The Republican majority 112th House of Representatives today invested some time to publicly read the Constitution of the United States. This is a good thing. You can’t know where you are going without looking at where you come from.
Why some Obama Dimocrats objected to the reading of the Constitution is beyond understanding. Perhaps if the Democrats who gifted Barack Obama the party nomination had given some thought to what it was they were doing, by investing authority in the Chicago flim-flam man, the party would not be in the mess it is in.
“As a new Republican majority prepares to take control of the House, a new Republican plurality has broadened its advantage since the midterms. In their monthly survey on party affiliation in the general population, Rasmussen shows Republicans with more than a three-point lead over Democrats. The percentage of Republicans has hit a six-year high, while Democrats have plunged to an eight-year low: [snip]
It’s the second straight month that Rasmussen Reports polling has found more people identifying as Republicans than Democrats. Prior to November, that had never happened before.
Yesterday Gallup joined Rasmussen with grim numbers for Obama Dimocrats:
“In 2010, 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, down five percentage points from just two years ago and tied for the lowest annual average Gallup has measured in the last 22 years. While Democrats still outnumber Republicans by two points, the percentage identifying as independents increased to 38%, on the high end of what Gallup has measured in the last two decades. [snip]
While there is usually some year-to-year variation in party identification at the aggregate level, the changes are typically not large. Thus, the five-point drop in Democratic identification over the past two years, from the party’s 22-year high of 36% (tying the 1988 figure) to its 22-year low of 31%, is notable. [snip]
Independents’ increasing affinity for the GOP is also evident in a separate measure of party affiliation Gallup tracks, which takes into account the party leanings of independents. In 2010, 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned toward the Democratic Party, while 44% identified as Republicans or said they were independent but leaned Republican. The 1-point Democratic advantage is the party’s smallest since 2003, when the parties were even, and represents a sharp decline from the record 12-point Democratic advantage in 2008. [snip]
Although 2010 brought some major legislative successes for the Democratic majority, it was not a good year for the party politically. In addition to losing control of the House of Representatives and seeing the number of Democratic senators and governors reduced, the party saw its support among the general population drop to tie its 22-year low.”
Obama Dimocrats are losing to Independents who are increasingly identifying with Republicans. Winner: Republicans.
At the same time we now have Ed Kilgore, one of the most destructive people in Democratic Party history – with his long term demographic destiny nonsense which we have debunked for the past three years, echoing our analysis from years ago. Kilgore recycles our warnings to those who believed in the old Democratic Party and to those in the corruption which is the Obama Dimocratic Party: It’s going to get much worse:
“We’ve all heard that Democrats are in for a very difficult two years. [snip]
But that misses a big part of the picture. Even if Obama wins reelection by a comfortable margin, it’s most likely that the House will remain in Republican hands and Democrats will lose seats in, and perhaps control of, the Senate—and beyond that, Republicans will probably do fairly well in 2014. In other words, we could be looking not at two years of damage control, but six.”
Kilgore is still selling more snake oil. The Obama nomination gifting “Mistake In ’08” will have repercussions for generations not just six years. Unless Obama and his crew of Obaminations are flung into the depths of Lake Michigan the Democratic Party cannot be resurrected and Republicans will have a strong hand to play for generations to come. The only thing Kilgore gets right is stuff we wrote about years ago concerning the census and redistricting,
“Consider the Democrats’ congressional prospects in 2012. Republican successes at the state level during the past two years have given the GOP an extraordinary advantage in the decennial redistricting process. They control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature—known casually as holding the “trifecta”—in 20 states, compared to ten for Democrats. They’ve achieved this trifecta in six of the eight states that will gain representation in the 2012 round of redistricting. (As well as in three of the ten states that will lose seats, compared to two for Democrats.)”
