Patterico's Pontifications

6/9/2008

Stunningly Charismatic and Honorable Presidential Candidate Prepares to Discard His Pledge to Accept Public Financing Like a Three-Week Old Big Mac Found Stuck to the Carpet Underneath the Car Seat

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,General,Scum — Patterico @ 9:47 pm

Can we discard our clear pledges when they become inconvenient?

YES WE CAN!!!

According to a Washington Post editorial from today:

Mr. Obama’s campaign now claims that his earlier promise was not to stay within the public financing system if his opponent agreed to do the same, as Mr. McCain has done, but merely to pursue such an agreement.

Really?

I’m thinking of a word to describe that position. The word I am thinking of rhymes with: “coarse chit.”

Namely, “horseshit.”

At pages 4-5 of this questionnaire are the question and Obama’s answer:

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. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Once again:

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.

“Yes.” Not “Yes, but” or “Yes, with a caveat” or “We’ll have to wait and see.” The answer is “yes.” Period. Full stop.

Well, we have ourselves another Bill Clinton. I guess it depends on what the meaning of “yes” is.

In February, I told you that Obama will go back on his public financing pledge. I said:

He made a promise and he’ll break it.

. . . .

But surely McCain will get some political mileage out of it? Hah! From Big Media? McCain pointing this out will be portrayed as whining, evidence of his weakness and inability to compete on the fundraising front.

I see it all laid out before me like a movie I’m watching right now.

Apparently the L.A. Times is determined to enhance my reputation as a seer, because a recent article bears out my prognostication to the nth degree:

Barack Obama brings many distinctive traits to the 2008 presidential campaign, but one is especially rare for a Democratic candidate: He has an unusual ability to raise lots of money, which he will be able to spend earlier in the election season than his predecessors.

. . . .

Obama is such a strong fundraiser that he is expected to skip the system of federal election funding — freeing him from the timing rules and spending caps that come with it. That will give the Illinois senator the ability to air television spots and organize field staff long before the traditional Labor Day start of general-election campaigning. . . . . Obama has raised three times more than McCain — $265 million to McCain’s $90 million.

The American Thinker sagely describes this article as “an apologia for Obama’s soon-to-be-broken promise.” I’d say that’s pretty accurate.

Notably, as the article extols Obama’s upcoming and inevitable decision to forego public financing, there is nary a mention of Obama’s pledge. Instead, the article exults that “having the money available now means at the very least that Democrats would be better positioned this year to respond to the kind of Swift boat attacks that damaged Kerry during his cash-starved weeks.”

We all know what they mean by “Swift boat attacks.”

When Obama finally does officially wad up his pledge and throws it in the crapper, will the L.A. Times even mention that it ever happened?

Not necessarily. And you can bet that if they do, they’ll quote that “aggressively pursue” language as if it’s the only thing Obama said.

If the L.A. Times tells readers that Obama actually made a clear pledge, I will parade naked down Broadway at high noon the following day for an hour.

You have my solemn word on that. And I will aggressively pursue an agreement with myself to ensure that it actually happens.

73 Responses to “Stunningly Charismatic and Honorable Presidential Candidate Prepares to Discard His Pledge to Accept Public Financing Like a Three-Week Old Big Mac Found Stuck to the Carpet Underneath the Car Seat”

  1. Which pro-Obama commenter on this blog will be the first to toss in a red herring into this debate?

    JVW (18d403)

  2. Ooh, boy! A race!

    Leviticus (90aba1)

  3. LOL

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  4. I think we’re going to set a World Record in flipflops this campaign season. We’ve had a long, long Primary Season, and Obama seems unable to remember what he’s said.

    McCain – not to be outdone – remembers, but just can’t be distracted from his original position. Even if the heat gets too tough for him to openly support his position for awhile.

    Al (b624ac)

  5. Even the prospect of your pledged spectacle will not get me to read that paper to see if you have to pay up.
    Now, if 50K of us threatened to do the same, do you think that they would notify their readers?
    And, would they cover the demonstration?

    We could always cover ourselves with the flag:
    Political speech v public nakedness.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  6. Like a Three-Week Old Big Mac Found Stuck to the Carpet Underneath the Car Seat

    Just imagining what that smell would be like is enough to make one nauseous.

    As for Our Lord and Savior ditching his promise, who didn’t see that coming? We knew it was coming down the road, he’s not going to restrain himself knowing what an organizational advantage he has over McCain already.

    I’m thinking this election is gonna be demographics vs. machinery/organization, with McCain having a demographic edge(assuming conservatives don’t abandon him) and Obama having the organization.

    doubleplusundead (e33be4)

  7. With apologies to Shakespeare,
    “For Barack is an honorable man;
    So are they all, all honorable men–”
    And yes, I do know that if I used proper British spelling on that quote there would be a ‘U’ in honorable. Anyhow, it strikes me that Sen. Obama is less trustworthy than Brutus.

    Fritz (182a9d)

  8. I prefer the term: “Bolshevik Storytelling” to describe these sorts of “excuses” for going back on your word.

    Hoystory (b5e448)

  9. Obama seems unable to remember what he’s said.

    He does not have to worry about that. The media is going to help him gloss over those “inconsistencies”.

    Besides, this is just a distraction that is not helping Michelle keep fresh fruit in their mansion FOR THEIR CHILDREN !

    JD (75f5c3)

  10. Associations, affiliations and memberships are a distraction.

    Selected advisors backgrounds are a distraction.

    Positions, stances and filled out questionaires are a distraction.

    Statements made “off the record” are a distraction.

    Quit analyzing all of the above and get on message.

    1) Whoever goes upon non-leftism is an enemy.
    2) Whoever goes upon leftism is a friend.
    3) No leftist shall support the new Iraq government.
    4) No leftist shall support drilling for oil in America.
    5) No leftist shall critique “global warming” alarmism.
    6) No leftist shall attack another leftist.
    7) All leftists are equal

    When the LA Squealer and the NYTimes Squealer and the MSNBC Squealer print the words to All the Beasts of Berkeley, you will learn the words, memorize them. This is the ONLY song in which you will put your hand over your heart. Flag pins are now illegal to wear and anyone found wearing one will need to be reeducated.

    If you remember Napoleon saying something different previously, you have remembered wrong.

    You are lazy, slothful, mean, angry and you ask too much for yourselves. You keep your thermostats too high, you drive SUV’s and you eat too much. We must take away your milk and apples for your own good.

    Corporate America is bad, working for low wages is good. We need to tax you more, for your own good. Capital gains need to be taxed twice as much, because they make you bitter and make you cling to guns and religion.

    Billary Snowball is a racist. Billary was once a hero of the movement, but now seeks to destroy the windmill project to save the environment. Napoleon has evidence of this.

    Boxer Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky need to realize what is in their “best interests”.

    You have misremembered the pledge to forego private funding. I will agree to aggressively pursue an ARGUMENT about public financing to PRESERVE a a publicly financed general election.

    I always said I would argue against making the public pay for an election. We will not be swift-boated into any more distractions!

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  11. “Just imagining what that smell would be like is enough to make one nauseous.”
    Imagine being face to face in person with Levi when he goes on one of his juvenile tirades about how “me and the internet and books like Rebel in Chief” are going to hold conservatives accountable for their incessant and blind worship of Bush. Probably a close comparison.

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  12. All of this is a distraction from Baracky’s vision. Racists.

    JD (75f5c3)

  13. This is a perfect example of an overt and aggressive lie, that the media will allow him to get away with. It will be pushed down the memory-hole, or framed as whining, no doubt about it.

    Just like he did with Goolsbee changing roles from his primary economic policy surrogate to unpaid volunteer when he was noted to have been telling the Canadians that Baracky’s position on NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric, and he did not really mean it. Now that the primary is done, and their perfidy has been swept under the rug, Goolsbee has been promoted back from unpaid volunteer to economic policy surrogate again.

    JD (75f5c3)

  14. Changing his mind about public financing is another one of those stupid “gotcha” issues that will impress no one but people who’ve already made up their minds that they won’t vote for Obama. He’s just being rational, and that’s why the switch seems so inevitable.

    You’ve gotta recognize that voters aren’t like juries. They aren’t playing god — they’re looking out for their own interests. Thus they’re going to be far less judgmental of human failings in a politician who they think may serve their interests (and, like you, extremely judgmental of the human failings in those who they think won’t serve their interests).

    However, the original plan/pledge/whatever was stupid, and it had me gritting my teeth when I first read about it. The guy was being set up, and he totally fell for it. He should have just refused to commit, but his populist side (the side of Obama I’m least fond of) couldn’t resist.

    Trying to parse his words to make him look like a liar isn’t going to work. If you want to reach undecideds, you have to point to Obama’s real failings as a decision maker. Like the fact that he made the stupid pledge in the first place, and why, or his crazy economic ideas like increasing taxes on oil profits.

    Phil (0ef625)

  15. I know, Phil. We are all racists.

    Trying to parse his words to make him look like a liar isn’t going to work.

    #)(*#&)(#()*&$)_#&* It takes no parsing. He lied.

    He did almost the exact same thing when he pledged to not run for President shortly after being first elected to the Senate. Again, down the memory-hole.

    JD (75f5c3)

  16. Trying to parse his words to make him look like a liar isn’t going to work.

    I’m sorry, who’s trying to “parse” words again?

    What part of “yes” needs to be parsed?

    Patterico (cb443b)

  17. Patterico – Great minds, and all that …

    JD (75f5c3)

  18. I guess understanding when a lie is not a lie requires the same degree of hipness and sophistication it takes to understand San Francisco journalism.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  19. Heh.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  20. “If you want to reach undecideds, you have to point to Obama’s real failings as a decision maker.”
    What an incredibly novel idea.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  21. “If you want to reach undecideds, you have to point to Obama’s real failings as a decision maker.”

    Doing so makes you a racist, and is an attempt to distract from the real hopey-changeyness that Baracky will bring.

    Plus, it does nothing to help Michelle keep fresh fruit in the house for the children.

    JD (75f5c3)

  22. There is going to be a “Yeah but McCain is worse” chorus.
    .
    The basis for that will be McCain’s actions in the primary race, which is technically still underway (it’s a primary race until after the nominees are selected at the respective conventions)
    .
    Just saying, both of these candidates are skunks, if you sniff in the right places, and on campaign finance, they both stink, and they are both dishonest.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  23. you people totally missed the nuance in obama’s statement.

    ok, back at you. how many of you who clamored for the release of theresa heinz kerry’s tax returns are clamoring with equal vigor to see cindy mccain’s 1040s? yeah, that’s what i thought.

    assistant devil's advocate (dcbb12)

  24. We all know what they mean by “Swift boat attacks.”
    .
    I’m impressed by the persistence of the DEMs and media in fabricating reality.
    .
    Senator Kerry still hasn’t made a public accounting that factually rebuts the questions and accusations made by the SBVFT.
    .
    But Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” TANG stuff is, well, fake but accurate.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  25. Here are seeds for a McCain flip flop too, “Mr. Obama’s campaign now claims that his earlier promise was not to stay within the public financing system if his opponent agreed to do the same, as Mr. McCain has done
    .
    So McCain HAS agreed to use public financing for the general election? Just asking. Has he taken a FIRM position in that regard? Will McCain stick to HIS word?
    .
    This argument is just going to be which one of them broke the intention first. And afterward, both of them will say that the public system is deficient because it doesn’t allocate enough money.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  26. “Judgment to lead” – lead everyone but himself evidently.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. Shouldn’t you ‘small government, fiscal conservatives’ be pleased that Obama’s found a different way to to fund his campaign than by simply having the American taxpayer pay for it?

    This sounds like sour grapes to me.

    Levi (76ef55)

  28. Levi, you don’t understand the point ( hey, that’s a first … ).

    I don’t care whether or not Obama uses public financing – I’ve always thought that public campaign financing a boondoggle.

    But this is a big issue to Democrats, and we’ve already seen that Obama can’t follow his own promises. This tells us a lot about Obama, not the issue of financing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. Levi, you don’t understand the point ( hey, that’s a first … ).

    I don’t care whether or not Obama uses public financing – I’ve always thought that public campaign financing a boondoggle.

    But this is a big issue to Democrats, and we’ve already seen that Obama can’t follow his own promises. This tells us a lot about Obama, not the issue of financing.

    Oh right, you care because he lied to you about something wholly meaningless that in the end is going to save the government money.

    How’s that whole war you guys started to find WMDs going again? How many people has that killed at this point?

    Levi (76ef55)

  30. Shouldn’t you ‘small government, fiscal conservatives’ be pleased that Obama’s found a different way to to fund his campaign than by simply having the American taxpayer pay for it?
    .
    I’d say “yes” to that. Get rid of the idiotic public financing. I’d consider making it illegal to contribute to a fund under a candidate’s control. The public and media can engage in dialog without having to listen to hundreds of misleading ads promulgated by the candidates’ organizations.
    .
    May the better liar win!

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  31. Levi, weren’t you whining in another thread about changing the subject? More evidence that either you suffer from an organic short-term memory deficit or you do not bother to actually compose coherent comments but rather just expel whatever silliness comes to mind first.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. How was Rebel in Chief by the way? Good book? Tell us about it.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  33. Levi, weren’t you whining in another thread about changing the subject? More evidence that either you suffer from an organic short-term memory deficit or you do not bother to actually compose coherent comments but rather just expel whatever silliness comes to mind first.

    I’m not changing the subject, we’re talking about lies, aren’t we?

    You’re throwing a little fit over this ‘lie’ of Obama’s, this broken promise, whatever you want to call it, which again, doesn’t mean anything, it benefits you if nothing else, and yet you express nothing comparable in terms of outrage as the Bush administration lies about the Iraq war that’s costing us trillions of dollars and getting American servicemen killed.

    The topic that is always under the surface of every topic at websites like this is the hypocrisy and downright stupidity of your typical Republican. If you’re going to get all mad about this type of thing from Obama, what I want to know is why much worse behavior from Republicans gets excused.

    Levi (76ef55)

  34. The topic that is always under the surface of every topic at websites like this is the hypocrisy and downright stupidity of your typical Republican.”

    Translation: I give myself free reign to change any subject at any time when I get called on for my own bombastic, juvenile, idiocy which I display ever time I write something here, like “me and the internet”. Oh and by the way, how was the book Rebel in Chief?

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  35. Translation: I give myself free reign to change any subject at any time when I get called on for my own bombastic, juvenile, idiocy which I display ever time I write something here, like “me and the internet”. Oh and by the way, how was the book Rebel in Chief?

    Explain to me how comparing two different lies by two different individuals that have drastically different consequences and calling you guys retards for getting upset about one and not the other is changing the subject, please.

    Levi (76ef55)

  36. Levi, no, we are not talking about lies, we are talking about broken campaign promises. No surprise that you can’t tell the difference, as it is a congenital problem with Democrats.

    But your hypocrisy, incompetence, incoherence, etc. is again, and again, noted.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  37. Levi, no, we are not talking about lies, we are talking about broken campaign promises. No surprise that you can’t tell the difference, as it is a congenital problem with Democrats.

    But your hypocrisy, incompetence, incoherence, etc. is again, and again, noted.

    So let’s talk about broken campaign promises.

    Bush has broken virtually every one of his, fiscal responsibility, no nation-building, small government, ‘compassionate conservatism,’ whatever the hell that is, each of which has had significant and disastrous consequences, to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of dead Americans, and where’s the outrage?

    Obama breaks a meaningless campaign promise that doesn’t affect you in any way other than to save the government we pay for a little bit of cash and you’re all upset.

    Levi (76ef55)

  38. Levi, I think its amusing that you claim that Bush broke a promise that you don’t understand. “…‘compassionate conservatism,’ whatever the hell that is…” But that is of a kind of citing works you have not read, isn’t it? About the only consistency we get from you.

    Obama breaks a promise 5 months before the election.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. The topic that is always under the surface of every topic at websites like this is the hypocrisy and downright stupidity of your typical Republican.

    BDS at its core.

    Remember, like with WLS citing prior polls from 2004, Bush is not running in this election, Levi. Not that we should expect you to know that, seeing as how that book has yet to be written.

    JD (75f5c3)

  40. Patterico, if the LA Times not only acknowledges Obama’s flip flop, but expresses displeasure, I will join you on parade.

    Bar Sinister (6ef162)

  41. A BUMPER STICKER…

    “A taxpayer voting for Obama
    Is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders”

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  42. Explain to me how comparing two different lies by two different individuals [one of whom isn't a candidate] that have drastically different consequences and calling you guys retards for getting upset about one and not the other is changing the subject, please.

    .

    I am literally ROTFL at this one. At least you are earning the ridicule that comes your way.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  43. cboldt – I am sure there is a title of a book somewhere, that Levi has not read, that supports his position.

    JD (5f0e11)

  44. “Changing his mind about public financing is another one of those stupid “gotcha” issues that will impress no one but people who’ve already made up their minds that they won’t vote for Obama. He’s just being rational, and that’s why the switch seems so inevitable.”

    - Phil

    No. It’s not. If Obama’s going to proclaim to be the Something Different, he can’t take “Yes” and try to turn it into “No” just because he’s got the upper hand in any given situation. That’s bullshit. He knows he gave an unqualified response to the public financing question, and he’s trying to weasel out of that response by some sickening contortion of the English language.

    He’s not Something Different; he’s just The Same Old Thing.

    You wanna know what the real “horseshit” in all of this is? I have to vote for Obama in the fall to avoid the greater of two evils.

    Leviticus (3f0b37)

  45. Come on, Leviticus. McCain might bring down the neighborhood but Barack Each-Word-I-Use-Means-Exactly-What-I-Mean-It-To-Say-Nothing-More-Nothing-Less Obama will sell it for fresh fruit for his daughters.

    nk (4bb2be)

  46. Leviticus,

    There’s always Bob Barr…

    Or Zombie Reagan… :)

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  47. Some low level staffer must have filled out that questionaire.

    Neo (cba5df)

  48. Throw another staffer under the back of the bus!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    JD (75f5c3)

  49. Ok, in which situation has the “something different” candidate stood up and taken full and honest responsiblity for?

    1)His association with a Marxist and blatantly racist pastor?

    2)His filling out a questionairre on a topic that he wants to have a low level staffer take blame for now?

    3)His association with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn?

    4) His bitter/cling statements?

    5) His NAFTA wafta waffling exercise?

    6) His Rezco Chicago style “fixer” upper real estate purchase?

    7) His unequivocal statements about meeting unconditionally with enemies?

    8) His “pledge” in which he put his hand over his heart and swore off private funding in the general election?

    Hope and change
    Is mighty strange
    If you believe
    You are deranged

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  50. Burma shave

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  51. cfbleachers – You are a racist, and your words are but a distraction on the path to enlightenment, and your viscious politics of the past do nothing to make it easier for millionaire Michelle to provide fresh fruit for her children.

    JD (75f5c3)

  52. And the title of a book proves your point.

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  53. cfbleachers – You are a racist, and your words are but a distraction on the path to enlightenment, and your viscious politics of the past do nothing to make it easier for millionaire Michelle to provide fresh fruit for her children.

    Yeah, but have you seen the price of arugula lately? I may be responsible for the Bristol Farms sale on it last week, this week I’m working on reducing the prices of saffron, piano lessons, summer camp and Ivy League undergraduate classes.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  54. Leviticus wrote:

    If Obama’s going to proclaim to be the Something Different, he can’t take “Yes” and try to turn it into “No” just because he’s got the upper hand in any given situation. That’s bullshit. He knows he gave an unqualified response to the public financing question, and he’s trying to weasel out of that response by some sickening contortion of the English language.

    He’s not Something Different; he’s just The Same Old Thing.

    You wanna know what the real “horseshit” in all of this is? I have to vote for Obama in the fall to avoid the greater of two evils.

    ALL RIGHT! Now, that’s a pro-Obama stance I can RESPECT, and I am NOT being sarcastic. What I CAN’T respect is the notion that when your favorite pol lies, “it doesn’t mean anything.”

    You can’t write Leviticus without first spelling “Levi,” but there is a world of difference in some cases.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  55. You can’t write Leviticus without first spelling “Levi,” but there is a world of difference in some cases.

    From now on, we call him Spar…Ticus!

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  56. Although he’s not a “liar” because of his forgoing public finance (and the spending limits attached thereto), he clearly foreswears himself; He’s breaking promises before he’s even won.

    The “liar” part comes into play when and if he is called to account about the promise-breaking AND if, in response to such questions, he says anything other than, “Yeah, I changed my mind / broke my promise.”

    Mitch (890cbf)

  57. It looks like this thread is dead, but I want to point out that the public campaign financing does not come out of federal tax revenues. Taxpayers can choose to contribute $2 (I think it is still $2) concurrently with their tax return that goes into a public campaign financing fund seperate from general tax revenue. All of that money comes from voluntary donations. Despite what a few posters above seem to think, Barack Obama will not save me, or any other taxpayer, any money by forgoing public financing.

    Drew Gorman (f8d38d)

  58. Speaking of liars:

    Oh, is this Levi person still mouthing that “Bush lied”? I guess we can add “liar” to Levi’s already burnished resume. (Knowingly saying falsely that another person is a liar, is itself a lie.) Either that or “willfully ignorant of readly-available facts.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

    Levi, before I go back to giving you the ignoring your behavior merits, please understand this: When most folks here reply to your lies and ignorance, it’s out of pity for you. Remember that.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  59. Although he’s not a “liar” because of his forgoing public finance (and the spending limits attached thereto), he clearly foreswears himself; He’s breaking promises before he’s even won.

    The “liar” part comes into play when and if he is called to account about the promise-breaking AND if, in response to such questions, he says anything other than, “Yeah, I changed my mind / broke my promise.”

    Where I came from, you are a liar when you tell an untruth, not when you are called on it and don’t admit it then…

    ergo, BO is a f@$#%@ing liar :)

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  60. hehe Mitch: Levi already didn’t read those articles and doesn’t have to read them to believe (or disbelieve as the case may be) in them

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  61. Wah wah, cry me a river, who cares.

    RealityCheck (db8736)

  62. The reason it’s not what Obama said was not a lie is because he referred to a plan. Nobody has ever shown that at the time he answered the question, his plan was not, in fact, to accept public financing.

    Plans change. Obama’s plans changed. He’s not a liar just because he changed his plan.

    Phil (0ef625)

  63. Read his answer:

    “Yes.”

    Patricia (f56a97)

  64. Mitch – What Phil just did … is that lying?

    JD (5f0e11)

  65. Phil, and I think I specifically distinguished that when Levi could not figure out the difference. You need to spend your time schooling Levi. Good luck with that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. It was not just a yes/no answer that was given.

    Notice the level of his devotion to the principle of public election funding. His answer exudes some of his passion on the topic – it is a point of perceived superiority and elevation to foreswear non-public financing.

    How does he get away with say “Ooops! Didn’t really mean “yes””

    Was he lying then about his passion and principled stance to gain some political points, or is he lying now? I don’t see how he can blithly “change his mind” on such a foundational issue as campaign financing since he thinks that non-public financing creates corruption…

    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. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge.

    What a tool. Bill Clinton II

    in_awe (bc82df)

  67. What part of “yes” needs to be parsed?

    .

    The question that prompted the one word answer.

    .

    I’ll say it again. I see this issue as a gotcha game where both sides have ammunition. Not that I mind, I rather enjoy a good political poo-flinging contest. Especially when it’s being done by the cream of the crop. It makes me feel guilt-free about doing the same thing myself.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  68. Phil – How are you doing with overcoming you fear of driving these days? It’s scary out there!

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  69. Nobody has ever shown that at the time he answered the question, his plan was not, in fact, to accept public financing.
    .

    All I see is a conditional promise. If McCain is “in,” then Obama will join him. Or so he said.

    .

    Maybe his secret “plan” (in contrast to his phony speech about how grand public financing of political campaigns is) was that McCain would reject public financing in the general election. Then they can both be breaking their word while setting up an array of poo-flinging options. “Never made a promise.” “He promised, I didn’t.” “He was first to opt-out, I’m just following suit.” “Can’t we just be friends and move on to something else?”

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  70. Racists

    JD (5f0e11)

  71. Remember these two words; Chicago politician.

    Flyoverman (236dcb)

  72. “Mr. Obama’s campaign now claims that his earlier promise was not to stay within the public financing system if his opponent agreed to do the same, as Mr. McCain has done, but merely to pursue such an agreement.”

    “Yes”

    Guys, you are making this hard; claiming (now) that he didn’t agree to it IS.A.LIE … no real need to parse.

    Was it stupid, sure; he could have simply said that he would look into that at the right time or some other feel-good HOPE! CHANGE! bullshit, but he chose to stand his ground and say yes to the question. Now of course we know that the question isn’t the question he knew before.

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  73. Drew Gorman you are incorrect. The federal tax form says that checking a box for $3 towards public campaign financing will NOT change your tax or your refund. Therefore, it is coming out of the tax revenues.

    Ken from Camarillo (aa2192)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4116 secs.