« | »

Obama Blames Limbaugh Again At DNC Fundraiser

From the Atlantic Wire:

Obama Tells Harvey Weinstein, Justin Timberlake to Blame Rush Limbaugh

Elspeth Reeve | May 13, 2013

President Obama told donors like Jessica Biel, Justin Timberlake (who was wearing hipster glasses), and Tommy Hilfiger that Washington gridlock is pretty much Rush Limbaugh’s fault on Monday evening at a fundraiser at Harvey Weinstein’s house in New York’s Greenwich Village.

Obama admitted that his theory — that after the 2012 election, the Republican "fever" would break, and they’d decide to co-sign some of his agenda — was wrong. "My thinking was when we beat them in 2012 that might break the fever, and it’s not quite broken yet," Obama said, according to the White House pool report. This is because of a certain corpulent radio host.

"I genuinely believe there are Republicans out there who would like to work with us but they’re fearful of their base and they’re concerned about what Rush Limbaugh might say about them. And as a consequence we get the kind of gridlock that makes people cynical about government."

Has any President in American history ever carried out such a long and dedicated jihad against a private citizen, as Obama is carrying out against Rush Limbaugh? Maybe Bill Clinton, who also targeted the same Rush Limbaugh. But Obama is even starting to out-do Clinton with his magnificent obsession.

Maybe Obama should use a drone on Limbaugh. After all, he is clearly an enemy of the state, and the source of all of our nation’s political problems.

But notice what an inadvertent compliment this is. What Obama is really saying is that Senators and Congressmen don’t vote the way he wants because they are afraid Mr. Limbaugh will tell the truth about them. If it wasn’t for Limbaugh, the news media would be able to protect them. But since Limbaugh will actually report on what they’re doing, they have to worry that their constituents will hear the truth and kick them out.

Obama [told the donors in 2012 that he had had erroneously] predicted that being a lame duck would actually be a perk:

"I believe[d] that if we’re successful in this election, when we [were[ successful [in the 2012 election], that the fever may break, because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that…

And if Republicans refuse to cooperate? Well, unlike the president, they do face reelection. Obama suggested he would crush them in the midterms. "If there are folks who are more interested in winning elections than they are thinking about the next generation then I want to make sure there are consequences to that."

That is, Obama had hoped to silence all opposition with his victory in 2012. But now he realizes he will have to crush the Republican Party in the midterms to do silence the opposition once and for all.

And then, only after he has crushed the Republicans and silenced all opposition, does he intend to govern, as The Times report on this same fundraiser makes clear.

From the New York Times:

In Manhattan, Obama Tells Supporters That He Intends to Govern

By MARK LANDLER | May 13, 2013

President Obama, his troubles piling up in Washington, traveled to Manhattan for a busy evening of fundraising for the Democratic Party, telling audiences that progress was being stymied by a persistent wave of “hyper-partisanship” in the Capitol.

“My thinking was that after we beat them in 2012, well, that might break the fever,” Mr. Obama said at a fundraiser at the West Village home of the film producer Harvey Weinstein, referring to Republicans. “And it’s not quite broken yet. But I am persistent, and I am staying at it.” …

But the president’s tone reflected a sense of frustration and a desire to get back to governing. He spoke about having only three and a half years left in office, and what he would like to accomplish in that time.

“I want everyone to understand that my intentions over the next three and a half years are to govern, because I don’t have another race left. If we’ve got folks on the other side who are prepared to cooperate, that is great and we are ready to go. On the other hand, if there are folks who are more interested in winning elections than in thinking about the next generation, then I want to make sure there are consequences to that.”

Again, Obama is threatening anyone who dares to oppose him with "consequences."

By the way, note how The Times neglects to mention Rush Limbaugh.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, May 14th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Obama Blames Limbaugh Again At DNC Fundraiser”

  1. Noyzmakr

    Now he’s going to start governing? Please Mr. President, don’t start doing your job now. The country couldn’t survive it.

    This guy can’t take responsibility for anything he does. Moochelle better get a DNA Paternity test done one those rug rats of hers. It obviously can’t be his fault that she was punished with those children. Come to think of it, he’s probably too damn lazy to do make the effort of sex.

    What a POS this guy is. I hope he enjoys his eternity with his father, the ruler of this world.

  2. There’s NO SUCH THING as governing in the democrat party. It’s MANIPULATION. Everything is to be infiltrated with party supporters and rigged. Carrot and stick are carefully measured out to keep things on course.

    I have to hand it to the democrats, they are VERY good at politics. Republicans are still decades behind, thinking that if they just keep maneuvering around, eventually they will get their way, or some sort of compromise. They won’t. The democrats will move forward by leaps, or my millimeters, and if all else fails they will grind to a halt and wait it out, but NEVER are they going to lose ground.

    I just wish Republicans figured out how to play the game the same way, maybe they would have the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court in their hands again, oh snap, they did, when Bush was president, and they failed to move the ball forward at all.

    • captstubby

      the democrats have always controlled the ball.
      they invented the political party in America with Jackson and Van Buren,
      as a way to stop anti slavery laws and “free states” in Congress.
      the Republican party was formed at first as , well ,”the not Democrat Party.”
      as hard as they try, you can’t beat Democrat BS.
      they wrote the playbook.

  3. I’d pay God fine money to be there when Obama is face to face with having to own up

    yes, I would

  4. canary

    This is why Obama came out yesterday saying “uh uh duh. I just now heard about the IRS issue…uh..uh..let’s see…uh…I think it was on Friday….huh? uh. that I first heard something about the IRS…uh..uh…uuuuuuh…so…uh…

  5. Rusty Shackleford

    Just remember, and the line in the article that says, President Obama, his troubles piling up in Washington, traveled to Manhattan for a busy evening of fundraising for the Democratic Party, telling audiences that progress was being stymied by a persistent wave of “hyper-partisanship” in the Capitol. “ is a give-away that reveals the media’s fawning love for the guy.

    1) It’s not his fault
    2) It’s hyperpartisanship
    3) They can’t wait to write follow-up narratives about how super-duper-president-good-guy rose above it all and was victorious. Sort of like they did for Bill-Jeff the cigar-man only more.

    So all this “troubles piling up” may be interpreted by conservatives as troubles he’s brought on himself but the rest of the sentence is clear that the national socialists think it’s not his fault and he’s better than partisan bickering, ignoring of course, all the while that he laid the foundation for it, built it and put the star on top of it. It’s his and his alone, though he had plenty of help of course, much the way Hilter had tons of help with the “Jewish problem” and the other creations that only national socialism can provide.

    Oh, he’s a piece of work all right. All the words used to describe him in the negative are accurate and that’s why the left embraces him. He’s everything that can be wrong in a personality and as dysfunctional as they come, so naturally, he is surrounded by just-as-dysfunctional people who couldn’t know what the right thing to do is in any circumstance. They have never grown out of their emotional cocoons and cannot think the way mature adults do.

    Thus, like so much else about this jerk, his “above-it-all” demeanor is just another fabrication upon the sand that is his pathetic personality.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »