digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at motherjones.com

McCain Caught: Supported Average Citizen Net Fundraising.

motherjones.com — McCain in 2004: "I think it's wonderful that Howard Dean was able to use the Internet...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."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • voxlisa999, on 06/23/2008, -9/+82Someone should ask McCain about these comments at his next campaign stop. His response will undoubtedly be "I never said that." The guy doesn't seem to realize that when you say things on camera, they are recorded and can be played back.

    If the media keeps bashing Obama for doing exactly what McCain said was the way to finance a campaign and does not expose this- then how can anyone believe that the media is pro Obama? It's insane. The media won't call out McCain on anything! Seriously if you do not see these comments played over and over again in the MSM be afraid, be very afraid.



    • flavioribeiro, on 06/23/2008, -3/+29He denies it because the idiots who vote for him don't bother to check out whether he really said it. Denying works when your constituency is made up of people who don't know what the Internet is.

      The media favors both Obama and McCain for not exposing their crap. If they did, people would be voting for Kucinich and Ron Paul.
      • aliengoods, on 06/23/2008, -0/+10This is a two horse race. Keep your eye on the prize.

        Coincidentally, for me the prize is not going to war with Iran, which looks like it'll happen anyhow.
        • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Now it's time to vote for the guy who will get us out of War with Iran faster...*****' a.
        • dcmjzero, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2because of viewpoints like that, we will never have anything but a 2 party duopoly.
        • MWeather, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2"Coincidentally, for me the prize is not going to war with Iran"

          And in four years they'll manufacture yet another reason for you to vote the lesser of two evils and the status quo will be maintained once again.
      • xtinamo, on 06/23/2008, -1/+11To be fair, most of McCain's supporters just got internet, but are still using dial-up (like my grandparents). Do you remember how long it takes a page to load on dial-up?! They're probably busy filling out 3 gold reward offers and 2 silver offers to receive the Target gift card they won.
        • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1They'll get to that after comparing Viagra offers.
      • rald84, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference."

        there. ron paul's crap exposed. its not in the quote but lawrence overturned laws against sodomy between consenting adults.
        • dcmjzero, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1last i checked sodomy wasn't in the constitution. /sarcasm
        • rald84, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1sorry. sodomy between consenting adults who are both male. in other words, sodomy between man and woman was not illegal.
        • flavioribeiro, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4You conveniently neglected to post the whole speech:
          http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

          Ron Paul's point is that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn state laws which are constitutionally guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment.

          Like Roe v. Wade, this issue has nothing to do with the advisability of such a law. It concerns the legal problem of judges legislating through the bench and ignoring the Constitution.
        • rald84, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2the majority opinion was based on equal protection. a concurring opinion was based on due process. do you really want a president like bush to sweep those under the rug for the conservative base?

          oh and sorry about the excerpt, that was from a google.
        • MWeather, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1"Ron Paul's point is that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn state laws which are constitutionally guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment.

          Like Roe v. Wade, this issue has nothing to do with the advisability of such a law. It concerns the legal problem of judges legislating through the bench and ignoring the Constitution."

          And it's no coincidence that the most divisive issues are where the government oversteps it's authority. Be it slavery, segregation, abortion, or sodomy. Popular laws don't need protection from federal interference.
      • newsheatdotcom, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I have to completely agree on the constituency not knowing what the internet is, or at least how to use it. I had to introduce some one who forwarded me some anti Obama e-mails to Snopes.com in hopes that they might actually research the crap that is being spread via chain e-mails.
      • unreg, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1Holy *****

        The Obama insurgency is really scraping the bottom of the barrel in this effort. X just doesn't equal Y in this case.

        McCain expressing a favorable opinion of grass roots fund raising isn't a flip flop on his position regarding Obama foregoing of federal funding.

        The Insurgency needs to stop hiding behind other people and just face the reality the Obama is in the pockets of the rich and powerful.

        • WasabiBomb, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4And whose pockets is McCain in?
        • flavioribeiro, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2So the fact that I reject McCain makes me an Obama supporter?

          I reject both. Neither stands for liberty and the rule of law.
      • monoa, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul? He denies the reality of evolution. He's a wingnut who has mesmerised a bunch of people who are lacking skeptical thought processes.
    • Hoofenhoffer, on 06/23/2008, -3/+7the media is a bunch of *****,
      stop listening to the media and read a damn book
      • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -2/+6Books are media.
        • pnunn, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1and rarely will books keep you tied into current affairs. Double fail- let alone that you are on a computer and not reading a book either... so @ hoofenhoffer: Triple fail.

          edit 1- fail to me- however- for a reply in the wrong space...
        • shakbhaji, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1overfail?
        • MWeather, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1You can read books on the computer.
      • Hoofenhoffer, on 06/23/2008, -4/+1haha ,u caught me on that one
        i meant television, newspapers, and radio as media that express biased opinion in favor of Obama

        i know I'm going to get dugg down for this; but putting Obama in office will portray the U.S. as weak, giving the green light to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran) to nuke Israel (he has repeatedly said that he will wipe Israel off the map)
        if we put McCain in office, Ahmadinephysco will hold off nuking Israel as he knows that the U.S. will back Israel up (Congress supported The Balfour Declaration [British])
        and remember Obama is just a Junior Senator that has no foreign affair experience
        President Bush (who i support) said this would be a long and costly war that could last decades and everyone was OK with it, but now everyone is flip-flopping their view and coming back saying "Oh, I never agreed with the war in the first place." and "this war is taking too long"
        the United States is now based on instant gratification

        so please, put McCain in office, fight for the war on terror, and stop looking for instant gratification in a war that could last decades
        • phrenzy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0+1 McCain points

          http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInterac ...
        • voxlisa999, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2You know what? I'm not going to digg you down for this because at least you said something that wasn't a total smear. First, America will again be viewed as the last best place on earth when Obama is President. Go look at the world wide coverage and polls. I've lived overseas. Second Amnadinejad is at third level leader- he has no realy power. He doesn't control the Minitries of Defense, energy or security and will be out next year anyway. No one is going to nuke Isreal. Isreal has NUKES and Iran doesn't. Not even close. Obama has lived overseas and has a degree in International relations from an Ivy League School. So, he has the background and the frame of reference to hlp him. McCain still doesn't undertstand WAR. That's right- he doesn't have a clue. And the only person who would want a war that lasted decades must be a traitor or own a Defense industry company. Here's some excerpts from his authorize NYT magazine cover story:

          In these skirmishes, McCain is the outlier. Among his fellow combat veterans in the Senate, past and present, he is the only one who has continued to champion the war in Iraq; by contrast, Kerry, Webb and Hagel have emerged in the years since the invasion as unsparing critics of American involvement there. (In a new book, Hagel, who voiced deep concerns about Iraq even as he voted for the war resolution in 2002, predicts that the war will turn out to be “the most dangerous and costly foreign-policy debacle in our nation’s history.”) This divide among old allies may be the inevitable result of a protracted war that has cleaved plenty of American households and friendships. But it may also be that the war is revealing underlying fractures among the Senate’s Vietnam coalition.

          There is a feeling among some of McCain’s fellow veterans that his break with them on Iraq can be traced, at least partly, to his markedly different experience in Vietnam. McCain’s comrades in the Senate will not talk about this publicly. They are wary of seeming to denigrate McCain’s service, marked by his legendary endurance in a Hanoi prison camp, when in fact they remain, to this day, in awe of it. And yet in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington.

          Not all of McCain’s fellow veterans subscribe to the theory that the singularity of his war experience has anything to do with his intransigence on Iraq. (Bob Kerrey, for one, told me that while he was aware of this argument, he has never believed it.) But some suspect that whatever lesson McCain took away from his time in Vietnam, it was not the one that stayed with his colleagues who were “in country” during those years — that some wars simply can’t be won on the battlefield, no matter how long you fight them, no matter how many soldiers you send there to die.

          “McCain is my friend and brother, and I love him dearly,” Max Cleland, Georgia’s former Democratic senator, told me when we talked last month. “But I think you learn something fighting on the ground, like me and John Kerry and Chuck Hagel did in Vietnam. This objective of ‘hearts and minds’? Well, hello! You didn’t know which heart and mind was going to blow you up!

          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine/18mccai ...
        • MWeather, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran) to nuke Israel (he has repeatedly said that he will wipe Israel off the map)"

          No, he didn't. There is no Farsi phrase for "wipe off the map". He said the Israeli regime (i.e. the government ), like the Shah's regime and Saddam's regime before it, will fade from the pages of history.
    • sublimemm, on 06/23/2008, -4/+4"then how can anyone believe that the media is pro Obama? It's insane"

      You mean McInsane... ahahahah
    • jabberwolf, on 06/23/2008, -16/+6???
      HOW THE ***** IS THIS RELATED TO ANYTHING in 2008??

      So, Mccain actually compliments Dean?? Then after 2004 (this is when Republicans won remember!?) Mccain wanted campaign regulations.

      For this general election, Mccain was still going to go the public funding route... as Obama wanted agreed upon. But Obama flipflops on what serves Obama best.

      Meanwhile democrats try to get Mccain on flipfloping on offshore drilling from 2001 (BEFORE 911 and war), and Mccain wants to flipflop based on what the country wants.

      Hmmmmmm.... yeah I see change alright.
      • Duositex, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4I don't like your tone mister.
      • kreneskyp, on 06/23/2008, -1/+6because mccain and the MSM were trying to make a big deal out of obama doing what mccain said.
    • Mist0r_Wiggles, on 06/23/2008, -5/+1the net donation is a good idea, but it's the fact that Obama changed his mind that's the issue here. He should not have made up his mind and signed that agreement if he thought that net donation was going to be the best choice.
      • WasabiBomb, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Actually, he didn't sign an agreement. Basically, he said he would think about it. McCain wasn't willing to back down on the issue of 527 ads, so Obama decided to go with net donation. McCain's only crying about it because he can't generate the amount of money that Obama's been making.
    • dafragsta, on 06/23/2008, -0/+6McCain doesn't remember what he said 10 minutes ago.
      • JulyZerg, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5That's an exaggeration. It's more like five.
        • Tssst, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I'm gonna go deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
  • jtdoty, on 06/23/2008, -8/+41It's about time the Media got this out, Big Thanks to Mother Jones for stating the Truth!
    • Muyoso, on 06/23/2008, -11/+4Still trying to cover Obamas ass for straight up lying to you? I see. Can't explain why Obama would commit in written form to public financing, and then choose not to take it, and lie about all the reasons he didnt take it. So instead of defending, you attack the other guy.
      • lpmiller, on 06/23/2008, -1/+7How about this reason: because he would be stupid and deserve to lose if he kicked away all that Public Money he raised on his own without have to take tax money, and because doing so gives a democrat for like the first time ever, has more cash then a republican? I LOVE lies like that! He can lie like that to me all day long.
        • chukd, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3It isn't tax money. It is money people donate to the Presidential Election Fund. It isn't required, it is a personal choice of the individual. Taxes are not a choice.
        • lpmiller, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2either way, it's public money. And if mccain could raise that kind of small donor money, he'd do it in a second. In fact, mccain tried hard to get out of taking the public money, and the only reason he did take it in the first place was to rescue his then floundering campaign of it's debts. So he doesn't get to sit on any moral high ground, especially as the very day he bitched out Obama, he was at a private, 1,000 buck a plate dinner fundraiser. He was fully willing to break his promise, his problem was he screwed himself.
    • ErikHarrison, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4I don't know how a blog is considered "Media", and from the way you capitalized it I can only assume you mean MSM, which is laughable anyway.
    • chukd, on 06/23/2008, -4/+1Let me get this straight. Obama pledges in writing that he will take public financing because "it keeps the effects of lobbyists and larger donors away from running the government". He breaks this pledge. This is John McCain's fault how?

      McCain said Dean did a good thing by his internet donations. He didn't say it was bad, horrible, illegal, etc... . He didn't say Obama doesn't have the right to take small contributions from the internet or average people. He wanted Obama to keep his written pledge. Yes, it is written.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us/politics/23fe ...

      How dare John McCain criticize a guy for not keeping his word? After all, Obama is running on his pledges to change the way American politics are run. Newsflash, McCain and Obama are both politicians, they both lie,twist and manipulate situations so they can gain power. They are the same person!
      • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2In writing?

        Link to document?
      • chukd, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1From the Washington Post, it will download a PDF but look at the second page question 1-b.

        http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/co ...

        "Question I-B:
        If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private
        funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing
        system?

        Yes No ___

        Comments (please limit to 250 words or less):

        I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free
        television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I
        introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008
        candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential
        public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of
        the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates
        to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public
        financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some
        presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited
        funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and
        Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the
        Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to
        preserve a publicly financed general election. "

        Oops, I guess i know what I am talking about.
        • voxlisa999, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I guess you don't. Read the comments - what is wrong with you people? Over and over he says "reform" "agree on a fundraising truce" "return excess money" and "I will aggressively pursue an agreement." Doesn't sound like a done deal to me.
  • kroses, on 06/23/2008, -11/+37McSame is the biggest flip-flopper of all! Just wait till the public sees that list of flip-flops. They will go wild. An entire commercial could be made of it! He even flip-flopped on wives!!! Good old Johnny-Boy!!! The man who loved to change.......EVERYTHING, including wives (especially if they owned beer companies and stole other people's pills!!!)
    • bjs3171, on 06/23/2008, -3/+8STOP. CALLING. HIM. MCSAME. We are not in 3rd grade. his name is McCain. Call him that.
      • TokenBlack, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3O hai. Actuly, I is in təh 3 gradə.
      • Elranzer, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Ooh, looks like we hit a nerve.
      • ooby, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2I hate when people do that. It's like spelling "Microsoft" with a dollar sign.
  • honey6998, on 06/23/2008, -10/+34I think the the people are speaking, I am a singe parent and I found the extra money to donate in something
    that I beleive in more should fellow. For one I am truly sick of Bush policy running this country,a group of big BULLY"S . RIGHT MOVE OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • LKnight, on 06/23/2008, -4/+29So, if I undestand correctly, McCain was against the big donors that he's seeking for the $70,000/person "McCain Victory '08 Fund" before he was for that?
    http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/conflict ...
    Just like he was for McCain~Feingold spending limits before he was against them?

    Huh.
    • ClosedCaption, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4wait, wait, WAIT just one doggone minute! Are you trying to tell me McCain flip flopped? Thats unbelievable!
    • EntropyFan, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Yep
      http://tinyurl.com/yu5fsw

      Politics as normal. The sad thing is that around this echo chamber, you only hear one side of the story
    • Cyrus042, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1I think you may be referring to bundlers. Plus, contribution limits still apply to the candidate, and there are joint contributions to the RNC (which is what the Victory fund is). Both Obama and McCain have them. It's within the rules.
  • NoDrama, on 06/23/2008, -6/+10http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/How_to_donate_mo ...
    'nuff said
  • Tweetimdw, on 06/23/2008, -14/+12Folks...please email main stream media about reporting this story.
  • Tweetimdw, on 06/23/2008, -14/+10folks...please email main stream media about reporting this story
  • silyman1, on 06/23/2008, -10/+30I'm sorry, right wingers, but John McCain is a class 1 hypocrite. He used to be kind of ok, until this election cycle when he decided to pander to every demographic and flat out deny all the contradictory things he's said in the past. The man simply ignores the existence of YouTube.
    • minorthreat, on 06/23/2008, -0/+8He doesn't ignore it, he doesn't know it exists. He said himself he was computer illiterate.
      I can just see him sitting on the plane now saying "How the hell, do people keep finding this ***** on me?"

      Unaware of the youtubes, he continues to BS and dig his hole deeper and deeper.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/23/2008, -10/+3He changes his mind from 2001 before the war on drilling -
      yes flip flopping on what the COUNTRY wants.

      He changes his mind after the 2004 elections (when the Rep[ublicnas won) about campaignregulations-
      yes flip flopping on what the COUNTRY wants.

      But Obama says one thing about religion and guns then flipflops-
      On what Obama needs to do for himself.

      Obama says one thing THIS ELECTION YEAR, then flipflops,
      On what Obama needs to do for himself.

      Yeah um who is the hypocrite and one pandering to the masses? and who is the one thinking of his country first.
      Hmmmmmm......?!?!
      • richbleak, on 06/24/2008, -0/+2Let's get this out of the way: horribly formatted and cumbersome read. I hope English is your second language.

        The purpose of public financing is to remove the influence of big donors. Obama's campaign does not take money from lobbyists and the huge majority of his campaign contributions come from individuals donating small sums. He essentially is publicly financed; but only by the people who support him. If anything, this is a more conservative approach to solve the same problem that public financing seeks to solve. There is no contradiction here. The only people swayed by your argument are the morons that are stupid enough to shout it from every pedestal they can find.

        By the way, the term "Flip-Flop" is childish and unfit for use by anyone with even a moderate intellect. It is unfortunate that even politicians must adopt its use to be able to communicate their points effectively to the mouth-breathers that represent the majority of the electorate.
  • slapshot24, on 06/23/2008, -4/+15Also related to the netroots, bloggers are trying to use McCain's own words and the power of Google to catch him in inconsistencies:
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Googlebombing_Mc ...
  • curledup, on 06/23/2008, -4/+13Does he just not remember? If so, not a real strong indicator of his fitness for the office - and it's sure as heck falling back on politics as ugly as usual. What a maverick...
  • SheilaNoya, on 06/23/2008, -5/+16Sure he supported it, that is until he tried it and found that he can't get anyone to contribute to him. Now it's back to sucking up to Bush for the large donor money and use the campaign finance loopholes that allow people to get around the $2,300 limit for contributions.

    We go through this every election year. No matter how they change the campaign finance laws, there is always a way to find loopholes and bypass them. Tom DeLay (R) was a master at this game too, before he was forced out of office in disgrace.



  • BeachHouseChris, on 06/23/2008, -3/+19The best political journalists question a candidates stance based upon that candidates public record. Where is Tim Russert? :(
    • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -4/+2Dead. Along with any chance of catching McCain with his ass out.
    • cambob76, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I say you he be dead.
  • jkr801, on 06/23/2008, -19/+6cant digg just be without a spam of politics stories for one day holy *****...
    • SheilaNoya, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7This is under the category of "2008 U.S. Elections" and you're complaining that it's about politics?

      If you don't want to see political stuff, then either block this category, or stay out of the political area of Digg.
      • jkr801, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5oh touche sheila. I found out how to block it. I deserved to be buried...
  • DuggDowner, on 06/23/2008, -6/+7McCain was once successful raising money on the intrawebz, but now that he sucks at it he's opposed to it. Classic douche move from the Manchurian.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/23/2008, -5/+3Manchurian.??

      So the black muslim kid with the ultra liberal socialist ex father in Kenya - then turns to drugs in college- then gets to harvard based on race over others... then he then turns christian ( with ultra left wing -blame everyone for our problems church) - now running for president?

      And you call MCCAIN the Manchurian candidate? Man you must be smoking the same stuff Obama is!
      • dinot, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4You forgot to mention that Obama fathered two black children and his wife hates America and he hates lapel pins and that he's black and Hamas supports him and then they didn't support him and he also hates Muslims because he refused to have those two women in his backdrop and his middle name is Hussein and OMGHANDOVERHEARTPLEDGEOFALLEGIANCESWORNONKORANMADRASSATERRIST!!!!!.

        Moron.
      • DuggDowner, on 06/23/2008, -2/+3Have you seen the Manchurian Candidate??? POW captured by the commies, programmed to work for anti-American right wing Republicans. Yup, sounds like McCain to me.
        • bjornski, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2You seriously think he'd watch a movie like that?
  • jacen6678, on 06/23/2008, -6/+21Its so frustrating to see how locked down the media is. McCain can blatantly contradict himself and get away with it.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/23/2008, -3/+2From 4 years ago when the republicans won? So now he wanted to reform it after that time in 2005 ?!?
      Yeah that does appear hypocritical ... if you are retarded.
      • kreneskyp, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3no it is hypocritical. The result of last election didn't change what he stated previously.

        but if you really want to argue that instead of relying on small donations from the general public that candidates should go for big donors, lobbyists, PACs and 512-smear-groups then be my guest. It's pretty clear which idea is better for the people and which is the retarded one.
    • Cyrus042, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3And Obama didn't blatantly contradict himself? He said he would aggressively pursue the national public funding and the spending limits. He didn't. The controversy doesn't revolve around whether internet funding / small contributions are positive, they are. The question is whether its acceptable for someone to go back on their word to a commitment because they can make more money. That's what this is all about. Especially since Obama believes he was important to campaign finance reform. Then he abandons it?
      • incredibilistic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That's a valid argument but what's really going on here is that McCain has a much longer record of saying something on Tuesday then saying that he never said those things on Friday.

        While Obama did champion public finance he at least offered an explanation as to why he chose not to go with the system. He didn't back down or deny that he wasn't for the policy in the first place. Meanwhile McCain just flat out denies that he's done/said this or that without apology.

        If you don't want to vote for Obama I can only hope that you have a better argument then him going back on his word because McCain has a much shakier record when it comes to going back on his word.
        • Cyrus042, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I'm not planning on voting for Obama for a myriad of a reasons. That's not to say he's not a good person or a good candidate, but he's running against probably one of the more moderate and most qualified individuals in the Senate.

          Obama is convinced that the public financing system is broken. Which to some degree it is, as all sides will attest to. However this is an issue of expediency and nothing else. Further its beginning to become more common (issues of expediency), and runs counter to his goal as an American reformer. I understand that Obama has stood on principle before, but what about doing it on politically disastrous issues (for Democrats). Working with Ted Kennedy on Immigration Reform? (McCain still gets hounded on this issue virtually every town hall meeting) McCain Feingold? (Republicans felt McCain betrayed them)

          Also, I hardly consider Obama the champion of public finance. It was an easy issue for Democrats anyways because they historically fell behind in raising money (DNC vs. RNC, in addition to candidates 1v1). Spending limits and changing contributions were thought to weaken Republicans. For the record, issue advocacy groups (527s) were simply a loophole and were not even intentional. (in many ways worsened by the Supreme Court iirc) Maybe it would be in the best interest for McCain and Obama to coauthor new legislation reform for Campaign Finance, I'd like to see it.

          Lastly, every candidate will change their mind now and again and thats to be expected and hoped for. The question is why they may be changing their mind. In some cases, its because the circumstances have changed, or others, public pressure. Then there's expediency, which is what's just good for the candidate. I think McCain has mostly, although not entirely, been principled but reasoned enough to change his mind when the circumstances change or when there's overwhelming opinion, but has rarely fallen to expediency. Now obviously many opponents will disagree, but I encourage them to take an honest look at what he's said and make up their own mind instead of falling into a partisan trap which neither party should do. (Registered independent and proud of it)

          I could go on, especially on individual issues but Digg really isn't the format. My views are highly informed, and highly nuanced yet I am a McCain supporter. I've seen him in person, shook his hand and been to his town hall meeting. He is an honest and true reformer. He's really put his career on the line several times on principle in a way that few people ever do. Also for the record, I would go to an Obama town hall meeting (not rally, but town hall or round table) if he would come visit my area in California or nearby. So far he hasn't, but hopefully I'll get the chance to see him in a more personal setting someday.
  • insomniac8400, on 06/23/2008, -1/+11It's like he knew he would be running against Obama back in 2004 and structure his statement to perfectly support Obama today.
  • rpfinley, on 06/23/2008, -8/+14In The Fall Of 2007, Obama Answered "Yes" To Question "Will You Participate In The Presidential Public Financing System" If His Opponent Likewise Agreed. "The [Obama] campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: 'If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?' You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer 'Yes' and elaborated as follows: …" (Michael Dobbs, "The Obama 'Pledge,'" The Washington Post's Fact Checker, 2/20/08)
    • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -5/+9Why did you leave out the "elaborated as follows?" He said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement." Obama's lawyers did meet McCain's lawyers, McCain's lawyers blew them off, so Obama opted out. Not complicated.
      • hamobu, on 06/23/2008, -6/+3There was one secret meeting between lawyers. How can you call that Aggressively Pursuing anything. Obama clearly went against his word.

        Obama supporters are starting to sound a lot like Hillary supporters when splitting hairs.
      • Cyrus042, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5Obviously its unclear of what happened at that meeting. The only really objective account is that public financing was mentioned in passing. The Obama campaign was concerned about 527. The McCain campaign said that they cannot control 527s because they are independent. (Which is absolutely true).

        The fact of the matter is that the Obama campaign broke their commitment, period. Its unfair for the Obama campaign to treat 527s as a deal breaker because it is literally impossible for McCain to control them. It was just a weak excuse and anyone objective knows it. They simply broke their commitment because they could make more money the other way.

        There's no reason to make any excuses about it. Obama isn't perfect, McCain isn't either.
        • KLBP, on 06/24/2008, -0/+3Obama has been very aggressive about reigning in 527s that would try to support him. He has made it abundantly clear that his supporters are not to be contributing to 527s nor does he want 527s to act on his behalf.

          To claim that a candidate can't control 527s is utter bull *****. If a candidate is forceful and shows they are serious about it, most, if not all supporters will respect the candidates wishes on this matter. The fact is McCain wants to claim he can't control 527s so that he can have it both ways. He wants to look like a reformer by saying he doesn't like 527s, but he also wants to claim he has no control over them so that he can claim plausible deniablity when they help him do an end run around the campaign finance laws he helped to create. If McCain wanted to be serious about campaign finance reform he would have been very aggressive about putting 527s that support him out of business.
  • brokenspatula, on 06/23/2008, -21/+9MCCAIN > OBAMA
  • LinkGCN4, on 06/23/2008, -23/+6***** Barack Obama.
    • pintomp3, on 06/23/2008, -2/+14how many mccain action center points does that earn you?
    • greenlight2001, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4Well, I'd give him a hug if pressured to or maybe a motivating slap on the ass if we were playing football on the same team on Thanksgiving Day on something... but ***** is just a little too far.
    • ErikHarrison, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1No, ***** YOU.

      /fight
      /sarcasm
    • dinot, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4I would like to commend you on such an informative, non-biased assessment of Obama's position and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
  • ZenMojo, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1Game set match, sucka!
    • vexingmodstwo, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Does this mean you were going to vote for McCain before you read this? I'll let you in on a little secret: No one is going to change their vote based on stories like the above.
  • s5demigh, on 06/23/2008, -12/+11Really....another McCain is Evil story? Really?
  • deathsythe, on 06/23/2008, -10/+9Can we stop with the MotherJones articles please?!
    • ErikHarrison, on 06/23/2008, -3/+7Blogs; Media that ***** can believe in.
  • pintomp3, on 06/23/2008, -5/+27i miss the 2000 mccain. the 2000 mccain would hate the 2008 mccain.
    • Kohaxx, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5The 2000 McCain was the only sane voice leading the Republican Party ticket at the time. I'm fairly certain somewhere between 2000 - 2008 McCain was either replaced by a doppleganger or went senial.
    • incredibilistic, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I going for the latter. Unless the doppelganger wants to purposely screw up the election for McCain.

      I can see it now, the real McCain trapped in a room, gagged and bound at the hands and feet with YouTube running 24/7 with all of his faux pas.
  • rationalbeats, on 06/23/2008, -9/+19A vote for McCain is a vote against freedom.
  • Shaman760, on 06/23/2008, -8/+9Oh, McBush.....you will see first hand in November how much the internet changes politics.

    Buh Bye, *****.
  • hamobu, on 06/23/2008, -7/+12I think you guys are missing the point. The point is that Obama promised to make a deal with a republican opponent to use Public financing and to leave fundraisers out of politics. Obama broke his promise when he realized that he would loose a lot of money if he did that. Problem is not with morality of Internet fund-raising, but with Obama not keeping his word.
    • rationalbeats, on 06/23/2008, -3/+4Yay cause Republicans have always kept their word...

      ***** the Repugs, and I say do whatever you want to undermine their anti-American policies.
      • hamobu, on 06/23/2008, -5/+3What good is Obama then if he does not keep his word?
        • rationalbeats, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5When it comes to finding ways to screw with the Republican campaign I say the more the better. 8 years of swift boating, slander, lies, and outright criminal activities have led me to adopt a subversive view of the electoral process.

          However I have stopped giving money to Obama because he has not kept his word on FISA, and that is more important to me than screwing over John McCain.
        • hamobu, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1You better be careful. Obama might just end up being more suave democratic Bush.
        • knumbknuts, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2rational, if Obama is Just Another ***** Politician, then let's at least elect JAFP that knows ***** from shinola. Obama is about as qualified to be president as a couple thousand other pols. The only thing that separates him is that he might be an apple that isn't rotten yet. That might is getting to be a tinier might by the day.
      • Egoist, on 06/23/2008, -4/+4So you support the so-called "Repug tactics" as long as it's your candidate doing them?

        It frightens me that someone like you will be voting for the leader of our country. Is this who Obama's constituency is made up of?
  • LordPhilMil, on 06/23/2008, -2/+7Is this contradictory? So in order to go with public financing he should hate small donors or something? I hate Mccain as much as the next guy, but can we find something better to yell at him about...like flipflopping (really flip flopping) or sitting in a pew and listening to a man spew hate for 20 years...

    please?
  • emeralddragon, on 06/23/2008, -9/+12Buried as more Obamabot spam. Pointing out that McCain did this or did that doesn't make up for the fact that Obama broke his promise. Obama knew at the time he made his pledge he was doing well with internet fund-raising so he simply said what was politically convenient at the time.

    Sounds like politics as usual to me.
  • ErikHarrison, on 06/23/2008, -8/+6Blogs; Media that ***** can believe in.
    • jarjarwang, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Huh? I shouldn't read a magazine's blog because it makes me dumb? Why would motherjones' blog be a worse or better source than the print equivilent?

    • dafragsta, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2All blogs are not equal, just like not all media outlets are legal. It's OK to put blogs in a pigeonhole, but it's not OK to put The Enquirer in the same pigeonhole as the Wall St. Journal, New York Times or Washington Post?
  • merlin5, on 06/23/2008, -14/+9Nice try lefties. But not nearly enough smoke to cover up Obamas outright lie.
  • Rich711, on 06/23/2008, -11/+8HAHAHA!! Way to try to cover up Obama's lie. McCain has been about campaign reform for over a decade. By why bother with the truth when there's propaganda to post. Or is that racist of me to say?
    • salinemist, on 06/23/2008, -5/+2Only a racist would criticize Obama!
      • KLBP, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I'm an Obama supporter and I'm still going to bury your comment as it is inflammatory trolling nothing more. If you were a real Obama supporter you wouldn't make such baseless comments. Just because racists are against Obama doesn't mean that everyone who is against Obama is racist.
        • salinemist, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1You should bury me, I'm voting for McCain and was being sarcastic.
    • dinot, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4"McCain has been about campaign reform for over a decade."

      How can you be about campaign reform for over a decade and criticize your opponent for not participating in the flawed system you wanted to reform in the first place?

      Isn't that like saying I'm against drugs and don't want to take drug money, but you promised you'd take drug money last year and now you're not, so you're a LIAR cuz you promised, and see? I'm taking drug money.
    • kreneskyp, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Mccain violated his own campaign finance law, my friends, thats not reform.

      Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

      ps. 1 mccain points
  • knumbknuts, on 06/23/2008, -10/+6The concept that small donors and public financing limits are antithetical was propagated by Barack OCarterA. That doesn't make it true.

    It's bad enough that he tried to use that line of ***** to spin going back on his word. Now the bots are tying to use it to hang McCain?

    Just because he wants campaign finance reform, it doesn't mean McCain is against small donors.

    Saw a second 527 Anti-McCain ad, by the way, a really offensive one... insulting to the military. Haven't seen an Anti-Obama one.

    There is no spoon.
    • kreneskyp, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Obama has over 1.5 million donors with most donating less than $100. how is that not public financing?

      I can't find the statistic reported by the irs right now but the amount of people who actually opt into donating part of their refund to the general election campaign is extremely low. was something like less than 30%.

      in any case the finance law was put in place to give candidates who can't raise money from big donors a chance. Before this election noone had raised the type of money Obama has without resorting to lobbyists and big donors who aren't representative of the people. If a candidate can raise money from the people like obama is then by all means he should do it. mccain is just scared because he knows he can never get that type of enthusiasm with his "scare em into voting for me" tactics.
      • knumbknuts, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2Public financing = paid for by taxpayers...

        I stopped reading your reply after the first line, assuming the rest of it was as based in ignorance.
    • Andrwmorph, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3When you refer to a candidate as OCarterA, McSame, and other stupid nicknames it just makes you look like a tool.

      IMO
      • knumbknuts, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Unlike "McKhan"

        I thought you might be the hypocritical type, so I checked your profile, Andrwmorph... only had to go to your previous post:

        McCain Caught: Supported Average Citizen Net Fundraising.
        Comment in News (1 digg, 0 replies) - 1 hour ago

        McKHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! (see comment)

        • Andrwmorph, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2"McKHAAAAAAN" = Lame joke

          "The concept that small donors and public financing limits are antithetical was propagated by Barack OCarterA. That doesn't make it true." = You making a serious post.
  • toekneebullard, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1What happened to the old, funny guy that was on the Daily Show all the time?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 06/23/2008, -6/+7FTA: ""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.""

    Hmmm...so how is McCain caught again?

    From the Federal Election Commission:

    Obama's contributions.

    $200 and Under - $122M

    $200.01 - $499 $25M
    $500 - $999 $22M
    $1000 - $1999 $34M
    $2000 and Over $64M

    Obama raised more money from BIG Money than any other candidate in history.

    Of course that little "accountability" think doesn't matter now does it. Obama made a promise...then he broke it. Why? He wanted more money to campaign with....the exact thing he said was bad for politics and the country.

    And excuse me but if the Election Finance is "broken" then why did he pledge to use it? Didn't he know it was broken? What of that vaunted "judgment" of his?

    Face it people. Obama is as full of ***** as every other politician. Didn't you learn from the Democrats takeover of the House and their neutralizing of the Senate?

    -We're still in the War (yet they were going to get us out)
    -Pelosi promised us a simple solution to energy (yet we have $4+ gas).

    No, your going to go on swallowing that ***** cake aren't you?
    • phrenzy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Everything you say may be true, yet, Obama is STILL a far better choice than McCain.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I don't like McCain at all but I also don't want the President and the Congress and the Senate to agree that what we need in this country is BIGGER GOVERNMENT. If Obama wins, that's exactly what we will have.
  • TinternAbbot, on 06/23/2008, -6/+2As opposed to Obama claiming to be all for public financing of campaigns until he realized that he could make more money by not participating? Six of one, half dozen of the other.
  • giveupsin, on 06/23/2008, -7/+1Obusha is any different?
  • Andrwmorph, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2McKHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
  • tkstock, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3I don't think McCain ever said private fundraising is a bad thing - but going back on your word to use public financing is.

    If he changes his mind so easily about one thing because it's politically expedient to do so, what else will he flop on? He's already made many "politically expedient" choices. I don't think he really stands for anything except rhetoric. He's good at that.
  • executorzz, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3He supported internet fundraising. How does that go against accepting public financing for a general election?
  • Sogui, on 06/23/2008, -3/+2McCain attacked Obama's opt-out because he broke a widely-known and held campaign promise, not because he hates small grassroots campaign contributions.

    Seriously Digg, does logic come that hard to you?
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4And on the Ninth day, there was The Internet, and it begat Accountability, and it was pretty ***** cool!
  • roho76, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1Now that McCain doesn't have to worry about anyone donating to keep him afloat he can do and say anything he wants without consequence. Besides, if we think the NeoCons are giving this country without a fight we are sadly mistaken.

    I'm going to bookmark this one so I can pull it up and say "I told ya so".
  • lgfaphile, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1So what?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.