Friday, June 20, 2008
|
|
Obama on Public Financing
|
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
9:36 AM
|
If Obama isn't going to follow through on his promise to use the public financing system he should immediately remove his name as co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act and the Presidential Funding Act of 2007--two bills to enact public financing laws.
This is very simple: If Obama isn't willing to use public financing for his own race, he shouldn't have his name plastered on a bill to subject future candidates to those restrictions.
I wonder if John McCain might call on Obama to do this...?
I wanted to say this on CNN's "Larry King" last night, but we spent all our time talking about Michelle's makeover. And, I wanted to say thanks to the Larry King Show for having me on three times in the last week or so. I've had a great time. In other media-ish news, I'll be on Fox's "Red Eye" tonight and "To the Contrary" on PBS this Sunday.
Update: Here's one of the clips from CNN last night:
|
|
|
Not sure where you get Barr winning Georgia. According to Real Clear Politics he is now polling at 6% in one poll and 8% in another. Also, Bob Barr, come on, talk about a guy who has changed for political expediency. War on drugs, defense of marriage, war in Iraq... It is also interesting that you bring up 2006. With your theory, Republicans should have learned from 2006, but nothing really changed in reality. So, if McCain loses this time around, and nothing really changes due to that, will you continue to vote third party or not vote hoping that maybe in 2010 things will change? 2012? 2014? The only way to get what you want is to work within the 2 parties. |
|
"Now tell me what third party is going to have any type of results or impact in the near future?"
Bob Barr will win Georgia and probably cost McCain one or two more states. Every vote he gets is a vote that otherwise would have gone to McCain or not voted. Barr can probably garner 4-6% of the vote on his own but were Ron Paul and Ross Perot to endorse him and campaign for him, he could get much, much more. If you don't think it matters that the GOP told us conservatives to get lost, you will learn different in November. The more the GOP trashes Obama, the more people look for alternatives to McCain. Perot is very convincing with his charts and folksy analyses and would serve to remind everyone that he was right in 1992 and that Bob Barr is running on the very issues that won elections for the GOP in the past.
This year is a lost cause for the GOP. You would think that after the November 2006 disaster and special election surprises, they might have gone back to core principles. Nope. They decided that what the country needs is two Democratic parties. |
|
|
I will agree with you to some degree. Both parties spend like crazy and bloat government. However, tell me their similarities in: healthcare, gun rights, abortion, the war, judges, taxes, and education. They are not the same parties. That is really a tiresome line and no real proof is ever given, only "look closer and don't see just what you want to see." Okay, when I look I see Bush and the Repubs voting for lower taxes. I see Clinton and the Dems voting for partial birth abortion. I see Bush and Repubs going for school vouchers. I see Bush and some Repubs going for privatization of Social Security. I see Bush and Repubs going for nuke energy. I see Dems going against missile defense. So don't tell me they are the same parties. Government is a sad reality. It will never shrink itself, sadly. Now tell me what third party is going to have any type of results or impact in the near future? What third party can get the money or the votes to make an impact? The only way to make Republicans more conservative is to vote for conservatives when they are running for election, like in the primaries, and get involved in party activity to effect change. Either that or you get a third party that can pull enough votes to win some electorals, but that isn't happening. So, even if Pas Phil is right about the parties being the same (he isn't as illustrated in the issues above), so what? What's voting third party or abstaining going to do about it? If you really want to do something, you better organize something real quick, because this scattershot thing isn't going to cut it. |
|
You can look up his voting record on Project Vote Smart. The fact is John McCain has some issues where he is similar or the same as Democrats. The key words are SOME ISSUES. Go look up the voting record. The guy voted for Term Limits, for Roberts, Alito, Bork, Thomas, for the line item veto, he backed the Surge, he voted against confiscating firearms during a national disaster. So yes, he has some bad issues, but he has really good issues too.
In some respects you have to take them at their word, because things change and things happen during a Presidency. Remember Bush was not a nation builder while campaigning. You are never 100% sure what they will do on everything, so all you can do is look at their records and what kind of person they are. McCain has been pretty up front with everything that he has done. He hasn't pulled any fast ones on immigration or other such "maverick" issues. It's also good to think about what a President McCain or Obama could actually do in office. Put up judges, CIC, veto or sign, and suggest policy to Congress. In order for McCain's bad things to get through, they have to get through Congress first. 80% of the time these guys and girls run on things they can't even do without Congress anyway. But Obama will have Congress if he wins. Sounds fun. |
|
Phil,
Just answering your post. You claim mandates make a difference. That may be. But in terms of a POTUS winning by a big margin, Perot, as third party didn't really take away a mandate for Clinton. You try to link Perot to the balancing of the budget act in 1994 and I see that as a stretch. And if you do think that Perot made that difference, then you should be organizing behind a third party candidate. At this point there is no third party candidate that is going to get near 20% of anything. Hence, no impact. I think not voting will do virtually nothing except save you time at the polls. A huge percentage of Americans already don't vote and you will just swell those ranks a bit. Hence, no impact. You claim that Reagan's mandate made him powerful. I claim it had more to do with his communication to the citizen. Right now the country is pretty much split even in terms of politics. So you have no mandate to take away, as I see it. We can argue this all day. You may have a theory, but you are still not providing any kind of concrete plan on how your theory will really result in any type of difference. What I propose, changing things within the party, can result in changing things. It has resulted in changing things. The parties change all the time from within due to a number of factors.
By the way, I have no disrespect or animus towards you and I understand it. We both want what we think is best, and we are probably pretty similar in what that is. We just see a different route to that end. That being said, I'll still bust your chops on the commenting boards. |
|
You aren't listening. The key statement you made that is leading you into confusion is:
"I'll take both at their word."
Neither of them can take go to bed with the same positions on issues that they woke up with so you are simply choosing which version of what they say that you want. I don't know how you get past the indisputable fact that McCain's only major accomplishments in Congress has been putting his name on the kind of legislation that scares you about Obama. And I don't get what it means being "softer" on illegal immigration. Amnesty is amnesty and both want it. Cap and Trade means the exact same thing no matter who brings it about and both are for it and both are global warming nuts. Both talk about windfall profits.
We are talking past each other because, unlike your insistence that all I care about is illegal immigration (you just aren't listening), you believe what you want to believe and if you reread your last comment, your reasons are 99.9% emotional. You are easily manipulated by rhetoric because you won't accept the facts that are as plain as the nose on your face. McCain is ALL BS. |
|
Good for you. It's evident you've arrived at your opinion after thinking it through.
Obama terrified me and angered me at Jeremiah Wright. I don't believe we say goodbye to the World War II generation with a man like Obama in office.
McCain and Obama may be interchangeable in your eyes. Maybe so in many domestic issue, but I don't believe so in Iraq, foreign relations, and Supreme Court appointments. You're alarmed about illegal immigration. Think about the policy of either candidate on that issue reinforced by as many as four lifetime Supreme Court appointments.
Obama says he wants more Souters; McCain says he wants more Roberts and Alitos. I'll take both at their word.
At this point we're talking past each other. |
|
I usually watch you when you are on shows, but last night, I really could not take Larry King. Number one, I am not a fan and number two, I could not take the topic.
But, you did a great job. |
|
Pasadena Phil is right.
He has been beating this into me for some time. I have been a reluctant pupil, for many of the same reasons you gave; however, the more I study this issue the less of an argument I have with Pasadena. (By the way, before I get hammered for being a follower, I have been studying this very diligently - not just blindly following).
Having said that, I am reserving a final decision of how to vote at least until a VP running mate is picked. If the election were tomorrow I could not vote for McCain. I am also unafraid of an Obama presidency, and in fact see some advantages over a McCain administration. The main one is I believe it will be easier and quicker to "clean house" with an Obama administration and return to conservative values.
