Obama Continues To Reveal He Is The Lowest Form Of Demagogue

CBS News had the story:

President Obama invoked the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis while criticizing cuts to infrastructure in the Republican budget plan at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.

“According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third,” he said. “…You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it and there was a big hue and cry, how could this happen in America?”

Obama pointed at the Republican agenda to reign in the utterly out-of-control federal spending that will be absolutely 100% guaranteed to implode America’s economy unless that spending is reigned in, and then demonized the Republicans for a previous bridge collapse.

But as happens far too often in the mainstream media propaganda that often gets to pass for “news,” CBS didn’t fully report the facts.

You see, Obama lied.  Because that’s what he does.  And that collapsed bridge he demagogues to demonize Republicans for – claiming that their budget cuts would eliminate maintenance – didn’t actually have anything whatsoever to do with maintenance:

NTSB: Design errors caused Minn. bridge collapse

WASHINGTON (AP) — The deadly collapse of a Minneapolis bridge last year began at steel plates in a main truss, attributable to a design flaw and not corrosion, federal safety investigators said Thursday.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said the bridge collapse was unavoidable once U-10 steel gusset plates failed at the U-10 connection, near the center of the bridge. Investigators also ruled out any pre-existing cracking as a factor in the accident.

A hearing into the collapse quickly focused on the U-10 gusset plates on the Interstate 35W bridge. The safety board as far back as January had identified design flaws in the plates as a critical factor in the collapse.

CNS actually does a little investigation and reports the facts in an article entitled, “Obama Misstates Cause of Minn. Bridge Collapse–Falsely Blames Insufficient Federal Spending“:

Contrary to Obama’s townhall speeech, the bridge did not collapse because of “deteriorating” infrastructure. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the collapse was due to a design flaw, not to a lack of maintenance.

“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error,” the NTSB states in its 2008 report on the incident.

In fact, the NTSB reported that on the day of the collapse, the bridge was in the process of being refurbished, further contradicting Obama’s claim that the collapse was evidence of a lack of infrastructure spending.

“On the day of the collapse, roadway work was underway on the I35W bridge, and four of the eight travel lanes (two outside lanes northbound and two inside lanes southbound) were closed to traffic,” reads the NTSB report.

If Obama were a halfway honest man, he would apologize for his vicious demonization that is entirely based on a lie.  But he’s not a halfway honest man.  And so he will count on the fact that the mainstream media will report his lies and not bother to correct them.  Because they are leftwing ideologue propagandists, and that’s how they roll.

You want to know something else I don’t understand?  It’s why we still need so much money for mainstenance projects.  Remember Obams’s so-called “stimulus” and how it was all going to go to such “shovel-ready projects”?  According to the CBO, Obama’s stimulus will cost $3.27 TRILLION.

Where did that money go, Barry Hussein?  Why is it that if Republicans cut so much as a dime, bridges across America will collapse?

Then there’s Obama’s demagogic remarks about border security and immigration:

“The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all instead of
using it as a political football?”

But Obama had total Democrat control of Congress for TWO YEARS.  And he utterly failed to make any kind of serious bipartisan overture whatsoever on immigration reform during a period when Republicans had little chance of stopping much of anything.  He is simply lying and blaming Republicans for his own failure.  Which is to say, the only one using this issue as a “political football” is the guy demonizing others for doing what he himself is clearly doing.

You can again see just how utterly and vindictively partisan and demagogic Obama is in this exchange over the fact that Obama had a major meeting on immigration reform, and refused to invite so much as a single governor from one of the border states:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Did you hear what is  going on in Washington? President Obama is talking about immigration reform. The president held a meeting  today at the White House to discuss the broken immigration system. He met with a  bipartisan group. Guess what, he didn’t invite any governors from border states.  Why not?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer joins us live from  Phoenix. Governor, did you miss your invitation? Did you decline your  invitation? Why weren’t you here at the White House to talk about immigration  reform?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ.: I wish I would have been  invited. No, I do not — I did not get an invite. You would have thought one of  the governors would have been invited since we are on the frontlines fighting  for security there. It was a little bit of a snub, if you will. I think that on  behalf of myself, I think I could have added insight to the situation that  Arizona certainly is facing.

VAN SUSTEREN: I looked at the White House press release. Of  the people who were invited — the category of those — it says stakeholders  expected to attend. I looked up stakeholders to see whether you might be a  stakeholder or Governor Rick Perry. It says a person or group that has  investment share or interest in something as in the business or industry. I  guess it is someone who has a strong interest in the topic. He must think you  don’t have any interest in the issue or you would have been invited.

BREWER: That is very unfortunate if that’s what he believes.  I feel Arizona, I believe I and Rick Perry and certainly the governors on the  border have been leading the fight. We’ve been bringing the message to America.  And I think that we should have been afforded that opportunity to be at the  table to help him understand the situation that we want straightened out.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me tell you who he did think was a  stakeholder and has a huge interest in this partial list — Mayor Bloomberg, who  of course is the mayor who sent investigators down to Arizona to investigate you  about guns, your state, the former police chief of New York Bill Brown,  Secretary Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security.

Then he invited Senator Mel Martinez, former United States senator. Here’s  another interesting one, Greg Page chairman and CEO of Cargill. I thought that’s  an odd one. I understand why, because Cargill was raided in 2007 by immigration  and ice for violations having to do with immigration. They probably have the  inside scoop on that one.

Al Sharpton was invited. The CEO of Facebook, another one. Arnold  Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California not the current governor, and  Richard Trumka, who is AFL-CIO union leader. Those are some of the people that  the president thinks has a greater interest than you do.

BREWER: That’s an unfortunate list as far as I’m concerned.  I didn’t know he had extended the invitation that this meeting was going to take  place.

But it seems by the list and what has been reported back to me this afternoon,  it is people that looking at that wonderful word “comprehensive immigration  reform.” It has nothing to do with what we really need to have done, and that is  to get our borders secured.

I think they are looking to try to talk about amnesty and all these other  issues and the dream act. None of these things in my opinion are going to take  place until we get our borders secured. I don’t think the American people want  to address anything until we feel secure. Our citizens need to feel secure in  their homes. It just continues to grow with the issue of people coming across  our borders illegal, the drug cartels.

VAN SUSTEREN: I may disagree with you a little bit. I would  like a solution that is complete and which protects our borders, protects  Americans and handles all the issues. I would like to see it put behind us. I to  the president’s speech at American university last summer to hear it. I did want  to hear what he said he was going to do.

We haven’t heard anything. He a Democratic house and Senate we don’t hear  anything until now as he gets ready to launch his campaign. And now things have  changed. Now we are hearing it again. I’m deeply disturbed. I think this is  talk. I think his guest list supports that because this is not bringing people  to the table who have real interests in this.

BREWER: I absolutely agree with you. The bottom line is that  he has a different agenda than what the American people have. Unfortunately, we  keep talking and we keep contacting him with our concerns, really no response,  no concern. Of course now we are in the election period so we now he’s going to  be standing up and talking about he’s going to do this and that. He’s had two  years to deliver what he promised two years ago and hasn’t delivered.

So we want our borders secured. I truly believe that the majority of us are  not going to discuss anything else in regards to what his agenda is, until we  get satisfaction with security at our borders.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/border-governors-not-invited-white-house-meeting-immigration-reform#ixzz1K3EvMeaH

This is beyond ridiculous.  If you have any intention whatsoever of coming to some kind of agreement, you invite the major decision makers.  But Obama doesn’t want solutions; he wants to prevent solutions and then blame Republicans for the well that Obama personally poisoned.

Last week Obama gave a hateful speech in which he blasted Republicans as the party that wanted to kill old people and children with autism.  During a point in the health care debate, when Obama needed to appear bi-partisan, Obama said:

“We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s — the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”

And then he proceeded to do the very thing that he himself had said would undermine and poison the process.  Rep. Paul Ryan said correctly:

“What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.”

And, again, Obama doesn’t WANT to fix problems.  Obama wants to demonize and demagogue and lie and accuse and blame.

We can and should go back to 2006 remarks made by Obama when he personally demonized George Bush for raising the debt celing.  Obama demagogued:

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

Now the same weaselly demagogue is saying that anyone who acted like Obama himself acted would be an un-American traitor.

It just never ends with this guy.

Obama Promised Dems Trip To Disneyworld; Failed To Mention It Involved Crashing Plane Into Florida

[The above title derives from a quip made by Newt Gingrich on the Greta Van Susteren program, for what it’s worth].

Unless “hope and change” meant total Democrat annihilation (which it does for me, anyway), I would submit that something went wrong on Obama’s trip to Utopia.

There was a cartoon from months ago that pretty much summarized the election results from November 2:

And the American people – and most certainly conservatives – tried to warn them.  Repeatedly.

Remember Virginia?  When Republican Bob McDonnell won the governorship in a major setback to Obama? Remember  Massachusetts? And the shock defeat by Republican Scott Brown to win Ted Kennedy’s seat? Remember New Jersey?  Where Chris Christie defeated Obama-backed Jon Corzine with independents running away from Democrats to give Republicans the governor’s mansion in the bluest of blue states? Remember all the town halls across the nation?  Where senior citizens were red-faced furious at Democrats for passing ObamaCare? Remember the tea party events across the country? And how they just kept getting bigger and bigger even as the Democrats and the mainstream media first ridiculed them and then demonized them?

Meanwhile, now former House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi assured everyone that Democrats would keep control of the House.  And assured them “for sure.” And daring Republicans to “bring it on” in the process.  And kept assuring.  And then assuring some more.

And it wasn’t just Nancy Pelosi who lived in a bubble.  Lots of prominent Democrats did.  Such as DNC chairman Tim Kaine, who was predicting Democrats would keep the House of Representatives only days ago.

And, of course, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen joined San Fran Nan the very day of the election to loudly assure the world that the Democrats would keep their dominance in the House.

And, even after the admitted shellacking, Barack Obama demonstrated loudly and clearly today that he STILL doesn’t get it.

I don’t know if Obama and Pelosi cared one way or another; but Democrats were slaughtered for the sake of Obama’s incredibly unpopular agenda.  Obama kept using the metaphor of a car and a ditch, but no matter how many “Danger, Bridge Out!” warning signs he passed, he refused to change his course as he drove his party right off a cliff.

It was not just a slaughter; it was a historic slaughter:

WASHINGTON — Republicans rolled up historic gains to seize control of the House on Tuesday, as voters disenchanted with the economy, President Obama and government dealt a strong rebuke to Democrats in every corner of the country.

The GOP ousted Democratic freshmen and influential veterans, including some considered safe just weeks ago. Republicans piled up their biggest House gains since they added 80 seats in 1938: By early Wednesday, they had netted 60 formerly Democratic seats and led in four more. The GOP victory eclipsed the 54-seat pickup by the so-called “revolution” that retook the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years and the 56-seat Republican gain in 1946.

And it’s actually even worse than that.  Because the most recent counts show that Republicans have seized 64 seats from Democrats.  With more elections still not yet called, that could well add to the number.

What we just witnessed was the biggest pick up by any party in any election since 1932.

Here’s the latest political map.  For you liberals, you are the ones who are now so marginalized you practically might as well not even exist:

I mean, literally, I have more legitimate grounds to deny the existence of liberals than I do the Tooth Fairy right about now.

And just two years ago you so incredibly arrogantly ruled the universe.  And you were lecturing Republicans on the extinction of the Grand Old Party.

You were a ship of fools, captained by even grander fools.

But it gets even worse.  Because we haven’t talked about the governor’s races yet:

Governors-Stunning loss for Democrats
Published in November 3rd, 2010

America changed overnight in a very big way. Based upon election results at this moment, sixty percent of our country will now be led by Republican Governors. That number may grow as a few states with uncertain election results are solidified.

Yesterday, there were 37 Governor’s races and Republicans won 24 of them. Democrats took only nine, Independents took one and three are too close to call at this moment (Connecticut, Minnesota and Vermont).

This is an absolutely stunning loss for Democrats who, prior to the election, held 26 states to the 24 held by Republicans.

The balance of power has shifted and this will impact the 2012 elections as well as redistricting that will occur in each state as a result of the 2010 Census.

But as bad as that is, it gets even worse than that.  We’re talking about complete devastation for Democrats in the state legislatures, where Republicans picked up a never-seen-in-history 680 state legislative seats.  In doing that, they gained majorities in 14 states, and unified majorities (gaining control in both branches) in 26 states.

From the National Journal:

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control — meaning both chambers — of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting “trifecta” — both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship — in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina — probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats — Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

It wasn’t just a power shift; it was a historic power shift.  It was a massive repudiation.

Now, for all of that butt-kicking of the Democrats and the Democrat agenda, how did the mainstream media react?  Predictably.

I turned the channel from reliable, trustworthy Fox News to MSNBC and CNN.  It was comical.  From their coverage, you’d think that the entire election consisted in Harry Reid’s, Barbara Boxer’s, and Jerry Brown’s Democrat victories.

Barack Obama’s own Illinous Senate seat will now have a Republican’s butt-print all over it.  That personalizes this ass whipping; Obama couldn’t even hold on to his own seat – even after all the previous shenanigans Democrats tried to pull.  And Republicans snatched at least five other Senate seats from Democrats.  But how about that Harry Reid win?

Laugh, liberals.  Laugh hysterically.  Laugh until you fall down and pass out.

Because you’re butt-kicking is just getting started.  From Politico:

If Senate Democrats think 2010 is a tough cycle, just wait two more years.

They’ll probably hold the Senate majority Tuesday — with a couple of seats to spare, most analysts believe. But 2012 is a different story.

By then, Republicans will be poised to take control of the Senate — with pickup possibilities scattered across the map and a much narrower base of their own to defend.

It’s not simply the lopsided mathematics — with at least 21 Democratic seats on the table in 2012, including two independents who sit with the Democrats, compared with 10 Republicans. It’s where the seats are located.

Start with Democratic seats in three states where President Barack Obama lost in 2008: Nebraska, North Dakota and Montana.

Then go down a list of where Democrats are poised to lose Senate battles this year — Ohio, Florida and Missouri, for example — and Democrats will be right back at it in 2012, defending seats there again.

Throw in some bona fide tossup states — Virginia and New Mexico — and it’s pretty hard not to picture Republicans picking off the handful of seats needed to take control, if Tuesday goes as well for the GOP as experts expect.

For the official record, Republicans won all three of those Senate battles in Ohio, Florida and Missouri.

The really funny thing is that not winning the Senate during a tough economy is actually a blessing in disguise for Republicans – who never had much more than a halfway decent chance at best to capture the Senate this year.

Obama could have run against the Republican-owned Congress, the way Bill Clinton was able to do against Republicans after they took control of both branches in 1994.

Back then, Republicans balanced the budget and reduced the deficit, and Slick Willie took credit for everything good that came along.

Instead, poor one-term Barry will have Harry Reid wrapped around his neck like an albatross in two years.  As all those Republican governors use the power of their offices to make sure he’s a one-term president.  Even as they supervise the redistricting to make it tougher for Democrats to make any kind of a comeback.

The Republican House doesn’t even have to do much, really.  All they need to do is vote on popular measures: the repeal of ObamaCare; permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone; capping spending at 2008 levels; maybe ending the earmark process.  And if Democrats in the Senate don’t pass it, well, doom on the Democrats in the Senate.

I think of it as a beautiful case of poetic justice and dramatic reversal wrapped into two election cycles, a story where Dorothy gets to say to the wicked witch of the West (and that’s Nancy Pelosi, not Christine O’Donnell), “I’ll get you my ugly, and your little messiah too!”

Absolutely everything that the most über-hard-core conservative commentators (such as Rush Limbaugh) have said about Barack Obama has come to pass exactly as they predicted.  The corrupt Chicago community organizer was totally unqualified and unprepared for the presidency, and he has proven to be a total disaster and disgrace to his own political party, along with America.

The worst thing that ever happened to the Democrat Party – to go along with the United States of America – was the election of Barack Obama.  And Republicans aren’t going to let Democrats forget it.  And I’m talking for years to come.

How Much Have Obamas Spent On Clothes?

It’s kind of funny to me.  When John McCain and Sarah Palin point out that Barack Obama “palled around” with terrorist William Ayers (“partnered with” is a better way to put it), the all-over-the-air and way-over-the-top Democratic talking point was that this was an attempt to take attention away from the “real issues.”  Journalists told us that with so many issues of profound importance facing the country, focusing on something as trivial as a terrorist buddy was ridiculous.  And then the “bombshell revelation” that the McCain-Palin campaign might have spent $150,000 outfitting Sarah Palin and upgrading her image for the campaign hits like some major scandal.  And THAT’S relevant!

You don’t hear the drive-by mainstream media condescendingly pointing out how irrelevant Sarah Palin’s wardrobe is, or how this is a clear attempt to distract the public from the damage created by the “Joe the Plumber” situation.  Nope.  The media would never dare apply the same talking points to Republicans that they routinely use to justify and support Democrats.  Goebbels never turned on Hitler, you know.

In any event, I read a few condescending stories from the leftist media (such as the Huffington Post), but couldn’t find any reference to what Barack or Michelle Obama spent on their clothes.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that they’ve both spent a ton of dough.  The Politico article says that, “A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.”  But keep in mind that every penny of McCain campaign money is accounted for due to public financing regulations, whereas we have no idea where more than $200 million of Obama’s money came from.  And we also come to find out that designers have given wardrobes to Democratic candidates in order to garner publicity, which itself amounts to a violation of campaign laws.

Hillary Clinton’s famous pantsuits costs more than $6,000 each – and  she had a LOT of pantsuits.  And it turns out she probably didn’t pay anything for them, according to the woman who designed them for her:

One of Mrs. Clinton’s famous political fashion designers, Susanna Chung Forest, who designed Hillary’s pantsuits, which, that’s gotta boost the resume. She says that it would be unusual for a candidate as famous as Sarah Palin to need to buy clothes at all, meaning most of these women are not buying their clothes, they’re given to them by the designers in order to get publicity, just as Hollywood starlets on the red carpet before the Emmys and the Oscars, those gowns are all donated.

We also find out if we dig around long enough out that Obama is getting his suits at Barney’s, and that Michelle wears Maria Pinto, Valentino, and other top fashion brands.  And we learn that people who live in designer glass-houses shouldn’t throw diamonds:

The current issue of Harper’s Bazaar notes that the Democratic presidential candiate’s wife wears Valentino, among others. Looks like when the Obamas say “spread the wealth around,” they mean at top shelf department stores.

I’m not outraged at this. The pressure of being in the public eye is understandable. What’s disturbing is the double standard. Michelle Obama gets hailed by the fashionistas while Palin gets crucified and mocked by the fashion police.

These same liberals who are now appalled at the Palin shopping spree are the same ones that thought it shallow and superficial to discuss Newsweek’s obvious recent cheap shot cover of Sarah Palin because we have more important fish to fry. Where are these people now to shout that this issue is trivial? And how do they manage to get so fired up about Palin’s appearance all of sudden?

This latest attack on Sarah Palin is geared to undermine her as a real “woman of the people.”  But the reality is that it shows that she IS a woman of the people.  She didn’t have the kind of clothing that would withstand the unrelenting glare of the national spotlight.  How many “women of the people” do?  This woman who sold the governor’s private jet, got rid of the governor’s limosine, fired the governor’s chef, etc. clearly IS a “woman of the people” whether the McCain campaign upgrades her image or not.  And given the fact that the Obama campaign has easily outspent the McCain campaign 4-1, what does it matter that the McCain campaign believed that upgrading the image of an attractive candidate was money poorly spent?

The McCain campaign has reported that the clothes will be sold off and the proceeds donated to charity after the election.

Now let’s get back to the serious issues of the campaign, such as how Barack Obama is a socialist who will keep Joe the Plumber from being able to buy a small business so Obama can “spread the wealth around.”