Barack Obama and Public Money.

Email Print posted by bradyjames 06/20/2008 03:14:42 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I've decided to write my second blog now.  Since this is such a hot topic, and I think its fucking ridiculous, I'll address it right now.

Barack Obama.  Finance.  Face it.  He did the smart thing.  Refusing public campaign funds was smart as hell.  That would've limited him to 85 million dollars.  Fuck that.  That is nothing.  He is raising over a million dollars a day.  Can you imagine that?  That is un-fucking-real.  He has 225 million dollars right now for the campaign.  What, so he'd have to give it all back?  I don't know exactly what he would have to do, but that doesn't matter.  The campaign is still being funded by the public, just, in a large volume.  He still isn't accepting funds from lobbyists or political action groups.  He made the Democratic party either give back lobbyist money or donate it to charity.  When was the last time that ever happened?  Honestly.  Come on, now people.  This is just how it is.  He is doing something unprecedented.  Change.  If John McCain is going to bitch about this, then I think the man truly is going senile.  This is such a non-issue.   

< Introduction. | May I Politely Disagree with George Lakoff? >

Poll

What do you think, is this an issue?
Yes. 20%
No. 80%

Votes: 20
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Barack Obama and Public Money. | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 hidden)
Yes (none / 1)
Obama wrote:
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. [LINK.pdf]

So, Obama was for public financing before he was against it. If McCain's flip-flop on offshore drilling is an issue, then Obama's flip-flop on campaign financing is an issue.

by Twba on 06/20/2008 08:37:26 AM EST

How the worm turns (none / 1)

Except that McCain refused to agree to this until he saw he was going to be vastly overmatched in fundraising.  Once that became clear public financing seemed like a splendid idea, a marvelous idea, a breathtakingly magically delicious idea.

Obama should just roll over and agree to public financing to even the playing field, right?  That's what the Republicans would have done were they in his position, correct?  Now the Republicans, those 'classical liberals', are screaming foul.  Poor things.  They only wanted to be fair.  They try and try to be even handed and see how they're treated?  I'm getting choked up just thinking about it.  How can Obama be so heartless?  Doesn't he see the Republicans just want to save the country from greedy corporatists?  They spend all of their waking moments thinking of how best to serve the public, and this is how they're repaid?  The thought brings tears to my eye, I'm having trouble seeing the keyboard.  I'm going to have to stop typing....

by bfaul on 06/20/2008 10:29:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Making a mountain out of a molehill (none / 0)

"y 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."

 

Was there an agreement made?  I don't think so.  And, honestly, how could you even trust McCain to honor an agreement with the way he's behaved in regards to public financing. There's a good chance that the man has already taken and used funds illegally.

This isn't a flip-flop. It's not as if he's changed his mind on the issue of public financing, but he's got to deal with the current situation as it stands.

Aside from that, he is publically financed.  Who do you think keeps sending in all those small dollar contributions?

by pmdtrans on 06/20/2008 05:07:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Of mt. and men (none / 0)
[new] Making a mountain out of a molehill (none / 0)

Ihavenobias may be just a molehill, but it's too much fun to point out his hypocritical douchebaggery to stop now.

Was there an agreement made?

In Obama's own words:

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.

Did Obama aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee? It does not appear that he made any effort at all, in light of McCain's standing offer to accept Obama's plan.

This isn't a flip-flop.

Of couuuuuuuuuuuuuurse it is a flip-flop.

Aside from that, he is publically financed.  Who do you think keeps sending in all those small dollar contributions?

By that logic, the First Baptist Church of Podunkville is publicly financed. No, Obama is privately financed, regardless of the number of contributors.

by Twba on 06/27/2008 01:22:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I restate my challenge (none / 0)

Any argument that Obama must accept public financing or be labeled a flip-flopper has to deal with the issue that McCain has violated the public financing rules.

Why in God's name would you expect Obama to enter into an agreement with a guy who is cheating? 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 01:48:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Keep spinning, Prof (none / 0)
It doesn't matter what McCain is doing; Obama is a flip-flopper. And I especially enjoy watching all the supporters of public financing rush to spin Obama's rejection of public financing.

by Twba on 06/27/2008 03:01:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter what McCain is doing? (none / 0)

So are you saying you won't vote?

Or you will vote for a 3rd party candidate?

The only way it can't matter what McCain is doing is if we have already elminated him from the potential candidates.

To say what my guy does is irrelevant, all we can talk about is what your guy does is ridiculous.  Who do you think is stupid enough to agree to that?

And, since it is an agreement based on the honor system we are talking about, why does it not matter that the other guy has proven to have no honor whatsoever on this exact issue? 

Again, as opposed to snickering and dismissing legitimate arguments, can you make this argument and include McCain's cheating?

I guess the answer is no.

And back to my binary argument.  On campaign finance your choices are a man who backed away from his consideration of taking public financing and a guy who accepted public financing and then shit all over all the rules of our elections.

So, on yet another issue, if you are choosing between Obama and McCain, Obama wins, and not by a little.

I will concede you are winning the argument in the Obama vs. Adam Warlock (google it) election. 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 03:16:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ihavenobias (none / 1)
In the words of our favorite statist wingnut:

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.

It's sadly not a sexy issue, but hopefully it becomes the big issue that can unite democrats, republicans and independents. I mean, I can't think of a single good reason anyone would be against it, regardless of their political party.

Hope for change in our disunity good for naught in this election cycle.

Public Financing Would Help Us Stomach Anything (none / 0)

To an extent I understand his point in that we'll never REALLY fix the system or have dramatic positive change until we have public financing in place for several years (to clean out all the garbage).

But to that point, Obama is the candidate (from both partiers) most likely to actually move us in that direction based on his voting record and plan on his website.

Perhaps Obama is not an agent of dramatic positive change.

by Twba on 06/20/2008 08:48:11 AM EST

(Yawn) (none / 0)
Oh look, it's our resident libertarian who usually waits until threads are off the homepage (when no one is reading them) before he responds!

Nice to see you back in real time. :)

Did Obama announce that he was going to stop setting records for taking donations from individual donors like you and me (well, uh, like me at least)?

Did he announce that he's opening the floodgates to rake in the cash from the healtchare and defense industries (the ones that Hillary made so much money from)?

Does this mean that Obama won't push (and push hard) for campaign finance reform once he's elected?

Look, the bottom line is, this election is too damn important to risk losing to McCain.  Why? We've heard a thousand (valid) reasons, but the biggest one is the Supreme Court.  A right wing court could continue to make bullshit decisions about how public financing is unconstitutional or some other such nonsense.

Yes, in a perfect world we'd have a crystal ball and know that Obama could limit himself to public funding now (with no 527 reform) and still kick McCain's ass.  It'd be a great symbolic gesture and I would prefer it in that context, I concede that much.

But we don't so I don't.  Not all money is created equal. You might bitch and cry about money from, say unions, but who cares about that?  Reagan CRUSHED the unions, and they are easily 1/3 (if not less) of what they were when he took office (later presidents didn't do much to restore thier power and if anything only piled on).  We have an enormous imbalance between corporate/employer power and individual/union power.

In other words, if you can start posting (credible) links that Obama is taking serious money from key industries (like Big Health care, Big Pharma, Big Oil, The Defense Industry, etc.) AND it starts effecting or eventually effects his policies in a meaningful way, THEN you can come back and repost this little snippet.

But so far, so good.

by ihavenobias on 06/20/2008 11:25:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Big Comment (none / 0)
In other words, if you can start posting (credible) links that Obama is taking serious money from key industries (like Big Health care, Big Pharma, Big Oil, The Defense Industry, etc.)...

Obama has taken $17,500,375 from Big Lawyer and Big Lobbyist and $19,103,119 from Big Finance, Big Insurance and Big Real Estate. Here's the Big Link. And here's the Big Link to McCain's Big Key Industry Contributors.

by Twba on 06/20/2008 12:27:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Big Deal (none / 0)
1)-McCain sucks at raising money because he's a mediocre candidate and everyone hates the Republicans. Look at the percentages of who's money comes from where.

Again, Obama has broken records (and will continue to break records) for getting the most individual donations from average Americans. The more donations like that he gets, the more it dilutes the importance of money he gets elsewhere.

2)-Compare the various policy positions of Obama and McCain. Who's policy positions seem to be much more in line with Big Money special interest groups that we should fear?  Are you scared that lawyers will be able to sue you for no reason? Are you scared that you'll be forced to buy a house? What scares you?

I'm far more scared of continued ass kissing of Big Oil (continued pollution, continued dependence on foreign oil and indirect funding of terrorists, expensive transportation and lack of public transportation, etc.) and Big Defense. Look at the no-bid contracts for oil and contractors in Iraq and the wasted billions for examples.

Exactly.

by ihavenobias on 06/20/2008 01:22:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
runaway torts (none / 0)
You have no idea the damage that excessive litigation has done to the U.S. economy. The price of oil is not set by oil companies. It rises when demand exceeds supply. Democrat policies prohibiting drilling in domestic tracts three times as large as Saudi Arabia are contributory.

by KenTX on 06/20/2008 01:35:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure, sure (none / 0)
It's all about frivilous lawsuits.  And that's why health care and insurance costs are so high too, right?

by ihavenobias on 06/20/2008 01:54:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Check your meds (none / 0)

"It rises when demand exceeds supply. Democrat policies prohibiting drilling in domestic tracts three times as large as Saudi Arabia are contributory."

This is a wet dream.  You need to check your Mexican Viagra connection.  The guy is supplying you with bad shit and you're hallucinating something terrible. 

by bfaul on 06/20/2008 03:56:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This report from NPR (none / 0)

But I think we already knew that.

“A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That's three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.”

What happens when Americans produce an additional $400 billion per year worth of oil and refined gasoline from U.S. reserves, rather than importing these products?

  1. It creates hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs.
  2. It dramatically reduces the trade deficit.
  3. It dramatically reduces the budget deficit and the national debt by increasing tax revenue from oil production on government owned lands, enhanced corporate earnings, and enhanced personal income.
Let's compare these benefits with bfaul’s solution to the nation’s energy needs.

OK. We're waiting. We're still waiting. 

by KenTX on 06/20/2008 04:15:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
but (none / 0)
What will motivate people to invest in alternative energy research if oil prices are kept low?  (Not that that is your particular interest.)  On the one hand people are moaning and groaning because the US doesn't do anything to reduce carbon emissions.  On the other hand, as soon as their precious petroleum gets expensive enough to force them to change, they are ready to rape the earth and start another war.  (exaggerating for effect of course)  I would say to save those resources for future generations in case we are in a REALLY tight spot some day!

by desertpear on 06/20/2008 10:33:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama Solutions (none / 0)
to the current energy crisis.



(warning: this is not the last time I will employ these clips)

by KenTX on 06/20/2008 04:34:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where is she from? (none / 0)
Please tell me exactly who Maxine Waters represent? Please exclude those people from any standardized school testing we give, because their scores are gonna drag the average WAY DOWN!! She's been there at least 15 years by my recollection - its time to "re-box" her model, like they did to Deana on BSG. What a kook!!! I hope Obama has more sense than to put her anywhere near the operation of a department! Thanks for the vids, Ken! :)

by bobo1 on 06/20/2008 05:47:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
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 ihavenobias 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 ihavenobias 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 ihavenobias 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 ]
pop quiz for Rich (none / 0)
"How does McCain being a known cheater in terms of campaign finance and public funding specifically impact this?"

What's the name of the controlling legal authority (the actual law) in campaign finance reform?

by KenTX on 06/20/2008 04:19:01 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 ]
Update (none / 0)
Oh look, it's our resident libertarian who usually waits until threads are off the homepage (when no one is reading them) before he responds!

From the homepage:

Recently Commented

Send This To Everyone You Know (Or Even...
- Forum by ihavenobias, June 27
3 comments - 3 new

Barack Obama and Public Money.
- Forum by bradyjames, June 20
34 comments

by Twba on 06/27/2008 01:37:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you for proving my point (none / 0)
If you continue to feel the need to respond to old ass threads (that hardly anyone is paying attention to overall) and grind the petty ax you have with me, go ahead.

I won't waste my time.

by ihavenobias on 06/27/2008 06:28:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wasted time (none / 0)
I don't observe any time limit on threads. I will reply anytime I want.

Face it, we're almost polar opposites. You sincerely want Uncle Sam to confiscate 91 cents of every dollar Tiger Woods earned by winning the U.S. Open on a broken leg. I want him to keep 91 cents of every dollar. Of course we'll clash repeatedly.

by Twba on 06/28/2008 12:10:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's not about this election, right this second (none / 0)
It's about changing the entire system.  That cannot be done now because the primary season has already finished, and starting that change now would be grossly unrepresentative of the people who support him and kind of ridiculously unfair.

We'll know he's a hypocrite on this issue if he fails to move on campaign financing after he's elected, before the re-election season starts.

by jarett on 06/22/2008 03:37:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0)
[new] It's not about this election, right this second (none / 0) It's about changing the entire system.

You're backing a flip-flopper, Jarett. Get used to it.

by Twba on 06/27/2008 01:23:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Binary (none / 0)

Even if this is true, their are two choices.  Who is the bigger flip-flopper? 

Its not even close. 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 01:49:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Vote or die laughing (none / 0)
Who is the bigger flip-flopper?

In other words, vote for the lesser of two flip-floppers.

by Twba on 06/27/2008 03:02:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fine (none / 0)

Thats a vote for Obama, we'll be counting on you!

Certainly you aren't suggesting we vote for the bigger of the two flip-floppers are you? 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 03:10:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Finer (none / 0)
I'm not endorsing either clown. I will vote for neither.

by Twba on 06/27/2008 03:19:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Like I said (none / 0)

Then I can't attack you as much for this.

But I don't understand why you can't bring yourself to acknowledge McCain's faults, like the cheating on financing stuff. 

by ProfRich on 06/27/2008 03:24:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama on financing (none / 0)

"But I don't understand why you can't bring yourself to acknowledge McCain's faults, like the cheating on financing stuff." 

For the same reason you can't bring yourself to acknowledge Obama's faults, like flip flopping on financing stuff. 

The Daily Show clip renders your charge completely ineffective.

by KenTX on 06/28/2008 03:19:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The only reason (none / 0)
The only reason people are making this out to be an issue is because we all saw it coming.  As soon as I saw  the kind of money he was bringing in, I knew he would refuse public financing.  This is a stupid issue.  It does not effect any of us.  In the slightest.

by bradyjames on 06/20/2008 11:22:27 PM EST

Yeah, but... (none / 0)

What the hell else are the Republicans gonna talk about?

The economy?

The war?

The other war?

The next war they are planning? 

The GI Bill?

The restoration of habeus corpus? 

McCain's record?

McCain and his second wife?

McCain embracing torture?

Health care?

I mean isn't it obvious why they want to talk about this sooooo bad. 

 

by ProfRich on 06/20/2008 11:58:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're Right (none / 0)
You're right.  Its why this is fucking ridiculous.  The media is all over it.  And, I can't seem to figure out why.

by bradyjames on 06/21/2008 12:04:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Na (none / 0)

You want to know why this an issue? It is because people want to change the rules in the 3rd quarter.

If everyone sat down and agreed to a certain set of rules (along with Obama) before the primaries even began then Obama would be wrong here.

Every time campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections were mentioned in the past the Republicans jumped up and down like a bunch of shaved apes.

Now that the Republicans have a presidential candidate and a bunch of other Republican Congressional candidates that can't raise a dime on their own they have to reach into my pocket like a bunch of welfare queens to run their campaigns. Obama and the DNC is doing it the American way and the Republicans are whining like a bunch of girls because in is not going their way.

Sorry, the time to make the rules is before the game starts and not three quarters of the way through. So maybe the next time someone wants to set the ground rules before the game starts, try working together. Now the Republicans want to pull old quotes and cry foul because it is not going their way.

Sorry Republicans, you got the shitty end of the stick. The end. 

by z1p101 on 06/21/2008 12:40:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Barack Obama and Public Money. | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: