Shiat, I had NRO in the pool as the greenlit link about this.

hot air? seriously?

I'm sure Fact Man will be in to biatch about this soon... right? I mean he isn't a hypocrite or anything right?

So what is inaccurate - the headline or the article?

Clicked 1 time; will post to Politics on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 at 4:51 PM

Link votes: -2

I'm guessing nobody knows.

this isn't exactly breaking news, we've known this was going to happen for months. however, yes, this is an example of obama going back on something he said earlier.

of course, it isn't an example of him going back on the spirit of public financing. public financing was created as a means to keep lobbyists and PACs from having undue influence on the system by providing the candidates with money from the voters instead. it's a decent idea in theory, but unfortunately, not a lot of the voters check that box on their tax returns to give to the public financing fund, so there really isn't a lot of money in the pot. it seems people aren't too keen on giving to what amounts to "some politician", especially when they are being actively reminded of how much money the government took out of their paychecks that year...

however, since obama's money doesn't come from lobbyists and PACs, he is still accomplishing what public financing was made to accomplish.

i'm certain there will be a lot of knee-jerk outrage at his decision, but sensible people understand what is going on. besides, mccain also promised to take public financing and went back on it. during the primaries, he applied for it and used the imminent funding as collateral to acquire a line of credit when his campaign was faltering. but when the campaign picked back up, he kept the line of credit and declined the public financing that he had used to get it, effectively defrauding the creditors while also going back on his promise to use public financing.

neither one of them has kept that promise. and neither one of them should really be vilified for it. even mccain... if the creditors want to take action for his turning down the funding, it's their prerogative to do so, but if not the voters themselves weren't really slighted. there's certainly no reason to get up at arms about obama's fundraising, since it follows the spirit of his promise in keeping lobbyists and PACs out of the equation. i haven't looked too closely at where mccain is getting his money these days to know if there's something worth being outraged about there, but i doubt it.

/sorry for the tolstoy
//copied from a redlit thread
///been saving it all morning

Stoj: So what is inaccurate - the headline or the article?

Clicked 1 time; will post to Politics on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 at 4:51 PM

Link votes: -2

I'm guessing nobody knows.

It's not that it's inaccurate, it's that I don't care as a result of McCain's "well, I can't referee" remark about 527s. Obama's not going to handcuff himself and not use an ENORMOUS advantage when the Madrassa Students for Truth ads or whatever come out like you know they will.

And another broken promise by Barack Obama.



Surprise Surprise!

burndtdan [TotalFark] Quote 2008-06-19 01:18:44 PM
this isn't exactly breaking news, we've known this was going to happen for months. however, yes, this is an example of obama going back on something he said earlier.

So that puts Obama at one flip-flop to McCain 5 billion, if I'm keeping score right.

Obama has also repeatedly flip-flopped on Iraq, on NAFTA, and so on.

It's just that the media refuses to criticize him.

robsul82: Stoj: So what is inaccurate - the headline or the article?

Clicked 1 time; will post to Politics on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 at 4:51 PM

Link votes: -2

I'm guessing nobody knows.

It's not that it's inaccurate, it's that I don't care as a result of McCain's "well, I can't referee" remark about 527s. Obama's not going to handcuff himself and not use an ENORMOUS advantage when the Madrassa Students for Truth ads or whatever come out like you know they will.

it's also that it has been submitted a dozen times this morning with better headlines and better sources, but the admins waited until someone linked it from a flamebait source like hot air to green it.

it's also that it has been submitted a dozen times this morning with better headlines and better sources, but the admins waited until someone linked it from a flamebait source like hot air to green it.

I thought my flamebait headline was much better, but it was flamebaiting McCain so...

If Obama stuck to public financing he'd lose money.

McCainDemocrat: It's just that the media refuses to criticize him.



courtesy of the "Baracknophobia" thread from yesterday

Bill Frist: hot air? seriously?

Come on - you were in there defending the links from Kos and HuffPo the other day. :)

I could easily say that Hot-Air is a completely legit news site. It DOES have a very conservative bias in its blog/editorial/opinion posts, but most of the site is just devoted to news stories and covers them as well as any other news site.

I DRTFA but that sounds like a good thing to me.

McCainDemocrat: Obama has also repeatedly flip-flopped on Iraq, on NAFTA, and so on.

It's just that the media refuses to criticize him.

The thing is, just because you say it, everyone knows it isn't true.
You have no credibility here and your only fans are morons.

A case of he said, he said.

Cash strapped McCain is saying that he and Obama promised to use public funds. Obama said that he made no promise, only an agreement to consider it.

It doesn't sound like Obama is being dishonest; McCain sounds like a whiner crying that the game is unfair because his opponent is playing better than him. Well... Johnny boy, suck it up and take your beating like a man.

BTW, this is the first time EVER that a major party has turned down public financing.

Some of the more conservative McCain backers will also note that this is the first time ever that a liberal Democrat has turned down $80M in taxpayer money. But that's an easy joke to make and I won't make it.

Considering this is the worst they have to biatch about, I don't see a problem.

Psychotropic: You have no credibility here and your only fans are morons.

Please stop quoting trolls.

comment from the MSNBC story about it

It is a joke that navy man American hero John McCain has to put up with a cheating liberal liar who isn't in the same class. It is there plan to tax all the people black and white and even the muslims for stupid things not to win our wars in the middle east and not to get our oil out of Iraq and then they would say Ok to Iran we will do what you want and where. John McCain for president and Huckabee hopefully for VP Listen to Rush for the truth and check out Jack in Dallas comments.

made me go lolwut

McCainDemocrat: Some of the more conservative McCain backers will also note that this is the first time ever that a liberal Democrat has turned down $80M in taxpayer money. But that's an easy joke to make and I won't make it.

I LOL'd

Apparantly you can't win. Obama says he will take public funds when he was unsure about how much money he would raise.

Now that he has plenty of money raised, he decided not to waste federal monies. And conservatives are supposed to be upset about this? I thought the were all about being fiscally responsible.

Why?

absoluteparanoia: Psychotropic: You have no credibility here and your only fans are morons.

Please stop quoting trolls.

A million times THIS.

Let them prattle away at their strawmen like so many neglected pancakes.

burndtdan: comment from the MSNBC story about it

It is a joke that navy man American hero John McCain has to put up with a cheating liberal liar who isn't in the same class. It is there plan to tax all the people black and white and even the muslims for stupid things not to win our wars in the middle east and not to get our oil out of Iraq and then they would say Ok to Iran we will do what you want and where. John McCain for president and Huckabee hopefully for VP Listen to Rush for the truth and check out Jack in Dallas comments.

made me go lolwut

Plenty of crazy in there but that people actually believe the highlighted part is appalling.

I don't mind the Obama campaign being asked to explain themselves about this and be the subject of late-night comics and political cartoons, but to be honest, I'd rather his supporters paid for his entire campaign than force American taxpayers to do it. I'd also prefer Senator Pancakes to do the same thing.

I'm not a conservative. I just care about honor and integrity. And going back on your word like Obama did shows a lack of honor and integrity.

Snarfangel: I don't mind the Obama campaign being asked to explain themselves about this

The Obama camp should play this up. I can't imagine any reasonable discussion that would make not accepting public money a bad thing.

McCainDemocrat: I'm not a conservative. I just care about honor and integrity. And going back on your word like Obama did shows a lack of honor and integrity.

And if he declared he was accepting public funds, you'd say 'Why? He's raised enough money to avoid charging the taxpayers. Blah blah blah.' You're quite predictable that way.

McCainDemocrat: I'm not a conservative. I just care about honor and integrity. And going back on your word like Obama did shows a lack of honor and integrity.

settle down, Danlpoon.

mccain doesn't have any fundraising issues, just look at all the cash

McCainDemocrat:

Ignore list get.

McCainDemocrat: I'm not a conservative. I just care about honor and integrity. And going back on your word like Obama did shows a lack of honor and integrity.

Yea. Kind of like when someone vows to love, honor and cherish their (first) wife until death do they part. You are a sham and a transparent one at that.

The problem with public financing is- how you do you allocate the money?

Who gets to decide the Republicans and Democrats get $XX million, while any other candidate gets nothing?

"Public financing", like a lot of McCain-Feingold, only has the effect of further entrenching incumbents. Is that really what we want?

McCainDemocrat: I'm not a conservative. I just care about honor and integrity.

Bullshiat. McCain contradicts himself on a different issue nearly every day, and yet you can't stop fellating him. You don't have a clue as to what honor and integrity are.

mediaho: I can't imagine any reasonable discussion that would make not accepting public money a bad thing.

It wasn't out of principle... and maybe he shouldn't have said:

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.

He was worried about the Republican nominee being able to outraise him, but now that it is clear that he can't, he is going back on "his plan".

It's clear that many of you make use of your ignore lists in this thread.

In other news, politicians change their minds all the time. This should surprise nobody.

Stoj: He was worried about the Republican nominee being able to outraise him, but now that it is clear that he can't, he is going back on "his plan".

from the quote itself, his plan "requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce..." etc etc.

that didn't happen. i don't know to what extent it was pursued and won't make any claims about that either way, but the fact is that the preconditions of his plan were not met.

burndtdan: mccain doesn't have any fundraising issues, just look at all the cash

That's an awesome 'shop of that dillhole that I remembered seeing from Gawker or something. I love it.

Stoj: He was worried about the Republican nominee being able to outraise him, but now that it is clear that he can't, he is going back on "his plan".

You're skipping over the part where he stated that this would happen if both party candidates agreed to it.

McCain's campaign never agreed to it.

And McCain already got a very questionable loan that may have violated the campaign finance laws (new window).

Stoj: 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.

Interesting quote, thanks for that.

Stoj: He was worried about the Republican nominee being able to outraise him, but now that it is clear that he can't, he is going back on "his plan".

If "McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge," what does it matter? If the government "plans" to (for example) tax everyone out the wazoo for healthcare and then find a way to do it without tax money, that would be a good thing, right?

burndtdan: that didn't happen.

McCain is taking public financing for the general election, which is what Obama was referring to in that quote. That caps what they can spend.

It would be ridiculously stupid for Obama to limit himself - but he shouldn't have been spouting off about reform and change when it comes to campaign financing for the general election.

Nestea Plunge: Stop lying, please.

He's not. I was talking to danlpoon about it yesterday. He said he was a registered democrat that was a Clinton supporter. However, now he probably won't vote or undervote since he doesn't like either candidate.

Of course, I'm not really sure if you can take what he said for any worth. But, he did admit he was wasting time since it was easier to poke Obama supporters because he couldn't find any McCain supporters to argue with.

And, he mentioned that his political knowledge is too vast for him to attempt to discuss politics with the unwashed masses of Fark.

It was a fascinating trip in to the mind of a troll.

burndtdan: that didn't happen. i don't know to what extent it was pursued and won't make any claims about that either way, but the fact is that the preconditions of his plan were not met.

Who backed out first, do you know?

KaponoFor3: burndtdan: that didn't happen. i don't know to what extent it was pursued and won't make any claims about that either way, but the fact is that the preconditions of his plan were not met.

Who backed out first, do you know?

i don't think mccain ever backed in

Stoj [TotalFark] Quote 2008-06-19 01:27:44 PM
Bill Frist: hot air? seriously?

Come on - you were in there defending the links from Kos and HuffPo the other day. :)

I could easily say that Hot-Air is a completely legit news site. It DOES have a very conservative bias in its blog/editorial/opinion posts, but most of the site is just devoted to news stories and covers them as well as any other news site.

That was my description of Huffington Post. I stand by it.

Kos is a different story. They aren't a newssite at all, they are a liberal opinion blog.

Blues_X: McCain's campaign never agreed to it.

So you're saying that Obama asked him to? From the little I can find on the subject, it seems Obama had some unmeetable conditions - like stopping 527s from creating ads. It also seems like he spent all of 2 seconds "aggressively pursuing an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

mediaho: what does it matter?

It matters because Obama had "challenged" the republicans to accept public financing, then when they did, he opted out.

As to your second point - I'm not saying it is a "bad" thing, only that it goes against everything he has been saying since 2007 on the subject.

McCainDemocrat: I'm not a conservative. I just care about honor and integrity. And going back on your word like Obama did shows a lack of honor and integrity.

Then you must DESPITE McCain. He might be the politician with the least integrity in all of America. Dude has flip flopped on every core principle he ever touted. He doesn't have a shred of integrity in his entire body.

McCainDemocrat: I'm not a conservative. I just care about honor and integrity. And going back on your word like Obama did shows a lack of honor and integrity.

How does this fit into your high standards of honor and integrity?(p)