Buying An Election?

[Bravus]

Uhuh. And if McCain can't out-finesse Obama, how's he going to go against Putin?

[Tom Wetmore]

So you blame Obama because McCain didn't think this through and made the wrong judgement call for financing, boxing himself into an untenable political corner!?!? And you are going to punish Obama for making an allowable choice within the rules that McCain supposedly had a hand in writing?!?!

What you overlook, is that McCain as the rule-maker having written in the opt out provision in McCain-Feingold knew very well that he too could make that same choice to opt out. It is most likely that McCain couldn't compete on that basis, even being freed up to use his and Cindy McCain's millions.

You Shane, are the spin-meister, not me.

It is just one more McCain campaign blunder and failure of planning and judgment. It's rather like McCain, after the debate, trying to spin his lackluster results, by trying to pin his debate failure on Obama for not doing more townhall meeting style debates as McCain had tried to get during negotiations. All within the give and take and negotiations and jousting of the political campaign game. Obama is beating McCain in every round of this fight.

[Dr. Shane]

McCain is walking the walk and not just talking the talk. What Obama is doing is despicable because he supported public financing until he became a candidate with a realistic chance of winning the nomination. If Obama had always opposed public financing and taken positions against it I would respect that. However that is not the case. Both McCain and Obama have supported public financing and when the rubber meets the road, McCain has stuck to his convictions and Obama has taken the do-anything-to-win approach.

I am not drinking the red kool-aid on this one. I respect Obama for a lot of things and think that with all things considered he has more character than McCain does. But he has acted like a weasel regarding public financing. That is what it is. The record is clear.

Now regarding townhall debates. That is really at the crux of the whole issue. If the candidates did more townhall debate it wouldn't take so much money to run for President. Campaigns could be funded 100% with public funding.

[Neil D]

Both McCain and Obama have supported public financing and when the rubber meets the road, McCain has stuck to his convictions and Obama has taken the do-anything-to-win approach.

[Dr. Shane]

the results of Obama's grass-roots fundraising accomplished the very same thing way beyond expectations, the same thing was accomplished without using federal money.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

McCain allowed the opt out portion of the bill

Purple Kool-aid

Well, I must admit that red kool-aid is normally my favorite but I think I am going to have to take a pass on both of these today. I like Obama but I just can't lie to myself and make myself believe that somehow turning down public funding was honorable.

McCain did NOT put in the opt out portion of that bill that he sponsered?

McCain did not consider

1] the american people would just accept what he said as gospel truth

2] place himself in Obama's shoes and figure out that Obama would have to raise Lots of money to overcome the conservative rhetoric and explain all the swift boat tactics

3]that loyalty to ONE part of HIS bill could cost him his election...

Are you saying that McCain is not the "Maverick" that he claims or is not able to assess the situation accurately?

This is one of those "gotcha" delemas that McCain put himself into. It wasn't Obama that put McCain there.

I conclude that McCain didn't think it thru...

[Tom Wetmore]

...I like Obama but I just can't lie to myself and make myself believe that somehow turning down public funding was honorable.

Uhhh, Shane, The source of the "public funding" to which you are referring is everyday citizen tax-payers checking that little box on their tax return to give a dollar or two to support presidential elections. The overwhelming majority of Obama's fundraising support has come from the same kind of ordinary citizen tax-payer public funding. The difference is that it is directly from the people and doesn't have to pass through government hands. The principle behind Obama's grass-roots fund-raising from the people (public funding) is what under-girds the campaign financing reform rules.

One other major difference is highlighted by Obama's tremendous success in reaching the citizen contributors and the sharp decline in people checking that little box on their tax return. People are motivated to give to someone or something they know, believe in and have confidence in. Checking the box is like paying an extra dollar or two to the government and nameless, faceless candidates.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

The source of the "public funding" to which you are referring is everyday citizen tax-payers checking that little box on their tax return to give a dollar or two to support presidential elections. The overwhelming majority of Obama's fundraising support has come from the same kind of ordinary citizen tax-payer

Tom

Sorry, I don't by that SPIN no matter how it is packaged. If I was that gullible I wouldn't still be undecided at this point in the election season.

[carolaa]

Checking the box is like paying an extra dollar or two to the government and nameless, faceless candidates.

Tom

Isn't the purpose of public funding to make it easier for lesser known candidates to enter the presidential race?

[Tom Wetmore]

One theory as I understand it is that it is an attempt to level the playing field between the millionaire candidates able to outspend with their own money and the candidates not independently wealthy so that everyone has the opportunity to become known.

