Bob McCarty Writes

It’s impossible to ignore the fact that Barack Obama seems to have an unlimited source of campaign funds. Only yesterday, I highlighted the fact that even CBS News couldn’t pass up the opportunity — albeit “too little, too late” – to expose the Democratic Party presidential nominee’s shady dealing, something I’ve deemed a blatant display of “Buy-Partisanship.”

Buy-Partisanship is a word I coined to describe the approach being used by the Obama-Biden campaign in its attempt to win the White House.  Judging by the headlines that have appeared above many recent articles about the Obama-Biden campaign’s fundraising results, I think the word fits:

The Buying of the Presidency 2008 by Richard Baehr, Real Clear Politics;

In essence, we do not have a fair fight. Obama has always liked it that way when it comes to his campaigns. Obama said at one point that if the McCain campaign brought “a knife to the fight, we would bring a gun” — revealing that he did not care about a level playing field .

Where’s Media Talk About Obama Buying The Election? by Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters;

If John McCain had gone back on his promise to accept public campaign money, and instead set fundraising records that put him as many as fourteen points ahead in the polls with less than two weeks to go before Election Day, do you think there’d be a lot of media carping and whining about rich Republicans buying the White House?

Probably 24 hours a day, seven days a week until the final vote had been counted, correct?

Yet, despite Barack Obama having gone back on his campaign promise to accept public funds, and reports that he’s now over $600 million in contributions, the Obama-loving press don’t seem very concerned with liberals buying the presidency.

McCain: You could make the argument that Obama’s buying the election by ALLAHPUNDIT, Hot Air.com;

As for candidates buying elections, the media’s double standards have become so blatant that they’re almost not worth pointing out anymore.

Obama Buys the Election, Most Media Are Silent by Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com

On CNN’s “Reliable Sources” this past Sunday, Howard Kurtz asked Time magazine contributor Mark Halperin: “If a Republican had not taken public financing and had raised all that money, and the Democrat was struggling financially, wouldn’t we see a lot of stories about one candidate essentially trying to buy the election?”

Halperin’s response: “We would. We’d also see a lot of stories about his going back on his word, saying that he would accept the public money and would reach out to Senator McCain to try to work out a deal.

“So I think this is a case of a clear, unambiguous double standard, and any reporter who doesn’t ask themselves, ‘Why is that, why would it be different if it’s a Republican?’ I think is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice.”

Overmatched: Obama’s shock and awe spending edge, Editorial, NewsOK.com

We’ve never favored Washington politicians restricting campaign contributions — and the First Amendment. So when we hear Democrat Barack Obama raised $150 million in September and has raised $600 million overall, we’re tempted to say more power to him.

Yet we can’t help but think such eye-popping numbers would raise more eyebrows if it were Republican John McCain with a nearly 3-1 spending edge — even greater in some key states. There’d be no shortage of voices accusing McCain of trying to buy the election.

There are, of course, many other examples available.  The key point, however, is this: If you’re still undecided on Nov. 4, remember to listen to “The Poll Whisperer” before you cast your vote.