Reagan Won By A Landslide And Governed Like A Leader; Obama Won By A FRACTION Of Reagan’s Mandate And Governed Like An Arrogant Tyrant.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan stunned Jimmy Carter and the mainstream media propagandists – and yeah, all the pseudo-pollsters – by destroying Carter by winning 489 electoral votes to Jimmy Carter’s 89:

In 1984, Ronald Reagan AGAIN stunned the mainstream media propagandists and all the psuedo-pollsters by destroying Walter Mondale by 529 electoral college votes to 13.  Reagan carried 49 states that year; and only Mondale’s home state of Minnesota drank his Kool Aid and pulled the lever for him:

There’s a damn good reason why Gallup still ranks Ronald Reagan as THE GREATEST AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN HISTORY

But here’s the thing: Ronald Reagan won America and won a “mandate” by the largest margins EVER.  And Reagan wasn’t even a FRACTION as arrogant or dismissive of the other side as Obama has been every single day of the last four years.

We have simply got to get the stench of this turd also known as Barack Hussein Obama out of the White House if we EVER want to have anything even CLOSE to resembling a presidency that is capable of reaching out to the other side.  Because just as Obama has destroyed the public election system by being the first candidate to refuse public matching funds – and thus opening the doors to special interests like NO OTHER MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY – he will destroy anything resembling bipartisanship if he gets to continue to abandon the law and the Constitution and govern by tyranny.

One of the primary things that will ultimately make Obama’s presidency the worst in history was his total inability to compromise, to reach out to the other side, and to champion bipartisan accomplishments.  In those regards, Ronald Wilson Reagan has spent every single day of Obama’s failed presidency bitch-slapping him.

And one of the key ways Obama has shown that at his core he is a demagogue rather than an actual leader is that he has repeatedly said that the conservative Republican agenda somehow equals Bush and equals everything that is bad rather than understanding that the greatest president in history became the greatest president in history by means of the very conservative agenda that Obama is clearly too arrogant, too ideological and too ignorant to even begin to understand.

Barack Obama IS the anti-Reagan president.  He is also the anti-Kennedy and anti-American exceptionalism president.

The saddest thing about Obama’s failed presidency is that it “fundamentally transformed” the thirty year trajectory of success that Reagan’s policies bequeathed upon America.  We now have a labor participation rate that is THE WORST since Jimmy Carter screwed up the universe and it took a Ronald Reagan to fix the mess.  And that rate has gotten worse every single year of Obama’s failed presidency.  We now have consumer confidence rates that similarly are as dismal as they were in the day that Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe.

When confronted by a true economic crisis, Ronald Reagan got to work and gave America its greatest recovery EVER.  When Barack Obama was confronted by a true economic crisis, he and his fellow Marxist ideologues said “Never let a crisis go to waste!” and demagogued all kinds of socialist takeovers through a militant Democrat-controlled Congress.  And as we look at the next four years, all Obama has to offer are failed policies that didn’t work the first four years and won’t work in the future.

Obama has no relationships at all with either the House or the Senate.  He has done so little bipartisan reaching out during his failed administration that when the Republicans swept the House in 2010, Barack Obama’s White House did not have the phone number or any way to reach incoming Speaker John Boehner:

The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.
 
Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker’s phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.
 
While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.
 
“It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama,” Woodward writes.

Because he had never bothered to reach out in any way, shape or form when John Boehner was the Minority Leader and Republicans were shut out.

The man had ZERO outreach to the Republicans.  And more than anything else that was the greatest failure of his presidency.

Obama’s tone with Republicans was thinly veiled contempt straight out the door when he took office:

In Obama’s first meeting with Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders, just two weeks after his inauguration, he told the group that he wanted to hear everyone’s ideas and come to a bipartisan solution—words he had run his presidential platform on. He told those assembled, “If it works, we don’t care whose idea it is.” But the next day his tune changed when Rep. Eric Cantor, then House minority whip, passed out a draft of a potential economic recovery plan that essentially met only the Republican demands. After reading the one-page spread, the president responded: “I can go it alone but I want to come together. Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now.” He then told Cantor, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.” The president’s arrogance is described many times in the book as having a negative effect. Woodward writes of impromptu speeches that Obama would sometimes make over conference calls and which Congress members often muted, specifically naming House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Additionally, one of Obama’s most used “catch phrases” at the beginning stages of his presidency was “I’d be willing to be a one-term president over this.” It was a phrase he used to back up topics he was passionate about. It was also used against him later when Republicans began to hope his quips would come true. […]

Cantor is noted as being a straight-talking politician. So much so that Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, once thanked Cantor for his brutal honesty during a meeting with the president—despite the two being on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. But Obama wasn’t always as appreciative of Cantor’s tendency to speak his mind, Woodward writes. During yet another budget meeting in which House and Senate leaders were talking with the president about the amount of money they were willing to raise through both taxes and cuts, Cantor told the president that the two sides were moving in opposite directions. Obama did not take Cantor’s mild taunt lightly and responded, according to Woodward, “I promise you, Eric, don’t call my bluff on this. It may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.” Obama then stood up and strode from the room.

More on that:

I’ve written about Obama’s divisiveness – in wild contrast to his hypocritical and cynical promises to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority” – and on this day when we celebrate the unity of the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, it seems fitting to examine why any hope of unity went out the door with Obama’s presidency.

Two weeks – just TWO WEEKS – after Obama took office, Republicans (according to Bob Woodward’s new book) came ready to work with him. The problem was that Obama wasn’t ready to work with THEM. When Eric Cantor provided some excellent suggestions to the massive stimulus that Obama demanded, Obama shut him down by saying, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.” Obama flat-out told Republicans he didn’t want to hear any of their ideas and that they weren’t going to be allowed to contribute.

Obama gave a speech just three weeks after taking office in which he said:

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

Eric Cantor was simply amazed. Obama had falsely won election on a promise of true hope and change for rising above partisan intransigence. And he was being more partisan and more bullheaded than anybody. Cantor reflected that Obama had EVERYTHING when he took office. He had the love of the American people. He had total Democrat control over the House for two full years. He had filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate for those two years. He had an opposition party that was shocked and awed and disoriented and dismayed at the loss they had just taken. Obama had all of that going for him. And, in Cantor’s words, in Obama’s very first act as president, “he had unified and energized the losers.”

The New York Times wrote about how Obama constantly overestimates his abilities and underestimates the abilities of those around him:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. […]

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

They wrote about how Obama is so petty in his competitiveness that he spends extraordinary time trying to compete and win in utter triviliaties:

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

For the record, that pissy, superior, arrogant attitude is NOT what characterized ANY successful American president.  Obama will not be successful in a second term simply because he is not emotionally or psychologically capable of doing what a successful president needs to be able to do.

Reagan had Tip O’Neil, the Democrat Speaker of the House.  And the two had a real relationship such that they could work with each other.  Clinton had Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House, sweep into power two years into his first term.  And the two men had a real relationship such that they could work with each other.

Whatever tree of relationship had existed between the presidency and Congress, Barack Obama pissed on it till it died.  And no, he hasn’t reached out much more to Congressional Democrats than he has to Republicans.  You find out from multiple sources that Barack Obama had an emperor’s disdain for Congress and frankly didn’t like ANY of them, even Democrats.  He is a distant, aloof and detached man when it comes time to stop campaigning and pretending he’s something he’s not and start actually leading and being the president.

The last thing this country can afford is a failed leader like Barack Obama getting a second chance at a job he will NEVER be emotionally or psychologically capable of handling.

Obama is The Empty Chair as a leader and as a president.  It is time to get a man like Ronald Reagan who came into the White House knowing how to lead and led America to greatness.  Granted we can’t do that at this point, Mitt Romney is the only chance this nation has.  Unlike Obama, Romney’s experience as a Governor (i.e., as an actual leader rather than merely one politician in a body of 99 other politicians like Senator Obama was) proved to be a successful one in terms of proving himself able to work in a liberal and overwhelmingly Democrat state like Massachusetts.

If you want more vicious gridlock and four more years of Obama being unable to lead Congress and getting nothing done beyond a series of increasingly tyrannical and self-serving executive orders, well, Lord help you, but you’re just not that bright.  The rest of you can study up on what a mean-spirited, petty man Obama is when it comes to demonizing his opposition and draw your conclusion accordingly.

Tags: , , ,

9 Responses to “Reagan Won By A Landslide And Governed Like A Leader; Obama Won By A FRACTION Of Reagan’s Mandate And Governed Like An Arrogant Tyrant.”

  1. Millie Says:

    One of your best. Thank you…

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you, Millie.

    Obama’s refusal which is now demonstrated pathological inability to reach out beyond his narrow leftist ideology is his worst failure as a president. And when you find out that Obama is even insulated from Democrats in his own Senate and in the House, it is beyond pathetic. He needs to go.

  3. Sonja Says:

    We are so close to this election being decided and I too pray that Romney will prevail. I’m tired of being attacked by lefties who are intolerant of any other beliefs and philosophies other than their own. I can’t even post satire or a political joke and I am immediately read the riot act by these small minded fools. Like Obama, they are smug and arrogant and unwilling to respect another’s point of view.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Sonja,

    I genuinely “feel your pain,” to quote Slick Willie Clinton. I would rather be trapped in a room with a rabid rat than be with a typical liberal. At least unless they were going to trap me in the room with the rabid rat and then turn the lights off.

    The sad thing is that what you are describing is the result of the fatal disease of the soul known as “hypocrisy” these liberals have. It’s amazing how willing liberals are to shut down free speech even as they constantly decry US as the “fascists.” These are the red shirts who start screaming at you and even vandalizing your property because of your bumper sticker who call us “Nazis” for wanting limited government. And what that means is that win or lose on Nov 6, these fascists will keep being the fascists they are.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there are riots if Romney wins.

  5. Vincent Says:

    Obama supporter. Interesting article. I will check for any truth to the claims. I found it while searching for articles from both Romney and Obama speaking of reaching out to the other party.

    More importantly, I found it interesting the commenters speak of us “lefties” with the same words we typically reserve for the right. Perhaps both sides don’t understand the other.

  6. Cameron Says:

    This article is based on mere opinion and an exploited, erroneous, and misleading attempt at the truth. Right or left, this article is simply untrue.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Cameron,

    People like you never cease to piss me off to no end. For what it’s worth, I documented pretty much every single thing I said. But let’s leave that aside and ask some questions:

    – WHAT is untrue? WHAT specifically is “based on mere opinion” blah blah blah? Are you honest enough or frankly decent enough – since you’re calling me out as a liar – to bother with even ONE example let alone bother to show us how I’m wrong like you say? No.

    And that is because you are a lying, degenerate weasel and frankly not worth the time of day. So go hump somebody else’s leg.

  8. John Says:

    Well said Michael.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you, John.

    It’s always a great thing when two people with names from the Bible are in agreement.

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


%d bloggers like this: