He’s laying the groundwork to opt-out of the public finance system in the general election. This is so important, because swamping McCain could lead to a result where the needle isn’t just moved slightly in one direction but instead is turned to 11. It would be a sledgehammer to the Berlin wall of conservatism.
I do find it highly amusing the mock umbrage the cons are taking to this. Change your mind on campaign finance and you’re apparently a confidence man, but lie the nation into a doomed conflict and they want to put you up on Mount Rushmore.
The difference, of course, is that Obama is selling himself as a new breed of politician, one that doesn’t fall into the old trap of saying one thing and doing another. Except … that’s exactly what he’s doing here.
Isn’t that exactly what McCain’s image is based on? The MAVERICK. Champion of the People, fighting lobbyists! Battling for Campaign Finance Reform!!!
Um Farris, apparently you missed where McCain signed up for public financing, used it to secure a loan and to put him on ballots for some primaries saving him millions, only to (illegally) pull out when he decided it would be more advantageous for him. He broke his own law.
Given that, do you think McCain’s opponents should hamper themselves by signing up and pledging to that system? At least Obama has the integrity to NOT sign up for it and BREAK the law later.
What can McCain say now? Obama has a huge fundraising advantage over McCain. Can McCain try to shame Obama into giving up that advantage and call attention to McCain’s own blatant hypocrisy? Can he try to make a public deal, saying “I will if my opponent does?” Easy answer for Obama, “You did once buddy and felt your own laws didn’t apply to you, what makes us think you’d do differently here?”
Ah, back to the old “your guy is worse” routine that we love so much.
Obama made a pledge and seems likely to break it.
He made no such pledge. That is a media canard. Go look up the actual questionnaire response on which that canard is based. (No, I won’t do your homework for you.) It was only a pledge to NEGOTIATE with the Republican campaign to try to reach an agreement on BOTH campaigns staying within public funding limits (without the kind of massive soft-money cheating that was directed against Kerry.) But with McCain in blatant violation of campaign finance law at this very moment, who in their right mind would trust him to live up to any such agreement? And what standing does he have to squawk when Obama opts out of public financing? This is a complete non-issue and Obama would have to be utterly insane to accept public financing as matters stand now. I’m glad he’s sane.
As usual, cons and their lackeys in the media lie in order to cover up malfeasance on their part. What they are covering up is that McCain is breaking the law that he helped create and thumbing his nose at the SEC. Craven as usual, and of course the yipping dogs lap it up like kibble.
Good boy farris! Good boy scratch!
“Senator John McCain 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.”
Is Obama aggressively pursuing an agreement with the Republican nominee, as he pledged above?
He’s not the Democratic nominee yet. Game over.
Why would he, when McCain has already shown that he won’t obey THE FRICKING LAW, let alone a gentleman’s agreement?
What law did he break, Steve?
The McCain-Feingold law (oh the irony!), troll. He pledged to accept public financing of the primary, sealed the deal by using this pledge to secure a bank loan, then reneged. There are complaints on the docket of the (Bush-crippled)FEC about this blatant violation, even as we speak. Here is his problem in a nutshell as outlined by, wait for it, the CHAIR OF THE FEC.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/FECtoMcCain.PDF
McCombover couldn’t raise enough to buy items from the Wendy’s dollar menu at this point
He’s doing the right thing, but he is SAYING the wrong thing.
He offered to negotiate, and as opposed to weasel words about small donors, he should be saying that the McCain campaign is ignoring the law, and that’s a felony, and that he cannot negotiate with people who are currently committing a felony.
He can (and, I expect, will) do that WHEN HE’S THE NOMINEE. Why is that such a difficult concept? Even if he were going to stick to the original negotiation idea, it’s too early for him to do it. This speech is merely some early groundwork, not the main event.
Steve…
Nowhere in the letter you provided (thanks) does the chairman claim that McCain has violated the law. The letter says that McCain was bound if 1) he had received funds (he did not,) or 2) he had used eligibility for funds to secure financing. Number two is clearly in dispute, with McCain’s lawyer pointing out that they had negotiated with the lender to NOT use his eligibility as collateral.
Furthermore, the chairman states that the committee would render an opinion “upon establishment of a quorum,” which will not happen any time soon as it is short members. So McCain has a choice of either waiting indefinitely for a yet-to-be established committee to render a decision, or he can withdraw in accordance with the provisions of the McCain-Feingold law.
Steve…
He can (and, I expect, will) do that WHEN HE’S THE NOMINEE. Why is that such a difficult concept?
That’s not a difficult concept at all, and if that’s what he does then I would applaud him.
The point of Oliver’s post (and much other discussion by other people) is that Obama should not take public funding. If he follows the route advocated by Oliver and others, then he would be breaking the pledge quoted above.
Wrongo, troll. The letter says McCain CANNOT withdraw from publioc financing witout formal FEC permission. The chair could not give such permission- thanks to BushCo, the FEC has so many unfilled seats that there is no quorum (another choice irony). McCain has therefore ILLEGALLY withdrawn from the public financing system after pledging to accept it. Accordingly, formal complaints have since been filed against McCain with the FEC (which of course can’t act on those, either…)
By the way, I thought you were big on broken pledges? Or is that only when you think you can pin that charge on a Democrat? Beyond the legalities, McCain PLEDGED to accept public financing, even got a bank loan using the promise of public funds as security, then reneged when that pledge became inconvenient. His word, accordingly, is no longer good. He’s a liar, just like you.
Troll scratch is just muddying the waters, as is McCain. McCain knows damn well he is breaking the law, he wrote and sponsored the law. He also knows that by the time the (gutted by Republicans) FEC render an opinion, the election will be over. Then he can say “I must have misinterpreted the rules” (Hat Tip: South Park last night) and go on with his life screwing the taxpayer.
And by the way, the letter does not say the request would have been granted by the FEC, only that it would be considered. And goes on to point out the little bank loan problem- and the LIE that McCain told in his letter to the FEC, denying the existence of a loan which, as documented in the letter, actually did exist- which in fact should have led to the request being turned down had the FEC been in a position to do so. Get this through your head: in order to make the request for withdrawal, McCain BLATANTLY LIED about not having used public funds as bank loan security, and he was caught out in black and white on this lie.
So if Obama is the nominee, how can he negotiate with a party proven to act in bad faith in the very area of negotiations?
Face it, McCain is a blatant hypocrite in an area that much of his reputation is based on. It’s his law. He’s breaking it and using the crippling of the FEC to do it without consequence.
Steve and EL, I’m curious: what’s your definition of a troll?
then he would be breaking the pledge quoted above.
Again, not a pledge. If we were running a marathon and I had a HUGE lead on you, what would be to my advantage if you wanted me to stop so you could catch up?
Duros…
He pledged to enter into aggressive negotiations with the Republican candidate. Do you think he will do this?
Define aggressive.
I love it when all a troll has left is asking “what’s your definition of a troll?”.
Define aggressive…
I would accept, “Hey Senator McCain, let’s talk about both of us using public financing.”
He pledged to enter into aggressive negotiations with the Republican candidate. Do you think he will do this?
I have no reason to believe he would not. Still not the same as saying “I pledge to use Public financing.” as you seem to be suggesting.
I would accept, “Hey Senator McCain, let’s talk about both of us using public financing.”
I would accept “Hey Senator McCain, let’s talk about both of us using the same set of rules for public financing. What’s that? Can I lend you $20 million?”
Here’s a better question:
Can Obama enter into any negotiations with McCain on public financing for the campaign, given McCain’s established record of duplicity and acting in bad faith on the subject?
What guarantees can McCain give that he would stick with public financing this time?
I guess that would be the aggressive part, midder.
That’s the part that gets me. It seems like he already enjoys public financing better than any rival.
Scratch: “Obama made a pledge and seems likely to break it.”
I was wondering who would spread this lie the first.
Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican nominee. However, since McCain is already breaking finance laws, there’s no reason to trust him now.
Obama made a pledge and seems likely to break it.
