Broder Leads Off Column On Gerrymandering WIth Pointless, Distorted Shot At Obama

David Broder is up in arms about gerrymandering, and has written all about it in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post today. As far as his take on that issue goes, my only criticism is that his criticism comes a couple of decades later than it should. Other than that, he is more or less right on the merits. As far as gerrymandering goes, anyway. But, as is all too often the way with the Dean of the Beltway, his healthy body of work comes riddled with tumors of nonsense.

In this case, we have this lead paragraph:

When Barack Obama decided last week to throw off the constraints on campaign spending that go with the acceptance of public financing, he was rightly criticized for rigging the system in his favor.

Broder's memory is playing tricks on him, it seems. See, when Obama opted out of taking the $80 some-odd million dollars of "public financing," he was "rightly criticized" (and though I think Obama's decision was the correct one, I'll allow the "rightly" for the sake of argument) for breaking his word, and this was followed by a raft of esoteric lament that this made the Great Agent of Change and Hope "just another politician." And, let's face it, Obama had agreed to work within the system of "public financing," and then reneged.

I cannot recall, however, anyone arguing that Obama had "rigged" a system, and anyway, even if anyone did, there is no way that this point can be argued "rightly," for the simple reason that Obama was legally allowed to opt out of the one system of "public financing" in favor of his own funding mechanism. His opponent, John McCain, is entitled to do the same, right this very minute, should he choose to do so.

Naturally, Obama's choice has potentially given him a large advantage in the general election, but if we're going to set the standard for "rigging the system" at "taking an electoral advantage," we'll be talking about "rigged systems" for the rest of the year.

However, if you want to talk about a candidate "rigging the system" of public finance, there exists a perfect example: John McCain.

McCain opt[ed] into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain's lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn't really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC -- a Republican -- says McCain cannot do this on his own.

It seems to me that if Broder needed a "campaign corruption" peg for his rant against gerrymandering, he'd have done better with something like:

When John McCain decided to "double dip inthe campaign finance system, without regard to the constraints on campaign spending that go with the acceptance of public financing, he was rightly criticized for rigging the system in his favor.

The only reason this re-write wouldn't work, of course, is that first someone in the media would have had to have criticized McCain for cheating the system in the first place.

Comments

[TovSquirrel]

more "Broderisms" to be thrown out with the trash.

[japobere]

I think this is the first article/news item I've seen that actually tells the truth about McCain and how he's the one who's actually manipulating the system. Barack Obama said he would accept public financing IF his Republican opponent did so. McCain did....then he opted out...so Obama didn't break any promises at all. McCain's got some nerve saying Obama's word can't be trusted when he's completely reversed positions on the Bush tax cuts, offshore drilling, the GI bill, etc., etc. Obama is doing what he said he would. He's getting big money out of politics. Most of his donors are less than $100. By contrast, McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists. McCain is just one big mess of a candidate.

[lovethesinner]

Take your pick:

"We cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public."

or

"President Bush is poised for a political comeback...Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts." (Broder, on George W. Bush, writing in early 2007.)

One of these qualifies the Pulitzer committee to demand their prize back.

[musselmanm]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! That is Frank Burns from the Simpsons! You know he of the three eyed nuclear fish for dinner.
This will give me bad dreams, better get out the meds!

[helonias]

A scared old white man.

[Zentomato]

Concerning Mr Broder one old saying keeps coming to mind, "There is no fool like an old fool."

[dumboldfarmer]

That Mr. Broder wrote that statement does not make it true. It was, and is, a statement that intended to mislead, which it does.

[YankeeCanuck]

For a case of "rigging the system" check out "THe Big Buy" on DVD from Brave New Films. Tom DeLay and his TRIMPAC did exactly that in Texas and then in Washington to try to achieve a "permanent Republican majority".
Watch how their actions led to indictments.

[yallerdog]

The convoluted logic the Opologists spin is breathtaking. Since Obama transcends poltics then of course it's OK if everyhing he says or promises or pledges will only be only good until the next time he says or promises or pledges. And the Obama camp gets more Orewellian everyday.
Welcome to Animal Farm!

[nomobull]

give it a rest

[japobere]

Maybe you missed the fact that on this questionnaire that everybody is referencing (I'll say it in all caps so you don't miss it again): HE AGREED TO PUBLIC FINANCING IF (this is important) HIS OPPONENT AGREED AS WELL. If you read the article above (iffy) you would know that McCain opted in, then out, now apparently he's back in. You want to talk about Orwellian?

[jw]

Pay Mr. Broder no mind. The sun is setting on his career and his ideology, so he is bitter.

[XME]

Seeing as how opting out is legal, how could he possibly be 'rigging' the system by doing so. There's a reason candidates have a CHOICE, and Obama took the one that should give him more of a fighting chance. He has that right.

[Kynn]

Rigging the system?

In the McCain-Fiengold campaign reform bill, McCain had injected a work around for private planes.

He's been flying around in his wife's corporate jet for over a year, free of charge because his bill allows you to use your spouse's corporate jet.

Now that's rigging the election law to your favor.

[Bettysdad]

Broder has always been a Republican tool.

This is no surprise.

[laksa]

If anyone cares to read Broder's comments since the beginning of the campaign would realize that he is pro Hillary. Now that Hillary is out of the race and as he is still BITTER, he has gone to the dark side. He has turned Repulican.

[Marlyn]

The reason Republicans were pro Hillary is because they wanted to run against her, since she was a clear loser in the general election.

[DeMaria]

How easy is it to forget that Obama never promised to opt into the campaign financing system without conditions. In his judgment, those conditions were not met, and so he opted out. Sure, it was the smart move, but it was also completely consistent with his promises. He did not go back on his word. He kept his word. But even people who are claiming to support him completely ignore this point. If you're supposed to be a famous blogger, get your facts straight. This one isn't that hard to do.