.

If Only The Real World Wasn’t So Real …Obamaland Might Be OK

Has President Obama earned a second term based on his record, or is he taking the Country to Obamaland?

The conventions are over and the critical debates are looming just ahead. Election Day, so far off when the campaigning began, is now less than two months away.  Partisans of both parties have hunkered down and dug in – they have known that they are either voting for President Obama - or not for Obama - for at least a year. Is there anyone left out there without an opinion?

Every day there is the daily dose of new polls, followed by the droning analysis of store-bought “experts” explaining what Obama or Romney must do to win.  The discussion is always the same – who is winning, but not, “What if they do?”

This election is a referendum on Barack Obama, first, last and only.  Four years ago he was a new and charismatic figure with the soaring rhetoric and historical significance.  For the majority of voters, what was there not to like about a fresh new face and “hope and change,” after nearly 8 years of war and a financial meltdown?  Four years later, however, we know much more, and should be all the wiser for his record, you know, “Fool me once …etc.  We now know all too well that “hope” is not a strategy for governing, and the “change” was far more extreme than most people would have knowingly voted for. 

For many, and hopefully for most of us, there is little clarity, and less reason, as to why Obama has earned a second term.  There is, however, genuine concern about the harm a second term would inflict on America. Like Clark Griswald’s misdirected route to Wallyworld, Obama has created a similarly misguided path to “Obamaland,” filled with distracting sideshows, disconnected from his disappointing record or the failed promises he made to get elected. Obamaland, it turns out, is more about campaigning than governing, blaming not leading.  While even Republicans enjoy an occasional trip to the fun house, we live in the real world, and in the real world America needs governing and leadership.

So let’s take a peek into the future and ask if staying with Obama is the best real world course for America:

  • One thing we know is that Obama believes that he’ll have more “flexibility” after the election when he no longer has to face the voters.  He actually whispered this to Russia’s President Medvedev next to a live microphone. Has anyone wondered/worried what this means to the Country he is entrusted to lead?  Doesn’t that make you feel that your quarterback is signaling the next play to the defense?
  • Obama will very likely continue to make Don Quixote proud by chasing after as many windmills as our tax dollars will squander, and our National debt can withstand, hoping that at least one company remains solvent.  However, the Keystone Pipeline will most likely remain out of bounds, fracking will be ruled environmentally unacceptable by the EPA, and no drilling permits will be approved to American companies in the same Atlantic Ocean that Obama has loaned billions of dollars to Brazil to drill.  As a result, America will continue to import foreign oil and send billions of dollars to Countries that do not like us.  Is this what most Americans believe is best for America?
  • Due to Obama’s Mid East policies, more US Embassies will likely be at greater risk around the world, leading to even more tragedies and hostage taking.  How can this be otherwise?  Obama’s offer to the Muslim world for a new beginning has been largely ignored, or interpreted as weak. By his holding back in Iran and Syria, “leading from behind” in Libya, and repeatedly giving Israel the back of his hand, Obama has created a power vacuum. It’s difficult not to have the feeling that the Muslim Nations are consciously dedicated to fighting us, despite billions in foreign aid payments from the US, while we are trying to deny we are in a fight.  Naïve? 
  • And, what happens when there is even the slightest turmoil in the Mid East?  Oil prices increase.  And, since the dollar is the international trading currency of oil, as the Fed continues to print money and deflate the dollar’s value, the price of oil will only rise even higher due to our monetary policy.
  • Accordingly gasoline prices, already more than double under Obama, will continue to move even higher, hardly a positive prospect, but that may be the “good news”. The worse news is that higher oil prices will increase the cost of fertilizers and transportation, raising food prices, and oil-based products.  Lack of job growth and lower disposable incomes will prolong the recession, further stress family budgets, and likely send millions more people to welfare and food stamp offices, raising the numbers of government dependents even higher.  None of this is positive.
  • Retribution is an ancient business in the Mid East.  What can be expected from Muslim militants in reaction to the chants of the Democratic Party’s recent  brag-fest, (e.g., Kerry’s “Ask Obama if he is better off than he was four years ago,” Biden’s “binLaden is dead and GM is alive,” Clinton’s post-Khadafi comment, “We came, we saw, he died”?)  Even in the America that Obama chastised for being so arrogant, have we ever before heard such incendiary, wrong-headed bravado – arrogance - from our leaders? We must hope that Homeland Security tightens our borders and security process.  Will Obama/Holder be finally inspired enough to make this happen?
  • The rising cost of social programs, without a corresponding responsible plan to pay for them, will continue to expand the National debt. Is Obama sufficiently concerned by the downward credit rating magnitude of his growing debt, and it’s crippling effect on future generations? Or, is it enough for him to continue to demand tax “fairness” (code for class warfare), as if “the so-called wealthy,” and not the shrinking workforce or his policies, are the culprits?

