July 10, 2008

What’s in Obama’s wallet if his halo dims? [Karl]

Sean Oxendine and others are speculating that Brack Obama’s fundraising may be petering out.  I think it highly unlikely that John McCain will somehow have outraised Obama in June, though I could easily see them falling short of the prior $100 million dollar hype.

Their speculation, however, triggered a bit of my own.  Web traffic to Obama’s site has been tailing off and is currently at a six-month low.  The situation raises the issue of whether Obama’s recent shifts — rhetorical or otherwise — on Iraq, the terrorist surveillance program, faith-based initiatives, etc. will dampen the enthusiasm of his base voters enough to affect his fundraising. 

On the electronic surveillance issue alone, there is anecdotal evidence in Kos and Democrats.com folk withholding donations, MyBarackObama.com members considering asking for refunds, and the Glenn Greenwald(s)-Ron Paul axis organizing online fundraising against Democrats.  If Obama’s halo of Hopeyness and Changitude dims more broadly over an issue like Iraq, the number of people who may still vote for him but decline to donate — or even donate less — could become significant.

On a related note, pw regulars will not be surprised to learn that Obama’s big push in Missouri (and elsewhere, presumably) is based around building grassroots, neighbor-to-neighbor networks.  This is another crucial aspect of the Obama campaign that could suffer if his base continues to become disillusioned with his supposed shifts on key issues.

Update: At the HuffPo, Sam Stein reports: “Major donors to Barack Obama’s campaign were told Wednesday evening that fundraising efforts were “a little slow” and that they should help retire Hillary Clinton’s campaign debt so that the New York Democrat’s supporters would, in turn, give to Obama…”

Posted by Karl @ 8:30am
124 comments | Trackback

Comments (124)

  1. There’s a Glenn Greenwald-Ron Paul axis? Can we send in the marines?

  2. supposed?

  3. I said that opting out of federal funding would be a mistake.
    Now his is running out of O-mentum.

  4. Oh. Also Karl… your comments aren’t enabled on your previous post.

  5. hf,

    supposed in the sense that (aside from FISA, where he voted) we really don’t know where he’ll ultimately end up.

  6. hf,

    looking into problem with the prior post.

  7. last post should be comment enabled now.

  8. Got it. Baracky wakes up every morning to find the world a new and surprising place. Like yesterday… who’da thought them Iranians were dangerous? Gosh we better ratchet down our rhetoric he says as he ratchets up his rhetoric. There are medications for this.

  9. A thought just occurred to me… Why is O! spending all this money for ads and rallies and personal appearances and such? If he has so much money, the electoral college is made up of only 538 electors that technically can vote for whomever they want… Why not just buy each of their votes for a cool.. say.. $100K cash taxfree under-the-table.. spend less than $55 Mil and win in a landlside… Not just the first Black President.. but the first President to win with 100% of the electoral vote.. Just a thought..

  10. He could spend the rest of the unused campaign funds on carbon offset credits or a bunch of Toyotas with solar panels for the homeless or something…

  11. People who actually work for a living are beginning to realize that they’ll be the ones paying for all those new hopey and changey policies Oboner is pushing.

  12. Have you tried that “continuum of cute” thinger yet?

    When I made mine, dhickens pretty much ended up near the lamprey eels, clawed grasshoppers, and mexican pets.

  13. Aw, Golden Dancer’s not so nice once you actually use him…

  14. How did that happen. That post is in an incorrect thread.

  15. This isn’t surprising. The movement was based on emotion, mostly, and that has to be catered to constantly. The hype has to be maintained, and that is difficult in a media and advertising saturated culture. We have so much information coming to us all the time that control can’t be kept over the message. Once upon a time, you could keep the hype up because you could give out the message in controled doses; that time is gone and the overdose is what happens.

    Once the passion is gone, everything collapses.

  16. One writer speculated that it would actually be good for JMC to maintain public financing, as Obama would have to sound more partisan to pimp for money from fundraisers in the fall.

    Hopey, Changey!

    Quite different from democracy, whiskey, sexy!

  17. Your messiah wasn’t. So, I’m sorry you’re all bored now.

  18. New Coke launched with a huge ad spend too. They ended up scaling that back if I remember.

  19. Except the inherited Paul-bots are still showing enthusiasm. They are pretty persuasive so O won’t need much money.

  20. Would it not be hilariously ironic were Obama to be ultimately undone by his own Hegelian internals, without the need for a helpful push from anyone external to his own person? Somehow, and I recognise this is genuinely vague right now, I’m struck by the extent to which Obama simply cannot help himself when it comes to revealing his ‘condescension’ (highlighted by J.J.’s “talking down to blacks” and the upper-west-side-ish emphasis on foreign language mastery), his slight of Sen. Clinton at an event intended to unify his party, his supposition that no-one will notice his 180deg. reversals of position over questions and issues involving presumptively core principles, all the while claiming he’s not reversed a bit?
    He’s shallow and there’s really nothing he can do about it as shallowness is a flaw that cannot be repaired overnight, let alone in the midst of a campaign for the presidency. He’s widely ignorant of American life, despite the fact he’s been touring the country for over a year now. He’s stuck with the inadequate backward-looking education he got at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law. It can’t be undone. And that education didn’t give him the intellectual tools to self-correct.

  21. Good Lord, New Coke. That was the worst beverage ever. However, it did help Coca-Cola shake off the sugar cane contracts it thought were too expensive – the present incarnation of Classic Coke is not the old formula at all.

  22. Does anyone else notice that in every Obama photo with the little halo he is facing east?

  23. He’s shallow and there’s really nothing he can do about it

    You’re right. His life experience if you believe his biography is an iterative exploration of how victimyness can be leveraged, personally and professionally. But the country he wants to be president of is the quintessential non-victim. His life experience has given him no insight into what this means I don’t think.

  24. O will likely win some of the cities in MO–KC, the Loo, Columbia–but most likely not anywhere else. I suspect most everybody in smaller towns and rural areas will look at his willingness to surrender in Iraq and his association with Chicago machine politics and all the gun-grabbing, dead-voter encouraging shenanigans associated with that, and think “Are you kidding me?”

    We’re the Show-Me state, after all, and he’s got nothing to show except big government programs, more taxes, and less freedom.

  25. Does anyone else notice that in every Obama photo with the little halo he is facing east?

    Not if the picture is facing north, then he’d be facing west!

  26. I hope both panderers have to panhandle their way to November.

    Public financing is the only way to de-Iraq our own corrupt system.

    Both have flop-sweated their fiscal souls by agreeing to public financing rules when it was more lucrative, then abandoning it when something better comes along. Politics as usual is not good enough
    anymore. When we hold them accountable, things will actually change for the berter.

  27. The thing about holding politicians accountable is, that’s supposed to be what elections are for.

  28. I bertered a chicken once for some New Coke.
    A bad deal.

  29. “…Politics as usual is not good enough anymore. …”

    You haven’t a clue, huh, Cleo?

    “…When we hold them accountable…”

    Cloudcuckooland much?

  30. I want to change for the berter too cleo.

  31. Wasn’t berter town in Beyond Thunderdome? Two men enter, one man leave.

  32. Comment by Semanticleo on 7/10 @ 9:20 am #

    Do you speak English, by any chance?

  33. “that’s supposed to be what elections are for.”

    McG;

    Saddam had elections. What do you propose, writing in ‘None of the Above’?

  34. No, berter was Ernie’s pal.

  35. Saddam had elections.

    Cleo no doubt means to compare the elections under Saddam with our own as a serious argument. Quite possibly the stupidest argument he has ever made, which is really saying something.

  36. Comment by Semanticleo on 7/10 @ 9:35 am #

    Do you speak Jive?

  37. cleo when you get bitter what do you cling to?

  38. Jimmy Carter’s ass.

  39. It was only meant in the sense that elections themselves are not enough,
    ‘educated guy’.

  40. - Sarah – The comment thing was because you were using free range chickens I think.

  41. Sure it is cleo, and we can tell by all the other crystal clear things you have said here. At least you will always have your ego to keep you company.

  42. ‘we can tell by all the other crystal clear things you have said here’

    No, you can’t and more’s the pity for those who ‘educated’ you.

  43. The only time I have ever watched Obama speak was when he was on WWE. The had him wrestle Hillary.

  44. Poor cleo, stomping his widdle footies over his inability to clearly express himself and blaming that failure on others.

  45. The circus comedy that constitutes the Obama campaign. This is a scenario that has repeated itself multiple times on other issues. On terrorism – Obama is asked a straight forward question on his anticipated policies to combat terrorism; and, he responds in an equally forward manner that he would handle the issue as a police action. The McCain camp immediately exploits Obama’s naive response, correctly highlighting Obama’s dangerous inexperience and lack of understanding of the gravity/complexity of the issue. Obama’s handlers immediately haul him into the cloak room; advise him that his response was feeble and misguided; tell him what he should have said; and, send him back into the public forum, teleprompter in hand , to read his handlers prepared text on the latest version of his position. The Main Stream Media immediately chimes-in lauding Obama for what he meant to say on the issue all-along!
    Unequivocally, Obama is the equivalent of a circus clown; a stand-up comic; a circus-barker attempting to lure the mentally-challenged into the tent with promises of an epiphany; a Charley McCarthy mannequin that appears to lip-sync the commentary from his ventriloquist controllers. This man is an virtual imbecile who is totally without the capacity to speak intelligently on issues on which he has not been previously programmed by his puppet masters. P.T. Barnum was right on target when he observed: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” ; but, hopefully the American electorate will not be duped by such a charlatan. Obama’s long-term subversive associations, and his immersion in seditious anti-American diatribe of Black Liberation Theology have indeed revealed Obama as the real-life Manchurian Candidate.

  46. Cleo no doubt means to compare the elections under Saddam with our own as a serious argument. Quite possibly the stupidest argument he has ever made, which is really saying something.

    Oh my gawd, no kidding.

    There is this documentary of the guy and gal who went to Iraq before the war saying they were there to film about archaeological sites. They were really there to see the way of life under the regime. They were assigned a minder and were NOT allowed to film at will so they sort of pretended their camera was off and propped it at odd angles and the minder kept strict control of them and they were not allowed to talk to everyday Iraqi’s, only one encounter if they only talked about Beckham soccer. Saddam rebuilt Babylon making sure that like every other brick was a special Saddam brick that said what a great leader he was and he rebuilt Babylon. His massive palace being built next to Babylon was NOT to filmed because Saddam didn’t want anyone to know. They got it before being told.

    They talked about the forced referendum elections of Saddam the only person on the ballot forcing people out in droves to vote for the only person another on godly amount of years.

    What is it about American liberals that worship such oppression and think freedom is something only they should enjoy?

  47. “clearly express himself and blaming that failure on others.”

    >chuckle>

    Yeah. My envy runs deep for folks like ‘educated guy’ who write in simple, declarative sentences devoid of originality.

  48. Greg Neubeck

  49. Nice pull EG.

  50. - I hate to say this, but maybe in a landmark event clueless cleo is , in a most vague way, right that the way the elections are presently run, the primary structure is obviously a lft over from the early days in American local political machine operations, guarenteeing that the party bosses in the DNC and RNC are the deciders, and not the electorate.

    - How else to explain how we ended up with a Republican cansisate that no one in the party likes, and a Democratic candidate that no one in the party knows anything about.

    - I notice that the one thing that all politicians run from like a raped ape is national reforendums. Maybe its time for one, wherein we vote to abolish the present “caucus.delegate system, and instead just run the primaries as a normal popular vote system, wherein the list gets pared to the final one person each for any viable parties.

    - Anyone from any party that could get a signitory list of say half million signitures could get on the primary ballot. Each candidate that made the ballot would have 50 mill to rub with, all public financing, no more contributions.

    - Eliminates “buying” influence.
    - Insures everyone has an equal chance.
    - Lets the people decide.
    - Gives lessor known parties and candidates and equal chance.
    - No one party or person has an advantage.
    - minimizes media influence.

    - Makes so much sense it will never happen.

  51. Proggy, werent you Pro-Obama just the other day??? Are you changing your positions as you flip between ProggHero & ConservativeHero personae ? Role playing? Blog Playhouse 90?

  52. Well it figures you would favor “originality” over easily understandable declarative sentences. Sadly, you fail on both counts. But buck up camper, you seem to have mastered putting a derivation of my SN in what I am assuming is meant to be sneer quotes.

  53. Thanks CH.

  54. “what I am assuming is meant to be sneer quotes.”

    So, thinking occasionally occurs to you. Did it hurt to go beyond the surface?

  55. Yeah. My envy runs deep for folks like ‘educated guy’ who write in simple, declarative sentences devoid of originality.

    Uh, twat-waffle, writing is supposed to be about communication. If you’re not communicating your ideas, you’re doing it wrong. I could slip an invented word into every other sentence, and while my writing would be “original”, it would also be meaningless.

    Clarity in communication is something to be pursued, not eschewed. Your elliptical references and half-expressed ideas are not a form of communication; they are at best a means to provoke, particularly when your response for clarification is hostility and insults.

    The thing that anyone who’s spent any time writing seriously will tell you is that clarity is hard; obscurity is easy. Your writing style just says to me that you care so little for your own thoughts that you won’t try to make them clear.

  56. - Gives lessor known parties and candidates and equal chance.

    Sorry, but that’s a bug, not a feature. There’s a reason the little parties are little.

  57. - clueless. Do not misunderstand. I agree solely that the electoral process needs an overhaul. 99.9% of your comments on here over the months have been subjectified pretzel logic blather.

  58. CornCob;

    “If you’re not communicating your ideas,”

    Just because you don’t LIKE what I say, doesn’t mean I’m not communicating. But I do enjoy lectures from semi-literates because even THEY can sometimes communicate an important idea. Still waiting for yours.

  59. Yes cleo, attempts at normal human communication with you are often painful.

  60. Speaking for myself, the cut-and-pasty isn’t entertaining much. Get a new gimmick.

  61. “Sorry, but that’s a bug, not a feature. There’s a reason the little parties are little.”

    - I respectfully disagree. Having a broader range of candidates on the primary ticket would give everyone a “voice” in the process, make the whole system seem more voter friendly, and no harm would be done since if they couldn’t cut it they wouldn’t win. Unless of course you’re afraid a “dark horse” might eclipse the party “favorite”.

  62. BBH – Doesn’t the primary system represent the part of the system with the larger choice? If that was merely run by party bosses, then it seems to me that folks like Ron Paul would never be able to get on the ballot.

  63. I agree Sarah this is starting to feel about as worn out as a flat soda.

  64. Pingback: The Conservative Pulse: Jesse Jackson trashes Obama, and more at The Liberty Preservation Alliance

  65. “attempts at normal human communication with you are often painful.”

    Third strike. You’re out.

  66. “it seems to me that folks like Ron Paul would never be able to get on the ballot”

    And all is right with the world.

  67. Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan=the best presidential ticket evah!!!!!

  68. Conhero – so maybe you could take up fan dancing or something.

    I have to drive up to Dumfries to see a man about a polar-bear smiting SUV today.
    Anybody want me to pick up something from IKEA? Some of that caviar toothpaste?

  69. Have a nice day leo.

  70. “BBH – Doesn’t the primary system represent the part of the system with the larger choice?”

    - That was the original idea. But the way the caucus/delegate system is operated, the party central operation, which oversees and runs the delegate operations top to bottom, effectively negates the popular vote. See the Hillery/Obama campaign. You also have the possibility of situations like FL/MI, where it ends up a handfull of people in the party machinery, in that case the “election committee”, entirely on its own, decides for all the voters of those states, completely disenfranchising the popular vote.

    - The whole system is arranged to ensure party power block control. Screw the people.

  71. Whats in between Dumfries and Manasass? Dumbasses.

  72. 65. Comment by Semanticleo on 7/10 @ 10:15 am

    When the only common thread in your failed attempts at discussion are you, of course it can’t be your fault.

  73. Also car dealerships.

  74. Some Polar bear fry-huts.

  75. and something like, 100% humidity. Although I heard it was supposed to be nicer today.

  76. Dumfries

    Way to backhand the French, but I think “Superciliousfries” would be more accurate.

  77. Lets see:
    -Only child
    -No father figure
    -High School loser/loner
    -high SAT
    -scolarship to regional liberal arts college
    -finally found some friends
    -heard some things from his professors his small-town teachers didn’t talk about
    -couldn’t get a job after graduation
    -went to grad school under his favorite professor
    -still in grad school

    (C)leo, am I close at all?

  78. They might have a Glory Days by the IKEA if my memory serves me.
    Do me a favor though while your down there try to tell cops to stop enforcing immigration laws. All those illegals are coming over here to Fairfax county in waves now.

    PS Hope you do not live in Manasass.

  79. Berger you might have to wait a while cleo has his laptop set up in the Quad and went to grab a triple mocha fraphichino. He will brb.

  80. Oh, McGehee, Dumfries just acronymic for Delicious Ursus Maritimus fries.

  81. Public financing is the only way to de-Iraq our own corrupt system.

    That’s not at all true. Public financing of elections is a colossally stupid idea. Certain people are guaranteed to love it, though, because it’s a typical government solution: doesn’t address the actual problem, costs a shitload of money, and gives the government even more power.

    Perfect for a statist such as yourself.

  82. Visiting Manassas is enough.
    Tying up the hair is sort of a requisite for a visit to Potomac Mills.

    Loose hair in 100% humidity equals this in broken pakistani pick up lines.:

    “You the actress?” “You lika the pepper?”
    “You the artist?” “In the dance theatre?” “You were in the Lord of the Rings?” “Your hair says yes”
    Even old and busted hair seems to attract too much notice.

  83. W

    Delicious Ursus Maritimus fries.

    Sounds like crispy, deep-fried strips of polar bear…

  84. Jim in KC, oh Baby.

    I like to drown them in an arctic sea of ketchup.

  85. “Public financing of elections is a colossally stupid idea.”

    - Again Jim, I respectfully disagree. I am vehemently against any sort of governemental involvement, the less the better, but this approaach doesn’t give the government any particular “power”. Its a simple case of the people saying “Ok gov, you spend our tax dollars on every manner of bullshit we have no say in, heres something we are willing to pay for out of all the gazzillions of dollars you rape us for each year. Namely financing the legitimate campaigns of people we want to give a chance at public office”.

    - And it does answer several issues. It means everyone runs the race in the same length lanes. It would shut down special interests from “buying” undue influence in campaign, and finally it would actually reduce spending, and the absolute onslaught of campaign hype and advertising.

    - Besides, you pay for it one way or another anyway, so why not at least make the system equitable, limited, and legal.

  86. Just because you don’t LIKE what I say, doesn’t mean I’m not communicating.

    The fact that I can’t tell the point you’re trying to make means you’re not communicating. Again, elliptical references and half-stated positions are not communicative; they’re simply a way for you to strike your arrogant pose when people ask you what the fuck you’re talking about.

    But I do enjoy lectures from semi-literates because even THEY can sometimes communicate an important idea.

    So clear-writing is the same as “semi-literate”? WTF qualifies as “literate”?

    Good Lord, but the educational system has collapsed if people like ‘cleo think they’re erudite. We seriously need to purge the “self esteem” crap from the schools.

  87. Out west there’s a chain called “Arctic Circle” that promotes (among other things) its “fry sauce.” I was reminded of this a couple of days ago on that thread where I was the target of an anti-Miracle Whip fatwa.

  88. Its a simple case of the people saying “Ok gov, you spend our tax dollars on every manner of bullshit we have no say in, heres something we are willing to pay for out of all the gazzillions of dollars you rape us for each year. Namely financing the legitimate campaigns of people we want to give a chance at public office”.

    Fewer and fewer people are checking that little box on their tax forms every year.

  89. BBH — you really think public financing would reduce corruption? Do you have any evidence of that from nations that have public financing of campaigns?

  90. I check the box.. I’m afraid they’ll audit me if I dont.

  91. BBH, follow the money to the real problem, and I think you’ll see why there are better solutions. Not more popular, just better.

    More later, I have to get back to work.

  92. “Fewer and fewer people are checking that little box on their tax forms every year.”

    = Thats a chicken or the egg deal McG. Why bother when campaigns are envagled by all manners of uneven, illegal, and who knows what else, donations.

    - If a specific system was established that candidates could not depart from and people thought was actually enforced and mattered, understood the whys and wherefores, that could very easily change.

    - As things stand theres no incentive, and I suspect the parties are more than happy with the corrupt system as it exists.

  93. “BBH — you really think public financing would reduce corruption? Do you have any evidence of that from nations that have public financing of campaigns?”

    - Only if it were enforced. If campaigns/candidates could still find loopholes, or just throught outright illegal actions, too take money under the table, or if the legislature did nothing to make them toe the line on financing, then it would make no difference.

    - Its like border control. If you can’t police it and make the policies mean something, then the whole enterprise is a boondoggle.

  94. As someone with a little more familiarity than most with the way election law works, let me suggest to you that when the Federal Election Commission makes its annual budget request to Congress, it is very much like a system in which the EPA would submit its annual budget request to a committee of coal company executives.

    Federalist No. 10 still explains it all pretty well, too.

  95. - Only if it were enforced. If campaigns/candidates could still find loopholes, or just throught outright illegal actions, too take money under the table, or if the legislature did nothing to make them toe the line on financing, then it would make no difference.

    In other words, you trust the fox to guard the hen house.

  96. - I’ll put the question a different way. Suppose all private contributions had to ne made to a “common presidential campaign account”, from which the financing of all candidates was derived, supplemented with any shortfall.

    - How many special interests would be willing to contribute to such an account? Less people than check the boxes I would guess.

    - Any system that takes campaign manipulation out of special interest hands is by definition “better”. Of course there could be even better systems, but are they practical.

  97. -“in other words, you trust the fox to guard the hen house.”

    - We already do, with no rules, limits, or accounting of any sort.

    - At least this way there would be a bench mark to compare against. I suspect it would at the very least reduce the skullduggery to some extent.

  98. - Also any sort of excess spending above the limit would be fairly obvious. If a candidate suddenly started running a TV Ad blitz, in excess of everyone else it would be obvious. Thats why I think a spending “benchmark would make such contrivances much harder to get away with.

  99. Your system would also have to eliminate any contributions from outside sources, such as 527s, and would have to enforce a fairness doctrine on the media. Otherwise the influence peddling would just shift from direct contributions to indirect ones using third-party media buys.

  100. I’ll put the question a different way. Suppose all private contributions had to ne made to a “common presidential campaign account”, from which the financing of all candidates was derived, supplemented with any shortfall.

    Which means that Cynthia McKinney’s run would be entitled just as much funding as anyone else’s. And that people would be forced to subsidize political campaigns they’re vehemently opposed to.

    Sorry, I just can’t see how it would help. It certainly wouldn’t make us more free; just the opposite from what I can see.

  101. The good stuff usually comes about spontaneously. Engineered systems not so much. Free inquiry!

  102. - There are problems, no doubt, and a fairness doctrine with the media would be a mine field, but not so bad if “minimums” were enforced, rather than maximums. Obviously there would still be room for abuse, but again at least it would show clear bias, something that gets argued all the time as things stand, would suddenly be glaringly obvious. That could be used to good effect to “out” special interest candidates, so it might be a plus in educating the larger part of the disinterested portion of voters.

    - Increased visibility to what is being done to game the system might be the ideas biggest plus in the long run.

  103. You could make the amount of money dependent on the number of signatures a candidate could get, or have multiple run-offs that have tiered money levels. First round candidates get much less than those who survive to the second round, and so on. Also, people could rank the candidates and you could use some kind of weighting system… .

    Somehow that would still mean McCain would be the candidate for the Rs. I just know it.

  104. I don’t know BBH.

    I will admit colossal ignorance of election financing, but I do like that my membership dues to the NRA can be pooled with other like minded individuals to give the pro-2nd amendment candidate an edge. I think trying to stop that kind of influence is like bemoaning lobbiests, which in my mind are part of a representative style of government. I don’t think we really want a pure democracy, which is what I think your idea would push us toward.

    Probably I’m talking out my ass and not making sense though…

  105. “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

    60 min/hr x 24 hr/day x 356 days/yr = 525600 suckers/yr

    “about 4.1 million babies were born in the United States [in 2005]”

    (4100000 – 525600)/525600 is a 6.8 to 1 ratio.

    94 comments at this point, 8 are by semanticleo is (94-8)/8 or a 10.7 to 1 ratio.

    Seems like the odds indicate there should be fewer comments here by people like semanticleo.

  106. “And that people would be forced to subsidize political campaigns they’re vehemently opposed to.”

    - there are certainly some good arguments against public financing, but this isn’t one of them.

    - Assuming any given candidate, even grossly unpopular people, could make the minimum requirements, I try not to even think about what campaigns cost each and every one of us right now.

    - Even if a primary ballot ended up with a half dozen candidates for each large party, and a handful in the smaller ones, I’m willing to bet at 25 mill each we’d save a ton of money, especially if campaigns in the primaries were limited to 4 months or some such. Special interests could still contribute to the general fund allowing them to support a particular party, just not a particular candidate.

  107. BBH, I refer you to my first reply to Semanticleo: the way to hold politicians accountable is to not elect the ones that don’t behave properly.

    Which, oddly enough, is what both Jeff and I plan to do this November — to the extent single voters, choosing individually, can. We’re setting an example.

  108. “And that people would be forced to subsidize political campaigns they’re vehemently opposed to.”

    - there are certainly some good arguments against public financing, but this isn’t one of them.

    Unbelievable.

  109. “Unbelievable.”

    - I was responding specifically to the money argument, and to the idea that you either believe in the popular vote approach, majority rules, or you don’t. I happen too, and therefore I’m not afraid of McKinney candidates gaming the system. She’d still have to win in popupular vote to get anywhere. She’d also have to meet the minimum requirements. If she could do both things, then by definition she’d be legitimate. doesn’t matter what my personal animus might be against her decidedly crazy ideas.

    - and BTW, I intend to do the same as you and Jeff. I” write in Rudi, for what ever its worth.

  110. I plan on writing in Thompson.

  111. “And that people would be forced to subsidize political campaigns they’re vehemently opposed to.”

    It’s already been happening for years under the primary matching fund system, which is based — as BBH would have it — on minimums.

  112. As has been said before, the problem with not voting is that you may not send the signal you intend. I wish there was a “none of the above” selection or “some other (insert your favorite political party here)” selection present and counted. I think that would be an easy way for the electorate to target their dissatisfaction.

    I’m still waffling on whether I will vote for McAmnesty. With the Iraq portion of the WoT apparently coming to a good end, it is less important that the next President is a hawk on Iraq. I don’t think any president will be able to do any more “adventuring” any time soon. If things keep going well, I guess I write in Fred.

  113. - Fred and Rudi were my first choices, but Fred isn’t all that interested, for whatever reason. I suspect maybe health and time away from family. Rudi did not run a smart campaign, but that was the only negative I had with him.

  114. It may sound stupid, but my suggestion would be to remove all of the current limitations on spending. If Soros wants to spend all of his money getting Obama elected why shouldn’t he be able to?

  115. And it all falls under Ric’s Rule #2: Markets happen anyway.

    You cannot “get the money out of politics” because politics is all about money. Nostalgia for a time when that wasn’t so is merely recalling a time when it hadn’t been monetized, and was therefore done on a barter system.

    The problem is not that the goal isn’t desirable. The problem is that it cannot be implemented. You might as well try to write a law exempting nursing mothers from the law of gravity, except that it’s worse because the side effects of the attempts to “solve” the problem are worse than the original problem was.

    Regards,
    Ric

  116. The thing I dislike the most about the semanticleos and the PH/CH’s is that when someone does offer an on-topic thoughtful comment it is lost in the crap that each stirs up. I wrote a comment, #15. I think it is a good one on how difficult it is today to keep hype going.

    The bulk of this comment thread is responding to semanticleo’s baseless accusations,very little on the subject of the post. Considering the work to make the post (nine links provided as citation) it is a shame.

  117. Judge: Your Plea?

    Me: Guilty, your honor.

  118. Proggy, werent you Pro-Obama just the other day??? Are you changing your positions as you flip between ProggHero & ConservativeHero personae ? Role playing? Blog Playhouse 90?

    I suspect he’s in summer school, working on a paper. (Say ‘hi’ to Professor Lakoff for us.)

    SemantiClueless is a Turing test.

  119. Oh. Your #15 is what made me think of New Coke, I remember.

  120. Also, Ricky Martin. Same deal.

  121. The fact that it made someone think of something is balm enough, haps.

    New Coke is like the Edsel. A perfectly put together product launch that failed to actually do what what the launchers wanted. For New Coke, why launch a Pepsi when Pepsi is already on the market; for the Edesel, why market a car for the upcoming yuppie when all the yuppie really wants is a T-Bird?

    We really are past the easy Populuxe years when changing the chrome is actually going to have a long-term effect, especially as the presidential run now lasts beyond a model year.

  122. Sorry Mikey, I’m like a moth to the stupid flame I guess.

  123. Pingback: Obama fundraising concerns confirmed [Karl]

  124. A little late, I know, but congrats on being picked up, in print, by the DC Examiner.

Leave a Reply