Posts
Facing a large deficit in the Democratic National Convention budget, officials from Barack Obama's campaign have begun personally soliciting labor unions and others for contributions of up to $1 million. In exchange, donors could get stadium skyboxes for Obama's acceptance speech and other perks. Read the entire article. The hypocrisy of any claim to be honoring Obama's pledge after admitting to actively soliciting huge soft money donations is of such dimension as to transgress into obscenity. As Hot Air asks, "[c]an anyone remember a reform pledge Barack Obama hasn’t broken?"
"Character" is the sum total of all the choices we make in life.
The real test of character comes when the choices are difficult. They come when acting in accordance with principles such as duty, honor, country, honesty, or loyalty, means foregoing some benefit.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who fail the test of character. These are the people who weigh each decision on the scales of expediency and in disregard of all but personal ambition or personal gain.
If you needed more evidence that Obama's sole defining characterisc is ambition and yet another example that he views the articulation of other principles as merely words on a teleprompter, here it is.
_____________________________________________________________
First, the soaring rhetoric and clear statement of principles from the One:
But that was two months ago, when pretending to hold these principles allowed Obama to claim the moral highground without suffering in the balance of expediencies. Today, the LA Times is reporting that the Obama campaign is now seeking precisely the types of donations he eschewed so stiringly above. His campaign is doing it on behalf of the DNC to fund his convention:
Obama has regularly criticized politicians seeking large donations outside the framework of campaign finance regulations -- so-called soft money -- while touting the virtues of relying on small donations.
But campaign officials last month reluctantly decided they had to take a hand in raising large donations from individuals, unions and corporations. Some of the donors get special bundles of perks, including use of the party suites at Denver's Invesco Field, as well as special policy briefings by Obama advisors, choice hotel rooms and party invitations.
What caused the shift was evidence that the Denver Host Committee was having trouble raising the estimated $60 million in cash and in-kind contributions needed to fund the convention, which runs Aug. 24-29.
Partly as a result of the boost from Obama's campaign, most of the goal has now been met, said Steve Farber, the Denver lawyer helping to lead the effort. In mid-June, the Denver Host Committee's fundraising team reported that it was $11.6 million short of reaching a funding goal.
In an example of the campaign's late-innings effort, a very senior Obama campaign official called the political director of one of the largest labor unions about two weeks ago and asked for a $500,000 contribution on top of a similar amount that had been committed just a few weeks before, according to the union official.
. . . A spokesman for the campaign, Hari Sevugan, declined to say whether Obama himself had become involved in these fundraising efforts or to confirm any details of work done by others from the campaign.
"We are working together with the convention committee on many levels to ensure a successful convention this year," Sevugan said. "As we announced earlier, moving forward, one of Sen. Obama's reform priorities will include changes in the way party conventions are funded to assure they can be run without dependence" on soft money.
Donations made to convention host committees are not covered by federal donation limits. As a result, corporations and wealthy individuals can donate unlimited sums under the premise that the committee is promoting civic pride and economic growth, not a political cause.
However, the leadership ranks of these local fundraising committees are dominated by political partisans and elected officials.
. . . The Service Employees International Union has already committed $500,000 to the Democratic convention and an undisclosed sum to the Republicans.
In addition, a new labor consortium it belongs to, Change to Win, has been asked to donate. Other unions that are members of Change to Win, including New York-based Unite Here, have made unspecified donations to the Democrats' host committee. The American Federation of Teachers donated $750,000 last month.
. . . Use of Invesco Field skyboxes as a fundraising tool provides a positive ending to what was at first considered a financial headache. When Obama announced that he planned to deliver his acceptance speech at the outdoor stadium, campaign officials estimated that it would add about $6 million to the convention's cost. Since then, the sale of the $1-million packages has been highly successful, with many of the boxes selling out.
Those paying the $1-million price tag will get skybox tickets for 25 people and an additional 50 regular tickets to Invesco Field.
What's more, donors will get occasional access to skyboxes at the Pepsi Center, where the rest of the convention will take place. Donors will also have access to private parties and receptions.
Obama spokesman Sevugan insisted that none of the campaign's involvement with large-dollar convention funding indicated a weakening of Obama's resolve to reform the system.
Sevugan said: "In addition to his commitment to reform the convention funding process, Sen. Obama has also taken unprecedented steps to curb the influence of money on the political process in refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists, money raised by them, and asking the DNC to do the same -- all steps that John McCain refuses to take. . . .
Showing posts with label principles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label principles. Show all posts
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Character & Principles
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Trying To Defend The Indefensible
Q. Can you clear up the controversy about visiting the troops in Germany, the Pentagon said you were more welcome to come but you cant bring the media and were not allowed to bring campaign staff other than that you are more than welcome anytime, inaudible, we have gotten a few conflicting claims... Ms. Sweet, like the Washington Post and like Obama, simply does not get it. "Having spent two years as the Command Sergeant Major at Landstuhl Hospital, I am always grateful for the attention that facility receives from members of Congress. There is no more important work done by the United States Army than to care for those who have been wounded in the service our country. While Americans troops remain engaged in two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a steady stream of casualties to the hospital, and a steady stream of visitors who wish to meet with those troops and thank them for their service. 
The left, led by the Washington Post, is complaining that the attack on Obama for his decision not to visit wounded soldiers at the Landstuhl RMC is unjustified. They clearly do not understand that there is a bright line here, and however you try and spin it or justify it, Obama displayed extremely poor judgment and lack of concern by crossing it.
___________________________________________________________
Landstuhl RMC is where the U.S. military transfers its seriously wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama was scheduled to visit the wounded soldiers there. The military contacted Obama's staff, letting them know that he was welcome, but that his "army" of reporters and staff were not, including one of his campaign advisors who was also a retired AF General. Obama then chose not to attend, putting the best possible spin on it - that he did so out of concern for the troops.
Lynne Sweet at the Chicago Sun Times asked Obama for a clarification which she believes makes Obama's decision justifiable.
OBAMA: The staff was working this so I don't know each and every detail but here is what I understand happened. We had scheduled to go, we had no problem at all in leaving, we always leave press and staff off that is why we left it off the schedule. We were treating it in the same way we treat a visit to Walter Reed which I was able to do a few weeks ago without any fanfare whatsoever. I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisors, former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn't on the senate staff.
That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns. So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were that. So that essentially would be the extent of the story.
Some things are apolitical. Visiting soldiers who are severely wounded is one of them. It is never inappropriate. It should never be weighed on the scales of political expediency.
Mr. Obama's ostensible concern for the staff having to sort through "whether this is political or not" is pure bull. His campaign was already told that he personally would be welcome, minus his entourage. His further reasoning that the troops "might get caught up in the crossfire between the campaigns" is equally baseless and even more inexplicable. Those troops at Landstuhl now know two things. Obama visited Germany to speak before 200,000 screaming Euro-lefties, but then did not make the visit over to the quieter section of Germany where they lie in beds convalescing from attacks by enemies of our country. As an aside, regardless of what anyone thinks of McCain, is it possible to envisage him criticizing Obama for visiting our wounded soldiers personally?
Obama made a decision. It was a wrong one. Apologists can spin this one any way they want to, but Obama's decision not to visit our troops crossed a bright line.
I wrote yesterday, in response to a different matter, "I could think of no man less qualified to be commander in chief than Obama. That belief is far from predicated on his lack of any military experience. It seems clear that his decision making will be guided by political expediency rather than principle. It seems clear that his decision making will always prioritize the political over military necessity or force protection. . . ." Obama's decision not to visit our wounded soldiers without press and staff falls completely in line with my assessment. No matter how anyone spins it, it showed his very poor judgement.
Let's give the former CSM of Landstuhl RMC, Craig Layton, the last word on this matter:
(H/T Gateway Pundit)
"Senator Obama has explained his decision to cancel a scheduled visit there by blaming the military, which would not allow one of his political advisers to join him in a tour of the facility. Why Senator Obama felt he needed an adviser with him to visit U.S. troops is unclear, but if Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief."
Monday, July 7, 2008
The Chameleon Candidate & Mr. Dionne's Confusion
When a candidate calls a second news conference to say the same thing he thought he said at the first one, you know he knows he has a problem. That Mr. Dionne sees this as a simple trap from the McCain campaign speaks of the depth of his confusion. The problem here is not that Obama wants to change his mind. There are few Americans outside the America hating far left who would not embrace that. Indeed, a good leader is one who remains true to his principles while maintaining flexibility to change plans to most effectively persue those principles as facts on the ground change. Mr. Obama's problem is not with a lack of flexibility, its with a lack of principles beyond his own ambition. The flip-flop charge may be of limited use to the GOP this year because McCain has changed his own positions rather promiscuously on matters such as taxes and offshore drilling. Even on Iraq, one of McCain's signature issues, the Straight Talker has shifted his emphasis. Let's assist Mr. Dionne with some definitions. . . . Republicans are pressing Obama on Iraq because they know that any new moves he makes will be interpreted, fairly or not, as a change in position and that this will hurt him with two groups: the antiwar base of the Democratic Party and independent voters, many of whom are just tuning in to the campaign. To interject here, I have to thank Dionne. The comparison of Obama to a chameleon who changes color depending on the environment of the moment could not be more apt. Indeed, Obama has changed so much so quickly, the moniker of flip flop does not do him justice, but "chameleon" candidate hits the nail on the head. And finally from Mr. Dionne: Over the past week, Obama has been crafty in the way he has sought the political middle ground. He has emphasized his "values" and touted his patriotism, his call to service and his faith, as he did Saturday at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. That is quite different from backing off his core promises. Obama's hypocrisy in touting "Christian values" and his "faith," given that it is soaked in a brand and degree of racism that should disqualify him from election as dog catcher, is beyond belief. Worse is the complicity of the MSM in burying this issue. Barack Obama’s campaign grows more “refined” by the day. On issue after high profile issue – Iraq, abortion, gun control, Reverend Wright – Obama changes positions the way most people change clothes. It’s gotten so bad that even E.J. Dionne has noticed. (Dionne’s column about Obama’s flip-flopping on Iraq is called “The Stand That Obama Can’t Fudge.” Dionne thus simultaneously recognizes and excuses Obama’s fudging on everything else). Hillary is the nominal Clinton in this year's presidential race, but it's Obama who increasingly bears the resemblance to Bill. . . .[R]ecently it’s become clear that, like the former president, Obama is fundamentally unserious about vital issues, including even those pertaining to war and peace. For both men, issues are not at root substantive problems to be addressed on their merits, but formal matters to be navigated and, to the extent possible, manipulated. . . . How else to explain [Clinton’s] statement about how he would have voted on the first Gulf War: “I would have voted for [the war resolution] if [the vote] was close, but the Democrats had the better arguments”? At one level, this approach to issues is post-modern -- a variation of the academic school that sees texts as infinitely malleable instruments with no fixed meaning, just waiting to be put to whatever use we find amusing. Substitute “issues” for “texts” and “expedient” for “amusing,” and you have described the essence of the Clinton-Obama political school. Where I take issue with Powerline is their portrayal of Obama as merely a copy of Clinton. Clinton never, to my recollection, ever approached what we are seeing from Mr. Obama in sheer volume of maleable principles and daily changing positions. By comparison, Clinton was a paragon of principle.]
E.J. Dionne, the leftist aparatchik who doles out his pablum at the Washington Post, is unable to distinguish principle from expediency, nor cynical opportunism from reacting to changed circumstances. Nonetheless, he indadvertently gives us the perfect moniker for Obama, a man who has flipped and flopped so much that he has transcended the act and now is more appropriately referred to as the Chameleon Candidate.
___________________________________________________________
Mr. Dionne's confusion about Mr. Obama is perfectly understandable. It is difficult indeed to claim any color of principle for an individual who changes those colors with the speed and seamlessness of a chameleon. This from Mr. Dionne, writing in the Washington Post today:
Thus Barack Obama's twin news conferences last week in Fargo, N.D. At his first, Obama promised to do a "thorough assessment" of his Iraq policy in his coming visit there and "continue to gather information" to "make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable."
You might ask: What's wrong with that? A commander in chief willing to adjust his view to facts and realities should be a refreshing idea.
But when news reports suggested Obama was backing away from his commitment to withdrawing troops from Iraq in 16 months, Obama's lieutenants no doubt heard echoes of those cries of "flip-flop" that rocked the 2004 Republican National Convention and proved devastating to John Kerry.
So out Obama came again to reiterate his timeline. "Apparently, I wasn't clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq," he said. "I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."
The unsteady moment suggested that Obama has not figured out how to slip the trap John McCain's campaign is trying to set for him. As Michael Cooper and Jeff Zeleny shrewdly put it in the New York Times, Republicans want to place Obama "in the political equivalent of a double bind: painting him as impervious to the changing reality on the ground if he sticks to his plan, and as a flip-flopper if he alters it to reflect changing circumstances."
Obama has been embracing defeat loudly and clearly for a long time. Obama even went so far as to say that genocide would be an acceptable outcome in Iraq as opposed to staying in that country to win the war and stabilize the country. Despite clearly changing facts in Iraq, Obama has been consistent in his calls for withdrawal and consistent in his utter refusal to acknowledge both military and political success in Iraq - until now when it is expedient to do so.
Thus, when Obama gives indication that he will now "refine" his othewise crystal clear position - a position never heretofore tied to the situation on the ground - the problem he faces is larger than the issue of Iraq itself. It is not that he is reacting to a changed situation. He is clearly moving to the right because of votes. As to whether any actual principles beyond ambition are underlying that move, it is an open question and one which America needs answered. Dionne sees this as a tactical political problem and is apparently unable to discern that this is a core issue that goes to the character and judgment of a politician who is asking us to trust him with the most powerful position in the world.
To continue with Mr. Dionne:
A flip flop is a change in political positions based on pure political expediency, irrespective of the changing conditions. It is an act of opportunistic cynicsm that shows a lack of principles and an overabundance of disingenuousness and ambition. That is Obama's problem on essentially every major issue in the race, and in particular on Iraq.
The flip side of it all, if you will, is a refusal to change positions in response to significantly changing conditions. That can be either a mark of principle or a mark of a partisan. McCain's refusal to alter positions on the Iraq war when it clearly looked to cost him his primary bid was clearly a stand on principal. To call McCain's changed position on off-shore drilling a flip flop given that we are facing an energy crisis that could well tank our economy over the next few years is a bit partisan idiocy. On the other hand, Obama's refusal to do anything on this issue that would upset the green special interests certainly suggests partisanship.
With the terms defined, the basis for Mr. Dionne's confusion becomes a bit clearer. To continue:
Painting Obama as a shameless shape-shifter is a way for his opponents to dull the enthusiasm (and inhibit the campaign contributions) of the war's staunchest foes. And if this image stuck, it could also hurt Obama among independents. They might vote for a hawk or a dove, but not a chameleon.
Voters accept that a president may alter the details of campaign promises. What they expect is a clear sense of the direction he will take. At the moment, voters know that John McCain is far more likely than Barack Obama to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely. Obama would be foolish to blur that distinction.
As to the "core promises," much like his achievements, is is possible to name one with any degree of confidence? I know of no major issue where it is possible to say that Obama has remained consistent.
[Update: Powerline also deconstructed the Dionne article, though I think they come to at least a partially erroneous conclusion. The from Powerline:
The more Obama fudges, the more he confirms his status as the true heir to Bill Clinton. As I wrote back in April:
At any rate, as his colum makes clear, Mr. Dionne is simply unable to distinguish people acting on principles from those acting on pure ambition and expediency. That says as much about the Chamelon Candidate as it does about Mr. Dionne and his left wing compatriots.
You can find Mr. Dionne's entire article here.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Obama & The Definition Of "Inartful" (Updated)
You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism." So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee. Read the entire article. Even the NYT is sputtering over the incredible cynicism of Obama. They were choking on their cornflakes this morning over the rapidity at which Obama is tossing principles, positions, and his base under the bus: Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics. Read the entire article. (H/T Rhymes With Right). Change we "can believe in?" The only thing Obama seems to offer is change at 'light speed.' As to something to "believe in," that is a rather difficult task with Obama - a man who is rarely "inartful" in his pronouncements. The Divine Comedy of Obama
(Updated with new picture from TNOY)
Krauthammer expresses his amazement at the chalkboard that is Obama. Several months ago, Obama was a tabula rasa - a blank slate awaiting definition. No longer. We now know much more about Obama, though it is not written on a permanent slate. Rather, it is written on a chalkboard that Obama is ever erasing and rewriting before our very eyes, sometimes "inartfully" so. Charles Krauthammer captures the reality perfectly in his column today and even the NYT is sputtering over it all.
________________________________________________________
This from Charles Krauthammer:
In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.
Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?
Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.
Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.
The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq . . . I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."
He hasn't even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.
Done.
And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.
. . . As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.
Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?
I have no idea. Do you? Does he?
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.
Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.
The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.
In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.
Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.
. . . On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.
Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. [Hardly.] But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”
. . . We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games. . . .
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
Unfortunately, I think the NYT need have little fear. The Obama of which the NYT complains is of no more substance than a wraith. The reality is that Obama is a true product of the left. Obama's history, his associations, and his comments during unguarded moments do give a window into Obama. That picture is at complete variance with the carefully constructed persona that is being presented to the public on any particular date, particularly since the end of the primaries.
I conclude with a joke a friend e-mailed me, which I retell here in the first person:
In place of Dante, it was I traversing heaven, hell and points in between with Virgil as my spirit guide. At one point, as we moved through the seventh level of hell, we entered into the Great Hall of Politics. I was amazed to find that it was filled with clocks, each marked with the name of a politician and each displaying a different time. When I questioned the demonic curator of the hall about them, he said that each time a politician did a flip flop, the hands of the clock would spin about. I saw McCain's clock, and it showed a quarter to three. I saw Kerry's clock, it read midnight. But, look as I might, I could not find Obama's, so I asked Virgil if he could see it. Before he could respond, the demon curator piped up: "The boss has that one. He's using it for a fan."
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Man Not Of His Word
Obama said he'd pursue public financing "aggressively." He committed to it in a written questionnaire. He even said, repeatedly, that he would meet personally with Senator John McCain to discuss a deal. Read the entire article. My problem is not with his pragmatism, nor with his opt out of public financing standing alone, but rather with his wholesale lack of integrity and utter disingenuousness in blaming his decision on McCain and Republicans, claiming that he is taking the moral highground. As Karl at Protein Wisdom opines: It is worth noting that Team Obama had the chutzpah to blame Team McCain for the latest in the exploding number of Obama flip-flops. Ed Morrissey lays out the basic explanation for why Obama’s rationales regarding donations from lobbyists and spending by independent “527″ groups are malarkey, but it’s worth relinking to prior posts here explaining that Obama allows: “policy” and “campaign support” from well-connected Washington lobbyists; donations from their spouses; donations from well-connected state lobbyists and from people who work for Washington firms that do substantial lobbying; and millions upon millions from lawyers and lobbyists, the finance, insurance and real estate sector, and the healthcare sector. Indeed, federal lobbyists are allowed to volunteer for Obama (and presumably now the DNC). Moreover, as Patrick Ruffini notes, a whopping 1% of McCain’s donations were from PACs, even less from lobbyists. Read the entire post. And even the hyperpartisan NYT sputtered a bit on Obama's blaiming McCain for his decision to go back on his word about public financing: Citing the specter of attacks from independent groups on the right, Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election. Read the entire article. To cast one's vote for this man requires an exercise in self delusion, identity politics and amorality that is all consuming. It is beyond my capacity in those areas.
The carefully crafted persona portrayed by Obama and the reality of the man are two entirely different things.
