Why Obama’s Sequester Demagoguery Failed (Answer: He Pit Idiot Liberalism Against Idiot Liberalism)

Do you remember how evil it was when GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said it was the Republicans’ goal to make Obama a one-term president?  Evil is now “good” again: because Barack Obama’s goal is to break the Republican Party.  Of course, it is always good when Democrats do something that they decry as evil.  In this particular case, Obama is trying to break the GOP one giant piece of America at a time.  The man does not WANT a fair or balanced deal; he wants to manufacture one crisis after another, offer a frankly socialist solution as “balanced,” and then fracture the GOP resolve one member at a time.  And if we go through a credit downgrade, if we get the sequester, if he get whatever hell is next, so much the better, as far as Obama is concerned: he has another chance to pour more of his hate on the Republicans and try to set that hate on fire.

This time, he may have gone too far.

It is now widely apparent and pretty much simply agreed as a fact that Obama lost the “sequestration” debate.  His approval polls took a double-digit dive in a sudden wave of disapproval that has no recent precedent during his demagogic sequestration campaigning.  And Obama signified that he agreed with that by being a president who hadn’t bothered to meet with Republicans in TWO YEARS suddenly wanting to “reach out” to Republicans who are now firmly dug in against Obama the wicked demagogue.

The Democrat-controlled Senate is promising to put a budget together for the first time in FOUR FREAKING YEARS.  That’s right: the most basic duty of governance, and a duty required by the Constitution, has been pretty much pissed on by the Democrat Party under the cancer that is the Obama presidency.  Obama’s budgets have been such unmitigated treason (I call it “treason by the trillions”) that he couldn’t even get one single DEMOCRAT to vote for his communist takeover of America.  But up to now his ability to distort and lie has been absolute.  Obama hasn’t even NEEDED a damn budget as he spent America into bankruptcy these last four years.

Something happened.

What happened is that Obama began to demonize the sequestration law and slander Republicans for being responsible for it.

And he pit his Obamatics (that’s “Obama politics” for those who don’t like people making up words without telling you what their new word means) against the also just as fascistically leftist mainstream media.  He counted on the liberal media not to blow the whistle on his liberal fascism.

It’s the exact same thing he’s successfully done on issue after issue.  The only difference is that this time, finally, a reporter who has demonstrated more integrity and credibility than any American journalist alive had been physically present at enough White House meetings to know that Barack Obama was lying to the American people.  And the only difference is that this time, a reporter adored by liberal media got his dander up.

That reporter is Bob Woodward – a.k.a. the journalist whose reporting brought down a Republican president named Richard Nixon.

Bob Woodward, as a darling of liberalism (did I mention he’s a journalist working for the liberal Washington Post and he’s THE guy who so famously brought down a Republican president?) was physically present at an event in which he heard and RECORDED the following:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Where did sequestration come from?  It came from the Obama White House.  That is simply a fact of history.

Yet what did Obama falsely say about that very thing?

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”

But yes it WAS something you proposed, you lying turd.  Obama got four Pinocchios for that whopping lie – from the liberal Washington Post.

If that isn’t enough, Obama falsely also falsely stated just before the said:

Then, President Obama stated just two weeks  before the 2012 election that sequestration “will not happen.”

That’s about the six trillionth promise Obama has broken.

Obama once actually threatened to veto ANY attempt to undo the sequestration cuts.  And how can Obama issue a veto threat to PROTECT sequestration and then say the thing that he is somehow not responsible for the thing that he had just literally issued a veto-threat to protect???

And yet Obama demonically claims that sequestration is “because of a choice … Republicans made.”

How on earth could anyone be that gargantuan of a liar and get away with it?  How can anyone be arrogant enough and demon-possessed enough to try???

Now here I want you to understand the essence that is the destruction of America: if Republicans don’t vote with the Obama agenda, they are “obstructionist” and “racist.”  But in this evil age in which a Fuehrer must get his way, we find that even if Republicans DO vote with the Obama agenda, they are evil.  Obama’s position: I am responsible for sequestration: it was proposed by my White House and I signed it into law.  But since Republicans were so wicked that they voted with me on my proposed measure, they are responsible for EVERYTHING and I am responsible for NOTHING.  Because that’s the way I have “led” for the last four years.”

Obama bet the mainstream media would circle their wagons around false messiah Obama and he would win yet again even though he was the liar and his opponents were the ones telling the truth.  But he didn’t bet on Bob Woodward in essence saying, “Wait a minute.  I was there and the president is LYING.”

Woodward also documents that in fact the sequester vote had nothing whatsoever to do with tax hikes and in fact Obama took tax hikes off the table.  He is now, according to Woodward’s reporting, “moving the goal posts.”  Obama is now dishonestly double-dealing by demanding that Republicans give Obama the tax loophole eliminations Republicans proposed as part of the negotiations that resulted in Obama getting nearly $700 billion in tax hikes.  Even though Obama specifically REJECTED that offer of loophole eliminations in place of tax rate hikes and rammed through his tax rate hikes.  Let me give you an equivalent: you make an offer on the car I’m selling.  I reject that offer and keep my car – and then demand that you pay me the offer that you laid on the table.  As if you’re putting an offer on the table somehow means that you later have to pay out that offer even if I reject it.

Obama is literally demanding that he get to have his cake (tax rate hikes) and eat it too (get to have his tax rate hikes AND everything Republicans offered in PLACE of the tax rate hikes).

And Obama was counting on the entire media to circle their wagons around him and worship his talking points.

Bob Woodward threw a monkey wrench into that.  Because as incredible as it may seem, it turned out that there was ONE liberal journalist who actually had at least a scintilla of journalistic integrity.

Obama liberalism met classical liberalism.  And Obama lost.

But it turns out that there is another miscalculation that Obama made when he put is Obamatics against traditional liberal politics: he forgot the labor unions.

I like the way this guy puts what happened:

In the run up to today, President Obama resorted to a campaign of fear  mongering.  He decided to make sequestration a blunt instrument. Instead of  using his executive discretion to make careful cuts, he found ways to make the  cuts appear disastrous, spooky, and painful for the American people. In the last  week it would have come as no surprise to hear the president, given his  increasing hyperbole about sequestration, to claim it would cause both erectile  dysfunction and hospitals to finish off the infirm and elderly without so much  as a visit to a death panel.

Obama called (HIS!!!) sequestration cuts a “meat cleaver.”  He predicted hell on earth if (HIS!!!) idea went into effect.  He said that fire fighters would no longer be available to fight fires and police officers would no longer be available to stop crime and teachers would be laid off in droves.  You had lines galore like this during Obama’s endless demagogic campaigning:

With firefighters, police officers and other emergency responders standing behind him, Obama said that “people will lose their jobs” if the forced cuts are allowed to take effect.

Horrors.  No firefighters as fires erupt across the city.  No police officers as looting runs amok.  Children dirty-faced and ignorant because Republicans killed all the teachers.

Obama literally threw up his atheist secular humanist vision of hell as red meat: the hell of a world with no government to own you and control your stupid farm animal life.  You are nothing more than an environmentally conditioned meat puppet who can’t possibly survive apart from a herd mentality and a need to be dominated by the government shepherd.

But here’s the thing that Obama overlooked.  You see, when Obama was predicting that tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of federal government workers would get furloughed or lose their jobs due to the sequestration, he forgot that union rules prohibit such a thing.

Obama failed to realize just how rabidly and crazily union workers held on to their jobs.  It is easier to scrape ten thousand leeches who are parasitically clinging to your body than it is to terminate one union job.

Obama’s fascist politics to destroy thousands of jobs so he could blame Republicans on those losses came face-to-face with unions’ politics to keep all union jobs at all cost.  Because the unions will fight to the death for every single job they control.

And Obama lost in saying all those government union jobs would be gutted due to the sequester; the unions would have tied those decisions up in the courts for YEARS and the newspapers would have to choose whether to run the union narrative or the Obama narrative.

And now the only people he is able to screw to create a fascist crisis to demagogue are the little boys and girls who can’t get a tour of the White House because of the stink of evil of its current inhabitant.  That and play dirty snotball by freeing thousands of criminal illegal aliens while whining that he is powerless to stop such shenanigans because he rejected the Republicans’ measure to give him more control over the budget.

The thing that keeps coming to me in this “debate” is the fact that Democrats love to say that things were wonderful under Clinton’s tax rates in the 1990s.  If I were the GOP, I would offer to take them up on that deal and have the same rates.  That wouldn’t be so bad, because overall, Clinton CUT taxes more than he raised them. And embracing a return to the Clinton tax structure would also, of course, outlaw ObamaCare, which was the highest tax hike on the middle class in history.

Don’t worry, Democrats.  You’ll win in the end.  History shall record that you will get your big government, your Antichrist dictator, and your big government mark of the big government beast.

Tags: Bob Woodward, break the GOP, How Obama failed, moving the goal posts, sequestration, sequestration debate, veto