How Barack Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012

Search

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
How Barack Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012
By Selwyn Duke
AMERICAN THINKER

Even before the election, with the realization that a Barack Obama presidency lay on the horizon, many saw a silver lining in the cloud that drifted into Washington, DC, from the left coast. "The right will be re-energized," many thought, "and we'll have a better Republican candidate and improved prospects in 2012." Moreover, it was figured that Obama will exacerbate a bad situation, causing a meltdown in our economy and emboldening enemies without and within, thereby creating fertile ground for a Republican victory. Of course, the GOP nominee may in fact be better four years hence, although he is far more likely to be so in terms of persona than policy. But his prospects are a different matter.

No one likes the bearer of bad news, but, in this case, to render good news would be to offer bad prognostication. Frankly, I don't see anything short of divine or devilish intervention (and the latter favors the president-elect) that will prevent Obama from being a two-term president.

There are numerous reasons for this. First, the mainstream media may take minor potshots at him occasionally for circulation purposes and to convince themselves they're still journalists, but, ultimately, they will remain his all-powerful public relations team. Second, Obama is a remarkably effective demagogue. Sure, as with all of the species, it amounts to illusion; in Obama's case, this involves formidable but not singular ability, a resonant voice, and that activist media which smoothes out the rough edges. Yet there is one factor which, barring some monumental event that upsets the rotten-apple cart (a distinct possibility), will guarantee the ascent of the leftist agenda and descent of our culture at a rate heretofore unseen in America. It is a simple thing to understand, and, lamentably, I don't think I'm wrong about it.

The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: Amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.

The last time the left proposed amnesty for the 20-30 million (a realistic estimate) illegals in our nation, they were blocked by the Republicans. Now, however, with a president who will enjoy great popular and media support, more significant Democrat majorities in the Houses, and with sheer attrition-induced exhaustion in the opposition, I suspect that it will be impossible to forestall.

So how monolithically Democrat will this larger Hispanic voting block be? Well, let's begin by considering this research by the Pew Hispanic Center:

"Hispanics voted for Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden over Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin by a margin of more than two-to-one in the 2008 presidential election, 66% versus 32% . . . . Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over McCain by a lopsided margin - 76% versus 19%."


A new infusion of foreign-born Hispanic voters will tilt this block even further left, and it isn't hard to understand why. Most such people have a socialist political orientation, which is why governments in Mexico and much of central and South America also tend to have one. And the proof is in the U.S.-election pudding, too; for instance, in the 1990s, first-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a ratio of 15 to 1. People's passions don't change simply because they set foot on American terra firma.

Barack Obama and his fellow travelers know this well, and they have already done much to curry favor with Hispanics. Obama said during the primaries that American children needed to learn Spanish, and he will continue to send the message -- albeit in more subtle ways -- that he is sympathetic to the Latinization of the U.S. These messages will be downplayed by the mainstream media but emphasized in the Spanish one, which was in the tank for Obama even more than the former. I also expect him to appoint an ample number of Hispanics to posts in his administration.

Of course, like many others, I envision that the coming years will bring some very tough times. And while it's usually the case that a president who presides over a nation in distress doesn't win re-election, I suspect Obama will defy this trend. Why?

That media again.

President Bush, through only some fault of his own, will be the gift that keeps on giving. The media have already cemented the narrative, "The last eight years have destroyed the nation, and it will take a long time to repair the damage." How long might this be? For as long as leftists need a diversionary tactic with which to deflect attention from their misbegotten policies.

This could, of course, be a very long period. As I wrote recently, Bush will become an

". . . omnipresent phantom of failure. It's much like how, decades after Napoleon Bonaparte's exile to barren Saint Helena, British children were kept in line with the admonition, 'Be good, or Nappy will get you.' Bush's power will greatly outlive his tenure."


Yes, if you don't elect me, Bushy will get you. And there is yet so, so much work to be done. Pass the New York Times and the café latte.

