What Does Obama's 2012 Reelection REALLY Mean?
"I Don't Mind A Parasite. I Object To A Cut-Rate One."
Last comment by sebekm 1 year, 5 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

As the Democrats continue to bask in the glow of President Obama’s reelection, it is useful for the rest of us to take stock of the political landscape with a view toward assessing the actual realities of U.S. politics in the future. Many Dems claim that the President's win heralds (at least) a generational dynasty of Democrats in the White House, and a Democratic Party dominance of future elections throughout the country. They base this claim on Mr. Obama's “decisive” electoral vote win in the November 2012 election.

I have disagreed with this premise in several blogs on this here site since last November, and as I was checking out the news this morning, I came across an article by the Associated Press which – I believe – puts the November election results in their proper perspective. IMHO this article highlights important facts about Mr. Obama’s reelection victory, and what it really means for the political future of this country. I have quoted the operative portions of the article below:

Apr 28, 8:50 AM EDT


“WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's blacks voted at a higher rate than other minority groups in 2012 and by most measures surpassed the white turnout for the first time, reflecting a deeply polarized presidential election in which blacks strongly supported Barack Obama while many whites stayed home.”

“Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.”

“Census data and exit polling show that whites and blacks will remain the two largest racial groups of eligible voters for the next decade. Last year's heavy black turnout came despite concerns about the effect of new voter-identification laws on minority voting, outweighed by the desire to re-elect the first black president.”

“William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, analyzed the 2012 elections for the AP using census data on eligible voters and turnout, along with November's exit polling. He estimated total votes for Obama and Romney under a scenario where 2012 turnout rates for all racial groups matched those in 2004. Overall, 2012 voter turnout was roughly 58 percent, down from 62 percent in 2008 and 60 percent in 2004.”

“Overall, the findings represent a tipping point for blacks, who for much of America's history were disenfranchised and then effectively barred from voting until passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.”

“The 2012 data suggest Romney was a particularly weak GOP candidate, unable to motivate white voters let alone attract significant black or Latino support. Obama's personal appeal and the slowly improving economy helped overcome doubts and spur record levels of minority voters in a way that may not be easily replicated for Democrats soon.”

“Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.”

“More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.”

”Whit Ayres, a GOP consultant who is advising GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible 2016 presidential contender, says the last election reaffirmed that the Republican Party needs "a new message, a new messenger and a new tone." Change within the party need not be "lock, stock and barrel," Ayres said, but policy shifts such as GOP support for broad immigration legislation will be important to woo minority voters over the longer term.”

"It remains to be seen how successful Democrats are if you don't have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket," he said.”

“William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, says that in previous elections where an enduring majority of voters came to support one party, the president winning re-election - William McKinley in 1900, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 - attracted a larger turnout over his original election and also received a higher vote total and a higher share of the popular vote. None of those occurred for Obama in 2012.”

“Only once in the last 60 years has a political party been successful in holding the presidency more than eight years - Republicans from 1980-1992.”

For the entire article, see:


The message from the above is clear: The Democrats won the White House in 2012 because of Mr. Obama and his appeal to minority voters. The Republicans LOST in 2012 because they had a candidate who failed to motivate their constituency to go to the polls as they had in the previous two elections. Translation: The Dems won because of Obama. Mr. Obama didn’t win because he was a Democrat. The reelection victory was more about the President’s strong appeal to his personal constituency than it was about social issues or even about the state of the economy.

To me, these circumstances reflect a “once-in-a-lifetime” occurrence where personal traits totally trumped national policy and the state of the nation. Will these circumstances prevail in 2016? Only time will tell, but the answer probably is: only if the Democratic Party candidate can similarly motivate the minority constituency to the polls AND the Republicans field an equally inept and unappealing candidate as they did in 2012.

Is all of this possible? I would say yes – but only if the GOP sits on its hands for the next 3+ years and concedes the White House to the Democrats. Is that likely? I wouldn’t bet on it.

Latest Activity: Apr 28, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by sebekm
Send sebekm a Message
Report Abuse

Blog has been viewed (701) times.

timeontarget commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 13:39 PM

Interesting, I'll read again and post a comment in the morning or perhaps Tuesday, after some thought.

Thanks for posting this.

SportsFan31313 commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 15:00 PM


I believe the Office Of The President Of The United States will be Democratic reign from 2008-2024. 16 years.

sebekm commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 16:09 PM

I know, Sporty. I believe you're wrong.

sebekm commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 17:07 PM

...and here's why:

*The Democratic Party will PROBABLY not have a black candidate running for President in 2016.

*The Democratic Party will DEFINITELY not have Barack Obama running for President in 2016.

*This country will have had FOUR MORE YEARS to absorb the effects of Democratic Party social programs, and will be fully cognizant of the effects of ObamaCare on payroll and income taxes.

*I believe the backlash against these tax increases will be SUBSTANTIAL. Additionally, GOP and Independent voters will be energized in a way not seen since 1980, as they will have had FOUR MORE YEARS of eating manure and being "the loyal opposition."

*No party has held been elected to the presidency for four consecutive terms since FDR. The reason he was elected to his last two terms was primarily because in 1940, he promised to keep the country out of war. (Hardy-har-har.) Then in 1944 the country was unwilling to "change presidents" when we appaeared to be winning the war FDR had promised to keep us out of. We do not currently have those conditions in this country - nor are we likely to in the foreseeable future.

*I assume you are basing your 2008-2024 premise on HRC being President from 2016 to 2024. If so:

--First - she has to show she can win a Democratic primary. She couldn't do it in 2008 against a first-term senator who had no other experience in national political office and who was able to put together a campaign operation that soundly defeated the vaunted "Clinton Election Machine."

--In 2016, HRC will be pushing 70. In the inevitable "beauty contest" that all presidential campaigns eventually become, she will almost certainly LOSE.

--If she did happen to get nominated and elected, in 2020 she would be nearly 74 then - and the country will have had another four years of Democratic tax-and-spend, budget-busting, government-expanding "reign."

As in 1992, the electorate was fed up with three terms of Republicans and - even though it took Ross Perot to make it happen - the country elected (by various accounts) a pot-smoking, draft-dodging, military-hating, saxaphone-playing, extra-marital-womanizing Governor from Arkansas as President. Remember, Bush the Elder's popularity rating after Gulf War I - less than 18 months prior to the 1992 election - was greater than 80%. I repeat: that's a presidential job approval rating of greater than EIGHTY FREAKIN' PERCENT. And less than two years later - after "Read My Lips - No New Taxes" - Bush The Elder couldn't even beat an opponent who didn't win 50% of the popular vote.

A Democratic Party White House "reign" for four consecutive terms? Now that WOULD be one for the history books. But I repeat:

Don't bet on it.

Sheran commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 17:53 PM

Let me put this article up so I can ask, Voter turn out or voter fraud?


JimmyMack commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 19:08 PM

Ah yes, Brother SEbe,....it's in all how we spin it ain't it?

As we now obesrve the centrist Republican life boat regarding Immigrtion polices, here to fore recently rejecetd their 'VALUED' stance and priciples...guess what? They are now coming off of these sanctimonious Culture War Values, so as to enhance their ever dwingdleing constituentcy. They B even coming of the Gay Rights thing they for have so longly endorsed.

Their, (GOP)) platform is being reshaped to accomadate immigrtation policy and for their own Coux De Crax, are now endorsing rigthts to Homosexual unions. O my gosh, i be getting the vapors here on this one.

As the Far riight, Tea partiers, forsake their move to centriism, The GOP will become an non-player in the forseeing years.

Hilliary in 2016= Dem Candidate. Marco Rubio Centirst Republican, and the fractionalized GOP

JimmyMack commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 19:13 PM

fracionalized GoP will do as Mc Arthur did in his kow tow to Trumam...just fade away.

I got 500 dollars on Hillary being the Demo nominee.

YOu want some of this or not?

sebekm commented on Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 at 23:44 PM

It's not spin. Thw basic blog is based upon independent analysis. My comments are based on history. YOU can spin if you want - that's your privilege, and you can gloat - also your privilege. But the only thing settled in the 2012 election was the 2012 election. Nothing else.

I, too, think that HRC will be the Dem nominee - but it's not guaranteed and I don't bet. As a practical matter, it's much less important who the Dem nominee is than what the GOP does over the next three years. If they don't learn from their tactical mistakes and amend their message, it might not matter who the Democrats nominate in 2016 (although Mrs. Clinton is likely the best they have).

