Most liberal commentators have preferred not to dwell on Barack Obama's broken promise to accept public financing of his campaign. For years, liberals have been at the forefront of demanding such public financing with pious lectures about the corrupting effects of money on politics. So the McCain-Feingold public financing law was passed and guess who was the first presidential candidate to opt out of that system? The Lightworker who flat out lied to the public when he earlier pledged to accept public financing. So when Obama announced he was breaking his public financing pledge a few months ago, there was some minor grumbling from liberals but since then they have entered the cone of silence on this issue due to their embarrassment about this topic. However, one liberal has spoken out about Obama's broken pledge. To condemn him? Nope. The New Republic Editor-in-Chief, Marty Peretz, is absolutely exulting in the fact that Obama lied to the public by breaking his public financing pledge (emphasis mine):
Frankly, I am glad that the Democrats have finally gotten over their nearly four decades long obsession with campaign financing reform. I always thought that it was not a matter of money corrupting candidates but of money going primarily to Republicans. Democrats do have a penchant for self-righteousness. I hope it is finished, at least on this issue.
Of course, Peretz would today have that strong penchant for self-righteousness if Obama kept his promise and it had been John McCain who opted out of public financing.
Even so, the Democrats didn't do at all badly, what with those 527s and other independent vehicles that were engaged in the campaign, although independent of the party. Both Al Gore and John Kerry collected less money than their Republican opponents. But the margins were not enormous.
Still, Barack Obama has caused a revolution in presidential fund-raising. As the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times pointed out in Monday's editions, Obama raised $150 million, with 633,000 contributors giving an average of $86 each to his campaign during the month of September. Or a total of $600 million up to October 1.
And how many of those contributions are coming from overseas or bundled? Here are the Obama bundled contributions from the infamous Lehman Brothers:
John Rhea - (over $500,000) Co-Head of Lehman Bros. Global Investment Banking
Mark Gilbert - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Christine Forester - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $100,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mort.
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman Brothers
Meanwhile Peretz is laughing at John McCain for being such a shmo as to actually accept public financing instead of breaking his pledge like Obama:
You have to have some pity for John McCain who stood by his commitment to the federal law he had sponsored and which allowed only so much fundraising (and spending) if the candidate decided to take matching funds from the government. I supposed you could say that this was a principled decision. I suspect, however, that it was a prudential one. McCain realized he had not and could not energize even his supporters to give what they usually did in other elections.
Woo Hoo! Isn't it great that Obama lied to us about accepting public financing? And what a jerk John McCain is because he "stood by his commitment." Thanks, Marty, for revealing your inner hypocrite.
Oh, and since the NewsBusters Eye of Sauron is now upon The New Republic once again, what do we see from that periodical's resident expert on Joe Biden, Jonathan Chait, about the latest big gaffe from the Democrat vice-presidential candidate? How about nothing? Complete silence despite the fact that Chait had this to say about Biden last year:
Biden looks as if he’s the product of a laboratory experiment designed to create the world’s worst presidential candidate.
Chait was right as we saw recently. However, that New Republic senior editor seems to have entered a witness protection program on the subject of Joe Biden. And remember all you New Republic folks, the NewsBusters Eye of Sauron remains focused in your direction. There is no escaping it.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Can't be Trusted!
October 22, 2008 - 08:52 ET by ChasvsLieing sack of shit can't be trusted on anything he says!
STOP HIM NOW!
I've mentioned this fact
October 22, 2008 - 09:18 ET by motherbeltI've mentioned this fact several times in other threads.
This is the biggest piece of hypocrisy I have seen in this election cycle.
Plus one of the biggest lies. They claimed that McCain (he of McCain/Feingold, for crying out loud!!!) didn't seem interested in taking federal funding. Then they said since the money came from the public, it really was "public funding."
How is that for a Clintonian twist!
What a bunch of B as in B, S as in S!
If this guy is elected, I guess we can expect the old George Stephanopoulos line (re Clinton) that he kept all his promises that he intended to keep!
Profiles in Courage
October 22, 2008 - 09:54 ET by KC MulvilleI happened to re-read Profiles in Courage not long ago, and I'm struck by how relevant it is to this campaign. In short, Obama has none. Any principle he espouses is conditional, and can be changed anytime.
MB, your line about Stephanopolous reminded me of it again. They will claim, as he's done in Iraq esspecially, that all of the things that he promised were conditional. He reserves the right to change his mind on anything and everything.
JFK praised men who took risks. Obama doesn't take any. He goes out of his way to avoid them. The media calls that "calm." I won't call it cowardice yet - he hasn't run from any risks, he just hasn't faced any. But whatever it is, it isn't courage.
But at the time, Obama
October 22, 2008 - 11:16 ET by SeashellBut at the time, Obama didn't know that. Instead, he was against the war on the grounds that Iraq hadn't hit us yet. He was just a typical anti-war liberal.
That is what I can't understand. How he could have NOT wanted to do something about Saddam. What kind of judgement was that? What will he do when the world's intelligence says that Iran has a nuke pointed at Israel?
He was just a typical anti-war liberal.
Can we afford that in the world we live in today?
Yeah, and they'll be calling
October 22, 2008 - 10:22 ET by SeashellYeah, and they'll be calling taxes "contributions" again.
Broken campaign
October 22, 2008 - 09:28 ET by KansasgirlIf Hussein were to be elected, he'll take more than campaign funding. He'll take as much as he can from productive, taxpaying citizens. We know what he'll do with it, give it to his voting base. Don't you just love socialism?
If he were the type of
October 22, 2008 - 09:49 ET by motherbeltIf he were the type of person to keep his promises, he wouldn't even be here
Scrollin down, one comes to this: (all emphasis mine)
♦Obama in 2004:
Doesn’t see himself running for President in 2008: “If I were to
seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially
have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there
might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them“.
[I guess he decided 143 days was enough]
In an appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, January 22nd, 2006:
Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’”
Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.”
Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”
Obama: “I will not.”
Once again: all the promises that he intended to keep.
BHO group of Close Supporters should be in Prison
October 22, 2008 - 09:44 ET by JIMMY1660allow me to love America -from bill ayers to khalid al Monsour to rev wright-BHO's close supporters, mentors, socialists should be in prison. Once this left wing radical gets into the White House, i'm sure most of God fearing Americans will be fleeced of all assets. wealth sharing to those less fortunate, who just do not happen to work. once that money is gone he will attack pension plans that have been very successful to their members, in the name of fairness.
We now know where the 150 mill came from - disposable CR cards
October 22, 2008 - 10:07 ET by JayTeewww.newsmax.com has some Details of the Illegal Donations and Hot Air connects to it.
Check it out BigTimer
What to do with the "illegal" contributions
October 22, 2008 - 11:06 ET by suburbaniteMy bet is that Barry struck a deal with the Clintons at the DNC to get them to campaign for him. Part of that deal is that Barry helps Hillary pay off her campaign debt. What better use for the "illegal" contributions than to kill two birds with one stone: he gets to say he's not using the funds for his campaign and he fulfills his promise to pay off Hillary's campaign debt.
Any bets?
"Fight the good fight every moment
It's your only way" Triumph