There’s no hope that Obama will change

Loading

Obama_God

Wordsmith put up a post saying that the “shellacking” democrats took this election would save Obama’s Presidency. At first I thought I could see how that might happen, but that presumes a man capable of humility and of being chastened.

I don’t believe Barack Obama is that man. I think he’s going to double down on stupid.

Make no mistake- this election was a total, utter repudiation of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama put his policies and, by default, himself on the ballot. America squashed him like a bug. Obama campaigned for Anthony Brown in Maryland, who Drudge amusingly referred to as Obama’s “mini me”, and Brown was defeated. Obama campaigned for Pat Quinn of Illinois and Quinn went down as well. Before yesterday it seemed inconceivable that the election would find Republicans governors in Illinois and Maryland. The Illinois loss was said to be a “real blow” to Obama.

There have been some entertaining and conflicting reports flying around since yesterday. Over at The Hill they claim Obama has gotten the message:

White House aides acknowledge that Tuesday night was tough, but say they and the president recognize the message sent by the results.

and they added:

The president, aides say, is eager to get to work, telling staff he wants them to make the most out of every day of his remaining time in office.

And the administration is hoping to convey a willingness to work with new Republican leadership in light of Tuesday’s stinging rebuke.

That doesn’t fit the narrative being peddled over at Politico, where Carrie Brown says Obama isn’t backing down.

Voters demanded change from Washington on Tuesday, and Republicans say it’s now up to President Barack Obama to deliver it.

But don’t count on that happening.

No indeed.

At the same time, Obama won’t back down from using his administrative powers, including plans to issue an executive order on immigration that could be the most aggressive unilateral action of his presidency. He’ll adhere to a progressive agenda that, officials said, will keep the base excited, position his party to win back the Senate and hold the White House in 2016, and seal his legacy. And he will continue to use the bully pulpit to promote liberal issues, such as stemming climate change, that stand no chance of passing Congress on his watch but might under his successor.

And there’s Jonathan Karl of ABC News who also says Obama will act alone on immigration “no matter how big a shellacking Democrats get tonight.”

Obama doesn’t even feel repudiated:

The Republican capture of the Senate culminated a season of discontent for the president — and may yet open a period of even deeper frustration. Sagging in the polls and unwelcome in most competitive races across the country, Mr. Obama bristled as the last campaign that would influence his presidency played out while he sat largely on the sidelines. He privately complained that it should not be a judgment on him. “He doesn’t feel repudiated,” the aide said Tuesday night.

Bill Clinton lost the House in 1994 and went on to see the budget balanced and welfare reform happen, thanks to Newt Gingrich and the Republicans. I don’t see it happening with Obama. Clinton had a huge ego, of course, but he wasn’t megalomaniacal as is Obama. As I said, I believe we’ll hear some obligatory happy talk but ultimately we’ll see the same ole same ole Obama, whose words mean nothing the day after they’re spoken. In other words, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Should be an entertaining two years. We don’t get fooled again.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htz9CS-Zmms[/youtube]

UPDATE

Toldja

WHAT LANDSLIDE? Obama threatens vetoes and executive orders – including immigration reform THIS YEAR – after Americans reject him by giving Republicans historic gains in Congress

– ‘Congress will pass some bills I cannot sign,’ the president warned
– He has only vetoed two minor bills since his inauguration in 2009
– And ‘I’ll take some actions that some in Congress will not like,’ Obama added, referring to threatened executive orders
– Those include a bold move on immigration ‘before the end of the year’
– President sounded more like a winner than a loser despite his policies being repudiated on a national scale
– Never articulated a single policy where he would shift his position to align with GOP majorities in both houses of Congress

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Richard Wheeler:

Lets see if they’re smart enough to keep guys like Perry and Cruz off the 2016 ballot.

I wouldn’t rule Perry out. He was a very good governor. Like I said, I’m not too thrilled at the prospect of having another senator as president.
Perry has a broader appeal than I think you give him credit for.
And my dark horse candidate……..Susana Martinez.

@Aqua: I’m gonna add Susanna Martinez and Nimrata Randhawa Haley to my Repub. watch list.
First glance—Kudos to Repubs.

@Greg:

There already was a national referendum on Barack Obama that was conducted post-Obamacare, post-Benghazi, post-IRS hearings, etc etc. The turnout was greatly in excess of the 2014 midterms. It’s generally known as The 2012 Presidential Election. The majority of voters in the United States didn’t even vote this year.

Since then, far too many (to the chagrin of the Democrats) of the lies of the left have been exposed. This was a referendum on liberalism, corruption and dishonesty.

@Aqua: Add Dr. Carson

How could the election be a referendum on anything with 37% turnout?

@rich+wheeler:

How could the election be a referendum on anything with 37% turnout?

In 2006, the GOP was somewhat happy with Dubya. Not necessarily with his domestic policies, but we were pretty good with the way he executed the war on terror.
As far as the house and senate were concerned, we were less than pleased. The republicans were out democrating the democrats. Spending was insane and they were doing nothing to deal with it.
Call it a referendum or a stern message, but the GOP stayed home that election. The republicans were soundly beat, losing the house senate.
Sometimes our voices are heard when we don’t vote.

@Aqua: Good point. The Dems stayed home and were unsupportive. I didn’t give em a dime in spite of quite literally 100+ pleas. Told them to stop begging and do their jobs.
The silence was deafening for the Dems. I’m not surprised they lost The Senate.
However, this was NOT a referendum against Obamacare or immigration reform.

@Richard Wheeler:

However, this was NOT a referendum against Obamacare or immigration reform.

Keep telling yourself that, Richard. We Republicans are counting on it.

@retire05: And Dems are counting on you running Cruz. for Prez.–maybe Sarah for Veep?
BTW The good and bad of those phony ssi cards–forces them to pay taxes they’ll never get back

@Greg: Get real, Greg (yes I know that’s impossible, but) there is not a major aquifer in the US that is not underneath a pipeline. Look at a map of major aquifers and look at a map of all the pipelines in the US. You’ll see that the Ogallala aquifer is already going dry anyhow, but has dozens of pipelines already passing over head. One more will not make a difference.

@Richard Wheeler: Rich, your wrong if you think this was NOT a referendum against Obama!! Republicans ran against his policies including immigration and Obolacare with little else and the result speaks for itself. The 2/3rds that stayed home said the same thing!! The statistics relevant to those Democrats who lost all supported Obolacare!! I do believe that Black voters stayed home because they are racist and the fact that Obama and his policies where being defeated and also that the cornbread Democrats who moved away from Obama during the election cycle paid the price for this!! The defeats speak for themselves!! I laugh when you want Cruz to be the Republican candidate, won’t happen and you know it.

@Redteam: Redtaeam, clearly Greggie is still in shock that Obola and his policies where so soundly defeated!! He NEVER proves his point but just spews garbage without relevance!!

Just for the record, there are 4 million babies born in the USA each year. I’m not sure how many of them are ‘natural born’ (having 2 citizen parents) but surely there are enough that we should be able to find one natural born citizen each 4 years to run for president. We have tried this experiment of having a non-natural born citizen one time now, and surely everyone will concede it has been an unmitigated disaster, so let’s follow the constitution next time and nominate and elect a real American as president.
Here is a partial list of unqualified persons: Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, that’s only 4 persons, so surely in the 300+ million citizens there are plenty of qualified persons. Let’s stick with natural born.
Good candidates: Not in any particular order: Perry, Walker, Kasich, Carson and there are others. Martinez I don’t know anything about. We certainly don’t need Christie, McCain, Romney or any other Rino’s.

@Common+Sense: I will agree that Obozo got a clear message that he is a failure. The people that did vote, voted against him. The people that ‘didn’t vote’ were an even bigger message for the Dimocrats and their experiment in foreigners in charge of our government.

@Richard Wheeler:

However, this was NOT a referendum against Obamacare or immigration reform.

Of COURSE it WAS. Even Chris “Tingles” Mathews recognizes this and railed against Obama especially on Obama’s “executive amnesty plot” words during the president’s morning after “Presser”. The shift in the House of Representatives was staggering and the greatest Republican shift in 100 years. Republicans took control of more state assemblies and senates (including both of Nevada’s state houses. Republicans also did very well in governor’s races including winning blue states. You, Greg and Obama are only deluding yourselves.

@Ditto:

You, Greg and Obama are only deluding yourselves.

nothing new there!!

The only chance the GOP has for a republican in the White House following the 2016 elections is to find a candidate that will appeal to moderate voters, to women, and to ethnic minorities. They’re going to have a very difficult time finding a candidate like that who also appeals to their hard line conservative faction. This is a big problem.

A presidential election year will also have a much higher voter turnout than a midterm. Democratic voters will be motivated. I think the GOP will likely be hard pressed to maintain their majorities in the House and Senate. Much depends upon whether they can accomplish anything genuinely constructive, now that they control Congress and have no excuses if they don’t. Early indicators are that they may simply double down on their petulance and continue flailing away at Obama, but that really can’t be judged until the new Congress is seated.

Consider that delusional thinking if you wish.

@Greg:

and continue flailing away at Obama,

Obozo has lost, he’s not important any longer.

@Greg:

The only chance the GOP has for a republican in the White House following the 2016 elections is to find a candidate that will appeal to moderate voters, to women, and to ethnic minorities.

Wrong. In Fact Obama’s leadership is going to make “more of the same” a very hard argument for the Democrats. After seven years of high unemployment under a Democrat Senate and President with the majority of jobs going to immigrants (legal and illegal), All the Republicans need to do is show a solid front on a better direction for America rather than more socialism.

If the Republican leadership works on legislation that results in more jobs, improves the economy, lowers energy prices, secures the border and if they also start small, piece-meal immigration reform that shows a little compassion yet reinforces the rule of law without opening the floodgates, then the voters will support the new Republican plan for 2016. Obama being the narcciccist he is will of course veto many bills and try to take all the credit for the few he signs, but the public will recognize that it took a Republican Congress to make things better, and reward that.

@Redteam, #67:

Perhaps, then, republicans can cease devoting 95 percent of their total time and energy to their “Obama must fail” project. They’ve got two years to demonstrate that they can actually do something useful.

@Greg:

to their “Obama must fail” project.

It is correctly named ” Obama has failed”.

I’m guessing that none of the signature legislation he promoted will be repealed.

What have republicans accomplished during the past 6 years? Besides shutting down the government at a total cost of $24 billion to American taxpayers, damaging the nation’s credit rating, and successfully misleading their constituents about their intentions to win elections? I would be wondering who has actually failed me. Unless, of course, the only real objective is to win elections.

@Greg:

Besides shutting down the government

Obozo gets credit for that, he’s in charge. Remember.

Unless, of course, the only real objective is to win elections.

Are you saying the Dimocrats didn’t win because they ‘didn’t intend’ to win? Good thinking…..

Choosing “not to vote” is also a decision which equates to surrendering the rule of your government to the will of those who do vote. By so many Democrats choosing “not to vote,” they effectively washed their hands of the direction that Obama and the Democratic leadership have taken this country and the polls reflect this abandonment. It has been said to be the lowest turn out since 1942 Think about that and you’ll realize just how much Democrat voters rejected their leadership.

According to Guy Cecil, (executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) comparative technological capabilities were irrelevant to the outcome of the 2014 wave election. “Republicans could have carried a Commodore 64 on a wagon going door-to-door… it wasn’t going to change the fundamental dynamics of the election,” he added.

It is not surprising that the man most responsible for ensuring Democrats turned out to vote in Senatorial elections on Tuesday might be eager to find someone or something else to blame for the party’s electoral debacle. But Cecil’s view that the 2014 midterms were a national wave of opposition to President Obama’s policies is widely shared across the country by pundits, political operatives, and regular voters alike.

Speaking at the same conference on Thursday, Cecil’s counterpart at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Rob Collins, agreed that the 2014 midterms were a wave election.

“Is it a wave? Yes, probably, historically speaking it will be argued this was a wave election,” Collins told the Roll Call election analysis broadcast on C-SPAN.

In 2012, many Conservatives and Republicans made the same decision regarding the (Democrat-lite) establishment candidate Romney and washed their hands of the Republican presidential candidate. While Congress changed very little (except for the success of a handful of TEA Party supported Republicans,) Democrats spun the results of that election greater than they actually were and a few even theorized that Obama and the Democrats had a mandate. (A conclusion not supported by the electoral counts.) In the 2014 elections however, great changes to the political balance were made in races all over the nation that greatly favored Republicans. Clearly, giving the Republican party the opportunity and power to counteract the “wrong track” direction of Obama, the Democrats and to end Harry Reid’s Senatorial obstructionism. Had the public considered the Republicans as the “obstructionists” they would not have given them an even greater and staggering majority in the House unseen in 80+ years.

Given this electoral ‘mutiny’ by the voters (aided by the surrender of the non-voters,) , the only conclusion can be that the Republican party has been given a mandate to steer the ship of state in a better direction, against the will of it’s current captain and 1st officer who seemed determined to sail full steam into an iceberg. We also note that greater Republican power has been granted in some states to help correct the course no doubt as insurance in case Republican control of Congress is not sufficient to combat the continued disregard of our Constitution, ego-enraged lashing out and narcissistic tantrums thrown by this nation’s Despot in Chief.

Minor correcting of myself regarding my post in #68:

After seven years of high unemployment under a Democrat Senate and President with the majority of jobs going to immigrants (legal and illegal), All the Republicans need to do is show a solid front on a better direction for America rather than more socialism.

Even though it seems much longer, I’m quite aware that Obama has only been president for nearly six years. What I meant to write was:

After seven years of high unemployment under a Democrat Senate and six years under a Democrat President with the majority of jobs going to immigrants (legal and illegal), All the Republicans need to do is show a solid front on a better direction for America rather than more socialism.

@Common+Sense: You say Cruz won’t get nom. Don’t tell Retire 05.
Ditto Agree that by not voting the Dems were registering displeasure with Obama personally. Do not confuse it with an endorsement of the Republican Party. It was not.

@Richard Wheeler:

However, this was NOT a referendum against Obamacare or immigration reform.

I think it was most certainly a referendum on executive action on both subjects.

I’m for immigration reform. I’m not for the Gang of 8 version. It should be done right. The border should be secured, we should be able to track those that overstay their visas and deport, we should have a worker visa program, and most importantly, we need to come up with a way that discourages people from coming here illegally in the first place. The way to do that is e-verify, and kill the anchor baby rule. When people try to bust our borders, we should be in a position to believe they are doing so with the intentions of harming our citizens, not looking for work.

@Rich Wheeler:

You say Cruz won’t get nom. Don’t tell Retire 05.

Rich, as you well know there are MANY republicans that think Obama is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to be president but got tired of the national press calling them birthers, a term created about Hillary Clinton’s team about Obama. Those people are not going to support a person that is EVEN more clearly not a natural born citizen, whether they SAY it’s for that reason or not. Personally I like everything about Ted Cruz and his politics, but there is no way in hell I will vote for a person that is not a natural born, qualified citizen. Cruz will not be the nom. I believe it’ll come from Walker, Kasich, Perry or Carson group.

@Rich Wheeler:

Ditto Agree that by not voting the Dems were registering displeasure with Obama personally. Do not confuse it with an endorsement of the Republican Party. It was not.

That’s true. People now ‘vote’ by not showing up. If you’re worth voting for, they will take the time to go vote. Many people are totally disgusted with the foreigner occupying the white house and stayed home in droves. That wave will likely be even more visible in the 16 election, and the repubs will take the occasion to run some idiot like Christie, that is about the furtherist thing from a conservative that they could run. That will give the Repubs something to be sick of the next election so another Dim can be elected. Standard election cycles.

@Rich Wheeler:

I’m confused about nothing here, but you and Obama are in denial and refuse to face the facts that even Democrats recognize. The great number of votes for Republicans was indeed an endorsement of the Republican party, to deal with the Democrat’s refusal to take job creation measures, and with Obama’s past actions and his threat of illegally granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Republicans clearly have a mandate by the numbers, which exit polling supports. Democrat’s staying home enabled that mandate by their displeasure.

Democrats Congress critters who stood in massive support of Obama’s agenda for the last six years, and ignored the plight of the middle-class were severely punished by the electorate for their arrogance. They knew the backlash was coming which is why so many of them ran away from both Obama and their own voting record. They completely ignored the subject of illegal immigration, or recanted their previous support. Nor was there any visible party message aside from the tired old rhetoric of trying to yet again to unjustly paint Republicans as racists and trying to lead women to make their vote based on their sexual organs. Arguments that are beginning to wear thin as more women and blacks are increasingly coming to the realization that they are being manipulated by these tired old Democrat claims.

Democrats lost deservedly and Republicans won massivly. Accept the reality and deal with it.

@Greg:

What were your predictions months ago about this just held national election? Did you predict a Republican wave? I don’t think so.

So your thoughts about 2016 are as valid and invalid as anyone else’s. We don’t know what will happen. HRC is not a shoe in. She brings little of substance to the table. I do realize to the average Democrat substance means little if anything. She will be tarred with her association to Obama. It will stick to her like stepping in dog crap. All she needs to do is keep making statements about how business does not create jobs. One can only hope Elizabeth Warren goes against her. Watching HRC try to out Warren, Warren will be fun. I will have plenty of popcorn ready for that one.

As much as folks like you think people Like Cruz are nuts, HRC to folks like me are just as nuts. The 1990’s are long gone. Her record as sec of state is dismal at best.

Right now can you name 5 things she will do different and better than Obama, that she can run on?

2016 is wide open right now.

@Ditto, #78:

The great number of votes for Republicans was indeed an endorsement of the Republican party, to deal with the Democrat’s refusal to take job creation measures, and with Obama’s past actions and his threat of illegally granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

I totally disagree. The only people who endorsed the GOP were those who actually voted for republican candidates. They represent a only a bit more than one-half of the 36.6 percent of all eligible voters who even bothered to cast a ballot. In other words, the GOP was endorsed only by 20 percent or so of all eligible voters.

Republicans House and Senate majorities seem to believe that’s some sort of across-the-board endorsement or mandate. They’ll certainly be in a position to test their theory, come January. All they need to do is put together and pass legislation to repeal or effectively counteract provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, the Fair Pay Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, etc. That’s evidently what they believe they’ve been elected to do.

Obama will be obliged to either sign or veto each bill as it hits his desk. How voters feel about what their various elected officials have done should then become totally apparent on Election Day 2016.

I’m guessing republicans won’t take that risk, but I may be wrong.

Some people seem to be angrier about the midterm outcome than I am. Some direct their anger toward those who voted. Personally, I think any feelings of blame or annoyance should be directed toward those who didn’t bother to show up.

From Like the Dew, a Journal of Southern Culture and Politics:

CONGRATULATIONS VOTERS.

Here is what you rejected by voting out the democrats:

65 straight months of economic growth
A record 56 months of private sector job growth
Unemployment falling from 10.1% to 5.9%
The budget deficit reduced by two-thirds
7-10 million more Americans now have health insurance
Income taxes are lower now than any time in 50 years for 95% of American taxpayers
Fewer Americans in harm’s way in war zones
Zero attacks by al Qaeda on US soil
President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president
Record stock market growth

Here’s what Republicans gave us the last time they were in charge:

Two economic recessions
The worst financial collapse sine the Great Depression
The worst terrorist attack in history
The two longest wars in US history
The worst record of job creation since Herber Hoover
A complete collapse of the stock market
A budget surplus turned into a trillion dollar deficit.

We played America. Well played.

The author found links to sources backing up these points here.

@Greg:

Oh, Greggie, you are sooooo gullible.

65 straight months of economic growth

At the lowest rate since the Great Depression

A record 56 months of private sector job growth

And a work force at levels that have not been this low since the Carter Administration

Unemployment falling from 10.1% to 5.9%

Only because the Obama Administration no longer counts as unemployed those who have run out of unemployment insurance benefits. Real unemployment? over 17 million

The budget deficit reduced by two-thirds

Total budget deficit in the first 5 years of the Bush administration – $1,514.4 billion
Total budget deficit in the first 5 years of the Obama administration – $4,865.0 billion

National debt at the end of the fiscal year 2009, the last year of the Bush administration, was $11.9 trillion. Since then, Obama has added $6 trillion in debt. The greatest amount of debt under any president. Out debt now, for the first time, exceeds 100% of our GDP.

7-10 million more Americans now have health insurance

Now come on, Greggie, you know those numbers are bogus. You’re not counting the people that have lost their insurance under Obama.

Income taxes are lower now than any time in 50 years for 95% of American taxpayers

Only because median income wages have decreased under Obama. The middle class has seen a net loss in income.

Fewer Americans in harm’s way in war zones

The price of losing a war that was basically won. And Afghanistan will wind up being another Iraq, and then Obama will be forced to send troops there again, just like he is currently doing in Iraq.

Zero attacks by al Qaeda on US soil

What? Nidal Hassan was not a follower of Al Qaeda? Who knew?

President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president

Only because, as Jeh Johnson admitted in a Congressional hearing, the Obama administration now counts as “deported” those that are turned back at the border. No other administration has ever used that rule.

Record stock market growth

Just like in the early 30’s. Nah, nothing to fear there.

Some people will not let you, or your lackey links, twist figures to suit your agenda.

You’ve got to measure all improvements that took place during the Obama administration from the plunge to the sub-basement level where the Bush Administration left off. I don’t know how republicans have managed to create a blind spot about that reality. The largest federal deficit in U.S. history was during fiscal year 2009. That was the last year of a Bush Administration budget and the first year of the Bush Administration legacy.

The Bush tax cuts? Not such a good idea in retrospect, according to the Economist. All they ultimately did was transfer a lot more wealth to the already-wealthy, while setting the nation up for record deficits that were passed on to the next administration.

Give them a chance and they’ll do the same sort of thing all over again, because they’ve learned absolutely nothing. Except for that part about the upward transfer of wealth and income, which could be characterized as a recurring objective.

Oh, Greggie, you are sooooo gullible.

Gullibility is what puts the GOP back in the driver’s seat no matter how many times they wreck the family car.

@Greg:

You’ve got to measure all improvements that took place during the Obama administration from the plunge to the sub-basement level where the Bush Administration left off.

You can only give Obama credit if you discount the prosperity that was under the Bush Administration until the effects of Bill Clinton putting the Community Reinvestment Act on steroids and ordering the GSEs to accept at least 50 percent of all subprime mortgages. Economists warned that was a dangerous act, but not one Democrat was willing to listen. And then it all fell apart causing the deficit of 2009. Now, Greggie, you can dismiss those facts all you want, but it doesn’t make them any less true.

You want to ignore that under Obama this nation saw the highest sustained unemployment percentages since FDR. Or that the real unemployment number is 17 million, middle income wages have decreased and inflation in those things that are the true cost of living, housing, food, utilities and gasoline, are climbing (all except for gasoline which is finally coming down thanks to fracking yet it still is not under $2.00/gal as it was when George Bush left office) and the American public is worse off than it was five years ago.

Gullibility is what puts the GOP back in the driver’s seat no matter how many times they wreck the family car.

The GOP won last Tuesday not because they are so good, Greggie, but because the nation thinks Obama is so bad.

@retire05, #84:

The GOP won last Tuesday not because they are so good, Greggie, but because the nation thinks Obama is so bad.

Ah. That would explain why Obama’s average job approval rating is currently at 41.8 percent, while that of Congress remains at 12.7 percent. Rasmussen currently has Obama at 48 percent.

That’s not so bad far a president at this point in a second term. The loss of legislative support during the final 2 years of a second term isn’t unusual, either. It’s the norm. It’s been the case with every 2-term president from Dwight Eisenhower’s administration through the present one.

Republicans had better stop celebrating and figure out how to do something more useful than claiming that they’ve somehow un-elected Barack Obama.

@Greg:

Ah. That would explain why Obama’s average job approval rating is currently at 41.8 percent, while that of Congress remains at 12.7 percent. Rasmussen currently has Obama at 48 percent.

I have never thought that Obama’s approval rating would drop below 39%. That is because there are so many true believers like you, Greggie, that no matter how bad it gets, you continue to believe the Light Bringer will eventually make it better.
As to the Rasmussen poll of likely voters; it’s an outlier. Look at the other polls, including those from the left side like CNN. And of course, you didn’t mention the polling on Obamacare. Even after all these years, it is just as unpopular now as it was when enacted. That failure can be laid at the feet of no one but the Democrats.

Yes, Congress has a low approval rating. Lower than it has ever been. But then, Republicans control only the House, and the Senate under Harry (Real Estate) Reid is where legislation has been going to die.

Huffington Post? Really, Greggie? No wonder your brain is fried.

Republicans had better stop celebrating and figure out how to do something more useful than claiming that they’ve somehow un-elected Barack Obama.

You mean unlike the Democrats who have taken us down the crap hole?

Your cover is blown, Greggie. You don’t dispute the facts I presented because you know you can’t dispute the truth. The only reason you ever comment is to try to spin what most Americans can see with their own eyes; Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is a massive failure.

Maybe ol’ Mitch McConnell should have clearly explained to Kentucky voters that the Kynect Kentucky healthcare exchange they all love is actually part of the Obamacare that they’ve all been told they should hate. Do you think he’s really going to try to repeal it? Or was that just another line of b.s. to get gullible people to vote for him?

Figure on 2 more years of anti-Obama posturing and rhetoric that’s backed up by no meaningful action. Because meaningful action would have negative consequences for them in the next election. People would begin to separate truth from fiction.

@Greg:

Greggie: “Blah, blah, blah, Obama is great, blah, blah, blah, Mitch McConnell, blah, blah, blah.”

You are like a warped record, Greggie. Never anything worth while to contribute, just the standard leftist boiler-plate you glean from sites like HuffingtonPost.

I would think you would be embarrassed to show what a fool you are. But I guess not. Did you fry your brain with marijuana over there in Vietnam, Greggie?

Republicans oppose minimum wage laws, although real wages for middle and working class Americans have been stagnant for decades. They also opposed any efforts to recover or limit bonuses paid to CEOs heading financial concerns that had to be bailed out on the taxpayers’ dime to keep them from wrecking the entire economy. They’re all hot on border control and anti-illegal residents, after blocking efforts to make employers who provided the sub-standard wage jobs that lured them here responsible for verifying their employees’ citizenship status. They cut taxes for the wealthiest while attempting to destroy social programs that provide food and housing assistance to the poorest. They provide tax cuts to the wealthiest while turning a blind eye to tax incentives for moving manufacturing overseas. They resisted the Affordable Care Act, but passed Medicare Part D with a restriction preventing the government from bargaining for lower prescription prices. They pass out favors to wealthy special interests in return for campaign dollars, while characterizing any efforts by democrats to address economic or legal injustices affecting regular people as vote buying.

Figure it out. It shouldn’t be difficult. It isn’t all about Obama.

@Greg:

Republicans oppose minimum wage laws, although real wages for middle and working class Americans have been stagnant for decades.

Minimum wage increases do nothing to lift the poor out of poverty, Greggie. It only serves to increase the price of consumer goods, hitting the poor the hardest. Econ 101
Real wages for the middle class have fallen under Obama and a major part of that is due to the higher cost of living under Obama. Again, Econ 101

They also opposed any efforts to recover or limit bonuses paid to CEOs heading financial concerns that had to be bailed out on the taxpayers’ dime to keep them from wrecking the entire economy.

And the Democrats, who were in total control then, should have started with Government Motors. Ed Whitaker took the job for $1.00 a year, but he made out like a fat cat in a good garbage can on stock options at a reduced price. He was also Obama’s pick.
Remember, much of the bailouts, and the approval for CEO bonuses was written by Timothy Geithner, another Obama pick. Blame him.

They’re all hot on border control and anti-illegal residents, after blocking efforts to make employers who provided the sub-standard wage jobs that lured them here responsible for verifying their employees’ citizenship status.

I didn’t notice any Democrat campaigning on how well E-Verify works. Why was that, Greggie? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t work because the Social Security Administration refuses to work with ICE.

They cut taxes for the wealthiest while attempting to destroy social programs that provide food and housing assistance to the poorest.

An American birth certificate is not a guarantee of a life of living off the tax payer. You Socialists blather a lot about the “poor” but never address why people are poor. And when you have large screened TVs, microwaves, X-boxes, $100 athletic shoes, can buy tobacco, alcohol and lottery tickets, you are not poor.

They provide tax cuts to the wealthiest while turning a blind eye to tax incentives for moving manufacturing overseas.

Many of the tax cuts you whine about were created in the FDR Administration. Ummm, remind me again, what party did FDR belong to?

They resisted the Affordable Care Act, but passed Medicare Part D with a restriction preventing the government from bargaining for lower prescription prices.

Excuse me, there is nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act. It was sold as being a panacea for lowering health care costs. It failed because it was never designed to do that. And if it is such a great deal, why are people like me, losing their existing health care that I happened to like? You can whine about the Republicans and the ACA all day long, but they voted against it and the nation still rejects it. Check with your RealClearPolitics poll, Greggie.

They pass out favors to wealthy special interests in return for campaign dollars, while characterizing any efforts by democrats to address economic or legal injustices affecting regular people as vote buying.

Hello? Solyndra? Hello? All the “green” projects that Obama backed that are failures and bankrupt?

Go to bed, Greggie. You have lost your comic value.

@Greg:

In other words, the GOP was endorsed only by 20 percent or so of all eligible voters.

No, Greg. They were endorsed by every eligible voter that did not vote against them. That’s how it works; if you do not vote for something or against something else, you take what you get and you are satisfied with it. What you are saying is that all these people who did not vote hate Republicans but think what the Democrats offer is so sorry that it is not worth going to a polling station to take responsibility for it.

Now, while it is true that the recession of 2007 happened under Bush and the Republicans suffered for it (that’s what happens, Greg; the party in power, rightly or wrongly, takes the hit for things that go bad under their rule), the causes of the recession goes back much farther than those “Bush economic policies” that you love to refer to but can never name. No, the damage was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act and all the financial shenanigans that went along with it. So, while the Republicans suffered electorally for this disaster, the entire nation has suffered immeasurably for the electorate not being able to determine why the collapse actually happened. We still suffer.

So, hooray, you say, for Obama for bringing unemployment down from 10.2%? Do you happen to remember Obama promising that if we hand him $865 billion to be distributed among his campaign partners, unemployment would go no higher than 7.9%? You want to slap him on the back for driving unemployment up to 10.2%, then bringing it back down to previous levels? Even knowing that this is not the true unemployment figure and that most of the job growth claimed is for part-time jobs (thanks to Obamacare)?

The rule of liberal Democrats has been, in fact, good for the nation. It has shown what the alternative to acting like Americans can cause. It was like chemotherapy or radiation for a tumor; painful but necessary because apparently many people could not be convinced of how bad for America liberal ideology would be, so it had to be exhibited.

Thus, liberals lost all they could possibly lose.

Ah. That would explain why Obama’s average job approval rating is currently at 41.8 percent, while that of Congress remains at 12.7 percent. Rasmussen currently has Obama at 48 percent.

Way to find that silver lining. Of course, much of that is the responsibility of Democrats, but I bet the approval rating of Kim Jung Un is even lower. Why don’t you roll out that stat? At least somebody sucks worse than Obama.

The left has failed so miserably and so broadly that all they can do for votes is to toss out carrots that do not belong to them to try and harvest votes. Minimum wage, paid for by employers and amnesty, not theirs to give, is a poor substitution for failing to improve the economy or keep the nation safe. The Democrats need to go back to training and learn how to govern a republic. Thus far, they have failed, failed, failed.

@Bill. #91:

No, Greg. They were endorsed by every eligible voter that did not vote against them. That’s how it works; if you do not vote for something or against something else, you take what you get and you are satisfied with it. What you are saying is that all these people who did not vote hate Republicans but think what the Democrats offer is so sorry that it is not worth going to a polling station to take responsibility for it.

What I’m saying is what I actually said.

The only thing anyone really knows about eligible voters who didn’t bother to vote is that they didn’t much care one way or the other. It’s ridiculous for republicans to claim that indifference is an endorsement of their agenda or their candidates. It’s an endorsement of nothing and nobody. People don’t vote by not voting.

Republicans won a bit over one-half of a 36.6 percent voter turnout. What I stated involves nothing more than the answer to a simple arithmetic problem: What’s one-half of 36.6 percent?

@Greg: I’ve found Repubs./Conservs. only do math when it suits their purpose.
Guess what—I’ve found Dems. do the same.

Happy Birthday USMC

@Greg: Well, Greg, if Democrat voters were still on board the Obama choo-choo to oblivion they would have run out and voted… multiple times, as they have been trained. No, many a liberal has become thoroughly disenchanted with the promises of free goodies, getting out of Iraq, closing GITMO and taxing the evil wealthy into poverty. Many others are depressed by the lack of appearance of economic prosperity or even jobs. Still more are disaffected by having the jobs they lost in 2008 turned into low-paying part time jobs and their health care insurance wrested from their grip and replaced with something more expensive yet offering less.

These people voted, Greg, sure enough. For, they know had they voted, the Democrats would have held onto the Senate. If they had disliked the Republicans more than they were disappointed with their own lying Democrats, the would have handed the Republicans defeat and allowed Obama to complete his goal of “fundamentally transforming” America into the European ideal he lusts for.

They voted, Greg. Their non-vote was a vote. It may have been a vote against Democrats or a vote for Republicans, but they voted… against Obama’s lies and failure.

What’s one-half of 36.6 percent?

Democrat loss and Republican victory, Greg. That’s what it is.

@Richard+Wheeler, #93:

There’s the old joke that starts with the question, How can you tell when a politician is lying? Still, I think the intentions of some are more worthy than the intentions of others.

I really don’t understand the level of hostility on the right. I suppose it’s nothing new. I was watching an episode of The War last night that covered the year of FDR’s death. An old soldier was recollecting how saddened he had been as a young man when he learned of FDR’s passing. He was somewhere in Europe at the time. He prefaced that with the comment, My parents were republicans, so they hated him, of course. FDR was apparently loathed with the same intensity as Obama or Clinton.

I remember my father telling me how he’d learned of FDR’s death while serving in Italy. He’d just landed his B-25 and saw the flag flying at half mast. He asked a black EM what had happened, and the guy broke down crying.

@Greg: Most Repubs—at least the Ret 05 type, disliked Roosevelt and led the fight to amend the Constitution in response to his 4 terms.
This 37% turnout can be spun in many ways. An overwhelming endorsement of Repubs? Ridiculous.
HRC is the current frontrunner for 2016. The Repub. internecine fighting to come , will once again provide great good humor.

@Bill: We must remember that the lefties are still in the first stage of grief. Give them some time and they will become more hostile toward everyone as the result of last Tuesday’s blowout.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/000617

@Greg:

The only thing anyone really knows about eligible voters who didn’t bother to vote is that they didn’t much care one way or the other. It’s ridiculous for republicans to claim that indifference is an endorsement of their agenda or their candidates. It’s an endorsement of nothing and nobody. People don’t vote by not voting.

Had the Democrats swept the board like the Republicans did last Tuesday, you would be shouting to the mountain tops how the people had spoken, Democrats policies were approved by the voter (not mentioning anything about turn out) and this was a clear indication to the Republicans that their policies were not approved by the voter.

Instead, now you while about turn out and how the majority of voters were “indifferent.” Like everything else you claim, you’re wrong.

Democrat voters didn’t turn out not due to indifference, but due to the fact that they are Democrats and they see nothing of value for them in what the Democrats have done, but just can’t vote for a Republican. And while Obama was not on the ballot, to quote him, his policies were. And they were soundly rejected.

Your party took a thumping. Now all that is left for you is to try to make excuses, to justify the fact that in spite of the money that was spent by the Democrats, they could not excite their base and get them out to vote. Even with all the race baiting, the “war on women”, the lies and falsehoods could not carry the day for a party that is so out of touch with the rest of the population.

You see, Greggie, that Democrat who is out of a job and out of unemployment benefits, is in just as bad a shape as his unemployed Republican neighbor.

Democrat, and fear mongering global warmist proponent, Tom Steyer spend an estimated $70+ million trying to get Democrats elected. He spent millions in adverse advertising against Joni Earnst, only to see his money go down in flames. Only one candidate that he supported won.

Of course, Harry Reid will take to the podium and whine about the Koch Brothers, but he will never mention that Steyer pledge $100 million to Democrat candidates who would support his “green” agenda.

Your team lost. BIG. Now at least be honest about why.

Democrat voters didn’t turn out not due to indifference, but due to the fact that they are Democrats and they see nothing of value for them in what the Democrats have done, but just can’t vote for a Republican.

Ah, so what they were saying by saying nothing is what you say they were saying. Or maybe what some talking head on FOX News told you they were saying.

Let me know when that 12.7 percent average Congressional approval rating begins to climb. It will be a more interesting number to watch over the next 2 years, now that republicans are in control of both Houses.

@Greg:

Let me know when that 12.7 average Congressional approval rating begins to climb. It will be a more interesting number to watch, now that republicans are in control of both Houses.

Lest you forget, half of Congress is currently controlled by (tah-dah) the Democrats. But in your Kool-Aid addled mind, you probably think that low approval rate only applies to the House, and not the Senate.

Give it up, Greggie. You long ago ceased to be the voice of reason for the left wing agenda.

One other thing; most people are not as stupid as you think they are. They understand that you are like the kid who throws cow manure up against the barn wall to see if it sticks. You throw out your little DailyKos/HuffingtonPost talking points and then NEVER back them up when disputed. You are a fraud, a poseur, who can only parrot what you have been told to say.

How sad for an adult to act like you do.