Campbell, you’re a little bit behind the times. This gop talking point (Obama’s refusal to take public financing) was introduced a long, long time ago.
I’m “pleased” to see the public financing issue awkwardly made the front page of CNN today – a few days before the election and perfect timing for a bunch of crazy a$$ republicans to send out mass emails to their base of crazy a$$ friends.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html
“One year ago, he (Obama) made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.”
My blood pressure rose as I feared that a PAID political pundit on CNN didn’t understand the most basic of gop talking points. Campbell slightly redeemed herself by going on to say…
“He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It’s funny though, those attacks never really materialized.
The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.”
Campbell returned to her idiot status and closes out her spiel by saying…
“For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign’s final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.”
So, why did Obama break his promise and not accept public money? Campbell’s commentary regarding 527s is correct but she fails to mention that Obama would have agreed to public financing if rules and boundaries were established regarding the money 527s could introduce into the general election campaign.
Of course, Campbell doesn’t mention that mccain wouldn’t agree to such financial regulations for 527s. Without being said, the moment Obama accepts to take $88 million in the public’s money, 527s pump in ungodly amount of money, and Barack looks like a puppet, weakling, John Kerry, etc. Those 527s can raise and spend millions of dollars but they aren’t going to waste their money on the presidential general election when Obama has $600 million pouring in.
In closing, our country can’t afford the gop buying the White House again. If mccain wouldn’t agree to reject 527s, Obama made ANOTHER intelligent decision by opting out of public financing. Donate today!
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/main
P.S. I wonder how impacful the 527s are in congressional races since Obama’s deep pockets have deemed them worthless in the presidenital race?
Bcc:List.com 
I discovered your homepage by coincidence.
Very interesting posts and well written.
I will put your site on my blogroll.
🙂
Susan,
Thank you!
Don’t worry, Campbell and CNN are still in the tank for Barry…
And you forgot to add the 270+ electoral votes in the tank.
Oh, that’s right, I forgot that the Lib media and Obama have decided that the election is over…no need for people to vote, they should just let the Messiah ascend straight to the throne…I think there is an event scheduled for Nov. 4th; let’s see, AHA! it’s an election!
Hmmmm…sounds democratic, not something the Democrats would be interested in at all. What a real hassle for you guys that know better than the people do! You must be exhausted.
NEWS FLASH: John McCain breks his promise:
‘Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same.’
The democtatic nominee did not agree. Why did McCain accept public campaign financing?
He broke his promise.
In reference to the “promise” Obama made – this is the text the comments are based on:
“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. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. 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.”
Nowhere in the text does it state that he pledges or promises that he will accept campaign financing. He states that he will agressively pursue an agreement for both parties to accept campaign financing. I don’t see how he has promised or pledged anything if an agreement is not reached. This is not a question of semantics. To me he is keeping his word. It would be different if an agreement had been reached. The words pledge or promise are loaded.
Without that agreement, there is no level playing field. Tactically, it would be stupid to try to run a publicly financed campaign against the RNC without a strong agreement since the RNC is good at developing ways to get around the system such as the 527s.
Including the text resulted in this long post.
First off, thank you ‘keeping them honest’ for your rather lengthy rant ‘off topic’. What is the thought process, really, behind how many pick their ‘screen names’? Keeping them honest, I anticipate has made their own t-shirt with this written on it and perhaps, donning a snorkeling mask while ‘blogging’. I suppose you did some real ‘soul searching’ and found that you are keeping the public honest, therefore your name was graciously put to your posts…I had an epiphany of my own, I use my NAME, since that is the ultimate of honesty, signing your name to something, but I digress…
All I can say about your LENGTHY post is you’ve obviously figured out how to wilkepedia your way through an argument, no matter how boring and off-topic it may be.
In the words of Al Capone, Vote Early, Vote Often…
Ryan THE Conservative…wow, it’s kind of fun having an ‘inspiring’ screen name! 🙂
I get it…so Obama has bought the election instead.
ux5Cu9