4779 Shares

Why does the Obama administration create false enemies instead of touting their successful policies?

Why does the Obama administration create false enemies instead of touting their successful policies? Topic: Citizens united case style
July 24, 2019 / By Donaldina
Question: In order to help their fellow Democrats win in November? Throughout the year, we have been treated to Obama-led attacks on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Congressman Joe Barton (for his odd apology to BP), John Boehner (for seeking the speakership — or was it something about an ant?) and Fox News (for everything). Suitable Democratic targets in some cases, perhaps, but not worth the time of a busy Commander in Chief. In the past few days, we have witnessed the spectacle of the President himself and his top advisers wading into allegations that Republicans are attempting to buy the election using foreign money laundered through the Chamber of Commerce, combining with Karl Rove and his wealthy backers to fund a flood of negative television commercials. Not only is this issue convoluted and far-fetched, but it also distracts from the issues voters care about, frustrating political insiders and alienating struggling citizens (not that many are following such an offbeat story line). Feinting and gibing can’t obscure those job numbers. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2024718,00.html
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why does the Obama administration create false enemies instead of touting their successful policies?

Cary Cary | 4 days ago
I agree, the Obama administration is creating false enemies because they can not run on their non -successful policies. Barack Obama's latest straw-man style of attack is focused on the United States Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has earned his ire by being a free-enterprise group, and one that is practicing its First Amendment rights to criticize an administration bereft of officials with real-world experience but chockablock with animus toward capitalism. Obama's latest claim is that the ads run by the Chamber are funded by foreign sources. Who is helping perpetuating this claim -- for which there is no evidence? George Soros: Obama's pal and donor, and a man who wielded his power over his 527 groups to help power Obama to the Oval Office. The New York Times charts the path of the "foreign money" charge: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/pol... > >" "The issue of the chamber's funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline "Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.' Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads." http://thinkprogress.org/ The piece detailed the chamber's overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns. Still, liberal groups like MoveOn.org http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/referen... pounced on the allegations, resulting in protests at the chamber's offices, a demand for a federal investigation by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and ultimately the remarks by Mr. Obama himself. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/al_franken/index.html?inline=nyt-per White House officials acknowledged Friday that they had no specific evidence to indicate that the chamber had used money from foreign entities to finance political attack ads." " < < Soros is pulling the strings of his puppets -- again. Think Progress is a branch of the Center for American Progress, the think-tank founded and funded to a great extent by George Soros and his political allies, Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center has been described by Bloomberg News as the "Soros-Funded Democratic Idea Factory." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aF7fB1PF0NPg The CAP also provided the administration with many of its officials, including the controversial Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones (he returned to his sinecure at the CAP when he was "resigned" in the wake of revelations about his radicalism). The head of the CAP, John Podesta, managed the transition from Senator Obama to President Obama. The Obama administration has plenty of alums from the Center for American Progress. o_O
👍 196 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? Why does the Obama administration create false enemies instead of touting their successful policies? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Citizens united case style


Cary Originally Answered: Why after 4 years of touting the Harvard Law Review as a great publication, does Team Obama now reject it?
I am beginning to worry about you. Are you sure you want McCain to represent you for the next 4 years?;-) Obama is a good guy as far as a politician can be at these times;-p

Angellina Angellina
They have been very successful in their policies because the administration with the help of the ultra leftists in Congress is actually looking to tear apart American society. They also have a lot of enemies that they have successfully done tremendous damage to. Those enemies are called the American Taxpayers, and the future generations of Americans. I guess you can see why they aren't exactly bragging about all of their successes.
👍 80 | 👎 -2

Willoughby Willoughby
What else do the progressives have going for them. I just read the latest news from Mike Allen's Playbook on Politico, and he is saying that Barack Obama and his supporters will continue to spread the Big Lie and "double down on it." Arrogance and impunity in action. http://www.politico.com/playbook/ How is that hope and change mantra that lulled so many Americans to suspend their disbelief coming along? The strategy may be clear and despicable, but the network behind it remains murky to the general public. So much for Obama's transparency pledge and the politics of hope and change.
👍 77 | 👎 -8

Seir Seir
When you can't run on your own accomplishments you have to do something. If any body knows about taking illegal money Obama sure does. When the President has to remove his coat and tie and scream like a drunken Sunday Preacher trying to rally what few supporters he has left it tells me he is getting desperate. Notice Democrats are running their campaigns without admitting that they are democrats. They want you to believe they are just one of us. They Don't want Obama even in the same state. Notice Obama is making no appearance with any of his cronies because they know it is the kiss of death. WE THE PEOPLE ARE WISE TO YOUR SOCIALISTIC AGENDA MR. OBAMA and WE ARE NOT BUYING.
👍 74 | 👎 -14

Neill Neill
Now their latest accusation is foreign money going to GOP campaigns. They have absolutely no evidence and their attitude is "prove me wrong." are they freaking serious? this is an outrage. I can't believe how nasty the Democrats have become. We need to take our government back from these thugs
👍 71 | 👎 -20

Neill Originally Answered: Do you think the number of America's "enemies" will suddenly drop once Obama becomes President?
I received this in the mail: 12/16/2008 “There is no suggestion of a military confrontation, but the Russian moves are notable in part because they appear to reflect an effort by Moscow to flex some muscle in America's backyard in response to Washington's support for the former Soviet republic of Georgia and elsewhere on the Russian periphery. That includes U.S. missile defense bases to be erected in Poland and the Czech Republic.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_russian_warships What’s the military in for with Obama? 11/6/08 He's said he's going to cut "unnecessary" military spending. He's said he's going to cut research and development funding. I don't know what that means yet, but I'm watching closely. I fear he may not know enough about the military to have any concept of what is "necessary" and "unnecessary." If that's the case, there will be more base closures. Training will be reduced. The troop level may be reduced. What that means is, if I'm correct, the military will become smaller. Quality (trained, seasoned, senior personnel) will leave. Fewer under-trained personnel will fill the ranks. And they'll have to work with obsolete equipment and weapons. In the mean time, enemies and potential enemies will be arming with the latest and best from Russia and China. No doubt Russia and China... and even little North Korea will increase their arsenal and military. Do they have what it takes to launch an attack on the US? Most prospective enemies don't have missiles that can reach the US. But Russia and China do... I don't know about Korea. However, it doesn't take missiles to launch an attack. It doesn't take an armada of ships and planes to deliver and supply a large military ground force. It takes a few fanatics (or maniacs) to enter the US with suitcases. They only have to travel to centers or population like SF, LA, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, and maybe a dozen others, or maybe somewhere strategic like Kansas during a tornado., and detonate... or maybe just open the suitcase. The nuclear blast wold kill a third to a half of the population. Prevailing winds would carry any biological or chemical agent across the US and kill most of us. It can't be done? Do you think "poor, starving Mexicans who's sole purpose is to feed their innocent children" are the only ones that are allowed into the country illegally? ADDENDUM: Sorry. Forgot the Middle East. I've heard rumor of a quick pull-out starting immediately. I've also heard rumors of a "gradual" withdrawal over a period of, I think, three years. My concern is that any published "end date" for our presence will do nothing but strengthen the enemy's resolve. Then he'll know how long he has to hold out. He knows he can't win in battle. He loses about 20 to 1 on an average, and sometimes it gets as high as 50 to 1. But all he needs is to have a few of the leaders alive the day after we leave. They'll come out of hiding and say, "We have won a military victory over the United States. They called themselves the most powerful nation in the world. We drove the infidels from our soil. You doubt? We are here. They are gone. What more proof do you need?" The world will buy that bull stuff. The country will blame the military. Back in Iraq, the leader, or the leaders who will have carved up Iraq into feudal domains, will begin a reign of terror. They'll say, "Remember what we were able to do to you when the US was here to protect you? Well, they're not here to protect you anymore..." Any member of the elected government, anybody who supported that government, or who worked to create it, will be executed. The military who don't swear allegiance to their leader(s) will be killed. Those who roll over, who we trained, will help train their troops in the manner we taught them. Any equipment we gave or sold them will become the property of the new regime. In a few years, the oil flow will benefit Russia and China who will supply them with their latest and best equipment and train them on how to use it. Russia and China... here's how you'll know if I'm on track at all. They'll flex their muscles. They'll know our military will have its teeth pulled. Georgia was nothing. They know anything we say or threaten, will be nothing but bluster. They'll know our weapons are obsolete. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak1DN00VQ8ea31Vi4u2u3Vrty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20081106155132AAGN0xQ&show=7#profile-info-3ac2gFxdaa I'd invite your attention to the last paragraph in the response. It looks like this guy was right. Potential enemies know we're spread thinly. They know the next President is going to cut back further. I think we're going to discover that our enemies aren't interested in peace, just capitulation. And they'll look at a President who will talk peace and not be prepared with a very large stick to be weak. Hope I'm wrong. But that poster sure doesn't think so.

If you have your own answer to the question citizens united case style, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.