifted a finger to prevent the carnage.

 

First, one of the most reliable conservatives on the planet, Pat Buchanan challenged Bush Eugene McCarthy-style in the New Hampshire Primary. After taking 37 percent of the vote, he had done more damage to a sitting President than any Democrat, or perhaps any Jihadist terrorist, could.

 

Buchanan left the scene, leaving a major broadside. Then Ross Perot (aka, “enemy of America” to the Republicans) ran as an independent. Picking up where Buchanan left off he took almost 19 percent of the vote, most from the Right.

 

His campaign manager, James Carville told him, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Clinton took a normal, mild cyclical downturn after the longest sustained run of success ever, all under Republican stewardship, and told America it was the “worst economy since the Great Depression,” which was like saying Barry Zito is “the worst baseball player since Eddie Gaedel.” The media jumped on the Clinton bandwagon, somehow convinced that since Mr. Bush was amazed at grocery store scanners he was, therefore, the guy pushing stockbrokers out of Wall Street windows in October 1929.

 

The chance that Clinton with 43 percent would have eked out a win over Bush without Perot has been argued but seems far-fetched. It was the last train wreck, one blunder of monumental proportion after another by the lumbering, slumbering Republicans, all handing America to the Democrats. It was a huge win for them. Their feminist wing said a few flyboys getting liquored up and pursuing the feminine charms of women at the Tailhook convention was tantamount to a white male oligarchy run amok. With female radicalists calling consenting sex no different than rape, the Democrats won in both the House and Senate in what became known as the “Year of the Woman.”

 

In this respect, it was the third time in 28 years the Democrats may have felt they were the “winners of history,” emerging with a political mandate so complete it seemed they had returned to the New Deal heyday of Franklin Roosevelt. In 1964 Lyndon Johnson, and in 1976 Jimmy Carter, had orchestrated similar total victories. Clinton was like them a Southerner, and this appeared to be the formula for success.

 

But the Democrats are not a lot better at learning lessons of history than Bush was at enjoying prosperity. Their most liberal and unionist wing always raises the money and generates the momentum necessary to win. They must be paid off. Thus did Clinton make his biggest mistake, which was to suddenly adopt the Leftist views of his wife, Hillary, instead of following his own relatively conservative instincts. After tax hikes, gay-military social engineering, health care and other un-American adventures, he was in deep trouble.

 

Enter Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, which Clinton derided as the Contract On America, a term America disliked to the tune of 54 Republican pick-ups in the House, eight in the Senate, control of Governorships, and victory with a capital V. It was a rebuke of all Clinton and his wife stood for, a slap in the face of gigantic proportions and absolute repudiation of all the Left thought they gained in 1992.

 

Now it was time for the Republicans to get over-confident and return to the theme of rescuing defeat from the jaws of victory. It is here we begin to make comparisons with the modern scenario. The arrogant Gingrich turned the Speakership into a cult of personality, believing the false narrative that Clinton was now “irrelevant.” In late 1995 he forced the Federal government into a shutdown over the budget. The public turned on him. Beginning in 1996, Clinton picked up in the polls and had the GOP on the defensive.

 

Next major lesson: Clinton went with his Southern instincts and governed like a Republican. This creates a strange quandary which, if the public would actually see what is before their eyes would have the result of virtually eliminating the Democrat party. The only time Democrats ever achieve actual success is when they govern like Republicans. The latest example is in California, where Democrat Governor Jerry Brown is threatening to be the one of the state’s best ever Governors by virtue of budget measures that are more Republican than the Republicans.

 

This begs the question, “If the only time government works is when Republican ideas are implemented, why are not Republicans always elected and their ideas always implemented without meddling from Democrats?”

 

Instead, seemingly as if deceived by Satan, untruths replace truth (see: mainstream media), so when actual Republicans implement these good policies, the Deceiver (or CNN) would have you believe instead of “ending welfare as we know it,” the bad old Republicans are kicking grandmas off cliffs. Ah, as Shakespeare opined, “there’s the rub.”

