(At Least They Aren’t Blaming Bush!): Obama Team Blames Romney, John Kerry, The Moderator AND The Altitude For Obama’s Disastrous Debate Fiasco

Rest assurred, if the Obama campaign could have figured out a way to demonize George W. Bush to explain Obama’s failure in his first debate, they would have done so.  After all, that’s pretty much how they’ve explained ALL THE OTHER Obama failures up to now.

Team Obama Blames John Kerry for Debate Loss
by Alexander Marlow6 Oct 2012, 3:44 PM PDT533post a comment

The Obama campaign has been reeling since losing the first Presidential debate of this election cycle in front of 67 million viewers.  They’ve tried–and thus far failed–to craft a narrative to explain away the debacle in Denver.  Previously, we reported to you that Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe, who ran the President’s successful 2008 campaign, (falsely) accused Mitt Romney of lying.  In a rare comedic moment from the typically robotic former Vice President Al Gore, he suggested on Current TV that the Mile High City’s altitude was the reason Obama was low on energy and enthusiasm.  And, of course, Obama’s chronically dishonest deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter and several others passed the buck to the moderator, Jim Lehrer. None of the above caught on, even with the mainstream pro-Obama media.

Now the Obama Administration is floating their latest excuse: that the campaign, particularly John Kerry (who played the role of Romney in simulated debates), did not channel Mitt’s aggression enough.

From CBS’s “This Morning”:

Norah O’Donnell: “Some Democrats say [Obama’s] campaign needs a wake-up call.  Bill Plante is here with that part of the story.  Bill, you’ve been talking to your sources; what are they saying?

Correspondent Bill Plante: “Well Norah, they’re simply upset and really outraged.  They blame the President’s team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney.  They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he’s not going to get in the President’s face. And Presidents are used to deference; they’re not used to people challenging them like that.  So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive.”

The 2012 Obama campaign continues to be a stark contrast from their 2008 effort.  In 2008, then Senator Obama used youthful ebullience, soaring rhetoric, and a precise campaign infrastructure to capture the hearts and minds of the American people.  In 2012, the President seems increasingly lethargic and quick to make excuses for missteps on the campaign trail.

What once was “Hope and Change” is now “Mope and Blame,” and this time it’s John Kerry under the President’s bus.

Along with the liberal New Yorker and of course Clint Eastwood, I blame the chair:

Actually, we ought to lay the blame for a president who was clearly incompetent on the backs of the American people, who were so dispicably foolish in 2008 it was unreal.  But as stupid and as depraved as it is to believe the Emperor had clothes on in 2008, anybody who still thinks the naked turd stinking up the presidency is anything but an empty suit when we desperately need a leader is simply in the category of “demon-possessed.”

Shameless Demagogue-in-Chief Obama Actually Blames GOP For Solyndra EVEN THOUGH ALMOST 100% OF REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT

Barack Hussein Obama is the most pathologically dishonest weasel who has ever lived in or even VISITED the White House:

Good Grief: Obama Attempts To Include Republicans In Blame For Solyndra
March 22, 2012 – 2:06 pm

No, seriously, he really tries this

(Fox News) While making his push for solar, Obama explained to a reporter for National Public Radio that the blame for Solyndra was bipartisan and not the fault of the Obama Democrats “per se.”

“Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it’s easy to get money for new startups,” Obama said. “But if you want to take them to scale, often there is a lot of risk involved and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale.”

Except, as usual, Obama has his facts 100% wrong

The 2009 stimulus package that provided the funding for a loan of $527 million for Solyndra, which subsequently defaulted, got zero Republican votes in the House and three Republican votes in the Senate — Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties two months after the vote. There was no Republican input on the structuring of the energy loan program and the specific loan to Solyndra was a Democratic job from start to finish.

Even ABC News’ Devin Dwyer calls BS on this, reiterating the above paragraph, and adding

During a May 2010 visit to Solyndra, Obama explicitly credited the Recovery Act with supporting the company’s early success.

The man is shameless.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

It just makes you shake your head.  And then hang it in shame that this kind of lying turd is actually our president.

Democrats continue to repeat the outright and outrageous lie that the Bush administration was responsible for this fiasco.  Here are the facts on that:

The bottom line remains that the Bush Administration did not approve the Solyndra loan guarantee. And just before they headed out of town, Bush officials ordered the project back to the drawing board.

Democrats argue the Energy Department first received the loan request in December 2006. By January 2009, it was still under consideration. That month, the department’s Loan Guarantee Credit Committee put the project on hold.

In a terse one-page memo, dated Jan. 9, 2009, the committee noted that the “apparent haste in recommending the project meant that certain LGPO (Loan Guarantee Program Office) credit procedures were not adhered to.”

It further stated that: “While the project appears to have merit, there are several areas where the information presented did not thoroughly support a finding that the project is ready to be approved at this time.” It then cited four areas of concern.

First was the lack of any “independent market study addressing long-term prospects for this specific company.” An independent credit assessment had “raised the issue of obsolescence in marketing this project.” Obsolescence? That’s never a good word to hear in a product marketing study.

Second, it noted that the committee had never seen a supposed sales agreement the company had for its product even though an unnamed “outside legal advisor” had. In other words, the committee only had vague assurances that there was even a buyer for the product.

Third, it noted, “There are questions regarding the nature and the strength of parent guarantee for completion of the project.” In other words, the committee wasn’t convinced the project would even be finished.

Fourth and finally, it vaguely noted “concern” over production start “scale-up” at a second Solyndra facility.

The memo concludes by saying “the number of issues unresolved makes a recommendation for approval premature at this time” and sent the project back to the LGPO for “further development of information.”

That strikes Capital Hill as a pretty damning — not to mention prescient — analysis of the Solyndra loan proposal. The loan wasn’t ready and Bush’s Energy Department wasn’t going to approve it. If Solyndra had proved to be a success, green energy fans would today probably be claiming the Bush White House had dragged its feet and endangered the project.

At the very least it shows that the Bush administration was doing the “due diligence” that DeGette questioned.

Bush did everything but drive a stake through the Solyndra loan guarantee’s heart in January of 2009.  His administration identified not one but four compelling reasons why the loan project should NOT go ahead.  But by March of 2009 – in complete abdication of consideration of any of the concerns the Bush administration identified – that loan was moving full speed ahead by Obama and ONLY by Obama.

Obama – AKA He Who Would Not Dwell In Blame – Is Actually Blaming Fox News For His Crappy Poll Numbers

 “Now when he faced his country who looked to him for answers, he would not dwell in blame or dream in idealism,” narrator Tom Hanks said in the Obama biopic “The Road We’ve Traveled.”

Brit Hume said he was frankly amazed that Forest Gump could get that line out without coughing because it was just so freaking ridiculous:

All Obama has DONE is blame others.

Even the reliably liberal Washington Post has been forced to acknowledge this blatant FACT:

Asked by Joyner about the current struggling state of the economy, Obama replied: “George Bush left us a $1 trillion deficit, and so it’s a lot harder to climb out of this hole when we don’t have a lot of money in the federal coffers.”

The “blame Bush” strategy is one that continues to have somewhat surprising political legs — even two and a half years after the Republican president left the political stage.

Just out today is the little factoid that “he who would not dwell in blame” actually had the pathetic smallness to blame his rotten poll numbers on Fox News:

A new book by Mother Jones writer David Corn alleges the President Obama lays much of the blame for his bad poll numbers in 2010 on Fox News. According to The Politico, Corn’s new book Showdown features candid griping from the president about role the network played in eroding his white male support.

President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”

In “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party” — which hits bookstores on Tuesday — the Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones chronicles the White House from the 2010 midterm elections to the start of the 2012 campaign. The book focuses on key moments of Obama’s presidency, such as Osama bin Laden’s assassination, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Arab Spring, the debt ceiling crisis, and the president’s dealings with Congress.

Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.”

“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying.

Click here to read more.

This nation has never seen a more pathologically dishonest man in the White House than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Chicago Thug makes Tricky Dick Nixon look honest.

Obama Can’t Blame Bush Any More, But That’s Okay: It’s ‘Soft’ AMERICAN PEOPLE’S Fault Now

Who’s to blame for our economy?  Why don’t we ask the Demagogue-in-Chief?

Still making excuses: Obama blames economic misery on Americans getting ‘a little soft
‘President claims U.S. had lost its ‘competitive edge’
By Daniel Miller
Last updated at 3:22 PM on 30th September 2011

Barrack Obama claims the U.S. had ‘gotten a little soft’ in the last couple decades and needs to ‘get back on track’.

The president was talking about the state of the economy during an interview with a local TV station from Orlando, Florida, when he made the comments.

He told WESH-TV’s Jim Payne: ‘The way I think about it is, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades.

‘We need to get back on track.’

Mr. Obama has faced heavy criticism for his handling of the economy, and the current unemployment rate  of 9.1 per cent is threatening his re-election bid.

He acknowledged that with the current economic climate it is a particularly ‘challenging’ time for young people.

He said: ‘Even before the financial crisis hit, one of the reasons that I ran for president was that wages – incomes had flat-lined at the same time that costs were going up.

‘I think people felt that opportunities were becoming more constricted for the next generation.’

‘And that’s why making sure that we’re revamping our education system, making sure we’ve got world class infrastructure, investing in basic science, research and technology, making sure that we are moving manufacturing to the US, and that we are being tough with our trading partners, making sure that they’re not taking advantage of us.

Americans are too soft.

I kind of view that in terms of a parent who says his kid is fat, and we’re supposed to forget the fact that it was that damned parent who kept stuffing the kid’s face with high-calorie foods.

Let’s see.  I don’t need to get a job; I can stay on unemployment for a hundred weeks, two hundred weeks, hell, for life.  I don’t have to worry one iota, because Obama is going to attack “the rich” and spread their wealth around (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need“) so I can sit on my fat, lazy ass as long as I keep voting for Democrats. 

But it’s my fault I’m soft?  Why isn’t my “daddy” to blame who shoved all this fat PORK down my throat?

Truman had that now famous slogan on his desk: “The buck stops here.”  Obama did a little editing on his sign: “The buck stops anywhere but here.”

All I can say is that I don’t particularly need a week, scrawny, dumbo-eared pathetic whiner who frankly isn’t man enough to accept responsibility for anything calling me or my fellow Americans “soft.”

And if I AM soft, then please stop stuffing your fatty, sugary, syrupy STIMULUS boondoggles down my throat, okay?

It Was DEMOCRATS Who Blew Up Our Economy In 2008

I’ve been saying this for months: It was DEMOCRATS who destroyed our economy in 2008.

First of all, given all the times that you’ve heard the line, “The Republicans created this mess,” ask yourself a question: when was the last time you heard an explanation as to just precisely what the Republicans did to cause the disaster?

Don’t be a lemming and a tool; read up on how Democrats loaded up GSEs Fannie and Freddie with liberals, massively increased the government ownership of the mortgage industry, engaged in incredibly risky policies even as our housing market was beginning a cyclical downturn, and then refused to allow any regulations or reform whatsoever:

With Eyes Finally Wide-Open, Reconsider Why The Economy Collapsed In The First Place

Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

Biden: We Misread The Economy – And It’s All The Republicans’ Fault

Want To Know Why Your Economy Blew Up?

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

This Blame Bush Crap Has Just GOT To End

And here’s the latest fact and the latest explanation as to just how Democrats blew up our economy:

The quotes that explain the entire financial meltdown
posted at 12:10 pm on October 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

For those who want a smoking gun to show the genesis of the financial collapse, this short sequence from a longer video I posted this week will do it. Clinton HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced a settlement of a lending discrimination complaint with Accubanc, a Texas lender whose prerequisites for mortgages came under attack from “community organizers” at the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and the city of Dallas. I clipped out this sequence to underscore its importance:

Watch the video.

CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.

Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?

CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.

Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?

CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.

CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio …

Here, in fact, is the genesis of the problem, the ideology that created the monster.  Cuomo, the Clinton administration, and Congress believed they had the right and the power to determine acceptable risk for the lenders, rather than lenders determining it for themselves in a free market.  Even while imposing risk standards on lenders, Cuomo admits that he expects a higher default rate on the new loans — which is why the lenders didn’t want to write them in the first place.

In other words, the CRA didn’t get used to fight discrimination, but to force lenders to give money to high-risk borrowers for political purposes.  And Cuomo knew it.

That was the political arrogance at the heart of the collapse.  However, the CRA was more a sideshow than the actual problem.  When Congress decided that enforcement alone wouldn’t generate enough mortgages to boost their political fortunes, they had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminate the risk entirely for lenders through the purchase of the subprime loans.  Without that risk and with almost-guaranteed short-term profits of subprime loans, lenders went wild while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.

While Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi keep blaming “greed” for the collapse, it was Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd building that “greed” into the system in order to drive the subprime lending market.  And it was Democrats like Frank, Dodd, Maxine Waters, and Lacy Clay who suggested that regulators like Armando Falcon were racists for blowing the whistle on the Ponzi scheme they created.

The Democrats decided, as Michelle says, that mortgages were a civil right, and wouldn’t cost the American taxpayers a dime.  How well is that working out, America?  And now, the question you have to ask yourselves is this: Do you want the nation’s economic policies run by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank for the next two years?

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The problem is that we aren’t a moral or religious people anymore.

We’ve become a bad people.  And bad people allow a climate in which lies dominate, and then they believe the lies they are told.

And that is why we allowed a mainstream media to fabricate an entire culture of lies, and then we believed their narrative that Republicans (who hadn’t been in power for two years in the Congress) were the party to blame.  We blamed Bush – who tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the economic meltdown just in 2008 alone.  And Bush had called for reform and regulation of the GSEs 34 times since 2001.  And we put the very Democrats who blew up our economy by refusing to allow those reforms or regulations until after it was too late in charge of the economy that they ruined.

It was Democrats and the Government Sponsored Enterprise system Democrats created (i.e., GSEs Fannie and Freddie) that created the financial disaster; just as it is Democrats who are in total control of our government who are CONTINUING to undermine our economy now.

We gave Democrats total power.  And in just two years they have so destroyed our economy and our health care system that we may never be able to recover.

Most Americans Finally Blaming The Most Irresponsible President In History

One could conclude – based on rhetoric alone – that George Bush never left office, and Obama never actually ascended to the presidency.

After all, according to the Obama narrative, only one man is responsible for anything these days.  And that man is George Bush.

Obama isn’t “responsible.”  He’s completely irresponsible.

Obama has never once taken the “The Buck Stops With George Bush” sign off of his desk.

Since we all know that the buck stops at the highest political office, and since we all know that Obama keeps passing the buck off to George Bush, we can therefore know that Obama really isn’t our president.  Whether he produces his damn birth certificate or not.  Given the fact that leadership is ultimately about taking responsibility, and Obama refuses to take any responsibility whatsoever, he’s clearly not the POTUS.  And since Bush is apparently STILL responsible for everything, he becomes our defacto president even nearly two years after actually leaving the office.

Well, Barry Hussein may never accept responsibility for the failure of his policies, but at least more Americans are finally saying that this is Barack Obama’s sucky economy, rather than agreeing with Obama that he had nothing to do with anything.

From Rasmussen:

48% Blame Obama for Bad Economy, 47% Blame Bush
Monday, August 02, 2010

For the first time since President Obama took office, voters see his policies as equally to blame with those of President George W. Bush for the country’s current economic problems.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters now think Obama’s policies are to blame for the continuing bad economy, up three points from last month. Forty-seven percent (47%) say the recession that began under Bush is at fault.

With voters across the country expressing stronger belief that the economy is getting worse rather than better, these new findings spell potential bad news for Democratic candidates this fall. The president is already planning to limit his campaign appearances with candidates because of potential voter backlash.

In June and last October, 45% blamed Obama’s policies for the country’s ongoing economic woes, the previous high finding on this question. The number who blame Bush is down from 62% in May 2009 when Rasmussen Reports first began tracking the question regularly. Only 27% faulted Obama at that time.

As is often the case, Mainstream voters and the Political Class have wholly different viewpoints on this question. While 61% of Mainstream voters now blame Obama’s policies, 87% of the Political Class say the bad economy is due to the recession that began under Bush.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of men blame Obama’s policies for the current economic problems, while 52% of women think Bush is the cause.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Obama is now chiefly to blame by a 52% to 44% margin.

That last paragraph is particularly significant.  Independents OVERWHELMINGLY blame Obama over Bush for the worsening economy.

And if that news isn’t revealing enough, Gallup/USA Today just came out with a poll showing Obama at only 41% approval – the lowest of his presidency.  He’s now flirting with being in the 30s.

I don’t really care what Democrats think about Obama vs. Bush.  The Democrat Party can be rightly defined as the party of moral idiocy.  But we are finally seeing rank-and-file Americans who are not involved with political ideology looking at going on two years of failure and false demagoguery and coming to the correct conclusion about whom to hold responsible.

When the economy appeared to be improving, Obama starting talking about his “summer of economic recovery.”

From Politico:

Obama, Biden declare ‘Recovery Summer’
By MIKE ALLEN 6/17/10 5:06 AM EDT

Vice President Joe Biden today will kick off the Obama administration’s “Recovery Summer,” a six-week-long push designed to highlight the jobs accompanying a surge in stimulus-funded projects to improve highways, parks, drinking water and other public works.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, said: “This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with thousands of highly-visible road, bridge, water and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country, giving the American people a first-hand look at the Recovery Act in their own backyards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing.”

But then we got all kinds of lousy economic news to rain turds all over Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” summer of recovery tour.

We got news like this:

Steep decline in GDP growth raises alarms
By Don Lee, Los Angeles Times
July 31, 2010

Reporting from Washington — U.S. economic growth slowed sharply in the spring, stoking concerns about a weak job market, a drawn-out struggle for the unemployed and growing financial pressures on millions of American families.

The nation’s gross domestic product grew at an annualized rate of 2.4% in the second quarter, falling from an upwardly revised 3.7% expansion in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Friday.

While many economists had expected growth to moderate, the reported decline was a jolting 35% below the previous quarter. Gross domestic product is the value of all goods and services produced in the economy. […]

In the wake of Friday’s report, a number of economists downgraded their growth forecast for the second half of the year to as low as 1.5%, an anemic rate that would likely push the unemployment rate above June’s 9.5% figure.

Commerce officials also revised downward some prior growth figures for real GDP, which is the inflation-adjusted value of all goods and services produced in the U.S. The government Friday said real GDP grew 5% in the fourth quarter of 2009, down from a previously reported 5.6%.

Overall, the new data painted a picture of a deeper recession than previously believed.

Government spending and inventory adjustments have powered the economic recovery that began last summer, and they juiced up the second quarter as well. But economists expect tighter public spending, particularly by budget-strapped state and local governments, to be a drag on the economy in the coming quarters.

Many private economists projected that the unemployment rate would rise to 9.8% or higher by the end of the year.

And today, we learned that housing prices were down, factory orders were down, and consumer spending was down.  As the LA Times put it:

U.S. consumers did not boost their spending in June and their incomes failed to increase, further evidence that the economic recovery slowed in the spring. And Americans saved at the highest rate in nearly a year.

Personal spending was unchanged in June, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday. It was the third straight month of lackluster consumer demand. Incomes were also flat, the weakest showing in nine months.

The disappointing report on spending and income was among a raft of data released Tuesday that confirmed the economy ended the April-to-June quarter on a weak note.

Factory orders dropped 1.2 percent in June to a seasonally adjusted $406.4 billion, the Commerce Department said. It was the second consecutive decline after nine straight months of gains. Lower demand for steel, construction machinery and aircraft dragged down the figure.

And the number of buyers who signed contracts to purchase homes fell in June. The National Association of Realtors says its seasonally adjusted index of sales agreements for previously occupied homes dipped 2.6 percent to a reading of 75.7. That was the lowest on records dating back to 2001 and down nearly 19 percent from the same month a year earlier.

Last week the government said economic growth for the second quarter slowed to 2.4 percent. Many analysts believe it will dip further in the second half of the year as high unemployment, shaky consumer confidence and renewed troubles in housing weigh on the year-old economic recovery.

What’s funniest of all – if anything is funny during a complete failure’s destruction of what had been the greatest nation in the history of the planet – is that Obama was literally still congratulating himself when the bad news came dumping down:

President Obama was in New Jersey yesterday killing time before his appearance on ‘The View’. So he stopped at Tastee Subs and held a small business summit, pushing for legislation to increase funding to the Small Business Administration. In between sound bytes on jobs and bites of Tastee’s super-sub special, more bad economic news came rolling Obama’s way.

And then all of a sudden the Obama administration is all, “Oh, crap! Stop looking at our “success”!  No!  Don’t look at our “recovery summer”!  We don’t want to take responsibility after all!  Start looking at Bush again!  He’s the only one who is actually RESPONSIBLE!”

So now – after Obama patted himself on the back and congratulated himself for his mission accomplished, all of a sudden we’re back to the “Bush recession.”

BIDEN LAMENTS ‘BUSH RECESSION’…. Vice President Biden appeared on NBC’s “Today” show earlier, and used a line I don’t recall leading White House officials using before, at least not lately.

Ann Curry noted that the administration has been blamed for high unemployment rates, and asked, “Has this administration done enough?”

Biden replied, “Let me put it this way: there’s never enough until we restore the 8 million jobs lost in the Bush Recession. Until that happens, it doesn’t matter. I mean, it matters, but it’s not enough.”

Which is to say that, according to the Obama administration, George Bush is to blame for all the jobs HE lost, PLUS all the jobs that OBAMA lost.  After going on two years in office, Obama still isn’t responsible for anything at all.  Oh, except for that brief period when it looked like maybe things were looking up and Obama could suddenly be “responsible”.

When Bush left office, unemployment was 7.6%.  Barry Hussein promised that his massive stimulus would save the day.  He assured the American people that he understood what was wrong, and that he had the solution.  His administration promised that if the stimulus (which started out at $787 billion, then got revised upward to $862 billion, but which will actually cost taxpayers $3.27 TRILLION) was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%.

From NPR:

President Obama is being forced to wade into a domestic economic debate that just won’t go away: As the unemployment rate rises, there have been calls for a second round of stimulus spending.

Obama is in a difficult position. He has to defend his $787 billion economic stimulus package at a time when there are few visible signs that it has had an effect. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, even though the White House predicted in January that with the stimulus bill, it would rise to only about 8 percent.

And the LA Times article cites economists as now predicting that unemployment will rise to at least 9.8% – or higher.  Which for the record is a lot higher than 8%.

It’s not enough to say Obama was incompetent.  He lied.  He pitched himself as Mr. Wonderful, and utterly failed to live up to all of his false promises.

In October 2008 I wrote an article which quoted Chief Executive Magazine as follows:

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

And I had cause to cite that article again recently, as Obama pursued the incredibly demagogic rhetoric that said we had to go forward with his “change” rather than backward.  Lest you don’t see the obvious flaw, allow me to point out that Germany went forward with Hitler’s “change,” too.  And then there was Stalin’s “change,” and Pol Pot’s “change,” and Castro’s “change,” etc.

To argue that moving forward to “change” is somehow intrinsically good is intrinsically stupid.  It is the very worst kind of moral idiocy.  And that “logic” has repeatedly justified the most evil outcomes in the history of the human race.

The CEOs – whom unlike the Obama administration actually understand something about business – have turned out to be right.  And Obama has turned out to be completely wrong.  Over and over and over again.

Obama pitched his entire campaign for presidency on “hope” to go along with his nebulous “change.”  Sadly, the American people didn’t understand that there isn’t and can be no hope in the progressive agenda of Barack Hussein.  There is only increasing government control over more and more of our lives.

It should terrify you that Obama is well on the way to the three-year plan toward bankruptcy that the CEO’s predicted of an Obama presidency.

Obama Actually Blames Massachusetts Voting Republican ON GEORGE BUSH

It turns out that there is absolutely nothing that Obama won’t blame on George Bush.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama said the following:

Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

“Here’s my assessment of why Camelot just flung out the Kennedy legacy and voted Republican for a seat that had been in Democrat hands since 1952: it’s Bush’s fault.  People are angry at the failure of George Bush, and so they punished him by voting for the party of George Bush.  Don’t blame me; I just work here.”

That’s right.  George Bush is so evil, and did such a terrible job, that the voters of the most liberal state in the nation voted for a Republican.  That’s your failure-in-chief’s “assessment.”

Kind of explains why everything the guy does has failed.  He’s a rigid ideologue who thinks purely in terms of demagoguery.  He lives in a little tiny black box and nothing gets in or out of that box.

In a way Obama is insulting his own campaign.  Why did he win?  Because people were angry.  And the same sort of inchoate, unthinking, unreasoning anger that propelled him to victory is now propelling Republicans to victory.

It also ties into the historical narrative often played by the lamestream media: when Republicans do well, there has to be some dark reason for their success.  The Republican Revolution was re-cast as “the year of the angry white male.”  It’s hate.  It’s anger.  It’s racism.

What about the other liberal narrative, that Bush destroyed the economy, and even now, a year later, Obama is just being blamed for Bush’s failed policies?

When Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took control of the House and the Senate back in 2006, unemployment was only 4.7%.   Democrats demagogued their way to power in 2005 on the basis of screaming about Iraq and Hurricane Katrina; the economy was humming along.  But once they took the House and the Senate, they got right to work destroying the economy with the same socialist big government garbage that they’re playing now.  And then again after the economic meltdown of 2008, Democrats and their propaganda allies in the lamestream media pitched the demagogic narrative that the economic disaster had to have been George Bush’s fault because it happened during his watch.  But didn’t it happen on Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s watch, too?

What’s the unemployment rate now exactly three years after Democrats took over Congress?

And since Barack Obama took over from Bush, we have lost more jobs under Obama than ANY president has lost in ANY year since 1940.

Believe you me — there’s all kinds of reasons to hold Democrats responsible for the economic meltdown.  Maybe it’s long past time you began to reconsider who really exploded the economy, Republicans or Democrats?

But as long as there is one slack-jawed, drooling imbecile in the country dumb enough to believe the Democrats’ demonizations, George Bush will keep getting blamed.

Hey, Obama, are you hoping for a little reverse psychology in November, that people will be so angry at the total failure otherwise known as Barack Hussein that they’ll vote for Democrats?

It is long past time that ordinary people realized that every single time Democrats try to blame Bush they are acknowledging their own failure to lead.  They are openly admitting, “Don’t ask us to solve any problems.  We’re just demagogues.  All we can do is blame someone else.”

Team Obama Fails To Get Olympics, Blames Bush

I get the sense that the Obama administration has no idea how to do anything, and no longer even bothers to try to address issues facing the country.  Rather, they spend the entirety of every meeting trying to figure out how they can blame the increasing failures plaguing the administration (and in turn, the nation) on one George W. Bush.

Bush is to Obama what Emmanuel Goldstein was to Big Brother.  Bush Is The One Who Is To Receive All Blame.

You’d think Obama wouldn’t want to exhaust this well (there’s going to be a LOT more bad economic news, after all, to go with the increasingly bad news in Afghanistan and Iran).  But, nope.  He’s gonna to keep running to Bush derangement like a baby runs to mama every single time.

Did anti-American resentments play role in Chicago’s bid losing?

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter

Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentments likely played a role in Chicago’s Olympic bid dying in the first round today.

President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for decades before, they said.

“There must be” resentment against America, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in Daley Plaza. “The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we mislead the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us. But there was such a turnaround after last November. The world now feels better about America and about Americans. That’s why I thought the president’s going was the deal-maker.”

State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) said she saw first hand the resentment against America five years ago when she was in Rio de Janeiro to speak as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate John Kerry.

“This vote today was without a doubt ridiculously political and mean-spirited,” Mendoza said. “I travel a lot. I was literally nearly killed in Rio three years ago when I was there representing the U.S. Government. I thought we had really turned a corner with the election of President Obama. People are so much more welcoming of Americans now. But this isn’t the people of those countries. This is the leaders still living with an outdated impression of Americans.”

Just gag me with a spoon so I can hurl already.

As HotAir put it, “Copenhagen just a little too far away to have dead people cast a few votes for Chicago…”  And too far away for ACORN shenanigans to bail them out, too.

There were only four contestants, and Obama couldn’t even win the Bronze?  The Olympic Committee heard Obama’s spiel, and awarded him with Last Place.  Or as presidential historian Stephen Hess put it, “I think to be eliminated in the first round is very embarrassing, to put it mildly.”

Unless you can blame Emmanuel Goldstein for it, it sure is.

The article goes on to later quote Robert Gibbs:

Presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs rejected the notion that the vote was influenced by the United States’ standing around the world.

