The Real Reason for the Furor of Obama’s Paid Speech: it Kills anti Hillary Clinton Talking Point
This is why I’m kind of glad Obama did it. The rap was aways that somehow she had less integrity than he does. I had argued during the election that this is nonsense. Obama’s speech proves it.
Obama how dare you destroy our anti-Hillary talking point!
— Melanie Jean (@princessmom122) April 27, 2017
Paid speeches are done by lots of public officials after they leave office. Only with Hilary was this treated like some sort of five car alarm scandal.
Now you have people acting as if Obama taking in a paid speech is a bigger scandal than Trump making money off the office while in office.
Obama’s team have the right answer:
“President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time. Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision and his record,” his senior adviser, Eric Schultz, said in a statement issued after the Cantor Fitzgerald speech drew a wave of criticism — including a New York Post headline that dubbed Obama “Wall Street’s new fat cat.”
Of course, the NY Post is scandalized Obama did a paid speech while not at all exercised over people like Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, or Betsey DeVos in the White House.
Yet the logic seems to be that the Democrats are in trouble because Obama did a paid speech while out of office and people will therefore vote for Trump again who violates the Constitution everyday by enriching himself and his family.
Meanwhile, Aaron Blake absurdly chides Obama for not living up to Donald Trump’s standards.
“It’s not as though the idea of holding office and then benefiting from it at a later date is a completely novel one. The Trump administration, the Obama administration and Congress have all instituted lobbying bans on their employees, limiting their ability to lobby government after leaving government — usually for years.”
Trump’s ‘lobbying ban’ is pretty meaningless as he has people enriching themselves while in the WH. He hired Mike Flynn while Flynn was a paid agent of Turkey-and Russia.
I guess the hope that some people can have any sense of proportion is vain. Even if you consider Obama’s paid speech an kind of ethical crime-which I don’t-it’s the equivalent of jaywalking or at most speeding.
Trump is committing Class A Felonies every single day. And yet it seems that this faux meme is being used to damage Democratic opposition to him.
Meanwhile, Bernie absurdly conflates Obama’s speech to Steve Mnuchin, the Foreclosure King. Pitiful, and it only helps Trump. This is right in the Roger Stone playbook of voter fragmentation:
“I don’t think Stone ever says what policy he is for in this memoir, and he might well consider a focus on policy a distraction. There is only winning and losing an election, and five methods for achieving a victory recur again and again in races that Stone is involved with, four methods that create a mirror maze of confusion, misdirection, and elimination. The first is through association, by having a candidate receive an endorsement from a person or group who potential supporters of the candidate are predisposed to view as an opponent, or through association with something unquestionably malevolent made via protesters, pamphlets, or other means funded by Stone’s campaign but without any fingerprints. The second is by having a group, funded by allied interests, oppose a candidate or policy due to some larger moral principle that everyone can agree on – the issue is not candidate A versus B, but opposition to crime, gambling, or child abuse. The third is the smear, saying your opponent is corrupt, weak, racist, a rapist, a murderer, a pedophile, always helpfully done not through you, the opponent on which this tar might stick, but through a phantom proxy. This last is used very, very often by Stone. The fourth, and one of the most effective, is through fragmentation of the vote. There is, say, overwhelming support for candidate A, who will raise the minimum wage, versus candidate B, who won’t. You split this overwhelming vote by funding another candidate, who wants to raise the minimum wage even higher, and who chastises candidate A for compromising their principles and being beholden to business interests for not asking for a higher wage. Through a vote split, candidate B, the one who says he believes the condition of workers must be improved, but not through easy sounding solutions like a higher minimum wage, scores a victory. At the same time, you make great efforts to keep the votes for your own candidate or issue from being fragmented. The fifth is vote suppression, of black and latino voters, who tend to poll democrat. The first four have been employed in elections that Stone has been involved in, with Stone often taking credit. The fifth has been employed alongside Stone’s efforts, though perhaps without the collusion of Stone.”
Actually not to digress but Stone may have done some of number five in 2016 with his call for ‘independent election observers.’
But check out number four:
“The fourth, and one of the most effective, is through fragmentation of the vote. There is, say, overwhelming support for candidate A, who will raise the minimum wage, versus candidate B, who won’t. You split this overwhelming vote by funding another candidate, who wants to raise the minimum wage even higher, and who chastises candidate A for compromising their principles and being beholden to business interests for not asking for a higher wage. Through a vote split, candidate B, the one who says he believes the condition of workers must be improved, but not through easy sounding solutions like a higher minimum wage, scores a victory.”
That’s basically verbatim what happened in 2016 with Bernie Sanders and why the GOP continues to praise him. Indeed, Bernie wanted a $15 MW, Hillary wanted $12-though she compromised and accepted $15 at the convention-and Trump wanted no MW hike-and even talked about ending the federal MW. We ended up with-no MW hike. Well played Berners.
The Democrats have a very good chance of coming back in 2018 and 2020 but if there is any chance they don’t it’s through the Bernie Bros and the faux outrage over things like paid speeches.
No wonder the NY Post put Obama’s paid speech on the front page.
— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) April 28, 2017
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.