Barack Obama: Hypocrite
Ruth Marcus has it right. The political consequences of Obama breaking his promise to take public financing will be negligible. The voters and his certainly his supporters won't care.
But enough with Obama presenting himself as a different sort of politician.
He's just like the rest of them. He'll break a campaign promise, even a written pledge, if there is a political advantage to be had in doing so.
Obama Lied, Public Campaign Finance Reform died. Big deal. But so did his holy reputation for straight-shooting honesty.
But enough with Obama presenting himself as a different sort of politician.
He's just like the rest of them. He'll break a campaign promise, even a written pledge, if there is a political advantage to be had in doing so.
Obama Lied, Public Campaign Finance Reform died. Big deal. But so did his holy reputation for straight-shooting honesty.
posted by Spencerblog at
10:23 PM
10 Comments:
Some "change", that.
Obama was caught in a blatant lie but it won’t negatively impact him at all because most of his supporters and all of the Lib Media see nothing wrong with lying if it benefits their cause. (Think: Dishonest Dave Diano) It’s all part of the “By any means necessary/ the end justifies the means” Lying Lib Mantra.
Randal-
Specifically, what is wrong with the "means"? Obama is getting donations of less than $100 from millions of Americans, and is not taking donation from PACs or registered federal lobbyists (the influence-peddlers). Smells equivalent to public financing.
BTW, his "promise" was that he would look into it (not blindly commit to it) and his campaign would try to negotiate with the McCain campaign. Well, he did look into public financing and wasn't able to reach an agreement with the McCain people.
I'm satisfied that his broad base of support from people with small donations accomplishes the same goal as public financing and saves the taxpayers $85 million. You should be thrilled that none of your money is going to help Obama campaign.
Well, as is always the case with Libs, the means involved lying. And then, once caught with lie on his face, he tried to turn it around and somehow blame it on McCain. More dishonesty. So much for all that hollow talk of "change" he keeps chirping about.
But I am happy about this!:
You should be thrilled that none of your money is going to help Obama campaign.
Randal-
How about McCain breaking his promise to use public financing for the primary? He secured a loan based on his agreement to use public financing. Now, he's trying to opt out of the public financing so he can spend unlimited amounts on his general election campaign (under the guise of it being primary money).
Obama's so-called promise was to try an work out an agreement with McCain on both campaigns using public financing. Since the McCain camp refused to honor it's own public financing commitment (and faces a lawsuit on that refusal), don't blame the Obama campaign for being the deal-breaker.
Obama didn't promise to go with public financing no matter what, but only to consider it and attempt to work out something with McCain.
If Obama had agreed to the $85 million limit, you'd all be calling him an idiot and a poor strategist for willingly giving up a huge financial advantage and committing political suicide.
BTW, I think the rules should be changed to limit donations to a few hundred dollars and only from individuals, no PACs, especially since in the Internet age, people can reach out to the candidates with web donations. For the millionaires, donations over $2000 are proportionally like a $200 or even $20 out of a middle or lower class income. The lower the limit, the harder to purchase influence.
You are just whining because your guy isn't popular enough to raise money from millions of donors.
Obama went back on his word. He made a campaign promise and broke it.
That some of his supporters can't be honest enough to admit it, is rather par for the course.
Spencer-
From the actual news story: Last year, Obama filled out a questionnaire where he vowed to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Besides the fact that Obama had not made a definite campaign promise to accept public financing, once the primaries has started it was clear and well understood that he would not be taking public financing. So, he certainly didn't deceive people voting for him, particularly those that considered his unrestricted fund raising ability paramount to his defeating the GOP nominee.
With friends and family, I made the case that Obama would be able to take in small amounts from large numbers of people, based on his early Internet success.
If I had believed that Obama would have limited himself to $85 million, I might have given more consideration to the argument of Hillary being more electable.
For, me (personally),
1) I don't consider the original statement to be a campaign promise to use public financing. He would be a rather foolish candidate to forgo the low dollar-high volume strategy that got him this far.
2) I was unaware of the original statement until this week, as it was made before I started following the race, in late December. So, I don't feel "lied to".
3) I don't know of anyone credible that believed Obama (or any of the Democrats) would be restricting themselves to public financing this year.
Spencer, where is your outrage over McCain's flip-flops on this issue? What about his allegedly illegal attempt to withdraw from public financing after using taxpayer money as collateral on a loan to finance his campaign.
Let's see: instead of spending the $5.8 million, he "borrowed" $4 million from the bank using the $5.8 mill as collateral. Had he lost the New Hampshire primary, his campaign would have been over and the $5.8 million spent to cover the $4 million loan.
McCain's attempt to opt-out, after he opted-in, appears to be a violation of FEC rules.
In a sternly worded response to McCain's campaign on these points, FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican appointee, stated that "a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certifications form" and that a candidate can only withdraw from the system under a process of formal review. Part of this review, in the case of McCain would include the investigation of whether the certification of matching funds was used as "security for private financing." Mason also warned McCain not to raise and spend in excess of the public financing system limit of $54 million while the issue remained pending. McCain never submitted his final public financing decision for review before the Commission, and has since exceeded the spending limits allowed under public financing.
It's funny to watch Dishonest Dave wiggle. He'll never man up to anything.
And I'm sure I read that McCain beat B. Hussein Obama in fundraising last month.
Randal-
I'm sure you'll read that Obama will beat McCain this month.
Great column in the Philly Inq today (6/30) by Charles Krauthammer. Turns out that Barry Hussein Obama is just another lying polititian. So much for all that hollow talk of "change" that his simplton followers gobbled up. Lol...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html
Post a Comment
<< Home