Despite the protests of some rebels like Von Drehle, much of the mainstream media predictably parroted the White House’s allegations against Limbaugh and even attributed to him racist comments and other outlandish statements he’d never made. National Review’s editors observed that journalists had incorporated into their reporting, “without substantiation,” “a rash of manufactured quotes attributed to Limbaugh,” doing “collectively what Dan Rather did individually: allow themselves to be duped by phony documents.” It was a part of the “Democratic media’s recent campaign to prevent Rush from becoming part-owner of a professional football team, but the lies reached a level that is remarkable even by the standards of the corrupt and incompetent American media.”
The attribution of these false quotes to Limbaugh, observed National Review, was “to lie—viciously.” But, what made the partisan and dishonest assault “disturbing” was “that the White House [was] a participant in it.... There may be some precedent for a modern White House’s attempting to use the machinery of the presidency to destroy a critic in this fashion, but Barack Obama did not run as the Second Coming of Richard Nixon.”55
Aside from Limbaugh, Obama attacked other conservative media figures as well, such as Sean Hannity. Obama repeatedly denounced the radio and FOX News host, once implying Hannity promoted hatred against him after Sean got under his skin for connecting the dots between Obama and his radical friends such as his pastor Jeremiah Wright, the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, and Ayers’s wife, the former FBI fugitive Bernardine Dohrn.56
Columnist Paul Ibrahim rejected the White House’s efforts to distance and sanitize Obama from the administration’s war against its opponents. He wrote, “The fact that this systematic operation to intimidate and demonize Obama’s opponents was launched so soon after his inauguration is tremendously perturbing. What is even more alarming is that Obama is not only a member of this campaign—he is the driving force behind it.” Ibrahim identified why this pattern of behavior, coming from the president of the United States, is inimical to freedom. “Within 100 hours of taking office, the president of the United States proceeded to single out a private citizen for his mere dissent, effectively expelling him from the government’s marketplace of ideas, and with him the millions of listeners of the same political stripe.... Welcome to the politics of hope ’n’ change. Obama’s startling attempt to hang Limbaugh’s scalp on the wall is a warning that the new ruler does not want unity—he demands it.”57
The crusade against Limbaugh was nothing new for Obama; it simply resurrected a strategy he had employed as a presidential candidate in attempting to smear his opponent, John McCain, by tying him to Limbaugh, whom they had slandered with a manufactured racial slur against Mexicans by taking some of his radio comments grossly out of context. Limbaugh himself, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few months before Ibrahim’s piece, chastised Obama for stoking the flames of racial antagonism on Limbaugh’s back. “What kind of potential president,” he asked, “would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.”58 This was the candidate not only claiming to be above dirty politics, but who held himself out as post-racial. “We’ve made such racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactic of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.”59
No one should operate under the misapprehension that Obama’s White House didn’t have its hands all over the effort to demonize Limbaugh and other political opponents. His relationship with his supporters is symbiotic. Newsbusters reported, for example, that Obama confidantes such as his discredited, radical, former green jobs czar Van Jones were tied to StopTheWitchHunt.org—a group specifically formed to “call out” so-called “mischaracterizations and hate speech” of Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Brown.60
Obama is also intolerant of criticism of his wife, but it wasn’t as if the criticism was gratuitous. He had encouraged her to speak out on policy issues, and when she did and called America “downright mean,” she earned the righteous indignation of patriots everywhere. Yet Obama lashed out at National Review and FOX News (again), as well as the rest of the “conservative press,” for going “fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way.” He added, “I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she’s been subjected to these attacks.”61
SARAH PALIN AND CARVILLE’S “LIMBAUGH STRATEGY”
Sarah Palin is a close second to Rush Limbaugh in the Left’s roster of most hated conservatives. The attacks on Palin began almost from the moment McCain picked her as his running mate. Obama derided the McCain-Palin reform rhetoric with, “You can’t put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.” Obama also disparagingly referred to Palin as a “moose shooter”62 and all but called her a liar in portraying herself as an earmark watchdog. “Come on!” said Obama. “I mean, words mean something, you can’t just make stuff up.”63
The demonization of Palin did not abate with Obama’s election. The UK Telegraph’s Toby Harnden pointed out in November 2009 that “Barack Obama’s Organizing for America” sent out “pleas for cash” citing Palin’s book Going Rogue as an incentive to donate “to oppose ‘Sarah Palin and her allies.’” The e-mail from these Obama surrogates bitterly denounced Palin for claiming ObamaCare would institute “death panels” and for “opening the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.” It suggested Palin is “dangerous” and called her a liar, referring to “whatever lie comes next [from her],”and declaring, “We can’t afford more deception and delay.”64 A few months earlier Gibbs had named Palin as one of “the biggest purveyors of disinformation.”65
Those who believe the Left’s negative reaction to Palin is merely visceral fail to see that Obama leftists smeared Palin for the same strategic purpose they vilified Limbaugh: to taint all conservatives and the Republican Party by association. The Washington Post’s The Plum Line blog reported that James Carville, the architect of “the Limbaugh strategy,” said Democrats would seek to elevate Palin more and more and turn her into the new Rush Limbaugh. “Her name conjures up all kinds of reactions in people’s minds,” said Carville, who conceded he was attempting to alienate moderates from the GOP by focusing on Palin. “She’s an uncomfortable figure for a lot of Republicans. They want to move beyond her. We like her.” Another Democratic strategist said, “Luckily, she seems to present us with an opportunity every few days. You could say it’s a turkey shoot.”66
The White House was obviously knee-deep in this “Carville strategy” to demonize Limbaugh, Palin, FOX News, and other conservatives. In an off-the-record briefing at the White House with leftist commentators including Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Frank Rich, and Bob Herbert, Obama “gave vent to sentiments about the network [FOX], according to people briefed on the conversation.” Michael Clemente, a FOX News executive, suggested the targeting of FOX “was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics,” citing a report in Politico about a White House strategy session to “move more aggressively against opponents.”67 Clemente’s analysis is certainly consistent with Time magazine’s citing of Politico’s report that the Limbaugh “controversy” had “been cooked up and force fed to the American people by Obama’s advisers.”68
While Palin, Limbaugh, and others were certainly special targets of the White House, anyone who opposed Obama’s priorities could find themselves subject to personal attack. For example, Obama’s team became incensed when Republican senator Jim Bunning blocked their move to extend unemployment and health benefits. Bunning’s opposition was based on a simple, commonsense proposition: “Before we expand a program, let’s make sure we can pay for it.” Bunning was not even opposed to extending the benefits per se; he just wanted them paid out of unspent “stimulus
” funds, which seemed exceedingly reasonable, since the “stimulus” funds that had already been spent had not created the jobs Obama promised they would. Bunning was also intent on forcing Obama and lawmakers to honor their “paygo” legislation, which mandated that new government spending be funded through other spending reductions, funds allocated elsewhere, or from new taxes. But Gibbs made it personal, stating, “I don’t know how you negotiate with the irrational” and even admitted using his position of influence to “shame” Bunning. “Sometimes,” bemoaned Gibbs, “even using their names doesn’t create the shame you would think it would.”69
“IN LAS VEGAS, HE’S SURE NOT OUR FRIEND.”
As a candidate, Obama usually told voters what he thought they wanted to hear. He told an audience of 18,000 in Las Vegas he wanted to help “not just the folks who own casinos but the folks who are serving in casinos.” But after becoming president he wasn’t quite as solicitous. In one of his many anti-capitalist riffs he took a cheap shot at CEOs at a townhall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana, in February 2009. “You can’t take a trip to Las Vegas or down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.” Obama’s careless statement elicited a strong reaction from Las Vegas businessmen, many pointing out that if their business suffers, the first and hardest hit are the front line workers—the people at the front desk, the bell staff, and the taxi drivers, precisely the people Obama courted during the campaign .70
Nevada governor Jim Gibbons wrote to Obama requesting a meeting with him to discuss the economic damage to the convention and tourism business caused by Obama’s statement. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reported that more than 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled in the city had been canceled, translating into 111,800 guests and more than 250,000 “roomnights,” costing the city’s economy more than $100 million, apart from lost gaming revenue. Obama, showing his characteristic petulance toward critics, refused to meet with Gibbons, who responded, “I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this administration. President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments.”71
During a townhall meeting in New Hampshire a year later, Obama took another gratuitous swipe at Las Vegas, saying, “When times are tough, you tighten your belts”—apparently exempting his own federal leviathan from the admonition. “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.” Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman fired back that Obama is “no friend to Las Vegas” and that “I think he has a psychological hang-up about us. . . . He’s not welcome in my city, as far as I’m concerned. He’s not our friend. I don’t know about people in Nevada, but in Las Vegas, he’s sure not our friend.”
Goodman said he was “incredulous” that Obama would attack the city again and that a simple apology wouldn’t cut it now that the damage had been done. “It has to be a real mea culpa and a promise not to do it again,” stated Goodman. Governor Gibbons’ reaction was equally strong. “How dare he insult any American city?” he asked. “I’m writing a letter to him today telling him to tone down or temper his remarks about Las Vegas. This is another slap in the face of the hard-working families in Nevada.” Senator John Ensign noted Obama had become “quite comfortable criticizing Las Vegas” and that he has “failed to grasp the weight that his words carry.” He has caused “countless companies and federal agencies” to cancel their conventions at Las Vegas hotels, costing them “and our city millions of dollars.”72
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
When Arizona enacted a law to deal with its illegal immigration problem in response to continuing immigrant-related crime and violence, Attorney General Holder threatened to sue the state because the law allegedly “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He later admitted he hadn’t even read the law, much less been briefed on it.73 Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano admitted under questioning from Senator John McCain that she hadn’t read the law either, even though she had vehemently denounced it.
Ironically, Napolitano sang a different tune before she went to work for Obama. According to Arizona governor Jan Brewer, when Napolitano herself served as Arizona governor she wrote letters to Washington insisting, “We need our borders secure. We need our money from the federal government for the incarceration of the illegal immigrants that we have in our jails and in our prisons.” Brewer revealed, “She repeated it over and over. She sent a big blown up check of what they owed us. So she knows. She understands. For her to say she hadn’t even read the bill that I signed because she already had it on her desk is unconscionable. The bill is the same bill she had before her.”74
Obama attacked what he called a “misguided” law that threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness we cherish as Americans.” He also blatantly misrepresented the bill and stirred up racial animus by claiming the law would lead to harassment of people who take their kids out to get ice cream, if they don’t have their papers on them. In fact, the law expressly prohibited racial profiling and had several layers of safeguards against it: before anyone could be arrested, state authorities would have to verify with federal authorities the suspect was illegal; no U.S. citizens could be prosecuted under the law; and only those with whom law enforcement had made lawful contact, as in a traffic stop, could be asked to show identification, and only in cases where officers had a “reasonable suspicion” that an immigration law had been violated.
Yet the administration savaged Arizonans en masse for adopting the bill, portraying them as renegades operating outside federal authority. But in fact Arizona legislators had drafted the bill in close consultation with law professor and immigration law expert Kris Kobach, who carefully crafted the law to adhere to the Constitution, making it a mirror image of existing federal law, and requiring state authorities to defer to their federal counterparts in determining whether the law had been violated. A Pew Poll showed an overwhelming 73 percent of Americans approved of the Arizona law’s requirement that people verify their legal status, and two-thirds support police detaining people who can’t.75
As the Arizona law put the issue of illegal immigration back in the spotlight, Obama began taking heat over the issue. In response, he pledged to put several thousand National Guard troops on the Arizona border. In a meeting with Governor Brewer, he promised to get back to her within two weeks with details on the deployment. When he failed to keep his word, Brewer went on FOX News’ On the Record to denounce the situation as “unacceptable.” She indicated to host Greta Van Susteren that Obama’s promise was empty posturing: “I think that the people of Arizona and the people of America put a lot of pressure on this issue and that [the administration] responded to kind of cool it down. And I think they thought maybe they could go away and placate us. Unfortunately, they didn’t.”76
An even bigger snub of Brewer and her state followed shortly thereafter, as Hillary Clinton announced during an interview with an Ecuadorean TV station that the administration would sue Arizona over the law. Brewer was furious. “This is no way to treat the people of Arizona,” she exclaimed. “To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous. If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”77
Brewer thus highlighted the crux of the issue. Arizona only adopted its own law because the federal government refuses to fulfill its constitutional duty to secure the border. And make no mistake, the porous border is not a “failure” in the traditional sense, but rather a calculated policy. Obama admitted as much during a private meeting with Senator Jon Kyl. As Kyl revealed to an Arizona townhall meeting, Obama told him, “The problem is . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” Kyl tran
slated: “In other words, they’re holding [border security] hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform’”—a euphemism for amnesty.
Although the White House denied Kyl’s account of the meeting, the lawsuit against Arizona makes Obama’s position crystal clear: non-enforcement is the only acceptable policy on border security.78
OBAMA’S RED STATE ALLERGY
Obama’s disdain for those who refuse to toe his line extends to entire regions of the nation that he perceives to be immune to his Kool Aid. Perhaps he was projecting his own feelings when he suggested on the campaign trail that small town Americans “get bitter and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.” Could it be that he harbors antipathy toward people who aren’t like him—who don’t share his vision to fundamentally turn America 180 degrees from its founding principles?
It seems so. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey noted while Obama visited every state during his presidential campaign, he hasn’t been quite as indiscriminate since becoming president. Morrissey cited a study by University of Minnesota professor Dr. Eric Ostermeier revealing that during the first 14-plus months of his term, Obama gave more speeches outside the country (sixty-three) than in America’s red states put together. Of the speeches he delivered outside Washington, he made almost ten times as many in states he won (116) than in states won by John McCain (fifteen). Morrissey concludes, “Democrats may argue that they can compete in every state, but it’s hard to reconcile that with Obama’s reluctance to appear in states that didn’t catch Hopenchange Fever the first time around. Indeed, it looks as though Obama would rather go abroad than visit those states.”79
Crimes Against Liberty Page 14
