The timeliness of the agenda being accomplished seems to be the big deal of the day. Why do you think that there was a “deadline” put on getting the health care reform through, even if by hook or crook? There was a reason why they wanted to jam the bill through, bypassing normal procedures to do so. It has to be for one of two (or both) reasons: 1) The Obama administration is bent on getting instant gratification, or 2) The Obama administration knows that their political base expects immediate results.By John Kubicek
March 16, 2010
There is a good reason why I feel that President Obama could be a one term president.
It is not just because of his far left agenda.
Actually, it will be for a reason that very few people will understand, especially those in the left-wing state-controlled media. Hopefully, though, even those with a liberal bias will be able to grasp what I will explain today.
There should be no question about the demographics of Obama’s largest base of voters. We’re talking about age in this case. I can assure you that race, gender, or relationship orientation do not enter into my hypothesis. No, this rationalization deals completely with the generational expectations that we see in society today.
What I am positing today doesn’t include scientific research backing me up, though I suppose that I could probably request another wasteful grant to do a study with stimulus money. However, to be truthful, this is one of those cases where it only takes common sense to figure this out.
Society in general, but specifically the younger generations, expect immediate gratification. Let’s just take a quick look at some examples: The FAST FOOD industry, microwave-oven-ready meals, ATM machines, the internet, email… All examples of how everything in our lives revolves around how quickly things need to happen to be able to fit into our busy schedules. This is the no-brainer part of my theory.
The part of my theory that extends into politics, regarding immediate gratification, may be a little more difficult to elucidate. So, in order to make my point with clarity, let me start out with a simple example. Just yesterday, the University of Iowa announced that the coach of the Iowa men’s basketball team would be replaced.
While some of the sports pundits would say that it was because his coaching style didn’t attract crowds to the arena – boring and dull doesn’t sell tickets – others are saying that it was the horrendous win-loss record accumulated in the last three years since Todd Lichliter replaced Steve Alford. Coach Lichliter was given a mere three years to turn around a program that has had success in the past. Lichliter was hired for the reasons of hope and change. Players and fans were seeking something better than what we saw with Steve Alford as the head coach. Instead, things got drastically worse.
And to expand on the example just given, Coach Todd Lichliter was given just three years to accomplish what the fans and university was expecting. But, not only did attendance drop off to all new lows, the program actually deteriorated to the point where Iowa had the most losses ever in one season in his third year at the helm. Totally unacceptable to Hawkeye fans, to be sure. Believe me, fans expect quick results, and sometimes unrealistic. Fortunately for Iowa football coach Kirk Ferentz, everything went as planned. His program struggled in his first two years, but then began to take shape in his third year, and he has had great success ever since. Kind of reminds me of the eight years of the Ronald Reagan presidency.
When a presidential candidate promises hope and change, and the masses elect him in the hopes of change, that person must perform to expectations. But how soon?
READ FULL STORY at BreakdownofAmerica.com
Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!