Obama's a typical politician bowing to the money-god. That he's an arrant hypocrite on this issue is hardly deniable. Probably a smart move in the long run, but it's an entirely valid criticism to say that he majorly flip-flopped

No surprise you would say that. McCain is gonna throw out a hip with all the flip flops he's doing, and he's the biggest crook of all breaking his own campaign finance law. He's being protected by conservative installed judges, but make no mistake, he's a lawbreaker and a crook. Perfect choice for today's republican party...

I agree with Steve - Obama should be criticized for this flip-flop. 

McCain can really capitalize on this flip-flop by Obama, because McCain hasn't flip-flopped on any issues thus far (except for most of them).

Save it, Steeve. Obama is not taking money from lobbyists or special interest groups. He's collecting his money, alot of it, from small donors. I dig that.

I dig public financing much more, it's my wish that we could use public money for all elections.

And you know this how? No special interest groups? nice to know that the Sauros 527 empire isn't a special interest group and that no doubt that he'll help pay off Hillary's capaign debts will appear to be a high road take on a "broken system" that was working just fine until it didn't work as well for Obama interests....

Looks like you have an issue with Obama being in it to win it. Looks like you do not like the idea of a Dem having a huge financial advantage over the Repub... kinda goes against those 'unwritten rules' does it not? Too bad... go lick your wounds... and the wounds you will receive when Gramps goes down in flames come November 4. Then again... he may go down earlier... during the debates.

The Republican victim mentality makes me want to puke. Stop begging. Obama's a baller, the master of your game. If you had a competitive candidate you wouldn't have to be whining about the poverty of your campaign.

---------------------------------------------- 

Obama's a typical politician bowing to the money-god. That he's an arrant hypocrite on this issue is hardly deniable. Probably a smart move in the long run, but it's an entirely valid criticism to say that he majorly flip-flopped

 

• - thomp.steve9098

Well, there's going to be plenty more of that 'victim mentality' tripe come November if Obama wins. Can you imagine the outrage on the Far Right... the talkers, the nutty TV heads, the rabid racists... not only over the fact that their side can only nominate a sucky candidate but that he will get his ass whooped in the election... it will drive them absolutely insane. Their screams will be deafening... but they will fall on deaf ears, particularly mine. Let them wail into oblivion.

"not only over the fact that their side can only nominate a sucky candidate but that he will get his ass whooped in the election... it will drive them absolutely insane. "

   I think O'bama is the one having trouble getting elected. He NEEDS the funds raised through his "connections", that's why he lied to the American public. He could hardly win his own party's nomination against one of the weakest candidates to run- ever. Even the extreme left couldn't decide who to vote for, you don't really think a lying, radical loving moron will win this election, do you? He's already pandering to the money-trail and he isn't even elected yet.

    Maybe he should try talking honestly to the American public, instead of lying about every issue that comes his way. The guys got more baggage than hilary and it showed when he couldn't win any mainstream leftist voter support. What voters did he win? Oh, yeah all the fringe groups LOVED O'bama. I don't think that will fly come November. Which means we will have to listen to another 4 years of liberal whining about everything they caused but can't repair, so they'll blame the republicans for the problem.

    I wonder if O'bama will have a "100 days" promise like the last election cycle did. What ever happened to that promise of de-funding the Iraq war? Is that the ONLY way a liberal can win an election? By empty promises and lies??

Why is MMFA pushing this, especially in light of Obama's reversal to accept public campaign money if McCain did?  Obama is smart to do this now, get it out the way, take the hit for his decision change, and he will have far more money to spend through his donations, which is the reason he did it.   Why MMFA keeps at the McCain may be headed for prison stripes angle is beyond me?

It is a good decision on Obama's part. I think he needs to keep calling BS on the system that allows 527's to keep bypassing the process. Pointing out that McCain violated his own law makes sense too, it is important to show that McCain only follows the law when it is convenient. That's a bigger message to make than "breaking a promise" ever will.

And I make the point I did yesterday, the people don't give a rip for the most part.  All these cable chatfests yesterday spending time dissecting the Obama change of heart, it's strictly beltway blather, people know that politics is infused with money and the two are inextricably linked in an unsavory manner.  Whether the money comes from point A or point B, it's soiled when gone through the process.  These politicians standing there like they want it cleaned up or that they are above it somehow is insulting, they are all addicted to it, they have to be in this day and age, so it is what it is.......I don't even blame them much for it.

I agree, people probably don't give a rip. But this isn't about what priorities the american people place, it's about this sorry media continuing to give mccain a free ride while they drill Obama on every single little thing he does. In that regard, as long as the media is gonna play favorites, it's our job to point out the hipocracy of said media.

Is the presumption of innocence an outdated concept to you? Us conservatives still believe in civil liberties and give the Maverick the benefit that he's innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I've seen your innocent until proven guilty speech for democrats - as in it doesn't exist. Your only for those things as they apply to republicans. That's the real hipocracy.

Maverick???  Hahaha. McLame reminds me of the Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man only he has those stubby little arms that wiggle when he lies.

------------------------------------ 

Is the presumption of innocence an outdated concept to you? Us conservatives still believe in civil liberties and give the Maverick the benefit that he's innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

• - thomp.steve9098

"he has those stubby little arms that wiggle when he lies"

   Wow, you sure told him! Is that how you finish your arguement when you can't win one? By calling the victor names? Have you ever thought of sticking to argueing 'issue points' like how O'bama lied to the American public about his campaign financing? Is that how he is going to get elected...by being accepted by left wing zealots who are just like O'bama--hypocritical?

"Us conservatives still believe in civil liberties and give the Maverick the benefit that he's innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

I know you are a satirist, Thomp, or let me put it this way, that post better be satire.  With the spying on Americans, criticism of the latest SCOTUS ruling which preserves civil liberties, conservatives (at least Republicans) have very, very little ground to stand on in the civil liberties arena. Geesh!

I haven't yet had the chance to read the liberal court's latest ruling, but the analysis given by the so-called "scholars" in the media has been largely critical, mostly to the effect that liberal court's rationale has no basis in either the constitution or case precedent.

Oh, look. More of that "we believe they are innocent until proven guilty" schtick you clearly don't believe in. Already tried the court and found them guilty of liberalism, even though bush appointed judges were part of the decision. Glad to see you also value the constitutional belief of the judicial branch being a seperate but equal part of government.

My "liberal" label is based on the court's previous decisions, not the one in question, which I have not read. I do believe in an independent judiciary that his a co-equal branch of power with the executive and legislative.  My concerns have been that the liberal court tends to believe that it is not equal to the other branches, but above them. I intend to read the latest opinion this weekend . ..

Kinda like how the white house believes it's above oversight, both judicial and congressional? You make a weak case considering that Bush has been tilting the court right for the last eight years.

I'm not a GW fan, but I'd say he's been trying to balance out the court a little bit, rather than tilting it to the right. Bush's usurpation of power over the last 8 years is troubling. What I don't like in both the executive and judicial branches, is that neither seems to have any regard for the will of the elected representative in congress. And then congress sits around like a bunch of chickensh!ts, unwilling and afraid to assert their constitutional prerogatives

Liberal court? Did you get into Ted Haggart's stash or are you on crack? Most of the Supreme Court is composed of right wingers. The only thing right of the Supreme Court is the Taliban.

Knock it off, Steve. The Court is split right down the middle - 4 libs, 4 cons, and 1 swing vote. Why do you have an issue with that? Oh, I get it - you don't believe in a balanced court... you want it jam-packed with 9 cons who represent about 30% or so of the country and its values... how sweet... the hell with the other 70% or so, right?

I don't want any "libs" or "cons".  Justices are there to objectively interpret the law and decide whether the legislative and executive branches act within the bounds of the constitution.  Like Justice Roberts does so well, judges should leave political ideology behind when they put on the robes

If you think that the Justices and the manner in which they interpret the law isn't influenced by their political leanings then you are hopeless.

After Scalia was confirmed by a unanimous vote, he has done an excellent job in objectively interpreting the constitution over all these many years. He gives me hope

None of them are 'objective'. If you really believe that then you are a fool.

"Every man is a fool, in some man's opinion." . . .  I forget who said it

Obviously you didnt go to law school. Law is not neutral it is value-laden.

Actually I do have a law degree, from a school that I think was ranked number 5 in the nation while I was there (whatever that means).  Thankfully, I don't practice law though and readily admit that I am no legal scholar, and apparently, neither are you. 

Of course laws are value-driven, and are supposed to reflect the values of the citizenry.  Those values are to be represented by our elected officials in congress, not appointed judges. Judges are to be neutral arbiters of disputes, and are to objectively interpret the laws.  It's a long-standing principle that judges are not to let their values override the will of congress, or our founding fathers.

