"outside the Democratic norms of our society"

The United States Chamber of Commerce is being subjected to unprecedented attack by a variety of forces on the left.

Its crime? Refusing to go along with the monstrous cap-and-trade scheme which would destroy what's left of the economy. Here's the organization's position on cap-and-trade, as well as carbon emissions:

2. The Chamber's position on Waxman-Markey

We opposed this specific legislation because it would not reduce the global level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is neither comprehensive nor international, and it falls short on moving renewable and alternative technologies into the marketplace and enabling our transition to a lower carbon future. It would also impose carbon tariffs on goods imported into the U.S., a move that would almost certainly spur retaliation from global trading partners.

3. The Chamber's position on EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act:

The Clean Air Act is not the appropriate vehicle for regulating climate change. Even though EPA is only addressing motor vehicles, the Clean Air Act is structured so that once EPA regulates greenhouse gases in any manner; the Act regulates all emitters of the gases which includes stationary sources that have never been subject to EPA Air regulation. To quote Congressman John Dingell, this will be a "glorious mess." Our economy does not need a glorious regulatory mess, especially now. Reason needs to prevail and Congress needs to enact a comprehensive climate change law.

They have also called for hearings on the scientific theory behind climate change, which is considered a form of heresy by the left. In typical hit piece fashion, Mother Jones has called the Chamber of Commerce the "Chamber of Carbon."

And the very shameless Eliot Spitzer (whose hatred of the free market even extends even to persecuting the type of businesses he frequented) is trying to bully companies into silencing the Chamber of Commerce.

Disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer thinks people who own shares in mutual and pension funds should pressure the directors and executives of America's great corporations to silence the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Spitzer, aka the "Client Number Nine" who famously kept his socks on while dallying with Emperor Club VIP hookers, now accuses the chamber of misrepresenting its members. How? By lobbying against "the reform of markets, health care, energy policy and politics that we have all been calling for."

Spitzer's solution is for mutual and pension fund owners to demand that the corporations cancel their chamber memberships, thus denying the nation's most influential business voice of the lifeblood of every trade association -- dues revenue. It comes as no surprise to hear such demands from Spitzer, who as New York attorney general posed as an ethical champion while using the mere threat of state-sponsored litigation to force corporate boards and executives to take actions that clearly weren't in the best interests of their stockholders.

The Chamber has also been targeted by highly professional left-wing pranksters, who issued false statements in support of cap-and-trade which purported to emanate from the Chamber of Commerce.

Then there's Valerie Jarrett. Described as one of the most influential members of Obama's inner circle, she's a protege of SDS leader (and Ayers friend) Marilyn Katz, and President Obama cannot say no to her:

An Obama 2008 campaign official told the New York Times, "If you want him to do something, there are two people he's not going to say no to: Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama."
Through Valerie Jarrett, the White House plan is to "neuter the Chamber," which Charles Krauthammer described as "outside the Democratic norms of our society," and which the Wall Street Journal called "The Chicago Way":
A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.

In recent weeks the Windy City gang added a new name to their list of societal offenders: the Chamber of Commerce. For the cheek of disagreeing with Democrats on climate and financial regulation, it was reported the Oval Office will neuter the business lobby. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett slammed the outfit as "old school," and warned CEOs they'd be wise to seek better protection.

Old school, eh? I'm wondering whether Ms. Jarrett believes the free market economy is old school. (If so, then the CEOs really are in need of "protection.")

Warns author Kim Strassel,

The Oval Office might be more concerned with the long term. It is 10 months in; more than three long years to go. The strategy to play dirty now and triangulate later is risky. One day, say when immigration reform comes due, the Chamber might come in handy. That is if the Chamber isn't too far gone.

White House targets also aren't dopes. The corporate community is realizing that playing nice doesn't guarantee safety. The health executives signed up for reform, only to remain the president's political pinatas. It surely grates that the unions--now running their own ads against ObamaCare--haven't been targeted. If the choice is cooperate and get nailed, or oppose and possibly win, some might take that bet.

There's also the little fact that many Americans voted for this president in thrall to his vow to bring the country together. It's hard to do that amid gunfire, and voters might just notice.

Bare knuckles Chicago-style politics is one thing. But to see it directed at the Chamber of Commerce, from leftist radicals in the White House, is quite another.

I'm glad to see that so far they haven't caved to pressure. My worry is that the reason the Chamber of Commerce is being so viciously targeted might involve more than just playing the game by Chicago politics.

I worry that the target is the free market system itself.

How many Obama voters thought they were voting for that?

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all.

Comments welcome, agree or disagree.

MORE: A website dedicated to stopping Valerie Jarrett has been created.

posted by Eric on 10.26.09 at 10:38 AM










Comments

When all business is totally controlled by government, and is non profit, who will invest time or money in the economy?
Do we really want to become the western USSR?

Hugh   ·  October 26, 2009 11:51 AM

Isn't the EPA also "outside the Democratic norm"? These institutions are mostly appointed, some of their officials aren't even subject to approval by the Senate. They have no accountability to us, are not part of the Legislative branch, yet have the power to effectively make new law.

plutosdad   ·  October 26, 2009 12:54 PM

A few months ago I was reading a Russian commentator who derided our slide into socialism.

If we get through this maybe the American people will pay more attention to who they are voting for in an election.

One thing for sure. There will be no more chances to vote for the first "black" man.

M. Simon   ·  October 27, 2009 8:39 AM

Hmmm...

Spitzer, aka the "Client Number Nine" who famously kept his socks on while dallying with Emperor Club VIP hookers, now accuses the chamber of misrepresenting its members.

"Client Number Nine"..."CNN"

Coincidence???

Mr. Bingley   ·  October 27, 2009 9:01 AM

EPA is already at it. New changes to housepainting on April 22, 2010. Those $35.00 tests for lead paint on houses built before '78' are now into the thousands of dollars. Average homeowners will have sticker shock when seeking to paint their homes.

Lynn B   ·  October 27, 2009 9:16 AM

Once the conservatives (and some of them might even be members of the GOP) regain both houses, the next push needs to be to get rid of CZARs and other unelected, unaccountable, yet powerful policymakers. Instead of going through a rigourous confirmation process, how about we limit the Fed's power to make damaging wide-ranging policy, and give the power backto the state and local government? Then I'll live closer to the bums, and can harangue them for stupid legislation and bureaucracy, adn vote them out as often as necessary.

rob   ·  October 27, 2009 9:16 AM

"I worry that the target is the free market system itself."

You can quit worrying.

It is. >:-(

Barbara Skolaut   ·  October 27, 2009 12:32 PM

I need new glasses. At first glance I read your headline as "outside the Democratic morons of our society" and thought, "Yeah, that's about right." :-P

(Apologies to the Democrats out there who are not morons and are feeling just as apprehensive about the direction of the country as the rest of us! When I think of "Democratic morons", I think primarily of the ones in the House and Senate.)

Mary in LA   ·  October 27, 2009 12:51 PM

Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett slammed the outfit as "old school," and warned CEOs they'd be wise to seek better protection.

Just two questions: Is "old school" newspeak for "too white", and isn't "better protection" what Chicago gangsters used to offer business... or else?

RebeccaH   ·  October 27, 2009 1:16 PM

We would be in real trouble if BO and his gang were deft, and clever, and had real popular backing. Fortunately, they are clumsy and and obvious, and they did not have nearly the level of support they thought they did.

They were elected because they were not the party in charge when the economy collapsed, because they stuck to bland generalities in the campaign, and because the MSM were in the tank for this young photogenic black man on the basis of nothing other than his race and his party affiliation.

Fat Man   ·  October 27, 2009 1:37 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits