Obama's Flip-Flop on Public Financing

[Leafless]

Senator Obama has announced he will opt out of public financing for the general election. He says he will "forgo" more than $80 million in public funds and go it alone.

Obama must feel he has an ace up his sleeve.

Yes," says someone else, "but you didn't really promise to do it, just to 'pursue an agreement,' and let's face it, if we're free to raise a ton of money above the public financing limit we can bury McCain with more television ads than any candidate has ever been able to run in the history of presidential politics.

Obama must truly have the self confidence he can pull this off and if he does, what does this say about U.S. politics.

Or what does this say about 'scary' Obama.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5205505&page=1

[Shady]

It's just more of his "change we can believe in!"

[sharkman]

I posted on this exact topic in the presidential election 2008 thread, and noted that Obama was calling McCain a flopper for changing his mind on offshore drilling, and then the very next day Obama flops on Public financing. Politicians are very strange.

[Leafless]

So, Obama wants to reform Washington by turning down donations (public funding) from lobbyist themselves.

makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from “federal lobbyists.”

Obama in reality is not that different rejecting public funding.

He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.

But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

I like this one comment about Obama:

Dedicated to that chewy piece of mocha political nougat

Barak Obama Cha Cha Cha

(sung to the tune of La Cookaracha)

Barak Obama, Barak Obama,

Smart, articulate, and clean…cha, cha. cha.

Barak Obama, Barak Obama,

Is he real or just a scheme?…cha, cha, cha!?

Barak Obama, Barak Obama,

Ran the Harvard Law Review, cha, cha, cha,

Barak Obama, Barak Obama,

Where he stands, we have no clue, cha cha, cha!,

Where’s he getting all the money?

Don’t you think it’s kind of funny?

When asked a direct question,

He says he’s thinking it through, cha, cha, cha!

Barak, Obama, Barak Obama!

Oprah did an interview! Cha, cha, cha!

Barak Obama, Barak Obama,

60 Minutes did one too! Cha, cha, cha!

Barak Obama, Barak Obama!

He sure is a handsome dude! Cha, cha, cha

Barak Obama, Barak Obama,

Don’t you love his attitude? Cha, cha, cha!

Is he African-American?

Or American-African?

Hey, but what does it matter?

Don’t you love the way he talks? Cha, cha, cha

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

Edited June 20, 2008 by Leafless

[Shady]

I think we need an Obama Flip-Flop thread to keep up with his policy changes. The public financing switch was bad, but now he's gone and done it again. This time on FISA. After claiming to be "proud to stand with with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty." He has once again, changed his mind, and all of a sudden, the Bush FISA provisions just aren't so bad anymore.

Also, a great piece in the Washington Post:

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.

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."

Washington Post

[scribblet]

He's not doing it out of love for the taxpayers, he's doing it because if he doesn't accept public funding, there are no spending limits. He obviously expects to raise more than McCain (not Cain - ) so can out spend him.

He's just Just another fibbing politician, and if someone says, I'm going to be honest with you - does that mean normally they are not?

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commenta...21/5943616.html

I'll be honest with you, says Barack Obama: Sometimes I'm less than honest. It's a novel approach. But it will wear thin for him, soon.

The presumptive Democratic nominee's remarks, reported in the latest issue of Fortune Magazine, were made in the context of the now-famous incident in which an Obama official apparently leaked that Canadians shouldn't fuss about this Democrat's anti-trade chest-pounding. It was "positioning" -- a genteel way of saying it was just smoke for the rubes in Ohio, a state that Obama eventually lost.

Initially the Obama camp issued angry denials that their guy would even consider, er, lying. I mean what I say and I say what I mean, is what a righteously indignant Obama said at the time.

But now, with much official Canadian hand-wringing under the bridge, Obama has in effect confirmed that the leaks were bang-on: He didn't really mean his threat to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was, he now says, part of the ordinary old cut-and-thrust of politics. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets over-heated and amplified," a contrite Obama tells Fortune.

Ah well. It's okay then. Lie away.

Some time ago, Obama said he would run his presidential campaign with the $84 million in public money allowed under the U.S. system. But now, with a monster fundraising network in place that promises to net him several hundred million in campaign capital, Obama has changed his mind. "The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken," he says. Well, yeah -- but you didn't say that until it became clear you could raise a tonne more money by opting out, did you?

Obama is an intriguing, energizing candidate. But raising voters' hopes is a double-edged sword. If he claims to represent a new way of doing politics, then he must exemplify that change. He can't resort to the cynical dirty tricks and

cont...

[Guest American Woman]

What a joke this thread is-- in light of the absence of a ''McCain flip-flopping" thread.

[BubberMiley]

What a joke this thread is-- in light of the absence of a ''McCain flip-flopping" thread.

I think it was Jon Stewart who said McCain of 2000 wouldn't even vote for McCain of 2008.

[sharkman]

Sorry, but Jon Stewart is hardly a trustworthy advisor on all things McCain. I doubt if a more biased celebrity exists on the left. Obama is leading and may well win, but not because of McCain's positions.

[Shakeyhands]

"flip flop" is sooooo 2004....

[BubberMiley]

Sorry, but Jon Stewart is hardly a trustworthy advisor on all things McCain. I doubt if a more biased celebrity exists on the left. Obama is leading and may well win, but not because of McCain's positions.

Yes, I guess McCain is exactly the same candidate if you don't count tax cuts for the wealthy, the Iraq war, privatizing social security, abortion, drilling for oil in preserved areas, warrantless wiretaps, immigration, and the intolerance of the religious right. But I'm impressed with your consistent ability to base an argument on personal attacks rather than issues. I miss that now that the Arrested Development guy is gone.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, but Jon Stewart is hardly a trustworthy advisor on all things McCain. I doubt if a more biased celebrity exists on the left. Obama is leading and may well win, but not because of McCain's positions.

It's not about Jon Stewart, it's about McCain. Stewart, if he is the one who made the comment, is just the messenger. Odd that you wouldn't be aware of that-- that you wouldn't be aware of McCain's "flip-flopping." Furthermore, if Obama does win, I think McCain's positions just may have something to do with it. Obviously Obama wouldn't win if people liked McCain's positions better.

"flip flop" is sooooo 2004....

It was an complete bore in 2004-- if we have to go through another election hearing about "flip-flopping" I think I'm going puke. But good Lord, if one's going to criticize one candidate for it, they better criticize the other for it too.

[BubberMiley]

It's not about Jon Stewart, it's about McCain.

Come to think of it, I think it was one of Jon Stewart's guests. Or maybe another show entirely.

Nonetheless, it shows the level of debating skills we have to deal with here.

[Shady]

New Obama flip-flp, this time on gun control. Suprise, suprise, I know all of you are shocked and appalled. It came as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment.

[Guest American Woman]

New Obama flip-flp, this time on gun control. Suprise, suprise, I know all of you are shocked and appalled. It came as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment.

Absolutely. Shocked and appalled. I imagine McCain is polishing his "flip-flop" halo in response as we speak.