The Associated Press editors tasked in-house "writer" Phillip Elliott to write an article that dispels the "rumors and outright lies" concerning Barack Obama and the perception that Mr. Obama's support of Israel is questionable. The product of that task is what you'd expect from any number of left leaning story tellers in the mainstream media who write about Obama as opposed to journalists, reporters and political observers that actually take the time to research, study and honestly discuss that which they have found.
Elliott took no time setting up the Obama defense from the first sentence, stating that "Barack Obama has a solid Senate record in support of Israel". The rest of the article is essentially an exercise in repetition; repackaging the most often repeated excuses in defense of a man that inexplicably spent 20 years in a church listening to the controversial and dogmatic sermons of his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright honored noted Jew hater Louis Farrakhan and traveled with the Nation of Islam leader to visit Libya's Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi. You know Qadhafi, he's the megalomaniacal leader of Libya that instituted Sharia Law and expelled most all the Jews from his country while simultaneously destroying all their cemeteries. A real humanitarian and man of the people, IN HELL!
So perhaps the Jewish community has a reason to question Barack Obama on this issue considering that his teacher of faith is so aligned. But not if his supporters in the press have it their way. They have a casual way of making excuses for Mr. Obama, taking him at his word; not tasking him for who he associates with as they would others, but explaining away questionable relationships by asking a fleeting question and then convulsively nodding in unison as they gleefully accept fleeting answers.
For every criticism that anyone dare have about Barack Obama there is a cadre of willing "writers" and talking heads in the mainstream media that are waiting to provide a defense and make excuses. The one thing they are not doing though is answering the questions of his critics. Instead they play a shell game of avoid the answer. Which got me to thinking. I see a pattern emerging here and have decided to write it up as I would imagine it would be written up as a guide in AP Journalism 101.
The following is my 4 step AP Style Guide on Defending Barack Obama. For my examples I use excerpts from Associated Press writer Phillip Elliott in his recent article, Obama Tries to Allay Jewish Concerns. All comments surrounded by parenthesis in bold are mine for demonstration purposes.
Step 1. - Provide the Setup
The first step in creating a defense of Barack Obama is to provide a seemingly objective setup. The goal here is to state the criticisms of his record in a way that also defends his integrity and portrays Mr. Obama as a victim if at all possible.
Example:
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Barack Obama has a solid Senate record in support of Israel. (praise)
He sings the praises, too, of Jewish civil rights workers who fought for blacks' rights in the U.S. And he says he wants to patch up "a historically powerful bond between the African-American and Jewish communities." (praise)
Yet there is unease among some Jewish voters about the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential contender. (concern that needs to be addressed)
Why? (lead readers into believing that they will get an answer)
Part of it is a division between blacks and Jews that's been growing for years, a split that Obama has challenged fellow blacks to confront. (action item in defense of cause)
Another element is the praise Obama has received from Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, whose disparaging comments about Judaism are toxic to many voters. Obama's own pastor has a history of supporting Palestinian causes. (concern that needs to be addressed)
And there are questions about Obama advisers who some U.S. Jews see as less than ardent advocates of Israel. (concern that needs to be addressed)
Finally, there are rumors and outright lies about the candidate that have gained an audience through repetition in e-mails and on Web sites. (defense, victimization, rumor and innuendo)
Step 2. - Provide the Defense
This step is quite simple. Provide a few fleeting action items, particularly recent events, that the candidate has done on behalf of the cause. Make sure to mix in a couple of statements from experts that are supportive of Barack Obama. Extra style points can be achieved if you take a swipe at conservatives, better yet if that swipe contains statements about rumor and innuendo. Use words and events that evoke emotion such as "lie" and "outrage".
Example:
On the day of the Mississippi primary this week, Obama took time to call Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to express condolences over the deadly terrorist attack on a rabbinical seminary in Jerusalem. He also reaffirmed his support for Israel's right to defend itself and for its commitment to negotiations with Palestinians and underscored the need to stop Iran from supporting terrorism or getting nuclear weapons. (recent action item in defense of cause)
The effort by the candidate and his advisers to calm disquiet among Jewish voters began more than a year ago. (action item in defense of cause)
"The Jewish community cannot be taken for granted," said Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, one of Obama's chief surrogates before Jewish audiences. Wexler sent an e-mail last March to supporters urging them not to be swayed by rumors, a message he repeated during a recent forum in Cleveland. (expert defense, mention of rumor and innuendo)
Obama used a speech in January at Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta to chastise blacks for latent anti-Semitism. And during a recent debate, Obama alluded to James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, one black and two Jewish civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in 1964 as they worked together on a campaign to register black voters. (action item in defense of cause, association by mention of famous civil rights figures)
"You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish-Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South," Obama said. "And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened." (action item in defense of cause, civil rights, superfluous praise)
Still, there remains some "nervousness over Senator Obama" among Jewish voters, said Rabbi Joshua Skoff, who attended a private meeting with Obama in Cleveland last month. "The rumors still have some legs." (community outreach, concern that needs to be addressed, mention of rumor and innuendo)
Step 3. - Restate the Problem as Setup for Further Defense
This step is essentially a repeat of step 1. Do this in particular if the record of accomplishment is thin as it stretches the defense out. Appear objective. Avoid criticism unless it can be surrounded by offsetting praise or excused away.
Example:
Still, there remains some "nervousness over Senator Obama" among Jewish voters, said Rabbi Joshua Skoff, who attended a private meeting with Obama in Cleveland last month. "The rumors still have some legs." (concern that needs to be addressed,community outreach, mention of rumor and innuendo)
At the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, President Howard Friedman said Obama's Senate record on Israel has given his critics no reason to doubt him. (expert defense)
But that record is thin. Just a little over three years ago, Obama was a state legislator in Illinois. (excuse, note how this sentence contradicts the first sentence of the article)
"Right now, Obama's big problem with the Jewish community is similar to his problem with other communities: He's just not clearly defined among any voter groups," said Kenneth Wald, director of Center for Jewish Studies at the University of Florida-Gainesville. "The fact he has a name that sounds Muslim and has a Muslim father underlines questions about what we do and what we do not know about him." (concern that needs to be addressed)
Step 4. - Provide the Defense
This is a repeat of step 2. By now you should be getting into a rhythm providing excuses and defenses of all criticisms and concerns. Make sure to get some quotes and keep up the efforts to cast criticisms in the light of rumor and innuendo. Extra style points can be achieved if you take a swipe at conservatives, better yet if that swipe contains statements about rumor and innuendo. Use words and events that evoke emotion such as "lie" and "outrage".
Example:
Some critics on the Internet have gone far beyond raising questions. (defense and set up)
Contrary to some e-mails, Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. He took his oath of office on the family Bible, not a Quran. (defense, dispel rumor)
"There has been a concerted effort, largely out of the conservative Web sites and anonymous e-mails," says Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, which set up a Stop The Smears Web site to correct the rumors. (swipe against conservatives even though they have nothing to do with topic, mention of rumor and innuendo, drive people to advocacy site)
"I don't think it moves tons and tons of votes, but at the fringes, if left unchecked, it could move a few," he said. (critics are now portrayed as fringe)
In the private meeting in Cleveland with 100 Jewish leaders last month, Obama talked about his 2005 trip to Israel, his views on a Palestinian state and regional Middle East security. He was quickly questioned about his own pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and an award his church magazine gave last year that said Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness." (concern that needs to be addressed, action item in defense of cause)
Farrakhan is intolerable to Jewish voters because of a history of anti-Semitic remarks, like calling Judaism a "gutter religion." (statement of fact not attributed to Barack Obama)
Step 4. - Wrap it Up
This is the closer. Provide Barack Obama a platform from which to present his defense. Make sure you get a couple of key quotes. Leave the reader with a sense of calm that dispels all concerns and satisfies those who need an excuse to look past any questions that challenge Barack Obama.
Example:
Obama, who has rejected support from Farrakhan, assured voters his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago does not endorse such messages. (defense, meaningless words and catch phrases that run counter to facts, tie up loose ends on criticisms for denouncing Farrakhan as opposed to rejecting him*)
"I have never heard an anti-Semitic (remark) made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on the part of the pastor," Obama said in a transcript of his remarks released later. "He (Wright) is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with - including, on occasion, directed at African-Americans." (defense, meaningless words and catch phrases that run counter to facts, excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)
Obama took the title of his 2006 book "The Audacity of Hope" from a Wright sermon. But last year, he asked Wright not to offer a prayer at his campaign's kickoff in Springfield, Ill. (excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)
The questioners in Cleveland also raised Obama's use of foreign policy advisers the doubters say are foes of Israel, including former President Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. (concern that needs to be addressed)
Obama replied that Brzezinski is an informal, not a key, adviser, and "I do not share his views with respect to Israel." (excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)
He said he has other foreign policy advisers from the Clinton administration who share his belief that Israel has to remain a Jewish state with special ties to the U.S. and that the Palestinians have been irresponsible. And he said critics' e-mails never mention Lester Crown, a member of his national finance committee who is "considered about as hawkish and tough when it comes to Israel as anybody in the country." (action item in defense of cause, use of fundraiser turned advisor)
"This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I'm not out of school here," Obama told Jewish leaders at the private meeting. "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering, pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." (restate honesty, pro-Likud substitute as veiled reference to right wing)
The formula is pretty simple and there are variations to be sure. In the end make sure you advocate for Barack Obama while appearing objective.
* Closing the loop technique. Used to tie up loose end. In this example Barack Obama was quietly back peddling on a previous stance where he denounced Louis Farrakhan in the Russert debate with Hillary Clinton. Obama's parsing of words, using "denounce" instead of "reject" was capitalized on by Hillary Clinton and has caused great concern in the Jewish community as noted in the LA Times.
That is my take on the unwritten but seemingly understood formula used by many writers in the mainstream media that seek to defend Barack Obama rather than report on him.
We have seen this kind of thinly veiled activism being exercised by the press for quite some time. There is a double standard being applied to Barack Obama. The contrasts are astounding. Many of those defending him from the "guilt by association" of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are the same crowd that attacked John McCain when radio talk show host Bill Cunningham dared to use the full name of Barack Hussein Obama. Likewise Hillary Clinton has been sliced by the knife of intolerance as she distanced herself from Geraldine Ferraro's statements concerning Barack Obama's meteoric rise to power. The same goes for select religions. The mainstream media worked overtime discussing the Mormonism of Mitt Romney yet we are essentially being told that we shouldn't discuss the church of Barack Obama. It goes on an on, defense after defense, excuse after excuse.
The appalling aspect of this whole exercise is that we are talking about media influence and the duty to inform. I have fun with these examples by sarcasm but presidential campaigns are serious events. The people of this nation deserve more.
Terry Trippany is the editor and publisher of Webloggin.com
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Great analysis, Terry!! And
March 15, 2008 - 11:49 ET by motherbeltGreat analysis, Terry!! And most of them do it reflexively, without conscious thought.
If I may be so bold as to offer an observation on another tactic that I noticed while reading your analysis:
Obama advisers who some U.S. Jews see as less than ardent advocates of Israel.
"nervousness over Senator Obama" among Jewish voters.... The rumors still have some legs."
Some critics on the Internet
conservative Web sites and anonymous e-mails,
advisers the doubters say are foes of Israel
This appears to me be to be a subtle attempt to portray criticism of Obama as driven by gullible people who are misled by Obama's opponents on the internet, and the belittling of such concerns, while acknowledging that they need to be addressed.
Just the impression I got.
Obama DID partially blame 9/11 on America in email
March 15, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Jack BauerObama DID blame 9/11 on "government" in email... just like his mentor Jeremiah X.
Just doing a Yahoo search on "Obama" + "9/11" and I came across this interesting nugget
http://infowars.com/...
The email from Senator Obama to "concerned" 9/11inside job loon
Note how he commends her "passionate" views... instead of telling this clear nutjob to grow a brain.
Again, let's just reverse the situation. A leading conservative Senator gets a letter from a someone claiming that .. oh, the Democrats under Bill Clinton were complicit in 9/11 as revenge for losing the election to Bush.
And said Senator commends the wrtiter's "passion."
I'm beginning to think this guy is even more dangerous than Hillary Clinton.
9/11 responsibility
March 15, 2008 - 13:02 ET by ThisnThat"...the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11". Bull. I don't believe any U.S. citizen should be running for president who believes the U.S. is responsible for a sneak attack on us, designed to kill 3,000 civilians.
That statement tells an awful lot about Barack Obama. I can't imagine what kind of country we would have if we had a president that can so easily justify mass murder.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
OK, I'll play devil's
March 15, 2008 - 13:23 ET by Gary P JacksonOK, I'll play devil's advocate. The way I read the "USA responsible" part of this 9/11 letter, is that no one anticipated the attack. I'm not defending Obama, because the guy is totally unfit to be in Congress, let alone the Oval.
But it's a fact that Jamie Gerelick had constructed a "wall" between the intelligence services, that prohibited them talking to one another. It's why we never connected the dots. You know, Muslims taking flying lessons, but not particularly caring to learn how to land.
In this point, I agree with Obama. We DO need to hold those who screwed this up responsible. Folks like Clinton, Gerelick, Berger, and so on.
Gary P. obviously you can
March 15, 2008 - 13:35 ET by Jack BauerGary P. obviously you can read it that way too, as I did as well.
No probs with the classic devil's advocate approach to debate. I understand your position here.
However .. he is responding to a nutjob email from someone who "passionately" believes Bush murdered 3000 fellow Amircans on 9/11.
First off, even answering that insanity is a bad move. So why did he?
And not only that, why did he in such "reasonable" terms, ending with a blame America statement.
But here's the thing... he makes that statement in response to a Bush dun it. Not a... there's is plenty of blame to go around regarding the US's immense Intelligence failures going back years.
Add in the hate preach "sermons" in which his "mentor" makes exactly the same charges.
That just makes me favor the more malign interpretation. Why not? Now that Barack is proving slippier than a greased eel in a barrel of oil.
Bingo TnT... I nearly fell
March 15, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Jack BauerBingo TnT... I nearly fell off my chair when I read this.
I never give liberals the benefit of the doubt any more.
Sorry. But that reads to me like a United States Senator and Presidential candidate not only can't tell a crazy person where to get off -- it also looks like he is partially spouting his Pastor's line about 9/11 being America's fault.
I hope someone picks this up from here, because it's on a nutjob conspiro-loon site.
Well, Jack, in all
March 15, 2008 - 15:15 ET by motherbeltWell, Jack, in all fairness, I don't think Obama is saying it was America's fault..not in the snse that others (like Wright and Ward Churchill have), that we deserved it (I'm talking about Obama's letter, not Pastor Wright). He is blaming the Bush administration for not being on the ball..he said America's government, regarding the blunders in the months before the attack. That's something a lot of others have done too.
I think that stinks, but it's not the same as Wright's and Churchill's "chickens coming home to roost, we deserved what we got" tirade.
Jack: The Obama reply is
March 15, 2008 - 15:54 ET by stratmanJack:
The Obama reply is slick political expository ("I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter." GAG!) infused with a big dose of nuanced rhetoric ("In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.").
Obama appearantly does not want to alienate a voter to his campaign. If he were concerned about irritating a potential stalker or violent person, he wouldn't have responded at all. Instead, his nuanced statement provides mitigation of his initial disagreement with Penny's delusions of US involvement in 9/11. This was not an attempt to convince or educate Penny as to the irrationality of her views. It was pandering to a potential voter.
The end result is Penny can continue her delusions unabated and Obama hopefully will continue to receive the support and all important vote of kooky Penny, once again proving that politicians are the worst kind of whores.
RRAM Tough!
The Hypnotist Lesson
March 15, 2008 - 14:28 ET by KC MulvilleScott Adams, creator of Dilbert, once said that he went to a hypnotist's stage act. The hypnotists gathered a few subjects on stage, put them under, and gave them a suggestion, then brought them out of it. At a certain point, he used the trigger word, and suddenly the subjects began doing the silliest things.
What's interesting is what happened next. The hypnotist started interviewing the subjects, asking them why they were doing such silly things in public. Instantly, they concocted explanations. None of them realized that they were simply hypnotized, but each came up with an instant explanation. What's even more interesting is that the moment they concocted the explanation, they instantly believed it themselves. From that moment, they were convinced that their purely ad hoc fiction was absolute truth. They even got indignant about it, if questioned.
The same syndrome appears here. For years, Obama listened to this guy, surely hearing these racist ramblings on occasion. Yet the moment it became public knowledge, Obama concocted the ridiculous fiction that it was all a surprise to him. Obama's zombies (ooops, followers) (ooops, supporters) instantly accept this as absolute truth, even though reality is obvious to everyone not under the Obama spell.
Somebody needs to snap his fingers and bring them all out of it.
Yep, the msm of all venues
March 15, 2008 - 16:18 ET by bigtimerYep, the msm of all venues are going to be working overtime this week-end behind the scenes of various ways to circle the wagon and defend and protect their new guy they have anointed....talking points will match all over the place by Monday on the networks....many, many papers too most likely.
Wonder what they are going to do if like Ron Kessler from Newsmax releases evidence on Monday of Obama being in one of the hate-filled rants of Wright's...
I know one thing, I am going to be waiting with anticipation and LMAO if this is true and comes out, can't you just see the likes of msnbc and CNN and all the rest of the alphabet soup networks...Matthews will go bonkers...more than he already is.
Of course all Obama is going to be able to say is...well, I didn't recall that....or some-such.
BO real bad news
March 15, 2008 - 21:23 ET by j17ghsThe uncritical media support of Barack Hussein Obama is more than just a biased, corrupt take on the jerk. This is about loss of our freedom to a bunch of Marxist jackals and Israel's demise.
Issues---lets get back
March 16, 2008 - 11:04 ET by docbEARMARKS....
Clinton By Far Worst Abuser Of Earmarks
Posted January 30, 2008 | 03:27 PM (EST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: 2008 Election, Offthebus, Breaking Off The Bus News
In the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill Hillary Clinton received 261 earmarks, more than five times the number of any other presidential candidate. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Clinton obtained 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006. This record establishes her as by far the worst abuser of earmarks among all presidential candidates in both parties.
Clinton's earmarks are an important issue for Democrats who worry about the growing corporate control over their party. But the earmark issue may be even more important in the general election because it could become the swing issue this fall allowing the presidency to remain in Republican hands.
Email
Print
Buzz up!on Yahoo!In the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, Clinton pushed for more earmarks than any other senator except the chair of the Armed Services Committee. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million (by contrast, Obama had only one earmark, requested with several other senators, to help children with severe disabilities). Clinton has been particularly active in obtaining earmarks for defense companies in New York, helping them sidestep the normal competitive system for contractors. She's also raised more than $270,000 for her campaigns from these defense contractors.
Hillary Clinton's $1 million earmark for a museum to celebrate the 1969 Woodstock music festival could become one of the biggest issues of the 2008 campaign. Not only does it anger the culture conservatives who see Woodstock as nothing more than a bunch of pot-smoking naked hippies, but even the people with fond memories of the rock festival must acknowledge that a museum is not exactly the best symbol of its meaning, and that a million dollars should be spent by pandering politicians for this project. The Woodstock earmark was voted out, 52-42, on October 18, 2007, making it one of only two earmarks to be voted down (the other was $129,000 for the home of the perfect Christmas tree project in North Carolina).
The Woodstock earmark raises further questions about the corrupt system of obtaining earmarks. On June 21, 2007, Clinton and Charles Schumer's $1 million earmark for the Woodstock museum was approved by a Senate committee. Nine days later, billionaire Republican Alan Gerry, the driving force behind the museum, donated (with his wife) the maximum of $9,200 to Clinton's presidential campaign. That same week, Gerry and his family gave $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee run by Schumer. Since 2005, the Gerrys have donated $18,600 to Clinton.
This wasn't the only Clinton earmark in 2007 to raise questions about timing. On June 27, 2007, Clinton and Schumer earmarked $900,000 for the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where James D. Watson was the chancellor until he resigned in October 2007 for making racist remarks. Watson has donated more than $70,000 to political candidates and PACs, and gave $3,000 to Clinton's presidential campaign on May 17 and June 25.
