Obama: Tyrant (wannabe)

You may think the title is harsh, and somewhat disrespectful of the President. You may think that, even though you are a leftist (meaning you are automatically a hypocrite) who called President Bush a tyrant, a dictator, and worse. Keith Olbaermann, of MSNBC: "Mr. Bush, you are a fascist". (meaning Hitler type fascist,--rather than an Obama/Wall Street/Big Business economic fascist--a term which predated Hitler, and has little to do with him).


Well, you are wrong anyway. It is not ME who is criticizing President Obama for wanting to be a tyrant. It is Senator Obama who gave a devastating indictment of President Obama's call for "majoritarian tyranny". You heard President Obama yesterday say that Americans do not care about the procedures in the Senate; that Americans believe in majority vote. They--according to Obama--just want a VOTE on Obama's health care legislation--an up or down vote without all of those procedural hurdles. No, you probably did not hear it, since the whole farce was so BORING. But that is what Obama said. But what did SENATOR OBAMA say about the filibuster, and the Senate becoming just like the House--where majority rules?


I am glad you asked. Senator Obama said that our Founders had set up two houses of Congress for a reason: to prevent the evil of strict "majority rule"--to prevent the majority from exercising tyranny over the minority. by merely majority vote. According to Obama, who was mainly right on this, the very reason for the existence of the Senate was to make sure that the strict "majoritarian" philosophy of the House of Representatives did not result in this sort of tyranny of the majority over the minority. Obama--as usual--was truly eloquent on the subject.


And Obama was not alone. Joe Biden. Harry Reid. Almost all of the leftist Democrats. They all asserted that the filibuster is one of the essential bulwarks of American freedom. They were all truly eloquent in explaining why America is not about majority vote, but more about protecting the rights of the minority not to be rolled over because the minority may have one less vote than the majority.


You seer the point here? It is not ME calling Obama a tyrant (wannabe). It is OBAMA who has eloquently called Obama a tyrant (wannabe). Obama and the Democrats what their health care bill at any cost, and they don't care about principle. Again, Obama himself told you that yesterday when he suggested that the filibuster rule was merely an arcane procedural rule, unimportant to the American people. It did not matter to Obama that he said exactly the opposite a mere few years before--in connection, by the way, with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS, which had traditionally not been the subject of filibusters. Republicans did not succeed in abolishing the filibuster as to even that relatively minor matter (minor in comparison with the government taking control of 16% of the economy).


What is funny, of course, is that the Democrats are not even really pushing a "tyranny of the majority" in this case--except if you limit "majority" to members of Congress. Democrats are pushing a "tyranny of the minority". It is absolutely clear that a majority of the American people do not want the Democratic health care bill. Yet, Obama and the Democrats seem determined to push this bill through at all costs--even if it means using what they, themselves, have called TYRANNY to do it.


What about Republicans (of the political type, wimps that they are)? Why are not Republicans out there QUOTING the Democrats on tyranny and freedom--including quoting President Obama. Why are not Republican as referencing the economic data this week--including more disastrous jobs and housing data--and calling Obama and the Democrats to to task for continuing to push a health care bill that no one wants, when we can least afford it (even if it were otherwise a good idea, which it is not). You say Republicans stood up to Obama and the Democrats in that meeting yesterday? Maybe. But they should be shouting these things from the rooftops EVERY DAY--not just at political theater meetings called by the President. Instead, Republicans have mainly left it up to the people to carry the lead in fighting this insanity. Where are the Republicans talking about tyranny and freedom--quoting Democrats like Obama--when it is suggested that the filibuster rule be disregarded? Why are Republicans not at least as brave as Obama was, to the point of agreeing with Obama that Obama is a TYRANT (wannabe)?


Nope. Republicans can stop this bill (if they want to). "But", you say, "Republicans don't dare quote Democrats calling Democrats tyrants, because it will merely show that Republicans are hypocrites too." After all, many Republicans have pushed this "nuclear option" in they past--giving rise to all of that Democratic eloquence about freedom, tyranny, and the Founders. Now Republicans would say that what they were trying to do was different--not this kind of major legislation, and not even usually successful. You may not agree with Republicans on this, and you may think they are being hypocrites. You will, of course, not learn from the mainstream media what the purpose of the "Budget Reconciliation Act was, and in what circumstances it has been SUCCESSFULLY used. After all, if you take Obama's present positiion, that all Americans want is a majority vote, then the filibuster is GONE. The Senate really does become just like the House, as Obama so eloquently warned against.


It does not matter. Yes. I mean that. It does not matter whether Republicans would be hypocrites or not. Does it bother OBAMA? Does it bother the DEMOCRATS? Of course not (partly because the Democrats count on the mainstream media to protect them, but the mainstream media is not what it once was, and Fox News, for example, is playing all of those clips of Democrats talking about the filibuster as a bastion of freedom and barrier against tyranny). Obama said yesterday, in effect, that the public does not care about the details of procedure. What he MEANT was that the public does not care about procedure unless you explain to them why procedure matters (or--in this case--where they just don't want the bill). That was what Democrats did--mostly successfully--in previously linking the filibuster to freedom and tyranny.


"Hypocrisy" is a funny thing. It is not a charge that "sticks" much in politics. People sort of expect it. Obama regularly says exactly the opposite today of what he said yesterday, although it has begun to hurt him. Democrats, and their allies in the mainstream media, are already pushing the "talking point" that Republicans have previously used "budget reconciliation", and therefore should not complain about the Democrats. Now the rule exists, and therefore it was obviously meant to be USED (in the circumstances to which it was meant to apply). But that is beside the point. The responsibility of Republicans here is to use the words of Obama, and other Democrats, to make their case. This is not just a defense against their own hypocrisy, although it could be regarded as that, but it is a matter of making the ARGUMENT clear to the American people--making it clear (as the Democrats did) why people should CARE about the filibuster. Democrats are now betting that the people--dumb as they are--will FORGET the eloquent reasons Democrats gave as to why they should care about the filibuster--reasons that had validity in principle. It is up to Republicans not to let Democrats get away with that--even at the slight risk of being labeled hypocrites themselves.


Stay tuned. Will Republicans grow cojones (Mexican border word, since that is where I live)? Will Republicans stop worrying about the mainstream media, and actually stand for principle--adopting the Democrat philosophy that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? They may not. Why not? Well, most of them may have no principles. But the dirty little secret here is that many Republican politicians WANT the Democrats to ram through a health care bill. They think that will help destroy the Democratic Party, and give Republicans POWER (which is their only real principle, just like it is the main principle of Democrat politicians).


I agree with my brother on this one. If Republicans let this bill pass, or even let some cosmetic "compromise" pass, then they are betraying the country. They will live to regret it. It will indicate that they have learned nothing, and are just playing the standard Washington game--politics as usual, just like Obama. It is no accident that Obama is often the most devastating critic of Obama. He--despite all of his talk of "change"--regards everything he says as a matter of POLITICS. Does it sound good? If so, say it, because the American people will not remember that you said the opposite yesterday. If all Republicans do is continue playing this same game of power--more interested in their political power than in actually stopping bad legislation--they will again deserve what they eventually get--as they deserved what happened to them in 2006 and 2008, no matter how bad it was for the country.


P.S. "Obama Fiddles With Health Care as America Burns" (reference being to Roman Emperor Nero, and the similar way Obama is ignoring the terrible economic news such as job data, consumer confidence and new home sales, in favor of pushing a health care bill that can only make our present problems worse). That was part my article headline yesterday, and I stand by it. With our deficits and economic problems, we have no business even TALKING about a massive new Federal entitlement program, and more burdens on the private economy. Upside: So long as the Democrats are concentrating on health care, they are deflected from doing other things to RUIN the economy (like that disastrous "stimulus" bill last year). But this is Russian roulette. If the Democrats manage to push through a massive health care bill, that alone will RUIN the economy, and the country, without anything else. It may well ruin Democrats as well, but it will be too late for the country.