Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

An Incessant Task: Calling Out Hypocrisy

Sometimes this is redundant. Sometimes it's comical. Sometimes it just happens over and over and over, and you feel as if you're going in circles. Regardless, debates should occur, and people should learn from each other in order to understand the world around them. This article discusses two recent cases that I would deem blatant hypocrisy by the Obama administration (as well as the liberal media), and liberal celebrities.

The following article appeared on CNN yesterday: It claims Obama's re-election campaign raised more than $60 million in May. $60 million! Romney's campaign raised $23 million. When looking at other campaign finance funds (something the media mixes around; the difference between a campaign's fundraising and a political group like the DNC's fundraising), the Obama campaign's victory fund along with the DNC reported it had $114 million cash on hand while the RNC/joint Romney fund held $107 million.

Is this a big deal? To me, the issue of campaign finance is not. In don't care how much money is raised by campaigns, SuperPACs, etc. I'm strongly in favor of the Supreme Court's ruling on the often-cited Citizen's United case because of one major facet: it does not discriminate. Democrats and republicans can raise campaign funds as they see fit. The problem I have is when the left cries foul over campaign finance while doing the same thing themselves. Obama so brazenly scolded the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision in his 2010 State of the Union address only to openly endorse the use of a SuperPAC that supports his re-election bid. See it here:

Yes, I've written about this before (see: I'm sure many readers are wondering why I'm writing about this again. This isn't as much an write-up about campaign finance itself; this instead puts some numbers behind the hypocrisy. For example, I'm sure by now everyone knows that Scott Walker defeated the recall effort against him in Wisconsin. I'm also sure that most people know the left scolded the right's spending during the campaign. The chants by the left have been similar in nature: "we got outspent 7 to 1," and "the GOP bought this election." This, of course, doesn't include the $21 million spent by unions during the recall campaign: see it here and here, plus many more.

It just strikes me as ridiculously hypocritical of the left to complain about campaign fundraising and spending by the GOP when the left themselves happily participates in this game. They complain about team Romney's fundraising while anyone can easily point out the typical counter-argument, "oh look... you guys raised how much yourselves?!"

My advice to the left (because I think you'll start to be called out on this): Either participate and be quiet about it (you're in the arena playing the game), or don't and protest against it. Don't complain about the GOP's "money machine" while attending one $40,000 per ticket fundraiser after another. There aren't many Americans who can afford a $40,000 piece of veal. So don't say the GOP is out of touch because of their money raising and their wealth while you attend these expensive events. Admit you're in it and you play the game, or don't, but don't try to claim you're so disgusted by how much money is raised by the GOP when you yourself are a fundraising juggernaut. This wreaks of John Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" remark.

The second issue is with Hollywood celebrities blasting Mitt Romney's wealth while being extremely wealthy (and in some cases, more wealthy) themselves. Check it out:

Of course, no one seems to have a problem with Obama's wealth. I guess if you're in the 1%, the left wants to have it both ways when you're the leader. Obama's net worth of about $11.8 million is small in comparison to Mitt Romney's, but it's 25 times that of the average American, and well above the $77,000 median net worth for the country ( Romney's wealth and Obama's wealth are one in the same: they are both super wealthy. They are in the 1%. But from the left's point of view, Obama is okay and not too wealthy to lead... but Romney is?! Where is the line? If Romney is too wealthy, and Obama isn't, I want to know what dollar figure of net worth does one have to cross to become too wealthy

At the end of the day these celebrities are using their namesake and their influence to spread this drivel about Romney's wealth while toeing a thin hypocritical line. They want to chide Romney and the "greedy, rich republicans," while basking in the same lifestyle. There have been numerous reports, for example, that make Romney look bad for having a car elevator and a "couple Cadillacs" (keep in mind, of course, there is no law preventing anyone from obtaining their own car elevator, and if one works hard, it can be earned). Of course, while blasting Romney's personal wealth, none of the celebrities mention their luxury cars, vacation homes, or other expensive toys. As it is with Obama's campaign: don't rail against campaign finance while you play the same game. For the rich, celebrity, Romney wealth-bashing types: don't rail against Romney's wealth while waking up every day in your mansions and while driving your expensive cars. You can't have it both ways. Well, I guess you can... if you're on late-night TV with no one fact checking you.


  1. Keep calling it out, LME!

    Democrats: "The GOP is buying elections. They are a money machine."

    The DNC accounts manager: $108 mil, $109 mil, $110 mil

  2. Agree with MN here. Our job is to keep calling it out. It never gets redundant.

  3. I feel like this situation is more complex than a 'either don't do it, or don't complain' ultimatum.

    You can be against something, but still take part in it either because of law or because it's not realistic for you not to while it is legal and everyone else is taking advantage of it.

    Anytime any candidate has attempted to take a hard-line stance against adopting evolutions in the ever-changing political campaigning/financing system, they've lost in a landslide. There are plenty examples of this in history; a major one being this:

    "The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process."
    -Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson, 1956

    The answer to fixing what you may or may not find wrong in a political campaign/finance system isn’t to not use the advantage and hope to ‘lead by example’, it’s to win the election so that you can pass the changes you campaign on. And to purposefully give your campaign a major disadvantage versus the competitor on nothing more than principle, is far more shooting yourself in your own foot and cutting off your nose to spite your face than anything else.