Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times

SAN DIEGO, August 4, 2011 —In his TV Lunch Alert of August 1, 2011, Dick Morris predicted defeat for President Obama in 2012. He cited several polls, including polls in the important battleground state of Ohio, where Romney leads Obama by 46-42 points. Morris puts icing on the cake by suggesting this is really 58-42 when we keep undecided voters in mind since, “most of the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent.” With all my heart, I hope Morris gains fame as a true prophet. I always enjoy his commentary and the polling data offered seems hard to argue with. Still, polls quickly shift as they did back in 2008, when a McCain-Palin lead crumbled during the last few laps.

Certainly Morris’ statement about undecided voters makes sense. So does his repeated reminder on Fox News programs such as Hannity and The O’Reilly Factor where, for quite some time now, we have been reminded that incumbents who seek reelection in the midst of a horrible economy suffer defeat. (The unemployment problem was at least declining when Reagan ran for reelection.) Even if a historian could provide a counterexample from America’s distant past, this phenomenon holds true in modern elections, and Morris is not the only pundit making such observations.

Yes, it seems unlikely that anyone presiding over a failing economy can win re-election, but before conservatives decide to coast their way to November 2012, a blunt question is called for: How likely was it that a presidential candidate could get elected in the first place with a record like Obama’s? He openly admitted socialistic intentions, associated with a known terrorist, and voted against a bill intended to stop infanticide – not abortion, infanticide!

Between Obama’s gifted oratorical skills and a desire on the part of many to make history by electing our first African-American president, the senator from Illinois got away with many compromised credentials. Any one of these blots might have swiftly pulled the plug on a different candidate. But Obama beat the odds in 2008 and we are naive to think he is incapable of pulling another rabbit out of his hat.

Senator Obama never admitted to being a socialist during the election, at least not with that actual word. Neither did he own up to the infanticide vote. Instead, he insisted that people were lying about him. As for Bill Ayers, Obama did not receive any “official endorsement” from the man, according to a reliable source: Obama. Whew! Sleep better, America! Nothing puts our minds at ease more than hearing a politician explain to us that he didn’t really do what he actually did or doesn’t really believe what he seems to believe.  Then again, facts can sometimes be stubborn little things. Perhaps a trip down memory lane is in order.

Some say it is unfair to call Obama a socialist. Even talk show host Michael Medved has implored fellow conservatives to refrain from using such a title. Still, must one actually use a word when resonating with the word’s meaning? I doubt that any thinking person could have mistaken Obama’s response to Joe the Plumber as a glowing endorsement of capitalism.

Perhaps his Freudian slip unveiled a little more candor than he intended, but other Democratic candidates have talked about wealth redistribution, at least in Newspeak style phrases such as “The rich have to pay their fair share.” And so, people gave Obama a pass with Joe the Plumber.

He also obtained a pass from most of the mainstream media on Bill Ayers, a self confessed terrorist, or more correctly put, one who admits to actions most would call terrorist. Among other deeds, Ayers’ organization, The Weathermen, successfully planted bombs in the Capitol building (1971) and the Pentagon (1972.)  Statutes of limitations allow the professor to talk about his past without legal consequences.

Ayers qualified his actions as being different from those of an actual terrorist by saying, “We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people … I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today … I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination” (The Real Bill Ayers, December 5, 2008,The New York Times: pp. A21).

But this reflective statement followed the 2008 election. A whole different tone was already on record in 2001 and Ayers’ unrepentant sounding  verbiage was available before Obama’s victory to any potential voter interested in an evaluation beyond the mere promise of “hope and change.”

On September 11, 2001 (a somewhat memorable day) Ayers was quoted as saying,” I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.” He also said he did not “discount the possibility” of doing something like that again (Dinitia Smith, No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen, The New York Times, September 11, 2001).

Having already told George Stephanopoulos in the Democratic primary debate of April 16, 2008 that he never received  an “official endorsement” from Bill Ayers, the matter came up again in an October 15, 2008 debate between candidates McCain and Obama. Senator McCain said Obama’s campaign began in Bill Ayers’ home.

“That’s absolutely not true,” Obama vehemently replied.

Technically, Obama was speaking the truth, but only in the sense that McCain had failed to mention which campaign. A few minutes earlier, Obama said, “Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that’s Mr. Ayers.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s denial demonstrated his uncontested gift of smooth rhetoric and a slickness that could leave Willy himself in the dust. No, he did not begin his presidential campaign in Ayers’ house but he did launch a much earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature within those warm, friendly walls (John Lott Jr. Barack Obama’s Pattern Of False Statements On Bill Ayers, Fox News, October, 13, 2008).

OK, does association with a terrorist make Obama some kind of murderer? No. Neither does the man’s voting record, but we do get a little closer with The Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2001, introduced to save viable fetuses who had survived late term abortions from death. Before this bill passed, many such fetuses were refused medical treatment or care to honor the intentions of mothers who had chosen an abortion. Obama took on his critics by calling them liars and claiming that this proposed law was merely a device for the eventual overturning of Roe Vs. Wade.

“Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade”  (CBN, August, 16, 2008).

Actually, SB 1082, the bill in question, only lacked Obama’s desired qualification in an early version. It was later amended with the same exception clause as the federal law.

“Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section” (Amendment 001).

Obama also explained that an earlier Illinois law (720ILCS 510/6) already protected the unborn fetus. The NRLC  said the previous law had loopholes. In any event, one must wonder why Obama would not support a second law if he truly agreed with the first.  Without question, Obama continues to interpret his decision as one who was merely protecting abortion rights. I doubt that he thinks of this as infanticide or takes any delight in a born baby not receiving medical attention, but try to imagine other presidential candidates surviving a news story like this. Perhaps Obama himself would not have survived had the mainstream media given this more play instead of turning themselves into a journalism challenged cheer leading squad.

As illustrated, Obama was less than truthful regarding some important matters which surfaced during his campaign, even though some of them did not remain on the surface for long. This is not to say that he lied about everything. Actually, President Obama has put into motion a great deal of the “change” he promised. Speaking for myself, I never worried that the man would break his campaign promises. I worried that he might keep them!  With 2012 on the horizon, we should now be concerned about some repeat strategy, such as the handy dandy race card or running against George Bush a second time. Maybe Obama was supposed to be running against McCain in 2008 but he really ran against Bush. The Bush drama has had more performances than Phantom of the Opera and is currently playing as a double feature with the scapegoated Tea Party. Maybe people will grow weary of this tired drivel, but enough columnists and commentators seem to be following suit like a crowd mesmerized once again by the Pied Piper.

And so, Mr. Morris, I hope your prediction about the ruined economy destroying Obama’s reelection chances comes true. But conservatives would be foolish to take it as a given. Make no mistake: Obama could win again! Too many people are just that gullible.

Share this on