This guy (Barack "World" Obama) is just beyond belief.
Let us go back in history. In 1972, George McGovern was the far left, anti-War (Vietnam, MUCH more unpopular than the Iraq War) candidate. He got 40% of the vote.
Why? Well, like Obama, he was too far left for the country. Plus, he made campaign mistakes (as has Obama, despite the media attempts to cover them up). He named Tom Eagleton (sp.?) as VP, and had to name someone else. But he made ONE MAJOR MISTAKE that doomed him, even if everything else did not.
In 1972, George McGovern promised to GIVE $1000.00 to every man, woman and child in the U.S.
I still can't believe it. What did Barack "World" Obama do today? He promised to GIVE every American (essentailly) $1000.00. Who could make this stuff up?
I know Obama calls his $1000.00 proposal an "energy rebate". It is still just a PANDERING, LEFTIST GIFT to bribe Americans to vote for Obama. As I have stated before, a "windfall profits" tax (Obma's other PANDERING proposal--pandering to making villains of Big Oil).
We actually were heading into an energy crisis in 1972, which would flower in the Carter years, and we eventually tired a "windfall profits" tax (why not on GOOGLE?--a MUCH more profitable company). The windfall profits tax was an abysmal failure But leftist Democrats are INSANE (by the definition that you keep trying the same disastrous thing over and over again, expecting a different result).
I am perfectly aware that we just finished giving $300.00 or $600.00 or whatever to almost all Americans. It was not a great idea, but it may have actually had a small stimulative effect on the economy just as gasoline prices were depressing the economy. But the economy GREW by 1.9% this last quarter. To continue GIVING AWAY money--all Democrats seem to be able to do--will be an absolute DISASTER. We will be OVERHEATING the economy just as the economy is recovering. At the same time we will be sending the WRONG message on energy (which is that we will not LET energy companies make money, so why should capitalists allocate resources into that industry?).
The American people UNDERSTOOD all ofthis in 1972. The Democratic candidates have made the SAME ridiculous mistake. The only question is whether the COUNTRY has changed that much. If so, conservatives really are doomed to wander in the wilderness until leftists implode themselves and the country. I am betting the American people have NOT changed THAT much (if only they did not have to prove that by voting for McCain).
P.S. Do you know how DISTURBING it is to realize a fair part of your life is now part of HISTORY!!!! Yes, I LIVED through the Vietnam War and the 1972 election. In fact, as I have said in this blog, in 1972 I helped man a Republican table for Richard Nixon (who I disliked, but I was willing to go with the lesser evil then) on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin, while I was in law school (AFTER getting out of the U.S. army in 1971). As I have noted, I was virtually the ONLY admitted conservative (others, especially in law school, pretty much kept a low profile) at the University of Texas in 1972. I tell you; it was DANGEROUS to man that table in 1972.
P.S. 2: Yes, Obama is proosing $1000 dollars per couple, and not giving money to the "rich". So he is endorsing the McGovern/Robin Hood idea of taking from the "rich" and giving to the poor. The principle remains the same. In fact, if you add Obama's proposed "energy rebate" to the stimulus payment, you get about the same $1000. We actually lucked out on that stimulus package. It--almost unique in the annals of Congress and central planning, but a stopped clock is right twice a day--hit the economy at EXACTLY the right time--as gasoline prices spiked. The Fed chief endorsed the idea of a ONE TIME stimulous only on t hat understanding. Obama and the Democrats, or course, want to set up the McGovern system of continually "taking from the rich" and giving to the porr. What happens with this socialistic idea? You know what happens. You destroy the economy, and EVERYBODY is poor. Alternatively, you run out of "rich", and end up taxing more and more for ever smaller revenue. It remains a TEST as to whether our country is still as intelligent (overall) as it was in 1972. No, it is not that voting for Nixon was intelligent. But voting AGAINST GEorge McGovern was intelligent.