« Obama affirms his "commitment to the rule of law"; McCain says, "bring it on" | twirling fartknocker's Blog | Hillary Is Really Working the Refs to Ignore the Obvious »
McCain - Afraid of Obama's Donor Army - Calls for Obama to Use Public Financing
It's abundantly clear, as McCain can't even lock up his own base, and Obama is raising cash hand over fist from hundreds of thousands of regular folk, that McCain is afraid he'll come up short in dollars this fall.
There was no pledge, but Obama may yet agree to this.
The entire question of how 527s etc fit into this equation remains wide open.
OSHKOSH, Wis. — Hammering Senator Barack Obama for a fourth straight day, Senator John McCain said here on Friday that he expects Senator Obama to abide by his pledge use public financing for his general election if Mr. McCain does so as well.
There was no pledge, but Obama may yet agree to this.
The entire question of how 527s etc fit into this equation remains wide open.
Advertisement
Don't fall for it. McCain & the Republicans will cheat!
Did they agree to public financing when THEY had the purse strings?
I'm so sick of this Charlie Brown/Lucy with the football shit that they try to pull off. Why? Because the Dems, like Charlie Brown fall for it again, and again.(think FISA, NSA Wiretaps, AttorneyGate, etc...)
Screw McCain....Let them try to compete with a real campaign with deep pockets.
Not only do I want them to lose, I want them to be broke until the 2010 cycle.
This is they way you create a permanent majority.
February 15, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a non-issue. Has anyone opted out of public financing for the general since 1970? Obama is not going to be the first. One more time, this will be a battle of the 527s. McCain is just having some fun. He really does have a cool sense of humor.
February 15, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats should just ignore all of these Republican shennanigans. Run for President on the issues, and altrustic intent, and leave these liars and theives in the dust. After reading Congressman Silvestre Reyes letter to President Bush today, I have faith that the Democtrats do indeed have some cohones. We should just tea bag them every chance we get. Oh behave! Yeah baby!!!
February 15, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is a non-issue. Has anyone opted out of public financing for the general since 1970? "
John Edwards.
'bama is just another pol.
February 15, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I think the NY Times article I read said that Obama agreed to accept public funding if he and McCain got the nod and you could do public funding only for the general election. Did I misread that?
He should honor that if so. I'm all for beating down the Republicans but honesty and keeping one's word is also something I admire.
Just a note: I anticipate that what someone willpost in reply to this is that "Republicans make promises and break them all the time!" That means nothing so please don't post that.
Obama '08 baby
February 15, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, but I think the pledge was to pursue an agreement rather than a straight pledge to go the public financing route. You could say that's a semantic difference perhaps, but I think Obama would only be breaking this pledge if he did not "agressively pursue" an agreement with McCain. He's not a fool, though, and should never agree to anything that is not airtight fair.
February 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm torn on this one. No, maybe I'm not.
If you think about it, Obama IS running his campaign on public financing. He's been financed by the public. By schmucks like me who keep giving him 25 bucks, 50 bucks at a time when we can't afford it. He hasn't accepted funds from the lobbyists and corporations we all (including the honorable Senator McCain) want removed from the political process. And it would be sweet to see McCain raise some paltry sum that gets spanked by the millions put forth by the legions of Obama supporters.
But at the same time...
the reason I keep giving money to Obama is because this campaign, this candidate is different. And if he didn't agree to accept public funding (if indeed he said he would), he wouldn't be that different after all. He'd be more of the same.
I understand it's tempting to take advantage of a HUGE advantage over one's opponent in a national campaign, but we've got to believe we can beat McCain without that advantage.
Yes, we can.
February 15, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, all them little people like Ophra and her $2,300 a plate buddies.
Please. If Hillary dodged this issue, you'd all be on high squeak alert.
February 16, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably right about the squawking that would be heard, but you are off when you talk about Oprah and $2300 donors.
According a report cited on Politico:
and
Hillary is over 50% of maxed out donors for the primaries/caucuses. Also, does anyone know if she ever even made a similar pledge? I googled around and couldn't find the answer to that.
As for the pledge, it appears Obama did "pledge" to try to work something out with McCain:
It seems McCain now has him on this. It would be politically adverse to the message of Obama's campaign to go back on this "pledge" to work out an agreement on public financing.
The devil, as The Old Grouch points out in a comment below, is in the details. And this is perhaps where Obama has McCain on this issue. If Obama can get McCain to agree to repudiate independent expenditures each and every time they happen, Obama might have found a way to avoid being swiftboated in the general election.
Of course, Republicans tend to be notorious double-crossers (i.e. McCain's repudiations could be half-hearted, etc), so Obama better have his lawyers hammer out as iron-clad a deal as possible.
Short of an unfair deal, I think Obama will accept public financing in the general, giving up a huge natural advantage he has in financing. [Not even considering Obama's potential fundraising superiority, he'll have to return to donors over $6 million he's raised for the general election while McCain will only have to return $2 million.]
If a fair deal can be struck on public financing, though, it will be a moral victory for his campaign to do so and good for politics in general.
February 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently Obama did make
the pledge.
February 16, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Barack Obama's position, I would be willing to do a mutually public financed campaign if and only if McCain publicly said, at the outset of the campaign, that "independent expenditures" were unwelcome on his behalf, and that part of his campaign would be to actively condemn such things as soon as they appeared. And then to follow through.
We know very well that those "independent expenditures" are how the Republicans get around a lot of well-intentioned election law. And part of "public financing" needs to be Republican condemnation and disavowal of such things.
Anyone want to place a small wager on that?
Didn't think so. Nor would I.
February 16, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Obama ultimately has to honor the pledge. He gave his word, and he can't start his campaign with the impression that his word doesn't mean anything, especially against McCain.
That said, he doesn't have to do it on McCain's terms. If he reaffirms his pledge right now, Clinton will hammer him for getting pushed around by McCain and giving up a strategic advantage in the general.
Second, the pledge was always about more than what Obama and McCain intend for their own campaigns. It was an attempt to put pressure on all the candidates and promote their shared objective of campaign finance reform. I hope that after he wins the nomination, Obama and McCain will agree to a comprehensive financing approach that also addresses the 527s. 527s give McCain an advantage because there are no contribution limits, which means a few super-rich Republicans can donate a lot more money than Obama's $25 donors. Of course, they're not supposed to advocate for and against candidates, but that requirement was flouted in 2004, most notably by the swiftboaters.
Unfortunately, I think that Obama has to take the hits from McCain for now and deal with the issue after he's wrapped up the nomination. I worry that Clinton will try to hit him on it as well. It's obviously tougher for her to make a case, since she isn't offering to pledge, but she could still hit Obama for not honoring his word.
February 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
50%? Compared to what? Maybe Hillary's donations were 60% under $200, do you know? I'm not impressed by "the Obama campaign says..." Sorry.
According to open secrets, 99% of Obama's contributions are from individuals, 90% of Hillay's are from individuals. That is remarkable given her name recognition. Obama has some pretty wealthy "individuals" contributing AND raising money for him, as does Hillary. In this, as in much else, they are the same.
Oh. You might want to notice Hillary has been more transparent than Obama has in reporting. Or just keep posting false and misleading information without apology. Whatever suits.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
February 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bigger issue is Obamas inexperience in ever saying anything close to a pledge. Blunders like this, which look like hes backing out of an "ethical stance" can cost us the general.
February 16, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee, please do some research before your talk out your ass. Again.
13% of Clinton's donations were under $200, compared to 30% of Obama's.
61% of Clinton's donations were over $2000, compared with 41% of Obama's.
LA Times 2/14:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-money14feb14,1,5347774.story
February 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink