RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Free Speech in the Era of Obama

“Democrats” and “tradition” seldom appear in the same sentence, unless the left is doing something to trash a tradition — such as traditional marriage, prayer in public, strong defense, respect for the military, free speech, etc.

But who knew Democratic presidents would be so good at establishing new traditions?

We can thank Jimmy Carter for the Sore Loser tradition. He was first among modern presidents to publicly attack and second-guess the presidents who followed him. For generations, former presidents showed respect to the office, at least, by biting their tongues. During the Clinton scandals, George Bush Sr. probably bit his in half — but he never criticized Clinton the way Carter has scorched Reagan and both Bushes.

And we can thank Bill Clinton for another tradition — the permanent campaign. He was the one who decided the Shite House is really just a big campaign office, to be used to stroke donors and run a war-room for 24-7, 365 electioneering. He also adopted the Carter tradition of undermining presidents in office — as long as they are Republicans.

And now we have new traditions created by Barack Obama. There’s the one for bowing to tinpot tyrants. One for government takeovers of private industries (which is a revival of an FDR tradition). And the latest is his direct attacks on the Supreme Court (another FDR tradition).

When the Supreme Court ruled that McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions were violations of the First Amendment, Obama sounded more outraged than he was by terrorist attacks on Americans.

In fact, he said, “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.”

Really? Really!?

I can think of many things, starting with terrorism, economic meltdowns, Obamacare and the way he tanked the market by threatening big bank taxes. But it’s not just the intemperate hyperbole — it’s the tone that is disturbing.

Presidents often disagree with Supreme Court decisions. But they traditionally show respect to the court as a co-equal branch of government. And they seldom call out the partisan dogs in Congress to reverse the court’s decision.

Anyone who was an honest observer, who read the campaign finance restrictions could see that they unconstitutionally limited political speech, which is the first purpose for protection of free speech in the First Amendment.

To the same of newspapers everywhere, the media mostly looked the other way, because they got a loophole. Media corporations were given free speech, but other corporations were gagged.

The Supreme Court has corrected that by insisting that the Founders wanted us to err on the side of free speech, and avoid any kind of censorship — like McCain Feingold.

And Obama’s immature, childish response is to harshly attack the court and make reckless threats about what he will do to “fix it.” This is not another new tradition we need. But as usual, Obama thinks everything is about Obama.

He should pay more attention to another message last week — from the voters in Massachusetts. Now that was about Obama.

And maybe he should just grow up and start acting more like a president and less like a state senator.