Here is the Key Bait and Switch

Bill Clinton joined a number other leftish writers of late trying to marginalize those who criticize the government (and in particular, I think, the Tea Party folks).   I am really not going to comment much on this attempt, except to say that we endured something identical during the Iraq war, with the BS about not criticizing the President during wartime.

Here is the key bait and switch in Clinton's argument:

But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.

The government that guarantees our freedoms?  I suppose this sounds sort of good if one just lets it roll by, but in the context of our country's formation, this is absurd.  The only threat to freedom that the founders of this nation were concerned about was the government itself.

The government is the only entity with the power to use force and the power to grab money without permission.  As such, the founders recognized it as the single most potent threat to freedom that could possibly exist.  All their efforts were aimed at constructing limitations and protections from the power of government itself.

It would be far more correct to say "the Constitution that guarantees our freedoms" by limiting the power of government, but in fact that is exactly what the left is trying to overturn, with a hundred years of efforts to slowly whittle the Constitutional limitations on the power of government down to zero.

Update: Wow, this is an amazing excerpt from a 1995 memo from Dick Morris to Clinton just after the Oklahoma City bombing.  Seems like he is still following the same playbook:

Later, under the heading "How to use extremism as issue against Republicans," Morris told Clinton that "direct accusations" of extremism wouldn't work because the Republicans were not, in fact, extremists. Rather, Morris recommended what he called the "ricochet theory." Clinton would "stimulate national concern over extremism and terror," and then, "when issue is at top of national agenda, suspicion naturally gravitates to Republicans." As that happened, Morris recommended, Clinton would use his executive authority to impose "intrusive" measures against so-called extremist groups. Clinton would explain that such intrusive measures were necessary to prevent future violence, knowing that his actions would, Morris wrote, "provoke outrage by extremist groups who will write their local Republican congressmen." Then, if members of Congress complained, that would "link right-wing of the party to extremist groups." The net effect, Morris concluded, would be "self-inflicted linkage between [GOP] and extremists."


  1. morganovich:

    another fine clinton quote:

    Bill Clinton says Goldman case helps regulatory passage - Bill Clinton, the former US president, said: “At 10 o’clock on Friday morning, I thought the odds were about 60 per cent or 70 per cent this bill would pass.” But then “the odds went up to about 90 per cent, because when the SEC brought that fraud suit against Goldman, I think that was the clincher”. FT

    this goldman charge has no hope of prevailing on the merits. it's pure fiction. isn't it interesting how none of the counter parties in these trades ever filed civil suit? it's because they know it would be baseless.

    this is government gangsterism, pure and simple. they are taking advantage of the fact that goldman seems an unsympathetic defendant to a public who have no idea how transaction like these are structured and consummated to stir up uninformed populist rage try to revive a flagging finance bill.

    undertaken by a private actor, such claims would be grounds for libel.

    undertaken by the SEC (who stands to gain a great deal of power if dodd's bill passes) somehow these fabrications can be made with impunity.

  2. Elliot:

    Wow, Dick Morris is more of a scumbag than I imagined. Despite all his new-found antipathy towards Democrats and all his rhetoric on FNC about the dangers to our rights, he cynically recommended a ruthless strategy of narrowly focused oppression to gain advantage among voters.

  3. Henry Bowman:

    More doublespeak from our so-called leaders. When Clinton says the government protects our freedoms, we know the opposite is true. When Obama says that Obamacare is about saving money (!), we know it is about something else entirely [control]. When G.W. Bush says invading Iraq was to provide freedom for its inhabitants, we know that cannot possibly be correct. It goes on seemingly forever.

  4. anon:

    @Henry Bowman

    Well, they are leading us on, all right... I just wish they'd pick a different direction... ;)

  5. mesaeconoguy:

    Morganovich nails the sheer absurdity of the Goldman charge – and this raises an important question: if the SEC loses (I don’t think they will, because this is scripted and will never go to trial (settlement)), what does that do to Dodd’s “reform” bill?

    Moreover, if the SEC has any integrity, they’ll bring civil charges against Barney Frank soon, for his role in Fannie & Freddie.