The Los Angeles Times reported how Clinton had supported government funding for a major campaign contributor's plan to build "a mega-shopping mall complete with 10 Broadway-style theaters, an indoor river, a Tuscan village and a 39-story luxury hotel" called "Destiny" near Syracuse. Clinton arranged a $5 million earmark for transportation access, and $1 billion in federal bonding authority.
The Los Angeles Times also found that at least eight of Clinton's biggest fundraisers who brought in more than $100,000 in donations are affiliated with the beneficiaries of her earmarks. By contrast, Barack Obama had only gotten $10,000 in donations from some trustees of the Shedd Aquarium, which received one of his earmarks.
In mid-January 2008, Clinton received an important endorsement from Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church of Harlem and a prominent black leader. But this endorsement is tainted by the fact that Clinton provided $1,431,500 in earmarks in the 2008 federal budget for Butts' Abyssinian Development Corporation and its youth and social service programs. Earmarks create at least the appearance of political patronage for nonprofit groups. In order to get money from politicians, these organizations must play the political game of offering their endorsements. Because earmarks are the arbitrary decisions of members of Congress, leaders of nonprofit groups are reluctant to risk losing a valuable source of free money.
Keith Ashdown, research director for the Taxpayers for Common Sense, told the Los Angeles Times that "Clinton has made aggressive use of the pay-to-play earmark game. According to the Los Angeles Times, New School University received $1.6 million in this year's defense budget and $6 million in previous years. Its president, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, once called Bill Clinton an unusually good liar, but since then Kerrey has endorsed Clinton in her senate and presidential campaigns. Three of the New School trustees have raised more than $100,000 for Clinton's campaign, and a former New School trustee is Norman Hsu, the infamous and now indicted Clinton fundraiser.
While Clinton has exploited earmarks for political gain in New York, Obama has led the fight to expose earmarks and change the system. Reason magazine noted that Obama's role in passing the Federal Funding and Tranparency Act "can't be overstated."
Obama, unlike Clinton, refuses to endorse any earmarks that directly benefit a private corporation. Since coming to the Senate, the Los Angeles Times discovered, Clinton had gotten $500 million in earmarks specifically benefiting 59 corporations, and she received donations from employees at 64% of those companies.
Obama was one of only two senators (with Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona) to release his requests for earmarks. Clinton and other legislators only have to reveal the earmarks that are approved, not all of their requests, and Clinton has opposed Obama's efforts to require open scrutiny of these requests. Obama's website offers his promise, "Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." This may not sound like much, but it would result in a massive decline in earmarks.
Earmarks were one critical factor in the devastating decline of the Republican Party in recent years. The 2006 elections were a landslide for Democrats, largely because the Republican-controlled Congress was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The scandals of Reps. Randy Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff both involved earmarks and the payoffs from the beneficiaries. Cunningham was convicted on charges of taking millions in gifts from a military contractor in exchange for earmarks.
Republicans, after being burned by earmarks in the 2006, will try to turn the tables in 2008. In November 2007, 72 Republicans without the support of their leadership called for establishing a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) noted, I get standing ovations when I talk about earmarks."
Although the media have ignored this issue in the Democratic primary race, the Republicans are likely to nominate a candidate who will make political corruption and earmarks a key component in the campaign. And Clinton's past record will give her no credibility to rein in the escalating use of earmarks, making it unlikely that she will be able to afford to fulfill many of her promises.
The Republican presidential candidates are unanimous in their condemnation of earmarks. Mitt Romney declared in a Dec. 21 press release, As President, I pledge to use every available method to eliminate wasteful earmarks in the federal budget."
John McCain declared during a Republican presidential debate on October 21, 2007, "I have fought against out-of- control and disgraceful spending that's been going on and I have saved the American people as much as $2 billion at one stroke. In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time."
McCain observed, "No one can be president of the United States that supports projects such as these. And I believe that wasteful spending has got to be eliminated. And I will have this debate and win because she is a liberal Democrat and I am a proud, reliable, consistent conservative Republican." McCain is right. Columnist Robert Novak noted that "Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail...is cheered for promising to veto bills with earmarked pork." Unless the press continues to ignore the corruption issue for the next year, any Republican presidential candidate could make a devastating critique of Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.
But it's not just Republicans who hate pork barrel politics. The Boston Globe editorialized that earmarks "bring the whole appropriations process into disrepute."(Dec. 30, 2007) Markos Moulitsas Zniga, founder of Daily Kos, noted: "It's this sort of abuse, repeated many times over by many congresscritters, that drives the public's disillusionment with our Congress. Real reform on this front needs to happen." Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted on Bill Moyers' website: "the earmarking process is a breakdown in democratic decision-making in the Congress."
The Democratic Congress has taken some steps to scale back earmarks. The first senate bill of the new Congress in 2007 focused on corruption, and the Democrats have turned back the rise in earmarks. According to a new website from the Office of Management and Budget tracking this information (created because of Obama's legislative proposals), there were 13,491 earmarks in the 2005 baseline for $18,942,858,000. After rising close to $30 billion in 2006, earmarks in the 2008 House/Senate conference bill dropped to 11,737 requests for $16,871,939,000.
But if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, then it is certain the Republican candidate will rail against her as a symbol of corruption in Washington. All but one Republican presidential candidate comes from outside Washington DC, and Sen. John McCain has strong credentials in attacking earmarks and government waste.
In an election when Democrats should be able to win easily by denouncing the corruption and waste of the Bush Administration, the reverse may occur if Clinton is the nominee. The anti-Washington sentiment raging across the country could easily turn against the Democrats (Congress already has ratings lower than Bush) unless their nominee is a clear reformer.
One reason why earmarks dominate our political system is the failure of the press to hold politicians accountable. In many cases, the media has actually embraced earmarks, such as the routine stories in local media about the grants acquired by legislators. A 2007 article in The Hill newspaper seemed to celebrate Clinton's ability to get more earmarks than many of her colleagues with more seniority. An Oct. 12, 2007 Washington Post article on the topic was headlined, "Earmarks Put Candidates On the Spot; Obama, Clinton Camps Defend Requests Made for Constituents." The article treated Obama and Clinton as if they had equivalent records on earmarks, noting that Obama had supported an earmark initiated by Sen. Dick Durbin to fund brain research at the University of Chicago, where Obama's wife had worked. Clinton arranged for a $3 million earmark to benefit hydrogen-fuel and hybrid technology at General Motors, and a lobbyist for GM is one of Clinton's biggest fundraisers.
However, the primary approach of the press toward earmarks his been complete silence. The Woodstock museum earmark got some coverage, especially in the conservative press, when it was first revealed last summer and then voted down in October. CNN's Situation Room featured a short report on Clinton's earmarks on November 9, 2007.
But nothing has ever been asked about earmarks in the Democratic debates or candidate interviews. On Dec. 23, 2007, Tim Russert lectured Ron Paul on Meet the Press for putting earmarks in bills even though he's opposed to them. Russert told Paul, "When you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the spending bills, then I think you'll be consistent." However, neither Russert nor any of his colleagues have ever discussed the issue with regard to Hillary Clinton. Dan Morain, co-author of the important Los Angeles Times article on earmarks, told me: "No one in broadcast [media] spoke to me about the topic. Others have written about earmarks, but I have not seen much done in the context of the presidential campaign. I'm not sure why."
Last summer, Anderson Cooper promised on CNN (June 21, 2007), "We're going to continue to ask members of Congress about their earmark spending, seeking the truth, no matter how long it takes." Yet Cooper hasn't ever mentioned earmarks in covering the presidential race.
Considering how much media coverage has been devoted to bizarre misconceptions about race or gender, or the vast number of "horserace" stories about the latest polls, the failure of the media to mention earmarks is startling. Earmarks have a real impact on expanding the budget deficit by billions of dollars every year. And as part of the earmarks industry, lobbyists are hired to obtain the billions of dollars at stake. Washington now has almost 35,000 registered lobbyists, more than double the number in 2000.
Earmarks are much more than a symbolic issue about corruption in Washington. They represent a decisive difference between the two leading candidates in the Democratic race, and if Hillary Clinton emerges as her party's nominee, her embrace of earmarks could be a critical issue helping Republicans retain the presidency.
John K. Wilson is the author of two new books, "Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest" (obamapolitics.com) and "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies" (collegefreedom.org). He can be reached at collegefreedom@yahoo.com.