How Did Obama Become President?

How did Obama become President?  Well, there was an election in 2008 (Electoral College: McCain—173; Obama—365).  After two terms of Bush/Cheney the economy was in the toilet; the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” reason for the pre-emptive war in Iraq proved to be a lie, and The United States had fewer and fewer friends in the international community. World Opinion Grows More Negative After Bush Re-Election

Since the Bush presidency had been such a dismal failure, his party’s control of the White House, Congress and the Senate came under serious question by the American people. Bush’s Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent – CBS News

Even McCain knew aligning with Bush would not be wise.  McCain Continues “I’m Not George Bush” Theme – From The Road – CBS …

George Bush knew it, too. Nation & World | Bush stays low-profile at McCain fundraiser …

But you have to understand how Obama got the nomination.  Remember—he had the biggest political campaign war chest in history.  Did he get it from poor people struggling to pay their rent?  No, he got it from very rich Republicans (and some Democrats) who were trying to keep him in the race so that Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t have her party’s nomination sewed up more than a year before the Republican convention. Videos for big republican money backs Obama vs clinton

At the time, that was the strategy.  Unfortunately, by the time the Republican Party held it’s convention it no loner mattered.  A new strategy (one that included losing the election) was needed.  And, that is exactly what happened.

When the economy failed, power players and top academic thinkers knew it was going to take more than four years to turn it around.  Because of that, many surmised if the Republican Party won this election, they would lose the White House for at least the next 16, perhaps 20 years!

So, the Republican power base knew they didn’t want to win in 2008: it was the fourth down, and they couldn’t punt.  They couldn’t punt because it was no longer a football—it was a hornet’s nest.  So, they had to fumble.  Why?  They had to lose so they could blame the economic mess on the next guy.  Let the Democrats take the White house for four years, then say “I told you so” loud enough to get it back rather than give it up for a couple of decades.  So, big business money continued to follow Obama.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm

The facts are that the Republican Party couldn’t come up with a winning candidate; further they didn’t want one.  By default, McCain got the nomination, but they had to make sure he didn’t goof up and win.  How were they going to do that?  Simple: give him a running mate that would be an embarrassment to the entire academic and thinking community.

It worked—McCain and Palin sabotaged each other—it was the worst campaign since Bob Dole’s back in 1996 (which mirrored his campaign failures during previous attempts for the presidency).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dole#Presidential_politics

I asked a rather influential power player who donated money to Obama that you would have expected to go to the Republicans (and who prefers to remain anonymous) about that:

“But didn’t McCain pick her?  Didn’t he choose her resume from the stacks presented to him?”

He laughed, and answered:  “Pick a card.  I’ll hold the deck, and you pick.  If you let me hold the deck, your pick will be predictable…every time. Don’t you get it?  The same people that were pushing McCain to pick Palin wrote her ‘Bridge to nowhere-thanks but no thanks’ speech.  They were the same people who eventually made sure the press found out it was all bullshit.”

Even lame-duck President Bush knew Palin would be the demise of McCain’s campaign and end any hope of The Republican Party keeping the White House in the 2008 election.

http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-78264.html

Historical treatment of George W. Bush is not likely to be good.  How will history treat Barack Obama?  Time will tell.  In the meantime, we will look for empirical substantiation of decisions made, logical conclusions not drawn from emotions and political dogma.  I’d prefer to get it from dialogue between intelligent observers, but that isn’t always easy to find, is it?  Instead, the public tends to get their input from the rhetoric of talk radio and television hosts who, quite frankly, generally appeal to the uneducated voters in this country.  I do not look to Fox or MSNBC to give unbiased news or opinions.  Fox News and MSNBC: Not the Competitors They Should Be | Capital …

And to close, I don’t expect to get it from circulating e-mails, either.

About these ads

6 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by dac on January 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    (From e-mail) Loved the blog. Very well said.

    Reply

  2. Posted by C. Mack Amick on January 14, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Don’t know that I would put MSNBC on the same low level as der Fox. Here’s an excercise for any and all. Compare how Fox and MSNBC handle the same story. Now do a fact check. Every time that I can recall having done so, it is MSNBC that runs accurate stories based on facts (vice made up). And when they do make a mistake, they apologize rather quickly.

    Oh well, maybe by responding to el blog from Costa Rica, you will get a following here. But then that could cause a revolution.

    Keep writing – it’s better than listening to you when your meds have run out.

    Reply

  3. Posted by twodawgs on January 15, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Nice blog Brown. I don’t disagree with everything you say. But I DO agree with the one who said, and I paraphrase: The concern for America is NOT that BHO was elected president. That can be fixed. The real concern is for the majority of people who voted for him based on his qualifications. THAT, my friend cannot be fixed!!

    Reply

  4. Posted by Lt. D. Company on January 15, 2011 at 2:55 am

    When given two choices…People will most often choose one of them. However, the freezing man rarely sets himself on fire. Qualifications is a word we are trained to use, but it has 2 particular definitions. The one used in the post above refuting BHO’s resume: “particular attributes, qualities, properties, or possessions that an individual must have in order to be eligible to fill an office or perform a public duty or function”. Then we follow other side of the binary logic: “The term qualification also refers to a limitation or restriction that narrows the scope of language (such as that contained in a statute) that would otherwise carry a broader meaning”. When given two choices, people often forget the third choice which is to do nothing. Of course, nothing has a value. I still find it ironic when the multitude of compromising legislators, the ones who actually make laws, can fool the poorly educated people (the reason for the electoral college) by pointing the finger at the head of the executive branch like cheap tawdry magicians. Education, my fiends, can be fixed, but where are the students???

    Reply

  5. Posted by C. Mack Amick on January 15, 2011 at 3:46 am

    Something needs to be fixed? The right man is in the right place.

    Reply

  6. Interesting……….very interesting.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: