<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; election</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/tag/election/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Vote For Romney Because He’ll Owe Us?….Seriously?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/vote-for-romney-because-hell-owe-us-seriously/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/vote-for-romney-because-hell-owe-us-seriously/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ebliversidge</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dramatically]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governor-romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jonah-goldberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[martha coakley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national-review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wake]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/vote-for-romney-because-hell-owe-us-seriously/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ What Is It with Massachusettes Governors and Armored Vehicles? There are actually some reasons to vote for Mitt Romney in this year’s GOP Primaries. I don’t personally find them compelling, and have endorsed one of Gov. Romney’s opponents. I admire the man’s ability to manage large projects and he does know how an executive office works. Voting for Mitt Romney may not be my personal predilection, but it isn’t quite as pointless as wearing a rally cap or tossing maidens down a well for good luck. People have also offered sales pitches on Romney’s behalf that are about as believable as SpongeBob Squarepants discovering the Higgs Boson. One of the sadder aspects of Mitt Romney’s mild ride this year has been watching people I have deemed intellectually powerful perform about as well at ratiocination as my little boy’s favorite cartoon character would at advancing particle physics. When Jonah Goldberg of National Review Magazine wrote The Case For Romney about a week ago, I remembered what outstanding work he had done in the past, and therefore delayed this post until it could age a bit and marinate. I felt I owed him a better expression of my angst than “WTF?” Goldberg states the hypothesis that Mitt Romney would make a great president for Conservatives because he would owe us. He states the following: …there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you…..If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal Obamacare, implement Representative Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments. Oh my! Is that really so? When he was Governor of Massachusetts, how did he repay all the Republicans he owed up there? Romneycare? Was it the complete and utter destruction of the state’s GOP infrastructure and popularity in his wake? Martha Coakley has done far more to help Republicans win high office in Massachusetts than Mitt Romney. Jonah Goldberg tries to explain why Mitt Romney doesn’t quite gel with Middle Class and Working Class Conservative voters. He makes Romney sound like the slightly nerdy white guy sitting around studying mathematics problems in Southside Richmond, VA. Romney doesn’t dislike these people as much as he doesn’t grok their folkways quite, and can’t make himself look authentic. I think this dramatically understates Mitt Romney’s problems with Conservative voters. To Governor Romney, Southern and Mid-Western Social Conservatives are like Dustin Hoffman’s character in the great Western Little Big Man was to the Cheyenne Indians who rescued him from death. Mitt Romney doesn’t even subconsciously believe he comes from the same species. The word Cheyenne, when translated literally, means “human being.” Those who were not Cheyenne were considered something else. Mitt Romney, I’ve come to sincerely believe, considers those not from his own rather isolated Cheyenne Village to be something else. It explains how he could even accidently articulate the fact that he doesn’t worry about the very poor. He’s willing to be nice to people like myself, but it’s not like he’ll any more use for me after Election Day than he would for a prophylactic after an act of sexual intercourse. I couldn’t make Mitt Romney understand who I am and where I come from even if he was really bored one afternoon and decide to amuse himself by actually giving a rat’s anus. There simply isn’t any way on God’s Green Earth that Mitt Romney would ever afford me the status of someone he would actually owe something to. If I ever were presumptuous enough to suggest such a thing it would serve as a profound affront to his self-image and dignity. Like Ann Coulter in the wake of her “THREE CHEERS FOR ROMNEYCARE” debacle and the Massachusetts GOP, anyone foolish enough to believe Mitt Romney owed them something in return for a vote would quickly discover the finite limits of Lord Willard’s sense of noblesse oblige. Some reasons actually exist to support to support Mitt Romney for President. One or two of them might even be worthwhile. However, any sense that he feels a bond of honor to movement Conservatism is simply delusional. I look back at all the great, wise and hilarious things Jonah Goldberg has written for National Review Magazine. This body of superb political commentary gives me reason to hope this endorsement he penned of Mitt Romney was just the lower tail of his Bell Curve. Jonah, for the sake of your honor as a man of intellect; climb down from the Mitt Romney Tank. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/vote-for-romney-because-hell-owe-us-seriously/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Santorum Rejects Reagan Space Legacy</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oceans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teacher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I like Rick Santorum. My former senator, whom I voted for three times and have written about here and here is conservative, a great family man, smart and passionate about his beliefs. So… I hate to say this, but at the moment: what a disappointment. What in the world is Rick Santorum thinking? Bad enough that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry briefly put themselves out there to appear as the anti-capitalist candidates. In this corner, the instant reaction to that mercifully short epidemic of conservative Bain bashing was that if that's where Newt and Perry were headed on such a major conservative principle that Reagan so exemplified -- they should withdraw. Gingrich, typically, candidly admitted a mistake and stopped. His Super PAC ads vanished. Perry hung on to the idea, lost the support of a prominent South Carolina backer on the eve of the South Carolina primary, and withdrew. Now, for whatever reason, Rick Santorum is singing the same anti-conservative, anti-Reagan song -- just a different verse. This is his strategy to be The Conservative Alternative to moderate Mitt Romney? By joining Romney in rejecting the Reagan space legacy? Just as everybody is reminded both of Ronald Reagan's 101st birthday and the late January 1986 Challenger tragedy? Oh my. Instead of Bain bashing, Santorum is attacking Gingrich over the ex-Speaker's vow to return America to space exploration with a vengeance -- in the form of a moon colony. An obvious intent to carry forward with the Reagan space legacy made all the more potent by the Obama administration's deliberate halt to the very idea of a serious 21st century American presence in space. Appallingly, if predictably, Gingrich's decision to carry forward with Reagan's vision has already been mocked by the Obama-lite Romney. But Rick Santorum? The would-be "Authentic Conservative"? Bashing Ronald Reagan's vision? Sadly, yes . Call me gobsmacked, but now running out there on radio airtime is this Santorum-sponsored anti-Reagan space legacy commercial being presented as an attack on Gingrich. Mocks the Santorum commercial as reported in the Hill : "Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt," the voice-over in the ad says. "And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony." "Gingrich's example is fiscal insanity," the ad continues. The ad goes on to argue that Santorum is the most authentic conservative in the GOP presidential field. Santorum has focused his attacks on Gingrich recently in an effort to win over conservative Republicans who favor the former Speaker. Santorum and Gingrich are fighting to be the conservative alternative to front-runner Mitt Romney. While campaigning in Florida before its primary on Jan. 31, Gingrich proposed putting a base on the moon. His suggestion was widely criticized by his opponents. Doubling down, Santorum wrote an op-ed on the subject, mocking the Reagan beliefs by comparing them to the cartoon character George Jetson. Earlier he'd said : "I promise you: no moon colonies, I promise." So let me see if I understand this. The week that the nation is be celebrating Ronald Reagan's 101st birthday -- that would be February 6 -- Rick Santorum has selected that exact moment to present himself as the anti-Reagan? With the nation still recalling the tragedy that was the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle 26 Januarys ago, Rick Santorum sides with… Barack Obama and Mr. Obama-Lite Mitt Romney? But says he's the most "authentic conservative"? Well. As the former president might say. If this is what passes for genius in the Santorum campaign to be The Conservative Alternative -- wow. And, in the spirit of fairness, since I suggested Gingrich get out of the campaign if he continued his Bain bashing (which he stopped) -- the sauce for the Gingrich and Perry geese should be ladled to the Santorum gander. If Rick Santorum is going to try and become The Conservative Alternative at the expense of the Reagan space legacy -- he should stop and get out of the campaign right now before he inflicts any more damage to himself and the conservative cause. Is there a Reagan space story here? Of course. One particular morning in January of 1986, a man named Michael Smith got up and went to work. On the bureau dresser, he left a file card with a note to his wife, Jane. And off he went. What did Michael Smith do? He was an astronaut. In fact, he was a crew member of an American space ship. Long before dawn, Michael Smith, along with his fellow crew members, was being suited up. The names of his fellow crew members were, in alphabetical order: Greg Jarvis Christa McAuliffe Ronald McNair Ellison Onizuka Judith Resnik Dick Scobee The name of their space ship -- a shuttle captained by Smith's fellow astronaut Dick Scobee? That's right: Challenger. In the White House that morning of January 28, it was busy. I was there. That night the President would make the famous ride up to Capitol Hill to deliver the traditional State of the Union Address. Anyone with a job in the various precincts of the president had their individual tasks, and I had mine. And then… and then. President Reagan would write it in his daily diary as follows: A day we'll remember for the rest of our lives. Started off with a staff meeting &#038; then a session with the Cong. Leadership of both parties. Had a go around with Tip (then-Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, a Democrat) -- think I came out pretty good…….. Then I was getting a briefing for the meeting I was to have with network anchors -- an advance on the St. of the Union address scheduled for tonight. In came Poindexter (the national security advisor) &#038; the V.P. with the news the shuttle Challenger had blown up on takeoff. We all headed for a TV &#038; saw the explosion re-played. From then on there was only (one) subject -- the death of the 6 crew &#038; 1 passenger -- Mrs. McAuliffe, the teacher who had won the right to make the flight. There is no way to describe our shock &#038; horror. We cancelled -- I should say postponed the St. of the Union address til next week. Abruptly, everything that was "normal" that day -- in the White House and America -- stopped in its tracks. The great American adventure that was space exploration was faced with a highly visible, globally televised tragedy. The images of the Challenger soaring into space, then literally exploding in a clear blue sky as the parents of school teacher-civilian astronaut Christa McAuliffe watched from nearby stands in dawning horror, were everywhere. Everywhere. What Americans who were alive that day remember is the President's speech to the nation that night. But there is another story, much unremembered today and obviously not recalled by Rick Santorum. Three days after the tragedy that was the Challenger explosion there was a memorial service in Houston at the NASA Space Center. The President and Mrs. Reagan departed the White House at 8:45 to board Air Force One and be there with the families. Some 14,000 people were in attendance. All those Americans who worked directly for NASA, along with the families of the seven astronauts who died that terrible day.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Santorum Rejects Reagan Space Legacy</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MendesIdalia899</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teacher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I like Rick Santorum. My former senator, whom I voted for three times and have written about here and here is conservative, a great family man, smart and passionate about his beliefs. So… I hate to say this, but at the moment: what a disappointment. What in the world is Rick Santorum thinking? Bad enough that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry briefly put themselves out there to appear as the anti-capitalist candidates. In this corner, the instant reaction to that mercifully short epidemic of conservative Bain bashing was that if that's where Newt and Perry were headed on such a major conservative principle that Reagan so exemplified -- they should withdraw. Gingrich, typically, candidly admitted a mistake and stopped. His Super PAC ads vanished. Perry hung on to the idea, lost the support of a prominent South Carolina backer on the eve of the South Carolina primary, and withdrew. Now, for whatever reason, Rick Santorum is singing the same anti-conservative, anti-Reagan song -- just a different verse. This is his strategy to be The Conservative Alternative to moderate Mitt Romney? By joining Romney in rejecting the Reagan space legacy? Just as everybody is reminded both of Ronald Reagan's 101st birthday and the late January 1986 Challenger tragedy? Oh my. Instead of Bain bashing, Santorum is attacking Gingrich over the ex-Speaker's vow to return America to space exploration with a vengeance -- in the form of a moon colony. An obvious intent to carry forward with the Reagan space legacy made all the more potent by the Obama administration's deliberate halt to the very idea of a serious 21st century American presence in space. Appallingly, if predictably, Gingrich's decision to carry forward with Reagan's vision has already been mocked by the Obama-lite Romney. But Rick Santorum? The would-be "Authentic Conservative"? Bashing Ronald Reagan's vision? Sadly, yes . Call me gobsmacked, but now running out there on radio airtime is this Santorum-sponsored anti-Reagan space legacy commercial being presented as an attack on Gingrich. Mocks the Santorum commercial as reported in the Hill : "Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt," the voice-over in the ad says. "And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony." "Gingrich's example is fiscal insanity," the ad continues. The ad goes on to argue that Santorum is the most authentic conservative in the GOP presidential field. Santorum has focused his attacks on Gingrich recently in an effort to win over conservative Republicans who favor the former Speaker. Santorum and Gingrich are fighting to be the conservative alternative to front-runner Mitt Romney. While campaigning in Florida before its primary on Jan. 31, Gingrich proposed putting a base on the moon. His suggestion was widely criticized by his opponents. Doubling down, Santorum wrote an op-ed on the subject, mocking the Reagan beliefs by comparing them to the cartoon character George Jetson. Earlier he'd said : "I promise you: no moon colonies, I promise." So let me see if I understand this. The week that the nation is be celebrating Ronald Reagan's 101st birthday -- that would be February 6 -- Rick Santorum has selected that exact moment to present himself as the anti-Reagan? With the nation still recalling the tragedy that was the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle 26 Januarys ago, Rick Santorum sides with… Barack Obama and Mr. Obama-Lite Mitt Romney? But says he's the most "authentic conservative"? Well. As the former president might say. If this is what passes for genius in the Santorum campaign to be The Conservative Alternative -- wow. And, in the spirit of fairness, since I suggested Gingrich get out of the campaign if he continued his Bain bashing (which he stopped) -- the sauce for the Gingrich and Perry geese should be ladled to the Santorum gander. If Rick Santorum is going to try and become The Conservative Alternative at the expense of the Reagan space legacy -- he should stop and get out of the campaign right now before he inflicts any more damage to himself and the conservative cause. Is there a Reagan space story here? Of course. One particular morning in January of 1986, a man named Michael Smith got up and went to work. On the bureau dresser, he left a file card with a note to his wife, Jane. And off he went. What did Michael Smith do? He was an astronaut. In fact, he was a crew member of an American space ship. Long before dawn, Michael Smith, along with his fellow crew members, was being suited up. The names of his fellow crew members were, in alphabetical order: Greg Jarvis Christa McAuliffe Ronald McNair Ellison Onizuka Judith Resnik Dick Scobee The name of their space ship -- a shuttle captained by Smith's fellow astronaut Dick Scobee? That's right: Challenger. In the White House that morning of January 28, it was busy. I was there. That night the President would make the famous ride up to Capitol Hill to deliver the traditional State of the Union Address. Anyone with a job in the various precincts of the president had their individual tasks, and I had mine. And then… and then. President Reagan would write it in his daily diary as follows: A day we'll remember for the rest of our lives. Started off with a staff meeting &#038; then a session with the Cong. Leadership of both parties. Had a go around with Tip (then-Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, a Democrat) -- think I came out pretty good…….. Then I was getting a briefing for the meeting I was to have with network anchors -- an advance on the St. of the Union address scheduled for tonight. In came Poindexter (the national security advisor) &#038; the V.P. with the news the shuttle Challenger had blown up on takeoff. We all headed for a TV &#038; saw the explosion re-played. From then on there was only (one) subject -- the death of the 6 crew &#038; 1 passenger -- Mrs. McAuliffe, the teacher who had won the right to make the flight. There is no way to describe our shock &#038; horror. We cancelled -- I should say postponed the St. of the Union address til next week. Abruptly, everything that was "normal" that day -- in the White House and America -- stopped in its tracks. The great American adventure that was space exploration was faced with a highly visible, globally televised tragedy. The images of the Challenger soaring into space, then literally exploding in a clear blue sky as the parents of school teacher-civilian astronaut Christa McAuliffe watched from nearby stands in dawning horror, were everywhere. Everywhere. What Americans who were alive that day remember is the President's speech to the nation that night. But there is another story, much unremembered today and obviously not recalled by Rick Santorum. Three days after the tragedy that was the Challenger explosion there was a memorial service in Houston at the NASA Space Center. The President and Mrs. Reagan departed the White House at 8:45 to board Air Force One and be there with the families. Some 14,000 people were in attendance. All those Americans who worked directly for NASA, along with the families of the seven astronauts who died that terrible day.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space-legacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Sweet Meteor of Death 2012</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sweet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ As I said back in December , I have no plans to endorse a candidate for President of the United States. I wrote, at the time, &#8220;I would prefer instead to tell you exactly what I think about each of the candidates, good or bad, and let the chips fall where they may.&#8221; Since then, I have routinely been asked who I would endorse. Today, after a lot of reflection on this race, I can honestly say my position has not changed and I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades&#8217; sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race. Only the sweet meteor of death seems capable of stopping both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I can take the easy way out and not endorse because while I recognize politics necessitates compromise, I would have to compromise my intellectual honesty too much to choose any of the remaining candidates. Tonight, on my radio show, I put my weight behind the sweet meteor of death. You can listen to my reasons why here . The Republican Party is putting itself in the hands of the economy. With Mitt Romney as the nominee, we will be forced to hope for a deteriorating economy because, while I will vote for him and think he is vastly better than Barack Obama, the fact is he has made no case for himself against Barack Obama except that he can do a better job on the economy. And let&#8217;s be clear — no Republican should hope or appear to be hoping for a deteriorating economy. It&#8217;s just that with no other justification for his election other than electability based on the ability to fix the economy, if the economy fixes itself, suddenly there is no justification for Mitt Romney&#8217;s electability. My sincere and honest hope is that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race as long as possible to deny MItt Romney enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination. I do not think either Santorum or Gingrich have much of a better shot against Barack Obama, but I do think they are at least running on bigger ideas than Mitt Romney — ideas that still translate and survive an improving economy. For months I have said I am for &#8220;Not Romney.&#8221; It is not because I think either Gingrich or Santorum have a better shot at winning than Romney, but because I still hold out hope for a broker convention to save us from ourselves. I may be a Republican, and at one time an elected Republican, but I have always needed more than just a letter of the alphabet next to someone&#8217;s name to get me excited. Newt Gingrich excites because he picks fights with all the people I think need to be fought, including Mitt Romney. God bless him for that. But I am under no illusion that makes him capable of beating Barack Obama without a deteriorating economy. Rick Santorum excites me because, while I think he is a big government and compassionate conservative, he is willing to defend traditional mores in this country in a way few are. HIs bold stand for faith and tradition is honest and refreshing, but it also makes for a massive liability in a general election when he has so little to show voters on other fronts. As for Romney, he does not excite me and has largely run his campaign making sure conservatives know he can get the nomination without them. That&#8217;s all well and good, but he certainly should not expect me or other conservatives to do anything for him in the general election other than, hopefully it won&#8217;t just be me, showing up to vote for him. That&#8217;s about all I plan to do for the man. I&#8217;ll support the Republican nominee for President. I&#8217;ll defend him from meritless attacks and I will oppose Barack Obama. Any one of our candidates is better than Barack Obama. But God help us if any one of them is the nominee. Until we reach the magic number 1144, which is the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, I hold out hope that someone or some meteor saves us from ourselves. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://images.redstate.com/Hour2Segment3.mp3" length="13866630" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Sweet Meteor of Death 2012</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newt-gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rick santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012-3/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ As I said back in December , I have no plans to endorse a candidate for President of the United States. I wrote, at the time, &#8220;I would prefer instead to tell you exactly what I think about each of the candidates, good or bad, and let the chips fall where they may.&#8221; Since then, I have routinely been asked who I would endorse. Today, after a lot of reflection on this race, I can honestly say my position has not changed and I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades&#8217; sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race. Only the sweet meteor of death seems capable of stopping both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I can take the easy way out and not endorse because while I recognize politics necessitates compromise, I would have to compromise my intellectual honesty too much to choose any of the remaining candidates. Tonight, on my radio show, I put my weight behind the sweet meteor of death. You can listen to my reasons why here . The Republican Party is putting itself in the hands of the economy. With Mitt Romney as the nominee, we will be forced to hope for a deteriorating economy because, while I will vote for him and think he is vastly better than Barack Obama, the fact is he has made no case for himself against Barack Obama except that he can do a better job on the economy. And let&#8217;s be clear — no Republican should hope or appear to be hoping for a deteriorating economy. It&#8217;s just that with no other justification for his election other than electability based on the ability to fix the economy, if the economy fixes itself, suddenly there is no justification for Mitt Romney&#8217;s electability. My sincere and honest hope is that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race as long as possible to deny MItt Romney enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination. I do not think either Santorum or Gingrich have much of a better shot against Barack Obama, but I do think they are at least running on bigger ideas than Mitt Romney — ideas that still translate and survive an improving economy. For months I have said I am for &#8220;Not Romney.&#8221; It is not because I think either Gingrich or Santorum have a better shot at winning than Romney, but because I still hold out hope for a broker convention to save us from ourselves. I may be a Republican, and at one time an elected Republican, but I have always needed more than just a letter of the alphabet next to someone&#8217;s name to get me excited. Newt Gingrich excites because he picks fights with all the people I think need to be fought, including Mitt Romney. God bless him for that. But I am under no illusion that makes him capable of beating Barack Obama without a deteriorating economy. Rick Santorum excites me because, while I think he is a big government and compassionate conservative, he is willing to defend traditional mores in this country in a way few are. HIs bold stand for faith and tradition is honest and refreshing, but it also makes for a massive liability in a general election when he has so little to show voters on other fronts. As for Romney, he does not excite me and has largely run his campaign making sure conservatives know he can get the nomination without them. That&#8217;s all well and good, but he certainly should not expect me or other conservatives to do anything for him in the general election other than, hopefully it won&#8217;t just be me, showing up to vote for him. That&#8217;s about all I plan to do for the man. I&#8217;ll support the Republican nominee for President. I&#8217;ll defend him from meritless attacks and I will oppose Barack Obama. Any one of our candidates is better than Barack Obama. But God help us if any one of them is the nominee. Until we reach the magic number 1144, which is the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, I hold out hope that someone or some meteor saves us from ourselves. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-sweet-meteor-of-death-2012-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://images.redstate.com/Hour2Segment3.mp3" length="13866630" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Negotiating With Terrorists</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/negotiating-with-terrorists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/negotiating-with-terrorists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[establishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidential]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/negotiating-with-terrorists/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I would like to take a moment to address something that you hear every Presidential cycle and which is making the rounds again in force this year &#8211; the threat that &#8220;if [Candidate X] wins the nomination, I am going to stay home/vote third party/vote for Obama.&#8221; The loudest and most vocal group of these folks during this election cycle are the Romney opponents; however, I&#8217;ve heard a lot of libertarian conservatives make the same threat about a potential Santorum nomination, and a lot of folks bothered by Newt&#8217;s serial adultery who have made the same threat if Newt gets the nomination. Let me start out by stating the obvious &#8211; there is no one who is going to force anyone to vote and each person is certainly entitled to make their own choice about whether they will take time out of their day once every other year to go to the voting booth and cast a ballot &#8211; a point which applies a fortiori when it comes to the decision whether to donate to/volunteer for a candidate. If a person simply feels that they can&#8217;t pull the lever for Romney/Santorum/Newt, then I respect that decision even if I disagree with it. After all, I myself would have been unable to pull the lever for Rudy in 2008 because I have moral qualms against voting for candidates who are in favor of legalized mass infanticide. The problem I have is with the folks who believe that their statement of refusal to vote for the Republican nominee presents some sort of existential threat to the Republican party that the party should heed and pay some sort of special deference to. The entire mentality that says, &#8220;If you, the Establishment, foist Mitt Romney upon us, then we are going to show you good &#8211; we are going to start a third party and destroy the Republican party forever!&#8221; A few points are in order about this line of thinking. First, the Republican party nomination will be won not by the &#8220;Establishment&#8221; but rather by Republican primary voters . If indeed Mitt Romney wins the nomination, it will be because more Republicans voted for him than for any other Republican candidate. In light of this undisputable fact, I am at a loss as to what the folks who are currently threatening third party votes/voting for Obama/staying home are hoping the Republican Party will do in the event that the Party is inclined to cave to their threats. Do they want the Republican Party to disregard the will of Republican voters and nominate someone who didn&#8217;t get as many votes as Mitt Romney? Such a solution is absurd on its face but that seems to be what many people are asking for (even though they aren&#8217;t taking their reasoning this far, which is its only logical endpoint). If you are really and truly angry about the prospect of a Mitt Romney nomination, may I suggest that you spend more time convincing your fellow voters to vote for someone else rather than screaming impotently at people who cannot fix your problem for you. And may I also suggest that &#8220;If your guy wins the nomination, I am taking my ball and going home&#8221; is not that persuasive of an argument to the average GOP primary voter. Second, this argument vastly overstates the importance of the person who is making it in the grand scheme of political history. Every potential nominee and actual nominee who has ever been nominated has been unacceptable to some subset of Republican voters. That fact notwithstanding, we&#8217;ve had a pretty decent run in terms of winning the White House since the end of the FDR administration. The polling right now would clearly suggest that Romney has the best chance to beat Obama head to head even given the allegedly enormous number of people who would sit out/vote Obama if he is the nominee (unless we assume that huge numbers of people are lying to pollsters about their willingness to vote for Romney in the general right now). The folks who are caterwauling right now ought to really stop and consider the implications of this fact. If, in fact, there is a nebulous Republican &#8220;Establishment&#8221; that is somehow able to control the primary process and override the will of Republican voters (something which I contend is ludicrous but is nonetheless fervently believed by many people, apparently), then the worst thing that could possibly happen to the conservative movement would be for them to get the idea &#8211; supported by the evidence &#8211; that Republican nominees could win without any support at all from movement conservatives. And if movement conservatives loudly sit out and/or vote Third Party and Romney wins anyway, that is exactly the message that will be sent. But moreover, there is a normative aspect of this that is at work here which I am dismayed to see so many alleged conservatives disregarding. Being elected to the Presidency in a country of this size requires a massive team organization effort that frankly cannot be accomplished outside of the current two-party framework. Despite the earnest protestations of various assorted cranks who have risen up throughout the years, a vote for something other than a Democrat or a Republican in the Presidential election is a completely wasted vote. The Democrats show no inclination to discontinue their parade of socialist freakshow nominees any time in the near future, so it is facially obvious that any person of even nominally conservative beliefs will generally find the Republicans&#8217; nominee to be the better choice. The Republican party is composed of millions of different people with widely divergent beliefs and priorities. In different regions of the country and different Congressional districts, very different kinds of Republicans stand the best chance of being elected. When it comes to the country at large, we have a democratic process which determines who we as a party will put up for the position of President. This person will be the only meaningful alternative to the thinly veiled socialism of the Democrats that the public can choose. Sometimes, as a Republican, your choice for nominee will win, and sometimes your choice will lose. When the process is said and done, as a Republican, only a truly unusual set of circumstances should prevent us from being able to lay down the arms we have turned against each other and working together to defeat the Democrats and their twisted vision for America. Again, if someone can&#8217;t bring themselves to vote in November under their own conscience, that is their own business and I will not judge them. But the wailing cry of &#8220;I&#8217;m taking my ball and going home if I don&#8217;t get my way!&#8221; is something our parents hopefully taught us was wrong about the time we turned six years old. I see no reason why it should be treated with any more seriousness than we would treat a wayward six year old, even if it were possible to do so without thwarting the democratically-expressed wishes of the GOP electorate. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/negotiating-with-terrorists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Last Republican?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest. -- Nietzsche So it seems it will be Mitt. And good thing he won't be offering his main rival the second spot on the ticket. "Mitt &#038; Newt" sounds like the name of a comedy act or a network sitcom. Not right for something epic or tragic. Which is to say… not right for the times. Not even close. When you think about this election -- and you must, there is no escaping it -- you wonder if it is not just the same old, same old. Is this just another "most important election of our lifetimes," or something, actually, a little more important than that? Is it business as usual or are we entering a pre-revolutionary phase of history when, soon, nothing will be the same again? Who knows? But to ask the question is to point out how unfit Mr. Romney may be to lead during these times. To begin with, he has never given any indication that he even understands, or appreciates, the mood of these days. You can listen to Mr. Romney debate or speak for hours (some have, poor souls) and never get the feeling that he senses the fear, the uncertainty, and the outright dread that is loose in the land. People, millions of them, are not merely frightened; they are terrified. Mr. Romney's message of assurance? "I'll fix things. Trust me, I'm a businessman." An example of Mitts's insouciance would be that line about how the health care mandate isn't something to "get angry about." Nah. Geeze, man. Chill. And on the existential (sorry, only word that will do) choices about just how much government the nation can afford and how much debt it can endure (or visa versa), Romney has never exhibited the slightest sign that he appreciates what a big deal it is. Nothing, he seems to believe, to get your knickers in a twist over. He'll fix it. He's a businessman. Mr. Romney has captured the Republican flag and will carry it into battle this Fall. If he loses, those people who believed devoutly that the times require something more than a standard-issue Republican for whom all things political are negotiable and to whom there is no dispute that cannot be settled by compromise … those people will be saying, "Never again." They will have seen it before and one suspects they will be finished with a party that repeatedly sends out for slaughter candidates who do not represent their beliefs, positions, and ideas with conviction. If it is about common ground and compromise, they will say, then the hell with it and leave the Republican Party to people who consider it a boast to say, "I could work with Teddy Kennedy." If, on the other hand, Mr. Romney wins, what then? Does anyone expect that when he gets to Washington and starts running the government like a business, entitlements will reform themselves, the deficit will shrivel on its own accord, and Leviathan will shrink to a size where it can be domesticated and housebroken? Has Mr. Romney demonstrated, ever, any convictions regarding the proper size and the rightful powers of the government? Does anyone believe he shares the fear millions feel about government power and their angry indignation at its arrogance and overreach? His overriding sentiment about government seems to be that it would be nice if he were in charge of it … so it would be run (all together now) like a business. In short, does anyone think that Romney will ride into Washington next January determined to tame the town… or die trying? Mr. Romney's aim will almost surely be to take Washington on its own terms and try to "make it work." Whatever anti-Washington sentiments he might express during the campaign, the odds are they will be discarded and forgotten within weeks of his taking the oath of office in a replay of George H. W. Bush and "read my lips." The people who voted for Romney in the belief that he would take on Washington will be patronizingly told by the political class that "Governing is not the same as campaigning." "No stuff, Sherlock," the betrayed will say. "Governing is a lot more important and a lot tougher and the guys like Bush, Dole, McCain, the other Bush and, now, Romney never understood that. It is they who govern as though they were campaigning for the approval of Washington and the political class. "We never thought that electing them was the whole point and that if, afterwards, you got 'Big Government Conservatism' or 'Compassionate Conservatism,' it was no big deal because, praise Jesus, the Republicans were in charge. We always thought that the governing would be the hard part. Look how tough it was to get rid of ethanol subsidies. It is you who are confused." The betrayed will leave if Romney makes it his mission to manage his way to a second term. He'll have an easier path, this time, getting the nomination. But he will likely be the last Republican. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sixty-Five to One: It’s Not That Complicated</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/sixty-five-to-one-its-not-that-complicated/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/sixty-five-to-one-its-not-that-complicated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TakakiVian404</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atlanta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atlanta-journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newt-gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/sixty-five-to-one-its-not-that-complicated/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Political analysts have a need to sound expertly and important when it comes to elections. They have to go in depth and explain artfully and deeply why someone won and someone lost. It was the debates. It was the ground game. It was the strategies. It was the likability versus dislikability of the candidates. On and on they go. What gets danced around is the money. Money is usually why candidates win or lose. Candidates with the highest favorable name ID usually win. To do that takes lots of money and lots of ads. For all the hoopla about Mitt Romney&#8217;s victory in Florida, it really is not that hard to understand. All you need to understand is the ratio 65 to 1. As my friend Jim Galloway notes at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Mitt Romney ran 65 ads for every 1 ad run by or for Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were shut out altogether. If you win the air war that significantly, you are going to win the election. We don&#8217;t need fancy spin and long winded explanations to understand that. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/01/sixty-five-to-one-its-not-that-complicated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Florida Fireworks Finale</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/florida-fireworks-finale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/florida-fireworks-finale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>apgreco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[south]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[south-carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunshine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/florida-fireworks-finale/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Newt Gingrich tried to defend his claim that Mitt Romney is "the most anti-immigrant candidate" in last night's Republican presidential debate here, an accusation that Romney called "inexcusable" and "repulsive." Gingrich did not seem to understand that this accusation, made in a Spanish-language radio ad aimed at South Florida's large Latino population, may actually end up helping Romney win next week's primary. The controversy stirred by the ad, which Gingrich ordered his campaign to pull off the air, highlights differences of policy -- and puts Gingrich clearly to Romney's left, which isn't a good place to be in a Republican primary. After a long discussion of the issue, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Gingrich, "I just want to make sure I understand. Is [Romney] still the most anti-immigrant candidate?" The former House Speaker answered: "I think, of the four of us, yes." This provoked a long response from Romney, who said he favors "enforcing the U.S. law to protect our borders," a position that is not "anti-immigrant." Romney accused Gingrich of "the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics too long," and then invoked the most popular Republican in Florida: "I'm glad that Marco Rubio called you out on it. I'm glad you withdrew it. I think you should apologize for it, and I think you should recognize that having differences of opinions on issues does not justify labeling people with highly charged epithets." Thursday's debate, the 19th televised debate among Republican presidential candidates this year, certainly did not lack fireworks. And while many political junkies have become weary of watching these affairs, the event here on the campus of the University of North Florida may be as decisive as the South Carolina debates that were credited with helping Gingrich score a crucial win there Saturday. Polls this week in Florida show Romney pulling away, and the former Massachusetts governor had one of his best-ever debate performances Thursday, while Gingrich had one of his worst yet. While arguments between the two Florida frontrunners got the biggest play, however, Thursday was also an impressive performance for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Polls show Santorum running a distant third in the Sunshine State, but he slammed both Gingrich and Romney for their previous stances on health care. " This is the top-down model that both of these gentlemen say they're now against, but they've been for, and it does not provide the contrast we need with Barack Obama if we're going to take on that most important issue," Santorum said. "We cannot give the issue of health care away in this election. It is too foundational for us to win this election." This provoked an extended argument between Santorum and Romney over the so-called "individual mandate" in the health legislation Romney supported in Massachusetts. When Santorum's criticism of the Massachusetts plan grew heated, Romney replied by saying "it's not worth getting angry about." Asked after the debate about that flare-up, Santorum described himself as "passionate," and his passionate performance won praise from many conservatives, including Guy Benson of Townhall.com : " What a night for the former Pennsylvania Senator … he definitely made a very serious case that he might be the best Not Romney in the race. " Santorum seems unlikely to score the kind of miraculous last-minute surge in the Sunshine State that carried him to victory in the Iowa caucuses three weeks ago, but Thursday's debate could help him gain support as he seeks to rekindle his campaign's sense of momentum. At this point, no candidate in the race has been able to win two consecutive contests. After Santorum edged Romney in Iowa, Romney came back to win convincingly in New Hampshire. But Gingrich won solidly in South Carolina, halting Romney's momentum. If current Florida polls are accurate and Romney wins here Tuesday, the biggest challenge for Romney's opponents will be to raise enough money to continue the fight through a long campaign. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/florida-fireworks-finale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Republicans&#8217; Wasted Angst</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/the-republicans-wasted-angst/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/the-republicans-wasted-angst/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accomplishments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[favor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supporters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/the-republicans-wasted-angst/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Republicans need to chillax . Especially within the Republican establishment, some apparently are having anxiety attacks about how the primaries are unfolding. Here's what the panic prone seem to be overlooking -- if the election were held tomorrow, Charley Sheen would beat Barack Obama. Heck, you could even say John McCain would beat him. The point is this: the election in November will be almost exclusively about Obama. The relative importance of Obama versus fill-in-the-blank will be in the neighborhood of 95 to 5. This election will be overwhelmingly a vote against rather than a vote for. The deciding question on the majority of voters' minds will be, "Which of these two guys is not Barack Obama." There will be tens of millions of "one-issue voters" and the one issue will be Mr. Obama. In the 2008 election Obama had virtually every imaginable factor in his favor. The mainstream media gave him a free ride, as they will again in November. There was no due diligence, no vetting. Even with every imaginable advantage, 47 percent of the electorate voted against him. It's reasonable to assume that virtually none of those who voted against him then will vote for him this time. Now consider the 53 percent who voted for him. That 53 percent comprised a number of sub-populations -- young people, minorities, Jews, labor union members, progressives, independents, for example. Now on an almost daily basis we see polls showing how he is hemorrhaging support from one or another of these groups. In a wide variety of ways he has managed to alienate many of his supporters. There are, of course, Democrats and liberals who would never vote for any Republican. Nevertheless, some will simply opt not to vote at all. On the other hand, those who voted against Obama in 2008 are now more highly motivated to vote than they were then. Obama's greatest asset in 2008 was his unknown-ness. That asset has now disappeared. In 2008 his blank résumé miraculously transformed into a blank canvas that voters used to envision their heartfelt fantasies. Obama is now a known quantity and a known quality. Getting elected by concealing who you are is not a strategy that can be recycled. The number of people he has angered or at least disappointed is immense. Even his supporters are angry at him. The difference between the hope and the results is huge. People who were mildly against him are now fervently so. The high unemployment rate only partially reflects the pain and anxiety in the population. Thousands of businesses have failed, and thousands of others are hanging on by their finger tips. Many of those people voted for him last time and will have a tough time doing so again. The Obama White House and reelection team are trying to show a brave face. The Republican primaries are their primary basis for optimism. They and their mainstream media support team think the Republicans are self-destructing, and many Republicans seem to agree. Fortunately for Republicans, in this election an ideal candidate is not a prerequisite for victory. As is always the case, everything is relative.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/27/the-republicans-wasted-angst/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

