Democrats – being the queer little fellows they are – have begun a mind numbingly preposterous gimmick of trying to sell off their ugly daughter for something he’s not – a Republican.

Americans have courted this guy for nearly four years, and in that time they’ve watched their country become economically weaker and less safe, not to mention their freedoms stripped down. It makes sense then that the Democrats are trying to doll up President Obama with lies and phony numbers to make him look more attractive.

Think Sophia Petrillo from The Golden Girls trying to sell her 60-year-old daughter to a room full of men by telling them she’s an avid catamaran sailor and bungee jumper. Except more dishonest.

Their first attempt comes in the form of a chart. (Fact: 90-percent of the crap Democrats spew comes in the form of charts.) The chart appears to be telling us that spending, taxes, and deficits are all lower today than when Obama took office. I applaud the chart’s makers – the goons over at Think Progress with the help of the Center for American Progress – for their crafty figuring.

The chart uses the percentage of GDP from the day Obama took office and the current estimates to fudge the truth and make it look like Obama isn’t everything we evil conservatives say he is, namely fiscally irresponsible. Even an amateur economist – like public school amateur – should see right through this.

Of what use is comparing spending using a percentage of GDP, unless you’re goal is to provide bad analysis? Spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 20.8 to 25.2 between 2008 and 2009 (from government stimulus). Assuming the calculations in the chart are true (in reality, they’re only based on estimations), all it shows is that spending went from one slice of a big pie to a smaller slice of an even bigger pie.

It’s the same dishonest game for their claim on taxes. The percentage of GDP does not at all associate with the increasing tax rates that Obama and the Democrats gave us with ObamaCare. Also, coming from left-wingers, why is low federal revenue a good thing?

Lastly – I assume this is their big hurrah – deficit spending has decreased from 8.3 to 7.6% of GDP. Even if this were true, so what? This is like patting yourself on the back for sticking to your diet by only eating the whole kitchen. Political Math fixed the numbers on the chart using actual data instead of flimsy estimates and found that spending and deficits are higher under Obama (every sane person says “Duh!”). Obama did, however, seem to lower federal revenue without raising taxes. Again, with a barrage of new spending, how is this a good thing?

In case anyone is racist enough to still not feel an unnatural desire to go out and reelect the man who’s ruining our economy, the Left wants you to know that Obama is now the Drone Warrior, ready and willing to kill the next sucker to look at the U.S. the wrong way. First they run around in a near-sexual frenzy celebrating the idea of closing Guantanamo, trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, and Mirandizing terrorists, and then they pin him up as some sort of … some sort of … George W. Bush!

This is a common practice of liberals. They’re pedal-to-the-metal crazy in odd-numbered years, and then when they have to worry about getting reelected, they put on their America hats again and run as Republicans.

We’ve already seen how this president handles his main duty as Commander-in-Chief; he’s no warrior. He intervened in secular Egypt, but sits by as the massacre in Syria continues to escalate. Terrorists can be assured they will face nothing in interrogation by U.S. forces worse than they did in their training. Unless it’s the call to kill the world’s most wanted man – a call Cindy Sheehan could’ve made – Obama’s totally in the dark.

In their last dreamlike – and particularly insidious – attempt to sell you another four years of Obama, Rex Nutting of Marketwatch gives us (you guessed it) another chart that shows Obama as “the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.” I kid you not.

In order to reaffirm Obama’s failed promise to deliver a net spending cut, the chart shows that “Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama,” in the words of Rachel Maddow.

The blatant deceit of this chart, combined with the Left’s screaming it from the rooftops is infuriating. Nutting’s calculations account for $140 billion of Obama’s stimulus spending. If that number sounds a little low to you, congratulations: you’re lucid. It’s only off by $685 billion dollars. Nutting attributes that 83-percent of the Obama stimulus to – get this – Bush.

By these calculations, every cent of your money that Obama spent from his first day in office to October 1 of his first year is attributed to his predecessor. Are you telling me that Bush passed an $825 billion stimulus and liberals still hate him?!

Bullsh*t. This is money that wasn’t included in Bush’s budget. 100-percent of it was Obama’s, signed and lobbied for. So why is he suddenly only responsible for 17-percent? What the chart is really telling you is ignoring the failed trillion-dollar stimulus Obama isn’t that big of a spender.

Great. Other than the fact that I can’t bench my own weight, I’m the strongest man in the world.

Democrats have reached their saturation point, and will literally tell us anything to win reelection. Lucky for us, America has woken up in the past few years and we know what a Republican looks like. Obama’s not one. You can put that in a chart and smoke it.