Fox News Weaponized the Story About Obamas Paid Speech

[OKNancy]

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04/28/fox-news-weaponized-the-story-about-obamas-paid-speech/#.WQNn6oUlUfx.twitter

The fact that Barack Obama will be paid $400,000 by Cantor Fitzgerald for a speech on health care seems to have created a bit of a firestorm. Matt Yglesias writes that “it undermines everything he believes in” and Josh Barro explains why he thinks the former president shouldn’t take Wall Street speaking fees.

When Senator Elizabeth Warren was asked what she thinks about it, she said that she was “troubled.” Warren’s remarks seem to capture the liberal angst about all this. She went on to say that money threatens our democracy. It would be helpful if she would clarify those remarks. Is she suggesting that Obama accepting money for a speech threatens democracy? If so, that is exactly the kind of insinuation I was referring to yesterday about how rhetoric that attacks someone’s moral principles or implies complicity is what divides us.

What is interesting to me about all of this is that it is an example about how the right weaponizes a story to create exactly that kind of division.

--- snip---

When it comes to the story about Obama accepting speaking fees, it is important to note that the story was launched by Fox Business News. All of the sudden what previous presidents – both Democrat and Republican – had been doing for years was scandalized because we’re now talking about Obama. Our current so-called “populist” president once even bragged at a rally that he used to be paid a lot of money for speeches (as much as $1.5 million for a single speech).

Of course the folks at Fox knew this would trigger a dust-up on the left because of the fact that Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees had become such an issue in the 2016 primary. And of course, an awful lot of liberals took the bait.

---snip---

For the people who think that accepting fees for a speech indicates an erosion of our democracy, they should at least acknowledge that former President Obama is actually spending the majority of his time working with young people on civic engagement as well as reducing violence, poverty and unemployment around the country. Otherwise they are simply getting played by Fox News.

[maxsolomon]

1. IOKIYAR

INOKIYAABFP

[Cracklin Charlie]

2. They sure love telling him what to do.

[randr]

3. Obama would have to give one speech a day

for almost 7 years to amass a fraction of what the lsos says he is worth. We need to know where the lsos gets his money.

[Docreed2003]

4. It really is disgusting...

There are those fanning the flames of faux outrage in a poorly veiled attempt to disparage President Obama and divide the party.

[kentuck]

5. And they have no problem with Ivanka or the rest of her family...

...making money off the White House, while sitting in the White House?

Get real, FOX!

[dalton99a]

15. +1

[Gman]

6. These so-called liberals need to quit carrying water for the right wing

They've done enough damage already.

[mcar]

7. Nice work, liberal columnists

And pols.

[BannonsLiver]

8. Plenty of people here falling for it

[Wellstone ruled]

9. Same old same old,

just more of Fox entertainments Race Baiting and African American dog whistling. Murdoch and his operatives have perfected the use of hatred and tagging from the get go. It sells to the white population and that is their goal.

[Qutzupalotl]

10. It's also worth noting he is not in office and not running for anything.

He criticized Clinton for accepting the money for speaking and then running for president. Obama is not doing the same thing that he criticized Clinton for, therefore he is not a hypocrite. As a private citizen, he can do what he wants. It doesn't affect policy one bit.

Meanwhile, Trump hired a slew of Goldman Sachs executives after claiming to be for the little guy.

[roscoeroscoe]

11. Dig into speaking fees

Of former Presidents
Reagan, tons of loot
Bushs, bank bank bank

This is a bullshit issue. One is tempted to say, what? A black President can't make some dough? Really?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. What is the diff between Obama & previous Presidents? Oh, it's visible, esp. to Fox Noise. . nt

[Steven Maurer]

13. As I said in response to the Salon article...

None of these critics can explain exactly why a famous, and very well respected, ex-President shouldn't offer his services as a headliner. Or why he should not insist on being paid the going rate for such speeches, based on the interest that people have in hearing what he has to say.

After all, he is no longer in any position of power, so there is absolutely no way to accuse him of corruption. And when even pseudo-celebreties like K. Fed are charging $300K per appearance, this isn't out of the ordinary in the slightest.

The fundamental emotional difference between Democrats and Green-teabagger neo-Communists, is that while Democrats want to stop corruption and grifting among the rich - but have no problem with people being successful especially if they help others in doing so, neo-Communists hate the very concept of wealth. Indeed, they want to criminalize it.

Green teabagger neo-Communists are also far angrier at Democrats (for not pursuing unrealistic or outright disastrous policies) than they are at Republicans. This is how so many tweets can be thrown out attacking President Obama, while Trump's outrage-du-jour is barely commented on.

[Squinch]

14. Lol! Fox News, nothin'! It's happening here. A lot!

[Imperialism Inc.]

16. Is it a problem when executive branch employees leave for lucrative private jobs

, lobbying or otherwise? I though the near universal answer was yes. Those people are no longer in government so why is it a problem? Well, the usual answer is that knowing their future paydays will come from the very people they are supposed to be overseeing could lead them to have divided loyalties, intentionally or not. The reasons people are criticizing Obama and his speaking fees are the same. No need to invent conspiracies or attribute bad motive.