That is absolutely hilarious, Thomp.  More satire?  Do me a favor, google and find me which justices have overturned Congressional laws the most.  You said that you were afraid of the judiciary and executive branches grabbing too much power.  You might be shocked to know Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas voted to overcome the voice of Congress more than any other judges on the SCOTUS.  Which is it, Thomp?  Civil liberties or no?  Innocent until proven guilty for only Americans or everyone?  Scalia being a good judge or the judicial branch having too much power?

"We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below."

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html

 

" Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas voted to overcome the voice of Congress more than any other judges on the SCOTUS.  Which is it, Thomp?  Civil liberties or no? "

   Friedboy, what issues did they vote against Congress on? If Congress was trying to pass illegal/immoral issues and those men voted to keep America free of the immorality that Congress brings us, then why would you say that's a bad thing?

   Until you can show actual issues that prove YOUR point, you have made NO point what-so-ever. Other than to show you aren't interested in facts/truth, only that you are good at mis-information to give a false impression of tweeked judges. So, bring your proof of those 3 judges overcoming Congress more than any other judge. WHAT issues did they support that the other judges did not? Let's see, I bet I can name one, abortion. In which case---good for them. Protecting human lives should be supported by judges when not by Congress.

Phil,

Thomp was saying that the judiciary was out of control and went against the legislature, but that he liked Scalia and his ilk.  I was just showing that those three went against Congress more than anyone else.

Here is an example of the type of cases that Scalia goes against the Constituation in:

But they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own plain words into a states' rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the disabled out of federal court.

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html

Here's another way his constitutional interpretation is iffy:

 In his view, the 14th Amendment prohibits Michigan from using affirmative action in college admissions, but lets Texas make gay sex a crime. (The Supreme Court has held just the opposite.) He is dismissive when inmates invoke the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment to challenge prison conditions. But he is supportive when wealthy people try to expand the "takings clause" to block the government from regulating their property.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html

Terri Schiavo is another way.  Scalia has come down in favor of mandated school prayer as well.

Directly against Congress, Scalia voted against the Guns Free Schools Act (United States v. Lopez)

In 1997, Scalia and Thomas joined another 5-4 decision, this one striking down the part of the Brady Act that called on state officials to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers until a national system was in place. (Printz v. United States)

In a narrow 5-4 decision in Board of Trustees at Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett (2001) ruled unconstitutional the part of the ADA that authorized disabled state employees to recover damages for illegal discrimination by state agencies.

 A 5-4 majority struck down the portion of the Violence Against Women Act that provides a federal remedy for victims of sexual assault and violence. (United States v. Morrison, 2000)

Two more votes in accordance with the Scalia-Thomas decision would have declared unconstitutional the provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) authorizing state employees to recover damages for violations of their rights under FMLA, reversing the decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)

In Hibbs v. Winn (2004),250 the Court ruled 5-4 that the federal Tax Injunction Act does not prohibit federal courts from deciding challenges to the constitutionality of state tax laws and ordering injunctions or other relief, explaining that the law only forbids challenges where state taxpayers try to get federal court orders allowing them to avoid paying taxes. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined a dissent by Justice Kennedy arguing that the statute forbids all federal court challenges to state tax laws, even if those laws violate the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of race or promoting religion.

 

Forgot the site:http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11158

 

Thomp,

Please show a non-Republican critical voice on this issue.  You mention that "innocent until proven guilty" is important to you.  Does that just apply to Americans?

Since you think the "liberal" court wrote something precedent free, please cite the precedent that Scalia cited in his dissent.  Good luck finding any!

That was an interesting article, Fried.  I was unaware that congress has been disregarding the constitution with such flippancy. I'm all the more grateful now for having "constitutionalists" like Scalia and Thomas to rein in the renegade congress. I suspect most of the cases in which Scalia and Thomas were compelled to rein in congress involved federalism issues and the commerce clause.

I printed out the Court's recent opinion, but have not had time to read it yet.  However, I find it highly unlikely that Scalia's dissent will be lacking in constitutional principle or case precedent.

C'mon, Thomp.  You know Congress isn't acting with more impugnity than they have in the past.  I will wait for you to cite precedent in Scalia's recent dissent.  You won't find any though.

Presumption of innocence?  Yeah, right.  Just like down in Guantonomo Bay and all the human rights violations going on there.  Yep, the Righties are just a beakon on civil rights issues.  <puke>

"Presumption of innocence?  Yeah, right.  Just like down in Guantonomo Bay"

   When they are Americans they will get American rights. When they act like humans they should get human rights. They haven't been able to prove either one, yet.

So, Phil, are you saying that all of those picked up and brought to Guantanamo are guilty until proven innocent?  Please correct me if I misunderstand.  Also, how do you think that these people should be handled.  At least 82 have been released so far.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145.html

Good to know you support the ACLU

Why MMFA keeps at the McCain may be headed for prison stripes angle is beyond me?

I'm just thinking - if McCain was a Democrat, that's just the angle you'd be seeing played time and again on every Fox "News" show. So what's wrong with MMFA playing their same game?

My guess would be that if you asked most Americans what they thought of issues like the economy, gas prices, Iraq, health care, and McCain broke some campaign finance law?; they would answer, important, important, important, important, and duh who gives a damn.

McCain and Obama are taking the side that is more convenient for each.

As long as "convenient" is codeword for "financially beneficial".;)

 

And another consequence to implying that McCain is "keeping his word", is to set up the grounds for perhaps him changing his mind: in which case, they can say he merely "he didn't keep his word", and then point to Sen. Obama, and say "just like he didn't!"

But on the other hand, if we said instead of "keeping his word", that John McCain was simply "OBEYING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW" (which is what the man's obligation truly is in this matter), if that was what was said, then if John McCain changed his mind, we wouldn't say "just like he [Sen. Obama] did!"

We'd say John McCain BROKE THE LAW.

 

Make it sound like it's not the LAW, but merely "your word"... then when you break it, you can say you "broke your word: just like he did!"... instead of BREAKING THE LAW.

...which Sen. Obama has not done, because the LAW was not his obligation in this matter, as it is to John McCain.

 

"John McCain believes in keeping his word to the American people"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H AHA HA H AH AH AHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Doh!  I think I just pulled something! 

I expected Obama's flip-flop would be excused here, so no surprise there.

I also know that if McCain had done the exact same thing the outrage here would be deafening. No surprise there either.

And I just know folks here would be claiming McCain was trying to buy the Oval Office. But would never consider that when it comes to Obama.

Now having said all that, seriously who gives a crap how either finance their campaigns? I don't care who outspends who.

All I want to hear is where each candidate stands on the issues. And I'm hoping the amount of $$ won't matter, the message will.

I expected such a knee jerk analysis from a two-time Bush voter, no surprise here.

Heru the troll arrives to drop his one-liner turds all over the threads. Your posts rarely address the topic or offer anything worth reading...

But at least you're consistent.

Excuse, did I miss something?  Did Senator Obama "give his word" at some point to go with public financing?  Maybe he did but, if so, I must have missed it.

My take?  John McCain knows he can't raise enough money, and doesn't have the time or tempermenmt for the additional appearances that would be required in what would be an losing battl;e anyway.  (That's the battle for $$$ now, not necessarilty votes.)  (BTW, is "campaigning" really that different from "fund-raising"?  Don't both involve going somewhere and giving a speech, getting your message out there?)  So he's just taking the easy way out.  He's "mailing it in" for the campaign, and he'll probably get the trouncing that that decision, along with his innability to compete with Senator Obama, warrants.

The way I see it, Obama's campaign contributions don't come in the form of PAC's or lobbyists, but comes from the average American giving $20, $30, or however much they can afford, which, to me at least, is a true publicly financed campaign.  

And it's not like this is some big surprise, he'd been hinting about it for months, and not only that, but he wrote a rather lengthy disclaimer on that original questionnaire that McCain failed to live up to (of course, only until after Obama already came out saying he wouldn't take public funding.)

Of course Barack opted out, since he would be at a severe monetary disadvantage to McCain. This is because although BH can raise more money from more donors, the RNC has much more money to spend than the DNC.  Obama needs to respond to the anticipated smear ads with his own responses which would be more difficult with less money.

But that is SO 'unfair' to the Right... wwaahh... Obama's not playing by the 'rules'!

I agree with NiceguyEddie, I don't think it's accurate to say that Obama promised to comply with public financing.  He marked yes on a questionnaire, but added to it that he would pursue it with his opponent.  In discussions afterward, he provided more detail.  He said he would discuss it with his opponent, but wanted to have the conditions include spending by the Parties and independent groups on candidates' behalf.

I believe there is a reasonable case to be made that this decision doesn't reflect a reversal at all.

In addition, with his campaign funded almost entirely by private citizens, he has achieved de facto public financing if not official public financing.  After all, the idea behind campaign finance reform is to remove the influence of big money from buying candidates.  With the contributions Obama is receiving, who has gained any undue influence with him?  The general public?  Aren't they who a President should be answering to?