National Journal.com

nationaljournal.com > Hotline On Call

McCain Team Hits Obama On Public Financing Pledge

John McCain's team is going after Barack Obama this a.m. on the question of public financing. Team McCain's oppo drop, alleging that Obama has flipped on the question of public financing, after the jump.

Here's the Obama response, per spokesman Bill Burton: “John McCain is in no place to question anyone on pledges when he abandoned the latest campaign finance reform efforts in order to run for the Republican nomination and went back on his commitment to take public financing for the primary election this year."

This seems to us to be the only hit of the week with legs. The "plagiarism" stuff is totally bogus; the candidates co-opt each other's language constantly, as evidenced by clips of Hillary Clinton using Obama's "Fired Up" catchphrase. But on the matter of public financing, Obama said one thing -- yes to a public financing commitment, as specified in a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire -- and now appears to be backtracking. This episode raises questions about his veracity on a matter that goes to the heart of his change argument. If the system is broken, if Washington needs a new and different kind of politics, shouldn't Obama -- as a self-described agent of that change -- take the public financing plunge?

(JENNIFER SKALKA)

FACT CHECK: Less Than Three Months Ago, Obama Answered “Yes” He Will Participate In Public Financing In General Election If His Republican Opponent Agreed To Do Same:

In The Fall Of 2007, Obama Answered “Yes” To Question “Will You Participate In The Presidential Public Financing System” If His Opponent Likewise Agreed. “The [Obama] campaign went even further in answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network. The questionnaire posed a very simple question to the candidates: ‘If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?’ You can read Obama's response here. The candidate highlighted the simple answer ‘Yes’ and elaborated as follows: …” (Michael Dobbs, “The Obama 'Pledge,'” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, 2/20/08)

Read Obama’s Full Response Answering “Yes” He Will Participate In Public Financing In General Election If His Opponent Agreed To Do So:

QUESTION: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

OBAMA: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. 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.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Midwest Democracy Network Presidential Candidate Questionnaire: The Responses Of John Edwards And Barack Obama,” Midwest Democracy Network, Released 11/27/07)

1 Comments

The "plagiarism" stuff is totally bogus

"Totally bogus." Channeling Moon Unit Zappa now? And how do I evaluate your conclusion when you've offered no evidence? Maybe it's not so bogus as you claim.

Consider this: David Axelrod ran Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign on the same themes (at least in the Democratic primary), so Deval Patrick was Obama 2.0, making Obama, Obama 3.0.

David Axelrod, lazy consultant, sold two clients the same script. So, when Obama repeats Deval Patrick’s speeches word for word, that’s not really “plagiarism” at all. (Well maybe self-plagiarism since Axelrod penned the speech. I don’t know how National Journal editors like their reporters riffing off their own work.)

Obama and Patrick can deny plagiarism all they want, there’s a timeline problem.

Patrick claims that he and Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Hillary Clinton was raising questions about Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again in January. Patrick said he told Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Obama's speechwriters. That speechwriter is the brilliant but lazy David Axelrod.

But Obama was quoted using Patrick's language before the summer of 2007. The New Republic, March 19, 2007: "'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.’ Those are just words…" ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.” If that’s the case, why is Patrick claiming that it was “first” discussed last summer?

Deval Patrick, June 2006, at the Massachusetts Democratic party convention: "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

November 2007, when Obama stood on the steps of the Clarendon County Courthouse in Manning, S.C., and, according to USA Today, said: "Now, I've heard that some folks aren't sure America is ready for an African-American president, so let me be clear," he told his mostly black audience. "I never would have begun this campaign if I weren't confident I could win. But you see, I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."


Even if you don’t think the story matters much, consider this. It matters because a presidential candidate, who has presented himself to this country as the man of integrity and change, is a fraud — someone who pretends that someone else's words are their own. And this is while he has been running his entire campaign based virtually exclusively on his stellar character, a character he has claimed that is so different from all those Washington insiders he has sought to set himself apart from. Caught in a lie, he claims it’s “no big deal.”

I don’t know about you but I have two children, and it’s not a bogus issue when you’re trying to teach them about honesty and integrity.