MoveOn.org Anti-McCain Ad

[Anonymous]

Some of the PPs (well maybe only one) are offensive on many levels. I'm not sure if its the whiff of jingoism, or the totally dismissive tenor of the post, the latter is which is so rare on this forum, or the suggestion that to feel moved by the ad is somehow unpatriotic.

I grew up in the 60s. I remember my mother expressing the same thoughts, emotions, and sentiments as the ad posted by Ms. Steele. She is the most patriotic person I know.

[Anonymous]

From Ben Smith's Politico blog just now:

"Obama opts out of 'broken' public financing system

Obama announced in a video message to supporters this morning that he won't participate in a public financing system to which he appeared to have committed last year, citing the system's flaws and the threat of -- so far absent --well-funded attacks from independent groups on behalf of John McCain.

Obama cast the decision, expected to give him a massive edge over McCain, as a risk and a sacrifice.

"We’ll be forgoing more than $80 mil in public funds," he said, adding that while he supports a "robust" public system, "the public financing of presidential election as it exists today is broken and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system."

"We’ve already seen that [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," he said, though the only well-funded independent attack ads, from MoveOn.org, have been directed at McCain.

"I’m asking you to try to do something that’s neverbeen done before: Declare our independence from a broken system and run the type of campaign that reflects our grassroot values," Obama said. "Let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people."

The video appears above a request for contributions."

So Obama is (1) reversing his previous statement about his willingness to accept public financing, and (2) claiming that it is pro-McCain 527 groups that are running attack ads, when it is actually Move On running the anti-McCain ad that Jeff posted. Since Obama can raise so much money, it is hardly a risk and a sacrifice to forgo public funding. And it's very disingenuous to talk about 527 attack ads, given Move On's ad. Move On, in fact, is the real master of "gaming the broken system." This looks rather hypocritical, I think. I'm disappointed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
"Obama opts out of 'broken' public financing system

This probably deserves its own thread. But, my take is:

1) During the primary, McCain notified the FEC that he would take public funding. He then used the future funds that would be provided to secure a bank loan. After receiving the loan (i.e. obtaining a benefit from the public financing system), McCain decided to opt-out of public financing. The head of the FEC said that McCain could not do that, but since the FEC is short of members it can't take any action. The DNC is pursuing a law suit about this. So, McCain has already set a more egregious precedent in this regard.

2) I posted one 527 ad. I did not post every 527 ad. I could fill the forums with anti-Obama ads if I was so inclined. Note that Smith writes, "though the only well-funded independent attack ads, from MoveOn.org, have been directed at McCain." (emphasis mine). Obama has been targeted by poorly funded 527s who make an Internet ad and then rely on the cable news networks to show it over and over again 24 hours per day for several days (claiming that they are reporting a news story). Some of these groups can't even afford to pay to have the ad shown a single time on TV. Yet, they get millions of dollars of free exposure from CNN, MSNBC, and FNC. That is what Obama really has to combat.

3) Obama has been able to establish a grass-roots fundraising network that is a corrective to the "fat cat" funding systems of the past. By relying on millions of small donors, he is revolutionizing how campaigns raise money. It only makes sense to keep building on this and use it to his advantage rather than allowing McCain to establish equal footing. Let the Republicans cry about it. Experience has already shown that McCain would do exactly the same thing if he had the opportunity (as he did during the primary).

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Obama opts out of 'broken' public financing system

This probably deserves its own thread. But, my take is:

1) During the primary, McCain notified the FEC that he would take public funding. He then used the future funds that would be provided to secure a bank loan. After receiving the loan (i.e. obtaining a benefit from the public financing system), McCain decided to opt-out of public financing. The head of the FEC said that McCain could not do that, but since the FEC is short of members it can't take any action. The DNC is pursuing a law suit about this. So, McCain has already set a more egregious precedent in this regard.

2) I posted one 527 ad. I did not post every 527 ad. I could fill the forums with anti-Obama ads if I was so inclined. Note that Smith writes, "though the only well-funded independent attack ads, from MoveOn.org, have been directed at McCain." (emphasis mine). Obama has been targeted by poorly funded 527s who make an Internet ad and then rely on the cable news networks to show it over and over again 24 hours per day for several days (claiming that they are reporting a news story). Some of these groups can't even afford to pay to have the ad shown a single time on TV. Yet, they get millions of dollars of free exposure from CNN, MSNBC, and FNC. That is what Obama really has to combat.

3) Obama has been able to establish a grass-roots fundraising network that is a corrective to the "fat cat" funding systems of the past. By relying on millions of small donors, he is revolutionizing how campaigns raise money. It only makes sense to keep building on this and use it to his advantage rather than allowing McCain to establish equal footing. Let the Republicans cry about it. Experience has already shown that McCain would do exactly the same thing if he had the opportunity (as he did during the primary).

I'm the poster who posted about Obama's decision and I would like to agree with you. Just three things trouble me (that I can think of). First, Obama signed a pledge agreeing to use the federal system and reversed his decision only after it became apparent that he could raise huge sums of money. For that reason, I think his actions look hypocritical. Second, Move On is one of the best-funded 527s in the country. Obama shut down donations to Progressive Media saying he wanted control over his message (and the Democrats' message), which is his right as the nominee. I applauded him doing that. Why doesn't he do the same with Move On? All he has to do is tell his donors to stop contributing to them. Move On is using his database, remember. Again, it looks hypocritical: Decry the 527s but then benefit from the best-funded one of all. Finally, the "fat cat" funding system is still very much in place with Obama. He uses bundlers as effectively as anyone and had a $28,500 per head fundraiser for them last night at Hickory Hill, RFK's home. Not very "grassroots."

It bothers me that he signed a pledge and walked back on it. I expect more from him than I do from McCain because Obama sets himself up as an exemplar. Read Halperin's take on why he did it: http://thepage.time.com/halperin’s-take-the-truth-about-why-obama-opted-out-—-and-what-it-means/

As Halperin says, the media's coverage of Obama ensures he won't pay much of a price for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it manipulative. Move On lost me a long time ago, though.

Plus, we do still have a volunteer army.

How long do you think this "volunteer" army will last? Now the military recruiters are digging down into the trenches and recruiting the populations who were not qualified to join before: high school dropouts, overweight, ex-convicts... After they run out of this demographic to recruit from, if the war goes 100 years, reinstitution of the draft is a likely scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, I would like to have one, just one, election where people didn't need to polarized by fear and/or loathing during the process. Wouldn't it be great if both candidates admitted the other candidate's strong points, and complimented them, and then went on to say why they thought they were the better candidate solely on their own merits?

For me in my adult life, the polarization began with the 2000 presidential elections. The country is still polarized as a result of it.

[Anonymous]

The content of the ad pissed me off as a mom. Let's stick to manipulating adults, shall we?

Although I disagree with McCain's policies, acting like he WANTS to be at war is a really cheap shot that's distracting from real policy and action debate that needs to happen. PP had a great point about focusing on how to clean up and pay for this mess (an understatement given loss of life and trauma) should be the issue.

At least McC is not a Chickenhawk like W and Cheney. (So much easier to launch an attack when it's someone else's kid...) McCain's POW history negates any of this from a campaign strategy point of view.

Let's move on to real discussion. IMO, there should be a ban on any candidate targeted ads that aren't officially endorsed by a campaign. It's a waste of time and airwaves to pretend with all these shenanigans.

[Anonymous]

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has criticized Obama's decision, as have the watchdog groups:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/beyond/2008/06/obamas-ethics-allies-are-not-p.html

As for McCain, as 11:27 said, it's a cheap shot to claim that he wants to be at war. His youngest son is serving as a Marine in Iraq, I believe.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has criticized Obama's decision, as have the watchdog groups:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/beyond/2008/06/obamas-ethics-allies-are-not-p.html

As for McCain, as 11:27 said, it's a cheap shot to claim that he wants to be at war. His youngest son is serving as a Marine in Iraq, I believe.

The watchdog groups criticized McCain when he used public financing as collateral for a loan and then opted-out of the system. Their complaints had no impact then and won't have any impact now. Why should Obama unilaterally give up a significant advantage? Would McCain do that?

Obama's fundraising capabilities will give him the ability to wage a 50-state campaign. No state will be off-limits -- no matter how red. This will help immensely with the down-ticket races and will yield additional House and Senate victories. A larger Democratic caucus will mean more supporters for Feingold's proposed reforms. He should take a longer term view toward things.

McCain's son is back from Iraq. Jim Webb's son also served as a marine in Iraq and Bush taunted Webb about it.

McCain most definitely wants to continue the US presence in Iraq. US troops in Iraq are currently involved in a war and that is unlikely to change in the near future. He has no plan other than the continuation of Bush's policy. If McCain does not want to be at war, he is doing a poor job of showing it. If any of you can explain what is different between the Bush and McCain plans for Iraq, I'm all ears.