MOBILE
A hypocrite by necessity
February 13, 2012
“One of the worries we have obviously in the next campaign is that there are so many of these so-called super PACs, these independent expenditures that are gonna be out there, there is gonna be just a lot of money floating around and I guarantee a bunch of it’s gonna be negative.” – President Barack Obama in an interview Super Bowl Sunday.
“ President Barack Obama – in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder – has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC …” – From a story on Politico the next day.
We’ve seen this movie before. In 2008, candidate Obama broke a promise to use public campaign financing, thereby gaining a tactical advantage at the expense of betraying his professed principles. Of course, politics is hell on principles, so one can hardly be surprised at his decision now to embrace a super PAC set up on his behalf. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Maybe you’ve seen recent episodes of “The Colbert Report” in which Stephen Colbert has spoofed the super PAC rules by following them. He formed a super PAC, raised a million dollars, then announced his candidacy for “president of the United States of South Carolina” and, in accordance with the law, turned control of the money over to “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, who then ran an ad slamming Mitt Romney, Colbert’s “opponent” in the South Carolina primary. This was all legal, so long as the two did not “coordinate” their activities.
That Colbert and Stewart are friends and business partners and shared staff did not count as “coordination.” Which sort of puts it into perspective when a real candidate shrugs and says he has no control over nasty takedown ads run against his opponent by some super PAC controlled by his friend or business partner.
It also offers vivid illustration of how disastrous was the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case that paved the way for corp- orations to dump unlimited money into the electoral process. The court blessed this chicanery under the theory that money is speech. One does not dismiss a free speech argument lightly, but one should dismiss this one just the same.
If a billionaire wants to express her opinion, let her write a letter to the editor like anyone else. Let her take out an ad in the local paper.
But giving her the ability to flood an election with unlimited, practically unregulated money gives her an unfair and insurmountable advantage, rendering her voice exponentially louder than that of the average citizen. Worse, as we see with Obama, it inaugurates a cash flow arms race from which no candidate, however principled, can afford to opt out.
One is reminded of a perverse old reading of the golden rule: “He who has the gold makes the rules.” That saying has about as much to do with the actual golden rule as the court’s decision does with free speech, but it neatly sums up the effect that decision has had on American politics.
It is past time we the people demanded that corporate cash be banned from politics, and that all candidates be required to accept public financing. Until then, we are doomed to keep seeing this movie.
Politico casts Obama’s decision as an act of either hypocrisy or necessity. But see, that’s just the problem:
It was both.
NOTE: In a recent column, I announced a giveaway of 50 copies of “The New Crow” by Michelle Alexander. The winners have been chosen. Go to miamiherald.com to see if you’re one of them. If you are, the book should be in your mailbox soon.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
No…just a hypocrit. In 2008 and 3.5 years later…same hypocrit…same reason…money. Lenny cannot soften this one for brother Obama. EIther that or the “Devil made him do it”..
No…just a hypocrite. In 2008 and 3.5 years later…same hypocrite…same reason…money. Lenny cannot soften this one for brother Obama. EIther that or the “Devil made him do it”..
I guess this must be one of those cases where, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” I have to agree with dazed. If you condemn it, don’t expect folks to believe in some contrived double standard when you turn around and then do what you just condemned.
The devil doesn’t make anyone do anything. At least, not anything they’re not already inclined to do. If you choose to commit the sin you condemn in others, you are accountable for the consequences.
Period.
Well said Jeffery.
I agree with the the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United other wise we taxation without representation.
If we are going to tax Corps they should have a say in who’s taxing them. We fought a revolution partially over this principle.
Of course obama is embracing the super pacs, he has compromised his principles on most every thing else why stop now.
Just like every other politician out there he is being purchased by someone, in obama’s case the unions have purchased a good chunk of his good will.
When will we learn to remove all of the professional politicians, only then will we have a real chance to repair this country.
Principles are of course important…. but my view is that the “Citizens United” Supreme Court Ruling is without any principles at all… an obscene distortion of the presidential as well as our local elections. The “Citizens” of Citizens United are not identifiable… and thus not a visible part of the process.
The Republican Nomination process has been grossly distorted and manipulated by the Super Pacs and their ability to pour negative ads on the eyes of the television viewer.
President Obama proceeding to “fight fire with fire” or bring his big guns to an otherwise unfair fight seems fine to me… it may perhaps highlight how broken our political system is as a result of the worst supreme court decision in my life. I do not think I would “spot” the other side a few points, or play with only one hand either.
In order to make a “bully’ go away you have to be willing to Punch them to the ground. That is what Mr Obama seems to be doing. John/Gus
Orphan,
I’m not sure I agree with the Citizen’s United decision. Corporations don’t vote - at least not yet. Their share-holders vote. Their officers vote. Their employees vote. Why isn’t that sufficient representation for a corporation’s interests?
And while I agree completely that professional politicians are a blight upon the system, what makes a person a ‘professional’? Isn’t it the fact that they get paid? I think the far more pressing need is to remove money from politics. Make votes the thing that politicians work for - not campaign contributions.
Hypocrisy? Really? It’s the least of our concerns. There’s this one, hard, cold reality. It’s that 94% of all elections, 94%, people, from dog catcher to president, are won by the candidate who spends the most money.
All the pledges of purity in the world won’t conquer that reality. So are any of you electoral purists proposing ANYTHING to change that reality? Where’s the Republican election funding reform bill. Oh, that’s right, they are pre-occupied with keeping brown people, poor people and young people from voting.
Democrats are no better.
Somehow, some way, we need to get the money out of political campaigning. Some combination of contribution limits, required donation of network air time, and maybe funnelling all donations through the political parties needs to happen or our democracy is toast.
The idea that multi-milliioinaires are just exercising their Constitutional right of free speech when they dump hundreds of millions into candidates nobody really wants (Gingrich, Romney? Give me a break). They expect something in return, and I can promise you it won’t be good for working taxpayers.
Brace yourselves for a rough, nasty ride, all you defenders of the .1 percenters. They are about to tell you who the next President of the United States will be.
Get the money out, or get used to it and quit whining. At least Donald Trump’s First Amendment rights were protected, and that’s what counts, right.
With this corporate lawyered Supreme Court, our Republic is in real peril. Citizens United is exhibit one. It’s the reason the Occupy Movement erupted to eclipse the Tea Party.
The prospect that Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum could be in a position to keep this group of corporate handmaidens in charge is reason enough to vote for Obama. The behavior of the Super PACs and Republican Secretaries of State who are trying to shrink the brown vote is another good reason to vote for Obama, the hypocrite who still believes in the power of government to do good.
Choose your hypocrites carefully people. Who owns your government lies in the balance.
If all your opponents are using steroids, and the judges say it’s OK to use steroids, are you gonna try and win or are you gonna try and stay pure cuz you promised everyone you would?
You can win the Prize, or your can win the Good Sport Award.
The same person rarely wins both.
Sh!tizens United. The worst Supreme Court decision ever.
You know, of all my friends, whether Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, we all have a couple of things in common. Most of us are working class folks and all of us think Citizens United is an abomination. Seriously, not one single person I know supports it, wants it or agreed with it.
My question is, what can be done about it?
WHS
The biggest problem is Obama did not strike while the iron was hot, instead he tackled health care. I strongly feel there could have been a bipartisan attempt to make a Constitutional Amendment if an attempt were made at the time of the decision, now the outrage is mostly on the side of liberals.
JimVW2 Did you really say this.
The idea that multi-milliioinaires are just exercising their Constitutional right of free speech when they dump hundreds of millions into candidates nobody really wants (Gingrich, Romney? Give me a break)
Romney will most likely be the republican candidate and he will get somewhere around half of the votes cast for president. so saying nobody really wants him is a bit of a reach. The last few elections have been won by slim margins a 2 to 3 percent swing would have changed most presidential elections in recent history. I don’t expect this coming election to be much different.
You are projecting your feelings onto others, something you do with frightening regularity.
Please explain how republicans are preventing “brown people, poor people and young people from voting.” You said it now back up your statement.
Jim So besides multi-millionaires and Donald Trump, what others or groups of others 1st Amendment rights would you like to restrict.
So not allowing illegal or even legal aliens for that matter to vote is somehow restricting brown people from voting. Did I get that correct you want people that are not citizens of our country to vote for president, really Jim really.
Keep in mind Jim that there a re a lot of incumbent Democrats running for reelection in both the senate and house. I for one would be OK with obama being reelected with a republican Senate and House. This is a very good possibility with the mood of the people at the moment.
WHS on February 13 at 8:06 a.m.
My question is, what can be done about it?
Pass some law against it. Reform the election process. Find some country in the world that has this whole money and election thing figured out, then copy that.
Never happen. Unfortunately, once the House and Senate folk reach the thin air they fall in love with the money and power. The Senate is the worst - they are completely out of touch with us because they are not us. They are all rich and playing gubmint for something to do. They want the power baby.
WHS: There ia a petition one can sign from DSCC called “Reverse Citizens United”.. It reads as follows: “The Citizens United ruling has brought a flood of shadowy, corporate money into our Political process. It’s an attack on our Democracy. In a system where one person, one vote is supposed to be the rule, huge corporations are having an outsized influence.”
“Now a group of Democratic Senators have introduced a Constitutional Amendment to limit corporate influence in elections. Sign our petition and demand passage of the Reverse Citizens United Amendment. Voters need to have the biggest voice in our Democracy, not corporate-financed special interests”
If this sounds like something you may be interested in, just google Reverse Citizens United.. The petition is easy to find..
Jeffery A very good essay on citizens United and within is why I support it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012005149.html
You’ve strayed from the point kids. He’s a hypocrite.
I know…the R’s MADE him be a hypocrite for money.
It’s THEIR fault Obama’s a hypocrite….
You just don’t like the truth. I suppose he’s rationalized being a liar…..because the world would stop if he’s not re-elected. My oh my…what would we do without Brother Obama at the helm of this disaster??? Another trillion over budget today kids.
Constitutionaly speaking, I think I might be able to find a way to be okay with money for campaign adds being free speech if the people giving the money were the ones doing the actual speaking.
Dennis Patterson—Deer Park
I think it is somewhat funny that Pitts writes this article but is then rather lenient on Obama for accepting this type of funding.
As has been stated before, the goal of politics is to win, one could say that Obama’s reversal on this is like trying to fight fire with fire. It is hypocritical of Obama, however.
At this point though, it doesn’t really matter who is taking what from which super PAC. It would be a better idea for all Americans to get behind initiatives which take the money out of elections, back legislation making these super PACs illegal, and force our reps in the Senate and House to accept term limits and a reduction in pay.
Orphan,
And here’s a rebuttal that appeared in the same newspaper. (While I don’t agree with all of the author’s points, I think he still makes a good case.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-citizens-united-catastrophe/2012/02/05/gIQATOEfsQ_story.html
Here’s another very interesting essay. Note especially the analysis of the challenges efforts to get a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens will face.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/the_hard_truth_of_citizens_united/
Orphan thinks multi-billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is a “citizens group”. That the Koch brothers are a “citizens group”, (hey there’s more than one of them, so sure, they’re just a group of ordinary citizens, of course.)
This is the sick-in-the-head WARPED mentality we in the reality based community are trying to deal with.
Green I also thing George Soros is a citizens group, Unions are too and so are all the other folks that contribute huge amounts of money to the liberal side of things.
Let me ask this question of you. How much is an actors endorsement of a political candidate worth? should we also limit their ability to endorse anyone running for office? If we are going to stop rich people from expressing them selves we should stop Will Smith, Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin etc from endorsing candidates. After all they are rich people attempting to influence elections.
Where would you draw the line Green free speech for all or just some?
What you are really upset about is the conservatives are out spending the liberals at the moment. That is because the conservatives are more upset than the liberals are. Hang in there Green it will change when the conservatives control the government after the next election.
Green you act like none of this happens on the liberal side of things, if you truly believe this you are very naive. I suspect you are more like a religious leader who proudly states all those other religions have it all wrong, follow me for I am the one and only one that knows the righteous and true way.
Green You are a great example of who should not be running this country. Because i have a different opinion I am now sick-in-the-head and have a WARPED mentality. For all your professions of tolerance you have very little tolerance for anyone else’s opinion. The really scary part is you think your part of the reality based community.
Jeffery I can’t get either link to open. I think I read the second one, it was interesting. I dont believe Citizens United will be over turned any time in the near future but you never know what the future holds.
BTW I 100% agree with ”
Make votes the thing that politicians work for - not campaign contributions.”
“Let me ask this question of you. How much is an actors endorsement of a political candidate worth? should we also limit their ability to endorse anyone running for office? If we are going to stop rich people from expressing them selves we should stop Will Smith, Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin etc from endorsing candidates. After all they are rich people attempting to influence elections.”
How about every single person can make one capped donation to the candidate of their choosing and then they get to vote? I don’t think anonymous millionaires and billionaires ought to be allowed to throw as much money as they can at a candidate to help that person win election. How much is an endorsement from a celebrity worth? I would say it depends on the celebrity. Case in point, Trump endorsed Romney, if I were Romney I’d have said “Thanks, but no thanks, Donald” or “You have to keep this quiet.”
Orhan: Citizens United is yet another loophole to allow those who have unlimited resources to continue to far outweigh any one average persons vote.. Is it right, NO.. This is why our House and Senate MUST put limits on this madness..
While I don’t approve of Green-Libs bashing of you, or you of him, I do find you both to be part of the “Reality based Community”..
Orhan, you stated this was about “Free Speech” Not sure I connect with that.. My feeling leans towards I have Big Money, I want to keep it, how much is it going to take to get you on my side.. This goes for Dems and Repubs alike..
Per your statement, “How much is an actors endorsement of a Political Candidate worth?” While voting for McCain over Obama, I did so with a heavy heart.. Had to do with Mr McCain going on the David Letterman show, pretty much on his hands and knees asking Mr Letterman’s forgiveness for an untoward comment he made about him.. Thought to myself, and this guy wants to be President.. Voted for him anyway, but made a commitment to look alot closer from then on.. My commitment has led me strongly in this direction..
Well, I came back to reinform all you Obama apologists that Obama was an hypocrite in 2008 and he still is. Looks like the socialist is the same one the left hired. Nothing’s changed…..
HOPE and CHANGE??? looks like business as usual…no change and very little hope.
“No change and very little hope”
You may be right Dazz, 12/21/12 is upon us..
Well folks, we have only just seen the beginning. Just wait until the Republicans actually pick somebody… We will see a multi-billion dollar super duper pac come out and the airwaves will literally be flooded with rhetoric and lies. I mean look at what they are doing to each other… Just imagine when they combine their shared hate…
This is going to be a bad time for Americans… And I suspect it will be one of the most negative, pandering, pitiful, spiteful campaign seasons any of us has ever witnessed.
WHS
btw, I signed the petition - Thanks!
WHS: Your Welcome..So right, We aint seen nuthin yet..
Leonard Pitts wrote,
“If a billionaire wants to express her opinion, let her write a letter to the editor like anyone else. Let her take out an ad in the local paper … But giving her the ability to flood an election with unlimited, practically unregulated money gives her an unfair and insurmountable advantage, rendering her voice exponentially louder than that of the average citizen.”
Ah, poor Lenny. He is badly confused, and like many of the commenters here, he has no clue as to what the First Amendment actually says.
No one is “giving” the billionaire the ability to buy media time. She gave it to herself, by earning a billion dollars. And the First Amendment says “Congress shall make *no law*” infringing freedom of speech. That even embraces the billionaire’s speech, Leonard.
You do know what “no law” means, don’t you, Leonard?
And contrary to what you may be assuming, the First does not guarantee anyone “speech equality.” It does not guarantee you or anyone else a microphone, a printing press, a talented speechwriter, or an audience. If you can’t come up with those things on your own, and some other speaker “drowns out” your message, tough luck for you.
At least you got it right re: Obama’s hypocrisy.
“Why isn’t that sufficient representation for a corporation’s interests?”
It is not a question of representation. It is a question of free speech. There is no “speech equality” clause in the First Amendment, nor any “speech equality” exception to its command that Congress shall make “no law” abridging that freedom.
jimwv2 wrote,
” … required donation of network air time … ”
Ah, and here’s Jim, lobbying for yet another free lunch.
Just can’t keep those hands out of other people’s pockets, can ya?
Soros, unions, etc. should be limited in buying influence just the same as it should be with Gingrich’s casino mogul buddy and the Koch brothers.
That is only going to occur with a new majority on the Supreme Court.
Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg are likely to retire during the next administration. Obama will appoint SC justices not so much in the pocket of big money, and Citizens United will be reversed eventually.
I would support term limits as well, because all top pols are spending the bulk of their time doing fund raising and being influenced by lobbyists, in order to secure perpetual re-election.
Make a donation to the politician of your choice that is running, then cast your vote.
This BS that “I have more money, my voice is louder” has to end.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Soros, unions, etc. should be limited in buying influence . . .”
Are you accusing them of bribery? Or merely whining because they might influence voters?
Here’s a tip: influencing voters is the purpose of political speech, the very speech the First Amendment was especially intended to protect.
“Citizens United will be reversed eventually.”
On what grounds? As I mentioned above, there is no “speech equality” clause in the First Amendment. You (and many others) are inserting your spurious egalitarian ideology into the First Amendment. But that amendment guarantees *free* speech, not “equal speech.”
As in every other case, freedom and equality are incompatible and irreconcilable.
Green You misunderstand the SCOTUS their job is to judge if laws are constitutional that’s it no less no more.
You are assuming/hoping they will do more than that if in your opinion the correct judges get appointed, that is so wrong.
The amusing thing about all this wailing and moaning about the Citizens’ United ruling is that the whiners’ underlying assumption contradicts the fundamental premise of republican government – that humans are capable of governing themselves, i.e., that they are rational, informed, and prudent. The whiners assume the opposite – that voters are ignorant, gullible, and reckless, dunderheads who would vote for Charlie Manson if Manson bought enough teevee time.
Stitch I also voted for McCain with a heavy heart, there was not much of a choice.
My point on the actors was they are exercising their right to free speech and in essence they are Corporations. I see no difference between an actor supporting a political candidate and a corporation supporting a candidate.
I will always debate/discuss a topic civilly and respect others opinions but if I am attacked I will respond in kind.
gmorton said it very well and again much better than I can write when he said .
As in every other case, freedom and equality are incompatible and irreconcilable.
This every thing must be fair to everyone is simply a fairy tale.
Orphan: Your opinion is valued as always..
gmorton: While I respect your opinion, You may ask your Doctor about an Anti-hypertensive medication.. He may wish to put parameters on it’s use..ie If your systolic pressure falls below 100, he may want you to hold it..
Nobody is trying to take anybody’s right away to say what they want, whenever they want.. Just want to see parameters in place to not allow Money to speak significantly louder than those who have less.. That would include a whole lot of us..
Citizens United opened up a whole new loophole for the vast MINORITY of those to once again flex their wealth in an attempt to Control all of those around them, including the very people who run our country.. To quote Det-Dude, “This BS I have more money, my voice is louder,has to end” Or at least be limited in amount that elections are not won or lost because of, I have more money for my campaign commercials than you..
Orphan on February 13 at 6:19 p.m.
Green You misunderstand the SCOTUS their job is to judge if laws are constitutional that’s it no less no more.
That opinion ignores THE HISTORY of the Court. I am a realist.
stitch wrote,
“Nobody is trying to take anybody’s right away to say what they want, whenever they want.. Just want to see parameters in place to not allow Money to speak significantly louder than those who have less.”
You just contradicted yourself.
Of course, you tried to hide the contradiction by depersonalizing the subject, i.e., pretending that “money” speaks.
Money does not speak; people do. They spend money in an attempt to speak more effectively. And thus the contradiction: putting “parameters” in place on people’s speech, such as a “parameter” on how much money they may spend on speech, prevents them from saying “what they want, whenever they want.” “Parameters” and free speech are incompatible.
” … allow Money to speak significantly louder than those who have less.”
As I mentioned, the First Amendment does not guarantee “speech equality.” If some people are able to speak louder than you, tough. You’ll have to deal with it, since gummint has no legitimate power to “equalize” your speech opportunities with someone else’s. Any attempt on its part to do so would violate the *free* speech guarantee of the First Amendment.
Mr Morton: Sir, I don’t pretend anything in what I said.. Money does speak, it speaks very loud and it speaks very clear.. It says I can get anything I want, anytime I want it.. Why? Because I’m Money damnit.. If you want me, you must think like me, and you must do as I say or you don’t get me.. You can quote the 1st amendment all you want, but this I know, there has to be some restraints put on those who attempt to use their vast fortunes in an attempt to manipulate the very people that we put our trust in.. It will happen, and rightfully so..
“You can quote the 1st amendment all you want, but this I know, there has to be some restraints put on those who attempt to use their vast fortunes in an attempt to manipulate the very people that we put our trust in.”
So you *really* don’t believe in the 1st amendment. . .
Have you considered the real problem is not “money” nor the people that spend the money, rather the POLITICIANs they seek to influence?
It is corrupt politicians and their bureaucratic agents that are the real problem. We have allowed them to usurp extra-constitutional power over us, power they use to grant favorable treatment to those who will help them stay in power. As long as politicians (and the bureaucracy) have great power, an unholy alliance between them and myriad special interests will exist.
Our only hope is to reduce the power the pols and the bureaucracy have by putting the federal government back in the box called the U.S. Constitution. Especially since the time of FDR, the Constitution has been under assault. The current administration tramples on it daily.
Of course those of you on the left refuse to see this or don’t care as you are generally happy with what BHO is doing. And, we all know, you believe the “ends justify the means”. What you don’t realize is you are little more than convenient idiots for the leftist establishment that are counting on you to reflexively vote for BHO again. Unfortunately, for all of us, it may be too late to save the country by the time you wake up from your utopian free-lunch fantasy.
woamike: Is that what the Reverse Citizens United Amendment, Insider trading, and hopefully soon the forever absence of Mr Norquist from the halls of Congress is all about, “an unholy alliance”..
I’ve heard day in and day out, comments relating to anybody but Obama, But not ONCE has anyone even remotely suggested who they may vote for to replace him, and why.. Until then, I will continue to live in my “utopian free-lunch fantasy”
stitch wrote,
“You can quote the 1st amendment all you want, but this I know, there has to be some restraints put on those who attempt to use their vast fortunes in an attempt to manipulate the very people that we put our trust in . . .”
Well, of course you would think so. Every despot in history has demanded “restraints” and parameters” on free speech, lest someone point out that the Emperor has no clothes.
BTW, what is the difference between “manipulating” and “influencing”? It wouldn’t be merely a matter of who is doing it, would it? I.e., when you attempt to change someone’s mind, you are influencing them. But if someone else tries to change your mind, they are “manipulating” you.
Hmmm?
Mr Morton: Seem to have struck a nerve, so now the play on words begin.. Actually this is sorta fun, were just a bunch of unknowns expressing our opinions to no-one in particular.. Gettin late, take care friend..
If Obama didn’t make use of a superpac, he’d only lose to the people who did. The kind of people who are themselves hypocritical about their intentions for the gvt they wish to represent and on who’s behalf the gvt should act.
Dazzeetrader, jumping in every few comments and whining about Obama’s failings brings to mind that you are possibly projecting your failures onto to him.
Yeah, I’m sure that you guys in the majority would rather that Obama stay pure to principle. How do you know that Obama isn’t just as disgusted that he has to turn to a super pac for his prospect for re-election as he has in condemning other super pacs that without shame his political opponents use. And all the corrupting and yes, big gvt influence that will be the consequences there of.
I think that all of you missed the point. super pacs would not come into the picture, no more than lobbyists would, if they didn’t want something from gvt and weren’t prepared to buy it at any price.
AD,
The tag line for this editorial was, “Hypocrite by necessity.”
You accurately point out the necessity. Money buys elections, or at the very least gives a significant advantage over campaigns with inferior financial resources. I condemn the system that thus forces the necessity. But I don’t specifically blame any individual candidate more than I blame them all collectively for allowing such a state of affairs to come into being.
So I don’t fault Obama for bowing to the necessity. As you say, as a purely practical matter it was never a question of choice. I do fault him for condemning the practice in one breath, and then in the very next breath partaking of that which he just condemned. That’s hypocrisy. And that is a choice.