But having a water-carrying mainstream media isn't enough -- the left will also try to stifle voices that would report the truth. To this end, they will attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. And although it may be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of two years hence, this may not be the case once Obama has the opportunity to appoint two or three justices. Also lying further down the road may be hate-speech laws, which target "hate" about as much as legislation that would destroy talk radio ensures fairness. They already exist in most of the western world and, incredibly, some judges actually view this as precedent. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, that affirmative-action appointee, said herself that the Internet makes other nations' court rulings readily available and that we should learn from them. Said she, "[As judges and lawyers] we must look beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations." By the way, some people call this a judicial philosophy. I call it malfeasance and treason.

So this is our probable dystopian reality. Yet we do have some recourse. And here is what I recommend for now.

The Founding Fathers meant for us to be a nation of states, not a nation state; they intended for most power to rest on the state level and for localities to largely shape their own destinies. We must embrace this model with boldness and vigor. Huge swaths of our nation are now in the pocket of the left, but there are yet bastions of light wherein traditionalists can hold sway. In these places, campaign hard and seize control of the local governments. Then, resist any and every unconstitutional mandate.

Contact Selwyn Duke

Page Printed from: <A href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/how_barack_obama_will_ensure_h.html" target=_blank>http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/how_barack_obama_will_ensure_h.html at November 12, 2008 - 01:38:27 PM EST
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
The last time the left proposed amnesty for the 20-30 million (a realistic estimate) illegals in our nation, they were blocked by the Republicans. with boldness and vigor. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/how_barack_obama_will_ensure_h.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/how_barack_obama_will_ensure_h.html

And the time before that, when over three million illegal immigrants were in fact granted full amnesty, it was the Republicans led by Ronald Reagan who enthusiastically pushed it through. This contributed significant support for GHW Bush being elected President in 1988.

All in all, a time honored strategy and if the Republicans of the next four years wish to counter the potential of a new amnesty mandate, they would be well served to determine the interests of the affected community and devise responses which would enamor that community rather than further push them away towards common Democratic platform planks.

 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
[/url]

And the time before that, when over three million illegal immigrants were in fact granted full amnesty, it was the Republicans led by Ronald Reagan who enthusiastically pushed it through. This contributed significant support for GHW Bush being elected President in 1988.

All in all, a time honored strategy and if the Republicans of the next four years wish to counter the potential of a new amnesty mandate, they would be well served to determine the interests of the affected community and devise responses which would enamor that community rather than further push them away towards common Democratic platform planks.


Way too much spin on your part Barman.

In scope and intent...this hardly compares to the bipartisan reform of the early 80's that only involved 2.5 million law abiding illegal aliens and the strict enforcement measures that went with it...and apparently failed.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122297,00.html
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,142
Tokens
MJ, as long as the Republicans can filibuster, they can bring the debate to the American people. The people do not want amnesty (except for Hispanics), the Democrats will lose on this issue if they pursue it.

Ironically, it appears amnesty was a very big issue to Hispanics, as they moved in large numbers towards Obama. One of McCain's problems was that only Hispanics appeared to be voting on the amnesty issue.

I realize McCain is soft on amnesty, but the Republicans as a whole are not. at least they're not as soft as the Democrats are.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
MJ, as long as the Republicans can filibuster, they can bring the debate to the American people. The people do not want amnesty (except for Hispanics), the Democrats will lose on this issue if they pursue it.

Ironically, it appears amnesty was a very big issue to Hispanics, as they moved in large numbers towards Obama. One of McCain's problems was that only Hispanics appeared to be voting on the amnesty issue.

I realize McCain is soft on amnesty, but the Republicans as a whole are not. at least they're not as soft as the Democrats are.

I hope you are right.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
It's difficult not to re-elect the incumbent president. The last two have won, even Bush was unpopular at the time (though not as bad as now). Bush the elder lost because of the economy, stupid. Reagan was re-elected easy. Carter lost because of the economy, stupid. Nixon was re-elected. It takes a real bad situation or real bad presidency at the time of re-election for the incumbent to lose.
 

Rx Junior
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
556
Tokens
Its amazing when people like to call me a fool and then turn around and post an article that pretty much confirms my own analysis on the issue of the democratic party for the next 20 years.

I am very proud to boast that all the ideas posted in that article were already addressed and 100% identified by me in another thread that is many days old.

When the democrats pass immigration reform. (and they will) they will effectively turn the that mid west corridor solid blue for the next 20 years.
Can you say buh buy Arizona, Nevada, NewMexico, Even florida, Can you imagine florida with all those 27 Evs solid blue? Republicans will never ever see the light of day ever again! Those jews they have scared into voting for republicans shall soon become completely irrelevant with the black and latino vote.


If republicans dont realize that democrats are about to put a choke hold on the presidency for multiple decades to come, they are about to be rudely shocked.

Trust me folks, on the day immigration reform is passed, the republican party will be officially dead. And if people think Jindal is the answer...:nohead:



Regardless of how you frame it, that amnesty will pass and democrats will grab a ridiculous majority of the latino vote from the result.

Democrats have absolutely nothing to lose and every thing to gain from passing this bill. Any opposition republicans will have to the bill will ultimately drive latinos in droves to democrats! The democrats have very little to lose by attempting to pass this bill . A very small minority of the pro-obama demographic that soundly rejected mccain might be opposed by their numbers will pale in comparison to the large numbers of latinos that will become permanent democrats for years to come!


BTW.. I predict that amnesty will pass! And will pass with the support of John Mccain.:103631605<!-- / message -->
 

Rx Junior
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
556
Tokens
Way too much spin on your part Barman.

In scope and intent...this hardly compares to the bipartisan reform of the early 80's that only involved 2.5 million law abiding illegal aliens and the strict enforcement measures that went with it...and apparently failed.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122297,00.html



this is exactly why people call you a lying weasel!


He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was


I made sure to put those words in large bold font so that even even the dumbest lying weasel like you can read and understand how stupid they sound calling barman a spinner yet the very link you posted 100% verifies exactly what he said!
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
2.5 million law abiding illegal aliens

How can someone be illegal and law abiding at the same time?

:ohno:


I love that line of defense thou...hey officer, even thou i did run that red light, and caused Roadreeler to get into an accident on his first shipment of his new job hauling didlos for displace mexexian immigrants... i am legal.

:nohead:
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
this is exactly why people call you a lying weasel!





I made sure to put those words in large bold font so that even even the dumbest lying weasel like you can read and understand how stupid they sound calling barman a spinner yet the very link you posted 100% verifies exactly what he said!

The fact that it was bipartisan, and Reagan supported it with strict reform laws attached seems to be lost on you...and punter.

Not to mention it is in fact ridiculous to compare 2.5 million illegals to 30 million.

Trying to call something the same when it is in fact larger by a factor of 10 or more is SPIN.

Plain and simple...only a lib would try to nuance that.

More illegals by a factor of 10 ...but it's the same to Piccolo and Punter :lolBIG:

Freakin Moonbats. :lol:
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
The whites will gradually move out as things get tighter.

At the moment everyone can play at being the nice wealthy liberal, but the room to manoeuver is getting less.

To experience the future one should move to south america or africa today, and shorten the learning process by 50 years.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
7,373
Tokens
If that is true, why aren't the Republicans in favor of amnesty?
Oh wait, they are!

How Barack Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012
By Selwyn Duke
AMERICAN THINKER

Even before the election, with the realization that a Barack Obama presidency lay on the horizon, many saw a silver lining in the cloud that drifted into Washington, DC, from the left coast. "The right will be re-energized," many thought, "and we'll have a better Republican candidate and improved prospects in 2012." Moreover, it was figured that Obama will exacerbate a bad situation, causing a meltdown in our economy and emboldening enemies without and within, thereby creating fertile ground for a Republican victory. Of course, the GOP nominee may in fact be better four years hence, although he is far more likely to be so in terms of persona than policy. But his prospects are a different matter.