“… to take back the House in 2012, Democrats would have to approximate the feat they pulled off in the banner year of 2006 while facing a changed and more hostile political map. Redistricting aside, a number of places where veteran Blue Dog Democrats lost in 2010—including three in Tennessee, two in Mississippi, and one each in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Alabama—are heavily Republican districts that are very unlikely to flip back in the foreseeable future.
The Senate picture for Democrats in 2012 is not much better, for the simple reason that 23 of the 33 seats that will be contested then are currently held by Democrats, reflecting the 2006 landslide. To put it another way, Republicans could lose Senate races by a 19-14 margin and still recapture the chamber (or by a 20-13 margin if they win the White House). [snip]
It’s far more difficult to predict what will happen in 2014, but we do know that the Senate class up for reelection will be disproportionately Democratic, since it swept into office during the wave election of 2008. Barring any retirements or deaths Democrats will be defending 20 seats and the Republicans just 13. Moreover, in 2014, the same kind of Republican-skewed midterm electorate that appeared in 2010, dominated by older white voters, will likely reemerge, creating another wind at the Republicans’ backs.”
Kilgore and his damned garbage theories got us all into this mess. Now Kilgore warns that excuses must be made for Barack Obama when he continues to be an utter failure and boob:
“… progressives need to begin adjusting their expectations. Up until now, many Democrats have judged Barack Obama according to the hopes he inspired in 2008…. [snip]
That’s not the best way to look at the rest of the Obama presidency. [snip] … progressives will have to gird themselves for a long, hard struggle with conservatives—one in which avoiding defeat will more often than not have to stand in for victory.”
That is just filthy. After infecting the Hopium addled with wacky theories about endless vistas of demographic fueled victories, Kilgore now advises “avoiding defeat” will be renamed “victory”. Kilgore, like an automaton from Orwell’s 1984 declares war “peace” and defeat “noble” victory. “… [L]iberals must realize that preventing or reducing that wreckage is an essential, and even noble, task which we should learn to value if not love.” Trash talk from a trash theorist. So much for “healing the planet”.
Trash like Ed Kilgore are responsible for the current political situation. These trash theorists persuaded the most powerful leaders to conspire behind the scenes to gift Obama the nomination. These leaders in turn threw the country, and the party, into the abyss.
Barack Obama, as we wrote back in 2007 is a flim-flam man. Barack Obama is a poseur who only cares about himself. A skilled opportunist who will sell out anything and anyone. Yesterday our “Obama the Chicago flim-flam man” analysis was confirmed at the podium of the White House press hack. Jake Tapper of ABC News reports:
“On Sunday, President Obama’s top economic adviser, Council of Economic Advisers chair Austan Goolsbee, cautioned members of Congress not to “play chicken” by voting against raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling – despite the fact that as a senator in 2006, President Obama voted that way.
“I don’t see why anybody’s talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling,” Goolsbee told me on ABC News’ THIS WEEK. “If we get to the point where you’ve damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity.”
Goolsbee said a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause “a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008…This is not a game. The debt ceiling is not something to toy with.”
Four year ago, however, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted the exact way President Obama is now cautioning senators not to do.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
The debt limit was raised by a vote of 52-48.”
Faced with that hypocrisy, Robert Gibbs, the soon to be no longer press flack defended Obama by exposing the Obama flim-flam corruption:
“Asked about that quote – and vote — today, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that it was important that “based on the outcome of that vote…the full faith and credit was not in doubt.”
Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”’
In other words, it was all a scam on Obama’s part. HotAir explains:
“Gibbsy insisting that The One voted no at the time to send the message that we need to “get serious about fiscal discipline.” Barack Obama and fiscal discipline: Perfect together. Why, he’s like the very first tea partier, isn’t he?
Give Gibbs credit for honesty on this one, though. The One took plenty of votes during his brief layover in the Senate that were aimed squarely at polishing his record for a presidential run down the road. The one on the debt ceiling was aimed at centrists; the votes against Roberts and Alito were aimed at his base. And sometimes, when he couldn’t decide whom to pander to, he just voted present as he’s wont to do.“
What is the appropriate four letter word for Barack Obama? Patterico has a suggestion:
“Gibbs: Old Obama Was Full of Shit [snip]
Then-Sen. Obama used the vote “to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline….His vote was not necessarily needed on that.”
In other words, according to official spokesmodel Robert Gibbs, the only reason why Obama voted against raising the debt limit was because he knew it would happen anyway. He wasn’t really opposed to it. He just wanted to pretend he was, because he wanted to fool people into thinking he is some kind of fiscal conservative. [snip]
Q You referenced Austan Goolsbee’s comments about the debt ceiling and I wanted to read you this quote from a senator. “The fact that we’re here today to debate raising America’s debt is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
I suspect you know who I’m quoting.
MR. GIBBS: Joe Biden? (Laughter.) I know, Barack Obama in 2006.
Q That is Senator Barack Obama in 2006 voting against raising the debt ceiling.
MR. GIBBS: And I think what is important is — understand that raising the debt limit was not in question in the outcome –
Q It passed 52 to 48. It was close.
MR. GIBBS: — in the outcome of that vote.
Q It was a close vote — 52 to 48.
MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ve had closer. I think it’s important that the outcome — based on the outcome of that vote, as I mentioned, the full faith and credit was not in doubt — the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt. And the President used it to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline.
And we, as I said earlier, are dealing with the legacy of decisions that have been made over the past many years — not paying for a prescription drug benefit, not paying for wars, not paying for tax cuts — that changed our fiscal situation much more markedly than anything ever had.
So I think it is up to — and it’s important for Congress, because we know not to play politics with this, not to play games, to find a way to raise that debt limit, understanding that we have to — as I mentioned to Matt, we’re going to have to take some serious steps to get our fiscal house in order. But we understand, we know what happens, we know the catastrophic actions with things like Social Security and Medicare if you threaten the solvency of the government.
Q But isn’t that what he was doing?
Q So he only voted that way because he knew that it was going to pass?
MR. GIBBS: And I think, clearly, he was sending a message.
Q But he knew it was going to pass — that’s why he voted against it?
MR. GIBBS: Again, his vote was not necessarily needed on that.
Q So I guess, then, just extending that, it would be okay for other senators to do the same thing this year, as long as they know that ultimately –
MR. GIBBS: There may be some that send a message. But I think what is important is that the ultimate bottom line is we shouldn’t upset the notion of that full faith and credit. We shouldn’t, as some have rhetorically done leading up to this, suggest that that’s a good way to deal with this, is simply to let — to not pass that extension.
We understand, as Austan said — and, look, Austan is a very bright economist. The effects of something like that, as he said last weekend, would exceed anything that we saw in the financial collapse in 2008.”
Back in 2007 we began to play The Great Pretender youtubes and to call Obama a flim-flam man. When Bill Clinton called Obama’s vote on the Iraq War resolution a “fairy tale” Clinton was rewarded by being called a “racist”. Yet every day we learn that the Obama history is a fairy tale written by a corrupt autobiographer and abetted by corrupt party hacks and Big Media.
Whether on FISA, Iraq, Social Security, Health Care, Guantanamo, Debt, Deficits, budgets, stimuli, intellect, work history, or votes, Barack Obama is a full fledged scam artist flim-flam man. Whether voting present or voting “incorrectly” or on energy, Exelon or Illinois health care, Barack Obama is nothing but a scam artist flim-flam man.
Barack Obama will continue to scam and flim-flam – interrupted only by golf, basketball, and vacations – until he is stopped. The list of broken promises will continue to grow until he is stopped.
Things will get much worse for those of us who are not Republicans or conservatives. But Barack Obama must be stopped. “Issues” will be the next Obama flim-flam. Barack Obama and his flim-flam crew know the only way they can survive is to divide and conquer the opposition. But only one thing must be remembered by those in opposition to Barack Obama, no matter what side of the issue divide we find ourselves in:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.