 

Next, we get to the unmitigated good luck of Bill Clinton, the kind of luck a guy might have if he, oh I don’t know, made a deal with the devil or something . . . But let’s forget about that for a second, just as we forget that he and his wife may well have ordered, orchestrated and overseen the murders of any number of Arkansas rivals, thus assuring their rise in power (well, let’s not actually forget it.) For purposes of this lesson let us instead focus first on the world the Reagan-Bush team left Mr. Clinton.

 

First, the Cold War was won. What did that mean? First it meant that the California economy, powered in large measure by the Military Industrial Complex, embodied by Howard Hughes, in the person of companies like Raytheon, Hughes, Northrop, and many others, located primarily on the 405 corridor between the Los Angeles Airport and the Long Beach Naval shipyards, suddenly did not need to build giant weapons of mass destruction to destroy the Soviet monolith. Absent these contracts, many were laid off. The California economy, the most important in the world, faltered badly. The Republicans were literally victims of their own success. Bush would lose the 59 California electoral votes her garnered in 1988. Of course instead of Clinton actually crediting them for freeing one-fifth of the economy in a so-called “peace dividend,” he made it seem as if it was bad, greedy GOP policy. The purveyors of lies (media) happily lied and enough people fell for it, giving Clinton with his measly 43 percent the 1992 election.

 

Oh wait, there is more.

 

Absent the U.S.S.R. and its proxies, “peace broke out all over,” meaning Clinton not only did not need to spend money defending America from the Soviets, he also did not need to spend much money on defense, period. Courtesy of Reagan and Bush, of course.

 

His good luck does not end there.

 

Bush saddled old Bill with a bad economy, right? Wrong. The economy was in full recovery by Election Day, but the media did not wish for America to get the right idea. They reported on it the next day.

 

In 1993, his first year in the White House, a little thing called the World Wide Web made its debut. Al Gore tried to place forth the fiction he “started” it, even though it really “started” in a USC computer lab in 1969 when Gore was still trying to figure a way to spin the fact his Senator dad voted consistently against American blacks for decades.

 

Oh yeah, all those poor techies “laid off” by mean old George Bush because they did not need to make bigger, better bombs to drop on Russia? They all landed on their feet, fueling the Internet revolution that rained a good economy like Manna from Heaven on Bill Clinton.

 

Now, credit old Bill, when Mr. Newt said he wanted to cut taxes, Slick Willie still had enough Arkansas sense to agree. Low taxes and a new economic wonder, perhaps the best windfall since the Gold Rush (only this one featured things called Initial Public Offerings) fueled a world economy and stock market, just in time for Clinton to take undue credit in 1996.

 

Oh, there is still the odd self-flagellation of the Republicans, which in 1996 consisted of Buchanan trying again, in addition to Perot trying again. Now, the affect of these two nefarious figures in 1996 was far less than in 1992, but they sure as heck did not help Bob Dole!

 

So, Clinton, who spent Vietnam loathing military recruiters, dodging the draft, smokin’ pot, growing his hair in the ugliest manner conceivable, and visiting Moscow for the culture, managed to defeat two great World War II heroes four years of each other. Only in America. Go figure.

 

To the extent that God wanted to show His hand, we can suppose Clinton’s Impeachment and subsequent disgrace are wonders to be marveled at. In 2000 we see all that the Clinton’s stood for repudiated when George H.W. Bush’s son defeated Clinton’s successor and philosophy despite the wind behind Al Gore’s sails. We see also the odd turnaround, in that the economy, growing on Inauguration Day, a gift from Bush to Clinton in 1993, was rapidly declining the day Dubya took office in 2001. Funny how this sort of thing seems to happen with the Democrats.

 

We know what happened next, of course. There was 9/11, of which Clinton oddly lamented that he “wished” some 3,000 of our citizens could have died on his watch so he could shed some Ron-Brown’s-funeral-crocodile-tears in an act of false heroism. Then there was the economy, which under Bush was growing until 9/11. Then, after the Twin Towers fell, the economy actually was “the worst since the Great Depression.” Dubya somehow managed, between 2002 and 2007, to orchestrate the most amazing economic rise perhaps ever in America. Joblessness was virtually nil. The Democrats said they were all low-paying jobs (which they did under Reagan when not at the same time saying we made too much money in a culture of greed), which is like saying Henry Aaron was a singles hitter because he’s third all-time. The stock market exploded past the Clinton levels to its all-time peak in 2007, a figure Barack Hussein Obama can only dream about.

 

Then there was the war on terror, which Mr. Obama and the rest of his party tried almost as hard to see us lose as they did in Vietnam, when they made the Cal-Berkeley campus the de facto staging grounds of American Communism. But Bush destroyed the Taliban, killed Al Qaeda until they had to get into their JV roster, made Osama bin Laden irrelevant, and of course took the war to a “place of our choosing,” as he so famously promised he would; a place that was already hell on Earth, systematically drew Jihadists from around the world to this place so they could no longer wage terror on New York, Miami, L.A. or Des Moines, for that matter. . and killed them. The unimpressives said giving some bad guys a bath not unlike Baptism in the River Jordan. or making them look at barking dogs, was torture. Bush and America just laughed at these lies and went on a surge until the war was won, which has not stopped Obama from seriously threatening to lose it all long after it was secure.

 

But Bush was no conservative. He expanded the size of government. His foray with Ted Kennedy into Federal education seems to be a flop, as most government forays into education always end up being. He doled out money willy-nilly to a series of Left-wing causes in a vain attempt to get the unimpressives to like him. They just stabbed him in the back, as is their wont. The sub-prime mortgage scandal (a liberal effort to make people, mostly minorities who can’t pay mortgages, into homeowners) caused Bush to make the biggest Republican mistake since Rutherford B. Hayes during reconstruction. Bush himself actually said it went against capitalistic principles (which would have been like Dwight Eisenhower, for example, announcing, “I think we’re gonna try and fight the Nazi way for a few months”).

 

The timing, a curiously-timed September surprise that gave Obama a shot in the arm just as he fell between five and 11 points behind a couple weeks after Sarah Palin energized the GOP ticket at their convention, was the work of one of the most dastardly men ever to enter the body politic, Barney Frank, but it was John McCain who paid so dearly for it. Worse than McCain’s defeat (he may well have hurt the conservative movement even more had he won) was the fact it opened the door to Socialism, seemingly a carte blanche, a blank check telling Obama the Right had given up, conservatism was over, just spend it all away, man. Which he did. Obama’s raising of the debt in 2009 may have been the single worst thing any politician has ever done to this country in over 200 years, outside of, I suppose, Jefferson Davis okaying the firing on of Fort Sumter. What Obama did was so terrible, so dastardly, and with such far-reaching, Rooseveltian results, that 50 years of Republicans may not ever get us back on our feet. I pray I am wrong. Maybe I exaggerate, but we are screwed because of that man.

 

Politically, Bush‘s Presidency is a mixed bag. His close win in 2000 divided the nation, but he and Karl Rove orchestrated Republican sweeps in 2002 and 2004 that were historically legendary. In 2006, all was given back. This played against a major theme of politics, which is the pocket book issue. The Democrats destroyed Bush’s Republicans despite the fact the economy was simply outstanding at the time. It was the war, stupid. Even when the surge succeeded a year later, it was too late to help McCain, the major proponent of Bush’s strategies. 

 

So this brings us to 2008, an odd conundrum of a year indeed. First we have the Democrat primaries, in which Rush Limbaugh played Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama against each other in something he called “operation chaos,” getting Republicans to vote for whoever fell behind to force them to spend money and eat each other alive. The purpose was to deliver us from Hillary, one of the most hated people in the history of conservative circles. Then Limbaugh and his talk radio mates roasted Obama over the fact he palled around with Bill Ayers, despite the fact Ayers tried to kill cops, soldiers and decent Americans because he found a problem with decency in America . . . all of which apparently Obama thought was a primer for America’s version of the New Man. Or the fact Obama sat in the pews with a “pastor” named Jeremiah Wright who verbally wished that America be damned to eternal hell, which Obama also seems to have secretly agreed with if he actually believed in a God and therefore a hell. Who knows what the hell he believes?

 

But old Limbaugh, who has never really been called out on this, more or less opened the door to this neophyte. McCain wanted nothing to do with the Ayers/Wright oppo research, or the fact Obama’s middle name is Hussein and he was educated in madrassas, and seems to have adopted his dad’s neo-colonial black liberation theology, which is about as un-American as it gets. Obama is the kinda sorta black who seems to think slavery started in America when in fact it was imported here a thriving institution, having thrived for all of human history, until American freedoms ended its sordid practice using our laws on our shores by our hand courtesy of our free will. But I quibble.

 

The point is Obama did win in 2008, and his coattails were long. Again, as in FDR’s years, then in 1964, 1976 and 1992, the Democrats appeared to be the winners of history, a mandate theirs, conservatism a failed theory of the past not to be revived, a sleeping dog unless . . . kicked. Vice President Dick Cheney may have been the first on the Right to see a ray of hope when, in response to Obama’s radicalism, he presciently stated that B.O. might just be the best thing to happen to the conservative movement.

 

So, let us now make the comparison between Clinton (1993-94) and Obama (2009-10), the first two years of both their administrations. There are similarities and differences. Clinton had the benefit of an economy growing before his first day, of “peace breaking out all over,” of a post-Communism “end of history”, and a windfall called the Internet.

 

Obama did in fact inherit a lousy economy from George W. Bush. The fact Obama lies about how bad, using it as an excuse for his inability to fix it, does not change the fact it did suck. That is that as far as that is concerned. In truth it was a cyclical economic downturn that likely should have turned around in late 2009 or early 2010. The sub-prime mess exacerbated it, but Obama’s adding on almost $1 trillion in debt, effectively with the stroke of a pen larding this once-great nation with debt greater than all of human history since Christ walked the Earth, made it what was it is, and he owns it all on his own!

 

Obama did inherit a post-surge Iraq and a War on Terror in which the real hard work was done before he took over, but this is a nasty, rotten conflict that the most jingoistic conservative has a hard time admitting was “worth” the lives of over 5,000 of the greatest young men ever.

 

But the similarity with Clinton is that Obama had to pay off his base (George Soros, unions), just as Clinton did. This forced him to turn a hard left. All turns to the hard left, as if by mathematical construct, become political fecal matter. The difference is that Clinton did not do so by natural endeavor, and was ready to turn right in 1995. Obama is a total liberal, a radical Socialist in fact, and he knows no other way. This brings us to the question of smarts. The notion that Obama is smart is a lie. He in fact has a touch of the dumbass to him. Is this a guy who has read Alexis deTocqeville’s Democracy in America, which Clinton gobbled up along with every other scrap of information his speed-reading, absorb-everything mind could in-take? Obama was reading Noam Chomsky, Saul Alinsky, this sort of drivel. With all due respect, can anybody look at a man who of his own free will chooses to read that and conclude he is . . .smart? I think not.

 

But the respective intelligence of Clinton and Obama plays itself out in far greater ways than a comparison of great books vs. horse manure disguised as paper and binding. Let us recall the 1994 Congressional mid-terms; a Republican sweep so total and glorious, so complete and all-encompassing, as to fuel the notion in Gingrich’s arrogant head that he was now running a nation in which Clinton was irrelevant to the conversation. Clinton, like all smart men, loved to be under-estimated. When you are the son of gangster’s moll who basically slept with Mob boys in Hot Springs in order to “get ahead,” this tends to be your motivation.

