Letters to the Editor
-
dismissing 527 fears is unwise
As John Kerry pointed out yesterday, the 527 Swift Boat attacks did not really materialize against him until August. And now we have YouTube, which means that scurrilous attacks can travel farther and faster than ever before. The notion that since you can't see a 527 attack coming now, Barack shouldn't bother taking precautionary steps against such an attack, is recklessly shortsighted.
-
Jesus Christ
Are you dense of dishonest? He didn't promise to accept public financing. He pledged to seriously discuss it with the Republican nominee. The Republican nominee has already broken the campaign finance laws he wrote, and made clear his allegiance to a $250,000,000 527. Obama is, by any reasonable standard, not obliged to take McCain seriously on the subject. Quite the opposite.
Hillary's out, Alex. Deal with it.
As for the larger 527s being on the left, the media is still, perhaps now more than ever, governed by the spirit of St Russert the Apotheosized: The Swift Boaters 'raised serious questions'; MoveOn is a bunch of kooks who said something mean about the heroic David Petraeus. What they lack in funds they make up for in playing the institutional biases of the Beltway Establishment, which is only going to be easier for them now that WarHeroandMaverick John McCain is their candidate.
-
Don't underestimate the Force
As BrianNelson rightly points out, ruling out future 527 monsters because none exist now is woolly thinking. Five months is an eternity in politics and anything can -- and will -- happen. I do not think Sen. Obama was overstating his case. He was stating a sad reality.
-
The Right doesn't need well financed 527's to get the word out
The media does that for them.
-
Huh
Exclusive:
MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy
By Greg Sargent - June 20, 2008, 12:05PM
MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php
-
All politicians are publicly funded all the time.
You can give your money to the government to give to the candidates or you can pick which one gets your money all by yourself. Same difference, only when you give it to the government, the government will give it to one of the candidates you don't support. I'd rather my money goes only to the candidate I support and not split up among people like Fred Thompson.
Every drop of money these candidates spend comes from us regardless of who hands it over to them.
-
As an Obama supporter...
I just want to say that I do appreciate this kind of reporting. One of the most important things Obama needs to demonstrate to the voting public is honesty, and calling him and his campaign out on even minor slipups, as early as possible, helps keep things transparent. It'll also help keep them from balooning out of control -- if he tries to subtly hide or spin something, and we let him get away with it for too long, there's a danger that the MSM will suddenly pick up on it, unleashing a firestorm. Better to have the "prescribed burns." :)
By the way, I just realized what Bush's original "I can have a beer with this guy" appeal was all about -- it's basically a way of saying he's honest, in a visceral way that connects with a lot of people.
-
@Jim
Thanks, that's interesting, I'll have a post about it sometime today.
-
This Is What It Looks Like
Every day salon runs at least two, if not three, negative stories about Obama. There is this sense too, that you all thnk you're doing this in a subtle manner. No, you are not.
Salon.com was overtly campaigning for Senator Clinton to receive the nomination. You all haven't forgiven Senator Obama yet. That's what's coming through.
-
@Alex
"In rejecting public financing without making a real attempt at hammering out a deal to do so with the cooperation of John McCain, he broke repeated promises, and Republicans wouldn't let him get away from that easily."
Yesterday it was one promise. Today it is repeated promises.
Alex, please identify all of these promises and repetitions?
-
Obama's Real Worry
In rejecting public financing without making a real attempt at hammering out a deal to do so with the cooperation of John McCain, he broke repeated promises, and Republicans wouldn't let him get away from that easily.
Obviously Obama's true worry is not among Republicans but among the numerous, butter, cynical supporters of Hillary Clinton, who are currently the primary promoters of this story. It is their claims of "broken promises" which pepper this story; Republicans can't currently get near it because of McCain's own problems w/r/t campaign financing (which you would have read about here if Hillary had run against McCain, but Koppelman is anything but fair and balanced).
Anyone who can read and parse a sentence know Obama made no absolute promises, that his commitments to honor public financing were always stipulated on a similar commitment from his opponent. As their is no similar commitment, there is no broken promise. Neither legal theory of contracts and promises nor accepted common wisdom on same support the Koppelman thesis that Obama broke a promise.
Alex Koppelman, and by extension Salon Magazine, are simply proving they are unable to analyze the words of a black man without reading in their own fear, insecurities and resentments.
-
Yeah, right
I'll believe that the Republicans aren't going to run their classic smear machine after they don't do it, not before. I wouldn't have a problem with Republican 527s if they promoted their candidate - publicized their agenda, differentiated themselves from Democrats etc. But they don't. They engage in detestable, personal smear campaigns. They don't promote their agenda; they attack the other candidate personally. In the process, truth tends to be collateral damage.
Republicans have made it clear over the last decade or so that they are only interested in possessing and exercising power, not in governance. Anyone who thinks that they will relinquish the power they've exercised in that time frame civilly is a fool.
-
What I'd like to know...
Is just who exactly Alex Koppelman is working for? Over the past few days he has begun to sound less like an employee of a progressive website and more like a Faux News mouthpiece. As somebody has already noted, yesterday it was one promise, today it is multiple promises broken.
Something is broken here and it ain't any of Barack's promises.