Barack Obama and Public Money. | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
Big Reply (none / 0)
Excellent point about public financing.  Ultimately, it truly does trump EVERY other possible issue, because all issues are effected by it to some extent.  How campaigns are funded largely determines if the candidates serve the people of if they serve special interests.

You're the one arguing the importance of where the campaign contributions come from. Either it's important or not where Obama's contributions come from. If Obama is able to take in large amounts of money from special interests without changing his policy proposals, then other candidates can do the same. Therefore, there is no need for public financing; there is only a need to vote out bad politicians.

Look, the bottom line is, this election is too damn important to risk losing to McCain.

In other words, this election is too important to do precisely what you have advocated repeatedly in the past -- accept public financing and its limits. You're a flip-flopper, Ihavenobias.

Again, Obama has broken records (and will continue to break records) for getting the most individual donations from average Americans.

There is no such thing as an average American.

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.

Considering McCain had already agreed to the proposal, Obama pursued that publicly financed general election about as aggressively as Pakistan's intelligence agents have pursued bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Bonus question: Which presidential candidate counts among his twenty largest contributors Goldman Sachs, UBS, JPMorgan, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley?

by Twba on 06/20/2008 02:12:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Big BS (none / 0)
The relative percentages DO matter, like I said. If Obama gets the majority of his money from people like you, me and Bobo (you know, likely Obama donors) then the fact that he gets a relatively small amount from special interest groups, while relevant, is FAR less relevant.

When I wrote those original comments about public financing it was BEFORE Obama broke every record on the books for most individual donors to a campaign.

In other words, I'm not a "flip-flopper", I'm just someone who recognizes context.

Bonus Question: Which candidate's policy proposals and positions better reflect large special interest groups that are already far too powerful and negative?  Which special interest groups should we fear more than Big Oil and Big Defense?

The ultimate issue boils down to answering those questions. The fact is McCain is pandering to damaging special interests FAR MORE than Obama is, and that's the bottom line.


by Tom Hanc on 06/20/2008 02:31:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Found in the archive (none / 0)
Look, the bottom line is, this election is too damn important to risk losing to McCain.

Why should the person who gets the most private donations (aka, the candidate who is likely to represent special interests the tend to have different interests than the average American) be the one most likely to win?

It's not fair when your candidate is on the losing end of the fundraising game, but when your candidate rakes in money hand over fist, the election is too important to accept public financing and its spending limits. Ihavenobias, you just might be a hypocritical douchebag.

Answer to bonus question: Both candidates count all those firms among their top twenty contributors.

by Twba on 06/20/2008 02:37:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Douchebag? (none / 0)
I was waiting for that. You just couldn't resist, could you?

Read my line again: "the candidate who is likely to represent special interests that tend to have different interests from the average American".


Obama's getting more money from AVERAGE AMERICANS. He's BROKEN RECORDS. 


Should I write that over and over (and over) again until it sinks in with you or will it never sink in because you have a personal ax to grind here?


Answer to bonus question: One candidate has earned FAR more money from Average Americans which undeniably and significantly reduces the impact of those firms.  I realize you don't appreciate nuance but you should try it some time! :)

by Tom Hanc on 06/20/2008 02:54:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, douchebag (none / 1)
Obama's getting more money from AVERAGE AMERICANS.

There is no such thing as an average American. And Obama is getting his money from a very small subset of the total population. And the men and women of Goldman Sachs have as much right to contribute their hard-earned money to both candidates as your imagined average Americans.

If Obama gets the majority of his money from people like you, me and Bobo (you know, likely Obama donors) then the fact that he gets a relatively small amount from special interest groups, while relevant, is FAR less relevant.

Bobo is employed by Big Gov't Education and I'm employed by Big Evil Corporation. Where does our individuality end and our membership in a special interest begin?

by Twba on 06/27/2008 01:28:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again, its an A vs. B situation (none / 1)

"Obama is getting his money from a very small subset of the total population."

But his subset is exponential bigger than Grampa Death's.  Maybe by a few factors.  So Obama vs. idealized candidate. Obama loses.  Obama vs. the actual other candidates.  Obama wins in a laugher.

Guys, don't fall into this Obama's not perfect so we must support McCain unquestioningly nonsense.

Oh, and bobo and I are employed by small government.  School Districts are not BIG gov't. 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 01:53:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clarification (none / 1)
Guys, don't fall into this Obama's not perfect so we must support McCain unquestioningly nonsense.

No matter who wins, America loses. I'm saddened that one of these two clowns is our next president.

by Twba on 06/27/2008 03:09:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe so (none / 0)
But the only pertinent question right now is who is the better clown for the job.

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 03:20:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll get right on it (none / 0)
But the only pertinent question right now is who is the better clown for the job.

You're right, Prof. I promise to do some serious research and determine who would be a better president -- Shit Sandwich or Douchebag.

by Twba on 06/27/2008 03:47:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Welcome to American politics! (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 05:00:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The real question, bias... (none / 0)
How can Obama be the candidate of "change" and truth when he accepts ANY money from any of the big firms that TWBA brings up. If he were an agent of change, he wouldn't accept money from any corporation, regardless of their orientation of business. But instead, we have yet another typical politician who lies and is just a deceitful and dishonest with his word as his opponent. Bottom line - "CHANGE" MY ASS!!! BTW - I would send money to my ex wife before I would donate to Obama. And that is NEVER gonna happen!!! :)

by bobo1 on 06/20/2008 02:57:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Moderate View Of The Situation (none / 0)
That's the same kind of argument that keeps idealists like Ralph Nader and others from ever making a dent in the Two Party Monopoly.

As I've written many times before, in real life we have to balance practicality with idealism. That doesn't mean 50/50 or 90/10, but it does mean that 0/100 ain't gonna cut it.

Being a politician means sacrificing and compromising. The question is, to what extent?  On one end of the spectrum you have the uncompromising idealists, who are to be commended for their effort and honesty (except they ALWAYS LOSE).

On the other end there are the slimy, special interest driven Pander-Bears who rarely do anything positive for the American people *unless* it's also in their own personal/corporate interest.  They are only to be respected to the extent that they get elected over and over again.

In our current system, we have far too many people toward the wrong end of that spectrum, but the answer isn't to suggest that we have to flatly reject people unless they are totally impractical idealists. If we do that the end result will always be more of the same, because not enough people are paying attention.

Within the context of our system and it's severe limitations and pressures, the best we can expect *for now* is someone in the middle or left of center who once in power uses his/her leverage to push the system in that direction.

by Tom Hanc on 06/20/2008 03:14:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand that, bias... (none / 0)
But what I also understand is that he lied. OPENLY and without reservation. And the Obama supporters are lapping up his lies willingly and without reservation... So please spare me the lines about "changing the system" and "cleaning up politics" because your guy is evolving into yet another example of what is wrong with our politicians: Not sticking with what they say!! Thanks :)

by bobo1 on 06/20/2008 05:58:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What exactly did he lie about? (none / 1)
If I promise to do X, and circumstances change drastically such that the conditions under which I promised X no longer hold, am I a "liar" when I change my position on X?

Suggesting that I am is itself dishonest.  It ignores context and ignores the application of reason to changes in reality.

Sometimes you pretend not to be a troll.  Kurt Vonnegut once said that we tend to become what we pretend to be.  So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here:

Given everything that 8 years of a neoconservative Republican executive has given us, and given that you CLAIM to be against these and find that the country has gone down the proverbial shitter in the interim, do you really want 4 MORE years of Bushesque administration of our country?  You REALLY find yourself unable to vote for the candidate closer to your own agenda?

by jarett on 06/22/2008 03:46:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken is the liar (none / 0)

According to Ken anyway.

Ken defines a lie as asserting a statement that is not agreed upon by all (yeah, he really did in one of his most pathetic attempts to "defeat" me.  It was awesome.)

So when Ken calls Obama a liar here and he knows this is a heavily disputed statement, by his own definition, he is a liar.

Right, Ken? 

by ProfRich on 06/22/2008 09:57:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just out of curiosity (none / 0)

How does McCain being a known cheater in terms of campaign finance and public funding specifically impact this?

I think its either misleading or myopic to ignore this aspect of the discussion. 

by ProfRich on 06/20/2008 02:45:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you referring to the McCain-Feingold Act? (none / 0)

Yeah, that is what makes it so disgusting. 

Now as you know, McCain has flipped-flopped on every single position he has ever had (often repeatedly) including this one.

Considering his name is on the bill, you would think he would know the law and avoid violating it for embaressment factor alone but we should all keep in mind McCain very well may have forgotten he sponsored that bill. 

Is that really your argument?  McCain wrote the law he broke?

Do you think that is a defense of McCain?

by ProfRich on 06/20/2008 07:18:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Barack Obama and Public Money. | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)