RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Sanity -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 12:00:20 PM)

quote:


Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.
One reason, he said, is that "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

We (at Newsweek) find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142399





celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 12:00:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

CL, re your search for an honest candidate in the tradition of Diogenes, perhaps you could shed some light on your opinion of McCain's honesty regarding his role in the Keating 5 scandal ? Is McCain "born again" and absolved of his sins ? Is this what you endorse as "change " ? Is this what you call integrity in a candidate ?

The Senate Ethics Committee absolved him.  He himself said he exercised bad judgement. His participation in the Keating 5 scandal was minimal, and nowhere near the involvement of the other Arizona Senator at the time, Democrat Dennis DeConcini(sp?).

Independent Counsel Robert Bennett had this to say:

quote:

"In the case of Senator McCain, there is very substantial evidence that he thought he had an understanding with Senator DeConcini's office that certain matters would not be gone into at the meeting with (bank board) Chairman (Ed) Gray," Bennett said.

"Moreover, there is substantial evidence that, as a result of Senator McCain's refusal to do certain things, he had a fallout with Mr. Keating."


DeConcini was the senior Senator from Arizona (McCain had been in the Senate 3 months at the time), and was quite cozy with Keating.

McCain's own words on the topic sum it up quite succinctly:

quote:

"I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment."


If you have evidence that the Senate Ethics Committee erred in its findings, I should be happy to know what it might be.




housesub4you -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 12:21:25 PM)

Hey CL,

Yea a GOP run house absolved him. 

I believe when the first Gulf War began it was McCain who stated, "Thank God for the war, now the focus is off me"  in regards to his  campaign money scandal


It was also McCain who pledged that he would never support a bill allowing torture (waterboarding) he said that for over 6 months, yet when the bill was voted on he supported it.
When asked about his vote in the primary, he said the president should veteo the bill??????  What the hell kind of leadership is that???  You vote yes on a bill then say it should be veteod, after months of campaigning that you will fight the bill.


I'm just glad I am not running for any office, jeez I would never last with the press ripping my life to shreds.  I wonder how long it would take for my activity in this lifestyle to be on the news?  But I bet the White House would make a great dungeon.  The State Union Address in leather




celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 2:33:50 PM)

quote:

Hey CL,

Yea a GOP run house absolved him.

Except that both houses of Congress had Democratic majorities when the Senate convened its Ethics Committee hearing on the "Keating 5" in November of 1990.




MmeGigs -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 3:01:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
Does no one else here see a problem with ANY candidate being prepared to spend Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars to win an election for ANY public office?


Yup, I'm definitely with you there.  We've managed to build ourselves a process where dollars are more important than ideas.  When the media talks about whether a candidate is "viable", they're not talking about whether the candidate has goals and ideas that will inspire people and win their votes, they're talking about whether the candidate can raise enough money.  Dollars are becoming more important than votes, too, since without $ there is no chance to get votes.  The sad fact is that McCain and Obama and all of the other nominees for political office are going to make compromises they don't really want to make and smooch butts they'd really rather not smooch in order to raise the money they'll need between now and the election.  The sadder fact is that the fundraising for the 2010 and 2012 campaigns will begin as soon as the results from this election are announced.

I think that the court's decision that money = speech was probably the worst thing that could have happened to our political system.  These days if you don't have money you still have a vote but you don't have a voice.  Try contacting an elected official at the federal level and see what kind of response you get.  I've gotten form letters, some thanking me for supporting a position that I opposed.  Often I get no response at all.  I know they're swamped with emails, but snail-mail and phone calls are no more effective.  If I'm a big contributor or reliable bundler I can get face-to-face, maybe even one-on-one access to my elected officials or at least with high-ranking staffers who will deliver my message.  Even if we assume that our elected officials cannot be swayed by contributions and have the best intentions, they can't make good decisions if they're not hearing all sides of the issue (there are almost always more than two sides to an issue), and they won't hear all sides of the issue as long as money = access. 

The money = speech thing has put our elected officials and wannabe elected officials in a hell of a spot.  Even if we assume for the sake of argument that no big political contributor has any expectation whatsoever that they will receive special considerations in exchange for their financial support should their candidate win (cough), it is a fact that a pro-life organization isn't going to give money to a pro-choice candidate and an environmental organization isn't going to give money to someone who wants to drill in ANWAR.  There is no candidate for any office who is 100% down with their party's platform - every one of us and every one of them has our own unique set of stands and priorities - but every one of them knows that any stand they take that is at odds with the party's big contributors is going to result in fewer dollars, not just for their own campaign but for other candidates on their party's ticket.  That's a hell of a lot of pressure.  By caving on some of these issues they're just being pragmatic.  If you aren't willing to do that, you aren't going to win.  I'm sure that's why McCain, who has been fiscally reasonable in the past, has jumped on the permanent tax cut bandwagon.  It's an easy compromise for him to make since there's no chance that permanent tax cuts would make it through a Democratic legislature.  

I have to think that the courts would have decided differently had they known what the consequences would be.  There's always a chance that they'll revisit this if someone can come up with a good lawsuit.

There are other ways that money is corrupting the system.  It used to be that people who went into jobs as staffers to elected officials were looking for a career in public service.  These days more and more of these folks look at these jobs as a stepping stone to high-paid careers.  Access is everything, and if I'm a staffer for a senator, there's going to be someone out there who will offer me a 6-figure income and huge signing bonus once I leave public service in exchange for access to my senator. 

Did you know that some organizations/lobbies/interest groups pay people to get in line early and fill the seats at legislative hearings in order to prevent people with opposing viewpoints from having access?  Talk about abusing the process...  I am hoping that within my lifetime we'll take our government back, but with so many people seeing it as some kind of sport and getting all emotionally invested in their own rightness and the other side's wrongness, looking only at the short term and feeling that the end justifies the means, I doubt I'll see it.




cjan -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 4:42:59 PM)

Re: McCain and Keating 5
quote:


Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $300,000 (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating. McCain received $112,000 by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators. [1] In September 1987 National Thrift News was the first media outlet to break the story.[2] In October 1989 The Arizona Republic reported that in addition to campaign contributions, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. [3] Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion [4].

quote:


After 1999, the only member of the Keating Five remaining in the U.S. Senate was John McCain, who is the Republican candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Before McCain was named the presumptive nominee, The New York Times ran an article on January 28, 2008 revisiting the scandal in addition to some other allegations of inappropriate behavior by McCain. Robert S. Bennett, whom McCain had hired to represent him in this matter, defended McCain's character and was one of many people who criticized the piece.


The "investigation was a whitewash as far as McCain was concerned. He was the biggest beneficiary of donations and "perks" like trips to the Bahamas and use of Keatings private plane. Remeber, McCain was the Senator from Arizona while Keating and his business interests were in California. Keating was not a constituent of McCain at the time.

Bennet was the special council for the "investigation". Afterward, McCain hired him to represent him privately. Coinkidink ? I think not. Clinton never got that cozy with Ken Starr, did he ?

quote:

The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct." However, the report did not address the startling reality that a private U.S. citizen accused of improprieties had called a meeting of five U.S. senators with an agenda dedicated to aiding his financial fortunes, and all five of them actually showed up and allowed him to direct proceedings.


M'laird, the "startling reality" mentioned just above is de facto proof that there was a coverup. It's as obvious as a turd in a punch bowl. However, if you were to acknowledge that, which of course you will not, I would fall off my chair.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 5:31:32 PM)

So you don't have anything new to add--all of this was covered and reported at the time of the Senate Ethics Committee hearings. 

McCain fucked up.  You haven't heard me say otherwise.  You haven't heard him say otherwise. 

As for the reference to the New York Times article, that collapsed under the weight of its own rumor and innuendo--quite probably the most shockingly bad piece of reporting ever to grace the pages of the Gray Lady.  Both it and the follow up article were discredited (the second one by Democrat and Hillary Clinton loyalists, no less).

Be angry about it if you like, but I'll take McCain's mendacity over Obama's constantly evoloving values of opportunity without even a moment's hesitation. 




NumberSix -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 5:36:58 PM)

LOL, thats fucked up.

you sign an oath?  is that like a signing statement?  so everybody gets together and signs what they are going to do at the outset, unsure of the future....and things change......

aint that a little bit like a treaty or a bill or the geneva convention, I am sure if I only had a moment that I could come up with a time when old Menacity 'Keating Scandal' McCain or Powie 'Torture ain't so fucking bad for those of us who have given up our government under duress' McCain,  I am thinking he might have done a Texas Two Step like that.

6

Wasn't there a bitch about the government can't pay for everything.......lookin' for a thousand points of light and all that shit?




cloudboy -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 5:49:53 PM)

Obama's blueprint for change is about cooperative politics, not divisive politics. Your objection is kind of a red herring to this.

Next, its funny to see republicans attacking Obama for turning down public money, given your aversion to taxes, government regulation, and the rest.

Why aren't you clapping with both hands now?

Here's a good explanation of the issue for anyone concerned about it.

Pssst, your going to need something more than negative politics to make a difference here.....





cloudboy -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 6:19:48 PM)

quote:

Hmmm...I wonder if McCain has ever changed his position on past statements???


McCain needs to tread lightly on this one.




cyberdude611 -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 6:34:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Obama's blueprint for change is about cooperative politics, not divisive politics.



LOL!!! Like that is ever going to happen!

Why would conservatives or Republicans suddenly become socialist? It's not going to happen, dude.




Griswold -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 6:52:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Obama opts out of public campaign finance system

While I can respect the tactical rationale for his decision, doesn't his willingness to abandon the earlier pledge to take public funds show him to be just another political opportunist, part and parcel of the same system he vehemently denounces as "broken"?

How much credibility do his campaign commitments carry, if he can dispense with one so casually?  What other tactical rationales will arise to "force" him to abandon other pledges?

Obama has yet to specify exactly what "change" he brings to the system, but somehow I got the impression it was rather more substantive than a mere changing of his mind.



So?

(It's all marketing....and your point is?).





celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 7:46:31 PM)

quote:

Obama's blueprint for change is about cooperative politics, not divisive politics.

No, it isn't.  Try reading it sometime. 




kittinSol -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/20/2008 8:21:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Obama's blueprint for change is about cooperative politics, not divisive politics.



LOL!!! Like that is ever going to happen!

Why would conservatives or Republicans suddenly become socialist? It's not going to happen, dude.


Comic relief hour! Are you seriously implying Obama's a... *gasp!*... a socialist ? That's hilarious :-) .




cjan -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/21/2008 6:42:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

So you don't have anything new to add--all of this was covered and reported at the time of the Senate Ethics Committee hearings. 

McCain fucked up.  You haven't heard me say otherwise.  You haven't heard him say otherwise. 

As for the reference to the New York Times article, that collapsed under the weight of its own rumor and innuendo--quite probably the most shockingly bad piece of reporting ever to grace the pages of the Gray Lady.  Both it and the follow up article were discredited (the second one by Democrat and Hillary Clinton loyalists, no less).

Be angry about it if you like, but I'll take McCain's mendacity over Obama's constantly evoloving values of opportunity without even a moment's hesitation



So, you prefer mendacity , which we've had 8 years of and can, with confidence, expect more of from mendascious McCain, to change.Fair enough.

Btw, the point I'm making has nothing to do with the NYT articles. It's the fact that McCain hired the same attorney who "investigated" him in the Keating 5 scandal to represent him in the matter. The result of the collapse of the S&Ls cost the U.S. taxpayers an estimated  $3.4 billion.
Keating got a slap on the wrist, McCain is running for President and you keep blowing smoke. Business as usual, eh ?




Manawyddan -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/21/2008 7:08:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
It's that simple, he *promised* he wouldn't do it! Now, he's doin' it!!!
Obama is a fucking liar!


Of course he is, he's a politician.

My response to this story: "I am disappointed in him that he lied. But if this is the biggest lie that he or McCain tell during this election process, it will be nigh-miraculous."




lronitulstahp -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/21/2008 7:11:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
It's that simple, he *promised* he wouldn't do it! Now, he's doin' it!!!
Obama is a fucking liar!


Of course he is, he's a politician.

My response to this story: "I am disappointed in him that he lied. But if this is the biggest lie that he or McCain tell during this election process, it will be nigh-miraculous."
umm...that's far to sensible, unbiased and level headed a statement...did you mean to post that on a CM thread?[;)]




rulemylife -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/21/2008 7:13:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach

~fr~
 
Does no one else here see a problem with ANY candidate being prepared to spend Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars to win an election for ANY public office?
 
Please note : Any candidate - not any "democratic" candidate or "republican" candidate - Any At All.
Please note : Any public office - not any "local" office or "state" office or "federal" office - Any At All.
 
Both parties are guilty of Fraud at various levels throughout the years.  Some years the faces have simply been better capable of hiding the majority of their misdeeds or redirecting attention away from the same.
Both parties are corrupt and see to it that NO ONE gets in office who hasn't been bought and paid for.  The names and faces may change, the line of shit they spew when they open their mouths might Sound different, but they are ALL CULPABLE.  Wake Up people - calling it 2 different parties is a farce maintained as a pacification device - the exact same faces pay the bills for Both sides and expect the same Perks from Both Sides.
 
As for Sen. Obama personally - if he's as concerned as he Says he is about certain issues, let him take that $250 Million dollars he's raised and start pumping it into Charity Efforts like actually feeding, housing, clothing, and educating the poor he says he represents.  Let Him Put HIS Money Where His Mouth Is.  Same goes for McCain - HE needs to put HIS money where his mouth is as well!



Remember that old joke about why someone would spend millions of dollars for a $400,000 a year job unless they planned on stealing it all back later? 




lronitulstahp -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/21/2008 7:19:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Obama's blueprint for change is about cooperative politics, not divisive politics.



LOL!!! Like that is ever going to happen!

Why would conservatives or Republicans suddenly become socialist? It's not going to happen, dude.
Fascists, possibly; socialists...never!!!!
Point being, all the bipartisan labelling and name calling is tit for tat...slippery slope.  Extremes in either direction are bad for this country...




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama opts out of public campaign finance system (6/21/2008 11:37:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
It's that simple, he *promised* he wouldn't do it! Now, he's doin' it!!!
Obama is a fucking liar!


Of course he is, he's a politician.

My response to this story: "I am disappointed in him that he lied. But if this is the biggest lie that he or McCain tell during this election process, it will be nigh-miraculous."
umm...that's far to sensible, unbiased and level headed a statement...did you mean to post that on a CM thread?[;)]


Sorry but I don't think it's "acceptable" for ANY person in elective office to lie to The People. (Bush should have been gone long ago!)
Look at what happened to Clinton for going on t.v. and lieing to the American People about a simple bj.
Had he just admitted it it would have been a 2 day newsblip.
No-one would have cared.
He handed his opponents the stick to beat him with by lieing.
People in public office should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

And should Obama somehow get elected, the first time he makes a mistake all these idiots who think he's the second comming of Christ are going to be in for an ENOURMOUS letdown.
With them it's the "celebrity" not the issues which face this country.
And now that he's opted out of public funding he'll be taking money from big corporations who *expect* something for their "donations."
He's on "their" payroll now.
"Say it ain't so Joe! Say it ain't so!"




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875