Usually I'm not this interested in politics because frankly it was my ex-wife's near fanatical support of the democratic party. Any time I said anything that was in disagreement with her views it led to a huge fight. Since I couldn't talk to her about politics I just barely read enough to be able to vote intelligently. Now, it's different - Mrs. B. has her viewpoint and I have mine. And we can talk about politics, not that we do very often, but at least it doesn't lead to an argument.
I'm registered as an independent because I don't agree with the platforms of either party. There millions out there just like me that like concepts that both parties espouse, but find others abhorrent. My ideal candidate would be:
- fiscally conservative and reduce the deficit
- ethical, moral
- free market economic viewpoint
- supporter of an individual's right to choose (not only on abortion, but on numerous individual rights)
- support handgun restrictions (yes, I do believe that there should be some restrictions on an individual's rights, but that is another blog post all on it's own.)
- fix the mess our social programs are in, including social security, but keeping in mind the first point above
- find a way to create a reasonable national health insurance program
There are many other points, but this post is getting long enough as it is so I'll stop and return to the list at some point in a future blog. And I know that the only person that would match this description is probably a cartoon character, but anyhow, I can wish can't I?
Well, anyway, I have paid more attention to the presidential election this year because I really do not know who to vote for. I really do not like any of the candidates, and as Mrs. B. knows, I would rather have an independent, third party candidate to vote for like Michael Bloomberg. I know he is not perfect either. So I have been reading a lot of different articles about McCain, Obama and Clinton since it still doesn't appear that Bloomberg is really going to run.
This morning I saw a caption about an article that quoted McCain saying that Obama should take public financing for the general election campaign. And that he shouldn't back out on his promise to do so. Then there's the Obama camp's response:
"Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it."
and
Obama told reporters on Friday that it would be "presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."
and this from McCain
"If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we'd have to rethink our position," McCain said. "Our whole agreement was that we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I'm told, that made that commitment."
More political lies as usual, I wondered? So, I decided to check the truth behind the statements
in the article to see what was and wasn't really true. I searched and found a number of articles from the NY Times that seemed to support McCain's assertion that Obama had in fact pledged to accept public campaign funds. I read at least half a dozen different articles that indicated that this wasn't a lie on McCain's part:NY Times, March 2, 2007: McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing
. . .“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Mr. Nelson said. . .
and
. . .Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent. . .
Ok, so Obama issues the challenge for the republican challenger to accept public campaign financing and will "... aggressively pursue an agreement..." Sounds like he is promising to use public financing to me.
He even went as far as to ask for an opinion from the Federal Election commission on whether he could raise funds for the general election and then give them back. And he did get a response to his inquiry.
Seems that the Federal Election Commission granted Obama the right to solicit funds for the general election and then return them to the original donors if he only followed a few rules that Obama originally proposed in his original request which are not very onerous at all:
"The Commission approved the process described by the campaign’s request in which:
- Contributions designated for the general election will be kept in a separate account;
- Only the campaign treasurer and chief operating officer will have access to this account; and
- The funds in this account will not be used for any purpose."
And the approval goes on to state that any other presidential candidate can either follow these procedures or seek a ruling on their own set of procedures.
Well, maybe Obama didn't come out and say he would only accept public campaign financing, but he did challenge the other party's candidate to promise to use only public campaign financing and that he would pledge to do so as well.
Where's your pledge Obama?
Don't get the wrong idea about this blog, I haven't decided to support McCain, I was simply interested in checking out the comments in the original article. What do you think?
In case you would like additional information on public campaign finance laws you can click on this link and it will take you to the Federal Election Commission's web page that contains the rules to qualify for public campaign financing. Which will be the content for yet another blog.
2 comments:
Hey, I'd vote for your ideal candidate. Even if it WAS a cartoon character. Seriously, that is how jaded I am about this upcoming election.
What you wrote was interesting. At this point, I'm neither an Obama or McCain supporter (and definitely not a Hillary supporter; which means, I suppose, that I still don't support anyone).
I think, though, that this points out that there is so much going on that has seemingly nothing to do about whether or not someone would be a good President. At least, that is what it appears to be on the surface but, if one thinks about it, who wants a person as a President that is already going back on something that they said (or so it seems)?
Again, this whole thing about public financing of campaigns, etc., is confusing (is my guess) for folks who just want to know who to vote for.
Personally, I think public financing is a good idea. That way, someone gets elected (if you forget all the delegate/electorial crap) who the public really supports, not just the richest person who can spin the neatest commercial.
Ah, I just hate politics. They can be interesting, but, I still hate them.
And, you're right. You and I have some different opinions but that's what makes the world go around.
Yes, it does make the world go round.
Hard to tell with Obama from what I've read whether he actually made a definite pledge or not. That's the only reason I didn't flat out call him a liar.
I think that public financing of campaigns is a great idea not only at the federal level, but at the state level, too! Taking the money out of politics may not take all the influence pedaling away, but it just might reduce it significantly.
Post a Comment