<p>
</p>
<p>Feigned indignation. McCain already took public financing this year and then broke the rules to withdraw when he saw he could survive on private financing.</p>
<p>The thing is, 527 groups are a huge loophole in the campaign financing laws, and it’s not clear what can be done about it. The First Amendment gives people the right to express their opinion - and it clearly exists to protect the expression of political opinion. So if I want to tell the world that John McCain is a child-eating pervert, it’s my Constitutional right. And how loudly I can say that kind of depends on how much money I have. The campaigns themselves can be controlled by various means, but trying to control every whacko who wants to buy airtime to smear a politician he doesn’t like is problematic. The original Swiftboat group was funded by about $10M ponied up by a group of Texas Republicans, and that spending didn’t count against George Bush’s “official” campaign budget.</p>
<p>I think it’s interesting that Obama is taking control of the money being spent on the Democratic side. It makes sense because he’s the money magnet, so he can call the shots. On the other side, there seems to be lots of people who would rather give to the party than to McCain - so it makes sense for him to take the $84M (which he might have trouble raising on his own) and let his normal donors contribute to the party. </p>
<p>Either way, it looks to be a pretty even matchup. Of course, the crocodile tears of the right wingers about Obama “breaking his pledge” is really anguish over the prospect of a fair fight this time around.</p>
<p>The Republican Party can fill in McCain’s financial deficits by spending it own money to run ads against Obama. It doesn’t come out of the McCain war chest, but it absolutely does benefit his campaign. The Democratic Party can’t do the same for Obama. Financially, he’s on his own. And well he knows it. That’s why it would have been ‘stoopid’ for him to limit himself to the public financing limit.</p>
<p>Besides, McCain is getting a great deal using his wife’s private jet at way-below-market costs. Obama can’t compete with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I caught wind of it, pmrlcomm, and I’m getting ready to sling some mud! :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually it doesn’t bother me a bit that he is or isn’t doing the public deal. It’s just an acknowledgement that he did back off his word when it suited his purpose. I think since in the last election both candidates had their 527 cannons loaded that it was a fair fight then as well. I just hope it is a good fight and we get to hear some substance instead of pandering.</p>
<p>Hindo, how did you like the Obama-pologists part? Made the one up all by myself…LOL To be honest I can’t even remember what that comment was in regard to now. So many threads, so little time!</p>
<p>Oh, so clever. You’re full of baloney sometimes, pmrlcomm!</p>
<p>At times perhaps. But always charming…lol</p>
<p>There is not a single person in America who will decide not to vote for Obama afterall because he opted for private rather than public financing.</p>
<p>That’s not the point…</p>
<p>I think that <em>is</em> the point. No doubt, disappointment or even alarm rises to the level of a single voter’s potential shift away from him on those grounds alone.</p>
<p>Well-articulated opinion piece:</p>
<p>[Bring</a> It On - Campaign Stops - 2008 Elections - Opinion - New York Times Blog](<a href=“http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/]Bring”>Bring It On - The New York Times)</p>
<p>If this singular event were to cause a voter to switch then they weren’t overly committed anyhow. It’s more important to watch the trends of the candidates in the coming months. A candidate back-tracking on his word several times is cause for alarm. It’s a wait and see game. Some would vote for their respective candidates no matter what they did, others might actually pay attention and decide based on what we here in the next 4 1/2 mos.</p>
<p>What is all this about going back on their word, like they did a pinky swear somewhere. People change their minds all the time - we just don’t have the tape to play over and over again. Bless Tim Russert’s heart, he perfected the rolling of the “flip flop tape.” McCain has flip flopped or changed his mind about off shore drilling, Falwell, tax cuts, the overturning of Roe v Wade and several other issues. I’m sure Obama has flip flopped or changed his mind about just as many things. We have had two terms of someone who could have benefited from a little flip flopping.</p>
<p>Fine with me. Just remember that, when McCain flip flops, which he will, that it is ok with you. I’m not complaining that Obama did…just want to make sure the other guys doesn’t get skewered if you aren’t going to skewer your guy.</p>
<p>Sorry, but I think it’s disingenuous to act as if there is nothing more at play here. BHO painted himself as a “new politician”–he based his entire candidacy on this promise. Why do you think young people are (were) so attuned to him? Change we can believe in! Now, where is the change? It’s the same ol’ same ol’. Some mighty spinning here trying to make out like it doesn’t matter.
Now we’re moving into- oh he’s such a SMART POL. Okay, that’s probably true, but that is not the “hope” he held out for us. </p>
<p>[New</a> York Magazine](<a href=“http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06obamas_halo_seriously_flickering.html?imw=Y]New”>http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06obamas_halo_seriously_flickering.html?imw=Y)</p>
<p>In addition, BHO is already predicting that “they” are going to be out to get him because he’s a black man. At a fundraiser in Florida yesterday he said:</p>
<p>“It’s going to be very diffficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”</p>
<p>^^Wow. This is the man who had the temerity to chastise the Clinton campaign for “injecting race” into the campaign. Quite a guy.</p>
<p>Good points cartera, but the point remains that “flip-flopping” is relevant only if the landscape has or has not changed, or if new info comes to light.</p>
<p>I agree w/ you that changing one’s mind on an issue is good to do sometimes if the facts change, but just changing an opinion or plan because you were wrong the first time doesn’t bode that well for a candidate. Same principle applies if one changes his mind because it becomes a matter of political expediency.</p>
<p>I don’t hold it against McCain in the least because he changed his view on offshore drilling NOW that the price of oil has increased dramatically. Judging from you’re comment above, I think you’d agree.</p>
<p>It’s an entirely different matter when a candidate “flips” just because he thinks that’s what he has to do in order to “win”. If he is knowledgable, he should’ve picked the correct approach to begin with, or stand on his principles whether he gets elected or not (i.e. McCain on Iraq strategy).</p>
<p>I don’t like it if I’m inclined to vote for someone based on his platform, then, in mid-stream (or after he’s elected) he changes that platform - provided the facts remain the same.</p>
<p>At least w/ McCain we pretty much KNOW what we’re getting (based on his solid approach to certain issues & his RECORD). With Obama - who knows? He comes out as one thing, then it’s not so clear (i.e. he presented himself as “race irrelevant” and then here comes the Rev. Wright thing & his church which is ALL ABOUT race!). And what about NAFTA - first he’s against it, then he’s not so sure - Troops in Iraq? Bring 'em home right away, BUT might send them back if necessary… Nothing has changed regarding either of those two topics EXCEPT Obama’s words!</p>
<p>I’m sorry, Ilsa Belter - did you miss the video Spideygirl was so insistent we all review a week or two ago? “A Video Portrait Of Barack Hussein Obama.” Spideygirl referred to it as “a decent example of what some of the concerns are about Obama.” In the first three minutes: “Obama has three Islamic names.” “Fact: His father is a Muslim from Kenya [picture] his mother a white American [picture]” “Fact: Obama attended a Muslim school for two years in Jakarta.”</p>
<p>The one thing that’s wrong about the statement you quoted was the suggestion that “they’re going to” do those things.</p>
<p>They’re already doing them. Is that Obama’s fault?</p>
<p>bz - it is likely that McCain will flip and flop further away from my beliefs as he moves to the right. I don’t agree with his new stance on off shore drilling. With regard to campaign finance, something huge changed that prompted Obama to rethink it - he raised a boatload of money. It would have been a stupid move not to do what he did and the last thing we need is more stupid. Whatever he chooses to do with regard to financing his campaign for this election will have no effect on changes to campaign finance - it would be akin to thinking that refusing to pay your taxes will change the IRS.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, too. He insistently told us HE was not going to get down in the mud with the rest of “them” and intended to rise above racial politics. Here he is already accusing “Republicans” of doing that even though not one McCain ad has come close, or probably will. There are and will be yahoos posting garbage videos on youtube on both sides. That is not what he is referring to here.</p>