No, I won’t post a video of Obama’s obnoxious lecture, this afternoon. If you missed it, believe me – watching this absurd Community Organizer reiterate a pack of lies, bash republicans and pretend he’s some kind of expert on the economy – is not worth your time. It’s also not worth your time to hear him answer the White House press corps’ questions because the ones he called on only threw softballs – if you can believe that.
But I will post an audio of Rush Limbaugh responding to it.
I think Victor Davis Hanson articulated what Rush was trying to convey in his latest PJ Media Column:
Amid all the charges and countercharges in Washington over the government shutdown, there is at least one common theme: Barack Obama’s various charges always lead to a dead end. They are chaos, and chaos is hard to understand, much less refute.By that I mean when the president takes up a line of argument against his opponents, it cannot really be taken seriously — not just because it is usually not factual, but also because it always contradicts positions that Obama himself has taken earlier or things he has previously asserted. Whom to believe — Obama 1.0, Obama 2.0, or Obama 3.0?
When the president derides the idea of shutting down the government over the debt ceiling, we almost automatically assume that he himself tried to do just that when as a senator he voted against the Bush administration request in 2006, when the debt was about $6 trillion less than it is now.
When the president blasts the Republicans for trying to subvert the “settled law” of Obamacare, we trust that Obama himself had earlier done precisely that when he unilaterally subverted his own legislation — by quite illegally discarding the employer mandate provision of Obamacare. At least the Republicans tried to revise elements of Obamacare through existing legislative protocols; the president preferred executive fiat to nullify a settled law.
When the president deplores the lack of bipartisanship and the lockstep Republican effort to defund Obamacare, we remember that the president steamrolled the legislation through the Congress without a single Republican vote.
When the president laments the loss of civility and reminds the public that he uses “calm” rhetoric during the impasse, we know he has accused his opponents of being on an “ideological crusade” and of being hostage takers and blackmailers who have “a gun held to the head of the American people,” while his top media adviser Dan Pfeiffer has said that they had “a bomb strapped to their chest.”
When the president insists that the Republican effort to hold up the budget is unprecedented, we automatically deduce that, in fact, the action has many precedents, and on frequent prior occasions was a favored ploy of Democrats to gain leverage over Republican administrations.
In short, whenever the president prefaces a sweeping statement with one of his many emphatics — “make no mistake about it,” “I’m not making this up,” “in point of fact,” “let me be perfectly clear” — we know that the reverse is always true. For Obama, how something is said matters far more than what is said.
Here, via The Senate GOP Conference, is a video compilation of King Barack I The Petulant and his toadies refusing to negotiate:
Republicans have passed more than a dozen bills to open the government and provide Americans with relief from ObamaCare, but Democrats continue to just say “no.” The American people reject the Democrats’ “my way or the highway” approach. It is time for Democrats to engage congressional Republicans to solve our problems.
Speaker Boehner at his press conference today addressed President Obama’s refusal to negotiate a path forward on funding the government, raising the debt limit, and protecting all Americans from ObamaCare.
Via his Blog the Speaker struck back at Obama’s charge that what the Republican “hostage takers” are doing is “unprecedented”:
President Obama has offered every excuse in the book to justify his refusal to negotiate with Republicans on the debt limit, but perhaps none is more absurd than his claim that doing so would be “unprecedented.” Not only have presidents of both parties negotiated over the debt limit for decades, the president himself has done so – twice. The first was in 2010, when Blue Dog Democrats in the House conditioned their support for a debt limit hike on passage of PAYGO legislation. As Politico reported at that time:
“Blue Dog Democrats are threatening to derail any legislation that raises the debt ceiling if the bill does not include provisions that would constrain Congress from continuing to add to the nation’s debt. …
“Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the Blue Dog’s policy chief, issued his most pointed threat Friday morning in a news conference with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), calling this the ‘bewitching hour’ for controlling the nation’s debt.
“‘The Blue Dogs are ready to make some very tough decisions on some legislation that’s still pending if we don’t get statutory pay-go,’ Hill said. ‘It’s time to deliver now.’”
So, what did the President & Democratic leaders have to say about this “ransom” demand?
- Then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “Obviously the President and the White House Are of Course Negotiating in Good Faith.” QUESTION: “Is the White House negotiating in good faith with these White House Democrats? Are they serious about enacting statutory PAYGO, attaching it to raising the debt limit?” … GIBBS: “Obviously the President and the White House are of course negotiating in good faith. We share the concerns of many in the Blue Dog caucus and many in the Democratic caucus and the Republican caucus that are concerned about the fiscal health of our country.” (Press Briefing, 12/22/09)
- House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD): “Their Proposition Is, I Think, a Fair One.” “And the debt limit is something that, from my perspective, and responsibly, we’re going to have to pass. But we need to pass it with fiscal discipline attached to it. … I’d think it would be very difficult to raise the debt limit without support in either chamber of those people who are very concerned about fiscal discipline. Now, their proposition is, I think, a fair one.” (Press Conference, 12/11/09)
House Democrats weren’t the only ones taking a hardline against a clean debt limit hike. Over in the Senate, several Democrats leveraged their support on the debt limit to try to force the creation of a deficit commission. As The Washington Post reported:
“A group of Senate Democrats insists that an increase in the debt ceiling be coupled with the creation of a bipartisan task force that could push deficit-reduction measures through Congress. Separately, conservative House Democrats are demanding rules be put into law that require new spending increases or tax cuts to be offset by spending cuts or a tax hike. … Negotiations between House and Senate leaders and the White House on the conflicting proposals are expected to continue into next week.”
In fact, 10 Democratic Senators – including Sens. Begich (D-AK), Bennet (D-CO), Feinstein (D-CA), Klobuchar (D-MN), McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson (D-FL), Udall (D-CO) and Warner (D-VA) – sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) at the time stating they “strongly believe that as part of the debate to increase the debt limit, Congress needs to put in place a special process that allows Congress and the Administration to face up to our nation’s long-term fiscal imbalances.” Sen. Feinstein went so far as to say “I will not vote for raising the debt limit without a vehicle to handle this.” Were these the “hostage-takers” the White House refers to?
“Refusing to negotiate is an untenable position,” Speaker Boehner said today. That position is made all the more untenable by the president’s arbitrary distinction between the demands his own party was making in 2010, and the demands House Republicans are making today, which are backed by the majority of the American people. It’s time for the president to stop talking to the cameras, and start a conversation with Republicans on a path forward on the debt limit, government funding, and protecting all Americans from his disaster of a health care law.