Barack Obama’s word is worthless
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Matt Walton
Published: June 22, 2008
Recently, Sen. Barack Obama broke a promise he made to the American people. He refused to take part in public financing for the general election. This contradicted a signed promise he made to all
Americans. Instead, Senator Obama has decided to opt out of his pledge and put politics above the most important thing he has to offer the American people — his word.
This decision by the freshman senator from Illinois proves that his word is worthless and that what he is saying now on the campaign trail is as good as dirt. This choice by Senator Obama begs us to ask
what promises will he break to the American people should he be elected President of the United States. It’s clear to me now that Senator Obama is not for the “change” in Washington he talks about,
but just a lot of potential broken promises.
MATT WALTON
Bridgewater
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 27, 2008 at 6:36 am
Willow703,
So one third of Obama’s money is coming from donations of over $1000 or more? That means two thirds is coming from donations of under $1000.
None of it is coming from lobbyists or professinal donors, those people who’s entire purpose in life is to influence legislature for the highest-paying bidder.
Just this morning, Howard Dean as DNC cahir has put out a letter reiterating Sen. Obama’s position on not accepting funds from professional lobbyists and 527’s, seeking to increase the number of monthly $25 dollar donations. To date, getting monthly $25 donations from individuals, a policy started immediately after Dean took over as DNC chair, has proven extremely successful.
Please contrast Obama’s fund-raising with that of McCain, and then tell me that there is no difference between the two.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 26, 2008 at 9:22 pm
jVA,
I see I’m talking over your head. Let me put it this way: The more money you have, the more you can spend putting over the airways & in print, whole lies & half-truths with which to attract unthinking voters. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, or perhaps P.T. Barnum, You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, and that is enough to win an election almost anywhere you might go.
Obama does have a good fund raising organization, but, according to Ruth Marcus’ column of 25 June,a third of his money comes from contributions of $1000 & over. From the same column, “donors can give $2300 each to Obama’s primary and general election campaigns. So can their spouses. Each can give $28,500 to the party. So you and your spouse are welcome to write a check totaling $66,200.“
Again, from Marcus on June 25, “This week Clinton will introduce Obama to nearly 200 of her major bundlers, including some who have raised $1 million or more, in a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel.“ How many $200 donors do you think will be there?
I have watched both of the candidates make speeches on network & cable television. I saw no notation that any of the speeches were paid for by anyone.
What is the value of that airtime?
To quote again from Ruth Marcus: “What’s galling is Obama’s effort to portray himself through this entire episode as somehow different from, and purer than, the ordinary politician. ... Obama’s not the first politician to break a promise. He may be the first to do so in the guise of John Hancock, exuberantly signing the Declaration.“
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on June 26, 2008 at 10:05 am
“So, you are saying that Office of President
of the United States should go to the candidate with the most money? “
I think you’re just being intentionally dense now, but whatever.
The Presidency goes to the person who gets the most votes as far as I know. Sounds like a good system to me.
Personally I don’t care how much money candidates spend on their campaigns. I do care where the money comes from. Obama’s current model of raising money from individual private citizens is hands down the best and most legitimate that we have ever seen.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 26, 2008 at 8:46 am
jVA,
So, you are saying that Office of President
of the United States should go to the candidate with the most money?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on June 25, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“If Sen. Obama did not agree to accept public funding, why are E. J. Dionne, Jr. & Richard Cohen of The Washington Post saying that he did? “
I’m not arguing whether or not Obama said he would accept public funding last year. (He answered yes to the question in a questionaire from a group called Common Cause.)
I’m saying I don’t care that he changed his mind on the matter. I would be mad at him if he didn’t!
Obama clearly knew he would take some heat for changing his position. It was still the right decision.
If McSame had any chance of raising the amount of money Obama is raising, he’d opt out of public funding just like Bush did in 2004.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 25, 2008 at 10:06 am
Willow703,
At one time, Obama did state he planned on accepting public financing - and I believe his position was based on his policy of not accepting any funds from Lobbyists or 527 organizations.
His stated reasons early in the primary for not accepting Lobbyists or 527 funds are to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, and a means of showing support for integrity in government.
Reversing his earlier position in light of his current fund-raising ability is a whole lot different than claiming Obama “violated a signed pledge” to do something, which is what you claimed earlier.
Obama has been consistent on shunning lobbyists and 527s, and in fact as new leader of the Democratic Party, has extended than ban to the DNC and is pushing other Democrats to do the same.
Obama has proven he can raise millions of dollars in small campaign contributions (average of $200) which precludes needing public financing and still gives him an advantage over McCain. McCain, for all that I read of people supporting him as “The Greatest Most Awesomeness Mavericky Non-Bush Republican EVER,“ has not been able to anywhere near match Obama, even when McCain has (as of March 21) 115 professional lobbyists on his campaign senior staff.
I see no reason why Obama should unilaterally give up an advantage, especially in view of McCain’s being in flagrant violation of the FEC financing rules, and openly coordinating his campaign with Conservative 527s planning on attacking Obama; which again is in violation of FEC financing rules.
Funny how the media is ignoring McCain’s illegal actions, while going 24/7 on Obama. Maybe you could ask them why?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on June 25, 2008 at 8:40 am
“But, why would he even consider it if it was, as he said, “broken”?“
Why? In 2007, I guess he assumed he, like John McCain, would have no choice but to accept public financing. If the candidate can’t raise $85 million on his own, what choice does he have?
“And the Democrats are mere novices at gaming said broken system? They have never had 527s, lobbyists, or PACs? “
I wouldn’t say that. I would say for the past two decades or so the GOP has just beaten them consistently at the game. This is one of the first elections in recent memory where the GOP hasn’t had a huge cash advantage, isn’t it? (Which is not to say that the GOP still won’t outstrategize the Democrats. Credit where credit is due.)
“I am a Liberal Independent, I vote for the candidate who best convinces me that he will serve the entire country and not just the left or the right.“
I respect that view. My problem with it though is that I don’t think there are a lot of centrists left in either party which is unfortunate. If you consider your views to be more liberal than conservative, why vote for somebody who will undoubtedly put two more conservatives on the supreme court?
“James Dobson is attacking Barack Obama? I care no more for the opinion of James Dobson than for that of Sean Penn. “
I feel the same way. James Dobson is a kook in my book. But Dobson produces the radio show Focus on the Family which is “broadcast in more than a dozen languages and on over 7,000 stations worldwide, and heard daily by more than 220 million people in 164 countries”. He’s out there trashing Obama and putting his political message out. Is he bound by some pledge to spend only a certain amount of money? Is there some limit on who can provide his funding or how much they can give? Of course not.
Like I said, Obama will need every last bit of his campaign money to get his message out. If his money is coming from individual private donors, I have no problem with that.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Ron, jVA,
If Sen. Obama did not agree to accept public funding, why are E. J. Dionne, Jr. & Richard Cohen of The Washington Post saying that he did?
From E. J. Dionne, Jr.‘s column, 24 Jun 2008, “Obama’s choice has been criticized by reformers such as Se. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and even by normally sympathetic editorialists, because his new position contradicts his old one, which was that hge would accept public funds, ... and because it strikes a blow to a public to a public financing system he said he respected.“ “[A] public financing system he said he respected”; isn’t that the same system he said was “broken”?
Richard Cohen, same day, says, “The Democratic nominee reversed himself on the public financing of presidential campaigns and decided that he would, after all, raise the money himself.“
“He explained that he had to adapt to an exigency that was there all along but that he had somehow not foreseen when he pledged to accept public financing; ...“. “[A]n exigency that was there ... when he pledged to accept public financing”?
Finally, from Richard Cohen, “McCain has a bottom line. Obama just moved his.“
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on June 24, 2008 at 6:28 pm
willow703,
I don’t know why ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox, and FNC report what they do. It would probably be best if you asked them. Incorrectly reporting that Obama “signed a pledge” to accept public financing when he did not might be related to the news media:
Going 24/7 about Rev Wright, but hardly a peep about McCain’s endorsement by extremist Pastor John Hagee (which McCain worked very hard to earn).
Going 24/7 until Former Pres Bill (as potential future first husband) released all his 2007 tax returns, but nary a peep about McCain’s present wife Cindy’s refusal to release hers (she has still only released superficial returns, not the full package demanded of Bill, and in 2004 Kerry’s Wife Theresa).
Going 24/7 about Obama not wearing a flag pin, conveniently ignoring the fact that at the time McCain was not wearing one either - until a bunch of bloggers on “garbage sites” such as DailyKos made an issue of it.
Going 24/7 about Obama violating a campaign finance “pledge” he never made, while ignoring John McCain’s on-going violation of campaign finance laws for the past several months; with two separate lawsuits already filed against him, and the FEC poised to investigate once they gain a quorum of members.
This cycle, for the first time in my lifetime, the Democrats are managing to game the campaign financing system in their favor vice the Republicans. So advantage Dems, tough luck Repubs, and let them work out new laws in 2009 with a Democratic Whitehouse and Congress.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on June 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ron,
So, if Sen. Obama didn’t sign a pledge or agree to take public financing if Sen. McCain would agree to do the same, why it that being reported on ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox, FNC, etc? I didn’t mention NBC because I never watch their news.
it is interesting that McCain can’t keep up with Obama in fund raising, Republicans, used to raise far more than Democrats. I guess the far left is now more rabid than the far right. Pity, we would be better off without either of them. I don’t like the Immoral Minority any more than I like George Soros & moveOn.org. The garbage on the dailyKos & Huffington Post is just as vile as anything you can find on any far-right site.
jVA,
You don’t understand nuance, so I’ll quote from your quote; “But the public financing of elections as it exists today is broken…“ I’ll accept the contention of Ron & yourself that Obama only said he would consider accepting public financing. But, why would he even consider it if it was, as he said, “broken”? “[W]e face opponents who are masters at gaming this broken system…“
And the Democrats are mere novices at gaming said broken system? They have never had 527s, lobbyists, or PACs?
Please, Senator Obama, this will be the 13th Presidential Election in which I have or will have voted. I have voted for only 2 Republicans, but I am not a Democrat. I am a Liberal Independent, I vote for the candidate who best convinces me that he will serve the entire country and not just the left or the right. As a “true” Independent, I have never contributed money, time, or anything of value to any party, and nothing beyond my vote to any candidate,
I have never voted in a primary election. I am not a McCainiac & I don’t see you as an O ‘bama. We are two people who disagree, I hope after November we can come to agreement on something.
James Dobson is attacking Barack Obama?
I care no more for the opinion of James Dobson than for that of Sean Penn.
Report Inappropriate Comment