Why Are President Obama's Defenders So Dumb?

Media Bias: A presidential infomercial posing as a news magazine distorts the record to shamelessly shill for a failed administration. Why do we criticize the man who made the high-speed trains run on time?

Political campaigns call it free media: when candidates can make their case and communicate their message through interviews and outlets that don't cost a dime.

It helps when a mainstream media sycophant like Andrew Sullivan gets to write a puff piece in Newsweek with the subtle title of "Why Are The President's Critics So Dumb?" The Democratic National Committee couldn't have said it better.

Calling the president's critics dumb is not novel, and it's something President Obama and wife Michelle have done often. When ObamaCare was being shoved down our throats behind closed doors, the president said he had simply not made the case clearly enough so that opponents in flyover country, those bitter townsfolk clinging to their Bibles and guns, could get it.

Sullivan says it's "not true" Obama "has raised taxes" and that ObamaCare "is much more moderate" than its critics claim. Well, let's start with Obama's raising the federal tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes to $1.01, which hits Occupy Wall Street's 99% hard and makes a mockery of the pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000.

Then there are the ObamaCare taxes that took effect right after it was passed though the "benefits" won't appear until 2014. For starters, there's a 0.9% Medicare surtax on wages more than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples, along with a 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income.

And remember, it came from a Knickerbocker patroon, who knew something about indentures and Old World squirearchical feudalism.

Knickerbocker patroon??

Ahem, given the ambiguous antecedent for "it" and that my surname is Dutch, I assume you are talking about Mr. Roosevelt, as none of my family has ever settled in Noo Yoahk.

Still, the Marxist gambit in the US is considerably older than 1932 as is evidenced by the political seed bed having been worked for decades by Messrs Mann and Dewey. Further, said patron's progenitor-somewhat-removed-by-the-same-name had (under the guise of Republicanism) built the debt that brought in the Fed feeding constituent military contractors and instituted socialized risk management (protecting the poor babies) with uncompensated regulatory takings, all in the name of patriotism!

Still, the Marxist gambit in the US is considerably older than 1932 as is evidenced by the political seed bed having been worked for decades by Messrs Mann and Dewey.

Yes, conceded. But if they antedated the Fabians, do they count?

Conceded, that we've had a bad case of Reds and Pinks ever since the Forty-Eighters showed up over here and promptly volunteered their services to the Republican (ex-Whig) statists of 1856 and their essay of overthrowing the Framers' Republic in favor of the Gilded Age's barely-concealed plutocracy.

Has no historian ever wondered on a page, why the revolutionary Rousseauvians of 1848 had no problem with the idea of a tiny band of New York businessmen and Boston intellectuals driving a war that killed nearly a million people, in order to put a Republic that was merely nearly ideal out of business, for the sake of business?

Perhaps they never figured out .... but they can't have been so naive .... that the (undebated) statist ideology was merely the servant of its wealthy sponsors.

But if they antedated the Fabians, do they count?

They most certainly do. Allow me to suggest a book (actually, two books): To Eliminate the Opiate, by Orthodox Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman. His history traces the origins back to about the year 1700. If you read it, I think you'll agree.

Just like the Sparakusbund commies of the Frankfurt School seventy-five years later, their pet corporates covered by the 14th Amendment, differentially financed by the 16th, and divorced from the States by the 18th. Yup.

Has no historian ever wondered on a page, why the revolutionary Rousseauvians of 1848 had no problem with the idea of a tiny band of New York businessmen and Boston intellectuals driving a war that killed nearly a million people, in order to put a Republic that was merely nearly ideal out of business, for the sake of business?

I think you know very well that I'm one of the few on this forum who fully comprehends that irony. But I would submit that the same gambit was imbedded in the Constitution for entirely the same reasons.

Perhaps they never figured out .... but they can't have been so naive .... that the (undebated) statist ideology was merely the servant of its wealthy sponsors.

Needing to raise the dough to fund a war (or recover from one) will do that to you. Certain "concessions" get made before the bond auction may commence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.