Republicans Are Making a Mistake With Obama Concerns
October 19, 2009 · By Matthew Campbell
There’s a saying I’m sure that we’ve all heard, “It’s not what you say but how you say it!” and that we’re all too familiar with. In addition, those of us who are familiar with politics know that a lot of what wins campaigns, both during the husslings and in the off-season is momentum. In an abstract way, both truths can be very useful for Republicans (and their libertarian-minded allies) at this team in President Obama (D)’s first term. It’s not that the concerns that are being brought up by groups like the Oath Keepers don’t have merit as numerous stories have come out over the past ten months to suggest that the Obama administration might be a tad interested in bending the rules if they can get away with it. In fact, the White House has a tendency these days to be it’s own worst enemy by publicly displaying its trade secrets. If politicians are willing to admit control, how much deeper does the plot go?
We have to be mindful of these communication trip-ups though as they are a reminder of the real reason that Obama is currently flirting with his predecessor’s low mark in the opinion polls and, more importantly, why the reaction my the civil liberties-minded Americans these days are an over-reaction. Upon nearing the first anniversary of Obama’s election, the President has continued to impress every fair-minded individual with his talent for rhetoric; he’s no Reagan but he can certainly light up a crowd. The other emerging truth of the 44th administration is that, as a group, there hasn’t been as much potential for a PR meltdown since Jimmy Carter’s days. Put specifically, Obama (and his handlers) will undo himself before he is able to establish himself as any sort of dictator.
The danger in the path towards sounding the alarm against Obama isn’t that it won’t work, or that it won’t contribute to Obama’s eventual falling out with the American public; it’s that it will weaken what comes after. Civil libertarians and conservatives today serve as the defenders of the original constitutional framework in the United States; the public knows this and, for the most part, will notice whenever they pipe up as they did last year by voting for Obama in the first place. However, if this group makes a mountain out of Obama’s molehill, it will eventually weaken their argument when someone more capable at manipulating the information-driven media comes along. Again, it’s not that the attitudes of these freedom fighters is wrong, just the degree to which they are acting upon it.
Going back to the momentum idea that I brought up at the beginning here, a wiser strategy for the libertarians going forward might be to just sit back and enjoy the show. Sure, make sure that the idea that Obama is just a little too controlling for comfort stays in the public eye, but remember that at the same time, he’s not implementing 1930s Germany or even 1930s America at this point. If that point should come under his presidency, by all means, speak up! However, to take such drastic action now will only marginalize such a warning bell when a serious threat to America’s constitution comes along.
Matthew Campbell is webmaster of Election Target, an interactive site devoted to predicting election results and providing global election content.


I’m beginning to think Obama is his own worst enemy as well, or, at the very least, still acting like someone who spent too much time in the circles of higher education.
This whole nonsense after the weekend about Fox News not being news but “a perspective” (as though no other news organization—hmmm, MSNBC—has a “perspective”) is a perfect example. Many, many fair minded Americans get their news from Fox. If you don’t like what they are saying, accept their invitations and send your people to go on their highly rated shows.
What a stupid fight to pick! … What, are they trying to muster support for the “Fairness Doctrine”? … Good luck getting that by going after Fox News.
It’s a game, they should play it. Not everything has to be a revolution. Which is why the news of a few Obama staffers having an affinity for Mao is so bizarre. Unless they are prepared to do what Mao did, sentimentalizing over him won’t get them very far.
Bush was the exact opposite of Obama when it came to informing the country’s expectations of him. Bush over played expectations. Obama under-whelms because he sets the bar so high. … Like accepting a Nobel Peace Prize now rather, than, maybe, much later? … With that in hand, to make his hand count, I suspect he is going to have to be much more hawkish than Bush (justifying it as a Nobel Peace Laureate), which doesn’t seem likely, to say nothing of being possible to pull off.