Journal pudge's Journal: Obama Lies, But It's OK Because He Is Better Than You 18
Barack Obama lied about accepting public financing. He said if McCain did it, he would too. He made an important promise -- important enough that Obama himself made a big deal out of it -- and he broke that promise. He lied.
And the press doesn't care.
The talking points that all Democrats and leftwing pundits are using is that this doesn't matter, because what Obama is doing is just as good as public financing! Because his money is
Private financing is public financing. Taxes going up are not increasing, they're just returning to their previous level, which just happens to be higher than they are now. Lobbyists working at top levels in his campaign aren't really working in his campaign if they are unpaid.
I think I need a dictionary to understand this new Obanics.
If this were McCain or Bush, of course, the news media would be saying it proves that they can't be trusted.
But it's Obama, and Obama is trusted. If he lies it doesn't matter, because he is trustworthy. He means well. Rules and promises don't apply to him. He is an englightened being.
He is not Barack Obama. He is The Obama.
I believe that if it were proposed to make Obama the King of America, more than a third of the country would vote for it, along with more than two-thirds of the news media. Perhaps not. But I am absolutely convinced that the media, and many on the left, simply believe that they -- or their candidate, at least -- well, OK, themselves too -- are simply better, and therefore the same rules don't apply.
I don't know about you, but that attitude really scares me. It alone is almost enough reason to try to make sure he doesn't win, because it is an inherent danger to liberty. There are various threats to liberty that our founders warned us about, and war is one of them, as the left likes to remind us. Another was a charismatic leader who would by, force of personality, convince us to give up our liberty.
This is what is being created before our eyes, and it is damned scary.
The news media is totally in the tank for Obama. Is the election over before it begins, just because there is apparently no chance that they will have the slightest amount of fairness in covering the race?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Enlightened (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this a big deal? (Score:2)
> Barack Obama lied about accepting public financing. He said if McCain did it, he would too.
Please excuse my ignorance, but I've seen this all over the place as an attacking point and I just don't get it... Why is this a big deal?
What makes Obama a bad guy for not taking this certain money when McCain will, unless he tries to attack McCain with it? I'm not up on campaign finance details, but I'm assuming this is taxpayer money? In that case, good!
Re: (Score:2)
What makes Obama a bad guy for not taking this certain money when McCain will, unless he tries to attack McCain with it?
Re: (Score:2)
It is a big deal that he lied, but looking back at the 2004 "Swiftboats" deal, and seeing all the mudslinging various 'Conservative' news outlets have already started engaging in, I can see why Obama is motivated to reanig. Now the Liberal media outlets do the same thing (I'm more sick of rabid Bush-bashing than Conservative radio/publications), but they just aren't as successful. They lost the last election for a variety of reasons, but even with their anti-Bush campaign in full force, the conservatives
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a big deal that he lied, but looking back at the 2004 "Swiftboats" deal, and seeing all the mudslinging various 'Conservative' news outlets have already started engaging in, I can see why Obama is motivated to reanig.
Oh please.
First, the left has been slinging FAR more mud than the right.
Second, Obama KNEW about the "mudslinging" when he promised to go for public funding. Nothing has changed there at all.
Now the Liberal media outlets do the same thing (I'm more sick of rabid Bush-bashing than Conservative radio/publications), but they just aren't as successful. They lost the last election for a variety of reasons, but even with their anti-Bush campaign in full force, the conservatives came away with a victory.
So apparently you missed the 2006 elections ... ? The left wants you to think that the conservatives control the discourse, but it is not remotely true. If it were, then the Republicans would have won in 2006, because the Democrats won based on lies: this was "Bush's war" that we only went along with because he li
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he wants you to think that, but there's no truth to it. Again, NOTHING has changed since he made his promise.
Besides, Obama will spend almost no resources fighting that "machine." He will leave that to MoveOn and other left-wing noise machines.
This is a very simple story. Obama said he would do public funding at the time only because he thought it would help him win the nomination. Now that he effectively has the nomination and has the opportunity to raise more money without public funding, he tosses out what he said previously, that he obviously never really meant in the first place.
I'm not an Obama fanboy or anything. I'm not even a liberal. I do think you're right that the Democrats won 2006 based on heavy spinning and playing victim; I think I'm actually a bit biased in saying that Conservatives tend to be more successful than Liberals at mudslinging because I live in Texas.
Now I seem to recall that his announcement to forego public financing came a day before McCain announced he would accept it. Now I'd be surprised if it were as simple as that, because I don't doubt the Left
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an Obama fanboy or anything. I'm not even a liberal.
Oh, I know.
I think I'm actually a bit biased in saying that Conservatives tend to be more successful than Liberals at mudslinging because I live in Texas.
Yeah, regions matter. A Dem friend of mine in Florida has the same complaints about the GOP there that I have of the Dems in WA. Although I think he MIGHT be a Republican in WA, whereas no way in hell would I be a Dem anywhere. :)
I do admit that at one time I considered Obama's vision for 'change' to be sincere, if misguided, but I've seen enough to be convinced that he's merely "yet another politician."
Exactly, and with the media's love of "narratives" -- creating and affirming and debunking them -- if they have the slightest amount of self-honesty, they will spend a lot of time examining the "change" narrative: his lack of actual bipartisan efforts, his broken pr
Re: (Score:2)
No, I was asking why it's a big deal that he's not taking this funding. Timex's first sentence, however, explained it to me.
Yeah, that's pretty shady, to say the very least. Thanks for the info.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What makes Obama a bad guy for not taking this certain money when McCain will, unless he tries to attack McCain with it? I'm not up on campaign finance details, but I'm assuming this is taxpayer money? In that case, good!
It's BAD because to qualify for taking the "public money", one agrees to limit spending from other sources of donations.
By refusing the public money, Obama is choosing to not limit how much he spends on his campaign. That means that he's open to any donation that comes to him, regardless of the source.
Politicians, by their very nature, tend to cater to the whims of those who give the most money. It works that way for both parties, not just the Democrats. The thing is, if a candidate accepts public monie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's BAD because to qualify for taking the "public money", one agrees to limit spending from other sources of donations.
By refusing the public money, Obama is choosing to not limit how much he spends on his campaign. That means that he's open to any donation that comes to him, regardless of the source.
Well, *I* don't think it is necessarily bad, but aparently OBAMA does. Or used to.
Politicians, by their very nature, tend to cater to the whims of those who give the most money. It works that way for both parties, not just the Democrats.
But it doesn't work that way for The Obama. He is above that sort of thing. That is the point. You just don't get it! He means well! He is enlightened! And this is actually what they think.
Re: (Score:1)
For starters, I would have been more surprised if Obama had chosen to stay with the public funding, rejecting SIGs. By choosing to open his coffers to anyone that cares to throw cash into it, he leaves open the probability that unions across the country will support him. If he had decided to limit his campaign funding, there's no telling what the unions would do.
Is it bad to refuse limiting one's options for donations? In theory, no. In theory, an open war chest means one can make sure that everyone in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For starters, I would have been more surprised if Obama had chosen to stay with the public funding, rejecting SIGs.
Yes, but you don't expect him to fulfill a campaign promise.
By choosing to open his coffers to anyone that cares to throw cash into it, he leaves open the probability that unions across the country will support him.
No man YOU DON'T GET IT. He would never do such a thing. Obama is different. Can't you feel it?
Obama might actually be above reproach against the likes of political SIGs ...
AHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh man, that is the funniest thing I've read in awhile. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
For starters, I would have been more surprised if Obama had chosen to stay with the public funding, rejecting SIGs.
Yes, but you don't expect him to fulfill a campaign promise.
Who said that I expected him to keep his campaign promises?
No man YOU DON'T GET IT. He would never do such a thing. Obama is different. Can't you feel it?
I hope this is an example of your humor at work...
Obama might actually be above reproach against the likes of political SIGs ...
AHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh man, that is the funniest thing I've read in awhile. :-)
I'm glad you got my joke. You and I both know that Obama is exceptionally skilled at pulling the wool over someone's eyes. Here's hoping (against hope?) that enough people figure that out before it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see. I have not lost hope yet.
I am, however, going to buy an "assault rifle" if Obama wins, only because I know I won't be able to pretty soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something in your statement, but you appear to be suggesting that it's OK for Obama to take these "certain money" because "McCain will". Is that correct?
If so, I've heard nothing that McCain planned to break his word regarding private vs. public campaign financing. In otherwords, he will not be accepting private funds.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe I'm missing something in your statement, but you appear to be suggesting that it's OK for Obama to take these "certain money" because "McCain will". Is that correct?
No, what was missed was that I was simply asking a question: I was not suggesting anything. I just wanted to know how going back on this particular verbal agreement would affect the overall campaigns (as in particulars, exact things: not future political strategies, etc) of either man, which would help me understand why people are up
Moo (Score:2)
War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strength.
For a bunch of people who love to quote from 1984 at every opportunity WRT the current administration, the similarity of their candidate and his (and their) actions couldn'
Re: (Score:2)
They've even made W into their very own Emmanuel Goldstein and regularly engage in rants not much different from a Two Minutes Hate (as when Keith Olbermann infamously said Bush ought to STFU [newsbusters.org]).
LOL, never thought about that.
You know, this is just begging for a new short film. Even try to make it subtle so FOOs (Friends Of Obama) think it is actually a good thing.