McCain Knocks Obama Over Public Financing
GOP Frontrunner Suggests Rival Engaging In Washington Doublespeak On Issue
-
Play CBS Video
Video
McCain Derides Dems' Rhetoric
"CBS News RAW": Following his Wisconsin GOP primary win, Sen. John McCain chided the Democrats, warning voters not to be deceived by "an eloquent but empty call for change."
-
Video
Big Night For Obama
Sen. Barack Obama wins Hawaii and Wisconsin Democratic primaries with support from voters normally aligned with Sen. Hillary Clinton. GOP Sen. John McCain won both states as well. Jim Axelrod reports.
-
Photo
Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaks at a news conference, Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2008, in Columbus, Ohio. (AP)
-
Photo Essay
John McCain
Some call him a hero, some a maverick. Will Americans call him Mr. President?
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
"We either keep our word or we don't keep our word. I intend to keep my word to the American people," McCain said Wednesday, pressing the line of criticism anew a day after delivering a blistering critique of the Illinois senator as both won their party primaries in Wisconsin.
"I think the American people would expect him to hold to that commitment, especially if we want to bring about change," McCain added.
In an opinion piece published in USA Today on Wednesday morning, Obama wrote that he wants to work toward a spending agreement with the Republican Party's nominee.
"I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits," Obama wrote. He laid out a series of conditions, including, perhaps, limiting how much money McCain can spend for the general election while the race for the Democratic nomination continues.
"That's Washington doublespeak," McCain responded. "I committed to public financing. He committed to public financing. It's not any more complicated than that. I'll keep my word, and I want him to keep his."
Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, hit back: "John McCain is in no place to question anyone on pledges when he abandoned the latest campaign finance reform efforts in order to run for the Republican nomination and went back on his commitment to take public financing for the primary election this year."
As Obama has lengthened his lead in the Democratic race, McCain has increasingly taken the one-term Illinois senator to task.
McCain, a four-term senator has started raising questions about Obama's experience level, seeming lack of foreign policy credentials, and, now, his character. In that process, McCain is espousing some arguments similar to those made by Hillary Rodham Clinton against Obama.
Obama's campaign, in turn, has started responding in force to the GOP's nominee-in-waiting.
In a conference call with reporters early Wednesday, Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice accused McCain of "misrepresenting and distorting" Obama's positions on Pakistan.
McCain, for his part, went on offense by again raising the spat over taxpayer financing of the general election. McCain clearly sought to raise a larger question: If Obama doesn't keep a promise on this issue, how can the public trust what he says he'll do in the White House?
A year ago, both McCain and Obama indicated that they would accept public financing for the general election if the other party's nominee did as well.
But Obama, whose fundraising has brought in record amounts of primary money, has hedged that position over the past week, giving McCain openings to pounce.
Last week, Obama said it would be "presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."
McCain gave Clinton a pass on the issue, given that she never indicated she would forgo public financing.
A leading advocate of limits on campaign finances, McCain is turning down government matching funds for the primary to free himself to spend more money as he prepares for a general election contest.
As for accepting public money for the general election, McCain said: "I obviously would have to reevaluate if Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton does not make that commitment."
Each major party candidate could get about $85 million in public funds for the general election, but they would not be allowed to raise any other money. Such a step would clearly give the advantage to McCain, who dislikes fundraising, and would hinder Obama and his widespread fundraising apparatus. Obama's campaign has said it raised a whopping $32 million in January.
Both candidates would have to rely on outside groups and on the national parties to supplement their spending if they accepted public financing. The Republican National Committee has been the only national GOP organization to out-raise its Democratic counterpart. But political finance experts say Obama, if he's the nominee, could significantly buttress the Democratic National Committee's fundraising.
©MMVIII, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.




- 1
- 2
- next
See all 66 CommentsMcCain is a horrible candidate, a horrible campaigner and a horrible fund raiser and now he''s trying to make Obama''s lead in fund raising sound criminal. I''m getting sick!
If this is the best criticism McCain can come up with against Obama, he''ll get crushed in November. And deservedly so, the GOP is morally bankrupt and the only ideas they''ve had in the last 20 years have been ''cut taxes, kill Iraqis, and blame Clinton''.
Which word you want to keep there Johnny? The one where you said that were not in favor of a repeal of Roe v Wade or the one where you said you were in favor of an overturn. Perhaps the word where you called Falwell and agent of intolerance but then you lauded him as a great man. How about the words you used when you were against the Bush tax cuts before you were for them. How about the words you used to describe Sam and Charles Wylys in 2000 as corrupt and funding Bush with "dirty money" before you sucked up to these same guys and begged for campaign money. How about the word on your own campaign reform bill before you abandoned it. Or maybe the word when you called Grover Norquist a "crook and a corrupt shill for dictators" but then turned around and sucked up to him when you decided to run for President. How about this one, the word where you publicly denounced torture but then voted for Bush''s torture bill. You were against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before you were for it. You were anti-ethanol, now you''re pro-ethanol. You were both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag. You have no principles, and no core beliefs that you will not pi$$ away in a pathetic attempt to mollify the right wing nut jobs.
I was for you before I was against you.
Just look at the painful example of the embarrassingly worshipful McCain coverage up above: "Some call him a hero, some a maverick." This might as well have been written by McCain''s campaign staff.
What''s next: "Some say McCain is great, some say he''s awesome."
As an Obama supporter also thinks Hillary is the worst choice of the 3, I don''t find anything wrong with this McCain attack because I can appreciate how it puts him in an awkward position to make the case that he''s for cutting back on government spending.
The attacks which I feel don''t help either candidate are the ones that make an issue of patriotism, like the Michelle versus Cindy line of argument. Because Bush used patriotism to silence dissent for the war in Iraq and when the same Republicans who were in support of the war try to claim that same banner people become livid.
McCain doesn''t win, Obama supporters don''t like it, it''s divisive - the far right may feel good about themselves because of it, but it''s snooty. It''s saying I can only be patriotic when I feel like you''re not.
I guess both the candidates wives are on a learning curve (as any of us would be) - probably something we can all have sympathy for . . . no need to make it harder on either of them :)
Posted by shingles1 at 03:37 PM : Feb 20, 2008"
Perhaps, but I think once the candidates are officially chosen and this gets down to a 2 person race that McCains serial hypocrisy will come back to haunt him in a big way. The question isn''t "can you do an ad campaign about McCains hypocrisy", it''s "can you get all that material into 60 seconds?".
McDork''s also welcome to try the ''irrational movement'' line of argument, but I think it sets him up to be taken down on policy. The reality is that there''s what I gauge to be like a 40 to 50 point IQ difference between Barack and McCain . . . if he can''t follow through the way Hillary wasn''t able to follow through he''s going to look out of it.
Just a warning because always awkward to see somebody get whooped in debates when they''ve set themselves up by underestimating the competition - awkward . . .
WELL SPOKEN. McCain, Kerry and Romney could do a great TV series - "The FLIP FLOPPERS"
We can add Hillary "I was for NAFTA (when it was good for me as political points) before I was against NAFTA (when I running for office but all the jobs were gone due to NAFTA)" Clinton.
Only one problem - the four of them would be fighting over who was best at flip flopping back and forth, Washington D.C. style while Rome burned around their feet...
Both candidates should negotiate this out privately and stop the posturing. If McCain can reel in the swift boaters then maybe something could be worked out to achieve effective parity but if he can''t(and we know he can''t) then Obama needs as much financing as he can get within the existing rules to counter the sewage that''s going to be coming his way.
BRILLIANT ANALYSIS!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 04:07 PM : Feb 20, 2008
Polish that crystal ball and tell us what you''ll do when McCain wipes the floor with Hussein Obama.
BRILLIANT ANALYSIS!!!!!!!!!!!
Susan Rice should stick to the facts. I remember Obamas comments. They were pretty stupid.
EVERYBODY IS WRONG EXCEPT OBAMA....
MCCAIN IS MORE MODERATE THAT LIBERAL OBAMA
I was raised Democrat, but I will not vote for a man promising to run from the enemy when elected.
MCCAIN IS MORE MODERATE THAT LIBERAL OBAMA
Posted by repdemapart at 05:00 PM : Feb 20, 2008
You are a fool if you think McCain will be running the country -- the same group of thugs will be in charge, not McCain -- he''ll be out shopping for Depends.
ah ha ha - you know times have changed when Charles Barkley can call Evangelicals ''fake Christians'' and get universal thanks.
I think pride makes the Right confuse the lack of any viable defense to claims of lack of ''patriotism'' with acquescence of their claims to the ''patriotism'' mantle. I think the majority of the country are salivating at the prospect of knocking big-mouths like Rush Limbaugh off that mantle and into the dirt where he belongs.
(My dad was diagnosed with Parkinsons a month before Rush made a mockery of the disease, so he can stick it where the sun don''t shine for all I care)
Repubs are going down!
I was raised Democrat, but I will not vote for a man promising to run from the enemy when elected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by kesac4650 at 05:09 PM : Feb 20, 2008
+ report abuse
Right! You are a supporter of the WORST President in US History and everyone on here KNOWs it! You Nazi''s will stoop to any level to maintain your hold on power and for the life of me I can''t figure out why. You can''t govern, you''ve proven that OVER and OVER! Real Democrats do NOT vote for someone who wants to give EVEN more of our jobs away. Sieg Heil Bush!
Posted by vmcneal2 at 06:08 PM : Feb 20, 2008
Great post and I agree that GW messed things up for his entire party for at least the next 8 years. McCain will probably get that 25% that continues to admire GW but McCain will, like Bob and Elizabeth Dole, go the way of the dinosaur. McCain and his wife can go and count their $$$ at their ranch in Sedona AZ and look after her inheritance her father left her (Helmsley Liquor Distribution) here in Phoenix...he''s done, and he has GW to thank for it...but nobody''s talking about that though.
I have respect for John McCain and its really a shame he is going to be the focus of our anger at Bush and the GOP for what they have done to our country. Lets make an exception to the rules and let Bush run so he can take the beating he really deserves!
Go Obama!!!!!
Posted by Cas2dy
they will?? how do you know this?
WHO WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS?
JOHN MCCAIN, who has Military Experience
OR
OBAMA, a young dazzler, with no Military Record
You be the Judge of that.
The global picture is crucial at this time in history.
America must look beyond its borders.
There will always be problems at home. That does not matter.
What will this "change" ,so spoken here, do to the world picture and the position of power The United States has long maintained?
That is the question to keep in mind when voting in the November General Election.
Posted by valentin73,
Your question has significant importance.
However, we no longer have the economy to support police actions that are funded entirely on tax dollars.
The other question you need to ask is how many times did McCain vote to oppose the Whitehouse during the last 7 years?
It is clear the McCain is watered down version of George Bush (Sort of like Bushlite).
If you like things the way they are, vote for McCain. If you want to change things vote for Obama.
To give blanket amnesty would create a two-headed monster.
1. What would amnesty say to the many foreigners waiting years to gain legal entry to the U.S.?
Giving amnesty to illegal aliens would be a slap in the face to them.
2. Giving amnesty would create a run on the borders by many more illegal aliens who, logically, would hope that they too, one day, would be given amnesty.
A vote for McCain is a vote for a Bush ally and more of the same.
McCain: "I don''t think Americans care if we are in Iraq for 10 years, 100 years, or 10,000 years."
Well, this Americans sure cares and if McCain would read a bit more, most Americans want an end to the civil war in Iraq. It is obvious that McCain does not have his hand on the pulse of America.
I am a 72 year old white male, veteran, and I will vote for change.
Obama in ''08.
"Yes we can".
24 years doesn''t mean you''ll be a good president, it means your part of the "same ol system" that has been sticking it to working class people for the last century!!! Republican are the brokers & backers for the big corporations who keep getting richer and richer while breaking the backs of the American workers, they (corporations) are why WE don''t have health care for everybody. It would cut into their billion dollar profits!!!
Foreign affairs, we need to tend to America instead of sticking our nose into EVERYBODY elses business!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=4&hp
What might be of more interest to voters would be if both McCain and Obama promised to run a CLEAN campaign with no "smear" tactics and to address the issues that concern the citizens of the US(SA). Issues like the economy, jobs, health care, immigration, Iraq, with "terrrrrrrorism" coming in a dead last.
Unfortunately, McCain is an older clone of the Great Emperor Bush II and whenever he is confronted with a topic he doesn''t know or want to talk about, he pulls a "terrrrrorist" out from behind a tree!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, McCain????
First he was against torture, because he had been tortured at the Hanoi Hilton. Now he''s FOR it, because (well, there really can be no sane reason for it). That''s not the only thing he''s flip-flopped on, but it''s a BIG ONE.
The slathering idiots who vote repug want torture so they can feel "safe", the GOP wants torture so they can pretend to be "tough on terrorism", and Bush/Cheney/et.al. want torture to be the law of the land so they can escape prison for violating existing law. (The only problem with this strategy is that torture is illegal in the US and throughout the civilized world, and someday, somebody is going to charge them with war crimes, and no matter how many crooked lawyers they get, they''re going to be tried and convicted. Bragging about your crimes is NOT a successful defense, though lots of dictators have tried it!)
Posted by j-whitman at 08:53 PM : Feb 20, 2008,,,
I like Sen. McCain, he does not deserve an ounce of unfair treatment. But with all due respect when the story first broke about the Lobbyist Vicki Iseman, I thought they are out to get McCain, digging up dirt. But the relationship between Sen. McCain and Vicki Iseman is authentic, whether it escalated into a romantic affair or not is still unknown, but one thing is clear, Sen. McCain''s staff reports they had to intervene on behalf of Sen. McCain to protect him from himself, that left to his own devices he could not pull himself away from Vicki Iseman! I think the story is true, if you look at Vicki Iseman, she looks like a younger, sweeter version of his current older wife! No way John McCain resisted Vicki Iseman of his own free will but I think her strong resemblance to his current wife is what weakened him and got him in hot water! The real issue is did McCain do any political favors for Vicki Iseman?
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 66 Comments