Dennis Byrne's Obama Baloney

Dennis Byrne has a column today in Chicago Tribune that spouts the "baloney" he falsely accuses the Obama campaign of offering. Byrne begins by claiming that Obama "promised never" to reject public financing. This is utterly false, and I defy Byrne to offer a single example of Obama stating that he would never exceed the $84.1 million spending limits in the general election. Obama did promise to "pursue" an agreement with McCain that included restrictions on party spending where McCain has a clear advantage. But Obama never made an unconditional promise to take public funding.

Byrne give us more "baloney." He claims that Obama’s campaign is "disingenuous" for writing in a fundraising email, "we are at a disadvantage." To prove his case, Byrne cites a news story that Obama "probably will" raise more money than McCain. Perhaps Byrne ought to learn more about tenses before he falsely accuses people of lying. The Obama campaign email is correct that Obama began the general election campaign at a disadvantage. According to OpenSecrets.org, the Republican National Committee has more than $53.5 million cash on hand, while the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has less than $4 million. Would Byrne be willing to admit that a $50 million deficit might rationally be considered a "disadvantage" even if Obama manages to raise more money in the future?

Byrne accuses Obama’s campaign of "shading the truth" because "it implies that all the money comes from small contributions of $5, $10 or $20." Unless Byrne can come up with a single example where Obama’s campaign claimed that all of its money comes from $20 donations or less, he’s "shading the truth" and owes Obama–and his readers–an apology.

Byrne also engages in a particularly absurd kind of intellectual fraud by claiming that it doesn’t matter if Obama refuses donations from PACs and lobbyists because he takes money from "special interests." Byrne then gives us a long list of industries where the employees gave money to Obama. Everybody, including Byrne, works for an industry of one kind or another that has an interest in legislation. But an individual’s donation has nothing to do with the corporation and cannot be called "corporate contributors," as Byrne does. I challenge Byrne to identify a single donor to any campaign who would not qualify as a member of a "special interest" according to Byrne’s definition. If everyone is a "special interest," then the term is meaningless.

Finally, Byrne concludes his column by accurately reporting one fact which contradicts every smear he’s been trying to deploy against the Obama campaign. Byrne notes that in 2004, PACs provided one-tenth of the DNC’s total fundraising. The fact that Obama rejected party funding from PACs that were so important says a lot of his integrity, particularly because Obama could have allowed this funding without breaking the promise for his campaign. The fact that this is one of the few accurate statements in the column says a lot about Byrne’s integrity.

Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.

Comments

[Kwaayesnama]

I live on a remote Indian Reservation in Northern Arizona.
Every payday I donate $25 to the Obama campaign.
Why do I not support Arizona’s son? Because he does not bring any money home to Arizona.
His bragging that he does not ask for any pork spending for our state is absurd. Every other senator and congressmen studies their electorates requests and if they feel they are valid they work to help their constituents. But not John McCain he does not care about us.........

[larry278]

Well, it doesn't have the power of the photo of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Trib that says Dewey won but it does establish another reason why the Trib isn't a newspaper of record. Maybe Sam Zell can cash out by selling the Trib's assetts. He's a business man, not a publisher.

[naschkatze]

The Chicago Tribune announced yesterday that it would be laying off 80 employees. Dennis Byrne certainly should head the list for his consistently sophomoric writing including this piece. He pulled the old canard of calling donors who give more than $200 "big donors". Well, I am one of them. I am giving the Obama campaign $100 a month until the election, but I am a retired RN and am definitely among the little folk. Byrne would not call Republican donors "big donors" for giving $200.

[sage424]

No matter what you say about Obama, the "substantive" nominee of the Democratic Party, who ran on "change now" moved back to the status quo. By electing to take money from donors he has allowed the possibility of money being funneled to his campaign from sources he claims he will not accept money from. It will be impossible to stop the potential abuse. This is one more insight into Barack Obama the quintessential politician and brings into question his character. He shows one face in public and another in private. He has been running for office since before ever entering a race. This is one former supporter who feels betrayed. It isn't that most voters are employees that matters, it is Obama, by not adhering to his promise to taking public funds for his campaign has allowed the opportunity for abuse, exactly what he supposedly stands against. Taking money out of politics is a major factor needed get our government back.

[lisak2008]

You've never supported Obama. You tipped your hand with your entire little post. How do you feel about McCain breaking campaign finance law now and his flip-flopping on whether or not he would use public financing?

McCain really should only give you half of your paycheck for this post, not that I believe you've earned even that much.

[obamagirl1968]

I have worked for a health insurance company, a telecom, a bank and an educational institution. Does that make me a member of these special interest groups?

Thank you for calling out this crap!!

[dana94591]

Thanks, John! I am reading the column right now and I agree with you. We, the working stiffs of this country, actually work FOR companies we don't run them. I think the opposition is reaching for straws here and they try to make something out of anything that they can get their hands on. Thanks for posting!!!

[Stephen420]

Thanks for the excellent post. You make an especially good point about so-called "corporate contributers." I was only recently made aware of this linguistic scam, and everybody should know just what it takes (and doesn't take) to be a corporate contributor. GOP sleights of hand like this are going to multiply like bacteria this summer. Thanks for the heads up!

[PATina]

Thanks for pointing all that out.