Crimes Against Liberty Read online

  Tea party rallies only intensified the following year, with protestors meeting nationwide to denounce the administration’s runaway spending, excessive taxation, expansion of government control, and other irresponsible policies. Obama continued to show both his aloofness (characterizing the protests as only about taxes) and his thin-skinned arrogance. He mocked tea partiers at a Democratic Party fundraiser, saying he was “amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying ‘thank you’” because “in all, we passed 25 different tax cuts last year. And one thing we haven’t done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year—another promise that we kept.” His original promise, as previously noted, was that he wouldn’t raise any form of taxes for that income group, on which he has now increased or imposed at least fourteen separate taxes.25

  THE WAR ON FOX

  It’s hard to remember a president being treated so deferentially by the media, but the press can never be loyal enough for Obama. If you aren’t with him 100 percent of the time, you are against him. Time political analyst Mark Halperin admitted to television host Charlie Rose that Obama was the first president to avoid media scrutiny, saying he had a “charmed” Senate race and a “charmed” presidential campaign. And yet, Halperin said, Obama is nevertheless “thin-skinned” about the press and “increasingly says that ‘the press is against me.’”26

  When FOX News wouldn’t kowtow to his demands to air his third prime-time presser, Obama began to snub the network by refusing to call on its reporters at press conferences. FOX News White House correspondent Major Garrett called the snubbing “retribution” for FOX’s decision not to air the press conference. He added, “I was warned that it might be considered as part of the overall consideration as to whether or not I’d get called on. I wasn’t. I can add one and one to make two.”27 Obama’s treatment of FOX wasn’t a “one-off” event, but was part of a larger strategy to marginalize the only television network scrutinizing his policies.

  The administration waged war against FOX not only for its direct criticism of Obama, but for the rippling effect of its critique into mainstream media outlets, including even the New York Times. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs just couldn’t stand for the Times, which had invariably supported Obama, to air the slightest criticism of his boss. When the Times ran a front-page story about parental outrage at Obama’s address to school children—a story that had been closely covered on FOX—Gibbs became unglued. “This thing,” he said, “has become a three-ring circus.” The White House was also miffed when the Washington Post ran, without questioning it, an op-ed from a Republican politician that decried Obama’s thirty-two policy czars.

  According to Time magazine, in response to these stories “the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims. . . . Obama, fresh from his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, cheered on the effort, telling his aides he wanted to “call ’em out.”28 The White House blog was central to the effort, regularly denouncing the administration’s critics, especially FOX. White House online programs director Jesse Lee railed against FOX’s coverage of Obama’s attempt to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago, accusing the network of continuing “its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration’s efforts to win the Olympics for the United States.... For even more FOX lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer.”29

  The pugnacious White House defiantly defended its behavior. Gibbs declared, “The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move.” So much for the new, post-partisan politics.

  White House communications director Anita Dunn, in lockstep with Gibbs, recommended a “rapid response” to counteract “FOX’s blows” against the administration. Dunn described FOX as “part of the Republican Party” and as “opinion journalism masquerading as news. They are boosting their audience. But that doesn’t mean we are going to sit back. . . . Let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”30 Dunn continued, “FOX News often operates almost as either a research arm or a communications arm of the Republican Party.... When he [Obama] goes on FOX, he understands he’s not going on it really as a news network at this point; he’s going on to debate the opposition.”31 She claimed White House critics would “say anything.... They will take any small thing and distort it.... In other words, after eight months at the White House, the days of nonpartisan harmony are long gone—it’s us against them. And the Obama Administration is playing to win.”32

  It wasn’t as if Dunn was a loose cannon acting independently of the White House. Presidential adviser David Axelrod echoed Dunn’s charges, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that FOX “is not a real news organization” and that “other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way.” Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told CNN’s Campbell Brown, “Of course they’re (FOX) biased.” But she would not, when pressed, make the same claim about MSNBC.33 To the contrary, Kareem Dale, Special Assistant to the President for Arts and Culture, publicly proclaimed, “At the White House, as we always like to say, we love MSNBC.”34

  Dunn’s resignation in November 2009 did not end the administration’s offensive against FOX. Her successor, Dan Pfeiffer, told the New York Times, “[FOX has] a point of view; that point of view pervades the entire network. We don’t feel the obligation to treat them like we would treat CNN, or an ABC, or an NBC, or a traditional news organization, but there are times when we believe it makes sense to communicate with them.” He vowed to continue Dunn’s approach of treating FOX like a “wing of the Republican Party.”35

