In a previous post, I linked Mickey Kaus’s observation, “If an ‘astroturfing’ campaign gets real people to show up at events stating their real views, isn’t it … community organizing?” Now that conservatives are organizing communities of concerned citizens in much the same manner Barack Obama did when once a recent transplant to the Windy City, well, the Democrats (and their allies in the MSM) just can’t fathom the notion of their ideological adversaries expressing their grievances in much as they have done for the better part of the last eight years.
“The activist Left,” as Michlle Malkin puts it, “can’t stand competition.” It’s as if one may only legitimately agitate against Republicans, “corporate interests,” the military, Western nations and the allies and defenders of said groups. And the object of their protest must be the end to a robust US defense policy and an increase in the size and scope of government at all levels, with appropriate tax increases on productive individuals coupled with a concomitant redistribution of wealth to favored classes and ideologies.
When the President “summons his army” to fight for his proposed health care reform, this is a legitimate, “grassroots” expression of popular will, but when citizens (some working with conservative groups) send out e-mails to their fellows urging them to rally in public against that health care reform, that is astroturf, ginned up by corporate special interests.
The man, who tells us he’s trying to “break pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame,” constantly blaming his predecessor (and that predecessor’s political party) for the wrongs he must clean up. (Indeed, in the same speech that he contends, “All we do is just then bicker and point fingers,” he points fingers.) The man who claims he seeks a bipartisan approach to policy-making, listening to all sides, tells the other side to shut up.
But, that’s contradictory statements show Obama only warming up his Orwellian approach. It’s when he tries to say his policies have prevented an even higher deficit that he uses words to mean their exact opposite, attempting to change reality with his rhetoric:
So now you’ve got folks on the other side of the aisle pointing at the federal budget and somehow trying to put that at our feet. Well, let’s look at the history. When I walked in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit. That was gift-wrapped and waiting for me when I walked in the Oval Office. (Laughter.) Without my policies we’d have an even higher deficit going forward. The one exception is the recovery package that we had to do in order to get this economy moving again. (Applause.)
Um, Mr. President, when you walked into the Oval Office, you had just left the United States Senate where you voted for the $700 billion dollar TARP bailout which helped the deficit reach that level. For the two years prior to your executive service, you were a member of the majority party in the United States Congress which according to the Constitution (with which you, a former Constitutional Law Professor, are supposedly expert) has the power of the purse. Said party voted to increase federal outlays at a faster rate than did the preceding spendthrift Republican Congress.
And then you say that without your policies, “we’d have an even higher deficit” when accounting for that so-called “stimulus” and the vast increases in federal spending you proposed in your budget. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayers of your health care overhaul.
Mr. President, do you believe that by the magic of your rhetoric, the power of your prose, you can change reality?
(H/t for excerpts for Obama speech: Pundit & Pundette.)