This is a statement of fact. He did pledge to negotiate (I am not trying to hold him to actually reaching an agreement,) and he does seem likely to break it, as noted by our host.
Ok, scratchy. So what? McCain promised to use it too. Now he isn’t. Call it even.
I don’t see the word “pledge” in conjunction with Obama. I do see that McCain pledged and he already broke it. Now seriously, how freakin’ stupid are you? This has been explained to you several times and STILL you repeat the same talking points. That is the definition of a troll.
How do you know he will break it? When Obama becomes the nominee and the subject comes up, probably from McCain, all Obama has to do to “negotiate” is point out McCain has already broken the public finance laws and then ask “what guarantees can I get that McCain will stick with public financing all the way through this time?” Pledge fulfilled because there aren’t any McCain will give.
Duros…
McCain will be using public funding for the general election, from what I understand. Obama’s pledge was to aggressively negotiate with him to agree that they both do it.
In the primary, McCain took a unilateral action to initiate public funding for himself, then unilaterally withdrew before receiving any funds. If Obama wants to use the dodgy details of this evolution as an excuse to break his pledge, then he should feel free to do that. But that will be a tricky proposition if, by that time, McCain has actually begun to receive the public funding.
Obama’s pledge was to aggressively negotiate with him to agree that they both do it.
That hardly sounds like negotiation to me, scratchy. Sounds like capitulation. Nah gah happen.
Again, Obama is not the nominee yet, so your argument is moot.
And once again, no pledge was made. I would think that McCain would not be so dense as to opt in to public financing and THEN try to get the dem to follow suit.
But you never know.
Duros…
Maybe better wording would have been, “negotiate toward an agreement.”
We shall see. At any rate, I am really enjoying watching this process unfold.
Your problem is showing how McCain can guarantee he will abide by public financing rules. He signed up for it in the primary when he needed the money. He used it to get on ballots and as collateral for a loan. Then when he didn’t need it he (illegally) suddenly withdrew from it. Why would Obama rely on McCain’s promise now?
It’s to McCain’s advantage NOW to limit Obama’s fundraising ability, that’s why he wants it. If that were to change, and McCain had the advantage, history shows McCain will abandon the system screwing over Obama.
McCain can make all the noise he wants, but the fact is only an idiot would give up their gun n a standoff when the other party has a history of only pretending to drop his gun.
Yes, Scratchy, I also eagerly await your response to Midderpidge, who has brought this up several times now.
And in any case, if Obama says screw that, not gonna do it, I got more money now than I know what to do with, what’s the worst that will happen? The right and Hillarybots (nice combo) will call him a liar? Oooooh. Oh NOES!!!111!!
If Obama believes that McCain would promise him one thing, then do another, then he should say that (either in public or directly to McCain during his pledged aggressive negotiations.)
McCain’s unilateral application and subsequent unilateral withdrawal from the public funding process for the primary has nothing whatsoever to do with the certainty of his following through with an agreement made one-on-one with Obama. Whatever you may think of McCain’s handling of the process, nothing he did is equivalent to saying to Obama, “I agree with you that we will both use public funding,” and then reneging on that agreement. If Obama thinks this is not the case, he should say so.
I think McCain will rightfully continue to press this issue, and Obama will have to come up with some sort of answer sooner or later.
…has nothing whatsoever to do with the certainty of his following through with an agreement made one-on-one with Obama.
Yeah, they tried that once before. Didn’t work out so good.
If Obama thinks this is not the case, he should say so.
I suppose we’ll just have to wait for the FEC to issue a ruling. Oh, wait…
That’s funny. McCain’s history of signing up for public financing, receiving benefits for doing so, and then withdrawing from it when its not advantageous to him isn’t relevant? You must be kidding.
If McCain presses the issue, Obama can easily answer that McCain has been playing fast and loose with his own campaign financing laws. He’s in violation of his own laws right now. On top of that, Obama can point out that the majority of McCain’s senior campaign staff are lobbyists and that big business already has access to McCain without big donations.