The strategy as I see it from McCain's perspective is that if both of them had limited themselves to the public financing, McCain would have had the clear advantage as the better known candidate, less in need of buying lots of PR ads to get people to know him. And McCain was hopeful of the massive RNC political machine operating outside the campaign finance rules to be able to make up the difference and do the end-run on out-spending and out-raising money for the independent ads (swiftboaters, etc.). But he was outwitted and outdone by Obama's grass-roots fundraising.

McCain's protest is just sour grapes that he screwed up on planning the financing by boxing himself into a corner by his own poor choices.

[carolaa]

Do third party candidates get any of the public funding money?

[Dr. Shane]

McCain's protest is just sour grapes that he screwed up on planning the financing by boxing himself into a corner by his own poor choices.

More SPIN. Obama Lied!

McCain's protest to Obama's lie is sour grapes. Hmmm, and I suppose Hillary's rage at Bill when she found out about Monica was just sour grapes too. Is honor and integrity so far removed from the political process that we so free excuse such blatant and self-serving behavior?

The fact is that in regard to public financing McCain did the honorable thing. We have no evidence that he was calculating the RNC to do this or a 527 group to do that. That is pure partisan speculation for kool-aid drinkers. McCain said he was going to take public financing at the very beginning and he did. Simple as that. He followed through with his word. Obama did the same thing but didn't. Again, if Obama had never promised to take public financing or had opposed it in the past I wouldn't be so hard on him. But he changed his mind only when he realized he would be running against McCain and he knew McCain was going to take public financing. It was just like a guy bringing a gun to a knife fight. There is no honor in what Obama did.

[Tom Wetmore]

Enjoy sucking on those well spun sour grapes...

[Neil D]

Enjoy sucking on those well spun sour grapes...

Aren't they sour raisens now?

Seriously, the question of Obama funding came from donations from the public sector. Average donation was $86, I believe. If the Obama camp claims that the money came from the Public sector, Shane, you need to show where the majority of the money did not come from the public, but rather from special interests....The ball is in your court....Show where the money came from...

[Dr. Shane]

Public financing creates a level playing field. Normally incumbents can raise more money because they are in office and in a position to do political favors. That puts challengers at a major disadvantage. Public financing limits the amount the candidates can raise and thus creates a level playing field. Accepting public financing has been viewed as the honorable thing to do as long as I have been active in the political process. Agreeing to accept public financing is a show of good sportsmanship.

[Tom Wetmore]

Good sportsmanship... From the McCain Campaign...

Good sportsmanship includes playing by the rules - mavericks usually are known for that. (Given that Obama is the first major party candidate to ever opt out would really make Obama sort of mavericky, don't you think! Eat that, Palin fans...) But again, I remind you that McCain had a hand in writing the rules that allowed the opt-out.

Let's see... McCain's good sportsmanship...

In terms of dirty politics and deceptive, misleading negative ads even Karl Rove has said that McCain has gone too far. That was a point made by Powell and other good Republicans critical of McCain.

Good sportsmanship/McCain Campaign is an oxymoron!

In the end, Shane, you are tilting at windmills, because the majority of Americans really don't see this as an issue or really care. In fact, a majority (57%) consider public financing to be a bad idea and only 11% of taxpayers actually check that little box to give a few bucks for that purpose. And an amazing 93% have no problem with individual contributions from ordinary citizens, which is precisely where Obama has gotten the overwhelming bulk of fund-raising dollars!

Don't believe me - CNN Analysis: Rejecting Public Financing Won't Hurt Obama

Tom

[Woody]

One Maverick lies ... the other holds to his written commitment.

One Maverick thinks his signature means something ... the other doesn't.

[Dr. Shane]

I have worked as a campaign worker and consultant on several congressional campaigns over the years. The attitude typically is that when a candidate agrees to accept public financing it is because he or she believes they can beat their opponent in the arena of ideas without outspending them. That is why I call it good sportsmanship. That doesn't mean they won't run negative ads on each other. It means that whatever they do, they will both be working with the same resources.

Obama is not the first major party candidate to opt out. Bush opted out of public financing in 2000 which is one of the principle reasons he beat McCain in the primaries. John Kerry opted out of public financing for the primaries in 2004.

The problem with Obama opting out is that he agreed to accept public financing and changed his mind 1) after he knew he had a real chance at the nomination and 2) knew McCain was going to be the Republican nominee. Basically, he decided to take a gun to a knife fight when he was confident his opponent was honorable enough to only bring a knife.

[Neil D]

Accepting public financing has been viewed as the honorable thing to do as long as I have been active in the political process. Agreeing to accept public financing is a show of good sportsmanship.

"good sportsmanship"? "Honorable thing to do"?

You call the negative ads "honorable"? You call the robo calls "honorable"? I don't know what YOU call honorable, but I don't see much honor in what McCain is doing.

I know, your are gonna say "BOTH candidates do it"...Unfortunately, I don't see it that way. I see McCain being reprimanded by Factcheck.org and many other non-partisan groups as McCain throws out more and more wildly inaccurate accusations. I see Obama as RESPONDING to McCAin's outragious ads. [AND in a reasoned and calm and teaching response]. If McCain didn't do the negitive ads, Obama wouldn't have put up his negitive ads. As it is, even Obama's negitive ads are less acrimoniousness than McCAins.

I also see that Obama [or any other democrat for that matter] had to overcome the Republican myths of trickle down economics, different foreign policys, energy policies/plans, to overcome the entrenched philosophical hurdles established in the public's mind. This requires more money to repeat the messages to show that there is another way besides the republican way...Public is still not convinced, but they are willing to give it a try in the absence of McCain's lack of a sound economic policy.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You call the negative ads "honorable"?

Absolutely. I take no issue with negative ads. They are effective. They work. Most certainly honorable as long as they are honest. I have no problem with Obama running so many negative ads. The problem is the amount of money he is spending on them. He has spent more on negative ads than any other Presidential candidate in the history of the US. The only reason he has been able to do this is because he opted out of public financing.

Quote:

You call the robo calls "honorable"?

Again, I take no issue with the robo calls Obama is doing. It is only the amount of money he is spending on them that is dishonorable. Not the calls themselves.

I don't see... I see... I see... I also see...

Often times those that have already made up their minds about who they are going to vote for cannot see things from both sides. I am still undecided and I can see how there has been unfair ads run by both campaigns. Again, I have no problem with negative ads as long as they are honest. Both sides have run some dishonest ads. That is wrong. Yet the most dishonorable part of all of it is Obama's broken promise to take public financing. How can we believe him about anything else he promises? Health-care reform? Middle-class tax cut? Punishing the mean, wicked, cruel and greedy Wall Street crooks?

[carolaa]

I have no problem with Obama running so many negative ads. The problem is the amount of money he is spending on them. He has spent more on negative ads than any other Presidential candidate in the history of the US. The only reason he has been able to do this is because he opted out of public financing.

Meanwhile, close to 100% of McCain's ads are negative. I'd be curious to know if his percentage is the highest in the history of the U.S.

[Dr. Shane]

I take no issue with negative ads. I have worked inside of political campaigns. A person running for office has to define his or her opponent in order to win. That has been shown time after time. However the ads should be honest.

BTW: despite Obama's faults, I am still leaning toward him. Whoever I vote for, I will state my reasons at that time as I hope some others here do too. Early voting has started in Texas and I always vote early but I am holding off just in case something happens that might change my mind. However I will vote before election day.

[Tom Wetmore]

...I take no issue with negative ads. They are effective. They work...

Not according to the polls. The polls unequivocally show that McCain's negative ads and campaigning is not working. The effectiveness - Gallup Daily tracking - Obama leads by 11%, NBC - Obama leads by 10%.

The effectiveness does show in favor of the one being attacked - McCain's negative approach does result in a substantial upswing in the fund-raising for Obama. And McCain's chosen female attack dog has done more for Obama's fund-raising than any single factor. Even her convention speech was a major plus - In the 24 hours after her convention speech the Obama campaign raised $10 million. In comparison during the same period the RNC only raised a million.

Originally Posted By: Shane

...Most certainly honorable as long as they are honest...

And there's the rub... People are getting fed up with the lies and gross distortion of McCain's negative ads. EVEN KARL ROVE, of all people, has said McCain has gone too far... KARL ROVE! Shane, did you hear that?

[Neil D]

Quote:

You call the negative ads "honorable"?

Absolutely. I take no issue with negative ads. They are effective. They work. Most certainly honorable as long as they are honest. I have no problem with Obama running so many negative ads. The problem is the amount of money he is spending on them. He has spent more on negative ads than any other Presidential candidate in the history of the US. The only reason he has been able to do this is because he opted out of public financing.

Quote:

You call the robo calls "honorable"?

Again, I take no issue with the robo calls Obama is doing. It is only the amount of money he is spending on them that is dishonorable. Not the calls themselves.

[fccool]

McCain has always been opposed to wasteful spending.

You mean like spending 150k for Palin's clothes and make up?