The mid-term elections will tell us something about the mood of the country and the GOP strategy. My hunch is that the Dems will suffer the usual losses experienced by the party in power. Shoot - the last I saw the President's approval rating was back down around 45% and headed lower. That's not spin - it's a FACT. But either way - I suggest you save your money for that rainy day, or take the Mrs. to dinner, or whatever. Don't bet. Gambling is a "bad habit," isn't it?

sebekm commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 00:23 AM

Sheran: That's the kind of stuff I saw from the Dems in Illinois all the time. The Chicago Sun-Times ran a slideshow on their site a few weeks back which identified the CONVICTED FELONS who were prominent in Illinois politics over the past 75 years or so. There were more than 100 "stars" of the slideshow - former governors, state senators/representatives, mayors, aldermen and the like - and more than 75% were Democrats. Their political machine gas been "as crooked as a corkscrew" for as long as I can remember. Even the old-timer Dems admit that Daley stole the 1960 election for Kennedy via ballot-box stuffing, deceased and felons voting, and suppression of GOP turnout by union members who patrolled the voting locations. Illinois was the linchpin then, and the entire election was handed to Kennedy based upon FRAUD. (At least in 2000 the GOP let the Supreme Court do their dirty work for them - a much more gentlemanly way to handle things, no?)

I'm not surprised it is still alive and well in Indiana. Ever wonder why it's the Dems who claim that voter fraud is "almost non-existent?" It's because to admit otherwise might trigger REAL reform which would cut into their numbers. Here's another question:

Is it "voter fraud" to buy votes with free cell phones? Or by "advertising" ways to get on welfare or to obtain food stamps? Or by demagogueing Medicare and Social Security, claiming that those "evil Republicans" intend to kill those programs?

I am not now - nor have I ever been - a registered Republican. But I am proud to state that I am absolutely, completely, and totally ANTI-Democrat. My life's experiences have forged me this way just as surely as Lee pounded the Union Army into its defensive position at Gettysburg.

sebekm commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 00:27 AM

(....The basic blog, that is...)

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM

For the record: I ain't a gloatin here bout nothing.

My take on all this is that the forthcoming civil war in the Republican Party for control, will be won by the no-compromise far right Tea Partiers. The GOP will implode as they continue to re-define their core "values". It really doesn't matter who they put up to run UNLESS they can find a Centrist-Conservative Woman. Which by the way does not exist.

Nope Sebe, my man, The core constituency of the Democratic Party will come out to support Hillary, and she will also get an extra boost from an onslaught of women voters from moderates and even Independents who want a Woman to be President.

HRC will be relaxed, tan and ready to run in 2016. Helen Ready's "I am Woman, Hear Me Roar, in numbers too big to ignore..." will resonate nationally to moderates, liberals, gays, hispanics, and asians.

Then the revolution will be complete upon Hillary's election, Ronald Reagan was 69 when he won. Hillary's age will not be a factor. I only see her health possibly being an issue.

What began in the sixties and at Woodstock will be the culmination of what we on the left have fought for for the last 5 decades. We will win the End game and we will have done it incrementally right under the noses of Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh and all the other conservative haters out there.

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Guess who will be campaigning for Hillary and the Democratic ticket? Well, it will be none other than the best campaigner on the planet besides Brother Bill Clinton, one Barrack H. Obama.

We will have a juggernaut that will steamroll the GOP.

sebekm commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM

You have your opinion and I have mine. Remember that it was "inevitable" that HRC would win the 2008 Dem nomination. Did it happen? No.

As for "juggernauts" - I remember the Baltimore Colts in 1968; the New England Patriots in 2007, and HRC in 2008. Anything is possible. BHO proved it in 2008 (and in 2012).

HMJC commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 14:27 PM

The sad reality is the "juggernaut that will steamroll the GOP" is from two individuals that had both terms in office embroiled in conflict and severly tarnished the office of the presidency. Obama was voted for because of skin color period dot. Not because of accomplishments, just good old fashioned skin color. Our country has lost the respect of the world under obama. We can try and blame Bush but you know what? third world zealots knew that uncle George had no issue pushing the button if they messed with the united states. obama continues to practice clinton diplomacy. " Stop, or I will say Stop again" I hope this country gets it or we are going to continue to keep on getting it...

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 16:13 PM

Keep on whinin' fellas. We all need something to hang on to from time to time. Truth be told, once again, the Republican Party is held hostage to the uncompromising Tea Partiers. And get this: they will not allow a moderate Republican nominee to lead the ticket in 2016. I need not tell you, but that dog won't hunt on a national basis and the party will implode. Furthermore, when the new census is completed in 2020 Republican Gerrymandering of State districts will end and doom will be ushered into the Tea party crowd.

Nope: in 2016 we are going to see Hillary become the first woman elected President Of the United States and a final crumbling of hard line conservatism.

I live for that day.

HMJC commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 16:36 PM

As much as I hate to admit it JM, if the current apathy continues you may just be right. Plenty of complaining going on without a whole lot of action attached. Frankly I am tired of our country be viewed as a circus or tragic comedy. The current administration continues to make the office of the presidency a mockery; just like cousin bill did. Until people get off of the couch and do something you just may be right JM. hope not but we will have to wait out...

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 17:43 PM

HMJC: my basic premise is that we are ALL BOZOS on the bus. BHO is viewed as a HERO in Europe and to many of us statesiders the same.

Women are the New Men. It is their turn for a spin at the wheel.

It IS a new world, Charlie Brown and we are moving on and leaving the the Beave and his wailing intransient cohorts behind.

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 17:44 PM

Many thanks to Sebe for keeping the commentary relevant and vibrant.

SportsFan31313 commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 17:52 PM


Please tell me who do you believe out of the Republican Patty that could defeat Hilary Clinton if she runs for office?

sebekm commented on Monday, Apr 29, 2013 at 22:37 PM

It remains to be seen. But I'll point out one thing:

NOBODY gave President Obama a snowball's chance in hell of beating HRC in the 2008 Dem primary. Remember - he was just a former "comunity organizer" whose only experience in national politics was as a first-term senator. And he won that first term primarily due to a sex scandal thst embroiled his opponent. The GOP couldn't come up with a viable opponent to go against him. They even tried to get Ditka (yes - THAT Ditka) to run against him. Obama basically ran unopposed. In the primaries, not much was expected from him against Hillary, who was described as the "inevitable" nominee with a "juggernaut" campaign organization - the Clinton Machine. I don't have to remind anyone how it all turned out. (Just think ObamaCare, tax and spend, and trillions in additional federal debt.) But the point is YOU NEVER KNOW. Just ask Hillary.

Whoever the GOP nominates - in order to have a chance of winning - will have to fire up the ENTIRE Republican base and attract those independents who are looking for any reason to vote for smaller government and lower taxes (and there are plenty of those). One thing the Republicans will have going for themselves is that there will be a huge chunk of the country that will be sick of the Democrats. Just wait until the full effect of the new payroll taxes and increased medical premiums hits home.

JimmyMack commented on Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:26 AM

You are a diplomat of the highest order Sebe. You don't play dirty and you do not fall for baited questions.

AS you know, I am an accident waiting to happen. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I get it wrong. I just see it ALL as a heads or tails thing with little or no chance for the political coin landing straight up showing neither heads nor tails.

I have chosen my side of the coin, win or lose I will always be a Democrat.

sebekm commented on Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:08 AM

....and I love you for it. I truly believe that the essence of adversarial politics is basically just "noise." At the end of the day, WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM. ("Bozos on the bus" is a good way to describe it.) Too often we as a society forget that. To paraphrase Walter Matthau in "The Bad News Bears":

As a country, when we win it's a team win. When we lose, it's a team loss.

We all need to work together to keep the good old U.S. of A a WINNER.

SportsFan31313 commented on Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 at 14:13 PM

Here is something that I'm going to say that will probably suprise you. I am a Democrat. I vote Democratic. I'm neither far left. Neighter am I far right. I call myself moderate, In between.

I am against the new gun law legislations that wS passed in some states, New York being the toughest in the country, thereby hurting and what I believe ( I M H O) law sbudjng citizens. Im hoping that these laws are challenged, and over turned as being as constitutional.

sebekm commented on Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 at 16:49 PM

Sporty - nothing you've said above surprises me. What WOULD surprise me is if you said:

It's NOT the SEC and everybody else.

HMJC commented on Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 at 16:53 PM

At the end of the day it would be nice to have a canidate run that actually has some credentials and a proven track record. We have been playing this guy is not as bad as this guy or lady...for too long.

sebekm commented on Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 at 20:05 PM

HMJC: I agree. Unfortunately, our media thinks its role is to be "king maker." It has its favorites and it tears down its "opponents." In this country for as long as I can remember, the media has been in bed with the Democrats and the GOP was their "enemy." Just think what would have happened if Benghazi occurred just before an election where there was a Republican in the White House. How about if a Republican had been caught on an open mic saying to the Russian premier" "Tell Vladimir (Putin) after the election I'll have more flexibility." Or how about if it had been a Republican administration that had run up 6 trillion dollars worth of debt in their first term of office. Do you think the media would have given them a pass the way Obama has gotten a pass? HELL NO!!! They would have been all over the Republican President like malodorous gas on excrement with a steady drumbeat day after day after day hammering home the foreign relations failures; the surreptitious message to the Russians; the gross mismanagement and spending rampage that ran up more debt than all previous U.S. presidents COMBINED.

No - unfortunately in this day and age, nobody gets far enough along to accumulate any credentials before they are either picked apart by the media or they say "it's not worth it" and they get the hell out. IMHO - the most "qualified" President we have EVER had was Bush The Elder. Just look at his life's "highlights" before he became President. These include:

*Decorated Navy veteran in WWII
*Was a very successful businessman before entering politics (at age 40 he was a millionaire back in the 1960s - when a million dollars was a lot of money)
*Served in the U.S. House of Representatives as a congressman from Texas
*Served as Ambassador to the United Nations
*Served as Special Envoy to China for Gerald Ford
*Served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
*Served as Vice President for eight years on a ticket with probably the most popular President since FDR - Ronald Reagan

Nobody in recent memory was a qualified. Nobody had a higher approval rating during his presidency in the last half of the 20th Century than Bush The Elder. Then came "Read My Lips - No New Taxes" and he gets beat by the aforementioned Clinton, whose "qualifications" I have delineated in my Sunday, Apr 28, 2013, 17:07 PM post above.

The Bottom Line: We The People get to vote against somebody in today's political arena. Society and the media won't let us have it any other way.

HMJC commented on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 at 10:42 AM

It's as if it almost does not matter if you have a successful track record. It is more important to how many special interest groups you pander to. The current administrations lack of overall experience continues to be mitigated by a good feel good speech or a good old fashioned gay immigration gun control bill to calm the waters. JM, I continue to ask, what legitimate success has the current administration accomplished that has been positive for ALL Americans? This cat continues to be like a duck as it all rolls of his back. I want it to be clear that I do not mind change, I do mind change that is not universal and good for ALL Americans. Not just special interest groups.

JimmyMack commented on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 at 11:06 AM

"What legitimate success has the current administration accomplished that has been positive for ALL Americans?"

Well, HMJC, I will have to start with positive success just for some before addressing the BIG ONE for ALL Americans.

BHO has led the fight for gun control legislation.

His Administration has led for immigration reform.

He has supported equality for Gays.

That's just some of the little things.

However, BHO has done what his incompetent predesesor George W. Bush failed to do, and that is keeping America out of any budget busting un-justified Wars that has led to a crushing debt thrust upon Americans.

I know those on the Right get tired of hearing this, but W., the boy king, put this country on the road to insurmountable debt reduction with his unwarranted war against non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction.

And before you lay Health Care Reform costs on BHO, that issue has yet to play out. It may or maynot end up being adjudicated by the legal system as a detriment or asset to the Constitution for All Americans.

SportsFan31313 commented on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 at 13:15 PM

"Sporty - nothing you've said above surprises me. What WOULD surprise me is if you said:

It's NOT the SEC and everybody else.

But it's true Sebe. I kniow it's off the subject, but read this:


It's still true and I stand by my word.
It's still the SEC, and everybody else... :-)

SportsFan31313 commented on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 at 13:22 PM

I know a lot of people hate Georgia, and all the teams who play in the SEC. But I say Like or don't like it, learn to live with it, because it's by far the best football conference going on today.

7 consecutive years of BCS National Championship Appearances.

7 concecutive years of National Championship Football Titles.

The Southeastern Conference:

The NFL Of College Football Today:

sebekm commented on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 at 13:26 PM

The SEC is the best. No question. (I was just pulling your chain.)

JimmyMack commented on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 at 15:24 PM

Lest I forget HMJC: BHO authorized the hit on Osama Bin Laden and continues to kill terrorists with drones without putting our soldiers in harms way.

SportsFan31313 commented on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 at 18:33 PM

Correct Jimmy Mack..

Funkentelecky commented on Friday, May 03, 2013 at 20:10 PM

Chief, I think that part of the reason BHO wasn’t held accountable for his failures is because he is always in campaign mode claiming the Republicans want everyone to breathe dirty air and water and you didn’t build that, yada, yada, yada! He is America’s GREATEST campaigner in Chief and one of its worst Chief Executives; he looks good, talks good with no leadership experience to influence Republicans to work with him in Congress. People forget or don’t even know that congress is an equal and separate branch of government with John Boehner two heartbeats from the President.

JimmyMack, as I said above the President isn’t leading anything or anybody for that matter. The gun control legislation the administration put forward has been rejected by the Senate and its leader Harry Reid. Nothing in the legislation would prevent another Newtown and it would only prevent law abiding citizens from procuring weapons for their own protection because the crooks will always get them.
BHO hasn’t lead in immigration reform, he signed an executive order to allow illegal immigrants to stay and work in the US past their expiration to do so, which was done for political reasons last year; therefore stealing Marco Rubio’s thunder when he was actively drafting a reform bill in the Senate.
Gay’s already have the same rights as you and I. I cannot marry a man if I were available too and neither can you. Marriage is pillar of society that is supported by God, and the basis of a family is voluntary action. Two men or two women can’t produce a child through voluntary action, only a man and women. Therefore what about congress drafting legislation for civil unions which can allow the same privileges as marriage without destroying this pillar of society. This is what a true leader would do instead of being against it, before he was for it for political reasons only of course.

Funkentelecky commented on Friday, May 03, 2013 at 20:12 PM

George Bush is more competent than BHO as the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts passed bipartisanship in Congress. The War in Afghanistan and Iraq passed bipartisanship in Congress with over 70% approval. GWB was a true leader and gained legitimate approval from Congress. Don’t forget Bill Clinton, John Kerry, HRC and a host of other Democrats believed there were WMD and there were they were just moved before we took action. BHO used our military to down Khadafy in 2011 which lead to the Muslim Brotherhood taking over and 4 Americans killed to include a US Ambassador. BHO didn’t get congressional approval and the media let him get away with it. The Benghazi cover up is emerging with whistle blowers that were ordered to be silent. This could be the end for HRC in 2016.

Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are the drivers of our insurmountable debt. The Wars are not and it is allowed by order of the US Constitution. SS, Mc, and Me are not, these types of programs were intended to be run in the private sector. However all were passed by constitutional muster and needs reform now.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said” we must pass the bill to see what’s in it” We don’t like what we see, and if the bill is so Great why isn’t the Greatest campaigner of All Times promoting it?

BHO and most of his followers still blame GWB for an economy he has run for over 4 years; however they don’t give him credit for putting in place the intelligence to ultimately allow BHO the opportunity to execute the action. Thanks BHO for taking action as you should, but a true leader would have given GWB that much credit at least. Remember GWB predicted a future President would get Bin Laden. Bin Laden was killed 28 months within BHO’s Presidency; does anyone really believe it was found all because of him? I don’t think so!

Funkentelecky commented on Friday, May 03, 2013 at 23:26 PM

JimmyMack, on the Gay rights. "If we were available and wanted to; even though we're not in both cases.

sebekm commented on Saturday, May 04, 2013 at 15:00 PM

Funky: We won't be able to fully gauge the Obama presidency until we're at least 10 years away from it. But it's interesting to note that Dubya's approval rating has gone up dramatically since he left office. It is now at a 7-year high (47%). IT'S ALMOST FIFTEEN PERCENT HIGHER THAN IT WAS WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE IN 2009. See:


What does this mean? Does it mean that all of those Democrats or lefties are starting to appreciate the Bush presidency when they compare it to the Obama presidency? According to the above cited article:

"Bush’s biggest gains over the past few years have come among seniors (30 percent approval in 2008, 57 percent approval today), non-college whites (34 percent in 2008, 57 percent now) and moderate/conservative Democrats (10 percent in 2008, 33 percent now)."

