Obama forgoes public funds

By Patrick Keegan

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Jun 19 

The Obama campaign made a very cagey decision today when he decided against accepting public campaign financing, despite a previous statement stating that he would accept the funds.

While Obama will take a short-term political hit from this decision, the long term benefits are likely to outweigh the negatives.

His campaign is hoping to raise nearly $500 million, which would give him a huge advantage in the general election when it comes to the critical battle for television advertising.

It is a facinating first salvo, and it will be interesting to see how McCain responds. This should be a major plus for Obama.

Comments

  • Toby

    considering that Obama didn’t break any promise or pledge, I doubt this is going to come back to haunt him, though the GOP will certainly attempt to make hey of it

    • David Kaiser

      He didn’t eh?

      Let’s check again.

      No he didn’t use the words pledge or promise, but the intent was pretty clear.

  • Patrick Keegan

    Does or does this not reflect poorly that the pure candidate of change he broke a promise?

    I certainly agree it reflects poorly in the short term, and I’m sure it will get brought up plenty. But the fact that he’ll have a lot more money to play with, I think he’ll be able to bury it.

    Do you agree with the decision?

    Yes and no. I think politically he took a short-term hit, but in the grand scheme of things, this isn’t an issue people are going to care about when compared to Iraq, oil and the economy. Personally, I don’t like that he went against his word, but I’m not as hung up on Obama as a “agent of change” or a “candidate of hope” as other are. I just don’t want another Republican President.

    Don’t you wish he’d kept his word and pledged to beat McCain in the system they’ve both supported?

    Again, see above. Emotionally, yes.

    Tactically? I think the move will pay off. Literally.

    In the end, John Q. Public isn’t going to care about this issue. This won’t make people that will vote for him not, or vice versa. And those that haven’t made up their mind yet will be carpet bombed with TV ads made possible by not taking the funds.

    Are you still hungover because the Celts beat the Lakers?

    Oh I enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as the Sox last year. I’m not a big pro basketball fan.

  • Pdiddy

    i think Jason and Patrick just dropped off each others Christmas card list

    anyone who debates with obama or his army is wasting breath, they operate in an alternate reality, and if you persist they’ll say “stop picking on us, this is a new kind if campaign, new kind of politics, don’t use his middle name, don’t talk about his wife, don’t notice he’s black, don’t mention his lack of experience, that’s not fair, don’t criticize his decisions, he’s a new kind of leader, don’t say the name rezko or wright, that’s character assasination”

    • Patrick Keegan

      I’m not with the “Obama army”, I likely would have voted for Joe Biden had he made it to Massachusetts, (were you expecting Dennis Kucinich?) and I certainly agree that he has some flaws.

      But I also think that the nation has had enough of Bush and his brand of spend and spend “compassionate” conservatism, which has gotten us a huge debt, the dollar in the toilet and a reputation about as good internationally as Lazlo’s apparently is on here.

      • RedstateEddio

        So you want to support a guy whose tax increases and spending plans are going to make Bush look like an elderly miser on welfare by comparison? McCain’s all for streamlined government and less spending…

        Incidentally, while the dollar may be really low (as in it sucks to travel internationally these days), it is a tremendous boon to manufacturers. Listen to the cricket sounds from the manufacturers and labor unions. They’re not squawking about the high cost of US products. I know of a manufacturer who’s backlogged for over 6 months with orders to Europe. He can’t get his products out the door fast enough.

        (And if China chose to take its Yuan off their artificially imposed limits and let it be traded by the markets, we’d be in even better shape with manufacturing and production.)

  • JE

    Let’s see…Feingold…oh yes, as in McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. To paraphrase GWB, it’s unconstitutional but i’ll sign it and let the supreme court take care of that constitutional stuff.
    And when smack ads start coming out, expect to be reminded of a previous economic scandal called ‘the Keating 5′ in which J Mac was one of the 5.
    Yeah, this looks bad for the golden boy but he is announcing this before the convention because after the convention media love fest most of the american electorate (with our national case of attention deficit disorder) won’t remember anything that he said in June.

  • Cordeiro

    My guess is when we see Obama’s Q3 “burn rate” it will become clear why he turned down matching funds. He burns through cash faster than greased lightning. Taking matching funds would have cramped his style.

    And, for the record, as long as Obama hands me anvils, you can bet your @#$& I’m going to hit him over the head with them.

  • RedstateEddio

    Wow, when even Sen Feingold comes out and bluntly smacks you like a slapping dummy, you really blew it. Here’s the quote from the Terrorist Jab News Co, aka Fox:

    “Even Democratic Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who worked with Obama on an ethics and lobbying reform bill last year, called Obama’s financing decision “a mistake” in a statement Thursday.

    “This is not a good decision. While the current public financing system for the presidential primaries is broken, the system for the general election is not,” he said.”

    Obama’s like the kid on the playground that makes everybody play by the rules until he’s winning. Then it’s an inconvenience.

    He might have a chunk o’ change to play with, but that can’t erase the stain of “untrustworthy”. He’s supposed to be for change; doing things that smack of Clintonian sneakiness only paints him like every other politician, and turns an electorate very cynical. In case you hadn’t noticed, approval ratings for congressional leaders is at an amazing 17%. People are cynical and jaded. His action today only adds to that.

    See, he’s the golden boy, and that’s not good in this situation, because people hurt more (and get more angry and jaded) when they’ve loved more deeply; and with BHO, it’s been a love fest since Iowa.

  • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

    If there’s ANYONE who would have wanted to have been quoted in such a debate, it would have been Russert. Maybe you ought to have watched more of him on Sundays and less SportsCenter.

    I agree that the GOP didn’t nominate the first choice of many grassroots conservatives, but you’re foolish to call him Dole v2.0. They are almost as dissimilar as McCain and Obama.

    Maybe you could answer a question or two instead of deflect and distract.

    Does or does this not reflect poorly that the pure candidate of change he broke a promise?

    Do you agree with the decision?

    Don’t you wish he’d kept his word and pledged to beat McCain in the system they’ve both supported?

    Are you still hungover because the Celts beat the Lakers?

  • Patrick Keegan

    Jason the RNC can throw as many ads as they want like that, but Obama will respond with 10 more to answer it with McCain doing just as many flip-flops.

    The fact of the matter is, the GOP nominated Dole v2.0, and you can’t stand it and you know it.

    Obama and the money he raises will bury this issue, because he’ll nail McCain to a cross that is comprised of every issue he supported as a maverick, that now he has sold out to be the candidate of the “conservative” party.

    Oh, and it was quite classy of you to use Tim Russert in your response.

  • http://www.politicalderby.com/ Jason Wright, Editor

    Patrick, a “major plus for Obama”? Really? Please report to PD HQ ASAP to pee in a cup.

    The only way this is a plus, and not a major one because he didn’t need it, is that he’ll have more money to spend. But this flies in the face of his well-crafted image and represents a significant broken promise.

    He’s the FIRST Democrat OR Republican since 1976 to opt out during the general.

    How can Obama possibly argue that a system good enough for Carter and Reagan in 1980, Reagan and Mondale in 1984, Bush and Dukakis in 1988, Bush and Clinton in 1992, Clinton and Dole in 1996, Bush and Gore in 2000, Bush and Kerry in 2004, and McCain in 2008 isn’t good enough for him?

    Imagine the RNC ad:

    ANNOUNCER: Politicians like to be taken at their word. But can Barack Obama be taken at his?

    SEN. OBAMA in 2004: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.”

    TIM RUSSERT: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”

    SEN. OBAMA: “I will not.”

    ANNOUNCER: Now Senator Obama says he’ll reject a 30-year tradition of candidates for president accepting public financing in the general election so he play by his own rules. Even though he’d promised to join McCain by participating in the program that levels the playing field.

    ANNOUNCER: If we can’t trust his word now, can we ever?

  • Brian H

    Nice to see Obama now supports the free-market approach on something.