Mr. "Change" - The $500M Reformer

[kchoya]

Still trying to see how this fits into Obama's message of change and reform coming to Washington:

www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5207140&page=1

[jerseyhoya34]

Jun 19, 2008 18:59:38 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Still trying to see how this fits into Obama's message of change and reform coming to Washington:

www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5207140&page=1

If there is a non-issue in the campaign, this would be it.

I would assume, but I could be wrong, that you do not support wholesale change and do not believe that Obama's platform is to take every piece of legislation before the Nation and simply reverse course. That concept has never been part of Obama's campaign and to apply it here is questionable in the sense that it is disingenuous for him not to support some "change" on a particular issue.

It is even more questionable in light of McCain's seamless flip-flopping between opting-in and opting-out.

These kinds of attacks crop up in a campaign, particularly when a candidate knows he/she is behind. The McCain campaign's approach to Obama right now is much like the Dems' attacks on Bush in his first term and a half. There is no theme. There is no message. They're just attacking Barack Obama on everything and anything, be it Michelle Obama, 9/11, energy, campaign finance, etc.

[Elvado]

Obama has cemented his place as an out and out fraud on this one. Unless the "Change" he constantly refers to describes his varying positions on big issues.

[EasyEd]

"Though Obama risks a short-term political backlash by seeming to go back on his word...."

So, according to the "objective" ABC account, this is only "seeming" to go back on his word?

[nodak89]

As a liberal and as someone planning on voting for Obama in the fall, I am very disappointed.

Just dumb.

Even worse, there is no way out. He can't unrechange his mind again at this point.

[Boz]

Taken by itself, this may be a non-issue.

You put it together with all of the other reversals we have seen from Obama in this campaign and no, I don't think it can be easily shrugged off.

There have been very few issues on which Obama has demonstrated an unwillingness to go back on a previously stated message or policy stance (yeah, make your way through THAT sentence!)

I anticipate the next one will be Iraq. I fully expect him to "extend and revise" after he makes a trip there. Why? Well the changing security situation is one reason, but more importantly, the political conversation about Iraq has changed, and changed significantly, in recent months.

Now, fair is fair. I am not saying that Obama is going up against Mr. Resolute. McCain has done a fair bit of switcheroo politics too, most recently on energy. But the difference is, McCain has a long record of standing on principle, even when it is not politically expedient for him to do so. (I think it also helps that more and more of the public agree with his most recent reversal on drilling).

Obama has no similar record he can point to, and he hasn't exactly demonstrated much of that during the campaign. I think he will get hammered on this, not all by itself, but lumped together with other issues to show a lack of strength and leadership.

Will people buy it? Well, I guess that's what elections are for.

[JohnJacquesLayup]

Both candidates have wavered on this issue for months, and McCain didn't actually make his final decision until after Obama's accouncement:

In the hours after the announcement, McCain indicated he would consider forgoing public financing as well, but he later indicated that he will opt into the system. "We will take public financing," he said on the Straight Talk Express bus. Asked why, he said simply, "Because we decided to take public financing."

Could this cryptic answer be because a) he's such an old dude, or b):

A separate public funding system governs the presidential primaries, and Obama and McCain were among the contenders who shunned the federal money and the spending limits that come with it. With his bid for the GOP nomination foundering late last year, however, McCain used the promise of his ability to collect public funding as collateral for campaign loans. Both the Federal Election Commission, which governs the systems, and the Democratic National Committee have been highly critical of the maneuver.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061900914.html

So McCain is outraged at Obama's decision, but has considered making the same one in his own campaign? And possibly didn't only because he needed the security of the public funds in order to guarantee campaign loans during the primaries?

So yeah, um, shame on you Obama. Why can't you be of as perfect character and morality as McCain?

[Filo]

Although I don't think it will have the slightest impact on his candidacy in terms of voters, I don 't see how this is a non-issue. After all, he is the first candidate to make this move, and he is doing so because of the disgusting amounts of money he is going to raise.

I think he played this perfectly, in that making this move during the primary might have cost his some votes against Hilary but it won't really have an impact in the general election.

This blurb is pretty prescient (don't know anything about this site and I am not endorsing their politics):

www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/02/obamas_campaign_finance_pledge/

And Boz -- Sorry, maybe the John McCain of 10 years ago, but he is no different from the rest now...

[moe09]

Didn't read the article, but...I really don't understand what the big deal about "changing your mind is." Quite frankly, I value someone being able to change their mind. It's idiots like George Bush who aren't able to change their mind that have taken this country down the crappy path we've gone down the past 8 years. Who knows? Maybe seeing something you didn't see before and then revising your ideas may be a good thing?! The last thing I want is a stubborn idiot in office who after the fact can't even admit that he was wrong... oh wait....

[Bando]

For Obama, taking public financing would have been like tying an arm behind his back. He has much more money than McCain and can force him to play defense in red states. To give up such an advantage would be breathtakingly stupid.

[nodak89]

Jun 20, 2008 13:12:39 GMT -5 Bando said:

For Obama, taking public financing would have been like tying an arm behind his back. He has much more money than McCain and can force him to play defense in red states. To give up such an advantage would be breathtakingly stupid.

I understand that. BUT, then don't make such a definitive statement to the contrary in the first place.


ps I still ain't voting for McCain. This should have zero impact on the Dems base supporters, but moderates in traditionally Republican states or the Hillocrats might be dissuaded.

[JohnJacquesLayup]

Jun 20, 2008 13:30:36 GMT -5 nodak89 said:

Jun 20, 2008 13:12:39 GMT -5 Bando said:

For Obama, taking public financing would have been like tying an arm behind his back. He has much more money than McCain and can force him to play defense in red states. To give up such an advantage would be breathtakingly stupid.

This should have zero impact on the Dems base supporters, but moderates in traditionally Republican states or the Hillocrats might be dissuaded.

Unless Obama uses all the endless money he'll receive to "un-dissuade" them.

[moe09]

Hm, persuade is good, but I do like the sound of "un-dissuade."

[The Stig]

I agree with every word Nodak has said in this thread. As an Obama supporter, I'm disappointed, but it won't stop me from voting for him. I think it's an issue, but not a big issue.

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 20, 2008 16:47:16 GMT -5 moe09 said:

Hm, persuade is good, but I do like the sound of "un-dissuade."

"unrechange" is a pretty good word, too.

[hifigator]

I'm not an Obama supporter, although I am still undecided but leaning to McCain. Either way though, I honestly don't think this is much of an issue. If I were going to attack Obama, I am a lot more worried about a 20 year relationship with an absolute racist looney kook in Wright than I am in the fact that he Barrack said that he would use public funding and then changed his mind. I just don't think too much about that. We have all changed our minds before. We have all thought one thing but then as circumstances change or as we give more thought to the issue, decide differently. But the Wright issue is totally different. There was no confusion at all about who that nut was. There wasn't some confusion over what he believed. He is a radical anti-American racist advocate. To willingly have a 20 year relationship with him, where he served as the minister at your wedding and baptized your children causes a lot more concern to me than a minor change of opinion on essentially an election strategy move.

[DanMcQ]

Both candidates seem to have their flippity-flops, well-outlined here.