Redstate

Posted at 10:42pm on Jun. 25, 2008 When Enough Is Finally Enough

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Barack Obama is certainly a media favorite as this election season continues and there is no doubt that he gets better coverage than does John McCain. Still, it is possible, evidently, for Obama to anger media figures and related to that, consider Ruth Marcus enraged:

When in the course of political events it becomes advantageous for a presidential candidate to dissolve a campaign promise, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the candidate at least refrain from wrapping himself in the Declaration of Independence.

Not Barack Obama.

Click on Obama's campaign Web site and you'll find a virtual parchment scroll, complete with running tally of how many "citizens have declared their independence from a broken system by supporting the first presidential campaign truly funded by the people."

Written as " the PEOPLE," in that familiar, evocative style -- and with a July 4 deadline for signing up.

So Obama isn't just junking his campaign pledge to participate in the public financing system if his opponent agreed to do the same. He isn't just becoming the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign fueled entirely by private money.

No, he deserves praise for this selfless -- scratch that, patriotic-- move.

Marcus's contempt is as dripping as it is rightfully placed. The common answer of Obama acolytes and the campaign itself to accusations of Obamanian hypocrisy have been to argue that the decision to opt out of public financing allows the Obama campaign the ability to run a truly people-powered race for the White House.

But Marcus throws cold water on that argument as well, pointing out that Obama now has access to

. . . bundlers who can collect six- and even seven-figure sums for your campaign. Because even as he was rhapsodizing in public about "the grass-roots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far," Obama was privately cozying up to Hillary Clinton's major fundraisers.

Earlier this month, he dispatched his campaign manager, David Plouffe, to woo Clinton bundlers in Washington and New York. This week, Clinton will introduce Obama to nearly 200 of her major bundlers, including some who have raised $1 million or more, in a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel.

"This group could represent 50 million, if not 100 million, bucks," said one top Clinton strategist.

I am still waiting for the Obama campaign to come out and admit the obvious: that the reason they opted out of the public financing system was because they would be able to raise more money privately and enhance Obama's chances of winning the election. Instead, we continue to have our collective intelligence insulted by the claim that Obama's decision to opt out of public financing somehow constitutes an act of political bravery and selflessness. It's nice to see that journalists like Ruth Marcus are finding their voices and calling shenanigans, but really, the outrage needs to be greater on this issue.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hypocrisy | Public Financing Of Election Campaigns — Comments (6)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:43pm on Jun. 21, 2008 Barack Obama Gets People Mad At Him (Part III)

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

I don't doubt for a moment that the media remains largely in the tank for Barack Obama. But despite--or perhaps, because of--that fact, the Obama campaign's decision to opt out of public financing has earned him nothing but scorn from the editorial pages:

For most voters, Barack Obama's shift away from public financing is not as big a deal as the mounting death toll in Iraq, surging gas prices -- or even what they're going to make for dinner tonight.

But Obama's announcement Thursday that he would become the first candidate to opt out of the public financing program for the general election was a big deal for some of the nation's most influential newspaper editorial boards, which have long been ardent champions of campaign finance reform and which had thought they'd found a kindred spirit on the issue.

Friday morning, scathing editorials in many top broadsheets characterized Obama's move as a self-interested flip-flop, dismissed his efforts to cast it as a principled stand and charged that Obama wasn't living up to the reformer image around which he has crafted his political identity.

To which, my reply is "Where there's smoke . . ." well, you can fill in the rest. Suffice it to say that given his utterly conventional politics, his decision to opt out of public financing--which he had praised in the past, by the way--and his embrace of the FISA compromise despite the anger that it has caused amongst his base (an embrace that is meant purely and completely to try to blunt attacks on Obama's national security record and has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's supposed beliefs concerning this issue), what we are increasingly seeing is that Barack Obama, far from being a breath of fresh air, is an entirely ordinary politician.

Which is fine, by the way. Many of us have learned to expect nothing more than ordinariness from our political class. But Obama should never have advertised himself as being something different than what he actually is.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hypocrisy | Public Financing Of Election Campaigns — Comments (0)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:54pm on Jun. 19, 2008 Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is "Obama"

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

As expected, Barack Obama has chosen to opt out of the public financing system for the general election. What was perhaps less expected was the lame reason he put out for his decision:

Obama, who set records raising money in the primary election, will forgo more than $84 million that would have been available to him in the general election. He would be the first candidate to do so since Congress passed 1970s post-Watergate campaign finance laws. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has taken steps to accept the public funds in the general election.

Obama officials said they decided to take that route because McCain is already spending privately raised funds toward the general election campaign. Obama has vastly outraised McCain, however, and would likely retain that advantage if McCain accepts the public money.

The public finance system is paid for with the $3 contributions that taxpayers can make to the presidential fund in their tax returns.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Specifically, Obama argues that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And 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."

First of all, Obama is just as free to take 527 support as McCain--who has decided to remain in the public financing system--is. Indeed, there is quite a powerful network of 527s that will doubtless be of assistance to Obama irrespective of whether or not he chose to remain in the public financing system. Obama should cut out his cynical attempt to convince others that he is a poor little lamb vulnerable to slaughter at the hands of Republican 527 groups. Given the fact that Democratic 527s regularly outraise Republican ones, McCain has a greater right to issue that complaint than does Obama.

Secondly, the notion that Obama has not benefited from PAC money even at this stage in the game is fatuous nonsense.

Read on . . .

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hypocrisy | Public Financing Of Election Campaigns — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:48pm on Jun. 11, 2008 It's Not Hypocrisy Barry. It's Pointing Out How Full of Horse Manure You Are.

By Erick

Barack Obama *says* "no lobbyists allowed." Barack Obama *says* this applies to the DNC.

Of course, he has a problem.

While Senator Obama ordered the Democratic National Committee last week to stop taking donations from lobbyists, the co-chairman and lead fund-raiser for the host committee for the Denver convention, Steven Farber, is a lawyer and federally registered lobbyist with Brownstein Hyatt Farber & Schreck LLP, a firm with offices in Denver, Washington, and elsewhere.

"Not only that, they're a donor," an advocate of tighter regulation of political funding, Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, said, pointing to the firm's logo among several dozen "partners" on the host committee Web site.

This comes on the heels of me pointing out that two of the DNC's vice-chairs are registered lobbyists.

So what is the Obama campaign going to do? They say John McCain is not allowed to talk about this. They say John McCain is hypocritical to harass Obama on this because he has so many connections to lobbyists.

Best I can figure, Obama must staff his campaign with high school dropouts because they very clearly don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy. Hypocrisy means you, Barry, set standards that you, Barry, are failing to live up to.

Pointing out your hypocrisy is not itself hypocrisy -- it's actually shoot fish in barrel.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hypocrisy | John McCain | Obamafiles | Steven Farber — Comments (4)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:41am on May 26, 2008 The Audacity Of Hype: A Continuing Saga

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

It is good to see that despite Barack Obama's claim to be above it all when it comes to politics and the various quasi-sordid things that are part and parcel of having a life in politics, news reports are calling him on his purer-than-thou rhetoric:

When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved--but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then--but may soon get more scrutiny--is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

Last week, Obama hit John McCain for hiring "some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington" to run his campaign; Obama's aides say their candidate, as a foe of "special interests," has refused to take money from lobbyists or employ them. Neither Axelrod nor his partners at ASK ever registered as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison--and under Illinois's loose disclosure laws, they were not required to. "I've never lobbied anybody in my life," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. "I've never talked to any public official on behalf of a corporate client." (He also says "no one ever denied" that Edison was the "principal funder" of his firm's ad campaign.)

But the activities of ASK (located in the same office as Axelrod's political firm) illustrate the difficulties in defining exactly who a lobbyist is. In 2004, Cablevision hired ASK to set up a group similar to CORE to block a new stadium for the New York Jets in Manhattan. Unlike Illinois, New York disclosure laws do cover such work, and ASK's $1.1 million fee was listed as the "largest lobbying contract" of the year in the annual report of the state's lobbying commission. ASK last year proposed a similar "political campaign style approach" to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a "grassroots" group of medical experts "capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position," according to a copy of the proposal. (ASK didn't get the contract.) Public-interest watchdogs say these grassroots campaigns are state of the art in the lobbying world. "There's no way with a straight face to say that's not lobbying," says Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes government transparency.

You have to wonder how many other non-lobbyists-who-actually-lobby have connections to the Obama campaign. My guess is "a lot." We haven't heard the end of this story and by all rights, neither Obama nor any of his supporters are in a position to make any more cracks about John McCain and his connections to the lobbying community.

Indeed, it is naïve to think that politicians--especially those who have risen to enough prominence to be able to run for the Presidency of the United States--will not have lobbying connections. And it is more than a little bit silly to base one's vote for the Presidency on the amount of lobbying connections--or purported lack thereof--that a particular candidate has. Still, if the Obama campaign wants to portray itself as having clean hands when it comes to lobbying connections, I won't object too loudly when the media points out that in fact, it doesn't.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hypocrisy — Comments (2)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:51am on May 24, 2008 Chutzpah

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Now that it has been confirmed that Senator Edward Kennedy has a brain tumor likely to be fatal, attention has slowly begun to shift from the shock and sadness that diagnosis has elicited from both sides of the partisan divide to the question of who might succeed Kennedy should he resign or pass away in office. And this story informs us that the attitude of Massachusetts Democrats on the issue is "Heads: We win. Tails: Republicans lose":

The leader of the Massachusetts House says he will support giving Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim successor to U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy if that becomes necessary.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature stripped Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of that authority in 2004 because of fears he would name a Republican to replace U.S. Sen. John Kerry if he had been elected president.

