Blogs and Stories
Obama's Most Blatant Hypocrisy
)
Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
The president who promised to end earmarks can’t scrub them from a spending bill? Give me a break.
James Carville coined the slogan “it’s the economy, stupid,” in 1992 and the phrase, along with two others—“change vs. more of the same” and “don’t forget health care”—became the roadmap for defeating the first President Bush. As a student of the then-cutting edge 1992 Clinton campaign, I held a viewing of the film The War Room, a documentary about Carville and his colleagues, for my staff when I was appointed communications director for President George W. Bush’s re-election effort in 2004. Soon, I had my own slogan. I scribbled “it’s the hypocrisy, stupid” on a piece of paper and taped it to my door. This was the foundation of our case against Sen. John Kerry, and with a heavy assist from the senator from Massachusetts, the line of attack proved lethal.
Obama can’t ask for a clean spending bill without earmarks? No American president is that impotent, and certainly not this one.
As I watched President Obama yesterday, I was reminded more of my slogan than Carville’s. Obama’s decision to sign the $410 billion spending bill with $7 billion of pork-barrel spending projects—or “earmarks”—into law is one he will ultimately regret. Obama’s spokesmen were sent out with lame excuses about how the bill was “last year’s business” and there wasn’t much Obama could do to fix it. Give me a break. This is a president who shut down Gitmo with the flourish of his signature. He has transformed America’s reputation around the world with his kind eyes and gentle smile. He moves mountains. But he can’t ask for a clean spending bill without earmarks? No American president is that impotent, and certainly not this one.
Obama allies argue quietly that the public doesn’t care about earmarks, but Team Obama made a political calculation for which they will pay a hefty price in credibility over the long term if they continue along this path. I’m not under the delusional belief that the public will wake up next week and suddenly know the difference between an earmark and a kumquat. They won’t. If earmark reform was something that the public understood well enough to hunger for, John McCain would be our president. In fact, this week’s debate reminds me of the challenges we faced last year when we ran against hope, change, and history with earmark reform, fiscal discipline, and bipartisan compromise.
Most people who have spent time in our nation’s capital would agree that the toughest things to change in Washington are the bad practices supported and practiced by members of both parties and the bad practices that are difficult to explain. Earmarks fall into both categories. This political reality surely figured into the White House decision to reverse course on a campaign pledge to end the seedy practice of stuffing hometown pork into spending bills. (Interestingly, Obama’s broken promise about participating in the public financing of presidential campaigns falls into the “difficult to explain” category as well, which may offer an additional explanation to that reversal.)
While his weak statement Tuesday on earmark reform represents a missed opportunity, Obama probably won’t pay a price for his actions in the near term. There are too many other issues on the minds of Americans facing fears of unemployment, foreclosure, and depleted savings for retirement and college. My hunch is that he will continue to float on a wave of historically high public-approval numbers that reflect both the depth of public support that he enjoys and the latitude that the public is willing to give him.
But his actions this week represent an unnecessary withdrawal from the goodwill account that the American people have entrusted him with. His refusal to take a stand against members of both parties on the issue of earmarks shows weakness. His unwillingness to follow through on the very things that made Americans hope Obama would change Washington’s most corrupt and deeply entrenched ways must be a disappointment to some of his supporters.
The reversal on earmarks also feeds a damaging narrative for the Obama team. His senior adviser, David Axelrod, is a student of the Bush years. He believes that campaigns are won by the candidate that represents a “remedy” to their predecessor’s weaknesses. If Obama offers additional examples of his willingness to reverse course on the change agenda he ran on, he’ll make his opponent the remedy to his own hypocrisy.
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior advisor to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
The GOP's New Roadmap
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
Obama's Sleepy Response
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
Feel Our Pain
Nicolle Wallace served as a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign.
Givemeabreak
Yes, give me a break!
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jamesreidnystan
good god---this is about TINA. what a sham. couldn't get anne coulter? cindy mcCain? jeezuz...not about being a sore loser folks. It is about not having anything to say, but getting tons of ink space cause Mo's like us are actually reading this crap and making comments....this is the last time for me...screw Nicole and possibly you too, Miz Brown.
altlic
Who is this annoying woman? Oh, she's the senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign. Well, that explains everything. This is the second article I've seen from her and both have the propagandist tone of a rabble-rousing republican campaign speech.
The whole ruckus about earmarks is a storm in a teacup, and she knows it. She is just talking to her republican base who get all excited about earmarks being the root of all evil.
Ann Coulter lite.
Campervan
I recognize Nicolle as an expert on earmark hypocracy, as she did afterall, serve Sarah "I supported the Bridge to Nowhere before I was against it" Palin. Perhaps there is something to this story. Nicolle would know.
wrisky
Nicole Wallace, you might look into getting that frontal Limbaugh-tomy reversed. As it is you are giving stupid people a bad name.
withapassion
"Nicolle Wallace served as a senior advisor to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008. She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush's 2004 campaign."
