When they break their promises, and defy the spirit of our campaign finance laws. So says the Seattle Times editorial page editor, James Vesely.
Don't blame the candidates. They are not fully in charge. They are as much the creatures of the super campaigns as they are the star attractions. The media are to blame, also, for the endless horse-race that fixates us.
(Well, yes, the media should be blamed for their endless horse-race coverage. Or ignored, in favor of blogs that provide more substance.)
How did Vesely come to this strange conclusion? A look at the first part of the column provides a clue:
Sen. Barack Obama has stepped away from public funding of his campaign, disappointing some supporters — and maybe the 1-in-10 taxpayers who check off a $3 contribution to campaigns on their returns.
(Translation: "stepped away" = "cynically broke his promise".)
And so to cover for the junior senator from Illinois, Barack "Arugula" Obama, Vesely has to say that we shouldn't "blame the candidates". He actually means that we shouldn't blame one particular candidate, but prefers not to say so directly.
Obviously, Vesely has a severe case of Obama mania. In hopes that he will recover some time, I offer him this simple argument: Barack Obama is an adult. To the best of my knowledge, Obama is sane. Therefore, Obama can be held responsible for what he does — and what he doesn't do. In particular, Obama can be blamed for not keeping his promise to use public financing in the general election. Even if he is a DEMOCRAT! (Sorry for the shouting, but few "mainstream" journalists seem to understand that Democrats can be blamed for what they do, and fail to do.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Full disclosure: In my opinion, most of the campaign finance laws are unconstitutional limits on the freedom of speech. On this issue, the ACLU is right.
If Obama's opting out of the system, after promising to stay in it, helps get rid of this mess, then I will be pleased by that result. And, if that leads to a decline in the power of our "mainstream" journalists, even better.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 22, 2008 01:04 PM | Email ThisBut hey---what's the big deal with taxpayer-financed campaigns? Even Obama doesn't really believe in it. We shouldn't be doing it at all.
Posted by: Michele on June 22, 2008 01:31 PMB-Ho lied. It's that simple. And the legion of lemmings supporting that empty-suited moron could care less.
There would be no end of savaging McCain were the roles reversed. And the rank hypocrisy of it all sickens me.
Posted by: Hinton on June 22, 2008 03:05 PMSenator Obama answered a yes or no question on a questionnaire about a hypothetical situation many months into the future as best he could. He made no promise. If he had trumpeted what you call his "promise" to take public funds, that would be one thing. But he didn't. During the campaign he continued to say that PACs and 527s had too much power. He PROMISED not to take their money or accept their support. He has kept that promise.
Posted by: Noble on June 22, 2008 03:26 PMOnly Evil Conservatives have expectations of honesty, integrity, responsibility, and all those other hard facts of life. The Left says its OK to just kick back on your $40 per hour union pay scale. Someone else will foot the bill.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 22, 2008 04:43 PMThe big news is that Obama is collecting his huge campaign treasure by small donations through the internet. Am I the only one who is wondering about this? I just don't believe that there are that many small donors in the cities and countryside who go to their computer and send in $150.
Posted by: janet s on June 22, 2008 07:23 PMCurrently, the MSM has corrupted the election process and are conspiring to get Barry O elected. That can be proven and will eventually come out.
Posted by: KS on June 22, 2008 07:34 PMAs a conservative, I'm delighted by Obama's move. It may finally do something to take the steam out of the campaign-financing movement. I wish Obama would have spun it that way--(well, I wish he were a left-conservative like me)--but in any case it's unseemly for conservatives to criticize him on this: Is this attack meant to steer conservatives away from dwelling on McCain's role in helping to write and pass the annoying law in question?
The only laws we really need regarding campaign finance are full disclosure laws--it's great to know just who is supporting the candidates and by how much. Liberals have allowed themselves to get intimidated by what they perceive as big money on the other side and their fear has driven them to embrace these laws, which don't succeed in doing what is intended but do succeed in creating endless confusion and jobs for lawyers, and which can help cement incumbents into office.
So, score another one for Obama.
Thanks all, I really do appreciate the quality posts on this site, even if I often disagree.
