Bush is a socialist, not Senator Obama
Emerson Marcus
Pretend it’s May 2009.
Imagine the Wolf Pack just ran through the NCAA tournament. The temperature is rising and Cinco de Mayo is coming—Tequila!
You sit back on your couch and turn on CNN.
President Barack Obama still criticizes the administration of the last eight years, but this time he has executive power and a large majority in the House of Representatives and Senate.
It’s good to be a Democrat.
Come back to Oct. 2008 to see why this future isn’t far-fetched.
Pollster.com shows Sen. Obama, if elected, could have a 254-180 Democratic lead in the House and a 57-41 lead in the Senate, with a slim pro-Bush majority in the Supreme Court.
The last time the Democratic Party had this kind of advantage was right after Watergate.
The Democratic lead was 292-143 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate in 1976, larger than most predictions for 2008.
But issues mean more than congressional numbers.
The electoral tide shows only one side of why Obama could be one of the most powerful presidents in 100 years. The recent trouble with the economy is the other.
The Bush bailout could be one of the most significant economic reforms in American history. It could also kill the Republican Party for many years to come.
John McCain has stepped up his anti-Obama fervor in the past few weeks because his campaign has fallen on desperate times.
Advertisements that call into question Obama’s character and possible socialist tendencies have also stepped up, not necessarily just from McCain’s campaign.
Obama is a socialist? Wasn’t it the compassionate conservative who nationalized the banks? Wasn’t it the Bush administration that lowered funding for our troops and instead gave the money to Wall Street? Isn’t this the same administration that recently asked for $700 billion dollars from the American people?
We already have a socialist in the White House.
Obama won’t need Congress to move further to the left. Bush already pushed them in that direction. He adopted socialistic policies as a conservative, which opened the door for Obama.
This is why Obama’s presidency will be more powerful than Jimmy Carter’s in 1976. Obama benefits from a president who got the ball rolling on many of his economic policies.
Obama’s campaign, though, could compare more to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s in 1932. Roosevelt was criticized for being extremely vague when he explained his New Deal during his 1932 campaign. Replace New Deal with the word Change and you have another non-specific, potentially groundbreaking campaign slogan.
It’s hard to say Obama would be a more powerful president than Roosevelt, though. Roosevelt had a 313-117 majority in the House, a 59-36 lead in the Senate and a stronger economic factor than Obama—the Great Depression.
But that still makes Obama potentially the most powerful economic reformer in 76 years.
Fast forward to May 2009, again.
Conservatives are railing against an economically progressive Obama presidency.
Rush Limbaugh says he hates having Karl Marx as president. Bill Bennett says America is on a slippery slope to communism. Anne Coulter says she crapped her pants.
But no one is listening because the socialist that created this slippery slope is sitting on his porch at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Emerson Marcus can be reached at emarcus@nevadasagebrush.com.
This entry was posted
on Monday, October 20th, 2008 at 11:11 pm and is filed under Perspectives.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print this post
Email this post© 2008 The Nevada Sagebrush
October 24th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Wake up,kid. Obama is the most effective demagouge since Huey Long. He just oozes sleaze,like any other corrupt politician. He’s already sold you out,only you don’t realize it yet.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:23 am
You outline a very grim scenario.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
It is the intent of the losing side to depict and use any word against Sen. Obama. When president Reagan levied massive taxes on the middle class and working poor, was he socialist?
Is Sen. Mccain a socialist, when he said he couldn’t stomach the Bush 2000 tax cuts for the wealthy?
Politicians are not stupid, they know how to run our government- Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have levied higher taxes on Americans - so no Sen. Obama is not a socialist.
Whenever and whoever pays taxes to government always and forever will have their money redistributed towards education, military finances, etc.
So be it, the losing side has to find any ammunition against Sen. Obama in these final days of the presidential election.
Go Vote !
October 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
We’ll all be on ‘the losing side’ if Obama wins. The sad thing is some will welcome it.
See you in the soup kitchen.