And there is a very good argument to be made that Kerry lost in 2004 because he was trying to preserve limited public general election funds while the swiftboat ads were running on soft money in the month prior to the GOP primary, when their clock hadn’t started running on public spending.</p>
<p>The GOP has been saying for weeks that they are going to rely on the extra money the party (RNC) has – whereas the Democratic party is reported to be strapped for funds to run the convention, much less add to the pot for Obama. </p>
<p>Only this week a court weighed in and said the FEC rules were too weak and advised the agency to draft new regs – but there isn’t time for the new regs to be adopted and implemented before November.<br>
[washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines](<a href=“http://washingtonpost.com%5Dwashingtonpost.com”>http://washingtonpost.com)</p>
<p>Bush has nominated new commissioners, but they are all Republicans with strong partisan ties – so even putting finances aside, to accept public financing at this point for Obama would mean to agree to play by a set of rules that have already been determined by a court to be inadequate, with future rules to be determined or enforced by a forum controlled by the opposing party.</p>
<p>So basically, aside from the financial concerns, the rules and procedures that go along with public financing right now are pretty much stacked against the Democratic candidate. It’s a broken system – and there is no way that Obama or anyone else could have anticipated last fall exactly how broken it would end up being.</p>
<p>He is obviously going against his word. I would hope every politician would go against his word if it was the best course of action. This decision obviously helps him more than it hurts him. I would help any politician would do the same for our country even if he promised against him.</p>
<p>Personally I wish he would have taken the funds…I do not want to live with waatching 500 million in ads…I am cringing at the thought. When we had the primary, I must have seen an Obama ad 5 times an hour. It was just insane, and actually started to tick me off…I did what I needed to do and changed the channel, only to find the same darn ad on the next channel! Uggh!</p>
<p>Yeah, because we know that the liberals don’t have 529’s of their own. moveon.org is probably the most active 529, ever. Let’s not pretend that game is only being played on one side (I think they should all be illegal anyhow). These 529’s can say or do whatever they want…the only people the suffer the consequences of their actions are the public and the candidates.</p>
<p>I don’t follow the political arena all that closely (not nearly as closely as many here do), but if (1) public financing of elections was deemed desirable principally because it would help to make the election process less corrupt (keeping big-money “special interest” contributors from being able to buy influence, etc.), and (2) Obama’s campaign has succeeded in raising huge amounts of money without having to rely much on big contributors, then (3) isn’t it arguably a win-win situation (no big special-interest money or taxpayer money) for Obama, under these circumstances, not to be relying on public financing?</p>
<p>I’m sure that if the DNC had deep pockets and could throw tons of cash into the fray on this behalf then he wouldn’t have opted out. McCain has a much more robust RNC behind him and they will be able to counter the $$$'s being raised by Obama (at least I hope…lol).</p>
<p>And I’m not sure how much we follow it as much as we like to argue about it. It’s good to get the blood flowing…</p>
<p>“I believe Clinton learned quite a bit from his 2 year stint as governor.”</p>
<p>IIRC, Bill was governor for more like 10 years. The issue at the time wasn’t the brevity of his career; it was the fact that Arkansas is such a tiny state, where everyone knows everyone, and it was debatable whether running that kind of administration prepares you for Washington.</p>
<p>You know. I thought that wasn’t right (only a 2 year term) but I kept reading it and couldn’t find more. I should know better than to trust wikipedia (either that or I didn’t read far enough). I was refering to his 2 year stint where he lost re-election due to some poor decisions he made. Thanks for clearing that up for me.</p>
<p>I thought he had more than 2 years a governor. That makes the similarities between him and Obama even less apparent to me then. I would think running any kind of executive branch is better than none at all…</p>
<p>Right, he lost, was out of office for two years, and then was re-elected to something like 4 2-year terms.</p>
<p>I agree that running any kind of executive branch is better than none at all, but I also think that getting your feet wet in Washington and learning the power lines in Congress is better than none at all.</p>
<p>BHO: “John McCain is not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”</p>
<p>From the article:“There are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.”… “Both donors and operatives know how much McCain abhors these groups.”</p>
<p>I really got a queasy feeling watching BHO say the above yesterday. Does he really think we’re not smart enough to discern his duplicity in not just this, but so many other areas?</p>
<p>I wish both candidates would disavow these groups. Furthermore, I want to hear less from each candidate about what the other does wrong or can’t do and more from each about what they can and are going to do…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Obama flip-flopped on this issue, but he would have been a fool not to. And he was smart enough to have given himself an out. While he didn’t live up to his promise – and that must be said clearly – his promise was couched. He said if he became the nominee he would meet with the Republicans to exact a commitment for capping spending on both sides. I can’t attest to whether he actually went to get such a commitment or not – his campaign says he did (I think), McCain’s campaign said he didn’t. The problem I have is that even if he met with McCain’s campaign, neither one of their campaigns can completely control what outside groups do to campaign through 527s. </p></li>
<li><p>There is plenty of “dirt” to go around, if you want to look at it this way. When McCain’s campaign was on the ropes in the primary season, he used the public funding system as a guarantee to private lenders that he’d be able to pay them back if they lent his campaign some money. He thereby entered the public financing system – which technically once you do, you can’t go back and withdraw – but once his campaign started humming again he withdrew against the rules of the system. There are still complaints that will/could be heard about this at the FEC. The FEC does not have a full commission seated right now and that is why none of these arguments have been heard.</p></li>
<li><p>The weeping and gnashing of teeth by people like David Brooks is sour grapes, as far as I am concerned. I’ve never heard David Brooks – or many people like him – all that concerned before about the influence of money in our system. But now that someone he doesn’t like is rolling in it, and broke a promise about it, it’s hit time.</p></li>
<li><p>Someone said above that this is the first time a nominee has foregone the public finance system. Absolutely untrue. GW Bush and I believe both Kerry and Gore did in their campaigns.</p></li>
<li><p>Now here’s why even though Obama broke his promise, I am so glad he did. I think it shows important savvy. The 527s – groups like the Swift Boaters – aren’t held to these fundraising limits. McCain has not acted in any clear way to shut them down, nor is it likely that he could even if he wanted to (since moral suasion is all he’d have). Obama HAS moved to shut down the 527s that might operate on his behalf, but again, he can only do so by moral suasion; he asked donors not to give money to 527s working to get him elected. Obama is wise for not being willing to unilaterally disarm. If he could have forged a solid commitment from anybody and everybody involved including the 527s on both sides to abide by a spending cap, I would be really dismayed that he had broken his promise. However, in this case it would be monumentally stupid if he hadn’t broken his promise. It would actually make me doubt his judgement. It would make me wonder if he’d negotiate well with other countries.</p></li>
<li><p>Campaigns are way too expensive, and we are not getting quality for all that expenditure in my opinion. The political discourse is getting dumber and dumber, IMO, and the huge donor machines make certain that big money gets hugely represented in our political process. It really dismays me and I would like to see a way to reassert a public finance system that people respect. Having said that, I am glad Obama is not sacrificing the strength of his campaign and making himself vulnerable to the abuse of 527s that wouldn’t abide by any limitations the two campaigns might agree to.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now we are going to hear a lot about this broken promise. The only ones making these complaints that have a whole lot of credibility in my mind are those who really hold to the principle that there shouldn’t be private financing of presidential campaigns. Most of the rest, in my mind, are full of sour grapes.</p>
<p>I’d venture to say that what made you queasy, Ilsa, is not serious moral qualms, but the fact that someone you clearly don’t support is doing so well financially. Would you really honestly want McCain to abide by campaign finance limits if he was the one crushing Obama in the financial sweepstakes? I can’t know exactly what motivates you, of course not. But let me just say that if you adopt such a sanctimonious tone about this when it’s really clear you don’t like Obama to begin with, it doesn’t really ring true to someone like me.</p>
<p>Do you really believe that article or expect us to believe that Republican 527s aren’t going to try to Swift Boat Obama when the following things have been put out countless times:</p>
<p>Obama still has tons of high ground. He has called off his 527 dogs. He has asked for a respectful campaign. But credit him for not being an idiot.</p>
<p>And please don’t treat us here on this board as idiots.</p>
<p>Obama is making people queasy b/c for someone who is going to change how politics are played in the last week he is definetly playing the political game…NYT article on Michelle getting her softer image, the Muslim issue, and going back on his word. He promised, then no matter how much money he should stick to the promise, end of subject, period, dot. </p>
<p>Again I would much rather see them both take the money b/c I dread the amount of ADs…thank G*d for tivo! Also let’s be real the worse 527 right now in the campaign is MoveOn.org Did we all forget about George Soros swearing he would spend his entire fortune to guarantee Bush was not re-elected?</p>
</a>
Yeah - that’s right; McCain did pretty much the same thing in the primaries. (I don’t blame him, either. As Mr. Payne says, we pick these people for having the brains and the guts to do what needs to be done to get the job done.)</p>
<p>^yep. BHO is nothing if not “savvy,” but he just might be better off in a lot of voters’ eyes if <em>he’d</em> drop the sanctimony, already. He’s a presidential candidate, not me! It’s the duplicity in continually behaving and speaking as though he’s above it all and then doing the exact opposite which is actually starting to become nauseating. I can see why you’re angry, bedhead, I would be also, if BHO were my candidate. He’s messed up big-time in a number of ways, people are beginning to see through him (if they haven’t already) and when the press’ idealistic bubble really bursts (which has already begun), it’s really going to get ugly. Don’t shoot the messenger, please. No one is going to change their mind about BHO based on what I say!</p>
<p>“Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.” I love that line.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is enough on him to see through yet. Politics being what they are, you know the conservatives are trying to dig up every bit of dirt on him they can (the job for the liberals is a little easier as McCain’s dirt is mostly out there already). Let’s see what they find. Hopefully he is as clean as he appears. If not then the real fun will begin.</p>