That Change Feeling


This is the “change” the left is looking for?

First we have Mr. Obama who promised, in writing, to take only public financing for his election campaign and then challenged his Republican opponent to do the same….but when it looks like he can make more money foregoing this option he breaks his word. The WaPo is not amused:

…Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama’s earlier pledge to “aggressively pursue” an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take. “It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” Mr. Obama said in a video message to supporters.

Mr. Obama didn’t mention his previous proposal to take public financing if the Republican nominee agreed to do the same — the one for which he received heaps of praise from campaign finance reform advocates such as Mr. Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, and others, including us. He didn’t mention, as he told the Federal Election Commission last year in seeking to preserve the option, that “Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money.”

Instead, he cast his abandonment of the system as a bold good-government move. “This is our moment, and our country is depending on us,” he said. “So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people.” Sure, and if the Founding Fathers were around today, they’d have bundlers, too.

(Check out Politico’s excellent guide to Obama’s broken promise.)

Once it became clear he could outraise his opponent through private financing he chose to break his word. Sounds like change to me huh?

He then caves on FISA, which has seriously disappointed the lefties.

Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk “tough.” His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security — that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong.

Obama has done this already in this general election — repeatedly. And no doubt he will do it again and again and again in the months ahead.

To be clear, I’m not even talking about whether opposing this would or wouldn’t have carried political peril. It really doesn’t matter. Because if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign — that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security — it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.

And this time, he abandoned that premise.

Abandon is a word we hear quite often with Obama’s name don’t we? “Abandon Wright,” “Abandon Trinity Church,” “Abandon Palestine,” “Abandon his promise to sit down with Iran,” and so on.

I’m feeling the change already. Can ya feel it?

Oh, but the change isn’t only Obama’s doing. There are other Democrats who give me that “change” feeling:

The Senate Ethics Committee is beginning an initial investigation into whether Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) got preferential mortgage rates from Countrywide Financial Corp., even as the two senators are taking decidedly different approaches to dealing with the revelations.

Senate Ethics Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) confirmed today to The Washington Post’s Paul Kane that her panel had received an official complaint against Dodd and Conrad, a step which under Senate rules automatically triggers a preliminary inquiry into the matter. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote to both the House and Senate ethics panels last week asking for investigations.

Senator Dodd is the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. The same committee that ramrodded through Congress a 300 billion dollar, taxpayer funded, bailout of Countrywide and other banks that got us into this subprime mess.

So he got a $75,000 dollar savings on his loans and then took the lead in digging that bank out of a very large hole.

I would call that a bribe….but hey, in a party that still has Freezer Jefferson representing citizens what can ya expect?


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As Doug, one of our chief Obamatons said: “So what?”

The Obamatons don’t care whether their savior overturns every principle he previously claimed to hold dear. They don’t care whether he changes his mind on every issue, even one that was previously central to his campaign.

They don’t even care that they don’t really know who this Obama is. Either that, or they do know he’s a neoMarxist retread and guess what… they don’t care.

This is one of the best illustrations of what the Obamatons DO care about: power! That’s all. Nothing more.

If Obama suddently decided he wanted to invade Iran you can bet the Obamatons would be right there shouting AMEN!

P.S. The Washington Post “Fact Checker” has awarded Obama three “Pinocchio”‘s for stretching the truth in his latest flip flop. I think it deserves four!

The Pinocchio Test
Barack Obama probably wishes that he had been more careful in the wording of some of his earlier statements about the public financing system. His carefully parsed retreat on public financing is similar to his hedging on an earlier promise to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and North Korea “without preconditions” during his first year as president. In this case, however, the turnaround is even more blatant.
WaPo Fact Checker

when you quote someone you disagree with you are obligated to either show their work, or link to it:

Obama Dumps Pledge on Public Financing for Campaign

Why did I say, “So what?” Let me explain:

McCain said he would take public financing for the Republican primaries. He used the promise of that public financing to help secure a loan for his campaign. After he wrapped up the Republican nomination, he then decided he did not want to be bound by the limits on campaign fund raising and spending that accompany public financing, so he announced that he had changed his mind.

But FEC chair David Mason sent McCain a letter saying that he cannot unilaterally opt out of the public financing system without FEC approval.

If McCain cannot opt out of the system unilaterally, then he has broken the law by raising and spending funds in excess of legal limits— as he continues to do so each day. Yet none of you will even discuss this point. Further, if Obama were doing this, you guys wouldn’t be able to sleep and you would certainly be raising it as an issue.

Now even if McCain isn’t breaking the law, he has already broken “his word” on the question of whether he would take public funding for the primaries.

Therefore, Obama broke a promise, but so did McCain. Obama didn’t do anything unethical or illegal. McCain has done something unethical, and perhaps illegal.

‘So what’ if Obama backs out of Public financing given these facts; he and McCain both have done the two-step, while McCain has even ‘stepped on toes’ during the dance.

Oshamamassiah- What can one say, just as a lion is a lion, a liar is a liar. He lies and spins, and more frightening his supporters know he’s lying, but don’t care. Be very afraid America this hustler could be elected, then the excrement will hit the fan.

Ya know, guys… I’m with Doug on this one. (you sitting down there, Doug?? Don’t want to cause you injury with this ‘fession….)

Frankly I think both pols are… well… politicians. They will do whatever they need to for campaign cash. And both have black marks for their pompous piety about raising such cash… Obama for his public funds bit, his lies about lobbyist money when it was just a 3rd party lobby money, and McCain for McCain-Feingold and this campaign behavior.

Unfortunately for us, the only people who run for POTUS are consummate “politicians”. Professional mouthpieces for their backers. Or, the eloquent dummy to the ventroliquist.

So what Doug?

The more you spin, the clearer it becomes that even YOU realize that Obama is nothing but a typical politician craving power and willing to do or say anything to get it.

It’s amazing that you are willing to toss any principles you folks claim to have under the same bus with Obama’s white granny.

Like Mata (#4), I probably have to agree with Doug (#2) on this one as well. (Doug, wake up!!! I hope the fall from your chair didn’t cause serious injury.)

Obama didn’t realize he would be able to raise as much money as he did, and continues to do so. By opting out, he isn’t bound by fundraising and spending limits. It makes sense for him.

By breaking his promise, Obama’s action does undercut the long held belief of the Democrats to support public financing of elections at all levels, from local to national. It also undercuts the Democrats’ position when MCain-Feingold comes up for reauthorization. And, it also boosts any possible future legal challenge to McCain-Feingold. It can be reasonably argued that Obama’s ability to raise large sums of money precludes the need for such restrictions, and any campaign, when well-managed and well-financed does not need any protection from outside groups because it has the resources to respond and respond aggressively.

The other effect is that Obama, by opting out, is giving the perception (rightly or wrongly) that he’s open to influence in exchange for a contribution. And, we’ve been down this road many times.