« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Brooks Article: Point by Point Rebuttal
Perhaps I'm a day or two late with this but since I just received a link to the David Brooks article from a friend and wrote up a rebuttal in reply I thought I'd post it here as well. In response to David Brooks I say:
- On voting present: This is something that is an option in IL but not
most other states. It is a common practice to vote present on a bill
that you think is ultimately unconstitutional or in general is OK but
has specific provisions that you don't agree with. For example if the
main point is something you agree with but the writing of the bill
pushes in some added provision that is objectionable then the strategy
is to vote present because you don't agree with it on a whole but don't
want to vote against it since the major aspect of it is a position you
agree with. In 8 years he voted present 128 times, out of thousands of
votes. It's a criticism that is always waged against an IL politician
because they always have present votes on their record since its the
way they do it there.
- On throwing Rev. Wright under the bus: Ridiculous. He went on the
national stage during the height of the Rev. Wright continuous coverage
and explicitly did not throw him under the bus even though it was very
risky to do that. It was only until later, when Rev. Wright came out
and in a display of extreme narcissism held a press conference where he
totally embarrassed himself and Obama. It was an act that appeared
intended to hurt Obama and was arranged by a devout Clinton
supporter. I'd have done the same thing - he was dissed big time after
going out on a limb.
- Could have been a workhorse senator: Why stay in the senate if you
have a serious shot at the presidency? His time is now and because of that he won the
nomination. He will get more done in the Whitehouse than he can as one
member of the senate.
- On townhall meetings: Obama has expressed an interest in doing them
and may well do some open debates like that with McCain. He won't do
it on McCain's timetable and shouldn't. He shouldn't let McCain
dictate the way Obama's campaign will go. McCain wanted to do 10 of
them in 10 weeks - Obama shouldn't just jump on and say OK dude,
whatever you say.
- On public financing: Obama's campaign is financed in large part by
ordinary citizens contributing small amounts, he is financed by the
public in that sense. Also how much support does public financing
enjoy amongst the American people? Only about 1% check that little box
on their tax return to contribute to presidential races. Obama does
have a fundraising advantage and doesn't want to give that up. I am
100% certain that McCain would do the same. McCain has flip-flopped on
this issue in the past. Personally I enjoy the
opportunity to contribute to the Obama campaign and feel like my small
contribution actually means something.
Another point on the financing is that currently Obama is at a
disadvantage with media coverage. The media is very hard on Obama yet
we hardly hear about these sorts of things:
-McCain's long list of flip-flops (torture, abortion rights, offshore drilling, ethanol, gay marriage, 100 years in Iraq)
-His direct misrepresentations with regard to how things are in Iraq
(e.g. the "flack jacket" lie - on video and worse that Hillary's Tuzla
yet unexamined).
-Nobody asks McCain why he won't release his military record.
-Nobody asks why they won't release Cindy's tax returns even though it
is the vast majority of their income, could there be conflicts of
interest?,
-Why did he intervene and support the Pentagon's awarding the air
tanker contract to a foreign firm as opposed to Boeing which will send
many jobs oversees and outsource the building of our military
equipment? BTW the man who lobbied for Northrop Grumman, the firm that
won the contract was the director of McCain's campaign finance committee
until that was exposed and he had to get rid of him.
Obama needs to use his funds just to compete with the unbalanced media coverage.
Comments (23)
Note, the list at the bottom all reference McCain, i.e. the flack jacket lie should read McCain's flack jacket lie and McCain's intervention in the awarding of thet tanker contract. Just in case that isn't obvious.
June 22, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I forgot to mention Liz Trotta's "if only we could assasinate Obama" comment that went much under the MSM radar. She should have been fired for that but wasn't. Here's the link to it, it's astonishing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0&feature=related
June 22, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done.
And refusing to say how they'd handle Cindy's vast holdings is a conflict issue and an appearance issue that will dog McCain.
We already tried government by the conflicted aristocrats, and the price of oil did go up a bit.
June 22, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't tell me beer is the next to skyrocket! Or that we'll start an invasion of the Czech Republic to liberate the Budweiser name from that tiny brewery over there that asserts its rights...
June 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not forget that David Brooks is one of those people who was given special access to George W. Bush, and never wrote anything critical about the worst President in the history of the country.
Brooks was and still is an apologist for the Neo-Cons and George W. Bush, so anything that he now writes about Obama is intended to make sure that McCain wins.
People should not be fooled by Brooks saying a few nice things during the Democratic Primary. That was just a ploy in order to lull people into thinking that he was an objective columnist, so that when he attacked Obama during the general election he would not be seen for the right wing partisan that he really is.
Brooks did the same thing in 2004. Recall how he used to gush about John Edwards during the Primary season, but as soon as it was over, he stopped doing so.
He is one of George W. Bush's media lap dogs, so of course he is going to try and undermine Senator Obama's campaign.
June 22, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, just like him throwing in the little bone at the end saying perhaps we need a guy like Obama to go up against guys like Putin.
Oh, speaking of Putin, care to ask McCain what country Putin is president of? Here's your answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfealLrWLIY
June 22, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re. public financing: This was a big disappointment. How can Obama have based his entire campaign on a "new kind of politics" and then when the calculation shows him to have a financial advantage, he completely goes back on his word? And to respond by comparing him to McCain is a very low standard. I thought he was supposed to be "different"? His explanation was very weak too. A transparent bold faced lie. It would have been much more honest and respectful to simply say: he changed his mind, and in the interest of being a different, honest kind of politician, while it may not look good, he has decided not to adhere to his pledge to use public financing or meet with McCain about the issue.
As for the media, they were basically an arm of his campaign against hillary, so you can't say he's had unfair media coverage. Very weak.
June 22, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
An analysis of media coverage of the primaries showed the most time spent on the superdelegates followed by Rev. Wright and then the bitter comments. No anti-Hillary points ranked anywhere near that. Fox news had much positive spin on Hillary, zero for Obama. Early on CNN and MSNBC were surprised by Obama's sucess and that in and of itself was a story. The minute Hillary complained, with the help of two SNL skits, CNN changed their coverage and made an effort to go more pro-Hillary. MSNBC's Keith Olberman was hard on Hillary but he and Chris Matthews were an exception.
Obama has eschewed active lobbyists from his campaign and now the DNC is also not taking lobbyist money. This is a change and it is in the right direction. He needs to win to lessen their overall influence on our govt. in general. He'd be at too much of a disadvantage with public financing so I personally don't hold it against him and am happy to contribute. I will, however, concede that it is a flip-flop.
June 22, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read what Bademus wrote about campaign financing? What Americans care about is knowing their elected officials aren't abjectly beholden to powerful, moneyed interests that support their campaigns. And this includes those 527s McCain conveniently failed to negotiate with Obama to limit.
Does it not make any impression on you how Obama has raised his funds? I can guarantee you, everyone I talk to is amazed and enthusiastic that Obama has proven how successful--superior...nay, record-shattering--it is to raise campaign funds from small dollar donors. It's an application of the free market--to election candidates.
If John McCain were a more appealing candidate with a more appealing platform, he could raise a lot of money from small-dollar donors, too. Instead, he will use taxpayer money to fund his campaign. See a reversal of roles at work here?
Also--if you want to be nit picky, there was no lie here on Obama's part. Obama, before it was proven how successful grassroots fundraising would be, said he would be willing to negotiate terms of an agreement to use public financing. John McCain never made any attempt to negotiate with Obama on public financing--because he hadn't made a firm decision on the issue himself. This outrage McCain and the media are all expressing is shallow and contrived.
So explain what it is you're so aggrieved about? Besides that you simply don't like Obama? (You're entitled to your opinion, just be honest about it.) Do you have a problem with the way Obama has raised money? Why is it so important to you that he stick to his so-called pledge (which he never really made) to use public financing? Do you still feel public financing is superior? Or do you like to use this issue to make the weak claim that Obama has character issues?
I don't think you'll gain traction with this one. The only folks who'll go along with you are ones who, like you, already don't like Obama and want to view/skew his actions in the worst light possible.
He ain't perfect, and I'm sure he'll present plenty of opportunities for folks to become disappointed in him. But this issue (rightly, in my opinion) isn't something he will worry about.
Tell me, are you one of those PUMAs?
June 23, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is the first presidential candidate to refuse the public financing system since '72. That is change!
He is keeping his commitment to his base of support. That is change!
Obama is the change candidate. Stop trying to have it both ways!
June 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's the first Presidential candidate to have 1.7 million donors.
June 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say all of MSNBC was pretty hard on Hillary, Schuster and the pimp business, Russert, KO, Mathews--and then all their talking heads, rachel maddow...etc. They are all pretty blatantly pro-Obama. They still are. They have been falling all over themselves "tingling" up their legs and so forth for obama. Same with Dowd. I don't recall any positive spin from fox for hillary. In fact, hannity was engaged in his "stop hillary express". However, I don't watch fox much so I don't really know.
