Obama Goes After Critics, Not Terrorists
Tags: Jim Cramer, MSM, Pundits, Rick Santelli, Talk Radio.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
There is something incredibly wrong when the White House and the Democratic Party cares more about going after critics in the media like Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli, and Jim Cramer than going after terrorists.
What can we take from these acts of desperation? Well I think the obvious thing is that the Obama campaign didn’t end on Election Day… it is still in full force. The difference between now and before the inauguration is that Obama can (and will) use government resources to bully and/or silence his critics. I fully expect that conservative pundits will find themselves audited at least once over the next four years… a similar intimidation tactic used by the Clinton administration.
In the end this tactic of attacking Obama’s critics, especially Rush Limbaugh, will backfire.
The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.
Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.
Limbaugh is embracing the line of attack, suggesting a certain symbiosis between him and his political adversaries.
“The administration is enabling me,” he wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama’s policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”
The Democrats, now lead by Barack Hussein Obama, are attempting to make up for their lack of leadership by making Rush Limbaugh their scapegoat… But the notion that Rush leads the GOP is just as silly as saying Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann lead the Democrat Party.
Any President should have bigger fish to fry than his critics in the media. He fooled a lot of people on Election Day into thinking he was ready to be president, but he has yet to act presidential while in office.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
113 Responses to “Obama Goes After Critics, Not Terrorists”
Caucus of Corruption
fool
92. fooldisclosure | March 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
One of my favorite pieces of neocon cognitive dissonance:
well said, by a- well FOOL
very telling moniker.
“…before Bush came to power it was UNLAWFUL..”
No it wasn’t. When Clinton ushered in the age of Echelon, the whole thing was discussed and run through the courts. Electronic surveillance of international communications instigated by known terrorists has never been unlawful. I know, it’s a favorite Lib whine, but it simply is not true.
And I seriously doubt the truth of the kid/weapon story. At least if such a statement were to come to the attention of the US, the kid would have had to be a known terrorist talking to someone in the US. I doubt it.
I am pretty sure the French government once sent someone in place of a hired driver/tour guide, after my husband made a bad joke on the phone when we were stayng in a luxury hotel in Paris at the same time some Middle Eastern bigwig was staying there. Long story, but compelling evidence, and so what? We/he asked for it, and there was no harm done, except for having a tour guide who was totally ignorant of the history of the battlefields of Normandy. Act stupid, get checked out. Golly, what an idea!
And back to the Echelon/surveillance thing: The law says that any information gained by such surveillance can be used only to head off an attack, and protect the populace—not as evidence in a court of law. That would require warrant-based surveillance. So no one would be arrested or detained, unless there was proof of some serious wrongdoing imminent. It is SURVEILLANCE.
But the issue is also a favorite of the tinfoil-hat black helicopter Halliburton hiss hiss crowd, and they aint’ likely to turn loose of something that has brought them so much joy.
fmrmarine (95), you have me thinking that I might have been married to Arctic Fox once upon a time. Then again, the person I was married to was “ultra”, but of the RRR variety, not the RRL variety. Maybe she flipped. But anyway, she saw conspiracies around every corner — not unlike… well, you know.
Anyway, my ex looked a lot like Ann Coulter. But that’s appropos of nothing.
rico
fmrmarine (95), you have me thinking that I might have been married to Arctic Fox once upon a time.
Quick to the decompression chamber!
rico
thank God it wasnt bloch….LOL
rico
RRR ?
Those brief moments of clarity and coherence wouldn’t be the times he has expressed opinions with which you have agreed, would it, RS?
CO, I can count the times I’ve agreed with Ohioorrin in the last 5 + years on one hand, and have fingers left over, so the answer to your question would be a definite maybe.
Huh? Did you read what I said? If you did, what made you think that I believed there are only two options?
Rico, I not only read it (twice, just to make sure there wasn’t any hidden, nuanced meaning), I cut and pasted it in its entirely, word for word. But let’s look at the operative portion of your remark again:
Theoretically anyway. Now, more than ever before, what is really, really important is to have a policy in place wherein there are “police” to police the policemen. I’m trying to be very general here, but I’m telling you… we can no more go back to the way things were than to fail (oops) to come to grips with the way things are or will be. Neither option is appropriate.
OK, now I see it. I missed the word “fail” the first time around. Sorry — my bad. However, I still stand by “damned if we do — damned if we don’t” comment And I’ll tell you why, and this is based mostly on my years in signals intelligence. IMO, as long as human beings are in charge, and with technology advancing faster than most people can comprehend, we cannot have an intelligence system that is capable of keeping track of the bad guys’ intentions that is also completely immune from abuse and misuse by the people running it. Even if you got to the point where you had everything run by robots or computers, they would still have to be programmed by people — people who have the potential for less-than-altruistic motives. But I genuinely understand and share your concern. It is the best argument I can think of for not electing someone whose entire life has been one of associating with Leftist radicals, racists, anti-Semites and criminals in one form or another.
I get the part about going after Rush. And I think it is working. It looks like the right is getting their panties in a knot.
But where’s the part about not going after terrorists?
Either way, does it matter if they’ve been Americanized?
Depends on what you mean by “Americanized…”
I was watching actor Rovert Davi on Hannity’s show; I guess he’ll have a hard time finding work in Hollywood in the future…
ASU is evil.
Regarding domestic spying: Click here.
Regarding conspiracy theories: Click here and here.
AF,
Before Bush became President, the Carter and Democrat Congress passed FISA which allowed WIRETAPPING WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!
Sheesh… the ignorance of some people. Another government schooled moron.
Serg, thanks for the YouTube link to Rachel Madcow. MS-LSD kept calling the “whistleblower” a “military officer.” She wasn’t; officers don’t sit rack.
It’s MS-LSD and rachel Madcow; Bush haters, America haters. Big whoop…