Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
The weakest argument is the one that says, "Whe he made the commitment to public financing he didn't know how much money he could raise." This is like saying, "When I married my wife, I didn't realize the twenty-two year old former cheerleader was going to move in next door".
|
Geez - that completely misrepresents what I said. It's an absolutely valid argument, not to mention a strong one. If the goal is to avoid corruption, how does this fail to do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
I also find it interesting that everyone says that BHO will not be beholden to his contributors. I thought his contributors were all mom and pop salt of the earth types, so wouldn' he want to be beholden to them? The idea that Democratic givers are intrinsically more virtuous than Republican givers is an assumption the media is making that should probably be looked into.
|
This is such a fundamentally flawed argument. It's not about being beholden to the interests of all of his contributors. It's about being beholden to the interests of a small percentage of his (or any politician's) contributors simply due to the size of their contribution (either directly or through bundling or other fundraising). That's not what is happening here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
In addition, Obama made the argument that he needs the money to head off GOP 527s at the pass.
|
I haven't heard this statement.
This is the weakest argument by Obama - anyone with an ounce of foresight could see this coming, and, if it was a concern, he should not have made the pledge.
That said, the reasons I outlined above make this no worse than McCain's reversal on drilling (which I did not blast him for, either).