No one likes the bearer of bad news, but, in this case, to render good news would be to offer bad prognostication. Frankly, I don't see anything short of divine or devilish intervention (and the latter favors the president-elect) that will prevent Obama from being a two-term president.

There are numerous reasons for this. First, the mainstream media may take minor potshots at him occasionally for circulation purposes and to convince themselves they're still journalists, but, ultimately, they will remain his all-powerful public relations team. Second, Obama is a remarkably effective demagogue. Sure, as with all of the species, it amounts to illusion; in Obama's case, this involves formidable but not singular ability, a resonant voice, and that activist media which smoothes out the rough edges. Yet there is one factor which, barring some monumental event that upsets the rotten-apple cart (a distinct possibility), will guarantee the ascent of the leftist agenda and descent of our culture at a rate heretofore unseen in America. It is a simple thing to understand, and, lamentably, I don't think I'm wrong about it.

The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: Amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.

The last time the left proposed amnesty for the 20-30 million (a realistic estimate) illegals in our nation, they were blocked by the Republicans. Now, however, with a president who will enjoy great popular and media support, more significant Democrat majorities in the Houses, and with sheer attrition-induced exhaustion in the opposition, I suspect that it will be impossible to forestall.

So how monolithically Democrat will this larger Hispanic voting block be? Well, let's begin by considering this research by the Pew Hispanic Center:

"Hispanics voted for Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden over Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin by a margin of more than two-to-one in the 2008 presidential election, 66% versus 32% . . . . Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over McCain by a lopsided margin - 76% versus 19%."


A new infusion of foreign-born Hispanic voters will tilt this block even further left, and it isn't hard to understand why. Most such people have a socialist political orientation, which is why governments in Mexico and much of central and South America also tend to have one. And the proof is in the U.S.-election pudding, too; for instance, in the 1990s, first-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a ratio of 15 to 1. People's passions don't change simply because they set foot on American terra firma.

Barack Obama and his fellow travelers know this well, and they have already done much to curry favor with Hispanics. Obama said during the primaries that American children needed to learn Spanish, and he will continue to send the message -- albeit in more subtle ways -- that he is sympathetic to the Latinization of the U.S. These messages will be downplayed by the mainstream media but emphasized in the Spanish one, which was in the tank for Obama even more than the former. I also expect him to appoint an ample number of Hispanics to posts in his administration.

Of course, like many others, I envision that the coming years will bring some very tough times. And while it's usually the case that a president who presides over a nation in distress doesn't win re-election, I suspect Obama will defy this trend. Why?

That media again.

President Bush, through only some fault of his own, will be the gift that keeps on giving. The media have already cemented the narrative, "The last eight years have destroyed the nation, and it will take a long time to repair the damage." How long might this be? For as long as leftists need a diversionary tactic with which to deflect attention from their misbegotten policies.

This could, of course, be a very long period. As I wrote recently, Bush will become an

". . . omnipresent phantom of failure. It's much like how, decades after Napoleon Bonaparte's exile to barren Saint Helena, British children were kept in line with the admonition, 'Be good, or Nappy will get you.' Bush's power will greatly outlive his tenure."


Yes, if you don't elect me, Bushy will get you. And there is yet so, so much work to be done. Pass the New York Times and the café latte.

But having a water-carrying mainstream media isn't enough -- the left will also try to stifle voices that would report the truth. To this end, they will attempt to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. And although it may be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of two years hence, this may not be the case once Obama has the opportunity to appoint two or three justices. Also lying further down the road may be hate-speech laws, which target "hate" about as much as legislation that would destroy talk radio ensures fairness. They already exist in most of the western world and, incredibly, some judges actually view this as precedent. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, that affirmative-action appointee, said herself that the Internet makes other nations' court rulings readily available and that we should learn from them. Said she, "[As judges and lawyers] we must look beyond our borders, to the laws and constitutions of other nations." By the way, some people call this a judicial philosophy. I call it malfeasance and treason.

