There’s nothing patriotic about President Obama’s ‘new economic patriotism’

I don’t buy the narrative being pushed by the Democratic Party that Governor Romney was in any way disrespectful, impolite or rude during last week’s presidential debate. He came off assertive, bold, and – to borrow a term from Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly – fresh. He needed to persuade Americans that he’s not the stiff-necked caricature Democrats make him out to be. And polls suggest he did precisely that.

Winning the next debate will be a challenge for the governor, however. The format – a town hall style discussion – favors the typically affable Barack Obama.

But which Barack Obama will show up? Will it be the unfocused, altitude affected candidate we saw fold under pressure last week? Or will it be the ideological firebrand who, just one day after his debate loss, vigorously accused Governor Romney of lying to the American people.

My bet is on the latter, the real Barack Obama – the man who cut his political teeth on the rough and tumble streets of Chicago.

The president needs to be careful in choosing his arguments, though. He is vulnerable on multiple fronts, especially on the issue of “economic patriotism,” a sly term he coined in a speech in Virginia on September 27th.

What exactly is economic patriotism? And what does the president mean when he says it? After all, it reeks of Orwellian doublespeak.

According to the president, economic patriotism is an economic policy “rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong and thriving middle class.”

Aesthetically, that sounds great. Who wouldn’t support an economic policy built around a strong and thriving middle class? The problem is that we’ve been hearing this type of language since 2008. And despite the president’s policies, the middle class has not gotten stronger. Even Joe Biden, who recently acknowledged that the middle class has been “buried for the past 4 years,” knows that.

If the president wants to talk about economic patriotism, he best tread lightly. Because a patriot, as he himself has done, would never accuse a sitting president of being unpatriotic for adding trillions to the national debt and then go and do the exact same thing. Nor would a patriot tell small business owners they didn’t build their business. Furthermore, a patriot would never condescendingly mock people who support the 2nd Amendment and have a strong faith in God.

A patriot is someone who vows to cut the deficit in half, and then proceeds to do so. A patriot is someone whose policies actually help the middle class, as opposed to increasing their dependence on the government dole. A patriot is someone who sees the national debt as a moral issue. And perhaps most importantly, a patriot is someone who adheres to the Constitution, particularly the section that says religious organizations should be free to fulfill their earthly mission without being coerced by the federal government.



  • abadilla

    The new mantra from the Dems is that Romney lied, not that the President was an empty suit who has lied about Bengazi, the “war on women,” the latest numbers on the economy, hope and change and all the lies of the last four years. He even invented the story that Romney hates Big Bird when Romney clearly stated he wanted to cut public funding for PBS, which is NOT the same thing as “hating” Big Bird.

  • Papal Marriage Laws

    Romney did lie during the debate. He had 27 lies in 38 minutes according to non-partisan independent fact checking after the debate. That’s about the most impressive thing that he has done his whole life!

    • Pathgal8

      Simple question: well, If he allegedly lied, then why did Obama not take him to task for each of them? Didn’t hear or see Obama refute anything Romney asserted during the debate, even nodding his head in concordance on some occasions. On the other hand, Romney was able to convincingly refute a lot of the allegations Obama threw at him. And Obama kept looking down at his notes, hardly engaging his debate opponent, addressing Jim Lehrer more often than Romney, and stumbling through his feeble pronouncements. Alas, where where those TelePrompTer speeches penned by others when he needed them?

    • Curious

      Surely you are either an ObamaBOT or an uneducated person. You said, “.. according to non-partisan independent fact checking..” An educated person knows and researches what you quoted, “He had 27 lies in 38 minutes..”, and understands that the quote came from an OBAMABOT propaganda machine. The real non partisan fact checks of the debate had Obama lying more than Romney, and actually had Romney not lying but more exaggerating facts. Please EDUCATE YOURSELF. Ignorance is not safe or bliss. God Bless

    • Joe M

      There are no “non-partisan independent” fact checking sources. That idea has been thoroughly explored recently and the popular fact checkers turned out to be as biased as any other source.

    • BufordJr

      Bravo. Telling the truth, like you did, gets you voted down here. The Reichwingers here not only can’t handle the truth, they’ll insult you and then they’ll condescendingly add at the end that they’ll “pray for you” or they’ll say “God Bless.”



Receive our updates via email.