Crimes Against Liberty (17 page)

While some say Emanuel has settled down since he notoriously sent a dead fish to an uncooperative pollster twenty years ago, he is still coarse, to say the least. During a weekly strategy session with liberal groups and White House aides, Emanuel got miffed when some attendees said they were going to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at ObamaCare. He called them “F—ing retarded” and warned them not to alienate any Democratic congressmen. He later apologized for the epithet to the head of the Special Olympics.
⁵⁶

Emanuel is also famous for uttering the remark, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” This cynical statement was an early indication of Obama’s intention to exploit the economic and financial crises that existed when he came to office in order to advance the most extreme leftist agenda of any president in history.

“SO AM I”

Some have noted a pattern in how this administration deals with unexpected problems—they immediately shift into CYA mode and downplay any suggestion they did anything wrong. Only after a few days have passed and the intensity of the initial moment has subsided will the administration admit its involvement in some way. When, for instance, a pair of party crashers gained access to the White House and President Obama due to a security breach, the administration denied any error on its part, only to quietly concede the truth later.
⁵⁷

The Obama White House must always have the last word over any slight to the president or any criticism of his policies. Based on Obama’s behavior at the healthcare summit—tediously responding personally to each and every Republican speaker—it’s fair to assume this attitude comes from the top. Whereas President George W. Bush rarely spoke up to defend himself against outrageously spurious attacks from leftist Democrats, Obama compulsively lashes out when criticized, putting the lie to his reputation as a gentlemanly stoic. When Republican senator Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination to be commerce secretary citing “irresolvable conflicts” with Obama’s domestic agenda, the White House immediately attacked Gregg, insisting he had volunteered for the position and had expressed support for Obama’s agenda.
⁵⁸

The administration exhibited the same pugnacious attitude toward critics of its national security policy. In an op-ed titled, “We need no lectures . . . ,” John Brennan, Obama’s national security aide, wrote, “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.” Brennan accused critics of the administration of “misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.” Brennan also employed the perennial Obama strategy of blaming Bush, saying the Obama administration was doing a better job than Bush in taking the fight to al Qaeda. “We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war,” wrote Brennan.
USA Today
’s editorial writers saw it quite differently, observing that although “the Obama administration’s national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they’re doing,” they are “achieving the opposite, and they’re needlessly adding some jitters in the process.”
⁵⁹

Obama’s pugnacity was not spontaneous. He was spoiling for a fight with Republicans from the get-go. In an early speech stumping for his $3.6 trillion budget, he made clear he would paint all opponents of his ambitious domestic agenda as being in the pockets of the “special interests” and lobbyists. “I know,” said Obama, “these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is: So am I.” As
Politico’s
Jonathan Martin wrote, “Obama was “making his case for the budget” in an “unmistakable us-versus-them tone.” He quoted Obama saying, “The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people.”
⁶⁰

“A SUPERJUMBO DEMOCRAT”

For a while Obama successfully passed himself off as a bipartisan gentleman who, in the words of Camille Paglia, “projected a cordial dignity and thoughtful reserve that seem to have impressed and reassured observers across the political spectrum.”
⁶¹
But some, like liberal writer Peter Beinart, at least noticed an “ambiguity” in Obama’s bipartisan overtures. Obama, said Beinart, struck some “as a polished Howard Dean,” and others as a “Joe Lieberman,” who “wanted to be loved on the other side of the aisle.” And, according to Beinart, Obama didn’t resolve this ambiguity in his first year. (Others, as mentioned in chapter two, recognized this as a tactical ploy on Obama’s part.)

But after Obama’s healthcare drive, even Beinart admitted the doubt “is over.” The Massachusetts Senate election, said Beinart, had forced Obama to choose either to moderate his position, like President Clinton did following his Democratic congressional thrashing in 1994, or to go all out with an unabashed liberal agenda—and Obama pursued the latter course. He pushed unrelentingly for approval of ObamaCare despite overwhelming public opposition. “And,” added Beinart, “in acting the way he did, Obama has turned himself into a superjumbo Democrat. For the foreseeable future, he has forfeited any chance of bridging the red-blue divide.”

Of course, that conclusion should have been evident well before Obama took office, but many denied the obvious. However slow Beinart and other liberals were in arriving at this conclusion, they now understand the truth; any hope that Obama would appeal to the centrist wing of his party and “nurture a new generation of centrist candidates,” said Beinart, is “now gone. From top to bottom, Democrats have decided to bet the party’s future on the belief that Americans prefer bold liberals to cautious ones.”
⁶²
Either that, or their ideology is more important to them than winning—provided that before they’re thrown out of office they impose permanent foundational change on America’s institutions and founding principles.

TRANSCENDENTLY POLARIZING

Obama’s divisiveness transcends party politics and far exceeds that of President George W. Bush, who liberals still falsely insist was the most polarizing president in history. In delivering the commencement address for the University of Notre Dame, Obama made the subject of abortion a principal part of his speech, apparently believing his boundless capacity for reconciling the irreconcilable would enable him to articulate a unique position that, once delivered, would cause a contagious “a-ha” moment to engulf the university, indeed, the entire Western world. Everyone would instantly realize, to their relief, that there actually is a common ground and everyone on both sides of this life and death issue would better appreciate their opponents’ arguments.

News of Obama’s upcoming speech at Catholic Notre Dame provoked strong opposition, including the Cardinal Newman Society’s gathering of 255,000 signatures protesting Obama’s appearance. It also led former Vatican ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, a pro-life advocate and Harvard law professor, to announce she would not speak at the university on the same day as Obama, when she was slated to receive the Laetare Medal—an annual award given in recognition for outstanding service to the Roman Catholic Church and to society. Glendon submitted a letter to university president John Jenkins saying, “The task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated. I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree... in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request” that Catholic colleges should not give abortion advocates a platform to speak to students or be honored with special awards and degrees.
⁶³

As a result of Obama’s (and the university’s) stubborn insistence on proceeding with his speech, Notre Dame allegedly lost some $8.2 million in donations.
⁶⁴

Similarly, Obama could not restrain his self-indulgence and hyper-partisanship long enough to omit the subjects of politics and—his favorite—himself, from a commencement address at the University of Michigan. Instead of imparting advice about career choices and the future, Obama turned the speech into another platform to whine about the bitter grind of Washington politics—again, as if he were an outsider.

While continuing to portray himself as a nonpartisan pragmatist, Obama is governing as the most committed ideologue in American history. Contemptuous of the will of the people as expressed in every possible medium—public opinion polls, House and Senate elections, the birth and rapid expansion of the tea party movement—the president obsessively pursues his transformative vision like Captain Ahab hunting his great white whale. He does not view those who oppose this vision as potential partners or people worth consulting. No, they are his political enemies—people who, by virtue of their failure to understand Obama’s moral superiority and enlightened vision, must be ridiculed, discredited, and marginalized to make room for his reconstituted America.

Chapter Five

THE BULLY

CRIMES AGAINST THE PEOPLE

O
bama is the quintessential partisan, for sure, but he doesn’t reserve his vitriol for Republican politicians. He’ll turn on anyone who stands in his way, and he’ll make it personal through bullying, ridicule, and demonizing. Obama believes he can use his presidential bully pulpit to say whatever he wants about anyone or any group, whether foreign leaders, bankers, or tea party protestors.

House minority leader John Boehner commented on team Obama’s bellicosity, “If you look at these attacks on people who question the administration, you begin to wonder what the real plan is. And it really does, to me, look like Chicago-style politics, like they’re trying to demonize their opponents, and do everything they can to make them distasteful.”
¹
At one point even moderate Republican senator Lamar Alexander appeared surprised at the administration’s belligerence, remarking, “Street fighting and brawling belongs outside the White House.... I think calling people out, taking their names, threatening to take away their anti-trust exemption . . . I think it’s unpresidential to bring them in the White House.”
²

Politico
reported in October 2009 that Obama was working “systematically to marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party,” unleashing “top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds.” Through public taunts, reported
Politico
, Obama went after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street executives, and FOX News. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had “mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium,” adviser Valerie Jarrett had “disparaged” the Chamber, and Rahm Emanuel and Anita Dunn had “piled on FOX News.”
³
Political commentator Michael Barone observed, “Having encountered un-Chicago-like dissent and disagreement, he has responded with classic Chicago brass knuckles. We’ll see how far this kind of thuggery gets him.”
⁴

REPUBLICANS

Consistent with his narcissistic proclivities, Obama is angrily intolerant of his critics. He dismissed President Bush’s rare criticism by snapping, “We won.” Likewise, he lashed out at Senator John McCain for objecting to his stance on Iran, declaring, “Only I’m the president of the United States . . . and I’ll carry out my responsibilities the way I think is appropriate”—completely ignoring the substance of McCain’s criticism.
⁵

While much has been written about Obama’s arm-twisting in trying to shove ObamaCare through Congress, he had done the same thing with his cap and trade proposal some nine months earlier. This is a hallmark of Obama’s governing style: he takes things personally and keeps score. Jane Hamsher wrote in
Politico
, “The White House is smoking mad at Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who says he’s voting against the climate bill—despite the lobbying of the entire First Family in the Oval Office last night. If the bill goes down, Obama won’t forget Doggett’s role, Democrats say. It’s ‘stunning that he would ignore the wishes not just of his president, but of his constituents and the country,’ said an administration official.”