In editorial, NY Times misrepresented Obama's position on public financing
SUMMARY: The New York Times stated in an editorial that Sen. Barack Obama "has backed away from his proposal to run the general election on public funds." In fact, Obama recently confirmed he would "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee on "a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits."
A March 6 New York Times editorial stated, "Now that he's the champion money-raiser, Mr. [Barack] Obama has backed away from his proposal to run the general election on public funds. He should take up that pledge again -- now." In fact, in a February 20 USA Today op-ed, Obama confirmed his "pledge" to "aggressively pursue" an agreement on "a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits."
In a response to a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, issued in September 2007, Obama wrote: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Obama reiterated his "pledge" to "aggressively pursue an agreement" if he wins the nomination, stating in the USA Today op-ed, "I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee." He added:
I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.
[...]
I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator [John] McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.
The Times editorial also stated, "Mrs. [Hillary] Clinton and Mr. McCain owe the American public far more transparency than they have given," and noted, "Mrs. Clinton has not released her income tax returns." But the editorial did not mention that McCain has not released his tax returns either and has not pledged to do so as the Republican nominee. Instead, the Times asserted that "Mr. McCain is withholding medical records that Americans need to read before they are asked to vote for a 71-year-old man with a spotty medical history." The Wall Street Journal reported on February 23: "The presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, hasn't released his tax returns either. His campaign has said it won't decide whether to release the returns until after he is officially the nominee." A February 27 Washington Post editorial noted that McCain has "so far refused" to release his tax returns and added: "Most troubling, Mr. McCain isn't even pledging to release his returns once he becomes the nominee." Primary victories March 4 gave him "a total of 1,205 delegates, 14 more than the 1,191 required to secure the Republican nomination."
From the March 6 New York Times editorial:
Meanwhile, the candidates are spending obscene amounts of money. Now that he's the champion money-raiser, Mr. Obama has backed away from his proposal to run the general election on public funds. He should take up that pledge again -- now.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain owe the American public far more transparency than they have given. Mrs. Clinton has not released her income tax returns or made public the donors to her husband's library and foundation. Mr. McCain is withholding medical records that Americans need to read before they are asked to vote for a 71-year-old man with a spotty medical history.
Don't know that Obama has backed away. What proof supports this?
We're not allowed to see Chenny's medical records. Why would McCain's be acessible. I'm not sure what seeing the candidates tax returns is good for. Pick up some pointers for next years return?
Eweston,
Since all these guys/gals are rich sobs with lawyers and accountants and 'friends' who channel money their way, it is more than obvious why they want to keep their tax returns a secret.
Obama is already being linked to Rezko, McCain linked to Keating, Hillary linked to the Chinese. No doubt there are many skeletons to be found in the IRS closet.
Mediamatters cropped the first sentence in Obama's response to the questonnaire: YES.
Obama's answer was an emphatic "yes", follow by an explanation.
If I am asked, "Mr. Truthseeker77, will you have sex with Martha, the 450 pound lady next month?", and I would only sleep with her with the condition that she lose weight, I wouldn't answer "yes".
The word is "depends".
Obama's answer was an emphatic "yes", follow by an explanation.
So what he gave was a conditional yes.
It was a "Yes" or "No" question on a questionairre. "Depends" was not an option.
And how was it emphatic? A bold checkmark?
"conditional yes" and "depends" are the same thing; and neither option was present. "conditional yes" was not among the options.
So it will do nothing but spread slime to all players. Cause arguments that go nowhere. It is then merely a distraction. Not worth spending a lot of sweat over as far as I can tell. Maybe a my tax lawyer is smarter than your tax lawyer argument. Useful how? Intelligent slime balls will probably do a better job of hiding things. I don't use this as a tool to decide who I want to vote for, and I can't see it being a major factor for most people. I guess if you want to slime somebody its confusing enough that being called out just allows you to accuse the accuser.
Major issues die on the vine waiting for attension given to this
A NY Times story this morning revealed that the GOP is out fund raising the Dems at the party level. McCain's strategy is very smart-he cannot match Obama's fund raising capacity so he wants to check mate Obama on that front. Meanwhile the GOP 527's will be brutal and with no limits of any kind. It is entirely questionable whether the Dems can muster the same funds for their 527's. Thus= advantage McCain.
I say to Obama: "Take the heat for changing your response here. Do not give away the first fund raising edge we Dems have had since who knows when." You can use some of your vast funds to blanket the TV waves to explain your positions and to counter the coming "Swift Boat" GOP 527's. Do not be tricked by McCain's master chess moves. In my opinion, the General election will be determined by two issues:
1. Who has the most money; and
2. Who has the best strategy.
By agreeing to public financing Obama would be conceding both issues at the very beginning of the race.
Do not do it Obama!
As someone who supports Obama, let me just say that I took the senator at his word. Obama promised to take matching funds in the general election. And I expect Obama to honor his promise by keeping his word.
I just hope that MMFA would stop "helping" Obama by lying about this issue.
It's already too late and it doesn't matter, really.
We need a new Constitutional convention with delegates picked by lottery and a rewritten Constitution specifically outlawing all but equitable publicly financed elections.
Let's have some real change.
Forget the election of 2008. Let's have a Constitutional Convention and throw both corporate parties under the bus.