In analyzing some of the backlash of Scott Brown's historic victory in Massachusetts, pundits from both sides of the political spectrum are incorrectly claiming Obama reneged. Obama didn't reneg, they just weren't paying attention. Sadly, many voters weren't paying attention either.

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

Wrong. Obama never claimed fiscal sobriety. He misled voters to believe he was going to reduce the deficit when he planned to increase it.

Mort Zuckerman writes:

Wrong, Mort. You didn't get it. Obama explained he was going to grow the deficit, you just weren't paying attention.

Chris Matthews, speaking to Rachel Maddow said:

Hey, Chris, perhaps that tingling up your leg was that sense of fiscal overreach?

These analysts failed to understand what Obama meant when he said he would be cutting the deficit in half. Let's go over it again...

Every single person who voted for Obama voted to increase the rate at which we grow the National Debt. They voted to grow the National Debt even faster than we had under Bush. Obama told you so.

Related

Deficit Kabuki theater: Democrats act like they care about debt by Michelle Malkin

Consensus is that we all must do everything we can to help Haiti. While this platitude is easy to agree with, reality isn't so simple. While self-important aid groups demand money, I'm forced to question where will my money go? Will it help to prop up gangsters as seen in this video, or will it help people truly intersted in saving Haiti?

Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to teach others to fish, and you'll have saved Haiti.

Hehe.

Let's restore the sanctity of the individual and of individual responsibility. You will be responsible for your own fate. If you take risks and are wildly successful, good on you. If you break the law, too bad for you; welcome to prison.

I suspect both unions and corporations try to get away with as much as they can. The problem is that criminal-members are abstracted from legal penalties levied against their group. They should not be. Individuals should share in both the successes and failures of the groups they participate in. After all, as an individual, you made a decision to participate in that group, then re-made that decision every single day you returned to work.

Individuals good. Groups bad.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Doesn't it irk you when the government dictates you must tolerate the misbehavior of others? Isn't it wrong that, despite your ardent belief that abortion is murder, you are required, as a taxpayer of the United States, to support it?

Why?

What responsibility does government have to obligate us to support anything? Where in the Constitution does it say it's the responsibility of the federal government to financially support any activity?

I'm not even arguing those activities should be illegal. I'm merely asking why money has to be taken from me and sent to a so-called doctor to suck a baby into a sink. ...or to a failing auto company. ...or to a failing bank. ...or to a failing state government.

I don't agree with supporting any of these things. So why must I support them?

Is it my duty as a citizen to financially support things I believe are the antithesis of a mature, Free society? I don't believe so. Rather, I believe it's the duty of government to protect me from such thievery.

So what do we do when government that was constructed to protect us becomes the very thing we must be protected from? Must we resist and agitate as to risk our lives and property? Must we risk jail for not going along?

I believe we do.

As difficult as that sounds, it's true. After all, what good are your life and property if they are the controlled and dispensed at the pleasure of government?

This one has a lot of folks scratching their heads. Fear not, friends. This is a classic Obama-esque pivot.

Obama is trying to convince you he cares about America sooo much that he will fight to prevent the release of photos of supposed detainee abuse. But...let's not forget that it was Obama who (incorrectly) raised the alarm about abuse in the first place.

He's made it a foregone conclusion that detainee abuse has occurred. By referencing these images, he implies that they exist. He implies they are so bad that releasing them would foment anti-American hatred. He is basically declaring "I decided America tortured, and you don't need any evidence."

By not releasing these photos, he prods the imagination of every lefty and terrorist to dream up their own version of how EVIL the Bush administration is.

Obama encourages a natural reaction to demand the release of said photos. After all, when accused of a crime, who doesn't want to see the evidence against them? But to react this way is to fall into the trap Obama has set for you. The trap that tries to depict Obama as the protector, and you as the person who wants to defame the United States.

The trap, however, is very easy to avoid. Just remember it was Obama who started this fiasco by accusing the USA of torture and releasing national secrets for political gain. Regardless of whether the photos are released, Obama has already fomented anti-American hatred.

He's trying to get his cake -- defame the USA by accusing it of torture -- and eating it, too -- appearing to protect the nation by preventing the release of these photos.

Obama is dangerous indeed. He's endangering the nation while posturing as its protector.

I guess I'm going to have to start buying my breakfast cereal from this guy...

...but when Obama's in office, they make fun of his critics.

Wanda Sykes is a disgrace. For a cheap joke, she slanders Mr. Limbaugh and Barry-O yucks it up.

Wanda Sykes must be mentally retarded, because Rush explained the exact opposite of what she said. As Rush explained, Obama's policies are harmful for the country. When Obama increases taxes on employers -- the villified $250k and above -- they are less able to hire. Less hiring = fewer jobs. It's 1 + 1 = 2, and she missed it.