Advertisement

Archive for Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama reverses, passing up on public campaign money

June 20, 2008

Advertisement

— Barack Obama's 1.5 million donors were a financial spigot that was just too rich to shut down.

The Democratic presidential candidate on Thursday became the first presidential candidate from a major party to bypass public funds for the general election since the Watergate era. In so doing, he abandoned his once-stated desire to compete within a system designed to reduce the influence of money in politics.

His Republican rival, John McCain, said he would accept the public money for the fall campaign - $85 million available from early September until Election Day - and declared that Obama had broken his word.

Obama, who has shattered fundraising records during the primary, is likely to raise far more than the taxpayer-financed presidential fund can supply.

Obama promptly showed off his financial muscle Thursday with his first commercial of the general election campaign. The ad, a 60-second biographical spot, will begin airing Friday in 18 states, including historically Republican strongholds.

The Illinois senator has called for public financing of campaigns in the past, but while his new decision opens him to charges of hypocrisy from Republicans and others, his campaign advisers understand that issues of campaign finance do not rank high in most voters' minds.

By releasing his first ad of the general election, Obama also diluted the impact of the money story with a strong visual that was likely to dominate the day's television coverage of the campaign. Obama will draw attention to his finances again on Friday, when his campaign files its May fundraising report with the Federal Election Commission.

His decision represents a significant milestone in the financing of presidential campaigns. President Bush was the first candidate to reject public financing of primaries when he ran in 2000. But no candidate has ignored the general election funds since the law that created the system was approved in 1976.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

McCain said Obama was breaking his word. "I strongly feel that Senator Obama ought to review his commitment not to me, but to the American people, which he has gone back on," the Arizona senator said at a campaign appearance in St. Paul., Minn.

McCain, long a proponent of tougher campaign finance laws, had committed to taking the public funds if his Democratic opponent did, too. By keeping his promise, he gets another issue to use against Obama.

Comments

guybeau 5 years, 10 months ago

Jim Slattery is so great - already endorsed Obama and is ahead of schedule in his campaign - see cjonline.com/stories/062208/Kan_293660477

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

http://www2.ljworld.com/site/rules/" (Not)....to promote other web sites, without our express written approval, or where expressly permitted".

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

"If this is true,"Of course, the way the right-wing bloggosphere and hate-radio work, it doesn't matter if it's true. Once the charge is made (by whomever, verified or not,) it'll be repeated ad nauseam as if it were true, and posters here such as Godot will run with it for the next two weeks, perhaps even the next two decades.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

A person who claimed to be an Obama operative, said, on a nationally syndicated radtio broadcast, that she was part of Obama's espionage team; that she, and others, had imbedded themselves in the McCain campaign, and that they were gathering information about the plans of the McCain campaign and delivering them to the Obamamaniacs.If this is true, the question is, how is this different than Watergate? In Watergate, people broke into the offices of Nixon's opponent to obtain information.In the case of Obama, his operatives impersonate supporters of McCain to gain access to campaign strategies.I ask, in principle, what differentiates Nixon from Obama?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

continued"Mr. Obama may be on slippery ground because of his previous commitment to stick with the public system. But given that his campaign essentially embodies the ideals of reform - to a degree no one seriously thought possible just a few years ago - it's going to be difficult for the McCain campaign or the chorus of scolds to generate much traction on the issue. After all, Mr. Obama's all but certain financial advantage in the campaign will be derived from donors of modest means - not wealthy vested interests."Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign's departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place."If reformers make Mr. Obama out to be the bad guy, that may be fine by him. Despite what we have witnessed with our own eyes, some people remain under the illusion that Mr. Obama is soft. (Apparently they missed the part where, two years into his first term in the Senate, he ran for president against the most powerful political machine in America and steadily ground it down.) Mr. Obama's willingness to snub reformers isn't exactly akin to taming a lion or wrestling an alligator. But more than four months before the election, even beating up on a toothless bunny might send a message."http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/?ref=opinion

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/?ref=opinionJune 20, 2008, 5:14 pmBring It OnBy FRANCIS WILKINSON"Campaigns generate headlines with the tough decisions they make. On Thursday, Barack Obama's campaign made waves with an easy one. Mr. Obama's decision to leave the public financing system elicited the predictable outrage among reformers (and the McCain camp), but it was probably the most obvious and inevitable decision he'll make all year - justified both politically and ethically."By freeing his campaign from the public system, Mr. Obama can continue to raise donations from his vast base of supporters, who have made his campaign thus far the best-financed in history. Mr. Obama is rightly counting on them to raise far more than the $84 million in public funds he could expect to receive from public financing."Some observers make the case that money is less important at the presidential level because the press plays such a significant role in communicating the campaign narrative. But money still counts for much and a financial advantage is vital to a candidate who expects to come under heavy attack. In 2004, conservative groups ran negative ads against Senator John Kerry and inflicted substantial, arguably fatal, damage to his presidential campaign, giving us the verb "to swift boat" as a linguistic bonus. While no similar ad campaign is yet under way against Mr. Obama, the chances that he will skate to November without sustaining a barrage seem slim."For Mr. Obama, who is still not well known by much of the electorate, a surplus of money will enable him to respond to negative attacks - possibly with overwhelming force - while maintaining a heavy positive advertising track to help voters get to know him. In addition, he can continue to pour money into organizing grass-roots efforts in dozens of states and contesting even traditional Republican states on the air and on the ground. In short, the more money he's got, the more he is master of his own fate."continued

0

macon47 5 years, 10 months ago

the money is coming from the muslim nationswe need to get them to re-design burqrasfor lawrence to include tie dyed onesfor the women voters.

0

Rationalanimal 5 years, 10 months ago

Obama is omnipresent on each side of every issue. The Messianic flip-flopper.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

lawrencemom, you need to read Dolph's editorial this morning, you know, the one about verifying information? Four of the top five PACs that bundled money for Obama were Goldman Sachs, UBS (the Swiss bank that is under investigation for engineering a fraudulent scheme to help wealthy people avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes), JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. No doubt there are lots of small, individual donations, but it is silly to even suggest that Obama is not being funded by the corporations and institutions that intend to gain influence with the next President of the US, whoever it might be.

0

lawrencemom 5 years, 10 months ago

The purpose of campaign finance reform was to lessen the impact of big-dollar donors. Obama's campaign isn't being financed by big money - it's being financed by $25 donations from the American people. No apology or explanation is needed for his decision to turn down public funds - he's already got the public's funds and the public decided exactly what candidate they wanted to give their funds to!

0

purplesage 5 years, 10 months ago

Expediency above trustworthiness, pragmatism above one's word. McCain looks better all the time.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

"Obama is the new Bush."If Obama has proven nothing else, he clearly will not be another Bush.

0

TopJayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

BDUB. You mean a bigot like Obama, and the Rev, Wrong?

0

RestoreReason 5 years, 10 months ago

morgan:"By him making this decision, he is trying to CHANGE the ways Washington is ran. Obama 08!!!"Yes, he's trying to change things back to the way they were under Nixon.Now that Barack Milhouse Obama has broken this major promise, how much faith do you have in his middle-class tax cut pledge?

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

Bozo admits that her candidate is an enigma, but she will suport him based on faith.Obama is the new Bush.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

It's pretty simple, Godot. No one knows exactly how Obama will govern. He could prove to be as big a disappointment as the Democratic congressional majorities elected in 2006. But as disappointing as they've been, I'd still vote for them again over their Republican alternatives, who would be disastrous as well as disappointing.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 10 months ago

Enough already with Obama and his antics. It reminds me of a teenager that you can never get the straight story from, running around, trying to cover their tracks and thinking it's cute and cool and they're getting away with murder....until you want to flip your fricking lid!! This guy and his wife and their crowd seem like they have alot of explaining to do....like a teenager that has not been accounted for. And he is not even in the whitehouse yet.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

McCain was not "forced" to take public money. McCain agreed to take public money when Obama promised to do the same. Obama made that promise when he did not have much money. Since then, he has made beaucoup dollars in packaged contributions and, voila, he has had a revelation!! Campaign finance is a mess, and Obama will fix it by opting out of the system of public funding of presidential campaigns that he lauded just a few months ago. Obama will save the country by accepting unlimited contributions from anyone in the world who agrees with him that he, Obama, is the annointed King of the World.

0

Andrew Stahmer 5 years, 10 months ago

Racist...Bigot...Sexist...Socialist...Elitist...now are there any one-word descriptors for having bad judgement in who you associate yourself with...and going back on your word (besides 'liar')?? This list of Obama's traits just keeps getting longer. By November I probably will not be able to post it here since LJW does put a limit on the length of these blogs.Ideally the word we will be able to use for Barack after November will be 'loser', For me, the ONLY thing that makes McCain look more acceptable is the list above!

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

Ironic. I wrote, "can't make up his mine," when I meant "can't make up his mind." But "mine" might be the more appropriate word.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

Obama is at it again. He just can't make up his mine in his quest to woo voters.See, during the primaries, when he needed to crush HIllary, Obama was all over NAFTA. He denounced the trade agreements, and made himself out to be an isolationist.Now that Obama is in the general election, he has conveniently changed his tune."Obama also appears to be backing off somewhat from his heated rhetoric from the primary campaign. He suggested in an interview with Fortune this week that he doesn't want to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA, adding that "[s]ometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." -- CBS News, 6/20/2008.I hope you Obama lovers know which Obama you believe in. Do you believe in the primary Obama, who opposed Nafta, who stated his goal was to renegotiate the treaty? Or do you realize, and accept, that was that just something he said to get the nod from the Democrats? Or do you believe the Obama of this week who said that was just something he said in the heat of the primary, and, of course, he would not upset the applecart, or do you believe he is just saying that to get elected, and that he will revert to his former belief when he is President? Who is the real Obama? Is he the Primary Obama, or the General Election Obama, or is he a combination of the two, or is he none of the above?Only time will tell.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

"I think you are missing the point."I'm not missing the point. Regardless of who wins this election, or whether they take the public financing or not, each will still be beholden to special interests with big checkbooks.But the fact that the Republican candidate has essentially been forced to take the public money, while the Democratic candidate is refusing it, largely because of the huge number of small donors who have no more influence than $50 and their vote gets them could have a dramatic influence on a potential restructuring of public campaign finance laws-- it's long overdue.

0

daddax98 5 years, 10 months ago

So in essence what Obama is doing is forgoing public welfare and instead allowing small donors (almost 50% of his money has come in increments of $200 or less) to have a real voice in the election. I would think the neo-cons would applaud this move.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

When the thousands of small donations are packaged, as they are being in Obama campaign (and were for Clinton and Bush and others), the impact of individual donations is lost. The packager becomes the one with the influence.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

Bozo:I think you are missing the point. While there will always be a lot of money surrounding a Presidential campaign, the money that's paid directly to the candidate, as opposed to a 527, often has strings attached. This leads not to a candidate of the people, but a candidate beholden to the special interests. The fact that he also gets small donations doesn't change this fact. The goal is to keep money and special interests from directly influencing the politicians themselves, not just getting money out of politics (which I believe free speech allows).

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

supertrampofkansas,I wish I could. Still stuck at the office, unfortunately. Have a rocky road cone for me, would you?And, as an aside, the media has been fairly good about this most recent flip-flop. It's the previous flip-flops that worry me, specifically his NAFTA and Cuba positions. That is all. Enjoy your ice cream, and know that I am jealous...

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

Satirical asked, "The question is do we all want to allow "big money" to influence politics?"Speaking only for myself, I would say no. But Obama accepting the public campaign money would have no effect on that. The current system is wholly ineffective if the goal is to keep "big money" out of the process.janeyb-- "There is some really big money behind Obama which is why he came out of nowhere to win the nomination. I don't trust him and won't vote for him."Yes, there is big money behind Obama, but the main difference in his ability to raise money is having a record number of small contributers, not big ones. Still, anyone wishing to get a major party nomination, which is currently the only path to being elected, has sell their soul to some extent. But I'm optimistic that Obama will have more of his own soul left than any president since Carter.Nevertheless, unless Obama has a realistic chance to carry Kansas this year, I'll again be voting for Nader.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

Fundamental,Again, as I have stated, Obama is no different than the next politician. I am not sure what makes you feel like he is getting a "free pass" especially when you have major headlines in just about every single news outlet indicating that he has reversed his position???? I mean when you think about it is a little ironic that you are lamenting about this. I see Obama for what he is. He is a politician. I see that you said said "most on the left" above so this to me is just the status quo. I am sure people on the left feel the same way you do. I mean I have heard McCain be called a "straight shooter" and I don't have to dredge up all kinds of examples to show that he isn't. You could call that a "free pass from most on the right".Ultimately this doesn't amount to a hill of beans friend. Now how about we call it a day and go get some ice cream cones from Syla's and Maddy's. After all it is Friday. Happy days Fundamental.PS Sorry Satirical, I am out of time. Maybe another day.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

supertrampofkansas,Never have I stated that I don't have a bent. The argument, as far as I understand it, is whether my comments in this thread (I qualified it previously) amount to an endorsement of John McCain. I still hold that they do not. Merely pointing out the inconsistencies of one candidate, again, does not imply that I support or have endorsed any specific candidate. However, if you think you've got me pegged, good for you. At the same time, the remarks on this specific thread (again, the only qualifier I used in my previous statement) that you've used to "peg" me don't do any such thing. That's my point. I'm not saying I don't have an opinion; I'd say it's fairly obvious that I do. But let's be honest, there are plenty of things to point out about Conservatives, Republicans, etc., and they're pretty well covered by others on the message boards here. They (including you) don't need my help, trust me. However, Senator Obama gets such a free pass from most on the left that it behooves me to point out the (many) inconsistencies he's shown through in his campaign.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

supertrampofkansas...Simply because you are a flaming liberal does not mean I think your arguments are automatically wrong or that they should be ignored because you have an "agenda." It is possible you can still be right about some things (although not in this case). Agendas don't matter, only arguments matter.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 10 months ago

Well, I've been wrong it seems. Obama is an upstanding guy. He's going to try and get by on the money he'll get from the far-left blogo, George Soros' and the supercharged hate machine and all do-gooder liberals in general. I'm sure if even just 10,000,000 or so do-gooder liberals each can stomach parting with an on-line donation of a paltry $30.00, Obama will be loaded! A man for the people, by the people, of the people.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

supertrampofkansas....Fundamental's agenda is irrelevant, his arguments are all that matters. Please separate the personal from the argument at hand.You said "Politicians change their minds all of the time"Yes, but when they are fervently supporting 'X' then conveniently change their stance, because it is in their own selfish interest, it wreaks of old politics. Even if everyone does it, Obama is not justified. Obama kept saying he was the candidate of change, up until now I was unsure what he meant, but now I know; he will change his position when it is in his own selfish interest, even if it means increasing the influence of big money and special interest in politics for 50 years.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

Fund,Actually I didn't have to look very hard for it. Not sure why you are so bent up about all of this. I am just calling you out there dude. It is clear you have a bent. Everything you are saying about Obama is exactly the same as the rest of the political world. You obviously have an axe to grind here. Look at your posts. Don't you think we see how much time you have spent hunting down the inconsistencies with Obama's (or even Sebelious') statements and or actions yet you say nothing about anyone else. I mean come on dude even you have to admit you are a little one-sided?

0

MyName 5 years, 10 months ago

And yet another comment thread I have to stop reading in the middle of because I can sense my IQ dropping with every reply (fortunately, I have some points to spare). If you can't comment on this without being insulting, condescending, or simply ignorant, please don't post at all. If nothing else think of the bandwidth you could be saving.

0

beatrice 5 years, 10 months ago

All the folks afraid of a middle name crack me up. How pathetic. Obama will be president, and then the numbers will probably swell at your klan meetings. If the pointed hood fits ...

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

supertrampofkansas,Once again, I don't see any endorsement of Senator McCain in these statements. Am I missing something? Merely criticizing one candidate does not, in any way, explicitly endorse any other specific candidate. Why is this difficult for you to understand?Perhaps somebody else could help supertrampofkansas out with this. Anyone?p.s. Nice work rifling through my previous posts, of which there are many. How very thorough.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

"Also, it is fallacious to discredit anyone's arguments simply because of their motivation." - SatiricalI am not discrediting anyone satirical. I am just pointing out that everyone has a bent. I am simply saying that there is nothing new here. Politicians change their minds all of the time. I can go back and look at all of your posts and find that you have tendency to support bush and/or the republicans more and criticize the democrats more. No need to go and insult people on a blog because they point that out.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

bozo...I can make a claim that Obama already has an unlevel playing field, or at worst that the field is already level. The fact of the matter is that what he is doing will have ramifications on the political landscape for future Presidential elections. The question is do we all want to allow "big money" to influence politics? As Obama himself puts it "those with the most money are still going to have the most influence." and public financing is important because it "reduces the influence of moneyed special interests." Every presidential candidate has agreed to these terms because they knew of the consequences if they don't. I think the Democrats are jeopardizing their long-term future for hopes of a victory in November. Although they will probably just change their stance yet again when they are the ones who aren't getting as much money.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

"For your information, it's not only W. and Rove that you should be sticking it to. All three current presidential candidates have stated they do not support same-sex marriage. So really, your statement should have read, "not just those who worship at the altar of Obama, Clinton, McCain, W. Bush and Karl Rove." Fundy"Exactly, snap" - Fundy in response to "As usual, the go-to response from the sinister side of the aisle to anything negative about the O'dude is "but the Republicans do it too!"" - snapCrow anyone.

0

janeyb 5 years, 10 months ago

Obama didn't spend 79 million to get the nomination, compared to Clinton's 41 million and McCain's 11 million using small investors. There is some really big money behind Obama which is why he came out of nowhere to win the nomination. I don't trust him and won't vote for him. I notice he is now sporting a Lapel pin (A pledge pin on your uniform!) and he won't let "towel heads" sit behind him when he makes a speech. What a sell-out. Just like any other politician.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

supertrampofkansas...You have again made a mistake. I have not declared I am supporting McCain, although I will publically say I am leaning that way, I have not made up my mind; it depends who he picks as a VP. You confusing arguing against Obama's stance on this issue with being an McCain supporter. While that may normally be the case, it is not necessarily the case. Also, it is fallacious to discredit anyone's arguments simply because of their motivation.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

Ah fundy,How disappointing. Calling me stupid and a fool. What a great person you are!

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

Yet Satirical,I know from reading your posts where you stand. At least you don't try to claim yourself as some kind of objective innocent bystander which is what Fundy is trying to imply. Everybody has a bent.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

"The fact of the matter is that, not only are there no McCain 527's currently showing ads, there are no McCain 527 even yet formed. Sen. Obama can make no such claim." - FundyIt's also not true, Vet's for Freedom, and Freedom's Watch have already been running ads against Obama.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

Satirical,I couldn't have said it better myself. The dearth of intelligence displayed on these boards is truly remarkable.supertrampofkansas,Please revisit 2nd grade English class to help keep you from continuing to make a fool of yourself.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

I get it; Obama is also psychic; he can predict with such certainty what the McCain campaign has planned for the general election, that he feels he must make this move and go back on his word......in order to defend himself what he imagines McCain will do.Sounds like a pre-emptive strike, to me.....or "projection."Perhaps his espionage team is better than the CIA when it comes to gathering intelligence about the enemy.Either that, or he is paranoid.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

Fundy,I suggest you stick with the truth and represent yourself as you really are. I freely admit I am a non-believing bleeding heart liberal with a hidden biases coming out my ears. Of course you probably already knew that like snap did. :-)

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

Orwell,In June 2006, Barack Obama said quite clearly, "I strongly support public financing":OBAMA: "Well, I strongly support public financing. And I know [Senator] Dick [Durbin] does too. He's going to have some things to say about it because when we were having as you'll recall the major debates around lobbying reform, one of the things that Dick, I think, properly pointed out was that you can change the rules on lobbying here in Washington, but if we're still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, that those with the most money are still going to have the most influence." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Constituents Breakfast, 6/29/06)In November 2007, Barack Obama signed his name to his commitment to accept public financing as his party's general election nominee:Question: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" OBAMA: "Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Presidential Candidate Questionnaire," Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07)In February 2008, Barack Obama said that he would meet and "sit down with John McCain" to discuss and negotiate public financing were he to be his party's nominee:NBC's Tim Russert (RIP): "So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word." Obama: "What I what I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody." (Democratic Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)As John McCain has agreed to use public financing and Senator Obama clearly stated that if his major opponents decided to forego private financing, he would as well, I guess I'm not quite sure how this is characterized as anything other than a broken pledge. Enlighten me. Please.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

supertrampofkansas...An argument including the word "McCain" does not mean someone supports McCain. None of your quotes indicated Fundamental is supporting McCain.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

"The fact of the matter is that, not only are there no McCain 527's currently showing ads, there are no McCain 527 even yet formed. Sen. Obama can make no such claim." - FundyThen later we have "If you read my posts on this thread, I have said nothing in support of John McCain, nor have I endorsed him." - FundyAh yes, the "I have not endorsed anybody" line. Sorry Fundy you are busted. Try again my friend.

0

acoupstick 5 years, 10 months ago

Big surprise, Obama's a politician just like all the rest. He can taste the power and he wants it. Why would he limit his campaign to the 80 mil McCain is limited to, when he can out-fund-raise and out-spend McCain on a massive scale? Apparently he's not socialist enough now.

0

Orwell 5 years, 10 months ago

Fundamental:I followed all three of your links. Nowhere did Obama commit to accept public financing. You're using a standard trick: Misstate what someone else has said, then criticize that person over your erroneous version.Obama's counsel has given an account of the attempt to negotiate with the McCain campaign (which is exactly what Obama committed to, in the real world). Only McCain's campaign hardly an objective source says otherwise.Media characterizations of the Obama announcement are just that characterizations. Isn't it curious that the Republicans who regularly challenge the reliability of the media will so quickly grab onto a press description when it suits their purposes?

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

I was wrong. Obama is all about CHANGE; he will change his promises if you pay him enough.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

Maybe you will still vote for him despite him reneging on an agreement and despite the fact that he will be indebted to special interest groups; but that does not change the fact that this decision is wrong.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

If the shoe were on the other foot, all the Democrats would be crying foul. Today his supports don't see a problem with him getting every advantage. The problem is that in the future no politician will accept public financing, and we are back to where we started with unlimited influence from special interest groups and bring "big money" back into politics. The only CHANGE Obama is bringing to Washington so far is giving big money and special interests more political power in the election process. This is not a good thing no matter which political party you support.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

Some people don't seem to know why this is a big deal. The advantage of not accepting public financing is that he can raise as much money as he wants. Public financing of the general election for the two major parties was created to try to make elections more fair by getting "big money" out of the election process and "letting the people decide" among other reasons.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

Too many people defend Obama only b/c they support him, without looking at this issue isolated and objectively. It is clear he DID go back on his agreement to public financing. Claims that McCain has done this too are not justification for Obama lying; after all, he claims to want to change Washington, not be just like McCain.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

Exactly, snap. When your entire campaign is based on "I'm a different kind of politician" and you are then exposed to be the same as every other politician, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. If he's just another politician, what does he have to offer? Certainly not change!!

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

Is the guy's name "Hussein Obama" or not?

0

BDub 5 years, 10 months ago

Marion, pay attention. The word "renege" is not what I was talking about. See, you actually have to read the posts before you respond to them. I was talking about your wink and nod at the idea that because his middle name is Hussein, it means he's a Muslim or a terrorist or both. That's a flat out lie and smacks of bigotry.

0

jrudyhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

No doubt politicians reverse opinions. Obama's hypocrisy lies in the fact that he lambasted McCain two days ago for "flip flopping" on his stance on oil exploration in the U.S., and then does this. And the difference is McCain's reversal of opinion is driven by the current plight of this country and our oil crisis. Obama's reversal is in hopes of buying an election, more money means more MTV campaigning. I'm starting to believe that Soros is BO's puppet master.

0

Flap Doodle 5 years, 10 months ago

As usual, the go-to response from the sinister side of the aisle to anything negative about the O'dude is "but the Republicans do it too!"

0

Charlie Naramore 5 years, 10 months ago

Waaaiwawait. For the most part, his advisors and members of his cabinet will fill in the blanks and help create/further implement his policy. I don't think anyone expected Bush to have a viable 4-point-plan for how to save the world (not that he needed one like we do now.)"He has blinded the population with a nice speaking voice and words that make people feel better"What? is he the devil or something?

0

delegatezero 5 years, 10 months ago

Obama in Anti-Christ Superstar... wait for it!

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

If you read my posts on this thread, I have said nothing in support of John McCain, nor have I endorsed him. I grow weary of the deification of Senator Obama as a post-partisan, post-racial, post fill-in-the-blank candidate when he is none of those things. He has blinded the population with a nice speaking voice and words that make people feel better. But with no substantive solutions for the problems this country faces, his candidacy is a mere shell of what it has been built up to be. A little honesty every once in a while would be nice.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

"He's just another "I'll-say-whatever-I-need-to-say-to-whomever-I-need-to-say-it-to-get-elected" politician. Nothing more, nothing less."exactly Fundamental. "Another one" . They are all in the same boat including McCain.

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

fundamental,I guess sarcasm is lost on you.Flip flop on major decisions? Do you really think you can judge someone on flip flops. If so John McCain cannot be your candidate because the guy has flipped and flopped back on forth on just about everything in the last year or so because he is trying to appease certain groups of people. My point is (as others have pointed out on here) that you won't be able to find a single candidate who doesn't do this.

0

morganlefay 5 years, 10 months ago

JEALOUSY JEALOUSY JEALOUSYis what these nasty posts are about...

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

"Changing your position on something after such a short period of time and with such little explanation doesn't lend much credence"McCain has very recently done exactly that. Does that mean you don't support him?

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

Senator Obama's flip flops are not over trivial matters such as the flavor-of-the-day at the local ice cream shop. These are major policy positions that he is suddenly changing. People want consistency in their politicians, and Obama's short track record isn't encouraging in this regard.If Senator Obama had come out and said that, after long hours of research and consulting with various parties in Canada and Mexico, he had decided to now support NAFTA, that would be one thing. But he didn't say that. He claimed that his rhetoric on the campaign trail was simply overblown and too heated. GIve me a break. You can't scream all accross the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania that NAFTA was "disastrous," later change your viewpoint in a matter of 6 weeks AND expect people to take you seriously.It's not ice cream, people. These are important positions and they need to be defined by the candidates. Changing your position on something after such a short period of time and with such little explanation doesn't lend much credence to Senator Obama's claim that he is a "new" kind of politician. He's just another "I'll-say-whatever-I-need-to-say-to-whomever-I-need-to-say-it-to-get-elected" politician. Nothing more, nothing less.Don't immanentize the eschaton, people!!!

0

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 10 months ago

Interesting. So if I understand this right, no political candidate can change their minds without being called a hypocrite correct? I guess that leaves me with essentially noone to vote for and noone to listen to because I am sure we have all changed our minds at some point in our lives. I mean heck just the other day I was thinking I was going to have a cone of Syla's and Maddy's Cake Batter ice cream but CHANGED MY MIND and went for da bomb.Dam^, now you can't listen to me 'cause I'm a hypocrite.Good grief people, get ahold of yourselves there.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

Last I checked, the "change" this country supposedly needs isn't the "I-changed-my-feelings-on-what-I-said-repeatedly-over-the-course-of-the-last-18-months-because-it-was-more-politically-expedient-to-do-so" kind.First NAFTA, then Cuba, now campaign financing. What's next, Senator Obama?

0

Confrontation 5 years, 10 months ago

Midwest values? I've yet to figure out what those are. It's quite possibly a good thing that Obama supposedly doesn't have them.

0

Tony Kisner 5 years, 10 months ago

  • But no candidate has ignored the general election funds since the law that created the system was approved in 1976.No flip flop here, Obama said he is going to bring about change and he has delivered as promised.
0

cato_the_elder 5 years, 10 months ago

This is rank hypocrisy at its worst, coupled with ridiculous arguments about non-existent "527s" that no honest person could ever make with a straight face. The only thing more hypocritical than this would be for Senator Obama to name Senator Clinton as his running mate, which would be truly incredible - even for the strictly Machiavellian politician that Senator Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

average,Check out the following links...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5V3f... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsOnmK... addition, Sen. Obama checked the "yes" box on a primary questionnaire that asked if he would accept public financing. It's widely accepted that this is a major flip-flop on Obama's part.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

OK........................I confess......................I used the word "renege" quite specifically and with intent, instead of "retract" or "withdrew" or "recanted", simply because I wanted to test the political correctness of the viewing audience and sure as Heck, I got just the reply I was looking for.We have become so politically correct that people think words which may, through some extension of thought, sound like the so-called "N-word" are belived to derive from that word.Devious?Yep.Proved out my hypothesis though.People have "racism" on the brain to the point at which they can no longer even define it.Used the same word on another thread in connection with Hussein Obama, so let's see what happens there.

0

morganlefay 5 years, 10 months ago

The only people pissed about this are McCain supporters because they know the old senile geezer can't bring in the kind of $$ Obama will. Nothing but jealous republicans. By him making this decision, he is trying to CHANGE the ways Washington is ran. Obama 08!!!

0

davidnta 5 years, 10 months ago

Obama will raise more money than McCain through small doners like he has been doing in the past. The fact that he will outraise McCain will give him more televised advertisements, more campaign posters to throw out at people, and put him at an advantage.Obama will whoop McCain come November.

0

average 5 years, 10 months ago

I still can't actually find where Obama ever actually, agreed to public financing. Can one of you point it out to me? He said he would be interested in it with controls on 527s ("swiftboaters") that McCain could not agree to. But Obama never committed himself to public financing.

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

My Gawd, the functional illiteracy around here!

0

BDub 5 years, 10 months ago

fundamental, I was referring to Marion's inital post. Thanks for the lesson in Latin, though - very enlightening.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

BDub,Hesitant as I am to come to Marion's defense, the word "renege" has no basis in any sort of racial epithet. It comes from the latin "renegare," which means "to renounce." I suspect a lot of racists think that it means something it doesn't. What does that say about you?

0

Jaylee 5 years, 10 months ago

anybody consider that obama reversed to draw attention to a flawed system? it'd be brilliant if that were the purpose. i hope it was

0

BDub 5 years, 10 months ago

I find it pathetic how people blindly attack and smear the good names of BOTH candidates, making arguments they have zero evidence for. I find it hilarious that anyone here thinks arguing online will make one damn bit of difference - everyone here has their own clear opinion and you won't change anyone else's. Oh, and Marion, I don't know if you noticed, but your post makes you sound like a bigot.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

And yet, bozo, the only 527's out there are supporting the candidate that claims he's backing out of his promise to accept public campaign financing specifically because of the organizations that are supporting him. Does this seem odd to anybody else? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills on this one.The fact of the matter is that, not only are there no McCain 527's currently showing ads, there are no McCain 527 even yet FORMED. Sen. Obama can make no such claim. Like with many things so far (and likely to come) in this campaign, Sen. Obama is counting on an inspirational message, hopeful, if socialist-leaning, rhetoric, and a media unwilling to do simple fact-checking to win this election. And he will probably be successful, unless enough people cease to be blinded by the light shining down from the ObaMessiah.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

"Obama doesn't want a level playing field, he already has a huge advantage,"Taking public money would not result in a level playing field. There are too many factors that would favor McCain if he did so. That doesn't mean that this decision will result in a level playing field, either, but he had to choose between having somewhat of an advantage for himself, or giving it to McCain. Which would you choose if you were he?

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

The point is that Obama reneged on his promise.This is called lying.

0

madmike 5 years, 10 months ago

George sorros owns him, so he doesn't need public funding.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

Obama will get some big contributors, but no more than McCain. His real strength is that he has a huge number of small contributors-- contributors who don't give anywhere near the max, which means they can give multiple times, and do.And while there will be 527's on both sides, there will be many more on the Republican side, because wealthy special interests can give as much as they want, there are few restrictions on what they can say, or how the can say it, and it can be as hysterically inaccurate as they want.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

Obama doesn't want a level playing field, he already has a huge advantage, he wants to dump the field into his lap. He thinks the American people will listen to his pathetic excuse of an argument and ignore the fact he lied. He might be right since the mainstream media won't make a this an issue even though this is the largest development in the campaign by a large margin. It's all about big money for Obama.

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

Bozo:I don't have time to debate this all day, but I would think that someone of your intelligence level would see right through these incredibly week arguments. Obama has both small donors and large donors, just like McCain. Obama has more small donors but he also has more money overall so it is no surprise. 527's work for both parties, and one could easily argue that Obama will also have an advantage in this area as well since there is so much Anti-Bush sentiment in this country. While there are conservative programs, the majority of the main stream media is decidedly pro-Obama (if you were a Hillary supporter you would not question this fact). So Obama already had an advantage in the media, likely in 527's, but that wasn't good enough for him. So, he also decided to break a promise because he knew he could run circles around McCain by raising big money contributions from not only small donors but also big contributors, lobbyists, and special interest groups. All of whom he will be indebted toward when he takes over as President.If you honestly think you are being objective, why don't you consider how you would have reacted if Bush was the first candidate to ever reject public financing because he could raise 100's of millions more than his opponent. What would you say then? Again, wasn't it the Democrats who were staunchly in favor of getting big money out of the election process to make it more fair. I guess they just held that stance when it was convenient.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

"I challenge you to name a single 527 organization that is currently running ads against Sen. Obama or in support of Sen. McCain."Umm-- the nominating conventions haven't even been held, and the election is 4 1/2 months off. Patience, fundamental, they'll be out there soon enough whipping up the hysteria you crave.

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

Bozo,I challenge you to name a single 527 organization that is currently running ads against Sen. Obama or in support of Sen. McCain. Last I checked, Moveon.org wasn't supporting Sen. McCain. Perhaps Sen. Obama's decision isn't so much to level the playing field, after all. What say you?

0

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

Hussein is signed, sealed and delivered to special interest groups.The only thing positive that can be said about this is that he is not soliciting on a street corner.

0

Flap Doodle 5 years, 10 months ago

For enough money the O'dude's promises get tossed? Is that the change he was talking about?

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

OnlyTheOne...If you take public financing you are limited in the amount of money you can raise in the election. The advantage of not accepting public financing is that he can raise as much money as he wants. Public financing of the general election for the two major parties was created to try to make elections more fair by getting "big money" out of the election process and "letting the people decide" among other reasons. As the article points out every presidential candidate in the general election has agreed to this rule. (As did Obama before he realize he could raise 10 fold more by not following this rule).

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 10 months ago

This is a no-brainer-- the public funding system is ridiculously flawed, and Obama is merely acknowledging that his campaign's fundraising advantage over McCain's would be his best bet to counter things like talk radio, Fox News and other less egregious MSM, who despite the hysterical claims to the contrary, generally favor Republican candidates. Throw in 527 organizations, which have zero limits on them of any kind, and at best, Obama's advantage of having millions of small contributors merely puts him on equal footing with McCain.OnlyTheOne-- the advantage is only that millions more small contributors want to give to Obama than to McCain.

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 10 months ago

Harry Truman describes Obama to a T:"I have little patience with those who concoct fancy and plausible schemes out of thin air. Ignoring the lessons and experiences of the past, and who because they are convinced that existing methods and systems are imperfect, conclude that any change, no matter how ill-conceived or ill-founded, would be an improvement.""This Man Truman," Frank McNaughton, 1945

0

fundamental 5 years, 10 months ago

Actually, this is not Sen. Obama's first reversal. He previously reversed himself on NAFTA, the Cuban embargo, the Iraq war and he's been less than accurate in his support for the Supreme Court's (potentially) damaging Boumediene v. Bush decision. It's sad, really, that as much as Mr. Obama wants to paint himself as a "new" politician, he's really just a McGovern/Carter retread. Time will tell, ladies and gents. Time will tell.

0

OnlyTheOne 5 years, 10 months ago

I couldn't find anything on this but there must be some reason, advantage to NOT accepting the monies. Possibly in reporting? Can anyone provide more insight?

0

Satirical 5 years, 10 months ago

This is a major issue for two important reasons:1. It shows Obama is a liar and a flip-flopper since he earlier stated he would use public funding, and has in the past claimed it was a good idea. Before this I thought he was an honorable person. However, this is purely a political move illustrates that Obama will do anything to win, including lying. He doesn't want a fair race, which is why these laws were created in the first place. I thought the Democrats were in favor of campaign finance reform to get big money out of elections. How hypocritical the Dems change their stance when they are the ones with more donations. Or perhaps you believe Obama's horrible arguments that he, "just realized the system was bad," and is really just trying to "level the field." He has the worst arguments ever, and if they media doesn't take him to task it will show their bias.2. It's all about the money. If a Republican had done this there would be dozens of people crying foul and saying the Republicans are all about money, helping the rich, and will have to repay their contributors with political kickbacks. But since it is a Democrat it is apparently a non-issue. When Bush was running for President, all you heard about is how he had more money than the Democrats, and the implication that he was buying the Presidency.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

Having midwest values means that you don't go back on your word, and especially not blame your absence of trustworthiness on someone else for something they haven't even done.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

Exactly how much of his youth did Obama spend in the midwest, let alone Kansas, soaking up midwest values?

0

preebo 5 years, 10 months ago

What about McCain's problems with the FEC.Those who live in questionable electoral law glass houses shouldn't cast inaccurate stones. He was only able to finance his primary campaign based on a loan that required him to use public financing in the future. He used tax-payer money as collateral! Essentially, he is only still in the race because of the promise to use public financing. By the way, he only officially comitted to public financing yesterday AFTER Obama opted out.Secondly, He actually said that he wanted to finance his campaign by the American people. I would say that those 1.5 people are American citizens. I would even go further to surmize that the 1.5 million donors to his campaign vastly outnumber those who check the box on their tax returns dedicating their money to public financing in the general election.Non-Issue story! Of course, McCain is looking for any chink in the armor at this point. He desperately doesn't want to be another Bob Dole.

0

Godot 5 years, 10 months ago

Why did he blame the Republicans for going back on his word? This is so dishonest. To put the record straight, Mr. Obama, your Moveon.org is the 527 org that is currently running attack ads.

0

bondmen 5 years, 10 months ago

The first reversal of many to come no doubt. Saying what needs to be heard to attract the targeted crowd then, when won over, doing what the advisors and donors want is next. Foreign money and big, rich domestic contributors going Democrat this year.The only change is in the shoes and suit folks!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.