Dear Mr. President,
You have undoubtedly now heard the buzz about one of your campaign websites featuring a post entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” As you are no doubt aware, this piece calls out 8 Romney donors who are private citizens, and proceeds to smear them. You are probably also aware of today’s opinion piece about it the Wall Street Journal, which starts as follows:
Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.
Are you worried?
No. I am infuriated.
HOW. DARE. YOU.
HOW DARE YOU attempt to intimidate private individuals who are exercising their First Amendment rights by donating to candidates who they believe will do better than you. As a “consitutional scholar”, I’m sure you can articulate why it is that this isn’t a reprehensible practice.
After you do that for us, perhaps you can explain how it is that this is an appropriate practice for someone who was elected to serve ALL AMERICANS, not just the ones that you like, or the ones who like you. How is the denigration of PRIVATE CITIZENS, whose participation in the political process is confined to contributing money a legitimate exercise of Presidential power?
Then, I’d like for you to perform a little thought exercise of your own. I would like for you to ask yourself “If someone who was so thin-skinned and insecure that he was willing to abuse a public trust and the power that goes with it, to call out and attempt to intimidate private citizens for exercising their fundamental Constitutional right to support his opponent, is that demonstrating the kind of character that Americans who are electing a leader of the entire country wants or should want?
Thanks for your time. Tell the IRS to be gentle when they come to play proctologist with me.
Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere.
Don’t forget that the SCoaMF is also using the IRS, DOJ, and EPA to ‘go after’ those that have strayed from ‘the flock’. Intimidation and persecution of of the Infidels.
The JEF is really starting to ‘Chap My Hide’.
More nonsense. If it was appropriate in 2008 to examine Mr. Obama’s associations (“paling around with terrorists”) it is equally appropriate in 2012 to examine the money trail that supports Mr. Romney’s candidacy. Exactly who can we expect will get a quid pro quo from Romney starting January of 2013? Completely legit field of inquiry.
The difference is people like me and the President of The United States doing it.
Bush didn’t single out anything about Obama. Bush never went against a private citizen. The worst Bush did was call a NY Times “journalist” an asshole.
Stuff like that is reserved for Democratic presidents, recall Clinton going after Rush Limbaugh.
Rutherford, I realize that you might be confused, since the media, by and large, carries water for the thin-skinned messiah, but the vetting that you are complaining of was done by that small part of the media that you don’t like. Sean Hannity was at the forefront talking about his connections to Bombing Billy Ayers, Kalidi, and others. That was NOT done by McCain’s own fund raising organization, and it didn’t expose people who were private citizens. Bomber Bill blew stuff up to try to foment revolution…he made himself a public figure, and this was helped by his years as a fugitive.
These individuals who have been singled out by the man at the head of the government are guilty only of donating money. That is not deserving of his public attention, or the public attention of those who work for him. It is not something that is done by a politician who claims to be a “uniter”, nor is it good policy for someone who for better or worse, represents all of us.
If the Press examines the “money trail” supporting Romney, I concede that is fair game. It would be refreshing if they would show the same diligence and ambition and really investigate the same of Downgrade, like the games continually played with those credit card donations in 2008 and again this year, but it is still legitimate. Having the campaign do it? No. Absolutely not, and he knows it. It is an act of desperation, and it reveals that he doesn’t comprehend what the job actually requires. That isn’t exactly a shock, since his only response to failure is to blame everyone and anyone else, but then if leadership was really his stong suit, he would have managed a better resume other than “community organizer”, which is the legal world equivalent of “living in Mom’s basement and smoking weed all day”, which ironically, he’s also admitted that he isn’t opposed to.
If Obama isn’t toasted by his own actions yet, I can’t imagine what it will take. His violations of the Constitutional limitations on the president’s powers were outrageous enough; this is eight or nine toes into the water of dictatorship.
Oh will the melodrama ever stop? I haven’t seen this much histrionics since Real Housewives of Atlanta.
