The WSJ harshly criticizes Obama's cop-out on campaign financing. Obama is already accusing McCain of getting attack ads ready and abusing 527s...Meanwhile the most active 527 is MoveOn.org and their McCain attack ads...irony? The op-ed predicts that supporters of finance reform "will express "disappointment" with his decision and suggest that he "fix" it – after he's President".
The NYT expresses disappointment ("unfortunately...") and suggests that he "fix" it - after he's President ("counting on Mr. Feingold’s vow to hold Mr. Obama to his promise to make public financing reform a high priority if he wins.") They also go one step further in blaming McCain for inviting 527s "into the fray". I guess I mustve missed that speech.
David Brooks gives his take on Obama's flip-flop on reform:
quote:
Op-Ed Columnist The Two Obamas By DAVID BROOKS God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.
The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.
I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
It seems like in the last 24 hours it's dawned on Republicans just what they're up against.
Weren't they watching the primary?
This idea, however, that "changing the way presidential campaigning works" means you agree to all of John McCain's town hall debates is a sort of laughable.
But the tone here is the tone everywhere this morning - "Oh, shit - we better get to work!"
The article does have some valid points. Does Obama "walk the walk"? Voting present and not taking positions seems a little "political" and not genuine to me.
This problem with public financing and his reasons for opting out seem like a lie to me. This is about his ability to raise probably twice as much as Mccain. I dont like that he basically backpedalled when it became convenient.
It certainly is counter to what he's argued in the past.
It's also sort of a no-brainer politically. This guy raises money like Tiger wins golf tournaments. He'll have a large fundraising advantage over McCain. He's not going to give up that advantage.
Plus, he'll still be able to argue that he took no money from PACs or lobbyists who do business with the federal government, and that his campaign is publicly financed - mostly because private citizen-donors were moved to send him small checks because they want him to be president.
And remember, the RNC has a substantial fundraising advantage over the DNC. So if Obama agreed to public financing he'd not only be agreeing to give away his fundraising advantage, but he'd also be agreeing to give McCain one instead.
Which is why this decision was a no-brainer, and one that I'd suspect that the other side would make as well, especially if McCain could also claim that 90% of his money came from private citizens giving $100 of less.
Yeah, I've read the articles, and the fact that he's "the people's fundraiser" has to be considered. It's Americans speaking with their 100 bucks... not massive corporations.
He's going to penetrate Republican strongholds like mad. He's not going to pull off Ohio to fight in Florida... he'll do both.
If anyone hasn't heard the phrase "The Bush-McCain Energy Plan," get damn used to it. You're gonna think Bush and McCain are married when it comes to Iraq, the tax plan, and oil.
Originally posted by shepwrite: Yeah, I've read the articles, and the fact that he's "the people's fundraiser" has to be considered. It's Americans speaking with their 100 bucks... not massive corporations.
This decision is very much in line with his pledge for 'Change'.
Since enacted in 1976, he is the first candidate to forgo Public Campaign Financing.
THAT is a change.
PS A potential claim to be publically financed because of the grass roots contributions sounds eerily like on Bill Clinton.
Change?
Posts: 1377 | Location: South Windsor, CT | Registered: Fri September 12 2003
Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie: john, do you have any worries about how his campaign is being financed and whether or not that will influence how he governs as president? Is he overly dependent on any monied interest that you know of?
Why such a reaction, heck?
I cracked a little joke - one with a serious side.
You know.........kind of Stewart, Mahar, Colbert.
He apparently voted to give tax breaks to Big Oil.
Posts: 1377 | Location: South Windsor, CT | Registered: Fri September 12 2003
Ha. My point is that the theory of public financing - allowing the candidates to have a substantial sum of money to draw from so that they don't need to go out and raise it from monied interests, and then be beholden, or appear to be beholden, to those interests once in office - is what's important, is it not?
Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie: Ha. My point is that the theory of public financing - allowing the candidates to have a substantial sum of money to draw from so that they don't need to go out and raise it from monied interests, and then be beholden, or appear to be beholden, to those interests once in office - is what's important, is it not?
Obama can still make that case.
He can make any case that he wants.
PS Great spin. You are even better than Lanny Davis.
Posts: 1377 | Location: South Windsor, CT | Registered: Fri September 12 2003
No, I really don't think you have that right either.
The "Count every vote" mantra was from Florida (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) and that was because people went to the polls expecting their vote would count towards electing the president.
Nobody in Florida or Michigan went to the primaries this year thinking they were doing anything but casting a symbolic vote. And what Dems understand is that the fault for this lies with the people in those states who tried to leapfrog Iowa and New Hampshire and made sure that those votes meant nothing. I don't think anyone is mad at Howard Dean. Most think he did the right thing, and resolved it as well as he could.
And I don't see how Obama could have made the case if the situation was reversed, especially since his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie: No, I really don't think you have that right either.
The "Count every vote" mantra was from Florida (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) and that was because people went to the polls expecting their vote would count towards electing the president.
Nobody in Florida or Michigan went to the primaries this year thinking they were doing anything but casting a symbolic vote. And what Dems understand is that the fault for this lies with the people in those states who tried to leapfrog Iowa and New Hampshire and made sure that those votes meant nothing. I don't think anyone is mad at Howard Dean. Most think he did the right thing, and resolved it as well as he could.
And I don't see how Obama could have made the case if the situation was reversed, especially since his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
Sure, Heck.
Posts: 1377 | Location: South Windsor, CT | Registered: Fri September 12 2003
I am going to state this again, Barack has my vote if Hagel is his VP 100%. Not only my vote but the little amount of money I can contribute. Until the VP's are selected I am going to have a hard time deciding.
The "Count every vote" mantra was from Florida (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) and that was because people went to the polls expecting their vote would count towards electing the president.
And when it turned out that was exactly what happened the Dems tried to say they were too stupid to vote and needed to do it all again in hopes of getting the other lefties off the couch.
Or having an endless recount and examination of chads by the 2 to 1 democrat election boards.
WSS
Posts: 5186 | Location: Norton Ohio USA | Registered: Mon September 15 2003
Wait... Steve? Is that your take on the Florida debacle? That nothing went wrong? That the movie "Recount" was based on nothing?
Holy shit. I'd never heard anyone claim that before. I'm starting to understand why you aren't ashamed to be a Republican... you've actually spent the last 9 years or so in a different dimension.
