"Edwards latest to DECLINE public funds for presidential campaign"- 2/05/07 USA Today Headline reads

[FrenchieCat]

Story ran on February 5, 2007......

By Jill Lawrence and Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Democrat John Edwards on Monday joined New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in saying he will not use public money for the presidential primary campaign or, if he wins his party's nomination, for the general election.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm

So when Edwards says on August 27, 2007 that he will accept public financing and states..."This is NOT about a money calculation....This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/edwards.public.financing/index.html

Is John Edwards telling the truth about why he has decided to take Public Financing now, when he wasn't going to take it back in February?

Just asking. :shrug:

[yourout]

1. I really hope he shocks the world and takes Iowa by a big margain.

Then steamrolls to the nomination against the media driven Hillary machine.

[FrenchieCat]

3. And so, my question still stands.......is he being sincere in his given reason as to why

he is taking public funds?

Is this Edwards' brand of political courage, once again?

[yourout]

5. Bottom line.....no one can win the presidency with the current system....

on public money. I wish he would have been consistant on his stance reguarding public money but I think he realized the only way to the white house is a big ass pile of money.

I wish it were different but it is what it is.

[FrenchieCat]

9. You have yet to answer my direct question.......

because I would not begrudge John Edwards for checking out his campaign and realizing that it doesn't look like he can raise the dough and therefore have a change of heart.....HOWEVER....what John Edwards said today is not that.

John Edwards today said this: ""This is not about a money calculation,"

the article goes on to say.....Edwards told CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley on his way to an event in Durham, New Hampshire. "This is about taking a stand, a principled stand, and I believe in public financing"

This new "Principle Stand" of his doesn't square with why he originally said he wouldn't take it.....cause then it was all about the money, and nothing but.

[Steve_in_California]

28. How little you seem to know.

The ONLY reason candidates refuse public funds for their campaigns is that they don't want to comply with the rules that go along with accepting public funds, mainly, the rule that says that no other money may be used in the campaign. They want to BUY the damn election, folks! That's what's going on!

Bush and Kerry did the same thing. The result? A campaign that cost a combined total of . . . take a deep breath . . . SEVEN-HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!

[Cameron27]

32. The ONLY reason one candidate out of the pack

resorts to accepting public funds, is because he can't raise enough money, which is why Edwards refused it in February, explaining that he couldn't stay competitive if he did.

[Cameron27]

2. I have another question.

Why did Edwards ask for $1,000,000 in the last 10 days of the quarter if he is so committed to public financing?

(read that on one of the Mydd blogs.)

[FrenchieCat]

4. Ya think some folks are crossing their fingers hoping this thread

sinks to the deep depth of page 2 right about now....or are we gonna see some brave intellectually honest Edwards supporter speak up about this right about now?

[sir_captain]

7. Look, the guy has raised more money

than any dem did 4 years ago at this point. Is he doing this in part because he's way behind financially compared to Obama and Clinton and lookig for a way to differentiate himself--almost certainly. Is it still a good thing that we have a major presidential candidate using the public funding system--absolutely.

[Cameron27]

10. It's not 4 years ago, and this is nothing

more than temporary solution to a problem he's having raising money. No it's not absolutely good for us if he turns out to be the nominee, unless McCain also gets picked.

[FrenchieCat]

12. A temporary solution that can come back and bite all of us in the ass....

if Edwards is the nominee......the "sincere" nominee who "Believes" in the issues he takes "principled stands" on.....again.

[sir_captain]

14. He's already said he'd only take matching funds in the GE

if the republican nominee does too, so I don't really see the problem.

[FrenchieCat]

18. You don't have a problem with someone that says something

that isn't really so? :shrug:

He stated clearly that this was not a money consideration but a principled stand this time. Last time, principle wasn't in the equation, but money was.

Edwards was not truthful today. He lied.

[Cameron27]

19. This is the problem:

..."entering federal financing system has two major drawbacks. There's an overall spending limit for the primaries, so a campaign that blows through its money would be bankrupt until after its convention, allowing the opposing party's candidate to air television ads without rebuttal. (As Edwards adviser-then-Dean-manager Joe Trippi said in 2003: "This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election.”)"

[FrenchieCat]

22. Well that's the OTHER problem.........

but not necessarily the least of them. :(

[Cameron27]

8. I'm betting on sinking

either that or blaming it all on faulty intel and the Clinton people.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Sink then it must.....

nowhere to go but down!

[GreenArrow]

38. "sinks to the deep depth of page 2 right about now"

Wouldn't want to let that happen...I'd better kick this.

[sir_captain]

6. Cause the public funds are MATCHING funds eom.

[FrenchieCat]

11. But Edwards says this is not a Money calculation........

in this case, yet it was in February....so that would mean he doesn't care much about the "MATCHING funds" ......more like he "cares" about the issue, and therefore is taking a "principled Stand"....no?

[sir_captain]

15. I was answering the question about why he is still

soliciting donations.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I'm asking a question about John Edwards "sincerity" when he speaks.......

because my understanding is that this is the candidate that tells the truth......just has a change of heart now and then on just about everything, but never, ever based on political expedience, mind you. :sarcasm:

[sir_captain]

17. Whatever

I believe I answered your question honestly in an earlier post, and I don't really see the need to do hatchet jobs on members of my own political party, but have at it by all means.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Pointing out a lie is considered a "Hatchet job" on members of

the Democratic party?

I didn't notice that this was a "Beef" when Edwards attacks members of his own party.

In fact, he wants both Obama and Hillary to accept public financing........cause it is such a principled stand, he says.

"First of all, I got the money I need to run a serious campaign," he said. "I hope that the other two will join me. As I've said, Sen. Clinton said she is for public financing so she can step forward and show she actually means it."

Challenging others based on something one is doing out of necessity is not a "principled Stand" from where I sit.

[Cameron27]

26. I'm questioning why he'd make the plea for another million

without including the pitch about matching funds. It seems likely that taking public funding wasn't on his mind a few days ago or he wasn't ready to tell the public that he was planning on being all noble and self-sacrificing yet.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Well, at least he has been consistent on issues like Iraq and free trade

[FrenchieCat]

21. Well, that's more of that....but he could have at least not challenged

The other candidates. That's what makes it even more odious.

[NobleCynic]

23. No candidate would ever accept public financing and list

financial difficulty as the primary reason. This is basic spin 101. You're demanding an unreasonable amount of forthrightness and honesty out of a politician. On the political bullshit scale of 1 to 10, this rates about a 2, at best. All politicians lie. Period. Some lies are about serious matters. Some are not. This is one of those that is not. Kind of like saying to a person on a campaign stop "what a beautiful baby" when the child is as ugly as some misbegotten cross between a gerbil and chihuahua. Yes, it's a lie. But it one that society expects you to tell.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Good one.........

Now that's a straight forward explanation....thank you for it; A predictable political white lie.

and his calling out his opponent on joining him is a little political theater? just a little political kick in the ol' political shins of his opponents while he's at it?

[NobleCynic]

36. Pretty much

Anyone who was actually swayed by this attack doesn't pay attention. And I doubt anyone was converted by it. It is just political theater. Treating it as reflective of his character is hyperbole at best.

[calteacherguy]

27. Edwards is irrelevant. nt

[snowbear]

29. Irrelevant to you maybe... who is your candidate?

And why do you assume that they are more relevant than Senator Edwards?

[Colobo]

35. He's for Clinton.

[Bluebear]

30. "Just asking" - yeah, that's all.

;)

[FrenchieCat]

31. Why do you imply doubt about my motives.......

when you won't comment about St. John's comments, distortions and lies on this subject? Is St. John above reproach, while me pointing out this inconsistency is a doable subject for your snark?

[Cameron27]

33. John Edwards isn't Hillary Clinton,

so he's not subject to the same scrutiny apparently.

[Texas_Kat]

34. This move is likely his campaign's desperate grasp

to hold together long enough to make the Iowa caucus. Though it may result in more of the 'hypocrisy" talk, it's probably just the cold hard facts of a campaign that's not able to raise sufficient funds outside of the 'matching' system.

Political campaigns this year are requiring obscene amounts of cash..... and when it gets down to it, Edwards had the choice of 'changing his mind' or laying off campaign staff and shuttering offices in key states. Back in August, he moved staff out of Nevada ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/us/politics/16edwards.html ) to New Hampshire. That was the first indication his campaign was having some financial strain.

Though it likely won't affect his grassroots support, major donors will see the writing on the wall.

[GreenArrow]

37. that's some funny stuff, Frenchie

That John Edwards is such a card.