Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Obama Visits Columbus – Workers Lose Pay

By Greg L | 20 June 2010 | National Politics | 12 Comments

Guest Post by Sanford D. Horn

Barack Obama left his ivory tower to talk about the progress of the stimulus package, yet his visit cost construction workers a day’s pay and nary a word was uttered about it in the so-called main stream media. However, a BP spokesman, for whom English is not his first language, misplaced an idiom referring to the residents of the Gulf of Mexico as the “small people,” and all hell broke loose.

Obama just doesn’t get – he really doesn’t. While in the Columbus, Ohio area to give another one of his “rah rah,” innocuous speeches about how the alleged stimulus is working at the groundbreaking of a government-sponsored road project, a block or two away on Parsons Avenue in Livingston stood a hospital under construction void of its workers at the Turner-Smoot site.

Not only was the construction site shut down due to Obama’s security, but the employees were forced to take an UNPAID day off. Were I one of the workers at this construction site the only stimulus I would feel is the ire at this clueless administration. Could this be more wrong? These workers did not have a choice in this unpaid day off. Obama should pay the employees’ wages out of his own pocket – not the company till, and certainly not the taxpayers coffers – but Obama himself. Shame on him.

Obama was in town roughly 90 minutes, gave a 14 minute speech and then hustled out of dodge for whatever the rest of his agenda called for prior to showing up at Nationals Park to watch his beloved Chicago White Sox take on the home team in Friday night’s baseball game. And where was the union representing the income-deprived construction workers? Instead of fighting for the lost wages of those they are paid handsomely to represent, they are no doubt tucked snuggly in Obama’s back pocket.

As indicated above, the lame stream media did not report the whole story. The Washington Post, for example, had a picture of Obama with road workers standing supportively behind him – road workers benefiting from Obama’s largesse with the taxpayer’s money. No where in the lengthy, disingenuous story was it reported that the Obama visit supplanted the work of an entire construction site costing the workers a day’s pay. That information had to be culled from several on-line sources.

This is just another example of the cover up of an inept administration by a media unwilling to do their due diligence and report the whole story for the people who expect just that of a newspaper they pay good money to receive. Make the photo just a bit smaller and add a paragraph that completes the story giving the readers all the necessary information to make a fair assessment of a situation.

It’s called reporting, not fawning.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Ron Homan said on 20 Jun 2010 at 12:40 pm:
    Flag comment


  2. Disgusted said on 20 Jun 2010 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    …..so why didn’t the caring, concerned employer of the workers just give them the day off with pay since they’d been shafted by the man? You know construction workers don’t get paid for rainy days either…unless they have some sort of union deal…gonna blame bad weather on Obama?

  3. Rez said on 20 Jun 2010 at 12:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Disgusted, who caused the day long closure of the site, the concerned employer or the President? Why should the employer give up company money for that? Have we really reached the point in this country that profit is an ugly and evil thing to be avoided?

  4. Rez said on 20 Jun 2010 at 12:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    I might have some sympathy but this was a purely political trip that was wholly unnecessary and it caused people to lose wages.

    Can he or his staff that should look into these things do no wrong in your view?

  5. Groveton said on 20 Jun 2010 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    I was wondering when somebody would realize that “small people” and “little guy” meant the same thing to the Chairman of BP.

    Obozo is reaching new low level daily.

  6. Anonymous said on 20 Jun 2010 at 9:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    maybe you bozos can put your money where your mouth is and tell marshall to refuse the 28 overpass near wellington road being funded by the stimulus. That project is 20 years out of date! I guess the local construction companies will eat this one up. Some republican. Ha Ha HA

  7. Citizen12 said on 20 Jun 2010 at 10:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would suspect that the trip to Columbus was not only about stimulus spending but to give his democratic cohort Mayor Coleman a high five for his recent boycott of Arizona.

    It looks like just another democrat who will not read existing law because it conflicts with their socialist dogma.


    Or perhaps it’s just a million dollar air plane ride to compare notes on how they have spent their time in office spending everyone into oblivion.

    Columbus Has Nearly Used Up Rainy-Day Fund

  8. Disgusted said on 21 Jun 2010 at 4:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Rez, my point was that Mr. Horn’s missive on all the discomfort the president’s visit caused to these poor workers is, once again, just an example of his stomping his foot like an upset child because his guy didn’t win. I got it. I’m sure when W went out on the campaign trail the Secret Service did the same thing, only it was Mr. Horn’s guy, so it was overlooked. If the construction company felt so badly for its displaced workers, they could have paid them. But they didn’t, just as what happens when the weather halts work on a construction site. Business as usual for a construction company, and that is okay - they know it going in. If that is all Mr. Horn can up with, its a pretty weak example of “insightful political commentary”. Like Citizen12, I would have focussed on how much it cost for the entourage to go to Columbus and how that money could have been used to pay for additional work sites for more workers to earn a living, but I’m not an insightful political pundit.

  9. Rez said on 21 Jun 2010 at 6:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Disgusted, thanks for your post. It is nice to see that disagreements can be handled civily. That is why I sometimes hate electronic communication.

  10. Sanford Horn said on 22 Jun 2010 at 12:48 pm:
    Flag comment


    FYI, “my guy” was Tom Tancredo, followed by Duncan Hunter - neither of whom were even on our ballots here in Virginia during the 2008 primary. Sen. McCain, wtih whom I find much fault, was the nominee of the party with which I affiliate myself. I find myself supporting former Congressman JD Hayworth in the upcoming AZ Senatorial primary.

    This is not a case of sour grapes, but an indictment on the media’s protection of this administration and their not reporting all the information. They cherry-picked the information about Obama in Columbus with a photo of supportive workers behind him, while not mentioning the nearby construction site shutered for the day costing the workers a days pay. This was a days pay lost not due to the uncontrollable such as weather conditions.

    I imagine this sort of thing has happened in the past, but the media would no doubt have reported it excoriating prior administrations.

  11. Disgusted said on 22 Jun 2010 at 5:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Horn, a solid point, but partisan all the same. I cite Fox News as a counter to your argument. I can remember the media complaining of President Reagan’s staff retaliating against journalists that had written critical columns by limiting their access. My point is your whining about unfair media is stale. Yellow journalism has been around as long as the Constitution. Focus on some of the important points, like public financing of campaign swings by any incumbent president.

  12. Debra Knight said on 2 Aug 2010 at 4:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I imagine this sort of thing has happened in the past, but the media would no doubt have reported it excoriating prior administrations.”

    That is a laughable sentence. There is a laundry list of things about Bush and his administration that the media ignored. As a reminder of just one, remember when Dan Rather had that memo about Bush’s failure to complete his military service? When that story first broke, the WH responded that they could not comment on the veracity of the memo since they had not seen it yet.

    Then the story quickly became all about Dan Rather and inquiries into Bush’s military service were then completely ignored by the media.

    Now using just a tiny bit of logic, one notices that if the allegations were false, i.e., Bush did complete his service and didn’t go awol, the WH would not have had to “wait and see the evidence” before denouncing the memo as a fake. They would have known immediately because they would have known the contents were inaccurate. So, the initial response from the Bush administration and logic tell us that the allegations contained in the memo were true.

    Dan Rather was obviously setup. The scheme has the stink of Karl Rove all over it.

Comments are closed.

Views: 2028