There are two kinds of leaders - those who operate upon deeply held principals and attempt to act with integrity and those for whom life's decisions are an endless and daily weighing of the expediencices. McCain, whose position on Iraq looked certain to doom his candidacy, is clearly in the former category. If you needed any clearer demonstration that Obama fully occupies the latter category, he has given it with his decision to break his promise to take public funding for the general election campaign - and then blame his ethical lapse on John McCain and Republicans. That is something even the NYT has difficulty swallowing.
__________________________________________________________
Its been clear for months that the would-be Messiah, Barack Obama, was not just an ordinary politician. But the reality has been hardly anything but an affirmation of the published by an over the top MSM. Rather, the reality is that Obama combines the naivity and poor judgment of a Jimmy Carter with the oratorical skills and disingenuousness of character of a Bill Clinton. Obama is anything but a man of his word. This from the Politico:
Instead, his campaign never even asked the Republican's aides for a meeting on the subject. And Obama, both campaigns said, never asked for a face-to-face meeting with McCain.
. . . Obama's move wasn't out of character. In fact - though he has at times adopted popular reform causes - Obama has never been a traditional reformer.
He came to politics through the community organizing movement, whose radical founder, Saul Alinsky, mocked highbrow reformers, and focused instead on the acquisition and use of power, with the ends often justifying the means.
In Obama's political life, that approach has translated into pragmatism. He's kept his distance from elements of the Democratic Party that demand purity, from Washington reformers to more ideologically-motivated liberal bloggers. Instead, his campaign has sought the Kennedy mantle, modeling the candidate after a revered Democratic family not known for its scruples.
"Their campaign is brutally pragmatic," said one Democratic operative. "They have the most exciting candidate since JFK and like that operation, they have their share of talented, ambitious and at times ruthless people. Barack gets to stay above the fray, while his campaign does whatever it takes to win." . . .
As for those eeevil 527 groups, it should be noted that Obama does not want the money out of politics; he just wants to control the message. . . .
His decision to break an earlier pledge to take public money will quite likely transform the landscape of presidential campaigns, injecting hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the race and raising doubts about the future of public financing for national races.
In becoming the first major party candidate to reject public financing and its attendant spending limits, Mr. Obama contended that the public financing apparatus was broken and that his Republican opponents were masters at “gaming” the system and would spend “millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations” smearing him.
But it is not at all clear at this point in the evolving campaign season that Republicans will have the advantage when it comes to support from independent groups. In fact, the Democrats appear much better poised to benefit from such efforts.
. . . Mr. Obama’s decision, which had long been expected given his record-breaking money-raising prowess during the Democratic primary season, was immediately criticized by Mr. McCain, who confirmed Thursday that he would accept public financing.
“This is a big, big deal,” said Mr. McCain, of Arizona, who was touring flooded areas in Iowa. “He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people.”
Mr. Obama’s advisers said Thursday that they believed he could raise $200 million to $300 million for the general election, not counting money raised for the Democratic National Committee, if he were freed from the shackles of accepting public money.
Signaling how his ability to raise record amounts was already affecting the race, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, on Thursday released his first advertisement of the general election, spending what Republicans estimated as $4 million in 18 states, including some that Democrats have not contested in recent elections.
. . . Early last year, before he became a money-raising phenomenon, Mr. Obama floated in a filing with the Federal Election Commission the possibility of working out an agreement with the other party’s nominee to accept public financing if both sides agreed. Later, when asked in a questionnaire whether he would participate in the system if his opponent did the same, Mr. Obama wrote, “yes,” adding, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
. . . Mr. Obama, who has sharply criticized the influence of money in politics and has barred contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees to his campaign and the party, announced his decision Thursday in a videotaped message to supporters. He argued that the tens of thousands of small donors who had fueled his campaign over the Internet represented a “new kind of politics,” free from the influence of special interests.
The Obama campaign highlighted Thursday the fact that 93 percent of the more than three million contributions it had received were for $200 or less. But Mr. Obama has also benefited from a formidable high-dollar network that has collected more money in contributions of $1,000 or more than even Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s once-vaunted team of bundlers of donations.
Indeed, Mr. Obama stands to receive a significant boost from fund-raisers who formerly supported Mrs. Clinton, of New York.
Michael Coles, a former Clinton fund-raiser from Atlanta, said in an interview that he was one of 20 to 30 Clinton supporters who joined Mr. Obama’s national finance committee at a meeting on Thursday in Chicago. Members of the committee have each pledged to raise $250,000 for Mr. Obama.
People from both camps said they expected most of Mrs. Clinton’s top fund-raisers to align behind Mr. Obama, and that they could raise at least $50 million for him.
Mr. Obama, however, cast his decision on Thursday as a necessary counter to unscrupulous supporters of Mr. McCain’s.
“We’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies’ running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations,” Mr. Obama said.
Mr. McCain has been highly critical in the past of 527s and other independent groups, but he seems to have softened his rhetoric lately, saying his campaign could not be expected to “referee” such groups. . . .
Monday, May 19, 2008
Victor Davis Hanson on Unmoored Republicans
. . . What mystifies is the paralysis of Republicans and their impotent protestations that “Bush did it”. The truth is that Congressional Republicans, responsible for turning principles into governance, deserve to lose—unless they craft clear positions that won’t be compromised and then offer them as alternative choices to the voters this fall. Here are some examples: Read the entire article.
Republicans in Congress are leaderless, silent, paniced and delusional. They have lost there bearings since the end of the Regan era. They have no fiscal conservatism and seem to think the answer to their woes may be emulate the left. Its not. Victor Davis Hanson weighs in at PJM with his own statement for a Republican platform:
___________________________________________________
This from VDH writing at Pajamas Media:
Spending: a balanced budget, no exceptions. Voters are tired of hearing that this or that projection assures a balanced budget in 2, 3, or 5 years. Revenues continue to soar after the tax cuts, so the problem is too much going out, not too little coming in. Surpluses are preferable to deficits, since we want to retire, not add to out foreign debt. . . .
The War: Afghanistan and Iraq have radically improved. Anti-war hype and slurs are a year out of date. We are finally on the edge of having done the impossible: removed the most odious regimes in the Middle East and fostered constitutional governments in their places. Spending on general defense and the war still run at only 4% of GDP, not high by historical levels. The reforming Petraeus army is stronger and wiser, despite the toll of war, for our ordeals in the Middle East. As troops slowly begin to come home next year, let everyone take credit for it.
Energy: Drill, explore, conserve. The answer does not lie in any one area, but in the willingness to produce more energy in all of them. We must ensure more oil, coal, and nuclear power, conserve more energy as we produce more—to prevent going broke while we transition to next-generation fuels.
Why should others abroad, who are far less careful, extract oil for us in areas of the world more fragile than our own? We must end the notion that ANWR only yields a million barrels a day, or the coasts only 2 million, or tar sands or shale only a million, or nuclear power and coal only so many megawatts of power. To paraphrase, Sen. Dirksen—‘a million barrels a day here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real production.’
Economy: We are in a natural down cycle, not the Great Depression—interest rates, unemployment, economic growth, and stock prices do not reflect a recession. Use this downturn as a warning not to spend what we don’t have when things rebound.
Immigration: Close the border, and then, and only then, argue over what’s next. Stop illegal entries, while we promote assimilation, the English language, integration, and education in American civics. Do that and most of our seemingly insurmountable problems will shrink as we endlessly bicker over amnesty, guest workers, and legal quotas.
Trade: free and supervised trade creates more jobs, makes us more competitive, and fosters alliances. Protectionism does the opposite. Americans like to compete and usually win—when they know the rules of the contest are fair and clearly explained to them.
Foreign Policy: Neither provoke nor talk to our enemies in the Middle East, Asia, or South America. Instead, cultivate our allies, build our defenses—and be ready for anything.
Homeland Security: the framework is in place. Let the Democrats try to repeal it. Let them make the argument that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo haven’t made us safer.
