June 20, 2008

6/20: Keeping The Pressure On Obama

We're only two weeks into the general election campaign and the netroots are already upset about some of the decisions that Barack Obama has made. First, the netroots are angry that Obama taped a radio ad on behalf of a conservative GA congressman facing a primary challenge from a progressive state senator. While some suspect that Obama's decision was motivated by his desire to make a play for GA, they are nevertheless disappointed by the move and are urging their readers to donate money to the progressive challenger.

The netroots are also disappointed by Obama's silence regarding the FISA compromise bill, which gives legal protection to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance activities. Liberal bloggers believe that the FISA bill is not a compromise but a "capitulation", and they're dismayed that Obama (who opposes retroactive immunity for telecoms) isn't using his bully pulpit to draw attention to this issue. It's clear that while the netroots are excited about Obama's candidacy, they won't hesitate to criticize him when he steps out of line. It's less clear whether Obama will respond to the netroots' criticism, however.

In more positive news for Obama, the netroots strongly support his decision to opt out of the public financing system. Liberal bloggers are excited about Obama's potential ability to outspend John McCain and expand the general election battlefield to traditionally red states. They also believe that Obama's decision is morally justified, arguing that (a.) his heavy reliance on small Internet donations is consistent with the spirit of campaign finance reform, and (b.) McCain is not beyond approach when it comes to this issue. Conservative bloggers, of course, are strongly criticizing Obama's decision, portraying it as the latest in a long series of flip-flops.

FISA: Don't Say We Didn't Warn You, Blue Dogs

The netroots are furious that Congress has reached a deal to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and "give telecommunications companies their much sought-after protections from lawsuits". The netroots have already raised over $250,000 to use against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and other Dems who supported the compromise:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas issues "a warning to pro-capitulation House Dems": "When we started this 'netroots' thing, we worked to get 'more and better Democrats' elected. At first, we focused on the 'more' part. This year, we're focusing a bit more on the 'better' part. And in 2010, we'll have enough Democrats in the House to exclusively focus on the 'better' part. That means primary challenges. And as we decide who to take on, let it be known that this FISA vote will loom large. Voting to give telecommunication companies retroactive immunity may not guarantee a primary challenge, but it will definitely loom large. We kicked Joe Lieberman out of the caucus. We got rid of Al Wynn this year. Those were test runs, so to speak. We've got a lot more of that ready to unleash in 2010."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "[This FISA bill is] an outrageous clusterfuck. Forty cases currently underway will be dismissed. Congress has never done anything like this, intervening in the legal process to protect the Bush Administration, the telecoms and themselves -- who sat back and did nothing while all this illegal spying was going on. We'll never know what happened. We'll never know the extent of the lawbreaking. [...] We've now raised $207,573 to exact a pound of flesh from Democrats who did this. Top of the list is Steny [Hoyer]. We're working right now on ads and robocalls to start ASAP in his district, so if you'd like to tell Steny how happy you are with his 'leadership' on this one, you can contribute here."
• BooMan: "The Netroots is based on opposition and on unseating congresspeople and senators. That's what we're good at. Ordinarily we would focus on defeating Republicans, but we've become so good at that we'll be quite happy to toss a few Democrats out of office even if it means a slightly smaller Democratic majority. I don't think there is any issue that the Netroots is more passionate about than illegal warrantless surveillance. Any Democrat that votes for Steny's compromise is going to be at real risk of a well-funded primary challenge or, at least, a nasty ad campaign aimed at driving up their negatives."
• Balloon Juice's Tim F: "Use the Capitol switchboard to contact your own representative and let him or her know that we're paying attention. [...] Tell them that if they think people who broke the law should get off scot free, then you demand the same privilege. Ask for an address where you can send your parking tickets to get canceled. Let them know that you'll gladly support a primary challenger against anybody stupid enough to support this abortion of a bill. Let them know that the story won't go away and it won't age well. Hillary [Clinton] lost her primary fight because of a stupid vote for war, and your representative can go down just the same. Assholes who want to sacrifice fundamental American values for a a petty and incredibly misguided political calculation have no place in my party."

FISA II: Why The Silence, Obama?

The netroots are criticizing Obama for not using his bully pulpit to push back against the FISA compromise bill:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As of a couple weeks ago, Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic party. By definition and in fact. What does he think about the FISA deal? As far as I know he has not weighed in publicly over the question. And I'm hearing that the sachems on Capitol Hill are in the dark as well. When does he show his cards?"
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "A word from Barack Obama at this point would have the potential to change everything. A word from him saying that this 'deal' stands in direct contradiction to the agenda he's bringing to the presidential race would weigh heavily on Majority Leader Harry Reid [...Obama's] voice, properly applied, could be worth a dozen [Senate committee] chairmen. But he's not using it, and in fact, there's no guarantee he ever will."
• The Nation's Ari Melber: "Obama's quiescence on this fundamental issue is disappointing, but not new. In February, I criticized him and Clinton for going MIA during an earlier spying stand-off, when a coalition of liberal incumbents, netroots activists and the civil liberties groups ACLU and EFF successfully beat back Bush's threats to stop a similar bill. Now things are just worse, for Obama and the Congress. Obama has a much larger mandate to lead the party, yet he is ducking this battle. There is no rationale for Congress to fundamentally alter surveillance policy for Bush's last five months in office, but instead of doing oversight they are granting him more power."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "The telecom amnesty bill [represents] everything Obama claims so vehemently to oppose, claims he wants to end. And yet the Congress under the control of his party is about to enact a radical bill to legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunize telecoms who broke our country's laws for years. And not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger."

Oliver Willis explains "why Sen. Obama isn't making a big deal out of the FISA fight": "It is important as hell, but most people simply don't care. The people who are following the race will wonder why a candidate is talking about some obscure federal law when gas is approaching $5/gallon."

Conservative blogger Dan McLaughlin thinks the FISA compromise creates a headache for Obama: "[This] puts Barack Obama in a tough spot: if [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid are marshalling their troops behind it (even though they both personally oppose the deal), and he opposes them, he will yet again be shown to be an extremist outside the mainstream of his own party; yet if he supports the deal, he will have flip-flopped on his prior votes against FISA bills that contained telecom immunity."

OBAMA: Doing Favors For Blue Dogs

The netroots are angry and disappointed that Obama has taped a radio ad on behalf of conservative GA Rep. John Barrow, who faces a primary challenge from progressive state senator Regina Thomas:

• TPM's Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld: "Barack Obama has cut a radio spot for conservative Dem Rep. John Barrow of Georgia, who favors staying in Iraq and favors immunity for the telecom companies, and he's taking a beating from liberal bloggers over it. Barrow is loathed by the Netroots, and not without cause: During his 2006 reelection campaign he ran an ad saying that 'we can't cut and run' from Iraq. And he was one of the House Dems who sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi demanding that they be permitted to vote for the recent Senate bill giving amnesty to the telecoms. [...] There are multiple reasons why Obama would do this. For example, he might be trying to send a message to certain House Dems that he can help them even in conservative districts, which could keep them from refusing to endorse him -- something that would give the GOP ammo in the Presidential race."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing, but using his remarkable brand to protect conservative Democrats is a move reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi endorsing Al Wynn. If Barrow loses, Obama has a progressive ally in Thomas. If Barrow wins, a conservative House Democrat owes Obama a big favor. It's a no-lose proposition for him. As Obama consolidates his power within the party, note who he is bringing with him in terms of economic policy and foreign policy, and note who he is protecting politically. It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity."
• Digby: "Obama wants to redraw the electoral map and thinks there might be a chance in Georgia. I'm sure that's why he's doing this, even though it's the longest of long shots. I think it's our year, but you can't take anything for granted, so I understand they are single mindedly focused on getting to 270 and have decided they need to make a right turn to do it. It's the predictable (and probably smart) move. I just don't think playing this particular incumbent protection game is worth it unless there's a really good chance of winning in that state. Guys like Barrow are toxic and will pay you back by voting against you when you need them most. It's how they do business. With Obama's recent appointments of centrist and conservative people to his economic and foreign policy teams and his endorsements of such reactionary creeps as Barrow in the primary, it's probably a good idea for progressives to start pulling on our end of the rope a bit. I think it will help him, not hurt him."
• Firedoglake's Howie Klein: "No one who recalls Obama's enthusiastic endorsement of Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont could possibly be surprised [by this news]. Obama, like McCain and [Hillary] Clinton, is a professional politician. One of their basic tenets is the Incumbency Protection Racket. [...] Meanwhile, we are not powerless, we're making a real effort to help Regina overcome this latest obstacle. Please contact her campaign to volunteer, and donate to the campaign directly or to our PAC."

OBAMA II: No Republicans In The Defense Department, Please

Several liberal bloggers are unhappy that one of Obama's senior adviser has expressed interest in keeping Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Obama's administration. They believe that such a move would reinforce the notion that the GOP is more trustworthy when it comes to national security:

• Moulitsas: "I have nothing against having token Republicans in the Obama administration. [...] But the problem with putting a Republican at secretary of defense (or in the intelligence agencies) is that it reinforces the bullshit notion that only Republicans can be effective stewards of our national defense. Whether Gates has been a good Sec of Defense is irrelevant. There are plenty of Democrats who could ably fill that cabinet seat. There is no reason to reinforce a stereotype that has been damaging not just the Democratic Party -- but the nation itself. Iraq, anyone? After the last eight years, Republicans have no basis upon which to claim supremacy on national security issues. This is an election for change. If voters want Republicans at the Defense Department, they can vote for John McCain."
• Yglesias: "The problem with retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is the same as the problem with the idea of appointing Chuck Hagel or when Bill Clinton [appointed] William Cohen -- these guys are Republicans. It's desperately important for the Democratic Party's leaders to avoid re-enforcing the idea that Democrats can't run national security. If you find a moderate Republican with sound views on key environmental issues and make him or her head of the EPA, that says 'climate change is an important issue and there's bipartisan support for taking action.' If you put a Republican in charge of the Pentagon it says 'Obama likes diplomacy, but even he knows that when the going gets tough you need to call in the GOP.'"

OBAMA III: Well Played, Senator

The netroots believe that Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system is both justified and smart:

• Atrios: "Good [for Obama]. I've long been somewhat wary of public financing in general terms. It was a solution to a problem, but not the only one, not necessarily the best one, and definitely not a solution immune from exploitation such that it could eventually become part of the problem itself. [...] Obama found another solution to the problem, demonstrating that it is possible to raise immense amounts of money from small (and larger, too, of course) donors. It's now part of what presidential candidates will have to figure out how to do to win, and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem was never money in politics, it was the concentration of big money."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama should be able to raise at least more than triple the amount that he would have been given with public financing. This, obviously, will give him a financial advantage during the campaign, which should in turn help him win in November. An Obama victory in the general election is worth nearly infinitely more than following an abstract ethical principal about the role of private money in elections, especially considering that the vast majority of Obama's money will come from small donors giving $250 or less. The only donors he would owe his victory to are grassroots progressive activists."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Barack Obama made a smart, cagey move today by announcing that he will forgo public financing -- before John McCain made a final decision on the question. The candidates had previously pledged to meet the other on public funding, but that's a plan that would have benefited McCain, due to the RNC's greater fundraising capacity and larger, more aggressive network of 527 groups. By being first out of the gate saying he'll fund his campaign privately, Obama can somewhat avoid being labeled a hypocrite who backed out of a pledge that would have left him disadvantaged. And of course, it's Obama who has the greater capacity to fundraise online among supporters."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Terrific move. Obama is out of the public funding practice for the GE, hopefully its marks the last time a Democratic presidential candidate ever takes the matching funds -- if [John] Kerry had not done it in '04, he'd be President today. This was a problem for Obama that didn't need to fester till the Fall to solve. [...] Yea, McCain will make some noise about it, but this process story isn't one that many people care about in making up their mind, but it does make a big difference in the kind of campaign that gets run. Goodbye to the battleground [state] mentality."
• Ezra Klein: "Well played, Obama campaign. Well played."
• Oliver Willis: "Time to crush the GOP."

OBAMA IV: Doing The Right Thing

The netroots are defending Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system, even though Obama previously expressed a willingness to "pursue an agreement" with the GOP nominee concerning public financing:

• Moulitsas: "Obama didn't reverse any previous stance. He previously said he would be willing to negotiate comprehensive limits that included 527s and other outside groups. However, McCain made it very clear that he had no interest in such limits on outside groups. And without comprehensive limits on all political players, it made little sense for Obama to tell his millions of small-dollar donors that they couldn't invest financially in his campaign. Of course, Republicans will whine that Obama 'broke his promise'. They've got no other choice. McCain is getting crushed financially, and has little of the popular support that Obama enjoys. The GOP's best hope for financial parity was to cajole and embarrass Obama into opting into a system -- an act that would've been political malpractice for the Obama campaign. When you have millions of people eager to participate in the process, you don't muzzle them, especially not to make John McCain feel better. And as a result, Obama will be able to run a true 50-state campaign, engaging people in every corner of our country. [...] There's one other delicious irony at work -- don't you find it funny that McCain, the Republican, is embracing government funding for the election while Obama, the Democrat, would rather be self-reliant?"
• Hamsher: "Obama has opted out of public financing. Which is really the only sensible thing he could do, unless he thinks the broken FCC and the duplicitous McCain are going to somehow magically change overnight. McCain opted into the public financing system for the primary, then when it didn't suit his purposes he opted out. When FCC chairman David Mason said McCain couldn't just do that without the permission of the FCC, [President George W.] Bush had Mason removed. Like every other arm of the federal government Bush lays his hands on, the FCC is now politicized for the benefit of the GOP. This is the organization Obama is supposed to trust to oversee a fair election?"
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "The system doesn't work. McCain and his far-right allies have already made clear they intend to bend the rules at every available opportunity through independent groups. Had Obama previously pledged to stay in the system? It looks like it. But Obama saw the landscape -- and the coming onslaught from the 527s -- and decided it would undermine his campaign too much if he campaigned with one arm tied behind his back. What's more, he saw John Kerry reluctantly agree to stay within the public-financing system, which ultimately played a role in his defeat. Under the circumstances, Obama's decision is undoubtedly the right one."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "McCain was hoping to tie Obama's hands behind his back by forcing him to opt into the public financing program -- while McCain would still rely heavily on the RNC to finance his efforts. What's more, with the proliferation of 527 organizations willing to say anything and everything to tar Democrats, not the least of which Obama, had Obama opted into the program he would have been hampered in efforts to rightfully defend himself from smears. But Obama didn't fall for McCain's game -- he called the bluff, forcing McCain to show that his real priority in trying to force this election into the public financing program was not reform but rather ambition to be elected President."

OBAMA V: So Much For Principles!

Conservative bloggers see Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system as yet another flip-flop:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "We knew this was coming. We should not be surprised. Barack Obama said he was for public financing of his campaign before he was against it. This is how he has run his campaign and handled every issue from Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright to the security threat that is Iran. Barack Obama is often one way before he is another way. The man is incapable of holding to his word."
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue -- Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?"
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "How many times will this cynical, mendacious, unaccomplished faker completely contradict himself and/or directly violate one of his own pledges before the Establishment Media AND the late-night comedians start calling him on it? The gall of this man is beyond belief. [...] One day he says an 'undivided' Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel; the next day he says that only part of Jerusalem should be the capital, subject to negotiations, etc., etc., et-lieing-etera. He said in 2004 that he was basically where Bush was on Iraq, and then campaigned as if he had opposed every step Bush took. And by now, the other examples (amply documented by other bloggers) are legion. The man is a liar, pure and simple. A liar who got a corrupt sweetheart deal from a criminal so he could afford an expensive house. He's a disgrace."
• Dan Riehl: "Let's see what the O-man has been up to, shall we? Breaking his promise on public financing. Oh, and he's been caught shoving some supporters under the carpet because they were wearing head scarves. He's had to distance himself from any number of controversial and even criminal elements from his recent past. And get his wife a makeover, to boot. He all but admitted to deceiving voters on his NAFTA stance. [...] The man's a joke. And if he weren't black, Hillary would have knocked him out early so he could get back to being the partisan hack and Senate back bencher he's barely qualified to be."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Obama tried to take the high road when he was an underdog candidate for the Democratic nomination. But now that he's won the nomination and the money is rolling in, he doesn't want to abide by the limits imposed by the public financing system. He figures that most Americans don't really care about the details of campaign finance, and that even if he takes a short term political hit, the long-term political advantages of having more money than his rival will be worth it. [...] The central theme of Obama's campaign has been that if Americans can overcome their cynicism there's no limit to what they can achieve. But Obama's devious actions today are a perfect example of why Americans are so cynical about politicians in the first place."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru is pleased that Obama opted out of the public financing system, even though he doesn't buy Obama's rationale: "Two cheers for Obama. Good for him for not making taxpayers fund his campaign. He may have flip-flopped, and explained the flip-flop dishonestly -- that's why I'm not giving him a third cheer -- but he ended up in the right place."

OBAMA VI: Stop Insulting Our Intelligence!

Conservative bloggers don't buy Obama's rationale for his decision to opt out of the public financing system:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "I don't have any problem with this, in principle; if it were up to me, all public campaign financing would be repealed. What I find offensive is Obama's dishonest rationalization of his broken pledge. [...] In past elections, spending by Democratic-allied 527s like MoveOn and ACT has dwarfed spending by Republican-allied groups. Thus, Obama is just making it up, trying to deceive his own followers, most of whom, as he knows, are not well-informed. So, while I have no problem with Obama spending all the money he can raise, if the question is whether Obama is a man of his word, the answer is No. And if the question is whether Obama is an honest politician, the answer is also No."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Obama is just as free to take 527 support as McCain -- who has decided to remain in the public financing system -- is. Indeed, there is quite a powerful network of 527s that will doubtless be of assistance to Obama irrespective of whether or not he chose to remain in the public financing system. Obama should cut out his cynical attempt to convince others that he is a poor little lamb vulnerable to slaughter at the hands of Republican 527 groups. Given the fact that Democratic 527s regularly outraise Republican ones, McCain has a greater right to issue that complaint than does Obama. [...] It would be nice if the Obama campaign decided to just come out, tell the truth and admit that the reason it opted out of public financing -- despite the traditional Democratic position that public financing of elections is A Very Good Thing -- was that it would raise more money with which to attack John McCain. But apparently, in addition to working to fatten its coffers, the Obama campaign seems hellbent on insulting our intelligence."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The reasons that Obama offers [for opting out of the system] are laughable in the extreme, and self-contradictory in several points. One of the reasons Obama offers is that the McCain campaign and the RNC take lobbyist money. So does the DNC and many of its subsidiaries. Obama has lobbyists among his major bundlers. It's an absurdly flimsy excuse. So too was the other major reason Obama cites in his video. He claims that the Republicans have mastered the art of the 527, which has nothing to do with public financing. Democrats have their own 527s, and in 2004 used them much more effectively than the GOP, thanks to George Soros and other big-ticket Democratic donors. This excuse doesn't even pass the smell test. [...] The calculus is simple: Obama feels he can raise more money outside the system than he can get inside of it. He wants to blame McCain, the rain, the park, and other things, but it's the money and nothing more. It's a dishonest attempt to explain away Obama's dishonesty."

MCCAIN: You're One To Talk, McCain!

Many liberal bloggers are arguing that McCain is in no position to criticize Obama for opting out of the public financing system, noting that McCain has his own problems when it comes to this issue:

• Marshall: "It was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.) [...] McCain opt[ed] into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can."
• Moulitsas: "Let's not forget that McCain opted in to the public finance system in the primary, then backed out after using his opt-in to secure a loan and get on the ballot in several states -- breaking not just his promise, but the law as well. Of course, hypocrisy never stopped Republicans, and this issue won't be any different. But let's not pretend that hypocrisy isn't there."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "John McCain can't be trusted when it comes to campaign finance. He already scammed the public finance system in the primaries. This is a very smart move by the Obama campaign."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Someone please tell the Republicans and the McCain campaign to shut up about Obama opting out of public financing. Hypocrisy? Blow it out your ass -- your candidate spent years forcing those laws down our [throats] and then just decided to break them and that they did not need to apply to him. Obama didn't break any rules, or break any laws."
• Benen: "It's not like McCain is in a position to condemn from the moral high ground, given the way he played fast and loose (i.e., arguably illegally) with the public financing system during the Republican primaries."
• Singer: "John McCain opted into the public financing program during the primaries, received a material benefit (according to an FEC complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee), then unilaterally pulled out of the program without the agreement of the FEC when he thought it would suit him. By deciding not to opt into the public financing program in the general election, Obama is saying no to the type of cynical gamesmanship of campaign finance law that McCain has undertaken during this campaign."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' DHinMI digs up the following McCain quote from '04:

"I think it's wonderful that Howard Dean was able to use the Internet, $50, $75, $100 contributions. That's what we want it to be all about. We want average citizens to contribute small amounts of money, and that's a commitment to a campaign. So I'm for that. I think it's a great thing. I think the Internet is going to change American politics for the better."

DHinMI: "[McCain thinks] it's great that a candidate could largely fund his campaign with small donations, mostly taken over the internet, which is exactly what Obama is doing. At least that's what McCain said in 2004, when he wasn't running for president. Surely he wouldn't say something different today, right? The so-called 'Straight Talk Express' wouldn't contradict himself just because it's politically expedient, would he?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Spotting Rounds

Moulitsas offers his take on why Obama is running ads in traditional red states like AK and MT:

"I'm an old artilleryman. In that biz, the first rounds fired are spotting rounds. The forward observer (or, today, unmanned drones) call in coordinates. The artillery battery fires a couple of rounds, to see where they land (things like wind have an obvious effect). The forward observer calls in adjustments, walking the spotting rounds closer to the target. Once the rounds are hitting their intended target, you 'fire for effect' which means 'unload all you've got on the target'.

I see this first salvo as spotting rounds. If we see positive movement in places like Alaska and Montana, we may see the campaign fire for effect.

Let's hope so. McCain doesn't have anywhere near the resources to fight this war on such a wide front. Their best hope is for a traditional Ohio-Florida campaign to develop. Then, they concentrate their resources on those two states. But Alaska? Republicans can't afford to see states like Alaska become seriously contested."

LEST WE FORGET: New VH1 Show Canceled For Not Being Pathetic Enough

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- In a press release Tuesday, Viacom executives announced their newest hour-long VH1 Celebreality program, Knight Life, with former Brady Bunch star Christopher Knight, has been canceled for failing to reach the wretched depths of the network's low standards. 'Despite some really excellent footage of Christopher vomiting into his hot tub, Knight Life was just not pitiful enough to meet our audience's expectations,' Viacom president and CEO Philippe Dauman said of the show, which only featured three unsuccessful attempts to hit on strippers, two drunken brawls, and a single midget. 'Unfortunately, the program lacked the petty and reprehensible acts that demean all humanity and make for good, compelling television.' Dauman added that VH1 would consider bringing the show back if Knight were to become so distraught by the cancellation that he had to be hospitalized for an unsuccessful suicide attempt."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 20, 2008 01:17 PM