Posted in: News

Obama ‘Must Go For The Throat,’ ‘Declare War On The Republican Party’

Obama Advised To Crush The GOP

Tomorrow, President Obama will officially begin his second term as President of the United States and as always, his supporters on the left have plenty of good advice for him. In a stunning partisan article in the bastion of Liberal journalism, Slate, CBS News political director John Dickerson advised the President to “Go for the Throat” and “declare war on the Republican party.”

Dickerson’s rant has the long title of “Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.” His two page column is a non stop screed against compromise and sanity. He advises the President to abandon the two party system that is the foundation of our Republic and simply crush the opposition. Instead of working with all of the elected representatives of the American people, the President should impose his will on the nation, and if he fails to pass his desired legislation, he must leave the opposition in “disarray.”

Obviously, Dickerson and CBS have abandoned all pretense of impartiality. It is no wonder that millions of Americans, who once tuned in to Walter Cronkite every night, no longer watch broadcast news. The mainstream media did their utmost to ignore Benghazi and Fast and Furious during the last election, while they attacked Romney’s campaign at every opportunity.

During the 2012 campaign, we heard Candy Crowley interrupt Mitt Romney during the Presidential debate and defend Mr. Obama’s misstatements on Libya. We heard reporters on an open mic coordinating questions for Romney in advance, saying, “no matter who he calls on we’re covered…” Many Americans felt betrayed by the American media during the election, accusing journalists of open bias towards Obama.

The nation is bitterly divided on many issues. Americans are losing their jobs, their savings, and their homes in record numbers. Fifty three percent of all recent college graduates are underemployed or unemployed. Paychecks are shrinking and we can expect more new taxes to be imposed when Obamacare begins to take effect in October of this year.

One might tend to ignore John Dickerson, who makes a high six figure income and spends his life cruising the halls of power. Is there really anything newsworthy about a well known leftist telling the President not to work with the loyal opposition to save our nation from social and economic ruin.

Unfortunately, Dickerson is not just another highly partisan journalist who has betrayed the principals of his profession. He is the Political Director for CBS News and he sets the policy for their coverage. When a talking head reporter decides to relentlessly attack the NRA or a conservative Senator, you can bet your bottom dollar it is being done with Dickerson’s knowledge and approval.

Dickerson has a long history of taking extreme left wing positions. Even the uber-liberal Washington Post considers him controversial. The Post highlighted Dickerson leftist credentials in a comment about his constant confrontations with President Bush the Younger during White House Press conferences:

The master of the game is the extremely controversial John Dickerson of Time magazine, who liberal news media people rejoice in the view that the uber controversial Dickerson has knocked Bush off script so many times that his colleagues have coined a term for cleverly worded, seemingly harmless, but incisive questions: ‘Dickersonian.'”

Now Dickerson wants the President to “declare war” on anyone who dares to oppose him. Let the American people suffer, lose their homes and struggle to put food on the table while the President does everything in his power to enhance his party’s position for the next election instead of getting the nation back on track.

Read some of Mr. Dickerson’s sage advice for the President. Decide for yourself if he believes in a better future for all Americans. Will “pulverizing” the Republicans feed your family or pay your mortgage? Is John Dickerson just collecting another paycheck with a provocative article in Slate or is he advocating for tyranny and a dictatorship? You decide.

“The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.”

“How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It’s the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with lawmakers, too.”

“That’s the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn’t think it will work and he doesn’t have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name.”

“Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.”

Articles And Offers From The Web


4 Responses to “Obama ‘Must Go For The Throat,’ ‘Declare War On The Republican Party’”

  1. Chris Greenhough

    Let's be clear: both parties are primed to paint the other in as poor a light as possible – through any means. You find "Go for the throat" shocking, Wolff? I can guarantee far, far more aggressive statements have been privately made in high-level GOP and Dem party meetings and conventions. Cover your delicate ears, because despite what they may say, both parties wish to annihilate the other in the political race. BOTH parties.

    Secondly, stop trying to paint the GOP as the misunderstood party of compromise. They are not. Some of the bills Republicans blocked or have attempted to block since 2008 include:

    – The Political Ad Disclosure Bill (requiring all donors to political campaigns to reveal their identity).
    – The Benefits for Homeless Veterans Bill (which proposed extending benefits to homeless veterans).
    – The Wall Street Reform Act (which would have clamped down on banks and their reckless spending practices).
    – The Oil Spill Liability Bill (which would increase the amount companies have to contribute to cleaning up an oil spill they were responsible for).
    – The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a bill that says gay and lesbian services members must lie about their sexuality and can be discharged by the military on the grounds of their sexuality.
    – The Fair Pay Act of 2009, that proposed women should receive equal compensation to men for doing the same work.

    There are many, many more. I'd be happy to list them for you. Some of these were, thankfully, eventually pushed through, despite the GOP attempting to block them all at least once. Would the Dems be quite as stubborn, were the roles reversed? There's no way of knowing for sure, but the GOP's behavior has hardly set a good template for the future. I am not optimistic.

    With all this in mind, let's agree on something: bipartisanship, a nice idea in theory, now seems overly idealistic. It hasn't worked. Both parties are too focused on hacking the other down to size, and as Dickerson points out, Congress' approval rating is lower now than it has ever been. The past four years have seen the GOP repeatedly blocking dozens of acts, and Obama was overly optimistic – some may even say naive – in talking up bipartisanship. People no longer buy the concept, and you can't blame them for that.

    So what to do? Spend another four years hitting dead-ends and achieving nothing? This would not move things forward. Because Congress has proven itself incapable of working together to benefit the public, I agree with Dickerson's view that Obama needs to be more forceful in his second term. This does not mean, as you write, "abandoning the two party system that is the foundation of our Republic." The choice is not simply black or white. It is not a matter of *bipartisanship* or *UTTER TYRANNY*. Obama can quite easily become more assertive without turning into Kim Jong-il.

    If you have a better alternative to bipartisanship or Obama being more assertive, I'd be happy to hear it.

    I don't believe Obama is flawless. The drones in Pakistan, the non-closure of Guantanamo Bay, his timidity in dealing with Wall Street: I have plenty to whinge about when it comes to Obama, believe me.

    However, he also has plenty of positive goals, and I hope he is assertive enough in his second term to realize these. While Dickerson's editorial might be forcibly worded, I broadly agree with it.

Around The Web