Enough With This Spin
I’ve had it up to here with the White House’s spinning about Chief Justice John Roberts. I reached my tipping point when Propaganda Minister Robert Gibbs said this:
In a statement sent to reporters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the only troubling thing was the 5-4 ruling by the court, which said that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money advocating on behalf of candidates in elections. Roberts leads the court.
“What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections, drowning out the voices of average Americans,” Gibbs said. “The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”
That’s downright insulting. President Obama repeatedly and consistently ignored what We The People said about Obamacare during last August’s townhall meetings. President Obama totally ignored the hundreds of thousands of calls to Congress last January and February about his failed stimulus plan. He ignored what We The People said in the elections in New Jersey and Virginia and the special election in Massachusetts.
While he was ignoring the American people, he made time for Andy Stern visits. Not only did he meet with Andy Stern but he gave the unions a huge $60,000,000,000 tax break on their Cadillac health insurance policies.
Now he has the audacity to say that he’s committed to “reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government”? When did that commitment start? Did that commitment start after hiring lobbyist after lobbyist to work in his administration?
Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names, a rather long list of names of people, who are working on Obama’s transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.
The Times reports that some of those people were lobbying as recently as this year.
Mr. Gibbs hasn’t answered those questions satisfactorily. In fact, he’s ignored those questions just like President Obama has ignored what the American people have said.
When President Obama or his spinning surrogates complained that special interest groups would soon drown out the voice of the American people, what he’s really doing is complaining that his favorite special interest groups won’t have the stage all to themselves this election season.
The Supreme Court defered to the Founding Fathers’ wisdom, saying that everyone should be able to express their political views. They said that presidents don’t get to pick which interest groups can express their political views and which ones can’t. What they said was that the First Amendment says that Congress can’t make laws that prohibit or limit the free expression of political thoughts or opinions. PERIOD.
That isn’t what the Obama administration believes in, though. Here’s what Mark Lloyd said on the subject of the First Amendment:
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”
He then said this:
“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled, worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government, worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
“And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”
It isn’t difficult to make a compelling case that the Obama administration wants to shut up the people that disagrees with them but wants to guarantee that the special interest groups that agree with him can speak freely.
They’re upset that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution. They’re upset that they don’t set the rules for who is censored and who can speak freely.
After Propaganda Minister Gibbs’ statement, Washington’s other mental midget stepped into the fray. Here’s what Harry Reid said:
“Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” Reid said, adding that the justices on the court lack understanding of the practical impact of their decisions.
A spokesman for Reid said the senator backs Obama’s push for legislation to more closely regulate corporate campaign spending.
Sen. Reid didn’t complain about when President Clinton was accepting tens of millions of dollars in soft money in 1996, then using the special interest groups’ money to drown out Bob Dole’s voice.
FOOTNOTE: Sen. Reid, it isn’t the U.S. Supreme Court’s role to know or care how people get elected. Their role is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and the treaties it’s signed. Their’s isn’t a policymaking position.
Now that the Democrats’ favorite special interest groups have to fight on a level playing field, Sen. Reid is complaining. Much like Mr. Gibbs’s whining, Sen. Reid’s complaints are falling on deaf ears.
The notion that this administration is committed to weakening the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups is insulting. It doesn’t bear any resemblence to the truth or to reality.
Technorati Tags: SCOTUS, Chief Justice, John Roberts, Constitution, First Amendment, President Obama, Robert Gibbs, Mark Lloyd, Andy Stern, SEIU, Harry Reid, Censorship, Democrats
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
March 11th, 2010 at 10:25 am
“…Reid said, adding that the justices on the court lack understanding of the practical impact of their decisions.”
Talk about calling a supposed kettle black! Mr. Reid can barely assume to know what’s for breakfast, let alone figure out what effect most of his socialist legislation will have on the producers of this country, mostly the middle class.And those are supposedly the ones he has vowed so often to “protect!”
It’s a good thing they don’t check him for brain activity - he’d show less than Terri Schiavo did.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:24 am
You said, “Their role is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and the treaties it’s signed.”
That is not quite right. Their job is to review the laws passed by Congress and check them against the Constitution. That is a bit different than what you are saying, I think.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Seems to me they have no reason whatsoever to be up tight about Robert’s remarks the other day. The Court was present at the SOTU address out of respect for the other two branches, and what did they get for it? A scolding from the President and a jeering Congress. And now the White House is sniveling because the Chief Justice has the gonads to react?
Poor babies! My heart pumps purple panther piss for ya Gibbs.
March 13th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Fibbs can’t even keep his story straight. First, this administration is at least as influenced by special interests as, say, Tammany Hall was in NYC back in the day. That is to say, there is no decision made without first consulting their own “special interest” lobbyists, deferring to them on every issue.
Second, Fibbs, the issue isn’t a “he said, she said” issue, it was the VENUE, stupid! The president has every right, including a constitutional one, to disagree with any court decision. What he doesn’t have a right to do is to try to influence the SCOTUS through intimidation before himself (Executive branch) and the Congress (legislative branch). Mr. Obama could and should be called on the carpet for the thuggish intimidation attempt.
And last, fine distinction, TimothyJ, one that courts through the years would have been much better to have followed than taking the activist and interpretive roles they did.