Notice who doesn’t appear on said list for crimes against the liberal orthodoxy
Jeffrey Immelt who outsourced GE’s x-ray business to China
Or noted tax raising advocate Warren Buffet who is fighting a 1 billion dollar assessment from the IRS thus depriving President hopey-change money to redistribute to his “fair share”other more needy souls like the next people on our list.
The CEO and board of directors at Solyndra who while raping the taxpayer for half a billion were looting the company with obsecene bonuses At least when the big banks did it they paid the loans back. The people behind this fraud were big Obama backers
Continued…
BiW, when the Koch brothers do everything they can to influence elections and legislative agendas and do so with more wealth than the average “private citizen”, they cease to be private citizens themselves. Donation of money is tantamount to endorsement of policy. If Bill Ayers is fair game so are the conservative interests funding Romney and it doesn’t matter in the least who does the “exposing”.
If you’ve got a problem with how Obama gets his campaign money and from whom, go for it. Expect the same back at ya.
By the way, the notion that anyone opposing Obama is the least bit intimidated by him is a joke. This POTUS has received enough public ridicule to erase any doubt that he is not “feared”.
Or how about the tax cheat Timmy “we don’t have a solution and but what we do know is we don’t like yours” Geithner who got his job being the ultimate boss of the IRS while being a tax scofflaw himself. In fact the government is infested with such actors as apparently they don’t mind their employees not paying their “fair share” But then again government employees have been elevated to be the new aristocracy by the statists elements that now control things. And as we all know rules and taxes are for the little people not for our self anointed betters.
Or how about the special tax treatment that GM receives that benefits them at the expense of taxpayers.
The hypocrisy from this President is real and palpable the fact that he would so openly act on it ought to send up red flags as to this man’s bad faith.
Rutherford I am shocked that you see no problem with “who does the “exposing”. Shame on you! If I actually believed liberals believed in liberty I’d demand you turn in your lib/prog ID card. They don’t though so I guess you can keep your ID and secret decoder ring that apparently helps you not to see the sadness of this event.
BiW, when the Koch brothers do everything they can to influence elections and legislative agendas and do so with more wealth than the average “private citizen”, they cease to be private citizens themselves. Donation of money is tantamount to endorsement of policy. If Bill Ayers is fair game so are the conservative interests funding Romney and it doesn’t matter in the least who does the “exposing”.
Rutherford, that simply isn’t true, and you know it.
However, since you need a refresher, I’ll give you a reminder from a source shallow enough for you to understand, with a quote that gets right to the heart of the matter:
If you’ve got a problem with how Obama gets his campaign money and from whom, go for it. Expect the same back at ya.
I’ll restate this since “the problem” is apparently with your comprehension and cognizence.
IF THE VETTING IS DONE BY THE PRESS, THEN THAT IS OK, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE THE PRESS FOR. THE PRESS’S JOB IS TO REPORT SUCH THINGS.
BUT WHEN IT IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR AN ENTITY LINKED TO THE GOVERNMENT MAKING SUCH REPORTS, THAT IS BAD, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS POWERS THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO BEAR AGAINST THOSE IT DISAPPROVES OF.
By the way, the notion that anyone opposing Obama is the least bit intimidated by him is a joke. This POTUS has received enough public ridicule to erase any doubt that he is not “feared”.
He is also the chief executive in a government filled with people like this “gentleman”:
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/epa-official-on-how-to-deal-with-non-compliant-companies-hit-them-as-hard-as-you-can-make-examples-out-of-them/
Yes, it is a “silly” notion. Just tell Gibson Guitars:
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/7-months-after-latest-gibson-guitar-raid-and-still-no-charges-from-the-doj/
And this pro-life advocate lawfully exercising her constitional rights:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/02/obama-admin-forced-to-pay-120k-after-targeting-pro-lifer/
Yes. A silly notion. Almost as silly as the things you say.
Can and will are two very different things. The government can sic the IRS on anyone they please without any prior public condemnation of those targets. In fact, the idea that Obama’s campaign would delve publicly into the sources of Mitt’s funding makes it all the more likely that no shenanigans (like unexpected IRS audits) would occur. Any persecution of these folks would be immediately seen as suspicious in light of the public “revelations” of donations.
Obama’s opponents, not in the press, have never been shy about highlighting who has Obama’s ear. They scour the White House visitor logs looking for patterns. This notion that bringing to light connections between a candidate and his influencers is the sole purview of the press is manufactured and naive.
When Obama sends his “plumbers” to steal GOP campaign materials we can revisit how out of line he is. In the meantime, I’d suggest you and the Romney campaign grow a pair.
BiW, when the Koch brothers do everything they can to influence elections and legislative agendas and do so with more wealth than the average “private citizen”, they cease to be private citizens themselves.
So, what exactly is the cutoff and who determines it?
Good question Sean, for which I don’t have an easy answer. I guess I have to defer to Potter Stewart — I know it when I see it.
*knocks on R’s forehead, listens to empty echo*
Genius, this administration is ALREADY abusing its power, and Downgrade has already revealed himself to be a very petty, thinskinned thug.
That was the warning shot. The prison shower scene comes next for those who offend Lord Zero, who has every executive agency at his disposal and a demonstrated preference to use them despite limitations and separation of powers.
I feel in no way threatened by the dictatorship. When reactionary Republicans such as yourself don’t get your way, you call the boss a “dictator”. Talk about petty and thin skinned. It describes the Obama opposition to a tee.
I feel in no way threatened by the dictatorship.
Given the fact that like your messiah, your familiarity with the Constitution is fleeting, this is completely unsurprising. As long as Ear Leader is “progressing” toward the goals he sees fit, everything is fine. If he violates the separatation of powers because that damn Congress doesn’t agree with him, all the better…and if he’ll do that to Congress, then there is NOTHING preventing him from doing the same to the individuals he rules, right?
When reactionary Republicans such as yourself don’t get your way, you call the boss a “dictator”.
!. I am not a Republican, I am a conservative.
2. This is not about “gettting my way”, this is about recognition of separation of powers and the proper role of government. When we have a Chief Executive who clearly has problems with both, and has publically chafed at the restrictions on the power and authority of government, and has already bypassed them, then “dictator” might be an appropriate appellation.
Talk about petty and thin skinned.
I KNOW IT! “Bitterly” clinging to my Constitution and the protections from government that it guarantees. How thin-skinned could I be?
LOL Well I won’t defend my familiarity with the Constitution but I dare say Obama’s familiarity is more than fleeting. The fact that he might have philosophical differences of opinion from you concerning the document does not mean that he is not very familiar with it.
Ignore Rutherford’s obtuseness. He’s in full campaign mode, and that’s a good thing. It took quite some time for him to fully realize Obama’s dictatorship in grave jeopardy, but if Rutherford has any real talent, it’s the ability to recognize liberalgoondom is in big trouble and Obama is most likely on his way out.
It will be really ugly at The Rutherford Lawson blog come October. I fully expect rage against the BushMcChimpyHitlerPalin plan by September.
Damn that phrase brings a chuckle to my heart.
A campaign that embraces boycotting and other various shenanigans that it would eventually deny publicly but privately be jizzing about in the back room is a disgrace. Thats your side right now.
I hope the Obama campaign tactics do work at some level. I will enjoy going to company xyz and telling the unemployed to be sure to thank BHO.
I have to wonder why the international felon George Soros name hasn’t been brought up yet in this conservation.
“I have to wonder why the international felon George Soros name hasn’t been brought up yet in this conservation.”
Because he gives millions to Obama…
I was being facetious MJ. In all honesty, don’t have a problem with Americans engaging in the American political sphere. Yes, even wealthy ones. But foreigners? Nope, and I do include allies in that.
So I guess you opposed Citizens United right?
For some reason I think that you know that I did in fact support it Rutherford.
So I guess you opposed Citizens United right?
Sorry. You can peddle any busted lie you want at your place, but you’ve already been shown that this particular one is not true: