Obama, the Spiteful

20 October 2009

– by Mike Murray

When he was campaigning for the presidency, Barack Obama sold himself as a statesman, someone above ideological bickering common to the denizens of America’s prominent political parties. His flaks billed him as “transformational.” They said he was post-racial, post-partisan. Shoot, Obama so impressed one MSNBC talking head that he shot a thrill clean up the dyed-blonde’s leg.

He did even more than that for an editor at Newsweek – who claimed that Obama “is sort of God” (which was something of a promotion, since he’d previously only been believed to be the Messiah). The editor went on to say that Obama “floats above the rest of us, ” and that “he’s going to bring the whole world together.”

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Evan Thomas: you weren’t even close. Obama is not the Almighty. He doesn’t hover above the hoi polloi. And he isn’t a unifying force. He is, instead, a divider of the greatest magnitude. (Except, of course, where the easily “thrilled” Chris Matthews is concerned.)

Obama had barely settled into the Oval Office when he began lobbing rhetorical grenades in the direction of those who dared to oppose his policies. Tea Party attendees were labeled “right-wing extremists” by his Department of Homeland Security – and were put under FBI surveillance. The Pentagon was directed to prepare training materials for troops that described civilian protestors (even peaceful ones) as “low-level terrorists.”

White House communications mouthpieces began to refer to conservatives as members of an obstructionist “cabal.” Assembled activists (of all political stripes) were described as members of an angry – potentially dangerous – “mob.” Obama, himself, started working insults of specific cable and radio personalities into his incessant speeches. And he attempted to assume for himself superior, parental stature when he scolded members of Congress (who demanded sufficient opportunity to read, consider, and debate the particulars of his many legislative initiatives) as being “childish,” and given to immature “bickering.”

Perhaps worst of all was Obama’s appalling silence while his sycophants yelled “racism” at the top of their lungs – hoping to smear dissenters as hateful bigots. The charge was baseless, but that didn’t matter. Celebrities of all kinds (A-listers, has-beens, and never-weres) crawled out of the woodwork to do Obama’s bidding. And in very short order, media toadies followed suit – furrowing their brows and wondering aloud, “Are Obama’s critics racist?”

When the tactic began to backfire, Obama (finally) called off his miscreants. But not before the smarmy scheme had unnecessarily inflamed racial tensions across the country. Obama could have instructed his minions – at any time – to “cease and desist.” But he didn’t, not until the last drop of political advantage had been wrung out of his disgusting attempt to stifle criticism by hiding behind his skin pigment.

The President’s real “skin” problem – it became plain to see – had nothing to do with color, and everything to do with thinness. Barack Obama showed himself to be incapable of dealing with anything but hero worship.

Now “The One” is starting a war with Fox News, and he is enlisting other news outlets to assist him. He says Fox is “not legitimate,” and so stories originating there should not be taken seriously by competing news agencies. Translation: when Fox News research uncovers something unsavory about Obama or his associates (Van Jones, Anita Dunn, ACORN execs, Kevin Jennings , et al.), print, network, and cable news entities should simply ignore it.

They pretty much have been – without any prompting from the White House. The leftist sympathy of the mainstream media (which manifests itself in preferential treatment for Democrats) has so far been enough to shield Obama’s questionable associations from widespread scrutiny. But troubling revelations on shows such as the ones Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity host at Fox (and at websites such as biggovernment.com, hotair.com, and pajamasmedia.com) are beginning to pile up, and they are getting attention.

Hence Obama’s assault on conservative sources in general, and Fox News in particular – carried out by Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and Anita Dunn, among others. The vicious attacks are ill-advised and unlikely to succeed. When it comes to dealing with reporters and opiners, vinegar is a poor substitute for honey. Moreover, the Obama administration’s aggressive attempts to handcuff the media (even right-leaning segments of it) run the risk of offending the entire industry’s “freedom of the press” mentality.

A government permitted to breach the First Amendment rights of one news agency today will likely breach them for another tomorrow. Any broadcast, cable, print, or electronic news entities that assist Obama in his attempt to muzzle Fox News could pay a dear price later on – when they, themselves, fall out of governmental favor.

Barack Obama has shown himself to be a man of poor temperament, unable to handle even mild criticism. He embodies the worst character traits of previous presidents, Democrat and Republican alike. He is as cold as Carter and as nasty as Nixon. That’s not the kind of bi-partisanship Americans bargained for when they elected him to the highest office in the land.

Berea Pundit