By Steve McCann
Beyond attempting to reconstitute the cult of personality, which was the major factor in propelling Barack Obama to the White House in 2008, the Obama campaign must suppress and discourage the turnout among the electorate by casting Romney as a dishonest and unethical politician. Unfortunately he is being aided and abetted by many conservatives and libertarians who are wallowing in their inbred pessimism, which allows them to be used as pawns by Barack Obama and his re-election cabal.
The key to the election rests with the ability of the Obama campaign to discourage those now pre-disposed to vote for Romney because of the economy or disappointment with Obama. Thus the never-ending message over the past two months from the Obama re-election team that Romney is dishonest, unethical, cares only for the rich, outsources jobs, perhaps is a felon, has off shore bank accounts ostensibly to hide money and, as he must have skeletons in his past, he refuses to release his tax returns.
While the polling results to date have not shown any real movement as a result of this scorched earth campaign, it has succeeded in maintaining the status quo. However, if this were any other time in America's recent past, with similar economic circumstances, Barack Obama would be down by double digits among likely voters in any presidential preference poll.
While it is up to the Romney campaign, the Republican National Committee and various conservative super-pacs to offset and vigorously attack Obama for not only his record but the lies and demagoguery regarding Mitt Romney -- and they need to do a much better job than what has been done to date -- it is time for many unenthusiastic conservatives and libertarians to understand what is at stake in this election.
Mitt Romney is not the first choice of many on the right, but then many on this side of the political spectrum have already surrendered to the idea that it is either too late to save America or there is no real difference in the candidates or Romney isn't a pure "constitutional conservative"-- so why bother to vote. They often fall back on various misinterpreted statistics and assumptions promoted by the liberal-dominated media to back-up this defeatist attitude.
First fallacy: a majority of the American people are now dependent on government, so they will always vote for whoever promises to support them. The facts: a recent Heritage Foundation study found that as of January 2012, 67.3 million Americans (men, women and children) were dependent on government (21.8% of the total population). While this is an extraordinarily high number it is up only 7 million since 1994. By adding in those employed by government the total rises to 89.2 million or 28.6% of the population.
However, this is not a monolithic voting bloc as a recent survey indicated a majority of federal government employees would vote against Obama.
Second fallacy: nearly 47% of Americans do not pay any income tax so they do not care about raising taxes or spending and will always vote for the Democrats. The facts: this statistic is rooted in the recessionary year 2009 and varies based on filing status -- e.g. 47% of those filing single paid no income taxes but only 38% of joint filers paid no income taxes. Further, in 2009 income tax receipts accounted for just 44% of all government revenue; payroll taxes accounted for 42% and are paid by all working citizens -- as are sales, excise and effectively corporate taxes. When factoring in payroll taxes, 86% of all Americans pay taxes.
All citizens therefore need jobs and economic growth, not higher taxes, unlike the policies being pursued by Barack Obama.
Third fallacy: there is no real difference between the parties. When George W. Bush, certainly not a died-in-the-wool conservative, became president in 2001 the nation was entering a recession. Coupled with the terrorist attack on 9/11 the nation's economy went into a tailspin. During his first term George Bush pursued conservative free market strategy in order to revive the economy whereas Barack Obama has relied on big government/Euro-socialism to do the same. The comparable results:
| George W. Bush 2001-2004 | Barack Obama 2009-2012 | |
| Net Job Creation Jan 2001-July 2004 | 3.6 million |
|
| Net Job Creation Jan 2009-July 2012 | .3 million |
|
| Labor Force Participation rate | July 2004 66.2% | July 2012 63.8% |
| Average Monthly Unemployment Rate | 5.4% |
8.95% |
| Total Four Year Budget Deficits | $1.2 Trillion |
$5.2 Trillion |
| Four Year GDP Growth | 15.2% | 8.5% |
Sources: (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/) (http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm)
Fourth fallacy: there has been such an increase in voter fraud my vote really doesn't matter. Today, there are approximately 207 million Americans eligible to vote. Less than 150 million or 70% are registered to vote.
In 2008 among those eligible but not registered, which amounted to nearly 59 million, 67.4 % were white (65% of total U.S. population) and 20.7% were of Hispanic origin (16.3% of total U.S. population). Nearly 40% of those choosing not to register were in the 25-44 age groups. Further, the primary combined excuse proffered for not registering was: not interested in the election and my vote would not make a difference: an astounding 50%. That amounts to 29.5 million potential voters; Barack Obama won the election by 9.5 million votes.
Recent polls continue to show that 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative; only 21% as liberal. Of the remaining 39% who identify as moderate, it would be safe to assume that these citizens are equally split between the two ideologies, thus at least 60% of Americans lean conservative and 40% liberal.
Accordingly, any substantive additional turnout, registration and voting would be skewed toward electing the more conservative candidate. Additionally, any attempt at voter fraud would be overwhelmed by these higher numbers.
The Obama re-election team knows it is vital to suppress the turnout and enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. They know, and are counting on, the adamant refusal of many conservatives and libertarians to accept Romney as a viable candidate for a variety of reasons and have fallen prey to the gloomiest interpretation of statistics, assumptions and negative reporting by the media. If Barack Obama is re-elected then the worst case scenario so many think now exists will become a reality and it will be too late for America to turn back.
The time for excuses, handwringing and surrender on the conservative side of the political spectrum is over.
While there may have been better and more conservative candidates than Mitt Romney, he is the one whom the American people have as the option to Barack Obama. If there is a conservative dominated Republican caucus in Congress, also dependent on a massive voter turnout, which will keep Mitt Romney on the constitutional conservative path, then the United States can reverse its present disastrous course.
The United States has been given a potential reprieve from its subtle but headlong dash toward failed Euro-socialism by the election of Barack Obama and his determination to achieve this end during his term in office long before the American society was prepared and structured for it; as confirmed by the national reaction to Obama's "You didn't make it on your own" comments. Now, the American voter must take advantage of this unique opportunity to reverse course.
American Thinker
