Mandate, not man-date

We are talking about Obama so there is a chance it’s the second word and not the first. Alas, we are talking about the first word.

I am really starting to get irritated with the schnooks that are harping about Obama’s accomplishments. What accomplishments?

When Obama was elected in 2008, the people did so with the firm edict of “fix the economy.” That was all; just fix the economy. He was not elected to play golf. He was not elected to appoint un-senatorially-approved czars. He was not elected to make the economy worse. The democrats had control of the House and Senate and with the Obama win, they had the big three. The democrats kept talking about “Obama’s Mandate.” As though his election meant something more than just “fix the economy.” It didn’t. All we wanted was for the economy to get better.

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan mopped the floor with Jimmy Carter, he had a mandate too. It was the same as Obama’s twenty-eight years later: fix the economy. In 1980, both inflation and unemployment were in double-digits. By the time of Reagan’s re-election in 1984, both were in single digits and still headed downward. So it can be done. And Reagan did it with a democrat controlled House and Senate. Then why doesn’t Obama just do it?

Isn’t that the question you should be asking yourself in the voting booth come November 6th? If it’s not, then why not? With unemployment at 23%, what could be more important than the economy? Nothing. Nothing.

Actual unemployment numbers graph provided by Shadow Government Statistics.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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