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.”

Democrats React To Republican Victory In Massachusetts With Spin, Total Incomprehension

A few lines from a Politico article from January 15:

While few have said so publicly, there is widespread recognition that a Brown victory in one of the most Democratic of states will go a long way for all Republican candidates, offering the clearest signal yet that voters are rejecting the ambitious Democratic agenda.

“Rising tides lift all boats,” said veteran GOP pollster David Winston, explaining the surge of interest in Brown’s campaign. “No matter where they are, it will be of help.”

“A lot of people would see this as a national race. If Democrats aren’t safe here, they aren’t safe anywhere,” explained Alex Castellanos, a veteran GOP media consultant who advises the Republican National Committee. “You want to surf that wave that’s out there, and I’m sure that’s what Republicans are doing.”

How did victorious Scott Brown frame his opposition to ObamaCare?

When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured , there’s trouble everywhere, and they know it. One thing is very, very clear as I traveled across this state. People do not want the trillion dollar health care plan that is being forced on the American people, and this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, it will hurt Medicare, it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper in to debt.

But the same Democrats who couldn’t understand that Republican Scott Brown was winning in the bluest of blue states of Massachusetts can’t understand what the true ramifications of the stunning Republican victory are.

Instead, they are reacting with spin and vowing to redouble their efforts to do the very things that turned the American people against them in the first place.

I turned on MSNBC, and it was amazing.

According to the evening’s propaganda equivalent to a news broadcast: the race had nothing to do with national issues; Martha Coakley was entirely to blame for running a terrible campaign; Barack Obama is still incredibly popular and powerful, and he brought Coakley up by a great deal – but couldn’t make up for Coakley’s terrible campaign; even though the most liberal state in the union didn’t want ObamaCare, the rest of the nation still did; the Brown “forty-one” seat wouldn’t really hurt the Democrats all that much if they rededicate themselves to their agenda; etc.

I have a background in philosophy of religion, and I began to hear what was clearly a liberal theodicy: why does Obama allow evil in the world?

The gist of the evening is that Obama is greater than the divine Messiah, and his will and his agenda are perfect, and cannot be questioned.

From that starting point, the leftist network began to explain the event of how a candidate running against Obama’s agenda could win a seat held by Democrats since 1952 in the most Democrat state in the country.

After Obama spent his last 2 cents’ worth of credibility campaigning for Martha Coakley, he didn’t fail – HE CANNOT FAIL!!! The fact that he is now something like ZERO for 5 (Olympics, Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, Copenhagen/Climate Change, and now Martha Coakley) is nothing more than a coincidence.  Clearly, there had to be some other explanation.  It couldn’t be that even people in Massachusetts now recognize that Barack Obama is a failure, and that his agenda is a gigantic boondoggle.

It’s not that Obama has shorter coattails than a naked midget; Obama can lower the oceans!

It’s not that people are no longer paying attention to a president who has demonstrated that he is an incompetent loser; Obama could call fire down from heaven if he wanted to destroy his opposition.

It’s not that Obama’s agenda should now clearly be treated by Democrats like kryptonite is treated by Superman; Obama’s agenda is perfect in every way!  And if the people hate Obama’s plan for his world, it is only because they are ignorant and depraved in their sinfulness.

Democrats appear to be utterly failing to understand that Scott Brown’s victory demonstrated a referendum on Obama and his agenda – and the people voted a loud “NO!”

They have failed to understand all along.

They repeatedly and continually mocked Tea Party conservatives.  They demonized the people who voiced their protests and concerns of ObamaCare last August.  They trivialized and demagogued any and all opposition to their agenda, as if all those people were some kind of minor nuisance, rather than the voice of the American people.

And they just got knocked out with one good punch by “Mister 41,” Scott Brown.

For the last 365 days, Democrats have demonstrated that they are like the proverbial lemmings leaping off of the cliff to their political doom.  It’s a terrible plan, and everyone pretty much realizes it’s a terrible plan.  But, like that poorly-conceived migration route that leads off the steepest cliff in the region, Democrats have to keep pushing and pushing for it.

“Let’s remove all doubt,” said Nancy Pelosi. “We will have health care one way or another.”

The problem is, that single-minded determination to ruin the country against the clearly-expressed will of the people has come home to roost like [Obama’s Marxist, anti-American, racist reverend] Jeremiah Wright’s chickens.

“If Democrats aren’t safe here, they aren’t safe anywhere,” says Alex Castellanos.

And now Democrats are suddenly looking every bit like cockroaches with nowhere to run when the light gets turned on.

Democrats will either turn and run from ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, climate change, card check, and all the other loathsome elements of the Obama agenda, or else they will get squished.

Change We Can Believe In: Obama Turned Camelot Republican

I think there should be a new rule: when you write a title this good, you shouldn’t even have to bother writing the rest of the article:

Barack Obama’s change we can believe in: he has turned Camelot Republican
By Gerald Warner World Last updated: January 20th, 2010

Exactly one year ago today Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States amid scenes more appropriate to the enthronement of a Pharaoh than the initiation of a democratic leader. Remember the hysteria, the gushing sycophancy of the liberal media, the Disneyland hype? One year later, it is all over for the Messiah. Obama has finally provoked change we can believe in: he has turned Massachusetts Republican.

Camelot has turned bright red. It is comfortably in the hands of the GOP. From early in the count Republican Scott Brown established an unassailable 5-point lead over Martha Coakley, the arrogant Democrat candidate who epitomised the sense of entitlement that characterises the members of the liberal establishment. She was a caricature of Democrat prejudices, down to being a cradle Catholic who championed abortion – like her rebarbative predecessor Edward Kennedy. At 2.15am (our time) the Boston Globe reported that Coakley had telephoned Brown to concede defeat. That historic conversation effectively called time on the Obama administration.

It takes a real mental effort to come to terms with the notion of a man named Brown being an effective and worthwhile politician, but in Massachusetts that is the reality. Brown created an electoral insurgency. He articulated all the resentment of decent Americans against the liberal establishment. In doing so he has overturned the Democrats’ 60-seat presence in the Senate which until last night made them invulnerable to a Republican filibuster and made it possible for them to railroad Obama’s insane, statist, totalitarian health care “reforms” through Congress.

No more. If the Democrats even attempted to use procedural tricks to rush the healthcare dog’s breakfast through before Brown takes his seat, America would not stand for such a blatant evasion of the popular will on so controversial a measure. It simply isn’t going to happen. Nor is any of the rest of the Obama fantasy. The Republicans are now poised to take control of the House in November. Obama has had his year of power, but now he is a busted flush.

And what a year it was. Retreat, abasement and blunders in every area of foreign policy, from North Korea to sell-out to Russia on nuclear weapons. This blog always insisted Obama would be a one-term president. Even I, however, had not counted on his being a one-year wonder. Even Anne of the Thousand Days had a longer run than that. Americans have proved they can spot a phoney in 12 months. That shames Britain’s record: the deluded electorate here voted three times for the Great Charlatan Blair.

To see the pricking of the Obama balloon is delightful. Congratulations, America. Happy anniversary, Mr President.

To paraphrase Dr. Phil: “How’s that hopey and changey thing working for you?”

Here’s to hoping for the change of a Republican landslide, courtesy of Barack Hussein and his destroy America agenda.

One Thing Is For Sure: Democrats REALLY Hate People Who Drive Trucks

Elitist limousine liberals don’t like trucks, or the people who drive them.

Scott Brown driving his truck to campaign stops might have been a gimmick, but it was his truck, which he’s been driving around for 200,000 miles.

Not exactly something to mock, unless you’re a liberal.

Why not mock the fact that maybe he wears a pair of ten-year old boots while you’re at it?

But…

There’s something about Republican Scott Brown’s truck that has gotten the Democratic establishment all revved up.

Mr. Brown, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts under the GOP banner, often mentions the truck he’s used to campaign around the Bay State, and his opponents don’t like it one bit.

President Obama, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democrat running against Mr. Brown, each bashed the truck at a rally on Sunday organized to help increase Democratic turnout for the special election on Tuesday.

Mr. Kerry, the first speaker in the lineup, used the truck to liken Mr. Brown to Republican former President George W. Bush. “I’ve got news for you, Scott: George Bush drove a truck, too, and look where it got us,” Mr. Kerry said.

Then Mrs. Coakley picked up the theme. “I’ll tell you one thing: Just because you’re driving around Massachusetts in a truck doesn’t mean you’re going in the right direction,” she said for an applause line.

Her remarks were followed by a series of jabs at the truck made by Mr. Obama. “He’s driving his truck around the Commonwealth …. Well, you’ve got to look under that hood because what you learn makes you wonder,” Mr. Obama cautioned.

He also told voters to “forget the ads.”

“Everybody can run slick ads. Forget that truck. Everybody can buy a truck.”

But Mr. Obama couldn’t forget that truck himself. He brought up the truck again to make a dig at Mr. Brown’s opposition to a bank tax by saying, “He decided to park his truck on Wall Street.”

The retort

“Mr. President, unfortunately in this economy, not everybody can buy a truck.” — Mr. Brown’s reaction to Mr. Obama’s truck slam.

“Forget the truck,” says the man who clearly couldn’t forget the truck.

It’s almost the “guy-version” of the raving, spitting, frothing, insane mad Sarah Palin hatred.  You take a good-looking, average, decent guy, and just watch the liberals erupt into total madness.  They just become unhinged when they see an ordinary American trying to take their power away.

Thank God airplanes have windows, or ordinary Americans living in “flyover country” would have to continually keep umbrellas due to all the liberals trying to spit on them.

Coakley ‘Imploding’ In ‘Freefall’ With ‘Bottom Falling Out’ AFTER Obama’s Help

Here’s the trifecta: “the bottom is falling out.”  “This candidate is in freefall.”  “This race is imploding for her.”

These views from a chief pollster on a poll taken AFTER Obama’s campaign visit.

About the only thing that could go worse for Martha Coakely is if a divinely-originated lightening bolt were to strike her down.

I admit it: I love to quote myself being right regarding Obama’s campaign visit for Martha Coakley:

I hope they get Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to cut videos, too […]

I DO know that Obama has proven that he – to quote Dennis Miller – “has smaller coattails than a naked midget.”

It was started to rain on Martha Coakley.  And then Barack Obama came a’campaignin’.  And then the skies opened up in a “Noah’s Ark-level” deluge:

New poll: Martha Coakley ‘in freefall’

A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted exclusively for POLITICO shows Republican Scott Brown surging to a 9-point advantage over Martha Coakley a day before Massachusetts voters trek to the ballot box to choose a new senator.

According to the survey conducted Sunday evening, Brown leads the Democratic attorney general 52 percent to 43 percent.

“I actually think the bottom is falling out,” said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery, referring to Coakley’s fall in the polls over the last ten days. “I think that this candidate is in freefall. Clearly this race is imploding for her.”

The numbers show males and independents overwhelmingly breaking for Brown, who has married his GQ looks with a populist tone in a pick-up truck on the campaign trail.

Brown holds a 15-point lead among males and crushes Coakley by 41 points among self-described independents, a group that’s been steadily inching away from the Democratic party over the last year due to growing apprehension with government spending, bailouts and health care reform.

“Men are not going to vote for Coakley at all. You have a very angry male voter who’s repudiating whatever is being said in Washington and they’re taking it out on this woman. And independents are clearly going to the Republican in droves. What’s left are the Democratic voters,” said Towery, who is a former aide to Newt Gingrich.

And the survey shows almost a quarter of Democratic voters lining up with Brown.

A DailyKos/Research 2000 poll released Monday painted a much tighter campaign, showing the race knotted at 48 percent each.

“We’re about to learn whether Obama can deliver electoral votes,” wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas on his Twitter page.

But that three-day survey was conducted between Friday and Sunday, whereas the entire InsiderAdvantage phone survey of 804 likely registered voters was completed Sunday night.

Towery noted his polling indicates President Barack Obama’s Sunday visit to the Bay State for Coakley won’t be enough to pull her over the finish line.

“When there’s a nine-point difference, it’s awfully hard to shave off enough to win,” Towery said. “The older voters are even tied.  And the youngest voters have turned against the Democrats,” he said, pointing to Brown’s 61 to 30 percent lead among voters 18 to 29 years old. (Voters 65 and older, typically a key Democratic constituency, are divided between the two contenders, 48 percent a piece).

InsiderAdvantage’s polling pool was made up of 20 percent Republicans and 43 percent of Democrats, though estimates show that independents make up just over 50 percent of all Massachusetts voters. “It’d be even worse for (Coakley) if we weighed it towards more independents,” Towery said.

Other election eve polling is also tracking towards Brown. The Republican pollster, American Research Group, pins Brown’s lead at 7 points, 52 to 45 percent, in a three-day survey released Monday. And Suffolk University’s polling of three bellwether counties had them all breaking towards Brown by double-digit margins. Public Policy Polling’s final survey put Brown up 51 to 46 percent, a lead that falls within the margin of error.

A third-party independent candidate Joe Kennedy, who some feared would confuse voters by siphoning votes through the power of his name, is now seen as less of a factor. He captures just 2 percent of support in the InsiderAdvantage poll.

“If this race were to tight up, he might make the difference,” said Towery. “But this is a disaster (for Democrats),” he said.

The margin of error for the InsiderAdvantage poll is +/- 3.4 percent. About three percent registered no opinion.

If anything, Obama rushing to help Martha Coakley (who is apparently in even more desperate condition than the people of Haiti, given Obama’s and Haiti special envoy Bill Clinton’s aid) merely further proved the point that Coakley is a tool of the big government status quo.

Obama, you are a giant stinky turd and a loser, and even the people of Massachusetts – the most liberal state in the nation -know that you are a turd and a loser.

And even Democrats don’t want to take the long fall off the steep cliff you and the Democrat Party are determined to rush the country off of.

For what it’s worth, I believe Obama has hurt national security even more than he already had by spending his last 2 cents’ worth of political capital he had left on fellow disgrace-of-a-politician Martha Coakley.  Our enemies now know for certain that we have a failed leader, and that the country won’t bother to pay attention to our loser-in-chief.

Mind you, there’s always hope for Democrats, because liberals have no moral values, and would rather cheat gracelessly than lose gracefully:

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I’d try to vote ten times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right, I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.

No, Schultz, you goon, that’s exactly what YOU are.  And the American people finally realize it.

Confronted by his words, Schultz kept going:

On Monday, he kicked off his show with a mock apology. “I misspoke on Friday. I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” he said. “I meant to say if I could vote 20 times, that’s what I would do,” calling those who complained “right-wing nut jobs” and “idiots.”

Because smart people like liberals are moral idiots who don’t understand the principles of decency or fairness.  They’re too smart for that kind of garbage.

So all we have to beware is liberals being liberals (by which I mean, liberals being dishonest).

Even the whole “Kennedy support” thing is crashing apart.  Ted Kennedy’s son Patrick Kennedy, proving he has no freaking clue (which doesn’t stop him from endorsing Coakley, however), repeatedly screwed up Martha Coakley’s name — and three times referring to her as “Marsha.”

As in “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!”

Fear Alert: The President Who Secured The Olympics And Re-elected Jon Corzine Is Campaigning For Coakley

I hope they get Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to cut videos, too.

Obama: ‘The outcome of these fights will probably rest on one vote in the U.S. Senate’

POLITICO
Ben Smith

Organizing for America is blasting this video out to its Massachusetts list, recorded by the president on Martha Coakley’s behalf.

Obama frames it with a recognition of the incredibly high national stakes: “It’s clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the U.S. Senate,” he said, referring to battles over health care, financial reform, and climate change. “That’s why what happens Tuesday in Massachusetts is so important.”

Coakley, he says, will be “your voice and my ally.” Brown, who goes unnamed, is backed by “opponents of change.”

It’s worth pausing to consider how enormously high, in political and substantive terms, the stakes really are. If Brown wins, there’s a strong chance that health care legislation collapses, leaving the status quo in place in that industry and rendering the central initiative of Obama’s first year an unambiguous failure. Coakley’s victory will still, at this point, be a kind of a warning shot, but would ensure passage of a bill on which Obama has staked a lot.

If people don’t like the status quo, they should remember that Barack Obama is now firmly part of the status quo, too.

I don’t know whether Martha Coakley will win or lose next Tuesday.  I DO know that Obama has proven that he – to quote Dennis Miller – “has smaller coattails than a naked midget.”

Obama campaigned for the Olympic Games to be held in Chicago.  He campaigned for Jon Corzine to be Governor of New Jersey.  He campaigned for America to be screwed at the Copenhagen Conference.

And so far Zero has been a total zero at using his influence by campaigning.

Now he’s waxing eloquent (which means he had his teleprompter) in campaigning for Martha Coakley.

To quote a Free Republic poster who watched the Obama video:

Gee.  It wasn’t as insufferable as I expected, he only used the personal pronoun I/my/me five times.

Of course, it was a very short video.

Another Free Republic commenter pointed this out at the 1 minute 10 second point:

BO: “She’ll be your voice, AND MY ALLY”…

It’s all about Obama, after all.  We can know that because EVERYTHING is about Obama.

And it’s all about Obama’s legacy, ObamaCare.  Let’s pass it.  After all, it’s supported by the overwhelming majority of 34% of Americans, and opposed by a trifling 54%.

Mind you, Obama will have to get in line for Coakley’s plebeian allegiance, as big PhRMA and big insurance already have first dibs on Martha Coakely.  But don’t worry, Barry Hussein.  I’m sure she’ll sell out to you, too.

Mind you, the 39% of Americans (who would eagerly vote for Fidel Castro or Kim Jong Il if they ran as Democrats) who would still vote to re-elect Obama will probably be strongly influenced by their messiah’s next attempt to walk on water.

Obama’s a turd, and I don’t care one iota about him buying a “new ally” for himself.  All I care about is stopping a Democrat health care boondoggle that will do more damage to this country than anything we’ve seen in the last sixty years.

Of course, that’s just the kind of thing you’d expect from the President who’s lost more jobs this year than any president in the last SEVENTY years.