On the part of Campbell Brown (which I've always thought a strange name):
Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.
One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.
Yeah, funny about that.
Was anything he did illegal? No.
McCain got out-maneuvered by a more nimble and formidable opponent. Too bad for him.
And those attacks never materialized? No, they were there, they just never STUCK. Big difference.
He broke his promise
Yep. So, you know, anyone who believes all the other promises he made this year -- tax cuts for nearly everybody! Togetherness and bipartisanship! --- is kind of a first-class idiot.
and he explained it
He's very good at explaining. I expect he'll be doing a lot of explaining in the new year.
The best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. This principle was well applied to Senator Obama's campaign. Unfortunately, it will not be part of his Defense policy.
Was anything he did illegal? No.
We certainly don't know that yet. We do know he has taken money from entities, who he can not verify. There is no reason to believe he hasn't taken money from foreign nationals.
Obama Won Kenobi is going to wave his hand and say, "These aren't the illegal campaign funds you are a looking for". The media will shrug and say, "No, these are not the illegal funds, move along" and that will be that.
move along, move along...
Are these articles that get posted ever fact checked? The entire premise of the article is wrong. Obama pledged to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" but that was before McCain flip-flopped on public financing in the primary. Sure, you could argue about what "aggressively pursue" means but there was an attempt at negotiations. Regardless, this whole concept of public financing is a joke since McCain is getting plenty of financial help for his campaign through 527 groups and the RNC even having the RNC spend $150K on clothes for his VP choice.
Tom, what's the definition of "is"? If nothing he has done gives you any pause at all, you're ready for your patriotic uniform. The contribution scam raises all kinds of legal and ethical flags. We need to get you a shirt, "I'm more in the tank for O! than Campbell Browm".
Ah. I see, Tom. So the word "aggressive" in your sentence means something a bit different than what most of us think it means.
See, if I said I was going to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with a customer, you'd naturally assume that meant that I'd keep trying to get an agreement even if the customer proved balky, at first, or said something mean about me, or put conditions annoying but not deal-killing on the agreement. That's what most of us think "aggressive" means.
But not you, and not Obama. "Aggressively pursue" means "will agree if you don't do X and Y to annoy me in the meantime" or maybe just "float it as a concept, see if it takes fire" or maybe even "agree if you suck my dick first, and it suits me." Who knows?
A fine example of the typical Redefine The Language defense of the left. Do you people ever get in a situation, what with your bewildering blizzard of redefining terms, where you don't know what the fuck your own name is? Seems likely. Maybe that's why you want public financing of mental health.
This is followed up by the secondary defense mechanisms of the left, namely Change The Subject (let's talk about McCain's campaign finance strategy instead of whether Obama broke his promise or not), Compare Apples To Oranges (Obama's personal campaign funds versus 527s and the RNC), and You Do It Too! (it's OK if Obama reneges on his promises because of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth in 2004, or maybe because of some nastiness Warren Harding pulled in 1924), not to mention Comparing Mountains To Molehills (So what about Obama's $150 million? Look at the RNC's $150,000!).
All of which kind of rely on the utter dominance of sound-bit idea-salad rhetoric over common sense and plain logic. I can understand why you folks have difficulty passing algebra or learning how to fly a fighter jet.
Like I said, you can argue about what "aggressively pursue' but changing the subject, it sure is funny how there is a double standard here. You perceive that Obama broke a pledge but how about the many pledges that McCain and his running mate (who hasn't had a whole lot of time on the job) have broken?
Which pledges? McCain took public money like he said he would. Obama? Not so much. Illegal foreign contributions have already been identified in the Uno's campaign and there WILL be more. They set up their website to let it happen. No verification? You would only do that to facilitate getting as much money as possible, regardless of where it came from. Keep this up and you'll get all kinds of patches for your uniform
but how about the many pledges that McCain and his running mate (who hasn't had a whole lot of time on the job) have broken?
Approximately zero. Next question?