Back in February, The Blaze reported on Obama's "Truth Teams," described on the official site as "a network of [President Obama's] supporters who are committed to responding to unfounded attacks and defending the President’s record."
"When you’re faced with someone who misrepresents the truth, you can find all the facts you need right here—along with ways to share the message with whoever needs to hear it," the site continues.
However, after consistent ridicule (particularly over the "Attack Watch" section of the site), the Truth Teams started flying lower on the political radar.
Now, it seems, they are re-joining the fray.
According to ABC's Jake Tapper, Barack Obama's deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter is inviting supporters over email to "report an attack" at the Truth Team's "Fight Back: Report an Attack" page.
"Received a robo-call or an email forward full of falsehoods? Found a misleading leaflet in your mail?" it asks.
"Tell us about it, and help fight back against the attacks on President Obama and his record."
Aside from the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign saying things like, "fight back" and "attack" after ceaselessly criticizing Sarah Palin for almost identical language, Jake Tapper is reporting that the email "conflates smears with criticisms" by citing a largely debunked study at the outset.
The study, by Market Watch, essentially claims that Barack Obama is not the big spender everyone believes him to be, telling readers "it didn't happen."
Here’s the problem: the Market Watch [study] has been refuted by several fact checkers as severely flawed, notwithstanding its citation by White House press secretary Jay Carney...
The Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave Carney three Pinocchios, writing that the “data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.”
The Associated Press came to a similar conclusion...
In Tapper's estimation, then, the White House is "muddying the waters" between criticism and actual falsehoods in citing this particular study as an "attack," when independent sources have proven that it is simply not true.
Saying that Obama is a big spender is not an "attack;" it is simply stating the facts.
More than that, when combined with Obama's record of "naming and shaming" Romney donors, a site encouraging people to "report" Americans who disagree with the administration seems more and more like a thinly-veiled attempt to quiet the opposition.
Perhaps signaling another flood of sarcastic conservative criticism, one tweeter commented: "[A] thought on Attack Watch 2.0. The President's job is to protect free speech, not control it."