Listen to an enraged Independent:
I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.
I watched with horror as Obama followed Bush's lead in bailing out banks, auto makers, insurance companies, all of those companies deemed "too big to fail." What does that mean? My small company got thrown under the bus and my savings were ravaged - perhaps Wall Street is using them for bonuses this year.
Not to mention President Obama is recklessly spending our country's future into oblivion. It was clear after just 90 days what a mistake I'd made. My taxes have gone up and my quality of life has gone down.
If this is the basis for revolt, what can one say?
If Obama and Bush had refused to bail out the banks, does this small business owner believe she'd be in business at all? Is she demanding - in a conservative outlet - that the federal government bail out all small businesses in trouble? Or what? Who "threw" her small business under which bus? And then the usual reckless spending schtick - when basic economics will tell you that drastically tightening your belt in a recession that might have been as bad as the 1930s would not exactly have helped small business.
What you have here is big babyism. After the worst downturn in memory, bequeathed a massive and growing debt, two failing wars, a financial sector threatening to bring down the entire economy, Obama has betrayed this person by preventing a Second Great Depression.
We will hear more of these non-sequiturs; the 24-hour news cycle prevents any memory past the last six months; the easy, lazy meme of Obama-the-lefty will be pressed home by FNC/RNC and the MSM will grab onto it because it's a narrative they can understand and that helps insulate them from charges of bias. That none of this has any direct relationship with economic and political reality is barely relevant.