Obama won’t accept public financing

[Yellowdogtexan]

This was expected given the amount of money being generated by the Obama internet fund raising system on the internet. http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-wont-accept-public-financing-2008-06-19.htmlDemocratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) announced Thursday morning that he will not accept public financing for the general election, a move that will give him a major advantage over Republican standard-bearer Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

Obama, who called the current system broken, made the announcement via a Web video that was sent out to his supporters and the media (The video can be seen here on The Hill's Briefing Room).

The Illinois senator, who has already shattered every fundraising record during the primary, said because Republicans accept money from lobbyists, and given the influence of outside 527 groups, he has decided not to accept the more than $84 million he would receive from public financing.

“The public financing of presidential elections, as it exists today, is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system,” Obama said, adding that his was an “easy decision” for him. ....

Gibbs and Bauer pushed the rationale that Obama had to take the step because he expects 527 groups to spend “massive” amounts of money and because the Republican National Committee has so far significantly outraised the Democratic National Committee.“We face opponents who have become quite adept at gaming and manipulating this broken system to their advantage,” Gibbs said.mc :cane is relying onf $50,000 contributions from special interests as well as violating the McCain-Feingold law and so the Obama had to take this step.

In addition, there was an attempt to reach agreement with the mc :cane camp that failed. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/mccain_campaign_obamas_opting.phpThe Obama campaign is blaming the McCain campaign for its decision, saying that Obama advisers met privately with McCain advisers, who were not interested in reaching an agreement. Full statement from Obama spokesperson Bill Burton after the jump.
In the past couple of weeks, our campaign counsels met and it was immediately clear that McCain's campaign had no interest in the possibility of an agreement. When asked about the RNC's months of raising and spending for the general election, McCain's campaign could only offer its expectation that the Obama campaign would probably, sooner or later, catch up. And shortly thereafter, Senator McCain signaled to the 527s that they were free to run wild, without objection.

[Ringo]

This CLEARLY shows what type of BOY Barry is, as he is a lying, backstabbing asshole, and his WORD is worthless!! He shook on an agreement to use the same method as McCain, but we all know Socialist Black Muslims and their TRUTH problem, almost as bad as bottom feeding Lawyers and Judges!!!!:godzilla:godzilla

[sparks]

This CLEARLY shows what type of BOY Barry is, as he is a lying, backstabbing asshole, and his WORD is worthless!! He shook on an agreement to use the same method as McCain, but we all know Socialist Black Muslims and their TRUTH problem, almost as bad as bottom feeding Lawyers and Judges!!!!:godzilla:godzilla

Are you ever gonna get it through your thick skull that Obama is NOT a Muslim? :hulk

[Wabash]

Well, if Geo. Soros and Move On.org aren't backing him thru the back door, I'd be real surprised!

[Yellowdogtexan]

Well, if Geo. Soros and Move On.org aren't backing him thru the back door, I'd be real surprised!Then be surprised. All of Senator Obama's campaign contribution are from individual donors and are disclosed to the FEC. It is mc :cane who is accepting thet large $50,000 donation from lobbyists and special interests.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This CLEARLY shows what type of BOY Barry is, as he is a lying, backstabbing asshole, and his WORD is worthless!! Do you tire of being wrong?? Senator Obama never promised to use public financing. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.htmlIn fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.
mc :cane has made it clear that he would not agree to the necessary limitations and in fact mc :cane has signaled that it was okay for 527s to attack Senator Obama http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view/2008_06_12_John_McCain_on_impending_war_of_words/srvc=home&position=0GOP presidential contender John McCain says he can’t control every attack ad aimed at Democrat Barack Obama and fully expects he’ll face a similar barrage, sounding the bell for a raucous general election brawl.

“I can’t be a referee of every spot run on television,” McCain told the Herald in an exclusive interview. “I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, but we all know there are groups who want to attack me.”

The Arizona senator’s hands-off posture on attack ads by now-infamous tax-free and unaccountable political groups called 527s marks a softening of his view on the negative campaign tactic - and opens the door to a no-holds-barred five-month scramble.Without an agreement on party and 527 expenditures it was clear that there could be no viable agreement.

Finally, remember that it was mc :cane who has broken his agreement and promise to comply with campaign finance laws by exceeding the primay spending limits that he agreed to. The DNC is about to sue mc :cane next week on mc :cane's breach of his word. For any agreement to be meaningful, the Obama campaign would have to trust mc :cane and it is clear that mc :cane's word is worthless

[John Gault]

This was expected given the amount of money being generated by the Obama internet fund raising system on the internet. http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-wont-accept-public-financing-2008-06-19.htmlmc :cane is relying onf $50,000 contributions from special interests as well as violating the McCain-Feingold law and so the Obama had to take this step.

In addition, there was an attempt to reach agreement with the mc :cane camp that failed. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/mccain_campaign_obamas_opting.php


Nice spin. I guess based on the democrat definition of liar, he is one.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is very interesting. The main author of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act has come out and agreed that Senator Obama was correct to rely on private financing for the general election http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/19/author-of-mccain-feingold_n_108132.htmlOne of the principal authors of the most significant campaign finance legislation since Watergate said he was neither "outraged" nor "surprised" with Barack Obama's decision to forgo public funding in the general election.

Norm Ornstein, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and substantial contributor to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- also known as the "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance legislation -- said on Thursday that Obama's move was "pragmatically the right decision to make," and that, if the Senator had not chosen that path, "I would have sued him for political malpractice."

"What I told a bunch of people a few weeks ago," said Ornstein, "is that while it would be nice if he decided he felt honor bound to stay within the system and take the money, if he did so I might join a group of people who sued him for political malpractice. When you have the ability to raise the kind of money that he could raise and do it without selling your soul to spend all the time between now and the election on fundraisers, your goal is to win an election and not turn your back on the people voting. There will be outraged editorials and McCain will be justifiably pissed. But it was pragmatically the right decision for him to make."

Orstein told The Huffington Post that he had advised the Obama campaign about the issue of public finance a "long time ago" but not as the decision approached. "I don't think it was a slam dunk decision six months ago, in part because people didn't have any idea what kind of reach he could have, how many people he could bring into his camp."

In defending Obama, Orstein became the sole author of McCain-Feingold to offer sympathy for a position that, at least in the spirit, goes against the purpose of the campaign finance legislation.
The AEI is a very conservative think tank and if Orstein agrees with Obama's decision then it is clearly the right decision

[Yellowdogtexan]

Countdown had a good piece on this last night. It is clear that Senator Obama is not breaking any promise and had never committed to use public financing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25273881#25273881

[issac the dragon]

No, Obama did not promise. But he clearly implied. And he is spinning for all he is worth. He is no different than any other politician. He will do what benefits him the most.

[Trueblue]

Good for him, because he is going to benefit ME, and the rest of the nation. I'm sick of these Publicans, and I want them out of the WH. :mad

[issac the dragon]

The fact remains that when the opportunity came to put principle above personal gain, he chose personal gain. If you prefer Democrats to Republicans that is fine. I was particularly impressed with the difference between them yesterday as they joined hands to further shred the Constitution with the FISA bill. I won't vote for another Dem or Rep.

[Trueblue]

Personal gain? :lmao

[patriotsblade]

Yeah, Obama is so into personal gain. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduated that school with honors, and then became a civil rights/constitutional lawyer. He could have had any law job he wanted with any law firm in the country, making millions within a few years. Instead he chose to practice in the least profitable area of law, working for very poor people. Yep, he's all about personal gain.

[issac the dragon]

I was talking about campaign funds, and Obama is not so clean after that deal to buy a $400,000 house for $150,000. It must be hard to think clearly when you are convinced that the person you support his holy.

[AYFR]

Ok first no Obama did not make any promise BUT he did have what we Texans call a gentlemans agreement and that he violated.

On a different not personally I think public funding for campaigns is wrong. If you want real campaign finance reform the let the candidate only use the funds he can raise. Put no limits on the amount one can donate AND all donations have to be made known.

That means that if the NRA or Move On wants to donate a gazillion dollars then they can BUT the public needs to be able to know they made that contribution.

[issac the dragon]

I do support public financing and it was one of a few things I liked about Obama. Every time there is something I like about him, he flip flops. I think all political campaigns should be financed publicly, no exceptions and the campaign season should be six months long. Violators would have their names withdrawn until the next election.

[Trueblue]

I want him to win. And that "you think he's holy" stuff is :bs.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Ok first no Obama did not make any promise BUT he did have what we Texans call a gentlemans agreement and that he violated.
WRONG. Read this thread. Obama had no agreement whatsoever and the repugs are making fools of themselves by claiming that there was an agreement. mc :cane is being sued by the DNC on Tuesday for violation of his agreement to abide by the campaign finance limitations and using his FEC certification to get onto the ballot in a number of states and getting an illegal loan indirectly secured by his ability to get matching funds. mc :cane is now raising money almost exclusively from special interests in $50,000 chunks and relying on the RNC. mc :cane told the GOP 527s that they had mc :cane's permission to run whatever ads they want.

There was no agreement and you can not reach an agreement with a person who has no honor and whose word is worthless. The Obama campaign was correct to take the action that they did and it silly and a joke for any republican to make anything about this.

Again, the DNC lawsuit will be filed on Tuesday and mc :cane's promise to abide by federal funding restrictions will be get a great deal of press after the Courts get involved.

[AYFR]

I can tell you are not a true Texan then.
In Texas when a man says something it is a gentlemen's agreement, that agreement is even further enhanced by a handshake.
Is is a contract? No, nor is it a "promise" Just one man telling another what he will do.


This was the gentlemen's agreement
Mr. Obama's answer was clear. "Yes," he wrote. "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
now if the changed his mind fine all it does is damage his honor (which is lacking anyway)

Not that I expect you to know anything about being a gentleman.

[Trueblue]

Pubs are mainly jealous. Small contributors are funding Obama's campaign, and he's raising amounts of money that are unprecedented. :woot

[Yellowdogtexan]

I can tell you are not a true Texan then.
In Texas when a man says something it is a gentlemen's agreement, that agreement is even further enhanced by a handshake.What complete bullshit. The opinion of lay person and non-professional who misquoted material is meaningless to me.

The facts are that there was no agreement whatsoever. There was never any handshake or othere committment. This is a bullshit claim that is like the belief that Feith is not a liar or fool or your belief in the tax cut fairy. If you have any proof for such a link, provide it.

mc :cane is lying about there being a committment of any type and is relying on an answer to argue that there was a committment. mc :cane is ignoring that he has broken his word and agreement made in writing to the FEC about spending limits. mc :cane is ignoring the fact that he has told 527s that it is okay to attack Senator Obama and his family. mc :cane is ignoring the fact that he is violating the spirit of the federal election laws by raising money in $50,000 chunks from lobbyists and special interests. If mc :cane was serious he would shut down the 527s and get the RNC to abide by the law.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I This was the gentlemen's agreement

now if the changed his mind fine all it does is damage his honor (which is lacking anyway)Your ignorance of the law is amusing. It must be sad being a layperson and non-professional. Let me explain to you again why this was not an agreement.

First, mc :cane has violated the federal election laws already. On Tuesday, June 24, the required time period will be up and the DNC will get to sue mc :cane and the FEC over mc :cane's violations of the federal election laws. There is a concept in the law that one has to come before the court with clean hands and mc :cane's hands are very dirty here. mc :cane is committing felonies and will be held to account.

Second, the committment was an answer to a questionnaire that mc :cane refused to answer. At the time that the Obama campaign made its annoucement, the mc :cane campaigh had not committed to public finance.

Third, there were negotiations. The lawyers met and the Obama campaign was told that the mc :cane camp was going to use the RNC and 527s in this race without restriction. mc :cane had publically announced that 527s were free to attack Obama and his family and mc :cane had already held a number of RNC/mc :cane fundraisers were lobbyist, special interest and pac money came in $50,000checks. These facts as confirmed by mc :cane's own lawyer meant that there was no basis for any agreement.

I note that Moveon.Org at Obama's insistence has terminated its 527 and is not limited in the size of contributions that it can accept going forward. mc :cane is trying to get the gop 527s up and active and in fact told the press that he did not care what they did. That is what killed any deal or agreement.

The fact that a non-professional lay person would try to explain a deal is sad but amusing. Layperson and non-professionals should not express opinions on issues that they do not understand.

[issac the dragon]

Not only has Obama gone back on his promise to change the way campaigns were financed, he has made it impossible to change it. He has blown the idea out of the water. Maybe this worked for Obama, but it won't work for the next guy. Nothing is going to change. Nothing.

[patriotsblade]

95% of the donations the Obama campaign has recieved have been for amounts of $100 or less. If that isn't public financing I don't know what is. Barack Obama went to the people at Moveon.org and asked them to shut down their 527 operation and they did. In contrast, the shitbag behind the Willie Horton ads is about to start a 527 operation to benefit John McCain.

[issac the dragon]

Obama's success is why no one is going to agree to change the system. And it will not work again. How many candidates have been able to do what Obama did? But his success will keep the rules from being changed. And perpetuate a system that stinks.

You have forgotten that the most effective campaign ad in history was only run once. MoveOn's ad was seen by many and will not be forgotten. So why not withdraw it? I thought it was an excellent ad BTW.

If there is a swiftboat ad, everyone who has computer access should go to McCain's site and tell him what they think of it.

[Trueblue]

So why not change it to the Obama method? Small donations only.

[AYFR]

It is clear that YDT has no idea what a gentlemen's agreement is.
His knowledge is of law and it ends there.

[issac the dragon]

So why not change it to the Obama method? Small donations only.

Because it only works if there is a charismatic candidate like Obama. If it worked for everyone, it would be working for McReagan. It won't be passed into law because the laws are written by politicians who know millions of people aren't going to send them money.

Just like Obama can't make the Dems stop taking PAC money right now.

[Lone Laugher]

It is clear that YDT has no idea what a gentlemen's agreement is.
His knowledge is of law and it ends there.

You are making that up. There was no gentlemen's agreement...or any agreement of any kind. Obama said he'd work toward an agreement...but McCain refused. As a wise new poster has noted....you all will set the bar so high that Obama will never satisfy you.

[Yellowdogtexan]

It is clear that YDT has no idea what a gentlemen's agreement is.
His knowledge is of law and it ends there.Being a lawyer and a professional, my opinion is far more relevant and accurate than the opinion of a lay person and non-professional.

I challenged you to show that there was a handshake and you ducked this challenge. The only thing that you can point to is the answer on a questionnaire and I have shown that there was no breach of any type of agreement. Again, provide proof of this handshake or admit that this is yet another of your claims that have no support in reality.

As for any agreement, the lawyers met and the mc :cane lawyer and mc :cane himself made clear that no such agreement was possible. mc :cane is going to rely on large contributions ($50,000) form pacs, lobbyists and special interests and mc :cane is going to rely on 527s to attack Senator Obama and his family.

In addition, mc :cane will be sued on Tuesday, June 24, 2008, over his violations of federal election laws and mc :cane's breach of his word and written agreement with the FEC. mc :cane's word is worthless and so there was no way to enforce any agreement with mc :cane. There can be no gentlemen's agreement when the party on the otherside has no honor and does not believe that he has to keep promises. Senator Obama would be stupid to rely on mc :cane's word or on mc :cane's honor given mc :cane's history here.

[Yellowdogtexan]

You are making that up. There was no gentlemen's agreement...or any agreement of any kind. Obama said he'd work toward an agreement...but McCain refused. As a wise new poster has noted....you all will set the bar so high that Obama will never satisfy you.The :rev was asked to provide evidence of this handshake and you can take it to the bank that the :rev will duck this request.

[AYFR]

YDT you need to reread; I did not ever say that there was a handshake.

What I said was
In Texas when a man says something it is a gentlemen's agreement, that agreement is even further enhanced by a handshake.

Obama SAID he would aggresively pursue and agreement with McCain, THAT is the gentlemens agreement, Obama broke that agreement by NOT doing that.

I never said that he made and agreement to accept public finance just that he did make an agreement (gentlemen's) to PURSUE one.

Y'all are debating something I never said. Again I NEVER said that there was a handshake, nor did I say Obama agreed to accept public funds. What I said was that he made a gentlemen's agreement to PURSUE and agreement.


FURTHERMORE, if you get past you hatred and bias you would have noticed that I gave Obama credit for not accepting public funds.

[Yellowdogtexan]

There was no gentlemen's agreement whatsoever and the claim to the contrary is silly.

I do note that the lawyers met and the Obama counsel was told that the the mc :cane campaign was going to continue to use the RNC to launder large campaign contributions from special interests, lobbyists and pacs. The Obama campaign does not accept suich contributions and now the DNC no longer accepts such contributions. In addition, mc :cane himself announced that 527s were free to attack Obama and his family without any restrictions while the Obama campaign has been effective in shutting down 527s (for example Moveon.org has shut down its 527).

The meeting between the attorneys made it clear that there was no basis for any agreement that made sense. mc :cane was not going to restrict 527s or put limitations on the RNC.

Finally, one can not reach an agreement with someone who has no honor. mc :cane signed a binding agreement with the FEC and then broke such agreement. On Tuesday, June 24,2008 the DNC will be eligible to file a lawsuit against mc :cane for his breach of his word and the law. In order to reach an agreement with mc :cane one would have to assume that the mc :cane's word and agreement was worth anything. Since mc :cane has proven himself to be a liar and man lacking in honor, there was simply no basis for any agreement. If mc :cane was serious about making agreements with the Obama campaign, he should have honored his agreement with the FEC first.

I am predicting that the :rev will again ignore the fact that mc :cane has broken his agreement with the FEC. This is important because for there to have been any agreement one would have to assume that mc :cane was a gentlemen and a man of his word which is clearly not the case.

[AYFR]

This thread is not about McCain it is about Obama.

McCain is wrong to breach the FEC binding agreement and unlike Obama's gentlemen's agreement to pursue McCain's agreement is legally binding and yes he should pay for it.

The difference is that I can be honest to my self about my candidate and you cannot.

[Trueblue]

One did something illegal and the other changed his mind.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This thread is not about McCain it is about Obama.In the real world, we have the courts to enforce agreements between parties. However, this is expensive and I have several clients who simply refuse to do business with people who are not trustworthy because litigation is so expensive and slow. It is very common to have a PI check out the other side before a transaction is negotiated to see what the reputation of the other party is and it is amazing what a PI can find very quickly.

Here the courts are not really available to enforce any agreement between the parties. Senator Obama would have to rely on the word and the honor of mc :cane as to any such agreement and it is clear the mc :cane lacks any honor. Senator Obama was correct to assume that further negotiations would be fruitless given (i) mc :cane's past breaches of his word and agreements with the FEC, (ii) mc :cane's current policy of using the RNC to launder larger contributions from special interests, pacs and lobbyists, (iii) mc :cane's own statement that he would not try to control 527s and that it was okay for 527s to attack Senator Obama and his family and (iv) the attempt to negotiate this matter between the lawyers where mc :cane's campaign blew off any attempt to discuss campaign finance issues

[AYFR]

I knew that you would not get it YDT

On another point that because you think that McCain has no honor that make it for Obama to break his pomises.

Last time I checked my honor did not rely on the honor of another. Just becasue someone else is less then honorable does not give me the leave to be so.

[issac the dragon]

You are an odd man Reverend. You actually recognize the difference between honesty and dishonesty. But you forgot, Obama is all about change. And he can and will change the rules any time he profits from it.

So that TB doesn't get her knickers in a twist again, one of the definations of "profit" is, vi, to be of advantage or benefit to, to reap an advantage, financial or otherwise.

[Trueblue]

Oh, I'm not the one with knotted knickers, Issac. Your's must be so twisted that you walk like John Wayne. I hope that at some point you get over it.

As for Rev, he has repeatedly misunderstood the difference between honest mistakes and lying when it comes to the Iraq war. :shrug

Obama isn't going to let the Pubs swiftboat him, he's going to take every advantage available to him. Thank God.

[Yellowdogtexan]

On another point that because you think that McCain has no honor that make it for Obama to break his pomises.

Last time I checked my honor did not rely on the honor of another. Just becasue someone else is less then honorable does not give me the leave to be so.Again, you are WRONG. We are talking about the entry into an agreement or contract where there would be no real courtroom or third party available to enforce such contract or agreement. Senator Obama discussed pursing an agreement with the GOP nominee but any such agreement would be non-enforceable by the courts and so Senator Obama would be relying on the honor or integrity of mc :cane as to compliance with such agreement. As noted mc :cane entered into a real contract with the FEC and broke that that agreement. If mc :cane was willing to break his agreement with the FEC that had legal consquences (or will tomorrow when the DNC files suit against mc :cane) then how could Senator Obama trust mc :cane to abide by any agreement that the two campaigns reached? mc :cane's honor is indeed relevant when one is deciding to enter into such an agreement.

I have clients who use PIs to check the other party to transactions prior to entering into serious negotiations with such party. If such party has a history of litigation or other issues, then my clients will often pass on the deal becasue life is too short to be in litigation with someone who you know can not be trusted. Here mc :cane's actions showed that mc :cane lacked honor and could not be trusted to abide by any agreement and so it would have been a really dumb move to agree to public financing only to have mc :cane breach any agreement immediately after such agreement.

[Yellowdogtexan]

It was nice to see CNN push back against a mc :cane spokesperson on the campaign finance silliness http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/mccain-surrogate-hits-oba_n_108637.htmlROBERTS: There's been an awful lot of criticism of Senator Obama for this decision from the McCain campaign. Isn't that just because it puts Senator McCain at a distinct financial disadvantage?

PFOTENHAUER: I don't think so. This is something that both gentlemen said they would pursue because it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do because pursuing public financing is a way of keeping corruption and special interest politics to a minimum. And the bottom line is that Obama broke his word to the American people. You know, it's easy -- doing the right thing is easy, it doesn't really test your character. It's doing the right thing when it's difficult that character is revealed. So juxtapose Obama, who has a preacher's gift for a righteous statement but side steps like a politician when it's going to cost him anything, with John McCain who wouldn't take the easy way out, even when his life was on the line as a prisoner of war. And he was offered early release and special treatment and he refused to take it because that wasn't the right thing to do.

ROBERTS: Let me try to keep this focused on campaign finance. We had Robert Gibbs, the communications director from the Obama campaign on this program on Friday. He says that the McCain campaign uses financing -- that the public system only when it suits his purpose and that he's got his own problems when it comes to public versus private financing. Let's listen to what Robert Gibbs said.

GIBBS (taped): John McCain used the public financing system over the last two years and gamed it every step of the way. When his poll numbers were good he was out of the public financing system. When his poll numbers were bad, he was using the public financing system as nothing more than a shell game.

ROBERTS: So what he's talking about there, Nancy, is back in the early stages of the primary campaign when John McCain wasn't doing so well, it looked like he was going to take public financing and then when his poll numbers came up he decided to opt out. Then there was this idea of this line of credit for $4 million that he took and still some lingering questions over whether or not he used that as collateral for public financing. The FEC still wants to know about this and the democrats are going to refile a lawsuit on that issue tomorrow morning. So what do you say about that?

PFOTENHAUER: Of course they are. That's the nature of politics. But you know, John, that there's a big difference between public financing at the primary level and the general election. People have acknowledged from both parties that the primary system is broken, if you will, from the standpoint of financing. And it was the people who were kind of the cream of the crop who are committing to public financing in the general election. And Obama, that he would aggressively pursue it and threw it out the window the second it was inconvenient. Bold talk, not bold actions. Frankly, bold actions that makes the man. You can watch the CNN video by going to this link. I love this characterization of the silly response from the mc :cane spokesperson Pfotenhauer's response was a mouthload of gibberish about how the "primary season is broken" and how McCain is a "bold man" who takes "bold action." Like, say, boldly breaking the law!

[AYFR]

:wall

[AYFR]

Thank you Issac, I am just a simple country boy

[AYFR]

Again, you are WRONG. We are talking about the entry into an agreement or contract where there would be no real courtroom or third party available to enforce such contract or agreement. Senator Obama discussed pursing an agreement with the GOP nominee but any such agreement would be non-enforceable by the courts and so Senator Obama would be relying on the honor or integrity of mc :cane as to compliance with such agreement. As noted mc :cane entered into a real contract with the FEC and broke that that agreement. If mc :cane was willing to break his agreement with the FEC that had legal consquences (or will tomorrow when the DNC files suit against mc :cane) then how could Senator Obama trust mc :cane to abide by any agreement that the two campaigns reached? mc :cane's honor is indeed relevant when one is deciding to enter into such an agreement.

I have clients who use PIs to check the other party to transactions prior to entering into serious negotiations with such party. If such party has a history of litigation or other issues, then my clients will often pass on the deal becasue life is too short to be in litigation with someone who you know can not be trusted. Here mc :cane's actions showed that mc :cane lacked honor and could not be trusted to abide by any agreement and so it would have been a really dumb move to agree to public financing only to have mc :cane breach any agreement immediately after such agreement.

To steal a great line I heard

Likt trying to empty the ocean with a spoon

[AYFR]

Again, you are WRONG. We are talking about the entry into an agreement or contract where there would be no real courtroom or third party available to enforce such contract or agreement. Senator Obama discussed pursing an agreement with the GOP nominee but any such agreement would be non-enforceable by the courts and so Senator Obama would be relying on the honor or integrity of mc :cane as to compliance with such agreement. As noted mc :cane entered into a real contract with the FEC and broke that that agreement. If mc :cane was willing to break his agreement with the FEC that had legal consquences (or will tomorrow when the DNC files suit against mc :cane) then how could Senator Obama trust mc :cane to abide by any agreement that the two campaigns reached? mc :cane's honor is indeed relevant when one is deciding to enter into such an agreement.

I have clients who use PIs to check the other party to transactions prior to entering into serious negotiations with such party. If such party has a history of litigation or other issues, then my clients will often pass on the deal becasue life is too short to be in litigation with someone who you know can not be trusted. Here mc :cane's actions showed that mc :cane lacked honor and could not be trusted to abide by any agreement and so it would have been a really dumb move to agree to public financing only to have mc :cane breach any agreement immediately after such agreement.

What you do not get is that I am not talking about a LEGAL agreement or anything that has to do with legality, the court or the law.


What I am talking about is something that is apparently very foreign to you.

One gentleman telling another gentleman that he will do something.
THAT is the gentleman's agreement. The LAW has nothing to do with those.

I told you that you would not get it.

See I was raise with old solid values.
Those are
1) A man sticks by what he says
2)marriage is forever (my grandparents were married for 64 years when my grandpa died)
3) hard work is good and necessary
4)Words are better then fighting BUT there are times to fight.
5) stick by what you stand for
6) Help a neighbor in need.
7) remember where you came from.

You seem to have forsaken those for legality.

[issac the dragon]

Never! Twenty-five years of watching the R's and D's destroy everything I love about this country is enough.

BTW, a lot of D women haven't gotten over the election either. They were sorta ok, until Obama told them to get over it. He brought the flowers and the sweets, but apparently forgot the ring.

[Trueblue]

Rev, I have put up with a candidate who lied and cheated his way into office for the last seven years. Bush is shit, and if you think that those of us who are sick of him and what he stands for are going to get upset because he went back on this idea when McCain has blatantly screwed around with the campaign finance system, then think again.

[AYFR]

Fine TB that still is not my point.
I know that there is no perfect candidate.

Also I am not upset that he is not taking public financing, nor do I care or want y'all to be upset with him about it. If you would read my first post I said that not taking public financing is a good thing.

I was just commenting that he broke a gentlemen's agreement.

I wich McCain would have not taken public financing, in fact I wish that would go away all together.

What is funny is that y'all keep giving me the reason that "McCain is a liar, dishonest and not honorable" (to paraphrase) as a good reason for Obama to tarnish his honor.

[Yellowdogtexan]

What you do not get is that I am not talking about a LEGAL agreement or anything that has to do with legality, the court or the law.No one really cares what a non-professional layperson like you have to say on this issue. There was no gentlemen's agreement but your attempt to describe such a creature is amusing and is worthy of submission to the humor section of the bar journal

The so-called gentlemen's agreement that you mentioned was to pursue an agreement or contract with the GOP nominee as to public finance. A contract or agreement is inherently a legally binding promise supported by consideration. There can be no agreement here given the fact that mc :cane has proven to have no honor and has already breached his agreement with the FEC. You may want to ignore these facts but in the real world people do not make agreements with people who have no honor or with people who you expect to breach their word.

Senator Obama is a lawyer and understand the concept of contracts. One can not enter into a contract with a party who does not intend to abide by such agreement. mc :cane's actions are proof that no agreement was possible given that (i) mc :cane's own counsel blew off negotiations with the Obama campaign attorney by telling them that yes the mc :cane campaign will rely on the RNC, (ii) mc :cane accepting contributions from special interests, lobbyists and pacs in $50,000 chunks using the RNC to launder the money and (iii) mc :cane telling the 527s that they are free to attack Senator Obama and his family.

The concept of gentlemen agreements as described by a layperson and non-professional is amusing and silly but Senator Obama lives in the real world and deals with real contracts. Senator Obama sent his lawyer to discuss an agreement with the mc :cane campaign and such discusssions made it clear that no agreement was possible given mc :cane's positions on issues like 527s and the acceptance of $50,000 contributions from lobbyists, PACs and special interests. Senator Obama would have tried to reach common ground with the mc :cane campaign if there was any common ground possible. However when the mc :cane campaign though their attorney announces that the RNC would be laundering contributions for the mc :cane campaign, when mc :cane accepts large contributions (in $50,000 chunks) from special interests and when mc :cane announces that it is okay for 527s to attack Senator Obama and his family, there is no grounds or basis for an agreement.

There was no gentlemen's agreement or other agreement here and the claims of a layperson who does not understand the facts or the law is simply wrong.

[AYFR]

I give up, you will never get it.

What I am talking about is foreign and unknown to you. Problem is that it is becoming foreign to the rest of the world as well.

You will never understand "My word is my bond" all you understand is little pieces of paper that are signed by people.

You may understand law but you have no clue about honor.

[Lone Laugher]

Rev....get off the soapbox. You created the idea that there WAS a gentleman's agreement made here. There was not. There was no handshake either. That all happened in your imagination.

Also...you might want to ask yourself whether you should be the one to cast the first stone.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I give up, you will never get it.

What I am talking about is foreign and unknown to you. Problem is that it is becoming foreign to the rest of the world as well.

You will never understand "My word is my bond" all you understand is little pieces of paper that are signed by people.

You may understand law but you have no clue about honor.Again it is you who is ignorant. There was no agreement. An agreement requires mutual consent and assent of the parties which simply did not occur here. The concept of trying to make an answer to a questionnaire into an agreement is simply silly and something that only a non-professional or laypeson would do.

As for honor, both I and Senator Obama understand the importance of honor and if you understood honor, you would not be so silly. Wikipedia has this a part of its definition of a gentlemen's agreement A gentlemen's agreement is an informal agreement between two or more parties. It may be written, oral, or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentleman's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfilment, rather than being in any way enforceable.Again, there was no agreement between the two parties. The first year course in contracts involves developing and understanding on mutual assent or agreement and that element is simply not present here. The claim that there was any agreement here is amusing and is what one would expect of a layperson and non-professional. There is a reason why lay people and non-professionals should not try to practice law and conclusions like this one are great examples.

Second, if you read Senator Obama's response he was looking at a binding agreement between the parties.

Third, the element of honor is very relevant here and it is the :rev who does not understand honor. mc :cane is being sued today for mc :cane's violations of his agreement with the FEC. mc :cane has proven that he has no honor and so there could never been an agreement between the Obama campaign and the current versioin of mc :cane. Maybe the Obama campaign could have reached an agreement with the McCain of 2000 who had some honor and who did not flip flop on every issue but the current mc :cane has no honor and so there would not be a basis for any sort of agreement between the parties.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Rev....get off the soapbox. You created the idea that there WAS a gentleman's agreement made here. There was not. There was no handshake either. That all happened in your imagination.

Also...you might want to ask yourself whether you should be the one to cast the first stone.The concept of an agreement requires mutual consent and assent or agreement which did not occur here. There was no agreement of any type between the parties.

[AYFR]

Rev....get off the soapbox. You created the idea that there WAS a gentleman's agreement made here. There was not. There was no handshake either. That all happened in your imagination.

Also...you might want to ask yourself whether you should be the one to cast the first stone.
Again I did not say there was a handshake.
As for me making it up.
I did not make this up


In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
THAT was the gentleman's agreement.

He said he would do something, I do not know about y'all but to me a man's word should mean something.

Again it is you who is ignorant. There was no agreement. An agreement requires mutual consent and assent of the parties which simply did not occur here. The concept of trying to make an answer to a questionnaire into an agreement is simply silly and something that only a non-professional or laypeson would do.

As for honor, both I and Senator Obama understand the importance of honor and if you understood honor, you would not be so silly. Wikipedia has this a part of its definition of a gentlemen's agreement Again, there was no agreement between the two parties. The first year course in contracts involves developing and understanding on mutual assent or agreement and that element is simply not present here. The claim that there was any agreement here is amusing and is what one would expect of a layperson and non-professional. There is a reason why lay people and non-professionals should not try to practice law and conclusions like this one are great examples.

Second, if you read Senator Obama's response he was looking at a binding agreement between the parties.

Third, the element of honor is very relevant here and it is the :rev who does not understand honor. mc :cane is being sued today for mc :cane's violations of his agreement with the FEC. mc :cane has proven that he has no honor and so there could never been an agreement between the Obama campaign and the current versioin of mc :cane. Maybe the Obama campaign could have reached an agreement with the McCain of 2000 who had some honor and who did not flip flop on every issue but the current mc :cane has no honor and so there would not be a basis for any sort of agreement between the parties.
Like I said you do not and never will get it.

[Lone Laugher]

Sorry...no gentleman's agreement was made. No matter how big the letters are, it says no such thing.

[AYFR]

So Obama saying that he would pursue an agreement and the NOT doing that means nothing to you .

Do you even know what a gentlemen's agreement is?

[AYFR]

Let me help you then

A gentlemen's agreement is an informal agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement) between two or more parties. It may be written, oral, or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentleman's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfilment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract), which can be enforced if necessary. The phrase's first recorded use was in 1888 in the Report of the Railway Accounting Officers published by the Association of American Railroads Accounting Division http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_agreement

[Trueblue]

The two of them never had such a conversation, that is the point.

[Yellowdogtexan]

THAT was the gentleman's agreement.Again, you are WRONG. That is not any type of agreement or contract. Under basic contract law, there has to be an offer and an acceptance. The statement there was not an offer (a legal concept) of any type and there was no acceptance (another legal term) by the mc :cane campaign. There was simply no agreement of any kind. :ydt

Again, the only thing that Senator Obama discussed was the pursuit of an agreement with the GOP nominee but it takes two to reach an agreement. Remember the Obama campaign brought this up with mc :cane's legal counsel and was blown off. mc :cane has made it clear that no agreement would be possible by such actions as (i) breaking his agreement with the FEC, (ii) soliciting and taking $50,000 contributions from PACs, lobbyists and specials interests through the RNC (while these same contributions have been banned by the DNC) and (iii) mc :cane telling 527s that it was okay to attack Senator Obama and his family.

Again it is amusing when laypersons and non-professionals try to use legal terms. A gentlemen's agreement still requires two parties and an actual agreement and there was no agreement here. :ydt

[Yellowdogtexan]

The two of them never had such a conversation, that is the point.The term agreement is a legal term that requires a mutual meeting of the minds or agreement (the legal requirements are an offer and an acceptance). The fact that mc :cane and Senator Obama never discussed this matter means that there is no agreement. A gentlemen's agreement still requires an agreement or the meeting of the minds which is not present here.

[Lone Laugher]

Exactly. Trust me, Rev. If McCain thought that there was an agreement of any kind...even a gentlemen's agreement, he would be screaming "Obama broke his deal with me!! Obama broke our agreement!!" at the top of his lungs.

A reasonable person can see that Obama said he'd like to have an effective system of public finacing SO BIG MONEY DOES NOT INFLUENCE THE WHITE HOUSE. That is all he said.

[issac the dragon]

Maybe they can deal with this. Obama promised MoveOn that he would filibuster a bill granting immunity to the phone companies. According to CNN one minute ago, he has said he will vote for the bill in the Senate granting immunity.

Take a coin, choose a side for each guy, toss it, and vote for the winner. Might as well. The Dems, and Obama keep funding the war, grant immunity to the phone companies, want a flood of illegals,..........why listen to all the crap. Just toss your coin on election day.

[Trueblue]

I really don't want him to do that. :(

[AYFR]

The two of them never had such a conversation, that is the point.
That is not the point. The point is that Obama said he would do something and did not do it.
Again, you are WRONG. That is not any type of agreement or contract. Under basic contract law, there has to be an offer and an acceptance. The statement there was not an offer (a legal concept) of any type and there was no acceptance (another legal term) by the mc :cane campaign. There was simply no agreement of any kind. :ydt

Again, the only thing that Senator Obama discussed was the pursuit of an agreement with the GOP nominee but it takes two to reach an agreement. Remember the Obama campaign brought this up with mc :cane's legal counsel and was blown off. mc :cane has made it clear that no agreement would be possible by such actions as (i) breaking his agreement with the FEC, (ii) soliciting and taking $50,000 contributions from PACs, lobbyists and specials interests through the RNC (while these same contributions have been banned by the DNC) and (iii) mc :cane telling 527s that it was okay to attack Senator Obama and his family.

Again it is amusing when laypersons and non-professionals try to use legal terms. A gentlemen's agreement still requires two parties and an actual agreement and there was no agreement here. :ydt
Again I was right you have no clue what a gentlemens agreement is even after I have told you what one was.

Guess one has to be a gentlemen first to understand it.

The term agreement is a legal term that requires a mutual meeting of the minds or agreement (the legal requirements are an offer and an acceptance). The fact that mc :cane and Senator Obama never discussed this matter means that there is no agreement. A gentlemen's agreement still requires an agreement or the meeting of the minds which is not present here.
:wall
A gentlemen's agreement is an informal agreement between two or more parties. It may be written, oral, or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentleman's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfilment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary. The phrase's first recorded use was in 1888 in the Report of the Railway Accounting Officers published by the Association of American Railroads Accounting Division

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_agreement
Exactly. Trust me, Rev. If McCain thought that there was an agreement of any kind...even a gentlemen's agreement, he would be screaming "Obama broke his deal with me!! Obama broke our agreement!!" at the top of his lungs.

A reasonable person can see that Obama said he'd like to have an effective system of public finacing SO BIG MONEY DOES NOT INFLUENCE THE WHITE HOUSE. That is all he said.
No because McCain knows that it is not a binding agreement. Just one man's word.


Issac you were right. In what you told me.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Again I was right you have no clue what a gentlemens agreement is even after I have told you what one was.

Guess one has to be a gentlemen first to understand it.Again you are a silly lay person who is not a professional. I am a professinal and have a code of ethics which causes me to laugh at your statement (espicially givent that your numerous misquotes and distortions of materials posted would have caused you to be disbarred or gotten you sanctioned in the real world). Ethics and intregity are key elements for being a professional.

You are using a term that you do not undestand. The :rev is quoting the same definition that I posted earlier which is amusing because he does not understand the simple legal concepts behind the formation of an agreement. Laypeople and non-professionals are silly but amusing when they try to understand legal issues.

There was no agreement here. The :rev may not like what Senator Obama did but the :rev needs to stop making a fool of himself by using legal terms that he does not understand.

Finally, Senator Obama was correct to conclude that further negotiations would be fruitless after mc :cane's lawyer blew off any discussion of real campaign finance reform.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/24/115653/552/867/541188The Democratic National Committee has filed suit today in federal district court in Washington, D.C. (PDF) to force the Federal Election Commission to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program for the primary election despite his already having used program to to benefit his campaign financially.

Let's review: John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC back in August 2007 to accept spending limits for the primary and to abide by the conditions of receiving matching funds. To get out of that agreement, FEC Chairman David Mason explained in February, the FEC must grant permission, and for stating this obvious legal truth David Mason is being forced out of the FEC.

What's more, based on past FEC rulings McCain would not have been allowed to withdraw from the matching funds program, because in December he pledged to use his matching funds as collateral for a private loan to keep his campaign afloat.

So, four months ago the DNC filed a complaint with the FEC to investigate all this, but because there's been no quorum the Commission couldn't actually do anything. (Four votes are needed to authorize an investigation, and only two of the six seats are currently filled.) But under the law, if the FEC doesn't act within 120 days, you get to sue in district court to force the FEC to act. What the lawsuit asks the Court to do is issue an order saying, (a) the FEC must act to investigate the complaint within 30 days, and (b) if it doesn't (or can't), the DNC should be able to sue McCain directly to force his compliance with the law.

Moreover, the Commission is likely to be back in business before month's end. This lawsuit will place this investigation atop its agenda.

[Note: this is a separate complaint than the one initiated by FireDogLake and signed by tens of thousands of citizens like you, which involves McCain's actual breaking of the spending cap.]

Bottom line: John McCain played fast and loose with the law. He used the public financing system when it was convenient and helpful to his campaign, ignored it once the money started flowing again, and now takes a hands-off approach to the millions in the 527 money to be spent on his behalf. It's time for the shenanigans to stop, and this lawsuit will help shine a light on just how unprincipled this so-called "maverick" is.

[Trueblue]

Rev, I understand your point, I wish you sometimes understood mine.

[Yellowdogtexan]

One of the things that the DNC did is looked at each and every application that mc :cane filed to get onto the ballots for the primaries and mc :cane used the fact that he was certified by the FEC to get on a number of ballots. Today the Obama campaign used an application signed by mc :cane where mc :cane certified that he was in the FEC primary system to get on a ballot to show that mc :cane is violating the law. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Plouffe_McCain_spending_unlawfully.htmlDavid Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."

"They’re out there throwing stones in glass houses on this," he said of McCain's attacks on Obama on public financing.Here is an example of a real lie and real agreement that mc :cane has breached.

[AYFR]

Again you are a silly lay person who is not a professional. I am a professinal and have a code of ethics which causes me to laugh at your statement (espicially givent that your numerous misquotes and distortions of materials posted would have caused you to be disbarred or gotten you sanctioned in the real world). Ethics and intregity are key elements for being a professional.

You are using a term that you do not undestand. The :rev is quoting the same definition that I posted earlier which is amusing because he does not understand the simple legal concepts behind the formation of an agreement. Laypeople and non-professionals are silly but amusing when they try to understand legal issues.

There was no agreement here. The :rev may not like what Senator Obama did but the :rev needs to stop making a fool of himself by using legal terms that he does not understand.

Finally, Senator Obama was correct to conclude that further negotiations would be fruitless after mc :cane's lawyer blew off any discussion of real campaign finance reform.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/24/115653/552/867/541188
I was not talking about a legal agreement, THAT is what you do not understand.
A gentlemen's agreement does not have legal concepts.

Oh well it is fruitless to try and explaining to you anything about being a gentleman.
Rev, I understand your point, I wish you sometimes understood mine.

I understand that he did not have that conversation with McCain.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Oh well it is fruitless to try and explaining to you anything about being a gentleman.It is also fruitless trying to explain even simple legal concepts and the concepts of professionalism to a non-professional and layperson like you.

Senator Obama is taking actions that mc :cane has refused to take. mc :cane has told 527s that they are free to attack Obama and his family. Senator Obama has told donors not to support 527s and as noted earlier, Moveon.org has shut down its 527. Here is another 527 that is being shut down due to Senator Obama's efforts http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/yet_another_demaligned_outside.phpAnother Dem-leaning independent group has now closed up shop: The Fund for America, a group formed in preparation for the 2008 race that raised money from the Democratic Party's heaviest-hitting donors, including George Soros.

It's yet another sign of just how rapidly Obama is remaking the Democratic Party machinery in his own image: Fund for America is closing up because the Obama camp signaled to its big money people to stop giving to such groups.

It's only the latest such organization to follow Obama's will: Progressive Media USA, the group led by Media Matters' David Brock, recently announced that it would not be running ads in the general election. And MoveOn recently shuttered its 527, as first reported here.

It's worth stressing again what a major gamble this is on Obama's part: In exchange for centralizing control of his message within his campaign, he's effectively disarmed these big-spending groups, even as the GOP is almost certain to ramp up outside activities on its side. Of course, Obama's enormously successful fundraising could render that activity moot.Senator Obama is taking steps to reform the system even though he knows that mc :cane will continue to violate the law and continue to use 527s and the RNC to launder money. These are steps that mc :cane refused to agree to when the lawyers met and this is the reason why no agreement was possible with mc :cane.