Bully’s Pulpit

The White House 2010

President Theodore Roosevelt referred to the White House as a “bully pulpit”. “Bully”, during that era, was popularized by Roosevelt as an adjective meaning “great” or “superb”. And all presidents since have understood how to utilize the prestige of the superb platform that is the White House when they wish to emphasize the gravity of an issue or draw national attention to key points of policy.

It has become increasingly clear during the last week, however, that President Barack Obama, when utilizing the bully pulpit, seems to have misinterpreted the adjective “bully” for a noun. Indeed, for a man of such renown scholarship, Mr Obama seems quite confused lately on not only his adjectives and nouns, but also on the facts. It is almost as though the president really doesn’t care what anyone thinks. Which was exactly the impression Mr Obama gave when, with complete disregard for tradition and decorum, he ridiculed certain members of the US Supreme Court during his State Of The Union address.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito rightly took offense to the president’s using the State Of The Union to grandstand to his anti-everything base. The justices, Mr Obama knew, would just have to sit and take it, no matter how blatantly the president distorted the facts of the case. Justice Alito could clearly be seen mouthing the word “untrue” in response to the diatribe.

And those who might have taken the time to note the expression on Alito’s face, as he looked up at the president, should also have picked up on the word “bully”. The noun.

Barack Obama had awarded himself an unrestricted mandate upon election, and yet during his first year in office felt himself continually thwarted by the restrictions of the constitution and the opposition of lesser mortals. And last Wedneday’s uncompromising State Of The Union address, Friday’s presidential woodshed lecture to congressional republicans and yesterday’s 2010 “tax what the people cannot afford to pay and spend what we do not have” budget proposal are clear indications that Mr Obama no longer views the bully pulpit as a platform from which to inspire and govern, but rather as a source of power from which to impose his rule.

Confronting the constitution
President Obama’s unprecedented, and unseemly, public dressing down of the United States Supreme Court seated before him during the SOTU is particularly significant.

It was well understood that Mr Obama disagreed with the high court’s ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission and why. The ruling struck down provisions of the constitutionally flawed McCain-Feingold Act which placed arbitrary restrictions on campaign contributions. In their ruling, the five justices finding in favor of Citizens United, had cut through the peripheries of the case to the core issue. Free speech. Corporations, labor unions and other groups are entitled to contribute to political campaigns and could not be barred from running paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

The distant left, led by the president, fell into a cacophony of histrionics proclaiming the overturning “of a century of law” and corporate corruption of all future elections, including the purchase of elections by foreign corporations. This is completely untrue. The only law overturned by the ruling was a portion of McCain-Feingold, passed in 2002. And the existing law, 2 U.S.C. 441e, prohibiting foreign corporations from making contributions to political parties, remains squarely intact.

As a former constitutional law professor, President Obama surely knows this, yet he deliberately distorted the facts and demagogued the case during the SOTU, with the justices sitting directly in front of him. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities…”

Barack Obama, and liberal politicians at large, have been the beneficiaries of millions of dollars of unrestricted campaign contributions from the likes of anti-American billionaire financier George Soros. And one of the many campaign finance scandals the Obama victory swept under the rug was the source of millions of dollars in small donations from foreign nationals that mysteriously flooded into his campaign. So the point of the SOTU diatribe had nothing to do with insuring fair elections. That’s the last thing a dyed in the wool community organizer wants.

This was a pointed display of contempt for the principal of Separation Of Powers. The president exhorted Congress to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling shouting “And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.” Congressional democrats emphasized the president’s point to the Court by leaping to their feet in a prolonged acclamation.

In true “bully” - the noun - fashion, President Barack Obama stuck his finger in the face of the United States Supreme Court and made it clear that, irregardless of any constitutional issues involved, he will not idly tolerate decisions perceived as hostile to his interests.

One can only imagine where that leaves We The People