New RNC ad highlights President Obama’s economic failures

Republican National Committee

A new “Change direction” RNC ad uses President Obama’s own words from 2008 to highlight the colossal economic failures of his administration.

The ad highlights that under President Obama, there are: 6 million more foreclosures, $3.7 trillion added to the national debt, 2.1 million more unemployed, 3 million more bankruptcies, and a tidal wave of federal government regulations.

 

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2012 Election, President Obama | 78 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Good ad. The “Theme from 24” background music sets the tone well and the use of Obamas own words to highlight the failure to live up to the initial hope people had invested in him is effective.

    Obama has been a failure by even his own yardsticks, most notably the stimulus. $1T spent on that alone and unemployment went up. A stupendous mistake in the minds of many and the epicenter of the money swirl going down the drain. Sure, some still cling to the idea that Obama didn’t know how bad things were, that they would be even worse without his money flinging. That about as valid as claiming that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s, but had we not invaded, he would have obtained them.

    he likes of Paul Krugman will argue Obama should have spent more, and thats why the presidents plans aren’t working.

    How absurd. Obama could not have spent more. We don’t have the money and we aren’t going to have the money any time soon. The insanity of saying things would all be ok if we could just spend more money is about as usefull as the average halfwit pondering how great his life would be if he could just get a huge pile of money.

    Krugman and his ilk pointing out that life would be grand if Obama had a big huge pile of money to spend, is about as useful as the average teenager pointing out how great life would be if they had their own car and party house coupled with a revenue stream from a rap career.

    Only Obama could think that whining about wanting more money and continuing to blame Bush is leadership. Only Paul Krugman could think pointing out Obama needs more money was sage advice

    The answer is we cannot afford Obama’s answers.

    • 3H

      Well, we’ll see what happens when spending is slashed as the Republicans want.  My guess?  The economy will worsen when the government isn’t spending as much.  That happened in 1938 when Roosevelt was persuaded to try and balance the budget and cut spending.

      Krugman’s solution isn’t just spend more stimulus, but he wants the President to put it into the hands of people who will spend it.  Even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that the problem is essentially a lack of spending.

      Only the Republicans would believe that slashing spending will magically improve the economy.

      • Anonymous

        Obama toady. What can he be expected to say?

         Krugman wants the money put into the hands of people who will spend…that’s for sure…preferably spend it to make life tough for business owners and job creators, spend it for more and bigger government, spend it, spend it, spend it. That’s basically Obozo’s idea of how to run government.

        • 3H

          I think spend it – and prime the pump, so to speak.   Extending unemployment, grants to states to continue projects that would immediately put the money back into the economy, etc…   Without people spending money, businesses are not going to hire and increase their production.   Even the WSJ acknowledged that.   If the Republican’s get the cuts they want — where do you see the money coming from?   What should be cut?  

          • Anonymous

            Why am I not surprised. Of course you want to spend the money. It doesn’t matter how…just spend it. 

            The way to get people to spend money is to put them to work. But Obozo would rather put the people on the dole. The left leaning Real Clear Politics pretty much summed up Obozo’s problem with its reporting on the SOTU in January:

            “President Obama’s State of the Union address demonstrated anew that although he pays lip service to smaller government, less regulation, and deficit reduction, his heart is elsewhere.After two years in office, and despite having taken a “shellacking” in the November election, the president continues to believe in larger government, government as a provider of services, government as an employer not of last resort but of first resort.”

            Combine those comments withe the truths in the RNC ad and you begin to understand why I don’t like Obozo and why I’ve never liked Obozo. I wasn’t fooled by his campaign rhetoric and I certainly am not fooled by his big governemt ideas as President.

          • 3H

            And in order to get people to start working – which he does want to do even if I disagree with him on many particulars – is to have people spending money.   Businesses are not going to expand if no one is willing to spend.   Again, as the WSJ pointed out, it is a Demand problem.  

            Cutting the deficit now is not going to help that – it is only going to take even more money out of the economy.  

          • Anonymous

            Obama wants to get people to start working? Really? Then why is unemployment at 9.2 percent…up more than 25 percent from when Obama took office? Put people to work and they will spend money…I promise.

            Spending money won’t put people to work. If it did, then Obama’s stimulus would be seen as a success rather than an abject failure. So,if increasing government spending isn’t the answer, maybe we should try the other alternative which is cutting spending.

          • 3H

            He does…  just because unemployment hasn’t been brought down doesn’t mean that he wants there to be unemployment.   For a variety of reasons, his stimulus package has not worked as he would have liked.   My opinion?  It was spent on the wrong things. 

            Oh yes, spending money will put people to work.  As goods and services are bought, businesses will expand to fill the demand.  If no one spends money, our economy tanks.  Taxes are at their lowest in something like 30 years – why haven’t lower taxes stimulated the economy?  Why aren’t businesses re-expanding and hiring new employees and producing goods?  

            So, when we talk about deficit reductions of 1 trillion+ which is the number I see – what should be reduced?   Medicare?  Medicaid?  Social Security?  Unemployment?  Welfare?

            Oh.. when Obama took office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was at 8.5% – so the increase to today is 11% not 25%.  

            Consider this – without the stimulus (and this is a purely intellectual exercise) the economy would actually be worse today.  Just something to ponder.

          • Anonymous

            Obama’s debt program hasn’t worked because it was a bad idea from the get go. As anyone who has followed John Maynard Keynes knows, You can’t spend your way out of debt. Roosevelt tried to follow Keynes and it failed, it renewed the Great Depression. Jimmy Carter tried to follow Keynes and it resulted in record inflation. Clinton wanted to follow Keynes, fortunately that desire was stifled by the Republican Congress in his second term.

            Increased spending never put anyone to work. Why are we experiencing unemployment in a period of record low taxes? Because Barack Obama has given us record high spending with his so-called stimulus plan. Businesses aren’t expanding because Obama’s “stimulus” has put the locks on credit. Business cannot borrow money to expand.

            What programs are we going to cut? You named ’em. All of the entitlement programs will have to at least be cut. We can no longer afford them. Medicare will become a problem in about 12 years, Social Security in 25, or so, years. While we’re at it, we need to put former state workers on realistic pensions.

            When Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent (unadjusted) and it climbed to 10.6 percent. I’m not a math wiz but I think that comes to about 27.3 percent. The official numbers also don’t account for the famous underemployment or those who have given up looking for jobs. So, 25 percent is actually low.

            Rather than calling your without the stimulus statement “purely intellectual exercise,” I would call it purely conjecture.

          • 3H

            As far as I can see.. it has never been 10.6 – 10.1 was the highest, and then dropped.   It is currently 9.2%.   

            The 10.1% was in October of 2009 – it does take time for policies to take effect, so we could no doubt argue over to whom that unemployment rate belongs – but certainly the first 3 or 4 months of unemployment belongs to Bush.  Just because Obama is in office, does not mean he is responsible for those numbers.   

            From October 2009 until May of 2011 the unemployment rate has been dropping – very slowly, but hit a low of 8.8.  He gets credit for the 8.8%, right?  April through June saw upticks to where it resides now… at 9.2%  

            Finally… this is what you posted: “Obama wants to get people to start working? Really? Then why is unemployment at 9.2 percent…up more than 25 percent from when Obama took office? Put people to work and they will spend money…I promise.” 

            You changed your numbers to make your facts fit.  How creative.  Lets take YOUR 9.2% and YOUR 7.7% – that’s a 16% increase.  By your own statement..  there has been no 25% increase.  Unless you want to keep changing your numbers.

            I think that at least the unemployment numbers for the first 6 months of Obama’s presidency still belong to Bush – and in June 2009, the unemployment rate was 9.5%.  So….   unemployment has dropped a little under Obama.   

            http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

          • Anonymous

            10.6 was the highest unadjusted unemployment rate. The current unadjusted rate is 9.3 percent. Even though it doesn’t include underemployment and those who have dropped out of the system, the unadjusted rate is without all of the games that BLS plays with the adjusted numbers. Like I said, I’m no math whiz, but if I did this right that comes out to a current number of 23.7 percent.Pretty close to 25 if you ask me. I was just spitballing it in the first post and came pretty close.

            Isn’t that nice the way you blame Bush2 for the first six months…just enough to make sure the blame for the current unemployment number goes to Bush2. Of course, earlier in your post you said it was three to four months:”…we could no doubt argue over to whom that unemployment rate belongs – but certainly the first 3 or 4 months of unemployment belongs to Bush.”

            The first couple of months is more like it. (Hey, you said we could argue about it.)

            Now, truth to tell, I don’t think any president should get credit or be blamed exclusively for the employment rate. Other things, chiefly the business cycle, are at least equally important. But the way we do things is lumping it all on the shoulders of the sitting president. Therefore, Obozo gets the blame for the unemployment rate never being below eight percent in his term and Bush2 gets credit for an unemployment rate that only occasionally topped six percent during his term. Tough luck Barry.

            By the way, what are you going to do about the engineers who are flipping burgers and those who have just plain given up? Some estimates say the real unemployment rate is pushing 20 percent.

          • 3H

            Why debate?  You’ll just keep changing your numbers.   

            I didn’t say it was 3 or 4 months, I said “at least” – you need to read more carefully. 

            “Now, truth to tell, I don’t think any president should get credit or be blamed exclusively for the employment rate.”

            And yet, that is exactly what you did.   

            Well..  wasn’t it 7.7 in his term?  That’s below 8% right?   That was in his term.

            I’m sure somewhere along the line you’ll have a new number – you seem awfully fluid in what “facts” you use and how you use them.  

          • 3H

            So, if you don’t trust the BLS – where did you get your 10.6 number?  And why did you change the 9.2% you originally stated to 10.6?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Consider this – without the stimulus (and this is a purely intellectual exercise) the economy would actually be worse today.

            Consider this, the stimulus could have been spent putting approximately $3,000 into every man, woman and childs pocket directly. Think that might have worked better?

          • 3H

            Absolultey it might have.   I’m not a very big on bailing out the big boys – I do believe that most of the stimulus should have gone into the hands of people who would spend it. 

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Only the Republicans would believe that slashing spending will magically improve the economy.

        Well, them, most of Europe, and pretty much every economist with the exception of Krugman. But otherwise you are right. 

        • 3H

          I would argue that not just Krugman, and Reich, but quite a few economists.

    • Anonymous

      There is plenty of money available for stimulus — tax revenue is at a 60-year low. 

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Tax revenue do go down when you have huge unemployment. Wonder of wonders. Did you also know one gets wet while showering? Also, another tidbit of information, fire will very likely burn you if you put your hand into it.

  • Bob Clark

    Bama likes to play sugar daddy; but when you borrow to pay for the candy, it won’t help us as sugar daddy won’t have no dough to help meet even the contingencies on down the road.  Even Keynes didn’t believe in stimulus through borrowed monies, but from pre saved monies.

    So, the only real stimulus left is to throw off some of the chains of regulations; and most particularly, the over zealous EPA regulatory uncertainty,  FCC regulation, Dodd Frank (replace it with classic Glass-Steagall (the new coke ain’t working…need to go back to classic coke)), and ObamaCare.  Deregulation doesn’t cost the government much of anything but spurs more business investment.  An extra percentage point of National income growth from such deregulation would buy more public services without borrowing from the future.

    • 3H

      “Deregulation doesn’t cost the government much of anything but spurs more business investment.
       
      Depends upon what you deregulate.  Someone will pay for that deregulation whether it will be in increased health or clean-up costs. 
       
       “Dodd Frank (replace it with classic Glass-Steagall (the new coke ain’t working…need to go back to classic coke)),”

      As long as you mean going back to Glass-Steagall and not simply repealing Dodd-Frank and returning to Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah right 3H, what we need is more regulation. Yep more regulation of job creation…more regulation of companies like Boeing who dare to go against the wishes of the machinists union…the only place we don’t need more regulation is of labor unions. The unions should be allowed to do anything they wish with the full compliance of the NLRB. Uh-huh…Yeah, right.

        Dodd-Frank was nothing but an attempt by DUMBoCRAPs to return to what they considered the glory days of FDR and Glass-Steagall. Gramm-Leach-Bliley is well thought out legislation and only gives the financial services industry the rights it should have under any circumstances. The only person who could disss GLB is a union loving Obozo toady.

        • 3H

          I don’t believe I said anything about more regulation.  We were talking about deregulation – and you specifically mentioned the EPA, so that is what I was commenting on.  

          Well.. you did say you wanted to go back to Glass-Steagall.  If that was sarcasm, it’s unfortunately lost since tone doesn’t come through so well on posts unless you add an emoticon.

          I think many of us feel that Gramm-Leach-Bliley is exactly what helped us end up in the financial mess we are in today.

          • Anonymous

            First, I didn’t mention the EPA, Bob Clark did and rightly so. I would call the EPA situation currently rather uncertain…at least it was uncertain before Rs took over the House and increased their clout in the Senate.

            Second, you talked about deregulation which last I checked was the antithesis of regulation. So, since you chose to dismiss government deregulation, I chose to champion deregulation and dismiss regulation for the incorrect governing policy it is.

            Again, it was Bob Clark who talked about going back to Glass-Steagall… incorrectly this time I fear. Glass-Steagall and Dodd-Frank were both government regulation ploys. So again you were talking about government regulation. Just because you didn’t say explicitly that you support government regulation doesn’t mean your support didn’t come through clearly.

          • 3H

            “Again, it was Bob Clark…”

            LOL.. you are correct..   that’s what I get for not paying better attention. 

              
            “So, since you chose to dismiss government deregulation…”

            I didn’t dismiss government deregulation – I said it depends on what we deregulate.  I just sometimes get the feeling that many Conservatives see polluted air, land and water as a reasonable price to pay for doing business.  However, I’m willing to withold final judgment until I see the particulars of what they want deregulated. 

          • Anonymous

            Your comment about deregulation seemed rather dismissive to me. You certainly weren’t promoting the concept, To quote myself:

            “Just because you didn’t say explicitly that you support government regulation doesn’t mean your support didn’t come through clearly.”

          • 3H

            No.. I didn’t promote the concept.  Nor was I entirely dismissive of it as you seemed to assume I was. I tend to have a balanced view that some regulations are excessive and some are not.   The fact that you assumed says more about you than it does about me.  But I’m starting to suspect that you put words in their mouths based on your assumptions.  Pity.

          • Anonymous

            “But I’m starting to suspect that you put words in their mouths based on your assumptions.”

            Huh? I’m putting words in whose mouth?

            You just don’t seem to be getting it. Why, I don’t know, but I’ll try again: You pooh-poohed deregulation. The opposite of deregulation is regulation. Therefore, if you dismiss deregulation, you promote regulation. I can’t make this any simpler, so if you don’t get it…well, I’m at a loss.

          • 3H

            I did not pooh-pooh deregulation – those are the words you’re putting in my mouth.  If you have question about what I mean, then ask.  However, you assume you know and you don’t.  You are the one who isn’t getting it.   I did not dismiss deregulation – unless you mean remove ALL regulations, then yes, that is an idea I am pooh-poohing.   I want to see what is to be deregulated – which to my mind isn’t removing ALL regulations, just some.   Too nuanced for you?

          • Anonymous

            I give up. You’re right. You never said anything but the absolute best about deregulation. You never pooh-poohed it. You never said anything bad about deregulation.

            There. Does that take care of it?

          • 3H

            Why do you think that the only choices are deregulation vs. regulation?  Don’t you think it’s possible that some regulations are good while others are bad?   Or is it really all or nothing to you?

            Let me ask again… do you think ALL governmental regulations should be ended when it comes to businesses and industries?

          • 3H

            Why do you think that the only choices are deregulation vs. regulation?  Don’t you think it’s possible that some regulations are good while others are bad?   Or is it really all or nothing to you?

            Let me ask again… do you think ALL governmental regulations should be ended when it comes to businesses and industries?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Someone will pay for that deregulation whether it will be in increased health or clean-up costs.

        Nonsense. Deregulating the phone company resulted in none of this. Deregulating airlines resulted in none of this. Deregulating trucking resulted in none of this.

        >As long as you mean going back to Glass-Steagall and not simply repealing Dodd-Frank

        Putting Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in charge of banking reform was pretty much like putting Charles Manson in charge of a day care center. Really bad idea, trust me on this one.

        • 3H

          I was talking about the EPA, which Bob explicitly mentioned.

          LOL.. why should I trust you?  Instead of bashing Dodd and Frank, why don’t you discuss why the bill was bad?  Do you think nothing should have been done?  That the banking laws were fine until they tightened them up?  What, specifically, in Dodd/Frank don’t you like?  Other than it came from Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

        • valley dude

          But the EPA has little to do with airlines, and nothing to do with phone companies. It has to do mostly with the air your kids breathe and the water they drink.

          Putting Phil Graham in charge of banking reform turned out to be what you just described.  It was his successful push for deregulation, abetted by the Clinton administration by the way, that opened the door for banks to turn the national economy into a roulette table. The Dodd and Frank bill establishes new rules for the roulette players to help prevent a repeat.    But that dang private sector is sure to find a way to create the next bubble. Investors can’t help themselves when it comes to chasing speculative gains.

    • Anonymous

      Playing sugar daddy? Look at column 7 of this chart and then tell us who likes to play sugar daddy….
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

      • Anonymous

        Yes, very interesting. It looks more like the make-up of the Congress has more to do with spending than the occupant of the White House. Or more appropriately, how the Congress and the president get along.
        What we find is that when Congress was held by Democrats, spending went up…unless both were Democrat (Carter.) If the president was an R and Congress was dominated by Ds, spending went up. If Congress was dominated by Rs, spending was constrained…or as was the case in Clinton’s second term, spending was dramatically decreased. Spending was even impacted in a slightly negative direction in Clinton’s first term where the first half of his term had a D Congress and the second half was R. With GW Bush spending was up 7.1% in his first term when he had a mostly Republican Congress to deal with. In his second term, with Democrats in control of both houses in the 110th Congress, the increase was a spectacular 20.7%.

        My hunch is that in the second half of Obama’s term (yes, Obama’s term) you’ll find spending decreases with the tax writing House in R control and the Senate being effectively split.

        It just doesn’t do for the US to have the Democrats controlling the Congress.

        • Anonymous

          Your reading of the data is clearly selective, ignoring the Carter years, JFK & LBJ years, and Truman years. It also ignores the fact that it is the President who send a budget to Congress, and the President who has veto power over Congressional legislation, including budget legislation.

          • Anonymous

            Look at my post again David, I specifically referenced the Carter years. Otherwise, I didn’t consider anything prior to Nixon/Ford which is when increases in spending/GDP began to leap markedly. I had mentioned that in my post but removed it to cut down on the amount of space. Funny too how you ignored the Eisenhower years in your post. You just can’t give a Republican credit can you?

          • Anonymous

            Spending didn’t increase after Nixon/Ford. It increased after *Carter*, that is, with Reagan. Reagan was the one who broke with fiscal tradition and took the lock off the door, especially with his advocacy of supply-side economics. Nothing has ever been the same since.

          • Anonymous

            The Nixon/Ford term was the first time on the chart that the figures went into the red. As I noted, it went down in the Carter years when Jimmy enjoyed a Democrat Congress.  Ronald Reagan had to put up with a Democrat House where all taxes begin. 

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I give Eisenhower a lot of credit — he was the last decent Republican, one unmotivated by greed and selfishness. We would be far better off today if we had heeded his warnings about the Military Industrial Complex.

          • Anonymous

            Nice of you to give Eisenhower credit…when you’re called for ignoring him. You’re wrong too about Eisenhower being the last good Republican. There was Reagan but, of course, all of you liberals hate him because you could never deal with his success. There was also Bush1 whose only problem was that he made one stupid remark about taxes and lips. Without that comment Bill Clinton never would have been president and Monica and the cigar never would have happened.

        • valley dude

          Not sure where you got your data. under George W Bush spending went up a cumulative 32% from 2002-2006, all with a Republican majority Congress, not the mere 7% you state.  His last 2 years included the financial implosion that led to the TARP bailout, which accounts for the huge increase in spending you attribute to Democrats, even though most Republicans voted for TARP. (And as it has turned out, Obama spent far less than Congress authorized under TARP, and it  is projected to end up turning a small profit to the taxpayer).

          http://mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/WP0904_GAP_Spending%20Under%20President%20George%20W%20Bush.p
          df

          Spending over the past few years has been driven by increased entitlements due to an aging population combined with an economic downturn. These 2 items result in automatic spending increases, they do not result from what Obama asks for nor new spending passed by Congress. its not Obamas fault that we have an aging population, or that past Congresses created entitlement programs.

          The only real increase in spending attributable to Obama is the stimulus bill and the health care bill. THe first, like it or hate it, was short term emergency spending due to the downturn Obama inherited. The second is projected spending that is backed by projected Medicare cuts and a small increase in taxes to pay for it. It has no negative impact on the deficit, yet will get helath insurance to over 30 million Americans who lack it. 

          • Anonymous

            According to Wikipedia the debt to spending ratio for GW Bush’s first term in office was 7.1 percent.You’ll find the numbers in the chart on this page:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

            The only increases directly attributable to Obama may be the stimulus and Obamacare but they are devilish increases. They result in record deficit levels, record debt and record spending (if carried out.) Don’t try to blame Bush2…especially he had nothing to do with Obamacare.

            As for automatic spending increases, Social Security hasn’t been increased in three years.

          • valley dude

            You said “spending was up” 7% under Bush. Not that you were referring to some sort of spending ratio. 

            Stimulus spending did temporarily increase the deficit. The health care bill did nothing to increase the deficit, and in fact according to the CBO reduces the deficit over time.

            I would never blame Bush for improving health care access for Americans, don;t worry about that one.

            Social Security payments have increased because an increasing percent of Americans has qualified to receive checks, resulting in more checks sent out, not because the check amounts have increased.   The “automatic” part is that once people become eligible they can collect by law. There is nothing Obama can or should do about that.

          • Anonymous

            Well then, I guess Bush2 did a bang-up job if he managed to keep the debt to spending ratio at only 7.1 percent when spending increased 32 percent.

          • valley dude

            Yes, he sure banged things up didn’t he? It will take us a decade or more to recover from his banging.

            He could increase spending at a faster rate than spending to GDP ratio because the economy is not static. It grew at an average of a little under 2% during his 2 unfortunate terms.  The most anemic 2 term growth of any president since Hoover by the way. But it wasn’t his fault. It was Barney FRanks fault or something like that.

            What I’m curious about is what stock you put in this Debt to GDP ration? Do you think it is a cause of economic activity or an effect?

    • Anonymous

      What evidence is there that over-regulation is what’s dragging on the economy?

  • Hobojoe

    Hardly need an ad to know about this guy. Just take a look a round. Is anyone other than union thugs better off than they were two years ago???
    I don’t think so….except maybe the unemployed and the homeless.

  • sarah snow

    Is there anyone who investigate Obama’s ties to 9/11????????????????/
     George Soros/Joyce foundation/Tides Foundation/Anneberg Society/Goldman Sacs/Muslims/9/11/William Ayers/WEATHER underground/CCX-Chicago Climate Exchange/Chicago/Al Gore/Maurice Strong/Richard Sandor/ACORN/Fannie-Freddie/Frank Raines/Beridine Dorhn/ Housing Crash/ Geithner/ Nancy Pelosi-illegal vetting/no birth certificate/Connect the dots!!! OB?ama!!!
    Climate change formerly known as global warming is a COS. Do some research on Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX), Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Ob?ama, and Richard Sandor, and the rest of the Chicago crew..like Joyce Foundation, ACORN,  and Willam Ayers, u know WEATHER Underground. 44% (1142) of the people killed on 9/11 were in direct competetion with CCX, Carlton Bartels was among that 1142 people. He had developed a computer program CO2 calculator, that was eventually given to Frank Raines, of Fannie/Freddie fame by the Democratic Congress, Dec 2006.How many Congress and Senators had stock in CCX, and who wants to do the math as to how many TRILLIONS Ob?ama and Al Gore and Maurice Strong and others will personally make if they can pass Cap & Trade.
     O was a lawyer for ACORN in 1997 or 1999 global warming is the new 9/11 an excuse to pass anything,,and what have we heard for 2 years,,Bush’s fault..what a good cover…Where did Obama come from?? why the cover up on O’s birth certificate and all records and info,,he has ties to every know anti-American criminals in the world..it all ties back to Obama…… birther truther racist,,,I’ve been called names I had to look up to see what they meant….    http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress%2F2011%2F2011-46.htm  http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2010/06/rico-investigation-needed-now-about.html   http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/04/specific-companies-in-world-trade.html http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/reply.php?messageid=730194&page=1&quote=11194295  http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/obama-maurice-strong-al-gore-key-players-cashing-in-on-chicago-climate-exchange/ http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2010/04/fannie-mae-owns-patent-on-residential.html http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Columnists/A_Time_For_Choosing/MORE_ON_OBAMA_AL_GORE_CRIME_INC_EUROPES_CARBON_MAFIA_AND_OURS/29981  http://www.examiner.com/orange-county-conservative-in-orlando/scandal-obama-gore-goldman-joyce-foundation-ccx-partners-to-fleece-usa

     why the cover up on O’s birth certificate and all records and info,,he has ties to every know anti-American criminals in the world..it all ties back to Obama…… birther truther racist,,,I’ve been called names I had to look up to see what they meant….    http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress%2F2011%2F2011-46.htm  http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2010/06/rico-investigation-needed-now-about.html   http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/04/specific-companies-in-world-trade.html http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/reply.php?messageid=730194&page=1&quote=11194295  http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/obama-maurice-strong-al-gore-key-players-cashing-in-on-chicago-climate-exchange/ http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2010/04/fannie-mae-owns-patent-on-residential.html http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Columnists/A_Time_For_Choosing/MORE_ON_OBAMA_AL_GORE_CRIME_INC_EUROPES_CARBON_MAFIA_AND_OURS/29981  http://www.examiner.com/orange-county-conservative-in-orlando/scandal-obama-gore-goldman-joyce-foundation-ccx-partners-to-fleece-usa 
    why the cover up on O’s birth certificate and all records and info,,he has ties to every know anti-American criminals in the world..it all ties back to Obama……
     
    birther truther racist,,,I’ve been called names I had to look up to see what they meant….
     
     
     
     
    http://www.google.com/gwt/x?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2Fnews%2Fpress%2F2011%2F2011-46.htm
     
    http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2010/06/rico-investigation-needed-now-about.html
     
     
     http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/04/specific-companies-in-world-trade.html
     
    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/reply.php?messageid=730194&page=1&quote=11194295
     
     
    http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/obama-maurice-strong-al-gore-key-players-cashing-in-on-chicago-climate-exchange/

     
    http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2010/04/fannie-mae-owns-patent-on-residential.html

    http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Columnists/A_Time_For_Choosing/MORE_ON_OBAMA_AL_GORE_CRIME_INC_EUROPES_CARBON_MAFIA_AND_OURS/29981
     
     
    http://www.examiner.com/orange-county-conservative-in-orlando/scandal-obama-gore-goldman-joyce-foundation-ccx-partners-to-fleece-usa

    • 3H

      wow

    • Anonymous

      What have you been smoking? Your outlandish comments do nothing but cloud the issue.

      The RNC spot is right on the money. Almost everything Obozo campaigned on was a lie. He said what he determined the voters wanted to hear…not what he planned to do. Obozo clearly has in mind ruining this country and turning it into another European Socialist joke. If Republicans hadn’t prevailed in 2010, Obozo would still be working toward that end.

      But dragging in a perverted truther argument, by resurrecting the birther argument, you do nothing to advance the discourse. Obozo needs to be taken down a notch or three but the way to do it is with his own words, as the RNC did, not with some convoluted assertions.

  • gaetano

    YOU ASKED FOR HIM ,YOU GOT HIM!

  • Pingback: try this out()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: cs go merchandise()

  • Pingback: free movie downloads()

  • Pingback: watch movies online()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: best bottled water()

  • Pingback: kangen water machine()

  • Pingback: DIRECTV vs Cable()

  • Pingback: 3gp mobile porn()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: laane penge nu()

  • Pingback: water ionizer machine()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: Click Here()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: electrician lineman salary()

  • Pingback: paypal loans()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: local 5 electricians()

  • Pingback: pop over to this site()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: electricity()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)