Quote:
Originally Posted by melliedee
It was a smart move not to take public financing; I've never had an issue with that. And it wasn't even that Obama changed his mind. Everyone should be allowed to rethink stratedy, perhaps change their views on certain issues. Going private only opens up the electoral map in new and exciting ways. He's thinking big and long term for the Dems.
It was the decision not to consult with McCain (when he said he would) which I find disappointing. Also, the RNC's lead will be nothing compared to the private donations, which will swell to a cool few hundred mil.
|
Your first point is precisely correct, and I abhor the idea of publicly financed political campaigns and any restriction on the amount of money a person can spend on behalf of his candidate. As for the second point, his failure to consult with McCain, I don't see that as a big deal as times and conditions change, so what you propose to do can change as well.
This brings up a point that drives me crazy, the charge that candidates "flip-flop" on issues. I believe that their are cases where you can take a candidate to task when it seems clear they are stating a position they don't really believe, and may very well have no intention on following through on if elected. But is it not human, and often desirable, to change your mind as circumstances change? Calling reasoned modifications to your former positions and opinions based upon new information, or a changing situation, "flip-flops" tends to cheapen discourse and force people into untenable, and sometimes ridiculous, policies. If a candidate is insincere, that's one thing, but it is possible to change your outlook on major points of contention (abortion, death penalty, etc.) without being characterized as a "flip-flopper"; I think most people can discern between the two.