Those who regularly visit here; who read my posts; and who have a good memory will recall that I predicted this trend when Bush left office lo these 4+ years ago. (Is that's all it's been? Sure seems like it's been LONGER).

Let's see what WE THE PEOPLE think about the Obama presidency when we've had about 10 years of ObamaCare, increased payroll taxes, and the robbing of various federal "trust funds" in order to pay for Obama "initiatives."

My prediction: Mr. Obama's approval rating 10 years from now will be LOWER than Dubya's.

JimmyMack commented on Saturday, May 04, 2013 at 18:15 PM

yada, yada, yada...guys. There is NO going Back. We only have now. The future is yet to come. And thru my particularly prismd glasses I see a forth coming Republican debacle of the highest order....with the Tea Partiers winning out. Moderate, or Independent cannot BE Republicans anymore. Nope. The Tea Parties will move 'the party' further to the right thus ushering in 4-8 more years of Democratic Oval office occupancy.

Dem's da breaks, guys!!!

sebekm commented on Sunday, May 05, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Everything old is new again. There is ALWAYS "going back." If it's not in one form, it's in another. People change their minds and see the error of their ways. Abortion wasn't always the law of the land. It may not be again - especially when more of the horror stories like that which is currently being suppressed by the media in the case of Kermit Gosnell come to light. See:


As I pointed out yesterday - not only has Dubya's national approval rating increased by nearly 15 percent since 2009, but OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING IS NOW LOWER THAN DUBYA'S! See:


And the latest news reports I've seen on ObamaCare have prominent Democrats describing it as a "trainwreck" and expressing their concern that it will not only strengthen the GOPs hold on the House in 2014, but also give the Senate to the Republicans and make them much stronger in their challenge for the White House in 2016. See:


(Also - I am on the record in these here blog pages as saying ObamaCare would NEVER be repealed. The way things are going - I may have been wrong.)

Further - the Benghazi incident is about to explode into the news as whistleblowers reveal a high-level Obama administration cover-up of the real facts leading up to the November 2012 presidential election to preclude the strong negative impact it would have had on Obama's reelection.

See: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-...

Remember - if only slighly more than 2% of the electorate had voted for Romney instead of Obama, we'd have a Republican in the White House today. And also remember - quite a few officials testified UNDER OATH about what they new and when they new it re: the Benghazi terrorist attacks (yes - now they're admitting it was terrorism). These include HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. I expect the GOP to be all over this issue like malodorous gas on excrement. If it is proven that Mrs. Clinton lied under oath (a family trait?), all bets are off on the "inevitably" of her nomination by the Dems for President in 2016.

Yes - it will be interesting to watch the news over the next year or so. Very interesting. It's also good to know that we - you, Jimmy and I - will be here to debate the issues.

No going back? I wouldn't bet on it.

JimmyMack commented on Sunday, May 05, 2013 at 13:07 PM

I hope that I will be here Sebe. Israel just hit Syria again. Jordan is bursting at the seams with Syrian Refugees, and Iran is playing their Hezbolla card. I also think BHO might authorize cruise missle strikes on Syrian air fields thus crippling their air force.

sebekm commented on Sunday, May 05, 2013 at 14:43 PM

I hope they do something. Mr. Obama famously declared his "line in the sand" (chemical weapons) awhile back and has now retreated once the use of chemical weapons was confirmed. It was fodder for the talk shows this morning - i.e., what does it do to our "credibility" in the region? Most said it will only further embolden Iran as a demonstration of why we are a current day "paper tiger" But I understand our position: Obama was elected to get us out of wars - not to get us into them. This is the same situation as Nixon in 1968. As a 18 year-old who - as unlikely as it seems - frequented the business/fraternal organizational banquet circuit (Kiwanis, KofC, etc.), I still remember the comments of dyed-in-the-wood Democrats IN CHICAGO who voted for Nixon saying: "I hope the hell Nixon can get us out of Viet Nam." (It's no wonder LBJ threw in the towel 8 months before the election.)

The only thing certain about the future is uncertainty.

sebekm commented on Sunday, May 05, 2013 at 14:44 PM

...er...ah...must have been a Freudian slip. I meant to say "dyed-in-the-wooL" Democrats....

sebekm commented on Monday, May 06, 2013 at 12:42 PM

The Benghazi Caper Expose' - it has begun. Hearing starts on Wednesday with three high-level State Departmet whistleblowers:


JimmyMack commented on Monday, May 06, 2013 at 15:11 PM

Yes, Sebe, but in this day and age of 24-7 news with bombs going off in streets, the mid-east on fire, Tsunamis devastating whole populations, melting down of nuclear plants....the Benghazi thing will get its 15 minutes but thats all.

sebekm commented on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 at 11:46 AM

It's 15 minutes starts today on C-SPAN. And the question of the day will be:

"What did Mrs. Clinton know - and when did she know it."

Kind of poetic justice and deja vu all over again, dontcha think - since HRC was a congressional aide during the Watergate Hearings when Howard Baker uttered those famous words.

And BELIEVE IT OR NOT: The Dem dirt machine is primed to slime the whistleblowers, as they struggle to preserve Mrs. Clinton's "inevitability" in 2016:


And the mother of one of the slain at Benghazi specifically blames Mrs. Clinton for the death of her son:


And one of the usual suspects - Senator Lindsey Graham of SC (where the GOP won a special election victory yesterday that kept the wife of another comedian out of Congress) claims "the dam is about to break":


And a former U.N. Ambassador opines that The Benghazi Caper could "bring down the Obama administration." (Wishful thinking I'm sure - but who knows? Haldeman, Erlichmann, Mitchell and Nixon didn't think they'd go down the tubes early on either):


I think there's a lot more to this one that meets the eye, Jimmy. I've thought so since the incident, and it's what I've been referring to (besides her health) when I've said that anything can happen before 2016 to make HRC's "inevitability" not so much. The Republicans believe (with subtantial basis) that the Slime Machine did in their candidate in the last presidential election, and an important maxim of politics is to give as good as you get.

After all, that's The American Way, isn't it?

sebekm commented on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 at 11:49 AM

(...oooops..."the dam is about to break" link is here:

http://freebeacon.com/graham-i-think-... )

sebekm commented on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 at 12:25 PM

...but in the end, I'm sure that these "15 minutes" will be nothing more than just another "vast right wing conspiracy"....

Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by sebekm
Political Potpourri
August 13, 2014
As they say on Bret Baier’s “Special Report” program, “here are a few pickings from the political grapevine”: *It appears that the media is finally beginning to turn and get tough on President Obama. Last week the Washington Post – liberal bastion and investigator of all things Republican – chose ...
Read More »
ObamaCare Update
August 13, 2014
In case you missed them – here are a few headlines regarding ObamaCare from earlier this month: *”Barney Frank: They “Just Lied to People” About ObamaCare That’s right – Barney Frank, Democrat and former long-term congressman FINALLY made this admission in a recent interview with the Huffington Post: “The rollout ...
Read More »
Want To Have The (Absolute) Last Word……
August 06, 2014
…and have some fun with it? Write your own obituary and make it humorous and self-deprecating. That’s what Kevin McGroarty did. He wrote it when he knew the end was near, and all the newspaper had to do was fill in the date. Here it is: “Obituary Kevin J. McGroarty ...
Read More »
One Reason Our “Do Nothing Congress” Does Nothing
August 06, 2014
Much has been said about GOP “obstructionism” – particularly as it relates to President Obama’s liberal agenda. It’s clear that as far as Republicans are concerned, President Obama NEEDS to be obstructed. But little has been said or written about Democrat “obstructionism.” Yes – that definitely exists as well, and ...
Read More »
Obama’s “Legislative” Strategy
July 30, 2014
According to our Constitution, the Congress is supposed to MAKE the laws; the President is supposed to “faithfully EXECUTE” the laws, and the Judiciary is supposed to INTERPRET the laws (in a constitutional and legislative context). But now comes our President who believes his oath of office is not to ...
Read More »
[View More Blogs...]

Powered by
Morris Technology