Obama hypocrisy: endorsing the Super PACs he used to denounce

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
You are kidding right? THAT is your example? In 2010 the Dems were in control of the Senate. Don't try to blame a filibuster when Reid couldn't even gurantee that he could bring his OWN people to the table! If he can't get cloture on a bill the leader of his own party would like than it is his problem, not the minorities problem.

Just to add to what the previous poster wrote. It requires 60 votes to invoke cloture (which ends a filibuster). Because of the many lawsuits that delayed the seating of Al Franken and then the illness and eventual death of Ted Kennedy, Democrats essentially never had 60 votes. This is one reason that Obama has had so much difficulty in getting legislation passed. The Republicans have used the filibuster exponentially more than it has ever been used in past Senates. In the case of the vote on the DISCLOSE Act, all Democrats voted in favor. One Independent, Joe Lieberman, was attending a family funeral and did not attend the vote. Harry Reid voted in favor, but then switched his vote in a tactical move that would allow him to later reintroduce the legislation.

So, Reid brought his people to the table. The Republicans used the filibuster to block the legislation. That is simple fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-super-pac-20120208,0,5522351.story

Please explain this away.

It's not hypocritical to conclude that if you can't beat them you'd better join them, especially if not joining them means they'll beat you.

Yes it is. It's called sticking with your principles. Being a man of honor. Standing by your word. Now he's just as "inside Washington" as anyone else.

I'm curious. If an AL baseball manager believes that there shouldn't be a "designated hitter" rule, is he obligated to make his pitcher take a turn at bat? Or should he just play by the rules as they exist? If you think that marginal tax rates should be increased, am I obligated to cut a check for the greater amount?

People who use "hypocrisy" in this sense are--if you'll pardon my language--to fucking stupid to understand what the word means.

The difference is that Obama held himself out as morally superior. These things were a "threat to our democracy" remember? They "open the floodgates for special interests." I guess big money interests aren't so bad when they are on your side.

[Anonymous]

and as i stated with the floodgates open, nobody in the future is going to take a stand to stop it.

there will be weak attempts to change the rules but for the most part it will be all talking points and pontificating with little to no action backing it.

the influence is going to get ridiculous

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:oh and folks get in a tiffy or cry foul when romney "plays by the rules" and pays his 15% (or 13.9%) tax on $20 million but its ok for obama to play those same rules when it comes to superpacs after he's called them out for being wrong (even though its legal)? theres hypocricy for you...

What folks? In the thread here, everyone very carefully focused on the wrongness of the system and of his support of it, not on his individual taxpaying actions - not that that stopped people like you from shouting "He didn't break the law!" at imaginary opponents.

Anonymous wrote:In 2010 the Dems were in control of the Senate. Don't try to blame a filibuster when Reid couldn't even gurantee that he could bring his OWN people to the table! If he can't get cloture on a bill the leader of his own party would like than it is his problem, not the minorities problem.

So...every single Rep votes against it, but the entire fault for its failure lies with the Dems.

"You say you oppose murder, but you didn't manage to wrest that gun from my hand before I shot him, did you? Hypocrite."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and as i stated with the floodgates open, nobody in the future is going to take a stand to stop it.

there will be weak attempts to change the rules but for the most part it will be all talking points and pontificating with little to no action backing it.

the influence is going to get ridiculous

No one's buying your line of argument. What will likely happen is that the Dems will try to pass it again, be thwarted by a GOP minority, try again, be thwarted again, over and over, until we finally ram it down their throats--just like health care reform. In the meantime, no Dem candidates aren't going to commit political suicide so they can prove a fidelity to non-existent laws. Because that would be idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:and as i stated with the floodgates open, nobody in the future is going to take a stand to stop it.

there will be weak attempts to change the rules but for the most part it will be all talking points and pontificating with little to no action backing it.

the influence is going to get ridiculous

No one's buying your line of argument. What will likely happen is that the Dems will try to pass it again, be thwarted by a GOP minority, try again, be thwarted again, over and over, until we finally ram it down their throats--just like health care reform. In the meantime, no Dem candidates aren't going to commit political suicide so they can prove a fidelity to non-existent laws. Because that would be idiotic.

so obama gets re-elected and as you assumed a bill is presented and never passed due to whatever reason (republicans, beter things to worry about, etc).

come 2016 the gop is still working off superpacs (cause they are legal), so what do you think a dem nominee will do? will that nominee be the one to not want dem superpacs working to get them elected or will they follow obama's lead from 4 years prior and accept it but claim to want to change it once in office?

and how many times did healthcare get introduced before it was passed? you act as if healthcare became a new idea when obama got into office. folks been trying to pass universal healthcare since carter. if im going to work of that line of thinking, then ill expect a change 20-25 years from now after multiple "attempts" are made to change the system but fail.

[Anonymous]

and how long did it take to finally get soft money out of the system? folks act like bills can be passed at the snap of a finger or with enough will power or something

[Anonymous]

I personally believe corporations are people too, like Mitt Romney. He was right about that... I mean, they pay taxes and you can execute them and everything. Just ask Arthur Andersen.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:so obama gets re-elected and as you assumed a bill is presented and never passed due to whatever reason (republicans, beter things to worry about, etc).

come 2016 the gop is still working off superpacs (cause they are legal), so what do you think a dem nominee will do? will that nominee be the one to not want dem superpacs working to get them elected or will they follow obama's lead from 4 years prior and accept it but claim to want to change it once in office?

and how many times did healthcare get introduced before it was passed? you act as if healthcare became a new idea when obama got into office. folks been trying to pass universal healthcare since carter. if im going to work of that line of thinking, then ill expect a change 20-25 years from now after multiple "attempts" are made to change the system but fail.

I'm confused...are you criticizing the Dems from the right or the left? I would say just about everything you did here, but I don't support either major party.

If you're looking for lockstep Dems here, they're in fairly short supply. I bet most of the people disagreeing that Obama's being hypocritical here would criticize him on many other grounds. It's not knee-jerk Dem support.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so obama gets re-elected and as you assumed a bill is presented and never passed due to whatever reason (republicans, beter things to worry about, etc).

come 2016 the gop is still working off superpacs (cause they are legal), so what do you think a dem nominee will do? will that nominee be the one to not want dem superpacs working to get them elected or will they follow obama's lead from 4 years prior and accept it but claim to want to change it once in office?

and how many times did healthcare get introduced before it was passed? you act as if healthcare became a new idea when obama got into office. folks been trying to pass universal healthcare since carter. if im going to work of that line of thinking, then ill expect a change 20-25 years from now after multiple "attempts" are made to change the system but fail.

I'm confused...are you criticizing the Dems from the right or the left? I would say just about everything you did here, but I don't support either major party.

If you're looking for lockstep Dems here, they're in fairly short supply. I bet most of the people disagreeing that Obama's being hypocritical here would criticize him on many other grounds. It's not knee-jerk Dem support.

im coming from the left.

i have better things to do then to nuance an argument to please my side. if it smells fishy it is, and i call it even if it makes me look like im siding with the other side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so obama gets re-elected and as you assumed a bill is presented and never passed due to whatever reason (republicans, beter things to worry about, etc).

come 2016 the gop is still working off superpacs (cause they are legal), so what do you think a dem nominee will do? will that nominee be the one to not want dem superpacs working to get them elected or will they follow obama's lead from 4 years prior and accept it but claim to want to change it once in office?

and how many times did healthcare get introduced before it was passed? you act as if healthcare became a new idea when obama got into office. folks been trying to pass universal healthcare since carter. if im going to work of that line of thinking, then ill expect a change 20-25 years from now after multiple "attempts" are made to change the system but fail.

I'm confused...are you criticizing the Dems from the right or the left? I would say just about everything you did here, but I don't support either major party.

If you're looking for lockstep Dems here, they're in fairly short supply. I bet most of the people disagreeing that Obama's being hypocritical here would criticize him on many other grounds. It's not knee-jerk Dem support.

im coming from the left.

i have better things to do then to nuance an argument to please my side. if it smells fishy it is, and i call it even if it makes me look like im siding with the other side.

I'm don't doubt you're coming from "the left". We have just as many irrational dead-enders as the right. That's why we lose so often. And this issue doesn't even have the benefit of being philosophically pure. It's just posturing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:and as i stated with the floodgates open, nobody in the future is going to take a stand to stop it.

there will be weak attempts to change the rules but for the most part it will be all talking points and pontificating with little to no action backing it.

the influence is going to get ridiculous

You may be correct that the floodgates will now be open. But, Obama losing because he refused to support pro-Obama super pacs would make no difference to that being the case.

It's also possible that the the current experience may create bipartisan support for campaign finance reform. One could argue that Romney's campaign is being derailed by a handful of individuals funding his opponents. Newt likely wouldn't have won South Carolina were it not for the Adelson $5 million. Santorum would be sunk without his sugar daddy, Foster Freiss. I think even Republicans are beginning to understand that one or two rich guys shouldn't be able to have that much influence on a national election.

[Anonymous]

5 million is nothing. let everybody give. make it public and transperant. freedom rules.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:5 million is nothing. let everybody give. make it public and transperant. freedom rules.

What could be fairer? Each person - foreign or domestic - can give his or her 5 million (or more! - it's all personal preference).

[Anonymous]

I think George Soros should drop a couple hundred million dollars on a pro-Obama super-PAC...just to make a point.