And, of course, Gibbs doesn’t HAVE to go out and show the White House’s sour grapes.  He – along with Obama – have a ton of leftists and lackeys to do the White House’s bidding for them.

It’s funny that the same media that was quite literally stupefied that The One couldn’t win the Olympic games (youtube) –

– was able to recover so immediately as to point out that Obama never really had a chance given that the world still hates that devil Bush.  The New York Daily News wrote:

Chicago was never going to get the Olympics. We know that now, and probably should have known it a week ago. Maybe the world doesn’t hate us as much as it did one year ago, but the International Olympic Committee certainly does.

And if that line doesn’t work, they still have the “a racist world wants Obama to fail” angle to pursue.

George Bush wasn’t going to get any excuses from the mainstream media unless his people went out and MADE the excuse.  And when they did offer an a justifying narrative, it usually got instantaneously dismissed by a media that couldn’t wait to poke every hole they could find in the Bush account.  When it comes to Obama, though every failure immediately has as many media narratives as will be necessary to explain away that failure.  Their very favorite one can be summed up in two words: blame Bush.

We find that – even with identical unemployment situations – the media treated Ronald Reagan and their beloved Barack Obama very differently.  Reagan received 91% coverage, and a steady diet of blame for the high unemployment figures, whereas Obama The Beloved has received only 7% negative coverage for the same figures.  This whopping disparity is due to two phenomena:

1) The mainstream media is every bit as biased toward the left as Pravda used to be biased toward the Communist Party.

2) Reagan didn’t spend all of his time bitching and whining about how he had inherited every possible scintilla of negative developments on his disastrous predecessor Jimmy Carter.  Rather, he manned-up and solved the problems facing the country.

I don’t think that Obama has so much as a molecule of that “spirit of manning-up” in him.  Rather, he is a demagogue, from the alpha to the omega. He’s the kind of man who demonized George Bush or Hillary Clinton for pursuing the very same policies that he himself is now pursuing; and he’s the kind of man who said he wouldn’t raise our taxes, and then weaseled around by pretending that his health care tax wasn’t in fact a tax.

Harry Truman had his famous sign that said, “The buck stops here.”  Like the bust of great WWII leader Winston Churchill, Obama threw that notion out.  Obama has a very different mindset from either of those great leaders.  As far as Obama is concerned, the buck stops at Bush — and it won’t stop anywhere else, until something happens that makes him look good.

Let’s face facts: Obama’s decision to go to Denmark to pitch for his profiteering and slum-owning Chicago pals was stupid.  He made the Olympics all about himself just by going, and then made incredibly narcissistic pitches to the Olympic committee.  And if the speeches hadn’t already filled the nearest barf buckets, Michele wailed that their luxury travel to luxury accommodations in Denmark was just “such a sacrifice.” The Drudge Report probably expressed it best: “The Ego Has Landed.”

G.O.P. leader Michael Steele said Obama should stay home and take care of pressing business such as health care, high unemployment, and Afghanistan rather than run off to Europe to pitch Chicago.  The Obama White House responded by demagoguing Steele, and accusing him of rooting for Brazil instead of America.  Well, not it’s time to get a demagoguery pay back: not only did Obama abandon American troops in Afghanistan and unemployed workers in America to run off to Europe to beg for the games so he could “wrap up his second term as president by opening the 2016 Olympic Games in Chicago.” Because the whole damn planet revolves around him, doesn’t it?  And then The Most Popular President In The History Of The World couldn’t even get that rather lame job done.

Hey, Gibbs, maybe Steele was actually rooting for American’s rather than Obama’s future prestige.  You might tell your boss to do the same.

Barack Obama argued that the Olympics could help America repair its image – because he himself is so profoundly un-American that he believes it ever needed to be “repaired” in the first place.

Why Barney Frank Can Stick His ‘Republicans With Hurt Feelings’ Remark

Yesterday, just before the House vote on the $700 billion bailout, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech in which she essentially called Republicans corrupt and stupid, laid the entire blame for the financial disaster at Bush’s and Republicans’ feet, and told Republicans that they would get all the blame and Democrats would take all the credit.  And then she asked Republicans to join her in a bipartisan vote.

In an outcome that was apparently astonishing only to Democrats, Pelosi’s ridiculously partisan approach backfired.

If Nancy Pelosi were a homeless bag lady (one can only dream), her marketing approach would be to slap you in the face, call you a stupid pig, and then ask you for money.

Democrats, partisan ideologues to the core as they are, simply could not admit that “Madam Speaker” said anything that was in any way inappropriate.  Barney Frank said:

“We don’t believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that’s hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I’ll make an offer: Give me those twelve people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they’ll now think about the country.”

Well, let me just say this:they were 12 votes away from passing this thing, and if there actually were 12 Republicans who WOULD have voted for it if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t opened her big damn mouth – and passing the bill really was a really such a vital thing for the country – then maybe, just maybe, Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have opened her big damn mouth.  Maybe a good leader doesn’t attack the people she needs to come through for her right before a huge vote.  I’m just sayin’.

But there’s something else.  It turns out that 12 Democrats on Barney Frank’s own Housing Financial Services Committee – of which he is chairman – voted against the bill he chided Republicans for voting against.  So I have an idea: maybe, just maybe, if Barney Frank had spent less time being a fat, arrogant, condescending, smarmy-mouthed little pervert ridiculing 12 Republicans after the vote; and more time getting his own damn Democrats on his own damn committee in order before the vote, he would have got his bill passed.

So if someone brings up the “Republicans with hurt feelings” retort, all you need to do – after pointing out the fact that Nancy Pelosi is the worst Speaker in history for smack talking Republicans immediately before a vote she wanted when she knew she needed heavy Republican support – you just bring it back home to Barney Frank and the fact that he really needs to shut his fat mouth about any lack of 12 votes.

Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami

Over the past several days, the airwaves have been flooded with statements by Democrats and by the media “intelligentsia” that the financial crisis was created due to the atmosphere of deregulation that dominated during the last 8 years of the Bush administration and Republican rule.  It sounds right – Republicans generally DO favor fewer regulations which all too often stagnate business and reduce our competitiveness in a global marketplace – but in this case it is simply false.  And Democrats who point the finger of blame at Republicans over deregulation of the finance industry are lying to you.

We can begin by looking at leading Democrat Charles Schumers’ incredibly disingenuous and patently demagogic statements blaming Republicans for “a lack of regulation”:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says a lack of regulation by the Bush administration is responsible for the current economic troubles. The New York Sun reports Schumer says, “Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong,’ have led us down a short path to economic recession.”

But Schumer fails to mention he has been a leading voice of deregulation. The Sun reports he championed the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, the law which separated commercial and investment banking.

He also wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in 2006 which warned about what he called “overzealous regulators” and opposed a bill in 2005 that would have transformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from large investment funds into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them on the market.

We can go back to 2003 to see just how fallacious the Democrats charge against Republicans are.  In 2003, President Bush tried to implement regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the epicenter of the current housing financial crisis.  In the words of a New York Times story:

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Notice that Barney Frank – in an effort to stave off Republican efforts to regulate the housing finance industry, claimed that there was no problem.

And Barney Frank, the Chairman of the powerful House Finance Committee, and a key player in the Democrats’ effort to shape the bailout package now, represented the Democrats’ philosophical opposition to reform or regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

The strategy of presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the “arrangement” with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing.” The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.

The effort failed with Democrats in lock-step effort against the Republicans efforts to implement regulatory reform of the Housing Finance industry.

Again, in 2005, there was yet another Republican-led effort: the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  Four Republicans’ names were on the Senate version of the bill, and twenty Republicans’ names were on the House version.  The bill was killed because Democrats in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs unanimously voted against the bill, and Senate Democrats signaled their intent to filibuster its passage.

John McCain, in vigorous support of the 2005 effort to regulate an increasingly out-of-control industry, said in part:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Franklin Raines, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee, misrepresented $11 billion in Fannie Mae’s accounting system in order to game the system so that he and other senior executives could collect multi-million dollar bonuses.  Fannie Mae was fined some $500 million for the violations.  Raines paid a $25 million fine for his role in the corruption.   Leland Brendsel – yet another Democrat – had earlier been forced out as Chairman of Freddie Mac under a similar cloud of suspicion.

We learn that, in the fall of 2004:

At a dramatic hearing in Richard Baker’s subcommittee, Fannie’s chair, Franklin Raines, stood by the company’s accounting, claiming that Fannie was being victimized by an overzealous regulator.

Notice that Raines – who as already shown was later proven to have committed fraud – blamed Republican regulators for misrepresenting the health of GSEs that we now known were on the verge of a disaster.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, supporting the Republican-led effort to place the very sort of regulations that Democrats now claim that Republicans prevented, said:

“If [Fannie and Freddie] continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road.” He added, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size–and they will, once the crisis, in their judgment, passes–we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

Peter Wallison wrote in a May 2005 article describing Democrats’ opposition at the time:

The sudden appearance of this new threat changed the attitude of the GSEs toward the legislation. Although they had begun 2005 offering conciliatory statements and suggesting that they had no serious problems with the regulatory proposals that Congress was then contemplating, the GSEs were clearly alarmed by the idea that their portfolios might be limited or reduced. Fannie and Freddie and their constituent support groups–the homebuilders and the realtors, among others–made clear that they would fight limitations on GSE portfolios, and Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats made clear that they, too, would oppose any effort to limit this aspect of the GSEs’ operations.

Wallison also stated:

Under these circumstances, allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.

A Bloomberg article describes how the lack of timely reform created an economic tsunami:

Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Keven Hasset concludes an article titled, “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis“, concludes by saying:

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.