The GOP has morphed into the liberal party while the dems have evolved into the socialist party. Neither is a good option. The way I see it right now, the options are a third party or a rope to hang myself. I'm leaning toward that 3rd party. |
|
|
If you are going to argue with me, at least make the effort to understand what I said. Your response is completely illogical. |
|
Phil,
You may be the one seeing what you want to see. In order to justify not voting or voting 3rd party, you are seeing that "protest" as making a difference. When Clinton won he came in with Dems controlling Congress. Then the Repubs won in 1994 and helped balance the budget with The Contract. Not really sure how that ties into Perot at all. Perot did keep the budget in the public eye, but Clinton probably would have done it anyway due to the economy at the end of Bush's term. Perot also dropped out for a bit because he started getting looked at intensely and people found things they didn't like. Reagan was effective because he used the bully pulpit and appealed directly to the voter. The lack of mandate nowadays has more to do with the divisions of the country being even. Take Perot for example. If you break down his voters, it is pretty evenly split: 20% libs and 27% conservative with the rest being moderates. Without Perot that probably would have fallen evenly to Clinton and Bush and the percentage would have been around the same, but maybe for Bush instead of Clinton. |
|
Amanda YOU ROCK.
That's all.
Bye Bye |
|
Because Obama has raised record-breaking amounts from a larger donor base than McCain, his announcement that he would not use public financing represents a political reality and strategy. Does that announcement represent "Change you can believe in"? I am not sure that it does, the voters will make that determination.
I am not sure, however, that our democratic process is improved by claiming that small donors are supporting campaigns. A review of Obama's funding may show a different story, with the actual percentage of the total amount received from small donors less than the amount received from the usual large donors that have supported both Obama and McCain.
The real announcement should be: "I can raise more money than the $85 billion ceiling from the public funding. It is strategically better for me to do so in order to win this election." |
|
|
You can't be serious. Perot didn't have an impact? He might have won if that was what he wanted. He dropped out of the race at one point when he was leading in the polls which scared him. Still, he re-entered and garnered almost 20%. If you don't think that mattered, you probably were not on this planet in 1994. The Clinton/GOP Congress dynamic balanced the budget which never would have happened with Bush 41. Mandates matter. That is why Reagan was so effective even with a heavily Democratic Congress. You really should be asking yourself whether you are seeing exactly what you want to see. That's what everyone has to struggle with. That is why I called my blog TheWayWeAre, to remind myself that we all tend to believe what we want to believe and pretend that we "know". |
|
|
Perot mattered only in the fact that he helped elect Clinton. He didn't effect any change in the Parties. If he did, we wouldn't be having this dialogue. Have you seen any change in the 2 major parties since Perot? Since the Reform Party? Perot hit a high point with that percentage. That won't happen again. Until you get 30 plus percent of voters to actively vote for a third party in the Presidential Election, there will probably be no change. Winning is the thing. As long as they win, why change? Your theory would work if you could get a seriously high percentage to vote for a third party. But it ain't happening until there is some serious schism like the expansion of slavery and some serious leader of that schism like Seward or Lincoln. Immigration is not the issue. That has faded, big time. The real solution is to get term limits and to get rid of campaign finance reform. Then you can get some real people who are interested in doing what's right. |
|
"Even if you are right, voting third party is still futile and will result in no real change of the status quo."
That is where you are wrong. It's not about the 3rd party candidate. Perot didn't win either but are you going to argue that his 19.6% didn't matter? Clinton won with only 43%, you don't think that had anything to do with his first two years of disasters? Holding your nose and voting for the status quo IS throwing your vote away. Make it count. Vote 3rd party. Let's make sure that the winner is denied a mandate by a large margin. Winners used to win with 58% of the vote and more. We haven't seen that since Bush 41 in 1988 which was really a reflection on Reagan, not Bush. We have been holding our noses ever since and look where we are. You like it? |
|
|
Even if you are right, voting third party is still futile and will result in no real change of the status quo. There simply aren't enough people to vote third party. And seriously, no difference in 2nd amendment positions, abortion positions, school choice positions, tax positions, etc.? Those 600 page bills do happen with some things, I agree with that. I also agree that there are some things that the Parties are similar on. But again, there are many major issues where they are not the same. And even among the issues where they are similar, there are individuals who don't toe the Party line. Just because both Parties are guilty of bloated government, doesn't mean they are the same. It means they have a problem growing government. The main problem is the way that Congress functions. There should be term limits for one. There should be no campaign finance reform for two. That is a major problem, but it doesn't mean the Parties are the same. |
|
PPhil is so right when it comes to McCain as are some other bloggers whom you may not be familiar with. I hear everyone who is a conservative near me saying they are going to hold their nose and vote. I am not. Some good reading at PPil's blog. You've got to scroll around. I find myself more and more cringing at McCain's process,but the ONLY thing he's got that a libertarian candidate has is National Security. That's it. The libertarians are closer to my thought process these days.
