The Associated Press’ Liz Sidoti last generated attention in March, when, at a conference for the nation’s newspaper editors, she greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin’ Donuts. Sidoti made sure she got McCain his favorite kind — “Oh, yes, with sprinkles!” he said — and then passed McCain a cup. “A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar,” she said.
Now, it appears Sidoti appears anxious to do McCain another favor, by writing a scathing, 900-word reprimand of Barack Obama’s decision to bypass the public financing system in the general election.
Barack Obama chose winning over his word.
The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too. No more.
The chance to financially swamp John McCain — and maneuver for an enormous general election advantage — proved too great an allure. Obama, a record-shattering fundraiser, reversed course Thursday and decided to forgo some $85 million so he could raise unlimited amounts of money and spend as much as he wants.
The nerve of a candidate trying to raise money, legally, to win an election. Obama is clearly history’s greatest monster. Sidoti added:
Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and “the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups.” But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama — and running commercials against McCain.
So much for being a straight shooter.
As a factual matter, this isn’t true at all. As Media Matters explained, “[I]ndependent group Freedom’s Watch has put out ads attacking Obama over tax and health care issues, and the Vets for Freedom political action committee has run television ads attacking Obama over issues related to the Iraq war.”
But putting this aside, I’m a little confused about why Obama’s decision is causing such a stir.
To be sure, Obama reversed course. He said he intended to stay within the system, and then he didn’t, so if his detractors want to shout, “Flip-flop!” it’s a reasonable enough charge. But if policy reversals are a politician’s biggest crime, John McCain might as well drop out of the race now.
Ultimately, Obama is a pragmatist. He wants to play by the rules — Obama isn’t violating any laws or doing anything unethical here — and maximize his chances of success. In this case, that means raising lots of money from his supporters. And this is scandalous … why?
Sidoti said Obama “chose winning over his word.” It reminded me of an extemporaneous speech Obama delivered to his staff in Chicago shortly after securing the nomination. He explained that the nation is counting on him and his team to win. “We don’t have a choice,” Obama said. The stakes are too high, and the responsibilities are too great. In this context, if that means withdrawing from a flawed campaign-finance system, so be it.
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.
And second, of all the responses to Obama’s move, Norm Ornstein’s is probably the one that stands out for me.
One of the principal authors of the most significant campaign finance legislation since Watergate said he was neither “outraged” nor “surprised” with Barack Obama’s decision to forgo public funding in the general election.
Norm Ornstein, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and substantial contributor to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — also known as the “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance legislation — said on Thursday that Obama’s move was “pragmatically the right decision to make,” and that, if the Senator had not chosen that path, “I would have sued him for political malpractice.”
Ornstein helped write the law and even he realizes that Obama would have been a fool to give up his financial advantage.
So, why is this causing so much outrage?