Obama Welshes on Public Financing
17 February 2008 12:00 pm by Taylor Marsh
Saying one thing and doing another is a habit with Mr. Obama. This time we’re
talking public financing for the general election. In blunt terms it’s called a flip flop. In
March 2007, Barack Obama had an unequivocal position: he challenged Republicans
to take public financing. Period. This was the Obama campaign’s position almost
one year ago:
The manager of Mr. McCain’s campaign, Terry Nelson, said he welcomed
the decision.“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.
That was then, this is now:
“We will address that issue in the general election, when we’re
the nominee,” Mr. Burton said. “We’re just not entertaining
hypotheticals right now.”Mr. Burton’s remarks drew a sharp reaction from Fred Wertheimer, president
and chief executive of Democracy 21, a group that advocates tighter campaign
finance rules.“I’m concerned with the position the Obama campaign is
taking,” Mr. Wertheimer said. “He is now saying this is an option.
But they made a commitment in 2007 to do this. There were no conditions, no
arguments, that ‘we’ll decide this when we get the nomination.’
I think it’s very important for Senator Obama to reaffirm the commitment
that he made.”Mr. Wertheimer also pointed to one of Mr. Obama’s responses to a questionnaire
released in November by the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic
and public-interest groups in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.Asked if he would participate in the public-financing system if he was nominated
for president and his major opponents agreed to do the same, Mr. Obama
wrote yes. Then he added, also in writing, “If I am the Democratic nominee,
I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve
a publicly financed general election.” …
Democracy21 is not amused, sending out a letter challenge
Mr. Obama on his flip flop.
First let me say that I don’t think Democrats
should hand Republicans a weapon, especially since the other guys aren’t going
to be able to raise near what Democrats can this year. But for me, this isn’t just about public financing. It’s about a politician unable to keep his word or act on words said when the time comes. It’s about political expediency in message, when the candidate, Barack Obama, has no intention of keeping his word if it doesn’t suit his purposes when the time comes.
On a media call that
took place in the last hour, Clinton’s team said they’d “consider”
public financing, but they haven’t pledged to do so. One thing you can say about Hillary Clinton is that she often riles
people with doing what she feels is best, regardless of what interest groups
or others want her to do. She refused to be bullied at Yearly Kos about lobbyist
money, getting booed for her honesty. (I also got booed there for saying
we all needed to give candidates more leeway on Iraq.) Now, you may not
like that answer from Clinton, but at least she doesn’t split hairs like Mr.
Obama, dare I say even lie about it. His main guy in New Hampshire was a lobbyist,
which he didn’t tell the truth about the whole time they were campaigning in
New Hampshire. When ABC asked him about it all he could do was stutter. He out right lied to Iowans about his Exelon legislation, which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This is just one reason why Obama’s candidacy is less than inspiring to me. He runs
ads that he’s for universal health care, which are patently false. He blathers
on and on about some speech he gave in 2002, but there’s no action in the Senate
to back it up; with speeches like the one he gave against
John Kerry’s withdrawal timeline more the rule. This is what
Obama said in the Dartmouth debate:
RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term,
more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?OBAMA: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would
be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.What I
can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office —
which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues
to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable — if there’s
no timetable — then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission
of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that
we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there.I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t
want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three
or four years out.
That was in October of 2007. Obama
on his website said this in January 2007:
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the
conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment
and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to “an
occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined
consequences.” In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly
end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat
operations.
Joseph Wilson, who has better Iraq credentials than our two candidates combined,
has endorsed Hillary Clinton, while scoffing
at Obama’s anti Iraq war bona fides.
“Well, I think the fact that’s dominated the narrative is an indication
of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate as it was
going on at the time. And the people making a lot of hay over this weren’t
there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left of me.
I looked to the right of me. I didn’t see Barack Obama anywhere. I was out
there and there is nobody who can deny that. …
Also see Wilson’s recent, “Battle-Tested.”
“In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary,
we do not need a would-be philosopher-king, but a seasoned gladiator who understands
the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.”
– Joseph
C. Wilson
That Obama also
scrubbed his now famous anti Iraq war speech from his website when it became an inconvenience for him isn’t a small
detail either. It fits the overall pattern. Never has one man gotten so much mileage off of one single speech,
without the requisite actions to follow. Hillary has been pilloried on Iraq, including around here, much of which she deserved. But once she moved her position and got religion on Iraq, she has not flinched. If that’s not enough for you, well, take the guy who talked about being against the war, but who has voted exactly like Clinton once he got in the Senate and in a position to actually do something about it. Who challenged
the Pentagon on a withdrawal plan? Hillary
Clinton. Who challenged Bush on his “enduring relationship” with
Iraq, asking Obama to join her in a recent debate? Ditto.
Like the latest public financing hypocrisy, Obama’s statements and viewpoints
float with what’s good for him at any given moment. Principle has got
nothing to do with it. But you all keep sucking on that hope straw!
Welshing on his public financing pledge is not just about the actual pledge,
but about Mr. Obama’s problem in not being able to keep his word or deliver on them. He’s also got the traditional media bamboozled,
to use a word Mr. Obama’s fond of, with many progressives following suit. As MoveOn.org has proved, it’s always better to have a table at the kool kidz table. Flip flopping has no cost in the
primaries, which goes double for Obama’s record on keeping his word.
