All Things ProCain

[Cknolls]

 

Like John Kerry did,right. Two Boston reporters were able to view some of his files and miraculously found nothing. LMAO!

Edited June 20, 2008 by Cknolls

[Balta1701]

I think you guys will like this one.

In a web video emailed to supporters Thursday, Barack Obama explained that he was opting out of the public financing system because John McCain is “not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

 

Republicans can only wish that were the case.

 

Obama’s alarmist prophecy — a bit of typical campaign rhetoric meant to scare his own donors into reaching for their credit cards — is wildly at odds with the flatlined state of conservative third-party efforts.

 

The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

 

Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.

 

But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.

 

More worrisome for Republicans who believe such an outside attack apparatus is essential to defeating Obama, some key individuals and groups who were being looked to for help say they won’t be involved.

[mr_genius]

Obama isn't taking public financing like he promised

 

and the Dems have 527's launching attack ads at will

 

surprise surprise

 

McCain was a total dumbass for believing the Dems would actually go by the rules they set up. It's his own fault, he got totally duped by the party of snake oil salesman.

[DrunkBomber]

<!--quoteo(post=1667464:date=Jun 19, 2008 -> 09:33 AM:name=Alpha Dog)-->

<!--quotec-->Do you have a quote or anything other than the word of an Obama spokesman that McCain signaled anything to the 527's?

John McCain: ’I can’t be a referee’

 

 

So, he says this in MARCH of this year,

 

Now, well... I cant really do much, so I'm just gonna try.

Look at what level youve gone to in hopes of making something out of nothing. Like its a big deal to say you would like to stop smear ads and think you can and then if they come out to say you cant be a referee. Seriously, every post I read of yours is something that is so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things yet you present it as to say "Gotcha" like you have discovered some secret that justifies why McCain shouldnt be President. I finally recovered from the horror of finding out his wife MAY have stolen a cookie recipe but if I were to find out that he cant control everyone involved in his campaign from saying things he doesnt approve of I will never be able to look at him the same again.

 

Then you post that republicans are trying to get Rachel Ray ads taken down and respond to a much more real issue where women were asked to move because they didnt want them to be in view of the cameras by simply saying, those staffers should be fired so its ok... At least try to stay slightly consistent.

[Balta1701]

Obama isn't taking public financing like he promised

 

and the Dems have 527's launching attack ads at will

 

surprise surprise

 

McCain was a total dumbass for believing the Dems would actually go by the rules they set up. It's his own fault, he got totally duped by the party of snake oil salesman.

Ok, so now that Moveon has disbanded their PAC, I'd actually be interested in what 527's they actually still have running solidly against McCain?

 

Secondly, do you think McCain would stay in the public financing system if he could afford to hop out of it? He was totally willing to not only hop out of it but to go so far as to nearly openly abusing the system in the primary campaign.

 

And third...the Republican Congress was the one that passed these rules. John McCain's name was on the most recent rendition of them, and he's maneuvered a few other bills through since then that have opened things up for him even more. Do you actually seriously believe that somehow the Dems duped McCain in to setting up the rules of the race, and that he's this innocent guy who is just at the mercy of these mean duplicitous democrats?

[mr_genius]

Ok, so now that Moveon has disbanded their PAC, I'd actually be interested in what 527's they actually still have running solidly against McCain?

 

Secondly, do you think McCain would stay in the public financing system if he could afford to hop out of it? He was totally willing to not only hop out of it but to go so far as to nearly openly abusing the system in the primary campaign.

 

And third...the Republican Congress was the one that passed these rules. John McCain's name was on the most recent rendition of them, and he's maneuvered a few other bills through since then that have opened things up for him even more. Do you actually seriously believe that somehow the Dems duped McCain in to setting up the rules of the race, and that he's this innocent guy who is just at the mercy of these mean duplicitous democrats?

 

No, he didn't abuse the system, he followed the rules like an idiot while Obama is blatantly not living up to the bargain. Yea, I think they expected to do this all along, they have absolutely no ethics.

[Balta1701]

No, he didn't abuse the system, he followed the rules like an idiot while Obama is blatantly not living up to the bargain. Yea, I think they expected to do this all along, they have absolutely no ethics.

Well, in that case, I'll just leave it at that, because no amount of facts I can throw at you will convince you otherwise.

[mr_genius]

Well, in that case, I'll just leave it at that, because no amount of facts I can throw at you will convince you otherwise.

 

ok. you're right, i'm not going to buy into the Obama spin on this (i wouldn't call his argument to be an honest one).

 

i guess the like of Limbaugh were correct (and i hate to admit it). these Democrats are total frauds, can't really be trusted or be worked with on anything. the government is so hyper partisan now it's really a disgrace. promises mean nothing and there is no trust.

 

 

[mr_genius]

I see the Dems are going for this 'fairness doctrine' again. so much for free speech.

[Balta1701]

I see the Dems are going for this 'fairness doctrine' again. so much for free speech.

So, as far as I can tell, this is backed up by essentially nothing. There's no bill before Congress to do so, there's nothing written in committee nor does there seem to be anything out there except for some conservatives who whip up the Fairness doctrine every time they need a feel good issue. Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana has a bill put forward that wouldn't just get rid of the fairness doctrine, which currently isn't active, it'd sort of double-get-rid of it by preventing it from coming back unless, you know, Congress decides to bring it back. Just over a year ago, over 300 members of the House, including 113 Democrats, supported keeping the system as it is now, with no fairness doctrine.

