Message 1705 of 3807

FAIR? SLANTED or IN BETWEEN?

June 20, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Two Obamas

By DAVID BROOKS
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

photo of slw1541
Replies 1 - 10 of 11
I think its a crock. I read Obama's statement on why he opted out of Public Financing. I don't blame him for doing it. And anyone who does the research, or watches Keith Olberman, can see the actual thing that he did, it was just a questionaire that said if the republican nominee chooses to use public financing I will agree to, and he checked yes. Note the timing. McCain has not been taking public financing until yesterday, shortly after Barack said he was not. McCain is getting it both ways. This was a set up to make Obama look like he flipped. He really didn't.
photo of catalinamoon

3 months ago
In-between in an unfairly slanted way.

Somehow the article had me feeling a bit defensive.
Actually I don't think there is any in-between to it.
The article has a nasty edge to it I think.

JMO

peace
Kit
photo of KitsuneRed51

3 months ago
This guy mentioned Chicago twice. I don't know where this op-ed came from (Chicago?), but I discovered just how much you're into politics living in Chicago after I moved to LA. And I kinda miss it. :) Ask a little kid on the street who their Alderman is and she can probably tell you. But yeah, it's slanted. What isn't that comes through a human being.

I know one thing. All those people who say Barack is inexperienced and naive... I have a feeling they're doing a major STFU right about now. He is a VERY good guy... and a shrewd politician. All that shit Hillary kept saying he didn't have? BOOYAH!

photo of kimbari

3 months ago
No question: slanted. Here's why:

One of the first things I do when I read an article like this is check out the author if it's someone whose name I don't readily recognize.

The first place I go is wikipedia. Say what you want about it, but it's a fairly reliable source if you know what to look for (citations, references, etc.). It's on our list of recommended sources for grad school as a place to start looking for esoteric info. Here's what it has to say about David Brooks (and you'll note that it is totally up-to-date):

"Before the Iraq War, Brooks argued forcefully on moral grounds for American military intervention, echoing the belief of neoconservative commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. However, some of his opinion pieces in the spring of 2004 suggested that he had tempered somewhat his earlier optimism about the war.
...
Brooks, now a conservative, describes himself as being originally a liberal.
...
In June 2008, while appearing as a guest commentator on The Race for the White House, with David Gregory, Brooks claimed that Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama's "problem is he doesn‘t seem like a guy who can go into an Applebee‘s salad bar and people think he fits in naturally there..."[1] Applebees, the national restaurant chain, does not have a salad bar.
...
Later that month on the 20th, in a New York Times Opinion piece, he repeatedly used the term "Fast Eddie" to describe Senator Obama as untrustworthy. His remarks were criticized by Obama supporters as being tinged with racism due to the stereotypical implications of the Senator as a black, urban, street hustler.[2]"

So based on this, I know that Brooks has a neo-con world view, and is likely to view events in that light.

Next, I googled Brooks, and found this article by Glenn Greenwald, a writer for Salon whose work I've read and trusted in the past. The entire article is here:

view link

A few excerpts:

"As I've noted many times before, virtually every column David Brooks writes is grounded in one of two highly misleading tactics and, on special occasions, like today, are grounded in both. That's all there is to him. He just re-cycles these same two themes over and over in different forms.

The first tactic is merely the most commonplace conceit of the standard Beltway pundit: Brooks takes whatever opinions he happens to hold on a topic, and then -- without citing a single piece of evidence -- repeatedly asserts that "most Americans" hold this view, and then bases his entire "argument" on this premise.
...
The other Brooks tactic is also a defining feature among pundits and a central prong in the Washington Establishment's orthodoxies. No matter what polls or elections show, Brooks' overriding goal is to "prove" that "most Americans" favor a "hawkish" foreign policy whereby America will rule the world by military force, most importantly in the Middle East."

So -- my advice in all things like this: consider the source. Consider it by knowing who the source is, learning what his (or her) world view is, and don't get too upset.

photo of LanaM

3 months ago
Like totally slanted.

thanks for the research LanaM.

This is standard output from the neocons, just a bit of maybe, enough to get one to think that it is fair, but it ain't. Not one bit.

Expect lots more like this in the coming months.

photo of allen42

3 months ago
this is very strange . The initial words in this piece that say "Barack Obama is the most split personality politician in the country today were spoken on MSNBC just earlier today The whole piece was stolen from a McCain supporter and a representative of the Republican party. If the guy wants to quote .... use quotes! Sorry, I didn't get the guys name but go to MSNBC and I bet it plays again.
photo of donalea

3 months ago
Lol David Brooks is after all a commentator for the right. For years in his quiet intellectual style on PBS he defended the Bush administration. In 2006 it was clear that the Bush doctrine was dead in the water, so he began speaking out against Bush, crying that he felt betrayed. But he remained a right wing commentator skilled in concealing it in the smooth quiet voice of the intelligencia.

Yes it was slanted. He uses talking points seductively, failing to mention the roll "present" plays in Illinois politics. In the world of politics, it is useful to be able to say you voted for a bill, but expressed reservations regarding parts of it using that terminology. David Brooks knows that. But I suppose he chose not to share that part of it after all.

He is a conservative commentator after all, very much with an agenda.
photo of Labrys3

3 months ago
Please excuse my first response . I didn't take time to see that the piece was correctly attributed to David Brooks. I foolishly wrote without paying attention to the entirety of the piece. My face is red.
photo of donalea

3 months ago
One minute they claim not to know who he is, the next they know more than his moms. How convenient!

3 months ago

David Brooks is a “conservative” journalist who’s always toed the GOP party line. His column here gives Obama a backhanded compliment, although I will agree with him on one thing: Obama is no pushover.

During the primaries, the Clinton camp, with the help of the media, pushed the line that Obama was “weak.” But you don’t rise through brass-knuckle world of Chicago politics without learning how the game is played. Its okay to be an idealist, which Obama surely is, but that doesn’t mean you’re supposed to be a fool either.

For Brooks to imply that Obama is now “Fast Eddie” (which is a reference to former Chicago alderman Ed Vrdolyak who was called that as well, but for good reason) says that somehow Obama is the only one out there playing the game of politics. But they all do. First they said he was naïve and weak; now that he’s come out on top over a formidable opponent in Clinton, now all of a sudden he’s a nothing but politics.

Brooks tries to be slick here, but he’s still an idiot. To wit:

“The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money).”

Sure, and the republicans didn’t give a rat’s behind about campaign finance reform when they had money.

Brooks also tries to make McCain look like a saint on campaign finance reform, but he’s hardly that. Here’s Josh Marshall on McCain:

“I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC’s rules, we’re still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)”

“I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He’s really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn’t — the Republican head of the FEC — said he’s not allowed to do that. He can’t opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.”

Steve Benen provides more clarification:

“Two other points. First, it’s curious that Obama’s perfectly legal and ethical decision is sparking complaints, but McCain’s arguably illegal decision to “spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing” is hardly generating any news at all. Obama is opting out of a system he never entered; McCain is playing fast and loose with election law. For some reason, the AP is writing caustic admonishments about the prior, not the latter.”

McCain’s call for him and Obama to do those “town meetings” was less about some altruistic reason in support of campaign finance issues, and more about McCain trying to glom off Obama and save some money. That’s all it was. The first such meeting that he had already planned, was stacked with right wing panel members and audience. He would have ambushed Obama in that meeting.

I cringe when I hear these reporters refer to McCain as a “maverick.” He’s anything but. The man sold all his principles down the river to mimic Bush so he could get the nomination. He’s breaking the very same campaign finance laws they fall all over themselves to give him credit for.

McCain’s no maverick; he’s a phoney.
photo of ConsultantDude

3 months ago
Replies 1 - 10 of 11