Tuesday, September 11, 2012

With Friends Like Obama, Who Needs Enemies?

Most of our readers know that the Gallup Poll tends to lean Democratic, and even we have questioned some of its polling methods. Until recently, Gallup didn't quite realize that leaning Democrat is just not enough for the Chicago Democratic thugocracy. Lukewarm support for Barack Obama, or worse, polls that show Obama behind Romney, are simply not allowed. Back in April, Gallup committed the sin of showing Romney with a considerable lead.

Obama, and particularly his senior adviser, David Axelrod, didn't hesitate to contact Gallup to complain, including veiled threats to publicly discredit the Gallup organization if it didn't change its polling methods (to put Obama back in the lead). Axelrod didn't object to Gallup consistently over-sampling Democrats. His complaint was that Gallup used “out-of-date” methodology in the form of the questions asked to reach the poll results. Axelrod damned Gallup for asking questions in such a way as to produce negative reactions toward Obama. Just for the record, the poll concluded that Romney led Obama 48%-43%, a figure even hardcore Republicans found dubious.

But rather than wait to see if the voters (i.e. Democrats) might come to their senses in the next poll, the pit bulls at the White House went to work, with Axelrod as their point man. Axelrod started out tamely enough, sending e-mails to Gallup indicating his displeasure and pointing out a somewhat negative analysis of Gallup methodology done by a political science professor writing at The National Journal.

The civility didn't last long. When Gallup refused to change its polling methods immediately, Axelrod started threatening. He demanded that a high-level Gallup executive report immediately to the White House to explain Gallup's failure to use the methodology that Axelrod preferred. Gallup refused to comply with the royal summons. Though still indicating that Gallup was willing to discuss possible changes, the pollsters refused to kowtow to the White House gang, and that caused Axelrod to turn implied threats into real threats.

Axelrod let Gallup know in no uncertain terms that the White House would do whatever was necessary to force Gallup into following the straight Chicago-thug line. A little background into what that threat actually meant is required.

Back in 2009, a Gallup employee, relying on the protection of the relatively-new “whistleblower” statute sued Gallup for terminating his services after he publicly accused Gallup of overcharging the government for targeted polling work. That lawsuit has been in the early to mid-litigation stages ever since. The lawsuit was largely unknown to the public, and thus would have had little or no national impact. None, that is, unless the government itself became directly and visibly involved. From the time of the Axelrod-Gallup confrontation, that lawsuit was thereafter a veiled threat.

Axelrod's calculation was that if all other forms of intimidation didn't work to bring Gallup to heel, a government intervention in the lawsuit on the side of the “poor whistleblower” against the miscreant Gallup organization would serve a dual purpose. It would make the White House look like a hero in joining the little guy's battle against a big corporation, and at the same time could be used as “proof” that Gallup was trying to squelch any criticism of its methodology which showed Obama trailing Romney.

In late July, after failing to get Gallup to do what the government told it to do, Axelrod quietly told Attorney General to get his political lawyers to work, and the Department of Justice subsequently joined as a party to the whistleblower's lawsuit, taking it out of the private realm and into the governmental realm. The DOJ joined in the plaintiff's allegations that Gallup had committed violations of the False Claims Act by billing the government for services it did not render, or rendered incompetently. In addition, just in case Gallup didn't get the message, the complaint was amended to include specific charges of bilking the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The lawsuit doesn't mention that the original complainant, Michael Lindley, was an Obama campaign operative in 2008, and had ever since bitched to his bosses at Gallup whenever was heard a discouraging word about The One. Up until the publication of Lindley's original allegations, Gallup had considered him to be more a nuisance than a threat. The whistleblower statute is designed to protect an employee from being fired or disciplined for making damaging facts public after attempting to have the company itself reveal those facts. It was not designed to protect the employee from making his opinions public while collecting a paycheck from the company he is “exposing.”

Lindley was publicly attacking his employer for using methods he didn't like, but within that framework, had stated no facts that would indicate that Gallup had done anything either illegal or far outside the standards within the industry. Gallup reacted accordingly. Axelrod has set in motion the awesome power of the federal government to punish a pro-Democratic company for not being pro-Obama enough. He has bootstrapped a contentious in-house lawsuit into what we all call “a federal case.”

This is the “Chicago Way” that Mayor Rahm Emanuel so strongly supports. Turn every minor family dispute into a national cause celebre. All politically-savvy political watchers and participants know you occasionally have to beat your opponent over the head. But only the Chicago pols think that punishing your friends and family for minor deviations in orthodoxy and group-think deserve a public and expensive thrashing. On the other hand, I can think of several past and present foreign governments which depended on just such actions. They were not and are not democratic governments. As a final note, I offer the old saying: “A fish rots from the head down.”

Note: Today is the anniversary of the terrorist attack on New York City and the Pentagon. I have it in my heart and on my mind at all times. We must never forget. My prayer is that the terrorists do not have plans to celebrate the anniversary with another attack on innocent civilians.





37 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Two thoughts come to mind.

First: Axelrod and company don't want people to know the emperor has no clothes and no chance to win this November and prefer a blowout to get rid of Obama.

Second: Axelrod and company want to commit voter fraud this November. Keeping the polls close to even creates in some minds that Obama might win and are willing to overlook irregularities.

I know I have been told time and again that polls this far out won't be accurate to suppress voter turnout. I am starting to not trust Rasmussen.

The internals of these polls are being kept hidden now. We can't check the accuracy of any poll. I am starting to trust anecdotal stories more than polls. Count how many Romney Stickers you see and how many Obama Stickers you see in Urban areas. That to me is far more accurate than any vaunted poll.

I just saw over at American Thinker a video showing the 9-11-2001 attack with LeAnn Rimes singing Amazing Grace. I am still struck with anger about that day. I don't think I will ever stop.

Patriot said...

Remember 9-11-01

LawHawk....assuming your sources are factual, this the type of vengeful actions that make my blood boil. That and the fact that we never hear these Dem harming stories in the "lamestream" media. Remember the gas price stories..daily...during Bushs terms.

I can't wait for the day these diseased house organs collapse. Then again, if a Dem is in office, they will most likely be bailed out......" to keep politicians honest."

Good post....as usual

T-Rav said...

I heard a few people on the right "debunking" this story. I don't remember what reasons they gave why it would be false, but I guess it's worth keeping in mind that it might be coincidence. Which is not to say that I would put it past the Obama hacks to pull something like this. I wouldn't for a second.

Watching the memorial coverage on Fox right now. Very chilling, especially as, just like then, it's so clear and blue outside.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, I've looked into the debunking (by HotAir) and it does no damage to the original story by TheDC that I can see. All it does is to question why the DoJ would wait four months after the release of the Gallup poll in question to join the Lindley lawsuit. IMO, the delay makes the theory more credible, not less. They also claim the fact that the suit was already filed is a problem for the theory, but Hawk already explains why it is not. TheDC's story is more analysis than news, but the facts and the timeline appear sound. The only outstanding question is whether the Gallup emails are for real, but the only outlet suggesting otherwise is Media Matters, so...

Also, is it really true that fish rot from the head down? I've never left a fish to rot, so I wouldn't know.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, as much trouble as it is to catch a fish in the first place, I certainly wouldn't leave it to rot.

I honestly can't say what's going on with Gallup and these thugs, so I won't try. Like I said, though, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were pressuring Gallup. All one has to do is think back to when they tried to exclude Fox News.

tryanmax said...

For my part, I'll let my opinion rest on "more analysis than news" for the time being.

AndrewPrice said...

This all reeks of a made up scandal to me. Having done qui tam suits (which this is) I can tell you that simply aligning a timeline is not evidence of anything. The timing on these things is much more a factor of caseload and other factors.

Moreover, it doesn't really hurt Gallup to have the US Attorney jump into the case. It was going forward either way. All this does is add another attorney to the table and rob the original plaintiff of much of his award if he wins. So it's not really that big of a threat.

That said, I can totally see Axelrod threatening Gallup over this.

I don't know. In the end, I doubt this is anything more than a coincidence. It could be, but I just don't see the evidence for it yet.

LawHawkRFD said...

Well, I'll comment as long as I can, and we'll see if we have another comment/response collapse.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Polls tells us a lot, but they don't tell us everything, and none are ever perfectly accurate. That said, I still tend to trust Rasmussen, and I've been saying all along that this is either going to be a genuine squeaker, or a surprise blowout like the Congressional elections of 1994. It now all comes down to the Independents and undecideds (though how anyone could be undecided at this point is beyond me).

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: The facts are accurate. The question is do they mean that Axelrod is an extortionist, or simply the usual Democratic thug.

Remember, indeed.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: There's enough verification to believe the story is accurate. But then coincidence is not causation. The main purpose of the article is simply to demonstrate how sleazy Axelrod and the whole Obama gang truly are.

The proceedings at Ground Zero are touching and solemn. I would like to see a little "America will never give in to terror," but the day is young.

Individualist said...

"Just for the record, the poll concluded that Romney led Obama 48%-43%, a figure even hardcore Republicans found dubious."

Why? I don't find that dubious. I find any poll showing Obama leading dubios. he is the worst President since well since.....

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I think that you've made an accurate assessment. It may be coincidence, but it's worth discussing in light of Obama's nasty campaign and the history of Axelrod's high-handed tactics.

Individualist said...

As an aside this article has made me wonder about the position of Attorney General. In cdities and towns the District Attorney is as I understand it an Officer of the Court. Usually an elected position sometimes it is appointed but even then the guy does not report to the mayor. He reports to the court.

Would it be better for the Attorney General to be elected or appointed by congress?

Even if it is a Presidential appointment would it not be better for the position to answer to the supreme court and be independent of the President?

Just some thoughts....

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Unless the e-mails are shown to be false, the story holds. And even without them, it would still be a good demonstration of how much the Obama administration will do to protect its own image.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Perhaps I'm approaching it from a slightly different point of view. I don't see it so much as a scandal as just another day in the life of the Obama administration and its paranoia about its own image. And you have to admit that, coincidence or not, the administration has a rather rocky record of whom it decides to sue and whom it doesn't. Your concept assumes that the Holder DOJ is a normal one, simply pursuing the usual course of events. That doesn't describe the Holder DOJ that I've observed.

Nevertheless, I'm looking at this more from the political point of view than the legal one. On the other hand, you may very well be right, but it doesn't alter the fact that the Obama administration is sleazy, and Axelrod is one of the sleaziest.

rlaWTX said...

It kind of surprised me when I got that "elephant on my chest" feeling this morning when I thought about the date. It's been 11 years, and it's still very present.
Last year, 9/11 was on a Sunday, and I watched pretty much everything on TV memorializing the day. Today I have work and Practicum til late, so I won't see much - but I feel a bit guilty.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: I know how you feel, but I still think that the race is close, and I find that Romney lead to have been either wrong or an aberration. Unless all the pollsters are asking the wrong questions, or asking the right questions the wrong way (Axelrod's contention), or intentionally skewing their results, I'm going to be chewing my fingernails down to the nub right up through election day (and maybe thereafter).

rlaWTX said...

Also, a friend posted a picture of Holder in Supreme Court robes - "Consequences of an Obama reelection". However unlikely, still made me sick to think about...

Whether their is true collusion or not, this administration has certainly proved that they are willing to get their way by using the power of the Federal gummit...

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: That was the point of independent counsel. As for the Attorney General, the position is part of the executive branch, and the Constitution does not provide for sharing of control of a cabinet-level office between the executive and judicial branches. "Answerable" is just too nebulous a term. Still, even attorneys general are subject to the rules of court, and can be disciplined by the Bar.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: I still get a knot in my stomach as I recall November 22, 1963. That day will always be emotional for me. 9-11 will be with me until the day I die. Some events are merely history to most of us (such as Pearl Harbor), even though we honor and memorialize the day. Others, like 9-11, are built into the fabric of our existence as real events that we have experienced as a people.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: That is a scary thought. Eric Holder in Supreme Court judicial robes. It's also not that far-fetched, which is another reason to make sure that Obama doesn't even come close to being reelected.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: To add to what I said earlier, the hands of the other branches are not entirely tied. There is still the impeachment process for Congress, though we all know how rare that is. Removal from office is even rarer.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I hate Obama. Have I told you that?

T-Rav said...

I guess maybe we should look to see if they go after any other polls that say unpleasant things about Obama's chances. There's a new WaPo/ABC poll saying he got no convention bounce, so--maybe they wind up buried in cement, maybe they don't. Yous never know.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I think so. And I seem to remember somebody else saying the same thing. I wonder who that was. LOL

tryanmax said...

Quasi-on-topic: yesterday the Examiner reported that the latest CNN/OCR poll not only under-samples Republicans, but independents as well. According to their analysis, this massively shifts the numbers in Obama's favor, essentially creating a mirror image of the actual numbers.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: We're getting pretty close to the election for many more Axelrod shenanigans to reach the public. Besides, even without the bounce, the morning polls aren't harming Obama. So maybe the heat will be off for awhile. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I hadn't heard that, but it does seem to be an awfully hinky way to poll, especially with the independents.

K said...

Obama = Nixon with MSM support.

So don't expect another Watergate.

LawHawkRFD said...

K: Well said.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, no kidding they undersampled. You know how many independents they polled for this? 37. Not 37 percent, 37, full stop. That alone should throw it out.

rlaWTX said...

Joel - I'm right there with you and whoever that other person was...

Joel Farnham said...

Hey, this is eerie, in Cairo the flags are being torn down at the U.S. embassy. Shades of Jimmy Carter days.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me.

Back on my Axelrod/Chicago Way thoughts, Axelrod managed today to prove he is just plain nasty. Both campaigns suspended ads and political speeches for today to restrict their public announcements to the solemn day of mourning. Except Axelrod, of course, who simply ignored civility and sent out nasty, political tweets about Romney and Republicans. He is truly a slimeball.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

The problem I have is this. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the Nation. He is the last goto person when all other avenues of justice have failed. I forget the details but the best example was those black people killed by Klansman in thee early 60's who were guilty as H E Double Hockey Sticks yet exhonerated by a racist jury. The were tried by the Feds for violation of Civil rights. This is the purpose of this position.

But what we are seeing under Obama is a President with no carign whatsoever for rule of law or even Justice. Solyndra and the Maine governor defraud tax payers for hundreds of millions and nothing is done. People stand outside election sites with hightsticks threatening people and it becomes who you are not what you did. Gibson Guitar is attacked and raided for following the laws of India the way the country of India proscribes.

We can't have that. This is an abuse of power that the founding fathers have not forseen. Once Justice itself is political than we are a nation run by a MAfia and a dictatorship maybe soon to follow.

I know what the Constitution says I am wondering how to rectify this so that it does not happen again. An independent counsel does not work because it requires the other party in power to set up. To me what Holder is doing shows a much larger problem that must be fixed no matter how difficult. A failure in the system itself.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: I fully share your anger. But what could be done to change the system is seriously problematic. About the best I can say is that this will stop with the removal of Obama from the White House and the removal of Holder and all his political lawyers from DOJ. Holder may or may not walk away unsinged. It depends on how seriously malfeasant the new attorney general and the president consider Holder's actions to have been. Unless they have slam-dunk evidence, there will be no prosecution. Better to move on than to appear to be using banana republic tactics to punish political opponents.

It is equally important to remember that we have the best basic system of government in the world. But it is (and was) put together by imperfect human beings. It won't always work well. The ultimate rescuer of the Constitution is the people. If they decide to reelect Obama, they will get the form of government they deserve. If they elect Romney and a Republican Congress, we'll have made the most important step in bringing ordered liberty back into the fore.

Post a Comment