It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Obama hoping for a Republican landslide?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Could this be Obama's master plan; let the Republican's win in '10 so he can blame them for all the country's problems and propel himself into a 2nd term in 2012?


Why Obama wants Republicans to win in November

With his stunning decline in popularity and notorious inability to take criticism, Obama has sunk to absurd depths in search of a suitable scapegoat. He has attacked Fox News and Rush Limbaugh by name – and Sarah Palin because she happened to Twitter something critical. He has maligned voters attending town-hall meetings and rallying at tea parties. His Homeland Security Department has warned that pro-lifers, citizens with NRA bumper stickers and even soldiers returning home after defending their country all may be dangerous "extremists."

Although his efforts to affix blame on the citizens of the United States themselves have been ineffective, as reflected in Obama's falling poll numbers, help is on the way.

Once there is a Republican majority in the House (and perhaps in the Senate as well), Obama will come alive again. He will stop taking wall-to-wall vacations. He will blame the Republicans at every turn, in every speech, at every opportunity – sometimes hot, sometimes cool, but always confident and energized.

We'll behold once more the passionate, charismatic Obama who mesmerized stadiums full of people and caused the faithful to swoon and faint during the 2008 election season. He will demonize, chastise and rebuke the evil Republican Congress for attempting to re-impose on America "the failed policies of the past" that caused all the terrible crises he "inherited."

He will be enjoying himself again, doing what he does best – castigating and ridiculing sensible and competent people, while holding out hope for a better tomorrow if we'll but follow him, the least competent president in history.

Then, when the 2012 election season arrives, with all his political skills employed at their highest level, Obama will prodigiously attempt to leverage the friction between him and the Republican Congress into a second term in the White House. As Charles Krauthammer wrote recently: "For Obama, 2010 matters little. If Democrats lose control of one or both houses, Obama will probably have an easier time in 2012, just as Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the Republicans as the foil for his 1996 reelection campaign."

WND


You know that the MSM would stand behind him 100% in his attempts to blame the Republicans for everything if they gain power. If he manages to pull this off, that would spell the end for this country.

Unless of course, a REAL 3rd party option emerges to toss both parties out on their fat smelly behinds.


edit on 9/22/10 by FortAnthem because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

I think it is the end of the two party system.

Both the Dems and the Repubs have shed voters like no other period in history. Look at the numbers of recent polls on the way voters are calling themselves nowadays. 6-10 years ago I would have called myself a Republican, even though I knew they no longer stood for limited government.

I think the death throes for both the Dem and Repub party could not come quick enough. Time for Constitutional governance be reinstituted.

Heck, even Misoir's favorite countries to point out as the socialist utopian ideals, are moving toward smaller government.

Anyway, I hope a reinvigorated Tea Party/Constitutional/Libertarian pushes us into the future. We have seen where a hundred years of progressives in both parties have brought us. Federal Reserve. Individual Income Taxation. Foreign entanglements. Globalization. Wealth redistribution to other countries. Police of the world. etc. etc. etc.

The government that governs the least, governs the best. Constitutional government, common law courts to enforce non infringement of rights, solid currency. Just a couple things we need to reinstate.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I'm so glad you can use me as an example.


And actually I have combined my Libertarian positions with my Socialist positions. I have realized that government is bad and so is the capitalist class, the capitalist class owns the government and together they own everyone and create a perpetual serfdom. The only way to break that cycle is not more government or 'State Socialism' but rather 'Socialism from the Bottom-Up'.

Such as Workers Councils which allow the workers to keep everything they earn and there will be no more hierarchy and the only people who run the 'business' are the temporary people democratically elected by the workers themselves and they will not interfer in the wealth that the workers create for themselves. If you work more you earn more, but the earning power will be based on the danger of the job and its contribution to society, not how much the job can take from others.

No Centralized state planning like the Soviet Union had where the Capitalist class is replaced with the State class which keeps the hierarchy in place and keeps the workers oppressed.

"I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition." ~ Eugene V. Debs


edit on 9/22/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


yes fort he is another piece of the pie is that not one democrat is running on the healthcare bill and they are now trying to pass it off as republican ideals.

there is not one democrat that will take any credit for the hcr not one! and that is very telling it means that monstrous bill is pure evil and they know it and they are trying to distance themselves from it.


with the republican victory in november its a win win even those its a small loss for the simple fact the left will attack the right non stop 24/7 for two years.

and with the anger focused on the right instead of the left and will solidify his second term and the house and senate go back democratic and then we will be back to right we started.


edit on 22-9-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I don't really think so.......could he possibly blame the republicans more? I'm actually surprised he hasn't blamed the hurricane hitting mexico on them, as they are all racists and hate mexicans. I don't think he's hoping for it, but I think he is resigned to it, and planning even more nonsense to blame upon them.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
double post


edit on 22-9-2010 by adifferentbreed because: double post



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Could this be Obama's master plan; let the Republican's win in '10 so he can blame them for all the country's problems and propel himself into a 2nd term in 2012?


I was wondering if this was Bush's plan actually,

the strategy works



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I never looked at it that way. Given the voting sheeple's short term memory this a smart way to place the blame back on the Repugs in '12. I usually vote for a third party candidate if I like their platform, however I do not think the US voting population will ever support a third party member. Look at it this way, a significant portion of the voting population places their vote on who they think will when because they do not want to vote for the looser, regardless of their platform.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


No, not using you as an example, your pointing out the Scandinavian countries.

You have heard of the move in their political alignment haven't you?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Interesting. I had speculated, elsewhere on ATS, that was the reason the Republicans had propelled such a weak candidate as John McCain, in '08. It was obvious we were in for some trying times, and they didn't want to be in charge.

I hope the voters are catching on to the stupid games of politics. No incumbents in '10 or '12 would send a message. An even better one would be no R's or D's, period.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Everyone forgets that Bill Clinton won both times because of third-party candidate Ross Perot. Bill never took 50% of the popular vote. Unless a third-party candidate runs BHO is history. Frankly, in my opinion, BHO is so lazy that he'll look for an excuse to leave office and not run a second term (has he done anything for 8 straight years?).

Plus with the Republicans in the House, the Administration will be tied up with government oversight committees and frankly, the less government does on our behalf, the better.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bowlbyville
...the less government does on our behalf, the better.


I agree, 100%. As a matter of fact, my first attempt at a thread on ATS, addressed that very topic. It didn't get any attention, though. But, if you're interested, it's here



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Could this be Obama's master plan; let the Republican's win in '10 so he can blame them for all the country's problems and propel himself into a 2nd term in 2012?




Interesting. I make the exact opposite argument in this thread:

The 'Right' may benefit from NOT re-taking the House



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems to me that the Republican Party may not actually take back very many seats this fall. And it also seems like NOT winning may very well serve them quite well. It allows the Republicans the comfortable position they now enjoy where they can make all sorts of empty, even absurd criticisms without offering anything concrete or substantive to the conversation.

In their current position, the Republican Party, the "Right" wing of US politics gets to sit back and enjpy the privilege of minorty party status. Why would they want to give this up? The country is in some seriously bad places. Our economy is on the brink, the entire world economy is having serious issues. And, more importantly, the US and the whole world are on the precipice of major shifts in standards of living, access to resources, a predictable climate, etc etc etc.

Any government who finds themselves 'in charge' (that is, the perception of control) during a time of crises will take the blame in the Public's mind. If the Republicans win back enough seats to have some SAY in the direction f things, then they will become complicit. Do they really want that sort of complicity when the people at the top of the Party KNOW the direction things are heading?

I tend to think that actually losing (or, losing in comparison to the over-hyped predictions of total victory) may help continue to foment this sort of social conservative rage that is building. TO harvest that rage now might be premature. Why not let it build for another few years when they can try and take both the White House and Congress? And why not help ensure the success of that takeover by keeping the pressure cooker going, and making sure your party can continue to play the "NO" tactic of a minority party?

a related article:





“Tom Donohue, the powerful president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who has vowed to spend more than $75 million on key House and Senate races, has privately told colleagues in recent weeks he believes Democrats will just barely hold on to the House majority. Two sources familiar with the conversations said Donohue has privately said he’s gone over every single key race in the House, and he believes Republicans will lose a few seats—losses he believes they don’t see coming—because it is more of an anti-establishment election than an anti-Democratic election.”


Sources: Business lobbyist not so sure GOP takeover a done deal



edition.cnn.com...


edit on 22-9-2010 by justadood because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join