The Media is More Concerned About What Obama Makes Post WH to Trump in the WH
The media hardly hyperventilates about Trump’s violations of the emoluments clause which is not weekly, daily, or even hourly but constantly.
During the campaign with great hypocrisy Trump accused HRC of ‘self dealing.’ The media let him get away with this and repeated the slander while in the same breath he bragged that if he were POTUS he’d be the first one to actually make money on the deal.
As Yglesias pointed out, while Trump is a huge failure legislatively-and the issue of Russia collusion swirls around his head and only gets deeper, though Yglesias doesn’t talk much about Russia collusion-Trump is winning in one significant way: he is using the office to enrich himself and his family. Ie, he’s stealing from you and me.
“From the day Trump announced his candidacy until the day he took the Oval Office, the smart take on him was that he was running on a lark, as a publicity stunt, or to lay the groundwork for some business endeavor.”
“Yet since his ascension to the White House, conventional wisdom has developed an odd tendency to describe his inability to make major legislative changes as an indication that his presidency is failing. It’s certainly true that Paul Ryan’s speakership of the House is failing, arguable that Mitch McConnell’s tenure as majority leader of the Senate is failing, and indisputably true that the Koch brothers’ drive to infuse hardcore libertarian ideological zeal into the GOP is failing.”
“But Trump isn’t failing. He and his family appear to be making money hand over fist. It’s a spectacle the likes of which we’ve never seen in the United States, and while it may end in disaster for the Trumps someday, for now it shows no real sign of failure.”
What it comes down to is how you define success. Trump is a failure in any conventional standard. But where he succeeds is where he always has: making lots of money while his partners are left holding the bag. His partners in this case are Joe and Jane Q. Public.
But the media is not full of outrage over this. They’re focused like a laser beam on what Obama is doing now. He’s making money out of office! They had killed Hillary because she made money before running for office again. But now Obama is being savaged for doing it after being done with office.
So basically the real crime is making money while a Democrat, period. Anyone on the Center Left is held to an absurd double standard by the Far Right, Far Left, and the media.
As I noted yesterday, part of the outrage is that the media has been deprived of an opportunity to take more shots at Hillary Clinton. Ruth Marcus is outraged over being denied more shots at Hillary.
“In collecting $400,000 from a Wall Street investment firm to make a single speech, Barack Obama is following in the Gucci-clad footsteps of past presidents. Ronald Reagan landed a $2 million speaking gig in Japan. George W. Bush, on his way out, announced it was time to “replenish the ol’ coffers.” Bill and Hillary Clinton reported making more than $235 million after leaving the White House.”
“But to acknowledge that Obama has plenty of precedent on his side is not to say that his choice is wise. Indeed, it’s unfortunate.”
“Obama’s propulsion onto the lecture circuit arrives at a moment of populist disgust with Wall Street greed and the Washington swamp (can doors revolve in swamps?). It comes after a campaign in which Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speaking feesbecame a symbol of entitled elitism. So imagine the powerful message Obama would have sent — the reverse precedent — had he chosen to renounce this road to riches.”
“Or, imagine this, had he chosen to speak publicly, at as many places and on as many topics as he liked. Just not behind closed doors, for an amount equivalent to his White House salary — and seven times what the typical household makes in a year. Such a move would have been understood as an implicit — and well-deserved — rebuke of the Clintons’ compulsive speechifying.”
Basically, Marcus is outraged she loses another chance to ‘rebuke’ the Clintons yet again. Nothing is more compulsive than her need to rebuke the Clintons as most of her fellow Beltway pundits.
Now Marcus-and others waxing indignant-have at least claimed their fine with Obama having a generous book deal, etc.
“This is not to argue for a post-presidential vow of poverty. I don’t begrudge the Obamas their reported $60-million-plus joint book deal, of which their publisher has said a “significant portion” will be donated to charity. That should leave plenty for the Obamas to live as luxuriously as they could want.”
But now, Chris Riotta of Newsweek, takes it the next step. He clearly does think Obama must take a poverty vow.
“There are valid reasons to be concerned by a president’s earnings, including after their tenure in the Oval Office. Where a former commander-in-chief earns his or her income–and the company they choose to keep after serving as the leader of the free world–could speak to their basic values in a way policies and legislation cannot.”
That’s completely the opposite of the truth. What matters for Americans is the legislation and the policies. The issue of making money after being in office is pure symbolism. Unlike Trump’s violations of the Emoluments Clause no one is losing anything because Obama is able to make some well deserved money post Presidency.
But let’s be clear-whatever you think of making money after office, the policies are what matters, as Sean Spicer would say, period.
I guess the issue of what Obama is making out of office is more important than what Trump is making off the office itself.
While everyone admits that previous Presidents made money out of office, Obama is the one the choose for a poverty vow.
So when some Americans, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, saw former President Barack Obama accepting $400,000 speeches from Wall Street, signing book deals worth $65 million and vacationing with billionaires off the coast of Tahiti in a $300 million yacht, you can bet they were perplexed.”
Basically, Obama should never make a dime again. That will please Riotta. Maybe the standard should be that former Presidents sleep on a park bench. After all-if they’re Democrats-they aren’t allowed to make money before being in office or after it.
Say it Trevor Noah:
“Obama’s back, and so are the haters,” said Trevor Noah on Thursday’s Daily Show. Well, it seems as though these haters don’t want our former president to get a piece of the speech-money pie. But no one had a problem when previous presidents did. God forbid a black man is paid his worth.
“Obama’s getting $400,000 to be a keynote speaker,” he said. “He’s probably going to give a very important policy speech entitled ‘The Four Boats I’m Going to Buy.’ Now, look, I know that people may say that it weakens public trust when politicians cash in immediately after leaving office, but at least Obama waited until he left office, unlike [President Trump], who’s using the White House like an ATM machine. And yeah, don’t get me wrong—I agree that the system must change, but it doesn’t change with Obama. People are like, ‘Why doesn’t he not accept the money?’ No, f—k that!”
P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.