[mr_genius]

Feinstein is saying she is looking into bringing it back.

 

But I hope you're right

[Balta1701]

Feinstein is saying she is looking into bringing it back.

 

But I hope you're right

There will always be a few Democrats that want to go that route. But you know what? The fact that Air America, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and hopefully soon Rachael Maddow's show's exist prove that it's really not needed. I can understand keeping it as they have now, where some cable networks that don't provide news have to follow it (i.e. Franken, Governor Ass-Grabber can't take advantage of free marketing of their shows they've made in the past) but the reality is...the fairness doctrine only is necessary in a 2003 like environment, when the liberals on TV are getting canceled for being liberals despite their ratings (Donahue, Malloy, etc.) But now we're slowly approaching a point where media people realize "Hey, there's a market for the liberal version of O'Reilly just as much as there is for O'Reilly himself". MSNBC needs 1 or 2 more left-leaning shows to pull it off, and there's still nothing that comes close to balancing Fox News's regular hard right daily news coverage, but the fairness doctrine just isn't that necessary right now.

[mr_genius]

...the fairness doctrine only is necessary in a 2003 like environment

 

meh, the MSM on TV was still 90% democrat. So any fairness doctrine that was accurately applied would cost the Democrats 40% of their market share. They would have to take big cuts of time on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. Wouldn't be worth it. But thing is, you would completely disagree with that assessment, and that is where this whole fairness doctrine falls apart. If we think supreme court nominations are big, just imagine the fight to see who gets to decide what the government run media gets to show. It would be a massive political war that would never end. The post of "media fairness person" would be a huge appointment (and a total bs appointment, I may add).

Edited June 21, 2008 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

meh, the MSM on TV was still 90% democrat. So any fairness doctrine that was accurately applied would cost the Democrats 40% of their market share. They would have to take big cuts of time on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. Wouldn't be worth it. But thing is, you would completely disagree with that assessment, and that is where this whole fairness doctrine falls apart. If we think supreme court nominations are big, just imagine the fight to see who gets to decide what the government run media gets to show. It would be a massive political war that would never end. The post of "media fairness person" would be a huge appointment (and a total bs appointment, I may add).

And frankly, outside of the early 2003 environment, which turned so completely insane that it's caused the deaths of a few hundred thousand people, no one ought to support measures like that.

[Rex Kickass]

People who complain about the Fairness Doctrine have no idea about how it actually works or rather worked.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi..._fundraisi.html

 

Obama fund-raising down

Email|Link|Comments (0) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor June 20, 2008 07:37 PM

 

Barack Obama reported this evening that he raised $22 million in May -- barely more than Republican John McCain.

 

It is his lowest total in months -- he raised $31 million in April, $40 million in March, and a record $55 million in February -- and does not necessarily show off the fund-raising advantage that helped persuade him to opt out of public funding. For the entire campaign, however, it brings his total to about $287 million.

 

He had $43 million in cash on hand, his campaign said.

 

In his Federal Election Commission filing, McCain reported raising $21.5 million in May -- his biggest month of the campaign -- and having $31.6 million in cash at the end of last month.

 

For the entire campaign, the presumptive Republican nominee has raised nearly $110 million, and also has borrowed $39 million.

[southsider2k5]

And another campaign promise bites the dust...

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/1016477...novak22.article

 

Obama’s lobbyists

As he gives up public funding for his campaign, Sen. Barack Obama is reaching out to new sources, including Washington insiders whose influence he has vowed to end.

 

Obama is now using lists of contributors to Democratic congressional chairmen, primarily lobbyists of both parties. One recipient of a letter signed by Obama is a Republican lobbyist who has contributed to senior Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan and Charlie Rangel of New York, not out of ideological affinity but to keep their doors open.

 

‘‘Together, we change the way business is done in Washington,’’ said the Obama letter. ‘‘We can end the undue influence of special interests.’’

[lostfan]

I just would like to know who, how, and why people expect someone to be able to govern without at least a nominal acknowledgement of Washington insiders.

[southsider2k5]

I just would like to know who, how, and why people expect someone to be able to govern without at least a nominal acknowledgement of Washington insiders.

 

I would like to know why you would say something if you had no intent on following through with it...

[lostfan]

I would like to know why you would say something if you had no intent on following through with it...

It's pretty obvious to me.

[mr_genius]

People who complain about the Fairness Doctrine have no idea about how it actually works or rather worked.

 

wrong

[EvilMonkey]

People who complain about the Fairness Doctrine have no idea about how it actually works or rather worked.

It doesn't matter how it used to work, but how the current crop of Dems want the renewed version to work. And they want it to silence conservative talk radio and Fox.

[Reddy]

as an Edwards supporter I'm all for the fairness doctrine being reinstated. had that law still been in place... dude woulda rocked this s***.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Reddy

[mr_genius]

as an Edwards supporter I'm all for the fairness doctrine being reinstated. had that law still been in place... dude woulda rocked this s***.

 

wrong

[Reddy]

wrong

 

'twas mostly in jest.