Instead, state law now requires a special election for the seat no sooner than 145 days and no later than 160 days after the vacancy occurs.

But House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said yesterday if Kennedy should step aside or have to be replaced because of his brain tumor diagnosis, he'd be in favor of a gubernatorial appointment.

"That was a good political reason (then)," DiMasi said of taking the power away from Romney. "It's a good political reason to change it back."

Must . . . try . . . to . . . comment. But . . . cannot . . . rendered . . . speechless . . . by . . . . DiMasi's . . . appalling . . . nerve.

Must . . . turn . . . over . . . microphone . . . . to . . . a . . . Massachusetts . . . Republican:

House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading said it was "distasteful" for DiMasi to respond to questions about changing the way the state handles vacant Senate seats. But, he criticized Democrats for their 2004 move against Romney.

"They said at the time they took this away for important public policy reasons," Jones said. "It would make them all out to be liars."

(Via James Taranto.)

Posted in Edward Kennedy | Hypocrisy | Massachusetts | State Politics — Comments (16)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:48am on May 21, 2008 Barack Obama And His Ties To Lobbyists

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Slate has the rundown. This certainly deserves attention--especially from those who have been tut-tutting over the fact that lobbyists were part of the McCain campaign. (Via InstaPundit.)

Posted at 12:38am on May 21, 2008 Let's Not Have Any Double Standards Now

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

After John McCain clinched the Republican nomination, the press and Democrats tracked with glee primaries and caucuses where he beat Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul by a mere 50 points or so. Surely--the reasoning went--if John McCain, the Republican nominee was not collecting nearly all of the vote after having secured the nomination, then one could supposedly deduce that the Republican party was not united behind McCain and he will be doomed in the general election fight as a consequence.

Assume that thinking is correct for a moment. What then does it say about the likely Democratic nominee that he is getting blown out at this late stage by 35 points in the late primaries?

I mean, a 50 point margin might be cutting it close in the eyes of some, but at least McCain won those contests.

Posted in 2008 | Hypocrisy | The Democratic Presidential Nomination — Comments (10)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:00am on Jan. 3, 2008 "Too Cute By Half"

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Apparently, Peter Fenn just noticed that John Edwards says one thing and does another on a regular basis.

Posted at 2:40pm on Dec. 23, 2007 Ouch. Reality stings, doesn't it?

By Jeff Emanuel

From our own Mark Kilmer's Sunday Morning Talk Show Review:

Ron Paul said that he has never voted for an earmark. Russert said that while this may be true, he's inserted them into bills. Ron Paul declared that the earmarks are a means of getting his constituents their money back from the federal government.

Can somebody hand me some binoculars? The goalpoast seems to have relocated out of sight, and I need to see where it went.

Such duplicity -- which any who actually pay attention have known about for years -- likely won't hurt Paul's support among his most vocal backers, as those hippies liberals pinkos commies anti-Americans naive children anarchists lifelong Republicans who voted for Goldwater and Reagan generally seem to be in the tank for Paul because of his incredibly naive isolationist foreign policy views, which would fit much better in a world in which America had not yet been discovered, than in our current global society.

Posted at 3:59pm on Dec. 4, 2007 When You Work The Refs, It Helps If Your Teammate Doesn't Cut The Ground Out From Under You

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Bill Clinton can certainly be expected to campaign and lobby as hard and as persuasively as possible on behalf of his wife as she runs for President, so it is no surprise to see a story like this one:

Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates' public records better, his wife's presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals.

During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can't understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience--and, without naming him, the relative lack of experience of her closest Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

"One percent of the press coverage was devoted to their record in public life. No wonder people think experience is irrelevant. A lot of the people covering the race think it is (irrelevant)," Clinton said to students at Keene State College.

Clinton referenced a study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicated much of the coverage of the race is dominated by daily horse race reporting rather than about policy issues.

"Sixty-seven percent of the coverage is pure politics. That stuff has a half life of about 15 seconds. It won't matter tomorrow. It is very vulnerable to being slanted and rude. And it won't affect your life," Clinton said.

He's exactly right. So would someone tell me why third grade and kindergarten essays are being breathlessly examined by . . . wait for it! . . . the Clinton campaign?

Well, at least we know why stories like this one get publicity. The fear and concern such stories report on is very real and increasingly justified.

Posted in Bill Clinton | Democrats | Hillary Clinton | Hypocrisy — Comments (3)/ Email this page » / Read More »