Mark Steyn has a thought-provoking piece on the subject:
My Republican friends are now saying, oh, not to worry, look at the exit polls, this is still a “center-right” country. Americans didn’t vote to go left, they voted to go cool. It was a “Dancing With The Stars” election: Obama’s a star, and everyone wants to dance with him. It doesn’t mean they’re suddenly gung-ho for left-wingery.
Up to a point.
Unlike those excitable countries where the peasants overrun the presidential palace, settled democratic societies rarely vote to “go left.” Yet oddly enough that’s where they’ve all gone. In its assumptions about the size of the state and the role of government, almost every advanced nation is more left than it was, and getting lefter.
Even in America, federal spending (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) has gone from $600 billion in 1965 to $3 trillion today. The Heritage Foundation put it in a convenient graph: It’s pretty much a straight line across four decades, up, up, up. Doesn’t make any difference who controls Congress, who’s in the White House. The government just grows and grows, remorselessly. Every two years, the voters walk out of their town halls and school gyms and tell the exit pollsters that three-quarters of them are “moderates” or “conservatives” (i.e, the center and the right) and barely 20 percent are “liberals.” And then, regardless of how the vote went, big government just resumes its inexorable growth.
…
If you went back to the end of the 19th century and suggested to, say, William McKinley that one day Americans would find themselves choosing between a candidate promising to guarantee your mortgage and a candidate promising to give “tax cuts” to millions of people who pay no taxes he would scoff at you for concocting some patently absurd H.G. Wells dystopian fantasy. Yet it happened. Slowly, remorselessly, government metastasized to the point where it now seems entirely normal for Peggy Joseph of Sarasota, Fla., to vote for Obama because “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage.”
While few electorates consciously choose to leap left, a couple more steps every election, and eventually societies reach a tipping point. In much of the West, it’s government health care. It changes the relationship between state and citizen into something closer to pusher and junkie. Henceforth, elections are fought over which party is proposing the shiniest government bauble: If you think President-elect Obama’s promise of federally subsidized day care was a relatively peripheral part of his platform, in Canada in the election before last it was the dominant issue. Yet America may be approaching its tipping point even more directly. In political terms, the message of the gazillion-dollar bipartisan bailout was a simple one: “Individual responsibility” and “self-reliance” are for chumps. If Goldman Sachs and AIG and Bear Stearns are getting government checks to “stay in their homes” (and boardrooms, and luxury corporate retreats), why shouldn’t Peggy Joseph?
…
I disagree with my fellow conservatives who think the Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Frank liberal behemoth will so obviously screw up that they’ll be routed in two or four years’ time. The president-elect’s so-called “tax cut” will absolve 48 percent of Americans from paying any federal income tax at all, while those who are left will pay more. Just under half the population will be, as Daniel Henninger pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, on the dole.
By 2012, it will be more than half on the dole, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the Nanny State. That is the death of the American idea – which, after all, began as an economic argument: “No taxation without representation” is a great rallying cry. “No representation without taxation” has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it’s unsustainable, and you’ve got to give some of it back?
This is why I’m skeptical that a return to classical conservatism will assist the GOP at the ballot box. One could argue that only Fred Thompson conservatism will allow the GOP to keep its soul, and that the paths for the GOP being set forth by its various modernizers (Douthat’s Huckabeen path, Frum’s DLC path, etc) are all death knells for conservatism inasmuch as they accept the worldview of the Democrats that government is always going to grow, that someone is going to have to pay for it, that abortion is never going to be made illegal, and so on. But maybe the modernizers are proposing these “Democrat-lite” parties because, like chess players, they’re thinking three moves ahead and they see a return to classical conservatism as a move that will result in the GOP being inevitably checkmated. In other words, maybe government IS going to perpetually grow. Maybe someone WILL have to pay for it. Maybe abortion WILL always be legal.
It doesn’t really matter what I think about any of this anyway, because it’s clear that the mood of the grassroots is such that the ideas of Douthat and Frum and others are non-starters right now. The GOP will probably return to a classically conservative bent, though without much electoral success. The country just isn’t there right now. In fact, a perfect example of why I just don’t see any 1994s in the near future can be found right here in the Henrico Country suburbs, represented in the U.S. Congress by that conservative stalwart, Eric Cantor. In 1994, Republicans proposed eliminating several cabinet departments, including the Department of Education. As of 2008, every public school student in Henrico (provided the information I received was correct) is provided with their own personal computer for use throughout the school year. Can you imagine what would happen to Eric Cantor’s political career if he suggested that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars, that the public schools shouldn’t exist, and that “government schools” should be shut down so that parents could send their kids to private schools?
It’s time to get real. We’re now competing in a global marketplace, meaning Americans have to be as hyper-skilled and uber-educated as folks in India and China. Americans realize this, and conservatives who still manage to win in the suburbs are smart enough to shut talk radio off and listen to their constituents instead of political shock jocks. A 1994-style campaign to eliminate the Department of Education today would be so politically foolish that I just don’t know where to start. If the GOP returns to Ron Paulism, it will do so as the loyal opposition for quite some time.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am
My problem is not with a growing government per se.
My problem is that government is intrinsically inefficient and ineffective at most tasks.
National governments even more so than state governments.
The problem is that none of what Obama-Pelosi-Reid promise is sustainable or achievable.
It simply results in a poorer and weaker USA.
There’s a reason why ALL the Scandinavian countries have moved RIGHT on economics. Even France and Germany are mulling free market reforms.
If you are right Dave, it means only one thing. America will decline and weaken until liberalism is simply unworkable. Then Americans will turn to conservatism (in some form) out of desperation.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
DaveG, the reason the public isn’t prone to accept limited government is that it isn’t being sold to them effectively.
How can the non-ideological expect to want something, if nobody is making a persuasive argument for it?
It has to be sold as a positive thing, a la Reagan, not as a negative thing as the GOP has recently in the form of attacks on Democratic proposals.
The thing is, individuals make better decisions than governments. Entrepreneurship only flourishes under limited government. Why do most of the entrepreneurial individuals from all the other countries come here? Why do we create most of the innovations and set most of the standards the rest of the world uses, DaveG? You think it just grows on trees here?
That doesn’t change with time. If you look at all countries and time periods, the principle remains true.
I don’t think it’s that hard to sell people that the options they have at the supermarket, the Apple Store, their local mall, are vastly preferable to those at their local Post Office, DMV, etc.
That will never change, and we can sell it with a positive message.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
#2, I’m not sure most voters are patient enough for conservatism.
Barack Obama promises money to people in the next few months.
If we could enact our policies not everyone would be better off in the next few months. Conservative policies require patient voters since they take a long time to work.
Many voters only have the patience to try conservatism when everything else has already failed.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
DaveG, I definitely understand a couple of your points, like your musing that perhaps the GOP must change in order to remain relevant.
I’m not one to throw quotes from the Founders around in an attempt to prove some political point (ala Ron Paul and his ilk) as the Founders actually disagreed on many issues; the Constitution was a compromise, of course. But here’s a principle that nearly all of them did agree on. This is from Ben Franklin’s speech at the close of the Constitutional Convention:
“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
He’s right. Conservative and libertarian ideals about individual freedom and personal responsibility are only truly possible in a society that has a strong sense of religious values. This doesn’t mean that every American must be religious, of course. There are plenty of agnostic or atheist folks out there that prefer conservative, judeo-christian values. But religiously-emanated morals often allows individuals restrict their own behavior, rendering oppressive government unnecessary.
Michael Medved made a similar point to Mark Steyn’s on his show yesterday. He said that once you have given something to the American people and convinced them it’s free (i.e., health care, etc.)it is REALLY difficult to take it away. As our country has slowly lost touch with these religious values I’m talking about, we have at the same time seen the rise of bigger and bigger government. And it will only continue to become bigger and grow more despotic. America has been a center-right country politically. But we have been a center-left country in terms of our values. As these values become more wrongful, our politics will follow suit and venture leftward.
Now, don’t misunderstand me; I’m not a Ron Paul/Moral Majority/Dobson kind of thinker where I will refuse to vote for a guy because of one issue. I was a Romney man in the primaries and I voted for McCain. I never thought of voting third party like Dobson said he might because of my opposition to a few of McCain’s positions. But we’re talking about something much larger than that. So what if we become – and I truly believe that one day we WILL become – like Germany, Britain, or France and the only thing conservative about the popular “center-right” party is on foreign policy? Would you gladly surrender any social and economic conservative principles you may have in order to stay politically relevant? My reply is a hearty NO. I would much rather vote for a strong conservative candidate who gets 10% of the vote than a compromised-Republican who has a chance at winning.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Well said Metro!
November 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
[...] November 8, 2008 in culture, memory, politics | by Brian Visaggio On the inexorable accretion of power by the government. [...]
November 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Thanks for the piece, DaveG. What jumps out to me is the rhetoric of the right, characterizing a sizable part of the electorate as “on the dole.” Welfare is now defined as childcare tax credits and education subsidies. Are private school vouchers “welfare?” Are McCain’s healthcare tax credits (for every family, not just those who pay taxes) “welfare?”
The GOP is striving to become the permanent minority and I think it will succeed.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:17 am
You too Harrison!
November 8th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I absolutely hated the McCain healthcare plan for that reason, but kept my mouth shut for fear of it contributing to him losing the election. IMHO, there is no place for that kind of Government interference. Workers have given up pay for decades in order to have the health insurance they now have. For someone to come along and give money to those that don’t have it would be terribly unfair, and socialistic. We have far too much of that already.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I guess what I’m saying is that if Republicans couldn’t actually shrink the federal government, eliminate the big New Deal and Great Society programs, replace the income tax, or ban abortion in South freakin’ Dakota during the Great Conservative Moment of 1968-2008 (or perhaps 1980-2006, or whatever), then how can we expect any of these things to happen now that that moment seems to be receding?
It seems to me that voters won’t accept conservatism again until they are forced to choose between the next round of Social Security checks and a 50 percent tax increase. That will eventually happen, but it will be many years and probably several new entitlements from now. The pendulum is swinging left and it has a long way to go before gravity begins to pull it back to the right. Because political parties exist to win elections, I suspect some sort of Frum/Douthat hybrid party will come to exist to put a check on Democrats for awhile if the nation’s leftward swing goes on long enough.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:37 am
#2 MetroRepublican — I agree. Very well stated.
As for the thrust of DaveG’s posting, I do not believe that the election was a rejection of classic limited-government conservatism because the GOP under Bush never offered such, nor has it since circa 1996 when it gave up on the Gingrich reform agenda. There has been no articulation of classic conservative principles post Ronald Reagan and no articulation of any kind of conservative-oriented reform agenda since Gingrich’s Contract with America. Thanks to the Karl Rove Orchestra (talk show types, media pundits [sans George Will], and the claque of Bush apologists] the public over the last eight years began to confuse Bushism with conservatism when in reality they were almost total opposites, plus there was the matter of consistent operational incompetence. All of this combined to create a very grotesque picture which became confused with classic conservatism. In a Nov. 5 blog, Jon Henke, who some of you may know, commented as follows:
“The problem is not the inability to communicate; the problem is that [the GOP] has no idea how to actually deliver on those ideas.
Others will say “Republicans need to be more principled”, as if the problem is a mere lack of personal courage and principle by Republicans. Even the best people can’t limit government if there is not an effective strategy for implementation – for getting “from here to there”. You don’t need better people. {We] need a better strategy.
The problem is not Republican politicians, although many Republicans politicians are a problem. The problem is not with the basic ideals of limited government and personal freedom, either. The problem is a movement that plays small-ball and cedes responsibility for infrastructure to business interests, leadership that rewards those who make friends rather than waves, an entrenched Party and Movement support system that mostly supports itself, an echo chamber that has rotted our intellect, a grassroots that is ill-equipped to shape the Republican Party, and a Republican Party that has replaced strategy with tactics, substance with marketing.
These problems can be fixed, but the fix is not cosmetic. The rot is deep. We do not need reformation of the Republican Party; we need transformation of the Republican Party. That is going to require fresh blood, new ideas, new infrastructure…and perhaps more than a little time in the wilderness.”
