Obama breaks promise on campaign finance

[Apoptosis]

Interesting - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/ ... index.html

(CNN) -- You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.

He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.

Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."

For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.

[Nobahar]

I guess I can agree with the message of the article, but also haven't Republicans always been the money-party? And while Obama is spending money for tv commercials and advertisements, the Republican camp has given Palin (and family) 150K for designer clothing.

[bubba]

Obama has his own channel on dish network running 24/7, that can't be cheap.

[Nobahar]

lol who watches that? I imagine only people who are voting Obama anyway, waste of money.

[Alathald]

I thought that's what all campaigns are, broken promises and false hopes...come on, you can't say that McCain has exactly been a saint of virtue.

[DX]

No politician is Holy. The best people for the job of getting everything in order and running well will never run for office simply because it is such a circus and the complete removal of every bit of imagined privacy is removed that and the harm brought on to family members that shouldn't have anything to do with the process are destroyed and publicly humiliated at every possible turn.

Our political system is broken but broken more in so many ways as to be unfixable. I could go on but then I would probably get locked up as a "terrorist" for spouting extremist ideas like following the spirit of constitution and not running over repeatedly with the word "terrorist" to justify running over it and our rights.

[martini161]

I thought that's what all campaigns are, broken promises and false hopes...come on, you can't say that McCain has exactly been a saint of virtue.

well he never said he wasnt going to take private funding either

[jakegub]

Isn't it pretty well known that the Palin $150,000 was for her and her family and that 1/3 of it was taken back immediately because they bought the same items in different sizes to make sure they had things that fit. Didn't she also say that it made her uncomfortable that they spent that much on clothing and that she preferred to wear what she already had? Then didn't they return a bunch more of it and plan to donate the remaining to charity after the election was over?

And about her intelligence, she had some pretty decent Alaskan gubernatorial debates and stands on some pretty strong fiscal conservative ideals. She is a little too socially conservative (I prefer social libertarians), but the small amount of stupid things she has said is dwarfed by the gaffes made by Obama/Biden.

In case you don't remember, there was the 57 or 58 states, the fallen heroes that Obama saw in the crowd that Memorial Day, the 100% of McCain's ads were negative (Seriously, who doesn't understand the meaning of 100%?), the nuclear cleanup he admitted not knowing anything about (but promised he would learn) and it turns out he had voted on legislation for the cleanup.

Biden has a history, so examples aren't needed.

Ultimately, Palin is a strong fiscal conservative and her lack of international travel has as little affect on her ability to comprehend foreign policy as Barack's lack of experience in the military has an effect on his ability to vote on military legislation. (That is actually a bad example because he has been pretty poor on his military legislation votes) And conversely, his law degree hasn't really helped him understand that legislation is to be made at the level of Congress and not at the level of the Supreme Court.
I will support Palin, I think with just a few weeks of observation she would be more than capable of taking over in the event that it becomes necessary. Especially since the Cabinet would have already been selected.

[Nobahar]

I beg to differ, I think if someone asked Palin the names of the presidents or dictators of the three countries that Bush labeled the Axis of Evil, she'd get at most 2/3 right without her aides telling her. And forget other countries cause even McCain can't even tell you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfealLrWLIY).

I'm pretty sure that was just mistake of words, McCain is not stupid enough to not know that- they blow everything out of proportion. However, based on what Palin said about Israel, she knows as much about foreign policy as Bush knew about the different ethnic groups of Iraq before they started fighting each other (with Americans dying in the process).

[Illuminati]

Negative ads suck. Each negative ad I see or hear makes me think less of the candidate who supported the ad. At the time of the debate, 100% of the McCain ads that I saw were negative... but I didn't think Obama should have pointed that fact out since about 95% of the Obama ads I saw were negative. Right after that debate, I noticed that both candidates were running positive ads... for a few days... then they both went back to their negative campaigns.

These are my observations from watching primarily local St. Louis TV stations... I'm sure others may have different observations.

The first major-party presidential candidate to run a 100% (there's that figure again - 100%!) positive campaign and tells the public what they will do to fix the issues at hand, instead of telling us how the other candidate's plan won't work, will have my full support (even if that doesn't include my vote)!

I'm surprised this news story about Obama using private funds was released yesterday... I thought this was old news and was already 'raved' about a month or two ago.... but I guess since he is actually spending that money now, it's "new news".

For this election, I think more emphasis should be placed on the VP candidates... both of them have a pretty decent chance of becoming the next President.... And since this campaign is what it is and 99% of what we hear is just negative information... I found this ad pretty interesting, too. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -obama-ad/

[jakegub]

Nobahar,

I'm not saying that she's not underprepared right now. What I'm saying is that she is smart enough to be well versed within 2 weeks. People act like she can't put her shoes on the right feet. I'm arguing that she's as intelligent or more intelligent than past presidents (current president included). I am absolutely not comparing her to Clinton or Reagan, but I have no doubt she's smarter than president Carter.

She has enough ability to be president with the help of a Cabinet.

[Nobahar]

Well if she gets elected, all I can say I hope so. I doubt McCain will get sick, but there's always chance.

[Kougar]

I gotta agree. I strongly believe it takes more experience to be a state governor than it does a US senator... What do you do in the senate? Take votes, half the time you're not even actually present for. With a governor you have to have good administrative skills and the ability to work with your staff, the state comptroller, and state legislators to shape and create state policy. That requires a much more active/proactive role with a person that knows how to best work with people.

I simply find it amazing people will nitpick over Palin's guffaws, oversimplifications, and spotty knowledge about things she would be able to learn and rely on advisors for... when President Bush has to be several orders of magnitude worse. He's been in office 8 years and still can't even give a speech without losing words, losing his place, and stopping to glance at notes in the middle of sentences. I find it funny so many of the people voting against her believe she only has experience as a city mayor...

I will confess I am familiar with some of Biden's 36 years of voting history in the senate... he is the last person I'd want to see elected. Obama's choice of him as a VP pretty much cemented my views on whom gets my vote more than anything else, and is probably the best indicator of Obama's views more than anything he's said publicly.

[Sovereign]

Pot. Kettle. Black. Whoever's having bad luck raising money always complains about the party that is having better luck raising money. Unless both parties commit to public financing it's all just smoke and mirrors. I'm not saying they should, but until they both consistently put their money where their big mouths are I am not going to listen to a word about "the other party" being corrupted by money. They both are. However, I support Barack Obama and think that this Palin thing is a side-show. Any losing party always falls prey to the siren song of purity purges, and it's the GOP's turn to go through this phase. Palin (and the "Sarah 2012") hype is just the result.

[bigblockmatt]

I subscribed to Factcheck.org 's email list. it is pretty amazing what they put out, saying what one candidate said in some ad or speech. The amazing thing is that there are some many false and exaggerated statements on both sides and both their ads. I try and not pay attention to political ads and do my own reading of the props and candidates (though it is hard to find good information sometimes.)

[jakegub]

Sovereign,

I think the point was that both parties DID commit to public financing, and Barack Obama changed his mind when something more beneficial came along. There are 2 good links at http://forums.legitreviews.com/post126785.html that give an idea of where your political beliefs would place you.

I don't mean to suggest you don't know where you stand, its just that because Barack Obama is so far left, I feel like there are a lot of moderates who might find themselves closer to McCain than they thought. Again, I mean no offense, the questionaires are fun to take in and of themselves.

[Nobahar]

lol Barack changed his mind when something more beneficial came along. Don't we all? Oh, I guess cause he is a politician he can't change his opinion when it will politically benefit him, I'm sure McCain hasn't done that when he distanced himself from Bush.

[Sovereign]

Sovereign,

I think the point was that both parties DID commit to public financing, and Barack Obama changed his mind when something more beneficial came along. There are 2 good links at http://forums.legitreviews.com/post126785.html that give an idea of where your political beliefs would place you.

I don't mean to suggest you don't know where you stand, its just that because Barack Obama is so far left, I feel like there are a lot of moderates who might find themselves closer to McCain than they thought. Again, I mean no offense, the questionaires are fun to take in and of themselves.

I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that throughout history both parties have "committed" to things and then done something else. Politicians have promised A and given us Z. Neither party has a right to throw stones. I am well aware that Obama "flip-flopped" on public financing. I'm just saying that's what politicians (and political parties) do so I'm not surprised and fervently wish they would stop calling each other Devil for something they both clearly engage in.