Barack Obama: Flip-Flopping for Dollars

Today, Barack Obama reneged the pledge he has repeated for two years, to accept public financing of his election campaign.

The original promise of government funding of Presidential campaigns was to limit the amount candidates could spend, supposedly to “get the money out of politics.” A candidate who accepts federal funds also agrees to limits on the amount of donated funds he can accept and spend. But a candidate who waves off federal funds is under no limits.

birgenstock-flip-obama-logo.jpgNormally we’d cheer for a candidate who keeps his snout out of the public trough and finds a way to fund his own campaign. But Saint Obama is pulling this switch only after months of sanctimoniously preaching about the virtue of public financing and wagging his finger at everyone else in politics for accepting “too much” money from donors. Now that he’s done the math and projected that he’ll be better off without it, he has suddenly become a critic of public financing. Now he calls it “a broken system.”

This public financing flip-flop leads us to note another inconsistency that may have been driven by financial considerations.

As everyone knows, Barack Obama has spent almost two years on the campaign trail insisting that he never supported the Iraq operation, and always wanted to get out ASAP. The following is copied directly from the Obama campaign web site:

    • In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the [Iraq]war on the campaign trail;
    • In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
    • In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
    • In January, 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March, 2008;
    • In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as President.

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

But contradicting this get-out-of-Iraq-ASAP credo is this 30 second video of Barack Obama, back in 2004, supporting the military operation and insisting that US troops must remain in country:

.

.

Richard Fernandez, proprietor of The Belmont Club, an intellectually superior blog, has assembled a lot of evidence that, taken together, strongly suggests a simple explanation for Obama’s Iraq flipping and flopping:

Money.

Or, more precisely, Rezko money. Last week we reported on Obama’s long association with Tony Rezko who was recently convicted of facilitating bribes of elected officials.

It seems that Mr. Rezko and some associates, including a corrupt Iraqi official, were negotiating a lucrative contract to build a power plant in Iraq. Senator Obama apparently was encouraged to do his part to support continued US occupation at least long enough to secure construction projects and ensure payments.

You can read Mr. Fernandez’ piece here.

Will the media herd investigate why Obama briefly supported success in Iraq? Probably not. As usual the herd will stampede away from anything that doesn’t show their chosen candidate in the best possible light.

No Comments

Comments are closed.