Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | February 12, 2012

Why isn’t Sarah running?

I’ll take a crack at it.  Her CPAC speech today was a barn-burner, hitting every conservative, small-government point and pumping out soundbites that will no doubt resonate in the public dialogue for days to come.  Some of my favorites:

“Drain the Jacuzzi!”

“This government isn’t too big to fail, it’s too big to succeed.”

“We don’t want an economy built to last, we want an economy built to grow.”

“This is Obama’s Washington.”

I wonder, however, if one of the points she hammered throughout the speech really registered with her audience.  Her signature line in this speech was “The door is open.”  She meant that political conditions are becoming conducive to a renewed commitment to small government and liberty.  People’s mindsets are changing.  We are not governed by the “rules” of political seasons past; the door is open to choosing our candidates and charting our nation’s future on a different basis.  The door is open to not accepting a continuation of the false compromises of previous decades.

(As I go to press, I see that Tina Korbe picked up on this theme.)

I have referred to those false compromises – “compromises” in which the conservative, small-government side gave up virtually everything – as the “old consensus.”  I see it losing, bit by bit, in this primary season.  People are no longer obediently making their political choices within the parameters defined for them by the professional political class.

This doesn’t mean that the voters have ideal candidates with whom to make their statement against the old consensus.  Santorum and Gingrich both have their drawbacks, as Paul always has.  But a critical mass of voters has recognized that Romney is the old consensus, and they are rejecting it.  The CPAC vote was remarkable for Romney’s 38% — because it wasn’t bigger, because Santorum got 31%, and even Gingrich, in a conclave of the politically connected, got 15%.

Everyone outpolled Ron Paul at CPAC, even though he has regularly won the CPAC vote in the past.  This signals a change in the mindset of politically active conservatives – not merely a new perspective that it’s overwhelmingly important to defeat Obama, but a perspective that the core of the conservative movement is shifting, and we need a serious mainstream candidate because it is a life-or-death matter to be effective in the political process.

That obviously doesn’t mean the CPAC voters think we need a “moderate,” leadership- and media-approved candidate.  If it did, they would have gone for Romney, rather than voting 46% for the mainstream candidates who are not Romney – and who are perceived, in many if not all cases correctly, as less satisfied with and enthusiastically “managerial” about the matter of big government.

But the point to take away is that voter sentiment, as it relates to the meaning of different candidates and the basis of government, is changing.

And that, I think, is about half the reason why Sarah Palin didn’t throw her hat in the ring for this campaign cycle.  Her evaluation of political conditions is remarkably accurate and prescient:  she saw, long before most of the voters did, that the game of expectations itself needed to change, and that only we could do it.

What strategic value was there for Palin in participating in the Cynical Media Slime-fest and All-Out Kick-em-in-the-Nads, mud-slinging, business-as-usual, expectations-on-autopilot primary season?

Six or eight months ago, the sea change in the voters’ sentiments and propensities might have been foreseeable, but it hadn’t happened yet.  Those who think Palin could have won lots of primaries on the basis of pre-primary voter sentiments are wrong, I think.  After all, the business-as-usual approach – Karl Rove tells everyone how bad a candidate is, the media magnify his or her every quirk or mistake, the media and some (not all) of the other candidates pile on with allegations that range from hostile spin to outright falsehood – has so far felled our most conservative candidates.

But in the process, the voters have been changing.  That’s what Palin saw before others did.  Do I think she is counting the days to a brokered convention?  No.  There is no one who could reasonably adopt that as a “plan.”  She won’t run this year; that’s my rational assessment as well as my gut feeling.  (I could of course be wrong, although I think some big conditions will have to change more for that to be the case.)

But if she does run, it will not be because she has changed, but because we have.  There are political conditions in which she could run successfully, and conditions in which she couldn’t.  The latter have constituted our political environment up until the last couple of months.

If the conditions are changing now, I believe that is largely because voters are having to wise up to the flaws in our own thinking by going through this ugly spectacle.  We already knew that the media have no intention of giving our candidates a fair shake, and that many in the GOP leadership want to submarine the small-government conservatives.   What many voters didn’t understand is that if we want to select leaders of character, we have to graduate from high school, and overlook the vicissitudes of “presentation” that sometimes make good people look like buffoons to those who see without humility, mercy, or discrimination.  We have to see with better eyes.  We have to think independently of the jeers embedded in the media narrative.  We have to be wiser citizens, placing in political leadership only the hope that is appropriate to free men and women.

We can’t have a candidate who sounds like Mitt Romney, but will lead the way a small-government conservative would.  That’s not an option.  What we’re doing in this primary season is coming to grips with that reality.  I think Palin knew instinctively that we would have to, before it would make sense for her to jump back into the electoral fray.

But, as I said, I think that’s only about half the explanation.  The other half is that Palin is an evangelical Christian.  She believes God has a plan for her life, and that He gives her a certainty in her spirit about the big choices she has to make.  I suspect she has had a peaceful certainty that joining the campaign as a candidate for 2012 was not something she should do.  If she were to analyze it, she might say that God knows better than any of us how the voters’ concerns and expectations are going to change.

Meanwhile, the door is open.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.


Responses

  1. At present, I cannot see a Palin candidacy being viable. Even in Alaska, much of what she pushed through has been overturned by this same changing mindset.

    Her future does not look like it would be as a presidential candidate unless she serves in another capacity first. Rallying the base and the changing mindset is would be a great role for her and much appreciated.

    As for this presidential race, she has seemed to play too many games for me.

  2. It is changing Sarah Palin will get her chance. Mitt Romney and those that pushed him are on the way out. Sarah Palin is the candidate that can beat Obama. It is the times that choose a candidate. They may choose Sarah Palin.

  3. citizenkla,
    Fought for the people of Alaska when she left Parnell was not forceful enough to beat the machine, he was weak. Much of Palin’s legislation lives on. I can tell you are a Palin hater but your analysis wrong. Palin is doing everything that is need to be president.

  4. Palin is a shameless and worthless self promoter. Having said that I would still vote for her in the unlikely event she became the candidate. she is part of the reason McCain lost. I CAN’T LOOK AT McCAIN ANYMORE, I AM SO MAD AT HIM, LOOK WHAT HE DID TO US, I COULD CRY. IF HE WAS A REAL PATRIOT HE WOULD NOT HAVE RUN, SOME LOUSY MAVERICK.

    Thanks, I need to vent

    • Sarah Palin’s hands were pretty tightly tied as the running mate to (spit) John McCain. His liberal tendencies took many good issues off the table that might have been used against Obama. If he had run with another “moderate, ” though, they probably wouldn’t have carried two states.

  5. I don’t see a change occurring in the voters, barring some cataclysmic event that the media cannot bury or finesse. The Administration can control many things, and can usually delay manifestation of really bad news to avoid critical points in the election cycles, but they can’t control everything. Events can occur that would make any one of the candidates look vulnerable on his past votes and public statements.

    Given the remote possibility of a wild card that has not been accounted for, it seems to me that the current process is better than previous ones at stacking the deck before the convention occurs, making a brokered convention extremely unlikely. It if is brokered, however, the established power brokers are most likely to be the ones who control the outcome, not Ma and Pa Republican from Frostbite Falls.

  6. God loves Sarah and so do I. She will follow what God has planed for her just like Ruth did in the Bible.

    • God loves us all, including Obama. But Obama, Ruth, and God didn’t quit half way through their terms to appear on Fox TV.

  7. I respect your analytical abilities a great deal, however I think your analysis is inhibited a bit by your enthusiasm and natural attunement to Sarah Palin. To me, Sarah Palin is not running because she has a fatal flaw for electability: She quit. She did not finish her term in the Alaska governors office, blamed it on the controversy her high profile caused and the (one would think totally expected) calumny and dirty tricks from leftists.

    Then she ran out and got on TV, wrote a book, and generally scooped up every opportunity there was, so long as it did not come with responsibility and involve governance. This is no sin, but its no great honor either. Taking Kate whats-her-face and her 8 unfortunates out to fish for a fee on TV isn’t exactly writing the Federalist Papers.

    As a result she is essentially a spokesmodel for conservative ideas. Well that, and quitting.

    The fact that Romney won the CPAC at all suggests to me a certain willful blindness on the part of conservatives. Because the country at large has lurched so far to the left, conservatives have essentially become frightened by their own isolation. They actually think that they can nominate someone like Mitt Romney on the theory that he is just enough like Obama to actually steal votes that Obama got in 2008.

    This is a dream. Its reminiscent of middle age people who find themselves suddenly on a dance floor so they try to mimic a dance from 15-20 years ago, do that badly, and still don’t know the song. Better to say you don’t dance and walk like a boss to the table.

    American conservatives needed a candidate who could focus in like a laser on the only REAL problem that we have in this country. One day, maybe tomorrow, maybe 4 years from now, we are going to wake up and find that no one bought our treasury notes. On that day we will be living in a completely new world. The spotted owl, gays in the military, Bashar Assad, AIDS in Africa, Bishops buying contraceptives. None of that will matter because we will be so broke, dealing with so many unforseen breakdowns in the linkages of our surprisingly interconnected and fragile society that we will be scrambling like mad just to keep some sense of order and avert a slide into Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes.

    For all his faults the only candidate who had such a focus was Ron Paul. Sadly he is old and he is unsophisticated and he cares not at all for the pet ideas and the pretend gravitas that make up 99% of our political life. So we made fun of him and looked down on him and as a result the only people who supported him were also the looked down upon.

    Obama’s sleeping re-election machine is going to roll over Romney with such hurricane force, they may order women and children to go to bed at 9.

  8. She’s not running because people won’t vote for her.

    Thank God.

    • God doesn’t vote. Clipped beta males do seem to be very un-comfortable with Sarah.

      • it ain’t so much Sarah that people are uncomfortable with, it’s the idea that she’s competent to make decisions about important things that is discomforting. she’s uneducated

        • Surely your not suggesting fuster that the radical, incompetent, reckless golfer in the White House is competent to make decisions?

          The ones he has taken have (e.g. signing ObamaCare/Dodd-Frank/Defense Cuts/Overall “strategy” on Iraq/Afghanistan) to the extent they do not indicate a malicious intent to do immense harm to this country and a large majority of its citizens betray an incompetence so epic as to completely disqualify him from obtaining the votes of any objective elector.

          • not pertinent, cav…… you don’t throw the rascals out to bring in dumber rascals.

        • After 4 years of the Harvard graduate Obama’s inept governance, the first 2 of which he and his party had total control of both the legislative and executive branches…you still rate formal ‘education’ over the ‘right stuff’.

          Anyone who plays through a championship basketball game with a sprained ankle and scores the winning shot has the right stuff. Any politician who bucks their own parties political hierarchy and wins, has the right stuff. Anyone who places effective governance over their own political fortunes, especially when placing the public good over their own political future, means resigning and handing ones enemies a ready-made club with which to beat them, has the right stuff. Sarah Palin has done all of those things.

          Not graduating from a ‘prestigious’ university does not equate with being uneducated. An early lack of sophistication in dealing with a hostile national media is not a failing. Not being an expert in domestic and foreign relations is not a failing in a candidate who can learn.

          A reasonably intelligent, principled candidate with a healthy dose of common sense is far more desirable in a President than an ivory tower intellectual or a silver tongued orator.

          • no Geoffrey, it not just formal education that she lacks and I know that you’re too erudite not to know what I mean.

            • Erudition alone doesn’t prevent my occasional obtuseness. To what specifically do you refer? Surely not her religious views?

              • surely not.

                other people’s religious views are something that I rarely question, particularly as I doubt that we ever really can fully understand them.

                there are simply things that Palin says that lead me to question her understanding of US history, her understanding of how our foreign aid to Egypt is comprised, or even something as simple as when our national debt was incurred.

            • Fuster, you simply don’t like her. You feel superior. Too common for you I suppose. No blue blood pretension of infallability that comes with proper breeding.
              You and Paulite are so simpatico.

              • not anything to do with “common” reed. she’s ignorant AND arrogant and ignorant of her arrogance.
                she’s someone whom a nation doesn’t want negotiating with foreign powers on it’s behalf.

                she’ll think that she’s doing well while she’s getting fleeced by the sharpies.

    • Palin’s following the advice of Marx, not Karl, Groucho. She’s unwilling to seek admission to a club that would accept her as a member.

      • An contraire, she would be only too willing if she got the call. Fortunately, that call won’t be coming unless the GoP goes collectively mad.

        Obama must have dreams of a brokered Republican convention hi-jacked by its radical fringe, and the nomination of Palin by acclamation. She is absolutely anathema to about 60% of the electorate. The November massacre of the GoP would make the Goldwater debacle look like a triumph by comparison.

        • (1)Prove the 60% comment.
          (2)You can predict the presidents dreams, really.
          (3)Acclamation requires a majority written or
          oral, but is usually unanimous.
          (4)Goldwater was the stepping stone or foundation
          for Reagan.

  9. She’s not running because all the polls – including those paid for by FOX and other right-wing media show she is electoral poison because of her policies, personality, and character.

    • You know that like you know the presidents dreams?

  10. George Washington foreign policy….mind your own business.
    Woodrow Wilson foreign policy…everything is our business, do as we say or we’ll kill you. How is it that every progressive republican calls him/herself a conservative and gets away with it? Since when does GW not define conservative foreign policy but WW does?
    If there were an actual conservative, they might have a chance of winning. Being anti-war (conservative) is much more attractive to independents.
    “Bomb all of Israel’s enemies!!!!!” is not conservative, oh ye fake, phoney frauds.

    • George Washington foreign policy—– suited the conditions and the time..

  11. The primary process is a kind of traveling “American Idol” quasi-reality show that isn’t limited to one network or other media outlet. It’s politics as entertainment. In the US system of government the president is the top name on the marquee but there are many more members in the cast. Why aren’t his prospective appointees advanced when we now live in a team-oriented society? Before I make a decision on which candidate I’m going to support maybe he could tell me who his economic advisers are, who is going to be secretary of state, the heads of the Depts. of the Interior and Agriculture, for instance. It’s not like he doesn’t already have some idea. In particular, any candidate must be getting advice from somebody in the economic community, who is it? Don’t you suppose that if voters had known before the last national election that Cass Sunstein and Samantha Power would assume major policy roles in the Obama administration and that Elena Kagan would be a Supreme Court nominee it might have had an effect on their ballot? If Romney is going to be the GOP presidential nominee, I’d like to know who he intends to appoint as Attorney General, head of Homeland Security and Secretary of Defense and what their opinions are. Is that too much to ask?

    • In fact, Obama ran on a platform which included the positions associated with Sunstein and Power, and throughout the campaign the Republicans warned the electorate that Obama would appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court, so we can presume that the electorate got exactly what it voted for. The really interesting question is, however – How much better would McCain have done if he had taken a different, more temperate, running-mate?

      • Not very much. Most people don’t pay attention to – according to current polls – almost anything of importance and have no clue. Certainly the extent to which Obama has always been a clown and the complete mess he would have shown himself to be had he been subject to 1/10th the pressure Palin was under would have made him utterly unelectable.

        One of Palin’s least attractive qualities is her thin skin but the thickness of her skin looks like that of a1a2 compared to that of the Leader.

        • And I had thought that her least attractive feature was that she is a complete phony.

          • ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz……..

      • No names were ever mentioned, nor was his plan for creating a “czar” for every possible federal intrusion into our private lives.

  12. Note to OC: Presentation. MATTERS. A LOT.

    Reagan was right in saying that he communicated great things but he was also a Great Communicator. The stupendous success of his policies, compromised though they were by a left wing Congress and the normal errors to which human endeavors are prone also helped, obviously.

    One of the reasons Palin is around and matters (to the extent that she does) is because she IS GOOD AT PRESENTATION.

    • Reagan was indeed a good President. One of his great strengths was that he was able to forge compromises with a Congress which often disagreed with him and he with it.

      One of the reasons why Palin is registering approval ratings with the electorate which confirm she is unelectable is because she has very effectively communicated the fact that she is an empty b-list celeb.

      • An empty b-list celeb? Then what does that make somebody like Joe Biden? Or Nancy Pelosi? Or Patty Murray? Or Barbara Boxer? The IQ of all four of those elected wizards doesn’t add up to the number on Eli Manning’s jersey.

      • Everyone is still talking about Sarah.

        • I bet even more of them are talking about Lady Gaga.

          • they both perform that way.

            • Beta Males on the march! Fuster and Paul
              to pick out patterns soon.

              • my wife picks out all my patterns, reed.

  13. Can’t help remarking on JED’s observation that Palin, as an evangelical Christian, believes that God has a plan for her life.

    All devout Christians believe that God has a plan for their lives. That plan is set down in the 10 Commandments. I don’t subscribe to the view that appearing on Fox TV and having messianic delusions are anything to do with God’s plans.

    • All devout Christians believe that God has a plan for their lives.
      True.

      “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “All right, then, have it your way.” – C.S. Lewis

      That plan is set down in the 10 Commandments.
      Patently False. A signpost is not the path, merely a ‘flashlight’ which assists us in the darkness of uncertainty.

      I don’t subscribe to the view that appearing on Fox TV and having messianic delusions are anything to do with God’s plans.
      Nor does Sarah Palin.

      • Thanx Geoffrey for the quotation and wow-CS Lewis might have been the first person to notice that some believers confuse God with Burger King.

  14. Rick Santorum, flawed though he is in many ways, is pretty good at presentation. One reason he’s still around.

    Further, the GOP “Establishment” has come in for a lot of beating, much of it well deserved. In particular, the Congressional Leadership seemed to think THAT ONE COULD NEGOTIATE WITH OBAMA IN GOOD FAITH TO COME TO A REASONABLY OUTCOME!!!</B? The naivete or parochialism of this view is amazing and appalling. And yet one has to be at least somewhat impressed by the slowness with which they have come around to supporting Mitt Romney and the lack of conviction which many seem to be doing so. Is there any doubt that support for a Paul Ryan (or, pretty compelling in some ways but much more problematic) Mitch Daniels would have been far more immediate and far more intense. For that it seems that the "Establishment" deserves at least a little credit.

    • Ughhh. And the parenthesis after Daniels. But you get the idea:

      THAT ONE COULD NEGOTIATE WITH OBAMA IN GOOD FAITH TO COME TO A REASONABLY OUTCOME!!! is biggest black mark against Congressional Leadership and the “Establishment” (to the – fairly significant, probably – extent they represent the latter) over last 4 years. And, of course, Charlie Crist. Bleh.

  15. In the 2016 election, after 8 yrs of Obama, with an economy even worse than today’s, the majority of voters may well be open once again to Reagan’s assertion that, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” paving the way toward a return to small government and free market policies.

    In such a milieu, Palin may well be a viable candidate. In essence, nothing fuster and Paulite t disparage Palin for is any different from the criticism’s Reagan was charged with, especially prior to his nomination.

  16. […] more Palin tweets here: Why isn’t Sarah running? h121(); Category: 2008, 2012, 2016, 9/11, ACES, Alaska, America, AP, Approval Rating, Articles, […]

  17. “here are simply things that Palin says that lead me to question her understanding of US history, her understanding of how our foreign aid to Egypt is comprised, or even something as simple as when our national debt was incurred.”

    Just a bit more specific fuster, please.

    As few understand the deeper lessons of history’s context. Evidenced by how often we fail to learn history’s lessons and thus repeat them.

    “The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us noble and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” — Celebrated Historian Paul Johnson

    While the purpose of our foreign aid to Egypt is easily understood; i.e. keeping a ‘friendly’ gov’t. in power, liberals continue to refuse to acknowledge the much greater debt Obama has incurred, while continuing to loudly and vociferously bewail the much smaller indebtedness of the Bush years… so when was our national debt incurred? Please enlighten us.

    What specifically has Palin misstated or misunderstood?

    • Geoffrey,Fuster has joined the Paulite camp of “splatter comments”. Simply put, one slings copious amounts of personal bile against a personality or cause that has no basis in fact. Those assertions can neither be proved or dis-proved.
      One moves on to the next round of mud slinging while simply ignoring requests for proof of previous mud slinging.
      Please note, the comments are of a deeply personal nature and do not deal with issues or results. Mindless, petty gossip,slander,innuendo that is supposed to pass for rational discussion.
      It is the feather weight approach to serious matters and people that grapple with those matters (whether one agrees with them or not).
      I doubt seriously any of our “group” here have ever met any of the candidates. Personal comments are vapid and
      vacuous.
      The candidates are simply a flow of electrons that enter our worlds in a very contrived and controled manner.
      I must say that Sarah’s electrons flow very nicely indeed.

      • I hope that that’s not too deeply personal for you reed.

    • Geoffrey, find her comments about our foreign aid to Egypt, if you would. her comment was that the US taxpayers can’t afford the aid to Egypt reveals an utter lack of understanding about same and reveals that she thinks that the US hands the Egyptians a a check or a wad of banknotes rather than the reallity of the thing.

      • I did as you asked, see: http://uselectionnews.org/sarah-palin-takes-on-foreign-aid-borrowed-funds-egypt/853830/

        I find nothing to indicate naivete or the ignorance that you claim.

        If you have something more specific, provide it or have the honesty to admit you only have a bias lacking objective evidence.

        Whether our aid to Egypt is in the form of a check for $2B or in a less direct form, our debt rises by that $2B and more, given the interest we must now pay on that increased debt.

        More importantly, Palin is questioning borrowing money from China which, as we are bankrupt is, what we are doing and then quite probably adding to the Muslim Brotherhoods funding.

        A reality that you appear willing to ignore.

        Which leads me to conclude that your animosity toward Palin prevents you from acknowledging the 800lb elephant in the room.

        • actually, Geoffrey, it does indicate ignorance. We dont give $2B to Egypt using money that we borrow from China, or borrow from anyone else.

          The majority of that aid is in outdated (to us) military equipment, not cash.

          you could look that up as well.

          Sarah should have.

          • Now you’re the one who is naive fuster, both for believing that Egypt’s elite power brokers would be solely satisfied with some outdated military equipment as payment for acquiescing to American / Israeli interests. And that our ability to provide foreign aid, in any form, isn’t directly related to borrowing from China.

            Any country who is receiving ‘foreign aid’ from the US who is also not a friend to the US is receiving tons of cash under the table.

            Here’s a news flash; we’re broke, there’s zip, nada in the treasury. We’re trillions in debt and the only reason we haven’t experienced fiscal collapse (yet) is because of China backing that debt. Sarah is clearly aware of that and only your bias and hubris prevents you from seeing it.

  18. If you want to question that wisdom of borrowing from China, go right ahead.
    Quite a few people do. Perhaps we might have foregone all the tax cuts just prior to both recent wars and actually paid for all the fighting on our own dime.

    We might have foregone the second, unnecessary war, and concentrated on twinning the first one, the one that we should have one rather than have scanted in favor of the dumb one.

    • All Bush’s wars amount to nothing compared to Barry’s debt. You complain of a hangnail while the gangrene threatens your life.

      As for the ‘unnecessary’ war, had you had your way, Sadam would be close to nuclear capability now, as well as Iran.

      Obama has done one thing however. He’s proven that talking to fanatics and dictators doesn’t work. But then we all knew that didn’t we? Chamberlain proved it and liberals still haven’t learned the lesson.

      So, rhetorical question; how many have to die before the lesson is learned?

      Answer; they’ll never learn because its not about how best to handle those committed to evil, it’s about self-preservation. Churchill had the Chamberlain’s of the worlds number; “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

  19. Geoffrey….fer crying out loud….THE DEBT GOT PILED UP WHILE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!

    and if I had my way, and we were simply going to invade a country because we wanted to, I woulda picked Iran INSTEAD of Iraq…. because we should just invade whatever country that might one day in the future be able to mount a threat, I guess.

    calling it “had my way” is silly, my good man.

    • “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynahan

      Where is the U.S. headed if Pres. Obama is adding an estimated $5 trillion to the national debt in his first term?

      FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

      “President Obama has broken a promise to the American people to cut the deficit in half.

      His latest budget forecasts a $901 billion budget deficit for 2013.

      If you add in the $1 trillion-plus deficits he has run for his first three years in office, along with an estimated $200 billion in economic stimulus, that’s about $5 trillion in the red in his first term.

      George W. Bush set the previous record of $3.4 trillion of deficits in eight years. President Obama is on track to add $5 trillion in deficits in just four years.”

      So fuster, the debt was not piled up solely during the Bush years. Obama makes Bush look like a amateur when it comes to deficits.

      Get your facts straight by getting your head out of where the sun don’t shine.


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

Categories

%d bloggers like this: