The Economist wakes up from the Hope and Change Stupor

Looks like one the major media supporters of President Obama has basically said, “Well, perhaps not!”

But at home Mr Obama has had a difficult start. His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.

There is a great deal more over that at the article, I do encourage you to click the link and go over and read it. Some on the left would argue that the Economist is a “rich man’s” magazine. As much as it pains me to say this; when you have lost the rich elitist class, you start losing everyone else too. I say it pains me, because I have always had a problem with elitism. It just goes against my grain. I was not born into wealth, I was raised in a middle class family. Do not get me wrong, I do not fault people for being wealthy; because most of the time it is because someone, somewhere, worked their tails off to get that way. But the whole snobbery thing turns me off, in a big way.

Of course, and I say this with a bit of dread; because I know some moronic liberal is going to read this and go run to their fellow liberal blogger buddies and tell them that I am some sort of a racist, which is silly, anyone that knows me well, knows that I am not. ——  This is what happens when a Political Party pushes a man out front of other more qualified persons and elects him. —– all because of his skin color. The painful truth that was very well articulated by another Democratic Party Candidate Geraldine Farrow;  was that the only reason that Obama was where he was, was because he was black. This, of course, caused that race hustling crowd to break into a frenzy. In the end, this might have hurt Hillary’s campaign, but the underlining truth was totally cast aside. That Obama was being given a free ride, a free pass, or just treated differently, because he was black.

That not an observation made out of hate, racism or any of that sort of nonsense, it is one made simply based upon the facts. Anyone that takes anything other than this away from this Blog posting has got a serious problem.

Additional Coverage:

Jennifer Rubin / Commentary: Not Like We Didn’t See this Coming

Mark Steyn / The Corner: Missing the point  —  The Economist is the latest of the smart guys …

Other Blogs: Outside The Beltway, Hot Air, The Atlanticist, Stop The ACLU, Fausta’s Blog, pw, QandO, TIME.com, Pundit & Pundette

One thought on “The Economist wakes up from the Hope and Change Stupor

  1. What has Barry ever done for America….NOTHING!!!
    All of his documents have been forged,even his “Draft Card”..the others he just refuses to show.
    Americans are so Ignorant,the`ll be dead before that realize their sick.

Comments are closed.