Obama backs down on pledge...

[H]

So are you saying Obama isn't really about change, that he's more of the same old same old?

 

Not making a statement about Obama per se. Just pointing out that politicians changing their positions is not that unusual.

[EKUAlum05]

Well, I'm just glad McCain has never changed his policy positions for political expediency. Don't have to worry about John McCain going back on an important issue. Nosiree, that John McCain is as constant as the north star.

 

McCain’s about-face on Yucca

 

McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list

 

McCain Flip-Flops

 

As I said, the second greatest attack the Dems have against McCain is that he flip-flops....

 

I guess it makes it easier to find the quantity of times someone changes their stance when they have 4 times the political experience of the other candidate though...

[4chs]

Not very surprising, Obama is your typical politician(I'm including both sides of the aisle)...............maybe someday someone will change Washington...........just don't expect it over the next 4 years or so.

[02Ram54]

Man, Obama just can't win for losing.

 

He has 47 million on hand today, 38 million of which is dedicated to the primary and can't be used past the convention. McCain has 21.8 million, ALL BUT 21K of which is dedicated to the primary and can't be used past the convention. There's also the fact that the RNC has a lot more on hand than the DNC. Obama isn't just an idealist if he takes public financing-- he's a fool.

 

Don't we hear all the time what a starry-eyed, naive idealist Obama is? So he toughens up and takes advantage of a situation, and now he's too jaded to trust?

 

Crackin' me up, kids.

[75center]

Obama is in a similar situation to Ernie Fletcher. When you run on change you can't be seen to be doing what all the other politicians do. It's a very fine line to walk. Breaking a pledge is unfortunately what we've come to expect from our politicians.

[cch5432]

Overall, probably the best move. I like the Democrats having the money advantage for a change.

 

There's also the fact that the RNC has a lot more on hand than the DNC.

 

Out of curiosity, where does all of the Republican money come from?

[02Ram54]

Out of curiosity, where does all of the Republican money come from?

Much bigger money than Obama's.

[cch5432]

Much bigger money than Obama's.

 

What does that mean? Like, big businesses and such?

[02Ram54]

What does that mean? Like, big businesses and such?

All of the above. A greater percentage of both the McCain and the RNC's money comes from larger donations, and both take more money than Obama from lobbyists and special interest... because Obama doesn't take any.

[cch5432]

All of the above. A greater percentage of both the McCain and the RNC's money comes from larger donations, and both take more money than Obama from lobbyists and special interest... because Obama doesn't take any.

 

I am still confused how the DNC has so much less money. I am not disputing your claim, just wondering how the DNC has so little money. Can you provide a link or something that the RNC has money from larger donations (which isn't really wrong, is it?) or that Obama does not take any from lobbyists and special interests (because he hires a bunch of "former lobbyists)?

 

As for the idea that big businesses fund the right, The Capital Research Center study of the giving patterns of the Fortune 100 in 2004 found $58.9 million in contributions to left-wing causes and only $4.0 million in contributions to foundations or groups that could be considered conservative. See here

[EKUAlum05]

lobbyists and special interest... because Obama doesn't take any.

 

Proof....?

[75center]

All of the above. A greater percentage of both the McCain and the RNC's money comes from larger donations, and both take more money than Obama from lobbyists and special interest... because Obama doesn't take any.

 

Not sure you're right on that one. I believe unions are donating and they sure are special interest groups, and big business.

[the mathemagician]

Man, Obama just can't win for losing.

 

He has 47 million on hand today, 38 million of which is dedicated to the primary and can't be used past the convention. McCain has 21.8 million, ALL BUT 21K of which is dedicated to the primary and can't be used past the convention. There's also the fact that the RNC has a lot more on hand than the DNC. Obama isn't just an idealist if he takes public financing-- he's a fool.

 

Don't we hear all the time what a starry-eyed, naive idealist Obama is? So he toughens up and takes advantage of a situation, and now he's too jaded to trust?

 

Crackin' me up, kids.

 

 

 

If any of you were running for national office, had the money-raising capability of Obama, and had any political savvy at all, you would take back that "pledge" and keep your money advantage. You would do what you thought gave you the best chance of winning. I don't blame Obama or McCain for playing the political game in order to win.

[Run To State]

Not making a statement about Obama per se. Just pointing out that politicians changing their positions is not that unusual.

Again, he was supposed to be different. That's what I've heard on here as well from the media. So, what happened?

[the mathemagician]

You've got to admit the funding advantage Obama will have is kind of ironic for McCain, isn't it?

 

 

Isn't it, though? Do we have a smilie for irony? How about these three together :confused::sssh: ???