0
   

THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 01:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll admit McCain broke the law when you can show that he did with a source more credible than some left wing wacko publicaition and/or anti-McCain blog. So far you haven't.


Uh, I linked to the letter written by the head of the FEC to McCain, which clearly states that those who use the Public Financing system as collateral on their loans cannot pull out of it, and certainly cannot do so unilaterally; you consider the FEC to be a left-wing wacko publication, or an anti-McCain blog?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 01:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll admit McCain broke the law when you can show that he did with a source more credible than some left wing wacko publicaition and/or anti-McCain blog. So far you haven't.


Uh, I linked to the letter written by the head of the FEC to McCain, which clearly states that those who use the Public Financing system as collateral on their loans cannot pull out of it, and certainly cannot do so unilaterally; you consider the FEC to be a left-wing wacko publication, or an anti-McCain blog?

Cycloptichorn


The letter did not say, didn't even HINT that McCain was breaking any law or intended to break any law. You have not shown that he has. And you are being specious trying to pretend that the letter says that he has.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:04 pm
June 19, 2008
Analysis: Obama chose winning over his wordLINK
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:09 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll admit McCain broke the law when you can show that he did with a source more credible than some left wing wacko publicaition and/or anti-McCain blog. So far you haven't.


Uh, I linked to the letter written by the head of the FEC to McCain, which clearly states that those who use the Public Financing system as collateral on their loans cannot pull out of it, and certainly cannot do so unilaterally; you consider the FEC to be a left-wing wacko publication, or an anti-McCain blog?

Cycloptichorn


The letter did not say, didn't even HINT that McCain was breaking any law or intended to break any law. You have not shown that he has. And you are being specious trying to pretend that the letter says that he has.


Are you claiming that McCain did not use Public Primary financing to secure a loan to save his campaign?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:15 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I'll admit McCain broke the law when you can show that he did with a source more credible than some left wing wacko publicaition and/or anti-McCain blog. So far you haven't.


Uh, I linked to the letter written by the head of the FEC to McCain, which clearly states that those who use the Public Financing system as collateral on their loans cannot pull out of it, and certainly cannot do so unilaterally; you consider the FEC to be a left-wing wacko publication, or an anti-McCain blog?

Cycloptichorn


The letter did not say, didn't even HINT that McCain was breaking any law or intended to break any law. You have not shown that he has. And you are being specious trying to pretend that the letter says that he has.


Are you claiming that McCain did not use Public Primary financing to secure a loan to save his campaign?

Cycloptichorn


I am saying that you have accused McCain of breaking the law---here and at least one other thread--and you have shown absolutely nothing to support the claim.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:27 pm
On the contrary, I have provided some evidence that this is exactly what he has done.

Fox, you didn't even understand the difference between public financing for the primary, and public financing for the general, just a few posts ago. You literally didn't know what the hell you were talking about. So I'm not troubled that you are having a difficult time understanding at this point; it's true to form.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:29 pm
Oh I don't have any difficulty distinguishing between public and private funding. You seem to be having a huge problem distinguishing between a simple straight forward inquiry and an illegal act, however. Can you or can you not show the specific place in the letter that accuses John McCain of an illegality. Do you have any proof?

Or are you stooping to sleazy and dishonest tactics of making stuff up and throwing them out there hoping something sticks?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:32 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Oh I don't have any difficulty distinguishing between public and private funding. You seem to be having a huge problem distinguishing between a simple straight forward inquiry and an illegal act, however. Can you or can you not show the specific place in the letter that accuses John McCain of an illegality. Do you have any proof?

Or are you stooping to sleazy and dishonest tactics of making stuff up and throwing them out there hoping something sticks?


You most certainly did not understand the difference between Public Financing for the Primary and Public Financing for the General election. You confused the issues just a few posts ago. You demonstrated a lack of understanding of what the discussion was about.

I'll ask you again, and I'd like a direct answer:
Are you claiming that McCain did not use Public Primary financing to secure a loan to save his campaign?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:41 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639_pf.html

McCain Got Loan by Pledging to Seek Federal Funds

Even if you were to deny it, it is still true.

In the letter sent by the chair of the FEC, it clearly says that those who use the Public financing system to secure a loan cannot withdraw from that system. McCain did not withdraw from the system. He is currently over the 54 million dollar limit that the Primary Public financing system allows.

This is evidence that he is breaking the campaign finance laws. The fact that he claims he is not is immaterial, what crook argues that they are guilty? A leads to B leads to C. Not a difficult logical formation.

For most.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:41 pm
I haven't claimed much of anything except that you haven't provided any support for your silly accusation that McCain broke the law--I am assuming now that you cannot support that comment that you keep repeating I suppose hoping somebody will believe it is true so that you can provide cover for your candidate using the 'whose is blackest' argument.

The fact is Obama promised to take public funding and now he is using what appears to be a fairly consistent modus operendi of "What I really meant - or what he really meant was this. . . ." so he can switch horses.

I don't buy it. I think most thinking people don't buy it.

And now I'm going to use Thomas's tactic of advising you that I am weary of this circular argument and will withdraw from this discussion with you UNLESS you can provide a credible source for your accusation against McCain.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:43 pm
Please see above.

Also,

Quote:

The fact is Obama promised to take public funding


This is a direct lie, and I challenge you to provide a link to support it. Obama has consistently said that he would pursue an agreement; McCain's camp signaled that they did not wish to agree with him on the issue of 527-group involvement.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 03:02 pm
On November 27, 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic and public interest groups based in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, released the results of a questionnaire that they sent to all of the presidential candidates.

The following question was on the questionnaire:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold''s (DWI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) 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.
LINK
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 03:06 pm
Yes, and he pursued the agreement, and McCain did not wish to come to an agreement. What is hard to understand about this?

McCain's refusal to attempt to rein in the outside groups broke the deal. McCain has even claimed that he cannot control what the RNC says!

It's bullshit to say that this is not possible, for Obama has been doing exactly that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 03:07 pm
I wish I liked the rolling eye emoticon---it would definitely be appropriate here.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 03:08 pm
Not really a response based upon logic or factual argument, however.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 04:32 pm
It's not as clear as I'd like it to be that Obama pursued the agreement and McCain made sure it didn't happen. I get the 527 argument but don't totally buy it.

McCain IS accepting public financing, which might be strategic (stiff-arm Obama and then, once Obama makes the decision to turn it down, go ahead and accept it to make Obama look bad) but I think is probably just an indication that McCain would've been open to it if Obama really pressed for it.

I sighed when I found out Obama decided to turn down public financing. I'd probably have sighed if he had decided to accept it. I wish he hadn't gotten himself in this position (rock/hard place) with his original rhetoric. But I think this is probably right:

Marc Ambinder wrote:
The upshot here is that Obama is going to have at least $100 million to spend that the RNC and John McCain and whatever 527s exist will not. Add in the Democrats' labor spending, and that advantage is probably at least $200 million. Financial disparities tend not to matter unless they are huge, and this year, they are huge. McCain will need all that much more of a moment in a debate, or a major Obama gaffe, to perservere.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 04:47 pm
sozobe wrote:
It's not as clear as I'd like it to be that Obama pursued the agreement and McCain made sure it didn't happen. I get the 527 argument but don't totally buy it.

McCain IS accepting public financing, which might be strategic (stiff-arm Obama and then, once Obama makes the decision to turn it down, go ahead and accept it to make Obama look bad) but I think is probably just an indication that McCain would've been open to it if Obama really pressed for it.

I sighed when I found out Obama decided to turn down public financing. I'd probably have sighed if he had decided to accept it. I wish he hadn't gotten himself in this position (rock/hard place) with his original rhetoric. But I think this is probably right:

Marc Ambinder wrote:
The upshot here is that Obama is going to have at least $100 million to spend that the RNC and John McCain and whatever 527s exist will not. Add in the Democrats' labor spending, and that advantage is probably at least $200 million. Financial disparities tend not to matter unless they are huge, and this year, they are huge. McCain will need all that much more of a moment in a debate, or a major Obama gaffe, to perservere.


Actually I don't fault Obama for inspiring the kinds of contributions he is getting, though he is rather specious when he claims that almost all is from 'grass roots' when a closer inspection suggests the special interests are funneling the money in per usual, they're just funneling it in small 'legal' amounts through various operatives. Again that is part of the game and by itself is not damning.

On this flipflop, the issue isn't really the funding at all, but a pattern I see developing with Obama when he says something on one occasion, and then when it is expedient to not have said that, the line is becoming more and more predictable in that 'he didn't mean it the way it was interpreted' or what he really was saying was. . .or what he meant was. . . ." I think he can get away with that only so often before there is significant eyebrow raising and some confidence is eroded. That is evenmoreso true if Cyclop and his ilk keep trying to make those kinds of arguments for him when the evidence is clearly otherwise.

I would respect Obama more if he stood up and said that once he realized how many people wanted to give him money, that previous pledge didn't look so good and he decided he couldn't realistically keep it, apologize to McCain, and move on. But alas, he didn't do that and, at least on that score, proved himself to be just another politician who will put self serving opportunity ahead of principle and insult our intelligence in the process.

I honestly wanted him to be a better kind of candidate. I think we're all going to be disapppointed there, however. but he nevertheless has time to prove himself to be a better man than some want him to be.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 05:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yes, and he pursued the agreement, and McCain did not wish to come to an agreement. What is hard to understand about this?

McCain's refusal to attempt to rein in the outside groups broke the deal. McCain has even claimed that he cannot control what the RNC says!

It's bullshit to say that this is not possible, for Obama has been doing exactly that.

Cycloptichorn


This is straight up bullshit. It sickens me to see you suck the pablum like you are.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 06:57 pm
I'm not sure it's a pattern. Obama stuck by Wright when it was decidedly un-expedient, and only broke with him when his hand was forced. I can't think of too many other "expedient" examples.

One thing I've seen many times -- before this decision was made -- was that while the Obama campaign was prescient in many ways, one thing they didn't quite predict was how MUCH money they'd get from small donors. They thought they'd be OK, they thought they'd get enough (even while turning down lobbyist money), but they ended up with way more than they expected (and still going strong).

I think Obama's original rhetoric was when he thought that the decision to shun lobbyist money would mean he wouldn't have too terribly much, and that it'd be a good move to try to keep the Republican candidate (who presumably would be accepting lobbyist money) more in control (or else shame him, if that candidate refused public financing).

But then then when the time came, the decision turned out to be about turning down a real, decided, possibly election-deciding advantage. Just as an example, a huge (100 million) financial advantage will mean that Obama can afford to fight EVERYWHERE, and McCain will have to be on the defensive EVERYWHERE, and therefore be spread thin everywhere (since he'll be at a significant financial disadvantage). McCain can't just focus on battleground states -- he'll have to be on the defense in lean-McCain and even strong-McCain states.

So, while it's problematic given the corner Obama painted himself into (and so I wish I hadn't painted himself into that corner, though I get why that might have happened), this may be the best decision overall.

We'll see.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2008 08:24 am
Yes, we'll see Sozobe. I am way too cynical and jaded at this stage in life to think that something like the campaign funding flipflop will have any effect on his electability.

Meanwhile......if McCain was giving speeches behind this adaption of the Presidential shield, what would his opponents say? Arrogant? Presumptious? Cheesy? Good idea? There are photos all over the place of Obama giving his speeches from behind his new 'logo':

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/20/newseals.ap.wh.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/08/2025 at 10:17:54