Friday, June 20, 2008
The politics of loose change
I am no big fan of the public financing of political campaigns -- I regard it as two-party and incumbant job security and offensive to the First Amendment -- but Barack Obama purports to be. So why has the Imperfect Vessel (can you believe he said that again only Wednesday?) become "the first major-party candidate to bypass the tax-checkoff system that was hurried into place after the Watergate scandal"?
Because he can!
Though it opens him to charges of hypocrisy, Obama's fundraising decision was hardly a surprise, given his record in raising money from private sources.
The mainstream media expected nothing less, by the way. Notwithstanding the apparently religious belief that Obama is a new kind of politician, his decision to abandon the post-Watergate reforms "was hardly a surprise" (that is, we expected him to be this cynical) "given his record in raising money."
One is forced to wonder what price he will charge for the Lincoln bedroom in the first 100 days.
MORE: Via Glenn, perhaps the mainstream media will not just notice the cynicism, but call it to the attention of their readers.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Jun 20, 10:16:00 AM:
The press is trying too hard to get Obama elected.
Dave
By , at
Fri Jun 20, 06:21:00 PM:
WHy is it bad for a politician to not pilfer the public coffer by taking your tax dollars in the form of financing aid, especially when agreements to take public money have been contingent on a perceived uncorrupted nature in public financing? Is Obama's shift given this contingency? in any way different from McCain's conditional on drilling? (I don't support drilling until the states do, and now gas is expensive so I am following their lead.)
Also, why does McCain get to complain when he stymied public the regulators by asking for, agreeing to, and then declining public money during the primaries? Hypocrisy much?
By 
Who Struck John, at
Fri Jun 20, 07:53:00 PM:
Technically, those aren't tax dollars -- they are tax refund dollars. That's what that checkoff box on the 1040 is for.
McCain wouldn't need public financing either, if the Republicans hadn't made a public embarrassment out of themselves, and if McCain wasn't a RINO.
By , at
Fri Jun 20, 08:43:00 PM:
Fine, tax refund, tax; it's money that would belong in taxpayers hands, in normal circumstances would be spent on ads, and now isn't. Why is this bad.
Also, I really don't care what might/should/could have been when judging a potentially hypocritical claim by the McCain campaign. He went to the public trough. He reneged on his agreement. At least in Obama's case, there's no legally binding nature to said agreement.
By clint, at
Fri Jun 20, 09:40:00 PM:
Dave-
I certainly hope you're right.
My fear is that the press is trying just hard enough to get Obama elected.
By , at
Sat Jun 21, 08:22:00 PM:
Ah. So not a single person can tell me why a fiscally conservative crowd, which theoretically would laud politicians for finding ways to not spend public money, shouldn't praise Obama's decision. Or why McCain isn't a total hypocrite here, trying to have his cake and eat it too.
I wonder what this means for the truth of the issue.
