In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 2862 of 8795
- next ›
McCain Hypocrisy on Obama's Opt-Out Decision
The McCain campaign has sharply criticized Barack Obama's decision to become the first general election presidential candidate since the 1970s to opt out of the public financing system, a decision Obama can afford because of his stunning success with hundreds of thousands of low-dollar donors. As David notes at the link above, the McCain campaign said Obama's decision "undermines his call for a new type of politics."
But McCain, a longtime foe of Big Money in politics, once had a friendlier view of presidential fundraisers like Obama.
Here he is on the Fox News show "On the Record," in January 2004:
"I think it's wonderful that Howard Dean was able to use the Internet, $50, $75, $100 contributions. That's what we want it to be all about. We want average citizens to contribute small amounts of money, and that's a commitment to a campaign. So I'm for that. I think it's a great thing. I think the Internet is going to change American politics for the better."
And here he is on MSNBC's "Hardball," in June 2004:
"The Internet is generating more and more people involved in the political process with relatively small campaign contributions, $50, $75. That's wonderful. No longer can an office holder call up a CEO or a trial lawyer or a union leader and say, I need $1 million. And, by the way, your legislation is up before my committee again."
I think "hypocrisy" is a bit of a strong word here. There isn't necessarily a contradiction between liking Obama's style of fundraising, and thinking that he should still limit himself and take public financing.
McCain, his surrogates, and the media have been crucifying Obama on his rejection of fed campaign funding. This shows once again the total hypocrisy of McCain, not just on campaign finance, but on lots of issues. It's incredible the way McCain & his surrogates self-righteously and piously allege hypocrisy and dishonesty by Obama, while they are the real hypocrits.
This isn't necessarily hypocrisy, because McCain supported small-time contributions, not rejection of public financing in 2004. It's all moot - campaigners will snatch up every borderline issue and magnify trivialities. In the big picture, McCain is no maverick, no progressive, and barely lucid. Obama is no saint either, but at least he isn't abandoning medical cases for wives to marry young and rich heiresses. Or calling the Iraq debacle a whole success because a recent decrease in violence.
There's no hypocrisy. McCain supports raising small donations from average citizens but opposes taking large donations from special interest groups. Obama is doing both. McCain's point is that for all his talk about a new kind of politics, Obama is taking big donations from all the typical Democratic special interest groups.
This is completely misleading. McCain criticized Obama for breaking a campaign pledge. He did not criticize him for taking small donations from average people. There is a huge difference. Stop the political bias and report something half accurate.
@Ari
Don't just say the same thing over and over again to get your point across.
BACK IT UP.
Show us specific examples, with documentation, that Obama is taking large donations from "special interest groups".
Who are "all the typical Democratic special interest groups"? What money have they donated to him?
As for the "hypocrisy" of McCain - I don't really see how his comments from 2004 make him a hypocrite now.
That seems like quite a stretch.
Oh me oh my who took me mojo. Yikes!
JT
www.FireMe.to/udi
LOL, McCain is such an Airhead. What a joke. Surely no one is taking "McBush" seriously.
JT
http://www>FireMe.to/udi
It's worse than hypocrisy. McCain is attacking Obama for breaking his word, but McCain is breaking the law by violating primary season spending limits that he is legally bound to abide by.
The Washington Post reported on this, but everyone needs to know. McCain is breaking the law with every dollar he spends.
This is about two products; A and B. each promises to relieve headaches. Product A earn $3 for every $1 that product B earns. Conclusion: It must be that consumer prefer product A, especially since they sell for exactly the same price. In order words, the maximum you can donate to each campaign is exactly the same, thus, each product cost the same. Now, product B is crying because product A is preferred. Product B wants a level playing field. Product B suddenly does not believe in competitive advantage, which is a market force. B wants socialism all of a sudden. McCain is product B. Stop crying. Obama is going to eat your lunch, your dessert and your dinner.
Prove it.
THAT WAS TO ARI.
You like everyone else can say whatever you want. But you are going to have to prove what you are saying about BIG DONORS. I want to know, and so does everybody else. PROVE IT.
Otherwise you are a megaposting windbag.
Obama is a hypocrit. He sold out to the establishment, the big money New York money types. Only Ralph Nader keeps it real and is not a sell out. Vote Green, be Green.
It is one thing to consider a topic from an unbiased view and when that topic is killing your Presidential Race!Kind of like being Pro-Life when it doesn't cost you anything and you can feel real self-righteous or Gay and delude yourself into thinking you are married!