Turkana,
I often agree with you and I believe you are becoming my favorite front pager (Of the moment. Don't get carried away!) but on this, we are in complete disagreement.
The FATAL flaw in your argument, If, on the other hand, the Democratic nominee wins with public financing, is that he or she won't. The stakes have never been greater. The very essence of representative democracy and more importantly, the rule of law in the United States has NEVER been more threatened than it is now.
This is not the time to unilaterally disarm. The "Fourth Estate" is wholly owned by the very forces we're fighting against, as is John McCain, Maverick Truth Teller Extraordinaire.
We will certainly not cede "forever" the right to demand public financing if we don't accept it now. What we DO need to do is elect larger and vastly BETTER majorities in both Houses of Congress and the White House. A thousand judgeships, our economy and our LIVES are at risk from unchecked, unbridled greed and corruption.
I'll take the problem of pushing the new President to do the right thing, even working against the interests of rich contributors, in the public interest, to NOT having that problem; to having four more years of Constitution shredding, cronyistic, kleptocracy that we've already experienced.
I do think it's a bit unfair to assume a quid pro quo based strictly on fund raising by either candidate. A fat check is not the only determinant of political policy. It can be influential, but it doesn't mean you're "bought" like a cheap whore because you took the money.
While you have legitimate concerns, keep your eyes on the essential prize. By the way, I think you were right when you said he should opt out of public financing now, before it gets spun by the "media" and St. McCain as "going back on his word". The obvious facts of the McCain campaigns creative financing using public financing only as a backup will NOT be exposed to the average Joe.
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 19, 2008 01:27 PMdinj,
thanks!
as for the post, armando and kos would agree with you. i think we win even with public financing. it's not unilateral disarmament unless mccain opts out, and i have no problem with the dems waiting to see what he does. but if he takes public financing, i think the dems have to, for all the reasons i outlined. this is a chance to really change the experience.
Posted by Turkana at February 19, 2008 01:50 PMI would tend to agree with you about taking the pledge if McCain does. I certainly don't expect him to. However, we need to consider the Mighty Wurlitzer and all of the Democratic corpses it's spit out over the years.
And let's not forget the potential danger of a Freedom Watch and assorted, related ilks. I would like to take the high road. It DOES come naturally. I too, want to find a way to stop fueling the media giants abusing all of us, with a multi-billion windfall every election cycle.
Assuming we keep vote fraud, cronyism, lies, distortions and illegal acts by the "Justice Department" to a minimum, I agree that we can win easily. I just didn't agree that we forever lose the opportunity to better ourselves if we, this time, use whatever advantages we actually possess. Color me "hopeful".
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 19, 2008 03:22 PMI just find it amazing that the thread isn't packed with Obamaites complaining that you're bashing Obama for pointing out he's bribed the Superdelegates to the tune of nearly $700,000 compared to Clinton's more modest figure at around $200,000. I guess this is because everything the Clinton's do is dishonest and calculating while Obama is magically, like a flying pony, above the charges.
The funny thing is, when he wins the nomination (and I think the odds are in his favor) those rules will be applied to him. And he's going to be swift-boated into oblivion while "St. Maverick" gets a free pass and his biggest Achilles heel - Iraq - will become a sideshow when all the news originating from Iraq will be kittens, flowers and rainbows.
Posted by Moses at February 19, 2008 03:47 PMNow that you mention it Moses, I was going to commenton that. Another poster had an interesting question and I wondered if Turkana knew the answer.
What is the time line of these "donations" to the Super Delegates? Was it largely between 2004 and 2007? Even before Obama ran for the Senate seat, (officially) he was doing some fund-raising for many Democratic candidates. Does anybody know if the Sainted Barack was giving most of this money BEFORE the run for the Presidency? Good point Moses! Thanks!
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 19, 2008 04:29 PMdinj,
the article says since 2005, so some of it certainly came long before. this wasn't money he helped them raise, it was money from his own coffers. certainly, he's been courting them for some time.
Posted by Turkana at February 19, 2008 04:32 PMOf course, you realize that McCain isn't going to do public funding.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 19, 2008 09:07 PMMcPain is doing some funny business with public financing, including using an odd clause in a loan he took out, involving opting out, then into public financing (I don't understand it, but there has been good info on it -- TPM, maybe? I can't recall). In any case, he's trying to be too cute by half, and he probably will opt in but with a very late date (just as his owner, George W, did -- remember when they put the convention really, really late, so they could gather as much funny money as possible and then go holy on us? And the Democrats, with an early convention, were stuck with public money months longer then the Rethugs.
(I still don't understand why we didn't fight them on this, especially when it took changing several states' rules to put them on the ballot past the 'last date' laws in those states. No wonder we lose.)
I think that's what McPain is trying for this time, too -- get the Democrat locked into public money while he keeps getting the private stash. And unless the playing field is totally level, Obama should refuse to play on that field, and take his ball and go home if they squawk.
Ed