Obama opts out of the Public Financing system for the General Election

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Jun 19, 2008.

  1. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #1
    Just got this in my e-mail this morning:
    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bignews?source=20080619_PF_D1_G
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html

    Many are saying that this is a broken promise, but I remember reading exactly what was said, and it was NOT a promise. The Times chimed in on this point:
    Is something being missed here? Was there an ACTUAL promise somewhere, or are we entering a new round of political spin? I think the 527's are going to have their way, and that McCain won't stop them. Obama has been out spoken about them, but recently, I noticed a PAC cropping up that seemed a bit difficult for him to distance himself from, given his aims.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-06-18-obama-evangelicals_N.htm?csp=34
    I guess "talking up" isn't exactly advocacy or attack ads, but its a delicate dance.

    ~ CB
     
  2. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #2
    It's a bit of a shame but if it's going to put him at a disadvantage he really had no choice.

    The problem is with the system, not the candidate.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Bad optics, but a sound decision. And McCain can't really attack to hard on this, lest it draw attention to his current problems with the FEC involving using his public funding as collateral for a loan, then denying he'd accepted public funds. Flip, meet flop. A net push for both campaigns.

    Outside groups may try to use the issue, but it can't neatly be summed up in a 30-second sound bite, so I don't see this getting much traction.

    And Obama can take his huge cash advantage and pummel McCain with it all election season all over the electoral map. The GOP is likely to be playing defense in a lot of states, and not having a whole lot left over for offense. Obama can spread the map quite a bit with his funding advantage. He could even force McCain to play defense in his home state.
     
  4. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #4
    then why did he agree to public financing? public financing only yields $85 M, and restricts you to it which obama can easily raise in 60 days. the reason he's not taking it is because he can probably raise $285 M between now an november. let's not buy into his crap about the system being broken.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Let's be honest here... Obama never "agree(d) to public financing". He said he would consider it under certain conditions and that his opponent would have to agree to them too.
     
  6. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #6
    So he "agreed" to public financing (aka, taxpayer money), determined he could raise more than that on his own, and decided to turn it down. What's so bad about that?

    If you offer to give me a thousand dollars, no strings attached, and I agree to accept it, but later on, I decide that by doing some work, I can raise more than that myself, and tell you "I changed my mind, keep your money" does that make me a bad person?
     
  7. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    Public financing would have put them both even with funds? Would that mean that they can't use any donated money?
     
  8. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #8
    no McCain can still use the RNC money, which has alot more than the DNC.
     
  9. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #9
    He did not promise anything, and you are just spreading neo-con smear talking points. He raises money, $5, $10, $20 dollars at a time from the public. He takes nothing from special interest groups. You republican mind cannot deal with a man of integrity, because your side does not have one. The last ones were Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater. Your side is in deep doodoo.
     
  10. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #10
    Just another example of why politions are less than human. they are all filthy liers who care about nothing else but having power.
     
  11. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    How and when did Obama lie?
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #12
    blanket statement about politiions but Obama is very full of hot air and most of his "promises" are just talk.

    He nothing more than a less than human that was created out of the scum known as politics.
     
  13. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #13
    His new ad certainly seems a bit dodgy.

    link
     
  14. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #14
    I'm not surprised. I, too, would take the money. :)
     
  15. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #15
    It would be better to link to the ad, or at least a more journalistic review of it. I hate it when I read something, and the criticisms begin to have gaping problems with them.

    The guy criticises Obama for saying his values are straight out of Kansas, by saying his mother didn't really share Kansas values (nevermind Obama was clearly referring to his grandparents). He criticises Obama saying that they didn't have "much money", by isolating a part of his life and noting where he went to school and lived. It's no where near "dodgy".

    Obama's contention that he's forgoing public financing because the system is broken is "dodgy". He's doing it because he can raise more money without the limits. The TV ad is entirely on point. It's also an ad, so it plays up certain things and ignores others.

    Steve Sailer sounds like a jerk. He implies Obama doesn't love his country, because his mother married "two foreigners". Wow. Marry a "foreigner" and have your children's "love of country" questioned? That how it works, really? How nice. :rolleyes:
    DICK HEAD.

    ~ CB
     
  16. killerrobot macrumors 68020

    killerrobot

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #16
    Whether or not Obama actually lied about only going to take public funds, he definitely made it sound as though we was going to. Not just once, but on several occasions.

    I've got no problem with that. But what I do have a problem with is that he says the system is broken and that's why he's opting out. Well, wasn't it broken beforehand? He needed to just say he could raise more money for campaigning and that's it.

    I'm pro Obama, there's no doubt in my mind that I'm voting for him, but this episode could be the one that begins to plant the seed of doubt for many Americans. I think he really needed to explain (or the news needed to) in depth the reasons why he made that decision and not just make a headline out of it.
     
  17. lord patton macrumors 65816

    lord patton

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    Neo-con smear talking points. There are no republicans with integrity. Obama takes nothing from "special interest groups" (whatever those are).

    Dude, this isn't really a big enough deal to make yourself sound like such an ass.

    Anyway, there's spin world and the real world, and in the real world, if you have the chance at a 300 million dollar fundraising advantage, you take it. If Obama didn't, he wouldn't be principled—he'd be a dipshit.
     
  18. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #18
    Okay, that didn't answer either of my questions. I asked you to show me ANY instance in which Obama promised to use public funding.

    This is an impossible task, because he never promised. If he never promised, it is impossible to break a promise. No, Obama had said he would consider public financing if his Republican opponent would use public financing, and that they would have to talk about it with one another.

    Doesn't sound like a promise to me, and it doesn't even sound committal to me.

    So please, show me where he had promised doing such a thing.
     
  19. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #19
    yeah the more I hear his agrument is it was more how to raise campain funds. He never expect the Rep candidated to opt for it. He never planned on talking about it. He seemed to complete dismiss the idea saying nope bad idea forget this.

    Promise was to talk about doing it. Which he clearly had no intention of doing.

    He twist his words to make it sound like he is promising something yet really saying nothing at all.
     
  20. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #20
    well atleast you're using facts to back that statement up about Obama.

    Oh and most of all, that is very helpful to fix the problems we have!

    thanks for the great outlook!
     
  21. NC MacGuy macrumors 603

    NC MacGuy

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Location:
    The good side of the grass.
    #21
    I don't think he envisioned the $upport he'd be getting when the subject was broached. I think Obama will prove to be another of the same. A politician - period.
    A politician promises for a vote, Democrat or Republican.
     
  22. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    First of all, of course Obama is a politician. I don't know why anyone on either side thinks anything else. The difference is what he might do with his position of power, or in some cases, what he might not do. This though is a complete non-issue. When I first heard about it, I was disappointed, sure, but understood. Then, upon looking closer into it, I saw what most of the media wasn't telling us. That he didn't ever actually agree to it, though he did say yes on a form, but under the notes there was a lot more that isn't even being talked about that clearly laid out his position on the subject. That it was a "yes" with several caveats. That McCain didn't decide to abide by, even now after he suddenly is claiming he will.

    Not for lack of trying. I notice that even though McCain is hitting Obama for this, trying to make it seem like Obama is the flip flopper on the issue, no one seems to want to mention the FEC thing that the DNC had to actually sue them to even investigate. McCain's flip, then flop, then flipping again, then flopping again. Illegally. But no one covers that, because Obama said yes on a form. Ignoring what was written underneath that yes. Liberal media for you.

    Yeah, it turns out nobody really cares, but it was a nice try all the same.

    Really? Did you actually read everything he wrote? Because it's pretty specious reasoning, and as noted above, some of it is downright disgusting.

    Plenty of reasons to not like Obama, that was not it.

    Well, not really, it was actually more nuanced than that:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25283004/

    But no, no one wants to talk about that part for some reason.

    Author Of McCain-Feingold: Obama Smart To Opt Out Of Public Funds
     
  23. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #23
    He didn't.

    More bilge from you. The system is completely undemocratic. Not that America is a democracy anyway.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    We used to be. I thought. Wondering if anyone will read the above from Obama on the subject at the time. What he actually said. Or if this will be more like the Gore thread, where a 4% reduction in renewable energy equaled a 10% increase in regular energy somehow.
     
  25. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #25
    I was wondering that. I think it's a case of people just believing what they want to believe, even if they are well aware of the facts then their evident bias just makes them ignore it.
     

Share This Page