Obamaland is a giant step toward a 21st Century Utopia, a concept that has been tried and failed since the days of Plato.  Is this what we want America to be?  Is this what’s going to provide peace in our homeland, and prosperity to more people.  Is this the kind of society upon which our Nation was founded?

In my view, for the above reasons and others – like the expanding outreach of government and the higher costs and effects of Obamacare, four more years in Obamaland will be incalculably harmful to the future of our Nation, and our children’s children’s children who will inherit Anerica.  I certainly expect the “usual suspects” to disagree with me as they always do, but since this most significant election is about what we want America to be, we would all benefit if different voices from the ranks of the Unenrolled spoke up. 

As always, I look forward to your comments.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jim Hatherley September 20, 2012 at 01:48 AM
Dennis, thanks and I have to say that you are a real curiosity to me. You raise questions, I respond honestly, then you chide me for whatever and you remain where you were when the process began. So, you might imagine that some of us Republicans actually converse with one another about the issues and what we woul like to see our candidates do. For many of us Mitt was too unspecific for too long. Now, through the fates he had not planned he is where he is - and where some of us should be all along - making people ask the question, "What do you want America to be?" Sound familiar? I think this is about the best I can do for you. Good luck and all the best.
Ron Goodenow September 20, 2012 at 02:31 AM
Jim, thanks for agreeing with me on one part of what I wrote about; I'd like some answers on some of the others. I hate to say, but otherwise all I see very often is the party line in your positions. Not really independent conservative thought. This all said, I believe that your posts offer the opportunity for civic dialogue and, by and large, some of us 'angry liberals' or whatever we are notwithstanding, like to debate. I would be curious to know who your favorite Republicans have been and who influenced you as you began your quest to think and talk about politics? I can tell you I enjoyed Eisenhower (one of my all time heroes who would gag on military involvement and spending today), Barry Goldwater (who I spent a fair amount of time with; he was a bit off the wall on some things, but a wonderful person), Nelson Rockefeller (whose campaign I chaired on a university campus where Dick Cheney was one of my students -- earnest feller), and even Ronald Reagan, who was infinitely more sophisticated than the current crowd of red state bible thumpers, women haters, and no-tax me folks. One of my intellectual heroes was Wm F Buckley, who would throw up on this crew today. I subscribed to the Nat Review for years and years. All of these people understood the relationship between theory and practice. Today we get theory from eggheads like Ryan and practical nonsense from Romney in the guise of 'fiscal responsibility', and who remains a guy in a tin suit as far as I'm concerned.
Jim Hatherley September 20, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Ron, I think you are offering me faint praise - even if I attempt to put out thoguhtful essays that I at least feel are pretty creative. Nevertheless, your question takes us far adrift the topic of the blog. Somehow I keep hoping for more people to tell me what they want America to be because that is what the discussion must be about in this election. I mentioned JFK in a recent piece as my first political hero. He was young and from Massachusetts and i was younger and from the same place. The ramifications of his assassination have not been fully enough explored. I have had only one other political hero - Ronald Reagan, which can hardly be a surprise. Both Kennedy and Reagan made me believe, a quality not present in Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter or Bush 1. I loved the resolve of George W, but realized that he was flawed, not altogether of his own making. Clinton squandered his Presidency - he should have been so much more, and I keep wondering why Democrats admire him as much as they do. I have described Obama as all hat, no cowboy. A disappointment to me. Over time the Parties have become one dimensional. 50 years ago each party had liberal and conservative wings - now not so much, which is part of the problem with governing because voting out of lockstep with the party leader is a career ender. One of the reasons I like Romney is the expectation that as a moderate he can work with the parties to create practical solutions. We need this now.
Ron Goodenow September 20, 2012 at 03:07 AM