So this is our probable dystopian reality. Yet we do have some recourse. And here is what I recommend for now.

The Founding Fathers meant for us to be a nation of states, not a nation state; they intended for most power to rest on the state level and for localities to largely shape their own destinies. We must embrace this model with boldness and vigor. Huge swaths of our nation are now in the pocket of the left, but there are yet bastions of light wherein traditionalists can hold sway. In these places, campaign hard and seize control of the local governments. Then, resist any and every unconstitutional mandate.

Contact Selwyn Duke

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/how_barack_obama_will_ensure_h.html at November 12, 2008 - 01:38:27 PM EST


 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
"Someone please", he pleades. Since you've been dead wrong all along, right Joe?

You make me so fukin glad I drink whiskey and not the GOP kool aid you are hooked on.

Speaking of being completely dead wrong and delusional...I'm not Joe.

Should we just start there?

Einstein?

:nohead: :missingte
 

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
7,373
Tokens
Senate votes for cloture on amnesty bill, 69-23

Yea
____

Alexander (R-TN)

Bennett (R-UT)

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
C
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)

Craig (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)

Ensign (R-NV)
</td><td class="contenttext" width="33%">
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)

Hatch (R-UT)

Isakson (R-GA)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
</td><td class="contenttext" width="33%">
McConnell (R-KY)


Murkowski (R-AK)



Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)

Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Did Not Vote
________
John McCain (R-AZ)
 

Rx Junior
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
556
Tokens
The fact that it was bipartisan, and Reagan supported it with strict reform laws attached seems to be lost on you...and punter.

Not to mention it is in fact ridiculous to compare 2.5 million illegals to 30 million.

Trying to call something the same when it is in fact larger by a factor of 10 or more is SPIN.

:lol:


Absolute total bullshit!:missingte


Your own very link.!!! I will repeat this.. Your own very link specifically stated that the two bills were essentially the same! Not barman's link, not my link.. But your own posted link you dumbass!!!!:ohno:

The sheer numbers alone do not vindicate you in any way shape or form. Barman didnt say anything about the numbers! Thats an argument you drummed up in that shallow head of yours!

And when the democrats pass their amnesty bill it sure as hell will be bipartisan too!

LMao..
I hope you read above, where some one was nice enough to show your blind lying ass the number of republican senators that were in favor of the 2007 amnesty bill!
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
In the past year I have seen the "illegal immigrant" population swell from "between 10-12 million" up to "about 15 million" and now in the lead fully speculative commentary cited by Joe Jr, I read it's now 30 million.

By the time Obama completes his first 100 days, it should be up to "about 40-45 million" which will really make proposals for amnesty a barn burner issue.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
BTW, if we're up to 30 million, then the Thread I created last weekend that cited ICE having deported 349,000 last fiscal year needs to be revised.

At the pace they're deporting, we should have this country clean from illegals by no later than the year 2095.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
Absolute total bullshit!:missingte


Your own very link.!!! I will repeat this.. Your own very link specifically stated that the two bills were essentially the same! Not barman's link, not my link.. But your own posted link you dumbass!!!!:ohno:

The sheer numbers alone do not vindicate you in any way shape or form. Barman didnt say anything about the numbers! Thats an argument you drummed up in that shallow head of yours!

And when the democrats pass their amnesty bill it sure as hell will be bipartisan too!

LMao..
I hope you read above, where some one was nice enough to show your blind lying ass the number of republican senators that were in favor of the 2007 amnesty bill!

I don't care if some Republican senators were for it!

They are traitors too. What does that have to do with it?

God you are dumb ass...what should we expect when a grown man picks the name "Piccolo".

Laughing stock gay rod would have been more to the point..."Piccolo" :missingte


:nohead:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,858
Messages
13,574,196
Members
100,878
Latest member
lisasdanceandexercise
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com