NC GOP Comes to the Aid of Hillary Clinton

Roxxxanne wrote:

BTW we have been hearing claims that imply that Obama made some kind of pledge concerning taking only public financing if his opponent did likewise. He never made that pledge. Not even close.

Oh, I'd say he came VERY close....and other's (even Obama supporters) on this board had the same impression when he said it over a year ago.

But we've already heard, that while public financing is a very important issue to many people (myself included), it all takes a back seat IF you really want Obama to win.

Public financing for Republican = GREAT IDEA
Public financing for Obama = NO WAY!

RALEIGH, N.C. - North Carolina Republican leaders are standing by a TV ad critical of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama despite dissension in their own ranks and two stations' refusal to air it.

Republican National Committee member Linda Shaw said Thursday she was shocked that her colleagues decided to produce and air the ad, which shows Obama with his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and a clip of Wright's anti-U.S. comments.

"I do not support it," Shaw said. "I had nothing to do with it ... and I'm very disappointed."

Shaw, a longtime party leader, said she repeatedly urged state party chairwoman Linda Daves to withdraw the spot.

The party sponsored this ad?

So I can now sit back and watch the self destruction of the Democratic party with a smile.

maporsche wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

BTW we have been hearing claims that imply that Obama made some kind of pledge concerning taking only public financing if his opponent did likewise. He never made that pledge. Not even close.

Oh, I'd say he came VERY close....and other's (even Obama supporters) on this board had the same impression when he said it over a year ago.

But we've already heard, that while public financing is a very important issue to many people (myself included), it all takes a back seat IF you really want Obama to win.

Public financing for Republican = GREAT IDEA
Public financing for Obama = NO WAY!

No he didn't even come close to making a pledge to do that. Please provide a quote that he did and I will stand corrected. He checked off some damn questionnaire. Tell the truth. That is a GREAT IDEA. And please, please, please register as a Republican. They need folks like you.

"Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same," Mr. Nelson said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, "We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same."

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would "aggressively pursue an agreement" with whoever was his opponent.

Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have backed changing campaign finances.

Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

As Mr. Obama put it in his letter to the FEC, "Should both major parties' nominees elect to receive public funding, this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private fundraising." The FEC has said it is speeding up its review of Mr. Obama's intriguing proposal, which turns, as a legal matter, on the question of whether the candidate would be deemed to have "accepted" money he is raising for the general election campaign if he keeps it separate and unused. If the money has been raised but not "accepted," Mr. Obama argues, he could still choose to return it and take public financing instead.

Linguistically, this might be a stretch that only a former Harvard Law Review president could love. But as a matter of policy, it could salvage a failing system to promote the aims underlying the law. As Mr. Obama put it, "Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money."

Yeah, he said it. There were some hedges, but it was more than just an implication.

I still have mixed feelings on that one. May be more pragmatic to forgo public financing, but...

The part of the argument I have sympathy for is that he's effectively doing what public financing was set up to do -- go straight to small donors, a lot of them (more than a million individual donors now, forget how many of them), rather than being beholden to lobbyists/ major donors.

But yeah, he made a pledge or at least strongly implied that if the Republican nominee agreed to do it as well, he'd accept public financing. And it'd make me wince if he went back on it.

C'mon Roxxxanne....after calling me a LIAR and telling me I need to switch parties, my response to your insults was factual, direct, and to the point.

Not even a response?


While I may have shown your ignorance on this thread, your lack of response has shown your cowardice.