I think that blogs offer the opportunity to spread wings a bit and your response is interesting. I was pretty much a Republican until I watched the Nixon-Kennedy debate, saw how JFK handled the Cuban missile crisis, photographed him in a parade in Laramie and then, when he was shot, hitch hiked over a thousand frigid miles to be with my now wife and friends for hours and hours of talk. I admired some things LBJ did, but was infuriated by his Vietnam policy, which I was lucky enough to study with the help of the Marines as the war ended. To me Clinton handed the election over to Bush with his Lewinsky nonsense and dissembling, though what transpired on the GOP side was equally stupid. But Clinton and Newt cut their deals and all triangulated. In my mind compassionate conservative Bush, who was asleep at the pre-9/11 switch, was taken over by Cheney and crew, and we went down a path to disaster and a party that began to depend too much on its Southern base and no-tax mantras. There is more than ample blame to go around on the economy, banks, and foreign policy, which I feel has been a bi-partisan catastrophe. Not surprisingly I like some things Obama has done in the health care area, where I worked for many years (thanks Mitt), but am horrified by some of his civil liberties positions (torture, habeas corpus). Pay attention to Gary Johnson. He may be a nail in the Romney coffin out west. Smart guy with good libertarian and foreign policy positions. Flexible of mind.
Paul Gentile September 20, 2012 at 03:10 AM
Romney has demonstrated some willingness to bipartisan solutions ... for sure. But, I see a man who is also capable of holding the line. I think that's dangerous. He's an ideologue in his spiritual life but I do not see that heavily influencing his political decisions. That, in and of itself, is admirable. He's also a strong businessman and to succeed in business, you have to be able to work with people. But, standing at a podium and espousing that 47% of the nation is lazy is just plain ignorant. So, if he's capable of doing that, it scares me what else he might do if placed in the oval office. I have no such fear of Obama. Also, Romney's indignation and arrogance in London and over simplification of the affairs in the Middle East was so disrespectful and lacking of character. It did nothing to help the situation. I'm still on the fence. By the way, I want America to be what it was always intended to be - “The land of the free”. I wish we had a lot more Monroe Doctrine in us these days and a lot less capitalism. There is a lot to be said for social medicine and also for small government ... contradicting ideas as they may be. I wish the American public could be less provincial and more responsible. None of this patriotism in the wake of disaster crap, we need every day patriotism. If you see a soldier in a Dunkin' Donuts, but them a cup of coffee!
Jim Hatherley September 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Good morning, Paul, and yes, America is complex and our problems are complicated. Forcing ideology down the throats of the Country does not work because too many constituencies get left out - it's why we need more centrist governing and gradual policy shifts. Even Romney admitted that his language was in artful in discussing the current political-economic system in America today, just as Obama was in artful in smearing those who bitterly clung to their guns and Bibles in 2008. But the larger picture is that one Party has spent decades creating hyphenated groups, convincing them that they had been victimized by society instead of urging them to be responsible to pull themselves up and make the most of what they could be, while paving the future way for their children. When more people are dependent on government than contributing to the commonweal we are done. So, yes, I agree that we must proudly present America as the land of the free, not diminish into the land of the fee stuff. We need a leader. We need bi-partisan governing. We need to change the direction that we've been headed down for too long. Yes, no candidate is ever going to be perfect - heck, even our most popular leaders scarcely get above 55% of the vote. You are quite obviously an intelligent and informed person, Paul. That you are on the fence should tell you something that you apparently already know. Enjoy the day.
FindBalance September 20, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Ron - Let's clarify... Neither R's nor R policies wrecked our country. D's a-la Barney Frank and Chris Dodd policies of lending money to people who could not afford to pay them back and backing that with govt guarantees is what wrecked our country. And a big part of the responsibility to oversee "Wall Street" falls on the House and Senate Finance Committees, which were chaired by Frank and Dodd in the years leading up to the economic meltdown. If anything, R's were guilty of listening to Frank and Dodd. Plus, Pres Obama and the D's are continuing to push loans to people who cannot afford to pay them back, and there is still nothing to prevent Wall Street from overleveraging assets (which led to the amplification of the economic meltdown), not even the Frank/Dodd law.
Ed Bertorelli September 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Jim H. how about doing a blog on Lizzie and Traveler's Insurance ?
Max Walker September 22, 2012 at 04:21 PM
