Friday, June 20, 2008

Much has been made of Obama opting out of public Financing and McCain is making the most of dirtying Obama but I don't know if it is good or Bad?



I just don't know what to think but supposedly Sen. Barack Obama's decision to forgo public financing for his presidential campaign clears the way for him to outspend Sen. John McCain by 3-to-1 or substantially more in the general election, a financial edge that dramatically rewrites the playbooks for both candidates. With Possibility the key word: Sen. Barack Obama's decision to forgo public financing for his presidential campaign clears the way for him to outspend Sen. John McCain by 3-to-1 or substantially more in the general election, a financial edge that dramatically rewrites the playbooks for both candidates.

With the possibility of spending perhaps $500 million just in the final two months of the campaign, Obama will be the first major-party candidate to enjoy a spending edge in the general election in more than 30 years. The comparison with the consistently cash-strapped McCain campaign could hardly be more stark. "It'll be like George Steinbrenner's Yankees in the '90s — an All-Star at every position — against the '90s Kansas City Royals, barely able to meet their payroll," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant who worked for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004

Though Obama risks a short-term political backlash by seeming to go back on his word, Democratic and Republican strategists say most campaigns would take such a hit in exchange for the unprecedented cash advantage he'll derive. McCain said Thursday he will accept public financing, meaning he'll be limited to spending only $84.1 million in the critical window between the Republican National Convention and Election Day. He'll be forced to lean more heavily on the Republican National Committee and outside groups that he cannot legally coordinate spending decisions with.

In that same time period, Obama will continue to be free to raise and spend unlimited amounts — with advertising specialists and party insiders projecting that he will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, utilizing and expanding on the most efficient fundraising operation in American political history. "He's going to be able to raise almost unimaginable amount of money," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who was a top adviser in the Gore and Kerry campaigns. "This is an incredible advantage for him and his campaign. He'll be able to dictate the terms of this election." Obama opts out of public financing

I don't know about that and I think a can of worms has been opened! Of course Republicans slammed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s decision to abandon an earlier pledge to use the more than $84 million in public money if his Republican rival did the same. McCain’s campaign and supporters said the Illinois senator showed his true colors as a dyed-in-the-wool Washington player. And McCain said Thursday in Minnesota that “we will take public financing.” “Rather than sending a message that he’s about change or a new type of politics in America, it really looks and sounds like he’s about the same old … type of politics in America,” Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn told FOX News. “The thing that is most important in terms of an office holder or a politician’s relationship with his constituents or the people is trust. And frankly when a politician says one thing and does another it erodes that trust,” Cornyn said. “It’s just another chink in the armor but a lot these things will add up over time.”

In Iowa, McCain criticized his rival for backtracking, reminding reporters that Obama “said he would stick to his word. He didn’t.” The Republican candidate added, “This election is about a lot of things. It’s also about trust. It’s about keeping your word.” A statement issued by the McCain campaign said Obama “has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama … Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds.” Even Democratic Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who worked with Obama on an ethics and lobbying reform bill last year, called Obama’s financing decision “a mistake” in a statement Thursday. “This is not a good decision. While the current public financing system for the presidential primaries is broken, the system for the general election is not,” he said. Having numerically clinched the GOP nomination, McCain says he will accept public funds for the general election — but Obama has gradually eased off his earlier pledge.

Obama and his supporters argue his reason for doing so speaks to his ambitions as a reformer. Obama has already “rewritten the book when it comes to financing campaigns” by rejecting Washington lobbyist and political action committee contributions, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, an Obama supporter, told FOX News.Durbin said that with his broad-based network of small donors, “He’s really behind reform and showing he can do it.”Obama, in his video announcement to supporters on Thursday, cast his approach as progressive, saying his supporters helped him build a “new kind of politics” where candidates don’t rely on a small pool of mega-contributors from inside the Beltway. Obama argued that the public financing system is “broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.” Look at the arguments

* Like you I happen to agree with Obama and I fear it will happen once again! Yes Obama is raising funds to combat the Republicans to the tune of 3 to one but the RNC is vastly better funded than the DNC. Correct me if I am wrong but can't the RNC infuse all the money they want in an effort to defame and dirty Obama and steal their false Republican God into the Presidency once again to continue their underhanded agenda?

James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

26 comments:

Jolly Roger said...

I think, given the swiftboatings the moronic monkey delivered to McCavein and Kerry, that I'd probably do the same thing if I were Obama. Walking onto the battlefield without armor may look brave, but it's really just plain stupid.

an average patriot said...

I just linked to you and made a comment. I am sick of this crap! As for this I am primarily concerned that the RNC and others are going to make this even more of an unprecedented mess than the last two elections. This is going to really get screwed up I am afraid though I agree with Obama.
I am also very concerned with him being assassinated if the right has to but I am afraid I was right and Israel will attack Iran before elections and then the shit really hits the fan. I think I'll cover that for the umpteenth timer tomorrow!

Dave Dubya said...

The big media lie is that Obama is breaking some promise. He's not.

As if Johnny Bomb Bomb is so pure and untarnished! The media seems to have forgotten his own little two-step flip-flop with public financing.

Besides, Obama is still taking public funding. Literally. The public is making voluntary donations. He is just not taking tax dollars or corporate lobby money.

That should make the distinction clear enough about who owes who all the favors.

New Mommy said...

I'm confused. If you don't look at all the political reason Obama may have made that decision, isn't not taking public funding a "republican" philosophy? Wouldn't that be less government involvement? Why aren't republicans against public funding in theory?

an average patriot said...

Dave
Glad to hear from you! I happen to agree with what Obama did I am just concerned that the RNC will pump in shit loads and who the hell knows how this will end up! Just think about it?
I was thinking about updating Israel attacking Iran and Bush coming to their rescue as it is imminent then there will be no elections! Take care!

Jolly Roger said...

If they try to cancel the elections, all hell will break loose. It should not be forgotten that Chimpy would have to rely on an Armed Forces made up largely of a demographic he has relentlessly persecuted for almost 8 years.

Without elaborating (because sometimes you just can't), I have also been assured that if the monkey launches an attack on Iran, that a military rebellion will begin shortly afterward. It has been imparted to me that Petraeus and the rest of the brass are also well aware of what will happen.

an average patriot said...

Hi new mommy
Not taking public funding would be a standard Republican talking point as they took everything could get from Lobbyists as McCain does!
Not taking public funding is a plot of McCain's primarily because he knows people are going to flock to give to Obama and no one is flocking to the Republicans. It is the RNC I am concerned about!
If I have your question right accepting the $84 million available from Public financing limits how much you can spend and that money is not from the Government but is from we the people who in filling their tax forms checked the $3 donation box.
when all is said and done McLiar was the first to opt out before he opted in to limit Obama if he could. Everything is so underhanded and screwed up. Just stay in touch, relax, and take care!

an average patriot said...

JR
I agree but there are other forces in play here. There would be massive unrest too if Obama was assassinated but do not rule it out. Any insurrection would enable Bush to taker total control of us and he has all the power to do it. Coming to Iran's rescue would eliminate some distasteful possibilities.
You are right many officers have said they will step down if Iran is attacked but that is worthless as many other glory hunters wil step in. One of my own lifer sons who does EOD protection for DEM's but is in Iraq right now said many will step down if Iran is attacked. I wouldn't count on it!
In response to the FEMA concentration camps and the military being used on us he said most would rebel. Again not a problem with all the private security. They would be more than willing and are in fact diversifying of late!

New Mommy said...

I'm just saying that if republicans are small government then shouldn't they have been the first to drop out of a government regulated program and let the free market decide who's campaign gets what funding? :)

an average patriot said...

new mommy
I see! The whole idea of that is not for Government Regulation it is to keep Lobbyist influence out and ensure that you are influenced only by the public who you are supposed to represent. Under normal conditions I agree with that 100% but not in this case because from my understanding Obama has so much money not from Lobbyists but from a massive number of small donations from the public who wants a change from Bush and McSame! Hope that answers it for you!

Brother Tim said...

I don't think the military rebelling will be all that important. Don't forget about mercenary armies such as Blackwater, Triple Canopy, et al. There is no shortage of people who would kill their own mother for the chance to be in a position of power. Take a close look at most every police and sheriff's department in this country. Watch any of the reality 'Cops' or 'SWAT' shows on TV, and you will understand where I'm coming from.

We are soooooooo screwed.

an average patriot said...

Brother
You are dead on and you know. The Police are getting more Brown shirt every day. You must have seen what i said to J R but let me get it for you just in case!
There would be massive unrest too if Obama was assassinated but do not rule it out. Any insurrection would enable Bush to taker total control of us and he has all the power to do it. Coming to Iran's rescue would eliminate some distasteful possibilities.
You are right many officers have said they will step down if Iran is attacked but that is worthless as many other glory hunters wil step in. One of my own lifer sons who does EOD protection for DEM's but is in Iraq right now said many will step down if Iran is attacked. I wouldn't count on it!
In response to the FEMA concentration camps and the military being used on us he said most would rebel. Again not a problem with all the private security. They would be more than willing and are in fact diversifying of late!
You are right we are so screwed but we owe it to our kids and those like new mommy to keep trying to make a difference!

Minnesotablue said...

I tend to always be suspicious when the Republicans protest so much! . I'm a bit nervous about campaign contributions and will Obamas keep coming in? I know I'll do my part but I'm sure not RICH> Thanks for checking on me, doing well, Day #13 and counting!

Mauigirl said...

I think Obama had to do this - since the RNC is so much better funded than the DNC, plus all the 527s that will come out of the woodwork for the GOP, Obama would be at a disadvantage otherwise. And I think the money will continue to pour in for him so it's not a risk. I think the GOP won't get much mileage out of his decision as most people will forget about it in a week or so. And McCain has plenty of dirt on him.

D.K. Raed said...

You are right, the RNC will spend everything they have (and they have much more than the DNC) to defeat Obama. They don't even like McCain, but it is all about protecting power, maintaining congress & supreme court advantage.

re Public Financing: yes, McC opted in (to use as questionable collateral for a primary campaign loan) & then opted out (after he became presumptive). Then hours after Obama announced he was opting out, he opted back in again. The timing says it all.

Dirty season is about to open & we all need to prepare for the "democrats will take away your bibles" BS. Again!

Polzoo said...

Hi, I read your blog and I think you're a good writer. I'd like to invite you to our new community at polzoo.com. We are a user generated political editorial and social network site. We also choose from amongst our own members to be featured on the front page as columnists.

I think your voice would be a great addition to our site. Come check us out!

Polzoo

Larry said...

Check this out Jim:

By Len Hart

How Bush Helped Establish a Corporate 'New World Order'
'Terrorism' is merely the pretext cited by George W. Bush to begin a series of oil wars that John McCain says may last '10,000 years'. Bush has helped his corporate 'base' create a 'New World Order' in which robber barons of big oil, assisted by 'big media', rule the world and plunder its resources. Bush is their tool!


The super corporations were carving up territory around the Caspian Sea back in 1997, perhaps even earlier. Pakistan had been promised a war with Afghanistan to begin around October 15th of that year. Who made those promises and what did they know that we didn't?

It is no coincidence that since failed 'oil man' George W. Bush took office, war has either raged or is threatened in a region that is known to be rich in oil. The collapse of the Soviet Union added three new countries to the map of the Middle East - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, areas once shared between the Soviet Union and Iran. The Russian-Kazakh agreement cleared the way for more exploration and development. For American oil companies and Dick Cheney, specifically, it was a question of how to get it!

Countries have gone to war for less. The cast of characters are big multinational oil, gas, and pipeline companies: Unocal , Halliburton , and Chevron . The Moscow agreement divided the northern half down the middle of the Caspian. It defined who "owned" what! It defined which countries had exploration and development rights. It is no surprise that the multi-national corporations would urge the US to go to war on their behalf. It was and remains a rich resource.

In 1997, several Taliban representatives visited Sugarland, TX to meet with representatives of Unocal --an international energy company based in Sugarland. Sugarland is an affluent Houston suburb, a Republican enclave, represented at the time by Tom Delay. [The Taliban, Unocal and a Pipeline].

Unocal had proposed the construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan, delivering oil to waiting tankers in the Arabian Sea. From there, the oil would have been delivered, presumably to the US and other oil addicted nations around the world. Unocal claimed to have had agreements with Turkmenistan to sell and with Pakistan who would buy.

Unocal's own website stated that the pipeline was put on hold when the US struck against terrorist in the Sudan. While Unocal said that they would 'wait for peace', we must assume that they are still waiting. Still other reports hint at reasons oil barons might insist upon a war: the Taliban, say the reports, opposed the pipeline. At about this time, the US State Department threatened the Tabliban with a 'carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs'. In any case, the construction deal was 'off the table'. The Taliban left the land of Tom DeLay without an agreement.[See: Wayne Madsen: The Sellouts in the Fourth Estate]

I want to know what Tom DeLay knew at the time. It was, I believe, soon after the talks broke down that DeLay sponsored legislation 'exempting' US sodiers from war crimes prosecution at the International Criminal Court at the Hague! What did DeLay know? And when did he know it? Why was the administration already trying to shield itself and the military from war crimes prosecutions unless they were planning to commit some?

The following story was probably overlooked in the wake of a spectacular attack that 'traumatized' the nation and much of the world.
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.
--US 'planned attack on Taliban' [Before 911]

Certainly --a war with Afghanistan was already on the table before 911. Bush needed a pretext and got it on 911! Bush has since treated it as a 'blank check', citing it to justify dictatorial powers never given the office of 'President' by the US Constitution. Because of 911, Bush asserted powers not even claimed by Charles I who was, by the way, beheaded for his efforts.

Of course, U.S. firms aren't generally supposed to do business with Saddam Hussein. But thanks to legal loopholes large enough to steer an oil tanker through, Halliburton profited big-time from deals with the Iraqi dictatorship. Conducted discreetly through several Halliburton subsidiaries in Europe, these greasy transactions helped Saddam Hussein retain his grip on power while lining the pockets of Cheney and company.

According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1998 and last winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure. The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other U.S. company doing business with Baghdad.

Halliburton was among more than a dozen American firms that supplied Iraq's petroleum industry with spare parts and retooled its oil rigs when UN sanctions were eased in 1998. Cheney's company utilized subsidiaries in France, Italy, Germany, and Austria so as not to draw undue attention to controversial business arrangements that might embarrass Washington and jeopardize lucrative ties to Iraq, which will pump $24 billion of petrol under the UN-administered oil-for-food program this year. Assisted by Halliburton, Hussein's government will earn another $1 billion by illegally exporting oil through black-market channels.

With Cheney at the helm since 1995, Halliburton quickly grew into America's number-one oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and the biggest nonunion employer in the nation. Although Cheney claimed that the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do" with his firm's meteoric financial success, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times indicate that U.S. officials helped Halliburton secure major contracts in Asia and Africa. Halliburton now does business in 130 countries and employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide.

Its 1999 income was a cool $15 billion.

--Dick Cheney Made Millions with Saddam Hussein
Not only did Bush exploit the 911 pretext for a series of never-ending wars throughout the oil rich Middle East, Saddam had been lured into attacking Kuwait during the regime of George Bush Sr. The senior Bush's real issue with Saddam was not that Saddam had taken over Kuwait but that Saddam had been manipulating the price of oil at the spigot! Bush had wanted to keep the price of oil high. Bush Sr set a trap for Saddam in the hopes that he would 'annex' Kuwait. Saddam fell into the trap and the first Persian Gulf War resulted. Here is just a portion of the transcript between US Ambassador April Glaspie, Saddam Hussein, and Tariq Azis before Saddam "annexed" Kuwait:
TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

Source: New York Times, Sunday, September 23, 1990
After Bush Srs war crime against the people of Iraq, Francis Boyle, PhD presided over a 'War Crimes Trial' at University. The following is from his 'indictment'.
Bush’s "New World Order" 41. Today, the government in the United States of America constitutes an international criminal conspiracy under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, that is legally
identical to the Nazi government in World War II Germany. The Defendants’ wanton extermination of approximately 250,000 People in Iraq provides definite proof of the validity of this Nuremberg Proposition for the entire world to see. Indeed, Defendant Bush’s so-called New World Order sounds and looks strikingly similar to the New Order proclaimed by Adolph Hitler over fifty years ago. You do not build a real New World Order with stealth bombers, Abrams tanks, and tomahawk cruise missiles. For their own good and the good of all humanity, the American People must condemn and repudiate Defendant Bush and his grotesque vision of a New World Order that is constructed upon warfare, bloodshed, violence and criminality.

an average patriot said...

Minnesota
Beautiful, glad to hear it, day 13 that is. I like you do not trust this modern day Repug machine one iota. I always have to wonder what lie and underhanded scheme is next? Obama's contributions won't stop. I am just concerned what those liars will do to counter and stay in power? Keep up the good work!

an average patriot said...

Mauigirl
Glad to see you! I agree! I am afraid a floodgate has been opened. I do not trust those underhanded lying scum an iota! I can not envision as far along as this nightmare has gone that the awesome power amassed by Bush will be allowed in our hands. This is coming to a head and soon and I no longer think it has to happen before elections. I plan on posting on that once I get everything else done. Take care and stay in touch!

an average patriot said...

Red
I know! what are the Repugs going to lie about and do next to keep this destructive underhanded agenda going? They are not going to relent or allow their amassed power or hidden agenda to be in jeopardy! There are many underhanded possibilities and none of them good as I have discussed too many times. It is getting ready to come to a head regardless of who is President and I will discuss that for the umpteenth time as soon as I catch up and see if there is anything new. What a mess! Take care and stay in touch!

an average patriot said...

Polzoo
I am honored! We must stay together and get the truth out while being there for each other. I noticed you contacted our good friend Anon. I hope he takes you up on it because he is right on and mirrors my beliefs.
Having said that I am going to look into you but for now graciously decline because Anon should be your headline every day or larry and there are others if they write every day as I do because there is too much happening and we are living a lie. Take care and stay in touch!

an average patriot said...

Larry
That article by Len is right on but as you know old news and by the time we hear it from a supposed authority it is too late. As you know, fighting terrorism is merely the excuse to impose this so called new world order. The other main powers are doing the same damn thing.
All it means is hell for a future and again as I say unless bringing about the end of days as I think it is, is the goal we are in more than serious trouble because someone will have to live in the mess that is left.
Again as you know, I have said numerous times, this will dwarf the hundred years war in length and 10,000 years may be enough to end the planet. You have to wonder what do they know that we do not!

DivaJood said...

Obama, who does not need the public financing at all, is making a symbolic gesture to shine the light on a system that is badly broken and needs repair. I applaud his decision.

an average patriot said...

Diva
I agree 100% I am only very concerned as to how far these underhanded Repugs will go to keep their agenda and abusive power? I was going to post the latest Obama video on Republican tactics because it was pretty good but I just keep shaking my head knowing how dirty, lying, and underhanded modern day Republicans are.

Karen said...

I don't have a problem with Barack opting out of public financing. It's seems to be playing out as a 'non-issue'. People see what Bush and Company have done and this pales in comparison.

an average patriot said...

Karen
I don't have a problem with it I just know the RNC has much more to spend and you can bet this will open a can of worms. The Republicans are the slimiest, dirties, lying est, things I have ever had the displeasure of coming across!