Jake Tapper has been on a roll lately. Last year, Barack Obama pledged that he would forego private funding in the general election campaign and participate in a public financing system.
The question was: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"Obama checked: "Yes"
In addition, Obama wrote the following:
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.
Now it looks like Barack Obama may well break this pledge, judging by the words that came out of his mouth last night:
We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.
A parallel public financing system? Is Obama now his own country? A shadow government? Government in exile? Or is Obama trying to redefine "public financing" to include Internet contributions from private donors? In either case, it is another example of Obama being too slick. To date, at the very minimum, Obama is breaking his pledge with McCain to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee," or maybe he just hasn't got around to it yet. After all, he still has Hillary to beat. It's hard to know, but with all the cash rolling in, it looks like he's not so interested in a government-financed campaign this fall. Last February, AP wrote this:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it.
Michael Dobbs gave this statement ">two Pinocchios for "significant omissions and/or exaggerations":
The Obama campaign has said different things at different times on the issue of public financing. While there may have been a little wriggle room in some campaign statements, Obama's affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal. Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.
As far as dishonest statements go, these aren't terrible. Politicians break pledges all the time. And to be fair, Obama hasn't broken his pledge yet, but it looks like he's in the bullpen, warming up to break it. If he does, it would be another example of Obama failing to live up to that "new kind of politics" he promised last year.
For what it's worth, I don't care if Obama uses public or private funds in the general election. The libertarian in me prefers private funding provided that the reporting is immediate, accurate and transparent. The issue is Obama saying one thing, then breaking his word and doing another.
As a double extra bonus, Michael Dobbs summarizes the three candidates positions on Iraq in the wake of the Petraeus-Crocker testimony. His conclusion:
All three presidential candidates are much better at exposing the flaws in each other's Iraq strategy than explaining and defending their own policy. The truth is that there is no painless way out of the Iraq imbroglio. There are huge costs to staying in, and huge costs to getting out. In their attempts to gain electoral advantage, none of the three candidates has been entirely honest with the American people about the downsides of their particular exit strategy.Rather than handing out more Pinocchios to the candidates, I will award a Geppetto checkmark to the general and the ambassador for the painful but honest conclusion that they have yet to spot any light at the end of the long Iraqi tunnel.
Bonus? Not So Much
(#89310)As for Obama changing his mind about public financing, it's hard to blame him. His campaign has rewritten the books on how to raise money, no one has ever been this successful before -- and guess what? He's raising it in the most democratic way possible, from donors all over the country. This is not a lie -- the lie is, as usual, in your diary title -- it's a new paradigm.
But hey. I'd heartily suggest you add this to the 100 Years Bleat as another important debate topic this fall. Given McCain's own fundraising activities, it's bound to be a fun exchange.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
Didn't say it was a lie
(#89580)But breaking a pledge is a form of dishonesty. Barack didn't just change his mind, he went back on his word, or at least he's giving every indication that he's going to. But I do give him credit for his honest and heartfelt comments he made in Frisco a couple of days ago.
...the lie is, as usual, in your diary title...
A sadly recurring theme from you liberals. You can't just disagree with the diarist, you just have to take it to the next step and call him a liar. Sad, really.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentNot just "a" diarist.
(#89604)You.
I actually think Harley's wrong -- I don't view you as a liar; I view you as someone for whom the truth is irrelevant. That is, the truth is "that which is politically useful for me to say," rather than "that which corresponds to objective reality." You've been trivially proven wrong on basic facts far too many times for me to think that you know what the truth is and seek to successfully distort it.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentIf the truth is relevant,
(#89823)then I take it that you believe that all of the Demcrats in the Senate are pro-torture. After all, they voted with "pro-torture" McCain. But I guess that's just too trivial for you.
And I'll just ignore that you are again impugning my intellectual integrity. Your opinion doesn't mean a damn to me, not after all of the other bigoted statements you've made about conservatives and Republicans.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentCheck the root word of "bonus"
(#89198)and see if it applies. Anyway -- on the public financing thing, Obama pledged to seek an agreement with the GOP candidate to accept public financing. Unfortunately (for McCain) his leverage in brokering such an agreement may be gone, if he is forced to opt for public financing as a result of having pledged his future matching funds as collateral for a loan. Which would make any "deal" a dead letter, obviously.
Edit: oops, my bad, I was confusing the primary with the general. McCain may have violated the law in his primary campaign if he was still in the public system -- he says he opted out, the FEC says they haven't released him yet and don't have a quorum to do it. I will have to read up a bit more on how this applies to the general, if at all.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Given That. . .
(#89211). . .the Democrats are blocking any new appointments to the FEC--meaning that there is no quorum to dictate one way or another to McCain*--I'd say that he's got plenty of leverage, unless he decides to forgo public financing himself for the general election, making the issue moot.
*--and meaning that the DNC and Doctor Howie can go pound sand. Obstructionism in the Senate has its costs.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
- reply
parentYeah, it's always a tradeoff with this Administration.
(#89212)Either you confirm manifest incompetents, or you don't fill slots. It's the difficulty with dealing with folks who don't have even a passing interest in governing the country competently.
I agree with Reid's priorities -- better to allow McCain to get away with flagrant violations in his losing campaign than to allow Von Spakovsky to even begin to think he has a chance.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentIt's pretty clear
(#89215)that McCain will go for public financing in the general, his fundraising numbers are anemic - about half of Clinton's and a third or less of Obama's.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentApparently
(#89210)McCain bypassed the expensive accreditation process in the Ohio primary based on the fact he was going to receive public money. But now he wants out.
When can we expect an outraged post by BD on that? Next century?
This place is my vacation.
- reply
parentIndeed...
(#89379)He's going to stay on this topic for 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. Whatever it takes.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parent