ok, so what's the big deal about this whole public financing for campaigns thing?

[Caine Walker]

obama decided to pass on the money that he was going to get, because he is clearly able to raise more than that 84 million dollar cap that comes with accepting the money.

mccain is now saying that obama broke a promise because he mentioned back in november, before either of them were nominees, that he would probably take the money if he was in the position to do so. and mccain is claiming that this is a reversal or some shit.

why is this a big deal? it really just sounds to me like mccain is getting desperate...

[ravenguy2000]

Obama said one thing and is doing another. Politically it's still the right decision at this point and I don't really think McCain is going to gain much by sounding like a whiner about it. Which is how he sounds in quotes, at least.

[homechicago]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...travel_policy/

perhaps if mccain hadn't broken his own rules during the primaries, this might carry more weight.

really though, obama is taking public financing from a broader general public, minus the big lobbyists and special interest funds, and he isn't using taxpayer monies - you'd think the party that cries "tax and spend" would applaud a guy who isn't spending taxpayer money on his campaign...

[Caine Walker]

i'd really like to hear a conservative's perspective on this one.

[Gish08]

Originally Posted by ravenguy2000

Obama said one thing and is doing another. Politically it's still the right decision at this point and I don't really think McCain is going to gain much by sounding like a whiner about it. Which is how he sounds in quotes, at least.

McCain sounds like an old fuddy duddy right now. The more he complains the worse off he is. He might as well just shut up and go back to fucking his trophy wife.

[ryan patrick]

the big deal is it gives the media something to talk about

[JokeyLoki]

Originally Posted by Caine Walker

i'd really like to hear a conservative's perspective on this one.

I consider myself a conservative, and my point of view is this....

Who gives a shit? There are way more important things to be discussed at this point.

[ravenguy2000]

Originally Posted by Gish08

He might as well just shut up and go back to fucking his trophy wife.

Former drug addict, pill-stealing, fucking Mcain while he was still with his first wife trophy wife, you mean.

[Future Boy]

This will probably hurt some with independents. The reasons he listed existed when he made the pledge, nor does this somehow stop or prevent it, people arent that stupid. Plus his capitulation on FISA wont help. He's the leader of the Dem party now, there is no way that got done without his say-so. McCain didnt even have to lift a finger on this.

Why does this hurt? Leads to things like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061903026.html

The Politics of Spare Change
Even $85 million wasn't enough to get Barack Obama to keep his promise.

BARACK OBAMA isn't abandoning his pledge to take public financing for the general election campaign because it's in his political interest. Certainly not. He isn't about to become the first candidate since Watergate to run an election fueled entirely with private money because he will be able to raise far more that way than the mere $85 million he'd get if he stuck to his promise -- and with which his Republican opponent, John McCain, will have to make do. No, Mr. Obama, or so he would have you believe, is forgoing the money because he is so committed to public financing. Really, it hurts him more than it hurts Fred Wertheimer.
ad_icon

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.

Mr. Obama didn't mention his previous proposal to take public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same -- the one for which he received heaps of praise from campaign finance reform advocates such as Mr. Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, and others, including us. He didn't mention, as he told the Federal Election Commission last year in seeking to preserve the option, that "Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money."

Instead, he cast his abandonment of the system as a bold good-government move. "This is our moment, and our country is depending on us," he said. "So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people." Sure, and if the Founding Fathers were around today, they'd have bundlers, too.

Mr. Obama had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation. He made a different choice, and anyone can understand why: He's going to raise a ton of money. Mr. McCain played games with taking federal matching funds for the primaries until it turned out he didn't need them, and he had a four-month head start in the general election while Mr. Obama was still battling for the nomination. Outside groups are going to come after him. He has thousands of small donors along with his big bundlers. And so on.

Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it.
--------

This is for all you David Brooks fans:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/op...=1&oref=slogin


Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so visibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

[ryan patrick]

my thought is voters don't care about the public finance issue, it will be dusted up for a few more days and if mccain tries to keep riding it in the future he will just seem like a whiner. if he tries to peg obama as a flip flopper obama can peg him back on his reversals on more important things like tax cuts for the wealthy and offshore drilling.

the FISA thing i haven't seen it covered very extensively. it's passed the house but today he said he wants to strip the immunity provision from the senate version. that would be ideal but i am surprised dems are so willing to roll over on this.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

my thought is voters don't care about the public finance issue, it will be dusted up for a few more days and if mccain tries to keep riding it in the future he will just seem like a whiner. if he tries to peg obama as a flip flopper obama can peg him back on his reversals on more important things like tax cuts for the wealthy and offshore drilling.

Perhaps, but considering their messages that hurts Obama more than McCain. I tend to think independent voters pay more attention to things like this than your regular Joe Blow, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

the FISA thing i haven't seen it covered very extensively. it's passed the house but today he said he wants to strip the immunity provision from the senate version.

Thats just a ruse, it aint happening. Im sorry but you show leadership and take a stand before, you dont just try and make something "not as bad" afterwards. This is not needed, period. The immunity provision is simply the worst part of a bad bill. I said before he's not truly running pushing these issues and would feel no obligation to stick to those issues.

This sums it up http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ama/index.html

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

that would be ideal but i am surprised dems are so willing to roll over on this.

Im getting numb to it.

[gurr8]

i think it's hilarious that Repubs are upset about someone not taking an $85 million handout from the government.

[Gish08]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Im getting numb to it.

I'm not. One of the big messages they campaigned on in 2006 was not letting the government wiretap you, yet they do it anyway. Besides this (which they can control) and Iraq (which they really can't), Dems did everything they said they would. Yet there is still perception that they aren't doing anything. This only helps keep that perception alive. They could have helped shoot it dead by opposing this like they said they would.

Very, very disappointed in most congressional Democrats right now. I hope Obama votes against it or at the very least voices his disapproval.

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Thats just a ruse, it aint happening. Im sorry but you show leadership and take a stand before, you dont just try and make something "not as bad" afterwards. This is not needed, period. The immunity provision is simply the worst part of a bad bill. I said before he's not truly running pushing these issues and would feel no obligation to stick to those issues.

all of this is just typical of the democratic congress for the last 2 years. they take stands on nothing. obama can't change that i guess? or chooses not to? maybe you can pin the blame on him, who knows. could voting against this give anyone troubles being re-elected? i don't really see the downside in turning down this bill. FISA sounds shitty, but what can you do.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Gish08

Dems did everything they said they would. Yet there is still perception that they aren't doing anything.

What have they done that's laudable? They dont quite have the numbers to push things through, but the least they can do is block stuff, which they did when this first came up, only to cave now.

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

maybe you can pin the blame on him, who knows. could voting against this give anyone troubles being re-elected? i don't really see the downside in turning down this bill.

I dont blame him exactly, but I just want more out of him in this situation. He has said he's against this before, so why not come out forcefully now? Instead we get some lame statement promising theatrics down the line. I'd be surprised if he doesnt vote for it, wouldnt want to be weak on...TERROR! Basically, I already have dem leaders who roll over and die, we dont need another. I'd like a bit more fight in my party leader.

[Nimrod's Son]

Hollywood is bankrolling him. Why would he need public funds?