-New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on June 22, 2008 10:34 PMI think most people recognize why he did it. He believes that he will gain more votes from the money he can raise than he'll lose from people angry that he broke his promise. In the end, most voters care more about issues like the economy and Iraq than campaign finance. And I suspect he's right.
I think Pudge goes too far in at least 3 ways. First, he says Obama "lied". No, lying means saying something you know to be untrue. Both are bad, but Obama broke a promise. Second, Pudge says the media is giving Obama a free pass for this. The media has clearly reported the fact that Obama broke his promise; the American public responded with a yawn. Third, Pudge accuses Obama of endangering our liberty. Given what our current president has done for the past 7 years, I can't believe Pudge wrote that with a straight face.
Posted by: Bruce on June 22, 2008 10:57 PMAmazing how this line of reasoning is never employed when say the question regards Bush and Iraq.
Posted by: pbj on June 22, 2008 11:11 PMBut I will make this general point: Whenever a reporter checks what Obama has said about his past, the reporter finds discrepancies, sometimes amazing discrepancies. (I've begun writing about them, from time to time, on my own site.) Want an example? Look up what the New York Times found out about his time at the Business International company. It doesn't match what he says about that time.
I've seen enough of these discrepancies by now so that my rule for Obama statements is: Distrust and verify.
Now, please go back to the topic: Which is Vesely's argument that Obama (and other politicians) can't be blamed for not keeping their promises.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 23, 2008 05:41 AM"I do accuse Bush of appalling negligence in (a) overseeing the intelligence agencies, (b) deciding to go to war even assuming the intelligence was correct, and (c) prosecuting the war (among other things)."
Well Bush left intact Clinton's intelligence agency, so really he deserves criticism for not changing them out when he came into office.
I give Bush credit for the fact that no more terrorists have been able to fly planes into buildings or blow up our navy's destroyers.
Posted by: pbj on June 23, 2008 07:08 AMThe guy is a liar. LIAR. There, I said it. And this latest is just the last of a long string of lies.
Remember when he told us, regarding Rev Wright "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." ?
SO from now on when Obamadefenders like Bruce, tc and tensor get on here, we should start the discusion, as did under CLINTON asking what the meaning of IS is. Just so we are all on the same page. I am quite sure it will change from day to day.
Posted by: pbj on June 23, 2008 07:22 AMFirst, when someone says they will do something and then doesn't do it, that is a lie, to me and to most people. If new circumstances arise that force you to do something different for the good of others, fine. Like when Bush promised to put a second UN resolution on Iraq to a vote, and then abandoned that because Blair asked him to. I don't consider that a lie.
But when you make a promise that is, by your own words, specifically about principles and values and judgment, and then you toss that away simply because of money ... that is lying. It shows he never had the principles he claimed to have at the time. It shows he was lying all along.
Perhaps you want something more concrete. How about the fact that in February, Obama said that the FEC made the fixes to the system that he wanted, but now he says that the system is broken, despite nothing changing? (Also don't miss the part where Obama criticizes the Supreme Court for upholding free speech ... not that this makes McCain look good, since he agrees, but it's worthy of note regardless.)
To get back directly to Jim's point, if nothing else, it is clear that Obama lied BY BLAMING THE SYSTEM for his broken promise, since Obama clearly stated earlier that the system could be worked with.
Second, yes, the media is reporting on it, but -- again, back to Jim's point -- at the same time is MAKING EXCUSES for it! Please. Who do you think you are fooling here? And no, the American public has NOT responded with a "yawn." His SUPPORTERS -- including the media -- are responding with a "yawn," whereas they would be screaming if McCain did the same thing. The rest of the country is saying, "um, why is it OK that he broke his promise?," and the media is saying, "because he is such a great guy who only wants what is best for you! Don't worry about it! It's the system!"
And speaking of straight faces, not a single person can think that they would be acting the same way if McCain had done it. Even the right would be saying to McCain, "yep, you sure did screw up on that one." But we tend to be a little more honest with our own party's nominees on this side of the fence.
As to your third point, please don't lower this discussion to tu quoque logical fallacies, mmmmmkay? If I criticize Obama for something, it is illogical to defend Obama by attacking Bush.
Does the latest Obamobfuscation merit a song perhaps? Surely you have one in you for the "great leader".
That as background, the press was all over Bush I for lying and breaking his pledge. The Dalai Bama's pledge (yes, he did make the promise much to the consternation of sever lefty commenters) is just as significant as Bush I pledge and maybe more so.
And for the commenters above who "divine altruistic intent", how can you be sure? I am sure the guy is a fraud and can back it up, but why do you people continue to think the guy is some kind of "super-hero"?
Posted by: swatter on June 23, 2008 08:10 AMThe left ought to be mighty scared of Obama. What other pledges will he break? Troops in Iraq?
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 23, 2008 09:03 AMThe only way John McCain would have an advantage is if Obama agreed to $85 million in public funds. Obama has been raising more funds than McCain, but when it comes to the RNC vs. the DNC the opposite is true. Yeah, Obama really should've agreed to handcuff himself and ensure the Republicans with their cash-on-hand advantage are able to fund a number of Swift Boat campaigns throughout the summer. Kind of like not agreeing to John McCain's proposal of town meetings, Obama would've had to have been an idiot to accept public funding, and turn his back on millions of small donors. I guess you guys have gotten used to having an idiot be in charge for the past eight years, you just don't know how to react otherwise.
And I'm sure you all were outraged when George W. Bush refused public funding in 2000 and 2004. And by "I'm sure" I mean "I'm not." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701757.html
Another was a charismatic leader who would by, force of personality, convince us to give up our liberty.
Seriously, what?
Posted by: True Slicky on June 23, 2008 10:27 AMSame thing with McCain on offshore oil drilling, which Obama hit McCain on last week. His view on the topic in 2000 SHOULD be affected by the recent changes in our oil situation. Duh.
But NOTHING has changed since Obama's campaign promise to go for public funding. He obviously never really meant it.
Jeff B.: I have no doubt that Obama, if elected, WILL NOT pull us out of Iraq any time soon.
True Slicky: none of what you said addresses the point: Obama lied. Or if you prefer, "broke his promise." Fine, you think he should not made that promise in the first place, but what possible justification can you provide for breaking that promise once made?
You are completely missing the point: it is not about public funding or not. It is about making a campaign promise and then sticking to it, and the media not holding you accountable for that violation. Can you be that thick to not understand that this is the issue?
What other promises will Obama break? And will you EVER in ANY WAY be angry at him for ANYTHING he does wrong?
Posted by: pudge on June 23, 2008 10:54 AMBush did not opt out of general election public financing, like Obama just did. And he never made any pledges about public financing in the primary. So there really wasn't anything to be "outraged" about.
Posted by: Palouse on June 23, 2008 10:59 AMBarack Obama made history this week. He became the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to state that his campaign will be funded totally by private donations with no limits on spending.
It was a flip-flop of epic proportions. It was one that he could not rationalize or justify. His video was unconvincing. He looked like someone who was being kept as a hostage somewhere he was so absolutely unconvincing in it. It could not have passed a polygraph test. ...
But I really do think that Obama has made this so central to his mission, which is, "I'm going to change Washington, and you can't change Washington until you change the money, until you change the way we raise the money and who we raise it from." And he just basically went back on that.
And I think, in that sense, it can become a character issue against him, and I think that's potentially a problem.
Thank you, Mark Shields. There is hope for the media yet.
We need more examples of such honesty from the left.
Today, every market is a sliver. And there is the Internet. The last time I checked, people are spending more time reading the Internet than watching TV. So, a group of dedicated unpaid bloggers is more potent than buying ad time on tv, or even banner ads on portal sites.
So that whole thing where they replayed 30 second videos of his reverend saying inflammatory statements about a million times, as if it were a serious campaign issue - that was what? The news media giving an undue boost to Obama's campaign? Lets juxtapose that to their reaction to McCain claiming that their are Sunni extremists in Iran, and Leiberman having to correct him. The news video played that video for about two days, and then it disappeared. THE ISSUE DISAPPEARED. Here is a man who is vying to be at the helm of our foreign policy, and he doesn't even know the basic elements of our chief foreign policy issue. THAT should matter a hell of a lot more than Obama's pastor's odd views on AIDS.
I agree with you, in one way Pudge. It is BS when people say that Obama's form of fund raising is in any way "public." It is not. But lets get one thing straight. Obama did not lie and he did not make a promise. He answered a hypothetical yes or no question as best he could. Things have changed a bit since he answered it. Is it so crazy to think that he changed his mind about that as well? I can't say for sure that he didn't answer that question knowing that he would eventually change his mind. But by the same token, you can't say for sure that he made a calculating move to win votes. If McCain did something similar, I would say the same thing. Let's get over this and talk about real campaign issues, like, um, what we can do about those Sunni extremists... in IRAQ.
Posted by: Noble on June 23, 2008 09:36 PMSo that whole thing where they replayed 30 second videos of his reverend saying inflammatory statements about a million times, as if it were a serious campaign issue - that was what?
First, it was during the primary, when he was facing off against Hillary. You don't still see it now, do you?
Second, that was mostly on Fox News, one of the few news outlets NOT in the tank for Obama. I can't say much more positive about Fox News than that.
Third, it wasn't even a real issue. This is a very old tactic: make a big deal out of something mostly meaningless so then when people complain you don't make a big deal out of an ACTUAL issue, they can point at it and say "yeah we did, see?!" Not falling for it.
The news media giving an undue boost to Obama's campaign?
Yes.
Lets juxtapose that to their reaction to McCain claiming that their are Sunni extremists in Iran, and Leiberman having to correct him.
Let's juxtapose a simple slip of the tongue to a reversal on a campaign pledge that strikes at one of his Obama's very reasons for running for President?! Are you SERIOUS?
Oh, I see, you really think that McCain doesn't know the difference. Wow. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
I called my dog by the name of my cat tonight. Does that mean I really don't know the difference? All people make such verbal slips all the time, including you, and they mean nothing. You're being extremely daft.
Where does one even start trying to argue with logic like that???? It's like arguing with an intelligent design fanatic. It's easier to argue with my dog -- I mean, my cat.
Posted by: Bruce on June 24, 2008 12:51 AMLook at it this way, if you have a contract that states if party (a) will agree to X,Y, and Z, then you (party b) will also agree to X,Y, and Z, then you are perfectly in your right to back out of that agreement if the other party does not agree. You do not have to follow the contract because the other side did not agree to the terms of the contract. This is what we have in this case. Barack made it clear early on the conditions to him accepting public funding. It is McCain's side (his surrogates) that were not agreeable to all the conditions. They knew they could not get the RNC to agree to conditions contained in the "contract" Obama was proposing, and they knew they couldn't strong arm the 527's to comply, especially since they needed the 527's to fight the "dirt" campaign so they could keep their hands clean.
As far as Bush and his administration, I would recommend you pick up Richard Clarke's latest book "Your Government has failed you." In it, you will get one perspective on the inner happenings of the White House, Military, State, and Defense departments. You may not agree with Clarke. I don't on some of his opinions. He does however state some interesting facts and background that should be taken into consideration. For example, the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" term has been one that has confused me. He goes into the history of who was in Iraq, and how the term came to be.
Posted by: tc on June 24, 2008 08:16 AMAs for Richard Clarke, I would urge you to check what he says before swallowing it whole, given his past record. (And you might want to look at what Samantha Powers said about him in her book on genocide.)
Posted by: JimMiller on June 24, 2008 08:28 AMAs far as Richard Clarke, I very much do not take his word as gospel. I take it as a data point to compare to what others have written. The "right" needs to face the fact, however, that the "data" points coming out from former personnel do not match public statements and this administrations policy statements. Clarke is, in this book, very critical of both sides. Remember, he was only under Bush for a few years. There are some pretty clear daggers at the Clinton administration in the book, also. There are also behind the scene facts that haven't been reported.
For example, the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" issue. In the beginning, the Iraqi terrorist (Al Zaqhawi ,sp?, not to be confused with Al Qaeda's Al Zaharwi, sp?) had is own group, in Iraq. One of three, identified groups before the Iraqi war. Two of which, including Al Zaqhawi, were against Sadaam. This group was mainly northern and Kurdish based, but separate from the other Kurdish group that was fighting the Turks. It was the Bush administration that labeled them "Al Qaeda in Iraq" before they even had any organizational ties to the actual Al Qaeda. Al Zaqhawi was egotistical and wanted to be recognized as an equal to Bin Laden, not a surrogate. He did eventually recruit some (formal) Al Qaeda cast-offs, and thus, did formally establish some ties to Al Qaeda. It isn't however the case where Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the war. It was the case of the administration wanting to tie the Iraqi-born group with the larger group to make its case for war. It would be like calling Aryan Nationalists in Northern Idaho as part of Al Qaeda, because they oppose the government of their country of residence.
I haven't read, but skimmed through Clarke's chapter on cyberterrorism. A couple tidbits, I didn't know, were the Chinese shipped digital picture frames with virus embedded to infect US computers who attached the frame via USB, and how close Code Red came to actually crippling the Internet's routers. When the group Clarke was running tried to call the NOC's to get them to blackhole all traffic to the Whitehouse site (target for the Code Red virus), the NOC personnel didn't believe they were from the Whitehouse calling to them them to blackhole the traffic.
Posted by: tc on June 24, 2008 09:12 AMAgain.
In February, Obama said that the FEC made the fixes to the system that he wanted, but now he says that the system is broken. But nothing changed.
Obama lied.
From the beginning, there were at least three conditions and if these were met, he was agreeable to accepting public funding. The fact is, and you can argue all day, but you would be wrong, McCain was not agreeable with all the conditions.
Wow. So now it is not the SYSTEM'S fault Obama broke his promise, it is McCAIN'S fault!
But no, it is not true anyway. Not even close. Obama said he would aggressively pursue an agreement. HE DID NOT DO THIS. That was a lie.
And for you to say McCain "was not agreeable with all the conditions" is another lie, because the discussions never happened. Your attempt to say that McCain disagreed with the conditions is total and complete fabrication without the slightest basis in fact.
They knew they could not get the RNC to agree to conditions contained in the "contract" Obama was proposing
That's a lie. All Obama said is that the respective parties would agree to FOLLOW THE LAW. Clearly, this was not a problem for the agreement, since even if the RNC or DNC were planning on breaking the law, they wouldn't admit to it in such a way that would harm this "contract."
and they knew they couldn't strong arm the 527's to comply, especially since they needed the 527's to fight the "dirt" campaign so they could keep their hands clean.
First, more money goes into Dem 527s than GOP 527s, so this is a stupid reason for McCain to disagree with the "contract." That disagreement never happened, in fact.
Second, it is ILLEGAL to "strong arm" 527s. That is "coordination," which is expressly prohibited in the law. So Obama never should have asked for this. It is illegal to even ask a 527 to not run an ad, or a style of ad, or a type of attack, or talk about certain issues. All of those things are against the law.
Face it, tc, Obama is full of it, and so are you.
As a prominent far-left liberal Friend Of Obama said, even Obama didn't believe what he was saying here: he looked like a hostage.
Regarding McCain's fault, I never stated it was McCain's fault. There is no fault. Either both sides agree to the ground rules, or they don't. There can be varied reasons why McCain's side didn't want to agree to all the conditions of the "contract." One is simply that the McCain camp has little to moderate influence on the RNC and its direction. Typically, the presidential candidate can sway its own party's committee on the direction of the campaign, as Obama has done with the DNC. This is more the fault of the RNC, and not McCain. The RNC are the ones that aren't fully getting behind McCain and making sure there is a consistent message.
You state it is about the respective national committee's following the law. It is more than just following the law. Obama has influenced the DNC to not accept contributions from lobbyists, since it conflicts with his campaigns message. This isn't an "abiding by the law" change, but a making sure the national committee is speaking from the same page. McCain has yet to do this with the RNC.
With regards to 527's, it isn't coordination of message. They are free to speak their voice. It is speaking loud and clear that those groups do not speak for the campaign and disassociating/condeming their messages when they run counter to the campaign's message. Again, look at the example of what the Obama Camp has done. MoveOn has folded their 527 organization. It was inconsistent with the message Obama is trying to send about changing the tone of the elections.
Pudge, you say I am full of it. I don't care. Each time you post lately, you are demonstrating the fact that you have a hang-up with "lying." It is clouding your viewpoint on everything. You are letting hysteria cloud judgement. You have lost all assemblence of analysis of the facts. May I say, you have drank the Bush kool-aid. This is unfortunate, because you have had reasoned arguments in the past. I may not have agreed, but I could definately see that you put thought and analysis into reaching the conclusion. Now, everyone is lying, except for you. If they don't agree with you, they are a lier. Well it gets old fast and I am not sure how many times I will continue to debate you. You have lost all assemblance of reason.
Posted by: tc on June 24, 2008 10:54 AMYou keep taking points and twisting them around.
Incorrect.
For example, you state about FEC change rules, but then leap to equate that to the election system in general.
No. You are wrong. OBAMA SAID that the FEC has made changes acceptable to him, and now he just needed to come to an agreement with the GOP nominee. Quote: I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that.
He said before there were no regulatory obstacles to public funding. Now he says there are. He lied.
He said he would aggressively pursue an agreement with the GOP nominee. He did not. He lied.
One can agree that the rule changes FEC made are correct, and at the same time still disagree with the system as a whole.
One CANNOT say the FEC cleared any regulatory obstacles, and then say that such obstacles remain. No, one cannot.
Regarding McCain's fault, I never stated it was McCain's fault.
Yes, actually, you did. You said he is to blame for Obama's going back on his promise to, if nothing else, "aggressively pursue" this, because McCain simply wouldn't agree! So no need for Obama to aggressively pursue it!
There can be varied reasons why McCain's side didn't want to agree to all the conditions of the "contract."
You keep repeating this as though there was anything he disagreed with (except for, perhaps, Obama's request that McCain violate the law).
You state it is about the respective national committee's following the law. It is more than just following the law.
Nope. Obama said, "The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement."
Obama has influenced the DNC to not accept contributions from lobbyists, since it conflicts with his campaigns message. This isn't an "abiding by the law" change, but a making sure the national committee is speaking from the same page. McCain has yet to do this with the RNC.
If he added a new criteria about lobbyists, then that is yet another lie from Obama, because he never predicated his initial promise on anything to do with the parties accepting money from lobbyists. You're not helping him out here.
With regards to 527's, it isn't coordination of message.
Yes, it absolutely is. Obama has this all wrong, and is asking for the illegal. John Edwards (in this example) has it right, and Obama has it wrong. McCain has it right. You can ask generally all 527s to stop, but you CANNOT ask SPECIFIC 527s to stop, nor can you ask a specific MESSAGE to stop. Obama was asking Edwards to break the law, and Obama himself has broken the law. I quote: "MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson." THAT IS COORDINATION OF MESSAGE AND IT IS ILLEGAL.
It is speaking loud and clear that those groups do not speak for the campaign and disassociating/condeming their messages when they run counter to the campaign's message.
They have asked them to NOT GIVE a message. That is illegal.
Again, look at the example of what the Obama Camp has done. MoveOn has folded their 527 organization. It was inconsistent with the message Obama is trying to send about changing the tone of the elections.
Exactly! That IS coordination of message!
Each time you post lately, you are demonstrating the fact that you have a hang-up with "lying."
Shouldn't everyone?
It is clouding your viewpoint on everything. You are letting hysteria cloud judgement.
Not at all. It's quite the opposite: I have no hysteria, I am looking at facts; and your judgments are clouded by lies.
You have lost all assemblence of analysis of the facts.
Um. I presented lots of facts. I always do. Perhaps you don't know how to read?
May I say, you have drank the Bush kool-aid.
Yes, there you go, lying again. Sad.
This is unfortunate, because you have had reasoned arguments in the past. I may not have agreed, but I could definately see that you put thought and analysis into reaching the conclusion. Now, everyone is lying, except for you.
No, not everyone: only people who actually are lying.
When you said "McCain was not agreeable with all the conditions," you lied. When you said Obama didn't go back on his word, you lied.
If they don't agree with you, they are a lier.
Nope: only when they claim facts that are not true, as you have done.
Well it gets old fast
Yes, lying does get old, very fast. Try to stop doing it.
You have lost all assemblance of reason.
For someone telling lies, that's an ironic thing to say.
1. Obama's statement on both sides needing to agree. (link: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html
2. Opinion Viewpoint prepared by Obama's representative Bob Bauer (link: http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/news.html?AID=1239)
It is not up to me to prove that Obama didn't lie. The above facts speak for themself. It is you and the others here that are using twisted logic to come up with this falsehood that Obama broke some sort of pledge. Let the facts speak for themself.
Posted by: tc on June 24, 2008 02:11 PMYour linked article confirms what I have been stating. The agreement to go to public financing was contingent on both sides agreeing to the framework.
YOU ARE LYING.
First, you said McCain WOULD NOT AGREE to those things. That is untrue. You keep saying it. It's a lie.
Second, you said Obama had ADDED TO that "framework" (e.g., requiring no donations from lobbyists) which IF true STILL means he BROKE HIS PROMISE. If you say, "I will agree if we can do x y and z," and then later say, "well, we also need q," then that is breaking your promise.
Third, you're being an idiot anyway, because never, in any way, did I contest the notion that Obama said both sides needed to agree. Ever. That you keep harping on something I never contested is sad.
The FEC agreed to the framework, but McCain's organization never agreed.
You're lying. Again.
First, Obama said the FEC's changes made the system acceptable to him, but then he said the system was broken. So it is not merely about McCain. You know this, because I already pointed it out.
Second, for the umpteenth time, McCain never had the CHANCE to disagree with ANYTHING Obama said in February.
Oh yeah, their lawyers met briefly. And then Obama proclaimed they couldn't agree. Please don't tell me you believe this was "aggressively pursuing" an agreement as he promised he would.
"Let's juxtapose a simple slip of the tongue to a reversal on a campaign pledge that strikes at one of his Obama's very reasons for running for President?! Are you SERIOUS?"
1) If you saw the video, it was clearly not a slip of the tongue - I guess they didn't play it enough for you to catch it. McCain barely understood what Lieberman was saying when he was corrected. Add that to the fact that McCain later made the same mistake, and it becomes clear that he isn't on solid ground with this issue.
2) The juxtaposition was between the amount of air time given to the Wright videos and the amount of air time given to that video.
Posted by: Noble on June 24, 2008 05:24 PMIf you saw the video
I did.
it was clearly not a slip of the tongue
Remove the word "not" and you have arrived at truth.
McCain barely understood what Lieberman was saying when he was corrected.
Incorrect. You are, clearly, projecting your own emotions onto the event and reading your emotions as facts.
Add that to the fact that McCain later made the same mistake, and it becomes clear that he isn't on solid ground with this issue.
No, indeed, you have it backward: that he made the mistake again just shows that it IS purely a slip-up. If you actually think something that turns out to be wrong and you are corrected, you -- well, most of us -- don't make the same mistake again. But if it is simply a slip-up, then you will often repeat it.
This is how human minds work. When we make silly slip-ups -- when I call my cat by my dog's name -- it is because I am speaking from the part of my mind that is using a lot of "shorthand" because I *do* know the subject so well. This allows us to speak more quickly and fluidly while formulating other thoughts. But it is also -- as it is less actively conscious -- more prone to producing errors. I rarely call my neighbor by the wrong name, but I often call my dog by the wrong name, even though I know my dog's name much better than my neighbor's name. Same thing.
If anything, it is actually evidence that McCain *does* know the subject well ... or at least that he thinks he does, enough to be speaking of it while using that "shorthand" part of his mind.
This sort of thing is obvious to most people, and I am surprised that I have to spell it out to you.
The juxtaposition was between the amount of air time given to the Wright videos and the amount of air time given to that video.
Fine. Still, it's a stupid comparison. The Wright videos were about an issue that actually matters (albeit only slightly): what Obama's views are about religion and race relations and wacky conspiracy theories. The McCain video is nothing more than a simple slip of the tongue.
Posted by: pudge on June 24, 2008 06:35 PMWell this is the video, you be the judge. Pudge - How many times have you called your dog by your cat's name, and then gone on to talk about them for a while, using the wrong names? Never, I would imagine (unless you are very unfamiliar with your pets).
