Did this ad, "run in South Dakota," scare Obama into breaking his commitment to accept public financing for the general election?
The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray reported Obama claimed he opted out of public financing to be able to compete with independent conservative groups, although no such well-funded national organizations have materialized:
When a reporter pointed to the dearth of well-heeled, GOP-aligned independent groups emerging, Obama responded by asserting that they could "pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence," adding: "And we've already seen them -- and there was an ad run in South Dakota . . . where it took a speech that I had made, extolling faith, and made it seem as if I had said that America was a Muslim nation."
Camp Obama must have some nightmarish polling data on this ad if it is indeed the reason Obama subjected himself to the criticism he received for his monumental flip flop.
Hat tip to Extreme Mortman via Instapundit.
Comments
Just one more reason why Obama should not be trusted...
"Last year, you said, if you were the nominee, you would opt for public financing in the General Election ... and now, Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it. You seem to be waffling ... why won't you keep your word -- in writing -- that you made ...?" - Tim Russert to Obama
John McCain has been saying that he is not concerned that Senator Obama broke his commitment to him, but that he broke his word to the American people.
This American citizen does not feel that he has been lied to in any way and just because Senator McCain says I should feel that way is not going to change the fact that I do not.
I am asking the voters who are reading this to look at the facts of the situation objectively.
From what I have read, Senator Obama's "commitment" included this statement: "I will agressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." According to both campaigns attorney's a meeting took place, and this topic was discussed, but McCain's attorneys claim that the discussion was not part of any negotiations while Obama's attorney claims that it became clear to him that there was not a basis for further discussion. My opinion is that they are both telling the truth. McCain's attorneys made it clear to Obama's that they had no intention of negotiating anything, McCain would be accepting public financing and Obama should do the same without pre-condition because that is what he "committed" to. Since McCain was unwilling to negotiate, it was loosely accurate for them to state the discussion was not part of any negotiation. Thus, it was also accurate for the Obama camp to conclude that there was no basis for further discussion.
The public financing system was set up to be an equalizer so that both campaigns have the same amount of money to work with for the general election. Between the Republican National Committee (who has a huge cash advantage over the DNC, and can spend that money supporting the candidate) and so called 527 groups (it is unclear who will have the advantage from 527 group contributions this year but historically that advantage has gone to Republican nominee's.) Obama would have been accepting an almost certain financial disadvantage by accepting the public financing which is supposed to act as an equalizer.
This is the decision Obama had as I see it: I can either be brow-beaten (shows weakness) into accepting an agreement that's only intended purpose is to provide equality to the general election but instead takes away my financial advantage and gives it to my opponent. Or I can use my current financial advantage as leverage to create a truly even playing field by setting equal spending limits for the RNC, DNC, and 527's. McCain's camp rejected this offer because they felt that Obama's "reversal" helped them more than an agreement that limited their spending.
The McCain camp believe's that if they spin this effectively enough it will negate Obama's financial advantage. By bringing his character into question and casting doubt onto Obama's future statements it is a better scenario for the Republicans then a financially balanced election.
Joshua, There is much more to Obama's commitment to accept public financing for the general election. Please see Anatomy Of Obama's Betrayal Of His Public Financing Commitment To The American People - http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2008/06/obama-on-public.html.
In that post I detail more than a dozen reiterations of Obama's commitment to accept public financing for the general election.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!