Also this one...BrianR's View from the Island.
http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx |
|
It's like I said, you are confusing what they say with what they do. The end result is the same. All of this quibbling on these blogs is just a distraction from the big show, the back room deals that result in 600-page legislation that no one reads, even the sponsors, but always find passionate supporters on the floors of Congress.
If you see differences between the two parties, it is because you insist on seeing what you want to see. Money and power talks. Try reconciling the money to the rhetoric to the results. Everything ends with bigger and bigger government and shrinking individual rights. |
|
Dems and Repubs:
Abortion
Prosecuting the war
Judges
Tax policy
2nd Amendment
School choice
Healthcare
Social Security
There are 8 big issues right there that have major differences between the parties. There is no "spin" there. People who say there is no difference between parties are mad about one or two issues that they see as not going their way, so they make the blanket statement that there is no difference between parties. I get the frustration over immigration and spending. I have the same frustration. However, there are Republicans in Congress and government who want good immigration and want to control spending. One of McCain's big issues is government spending, by the way. Your whole funding argument is a little off base. As far as business and industry donations, it makes sense for them to donate to both parties. Businesses are in "business" to make money and do what is best for them. They are not interested in political stands so much as what will help their business. Also, what party has consistently been backed by labor unions? As far as getting enough people not to vote or vote third party, that is a mighty pipe dream. Again, Perot and Nader had no effect in changing the party system. You have a much better chance of changing the Republican Party from the inside than getting enough voters to vote outside of the two party system. |
|
"I see McCain as a caretaking, one-termer."
Doesn't that scare you? That scares me more than an Obama presidency. Obama is very aware of his potential legacy, particularly as being the first black president. He wants to get re-elected. I see McCain as someone who has failed as a senator on everything and has cashed in on his POW experience beyond what it is worth. As president, he will be finally be in position to deliver the very things that upset conservatives the most. Perot once famously asked: "If your wife can't trust you, why should I?" Well as for McCain, we should be asking: "If your wife and your party can't trust you, why should anybody trust you?"
He has been pandering to the MSM and "reaching across the aisle" for years and yet, he can't raise enough money to compete against Obama. Even the special interests he is pandering to don't trust him. He is too erratic and unprincipled. He has never persuaded anyone that he has a clear set of core principles at any point in his career. It's just his turn, like Bob Dole, and the GOP is just going through the motions while the RINO myrmidons do their mindless, unthinking duty and cast their votes automatically for the Republican candidate. That is why everything is perpetually screwed up in this country. No matter who we elect, we always end up with bigger government and less freedom. |
|
PP: I do appreciate your taking the time. I'm sorry for taking your time. I now know where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with you on some priorities, but that's it.
I see McCain as an pretty honorable war survivor who's been a dedicated public servant. Not a ringing endorsement, but I won't vote for Obama. Jeremiah Wright scared me to death; I'm convinced Obama believes every word of it. If not, he's the most shameful coward possible for not standing up to Wright. That crap when on all the time he attended that church. Blacks, great; Obama, Wright, and the rest--f*** no.
I see McCain as a caretaking, one-termer. Republicans have some pretty neat younger people in the pipeline. I'm petrified of Obama conducting foreign policy, and I'm petrified of Obama making judicial appointments for vacant district and appellate court judges and for as many as four Supreme Court seats. Those are lifetime appointments that CANNOT be dismantled by later legislation.
Thanks, again. |
|
I can fill an encyclopedia about illegal immigration. Here in LA, there are beginning to be calls for the federal government to invoke RICO statutes to arrest our city and county government.
We have prominent politicians who are openly protecting and affiliating with organized crime members. We have a politician who is making yet another attempt to open up the personal files of police officers to elected officials (which means to the public via leaking as a harassment tool.)
We have only one major newspaper and they don't cover LA other than to praise the "glorious tapestry of multiculturalism". Our hospitals are in a shambles (we've lost something like 14-16 ERs in the past five years and no one is building any new hospitals). Our public schools compare, unfavorable in many cases, to 3rd world education systems. The brunt of law enforcement is targeted on coraling law abiding citizens while looking the other way.
That is just the tip of the iceberg but get used to it, it's coming your way and may already be there except it isn't being reported yet. |
|
I don't have a candidate. I quit the GOP November 2006 out of disgust over the amnesty debacle and the out of control spending during the GOP era. I don't see any difference between the two parties other than the magic spin that gets the RINOs and Dem libs hearts atwitter. There is only one party, the United Establishment Party. If you doubt it, look at their source of funding. I have been hammering this site with one constant message: vote against the status quo by voting "none of the above". Pick a 3rd party candidate, any one will do, and vote for him. Don't stay home, VOTE. If enough of us vote "none of the above", whoever wins will not have a mandate. If McCain gets crushed and Obama wins with 43% of the vote or less, expect a major conservative victory in 2010. It happened in 1992 and if we had even ONE leader with a pair, this would be easier to accomplish than in 1992.
I am not afraid of an Obama presidency. This is still America and we have had much worse (the two Bushes certainly qualify for that) and will survive an Obama presidency if there is true alternative to the "other" Democratic party, the GOP. This is supposed to be a two-party system. Have we given up on that? |
|
I have written about it extensively on my own blog and here on the senior circuit blogs. McCain is the and has been the very AUTHOR and MAIN DRIVER of amnesty. There is no point comparing what Obama is saying versus McCain. Trotsky was a communist too but it's Lenin who seized power and became the one to worry about. McCain is wrong on EVERYTHING. He is a Democrat and is the GOP nominee only because there just aren't enough Republicans left to prevent the Dems from crossing over and picking the GOP nominee. McCain's stand on the GWOT is no different from Obama's (look at the official positions, not what spin following their speeches. McCain wants to tax the "excessive profits" of the oil companies and believes in global warming (did you hear his "energy policy" speech? Postures as pro-domestic drilling but makes a big deal on standing up to Bush on global warming). McCain is in the back pocket of the GE/Alcoa etc... interests who are pressuring hard for a Cap and Trade bill. Like amnesty, McCain has been of the main "go to" people on that issue too.
So don't buy into the partisan BS from either party. McCain = Obama. Believe it. |
|
This blog post is about public financing.
By the way, why don't you say who Rosanna Pulido is, she is an Illinois leader on the Minuteman Project. They are obviosly not friendly to McCain. So it's not like she's just some random conservative attending the meeting. I don't think McCain is really trying to hide his immigration plan. Everyone knows where he stands. Your choice is McCain or Obama. I don't think you like Obama's plan either. Write your Congressman to make sure an immigration bill doesn't get to the Oval. I don't like his immigration policy either, but we are going to have either President Obama or President McCain.
Who is your candidate? |
|
I'm not calling you out; I'm just after information. Frankly, I can't recall where you stand in Obama and McCain. My best recollection is that you're conservative, but you dislike McCain for his stance on immigration. Then, again, you may be a centrist Democrat who just likes to criticize McCain for his immigration stance.
Whatever the case, last night, I read about these McCain meetings on Michelle Malkin's blog. I was deeply disappointed with the secretive nature of them.
I'm from a Midwestern metropolitan area that seems only mildly affected by illegal immigration. I see more Hispanics these days around town and, forgive the stereotype, I assume in many cases that they're illegal.
I admit that I don't have my mind around immigration. Obama lost me at Jeremiah Wright and the rest of his entourage. It's only gotten worse as I watch him fumble with the Iraq War, foreign relations generally, terror, energy, Supreme Court appointments.
My impression is that Obama is far more lenient on illegal immigration than McCain. Can you educate me about what is so bad about McCain's stance? How does it compare to Obama? And how do legal residents (Hispanics) feel about the issue?
Thanks. |
|
|
""He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics," complained Rosanna Pulido, a Hispanic and conservative Republican who attended the meeting." |
|
A closed door speech to "Hispanic leaders":
apnews.myway.com/article/20080620/D91DI6LO0.html
Oh that naughty "straight talker". |
|
|
|