AND SHE'S SAYING OBAMA PROMISED SOMETHING THAT HER FORMER EMPLOYER PROMISED. Obama said Reform. McCain said ENDING EARMARKS. Nicole Wallace, you are 10 pounds of hypocrisy in a 9 pound bag. Maddow already disproved this topic on Wednesday night. You're late to the game, and Tina Brown: I hate to wave the flag of drama, but you earned it: FOR SHAME.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
slpdprd
Enough of this BS. The problem with this whole earmark business is that people don't really want to have a discussion. It is easy for Wallace to sit there and grab her pearls about the perilous danger in Obama's "hypocrisy" because she doesn't have to pick fights with the members of Congress and make executive decisions.What is Obama supposed to do, brow beat members of Congress into not accepting earmarks? Black mail them? Name their names as McCain wanted to do? There are three branches of government in case you didn't know. And when your former boss put it to a vote to get rid of earmarks he was summarily shut up in a bipartisan fashion -- by what us regular folks call the legislative process. So for all of this faux earmark outrage, members in BOTH parties want earmarks to stick around and members in BOTH parties have requested said earmarks, and if the President has to pick a fight over spending that makes up around 1% of the omnibus bill or shut down the government, he made his choice. I'm not happy or disappointed -- I'm a grown up and I do my own research and therefore do not live in this make believe reformer world that Wallace has created.All earmarks are not bad, reform, and not total elimination, is needed. But yes, let us continue to take a "lesson" about the hypocrisy of the President instead of writing about why earmarks are here to stay.
Wallace may be to busy however, writing her next column about the "hypocrisy" of her other former boss-- the Gov. Sarah Palin that said "thanks but no thanks" to that big, bad, bridge to no where, and called earmarks "un-American and undemocratic" until this year when she said, "yes sir, can I have some more" when it came to earmark requests. (the most, I must say, than any other state). Hypocrisy indeed.
Ritarita
I can remember the anticipation I had when I heard that
Tina was going to do a site.
I read that The Daily Beast was going to 'Cut through the
noise, and cut through the clutter'. Just a few months later, I'm
of the opinion that TDB is predominantly noise and clutter.
Or even worse, a watering hole for out of work Bushies to
throw bombs and then stand back monkey-chattering to each
other about who racked up more pissed off 'Liberal' commentary.
It's kind of shameless and transparent pot stirring,
but at least when tabloids do it they try to put some meat
in the story.
mindlessmissy
First of all, President Obama NEVER promised to END EARMARKS ...
He promised to Reform them. He HAS started that process. FACT. Look at the ARRA recently passed for proof ...
Your BOSS , McSame, on the other hand PROMISED to Name Names of people who Earmark and he had his chance to do that on his twitter page recently and YET what did he do ?
HE DID NOT NAME ANY NAMES ...
What is he afraid of ? That his Best Friend is one of those Earmark Suspects ?
blinky
Barack Obama didn't promise to end earmarks, John McCain did...Earmarks are a 2% of the problem Republican talking point...Nicole, every time you lie, the tumor grows.
Iamadog
Ms Wallace truly shouldn't have this forum. I appreciate Megan McCain's pov and would like to see more commentary from thoughtful Republicans or conservatives. Ms Wallace belongs on Fox News where the facts on which to base a point of view are not necessary.
Barack Obama never said he would eliminate earmarks, John McCain did. So the intelligent conversations would be about the pros and cons of earmarks. Obama talked about reforming the process and I believe he hoped for the line item veto at some point (something all Presidents want) so foolish earmarks could be eliminated and good ones kept.Naturally the Congress isn't likely to go along because Republican Presidents are likely to line out Dem earmarks and vice versa.
So, Ms Wallace's commentary has absolutely no value beyond the first paragraph. Why is she here?
dixie-chik
The total amount of "earmarks" in this bill added up to less than 3 percent of the total spending, counting those (about 40 percent) requested by Republicans and the previous Bush Administration.
In the meantime, you probably haven't heard, because the media generally chose not to tell us, that the bill contains significant increased funding for items that had long been underfunded by the Bush Administration.
-- $938 million more for the National Institute of Health, to help fund 10,600 new research grants;
-- $125 million more to provide community health centers for 470,000 ininsured folks;
-- $75 million more to states to expand health coverage;
-- $26 million more to fund insurance pools for uninsured high risk
patients
-- $33 million more for training nurses and other health professionals;
-- $27 million more for small, rural hospitals to serve 775,000 in underserved communities
Earmarks, booga booga.
sauza800
this woman is totally lost in the rhetorical Limbaugh-like counter attack of republican losers. Is she intelligent enough to write a sensible article? Of course not, she belongs into same archaic way of thinking of the last 8 years of the Bush's smart people who took us to the edge of this abyss.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.