Obama embraces what he once called "the biggest threat to democracy"

OccupyWackbag

Registered User
Dec 12, 2011
3,416
188
98
#1
He's not even trying to hide his hypocrisy anymore.

(CNN) - In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president.
Obama has been an outspoken critic of current campaign financing laws, in particular a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the creation of super PACs. Until now he has kept his distance from Priorities USA Action.

Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
But in the wake of the group's anemic fundraising, made public last week, the campaign decided to change its position, and announced the new stance to members of its national finance committee Monday evening.
Two Obama campaign aides confirmed that senior campaign and administration officials who participate at fundraising events for the president's campaign will also appear at events for Priorities USA Action, the PAC supporting Obama.
"This decision was not made overnight,” one campaign official said. “ The money raised and spent by Republican super PACs is very telling. We will not unilaterally disarm."
The president, first lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden will not appear at super PAC events, the aides said.
In an e-mail to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said the decision was a reaction to massive fundraising posted by super PACs supporting GOP presidential candidates.
"The campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PACs," Messina wrote.
"We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission."
Messina was careful to point out the president's opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that sparked the onset of super PACs, noting the administration was still looking for ways to put limits on campaign spending.
"The President opposed the Citizens United decision," Messina wrote. "He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view.
“He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action - by constitutional amendment, if necessary - to place reasonable limits on all such spending.”
Priorities USA Action posted receipts of $4.4 million through December 31, 2011, compared to the more than $30 million reported by Restore our Future, a super PAC supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
In an e-mail blast, Jonathan Collegio, spokesman for the conservative groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, called the Obama campaign's move a "brazenly cynical" reversal for a president who just two years ago called spending by these outside groups a threat to democracy.
Collegio highlighted a quote from an October 2010 rally in Philadelphia, when the New York Times quoted Obama as saying, "You don’t know, it could be the oil industry, it could be the insurance industry, it could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose. Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy."
American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS plan to raise $300 million to help defeat Obama and his agenda in November.
Mitt Romney's super PAC reported raising $30 million in 2011, the vast majority of which was spent on negative advertising.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...n-to-support-super-pac-fundraising/?hpt=hp_t1
 

LilJimmyRbinson

Best muppet ever
Nov 19, 2004
11,417
7,547
586
RI
#3
I would love it if the Presidential candidates did this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ee-to-ban-outside-ads-donate-cost-violations/

The Senate race in Massachusetts is going for the civility vote as Republican Sen. Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren have agreed --- under threat of financial penalty to themselves -- to ban third party ads from their race.

Brown told Fox News on Monday that he and Warren have signed off on a "document, legal and binding," agreeing to get the outside ads out -- with the kicker that they donate to charity half the price of ads that are run in their name in the state.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,997
5,390
838
Wilmington, NC
#4
[yt]L2YSo36QuWQ[/yt]

[yt]WtGrp5MbzAI[/yt]

:icon_cool
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,997
5,390
838
Wilmington, NC
#5
Nevermind...Axelrod's explanation of why they had a change of heart..."Blah blah blah Karl Rove blah blah Koch Brothers blah blah blah they pointed guns at us blah blah".

:haha7:

I've loved watching this administration try to deflect, twist words, and backtrack from some of the most glaring promises/assertions that Obama once made. They look so ridiculous, it's an embarrassment.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,912
15,302
303
#6
the wake of the group's anemic fundraising, made public last week, the campaign decided to change its position,
"Blah blah blah my black ass is going to make a lot of money doing this wait did I say that out loud fuck!"

It is the biggest threat to democracy that exists, unless it makes the Obama campaign 9 figures. Then it is democracy's greatest ally in this dark and racist time of political demagoguery and divide.

Edit: Speaking of broken campaign promises and flip-flopped statements, how is that Gitmo closing going? Because the last I heard they were releasing Taliban members and more people had died in custody than had been tried in court. Now, it might have closed down magically in the past week or so but...
 

Stig

Wackbag's All-Time Greatest Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,813
4,494
623
NH
#7
Criticism = Racism.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,561
8,730
693
Loveland, CO
#8
For all you guys who hate hypocrites, at least you have Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to vote for :haha7:
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,806
6,920
763
F.U.B.A.R
#9
We need to get rid of the electronic voting and use the third world standard of a thumb print.
 

Stig

Wackbag's All-Time Greatest Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,813
4,494
623
NH
#10
For all you guys who hate hypocrites, at least you have Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to vote for :haha7:
Well, that's an obvious ad hominum straw man red herring kind of ipso prop helicopter prop ad-hoc-tooey arguments!

Just because one side sucks, doesn't mean the other side doesn't.

Non-Sequitor!!!!
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,561
8,730
693
Loveland, CO
#11
Well, that's an obvious ad hominum straw man red herring kind of ipso prop helicopter prop ad-hoc-tooey arguments!

Just because one side sucks, doesn't mean the other side doesn't.

Non-Sequitor!!!!
I'm thoroughly pissed off at Obama for this....then I saw the alternative. :icon_eek:
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,912
15,302
303
#12
Isn't Obama going to raise considerably more money than his opponent? I kept hearing people tell me when I doubted President Obama's re-election chances with Afghanistan runup, 15+ percent U6 and nearly 4 dollar a gallon gas, "Billion dollar Obama. It doesn't really matter, he has such a ground game and hundreds of millions more than his opponent, he will win by default."

But now he wants to do the Super PAC stuff? This democracy threatening Super PAC stuff? Where is all the money advantage and the ground game and win by default?
 

jagsfans

Registered User
Dec 26, 2005
3,973
7
228
Jacksonville FL
#15
It's being ignored that Obama is in fact right. SuperPAC's are destroying democracy. It's hard to criticize Obama for playing by the rules that are in place. He didn't make the the rules, the shitty Supreme Court did.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#16
It's hard to criticize Obama for playing by the rules that are in place.
Not really. He argued against them and now he's using them because they benefit them. That's hypocrisy plain and simple.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
Not really. He argued against them and now he's using them because they benefit them. That's hypocrisy plain and simple.
Isn't that the same argument that Republicans use when they justify governors who railed against the Stimulus but then ended up taking the money after the fact?
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,222
12,972
438
Atlanta, GA
#18
Isn't that the same argument that Republicans use when they justify governors who railed against the Stimulus but then ended up taking the money after the fact?
Yes and it's true. Those governors are hypocrites too.
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#19
Speaking of politics and hypocrites in the same sentence....for shame on all of you.


Who wants to join me in shielding yourselves from these horrible lies about our beloved leaders???
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#20
It's being ignored that Obama is in fact right. SuperPAC's are destroying democracy.
No they are not.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01...influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum
STEPHEN J. DUBNER
01/17/2012 | 9:40 am
SHARE

