A Pertinent Question No One Is Asking
“What is more important, the rule itself or the purpose the rule is meant to achieve?”
Seems like a no-brainer but in the “Wonderland” of American politics it apparently isn’t. The purpose of public campaign finance by the government is to get the special interest money out of our government and therefore reduce or even eliminate their influence in the running of our country.
If ever there was a “publicly financed” candidate, it is Barack Obama. For the first time since Bobby Kennedy, the people are actually vested in a candidate, supporting him with donations that in many cases come from their need not their excess. It is these donations, not special interests’ money, fueling Obama’s campaign. That means it is the people, not special interests, that Obama will be beholden to when he becomes president.
That clearly shows that the purpose of public finance is achieved by Obama’s campaign and therefore, it is not necessary for him to go with government supported public financing. It also shows that he has good judgment. It would be foolish for Obama to settle for $85 million when he can stay true to the purpose of public financing and bring in much more than that. We do want a president with good judgment don’t we?
It would also be foolish to limit his ability to raise funds since experience from the last two presidential campaigns almost guarantees 527 smear campaigns from the Republicans before this election is over. This is definitely an example of learning from experience despite Republican denials about 527s in this election. We keep hearing how important experience is. We do want a president who learns from experience don’t we?
So what is the truth the Republicans don't want us to know? It seems likely that John McCain’s inability to match Obama’s fund raising means Barack’s decision to forego government funds is a big deal. Not, as McCain would have us believe, because Barack is betraying the American people by his decision but rather because it leaves McCain in the position of running an under funded campaign. Of course the RNC and 527s have plenty of money which they will no doubt use in less than ethical ways to help McCain. If Obama allowed himself to be limited to government public financing, he would be unable to compete with this big money because the DNC isn't that rich and Barack does not want 527s working on his behalf.
The media, exercising its now common practice of creating news by making mountains out of molehills, and totally missing the point, will continue to stir things up egging McCain and company on in making sanctimonious declarations about Obama’s decision. Meanwhile people are distracted from real flip-flops by McCain on:
- Bush tax cuts, which he opposed and now supports
- Ethanol which he said did nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase energy independence, nothing to improve air quality and now he says ethanol is a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects
- Religious Right leaders Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell who were agents of intolerance and suddenly became best buddies and supporters
- Gay marriage was fine one minute and eleven minutes later should not be allowed
- Abortion which he supported saying Roe vs Wade should not be overturned and now says the ruling should be overturned
- Torture, which he has always claimed to oppose and now has voted against a bill to ban waterboarding
Perhaps we should be paying attention to some of the really worrisome things about the idea of McCain as president such as:
- Temper: He gets so angry he actually loses control, something military personnel along with many of his fellow Republican Senators consider a good reason not to allow his finger to be the one on “the button”
- Hawkish attitudes: Blumberg news says McCain is more hawkish than Bush about Iraq, Russia and China. Pat Buchanan, a conservative commentator, says McCain “will make Cheney look like Ghandi.”
- Children : Children’s defense fund rated McCain the worst Senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health bill and supported Bush’s veto of it.
- Credit crunch: McCain, himself one of the wealthiest men in Congress, has publicly stated he has no sympathy for those facing foreclosure. He suggests they get a second job and skip their vacations. (Uh, Mr. McCain, a lot of us already have a second job and skip vacations because we can’t afford them,)
- Reform: Presents himself as a supporter of special interests reform but his campaign manager and top advisors are lobbyists with many more lobbyists raising money for him
- Environment: Talks a good story about being pro-environment but last year the League of Conservation Voters gave him a score of zero.
We don’t want a president who is hot headed, hawkish, doesn’t care about children, has no empathy for people caught in the middle of financial scams, and wants to continue the lobbyist influence in Washington while allowing our planet to further deteriorate… Do we?
Comments
At some point there will be a conversation about how internet fund raising has changed the need for public financing of campaigns.
McCain simply doesn't understand the internet. His whole campaign points to his misunderstanding of 21st century communication. This is one more reason not to elect him. How can a president who doesn't understand the internet, relate to countries like China and India, whose new wealth is based on the efforts of a younger population who know nothing else.
Posted by: H. Warnock | June 27, 2008 10:15 AM
You are so right. And McCain’s lack of understanding of 21st century communications is indicative of a larger lack of understanding – how the global world we now inhabit functions.
McCain, and his ilk talk much about globalization and free markets but they operate on the outdated might makes right basis of the past. The playing field of the world is rapidly being leveled and we need a president who understands that and knows how to deal with it. McCain shows no sign of even recognizing he is out of step much less any sign that he is willing and able to learn new steps.
Posted by: Trish | June 27, 2008 01:16 PM
Trish, you end by stating, "We don’t want a president who is hot headed, hawkish, doesn’t care about children, has no empathy for people caught in the middle of financial scams, and wants to continue the lobbyist influence in Washington while allowing our planet to further deteriorate… Do we?" That's what we've had for the past seven and a half years, and there are still a whole lot of people that don't get it. Rather, like our fellow blogger, Mr. Herndon, they seem to listen to only right wing extremist media sources, and seem to believe the huge mess the nation is now in is the result those who have NOT been running the nation, namely the evil liberals.
They blather on about how Obama will raise taxes, which shows they are ignorant of what he has really been saying. When he says he will end the ludicrous tax decrease for those not needing it (and during a time of war), and lowering taxes on the middle class, it seems to go in one of their ears, rattle around a bit, and come out an orifice having nothing to do with normal higher thinking.
When McCain acts as if the only solution to world problems is not negotiating with potential enemies, and gearing up the war machine so that might can make right, they soak it in, and scream in horror when Obama suggests we might want to try talking first.
When Bush applauds McCain for helping with a veteran's bill he actually opposed, and McCain blathers on about how great it will be, they all figure McCain is one helluva a guy.
They were in an uproar over Kerry saying he voted no before voting yes, but believe McCain is the "straight talk express" because he can change his mind on just about every stance he has taken, each day, and maintain a straight, though inarticulate demeanor.
Go figure!?!?
I agree with both you and H. Warnock, that McCain's (as well as Bush for two terms) lack of any understanding of the Internet, is appalling. But I'd guess that the same people that don't feel it is a problem have no clue about the Internet either.
Posted by: Stephen | July 1, 2008 10:03 AM
And have you heard the latest, Stephen? The Republican response to McCain’s many flip-flops (3 pages worth according to Keith Olbermann) is that he has “evolved.”
There seems to be no end to their hypocrisy. When a Democrat changes his/her mind on an issue it is flip-flopping. But when a Republican flip-flops it is a process of evolution.
And I thought evolution was something the Republicans don’t believe in? (smile)
Posted by: Trish | July 1, 2008 12:25 PM
ROFL RE: "evolved"
I would have said uninformed at best, and senile at worst.
Nice point regarding "evolution." (smile)
Posted by: Stephen | July 1, 2008 03:11 PM
I agree that McCain is a flip flopper but Trish, surely you can't believe that the same thing couldn't be said about Obama? To quote you:
"McCain, “Master of Straight Talk” seems to have become “Master of the Forked Tongue.” Isn't it true that same thing can be said of Obama?
Forked Tongue? Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state: "It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family's income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You'd think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay." Thats what Obama said alright! But when it comes to his own, on average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.
McCain, on the other hand, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. Excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.
So, Trish, who speaks with "forked tongue?"
Posted by: Publius2 | July 2, 2008 11:59 AM
I don’t remember claiming that Obama is perfect but a match up of McCain vs Obama on reversals, would certainly give McCain a wide lead.
As far as the salary statistics, without an explanation of all the factors that would affect those numbers (i.e. length of employment, experience, job responsibilities, etc.) they are useless. Anyone who understands statistics, knows they can be made to show just about anything you want them to and that is one of the reasons they are frequently used to back up arguments. In this case, perhaps the statistics prove an Obama about face, perhaps they don’t, but as presented it is impossible to tell.
On the other hand, even without the use of statistics, McCain’s record of reversals is clear on issue after issue – sometimes even within the same conversation such as his stance on Roe vs Wade. So I would still say that McCain speaks with forked tongue.
Posted by: Trish | July 2, 2008 02:46 PM
I've always said that McCain, Romney and Huckabee were flip-floppers. But since Hillary is no longer in the running, Obama tops them all. In fact, he's really an unknown quantity and in the likely event he becomes president, he will be doing a lot more flipping and flopping as he attempts to learn how government works. I feel sorry for him in that respect and since he's crossed Bill and Hillary (though that looks like it's more friendly now than before) I'm concerned. In other words, If Ron Brown and Vince Foster could speak to Obama, I wonder what advice they'd give him with regard to the Clintons? (You know, they were Clinton's 'friends' too).
Posted by: Publius2 | July 2, 2008 06:47 PM
Obama is rapidly moving toward the center, politically. He has reversed his previous stands on gun control, and using faith based institutions to deliver public services, and now he's now become an advocate for immunity for the tele-communications companies who've turned over their phone records to the government in terror investigations. He's also flipped on his former promises for raising Social Security taxes and imposing the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio, and a host of other issues.
Now the Official Obama Campaign is running an advertisment claiming among other things that Obama reduced welfare rolls in Illinois by 80% crediting him with the passage of a 1996 welfare reform act. The sad reality is that Obama strongly opposed that act at the time. But I'm watching, since even Obama realizes he can't be the next President without attracting more moderate voters. His drift to the right is heartening as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Publius2 | July 7, 2008 08:27 PM
Trish, here's "A Pertinent Question No One Is Asking"
Is Obama actually American born? We've all seen the so called birth certificate posted on the Obama campaign website, but document experts are questioning the validity of the "fraudulent" birth certificate.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
Posted by: Publius2 | July 9, 2008 12:02 PM