Campaign Financing...

Where is the outrage? Obama made a promise to accept government funding for his presidential campaign and has now decided to ‘change his mind’ and turn his back on that promise (makes him a liar by the standards of this board, right?). Sure, the media glossed over the 'change of mind (lie) rapidly and the topic is now off the table. Well done liberal media!

Why? Why is political lying ignored when the left is doing it yet attacked when the right is doing it (and yes, both sides routinely lie)? I understand why he is doing it. He can get more money from the public. And I actually support his decision to take money from the public as the taxpayers should not be burdened funding anyone’s political desires. But why isn’t the media keying in on the lie a little more? Why have they buried the issue?

Sorry folks, Obama is just another politician in sheep's clothing! Great talker... NO walker!

Why would the media focus in on it? They are one of the main recipients of campaign spending.

Excellent point, Matt! Also, they want Obama to win!

Let's see ... Obama starts out by NOT blowing 85 million hard-earned tax bucks ... and the republicans are pissed about it. Go figure.

I'm pleased that the taxpayers won't have to pony up $85 M but the sad fact is that the pols will just find another way to squander it. But the real point is whether a person can keep his word or not.

Soc, first off, I ain't a Republican.

Second, go back up and re-read my post. You'll see that I wrote:

Quote:

And I actually support his decision to take money from the public as the taxpayers should not be burdened funding anyone’s political desires.

Unquote:

So, exactly what are you accusing me of doing? I wrote that he lied... not that I didn't agree with him. His words is as good as any other politician's word... TOTALLY MEANINGLESS! And all these promises he is making are based upon his 'word'... which is no good.

That was my point!

Wait a minute Soc... I see where my mistake was! I meant to write:

And I actually support his decision to NOT take money from the public as the taxpayers should not be burdened funding anyone’s political desires.

Sorry, I see how my message was confusing!!

quote:

Soc, first off, I ain't a Republican.

if it looks, acts and sounds like a duck....it's a duck.

dis you can yell at the top of your lungs that your not a republican, but they history of your posts show otherwise.......

quote:

dis you can yell at the top of your lungs that your not a republican, but they history of your posts show otherwise.......

Amen to that!

Dis was usually first to defend George Bush, Dick Cheney and the crew during this administration, right behind Scrounge and JAC.

I wonder what else he'd proclaim to NOT be but sure sounds like, racist?

later...

I am not Republican but I am PROUDLY anti-liberal. And if that means that I speak out against liberal Democrats, so be it! I can handle the accusations of those that leverage liberalism to weaken our nation!

I vote for the person that best reflects my opinions. In the past five presidential races or so, that was really no one that did so. So I had to vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, I am FAR from liberal so you won’t see my vote going towards any liberals because I believe that they damage the country. So what is left? Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Sorry, these gentlemen are far too liberal to earn my vote!

In the primary I voted Obama but that was before he showed his racist side and his decisions making inabilities. Give me a good Democrat and I’ll vote for them! I would be happy to vote for a good Democrat but all we get is Kerry and Gore. I vote for Democrats in the local elections about half the time. The other half I vote to kick the incumbent out!

I have never defended President Bush on border security and spending! As a matter of fact, I was one of the first to criticize him on those issues. But that fact does not fit in the little box you try to put me in, so you avoid those facts.

Am I insulting Obama by saying that he is just another politician? I don’t think so. He is just another politician that will do what needs to be done to get a vote. If that means leaving a church because suddenly – after 20 years of bigotry – a light was shown onto the bigotry and people didn’t like it… he leaves. He’ll do what he needs to do to win. AKA… a regular politician… one that does not walk his own talk.

And gentlemen, just as you accuse me of always being in Bush’s corner, I could accuse you of being the exact opposite. To you, the man could do not good at all, ever. You miss the fact that w have had no terrorists attacks on our soil since 9/11 and that we have stopped many attacks. You only see evil in the man. At least I am a realist. I see the good and the bad in the guy.

Now, are we off the topic for good? Did the bait and switch work or are we going to discuss that fact that Obama (understandably) changed his mind and that I support his decision to change his mind (or did you miss that, too?) If I were a politician, I would have made the same decision. But I would have done it from the start. Taxpayers don’t need to pay for elections.

Well, I guess something IS rotten in Denmark.

TJ, I merely hinted...not accused. How many more anti-Obama threads are you going to create? You were a staunch proponent of the Bush doctrine, no matter what it was. As a matter of fact, to my knowledge you have never started a thread pointing out ANY of the lies of the past years. So, excuse the total SHOCK of a few that think it's sheer lunacy to hear you state publicly that you're NOT a Republican. Frankly, it sounds like O'Reilly claiming he's "actually an Independent" when he sounds like the biggest cheerleader for the Republican party and all of their agendas.

I'm sorry if I upset you, but please. If you call me a liberal, good. Call me what ever makes you happy, seriously.

Now, back on the topic. What exactly is this about? Media bias? A man wanting to ease the burden on the American people in this time of desperate struggle and Oil company gouging (there are no supply problems only falling dollar problems and greed)? Help us out here. Lying? is that your new found anchor of moral fortitude? When Bush does it we call it "misappropriated intelligence" (LIE), you didn't seem to mind then, why now? If, like you say, all politicians are guilty of it.

later...

I'm still making up my mind. Obama or Mcain. For the first time in my life I'm thinking of Mcain.I usually vote Democrat.

Disagreed is not an ANTI-liberal, he is COUNTER-liberal. If we weren't here, he'd be bored. But I digress ...

I still maintain Obama did not "break his word". I recall no such promise, no deep public conviction that he was going to use public financing. If he changed his mind as a matter of strategy, then he changed his mind.

It's sorta like this time at a high school party. My friend set me up; I was supposed to drive Cindy Baker home and bang her somewhere along the way. So we hung out, but Cindy was pretty drunk. When it came time to go home, Cindy was passed out on one of those exercise thingies like a porch chaise that folds in the middle.

Now, that was a pretty good setup for some drunken party sex right there; but I really didn't think it was right, and frankly, she didn't smell so good by then. So I went home. So did I break my promise, or did I just make a strategic decision?

The following is available on the internet from the Washington Post. It is an answer made by Mr. Obama to a questionnaire

MIDWEST DEMOCRACY NETWORK

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE



Question I-B:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private

funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing

system?

Yes



Obama elaborated on this, in part

"The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

At best Mr. Obama demonstrates the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I personally interpret his words as a commitment to public financing.

Obama is our only hope! Without him the U.S. will completely fall apart.

He's going to make it so no one will have to work very hard and everything will be free.

Why didn't Bush ever think of that?

Lokie, how many did I start? Hold on, I’ll go count right now. Wait a minute and I’ll be right back!

Okay, I’m back. Here’s what I found. This thread (and I agree with his decision here) and the one where the Reverend Wright said that America should be damned and that the white man created AIDS to kill the black man. Now, if either of these are inappropriate to discuss, please explain to me why.


The ‘lies’ of the past years could also be viewed as terrible intelligence with which even President Clinton, Congress and other country’s leaders all agreed. To deem that as a lie is a tough sell.

I can understand why someone might feel that I am Republican but what you are seeing is a very strong anti-liberal belief! I believe that liberalism hurts the nation and I stand against it. Many that do not fully understand my opinion could perceive that as being Republican. But give me a good Democrat and watch my vote! Think about it… I am a libertarian. Therefore, my views and liberal views are truly opposed. They want government intervention for everything and I want the government out of my hair!


You aren’t upsetting me and I don’t know if you are a liberal or not. I do, however, believe that you have the best intentions of the nation in mind in your opinions, and that includes your conspiracy theories. That’s why I always support your freedom of speech even when we disagree. Your heart is in the right place! How can I disagree with that?


The thread is about two things. One, the candidate made a promise (to use taxpayer’s funding) and then changed that decision when he saw he could raise more money (and I agree with this decision!). Second, why is the media turning a blind eye to this? If this were a Republican the media would be all over the story.

Soc, anti-liberal… counter-liberal… what’s the difference? I guess, since I have liberal friends, maybe counter liberal is more descriptive.


Again, I agree that his mind change is the way to go. Sure, he changed his mind and some would consider that a lie… if a righty was doing it! But a liberal gets much more playing room with their words and actions.


I didn’t understand the not banging Cindy scenario. But, did you not bang her because it was wrong or because she smelled badly by then. And, what did that have to do with a political re-calculation? (How’s that instead of lie? Re-calculation. It’s like redefining ‘lie’… and ‘is’).