Letter to the editor:

Obama shows what a hypocrite he can be

Clarence Lanzrath, Las Vegas

Fri, Jun 27, 2008 (2:03 a.m.)

Some may call it flip-flopping, but I call it being outright hypocritical. I am referring to Sen. Barack Obama’s announcement that he will not accept public financing for his presidential campaign.

Public financing would have limited his campaign spending to no more than $85 million from September till Election Day in November. This is where the hypocrisy kicks in.

He previously agreed to public financing, but has since found out he can raise a lot more money in other ways. Obama thinks he outflanked Sen. John McCain with this maneuver, but in so doing he showed his true nature.

Isn’t it considered a breach when an individual, whether in the public or the private sector, breaks an agreement?

I’m sorry, but I could not put my trust in an individual who would resort to such an action.

Discussion: 3 comments so far…

By Teaser

6/27/08 at 10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wow. He decides not to use public tax money, and everybody gets pissy about that. First we decry politicians for taxing us to death, but then when they save us money, we get mad about it. Sound to me like we're the hypocrites.
By JohnF

6/27/08 at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Actually, the reason Obama was in favor of public financing of elections is that it removes much of the influence of PACs and other big money donors from the election process.

Despite rejecting public financing, Obama, however, has already not only forbidden his campaign from taking PAC and lobbyist money, he's also forbidden the Democratic National Committee from taking any of that money also. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the DNC only has a few million in cash on hand while the RNC has over $30 million in cash on hand to spend supporting McCain?

So while Obama may not have stuck to the letter of his own rules, he certainly hasn't violated the spirit of them.

According to the Federal Election Commission, of the $287 million raised by Barack Obama, $187 million (65%) has come from donations of under $1,000. Nearly half of all of Obama's campaign contributions ($135 million) came from donations of under $200. John McCain, by contrast, has raised $111 million, of which $63 million (57%) has come from donations of OVER $1,000.

In other words, if Barack Obama limited himself to only contributions of less than $200, he still would have raised over $20 million more than John McCain. If we are concerned that Obama not opting in to public campaign financing means that he'll be subject to the influence of large donors we needn't be.
By EmailCity

6/28/08 at 2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Before you start repeating what the liberal media (pretty much all the TV network news and the AP) keeps telling you, you should do a little research. If you had, you would realize that most of Obama's money is not as pure as snow!!

More importantly, you would realize that McCain and the RNC's money is not dirty!!

Do your homework! Start thinking and stop repeating!!

FACTCHECK.ORG
Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money

Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money.

of if you do not want to do the research you can read the article at:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142399