Playing the Sibyl on American Elections
Who wouldn’t recognize the famous Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama, today the most powerful man on the planet and the American president? One could discuss his power: close in tow behind him are the Chinese comrades, the largest holders of American financial obligations — translated into ordinary Czech, they “own a minority share” in America.
This brief introduction does not change the fact that Obama faces great problems at this time: The United States is plagued by massive unemployment (around 10 percent). Unemployment, which Obama played as his strong suit in the elections, and which he constantly talks (and thus far only talks) about in office, could cut his feet out from under him. Unemployment is obviously not his only problem. The American president has long been criticized for the high federal deficit, which this year comes to an unbelievable $1.3 trillion. Therefore he recently decided on a radical step to save his warm spot in the Oval Office for another four years. Namely, cutting the deficit in half to a still hard-to-imagine $533 billion. He applies a purely leftist methodology to this step: raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans. And since he has correctly calculated who votes for him, he will not pay for it in the coming elections.
Obama will pay for his (in)glorious health care reform, to which Americans will adjust only with difficulty. Put simply, the reform has to do with the implementation of across-the-board insurance coverage all over the United States, which is untypical and fairly problematic for the United States (until now, Americans have been used to paying for every medical procedure themselves if they didn’t purchase health insurance). The bottom line is, these events may turn out to be fateful for Obama in the next two years. One should add that Obama today only has the trust of 42 percent of Americans, a figure analogous to another (in)glorious statesman, specifically, the Czech kleptomaniac Václav Klaus.
This begs the question of who will challenge Obama in two years. I don’t expect it will be the nomination winner of two years ago, Vietnam veteran John McCain. I would sooner place my bet on the vice-presidential candidate of two years ago, Sarah Palin. A woman who managed to repeatedly confuse the Korean People’s Democratic Republic with South Korea in one of the televised debates (“We’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.") There is also talk of Mitt Romney who, according to theoretical predictions, should have become the Republican presidential candidate two years ago. Who knows how the election would have turned out if he had actually opposed Obama. Multibillionaire Donald Trump withdrew his candidacy in the end, preferring to buy a new and more luxurious Boeing. So we’ll see who emerges from the primaries and promises America a brighter future.
According to my theory of “similar types attract,” it should be Palin. America has its first black president. Why not a woman? The Democrats bet on race, why shouldn’t the Republicans bet on gender? Both have great charisma and I think they would be evenly matched candidates. But let me explain my “theory” fully. In my opinion, rival parties seek candidates of a similar type to run against each other (loudmouth Paroubek vs. hothead Topolánek, educated Cameron vs. educated Brown, weak Sobotka vs. weak Nečas, puppet Palin vs. puppet Obama?).
Who knows how it will all turn out in the United States. One must add that plenty of American presidents have been remarkably unpopular in their first two years and were reelected in the end: older people will certainly recall Ronald Reagan, younger ones Bush. The question is to what extent Obama will manage to convince the public that he’s the one to raise America up, and to what extent Americans will believe him. If he’s successful, he will become president once again. Let me add that I would be glad if the Republicans were to find a true conservative, one who could oppose Obama’s promises and finally push that smiling puppet from the White House. I just hope they don’t pick Palin. We’ll see.
This brief introduction does not change the fact that Obama faces great problems at this time: The United States is plagued by massive unemployment (around 10 percent). Unemployment, which Obama played as his strong suit in the elections, and which he constantly talks (and thus far only talks) about in office, could cut his feet out from under him. Unemployment is obviously not his only problem. The American president has long been criticized for the high federal deficit, which this year comes to an unbelievable $1.3 trillion. Therefore he recently decided on a radical step to save his warm spot in the Oval Office for another four years. Namely, cutting the deficit in half to a still hard-to-imagine $533 billion. He applies a purely leftist methodology to this step: raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans. And since he has correctly calculated who votes for him, he will not pay for it in the coming elections.
Obama will pay for his (in)glorious health care reform, to which Americans will adjust only with difficulty. Put simply, the reform has to do with the implementation of across-the-board insurance coverage all over the United States, which is untypical and fairly problematic for the United States (until now, Americans have been used to paying for every medical procedure themselves if they didn’t purchase health insurance). The bottom line is, these events may turn out to be fateful for Obama in the next two years. One should add that Obama today only has the trust of 42 percent of Americans, a figure analogous to another (in)glorious statesman, specifically, the Czech kleptomaniac Václav Klaus.
This begs the question of who will challenge Obama in two years. I don’t expect it will be the nomination winner of two years ago, Vietnam veteran John McCain. I would sooner place my bet on the vice-presidential candidate of two years ago, Sarah Palin. A woman who managed to repeatedly confuse the Korean People’s Democratic Republic with South Korea in one of the televised debates (“We’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.") There is also talk of Mitt Romney who, according to theoretical predictions, should have become the Republican presidential candidate two years ago. Who knows how the election would have turned out if he had actually opposed Obama. Multibillionaire Donald Trump withdrew his candidacy in the end, preferring to buy a new and more luxurious Boeing. So we’ll see who emerges from the primaries and promises America a brighter future.
According to my theory of “similar types attract,” it should be Palin. America has its first black president. Why not a woman? The Democrats bet on race, why shouldn’t the Republicans bet on gender? Both have great charisma and I think they would be evenly matched candidates. But let me explain my “theory” fully. In my opinion, rival parties seek candidates of a similar type to run against each other (loudmouth Paroubek vs. hothead Topolánek, educated Cameron vs. educated Brown, weak Sobotka vs. weak Nečas, puppet Palin vs. puppet Obama?).
Who knows how it will all turn out in the United States. One must add that plenty of American presidents have been remarkably unpopular in their first two years and were reelected in the end: older people will certainly recall Ronald Reagan, younger ones Bush. The question is to what extent Obama will manage to convince the public that he’s the one to raise America up, and to what extent Americans will believe him. If he’s successful, he will become president once again. Let me add that I would be glad if the Republicans were to find a true conservative, one who could oppose Obama’s promises and finally push that smiling puppet from the White House. I just hope they don’t pick Palin. We’ll see.