In the future, every Republican will be attacked by the President for 15 minutes.

The recent attacks on the Chamber of Commerce are particularly galling, even by Obama Administration standards. The President of the United States, the chief officer responsible for law enforcement, is accusing the Chamber of committing serious violations of federal campaign law. When asked to provide evidence, Axelrod responded that the Chamber should provide evidence it ISN'T breaking the law. Apparently we now have an inquisitorial justice system...

The top 20 PACs in the country gave 625,710,896 dollars to political campaigns in the 20 years between 1989 and 2009. 486,393,451 dollars of that went to Democrats. 11 of the top 20 are trade unions, ActBlue is the 4th biggest in the country, and the trial lawyers group, the "American Association for Justice" is ranked 7. Of the listed groups, 13 of them gave more then 85% of their total to Democrats. Not one group on the list gave more then 70% of their total to Republicans.

In each example listed above, the Democrats required one of their long-held beliefs to be true: that the public is stupid enough to believe anything they say. Obama ruined his credibility early on with the Beer Summit, the attack on Fox News and Limbaugh, and the overwhelming arrogance of his tour of the Middle East. Americans understood quite early that this was not a man to be believed. The search for demons is a desperate one, for they cannot allow for the fact that America is on to them, and no longer paying attention to their accusations. Panic is setting in, causing them to tell such lies as to embarrass even the NY Times.

Interesting that liberals are so much smarter than everyone else. Why then, do they so cluelessly misuse the word "shill" when referring to the Chamber of Commerce and its support for Big Business.

It is pretty much impossible for the Chamber of Commerce to shill for business, since support and promotion of business is the Chamber's stated mission and even the name of the organization is pretty transparent about its purpose.

A shill, on the other hand, is someone who hides his real intentions, such as a faux participant in Three-Card Monte, who is a partner in the game and whose hidden role is to provide a veil of legitimacy that lures others to join in the game (and lose).

It would be more accurate to say that the Obama administration is a shill for the detractors of capitalism.

The only thing this reminds me of is that ironic sign "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

International interference in governance is an interesting area to investigate with hearings (under oath). If I were the CC I'd invite an auditor in to take a look and challenge, say, the Unions and dem think-tanks to do the same. Hearings should include testimony back to the Clinton days. Call those FBI agents that took early retirement around the time of china-gate. This has a been an issue since the federal government started picking business “winners and losers” back in the 1950s with regulations that were not equal-for-all. Foreign companies and countries wanted their voices heard, and not all had our sensibilities. These money flows were all too visible to the U.S. intelligence agencies who used information provided by the banks to try to limit high-tech goods from flowing to the U.S.S.R.

Vice-President Gore stopped this data collection (ending so-called “economic espionage” in the mid-90s) as it was arguably not needed after the cold-war (but later would have proved invaluable in catching, if not preventing, the 9-11 actors and conspirators had we had that data – esp. because investigating financial transactions does not require language skills to be helpful to gumshoe detective work, similar to phone bills helping determine who called who called who, irrespective of what was said). And by the 1990s, the amount of foreign influence was (and still is) gian-ormous. (if we want to get rid of this, we need to get the government out of taxing and regulating business except in the most even-handed, uniform way – so no advantage can be gained from lobbying.. well, yes, I do dream). And attempting to use law enforcement is hopeless. The FBI never recovered from the whipping Congress gave it for pursuing ARABSCAM.

Someone in the conservative leadership should call for investigations today. And put people on notice about preserving email so we can see the discussion about why Mr. O’s team did not do -any- validation of a donation – but instead chose to wait for re-imbursement requests, a customer contesting a transaction (presuming they even reviewed their CC bill) and just have the campaign repay including the (large) penalty. I wonder how many other merchants have this behavior? Call FirstData as a witness, etc. It may have been someone brainstorming at a clearing house or a bank that suggested this behavior (not ever seen because of the penalties, but, in this case it would work to the candidates advantage).. Perhaps call Mr. O’s large donors who are executives at these places and review their email, etc.

Should be fun. But the real answer is to get government thumbs off the market scales. Ending the (unequal) tax, regulatory, litigation and administrative era of government is what we need.

It's more than a little ironic to see NRO bashing Obama for "searching for demons" in the same breath that they refer to Democrats as "the party of George Soros". And in the same breath that they mention Karl Rove, who is apparently as pure as the driven snow when it comes to such things. Did I imagine all that nonsense about "socialism" and "fascism" and "death panels" over the past couple of years?

The fact is that both parties get pretty deeply into demonology during election season. The key difference this time around being that an activist conservative Supreme Court has creatively concluded that the First Amendment protects unlimited anonymous donations to political parties from multinational corporations. The demons are now running the church.

I'd like to think that this fact would bother all patriotic Americans from either party. Dollars are fungible and any system that relies exclusively on the honor system to keep foreign governments from influencing our elections is clearly unacceptable... But apparently not, when it benefits your side.

It doesn't matter if the Bad Guy really exists -- as long as the Dems can convince voters that the Bad Guy's gonna get 'em. Elect us and we'll save you from those nasty malefactors.

That's why the Tea Party is so perplexing to the Dems: rarely have they had to (publicly) denounce huge swaths of voters as Bad Guys. Now having done that they're running around saying oops, we meant Rove, or Cheney, or sumthin. Too late, the mask is off.