Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
The Wall Street Journal has a story about Democratic dirty tricks against donors to the Romney campaign. It helps explain how citizens are targeted once the President puts them on his public enemies list.
Three weeks ago, Obama's campaign web site publicly named and lambasted eight private citizens for backing Mitt Romney. It accused them of being wealthy and having less-than-reputable records.
One of the men was Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of Melaleuca, Inc. He was accused of being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
Shortly after that post went live, a Democratic operative named Michael Wolf began asking a local courthouse in Idaho for all documents related to VanderSloot's personal and professional dealings there. Wolf, the Journal reports, was until recently a clerk on the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Now he works for Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS, a company that does opposition research.
The Journal asked Mr. Wolf about why he was digging into VanderSloot and what his relationship with Fusion was. He said he didn't want to talk about it.
When the Journal tried to find out who was paying this company to dig through VanderSloot's records, they wouldn't say. VanderSloot was first targeted earlier this year:
Liberal bloggers and media have since dug into his past, dredging up long-ago Idaho controversies that touched on gay issues. His detractors have spiraled these into accusations that Mr. VanderSloot is a "gay bashing thug." He's become a national political focus of attention, aided by the likes of partisan Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. Bloggers have harassed his children, visiting their social media accounts and asking for interviews and information.
Mr. VanderSloot has said his attackers have misconstrued facts and made false allegations. In February he wrote a long reply, publicly stating that he has "many gay friends whom I love and respect" who should "have the same freedoms and rights as any other individual." The Obama campaign's response, in April, was to single out Mr. VanderSloot and repeat the slurs.
Political donations don't come with a right to privacy, and Mr. VanderSloot might have expected a spotlight. Then again, President Obama, in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting, gave a national address calling for "civility" in politics. Yet rather than condemn those demeaning his opponent's donors, Mr. Obama—the nation's most powerful man—instead publicly named individuals, egging on the attacks. What has followed is the slimy trolling into a citizen's private life.
VanderSloot says that when Obama singled him out on the enemies list, he knew it would mean more pressure. But he says the false accusations and public beatings are no deterrent. He says he may even make another donation.
Nevertheless, this enemies list and the accompanying bullying aren't appropriate. I'd feel much better about this man having to endure what he's going through if it were just coming from well-funded advocates of changing the definition of marriage. Having the president participate in this is wrong.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
From his call for a new, million man domestic Army to AttackWatch to his OfA organizing a nation-wide assault by SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and others on Scott Walker's Madison Wisconsin, to the use of FEC data to target "enemy" donors, we have seen a regular spew of "high crimes and misdemeanors" from this thug from the start.
We have a lot at stake in this fight. In the last 70 years of the Roman Republic the guiding emphasis shifted from Senate debate and the usual rough and tumble to the systematic use of the street mobs accumulating in Rome and other intimidation tactics on a routine basis to steer the government. Julius Caesar spent the rough equivalent of his college years coordinating thuggery and intimidation politics, that's where he cut his political teeth.
The Obamanation approach to politics is a brash mix of Indonesia and Alinskyite, it is not a style Americans can safely tolerate.
Edited on May 11, 2012 at 7:56pmAug '10
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
Obama and his cronies will not give up power easily. They can easily rationalize pretty much anything to hold onto power - after all, theirs is a righteous cause and surely the ends justify any means necessary.
Obama's crew makes Clinton's look like boy scouts...
Dec '11
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
Can we start a defense fund to investigate those who are implicitly threatening the family and well beings of those who would harass families over political donations and take appropriate legal action?
Dec '11
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
The president is supposed to be the POTUS and all of her citizens. A citizen advocating for the political opposition is not supposed to result in a place on a presidential enemies list. This has certainly been how all presidents except for Nixon behaved, at least so far as I am aware.
This is inconsistent with Obama's claims to be a unifier and a new kind of politician. It is consistent with my initial judgement of him as a third-rate charlatan. This is what community organizers do.
More interesting to me is the issue of why this is standard operating procedure for liberal activists. I have found this is always how they roll. I would bet that the campaign volunteers and staff of any liberal politician would resort to similar tactics unless restrained by some adult, somewhere. Really, anybody out there know why tolerance, manners, and civil behavior is absent among liberal activists?
Dec '10
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
Frozen Chosen: Obama and his cronies will not give up power easily. They can easily rationalize pretty much anything to hold onto power - after all, theirs is arighteous cause and surely the ends justify any means necessary.
Obama's crew makes Clinton's look like boy scouts... · 24 minutes ago
After Romney wins the election in November, it's not really very hard to imagine Obama scheduling a nationwide broadcast with the following announcement.
Obama: "After in-depth analysis and careful consideration, I have concluded that the election results of November 6, 2012 are not in the best interest of the country. Therefore, I have signed an Executive Order nullifying the election and canceling future Presidential Election until the electorate has been properly educated and we can be assured of a correct outcome. Until such time, I will continue in my role as your Dear Leader. I did not make this decision lightly, but, it would be a violation of everything America stands for if 'know nothing racist voters' were allowed to deprive all the citizens of our great land the benefits of my Supreme Leadership."
The announcement, of course, puts the MSM into an uncontrolled state of ecstasy.
Jan '11
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
Having neither the facts nor the law, they are forced to pound the table.
Mar '11
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
Leave poor old Nixon alone. He was easily the best president between Eisenhower and Reagan. The difference between Nixon's wrong doings and those of others was that the bureacracy and the media were his enemies rather than his friends.
I am assuming you are conservative and I'm not suggesting you defend Nixon's mistakes, just don't remind people of them. It's a characteristic of conservatives to be "fair", if they are talking about Democratic villainy, they feel compelled to make an aside conceding that not all villains are Democrats. This is unnecessary and a weakness when your opponents use "fairness" as code for socialism and class warfare.
Obama's enemies list is the most unsurprising of "news". It will be real news if it reaches the front page of the New York Times. So far it's just preaching to the choir.
Jan '11
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
Oh, isn't this awful. Those nasty Democrats are doing whatever it takes to win, even if that means intimidating and bullying their opponents.
Not only that, but the Democrats and their allies have been doing bad stuff to their opposition forever, from Jack Lingle to Richard Trumpka. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
We would never do such a thing, because we're laissez faire and Edmund Burke wrote something once and it's proto-fascism - Blah, blah blah.
If you let someone slap your face and do nothing, you shouldn't be surprised when that person - and others - slaps you again.
Do you want to make them stop? Then do it to them.
There is no other way.
Dec '10
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
I would add, that you don't slap them in return, you ball up your little digits into a fist and break their damned jaw.
Idiots only learn through pain, and someone has to apply it.
Aug '10
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
What a dumb title for an article! Attacking the supporters of Romney seems like gangster and thug behavior to me. Is that sort of behavior not illegal? How about unethical? Oh wait--unethical is not a term the Obama administration understands.
Apr '11
Re: Should Presidents Bully Citizens?
I'm thinking that they thought that the anti-prop 8 campaign went well. I expect much worse this cycle. It's my hope that this costs them the election. It's my fear that it permanently poisons American politics.