by Dr. Jeffrey Lant
To absolutely no one's surprise President Obama officially kicked off his re-election bid April 4, 2011. The real story is not that he's running (since the day he was elected in the first place, he's been running for the second term whose function is to validate what he's done and his place in history).
No, the story is on that most American of subjects: money, specifically the money it's going to take him to ensure his re-election.
Yup, it's all about the money.
In 2008, Obama set the spending record, $760 million for the primary and general elections. Obama, to the astonishment of many, was unstoppable in the fund raising department. Democrats were conflicted on the matter.
For one thing, they wanted to win... and here was a man dedicated to raising the money to make them competitive and give them victory on a sterling silver platter.
But that unnerved many Democrats at the same time, for such people have a knee jerk tendency to regulate campaign funds and limit them; Obama was always about victory, not limits. And victory, sweet victory, historic victory they got. Such victory papers over a lot of cracks.
The president opens his campaign.
Because this is 2011 and the world is wired President Obama launched his re-election campaign by e-mail. He said his campaign will be about "coordinating millions of one-on-one conversations between supporters across every single state, reconnecting old friends, inspiring new ones to join the cause, and readying ourselves for next year's fight." The man of soaring rhetoric commenced his campaign with business sobriety, without a memorable word. What did that mean?
It meant, above all else, that Obama realizes he'll be the issue; that what people want is not rhetoric, not to run on hope. Been there, done that. What the people want now is demonstrated results and sensible, realistic talk about the next four years of the U.S.S. United States of America.
Where does this captain want to take us.... and how does he intend to get us there? High blown rhetoric which was the centerpiece of the 2008 campaign will be used, of course, but carefully, sparingly. The country, after all, is still seething with rages... and Obama needs to be seen as a man of deeds, not words, however thrilling.
His re-election message signifies his understanding that the "first black president" card is not going to cut it. The high flying speeches about opening doors, too, are old hat, beside the point.
What America wants is a strong chief executive (white, brown or black) whose sole function is to tackle our grab-bag of problems and use the power of the presidency, which includes marshalling the people, to deliver results, results, results. Nothing less will satisfy the nation... and the president surely knows that even results, great results, will fail to satisfy many. That is the nature of our times.
Obama knows better than anyone that keeping the White House as his house is going to take a breathtaking amount of money. And Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission came at just the right time for him to raise it, in the historic amounts needed to make his case.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
On January 21, 2010 the United States Supreme Court made a decision of historic proportions. By the thinnest of margins, 5-4, the Court struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for- profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications". These were defined in McCain-Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).
The Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Court had just made history, striking a hammer blow (albeit barely) on behalf of the First Amendment, which means, so the majority said, exactly what it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Liberal outrage.
Most every liberal in the land was enraged by this decision. Liberals, you see, specialize in telling folks like you and me, just what we can do, just when we can do it, just how we can do it. In this case, that means doing everything they can to limit your right to uninhibited election communications, including spending your money freely to influence these elections.
Freedom means being able to squander your money on elections if you want to.
Personally, I have never understood the thrill of throwing money away on presidential candidates. I'm of the firm opinion that spending the hundred or two I might donate to candidates, say, on dinner with winsome partner would be better spent. However, I am equally clear that people, by the Bill of Rights, should have the right to waste their money, be they private citizen, union, or corporation on the candidates they fancy.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission reaffirmed that right, and strongly so.
President Obama, chief beneficiary, the strongest attacker.
The president is a past master in the art of having one's cake while eating it, too. This decision he said "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself," and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest."
Having stated, for the record, the standard liberal line... Obama set out to make the Court's ruling work for -- him.
Every time he lamented the realities of politics and fund raising and predicted the end of democracy... he was busily raising money, unparalleled amounts of money from... private citizens, corporations, and unions. If a billion will do the trick, fine; if not, he'll up the ante. For you see, he is determined to prove, through his re-election that America made no mistake in electing him in the first place.
Millions of American who voted for Obama have come to the conclusion they bought a pig in a poke; they've having second thoughts. But the president knows what money can buy. He'll raise whatever he needs so they'll buy -- him, secretly thanking Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for the favor, while criticizing it every step of the way. The White House is worth it.
About the Author
Harvard-educated Dr. Jeffrey Lant is CEO of Worldprofit, Inc., providing a wide range of online services for small and-home based businesses. Dr. Lant is also the author of 18 best-selling business books. Republished with author's permission by Devin Barkhouse <a href="http://MyEdgeOnSuccess.com">http://MyEdgeOnSuccess.com</a>.
To absolutely no one's surprise President Obama officially kicked off his re-election bid April 4, 2011. The real story is not that he's running (since the day he was elected in the first place, he's been running for the second term whose function is to validate what he's done and his place in history).
No, the story is on that most American of subjects: money, specifically the money it's going to take him to ensure his re-election.
Yup, it's all about the money.
In 2008, Obama set the spending record, $760 million for the primary and general elections. Obama, to the astonishment of many, was unstoppable in the fund raising department. Democrats were conflicted on the matter.
For one thing, they wanted to win... and here was a man dedicated to raising the money to make them competitive and give them victory on a sterling silver platter.
But that unnerved many Democrats at the same time, for such people have a knee jerk tendency to regulate campaign funds and limit them; Obama was always about victory, not limits. And victory, sweet victory, historic victory they got. Such victory papers over a lot of cracks.
The president opens his campaign.
Because this is 2011 and the world is wired President Obama launched his re-election campaign by e-mail. He said his campaign will be about "coordinating millions of one-on-one conversations between supporters across every single state, reconnecting old friends, inspiring new ones to join the cause, and readying ourselves for next year's fight." The man of soaring rhetoric commenced his campaign with business sobriety, without a memorable word. What did that mean?
It meant, above all else, that Obama realizes he'll be the issue; that what people want is not rhetoric, not to run on hope. Been there, done that. What the people want now is demonstrated results and sensible, realistic talk about the next four years of the U.S.S. United States of America.
Where does this captain want to take us.... and how does he intend to get us there? High blown rhetoric which was the centerpiece of the 2008 campaign will be used, of course, but carefully, sparingly. The country, after all, is still seething with rages... and Obama needs to be seen as a man of deeds, not words, however thrilling.
His re-election message signifies his understanding that the "first black president" card is not going to cut it. The high flying speeches about opening doors, too, are old hat, beside the point.
What America wants is a strong chief executive (white, brown or black) whose sole function is to tackle our grab-bag of problems and use the power of the presidency, which includes marshalling the people, to deliver results, results, results. Nothing less will satisfy the nation... and the president surely knows that even results, great results, will fail to satisfy many. That is the nature of our times.
Obama knows better than anyone that keeping the White House as his house is going to take a breathtaking amount of money. And Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission came at just the right time for him to raise it, in the historic amounts needed to make his case.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
On January 21, 2010 the United States Supreme Court made a decision of historic proportions. By the thinnest of margins, 5-4, the Court struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for- profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications". These were defined in McCain-Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).
The Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Court had just made history, striking a hammer blow (albeit barely) on behalf of the First Amendment, which means, so the majority said, exactly what it says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Liberal outrage.
Most every liberal in the land was enraged by this decision. Liberals, you see, specialize in telling folks like you and me, just what we can do, just when we can do it, just how we can do it. In this case, that means doing everything they can to limit your right to uninhibited election communications, including spending your money freely to influence these elections.
Freedom means being able to squander your money on elections if you want to.
Personally, I have never understood the thrill of throwing money away on presidential candidates. I'm of the firm opinion that spending the hundred or two I might donate to candidates, say, on dinner with winsome partner would be better spent. However, I am equally clear that people, by the Bill of Rights, should have the right to waste their money, be they private citizen, union, or corporation on the candidates they fancy.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission reaffirmed that right, and strongly so.
President Obama, chief beneficiary, the strongest attacker.
The president is a past master in the art of having one's cake while eating it, too. This decision he said "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself," and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest."
Having stated, for the record, the standard liberal line... Obama set out to make the Court's ruling work for -- him.
Every time he lamented the realities of politics and fund raising and predicted the end of democracy... he was busily raising money, unparalleled amounts of money from... private citizens, corporations, and unions. If a billion will do the trick, fine; if not, he'll up the ante. For you see, he is determined to prove, through his re-election that America made no mistake in electing him in the first place.
Millions of American who voted for Obama have come to the conclusion they bought a pig in a poke; they've having second thoughts. But the president knows what money can buy. He'll raise whatever he needs so they'll buy -- him, secretly thanking Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for the favor, while criticizing it every step of the way. The White House is worth it.
About the Author
Harvard-educated Dr. Jeffrey Lant is CEO of Worldprofit, Inc., providing a wide range of online services for small and-home based businesses. Dr. Lant is also the author of 18 best-selling business books. Republished with author's permission by Devin Barkhouse <a href="http://MyEdgeOnSuccess.com">http://MyEdgeOnSuccess.com</a>.
No comments:
Post a Comment