two thoughts on Obama's campaign financing wealth
1.) Obama should have his campaign coffers taxed and the proceeds given to McCain-- or more to the point, with Barr, Baldwin, Nader, and McKinney. (Hat tip: a caller to the Francene Show on WHAS-840 AM in Louisville)
2.) To Obama's credit, his campaign is privately financed-- not relying on taxpayer dollars, as the major parties do in financing their primaries and the major-party politicians do through public financing. Here, Obama is free-market and fiscally conservative!
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 2:02 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
It is curious that you claim to be a libertarian, but advocate a socialist approach to Obama's funds. The money belongs to Obama, and yet you want to "spread the wealth around."
I guess that explains your inability to differentiate the "Spread The Wealth" Obama and the supporter of Free Enterprise, Governor Palin.
I also find it curious that you lack any curiosity regarding the source of these funds.
"We are to believe that 2/3 of a million people awakened this past month alone and donated $150 million precisely in the face of the economic tsunami? This stinks on many levels."
Have you called for an investigation into the likely violation of election laws?
Does the DNC pay for your campaign?
Uhhh....that was a joke! It was based on his similar (ridiculous) ideas of what he wants to do with privately earned wealth in the U.S. and his taxation policies.
As I just commented on the other post, I see clear differences in Obama and Palin's policies, but only meant to point to their charisma and (relative) lack of experience.
Sorry I wasn't clearer...
Love that joke, and the other that claims Obama and Governor Palin have equivalent experience.
You are very funny.
I await your call for an investigation into the source of Obama's funds.
I'm sure others will do a nice job calling for such investigations.
I have my hands full right now, trying to deal with my big-govt Republican and Democratic opponents.
Thanks for your (how do you characterize it -- "relative lack of") leadership.
You sound just like a typical pol. Just vote Present.
You clearly do not care about the integrity of our election process.
Just an opportunity for humor.
Do you hold the entire 9th Congressional District in such disdain?
Your arrogance is most instructive.
There are only so many things I can do, and this doesn't rise high enough on the list of priorities. (If I was passionate about McCain, it might move up the list, but...)
Apparently, my Republican opponent feels the same way. If he knows anything about it, he's not running with that knowledge. I would encourage you to challenge him likewise-- as well as my Democratic opponent who avidly supports Obama.
Actually, a typical pol would say "I'll look into that" or "I sympathize with your concerns" or some other yada-yada.
To me, it is arrogance to talk about things of which I know little-- or to assume that I can cover it all.
Wow, you think this about whose horse you are backing, and not about the integrity of our election and electoral process.
If you think it is simply about whose ox is being gored, then you might as well let all of Canada and Mexico join us on November 4. I'm sure that's the ticket to a Barr plurality.
Do you think Obama is a socialist with a cozy Marxist background?
Do you think he is the most radical Presidential candidate in American history?
Libertarians have generally been somewhat allergic to socialism, but you seem rather blithe about a President Obama.
Most interesting.
No, I said I don't know much about it, it's not an area of expertise, I'm quite busy right now with my own electoral pursuits, and trust that those who know better &/or have something to gain will let us know.
I think Obama talks like a socialist, but is more talker than do-er. So, no, I don't think he would govern like "the most radical" President in history. (Over the last 100 years, e.g., I think he'd be less radical than Reagan in a good way-- or FDR, Teddy, and Bush in a bad way).
The larger issue is that Bush and McCain aren't much different than Obama on economics. So relatively speaking, why would one get excited about McCain v. Obama on economics?
One other consideration: what will help or hurt the possibility of GOP politicians returning to a philosophy of limited govt. I think that is far more likely if Obama wins than if McCain does. Looking at the long-term (as early as 2010 if the Dems get weird), the GOP and the country may be (far) better off (ironically) with an Obama victory in November.
So, are you happy with the GOP, Bush, and McCain?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home