  Gibbs aggressively attacked FOX for reporting on unsavory stories involving Obama’s “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings. Gibbs was angered by FOX’s reporting that Jennings had been praised by Harry Hay, founder of North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and that Jennings failed to report to authorities that a student told him the student was having sex with older men. Gibbs commented, “It’s a shame. I hope people watch what they (FOX News) do.”36

  The White House tried hard to shut FOX out of the news loops. When it scheduled round robin interviews on all the networks for its executive pay czar Kenneth Feinberg, it excluded FOX, which had been part of the White House press pool since 1997. To their credit, the other four TV networks refused to participate unless FOX were allowed to join, after which the White House relented.37 Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik called the administration’s attempt to exclude FOX “outrageous.” “What it’s really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy—we know this—only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information.” When asked about his administration’s campaign against FOX, a typically arrogant Obama likened the network to “talk radio”—a major insult in the liberal lexicon. He said, “If media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another. But it’s not something I’m losing sleep over.”38

  One Sunday in September 2009 Obama did a marathon of interviews on every network but FOX. He snubbed it and took thinly veiled digs at it on the other networks. On his interviews with CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, he criticized “television news” for making stars out of “rude” people, and complained that TV producers didn’t book more guests who displayed “decency” and “civility.” Obama told CNN’s John King, “If you’re civil and polite and you’re sensible, and you don’t exaggerate the bad things about your opponent . . . you might get on one of the Sunday shows, but you’re not going to be in the loop.” He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos the media “encourages some of the outliers in behavior,” because being “rude” is the easiest way to get on TV. He complained of the �
��24-hour news cycle,” where controversy and “the extreme statement” is what “gets you on.”39 This type of public whining is not something we’ve ordinarily seen from a president of the United States, especially one as media-pampered as Obama, and one who himself engages in the very type of behavior he condemns.

  In late 2009, Politico reported that executives at National Public Radio, which is partially funded by the federal government, asked Mara Liasson, NPR’s top political correspondent, to reconsider her frequent appearances on FOX News because of its “political bias.” The executives asked Liasson to watch FOX for thirty days to confirm it had become more partisan. Liasson complied but disagreed with the assessment, so she continued on FOX. Politico reported that NPR executives denied there was any connection between their pressuring Liasson and the White House’s campaign “to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.”

  SHOOTING THE MESSENGERS

  The administration’s attacks extended beyond FOX to other networks’ correspondents who were perceived as hostile. They blasted CNBC’s Rick Santelli in what Politico described as “unusually personal terms” for daring to challenge the administration’s mortgage bailout plan .40 “The government,” thundered Santelli, “is promoting bad behavior. This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?”41 Santelli’s rant is widely credited with sparking the tea party movement, thus making him an obvious target for the White House’s press war. Gibbs said, “I’ve watched Mr. Santelli on cable the past twenty-four hours or so. I’m not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives but the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgages, stay in their jobs, pay their bills, send their kids to school. I think we left a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that.”

  Gibbs further claimed Santelli was misrepresenting the president’s plan in saying it rewards people who don’t play by the rules. He insisted, “I’d be more than happy to have him come here to read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee—decaf.” Santelli was neither amused nor intimidated. He responded, “Pretty much everybody we know’s 401k is now a 201k. Why did that happen?. . . We want our 401k money back. I want my stock money back. The retirement funds of many Americans [are] much larger of a loss than some people on their housing at this point in time.”42

  Next in line for a White House comeuppance was CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer, who said he believed “the president’s policies, his agenda had contributed to the greatest wealth destruction he’s ever seen by a president.” Gibbs responded by attacking Cramer’s overall credibility: “You can go back and look at any number of statements that he’s made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are too.” Next, Gibbs turned on Cramer’s network. “I’m going to get in a lot of trouble if I continue,” he said. “The president—again, if you turn on a certain program, it’s geared to a very small audience—no offense to my good friends, or friend at CNBC. But the president has to look out for the broader economy and for the broader population—many of whom are investors, but not exclusively investors.”43 Interestingly, Cramer is a long-time liberal Democrat.

  The White House’s relentless denunciation of Obama’s critics provoked Rowan Scarborough to comment, “The White House is using the daily press briefing to launch personal attacks on President Obama’s critics, signaling the vast liberal media to join in. In just 50 days in office, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has taken on Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer at CNBC; conservative radio king Rush Limbaugh; and, most recently, former Vice President Dick Cheney.” (Scarborough was referring to Gibbs’s swipe at Cheney as being part of a “Republican cabal.”) “The personal slap downs” of the White House’s critics, wrote Scarborough, “stand in contrast to how the Bush White House used the daily briefing.”

  The arrogant Gibbs was particularly unrepentant about his own thuggish behavior. He bragged, “There are very few days that I’ve had more fun. I was afraid I was going to have too much more fun.”44 Can you imagine Gibbs’s behavior had he faced a truly hostile press instead of a lapdog “state-run” media?

  The administration even went after critics of its “Cash for Clunkers” program. The auto website Edmunds.com published an unflattering analysis of Clunkers, saying its actual costs to taxpayers amounted to some $24,000 per car, not the $4,500 per car of government rebates represented by the White House. In its calculations, Edmunds used the number of cars that were sold as a direct result of the program, excluding those vehicles that would have been sold anyway. Edmunds said the administration’s economic claims about the program “have been rendered quite weak.”45

  The report incensed the White House which, in the words of the liberal NPR, “responded with snark.” The White House Blog featured a responsive post titled, “Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers.” Condemning Edmunds’ “faulty” analysis for assuming the market for cars outside the Clunkers program was completely unaffected by the program (as if all other cars “were being sold on Mars”), the post claimed the findings “appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this claim doesn’t even withstand basic scrutiny.... So put on your space suit and compare the two approaches yourself.”46

  NPR was not impressed, noting that Edmunds’ response “was, by contrast, snark-free and fairly persuasive.” Edmunds calmly dismantled the White House’s lame rebuttal, showing how its key points rested on assertions based on anecdotes, not objective data. Edmunds concluded with a suggestion to the White House that, “with all respect” it shouldn’t “shoot the messenger.”47

  “NOT THE KIND OF CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN”

  Unsurprisingly, the Democrats’ bête noir, my brother Rush Limbaugh, was singled out for especially harsh criticism. The New York Post reported, “President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. ‘You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,’ he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.”48

  Obama’s activist supporters, such as MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change, launched radio and TV ads expressing false outrage at Limbaugh’s condemnation of Obama’s profligate spending. In the spirit of street agitator Saul Alinsky, Limbaugh was the target to be frozen and demonized, and then Republican lawmakers as well, by association with Limbaugh.49 Politico took notice, observing that “liberal groups are dispensing with the niceties and seeking to drive a wedge between Republicans and one of the right’s most influential leaders.” Politico reported that Americans United for Change was about to air radio ads in three states asking Republican senators, “Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?” The ad referred to Limbaugh as an “extreme partisan” who “wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail.... Will our Senator... side with Rush Limbaugh too?”50

  The administration’s campaign against Limbaugh provoked a Time magazine story titled, “Team Obama’s Petty Limbaugh Strategy.” Time noted Obama won the presidency “promising to be a different, more substantive, less gimmicky leader” who would not engage in “phony outrage,” but would work on solving problems. Instead, the subject of Limbaugh and his influence on the Republican Party was dominating the news. Time quoted Politico’s Jonathan Martin saying the entire Limbaugh “controversy” had “been cooked up and force fed to the American people by Obama’s advisers.” In other words, said Time, “it’s not the kind of change you can believe in.”51

  Time discovered the Democrats’ anti-Limbaugh campaign was hatched following a poll taken by Bill Clinton’s pollster Stanley Greenberg—who just happens to own the house where Obama’s
chief of staff Rahm Emanuel stays while in Washington. The poll allegedly found “Limbaugh was deeply unpopular among wide swaths of the American electorate.” So Greenberg and Clinton henchmen James Carville and Paul Begala devised a strategy to taint the Republican Party by connecting it to Limbaugh.52

  The White House set the strategy in motion when Limbaugh announced he hoped Obama would fail, by which he meant—as he clearly explained—that he hoped his agenda failed because otherwise the nation would fail. Rooting for the failure of Obama’s agenda was tantamount, in Limbaugh’s expressly articulated view, to championing the nation’s success and well being. Yet Gibbs and other Democratic operatives colluded to paint Limbaugh as an anti-patriot who wished for America’s failure for crass partisan purposes.

  But the distortion of Limbaugh’s statement was too blatant even for some members of the mainstream media. Time’s David Von Drehle quoted Teddy Roosevelt saying, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile but is morally treasonable to the American public.”53 The inherent virtue of even the most outrageous expressions of “dissent,” of course, was an ever-present Democratic talking point throughout the entire presidency of George W. Bush. As Hillary Clinton declared back then, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”54 Under Obama, however, critics of the president have suddenly degenerated from brave dissidents into unpatriotic and divisive demagogues.