In the Wall Street Journal, Kim Strassel has an article about Barack Obama singling out some large Romney Donors and slandering them.
Strassel puts the dog in the soup (if I may) when she says that " Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats."
This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
Now, anyone familiar with the reputation of Chicago Politics, and Mr. Obama's political career specifically, are hardly surprised to find his campaign using such tactics. Indeed, compared to having divorce records unsealed (probably illegally) this is positively tame- except that when he was doing that it was for a Senate Seat (first in the IL senate, then to the US Senate) and Senators, while powerful, hold nothing like the power of the President of the United States.
This targeting of private citizens for participating in Constitutionally protected free speech, with which he happens to disagree and of which he happens to disapprove, should be disturbing to say the least. And it must not be allowed to continue.
In November we have a choice between Mitt Romney (of whom I'm not a huge fan, just read this site and you'll see) or the SCOAMT. There are those who claim "there's not a dollar's worth of difference," between the two. To them I ask: do you really believe that Mitt Romney would target private citizens for supporting his opponent? I do not believe that there is no difference between the two. I may not trust Romney to be the small government conservative that I believe Rick Perry would have been, but I do trust him to try to reign in government to some extent. More important, though, is that I trust Mitt Romney's character, which is something I cannot say about President Obama.