Obama Risks `Pristine' Image in Question of Public Financing

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   


I wouldn't call it flip-flopping either


Obama could piss in the wind and tell you it was raining and you'd believe that too. Rediculous.




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Nice addition to the thread, jet. Well thought out and provocative.


Here's my question. The OP says:



Obama pledged in March 2007 to pursue an agreement with the Republicans to participate in the public-financing system, which is designed to limit the influence of big money.


An agreement was never reached. As my previous post states, McCain made an announcement on February 12 of this year, that he was rejecting public funding. Why is Obama obligated to keep his end of an agreement that McCain opted out of first (and as far as I can tell, was never actually made)?

Why isn't McCain the bad guy? He made clear that he wasn't going to enter into an agreement. Only yesterday, AFTER Obama made his announcement to reject public funding did McCain change his mind AGAIN and say he was going to take it.

McCain has flip-flopped on this issue about 4 times, as my post on page one shows, and you make Obama out to be the bad guy? I don't think it's Obama fans who are wearing blinders and overlooking their candidates faults here.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
An agreement was never reached. As my previous post states, McCain made an announcement on February 12 of this year, that he was rejecting public funding. Why is Obama obligated to keep his end of an agreement that McCain opted out of first (and as far as I can tell, was never actually made)?

Why isn't McCain the bad guy? He made clear that he wasn't going to enter into an agreement. Only yesterday, AFTER Obama made his announcement to reject public funding did McCain change his mind AGAIN and say he was going to take it.

What happened to doing good for it's own sake? We are always told that the US must set an example in matters of war and justice, regardless of what the enemy does. Why shouldn't we hold our leaders to the same standard?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What happened to doing good for it's own sake? We are always told that the US must set an example in matters of war and justice, regardless of what the enemy does. Why shouldn't we hold our leaders to the same standard?

Yeah sure, like if the shoe were on the other foot, McCain would be so noble.

I say that if you want change, you have to play the game and do what it takes in order to win, then you can make all the changes you want. That's right out of Carl Rove's playbook.

Till then...

[edit on 6/20/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What happened to doing good for it's own sake?


What are you talking about? What's "good" about taking public funding over private funds? They're 2 avenues from which to choose. Obama said he would pursue an agreement with McCain that they would both go with public finance, even though Obama has said that the system's broken. But at least it would give them equal funding to work with.

An agreement was never made. McCain REJECTED public funding. Why would Obama hold himself to an agreement that was never made? Why is that "good"?

If we (you and I) talked about making a deal, and you said, "Hey, BH, what if you drive halfway here, and I drive the other half and we can meet in the middle. We could leave on Sunday and meet on Tuesday in St Louis."

So, on Saturday, you announce that you're not coming after all. Are you saying I should still pack up and leave on Sunday and drive to St Louis? I should "do the right thing"? Keep my end of the bargain?

I think that's kind of insane.


Why shouldn't we hold our leaders to the same standard?


We should. If they both agreed to take public funding as a way to make the campaign more fair, they we should hold them to the same standard. But they didn't.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Let's put things into context here. You're making it sound like McCain reneged, and Obama was fouled. Let's look at the article:



In March 2007, McCain's campaign said the candidate would accept public money if the Democratic nominee did. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said his candidate would ``aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.''

By February 2008, the Obama campaign said public financing was only an ``option.'' Obama has refused to be pinned down on whether he'll participate, citing concerns about the effects of outside political groups that can raise millions and aren't controlled by campaigns.

``That's Washington double-speak,'' McCain responded. ``That's not transparency, nor is it keeping one's word to the American people.''



Obviously, Obama decided that the system was "broken" when it became apparent that he would make a financial sacrifice.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Let's put things into context here. You're making it sound like McCain reneged, and Obama was fouled.


Well, WAS there was an agreement for them BOTH to take public funding??? If so, in February of this year, McCain Rejected It, breaking any agreement they might have had.

IF there was no agreement, then Obama didn't break any campaign promises. Because in EVERYTHING that this story mentions, his pledge was CONTINGENT upon McCain agreeing to do it, too.

That is my point. In your OP you said Obama "broke a campaign promise". And he didn't. There was either no such promise or if there was, McCain broke it, leaving Obama under NO obligation to continue with "his part of the bargain".

They talked about an agreement. They BOTH decided not to go through with it. Why isn't John McCain being dragged through the coals for doing the same thing that Obama is doing?

I feel like I'm missing something. What is it?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I know I'm having trouble expressing myself on this topic. I hate finance. Let me try again:

Public financing brings spending limits along with it.

McCain has accepted public financing. He confirmed this on Thursday.

Obama previously said he would consider the same restrictions, now says the system is broken and has opted out of public financing.

He is the first major party candidate to do this since 1976, the year new laws were enacted.

Now, whether the original pledge is important is an opinion. It was Obama's lawyers who cut off discussions. Obama said he would play only if McCain agreed to further restrictions set by Obama.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I know I'm having trouble expressing myself on this topic. I hate finance.


Don't feel bad, friend. Until this came up, I didn't know the difference between public and private financing, what a 527 was (really) or about any discussions between the candidates that had taken place about it. So, it's all brand new to me and I've taken a crash course on campaign finance. LOL



McCain has accepted public financing. He confirmed this on Thursday.


McCain opted to take public financing ONLY AFTER Obama had opted out that morning. McCain opted out in Feb of this year.



Obama previously said he would consider the same restrictions, now says the system is broken and has opted out of public financing.


He said he "would consider" it ONLY if McCain agreed to do so also. Saying one "would consider" something is not the same as pledging or promising to do so.



He is the first major party candidate to do this since 1976, the year new laws were enacted.


McCain did it in February.



Now, whether the original pledge is important is an opinion.


If Obama had pledged, "No matter what my opponent does for his funding, I pledge to use only public funding for my campaign", I would agree that he broke a promise. But that's not at all what happened.



It was Obama's lawyers who cut off discussions. Obama said he would play only if McCain agreed to further restrictions set by Obama.


Can I see where this info comes from?

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Here's the source I used. I know that the part about Obama's lawyers was an inference, but that's the way I read it. No way of telling for sure unless you talk to the lawyers. As if they'd tell us the truth.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Yeah, it's just as well they didn't post what the lawyers said because I wouldn't believe it (or likely understand it) anyway.


And my point still stands. Even the article you posted says Obama is the first to do this since 1976... Wonder how the media conveniently forgot about McCain doing it in February...

And of all people, McCain is jumping all over Obama. What a hypocrite! And on all the interviews, and new ads, McCain is asking the stupid, forgetful American public, "Can we trust this man"? What a complete scumbag McCain is!

I don't know how anyone could vote for this man and maintain a clear conscience. He's an opportunist posing as a good old boy and riding on George W. Bush's coattails, all the while claiming he's a "Maverick" with a mind of his own. Puke.

From your source:



In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”


He said he would pursue an agreement. Apparently an agreement that had other stipulations. Stipulations about curtailing spending by the Republican Party and independent groups. This sounds like REAL finance reform. Putting limits on 527s that run smear campaigns and aren't accountable to the party or spending limits. So McCain wouldn't agree to that. That's fine. That doesn't mean that Obama didn't keep his word.

Pursuing an agreement is not the same as Making a promise.

Don't you agree?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I have found out that McCain's decision in February was for the PRIMARY election. I was mistaken. Sorry. I still think he's scum, just for other reasons.

However, there's a lot of stuff going on about McCain opting for public financing, then taking a loan (from his wife) which violates the McCain/Feingold act or something. I'm not really willing to get any further into that since that's not what this thread is about and my brain is already running hot.
But the FEC was sued by the Democrats for McCain's campaign finance practices.

Source

My point here is that Obama broke no promises or pledges and I stand by that.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
he probably had no clue what he would be up against.

His inexperience is irrelevant.
He made a promise. (in the very least - an insinuation of a promise)
He broke it. It's poltiics as usual.


Originally posted by Hal9000
He has said that he nor the Democratic Party will no longer be accepting money from lobbyists, so he is still holding up that part of the promise.

He has a couple hundred corporate 'bag men'.
You don't think they count?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He has a couple hundred corporate 'bag men'.
You don't think they count?

I don't know it depends on who they are I guess. I know you don't like McCain either, but is it fair that he accepts funds from lobbyists when Obama doesn't? Will you hold your candidate of choice to those standards as well? If not, then you shouldn't complain about Obama.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
is it fair that he accepts funds from lobbyists when Obama doesn't?

Obama takes money from hundreds of corporate bag men.
As far as I'm concerned .. it's the same thing.
I just wondered if you considered it the same or not.

I don't know if McCain ever said he wouldn't take lobbyist money.
If you have info showing him telling lies like obama did .. please post it.
I'd be more than happy to see it.



Will you hold your candidate of choice to those standards as well?

I never said that I cared one way or the other about people taking lobbiest money, so I'm not holding anyone to any 'lobbyist standards'. However, please feel free to post any information you have on Ron Paul (my candidate) and any money he may have gained from lobbyists. I'd be interested to see it.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He made a promise. (in the very least - an insinuation of a promise)


He made a promise to meet with McCain and pursue an agreement. The lawyers met. An agreement was not reached.

Where is the broken promise?


Originally posted by Hal9000
He has a couple hundred corporate 'bag men'.


I think that's your opinion.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I think Obama is indeed a flip-flopper, just like any politician out to get the prized seat of president of the United State. He did mention back in November 2007 the opposite and now he will be backed by private financing. I too wonder just who these entities are now that disclosure of presidential financing will no longer be in public domain. I mean, what does he really have to hide from the voters?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Ah, so you don't mind them accepting money from lobbyists, just as long as they don't say they won't. Makes perfect sense.


Though not related to you FF, I did a quick search on McCain, and did find an interesting article. I didn't see anything on lobbyist contributions in my five minute search, but there are 59 lobbyists raising money for him.

McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man

I guess we know who they want to be the next president.

edit to add: I just saw an article using the name "Slick Barry".


It's going to be a long campaign.

[edit on 6/20/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
How can he stay away from the hand outs of the elitist groups that are the ones with the power behind the presidents.

Actually if he stand any chance in winning the presidency he has to be like any other politician becoming a lap dog for corporate America, after all what will he do without them.


McCain already licking the hand that feed him.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Hal9000
He has a couple hundred corporate 'bag men'.

I think that's your opinion.


Atlanta Journal

Obama Bagman sent to jail

The Times of London

Common Dreams article that was printed by the Los Angeles times.

Data from Opensecrets.com

So much corporate money …. brought by corporate bagmen ….
change you can set your hopes on


Oh … just some trivia on bagmen …. Obama’s new VP search guy, Eric Holder, was a bagman for Marc Rich …. Of pardongate fame.


Originally posted by Hal9000
so you don't mind them accepting money from lobbyists, just as long as they don't say they won't. Makes perfect sense.

Sure I mind .... but I really mind A WHOLE LOT when someone claims not to be taking it, or claims it isn't influencing them. OF COURSE it does. Every penny does.


McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man

Interesting!



"Slick Barry".

FUNNY!
they are all pretty slick, aren't they?

[edit on 6/20/2008 by FlyersFan]





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join