How the moochocracy works: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain---the-entitlement-society
Jim Hatherley September 22, 2012 at 05:11 PM
Max, this is Jon Stewart at his best. Good one. Does this mean that you will be paying for his upcoming "rumble" with Bill O'Reilly om pay TV? O'Reilly has put together pieces with the opposite philosophy in the past week - should be a lively affair. But, after you cut through all the bull ..., there is still the question of what do you want America to be? Do we really want/can the Country actually survive a society when more people are dependent on government (ex. SS or Medicare which people pay into) than not? I beleive Ron asked questions previously about whether or not the Feds should subsidize oil, farming, corn etc. Heck, I am all for stopping the waste of all taxpayer money that funds projects from another era, yet continues on, protected by lobbyists and corrupted politicians. We would do better to use our money to subsize repatriated manufacturing jobs (do you hear me Apple). But, as much as Stewart makes sport, we all know that there must be a balance between providing services and paying for them. Thanks for sharing this.
Jim Hatherley September 22, 2012 at 07:03 PM
Ed, I have something in the works.
David Nolta September 24, 2012 at 02:55 AM
Jim, some people are saying you are "FindBalance". Is that true? I said I'd ask, and now I have. If you ARE "FindBalance", I wonder if you would explain why you post under different names? What could one say under a pseudonym that one would not say as oneself? If you are NOT "FindBalance"--and I hope you are not (because FindBalance is so much less polite and reasonable than you, in my opinion)--that's great!
Jim Hatherley September 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM
David, I am not Find Balance so you, and whoever else is wondering about this, can rest very comfortably. I look forward to your anticipated hits in my next piece which was submitted over the weekend and should be posted today. I might say that since there seem to be few conservative posters compared with the liberal crowd, I appreciate his comments which are typically supportive.
John Tehan September 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM
JIm, what do Obama's college transcripts have to do with Mitt Romney's tax returns? The two are not even remotely related - Obama's college transcripts were clearly good enough for him to get into Harvard, I don't need to see them to know that there's nothing unusual there. On the other hand, Romney's tax returns may show that he took advantage of an amnesty program for tax cheats in 2009 - I'd like to know whether or not he did. Why don't you also want to know? How cn you support him while knot knowing if he's a tax cheat?
Ed Bertorelli September 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM
I see the 'thought police' are after you Jim...keep up the good work and Find Balance is another 'balanced' voice.
Jim Hatherley September 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM
John Tehan, I am sorry that this is so out of order. Nontheless, i thank you for your question - which I actually answered in my response directly above your post. So - if Democrats can actually believe that Mitt Romney is so potentially sleazy to have cheated on his income taxes - which are closely followed by the IRS, why can't Republicans wonder if Obama applied to the colleges as a foreign exchange student to seek an advantage similar to what Elizabeth Warren claimed? As I said repeatedly, and now again - if everyone wants openness, let's have openness, all around. Set up a prime time special for the big reveal and let the chips fall where they may. What I find rather curious is that the same Democrats who seem to revere President Obama would demonize a person as accomplished and generous and unscandalized as Mitt Romney. Why, because he has been so successful as a businessman, parent, husband, Mormon, and public servant? I don't understand ... but then again, I am a Republican in Massachusetts.
Jim Hatherley September 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Ed, thanks. I know ... somehow, however, I think that there is disappointment out there in Liberal Land that I am not some Republican hydra. They would just love to reveal a conspiracy. No such luck. But that's the way it is these days - both sides. However, when it comes to Democrats, my sense is that there are so few Republicans that they either don't even know a Republican, or cannot understand how someone could have such a different political philosophy. Here's another thing Democrats do not understand - or appreciate. Voters like me have virtually ZERO representation due to the gross imbalance of party representation. Their intolerance to non Democratic Party dogma (too) often appears at odds with their sanctimony.
Concerned Citizen September 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Jim, I think the real question is, "Is David Nolta Linda Worthy?"
Jim Hatherley September 24, 2012 at 12:18 PM
A gentleman would never ask ...
David Nolta September 24, 2012 at 01:13 PM
I would be honored to be Linda Worthy! And Concerned Citizen's concerns are clearly misplaced. True, Concerned Citizen is no gentleman, she is a small person in her own right. Thank you again, Jim, for your candor--SO refreshing! And of course I look forward to your next post!
David Nolta September 24, 2012 at 01:21 PM
Jim, I just thanked you for your candor. But your stereotyping of liberals and Democrats--why do you keep doing that? Does Scott Brown really not represent you at all? You said zero representation. And what is this dogma you refer to (as though Democrats have one, are subject to it, and Republicans don't have one, but are individuals, and free of it)? That is another thing I can't understand about you--so articulate, and capable of great insight and even ... kindness? But then you insist on this almost preternatural division, between an "us" and a "them"--almost as though someone who thinks liberally (and no one in the world is ALL liberal, nor ALL conservative), were somehow to be treated as of another species from yourself, and an adversary. Forgive me if I paraphrase Augustine: what vanity, to think your enemy is a greater threat than your enmity...
FindBalance September 24, 2012 at 01:25 PM
David - Who are "some people" that are saying Jim H is me? I haven't seen any postings that say that. Are you in touch personally with these people? I think it's just you. I don't like your tone David, calling me less polite than Jim H, implying that I am not polite in my postings, attempting to undermine what I say. I leave it up to the readers to make their own decisions on my postings (without your help) - and yours. I see you have slightly softened your method of degredation from Friday (you know of what I speak) - if you continue on this mission of character assassination, trying to paint me as something I am not, I willl move to have you banned. You have crossed the line. And for the record, I am not Jim H, and Jim H is not me.
Jim Hatherley September 24, 2012 at 01:26 PM
David, you have accepted the question raised by Concerned Citizen with the same humor that I received yours. But let's remember, you were the first one to raise the hydra question. And, thanks for the compliment which I appreciate.
David Nolta September 24, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Now Jim, tell the truth! I have never used the word "hydra" and would never have used such a word. Nor am I by any means the one who first suggested the possibility --publicly, and repeatedly, on The Patch--that you and (as I said, the far less read-worthy) FindBalance were the same person. Your making these claims DOES raise the question that you haven't been reading some of the more interesting posts of the past few days... But we're all busy, I know. And I DON'T believe you're a hydra, and I will never withhold a compliment that I feel you deserve!
FindBalance September 24, 2012 at 02:14 PM
Continuing with the inaccurate character assassination, are we, David?
John Tehan September 24, 2012 at 02:53 PM
I'm all for openness, Jim - Obama has released 12 years of tax returns, Romney should do the same. College transcripts are a complete sideshow, just more birther nonsense.
Jim Hatherley September 24, 2012 at 03:11 PM
David ...cute ... LOL. Actually, as you my have noticed, as someone who puts out pieces - and admittedly rather lengthy ones at that - I consciously do not typically blog into someone else's work because I already have my chance to express myself. Why try to hog, or diminish, their spotlights when I am already treated like a piñata in my own? As a result, I do not read all the blogs all the time ...
FindBalance September 24, 2012 at 03:32 PM
"Nor am I by any means the one who first suggested the possibility --publicly, and repeatedly, on The Patch--that you and (as I said, the far less read-worthy) FindBalance were the same person." Where are these repeated postings that Jim H and I are the same person, David?
David Nolta September 24, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Thank you again, Jim, Still, in that situation, you might have granted me the courtesy of believing me when I said that the question had been raised (not by me), and I had promised to ask (it's all documented, right here on The Patch). And to repeat, I'm glad, and thank you again for your candor!
FindBalance September 24, 2012 at 06:26 PM
Oh, I understand why you are not replying to me, David – you are not even reading my posts because they are "not read-worthy". As for granting the courtesy of believing you that others have raised said question – you often ask for proof of statements, and when I have asked you for proof of some of your statements, you have offered it without asking for courtesy. Why now are you asking for blind faith? And what courtesy have you yourself offered recently, hurling insults at me and belittling another poster as being a small person? Playing “nice guy” only with Jim H on the opposing-view side doesn’t cut it.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something