The contract was with the American People.
Sorry, I did not get my copy of the contract. Still say he changed his mind and nothing more.
Sorry, I did not get my copy of the contract. Still say he changed his mind and nothing more.
He shouldn't have announced it on public television then, heck even the New York Times which is in the tank for Obama balked at what he did.
You taking this point here and that point there and making up everything in between. Just because you've found some blatantly biased sources to support your argument does not make it true.
He agreed to negotiate. The negotiations didn't pan out. He upheld his end of the bargain.
But let's take this from another tack: Please explain to me how accepting <$100 (average) donations from private citizens does not equate to "public financing".
I'd actually go for he can't be trusted to keep his word, because he took a pledge to use public funds and broke it.
That's how Senator Obama broke his word without any negotiations with Senator McCain on taking public financing.
The contract was with the American People.
Did we get that in writing? No? Did Obama and McCain draw up a contract? No. Then there's no contract, and he hasn't broken any kind of regulation or law. Obama changing his mind about campaign funding to go with what was obviously in the best interest of his campaign is to be expected, and I would have thought it was odd if he hadn't changed his mind and intentionally handicapped himself monetarily.
Did we get that in writing? No? Did Obama and McCain draw up a contract? No. Then there's no contract, and he hasn't broken any kind of regulation or law. Obama changing his mind about campaign funding to go with what was obviously in the best interest of his campaign is to be expected, and I would have thought it was odd if he hadn't changed his mind and intentionally handicapped himself monetarily.
Because he gave a pledge to use Public Financing, and a signed document is a contract:
Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”
-- New York Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15cnd-campaign.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1203113454-bRu9WsnD0J8S02a69eYw2Q)
"I'm told"
Told by who and why should be we believe either source? It's not as though McCain has a reputation of just making things up or anything.
And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”
Key words there are "I'm told" - hearsay is hardly conclusive evidence.
Also, from the same article:
“It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”
EDIT: Ninja'd by Achilles :)
"I'm told"
Told by who and why should be we believe either source? It's not as though McCain has a reputation of just making things up or anything.
Wait, wait, wait... maybe we should define which argument we want sources from Garfield on first...
And that's from September, both candidates signed a pledge to take matching funds, but Obama broke his word.
Both candidates had a signed pledge/contract.... or
Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican Campaign about the use of public or private money. What can I say, McCain is a Maverick and obviously the negotiations did not go well.
... Obama said he would negotiate but the negotiations didn't go well on McCains part.... or
Negotiations never took place mimartin,Obama just saw he could rake in a bunch of cash and broke his word.
...No negotiations ever took place... or
Senator Obama said that if the Republican candidate agreed to take public funds, that he would take public funds
...Obama saying if McCain agreed to take public fundings he would as well... or
Because he gave a pledge to use Public Financing, and a signed document is a contract:
...Obama himself gave a pledge he would use Public Financing.
Which one should we pick...?
Wait, wait, wait... maybe we should define which argument we want sources from Garfield on first...
The Obama supporting New York Times is a pretty good source when they are bashing the person they're supporting.
Both candidates had a signed pledge/contract.... or
They both signed the pledge/contract, but they did so seperately without meeting each other.
...Obama saying if McCain agreed to take public fundings he would as well... or
Obama said that if the Republican Candidate agreed to take public financing he was going to take public financing. In a seperate interview McCain said that if he was the nominee he would take the public financing. They never met to negotiate anything, and since McCain is taking public financing and Obama signed a document concerning this, he is in breach of contract without the negotiation even taking place. The contract was with the American People, it was not between the two candidates.
They never met to negotiate anything, and since McCain is taking public financing and Obama signed a document concerning this, he is in breach of contract without the negotiation even taking place. The contract was with the American People, it was not between the two candidates.
See what I quoted earlier?
“It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”
It simply seems that his campaign saw that they could raise a lot more funding by not accepting 'public funding' (or at least, the definition you're presenting), and decided to stick with just accepting donations from members of the public.
@GarfieldJL -
1) Doesn't address the fact you are flip flopping
2) You have no sources for the contract to prove there actually was one. Considering you went from saying its a pledge, to it's something he said (even though there is evidence showing this fact is not 100% true), to it's a signed contract i'm going to assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
3) Pick one and defend it or don't bother.
They both signed the pledge/contract, but they did so seperately without meeting each other.Hi, I'd like to see some proof that this "contract" is in existence and is legally binded by the law.
Obama said that if the Republican Candidate agreed to take public financing he was going to take public financing. In a seperate interview McCain said that if he was the nominee he would take the public financing. They never met to negotiate anything, and since McCain is taking public financing and Obama signed a document concerning this, he is in breach of contract without the negotiation even taking place. The contract was with the American People, it was not between the two candidates.Hey, can I see a copy of this contract? Assuming that it's between the American People and the candidates, and unless I didn't get the memo, than I assume that this contract should be very easy to find on the Internet. K, thanks.
Hi, I'd like to see some proof that this "contract" is in existence and is legally binded by the law.
Based on supreme court rulings a contract is a contract is a contract, as long as it isn't a contract to do anything illegal, the contract is valid.
Hey, can I see a copy of this contract? Assuming that it's between the American People and the candidates, and unless I didn't get the memo, than I assume that this contract should be very easy to find on the Internet. K, thanks.
Okay doing some further research I found some more information, it seems as though there had been some talk between the Obama and McCain camp back in 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
Based on supreme court rulings a contract is a contract is a contract,
That's also the 17th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition - but you've yet to prove that any such contract has even existed.
Obama saying something doesn't count as a contract - if you can prove he actually signed something, then what you might have some weight to it - but I hardly think that he's broken a contract with the 'American People'.
You still haven't shown me any proof on the existence of this contract. Until you provide said proof, your arguments are now considered null and void.