 

Obama’s mom did not sleep, as best I can tell, with gangsters. Instead, she offered her lily white self to the black man, the dispossessed of the Third World, the ultimate act of liberal guilt, and told her boy only the black side of him was really good. Her two Muslim husbands dragged the boy to madrassas, one in Indonesia, where God only knows what filth and drivel was inculcated into his brain. At least the Mob boys of Hot Springs were capitalists, as is so rightly pointed out in a scene from The Godfather when one capo offers to Marlon Brando that if he will finance their drug trade he may “present a bill.”

 

But the American side of Clinton, the wheeler-dealer, the capitalist from an Arkansas gambling-and-hooker-ville, is a far cry from the arrogant, upturned-nose, neo-colonialist raised on madrassa lies, only to be loosed upon an America seen by the Muslim world he knew, as the “great Satan.” So it is the young revolutionary enters the private school Punahou of Hawaii (know one knows how Obama got in or who paid the hefty price tag), then Occidental (same story), then Columbia (same story), and then Harvard (same old story). Nobody from these years offers anything about him. We have a photocopied birth certificate. We have a law review editorship replete with no papers or opinions I have seen. We have a Nowhere Man, an Empty Suit. Some say The Manchurian Candidate. With Obama, I do not know, but if the very worst possible thing were suddenly revealed as fact about him, I and millions of others would find no surprise in it. It would be very close to a mass “I told you so.”

 

So now we have the 2010 Congressional midterms.  This on the heels of stunning Republican Gubernatorial victories (Bob McDonnell, Virginia; Chris Christie, New Jersey) and a Senate blowout (Scott Brown, Massachusetts) in 2009-10 special elections, sandwiched in between an impossible-to-believe win by a Catholic Republican in an all-Jew Democrat Brooklyn district that despises Obama’s stance on Israel, apparently because the Right-wing jingoism uttered about Obama, his middle name Hussein, his Muslim father and step-father, simply rings true to their ears!

 

If in 1994 Gingrich orchestrated a blowout of unprecedented proportions over Clinton’s party and policies, then the 2010 GOP tsunami simply was as thorough an ass-pounding as one political philosophy can accomplish over another; an astounding 63 House pick-ups, seven Senate flips, plus huge majorities in Gubernatorial races, state legislatures, and dog-catcher’s elections. It could not have happened at a better time for the GOP, coming in a census year in which their gains have helped make the re-districted 2012 playing field the best possible one for their party, not to mention ensuring that Governors and powerbrokers on their side hold elective office from sea to shining sea. It was, as Acorn Boy announced, “a shellacking.”

 

So Obama is not as smart as Clinton. We know this but see as tangible proof the difference between the way they handled their respective shellackings. Clinton was of the “if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em” philosophy, governing as a de facto Republican and seeing, again as if by mathematical construct, that when Republican policies are implemented, good things happen.

 

We also see Gingrich and the Republican Party willing to help him for the good of the nation, even if it cost them the 1996 Presidential election. Obama, on the other hand, has doubled down, turning radically further to the Left.

 

House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) is no Gingrich. Half his success comes from knowing his limitations. He has played it close to the vest and, in my judgment, history will determine that he played it smarter than Newt did. During Christmas of 2010 and again in 2011, he could have done what Gingrich did in 1995, which was hold out and let the government grind to a halt. It hurt Gingrich and his party, eliciting sympathy for Clinton in 1995-96. Boehner has decided to compromise, to live to fight another day, hopefully a day when there will be a Republican President presiding over filibuster-proof GOP House and Senate, and such fights will be moot.

 

But Boehner has not given Obama victories. Since the 2010 shellacking Obama has seen three poll spikes in his favor. All were when he did things Republicans are known for. In 2010 and 2011 he extended tax cuts. In 2011 he ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, which of course had George W. Bush’s fingerprints all over it. Whenever he does Democrat things, like Obamacare, America looks at it, smells it, and hates it. Time and time again.

 

But these are small, short-term victories. Boehner and the Republicans are determined not to give this character the victories they so abundantly bestowed on Clinton in the 1990s. It can be argued this is a little un-patriotic and partisan. It is partisan, yes, but whatever can be done to eliminate Barack Hussein Obama is as patriotic as the lifting of he flag at Iwo Jima.

 

The press is doing all they can not to let America get the right idea, but the cat is out of the bag. The old days are done. CNN and the New York Times are irrelevant news organizations now. Hollywood is a big ally. The Obama Administration just broke about 35 national security laws in giving Katherine Bigelow everything on the Navy Seals, the CIA and Al Qaeda in order to glorify Obama just in time for the 2012 election, as “Old Man Joe” Kennedy did when he funded PT-109 to hide the fact his son incompetently lost his boat at sea during World War II. Middle America will look at the obvious propaganda and laugh with the same scorn they did at Fair Game, a movie about Valerie Plame that literally drips with lies, or W, a 2008 Oliver Stone embarrassment.

 

Obama has decided to go negative, to spend $1 billion (he will not actually raise that much; there not enough Americans who like him to actually raise it) in order to call the Republicans a “do nothing” Congress, which Harry Truman did in 1948. Truman, of course, had overseen final victory in World War II, hard-lined Joseph Stalin at Potsdam, and was a staunch anti-Communist, the kind of good and decent Presidential qualities Obama does not sniff.

 

It is precisely in doing the opposite of what Clinton did that will be Obama’s undoing, although I suspect he realizes he will get shellacked so bad anyway that he might as well go down guns blazing. Why work with Boehner only to lose anyway? God forbid he should actually preside over good things for America like Gingrich did even while falling on his sword. That is not in Obama’s DNA. He is a spoiled product of a race-extortion world, a post-Civil Rights Movement phenomenon in which the black is a protected fellow propped up above all ability or qualification, ultimately to the terrible, historical detriment of . . . the universal black fellow. A black child born in Birmingham, 1952 ultimately had far greater chances at real success and achievement in America than the poor black born in Compton, 2012, who will be weaned in a world he will be ill-prepared to succeed in if indeed he survives the drugs and gang life that liberals turn a blind eye to. Obama comes from a world in which the Chicago house he lived in, the money he “earned,” the “job” he had (community organizer), are products of Jesse Jackson-style extortion, of money from white corporations under the proviso that they will hold their black marchers from marching. It is a disgusting way to survive unless one has the gift for it, as Obama and his equally give-it-all-to-my-entitled-self wife does. Again, compare this with the young Clinton, always proving himself worthy, overcoming his family reputation, his mother’s varied lovers and flings, until the Mob boys in town sponsored him, sort of a homegrown mole like the Matt Damon character in The Departed.

 

Obama’s job approval ratings spiked to around 49 percent after Boehner “allowed” him a small victory in a two-month tax hike extension, but as with the same deal a year earlier they will fall again. Ultimately, his approval is consistently the lowest for any President at the same period since polling began. His negatives are startling. Something like 15 percent more people say he doesw not dserve re-election than say he does. A huge majority predicts he will lose. Rush Limbaugh flat says if the election is held today he would lose in a “landslide.” He loses to generic Republican candidates. On New Year’s he trailed his likely opponent, Mitt Romney, 45-39. The economy recently up-ticked slightly, but this is a falsity. It is based on seasonal hirings now gone with the new year’s wind. In truth so many have given up the jobless rate is 16 percent, minimum. No President since the Depression has been re-elected with a rate above 7.2, which Obama will never come close to. There is a lot of money waiting to be invested, but the business community, God bless ‘em, are waiting until Obama’s ass is in the rear view mirror before they invest. Obamacare is an albatross around his neck, unspoken of by Obama or his minions. A loser.

 

He may move Hillary Clinton to V.P., a smart move, but not enough, most likely. The attempt to portray a few small foreign policy achievements will be laughed at, pale imitations of bold Republican initiatives dotting the historical landscape.

 

Obama ran as a so-called moderate in 2008, but that veneer has been stripped away. He is an absolute liberal in an America that despises liberals and even liberals run from the term, preferring “progressive,” which thanks to Glenn Beck is quickly becoming a negative, as well. Approxiomately 18 percent of America calls itself liberal, while about 41 percent call themselves conservative. Obviously for Obama to overcome this requires sleight of hand if not downright lies.

 

For the first time since 2004, registration now slightly favors Republicans, a figure that has gone up since their 2010 Congressional sweeps. The South will go solid Republican, whether it is a perceived moderate from the Northeast, like Mitt Romney, or the homegrown Newt Gingrich. Obama has absolutely no hope of capturing North Carolina again. He only has 35 percent approval with whites, and recently word leaked out that he is giving up on trying to get working class whites to vote for him? Think about that for a second and let it sink in. Latinos favor him by 45 percent, down from 67 percent in 2008. Retirees like him at 42 percent, way down from 2008. The young are abandoning him. They may not be running to Romney and the GOP but they are not coming out for Obama, as voters or volunteers. Every demographic trends negative except, apparently, the blacks.

 

Then comes the kicker, the reason Limbaigh may well be on to something when he calls the man “landslidable.” This may be a balancing act, but if Romney is elected he could win 40 states. Romney could win Massachussettss, which went for Brown in 2010. Brown is defending his seat this year. A Republican winner in Massachussetts? Right there, if this happens, call the election, but that is not the half of it. New Jersey, where Chris Christie is popular, could go Republican. If this happens, who is to say a “moderate” Republican (remember Rudy Giuliani and the “Republican” Michael Bloomberg?) could win in the same city that recently voted for a Republican Congressman in Brooklyn.

 

Then take the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida, to name a few of the most important. Ohio is swinging heavy Republican, and is a traditional bellwhether. If Obama loses there he is toast. He is walking a tightrope in which he has to hold many states, all of which are anywhere from tight to swinging solidly against him. Michigan and Pennsylvania have been solid Democrat states recently, but both are absolutely in play. Obama recently did an event in Scranton, Pennsylvania, which favored him like a rock star in 2008. A sparse, unenthusiastic crowd came out. This stuff is happening from coast to coast. Wisconsin voted for a Republican Governor who dismantled unions, then voted against the Democrats campaigning against this policy in a special election. Florida features Marco Rubio, a big favorite and possible V.P. candidate. It seems very unlikely Obama can pick off this state.

 

What about total blue states like Connecticut, California, Oregon and Washington? Well, no Republican is crazy enough to express real condidence, but if the nation smells a Romney landslide, who knows? At the least, Obama will need to spend money and time in media-expensive California and other states defending himself, keeping his campaign out of other vital hot spots. The really bad news is that the Republicans traditionally do not need these states in order to not only win, but win relatively big. 

 

A recent PBS analysis on the Charlie Rose Show was astounding; about seven solid liberals sitting around the old oak table reading Obama’s poltical obituary. They see this uphill struggle just as I do, and guess what, so does Obama and his people. This is why they are preparing not a campaign but a German-style Götterdämmerung, a scorched-earth run. Talk show host Michael Savage fears some kind of George Soros-style October surprise, a false war or crisis, and he well be right, but think about it: is this really what it has come down to with Obama? The nation looks at a TV show like Boss, depictiong corruption in Chicago that would make Satan blush, and they just think Obama, Obama, Obama.  

 

Again, we look at the 2010 midterms. This cannot be ignored. For a President to win a mere two years after all he stood for is repudiated in as blatant a display as occurred in 2010 is too much to ask. The media is doing all they can to hide this pig from view but it stinks up the countryside nevertheless. One cannot discount just how incredible a political achievement it was for Clinton to win in 1996 after losing almost as completely in 1994. To repeat this miracle of political genius is so far from likely as to be practically impossible (although, as mentioned, do not discount the Republicans’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory).

 

But using Clinton from 1994-96 is not the only worthy example. There is of course the other side of the coin, in the form of George H.W. Bush flailing away 90 percent 1991 approval ratings until he lost in 1992. It worth noting that Richard Nixon won 49 states and 62 percent of the vote in 1962, but Watergate was a special set of circumstances that tells us little of the current scope.

 

 

But more to the point, take Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter. In 1964 Johnson and the Democrats lambasted the GOP. In 1965 he signed civil rights legislation which, while noble in the whole, nevertheless was a far-reaching Federal mandate to spend gobs of dough to ensure what the already-fought-over Constitution and Civil War already had achieved. America thought it over-reaching, just like Obamacare, and responded by giving Republicans enormous mid-term gains in 1966. History tells us LBJ’s Great Society was a total disaster, the worst thing to happen to blacks since slavery. The Vietnam War went south, a set of circumstances not reminding of Obama’s situation. Gene McCarthy went after LBJ in New Hampshire as Pat Buchanan did to Bush in 1992. LBJ was so thoroughly beaten he quit in order to grow his hair out like some far-out old hippy in Texas the rest of his days.

 

Most pundits find similarity with Jimmy Carter, a weak President in the Obama mold (LBJ was no weakling). Carter was a product of the post-Watergate/Vietnam malaise that has emasculated Left, creating what Limbaugh refers to as the “new castrati.” Like Obama he swept into office with a huge mandate, his party in complete power, leaving one with another smelly truth: Democrats plus total power equals crap.  Time and time again. The lessons just resound until they rhyme.

 

Carter had a lousy economy, just like Obama. Gold prices soared to all-time high under Carter, as with Obama, a reflex to the acquisition of investment, which America will only engage in whole-heartedly when Obama and Obamacare are no longer there to strangle them. This alone is a factor Obama may not be able to overcome, even if all else were equal, which it is not. Like 2010, Carter was struck by major Republican victories in the 1978 midterms, in particular a Ronald Reagan jewel in California, Prop 13.

 

Oh, yeah, the elephant in the room. For all the talk of Obama’s terrible record, his atrocious anti-American Socialism, his biggest advantage is that he will not face Reagan. He probably will face Romney, who is a fine, competent, highly accomplished man but not without faults. His Mormonism will be used as a scythe against him by a press that saw no problem in Obama’s Muslim childhood. Apparently Romney’s company, Bain Capital, while creating some 100,000 jobs, lost 10,000, which of course of means he created 90,000 jobs. The media will not say this. They will say he lost 10,000 jobs, which is like saying Joe DiMaggio slumped in 1941 because on July 17 he went 0-for-five against Cleveland after a 56-game hitting streak. Obama recently “added” 200,000 “new” jobs, which were mostly season sales employees over Thanksgiving and Christmas, but the media will preside over it as if it was the Sooner Land Rush in Oklahoma (Obama’s America’s more resembles John Steinbeck’s Okie vision).

 

A Republican win is not guaranteed, but one thing is for sure: conservatism is not dead. The Tea Party will come out in droves to retire this fellow, a splendid, clean-up-after-itself movement of patriots who appear only on weekends because they work, made to look even more shiny standing side-by-side with the excrement-laden Occupy foulsters. There will be a huge movement to elect Senators in order to have a strong Republican Executive-Legislative majority that can break up the current gridlock. 15 Democrats are defending seats compared to only five Republicans, and most are extremely vulnerable. New census figures have created GOP-friendly re-districting. The stars are aligned. Basically, it will come down to Romney, who with his movie star good looks and executive style, tall bearing and manner, at the very least is Central Casting’s version of a President. Whether he is America‘s is still wait-and-see.

 

While all is said and done, Obama’s biggest weakness will be his failure to “go Clinton” and work with the Republicans in order to truly fix the economy in 2012. A smart man would not make this choice. 

 

Keywords: