> > Couldn't even leave in the part where the Obama Campaign gives its > version of the story?
I could have included that paragraph, but then I could have also included the very next line after that as well: "In April Obama seemed to be preparing an argument to opt out, as we noted at the time." So well before there was ever any meeting between Bauer and Potter, Obama was signaling he'd go back on this promise. > > "The Obama campaign disputes this. Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer > met with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter and, according to Obama > spox Bill Burton, Potter "immediately made it clear there was no basis > for further discussion," that they weren't interested in any sort of > agreement. "McCain and the RNC had spent months raising and spending > money for the general election, and their basic attitude was 'You'll > catch up,'" Burton says, suggesting that the Republicans were also > turning a blind eye to the activities of 527s." This last sentence makes no sense, except as an indictment of both sides. Obviously, Obama wasn't "aggressively" working to persuade McCain of the need to opt into the public financing mechanism (for example, publicly calling him out on it in a presser--it's not like he has a hard time finding media coverage these days-- as he promised. Instead he just went back on his promise. McCain is responsible for these monstrosities as it is. So much for getting money out of politics. Ha! But think about it Justin, Osama's position is: "They had a bad attitude on the first meeting of a couple low level staffers of our campaigns, so we just dropped it..." I guess that's how he'll negotiate on our behalf with Ahmadinejad et al. when he sits down to "aggressively" pursue his "human rights" agenda with the terrorists. > > I mean, to me its clear that he pledged that he would take the public > financing if his opponent did. NO that was the way the question was phrased. He promised basically to aggressively lobby and convince the Republican nominee of the merit of this lofty position, above and beyond the phrasing of the question. > According to his campaign his opponent > has refused to do so. So not only are you misrepresenting the story > as if its cut and dry, you pass off your opinions as fact. Clearly > you know as fact what happened in the supposed meeting between Bob > Bauer and Trevor Potter. See my answer above, and think for yourself about Obama's representation. I mean, even the author of the column, no enemy of Obama, concedes it's a broken promise. > > Thanks but no thanks. Its just as likely that McCain is lying as it > is that Obama is. That was never in doubt! > Maybe more likely because if McCain today announced > that he was taking the public financing, or that he would if Obama > would (which you claim would actually be BETTER for McCain), he could > hang Obama out to dry on his pledge to do the same. He hasn't done > so. Maybe he's the one not telling the truth...... I have long maintained that McCain is a disingenuous fraud, a backstabber of his own party and their principles, and a shameless self promoter. I am only now blessed with the patriot duty of pointing out Obama's credentials for high office. :) - Bob > > J > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
