The Presidential Election of 2008

Mar 052009

A Foolish, Corrupt, Childish Display

It’s over and there is no getting around it: The presidential election of 2008 was a first-time-ever “American Idol Presidential Contest.” Never before have we elected a president who was so demonstrably unqualified to run for the presidency of the United States of America. So how did this happen?

A brief review

Obama’s win was the result of many factors.

Barack Obama’s exceptional rhetorical skills and his vague and often disingenuous, populist message of “Change you can believe in. “
Money: He had the largest “war chest” in U.S. political history.
His campaign team: It was one of the most effective ever. They strictly and adroitly managed every aspect of the campaign so their populist rhetoric stayed on message and was disseminated when and where it was the most needed. Additionally, the media’s access to candidate Obama was carefully restricted. All considered, it was a masterfully run propaganda machine.
A corrupt media: Despite their very limited access to the candidate—something that normally would have turned responsible journalists against a candidate—never before have the U.S. media been so blatantly biased in favor of a presidential candidate. This factor alone may have contributed 10% or more to an Obama victory. At times, their favoritism for Obama was so complete that it was often hard to tell the difference between media product and output from the Obama campaign itself. Honest historians will have to record this period in U.S. history as one during which American journalism died.
Race: To think that race did not work in Obama’s favor is to deny the stats. 96% of African American voters chose Obama as did a huge majority of Hispanic voters. Add to these, the unfounded guilt factor among many misguided liberal Democrats and the deal was done! Moreover, there is no evidence of an offset by an anti-black vote.
The financial-markets crisis: With the help of the media, Barack Obama successfully and dishonestly placed the blame for the financial-market crisis on “Bush’s failed economic policies” and the Republicans in general. In fact, Bush’s economic policies were extraordinarily successful given the massive hits on our economy during his presidency. The real culprits were Democrats, not Republicans. Beginning perhaps with Jimmy Carter and culminating with Democratic stonewalling of institutional reform by the likes of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank the financial meltdown of 2008 was a veritable fait accompli. It is a matter of record that both President Bush and Republican members of congress repeatedly warned that we were headed for a financial meltdown unless the corrupt and irresponsible practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were reformed and that the Democrats stonewalled all efforts to enact such reform. (See “Obama Blames Bush For Financial Crisis.” But thanks to the corrupt media, these facts were kept from the main body of the electorate, most of whom to this day, still don’t know the real causes of our current financial problems.
Hardcore Liberal Democrats: They vote the party line no matter what.
Cultism: It is not an exaggeration to say that a “Cult of Obama” developed and was nurtured by the media during the campaign. The details and depth of this mania will be documented and examined later on this site.
Ignorance: Post-election polling and surveys revealed that millions of Obama voters were woefully ignorant of even the most basic facts about Barack Obama the candidate, current events, national politics in general, and even American history. In fact, it became shockingly clear that ignorant voters were some of Obama’s most ardent devotees.
Irresponsible behavior: Many informed voters simply ignored their normal tendencies to rational thought, went into denial mode and voted for Obama because “He is black and it would be nice to have a black president”, or “I like the way he speaks”, or whatever. Without hesitation, when his supporters were asked a series of rational, fair questions such as “Does his inexperience concern you?” – “Do his long-standing radical associations trouble you?” – “Is the fact that he has not even completed four years of his first term in the Senate an issue for you?” or “Can you name just one significant legislative accomplishment of his?” the answer was “no” every time.