The Obamacons Who Worry McCain
What is an "Obamacon?" The phrase surfaced in January to describe British conservatives entranced by Barack Obama. On March 13 the American Spectator broadened the term to cover all "conservative supporters" of the Democratic presidential candidate. Their ranks, though growing, feature few famous people. But looming on the horizon are two big potential Obamacons: Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel.
Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama's camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008.
Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today's Republican Party. The danger for McCain is that desire for a therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control.
That danger was highlighted in a June New Republic article on "The rise of the Obamacons" by supply-side economist Bruce Bartlett, who was a middle-level official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He expressed "disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country" -- echoing his scathing 2006 book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." While Bartlett says "I'm not ready to join the other side," his anti-Bush furor characterizes the Obamacons.
The prototypal Obamacon may be Larry Hunter, recognized inside the Beltway as an ardent supply-sider. When it became known recently that Hunter supports Obama, fellow conservatives were stunned. Hunter was fired as U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist in 1993 when he would not swallow Clinton administration policy, and he later joined Jack Kemp at Empower America (ghostwriting Kemp's column). Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."
While he never would use such language, Colin Powell is said by friends to share Hunter's analysis of the GOP. His tenuous 13-year relationship with the Republican Party, following his retirement from the Army, has ended. The national security adviser for Ronald Reagan left the present administration bitter about being ushered out of the State Department a year earlier than he wanted. As an African American, friends say, Powell is sensitive to racial attacks on Obama and especially on Obama's wife, Michelle. While McCain strategists shrug off defections from Bruce Bartlett and Larry Hunter, they wince in anticipating headlines generated by Powell's expected endorsement of Obama.
While Powell may not be a legitimate Obamacon because he never was much of a conservative, that cannot be said for his close Senate friend Hagel. He has built a solidly conservative record as a senator, but mutual friends see no difference between him and the general on Iraq, **** Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the Republican Party. In a speech today at the Brookings Institution, Hagel is expected to urge Obama and McCain to reach out to each other. At the least, Hagel is not ready to strap on armor for his longtime political ally and office neighbor, John McCain.
Reports listing additional Obamacons do not add up to tides of conservative Republicans leaving their party. Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker is a Democrat who entered government in the Kennedy administration. Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams (an African American) leads me to believe that he has no intention of endorsing Obama. Conservative author Richard J. Whalen is for Obama because he sees a dead Republican Party, but he also was for John Kerry in 2004.
Nevertheless, Obamacons -- little and big -- are reason for concern by McCain. They also should cause soul-searching at the Bush White House about who made the Republican Party so difficult a place for Republicans to stay.
Maybe if Obama threw a little payola to Armstrong he'd jump on board...(WIKIPEDIA)
Selling the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" policy
In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same". [2]
As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004".[3] The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum Inc.
Melanie Sloan from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told USA Today that the contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda ... [A]nd it's propaganda". United States Representative George Miller (D-CA), a member of the House Education Committee, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal". [4] Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was founded in 2001 by Melanie Sloan, a former aide to Representative John Conyers and Senator Charles Schumer.
After the USA Today revelations, Tribune Media Services terminated its syndication agreement with Williams. In a statement to Editor and Publisher (not available on its website), TMS stated: "[A]ccepting compensation in any form from an entity that serves as a subject of his weekly newspaper columns creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Under these circumstances, readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party".[5] Williams told Associated Press "even though I'm not a journalist — I'm a commentator — I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it." [2]
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said it was a matter for the Education Department. According to Associated Press the Department of Education stated that the deal was a "permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures".[3] McClellan remained noncommittal on whether White House staff knew of the deal with Williams. "I'm not sure that senior staff was consulted before this decision was made. I haven't heard anything to that effect", he said. [6] Three days after the story broke, McClellan claimed he was unaware of the details of the contract and that specific questions should be directed to the Education Department. As to whether Williams should have disclosed the details of the contract in his columns and on-air appearances, McClellan would only concede that "those are all legitimate questions". Asked whether he would investigate whether other journalists were on the payroll of the administration, McClellan replied, "I'm not aware of any others that are under contract other than the one that's been reported on in the media."[citation needed]
Following the revelations of the Williams contract with Ketchum, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington announced that it had filed Freedom of Information requests with 22 agencies requesting copies of all contracts with public relation firms. [7]
The USA Today revelations caused controversy within the PR industry as well. As soon as the story broke, Edelman Public Relations' CEO Richard Edelman posted a note on his personal blog criticizing Ketchum's deal with Williams. "This kind of pay for play public relations takes us back in time to the days of the press agent who would drop off the new record album and $10 to the deejay. It makes our industry's efforts to 'clean up' behavior in newly created PR markets such as China and Russia look decidedly ridiculous", he wrote.[8] The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) issued a statement saying "the relationship should have been disclosed up front, no question".[9]
On January 26, 2005 a similar arrangement surfaced between Maggie Gallagher and the Department of Health and Human Services involving her paid support of the Bush administration's "healthy marriage" initiative, which she did not disclose. On January 28, 2005 it was revealed that Michael McManus, a syndicated columnist who writes Ethics & Religion, was paid up to $10,000 to support the administration's marriage initiative to divert funds from welfare to marital counselling, which he did not disclose.[10]
On September 30, 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the payments to Williams were illegal on the part of the Department of Education because the government's role in the public relations effort was not disclosed. [11]
If Enron could do it with electricity...
verconfident:
