« Beldar on Preston on "Perry 2012" | Main | Ryan's silver lining in l'affaire de l'explosion Gingrich »

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Beldar's suggested question for the next GOP presidential debate

Q: In 2008, Barack Obama publicly broke his repeated promises to abide by campaign finance limits that would have accompanied federal financing of his general election campaign.

Instead, Obama raised a substantial multiple of the sums John McCain received — many hundreds of millions of dollars more than McCain had available to spend — when McCain honored his own promise to abide by the limits and restricted himself to federal general election funding.

May I have a show of hands, please: Raise your hand if you will pledge tonight that if you are the GOP nominee in 2012, you will not repeat McCain's mistake of relying on Obama's promises, and that you will instead do your best to legally raise money sufficient to keep your campaign competitive with the $1 billion which most are estimating that the Obama 2012 reelection campaign will raise and spend?

*******

I'm duly impressed that Mitt Romney, this early, can raise more than $10 million in a day. But $10 million is going to be a spit in the lake in 2012. I don't want another nominee who is tricked into tying one of his own hands behind his back before going in to slug it out with an unhindered opponent.

Posted by Beldar at 12:12 AM in 2012 Election, Obama, Politics (2011) | Permalink

TrackBacks

Note: Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear automatically. They're also spam-filtered. Feel free to email me if yours didn't go through. Trackbacks must contain a link to this post. TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515edc69e2014e88862654970d

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Beldar's suggested question for the next GOP presidential debate and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


Comments

(1) Gregory Koster made the following comment | May 19, 2011 12:33:56 AM | Permalink

Dear Mr. Dyer: Small slip: Paragraph 4 should be MITT.

Good question, but it's aimed too closely at McC's notorious ineptitude at campaigning. Change the focus a bit: to your question add: "...unlike The One who cut off the address safeguards so foreigners could donate pseudonymously. If elected, I pledge strong Federal Election Commission enforcement against foreign money in our politics." That should be red meat to us on the Right, while also kicking the liars in the press who know quite well about The One's foreign dough, and keep quiet about it.

My own question would be on the lines of "how much weight should the Prez give to relying on the UN or "international law" for authority to bomb Libya, even while the Congress is bypassed?"

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

(2) Beldar made the following comment | May 19, 2011 12:42:23 AM | Permalink

I've duly corrected the error, Mr. Koster, and thank you for drawing it to my attention!

I thought about proposing a follow-up question on Team Obama's decision to disable the credit-card anti-fraud ZIP code cross-check routines. It was shocking to me: I wrote on October 26, 2008, that "disabling safeguards on campaign websites so as to permit rampant fund-raising fraud is immoral and wrong and illegal." And I wrote on November 5, 2008, that this decision was a sort of "flesh-eating political bacteria that may doom any Obama presidency" — a prediction that hasn't yet come true. I remain disappointed and frankly perplexed that this issue barely made a blip on the national radar screens at the time.

I've never seen a remotely coherent excuse for it from Obama or anyone who speaks for him, and indeed, I've never seen him squarely asked that question by anyone on camera. But it's hard to boil down into a single coherent question that would fit into the necessary sound-bite size.

(3) George Washington made the following comment | May 19, 2011 8:34:08 AM | Permalink

If I may please;

Ron Paul is [balance truncated, see below] ...

Thank You

[Editing note: Supporters of Dr. Paul are welcome to post original comments responsive to any particular post. They are emphatically not welcome to post comments here that they've spammed to other websites, and yes, because Dr. Paul's supporters have a demonstrated tendency to do exactly that, I will check, and I will gut those and block the IP addresses every time I catch one, as I've done with this one. At some point this year, unless Dr. Paul acts to rein in such abusers, I may transfer to him the rancor I currently feel for his spambots. — Beldar]

(4) ColoComment made the following comment | May 19, 2011 4:43:43 PM | Permalink

"At some point this year, unless Dr. Paul acts to REIN in such abusers, I may transfer to him the rancor I currently feel for his spambots."

It's a pet peeve of mine, and I wage a solitary crusade to correct the misuse of reign/rein wherever I find it!

[former English teacher]

(5) Milhouse made the following comment | May 20, 2011 12:22:42 PM | Permalink

Reign/rein/rain

And pour/pore. When I read of someone "pouring over a book" I imagine sweat dripping from them and soaking the book.

(6) Beldar made the following comment | May 20, 2011 12:31:56 PM | Permalink

Yikes! Thank you Colo (#4), duly corrected! I ought to know better than to make that mistake, and thought I did, but I will better remember (perhaps) for being justly scolded.

The comments to this entry are closed.