October 2, 2008
Insufficient transparency and yet more unanswered questions
For a guy who already has associations with unrepentant terrorists, America-hating preachers, and convicted felons, this latest information does not inspire trust or confidence in his judgment, now does it?
(H/T to Instapundit.)
ADDENDUM
Joe raises a fair point in the Comments section about NewsMax and I posted this because the article's author, Timmerman, has been a generally credible reporter over the years in my opinion.
I believe the bigger issue here is the refusal by Obama's campaign to disclose his donors. Unlike McCain who has. I have been extremely critical of McCain's definition of campaign finance reform and the resulting impact on limiting free speech but at least he has told us who has given money to his campaign.
More to the point, as I have written before, if I could set the campaign finance laws of this land, I would strip away all dollar limits by donors and require that all donations be given to the candidate directly, the party directly or to defined third parties...on the condition that the names of specific persons making the donations to any such entity are posted on the Internet within 24 hours of the donation. Complete and immediate transparency. I don't care if George Soros wants to give Obama $25 million tomorrow. But I do care about knowing it within 24 hours thereafter. And I don't want Soros or anyone else hiding anonymously behind some PAC entity.
Maybe Obama's getting foreign donations. Maybe he isn't. The problem is that we don't know the answer today and that means there could be unacceptable foreign influences on this campaign. It is unacceptable to only find out the answer to that after the election. I want everyone to know the answers now and I want Obama to have to explain any anomalies. Same with any Republican. One standard: complete and immediate transparency...and then let the public decide if the resulting information influences their opinions.
ADDENDUM
In R I you could be referring to Ramon Martinez of Progresso Latino
Posted by: leprechaun at October 2, 2008 9:19 AMDon-be careful taking anything from Newsmax-it seems they've had serious credibility problems on many occasions.
There are enough indisputable problems with Obama's supporters and associates that flaky sources like this aren't necessary.
Just my 2 cents.
This whole issue could be avoided if Obama would grant public access to his contributor list, which he has continually refused.
I don't know about the veracity of this Newsmax story, but on a gut level, I do find it strange that so many "new" small dollar donors have begun to get involved in presidential politics even though the poll numbers are tight and polls show Obama with support similar to what Al Gore and John Kerry received.
I suppose the Obama campaign would like everyone to believe that this is indicative of "new" grassroots support, but this "new" grassroots support isn't being reflected in the polls. There was some increase in the activities of college students, but nothing that would explain the financial numbers.
My guess is that Obama knows his campaign is taking illegal contributions, but he figures he'll be able to refund them after the election. In this case, Change = Win the election and worry about the law later!
Posted by: Anthony at October 2, 2008 2:53 PM