Yes, my truckng executive brother in Nashville has decided he MUST vote against Barack Obama (rather than for Mitt Romney), because he, and the country, CAN'T TAKE another fur years of Brack Obama. My brother is, of course, right abut that. He actaully KNOWS, having been a small bsiness owner (truckng compnay killedoff by the Bernanke /Democratic Congress recession), and currrently with a large trucking company based in Nashville. My brother knows as much abut the trucking busienss as any person alive, and he makes a persuasive case taht the trucking business probably tells you more about the overall econmy than any other business out there. You have to KNOW a lot about businness in general in the trucking business. And my borther is a CPA with extensive previus experience n business accounting, includng with large companies like GTE. Thus, when my borhter says we simply cannot afford four more eyars of Brack Obama, you can beleive him. I do believe him.
Where my borther and I differ is that my brother now has concluded he MSUT fvote "for" Mitt Romney, even tough he has no illusions abut Romney. I can see the force of the argumetn, but I just can't agree. My case can be summarized this way: Would we REALLY be better off now, from a conservative ont of view, with John McCain as President? I don't think so I can't suport Obama, and agree that he is destroying this country (ObamaCare alne will do it). But I jsut can't get around the fact that the GOP "estalbishment" has NOT shown that it really is any better. The problem is that CONSRVAIVES get BLAMED for the FAILURE of these GOP estalbishment peole (which the media keeps referring to as conservative", becaue the media is so FAR LEFT).
Oh. That parenthetical phrase above? How can I BALME Bailout Ben Bernanke, Obama and te Democrats for the "Great Recession,", more than even President Bush (who I disowned in 2006), when the recessin occurred under President Bush? Well, I am simply stating a fACT. The recessin occurred while Presdient Bush was President. That is true. But the econmy was doing WELL as we entered 2007. What CHANGTED. What CHANGED was two things. Firt, in early 2l006, Bailout Bernanke was appont3ed head of the Federal Reserve (by Bush, but reappointed by Obama, confirming that Obama is in the midst of BUSH'S THRID TERM). Ben Bernanke has been The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance, presiding over BOTH the worst recession since the Great Depression AND the worst "recovery" since the Great Depressin. The other CHANGE, in 2007, was the electin of a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, with Democrats havng a majority in both houses of Congress. That majority INCLUDED INSIDER BARACK OBAMA. I still caN't believe Obama gets awayu with the LIE that he is an "outsider' who came to Swahsington to set things right. Obama was PART OF THE GROUP IN CHARGE IN THE CRITICAL PERIO(D BEFORE TEH ECONOMYH COLLAPSED. And he has continued Bush/Democrat policies from that time (which includined a previus FAILED "stimulus" in 2008). Oh, Obama has been WORSE, which is my brother's pint, but maybe NOT worse than McCain would have been. However, there is no doubtg that Obama and the Democratrs were IN CHARGE at the time the Great Recessin occurred, and every time they "blame Bush" they are BLAMING THEMSLVES. From Janutary of 2007 onward, Democrats pretty much CONTROLLED domestic government policy (except for never being able to tax the rich",--lucky for them and the econmy). The Obama/Democrat insistence on TAX UNCERTAINTY (continual THREATS of more taxes) is ONE of the many areas where they were MORE RESPONSIBLE than Bush for our ecomic disaster.
What is the score? The "score' is now 3 to 2 (when last I heard from the one who agrees with me) . 3 Steart brothers now say that we HAVE to vote for Obama to SAVE the country (or, more accuarately, to have any CHANCE of saving the country). Only one Stewart brother is actually "enthusiastic" about Romney. But the other two jsut can't face themselves in the mirror if they don't vote agasint Obama. Two Steart broters think this is short-sighted, including me, and think that we just cannot keep voting for 'politics as usual": where actual RESULTS are about the same under either a lefitist Democrat or a GOP estabishment group. The majority of the Stewart brothers are lprobably more in tune with the country. The minority just happens to be correct. Note that the minority will NOT vote for Obama, but refuses to participate in the usual GOP FRAUD.
Charles Krauthammer? Well, this article arises out of a conversation yesterday with my Nahsville brother, and my brother was diisturbed--even depressed--that he had seen Charles Krauthammer say that Obama would "win", if the electin were held today. Krauthammer, which this blog has previously exposed as a CERTIFIED IDIOT, was referring to his "analysis' of meaningless POLLS (th eBible--or is it the Devil's book, of the unfair and unbalanced network, and of estalbishment idiots like Krauthammer). No. My brother rightly does nto believe Krauthammer. But he LISTENS enough to mentin it to me. I qauit istening to Krauthammer long ago. Doubt me? Oh, you FOOL you.!!! Guess what the headline is today, from featured by the LEFTISTS of Yahoo "News'?
The headline was: "Race for White House still even, despite Bain attacks"
Krauthammer made much of the MEANINGLESS "fact " that an "average" (statistical absurdity) of polls shows Romney about 2 percentage onts behind. Give me a break. The ABC poll last week showed the race 47% to 47% among REGISTERED VOTERS. That means Romney--if you believe the meaningless poll--acutally has about a 4% LEAD among LIKELY VOTERS. There is that much difference between registered voters and peole who actually votre. The CBS/New York Times (right wing nuts) released today has Romney LEADING 47% to 46%. No, that does not MEAN anything, but Krauthammer--total idiot that he is--was trying to make much out of a mere 2 percentage ponts. No. If the electin were held today, Romney would WIN. That is not because Romneyis so good, but because of the ECONMY.
This blog has made this predictin: If the ECOMY is not at least PERCEIVED to be significantly better on electin day, then Obama LOSES. Nope. Ropmney's "tax returns" do not matter (and sould not). Mp[e/, "Bain Capital" attacks do not matter (as they should not) . Wat matters is the ECONOMY, and Obama--absent an even wrose performance from Romney) cannot win if the economy does not "improve', or at least APPEAR to "improve', by electin day. No. A SMALL "improvment" hyped by the media is NOT enough. There is going to have to be better than that, or Obam LOSES. If you don't believe me, instead of Krauthammer, then you have not been payng attentin. If a vote were held TOMORROW, Obama LOSES. His only chancde is to somehow convince peole that the EcONMY is actually getting SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER. I don't think he caN do it, but it is possible that he will get LUCKY by having the eletin occur jsu as there appears to be a "lip up" in the eocmy. Even with a "blip up", can Obama overcome the obvious: that the LOOMING disaster of ObamaCare (laong with Obama's other policies) makes a real "recovery" ultimately impossible? Maybe, or maybe not. But withut the "improvement" by electin day, OBAMA LOSES.
P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight).