McCain to Obama: keep your word on public funds

[Army_of_One]

By Jeff Mason

DALLAS (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday accused Democrat Barack Obama of breaking his word on campaign financing and said he might turn down public money for his campaign if Obama does so.

McCain, a senator from Arizona, is trailing far behind both Democratic candidates -- Illinois Sen. Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton -- in fundraising despite having wrapped up his party's nomination for the White House contest in November.

Obama, the Democratic front-runner, pledged last year to accept public financing and its accompanying spending limit of an estimated $85 million for the general election if he wins the nomination and if his opponent also agreed to do so.

But with monthly hauls of some $55 million in February and more than $40 million in March, Obama appears to be rethinking that pledge.

"The fact is that he (Obama) is saying one thing and he's doing another. I mean, that's indisputable," McCain told reporters in Dallas.

"He's always talking in his speeches about how we need to keep our word with the American people. Please keep your word to the American people on the commitment you made in writing."

McCain said he would decide later, if Obama beats Clinton for the Democratic nomination, how to proceed.

"If Sen. Obama is the nominee and decides not to take public financing then obviously we have to evaluate our options on it," he said. "It's possible that I still will (take public funds) and it's possible that I won't."

So far in the campaign, Obama has raised over $233 million, Clinton $189 million and McCain around $80 million. With over a million individual donors and a well-oiled Internet fundraising campaign, Obama could expect to have a significant money advantage over McCain for the election.

McCain raked in more than $15 million last month, but that was well short of the $20 million raised by Clinton and the more than $40 million collected by Obama.

Obama said on Friday he would discuss the issue with McCain if he won the nomination.

"I would like to see a system preserved and I intend, if I am the nominee, to have conversations with Sen. McCain about how to move forward in a way that doesn't allow third parties to overwhelm the system."

(Editing by Alan Elsner)

(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online here)

[Army_of_One]

If BO gets elected I'm sure this won't be the only pledge he breaks...lol

On another note,

EARMARKS

Earmark amounts the candidates have received.

Obama- $91,421,220

Clinton- $342,403,455

McCain- 0$

The Melting Pot » Blog Archive » Pork & Earmarks: A Picture That Speaks Volumes

[Made in the USA]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

I

EARMARKS

Earmark amounts the candidates have received.

Obama- $91,421,220

Clinton- $342,403,455

I wondered where BO got those BIG EARS!! Now we know---

[CRAZY HORSE]

thought I heard where candidate O pledged to cut the salaries of the big officers in corporations by having the stockholders vote.
perhaps we could start with a limit on campaign funds

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by CRAZY HORSE

thought I heard where candidate O pledged to cut the salaries of the big officers in corporations by having the stockholders vote.
perhaps we could start with a limit on campaign funds

do you REALLY expect any candidate to keep their word? LOLOLOL

[K C Muffin]

Originally Posted by CRAZY HORSE

thought I heard where candidate O pledged to cut the salaries of the big officers in corporations by having the stockholders vote.
perhaps we could start with a limit on campaign funds

I honestly don't see that O could cause this to happen. After all, that's what free enterprise is all about, isn't it? If I want to pay my top horse over $1,000,000 and my business can support it, then why does the Fed need to interfere? The same goes for the business that wants to pay it's exec peanuts and bonus for performance - it's nobody else's business. I don't think O can make that happen. If he thinks he can, he's not talking about democracy any longer and maybe we ought to take a closer look at that.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by K C Muffin

I honestly don't see that O could cause this to happen. After all, that's what free enterprise is all about, isn't it? If I want to pay my top horse over $1,000,000 and my business can support it, then why does the Fed need to interfere? The same goes for the business that wants to pay it's exec peanuts and bonus for performance - it's nobody else's business. I don't think O can make that happen. If he thinks he can, he's not talking about democracy any longer and maybe we ought to take a closer look at that.

But see...that's the thing......to libs words like "free enterprise" and "competition" are very, VERY dirty words.

Like Hillary said of the big oil companies..."we need to TAKE some of the excess profits"

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

But see...that's the thing......to libs words like "free enterprise" and "competition" are very, VERY dirty words.

Like Hillary said of the big oil companies..."we need to TAKE some of the excess profits"

Maybe they should finance a war in which they are the ones profitting the most from.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by 88-31-10

Maybe they should finance a war in which they are the ones profitting the most from.

Who exactly is "they' and how are "they" profiting and exactly how much are these profits?

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Who exactly is "they' and how are "they" profiting and exactly how much are these profits?

Big oil.
They got the greenlight baby.
Billions and billions. Might I add at your and my expense.