I notice that nothing in that statement accuses Obama of having made a “pledge.” as you have falsely done. It only says what we’ve been saying, that he said he would seek an agreement.
Look, everybody understands that he changed his mind because he ended up with such an unexpected fundraising advantage. Of course it was a political choice. What’s disingenuous is McCain’s sanctimonious handwringing over it. He would have done the exact same thing if the situations were reversed. Jesus Christ himself would have reversed himself. That’s politics. Only a moron would give up that kind of advantage. McCain whining about it and trying to paint it a a mopral failing is just sour grapes, loser-boy carping.
The problem is that Obama made such a big deal about taking public financing. He did so why? Two reasons: he didn’t think he’d be able to raise the kind of private funds he now can, and 2) it fit well with his mantra of “change”. He was able to seize the high ground of—supposedly—taking a principled stance on the whole financing issue, trying to tale money out of the equation for the benefit of the people. He benefited from that position. But we now see that it was NOT an admirable principled stance, but a way for him to spin and bullshit (months ago) as to why he was going to use public financing. It was not because he thought it better for the system and saw it as positive change that benefit the people, it’s that it was the avenue he thought that got him the most money. Now that that has shown to not be the case, he has shown us that his original claim to the high ground was just an argument of convenience. When push came to shove, he went with the money over principle. Wow, that’s what I call change!
He never said he would unilaterally disarm. He said he would pursue an agreement. The other side wasn’t interested. McCain is guilty of far more egregious reversals of “principle.”
McCain does not have the standing to cry flip flop. He’s already flipped over more times than Jenna Jameson. This just makes him look like a hypocrite and a crybaby.
McCain has stated he will use public financing. That was what Obama claimed he wanted, was it not? At the very least, it appears he did NOT personally sit down with McCain as he claimed he would do.
But please, by all means, keep up with this blind defense. After all, it’s all about CHANGE. (What, no belly-laughing smilie? )
If this is substantially accurate rending of the events and the timeline, seems to me to speak for itself. If it is not, I invite friend **Mag ** to point out where it is not. Or anyone else, for that.
During the primaries, the Obama campaign put out statements that suggested, if not outright stated, that he would use public financing. This was done in large part to embarrass Hillary, who wouldn’t make any such committment.
Obama has since stated that he won’t use public financing. This is undoubtedly a smart move for him, because he’s been doing spectacularly at fundfraising. However, this is nevertheless a change in position.
McCain’s outrage at this is more tactical than real.
Well, let me just ask the one question: Do you believe, (scout’s honor, now!) that if McCain were not otherwise hindered and could gain a substantial advantage in funds by so doing, he wouldn’t flip-flop? And that, therefore, McCain is the honorable candidate in conflict with a sleazeball?
And, if not, then isn’t your argument *precisely * the sort of tu quoque construction you claim to disdain?
As I think about that, I’m not so sure anymore. Point #1 is that McCain would have much more to lose than most candidates if he flip flopped on that issue, since he has a long history of working on campaign finance legislation. Every heard of McCain-Feingold? Point #2, Obama is the first Dem/Pubbie candidate to opt out of the system since it was started in 1976. Now, McCain has certainly flip flopped on a number of other issues, but this one has some unique aspects to it that don’t make it the no-brainer some people seem to think it is. Not for McCain.
I’ve been following this discussion, and there’s one thing I can’t really figure out. If every candidate since 1972 has used public financing, why is it that Obama’s decision to use private funds is an indicator that he doesn’t represent change? It certainly seems like a big damn change to me, if it’s something that hasn’t happened in 36 years. Is there something about public financing that makes it more ethical than private? Is it just that Obama changed his mind and to many people is displaying a lack of integrity?
I don’t quite understand the outrage, unless it’s just the integrity issue, but folks here have made it seem like there’s more to it than that.
I don’t think the flip affects McBomb as strongly, he has already shown he will drop to his knees and suck what is offered, the boy got the rockin’ pnuemonia and the Presidential flu, and he’s got it bad. Comparatively, this is smaller potatoes.
As well, the Dems are in a sort of pony-shock: a monetary advantage? Over the Pubbies? The order of the Universe is o’erturned! and they haven’t yet figured out what that means.
This is the root of the conflict between the root-base (yaaaaay, team!) and the DNC (booo, hisssss). The DNC have labored for years to minimize the Pubbie money advantage by pandering to Business and warping the Dems into Republican Lite. They recoil in horror at anything to the left of Hillary, and labored mightily with the “inevitable! inevitable!” meme. Ooopsy.
“There is great disorder under Heaven, and the situation is excellent!” - Barry Goldwater.
It would also indicate “change” if he advocated nuking Canada and Mexico.
Personally, I don’t like public funding of campaigns. To me, it’s just an issue of integrity. But, Obama doesn’t share that view. In his own words (for the questionaire he filled out):
I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.*
So, yeah, I think a lot of the “outrage” (such as it is) is about him changing his position. But there is a general sentiment that public financing is good, and not something that should be “changed”. I think the reasoning goes that if you don’t accept public financing, you can just outspend your opponent since there is no limit on the amount of money you can spend, as there is when accept public funds.
I favor Obama, that’s true, just as I prefer the whore with the less obvious STDs and running sores. Yes, he walks on water, but its because he can’t swim.
He didn’t change his position — his position is “reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”
He changed his tactics. He has effectively reduced their influence a different way, by securing the likely nomination, taking command of the party, and altering the party’s fund-raising techniques.
I don’t understand why you see this as a change of position.
)