Choices and Referendums

So I was at my blogging compatriots place and he made the following statement, with my reply:

Rutherford Lawson – “I’m glad Mitt has made this election about a choice between two philosophies. The tax returns and “you didn’t build that” and cancer killers stuff was getting old. Now let’s get to some substance!”

Gorilla – “R, this will still be a referendum on Obama.”

But this got me thinking, is this really just a referendum on Obama or a referendum on liberalism writ large?

Democrats have wanted to make this a choice election since the beginning because they think that it obfuscates Obama’s atrocious record. Republicans on the other hand have wanted to focus on the failure of Obama’s leadership and policies. With the Paul Ryan pick for Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential candidate, the one word we keep hearing from both sides now is choice. So does that mean that the Dems have won and that this election will be purely an election based on choice? Fat chance.

No, THIS is a referendum election, but EVERY election is about choice. The choice is to continue four more years of Obama’s policies or choose a different path for the nation. But it has become larger than Obama. At a recent fundraiser, Obama said:

“Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go? Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared? Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”

Kind of reminds you of this:

Obama doesn’t like America. He’s never liked America. Anyone who has paid attention to his past – his associates, his mentors, his writings and his positions – there is nothing that demonstrates a profound sense of love for this nation. We could make the argument that for every president, part of the equation is the power that comes with the office, but for Obama, it is ALL power. This isn’t about patriotic duty, it’s about Obama’s liberal ideology and narcissistic power. He is quite literally, America’s first tyrant.

So yes, this is a referendum on Obama, but more so a referendum on Obama’s ideology of liberalism. American’s are going to make a choice of do they want the tyrant, or a different direction. Mind you, I recognize that this is not per se an easy choice. It’s far easier to blame someone else and get handouts than it is to hold yourself accountable and make hard decisions about the future. But that said, I certainly believe that the American people are going to choose right, and the right, on November 6.

Folks are pretty fired up about Romney’s choice in Ryan. More importantly, folks are pretty fed up with Obama. Together, these point to a landslide election in November. That’s good, because Obama is young and between his narcissism and the left’s cult-like worship of him, he’s going to be a regular face on the left. The greater the margin of victory for Romney, the greater the rejection of Obama and everything he stands for. The nation needs Obama beaten, but America needs Obama rejected.


UPDATE: Since we’re talking “plans” and choices, let us consider what a leading Dem has said:



18 thoughts on “Choices and Referendums

  1. This is largely a silly semantic argument. The whole “choice vs referendum” meme is artificial. Acceptance or rejection of one idea, or person (a referendum) happens also to be a choice. In this case it’s a choice between that ONE thing vs ANYTHING ELSE. But when you say, after giving it deeper thought, that this election is a referendum on liberal ideology, then you really are saying that it’s a choice between liberal and conservative.

    My original statement still stands. Pre-Ryan, Romney was jello. He had no stance on anything. He was a wet opportunistic noodle. Ryan represents putting a stake in the ground. Now we’ll have to see if Romney says “Ryan articulates my philosophy” or whether he’ll weasel away from it. If Romney stands firm then America will have to choose between the visions of two candidates, not simply reject one.

    Folks are pretty fired up about Romney’s choice in Ryan

    Sadly and to my own surprise, polling does not support you on this one.

    In a nationwide survey taken Sunday, 39% of registered voters call Republican contender Mitt Romney’s selection of Ryan “excellent” or “pretty good” while 45% rate it as “only fair” or “poor.” Sixteen percent have no opinion.

    Worst reception since Quayle. But I will grant you that an electorate that was more impressed by Sarah Palin than Paul Ryan is a f*cked up electorate indeed.

    Stop worrying so much about Obama and start worrying more about your fellow citizens. 😉

    1. A Sunday poll when Ryan was picked Saturday? You can do better than that R. Let us look at what the Dems are saying about turnout:

      Crowd to see Ryan

      Drew –

      I just got this disturbing report: Yesterday’s Romney-Ryan rally in North Carolina pulled in an overflow crowd of 15,000 people.

      There’s no spinning that number. It’s a LOT of people, and the Republican base in energized.

      And that’s not all. Since the VP announcement, Romney’s campaign has brought in over 70,000 donations from his Tea Party base.

      Listen to what one Republican supporter said about Paul Ryan: “I love him…He’s going to excite the Tea Party and get them on board…”

      We can’t let the Republicans claim the momentum. Donate $3 or whatever you can:



      Brynne Craig
      DCCC Field Director

      How so very interesting. And how about turnout for Obama and Biden? A recent event for Obama was about half full, even at $51 a ticket and Biden’s recent speech only had 650 folks show up. If you want to refer to a poll, give it a week and see how it looks then.

      1. I’ve made no claims about the enthusiasm gap for Obama. The big crowds for Romney/Ryan don’t invalidate the polls.

        But as we discussed on my show yesterday the poll may well have been flawed in two ways, First, folks who didn’t know Ryan might have voted negative instead of neutral and some nitwits thought he was Rand Paul.

  2. “Stop worrying so much about Obama and start worrying more about your fellow citizens.”

    Stop worrying so much about how many people are waking up and whether the media is going to pull through for Obama again, and start wrapping your head and tongue around Obama’s plans. Not just his message. At least make sure that you know what HE means by his message.

    And how he’s going to make it happen.

    PS…hope you don’t mind, G. I’ll behave, promise.

    1. Well Muffy, the best I can do is take Obama at his word. I can’t get into the “he says this but he means that”. I don’t have that kind of divine insight into Obama’s mind.

      1. I’m sorry R, how can you take him at his word? He hasn’t honored anything he promised yet – except for Obamacare, which is wildly unpopular. So tell me, what part of his word are you taking?

        Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me.

      2. That’s fair enough for you to take him at his word, R, even though I think G is also fair in saying that Obama’s own words are as accurate a forecast of failure to deliver what was promised as anything.

        Keeping in mind that this is just an example, and it’s rhetorical to boot, what are we supposed to take him at his own word with in this exchange with the Russian president (that was promised would be “transmitted” to his successor):

        President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him (apparently referring to Vladimir Putin) to give me space.
        President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
        President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
        President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

        What exactly is it that Obama plans to “solve” in his second term (his “last election”) that he might assume the Russian president knows and will pass along to Putin – but that we do not know? I’ve never heard any explanation for this.

      3. It’s wild. the Obama/Medvedev chat was perfect fodder for the conspiracy theorists. I don’t know what to make of it but I didn’t lose any sleep over it either. He was probably just telling Dimitri that these a$$hole Tea Party folks oppose EVERYTHING I do so wait until I can act without elections clouding the horizon.

        Or maybe … Obama and Putin plan to create a new USSR (the United States of Soviet Republics) 🙂

  3. The boot!

    For those times when a boomstick is more than you need for the job.

    Perfect for a swift kick to the flanks.

    (thanks for the welcome, G.)

  4. Disparaging folks when you host the grand conspiracy theory pool man is kind of funny R.
    Seriously the confab with the neo-Soviets is pretty clear I’d think. Under cover of defense savings the missile system goes bye bye or gets severely neutered and the Obama Administration will look away on various actions against the former Soviet vassals by the Moscow Boyz.
    Its all about win/wins in the respective headlines. I don’t know about G but I’m thinking a second term Obama will unleash Rice (Susan) and various diplomatic plays will be very shifty and shady

      1. I’m not as familiar with her either, but knowing that she was Obama’s choice, and knowing the choices Obama has made previously on personnel (Cas Sunstein, Van Jones, Tim Geitner, etc) I have no doubt that she is a BAD decision and certainly a BAD representative for the US.

  5. btw semantic schmantics obviously all elections are choice based but elections singularly offer the opportunity to be in fact referendums on policy. Contrary to the comparisons about FP and Wall St. up to now. The truth is this election does indeed offer a dramatic choice. One of the reasons Obama may win is because people will be too afraid to hope for change so soon.

  6. Rice is a multilateralist which in real world terms puts her on the path where the UN is a great thing. She is also per the Meade scale what would be called a Wilsonian. Together this manifests itself most readily in her support of the UN R2P policy.
    So in basic summary she holds a position that outside forces can and should dictate US foreign policy. I stand in complete and total opposition to such a position.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s