Regarding Barack Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system, I wanted to say another aspect of the story that annoys me is the failure to really pinpoint what he did wrong.
This goes for pretty much any article about a politician goes back on a campaign pledge. If you think about it there are two ways to look at any broken promise. The first way to think about is that the politician pledged to do something good and broke their promise for bad reasons. In that case what they did wrong was the actual breaking of the pledge. A little more complicated scenario is that a politician pledged to something wrong or impractical and later decided to back away from their position. In that case what they did wrong was make the promise in the first place.
Not only is the second scenario is what Obama did, but in general is the more likely explanation of broken campaign pledges. The truth is that there is a lot of stuff candidates say on the campaign trail that is either a blatant pander or poorly thought out. Barack Obama pledged to pursue an agreement with the opposing campaign about campaign finance. It was foreseeable that wasn’t going to work out, so he shouldn’t have said it. It was an impractical pledge. Same story with George H.W. Bush’s “no new taxes” pledge, it wasn’t some betrayal of America to raise taxes, it was a betrayal of common sense to promise it wouldn’t be necessary.
Take George W. Bush’s suggestion that America have a “humble” foreign policy during his first run for President. There was nothing wrong with abandoning that idea, since it was a naive and simplistic suggestion in the first place (Where he went wrong was adopting the whole “evil” aspect of his foreign policy).
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and the assumption that consistency is a sign of integrity isn’t much better.
It’s not the “what” but the “why” of a position the statement claims. Nothing wrong with changing one’s mind with the changing of a situation. But we have the right to ask why and expect a straight answer.
Obama claimed that McCain was not addressing the issue of the 527s when he has clearly denounced not only inappropriate ads from 527s, but from his own party as well! Obama on the other hand as repeatedly ignored the skunky Soros Group ads vomited out by Moveon.org and others. Daily Kos, HufPo, et al.
What’s deceitful and wrong about Obama’s switch is the dishonesty of the why. It’s the kaching of the cash register that motivated his change in position of public financing. He sees all that money coming in and realizes he doesn’t want “equal” public financing – he wants the perceived advantage all that money brings. He does not rely on the quality of his message (uh, like addressing specifically the “change” he wants to make – or where) but the quantity of his campaign chest.
Instead, the man that claimed to be different, to abhor the smear of “personal politics” during his campaign, has instead shown himself to be nothing more than a slick-worded (haven’t we already had enough of ‘Slick” as it is) political shill.
An unqualified one at that.
Obama claimed that McCain was not addressing the issue of the 527s when he has clearly denounced not only inappropriate ads from 527s, but from his own party as well!
Neither McCain nor Obama can do anything to resolve the situation 527s. Taking public finance would mean that the majority of campaign ads would come from independent groups. Both candidates would risk that their messages were drowned out by noise. Only one candidate’s hopes are aligned with the prospect that American voters are too distracted to focus America’s problems.
Obama only has a fund raising advantage because liberals care more the conservatives do at the moment. There’s nothing unfair about that.
There is no problem that opting into the public system solves in even the slightest sense.
P.S.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/23/mccain-is-now-a-campaign-finance-criminal/