...continued from page 2
Anything else will lead to endless accusations of lies and cover-ups. Even when they don't cover anything up, even when there's nothing to cover, Republicans are accused of lies and cover-ups. (See the response to Harry Reid's slander that Romney paid no taxes.)
Democrats don't have to play by that rulebook. They can stonewall. Clinton can hide records from a congressional subpoena for a year. Obama can do the same with Fast-and-Furious documents, releasing only a small dribble of them to Congress, while never being called to account by the media.
Darrel Issa of the House Oversight Committee filed suit against Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder in mid-August of this year just over two months ago because he has not complied with congressional subpoenas.
If a Republican administration withheld documents under an absurdly broad claim of "executive privilege" and had to be sued by a Democratic Congress, it would be the biggest story of the year.
But with the shoe on the other foot, this obvious cover-up is "an old story" after only two months, and never gets mentioned in the media during the run-up to this election.
Democrats can openly try to steal an election, as they did in Florida in 2000, using a highly selective recount in order to get the few hundred votes they needed, meanwhile trying to block the counting of presumably pro-Bush votes of overseas military. But the Left routinely refers to it as if the Republicans tried to steal that election, and the news media go along.
Barney Frank and Bill Clinton can diddle interns and stay in office; Republicans have to resign for doing far less, and nobody excuses them by saying, "Everybody lies about sex."
Democrats can lie, lie, lie a barrage of lies and slanders and when they are caught, their toadies in the media make a few excuses and move on. "That's an old story," they say immediately.
Republican errors and cover-ups are never an "old story." The media never lets go. But Democratic errors and cover-ups become an "old story" while the ink is still wet.
There are those who will complain about my explicitly linking Obama, Clinton, the Democratic Party, the intellectual elite and the Leftist news media with Hitler. How dare I! What a monstrous thing to do!
True. Following Hitler's script of "a barrage of lies and slanders" against "whatever adversary seems most dangerous" is a monstrous, outrageous thing to do. And for it to be done with the full collusion of supposedly free news media is even more monstrous and outrageous.
Oh, wait. They meant I was doing something monstrous?
But ... Hitler really said this. And then carried out the script. Furthermore, he really did learn it from Leftists, and Stalin continued it as a Leftist practice in the Soviet Union. Whenever you're endangered, lash out against your most dangerous accusers with a barrage of lies and slanders.
The comparison with Hitler's observations in Mein Kampf is exactly accurate. It's a strategy designed to intimidate opponents into silence, and, as Hitler pointed out, it works "with almost mathematical certainty." That's why the Left keeps using it. If it didn't work, they'd stop.
And if it weren't extremely dangerous to the survival of a democracy, as a democracy, I wouldn't mention the comparison.
Remember that there's an alternative. Democrats in general and Obama in particular could follow the only script open to Republicans: Admit your mistake at once, open up your records to show the full extent of the mistake, then apologize and don't do it again.
Still waiting for Obama and other Democrats to do that, ever, about anything. Wrong again and again, caught again and again in cover-ups and deceptions and, yes, outright lies but still no admission, no apology and no change.
Do you really think anything will be different in a second Obama term, if he continues the "barrage of lies and slanders" right up to the election, and is rewarded with victory?