July 8, 2008
The symbolism of Obama's mass rally
The Democratic Party has announced that Barack Obama, who claims he will close corporate tax loopholes to pay for other proposals, will not accept the party's presidential nomination at the site where the rest of the party's convention is being held, but at a separate location: one whose name has been bought -- or at least partially paid for -- by a corporation that takes advantage of just such a tax dodge.
The new plans call for Obama to accept the Dems' nod, not at the Pepsi Center where the rest of the convention will occur, but at a football stadium whose naming rights are owned by Invesco, Ltd. According to Wikiedia, Invesco is an investment firm headquartered in Atlanta. However, "on 3 December 2007, Invesco PLC moved its primary stock market listing from the London Stock Exchange to the NYSE and became domiciled in Bermuda", a place in which U.S. corporations' tax obligations mysteriously disappear--as if in some Bermuda tax triangle.
Obama has railed against such corporate tax loopholes in the past. And he has vowed to pay for some of his proposals "by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated."
A presidential candidate's acceptance speech is widely regarded as the most important moment of his campaign, a time when he has the nation's undivided attention and when he can introduce, or re-introduce, himself to the public before the start of the traditional fall campaign. That Obama would take the extraordinary step of moving the event from the convention hall to this particular site speaks of, at best, a tin ear to the symbolism or, at worst, hypocrisy.
Big Media, of course, has ignored this, focusing their coverage instead on the Obama camp's claim that more than 75,000 people may be on hand when the Big O accepts the party's nomination in Denver later this summer. Also ignored is the role that fund-raising failures and poor planning may have had on the decision.
However, now that the decision has been made, maybe the Obama camp can learn something from it. Perhaps they can sell naming rights to their campaign. Maybe Goldman Sachs, which according to OpenSecrets.org is the largest of Obama's many large campaign-contribution bundlers, can buy the rights, meaning that the media--as with stadiums whose naming rights have been purchased--would have to refer to "the Obama-Goldman Sachs presidential campaign."
To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99
Login
Subscribe / Change PwdAd Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Antisemitism in the Guise of Humanism
- Escaping the State of Sin
- Outsquatting the Squatters
- From Illegal Alien Invaders to Newcomers to Democrats
- The Impact of China-Linked Contractors on U.S. Security
- Debunking the Stupid, Yet Passionately Held, Myths About the 1994 Crime Bill
- The Death of the American Salesman
- The Alarm Bell Is Clanging
- Voting and the Meaning of Honor
- Exploding The Myth That Islam Is An Abrahamic Religion
Blog Posts
- So was Hunter Biden 'Our Man in Ukraine'?
- The suspect who smashed Kaylee Gain’s head into the pavement claims she’s the victim
- About those innocent Palestinian civilians...
- The GOP seems to be on the verge of capitulating before the Democrats, again!
- Biden and the insurmountable
- Universe twice as old as we’ve been told?
- Ketanji Brown Jackson is a fascist who should be removed from the Court
- Can Letitia James handle the rough world of property management?
- It’s time to stop accommodating the crazies in America
- The value of perspective
- And then they voted Democrat in November
- Trump towers in his mastery of words to rally voters
- Planet Fitness loses $400 million in value after banning woman who exposed the company’s anti-female stance
- Schadenfreude: New movie labeling white people ‘dangerous animals’ flops at box office
- Why are American youths so unhappy?