Ethics: Warn Republicans that in matters of sex, influence peddling, and graft, the Party of family values suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy. So the tolerance level for these sins is zero.
If Republicans could adopt such a simple message, stick to it, and find the most articulate spokespeople, they could still win.
. . . The In short, the Republicans’ problem? They forgot who they were and can’t explain what they might be. They need to go back to basics, adopt conservative principles to confront new challenges, and then find the most effective spokesmen they can to explain their positions—hourly.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Obama, War and Political Expediency
[C]haracter matters in war, more so than in any other endeavor. By character I mean attempting to do what one perceives as right based on principles, even if doing so comes at great personal cost. It is the polar opposite of making decisions on the basis of expediency. In that post, I go on to demonstrate why the character of a commander is so critical, and that a person willing to subordinate their principles on the scales of political expediency is not acceptable as a wartime commander in chief. They will be less likely to prosecute the war to successful conclusion and their decisions will be more likely to endanger our soldiers. Read the entire post. . . . If Barack Obama eventually wins the Democratic nomination, his extraordinary rise may be traced to a speech on Oct. 2, 2002, at an antiwar rally in downtown Chicago. That day, Obama, then an obscure state senator, said: "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Read the entire article.
Michael Gerson documents how Obama has placed political expediency over principle on the issue of the Iraq War. This transcends the mere question of whether Obama is being less than honest with the American public and goes to the heart of whether we would want such an individual as Commander in Chief.
______________________________________________________
I am inclined to take candidates at their word. But that said, even if Obama has no intention of withdrawing our soldiers from Iraq were he to be elected president, would we not want such an individual as commander in chief of our soldiers during time of war? As I have written before:
Within that rubric, Obama clearly falls on the side of a person who has demonstrated that he places political expediency over principles. Michael Gerson, in an excellent article in today's Washington Post, examines Obama's changing positions on the Iraq war and compares them to McCain's steadfast adherence to his principles.
For many Democrats, this prescience has given Obama the aura of a prophet. And this early opposition lends credibility to his current promise: to swiftly end the U.S. combat role in Iraq.
Recently, this pledge was called into question by Obama's now-former adviser, Samantha Power, who said: "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan -- an operational plan -- that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground."
. . . In a new article on Commentary magazine's Web site, Peter Wehner undertakes a thorough examination of Obama's record on Iraq. It is, shall we say, complex.
More than a year after the initial success of the invasion, Obama explained, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." And he was correct. In July 2004, he argued that America had an "absolute obligation" to stay in Iraq until the country stabilized. "The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died."
Two months later, Obama criticized Bush's conduct of the war but repeated that simply pulling out would further destabilize Iraq, making it an "extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity." And he signaled his openness to the deployment of additional troops if this would make an eventual withdrawal more likely.
In June 2006, Obama still opposed "a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops." "I don't think it's appropriate for Congress," he said, "to make those decisions about what happens in the field."
By late 2006, as public support for the Iraq war disintegrated and his own political ambitions quickened, Obama called for a "phased withdrawal." When Bush announced the surge, Obama saw nothing in the plan that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there" -- a lapse in his prophetic powers.
When Obama announced his presidential candidacy on Feb. 10, 2007, he stated, "I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008." Then in May and again in November, he voted against funding American forces in Iraq.
Wehner concludes that Obama is guilty of "problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst." And he notes that while McCain has been consistently right about Iraq in the years since the invasion -- highly critical of the early strategy and supportive of a successful surge -- Obama has been consistently wrong in supporting the early, failed strategy and opposing the surge, even as its success became evident.
. . . [T]here is little doubt that Obama has gained in political support among Democrats as his positions on Iraq have become progressively antiwar. His March 2008 withdrawal deadline -- which is up now -- would have undone the Anbar Awakening, massively strengthened al-Qaeda and increased civilian carnage. . . .
The Iraq war determined the paths for McCain and Obama. But there is a large difference between them. McCain eventually won his nomination because he showed political courage in the face of overwhelming pressure. Obama may eventually win his nomination because he surrendered to that pressure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
