Ryan Tang is a young Republican who voted for Barack Obama last fall. He liked Mr. Obama’s talk of bipartisanship. He thought he was someone – finally – who would work with Republicans and Democrats.
But today, just six months into the president’s term, Mr. Tang is having buyer’s remorse. He doesn’t think Obama has lived up to his rhetoric. He’s worried about the country veering away from the core principles he believes in: free markets, smaller government, less regulation. Thus he’s now inclined to support a candidate with more managerial brio even if he or she is not particularly “cool” – a Republican like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or former eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
“And those people aren’t hip,” says Tang, a recent college graduate who works for a consulting firm in Washington, D.C.
So Ryan, what in Obama's brief history as anything would have led you to believe that he would govern in a bipartisan way?
Was it his work as an ACORN rep? We all know they are bipartisan.
Maybe it was his work as a state senator where he voted with his party 99% of the time?
Or his three votes in the US senate where he voted the democratic line a perfect 100%?
While I'm being overly harsh on young Ryan here, I actually blame the media for allowing Obama to cast himself as some sort of moderate when his one page resume showed nothing of the sort.
Much like the way he flat out lies about the health care debate today where he claims that he's never been a proponent of a "public option" when You Tube is littered with videos of him saying just that.
Will the traditional media outlets continue to just let this guy say whatever the hell he wants without a challenge or will someone finally show some balls and tell the emperor he has no clothes?