Does It Infuriate Anyone That You Can Now Buy The Presidency?
By Ani on January 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM in Current Affairs
Ani’s post is so vital that it must be published again. On its first run a few weeks ago, Ani’s post received 381 comments, which comes as no surprise given Ani’s quality of writing and her research. – Susan
I know there have been some comments posted wondering at the direction of NoQuarter, whether or not we are “moving on” and “gently coaxing” our readers to do the same. Well, here is one chick not “moving on,” although I am moving forward.
Certainly, it doesn’t look like we can undo the travesty of this election, so my version of moving forward is to honestly report what happened so it does not happen again. The way to do that is to call those out on the carpet who deserve it. And that includes voters who haven’t been paying attention.
The title issue is much bigger than who got elected. It is about the way this election transpired and what it says about the state of our democracy, our involvement, our knowledge or lack thereof, and the detrimental contributions of a biased press. Most important, it says that money talks and issues, policies and qualifications take a back seat to the almighty dollar and American Idol worship.
I put my country first. I do not want Obama to fail because I do not want our country to fail. As an American citizen, I will respect the office of the President, and if he is indeed inaugurated, I will accord him the same respect I accorded George Bush these past eight years; and you can figure out for yourselves how much or little respect that was. That stated, I will call this man out on the carpet for every trick. I am not done screaming about it.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, right?
It’s our country and it ain’t free. Nothing is free. The freedoms people take for granted were earned and I for one, do not want to lose them. No one here spent thousands of hours campaigning, writing, canvassing, calling, donating so that the media could pick our President.
What kind of “change” is this? What kind of “new politics” is it when you can buy the office? Barack Obama buried the competition under an avalanche of money. Period. He told plenty of lies in his advertising and mostly did not get called on them by a fawning and complicit media. The media’s belated mea culpa is as self serving as it is useless. He completely misrepresented McCain’s positions on Social Security and immigration, for example. With Hillary, he misrepresented her health care plan and besmirched her character. He belittled her foreign policy experience as being nothing more than a series of tea parties. Odd, since he has just proudly appointed her his Secretary of State.
All the while, the media said nothing – the advertising dollar was king. It is devastating to think that Obama’s massive spending on these respective networks might also have bought him more positive coverage.
According to Politico:
A close John McCain ally charged on Thursday that Barack Obama had followed Richard Nixon’s 1972 path to victory — drowning his opponent with cash — and asserted Obama was never held to account for breaking a promise to participate in a system that would have limited his campaign’s historic spending.
“If the roles were reversed and it was the Republican Party nominee who had decided to walk away from the system and spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Democratic nominee — having a very direct effect on the election — I do not think it would have been taken with as much equanimity by the press and the powers that be as has been the case this year,” said Trevor Potter, a McCain confidant who served as the top lawyer to the Republican presidential candidate’s campaign.
“It was, after all, Richard Nixon doing exactly that — raising an untold amount of money and blowing George McGovern out of the water — that created the public funding system in the first place,” Potter added during a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential campaign.
But Obama’s campaign lawyer Bob Bauer, also on the panel, balked at the Nixon comparison, calling Potter’s analysis “a vast vineyard” of sour grapes.
“I don’t normally think of Richard Nixon when I think of Barack Obama. I don’t normally think of George McGovern when I think of John McCain,” Bauer said, asserting Obama’s enormous financial advantage over McCain was not determinative.
Obama’s final fundraising report, due by midnight Thursday, is expected to show that he raised a record-shattering $750 million or more for his campaign, compared with the $322 million to which McCain’s campaign had access.
Bauer can call it ‘sour grapes,’ but it is unmistakable that a candidate who controls the airwaves with double and triple the media buys, can exaggerate, misrepresent or outright lie about his opponent’s policy and record. Combining that with the media not correcting the record on those misrepresentations; well, that is a formidable one-two punch. Never mind completely demoralizing any opposition voters, urging them to think the outcome was already a foregone conclusion. Never mind the spectre of President Bush in the background.
I am more concerned that Obama did the same thing to Hillary – a far more qualified candidate who was massively outspent and treated to a crap sandwich by the media daily, while Obama’s dissembling, flip-flopping and lack of concrete policy went largely unchecked. This did make a determinative difference.
Not that I wish to give oxygen to Karl Rove, but no matter how evil I think him, he is a brilliant political mind. He had this to say in his editorial in yesterday’s WSJ:
If money talks, we’ll likely soon hear the real reason why Barack Obama beat John McCain. Both men and the national parties will report to the Federal Election Commission today how much money they raised in October and November. And what the numbers will probably show is that Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain by the biggest margin in history, perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars.
Rove estimated that the report would show that Obama and the DNC had a total of between $827 million and $847 million in funds for the general election. Why would they need all that is this no-lose year for the Democrats? I mean, if they had such a great candidate and all? Oh yeah, the Bradley effect. Well, clearly, there wasn’t one.
Mr. McCain and the RNC spent $550 million in the general election, including the $84 million in public financing Mr. McCain accepted in exchange for his campaign not raising money after the GOP convention.
He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.
A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.
Mr. Obama also used his money to outmuscle Mr. McCain on the ground, with more staff, headquarters, mail and a larger get-out-the-vote effort. In mid-September the Obama campaign said its budget for Florida was $39 million. The actual number was probably larger. But in any case, Mr. McCain spent a mere $13.1 million in the state. Mr. Obama won Florida by 2.81 percentage points.
Mr. McCain was outspent by wide margins in every battleground state. But it would have been worse for him if RNC Chairman Mike Duncan and Finance Chairman Elliott Broidy hadn’t stockpiled funds in 2007 and early 2008. The RNC provided nearly half the funds for the GOP’s combined general-election campaign, while the DNC provided less than a tenth of the funds that benefited Mr. Obama.
To diminish criticism, Mr. Obama’s campaign spun the storyline that he was being bankrolled by small donors. Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, calls that a “myth.” CFI found that Mr. Obama raised money the old fashioned way — 74% of his funds came from large donors (those who donated more than $200) and nearly half from people who gave $1,000 or more.
A huge number of President-elect Obama’s supporters still believe he raised all his money on the internet with mostly small donations. Denial, anyone? And how disrespectful to those who actually were small donors — giving their hard earned money so he could blow $6 million of it in one night on his faux Grecian temple extravaganza at Invesco Field. I guess it’s all about shock and awe, right?
Rove goes on to state:
But that’s not the entire story. It’s been reported that the Obama campaign accepted donations from untraceable, pre-paid debit cards used by Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Family Guy, King Kong and other questionable characters. If the FEC follows up with a report on this, it should make for interesting reading.
You can wait long for the follow-up, Mr. Rove. So can the rest of us. It’s circle the wagon time and no one is going to embarrass the new President-elect; certainly not the FEC.
Mr. Obama’s victory marks the death of the campaign finance system. When it was created after Watergate in 1974, the campaign finance system had two goals: reduce the influence of money in politics and level the playing field for candidates.
This year it failed at both. OpenSecrets.org tells us a record $2.4 billion was spent on this presidential election. And with Mr. Obama’s wide financial advantage, it’s clear that money is playing a bigger role than ever and candidates are not competing on equal footing.
The victim of this broken system is one of its principal architects — Mr. McCain. He helped craft the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform along with Sen. Russ Feingold in 2002.
No presidential candidate will ever take public financing in the general election again and risk being outspent as badly as Mr. McCain was this year…
It is time to trust the American people and remove limits on how much an individual can donate to a campaign. By doing that, we can design a system that will be much more open by requiring candidates to frequently report donations in an online database. Technology makes this possible. Such a system would be easier for journalists to use and would therefore make it more likely that fund raising would be included in news coverage. That would give voters the tools they need to determine if a candidate is getting too much from unattractive people.
Well, Mr. Rove, that would only work if people really saw exactly which billionaires or interest groups were contributing money to each campaign – so we see exactly who is pushing to get someone elected. Then voters might take a look to see whether or not they thought that was a good idea.
I still prefer the idea of campaign finance reform – where there is an equal forum and more equal spending. Then we might finally have to look at the issues, not vote for a popular brand.
In closing, Karl Rove offers a truthful assessment of Obama’s monetary juggernaut:
Rather than showing the success of a new style of post-partisan politics, Mr. Obama’s victory may show the enduring truth of the old Chicago Golden Rule: He who has the gold rules.
This campaign made a mockery of campaign finance reform. Do we really want a political system where the louder voice granted by a greater money advantage allows you to shout down your opponent, without regard to the facts? Obama’s supporters keep saying he ran a more effective, shrewder campaign. How shrewd do you have to be to throw almost a billion dollars at the problem?
If, as he put it, his only “executive experience” is running his campaign, that does not bode well for America’s finances during this very troubled time in our economy. If that is his “shrewd” method of problem solving, I’ll take a pass, thanks.
We have an obligation as American citizens to keep the elective process honest, even if politicians will not. I am very proud that I have the right to vote. That is a privilege not afforded everywhere in this world. I want my vote to mean something. I want our politicians held accountable.
I find it horribly disturbing that Obama is congratulated and applauded for the outrageous amount of money he raised in this campaign while people turn a blind eye at the ramifications of this accomplishment. Especially when the FEC refuses to check into the questionable internet donations he received. What has happened to one person, one vote?
How accountable will any of our politicians be when money is all that matters? How accountable are they now? Not very. Rather than “move on,” I say move forward and make as much noise as humanly possible to our elected officials – this kind of “campaigning” cannot be tolerated. How many elections do we want to have taken out of our hands? If we laud those who raise a bushel basket of funds, but decline to oust them when they renege on their promises to the American electorate, then we have no one to blame but ourselves when they tell us to “go off and play” while they run our country into the ground.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
One of my biggest problems has been that Obama was Selected because he was able to buy it and NO ONE IN THE FEC -DEM PARTY_REPUB PARTY seems to care. Just we idiots who seem to think our government should be better than that.
And lets not forget buying Senate seats-Caroline
and Franken come to mind here.
And now I will go back and read the entire post Ani but thank you for asking this question. Great subject!
History will eventually reveal that the Obama campaign was indeed historic in one particular: The most corrupt and dishonest campaign in American political history.
You can only hope, right?
Yes we can!
LMAO
That and the fact that after the blacks struggled years to overcome disenfranchisement, Obama got to be prez by disenfranchising millions in his own party. Disgraceful.
Politicians never “gave” us anything.
“It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.”
I don’t often agree with Zell Miller, but this citation certainly speaks truth.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!
I am not denigrating our soldiers here, but they did not give Americans our basic freedoms of press, dissent, and assembly. It was our Founding Fathers (politicians? Statesmen?) through our marvelous Constitution.
Our soldiers help us keep those basic rights and serve magnificently and sometimes die to defend those rights; God bless them all. But it is also up to each and every citizen to keep those rights alive. We have to demand those rights when the politicians try and take them away. As Benjamin Franklin uttered when asked what kind of government was created in Philadelphia, a monarch or a democracy? “A republic, ‘madam, if you can keep it.”
So it is our duty, the average citizen, to keep or lose these rights.
Perhaps I am misguided here, but didn’t the soldiers provide the arena for the Constitution being written at all?
If the men and women who fought the Revolutionary War had not prevailed the colonies would have remained just that. However, these soldiers did not know what kind of government would be created. Nor did they know what rights would be given to ‘the people,’ who at that time were only male land owners.
I don’t believe it was any army or soldier that gave women the right to vote. That was thousands of women including but not limited to Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Burns. It is the same for the civil rights gained by blacks in the 50’s and 60’s.
In this regard, we are all soldiers. Every American is a fighter for the Constitution and for keeping us free.
As I understand it; there was no standing army at the time of the Revolution. Each colony would supply troops for a militia for a set time. Soldiers would be trained and then return to their homes because their time to serve was done. Those early designers of the Constitution were wary of a standing army because of abuses they suffered as colonies.
That one should be taken to heart and remembered by every American. I take it as a self-evident truth.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,”…
These days, that line sounds like snark, That all men are created equal….”Just words”?
A bible, a train ride, …that is were BO swore the “self evident” departs.
Events will overtake BO’s ability to cope much less command. It will be a 2 packs a day and gray hair in a week.
It will be like an Ori ascension on the 20th. I am waiting for;
.
Anyone know if PEBO is any better at red teaming than he was last time a congressmen broke protocol and Publicly denounced BO’s performance on a continuity of government exercise?
If Bush needed schoolin’ and still claimed devine intervention, what does that say about BO.
Ya think?
I’ve got to disagree with HARP and with the hoary, jingoistic chestnut he quotes. I think both misunderstand the fundamental nature of our democracy.
Here’s my argument.
In actual fact, it has been “politicians” who passed all the laws that enumerate and guarantee our rights. The military doesn’t make the laws in this country.
Granted, the success of our soldiers in the war of independence made it possible for the election of a citizen legislature, which wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which were ratified by voters, not soldiers, by the way). Since then, however, there are precious few instances in which a compelling argument can be made that our system of laws and the freedoms enshrined in it were credibly threatened by any foreign army.
It is a simple fact of the last 60 years of American history that the primary employment of our armed forces has not been to protect the borders — and thereby the freedoms – of America.
One hundred and eighty years ago, Abraham Lincoln understood the true nature of America and the preservation of its freedoms. In his famous Lyceum address, he noted the fact that America is a natural fortress and very wisely pointed out that any threats to our freedom would come from within: from our failure to uphold the system of laws that is the true source of our freedoms.
It’s a great speech — too long to do justice to in an NQ comment. Here’s a link:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm
Lincoln got it exactly right. It is the respect of our citizenry for the rule of law that preserves our freedoms.
A couple more examples:
1. The civil rights movement. Yes, the National Guard helped enforce civil rights in a handful of instances, but it was a mass civilian movement that defeated Jim Crowism. Many activists gave their lives in the struggle for voting rights for blacks, but not a single soldier that I’m aware of. In fact, the American armed forces were one of the bastions of segregation.
2. Freedom of the press. Since the Continental Army paved the way for civilians to enact the First Amendment, the military has made no significant contribution to freedom of the press. Ordinary citizens fighting for their rights in court is what has preserved and defined our free speech rights. In fact, in one of the most important First Amendment cases — New York Times Co. vs. United States — the military was on the losing side in favor of censorship. In that case, which definitively outlawed prior restraint of free speech by the government, it was precisely reporters who established and defended freedom.
All this is not to diminish the importance of men and women who are willing to die for their country if need be. I just get fed up with the simplistic and misguided mindset that sees warfare as the guarantor of American freedom.
I agree w both of your comments
I don’t believe the US will fail if we don’t support Obama. I didn’t support Bush and I refuse to support Obama. He is not my President, Bush wasn’t either. Both are a disgrace.
With a very strong, inescapable gut feeling, I agree with you. Why does an unqualified liar who bought the White House deserve our support? I always want my country to succeed, with a fair deal for our citizens and with respect for the other folks on this planet. I think America can succeed even if Obama fails. As long as we “root” for these big spenders, we’ll see more of them down the line. Look what happened in New York. Mike Bloomberg spent enormous amounts of his own money to get elected … twice! He might be the worst of all because by spending only his own money, he’s saying to the voters … “Guess what, I don’t need you either!” It’s no surprise he’s also supporting C. Kennedy for the Clinton Senate Seat. She, too, is loaded. And a sad state of affairs that David Patterson is mulling over the C. Kennedy appointment because “fundraising” is reportedly a big factor in his decision. How can any of these candidates feel beholden to “the people.” There is nothing but contempt for the people with this behavior. Please, tell me again why I “need” “must” “ought to” etc. “support” President Moneybags?
As long as we “root” for these big spenders, we’ll see more of them down the line.
That sounds like an argument against Hillary.
No corporate money behind her campaign, right?
Black Man:Cease and desist from bashing Hillary.
Bobby Rush’s remarks have been interesting recently. I think some of these people are going to get their racist nonsense shoved right up their patoots. Like there’s some law that one of the seats in IL has to go to a black. There’s a whole state south of Chicago and one of those seats should go to someone from some other region of the state.
UBM,
What a joke — Obama outspent Hillary 3, 4 and 5 to 1 — he outspent McCain by 6 to 1 or more.
Please stop trying to pretend that Hillary had anywhere near the money that Obama did — or that the press did anything but kiss his feet everyday while crapping on everyone else — no matter how worthy.
Please stop trying to pretend that Hillary had anywhere near the money that Obama did…
Oh, ye ceaseless spinners… ye of such short memories… ye sorest of sore losers.
Remember 2007? The year leading up to the primaries… wherein tens of millions of dollars were raised by various candidates?
Hillary outraised Obama in the third quarter of 2007 ($27 million to $20 million). And Hillary outraised Obama in the fourth quarter of 2007 ($27 million to $23.5 million).
The money tide turned after Obama cleaned Hillary’s clock in Iowa. And why wouldn’t the money tide turn? Obama was showing himself to be the stronger candidate, running a better campaign than Hillary’s.
So, Ani, spin yourself into the ground pratting on about the sinister import of Obama outspending Hillary. He outspent her because he outraised her. He outraised her because he was the superior candidate.
Which, indeed, was proven in November when Obama steamrolled McCain.
This is the way politics has always worked, people. It’s the way politics is supposed to work.
No, no, no, UBM! The “quarters” you speak of were before Nancy Pelosi’s money machine company located in her congressional district and secured BY her for BO, had honed it skills sufficiently to raise Obama’s campaign money.
Thanks to Mama Nancy’s advice, his 2007 fundraising money was used to pay-off Superdelegates early, contributing an average of $5,000 to their campaigns and in some cases $11,000 (say the campaign finance reports) to insure their support. Then Pelosi’s Silicone Valley fund-raising company used the high-dollar as well as the low-dollar social networking sites to do the rest. Those Obama campaign offices in the different states were the cover-up operations his campaign proudly points to as if they were responsible for the millions. What a joke.
At the end he was amassing $50 million+ a month. Obama had NOTHING to do with it other than he was the ‘change’ candidate. None of this was his idea. He was clueless as to how to run a campaign since he had never raised over a $100,000 for any of his previous three campaigns.
No need to worry, though. Pelosi and Dean were fiercely working behind the scenes for him from at least 2006 on, if not soon after his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech. Pelosi and Dean were determined to win at any cost and make sure Hillary was defeated. So, stop making us gag over your comments that he was the superior candidate. He was NOT!
I agree Obama is a disgrace. I will not ever support a fraud as corrupt as he is.
Don’t know why my first comment did not go through but I will just say now thank you Ani great post !
Couldn’t agree more, will go down as most corrupt administration ever has been my prediction all along.
I just didn’t expect the scandals to be so numerous BEFORE he was sworn in .
It’s a good day today.
I will never support Fraudbama, and will continue to work with all of the others who are working their azzes off to get him out of the White House asap.
Yes it infuriates me. It’s why I still have no regrets voting for McCain over Obama. It was so glorious to see Hillary beat Obama despite being outspent 3-to-1, sometimes 4-to-1. I wanted to see that repeat with McCain.
I think one of my biggest disappointments in this election was seeing how completely naive my former fellow progressives could be – that they’d actually believe Obama got in power without big corporate money behind him.
That is because they were never really progressive and were gullible to the point of being easy pickings for That One, the con artist. It isn’t progress to vote for a man due to color or guilt. His campaign was more hype than hope; more status quo than change.
I was a college student during the Counter Culture. I didn’t have trouble rejecting Obama because I saw right away the stupidity of the far left. They were stupid in the 60s-70s and they are still stupid–and evil.
I believe Benjamin hit it dead on. I hope in time people will see how Obama realy got elected. He played every dirty trick and paid the super delegates off as fast as he could. They should all be ashamed of themselves.
Let’s see if American voters can reset THEIR moral compass enough to fight these immoral and amoral fascist bankers, corporations and politicians who
CAN be voted out if we unite and fight.
Problem is, most people don’t give a shit about how 0 got selected. He’s not Chimpy – and that seems to be good enough. Forget ethics, fairplay, stonewalling, stealing votes, intimidation and the race card, which played both ways. Sadly, it seems the only way to beat the corrupt and conscience-free repubs is to offer a candidate with the same moral philosophy. In other words, fighting fire with fire.
Don’t like it, but there’s not much we the people can do about it. Just try to avoid getting burned.
Yes, Ani, it infuriates me. I remember when getting the money out of politics was the public’s top issue. Now television, the news and both parties censor any discussion of this. And if you ask someone like Rove, he stands it on its head and says the solution is unlimited purchase of influence, aka bribery. I have never heard a conservative address the problem that if you allow money to “talk” then those without it have no voice.
Democrats got suckered this year. What will the 2012 or 2016 election look like? The Democratic Party was the last hope for regular people to have a say in our government and Obama just put the power completely beyond our reach.
I just got an email from an educator, lamenting the appointment of Erne Duncan to Education. I don’t know much about him but heard he supported privatization. That will be the mo for this administration. Think of departments as profit centers. The taxpayer will pay just as much or more, and the solution will always be to increase a program run by some of his campaign contributors, usually with a justification of increased spending on/for minorities. That’s the change. The hope. That’s it. That’s how he worked in the past.
Annie: I believe you’re exactly right. That’s why I’m so happy to see Richardson go down. Did him a lot of good to sell out Hillary, no?
….why I’m so happy to see Richardson go down. Did him a lot of good to sell out Hillary, no?”
And as someone said today, “all that butt-kissing for naught”. Karma??
I think the influence of the money has been minimized. Obama has graduated cum laude from the school of “pay to play”. This is what his money has bought him. Not the number of commercials who lied about his qualifications and denigrated his opponents, not that one can minimize that, but even with a huge money advantage, he could not beat Hillary. But he could buy off the media and the DNC. Quid pro quo. Pay to play. This for that. Do this or you won’t get that. Do this or you will get that! Whatever the coercion, 0bama had the money to enforce his demands. Remember after the Philadelphia debate and 0bama was trampled by Hillary. He laid his poor showing at the feet of ABC. They were then shown just how effective 0bama’s ire could be. I am sure he withheld money from ABC for commercials. The Network commercials are the mother’s milk of how the networks cover the candidates. They spread their money around in exchange for good coverage and poor coverage of Hillary or McCain or Palin. The media were complicit because they were paid off. Pure and simple. The networks were paid, along with the major newspapers, to cover “The One” with praise and the rest were covered with scorn. Well, now that the money is dried up, how will 0bama coerce them? I notice 0bama uses the “stimulus” package to coerce Patterson into appointing the “e tu Brute”, Caroline Kennedy, to Hillary’s seat. 5 Billion for NY seems a bit more than the paltry million Blago wanted. Patterson, Blago, 0bama. Pay to play and we all lose. Change we can believe in. Disaster we can count on.
It’s tragicomic that after the looting of the Iraq war this administration will come into office with people begging them to spend a trillion. What could go wrong?
“…but he could buy off the media and DNC.”
He didn’t need to buy-off the media. They were willing ‘prostitutes’ even for free because he was a new story. Hillary and the others were yesterday’s news they said.
He definitely did not have to buy off the DNC. They chose him – not vice versa. They insisted he run for president after he first said he wasn’t ‘ready’ (I say not qualified) to run for president at that point. Neither is he qualified to BE POTUS on January 20th.
Not to worry, though. As in his campaign, all the people around him will run the government and he comes out smelling like a rose and claiming the credit.
Ani’s post nails it completely, and I am still furious. But more than that, I am horrified. It fits, however, doesn’t it, with everything else that has happened over the past year? Wall Street greed and corruption on a vast scale, which has stolen the futures of hundreds of millions of Americans along with a president-select who bought the presidency.
It’s empire, not democratic republic.
Yes, it is infuriating. All these Obots will see what they have wrought when the next election comes along and the Kennedy’s buy the WH for Caroline.
Yeaaaah! Bill Richardson is out because he’s a crook. I say…Bill Clinton for Sec of Commerce! The Clintons RULE!
Thank you tek…I agree 100% about the far left. What a different country this would be without those loons.
A Billion Dollars could have bought anyone in America the white house seat. It could have bought any gender or race.
To SAD that this 08 election bought an African Foreigner because of Money and Greed.
Obama is Nixon. Great to see that guy from McCain’s staff mention yet another similarity between the two.
We do indeed have the return of Richard M. to the white house.
I only wish 0bama was as good as Nixon. Unfortunately, he is more like Bush. Nothing good about W. Utter failure!
I read somewhere that everything 0bama does must be looked at through the lens of Chicago and the bid for the 2016 Olympics . Mayor Daley wants the Olympics for Chicago. He wants it bad. Just think about all the infrastructure that Chicago can build (or pretend to build) with Billions and Billions and Billions of U.S. dollars from a “stimulus” package. They can re-loot the treasury and the Chicago criminals will be rich beyond belief. That you can believe in!! One always wondered just why Obama was the one. Well this is the answer. We can sacrifice this country and democracy for the 2016 Olympics. Makes one sick to their stomach.
It’s also funny (in a sickening sort of way, and hell just downright funny too) that Blagojevich was the first choice to be the One. The Illinois combine was grooming him before all the pay to play corruption started hitting the news and it was apparent that Blago was gonna get touched by it.
So really, in all fairness, Obama is really
the Two, or, simply number two… if you know what I mean.
LOL That is so true. He is “the Two” The Precious Two…
Sour grapes, eh? Bet you have never lost an argument with your wife or good friend….you’re the type that just can’t accept change unless it is on your format…..
When Obama lied and conned his way into PEBO hood I was very angry. As time has passed and the Blago scandals are revealed I have been amazed by our collective stupidity. Now with the talk of billions in stimulous funds I shudder to think of that Chicago sewer being anywhere near our tax dollars.
In politics money talks and bullshit walks. The big difference in 2008 is that the Democratic Party finally gained an advantage over the Republicans. If you had been paying any attention you would have noted that in 2006 Howard Dean and his happy band of internet pirates managed to gain parity with the Elephants.
Now what was the game changer in 2006? That’s right, six years of disastrous Bush Cheney rule. People finally understood that the only way they were going to rid themselves of the Republicans was by giving some of there hard earned dollars over to the Donkey Party.
As for Saint John and his reform bill it was mainly hokum from the start. McCain’s support of his eponymous legislation had much more to do with erasing the stain of his far too chummy relations with S&L hucksters than with any real concern for good governance. In 2008 he was forced to make a virtue out of necessity and take public financing because his hilariously inept campaign was no good at raising money. By 2008 the Republican brand was so toxic that one would have a better chance in raising money for the spread of flesh-eating bacteria than for the G.O.P.
I have even less sympathy for our lady of the tastefully appointed pants suite. In the early going she had an enormous advantage in money. She blew through a mountain of cash and still failed to kill off the Obama insurgency. Lacking the strategic depth Obama enjoyed via his internet savvy fund raising efforts she got buried alive in latter part of the campaign.
While we are on the subject let’s take a look at the NetRoots and the definition of “small donors” It is quite easy for a small fish contributor to become a “large contributor” by giving small contributions of perhaps $75.00 every two weeks or $125 a month. Over the space of the 20 month election cycle that is $2,500.00. Defining only those contributions that total less than $200.00 over an election cycle is bogus. All a person has to do to become a big fish by this definition is contribute more than $10.00 a month over 20 months. $10.00 a week over the 80 week campaign schedule raises $800.00 for PEBO. Multiply that out by millions of small donors or just one million small donors and you have more than PEBO raised for his run. One million small donors giving $10.00 a week for 20 months equals $800,000,000 dollars. It’s called basic math; look into it.
You guys really need to stop your whining and look into the real reasons Obama won. It had nothing to do with being “unfair” or corrupt. It had everything with running a super-disciplined campaign that found a path to victory. In the primaries it found a way to better translate votes into delegates. It had better message control and better damage control than the Clinton machine.
Good people of NQ you just have to accept that PEBO is exactly what the electorate wanted in 2008. They wanted a fresh new face from outside of Washington. The complaint that Obama is inexperienced is totally beside the point. If the voters really wanted experience they would have voted for Mr. Resume- Bill Richardson or for Joe Biden. The voters wanted wet behind the ears and they got wet behind the ears.
The voters also voted for PEBO’s cool demeanor. Neither the Clintons nor McCain understood how PEBO’s bland, unruffled, and downright professorial personality killed their “be afraid of the untested black man” message. More than anything else it was PEBO’s rock steady demeanor that won him the presidency. It is that same calm, cool, collected demeanor, that step-by-step caution, that personal conservatism that is so reassuring to the American public. Voters are not nearly as foolish as you may think; in 2008 they voted for the polar opposite of George W. Bush. Bush was a loud,brash, hyperkinetic, white Texan. Obama is a cool, quite urbane black man from Chicago. Bush was an uncontemplative ideologue who made decisions with his gut. Obama is a cerebral pragmatist who likes to get all the opinions in the room and then makes a decision based on careful consideration.
Back to main point. Yes public financing as it is presently constructed is dead. Realistically it was always less than the eye beheld. The Republican Party was never really serious about changing the ground rules because they had such a huge advantage in fund raising. Now with the NetRoots vaporizing that advantage the Republican proposal is to let them regain the advantage by popping the donation cap. What a stupid idea. Why would the Democratic Party or any other sane organization agree to that? Now that the Democrats finally have an advantage in the money game they are going to surrender it out of the goodness of their own hearts? In what parallel universe is this supposed to happen?
No, the only real solution is 100% public financing of all elections. If we want our public officers only answerable to the public we are going to have to pony up the cash to make it happen. For less than 1% of the total Federal budget of 2.7 trillion dollars we could totally end pay to play and not only clean up D.C. but every state and locality also. The only thing we truly lack is the will to reclaim our government.
James(San Jose) – As I read through your dissertation you made a few good points, but as you accused some, I don’t think you paid close enough attention yourself. It sounds like you even drank the kool-aid.
James from San Jose, You still drinking that Kool-Aid. It fried your brain. Detoxing will start on Jan 20th.
James from San Jose. You’re still drinking that Kool-Aid. It fried your brain. Detoxing will start on Jan 20th when Bush III resumes his hold on America.
Will some of you for the love of god get a grip of reality?
Obama is not a part of some conspiracy to loot the federal coffers for the benefit of the possible 2016 Chicago Olympics.
Blago and Obama belong to two different Chicago organizations. Blago is part of the old Daley-Cook County machine. Obama belonged to Harold Washington’s crew. It is like claiming the Hatfields and the McCoys are essentially the same because they all lived on the Tug Fork River. Blago is Cisero, Obama is South Side. Two totally different political realities that share only a party label. Very much like Colin Powell and Allan Keys.
If money were the only consideration in this election cycle dear readers then we would be looking at President elect Mitt Romney. Romney spent a ton of his own money trying to get the nomination and still lost.
If the Supers were so easily bought off why did it take Obama so long to purchase them? He is a very smart man, he could have saved the time, expense and bother of loosing in PA and gone shopping for Supers. The Supers were Hilary’s to loose and loose them she did. Many of the Supers were only Supers because of the Clintons; they owed Bill and Hill big time. They defected to Obama because they were smart politicians and saw that Obama had the more legitimate claim to the nomination. He had the stronger organization, the more disciplined ground game, the better messaging. They defected because there was no way in hell the party could have given Hilary the nomination after her narrow win in Indiana are her wipe-out in North Carolina.
Far too many people here have thrown around baseless accusations of corruption and people being bought out. Far too many have made baseless accusations of voter intimidation and other violations of law. Do you have any real evidence of foreign money being pumped into the Obama campaign? You do realize these are the same bullshit charges that Republicans used against Bill Clinton way back in 1992? Remember Bill’s election being purchased with Chinese money?
Obama is going to our next president, accept it. He is going to spend at least the next four years cleaning up the epic fuck-up that is the Bush-Cheney administration.
Part of that clean up will be the most humongous WPA-type spending plan ever devised. This has nothing to do with Obama lining the pockets of some fictitious Chicago cabal and everything to do with the engines of capitalism freezing up. Government will have no choice but to intervene because private equity and private investment has evaporated. We are spending $700 billion because the alternative is a repeat of the Hoover administration. The only good news here is that with a little luck and whole lot of pressure from we the people that money will be spent rebuilding our dilapidated infrastructure.
No politician is pure as the driven snow, not Barack, not Hilary. But no politician is as flat out evil as some portray Obama as. This cartoon caricature that you display on the pages of NQ has no basis in reality. This cardboard cut out that you toss mud at is in no shape or form a reflection of the man. This poisonous over-focused rage is deeply unhealthy. This rancid bitterness is unwarranted. In the end it is pointless.
Obama did not create our present political climate where money is king. To blame him for his success is to miss the point. The more you obsess on one man or group of men, the more you miss the big picture. It is not about a Wall Street Cabal or a Chicago Cabal, it is about retaking our government.
Here’s the final news flash, Obama is not going to help us retake our government, Clinton is not going to help us either. McCain is not on board and Plain will be of no help. Forget Pelosi and definitely forget Boehner they will be of no assistance. The only way we get our government back is if WE pay for it. We pay 100% of the election expense, we completely fund each and every candidate, we even match the self donations. We take money out of the equation and we do it in a NON-PARTISAN way. It will cost us a whole lot less than the alternative.
It’s not just money; it’s also psychology that bought BO the presidency. A basic principle in marketing is you have to engage the person you are targeting. BO had the money and he had the pitch (first black to be president)that engaged 25% of our population. The rest of the population was completely turned off by him. That’s why 52% of the Republicans who voted in the primaries didn’t show up. They were turned off by all the BO hype and they were sexist enough to buy into anything stupid BO’s team put out about HRC and Palin. (The media, of course, bought into this and enabled BO throughout the process.)
The Democratic primaries are too decentralized and too easily manipulated by local groups. That’s where the corruption came into it. Just a few corrupt caucuses, super-delegates and get-out-the vote groups in key places completely tipped the primaries away from HRC.
Once BO had the nomination, it was just a question of playing up the country’s frustration with Bush and sliming McCain/Palin with anti-Bush muck. The media helped this process by buying into BO’s celebrity appeal and by being completely mindless and lazy in their reporting of everything, but especially the economy. (I am not a Bush supporter, but even I know that our economic problems are largely the result of self-serving Democratic legislation, not Bush’s tax cuts.)
The real problem with BO and his supporters is that they don’t realize that 75% of the American population do not support him. Some of us have completely turned him off and tuned him out. But many of us are watching and some of us are actually doing our homework to keep him and his sleazy backers accountable.
I always saw a strong similarity between Bush and BO in personality. I now feel in time the similarities between BO and Nixon in governance will become stronger. BO has bought the presidency on many levels, but he hasn’t bought the American people. He thinks, like Nixon, the rules do not apply to him. (We don’t even know if he is qualified to be president; he won’t offer any of the documentation on his birth, schooling and personal life. He and his persona are complete marketing fabrications. Note: factcheck.com is just another branch of the BO industry. They claim to be impartial, but are far from it. e.g. The birth certificate they looked at was not the certified “long form,” but merely a certificate of live birth which is neither proof nor complete, even if accurate.) He is wrong and in time that will become clear.
You are totally nuts if you think the South Side is in any way different from the rest of Chicago. Where did you get this idea? The whole bunch of them are corrupt. The South Side is where the Daley family comes from. Bridgeport is the name of the neighborhood. Ever hear of it?
And Michelle was an employee of Mayor Daley. And Valerie Jarrett hired Michelle to work for Mayor Daley. Michelle’s father was a precinct captain and worked for the Department of Streets and Sanitation. Stick to worrying about San Jose. You don’t know anything about Chicago.
Plus the fact people outside of Chicago couldn’t care less about which ‘tribe’ they belong to, it is corrupt! Even in 1960 they voted grave yards. I for one will not spend energy on these long pieces that ramble on and on with no focus and incorrect facts. Thanks, but no thanks.
I think Obama supporters are so “touchy” about our positions against him, because they know he is nothing but a fraud. Even his speeches are written by others and come straight out of the traditions of black preachers and con men. (I’m not equating the two–for the record.) Obama bought the election. He was given most of his money, not by average guys, but by Hollywood and big business. The notion that he could rise to political power in an environment that is so completely corrupt as Chicago without playing their game according to the rules of the party machine, is naive and ignorant. I suspect that most of his defenders have never been in power and don’t know how the process works. Such intellectual laziness and lack of critical thinking is why our country is in such trouble. Obama isn’t going to save this country–no one can, if people don’t grow up, start thinking for themselves and stop looking for a good time and someone to take care of them….No way, Jose!
You just posted a gem, ACPD.
Well said, and agree, ACPD. Thank-You!