Campaign finance is such a core issue. For him to opt for placing strategic political caluculations above this issue, which is central and almost thematic to his campaign significantly undermines his credibility. Oh well. Uninspired democrat here, so probably will want to take what I say with a grain of salt...
June 22, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That "pimpin Chelsea" comment was incredibly offensive.
Uninspired as you may be I really hope you will still get out and vote Dem in the general. If you get a chance to go and hear Obama speak at an event I recommend you do so. Perhaps it may infuse you with a little inspiration :).
June 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The David Brooks, Charles Krauthammers and Fred Hiatts will rationalize their rejection of Obama from now until the election, but Obama's paternal ancestry prevents them from even considering the possibility of voting for Barack Hussein Obama.
June 23, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This reads like it came out of the Obama spin room. I don't want to defend McCain nor do I want to attack Obama but I can't just let this spin stand as if it were factual. So I'll just deal with one issue.
True enough McCain did propose 10 town hall debates and the Obama camp expressed interest. But their counter offer didn't include any town hall meetings. It was for 5 traditional debates one of them for the fourth of July. McCain quite correctly said that it was unlikely that people would give up their holiday to watch a debate and stated he would meet Obama anywhere he wanted for a town hall meeting any of the next 10 thursdays after the fourth. If Obama truly had any interest in a town hall debate he could have countered with an offer for 1 or 2 or what ever he was interested in but he chose to protray McCain as intransigent for refusing the fourth of July debate and made no effort to continue discussions.
Clearly Obama is avoiding the unscripted town hall format and suggested the fourth of July debate to get McCain on record as refusing. That makes it easier to justify his own refusal.
This is a wise political move by Obama. Given the current feelings about the current administration and how that reflects on the republicans Obama has the upper hand. McCain is good at talking to voters in a town hall situation, poor at giving speeches and somewhat less than medium in debates. Obama would be giving McCain something like a home court advantage. Also a town hall meeting with questions from ordinary people is harder to prepare for. One can never tell what unusual question might come up. It has so many more opportunities for both candidates to make gaffs and is much more risky. McCain needs the exposure and is more willing to take risks to get it. Obama is trying to play it safe since he can draw thousands with one of his speeches.
June 23, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you take that approach to looking at Reader Blogs here, you'll never get off this site. :-) I find it better for my mental health to take the approach that Reader Blogs are mostly used for amateurs trying their hand at political war room spin, and to be pleasantly surprised when I find someone "misusing" them by trying to deconstruct spin...
June 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bademus, I'm glad you made the effort to refute Brooks. Did you send him a letter with your rebuttal points?
June 23, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I hadn't thought of that. Do you think I should?
June 23, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bet!
Everybody knows he's going to do his share of hacking for the Republican Party until the general election, but I think it's good to let him know that there are folks out here who stand ready to challenge him.
Your rebuttal is more intellectually honest and reasonable than the crap in Brooks's column. Why don't you go for it?
June 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Done, thanks for the advice Laura.
June 23, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And thanks very much for the compliment too!
June 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
can anyone furnish me with a link showing where obama promised to accept public financing? everything i ever read stated that he would consider it providing that is done in a way that is fair for everyone involved.
even if it is a flip flop, i will take a pass on this one b/c only an idiot would agree to public financing when he already has regular folks like me donating in small amounts to the cause...i can understand the outrage if he was passing up public financing in lieu of dirty money, but this is cash from regular folks, ie, the public! one is tying his hands and feet with a set amount of public funds and one is leaving his options open and praying that we continue to back him with public funds...the risk taker here is obama! if we fail him, mccain still ends up with the advantage..give me a break already on this non-issue!
in addition, it will be obama against everyone else, so he better have the cash to fight off the smears...that paltry amount set aside by public financing just wont cut it...he is in it to win it and with supporters such as myself who will continue to put my cash my mouth is, he will prevail!
townhall meetings? are we back to that again? these people are politicians...in case you havent noticed, the one who is lagging behind and who can benefit most from the exposure is always the one begging for debates...debates will happen, that is a guarantee! how, where and when is not up to mccain to decide. obama is in this to win it also....give a million speeches if that is what you are good at....if he concede to town hall meetings, it should be on his terms...of course mccain can continue to try and may the best man win...this is a contest people...why is it you guys get so offended when obama objects to being trampled over? the same thing happened when hrc was behind and needed to slow him down..now mccain is singing the same ole song, same ole tired verse....
give me a break!!!
June 23, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
He signed a pledge that he would accept public financing
July 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment