Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 06, 2008, 11:59:44 AM
-
Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win
(http://images.newsmax.com/headline_vertical/bought(2).jpg)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.
But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.
And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?
Obama’s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign.
“Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,” veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com.
Obama’s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month.
Almost half of Obama’s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported.
Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors.
The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”
Obama’s fundraising “revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,” Bloomberg observed.
Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama’s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain.
Obama’s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain’s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared.
On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900.
Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort.
. . .
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraisng/2008/11/05/148218.html
-
I voted for him and I didn't get a penny
-
BB= :'( Baby
-
I voted for him and I didn't get a penny had no idea why!
Fixed
-
we're suppose to feel bad for sending Obama money, lol...
-
Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win
(http://images.newsmax.com/headline_vertical/bought(2).jpg)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign smashed all previous fundraising records, raking in more than an astounding $650 million from some 3 million donors and giving him a huge advantage over rival John McCain.
But questions abound regarding the legality of many of the donations that helped propel him to victory.
And one question is: Did Obama “buy” the election?
Obama’s fundraising haul was more than twice the amount Democrat John Kerry raised in 2004, and more than twice what George Bush and Al Gore combined brought in during the 2000 presidential campaign.
“Nobody could have imagined numbers like this or participation like this,” veteran fundraiser Alan Solomont told Bloomberg.com.
Obama’s fundraising effort was in high gear from the very start, bringing in $24.8 million for the primary during the first three months of 2007, compared to $19.1 million for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
By the end of 2007, Obama had raised $102 million. He won the Iowa primary on Jan. 3, 2008, and raised another $36 million that month.
Almost half of Obama’s money came from people donating $200 or less, compared with 34 percent for McCain, Bloomberg reported.
Obama on two occasions promised to work with McCain on an agreement to accept public financing. McCain did accept public financing, limiting his ability to raise private donations, but in June Obama reneged on his vows, enabling him to raise unlimited amounts from donors.
The press by and large did not hold Obama accountable for the broken promises. But McCain sharply criticized him, saying: “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”
Obama’s fundraising “revolutionized the way presidential campaigns are financed and may kill the Watergate-era system of providing public money for the general election,” Bloomberg observed.
Free to raise unlimited funds, Obama’s campaign brought in at least $200 million in September and October, more than doubling the amount available to McCain.
Obama’s huge edge in finances enabled him to devote nearly three times as much as McCain to advertising, with the Democrat spending $21.5 million to McCain’s $7.5 million from Oct. 21 to Oct. 28 as Election Day neared.
On the day before the election, Obama ran 3,410 ads in seven competitive states, while McCain ran only 1,900.
Obama also far outspent McCain on staff salaries, helping him to open field offices and fund a get-out-the-vote effort.
. . .
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraisng/2008/11/05/148218.html
I disagree.
The american voters sealed the win for Obama..
That and Obama headed off the right's attempted election fraud at the pass.
-
Fixed
I assume you voted for McCain because he's white
-
Hey, I'd prefer it be bought rather than stolen the way it was during the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Doesn't the fact that he was able to raise this amount of money tell you something? Even if you want to buy into the avs fraud thing, ( ::) )the majority of his money came from small donations.
-
I disagree.
The american voters sealed the win for Obama..
That and Obama headed off the right's attempted election fraud at the pass.
I disagree. His fundraising success was the single biggest factor in this election. He was able to outspend McCain by millions in all of the battleground states.
Money is almost always the most important factor in an election.
-
All that money is considered free speech when Republicans win. :)
-
I disagree. His fundraising success was the single biggest factor in this election. He was able to outspend McCain by millions in all of the battleground states.
Money is almost always the most important factor in an election.
The Sup. Ct. equates money with free speech. Money is a factor but votes are what is counted....except for the presidential election of 2000.
Votes get candidates elected.
....Last time I checked anyways.
-
The Sup. Ct. equates money with free speech. Money is a factor but votes are what is counted....except for the presidential election of 2000.
Votes get candidates elected.
....Last time I checked anyways.
There is a direct correlation between money and votes. Money = votes. This is true at every level (local, state, national).
That is in large part why Dubya was elected in 2000. The big money decided before the election to back him.
-
There is a direct correlation between money and votes. Money = votes. This is true at every level (local, state, national).
That is in large part why Dubya was elected in 2000. The big money decided before the election to back him.
Bush won in 2000 b/c all the votes were not counted. That's a little contrary to a democratic republic.
Correlation is not causation but I know where you're coming from.
-
Bush won in 2000 b/c all the votes were not counted. That's a little contrary to a democratic republic.
Correlation is not causation but I know where you're coming from.
I'm saying money is the most important factor. There are always other factors involved. Still have to field a decent candidate. Still have to have a platform. But there really isn't any question that money is the most important part of any election.
-
If the roles had been reversed, and Mccain had realized he had the potential to raise $600 million -
and he didn't have the RNC's piggy bank of 300 million at his disposal -
I think he would have done the same thing.
If Obama hadn't done that, spending would have been
Mccain 350 mil (his own 85 mil plus the rest from the RNC)
VS.
Obama 85 mil (plus any scraps from the broke DNC).
Obama may have gotten beaten.
And I think IF Mccain had a way to use the 300 mil (RNC) and 600 mil (own donations), he could have beaten obama very handily.
-
BB= :'( Baby
Truth hurts.
Amazing how libs can never admit to anything.
So in your eyes Hugo did Obama lie or not about public funding?
-
Of course Obama lied about fundraising.
And mccain lied when he said "Palin was the single most qualified candidate in the conutry" or "Plain knows more about energy than anyone else in the united states".
It's what politicians do. Obama was just in a better position to spend, and he did it. If mccian was in a position to double obama's spending, he woudl have done it too.
-
I assume you voted for McCain because he's white
Don't pull that Matt T crap, him being black (1/2) had NOTHING to do with my decision to not vote for him.
-
Of course Obama lied about fundraising.
And mccain lied when he said "Palin was the single most qualified candidate in the conutry" or "Plain knows more about energy than anyone else in the united states".
It's what politicians do. Obama was just in a better position to spend, and he did it. If mccian was in a position to double obama's spending, he woudl have done it too.
Both examples you jus used are matters of opinions not blatant lies.
-
Fixed
::)
-
we're suppose to feel bad for sending Obama money, lol...
No, you're suppose to be suspicious of him receiving millions of fraudulent donations = getting bribed.
-
Truth hurts.
Amazing how libs can never admit to anything.
So in your eyes Hugo did Obama lie or not about public funding?
I'm glad didn't go with the public funding... What you're really asking for here is that Obama get smashed by a massive GOP warchest. No, I'm very glad we the people had the opportunity to fund his win. If there is a promise worthy of taking back, it was this one for sure.
-
I wonder when the crying is gonna stop. It's getting embarrassing.
-
So as long as the results benefits democrats its ok to lie?
-
I wonder when the crying is gonna stop. It's getting embarrassing.
oh no, now it goes into overdrive. This is what happens, the left will now sit on their asses thinking nothing needs to be said, they won and the rightwing attacks will escalate to epic proportions. Rush said it yesterday on his show, said he was happy and then wispered, "we're back on the field" I assume he means his show. This is nothing, the attacks and crying and undermining will become massive. They do risk a lot with blaming Obama for things before he's even in office tho so I'm going to laugh if they go apeshit out of the gate like they are.
-
So as long as the results benefits democrats its ok to lie?
He said he was going to do public funding, then he changed his mind and decided not to. Why? Because the money was there.
BIG FVCKING DEAL. CRY ME A DAM RIVER. BETTER YET, BUILD A BRIDGE AND GET OVER IT.
(caps for effect, not meant to yell :))
-
Who is blaming Obama for anything?
We are talking about campaign funding.
Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.
-
This is a good thing.
In another thread, I'm arguing with someone about his tax plan. They criticize him because he changed the level at which families received tax cuts throughout his campaign. The evidence this poster posted seems to suggest he consistently raised the level to benefit more people.
You can look at this as being an opportunist, but without even squinting, you can also see it as simply re-evaluating your position every so often and choosing the best option on the table. That's a GOOD quality in a president. "Staying the course" may sound noble, but all courses aren't created equal.
-
Going back on your word is going back on your word. Spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.
With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.
My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.
-
Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.
Attacked? A more accurate description would be "rightfully criticized for his complete nability to do his job".
Without Bush, this thread wouldn't exist.
-
Who is blaming Obama for anything?
We are talking about campaign funding.
Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.
So what?
Yes, the left dished out massive attacks.
But all this whining about Obama lied, he bought the election etc... BFD. In the end, his campaign was better ran and better funded and the PEOPLE of America voted him in. They voted an extreme liberal into the white house, something that would have NEVER happened is BUSH just had an so so presidency.
All this crap about he bought the presidency is pathetic.
As all you conservatives find things to blame, Comrade BUSH's presidency is who you should look to. Obama would have never been nominated. It would have been Hillary vs. McCain and John would have won.
-
Going back on your word is going back on your word. Spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.
With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.
My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.
Politicians lie? Politicians change direction? Wow I had no idea. ::)
So why vote at all? Why not move to a place where there are no politicians? Since they ALL lie.
-
This is a good thing.
In another thread, I'm arguing with someone about his tax plan. They criticize him because he changed the level at which families received tax cuts throughout his campaign. The evidence this poster posted seems to suggest he consistently raised the level to benefit more people.
You can look at this as being an opportunist, but without even squinting, you can also see it as simply re-evaluating your position every so often and choosing the best option on the table. That's a GOOD quality in a president. "Staying the course" may sound noble, but all courses aren't created equal.
Him changing the level of tax cuts is not the same as him saying "oh well nevermind no one is getting any tax cuts sorry but I lied"
-
Going back on your word is going back on your word. Spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.
With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.
My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.
Jesus, let it go already ::)
So everyone that changes their mind is a liar?
-
Going back on your word is going back spin it how you want it was and always will be a lie.
With that said I am in no way saying other politicians dont lie. They all do, they all always have, and always will.
My point is your so blinded by Obama you cant even admit to yourselves that Obama is not a man of his word, jus like everyother politician.
I don't disagree that he went back on his word. Different promises carry different weight. He made the smart decision in using his own donor funds.
-
I don't disagree that he went back on his word. Different promises carry different weight. He made the smart decision in using his own donor funds.
People would have been calling him an idiot if he didn't.
-
Your missing the point Oz.
If I supported McCain and he went back on his word about funding I would have been all over him.
The dif is you are so caught up in the Messiahs light you are blinded by it.
This brings me to my point of "it is ok for you side to do it but not the the others side".
-
Your missing the point Oz.
If I supported McCain and he went back on his word about funding I would have been all over him.
I doubt it. If McCain had used donor funds and Obama had accepted public financing, the right wing script would be something like "Socialist Obama Lives High on Campaign Welfare."
-
Who is blaming Obama for anything?
We are talking about campaign funding.
Right wing attacks will without a doubt escalate, but I doubt it will come near the never seen before level of attacks the left dished out for Bush.
I should remind you that for the most part the country gave Bush a chance. He promised to be a uniter, not a divider, remember? The neoconservative we were told was a different kind of conservative, not the divisive kind. Then we faced in that first year action after action that attempted to look the part without being the part thinking we were stupid enough to buy it. Bush's idea of being a uniter was to give it a label the left likes with results the right likes... Had he been closer to what he said he was, he would have been treated much kinder, despite the bullshit he pulled in FL 2000. Bush is his own doing, he has only himself and his neocon nutthugging to blame. His approval rating isn't so low without rightwing disapproval too.
-
Obama Fundraising Sealed Election Win
(http://images.newsmax.com/headline_vertical/bought(2).jpg)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 7:00 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fundraisng/2008/11/05/148218.html
2 SHIT candidates "on deck" for Moron Bush sealed their fate.
Country First........my ass!
NT
-
Have to give Obama credit for being a great speaker and running a very good campaign, but money was the primary reason he won this election. The economy tanking helped a great deal. The lack of a great Republican helped a lot. McCain's disjointed campaign helped. So did Bush's unpopularity, which was tied to the economy during the latter part of the campaign.
Yes it was smart to get every campaign dollar he could, but sweeping his broken promise aside as insignificant speaks volumes about how little we expect of our leaders.
-
Have to give Obama credit for being a great speaker and running a very good campaign, but money was the primary reason he won this election. The economy tanking helped a great deal. The lack of a great Republican helped a lot. McCain's disjointed campaign helped. So did Bush's unpopularity, which was tied to the economy during the latter part of the campaign.
Yes it was smart to get every campaign dollar he could, but sweeping his broken promise aside as insignificant speaks volumes about how little we expect of our leaders.
well duh, If he can't get his message out, it doesn't much matter how good the rest of it is.
-
well duh, If he can't get his message out, it doesn't much matter how good the rest of it is.
Is there an echo in here? :)
-
Is there an echo in here? :)
yea, but aren't we pointing out actually that not breaking the promise equals losing? I don't know why he said it to begin with, I don't remember now, was this a promise solicited from the republicans?
-
Have to give Obama credit for being a great speaker and running a very good campaign, but money was the primary reason he won this election. The economy tanking helped a great deal. The lack of a great Republican helped a lot. McCain's disjointed campaign helped. So did Bush's unpopularity, which was tied to the economy during the latter part of the campaign.
Yes it was smart to get every campaign dollar he could, but sweeping his broken promise aside as insignificant speaks volumes about how little we expect of our leaders.
You are really downplaying those other factors. Those other factors are what ALLOWED him to raise that much money. McCain probably couldn't have raised similar funds which is why he stuck with public financing.
When you say money is the primary reason Obama won, it implies that the playing field would have been even otherwise. 'Taint so. The money followed the momentum, not the other way around.
-
You are really downplaying those other factors. Those other factors are what ALLOWED him to raise that much money. McCain probably couldn't have raised similar funds which is why he stuck with public financing.
When you say money is the primary reason Obama won, it implies that the playing field would have been even otherwise. 'Taint so. The money followed the momentum, not the other way around.
excellent point.
-
yea, but aren't we pointing out actually that not breaking the promise equals losing? I don't know why he said it to begin with, I don't remember now, was this a promise solicited from the republicans?
I don't know whether the promise was solicited, but what difference does that make? A promise is a promise.
-
You are really downplaying those other factors. Those other factors are what ALLOWED him to raise that much money. McCain probably couldn't have raised similar funds which is why he stuck with public financing.
When you say money is the primary reason Obama won, it implies that the playing field would have been even otherwise. 'Taint so. The money followed the momentum, not the other way around.
I'm not downplaying those other factors. They were all significant, with the most significant being the money. Some of those factors undoubtedly improved his fundraising success, but not the economy tanking, which happened late in the game or McCain's nomination and disjointed campaign, which also came after Obama had raised tons of money.
People didn't just donate to Obama because they didn't like Bush. His speaking ability, Hollywood, and Oprah played a large role. Running a very good campaign (as I already mentioned) played a large role.
In any event, however you want to characterize it, put the cart before the horse, or whatever, these campaigns are still primarily about the Benjamins.
-
last night... fox news...
Guest defending palin pointed out that the decline of mccain started in sept with lehman.
FOX news anchor pointed out it was actually 4 days earlier that the decline started, when palin did couric and looked bad.
FOX is beating the shit out of palin lately. Whatever she did to hurt them, they're making sure she cna't do it again.
-
Actually, the Obama campaign had some of it's most profitable periods after the economy tanked, so it's feasible that that may have helped. Also, McCain's disjointed campaign did help with fundraising. Everytime McCain went negative, donations skyrocketed.
Furthermore, when you lead your thread with a pic of the White House covered in a "Bought" label, you ARE downplaying the other factors that factored into the results of this election. You're also attempting to imply that democracy was sacrificed when nothing could be further form the truth. Most of the donations Obama received were in dmall amounts from private contributors. Once again, signifying that the money followed the momentum.
-
I don't know whether the promise was solicited, but what difference does that make? A promise is a promise.
I guess Obama said he would persue public financing but never committed to public financing and in the pursue, he had stipulations before accepting:
"The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues."
I don't think there was ever an absolute commitment to public financing...
-
Actually, the Obama campaign had some of it's most profitable periods after the economy tanked, so it's feasible that that may have helped. Also, McCain's disjointed campaign did help with fundraising. Everytime McCain went negative, donations skyrocketed.
Furthermore, when you lead your thread with a pic of the White House covered in a "Bought" label, you ARE downplaying the other factors that factored into the results of this election. You're also attempting to imply that democracy was sacrificed when nothing could be further form the truth. Most of the donations Obama received were in dmall amounts from private contributors. Once again, signifying that the money followed the momentum.
When I lead my thread with a picture from the article, I am simply posting the picture that accompanied the article. When I post an article, unless I include my own comments with a message (express or implied), I am not implying anything.
Who said anything about democracy being sacrificed?? We had an election. People voted. The guy with the most votes won. That's democracy. Providing opinions/explanations on how the guy actually got the most votes doesn't mean the process was undemocratic. It wasn't. But there are flaws in the system.
I have a problem with the entire system. Money talks. Money makes you a legitimate candidate, or someone who has no chance. Even after the election, money gets you a seat at the table, a night in the Lincoln bedroom, your phone calls answered, etc. The only time I've seen it fail in recent memory was when Duke Bainum (a local doctor) used millions of his own money when running for mayor of Honolulu and still lost. The winner (Hannemann) had to spend millions to fend him off. I think it didn't work for Huffington's ex years back either. I'm sure there are other examples of those who have outspent their opponents four or five times to one and still lost, but they have to be the minority.
Even if you take into account someone like Perot, the only way he became a national factor is he is a billionaire. That's what it takes.
-
I guess Obama said he would persue public financing but never committed to public financing and in the pursue, he had stipulations before accepting:
"The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues."
I don't think there was ever an absolute commitment to public financing...
My understanding is he promised to discuss it with McCain. He never discussed it. But what the hey. As a couple people have already said in the thread, it was only a small fib. . . .
-
My understanding is he promised to discuss it with McCain. He never discussed it. But what the hey. As a couple people have already said in the thread, it was only a small fib. . . .
interesting if they never discussed it, why McCain made the quick rush to say Obama had accepted it. It looks like he didn't get the committment from Obama and went after forcing the deal through as though it was a done deal.
-
I guess Obama said he would persue public financing but never committed to public financing and in the pursue, he had stipulations before accepting:
"The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues."
I don't think there was ever an absolute commitment to public financing...
So FEC rules about donations doesn't count as commitment? Whats a few millions in donations from people named "okajsd sdojdslk" ::)
-
So FEC rules about donations doesn't count as commitment? Whats a few millions in donations from people named "okajsd sdojdslk" ::)
get yourself a dictionary then read my posts. Obama had stipulations in pursuing public funding, he never accepted public funding. McCain jumped the gun in announcing Obama had accepted public funding, technically, he did not. Why did McCain do that? Most likely because he knew Obama had not committed and he wanted to force it.
-
oh boy, called out in another thread because it took me 10 minutes to reply ::) you're a real hoot wannabe...
-
When I lead my thread with a picture from the article, I am simply posting the picture that accompanied the article. When I post an article, unless I include my own comments with a message (express or implied), I am not implying anything.
This is completely disingenuous. You constantly start threads based on articles and you almost never include the articles' pictures. You aren't under any obligation to post any specific article and unless you have severe eyesight problems, you had to be completely aware of the loaded message that the accompanying picture sent. By posting the article and stating that you agree with the premise you DO implicitly endorse the article's sentiments.
You are also being disingenuous in stating that unless you include comments or a message nothing is implied. You've made your political sensibilities known. More often than not, the article you post needs no additional comment because it IS your intended message.
Finally, (and once again), your premise is faulty. Even if you want to make the argument that money is the deciding factor in most elections (which is, in itself, faulty), there is a laundry list of reasons why that didn't apply to this race. Several have already been listed. You are performing all sorts of logic gymnastics to get around the fact that there would have been too many obstacles for McCain to overcome even if Obama had accepted public funding. Of course Obama's warchest benefited him, but it's ridiculous to say that it was the the unequivocal deciding factor.Things would have turned out similarly even if Obama had accepted public financing.
-
get yourself a dictionary then read my posts. Obama had stipulations in pursuing public funding, he never accepted public funding. McCain jumped the gun in announcing Obama had accepted public funding, technically, he did not. Why did McCain do that? Most likely because he knew Obama had not committed and he wanted to force it.
You keep missing or/and dodging the point , Obama campaign committed fraudulent actions which you all blantly ignore and you see no problem in anonymous donations of millions....truly sad.
-
You keep missing or/and dodging the point , Obama campaign committed fraudulent actions which you all blantly ignore and you see no problem in anonymous donations of millions....truly sad.
what laws did Obama break?
FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer.
Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin all received a higher percentage of their overall funds from donors giving less than 200.00... Are you busting their balls too?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008
So again, what laws did Obama break? you got nothing.
Enjoy...
-
what laws did Obama break?
FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer.
Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin all received a higher percentage of their overall funds from donors giving less than 200.00... Are you busting their balls too?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008
So again, what laws did Obama break? you got nothing.
Enjoy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The donations included thousands of dollars in excess donations, made in increments of $25, from someone named Good Will in Austin, Tex., who listed his employer as “Loving” and his occupation as “You.” It also cited another donor named Doodad Pro, from “Nunda, N.Y.,” with the same employer and occupation.
Both donors were flagged by the commission in warning letters sent to the Obama campaign by August. The campaign was supposed to have responded within 30 days. But its campaign finance filing in September showed it had failed to refund more than $10,000 in donations from each, although Obama officials say all of the money has now been returned. A campaign has 60 days from when it receives an excess contribution to address it.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, however, actually raised the issue during the Democratic primary. The Obama campaign only recently began requiring donors from overseas to provide a valid United States passport number. Previously, it only required them to check a box confirming they were citizens.
http://bartonbulletin.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/fec-investigates-illegal-contributions-to-obama/
-
I wonder when the crying is gonna stop. It's getting embarrassing.
Yes it is.
Obama raised more, had more donate, had more at rallies, won by a large margin and the GOP flopped out in downticket races as well.
Whining will not help that fact, it's done.
-
hahahaha.... nothing like admitting it was rightwingers making the bogus donations... I wonder how many bloggers and idiots on the right gave in total under bogus names :D BWHAHahahahahahahaha
Thanks ;)
A Newsmax informant said he had made a series of $5 donations in less than an hour, each time using “a different name and address, all of which were obviously fictitious and some even including foreign addresses,” the RNC complaint states.
To funny, I see some Rush listener buying a gift card to bust Obama and yelling, I knew it!!! wait, I just gave money to Obama....
lolololol...
Wannabe, oh well, consider it payback for Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 ;)
-
Yes it is.
Obama raised more, had more donate, had more at rallies, won by a large margin and the GOP flopped out in downticket races as well.
Whining will not help that fact, it's done.
This issue was raised pre election and it doesn't matter if he didn't win, I would still want some federal investigation into this. This is a serious subject and it seems all you Obama supporter are willing to be dumb,blind,def and anal raped before you will acknowledge he did something wrong.
If someone gives a public figure/ judge/cop/city engineer/etc money in a manner that is against the law it's bribe, pretty simple.
You give money, you receive a favor on the expense of the public/office/government branch you represent.
-
hahahaha.... nothing like admitting it was rightwingers making the bogus donations... I wonder how many bloggers and idiots on the right gave in total under bogus names :D BWHAHahahahahahahaha
Thanks ;)
To funny, I see some Rush listener buying a gift card to bust Obama and yelling, I knew it!!! wait, I just gave money to Obama....
lolololol...
Wannabe, oh well, consider it payback for Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 ;)
Yeah....millions of donations prior to that story being released and before anyone knew about it were all by Republicans testing the system ::)
-
Yeah....millions of donations prior to that story being released and before anyone knew about it were all by Republicans testing the system ::)
no, the others were probably by republicans that didn't want to let people know they donated to Obama :D
Obamacans!!!! hahahaha ;D
-
no, the others were probably by republicans that didn't want to let people know they donated to Obama :D
Obamacans!!!! hahahaha ;D
Wow you really like to stay focused on corruption ::)
The facts still remain and your Messiah , your ONE, is our hustler ;)
-
Wow you really like to stay focused on corruption ::)
The facts still remain and your Messiah , your ONE, is our hustler ;)
Jeez, you are having an Obama infused meltdown all over the board. The man is not even in office, I am worried about you imploding on Jan 20th. I reccomend some chamomile tea to calm you 8)
-
Jeez, you are having an Obama infused meltdown all over the board. The man is not even in office, I am worried about you imploding on Jan 20th. I reccomend some chamomile tea to calm you 8)
Another on point post, "meltdown" sure buddy... ::)
I simply don't like seeing people cry about corruption and then accept it with open arms....but it's ok, you have all admitted you see nothing wrong with him breaking FEC rules, you basically made all your posts from now on irrelevant due to your blunt actions.
-
Another on point post, "meltdown" sure buddy... ::)
I simply don't like seeing people cry about corruption and then accept it with open arms....but it's ok, you have all admitted you see nothing wrong with him breaking FEC rules, you basically made all your posts from now on irrelevant due to your blunt actions.
are you going to cry? have a brew, calm down... we just had a president that lied to America and congress to take us into an illegal war, went on to torture against the Geneva conventions and spy on Americans, used signing statements like a king, refused to ever testify to anything under oath, I could go on and on and you're crying over a few small donations put in by republicans under nom de plumes.... yea, you're meltingdown.
-
are you going to cry? have a brew, calm down... we just had a president that lied to America and congress to take us into an illegal war, went on to torture against the Geneva conventions and spy on Americans, used signing statements like a king, refused to ever testify to anything under oath, I could go on and on and you're crying over a few small donations put in by republicans under nom de plumes.... yea, you're meltingdown.
Well, you keep dodging.Also I didn't say I support all of his actions, not to mention the senate and congress are there for a reason,how about looking at them a little too, I think that with the current state of president/senate/congress the sky is the limits in regards to crazy unchecked actions.
I'm a VERY strong supporter of the checks and balances system and I hate corruption, you not agreeing with Bush actions that may be legitimate or not still doesn't make Obama's actions right.
I have yet to see a lawyer say that his client should get free just because other people are breaking the law too, that argument is for the kindergarten and not for a presidential election process.
-
Actually, the Obama campaign had some of it's most profitable periods after the economy tanked, so it's feasible that that may have helped. Also, McCain's disjointed campaign did help with fundraising. Everytime McCain went negative, donations skyrocketed.
Palin also helped alot too - after she was announced and went on the tear on Obama donations went through the roof. She was negativity personified.
-
Well, you keep dodging.Also I didn't say I support all of his actions, not to mention the senate and congress are there for a reason,how about looking at them a little too, I think that with the current state of president/senate/congress the sky is the limits in regards to crazy unchecked actions.
I'm a VERY strong supporter of the checks and balances system and I hate corruption, you not agreeing with Bush actions that may be legitimate or not still doesn't make Obama's actions right.
I have yet to see a lawyer say that his client should get free just because other people are breaking the law too, that argument is for the kindergarten and not for a presidential election process.
I didn't dodge anything, you keep crying over nothing. If I'm being a hypocrite on this one, then so be it. After Hitler Mini Me, I'll live with a little hypocrisy ;D I'll save my criticism of Obama for serious shit, policies and actions I don't like. UNLIKE those who blindly backed Bush no matter what he did... BB
-
Have to give Obama credit for being a great speaker and running a very good campaign, but money was the primary reason he won this election. The economy tanking helped a great deal. The lack of a great Republican helped a lot. McCain's disjointed campaign helped. So did Bush's unpopularity, which was tied to the economy during the latter part of the campaign.
Yes it was smart to get every campaign dollar he could, but sweeping his broken promise aside as insignificant speaks volumes about how little we expect of our leaders.
money helps. But ideas win. Obama has better ideas than McCain.
Remember when Bush lied about being a compassionate conservative, uniter not a divider, no child left behind, humble foreign policy...adults back in charge...regular non=elitest guy...
Those ideas, along with record spending, a corrupt SCT decision and election fraud, put Bush in the white house.
-
This is completely disingenuous. You constantly start threads based on articles and you almost never include the articles' pictures. You aren't under any obligation to post any specific article and unless you have severe eyesight problems, you had to be completely aware of the loaded message that the accompanying picture sent. By posting the article and stating that you agree with the premise you DO implicitly endorse the article's sentiments.
You are also being disingenuous in stating that unless you include comments or a message nothing is implied. You've made your political sensibilities known. More often than not, the article you post needs no additional comment because it IS your intended message.
Finally, (and once again), your premise is faulty. Even if you want to make the argument that money is the deciding factor in most elections (which is, in itself, faulty), there is a laundry list of reasons why that didn't apply to this race. Several have already been listed. You are performing all sorts of logic gymnastics to get around the fact that there would have been too many obstacles for McCain to overcome even if Obama had accepted public funding. Of course Obama's warchest benefited him, but it's ridiculous to say that it was the the unequivocal deciding factor.Things would have turned out similarly even if Obama had accepted public financing.
Whatever. You're just too much of a sensitive partisan to get past the picture. I've posted pictures numerous times. Take whatever implication you like from the fact I don't provide an opinion, but any reasonable person would not create an opinion out of thin air.
If you don't think money was the deciding factor in this election, then we simply have a different opinion. In my view, the obscene amount of money raised and spent on this election weighed more heavily than anything else. For goodness sake, the man bought a 30 minute infomercial on every major network in primetime on the eve of the election, with CNN simply refusing to run the ad. He was able to flood local markets all throughout the campaign. There were other factors, but money was clearly the most important.
-
money helps. But ideas win. Obama has better ideas than McCain.
Remember when Bush lied about being a compassionate conservative, uniter not a divider, no child left behind, humble foreign policy...adults back in charge...regular non=elitest guy...
Those ideas, along with record spending, a corrupt SCT decision and election fraud, put Bush in the white house.
Good/better ideas should win, but that's not always the case. The person who has more visibility and at least presents themselves well will almost always beat the substantially less funded opponent (unless the person is an incumbent). Unfortunately, elections aren’t just about ideas. They’re more often beauty contests than anything else. A person who speaks well, looks and sounds good, has a huge advantage.
It's about money here too. In addition to the other example I gave (mayor's race), we had a proposed state constitutional convention on the ballot this year. The opponents found a handful of very well spoken reps, and spent a lot of money running commercials for weeks. Very well done. Proponents spent a much smaller amount of money and their commercials frankly looked like they were shot in someone's garage. Not surprisingly, the measure failed badly. Here is a summary:
ConCon foes' big spending seen as big impact on Hawaii ballot
$247,000 raised in days before election 'clearly had impact'
By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Government Writer
The Hawai'i Alliance, a group of labor, environmental and business interests opposed to a state Constitutional Convention, received large contributions from the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Hawai'i Government Employees Association in the last days before Tuesday's vote.
OHA and the HGEA Ballot Committee each gave the group $100,000, campaign-finance records show, part of $247,000 in last-minute donations from public workers, hotel, teachers' and firefighters' unions.
Voters rejected the Constitutional Convention 62 percent to 34 percent.
Labor and Native Hawaiian interests had argued that a convention could jeopardize existing rights in the Constitution, such as collective bargaining and Hawaiian rights.
"The outcome of a Constitutional Convention is impossible to predict," said Crystal Kua, director of communications for OHA, which was created by a constitutional amendment after a 1978 convention. "Given the uncertainty of the current political climate, OHA and the board felt that there was some cause for concern and that a convention will pose a potential threat to OHA and its beneficiaries, more importantly.
"There may be proposals to eliminate powers or protections for Hawaiians."
But many who wanted a Constitutional Convention said the large contributions to the Hawai'i Alliance, which paid for television, radio and newspaper advertisements, helped drown out debate.
"I think, clearly, it had an impact on the outcome," said state Rep. Della Au Belatti, D-25th (Tantalus, Makiki, McCully), who favored a convention. "The fact that anti-ConCon forces were able to do almost constant media blitz on the airwaves and in the newspapers showed that they were clearly well-funded."
The Hawai'i Alliance raised more than $585,000 through Oct. 20, campaign-finance records show, and received at least $247,000 in the final weeks before the vote, for more than $832,000 overall. The largest contributions to the group came from the National Education Association Ballot Measure Fund — at $350,000 — and the HGEA — at $310,000.
The NEA, the national public school teachers' union, also donated $150,000 to the Hawai'i State Teachers Association to oppose a convention. Other local labor unions also spent money on advertising in opposition.
Groups that favored the Constitutional Convention, by comparison, took in far less. Yes for Constitutional Convention raised $60,000, and It's Time Hawai'i raised about $7,900.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081108/NEWS01/811080347/1001