Posted by: Noble on June 24, 2008 09:34 PMSo, all I ask is that you fairly and evenly apply your scrutiny. I would have no problem if you applied the same level of scrutiny to McCain as you do Obama. I know I do. I try to assume the best intentions for both and take what they state on face value. I don't agree with both at times, and other times agree with what each has stated. To contrast, I did not take what Hillary stated at times with the same level of evenness because she has demonstrated repeatedly stating positions based on what could she do to win as opposed to how she really felt. I think her best campaigning was when she opened up and was honest and not triangulating and calculating. If she would have done more of that, maybe she would have won the nomination. OBTW, it was the same with Romney. I always felt he put on a facade.
Posted by: tc on June 25, 2008 07:35 AMtc: I offered no conspiracy theory. What in the world are you talking about? You used to be so reasonable: now you argue by completely making things up.
I judge the facts presented to them fairly and evenly.
Unfortunately, that's not true. If it were, you would recognize the FACT that Obama went back on his word to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with McCain.
You appear to think everyone who states an opinion on the facts contrary to yours is lying.
Again, you are lying. I only say people are lying when they knowingly state falsehoods, as you have repeatedly done.
Yet, you yourself are contradictary.
You cannot provide a single example.
You judge Obama as lying and changing positions, but when it comes to McCain, you give him every benefit of the doubt.
False.
I try to assume the best intentions for both
Look. What part of Obama stating "I will aggressively pursue an agreement," and then NOT DOING THAT, do you not get? And then he tries to give us complete bull about "well it is still in the spirit of public funding," when it absolutely is not.
Even if you assume best intentions until proven otherwise, Obama proved he was going back on his word, which clearly demonstrates to me -- since NOTHING CHANGED except his prospects of more private donations -- that he never really held the principled stand he pretended to have in the first place.
I take every situation separately. Obama claimed this was a matter of principle, and then he did EVERYTHING HE COULD to GET OUT OF IT. He obviously never held that principle, or at least, decided he could be bought out of it.
Posted by: pudge on June 25, 2008 10:41 AMSo, just in this very tread of discussions, there is evidence of you stating different positions. Your retort is I am lying. Baloney. I am stating my interpretations of the facts. The fact of the matter is, this topic has been in discussion since at least March when McCain became the presummtive nominee. McCain started to hit Obama on the subject back then. Obama's response then was to repeat the conditions he expected to reach an agreement and that he would not formally enter into discussions, or an agreement until he was the nominee. McCain in the mean time made no overtures to informally agreeing to the framework. Once Obama became the presumtive nominee, the two sides formally met. Neither you, nor I know the details of that meeting. What we do know is that after that meeting, the Obama campaign made the decision to not go with Public Funding. My interpretation of these facts are: (1) Obama has laid out for some time his expectations, (2) McCain has not made any overtures as to agreeing to any expectation, except the given of accepting Public money, and (3) the two parties actually met and that no further meetings to discuss the issue came out of that meeting. You gave the indication that McCain is ready and willing to work out an agreement. If this is the case, then why didn't future meetings result from the early June meeting? There can be only two conclusions. One is Obama was blowing smoke all along, or two, McCain and Obama's sides decided that there would be no way to reach an equitable agreement and thus future meetings would be fruitless. I guess there is a third conclusion, which is McCain blowing smoke, but I choose to disregard this conclusion since he has publically supported public financing. This third conclusion would be totally out of character. I choose to believe the second conclusion, which is both sides met and after laying the cards on the table decided it would be a fruitless endeavor to pursue. I say this because McCain's side has not made the argument that they wanted to hold more meetings, but Obama's side was not agreeable. I also conclude this by the timing of Obama's decision to forgo public financing. If there was a possiblity of working out a framework agreeable to both sides, then Obama would not have made the conclusion as quickly as he did after the early June meeting.
Those are the facts. You may reach different interpretations and conclusions, but it doesn't mean either of us are lying. We are simply interpreting facts differently.
Posted by: tc on June 25, 2008 11:32 AMSo, just in this very tread of discussions, there is evidence of you stating different positions.
Weak and stupid evidence. "Evidence" that makes you look deceptive or stupid. The discussions between the two of them never happened, I said. Their campaigns never even got to talk. Their LAWYERS met.
I am stating my interpretations of the facts.
Obama NEVER, at ANY TIME, aggressively pursued an agreement. He said he would. He lied.
Nothing you have said, or can say, changes this.