November 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
DaveG says” “If the GOP returns to Ron Paulism, it will do so as the loyal opposition for quite some time.”
David, it is not a question of returning to Ron Paulism [we've never been there, at least not since the 1920's] vs. some kind of DLC-lite; it’s a question of returning to acceptable common sense conservative principles and effectively implementing them.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Blue Dogs call for “moderate voices” in Dem leadership
Blue Dogs want a seat at the leadership table
Obama: radical moderate
By Christopher Caldwell
The Perils of ‘Populist Chic’
What the rise of Sarah Palin and populism means for the conservative intellectual tradition.
Palin Returns to a Different Alaska
Newt in ‘One-Two’?
by Robert Novak
November 8th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
ILguy,
You totally misunderstand McCain’s plan (disappointing that you are buying into Obama’s lies) or you don’t want free market healthcare. The biggest problem with healthcare is there is no market because consumers are not purchasers and his plan takes us in the best direction possible to change that. I agree that the government does much more harm than good within healthcare. One of the biggest problems is that under the current tax structure the largest tax breaks to buy insurance go to the people who make the most money (if you make $40,000, your tax break might be $1000 but if you make $80,000 then your tax break might be $3000). The only way to fix this problem is through tax credits.
Don’t believe me? The AMA, Heritage and almost all conservative think-tanks and healthcare economists agree that some variation upon the McCain plan is the only way to fix healthcare with free market principles.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
#2 – Metro – NICELY SAID. We need a heck of a PR man more than we need anything.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Wow, Heritage supports McCain plan it helped draw up. But the question is, are the heathcare credits it calls for “welfare?”
November 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
From the ‘No shit…you don’t say’ column:
Washington Post: An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
November 8th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
If you take the average single mother and the Dems are giving them free health care and free child care, and we offer them freedom and limited government, who do you think they are going to vote for?
November 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
#16, Right now the government gives healthcare credits to employers. McCain would simply shift the credit directly to workers.
We’re not talking about creating any new benefits.
Obama is proposing new benefits and new spending. Obama doesn’t understand (or perhaps doesn’t care) that increased federal spending will weaken our economy in the long-run.
Here’s the difference my Democrat friend:
Obama believes in government.
Republicans believe in America.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
#7:
“Welfare” is generally a substitute for income: You exist and are therefore entitled to a certain amount of money if you can’t or don’t want to get a job and earn it.
“Welfare” is thus a subsidy for doing nothing.
“Tax credits” generally set aside some of a person’s earnings that will not be taxed if specific conditions are met.
The basic classic liberal — today known as “conservative” or vaguely “libertarian — view of the world is that a person’s earnings should not be taken away from him.
The modern left hold the view that the government, as an embodiment of the collective of everyone, actually owns each individual’s earnings to begin with, and any money that the government does not take is a “subsidy.” Or perhaps they don’t hold this view. It is nonetheless a favored angle of argument.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Steyn’s equation of “liberalism” with big government is rather simplistic and inaccurate.
But whatever,,,the size of government seems to be a compelling issue for discussion, so here goes…
Of course the size of government increases relentlessly. It does so for an obvious reason. Society is growing in size, and more importantly, it is growing in connectedness and interrelation. And our society is becoming ever more integrated in the global context.
If you live, as in the 18th century, on an isolated farm, or a frontier town, there is very little need for government. If you live in a modern metropolis, where millions of people are bumping into each other every day, and where institutions (including private ones) make decisions on a daily basis that effect the lives of millions of people, then you damn well need governance – especially our American brand – democracy – the voice of the people regulating and policing the actions of those who impact our lives.
So long as there is economic growth and greater interconnectedness, there will be an absolute need for more governance. No ideological movement can stop that. Dave’s example of the hypothetical fate of an Eric Cantor if he were to oppose computers in every classroom is to the point. Multiply that point by a million related examples.
Any ideology of minimal government has to be acknowledged to be relevant only in a relative sense. Given the reality of the day, given the need for a certain level of governance (more than yesterday), the conservative can say- lets do a bit less, or lets find the way to do this most inobstrustivly. Thats about all.
ANy political movement that seriously aspires to return to the “good old days” of true government minimalism, or even to the days of Reagan, is doomed to failure.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Dskinner, thank you. They were doing a 0 job of explaining it. I never knew for sure how it was supposed to work. I still don’t understand it for sure, but from what you describe I still don’t like it. I don’t think it is a federal government issue at all, nor do I think the federal government has any business paying any portion for health care. This should be a local and state issue. And then, it should be still designed such that all incentives are in the direction that people have to pay for their own. Something similar to what Massachusetts set up for starters, then improve upon it. I think its totally wrong for families that don’t work to have so many different welfare programs that they end up living better than families that make 40-50K, and that’s the way it is right now.
November 8th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
[...] The answer to that question explains the difference between the Frums, the Douthats and the rest of us. Oddly enough I’m joined by many others who you’d not expect. [...]
November 8th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
BTW, I wasn’t buying into anything Obama said…I just never heard McCain or any spokesperson explain it, nor did anyone on here ever shed light on it. Nevertheless, I don’t know why the Fed Government needs to be involved in it. I DSkinner, aren’t you in med school? If so, you probably know more about it than I do, and I could be conviced to like it perhaps, but right now I don’t totally comprehend how it would work. It sounds to me like those of that get our through our employment would not be treated fairly, right? We could write anything off, even though we are forfeiting wages by having it. Help me out guys!
November 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Sorry about butchering the English language in 23. For starters, make my last ‘could’ a ‘couldn’t’
November 8th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It seems to me that one place we could improve upon is to not make enemies of union members. It seems to me that I hear Republican candidates, or legislators quite frequently make disparaging remarks about unions. It seems to me that they are here to stay, they are a part of the electorate, and I see no reason to unnecessarily tick them off toward our party and candidates. Not only that, but don’t they play an important role in free enterprise? If management can sit their and give themselves huge raises with no imput from their true owners (in the case of large corporation), isn’t it only fair to allow the workers to bargain collectively without treating them as some kind of enemies of capitalism? Are the workers legitimate stakeholders? Don’t they have a pretty small negotiating voice for salaries if they have no collective bargaining. I took a course in labor law as part of my schooling, and after having done so I felt I had a better and fairer handle on the the need for labor unions. I have a feeling some won’t agree with me, but we lose a lot of voters by alienating them unnecessarily it seems to me.
November 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
A few points:
1. I applaud DaveG and several other front-pagers for these types of posts focusing on the future ideology of the GOP. I think it is important for conservatives to engage in a discussion of governing philosophy BEFORE getting roped into a conversation about our ‘12 candidate. Choosing our candidate will inevitably cause us to advocate positions that are aligned with the candidates that we view as most electable, which has a lot to do with geography, personality, demographics, etc. A lot of factors that are not necessarily connected with the policies that are most likely to lead to the resurrection of our party and the future prosperity of our nation.
2. DaveG: you have great antenna for which way the wind is blowing. You made a number of good predictions during this past cycle (not saying you were batting .1000, but were a lot closer than me). That said, you typically are much more concerned with what seems “viable” than the average poster on this site. Hence you give us this:
if Republicans couldn’t actually shrink the federal government, eliminate the big New Deal and Great Society programs, replace the income tax, or ban abortion in South freakin’ Dakota during the Great Conservative Moment of 1968-2008 (or perhaps 1980-2006, or whatever), then how can we expect any of these things to happen now that that moment seems to be receding?
And yet, as other commenters have pointed out, we haven’t really much tried to do any of these things other than place conservative jurists on the S.C. Roe would be ancient history if not for betrayal and/or bad vetting w/r/t O’Connor, Souter and Kennedy.
What party-leading Republican has attempted to abolish the income tax? None. And Nixon and Bush 41 weren’t even all that strident in opposing marginal rate increases.
Had Reagan been around for ‘94 I think you’d have seen some actual progress on government shrinkage. And that opportunity WILL present itself again, b/c:
3. Government CANNOT continue to grow indefinitely.
maybe government IS going to perpetually grow.
If you mean growing proportionately with the economy, perhaps. But if you mean, “grow the way it’s been growing for the last 50 years, as an increasingly large percentage of our nation’s economy”, the answer is clearly no on its face.
Agree with me that at some point (50% of GDP? 75%? 90%), government clearly could not survive without immediately bankrupting society. Whatever level you choose, our current trajectory is headed right for it (time being the only variable).
Something will have to change, and that change must include a move toward more conservative spending practices. Whether we can articulate ideas that will get voters to realize this now, or, as Doug F. suggests, we will have to wait for reality to give all of us a hard slap in the face, remains to be seen.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
None of you, really know How Obama will lead. You hope that he will fail so the repbus get back in power. I knew the line of Country First Politics second was BULL Sh**…………Its all about holding on to power that some repus thinks its their birth right or privlige anything else is illegitmate to that.
If Obama goes and governs from one side of the country he will probably lose 4 years from now, if he and his campaign were smart of enough to win this campaign then knowing they can lose will prob govern from the center.
Yet, most of you hope and will say that is not the case so, power can be returned to the TRUE GOP in 2012.
OhioJoe, Obama lost Oh, and there was an affect like you predicted
November 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
http://www.voicefortheuninsured.org/amaproposal.html
There is no reason for the GOP not to adopt the AMA plan as their own. In the coming months we will need our own ideas if we are going to be able to stop the liberals from socializing the country. Adopting the same plan as the AMA will give the GOP cover that our plan will help get more people insured without putting everyone on government sponsored insurance.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:49 am
lol, Im a Black man, and it dont matter which house nuccka u bring out, the people aint buying it, lol Steel, fake azz nukka, Jundal, lol cant wait to see him in western pa, lol or W. VA. See the Gop problem is that ur a bunch of racist, or atleaste u let palin paint that pic. U thought women were gonna come over cause of palin, and u think blacks will come for steel, thats your problem, U think u can trick peolple, but they know who u really are, its all over youtube, and will b4ever exposed, lol u guys dont have a chance. The only red meat your crowds luv is race hating! Like that old ladie, Obamas an Arab, wat a dumb bitch, all of ur missinformation and hate has contamanted ur own wells, lol drink up fools. The Gop Is Corny, kids aint gonna get down with some racist old white guy from the south, lol u dont have a chance. 95% of Blacks, 70% of spanish, 50% white, do the math u turkeys, thought yall went to yale, cant u do math, aint knowone left, lol. Thats what u get for treating mexicans like blacks. See Blacks been Woke up, now the Mexicans are too. The other half of whites that voted for Mc DickHead Are a bunch of race hatting, neo nazi, un educated, bible loving, gun buying rednecks, who are broke, and need a tax cut, lol joe the dumb ass plumer, lol. The Real GOP, are Elites, who look down to the rest of the scum in there party. Imagine Those Elites, who finished HIGHSCHOOL, lol chillin with joe the DickHead, lol never, not in a million years. Its Over, This is wat it is, all the old racist are DYING off, they were young in the 70’s but its 2008, fool, thats allot of dead Turkeys, Hell Mc Loser is bout to take his last flight also, then whose left Palin the Shopper, lol. Im lovin this, Rome Run By a black man, The most powerfull man in the World is a black man, lol Im Shure the KKK, is Just Lovin this, AWWWWW u suckers, lol have to eat Obama for breakfast Lunch & Dinner for the next 4 years, I hope 8! Im lovin this, fox news is on Obamas Dick now, lol I thought he was a terroist, Socialist, lol assholes, while Bush was robbin yall blind, ur hate and anger mad u idots look at nothing but a game of three card monte, with ur life under the shells, lol. Wat A bunch of Turkeys, lol. This one was for all the Black Slaves, All the Indians, the Whole world, that white people have tuched and destroyed, all the cultures stolen, all the diamonds & Gold, all the Mummies from Eygpt, that u stole, All the Knowledge stolen from Africa, all the bad things you have done Under Gods name,all the South Americans who died after u brought Christ to there shores, all the Crap u have put everyone in this world through since u left the shores of Europe, and landed on the shores of the world, like rats who brought Death, u now have been put in a trap, lol ur own trap.