Big Business for McCain! Cuttin’ out the middleman and goin’ straight (talk) to the source!
McCain’s history of signing up for public financing, receiving benefits for doing so, and then withdrawing from it when its not advantageous to him isn’t relevant?
A unilateral action, however disagreeable it may be to you, is very different from an action taken in the context of an agreement between two people.
SPLIT that hair! There ya go.
Split this hair: Obama pledged to negotiate toward an agreement to use public funding, and now it appears that he will not.
One more time, scratchy, with feeling: He is not the nominee.
And not a pledge.
If you want to get technical, I read it as negotiating towards an agreement on whether to use it or not. You are working from the supposition that agreeing to it is already done. If Sen. McCain has already acted in bad faith unilaterally, it doesn’t exactly build up confidence in his sincerity.
Sen McCain has not acted in bad faith. He withdrew his request for public funds, having not received any fund nor offered any as collateral. What he did do, apparently, was open the possibility of using them as collateral in the future. But that eventuality never occurred, and the bank didn’t ever request that additional collateral.
My understanding is that he intends to use public funding for the general election. I will grant him (and Obama) that they should not do this if the other does not.
Do you think that Obama will even discuss it with him, as he pledged? I am willing to wait until Obama is the nominee, as you pointed out(and I’m hoping that he is.)
By the way, our reading of Obama’s pledge is almost the same as yours, except that I take it as a pledge to work toward an agreement to both use public funds, rather than an an agreement to either both use them or both not.
McCain withdrew his request after he received millions of dollars of benefits. The FEC has told him he can’t do so and his response was “that’s just their opinion.” Nice respect for the law you wrote Johnny. He did offer that public money up in collateral. Stop all that STRAIGHT talk.
Do you understand how stupid you sound?
What he did do, apparently, was open the possibility of using them as collateral in the future
That is still collateral. A loan contingent on a source of money. Do you think McCain could have gotten the loan without the promise of that money? Right. And the bank will give me a $5 million loan because I intend to win the lottery tomorrow. Oh, they won’t because that is not a source of money.
So once again, given that McCain has shown that he can’t be counted on to abide by any agreement to use public financing, where is the room to negotiate with him?
Incidently, McCain signed a legal binding document PLEDGING and committing him to use public financing for his primary campaign. He broke that pledge and his word. How can anyone trust him.
Really, it’s worse than that even. For the past few years he’s been claiming to have brought real reform to America. It’s the basis for a lot of his reputation. He runs around bragging abut it. He’s reformed the system with his CAMPAIGN FINANCING laws that he can’t even be bothered to abide by. To me that makes him a hypocrite, a liar, a bag of wind, and a schmuck.
On top of that, his response to the FEC shows a complete lack of respect for the law in the same vein that Bush has shown. Do we need four more years of a president that thinks the LAW should not apply to him? Oh, you do.
I would say that Obama has worked toward a public financing of his campaign. What is it now 1 million, 2 million? small donors. No money from lobbyists. I saw a diary where a lobbyist for a non-profit organization got his $100 donation sent back with a polite letter saying “no thanks” from the Obama campaign. Compare that to McCain’s lobbyist-run campaign. Expect the 527s to gear up on behalf of Johnny Straighttalk and his corporate sponsors.
The fact that McCain’s lobbyist campaign staff has been known to work on behalf of their corporate clients out of his campaign bus is the clearest message I can get about McCain from his STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS.
What he did do, apparently, was open the possibility of using them as collateral in the future. But that eventuality never occurred, and the bank didn’t ever request that additional collateral.
That, to me, seems like bad faith and trying to game the system that he helped put in place. Sorry.
our reading of Obama’s pledge is almost the same as yours, except that I take it as a pledge to work toward an agreement to both use public funds, rather than an an agreement to either both use them or both not.
Well, then I guess we’ll just have to disagree and wait and see.
I agree with midder; Obama already is using public financing, and it’s going pretty well, I think.
What is the purpose of public financing? To take the special interest money out. Special interests run McCain’s campaign already, changing his financing won’t change that.