‘Unconscionable’ Worm Harry Reid Demonizes Republicans For 60 Vote Requirement: READ REID’S OWN PREVIOUS WORDS

Harry Reid is a worm.  He can’t be negotiated with or compromised with because he is a pathologically dishonest hypocrite who can’t be trusted.

Here is Harry Reid demonizing Mitch McConnell for not allowing his smoke-and-mirrors bill to have a straight up or down vote.  Never mind that Reid had just got through tabling not one but TWO Republicans bills without allowing a vote at all.  And just how in the hell does that foster anything but a bitter and poisonous climate?

“It’s fair to say that the engagement there is not in any meaningful way,” Reid said. “Republican leaders still refuse to negotiate in good faith.” […]

He suggested that delaying tactics being exercised by his Republican colleagues are preventing a measure from advancing in the upper congressional chamber to raise the debt ceiling. The Democratic leader spelled out the word f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r to make his case.

“You can put lipstick on it, a nice suit, even a skirt on it sometimes, it’s still a filibuster,” Reid said in comments directed at McConnell. The Nevada Democrat suggested that it’d be “unconscionable” for Republicans to use the maneuver to prevent a bill from passing to avert default.

Filibusters (requiring 60 votes)_ are “unconscionable,” are they?  Let’s see how Harry Reid applies that to, oh, Harry Reid.

What is funny” is that I actually had a hard time finding these quotes even though I actually had the VIDEO of one of them.  The mainstream media’s dishonesty, corruption and propaganda are reaching sickening new depths.

Sen. Reid: ‘It’s Always Been The Case You Need 60 Votes’
Jul 29 2011

Sen. Reid Says: ‘The Need To Muster 60 Votes… Is A Tool That Serves The Long-Term Interest Of The Senate And The American People And Our Country.’

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “In the Senate, it’s always been the case you need 60 votes.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose Show,” 3/5/07)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country. It is often said that the laws are ‘the system of wise restraints that set men free.’ The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as majority leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution. I say on this floor that I love so much that I believe in the Golden Rule. I am going to treat my Republican colleagues the way that I expect to be treated. There is no ‘I’ve got you,’ no get even. I am going to do everything I can to preserve the traditions and rules of this institution that I love.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “60 votes are required for just about everything.” “I have talked with Senator McConnell about this. You know, we may have to come up with a number of resolutions that require 60 votes. Because, as you know, in the Senate, a lot of times 60 votes are required for just about everything. So that’s certainly one of the things we’re taking into consideration.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, CQ Transcriptions, 1/30/07)

I don’t have to quote some Republican to show that Harry Reid is an “unconscionable” dishonest little hypocritical worm.  All I have to do is quote Harry Reid at a slightly earlier time.

Or how about simply point out what Harry Reid is actually doing RIGHT NOW while he himself filibusters even as he demagogues filibustering?

Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill
by Stephen Dinan
Published on July 30, 2011

Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it’s actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.

Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.

“We would be happy to have that vote tonight,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.

He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.

“There is now another filibuster. That’s what this is. It’s a filibuster to stop us from moving forward,” he said.

Mr. Reid complained that if the House had been held to the same super majority rules the Senate often operates under, Republicans’ proposal never would have passed over there earlier in the day….

I will always wonder how Democrats’ skulls don’t literally explode from trying to contain all the massive hypocritical contradictions that so quintessentially define them.

Then there’s something that I actually didn’t realize: the so-called “Boehner plan” was actually a compromise between Republican leaders, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.  Until Democrats cut and ran and pulled out the rug from their own damned compromise:

CR Editorial Note: Sen. Reid, aka “Quirog of Greazidom” had already worked out the House plan in a compromise with Boehner that blew up the House and the Tea Party as many must have heard today. In other words, this was the negotiated plan that Reid worked out and then promptly voted to table as dead on arrival when it finally arrived in the Senate.
 
 Why did Reid table his own compromised plan?

Enter Barack Hussein Obama, who read Reid the riot act after his smary talk on compromise and needing to “get something done.”
 
You see, a compromise would totally go against Obama’s Cloward-Piven plan to bring everything crashing down around America.
 
That story line is becoming more and more convincing as more facts are unearthed.

Boehner didn’t get ONE single Democrat vote (fact: he got FIVE Democrat votes for the MUCH more conservative cut, cap and balance bill that Senate Democrats trivialized, demonized and tabled) for this compromise plan due to the hard-core partisianship of the Democrats.  Boehner stuck his neck out a mile to compromise with Democrats and his reward was a Democrat chopping block.  Because Boehner couldn’t get any Democrat support for his compromise bill, he had no choice but to “conservative-it-up” to get enough Republicans to pass it.

This entire debt ceiling fiasco is quintessential Democrat hypocrisy.

In demonizing George Bush and then voting “NO” on a debt ceiling increase, Barack Obama lectured:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

And since we were talking about the personal dishonesty and hypocrisy of Harry Reid, what did Harry Reid say when Bush was president and he was the same vile piece of rotten filth Senator he is now?

REID: “If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country.”

WHY DON’T YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN DEMAGOGIC QUESTIONS NOW, HARRY REID?!?!?!

Republicans are standing firm for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which would require both Republican and Democrat administration and Congress ALIKE to spend within their means.  And Democrats – who constantly deceitfully TALK about cutting spending and having balanced budgets – are willing to fight to the death to avoid allowing EITHER.

Democrats are actually opposing a plan that would entail just a one percent spending cut a year for six years.  JUST ONE PERCENT!!!  So you can rest assurred that everything they say about cuts is nothing more than a lie, and all their bills that claim to “cut” are smoke-and-mirrors lies that rely on bogus premises and meaningless rhetoric and non-binding resolutions and promises of future cuts that future Congresses are in no way bound to uphold.

Meanwhile, the United States is borrowing 43 cents out of every single dollar that it spends.  And Democrats refuse to do anything to even slow it down.

Medicare is going to go bankrupt in less than five years.  And Democrats refuse to do anything other than lie and demagogue and demonize to stop that from happening.  They will not cut spending and make it possible to extend the life of these programs in any way, shape or form.  Meanwhile, they just outright lie about the Republican agenda.

The Democrats are dishonest by definition at this point. The entire party is the party of “God damn America,” the party of hell.

Democrats And Crack Cocaine Addicts: Two Kinds Of The Same Vile Species

Obama Regime Illegitimately Pressuring Private Rating Agencies To Endorse Reid Plan

First there was the fact that Harry Reid, the Democrat Party and then the mainstream media falsely concocted a bogus “fact” that Standard & Poors favored Harry Reid’s so-called “plan.”  It was not true.  Which is to say it was a lie:

Now we find out that Obama is pressuring the rating agencies to say they prefer the Reid plan whether they actually do or not:

White House Prodding Rating Agencies to Endorse Reid Plan: Report
By editor Jul 27, 2011, 1:12 PM Author’s Website 

FOX Business Network’s Charlie Gasparino reports that “the White House is trying to prod the rating agencies to accept the Reid plan, which gives them political cover,” while saying “Boehner’s plan creates political uncertainty.” Excerpts from the report are below, courtesy of Fox Business Network.
 
On rating agencies being pressured by the White House to endorse a budget plan:
 “Sources close to the rating agencies are saying that the White House is trying to get the rating agencies to endorse a certain plan. The White House is trying to prod the agencies to accept the Reid plan, which gives them political cover.  They’re trying to say Boehner’s plan creates political uncertainty in the market because it’s two increases.”

These people do not want what is best for America.  They don’t care about the rules, or about what’s right and what’s wrong.  Obama and his White House and his Democrat Party are dishonest to the cores of their cockroach souls and they will do ANYTHING to get what they want.

And, as we see above, that includes both lying and cheating.

See more on the video report on the Obama regime illegitimately pressuring rating agencies here.

Obama Puts His Re-Election Over Welfare Of Nation By Demanding Long-Term Debt Ceiling Extension As Condition For Deal

Obama came out demanding a debt ceiling hike with no strings attached, no spending cuts, lots of taxes and one that would go beyond November 2012 to keep his presidency safe.

At this point, he is going to get none of those things.

Obama wants a long-term debt ceiling extension. What needs to be understood is that:

Over the last 40 years, there have been 37 separate debt limit increases that last 6 months or less, and never once has the federal government ultimately defaulted on its debt. Meanwhile, the $2.4 trillion increase President Obama is seeking represents the largest single debt hike in history, and, quite conveniently, it kicks the can down the road past both his and Senator Nelson’s re-election bids next year.

Obama himself underscored this fact when he said during his incredibly demagogic address to the nation on July 25:

“President Reagan did it [i.e. raised the debt ceiling] 18 times.”

Well, do the math yourself. What is 8 years divided by 18? That’s 96 months divided by 18, or about once every five months.

As I already pointed out, Democrats forced Ronald Reagan to come to them an average of every five months and nine days to plead for another debt ceiling extension. And the Obama argument that not giving him a long-term extension now is simply factually untrue. Every single president has done it over and over and over again without catastrophe; how is Obama’s presidency so weak and so incompetent that he now absolutely must have what they did not need???

The answer comes down to one simple thing: Obama’s presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. He has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER positive to run on. He certainly has nothing positive to say about himself in this debt ceiling fiasco, having never ONCE come out with any kind of plan or demonstrated any kind of leadership whatsoever.  While the nation has sunk into this debt ceiling crisis, Obama has been doing an average of a campaign event every three days.  So you can see where his priorities are.

Obama is a pure demagogue.  What did he say to George Bush in 2006, when he joined EVERY SINGLE OTHER DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE IN VOTING FOR A DEBT CEILING INCREASE FOR GEORGE BUSH?

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Obama needs to resign from office as a completely failed leader.  Why should Republicans treat him one iota better than the vindictive way he treated Bush over the same issue???

Every single Democrat who is “outraged and appalled” by the Republicans’ behavior is a hypocrite who ought to be ashamed of himself or herself.

History is on Republicans’ side in every part of this debate.

As for a short-term extension – which Obama selfishly refuses because he doesn’t want this issue to derail his political campaign next year – realize that DEBT EXTENSIONS HAVE BEEN SHORT TERM AFFAIRS FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.  And why should it be any different for Obama now?

As for the amount Obama seeks “the biggest debt-limit increase in history” whether it is in sheer dollar amount or expressed as a percentage of GDP.  And combined with the long-term extension he is demanding, why the hell SHOULDN’T the Republicans – who ran on cutting spending – not make HUGE demands if it is going to give up such a debt-ceiling increase???

If Democrats want to demagogue Republicans by claiming that they are “holding America hostage” (or whatever their shrill attack is), remind yourself that Barack Obama PERSONALLY used the debt ceiling to demonize George Bush, and that not a single Democrat on the Senate voted for Bush’s debt ceiling increase request in 2006.  How on earth are Republicans not more than justified in holding Obama’s feet to the fire as they seek to stop the fiscal insanity and save our country and our children now???

Finally, how DARE Barack Obama bother to try to run for president again when our nation is in crisis RIGHT NOW and he is AWOL.  Even The New York Times – hardly a source friendly to conservatives – has attacked Barack Obama for “being on the sidelines.”  That article begins with this picture of a White House press corps wondering where the hell their president is while our country faces a crisis:

WASHINGTON — For an hour on Wednesday the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, fielded questions about what, if anything, President Obama was doing to help end the impasse in Congress over the imminent need to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

The New York Times article proceeds to state that “Mr. Obama is in danger of seeming a spectator at one of the most critical moments of his presidency.”  But he’s not in danger of seeming a spectator; HE IS A SPECTATOR AND THE COUNTRY IS IN DANGER OF HAVING ITS CREDIT RATING YANKED – the effects of which will be devastating across the economy due to higher interest rates for everything.

Obama needs to get a deal done.  And all he’s doing is giving demagogic speeches that further divide a nation that – cynical and deceitful promises to the contary – he has already divided enough.

Christine O’Donnell Fires Back At McCain: Don’t Call Me A Tea Party Loser You RINO LOSER

John McCain took it upon himself to do everything he could to help Democrts ridicule and marginalize the Tea Party and Tea Party candidates yesterday.

I supported John McCain’s presidential bid because as bad as we was, he was still better than the now-documented failure of Barack Obama.  But I held my nose to support him – at least until he nominated Sarah Palin.

John McCain ran a dismal and pathetic campaign.  On my view, he was far more concerned with maintaining his “Senatorial dignity” than he was with saving America from a dangerous Marxist fraud.  As just one example, consider his elitest refusal to go after Barack Obama for his twenty-plus years spent in a racist, Marxist and anti-American “church” under the “spiritual mentoring” of a wicked Jeremiah Wright.  Even Obama said that attack would be legitimate, but John McCain was far too hoity toity to pursue it.

So when McCain went after Christine O’Donnell as an example of the failure of the Tea Party, O’Donnell responded thusly:

“I think that it is inappropriate to insult the judgment of the majority of Republicans in Nevada and Delaware and that the implication that nominating RINOs somehow means we win was irrefutably disproven by McCain’s own presidential candidacy debacle. After that nightmare, McCain had to veer right so fast he almost got whiplash from all his flip-flopping just to keep his Senate seat. It doesn’t help him to attack those conservatives and Tea Partiers who graciously gave him another chance to keep his job.”

And let me say, “You GO, girl.”

I agree that Christine O’Donnell WAS a weak candidate, but that weakness had everything to do with her lack of political experience and a few documented personal issues, and NOTHING to do with her Tea Party policy views.  When she did her famous/infamous “I am not a witch” ad, what the hell did that have to do with her Tea Party beliefs???’

Democrats always tell us that RINOS are “their greatest threat.”  They did it with McCain, and they are doing it now with RINO Jon Huntsman.  And RINOS are fool enough to believe Lucy and keep trying to kick the football.

What they don’t understand is that Democrats know how to morph RINOS into bloody right-wing bogeymen who will take away all the socialist benefits the sugar-daddy Democrats fought for:

Conservatives know the RINO is a RINO and have no enthusiasm for the useless RINO whatsoever, and the RINO doesn’t have enough of a principled stand on anything to garner powerful support from anywhere else.

And thus down goes the RINO.

I supported John McCain for president and gave money to his campaign.  He STILL keeps hectoring me for money.  I supported Scott Brown and sent money to his campaign, too.  And HE still keeps hectoring me for money.

One went down in flames, the other pulled off a win.  But neither one of them ended up doing a dang thing that made my donation worthwhile; and I won’t be making those mistakes again.

Prior to his run for the presidency, I largely regarded John McCain as an embarassment whose sole quality had been his suffering as a POW during the Vietnam War.  And now, since his failed run for the presidency, I AGAIN largely regard John McCain as an embarassment whose sole quality was his suffering as a POW during the Vietnam War.

The bottom line on RINOS is that you simply cannot trust them to take a strong and courageous stand when the heat is on.

John McCain walked onto the Senate floor and violated Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

And why this man was so willing to attack Christine O’Donnell when he couldn’t bring himself to attack Barack Obama when it counted is utterly beyond me.

 

I Support John Boehner’s Plan. Here’s Why.

Obama recently demagogued Republicans by asking, “Can they say yes to anything?”

And to put it terms that your brainwashed partisan ideologues will understand, Barry Hussein, “Yes we can!”

We said yes to the Ryan budget.  In fact we passed it.  Unlike Democrats, who have not passed any kind of budget at all in something like 818 days.

We also said yes to the cut, cap and balance bill.  We passed that, too.  And Harry Reid refused to even allow it to come up for a vote, much less debate it.

Meanwhile, Democrats have not come up with any plan at all, aside from the Harry Reid plan that just came out a couple of days ago and which is 99% smoke and mirros, 1% “plan.”  You also see in that article that John Boehner was willing to back an agreement that he had with Obama – and that OBAMA POISONED IT.

Boehner had agreed to a deal that would have involved $800 billion in “revenue” (i.e. TAXES).  And then Obama demanded yet another $40o billion.  The New York Times demonstrated just how chock full of chutzpah liberals are in saying (In an article entitled “The Party That Can’t Say Yes“):

“So, on the eve of economic calamity, the Republicans killed an overly generous deal largely over a paltry $400 billion in deductions.”

Number one, anybody who thinks $400 billion is “paltry” is psychologically and morally insane – and there is no point trying to negotiate with the insane.  Number two, if $400 billion is indeed “paltry,” then surely Obama and the Democrats would have no problem agreeing to the same deal with “revenues” of $400 billion rather than $800 billion.  It’s only a “paltry” difference, after all.  Both points reveal that these liberals are dishonest and they are in fact sick.

I would submit that we are not negotiating with Democrats in this fight.  They are utterly deceitful and not fit negotiating partners.  We are trying to win the American people and get them on our side for 2012.

That matters far more than any deal we agree to now.

The media are dishonest in their presentation of the 1995 budget impasse, just as they are dishonest in everything else.  The elections of 1996 wasn’t so bad for Republicans.  They lost a few seats in the House, but still retained control of that body.  And they actually GAINED two seats in the Senate which further solidified their control.  Bill Clinton was also forced to say, “The era of big government is over.”  And the Republican Congress ultimately forced a balanced budget (which the incredibly cynical and dishonest media gave Clinton total credit for).  A good argument can be made that the balanced budgets that we had for a few years in the late 90s was entirely due to the pressure that the Republicans had applied in 1995.

But now aint then.

I would argue that the American people have become worse rather than better since 1995.  As my major prima facia example, would this country have elected a Barack Obama in 1995?  I don’t think there’s any chance.  And it’s not Obama being black that would have destroyed his chances; it’s Obama being a socialist who had spent over 20 years in a racist, Marxist and anti-American “church” with a vile and twisted man like Jeremiah Wright as his “spiritual mentor.”  And any conservative who is going to place their trust in the wisdom or goodness of the American people must deal with the sad reality that the American people elected a genuinely evil and foolish man to be their leader in 2008.

My own trust in the American people is quite limited.  The Democrat Party tells demonstrable lies.  The mainstream media propaganda machine packages those lies.  And then ignorant and often stupid people consume them as “facts.”  We’re in trouble because we’re succombing to our own rapidly increasing moral stupidity.

Let me say more about that right now.

In a fair and legitimate contest, if the American people were presented with two competing ideologies, agendas and plans, I still believe that the American people would choose the more noble path.  But that is not what is happening here.  Instead, Obama and the Democrats are not bothering to present a meaningful plan of their own which would expose their true nature and intentions to the people; rather, they are sitting back and demaoguing and demonizing the Republicans as they try to lead in the leadership vaccum created by failed leader Obama.

And up to this point, that tactic – as vile and despicable as it is – has actually been working.  The American people are actually turning against the Republicans and taking their doses of poison that the biased and dishonest media keep feeding them.  The media is simply routinely lying.

Obama is squarely to blame for this crisis and any disaster that ensues from it.  He has utterly failed to lead.  He has presented no plan.  He has fearmongered this situation into a genuine crisis.  It is because of Obama and his top officials constantly using the language of “default” that the credit rating agencies now feel compelled to lower our AAA rating.  Anyone who takes the time to learn finds that:

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade “is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve [that’s Obama and Geithner] been speaking out on the debt cap so much.”

And Obama has revealed himself to be the worst possible form of demagogue.  Even as he has constantly fearmongered this situation and constantly predicted doom to the public, he has been privately aggreeing with what Republicans have REPEATEDLY said that the United States would continue to pay its debts.

Now, if you have total confidence in the wisdom and goodness of the American people, I can understand why you believe they will see through this.

I simply no longer do.  Because Obama played the same game with his terrible stimulus boondoggle; he played the same game with ObamaCare; and he has played the same game with virtually everything else he has done.  And assuming the American people are stupid and selfish has worked for him since they proved that to be true by voting for him in the first place.

So the real battle here isn’t “who’s more conservative?”  It’s more about, “What’s the most conservative plan that will win the day?”  Charles Krauthammer has said we should vote for THE most conservative candidate or plan that has a reasonable chance to win.  And I agree with that; otherwise the “perfect” becomes the enemy of the good.  And the conservative agenda goes nowhere.

The rub is that we often don’t know the answer to the question, “Who is the most conservative candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning?” or “What is the most conservative plan that can actually pass?”

It’s easy to throw up a Christine O’Donnell or a Sharon Angle.  You might dismiss them as “establishment conservatives,” but your Charles Krauthammers and your Karl Roves warned and predicted that they would lose badly and that in losing these races we would lose the United States Senate when we could have won it with more electable candidates.  I also understand that it is equally easy to throw up your hands as a conservative and point out that if we don’t have good candidates who will actually be conservative, there’s not much point in their winning in the first place.  I truly see both sides here – as I imagine you do.

Damn my lack of omniscience!

Is there any way out of this dilemma for ordinary conservatives and for conservative politicians alike?

I think there’s only one: trust your leadership and rally behind them.

If John Boehner isn’t “conservative” enough, he should have been replaced.  But as it is, he’s what we’ve got; he’s who we have.  And we either follow his lead or we disintergrate into a bunch of factions that cannot possibly succeed in anything.

Rep. Allen West (whom I really like, fwiw) publicly expressed an attitude that I share.  He basically said that as a soldier you get behind your leaders’ plan and then you fight.

Even Rep. Allen West (R., Fla.), a freshman and tea-party favorite, told National Review Online that while the plan was a “75 to 80 percent solution,” it was something he could ultimately support. “You know, son, one thing they tell you in the military — if you sit around and wait to come up with the 100 percent plan, then the enemy has probably already attacked you,” he said.

The House has been leading.  If you want conservative principles, there is simply nowhere else you can go if you want to have any chance of actually passing anything.

Speaker John Boehner is our General Eisenhower.  If a bunch of officers had said, “I don’t like Ike’s plan; I’m going to hold out for a better one,” we would be speaking German right now.

When we are in a battle, what we really need most is unity.  And that’s why I support my Republican House leadership through this fight.

For the record, I’m not saying Republicans should “compromise” with Democrats.  I find Democrats utterly untrustworthy and in fact despicable; and you can’t “compromise” with vermin.  What I AM saying is that Republicans should compromise with their own Republican leadership.

Benjamin Franklin famously said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”  And Abraham Lincoln said even more famously, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  That idea is the core of my argument for supporting Speaker John Boehner.

I would rather have the cut, cap and balance plan than the one that Boehner is working on now.  For the record, Speaker Boehner HIMSELF has repeatedly stated that HE would rather have the cut, cap and balance plan too.  But he is looking at the situation, at the political landscape, at details that you and I don’t possess, and as our field commander he is saying that we need to pass a plan that will better position the Republican Party in this fight from the charge of being “hyper-partisan” or “unreasonable.”

And I am with my general in this fight.

For the record, had John Boehner decided that the cut, cap and balance plan was the hill to fight and die on, I would have been with him on that, too.

If the Tea Party conservative Republicans who oppose the Boehner plan successfully voted him out of his Speakership and replaced him, I would back that Tea Party conservative Speaker of the House.

But that isn’t what we’ve got.  We’ve got Speaker of the House John Boehner, and our Speaker believes we need to get behind a plan that he acknowledges is less than perfect, but which he also says is our best chance of moving forward:

“Listen, it’s time to do what is doable, and this bill isn’t perfect. … That’s what happens when you have a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Democrat in the white House. This bill was agreed to by the bipartisan Senate leadership, and we believe we can get this on the president’s desk, and make it law. Listen, we’re not going to give him a $2.5 trillion blank check that lets him continue his spending binge through the next election. That’s not going to happen.”

I want the most conservative bill that has a chance of advancing or at least has the best chance of putting the Democrats in a political hole.  And I believe that we need to trust the political instincts of our leadership to get us to that point.

Speaker Boehner is saying, “Get your ass in line.”  And until this fight is over, I believe we should be saying, “Yes, sir!”  Because the alternative is to splinter and divide into a bunch of factions that cannot accomplish anything.

Update: Boehner is arguing – legitimately – that there is going to be a debt deal one way or another.  And if his play doesn’t work now, he will have no choice but to assemble a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans to pass the Reid bill in the Senate.  If Boehner’s bill passes, that bill will have to be considered in any negotiation; if it fails, the House Republicans and the conservative agenda will have been become meaningless because it will be bypassed.  There is simply too much at stake to play chicken, in my opinion.  We’ve lost 500 points in the DOW already in just the first 4 days of the week BEFORE the deadline.  August 2 will be a bloodbath.

If you believe that defeating John Boehner and fracturing the Republican House will lead to some kind of conservative agenda victory, you should be able to do something Obama hasn’t been able to come up with: a plan for how that will happen.  If the markets collapse, a moderate coalition will form, pass something that is far worse than Boehner’s plan, and the House Republican leadership will be utterly broken with nearly a year and a half to go before the 2012 election.

John Boehner correctly recognizes that the House is one-half of one-third of our federal government; you simply cannot dictate the government from that foundation.  It is simply lunacy at this point for a tiny minority of 26 Republicans to torpedo their party in a fanatic demand that they get 1,000% of everything they want.  As it stands, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are praying that the Boehner bill fails.  Why on earth would Michelle Bachmann want to be the answer to these liberals’ prayers???

The US economy is quite probably the most vulnerable it has ever been in the history of the republic.  Nobody knows what will happen in the coming weeks if we do not arrive at some kind of deal.  The Boehner bill is the best solution possible for the nation, for the conservative agenda and for the Republican Party.

Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER

From NPR via the Weekly Standard:

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

How much in deficit spending did Bush spend on average per day during his presidency?  It’s pretty easy to figure out: $607 billion/365 days = $1.66 billion per day.  That’s a lot of spending, Georgie.  Shame on you!

But compared to Obama’s $5 BILLION of deficit spending per day?  Obama spent well over three times more per day every single day than did Bush.

If you want to argue that Bush looks bad, fine.  Bush looks bad.  But Obama looks positively vile.

The article proceeds to present another way to calculate deficit spending by going a little deeper into the weeds:

In fairness, however, Obama can’t rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn’t sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush’s column). Rather, Obama’s record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic “stimulus” package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush’s should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in “stimulus” money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama’s first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama’s first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama’s deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.

And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

It’s not often that one gets to hear a call for “responsible” fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush’s by more than $1 trillion a year — yet that’s apparently what we’ll get to hear tonight. But President Obama’s actions tell another, far clearer, story about his commitment to deficit reduction.

So let’s recalculate based on the deeper analysis.  Bush’s deficit spending was $410 billion a year divided by 365 days, which equals $1.1 billion per day.  Versus Obama’s deficit spending, which has been $1,413 billion a year divided by 365, which equals $3.87 billion per day.  That is 3.5 times more spending every single day from Obama.

Now, particularly dumbass liberals often try to argue that George Bush somehow made his war spending “off budget.”  That is such a pile of crap it is unreal.  Who controls the spending?  CONGRESS DOES.  Congress ALWAYS had the power to cut off funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars any time it wanted.  And the simple fact of the matter is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – who controlled the Senate and House respectively – agreed on how to handle the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  It was DEMOCRATS who did not want to be in the position of having to either support war funding and enrage their base or vote against it and enrage the American people.  So it was NOT George Bush who took war funding “off budget,” it was Democrats who were afraid to be held accountable.  And every penny that Bush spent on the war and on everything else ultimately showed up in his spending and in his debt.

The problem is that there are truly stupid people who have no clue how government works and live in a world of lies.

The federal government is twice as large as it was ten years ago.  And Bush is partly responsible for this, no question about it.  But it is 30% larger than it was just two years ago, and therefore Obama’s share of this increase is huge in relation to Bush’s.

We can’t go on like this.  We will soon be going the way of the Dodo bird.

Democrats offered no plans – NONE.  ZERO. – to deal with the fact that Medicare will be bankrupt and collapse in 2016.  That is less than five years away.  But it’s actually much worse than that.  For example, as recently as December 2010, the estimate was that it would go bankrupt “as early as 2017,” according to CBS reporting.  Which is to say that it is going broke a lot faster than the experts have been anticipating; and it easily could go broke by 2014 instead of 2016.

And Obama has no plan.  He has completely abdicated any leadership whatsoever.  He offered a budget that was so ridiculous (it would have added $12 trillion to the debt) that not even ONE DEMOCRATS would vote for it.  It failed 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  Just how massive a failure is Obama?  And since then he has offered NOTHING but fearmongering and demonization.

We desperately need leadership.  We desperately need a plan.  And Obama – who is supposed to be seeking to rally the nation behind a common cause – is instead merely offering demagogic partisan speeches.  When he is not spending American into bankruptcy and financial implosion.

Update: Before this article was published, I came across this angle on the same issue:

Obama: More than Twice the Debt in Half the Time as Bush
by House Committee on Ways and Means

A recent “infographic” released by the White House tries to assign the blame for our massive debt and deficits to former President Bush and Republican Congresses.  However, the graphic conveniently omits President Obama’s record and his plans for the fiscal future of our country.  If the President had his way and his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal was enacted, here is what a comparison of the increase in public debt would look like:

 

As the graph above shows, the debt held by the public increased $2.4 trillion between 2000 and 2008, from $3.4 trillion to $5.8 trillion.  Under President Obama’s budget proposal, the debt held by the public is projected to increase $6.1 trillion between 2008 and 2012, from $5.8 trillion to $11.9 trillion.

That means that President Obama will more than double the debt accumulated under President Bush in half the time.  Twice the debt in half the time: courtesy of the Obama Administration.

Pretty much no matter how you slice it, Obama is a big government socialist out to bankrupt America faster than anyone who ever came before him.

Update: here’s another, more recent article to put into perspective just how totally awful this deceitful hypocrite Obama has been for America.  “God damn America” will not remain solvent if he gets another four years.

Update, May 24, 2o12: here’s still another article with recent developments, given that Obama has actuallyhad the chutzpah to make spending an issue.

Democrats/Mainstream Media On Debt Ceiling Negotiations: ‘Why Don’t We Just Start Telling Lies?’

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lied about his “plan” versus House Speaker John Boehner’s plan, saying that Standard & Poors had said that his plan would keep our AAA credit rating, but Boehner’s would not.

The DNC immediately packaged the lie for the press and sent it out to the world:

To: NATIONAL AND POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: DNC Press, +1-202-863-8148, dncpress@dnc.org

WASHINGTON, July 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today on CNN, Erin Burnett reported that she spoke with an investor who talked directly with the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s. According to the Standard & Poor’s source, John Boehner’s debt plan would probably still lead to a downgrade of U.S. debt by the ratings agencies, raising interest rates for all Americans. Harry Reid’s plan, however, would preserve America’s AAA credit rating.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/25/278929/ratings-agency-source-boehner-plan-TTwould-lead-to-downgrade/

Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RXNrtUU-TQ&feature=player_embedded

SOURCE  Democratic National Committee

And then of course the mainstream media jumped in and immediately backed Harry Reid’s and the DNC’s lie.

I don’t know what the record is for a brand new CNN anchor to report lies as fact, but given that it’s CNN, it’s probably a matter of minutes.  New CNN anchor Erin Burnett reported:

Facts should never get in the way of a story that makes Democrats look good and Republicans look bad, so I almost hesitate to mention this, but … it wasn’t true:

And so legitimate media (i.e., sorry CNN and MSNBC, but you aint) began to correct the lie that Harry Reid, the DNC and the mainstream media had invented:

JULY 26, 2011, 4:07 P.M. ET.UPDATE: S&P: Reports That It Endorses One Debt Plan “Not Accurate”
By Stephen L. Bernard
Off DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Standard & Poor’s said Tuesday that reports that it would endorse one of two competing Congressional frameworks to secure an increase the U.S. debt ceiling are “inaccurate.”

“Standard & Poor’s has chosen not to comment on the many and varying proposals that have arisen in the current debate,” the ratings agency said in an official announcement. The official statement echoes comments a spokesman gave to Dow Jones earlier in the day.

Ratings agencies have repeatedly said throughout the ongoing debt debate that they do not endorse any specific deals to cut long-term U.S. deficits.

Reports early Tuesday indicated that S&P was said to prefer Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) plan over the one being pitched by House of Representatives Speak John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Congress is facing an Aug. 2 deadline to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling or else the U.S. could default on its debt. Politicians have tried to tie the increase in the debt ceiling to cutting long-term deficits.

Reid’s plan calls for a $2.7 trillion increase to the debt ceiling, while cutting spending by a similar amount. Critically, that would increase the debt ceiling by a high enough figure that it would give the government space to spend through 2012 and the next presidential election.

Boehner’s plan, by contrast, calls for a two-step process. The first would cut spending and raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion to get through 2011. Then another increase of up to $1.5 trillion would be sought via a bipartisan commission’s recommendations and would have to be approved in 2012 with an equal amount of spending cuts.

Democrats have argued that Boehner’s plan would introduce uncertainty to markets and drive up U.S. borrowing costs.

S&P has previously said that even if the debt ceiling is raised, it could still cut the U.S. government’s perfect “AAA” rating if a long-term deficit-reduction plan is not enacted.

Fox News also reported the facts and further corrected the record of Harry Reid’s unprofessional and disgraceful lie:

After Reid claimed Tuesday morning that the rating agencies had endorsed his plan – which cuts $2.7 trillion at most — S&P reiterated through a spokesman that it has not endorsed “any particular plan.”

There is so much dishonesty and so many lies coming from Democrats and their mainstream media propagandists that it is positively unreal.

Here’s more on the actual story without the Harry Reid/DNC/mainstream media spin:

Deal or no deal? US downgrade looking likely
By MATTHEW CRAFT – AP Business Writer | AP – 8 hrs ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Could the U.S. lose its top credit rating even if a deal is reached to raise the debt limit?

Market analysts and investors increasingly say yes. The outcome won’t be quite as scary as a default, but financial markets would still take a blow. Mortgage rates could rise. States and cities, already strapped, could find it more difficult to borrow. Stocks could lose their gains for the year.

“At this point, we’re more concerned about the risk of a downgrade than a default,” said Terry Belton, global head of fixed income strategy at JPMorgan Chase. In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Belton said the loss of the country’s AAA rating may rattle markets, but it’s “better than missing an interest payment.”

Even with a deadline to raise the U.S. debt limit less than a week away, many investors still believe Washington will pull off a last-minute deal to avoid a catastrophic default. Washington has until Aug. 2 to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit or risk missing a payment on its debt. President Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans have failed to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and pass a larger budget-cutting package. Politicians have tied raising the debt limit and spending cuts together.

But at least one credit rating agency has already made it clear that unless that agreement includes at least $4 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade, the country’s AAA rating could be lost. Right now, the proposals under discussion cut around $2 trillion or less.

Standard & Poor’s warned earlier this month that there was a 50-50 chance of a downgrade, if Congress and President Obama failed to find a “credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden.” S&P said it may cut the U.S. rating to AA within 90 days. Passing a $4 trillion agreement could prevent a downgrade, S&P said.

And why will our credit rating get cut?  Because Obama and his depraved administration have been lying and fearmongering the crisis:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down. […]

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade “is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve been speaking out on the debt cap so much.”

Thanks, Barry Hussein and Turbo Tax Tim!

That’s right.  We’re going to get our credit rating downgraded – which will have disastrous long-term consequences – because of Barack Obama’s fearmongering lies.  Harry Reid reports something that isn’t even remotely true, and the DNC and the mainstream media pick it up like a symphony.

Mark Twain once said that a lie could get halfway around the world before the truth could even get its boots on.  But I think even that famous cynic would be amazed and apalled by the liberal media complex.

The Terrifying Truth: As America Nears Brink Of Disaster, Obama Demonstrates That He Has No Leadership Ability Whatsoever

What is the situation facing America?  Here’s what the White House Communications Director said on July 26:

WH Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer: “We are seven days away from an unprecedented financial event in this country’s history. One that could potentially put us towards a depression because the House Republicans, led by Speaker Boehner, are unwilling to compromise one inch.”

Is it that bad, or is this a rare degree of fearmongering and demagoguing?  And if it IS that bad, shouldn’t Barack Obama have SOME KIND OF DAMN PLAN OF HIS OWN TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF GUIDANCE OR LEADERSHIP AT ALL?!?!?

The problem is hardly Republicans.  This country has had Republicans ever since Abraham Lincoln led this nation through the Civil War.  If you actually want to look at Republicans, THEY’RE THE ONLY ONES WHO’VE HAD ANY ACTUAL PLANS AT ALL; THEY’RE THE ONLY ONES WHO ACTUALLY VOTED ON AND PASSED A PLAN THAT WOULD ACTUALLY SAVE US FROM A CREDIT RATING DOWNGRADE.  The problem is that we have an abject failure of a president who is clearly way in over his head.

Obama has set forth no plan to deal with anything whatsoever regarding the budget/debt ceiling crisis:

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): Where’s the president’s plan? When is he going to lay his cards on the table?

Senator Marco Rubio understood this when he utterly destroyed Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face The Nation” program after Schieffer – in his masquerade as a “neutral reporter” cited the Obama talking point as the “objective” view:

“OK, so where’s the plan?  Where’s the president’s plan?  I’ve never seen a piece of paper with the president’s name on it that’s his plan to solve this crisis.  I’ve seen press conferences.  I’ve seen lectures that he’s given to the Congress.  I’ve seen these press avails where the camera comes in and takes a bunch of pictures.  I haven’t seen a plan.  Where is the president’s plan?“

And President Obama’s failure to lead is undermining negotiations.  From ABC’s “This Week”:

MS. AMANPOUR: You also heard what Jack Lew said if there was part of a big deal, it would involve entitlements –

SEN. KYL: But we have no idea what he’s talking about.  That’s the problem. Republicans are not willing to make a deal based upon some vague commitment that, sometime in the future, the president might be willing to look at something that he won’t identify.

The following exhange in the White House Press Corps is simply utterly astounding:

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: …If you basically have this Boehner plan that you say can’t get through the Senate and you’ve got a Reid plan that the Republicans don’t think you can get through the Senate or the House and you’re saying we want a compromise, what was the point of giving a prime-time address to the nation without an Obama plan and say neither of these other plans can work? Where’s his plan?

(CROSSTALK)

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I understand the idea that there is not an Obama plan is like point…

HENRY: But there’s not one on paper.

CARNEY: …point No. 1 on the talking points issued by the Republican Party. I get it.

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: No, no, no. That’s not a talking point. Show us the plan. It’s not a talking point. That’s unfair. Where’s the plan?

CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: First of all, the president put forward in detail his principles at George Washington University…

(CROSSTALK)

HENRY: Principles. Right. That’s not a plan.

CARNEY: …quite a lot of detail. The president stood before you, I can’t remember if you were here Friday night, some of you  weren’t because you cut out early, but a lot of you were (GROANS FROM THE PRESS) and he put forward in detail with numbers what he’s willing to do. He then referred from the podium to the fact that White House officials would be briefing in detail.

It continued on with other reporters and it didn’t get any better for Carney or for Obama:

Today, under intense pressure to produce the President’s debt limit plan, the White House asked, “Do you need something printed for you?” House Republicans have put forth multiple plans (posted online and yes, available in print) to avoid default and get our fiscal house in order by cutting spending and implementing serious budget reforms.

We are seven days out from August 2nd and the Administration has yet to release a plan.

NOTE:

Chuck Todd: Why not release the last offer that Boehner made you? You said if you don’t want to release your own plan, release that one. If that’s the last deal he made and you are willing to go back with a few minor tweaks release it.

Jay Carney: We have shown a lot of leg on what we were proposing.

Chuck Todd: Where?

Jay Carney: From the podium, right here.

(Laughter)

Todd: Why not just release that plan?

Carney: You need something printed for you? You can’t write it down? There is ample detail.

Jake Tapper: That’s not a plan. It was details of a plan, but it wasn’t a plan in the same way we are getting a plan on the House side or on the Senate side.

Chuck Todd: We don’t know what the Medicare thing is, we don’t know what the Social Security part of this is …
….

Chuck Todd: Why not put it out there? You guys went before the American people last night and said call your Members of Congress we want a compromise. Well you had a plan you were making the case for, that sounded like the compromise.  Release it to the public.

Watch the Full Exchange Here

All Obama has done is give demagogic speeches and press conferences. YOU CAN’T RUN THE COUNTRY ON A DAMN SPEECH.  AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN’T RUN IT FROM THE PODIUM OF A PRESS SECRETARY DURING A DAMN PRESS CONFERENCE!!!  SOMEBODY HAS TO ACTUALLY LEAD OR THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED!!!

And Obama is refusing to lead, but instead cynically waiting for the Republicans to do so (because SOMEBODY has got to!) and then rallying his special interests to demonize the Republicans for offering specific proposals.  He himself has offered NOTHING.

Obama has no plan whatsoever.  He has come out with absolutely nothing specific whatsoever that can serve as any kind of a template.  He has completely abdicated any leadership whatsoever.  Several months ago offered a laughable budget that was so ridiculous (it would have added $12 trillion to the debt) that not even ONE DEMOCRATS would vote for it.  It failed 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate.  Just how massive a failure is Obama?  And since then he has offered NOTHING but fearmongering and demonization.

Well over a year ago I wrote regarding another issue:

But Barack Obama and the Democrats are tyrants, not leaders.  They want to rule, not govern.  They want to impose a system that will result in a European socialist-style government until our country implodes from massive and unsustainable deficits and debts…. Nothing else will get done, and this country will drift …

Earlier this year there was a story in which Hillary Clinton expressed her disgust of Obama’s complete failure of leadership.  There was this great quote [that article appears here]:

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

Even HILLARY CLINTON said that Obama is a wretched and utterly failed leader who can’t make up his mind.

And I said in that article:

I remember several years ago watching a fascination PBS program on presidential leadership.  The documentary’s poster-boy for pathetic presidential leadership was Jimmy Carter.  Obviously the man was intelligent, but the experts on leadership said “intelligence” does not a leader make.  Jimmy Carter was particularly faulted for not empowering his subordinates with enough power to do their jobs; he micromanaged and undermined through a tiny cadre of close advisors.  And as a result the nation drifted like a ship without a rudder.  That is clearly what is being described by Hillary Clinton now.

Obama clearly has an “inner circle” problem.  Even DEMOCRATS acknowledge it.

The PBS program did not make mention of the fact that Jimmy Carter was (and clearly still is) a fool with a totally bogus worldview.  A false worldview makes it impossible to act intelligently because, no matter how intelligent one is, one cannot possibly comprehend reality.  And I would submit that Both Carter and Obama have tragically and truly flawed views of the world.  Both of these men view the world through a set of theories that are simply totally false.  And from their poor foundations, all of their intelligence goes into the fruitless process of endlessly rationalizing and justifying their erroneous worldview.

And I was so right about this fraud.

This is beyond frightening.  There was NEVER anything about Obama’s story that indicated that the man had ever developed any kind of actual leadership ability whatsoever.  He was a community organizer who became a state senator who voted “present” more than he voted aye or nay.  He served in the United States Senate for 142 days before breaking his promise to serve his first Senate term.  And as president he has never done anything more than campaign.  Even during this debt ceiling fiasco, Obama was gone an average of every three days doing another damned fundraiser.

And now we are in a situation in which we desperately need a leader and we do not have one.

While Mainstream Media Propaganda Has Focused On Republican Divisions, Obama’s Democrat Base Has Completely Crumbled

I have seen numerous stories gleefully hyping the fact that the Republicans are in disarray with multiple competing plans (at least they’ve HAD plans).  But look what’s been happening to the Democrat Party behind the mainstream media Republican-attack-machine’s back:

New polls confirm Obama’s Democratic base crumbles
July 26, 2011 |  3:04am

With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders said:

“I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.”

This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid’s Democratic posse.

But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders’ mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don’t want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.

Closely read the transcript of Obama’s Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner’s response is right here.

An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach

Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn’t congressional Republicans — or Democrats, for that matter.

The nation’s top talker uttered 2,264* words in those remarks. He said “balanced approach” seven times, three times in a single paragraph.

That’s the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent’s strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. “Balanced approach” is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.

Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples’ priority.

Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor’s offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November’s midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.

Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we’ve had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama’s fading job approval, especially on the economy.

Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama’s liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:

Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of “poor.”

Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?

A slim 15% claim to be “getting ahead financially,” half what it  was in 2006. Fully 27% say they’re falling behind financially. That’s up 6 points since February.

A significant majority (54%) says they’ve been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times — and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.

To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.

But here’s the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn’t running for anything but exercise.

“More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are  hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply  eroding among  his base,” the Post reports.

Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama’s jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president’s measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.

Obama’s overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

That’s the Los Angeles Times – getting close to full maximum überliberal.  As the rabid left-wing, they are honor-bound to get in their shot that “It’s really all still Bush’s fault,” but the Democrat Party is in full meltdown.

Obama gave a particularly demagogic speech on Monday, July 25.  He repeatedly called for class warfare taxation on the rich.  Which was in marked (or should I say “Marxed”) contrast to Harry Reid’s outline for a plan which did not call for any tax increases.

From Newsbusters:

In his  White House speech tonight, President Obama renewed his call for a  debt-ceiling impasse solution which requires “the wealthiest Americans and  biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special  deductions.” In other words, he wants tax increases, even though earlier in the  day, he backed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “plan” (using the term  loosely, as explained here  and here)  which, according to two separate reports (USAT; ABC),  includes no tax increases.

In other words, the President, from all appearances, changed his mind —  again. Calling the President’s performance in the debt-ceiling matter during the  past several weeks “Jello-like” would appear to be an insult to the referenced  food product.

We’ve all heard of somebody talking out of both sides of their mouth.  The question is just how many sides does Obama’s mouth have given all the different things he can be saying at the same time?

We absolutely cannot trust Democrats at this point.  If they do not have a specific, concrete, absolutely binding plan, then walk away.  Because they have every incentive to lie their way out of this jam and then welch on whatever deal they make.  If Harry Reid says he will offer X trillion dollars in cuts, then force him to itemize out every single dime of those cuts and bind Congress to them before accepting his plan.

They did this to Reagan and they did it to Bush I.  They promised that they would cut spending later if they got the tax cuts they wanted.  And then the next Congress arrived and Bush and Reagan were told that no Congress could be bound by the promises of a previous Congress – even if the same Democrat leaders who had made those promises were still in power.  And just how many times should Charlie Brown believe that Lucy will really hold the football for him this time?

Particularly when they are in a corner.  And they are in a corner snarling like trapped rabid rats right now.

Republicans need to adhere to their basic values.  They have already compromised in that 1) Barack Obama already got $500 billion in new taxes via his ObamaCare fiasco; and 2) in even offering a debt ceiling increase to begin with.  In return, they want spending cuts that exceed the debt ceiling hike and they will not accept any new tax increases.

We can go back to Calvin Coolidge.  We can go back to John F. Kennedy.  We can go back to Ronald Reagan.  And we can go back to George W. Bush.  Every single time we have ever cut the tax rate, we have seen a corresponding massive increase in tax revenues, with the wealthy actually paying more even as they were rewarded for the job-creating and economy-stimulating investments.  Even Bill Clinton substantially cut the capital gains tax.  Meanwhile, every single time we have ever raised taxes, we lost revenue because our economy shrank when investors sheltered their money and protected themselves.

Meanwhile, Obama is back to the same utterly failed Marxist class warfare tactics that have failed before.  In the 1990s, Democrats imposed a “luxury tax” on items such as yachts, believing that the wealthy “could afford it.”  Maybe they could and maybe they couldn’t, but the FACT was that the rich STOPPED buying yachts.  As in stopped completely.  As in NOBODY bought a yacht with that damn tax on it.  The Democrats finally rescinded that stupid tax two years later after destroying the yach building and yacht maintenance industries and killing over 100,000 jobs.  Rich people weren’t hurt at all; ordinary people were devastated.

And now Obama wants to do the same thing with corporate jets that previous Democrts did to yachts.  And they only people who will get hurt if Obama gets his way are the companies that hire people to build and maintain those jets and the workers themselves who will lose their jobs and their livelihoods.  And the only thing that is stopping this rape of businesses, workers and the economy that depends on workers and businesses are Republicans.

I don’t feel the least bit sorry for Democrats who currently find themselves between a very hard rock and a very hard place.  Their core principles are vile, they are despicable, and they simply have to be thrown out of office and crushed if our country is to have any chance whatsoever.