We have long argued (most recently in this Marketplace podcast) that campaign spending isn’t nearly as influential in elections as the conventional wisdom holds.
This week, with the G.O.P. presidential hopefuls in South Carolina spending lots of money (and time and effort) and everyone’s talking about “super PAC” spending, we thought it was a good occasion to air this question out further. We’ve convened a Freakonomics Quorum on the topic, soliciting replies from a few folks with expertise in the realm. Thanks to all of them for participating.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the director of domestic and economic policy for the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign, has been chief economist of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and was the sixth director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Beware the Super PAC?
The political season is upon us (candidates are in South Carolina as I write this) and with it the POMP (Punditry Outrage about Money in Politics) season. This year POMPous breast-beating focuses on those pesky “Super PACs” that can collect unlimited amounts of cash and weigh in on behalf (but not plan or coordinate with) a candidate. With certitude and POMPosity, Americans are told their electoral system is being sullied by monetary incentives and activities.
I will save my defense of systems driven by economic incentives and activities for another occasion. Let’s talk about POMP. To begin, make no mistake about it, there is a lot of money in modern American politics. And if my first exposure to the fundraising demands of modern, national electoral politics during the McCain presidential campaign is at all representative, the mechanics can be eye-opening.
I shall never shake the scene at the back of the Straight Talk Express: McCain holding court with the press while simultaneously fielding continuous handoffs of cell phones from aides dialing donors for dollars. Still, and for the record, the McCain loss was not the result of the vaunted Obama small-dollar internet donor campaign, his cynical “yes-I-will, oops no-I-won’t” policy on public financing, or any other aspect of the financial tsunami that washed over the McCain campaign. It had more to do with the financial tsunami that hit the country.
Still the POMP crowd insists money is killing the system. If so, how does money matter? There is now a reasonably robust empirical finding that pure campaign spending in head-to-head Congressional elections does not tilt the playing field in any significant way. And there is a corollary that traditional PAC spending (which got funneled largely to incumbents) had comparably small effects. These results suggest that if money matters, the impact must derive from other channels. So, in the interest of promoting a more nuanced research agenda (hopefully to be financed by POMPs!), let me suggest a few channels that introspection suggests merit investigation.
Modern politics is about a lot more than the ultimate head-to-head to matchups. Serious consideration is given to (a) success at the top of the ticket, whether it be the presidential, gubernatorial, or other race; (b) factors that contribute to getting out the vote; (c) endogenous determination of the quality of candidates (a euphemism that encompasses (i) candidate recruitment, (ii) the incumbent/challenger getting the bejeezus beaten out of her/him in the primary, and (iii) and the systematic generation of uncomfortable votes prior to an election); (d) the ability to legally defend and/or challenge the legitimacy of votes; (e) the time, focus and energy cost to the candidate of fundraising activity.
All of these involve resources; that is, money. And they are far tougher to link to specific electoral outcomes. I encourage the Freakonomics community to get to work.
My bet is that when all is said and done, it will be POMP versus circumstance. And the latter will win. At any moment the country has real challenges, real needs, and real demands for leadership. And those trump money.
Robert Shrum, a senior fellow at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, has been a senior adviser on many Democratic campaigns, including Dick Gephardt (1988), Al Gore (2000), and John Kerry (2004).
In politics there is certainly no linear relationship between amount of money and degree of success. Just ask the well-heeled Republican losers of presidential primaries past — former Texas Governor John Connally, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, and former Mayor and front-runner Rudolph Giuliani. Or how about Howard Dean, who raised and spent nearly $40 million before crashing and burning in the 2004 Iowa caucuses?
Big money without the right message can become a penny waiting for change. Thus Dean misread the Iowa landscape. While voters were focusing in on one overwhelming question — which candidate had the best chance to beat George W. Bush? — Dean and Dick Gephardt were engaged in a well-financed exchange of petty negative ads. Maybe Dean never could have been a plausible answer to the determinative question in Iowa in any event. But he never seemed to try — and left the field almost entirely open to John Kerry who, Iowans rightly judged, could give Bush a real run for the White House. Similarly, this year no amount of cash could have rescued the malaprop Rick Perry; GOP caucus goers decided, once again rightly, that he couldn’t face up to Barack Obama — or measure up to the requirements of the Oval Office.
Kerry’s come-from-behind win in Iowa also illustrates the other side of the coin: You don’t need the most money, but you do need enough. Kerry took out a mortgage on his home to keep his campaign afloat when he was written off in the fall.
In 1960, Hubert Humphrey’s resources in the West Virginia primary weren’t remotely equal to John Kennedy’s — and Kennedy’s victory there all but sealed the nomination for him. Gephardt, in his first run in 1988, carried Iowa but then couldn’t raise enough money fast enough to compete on Super Tuesday. In 2012 the disparity in super-PAC money let pro-Romney forces dismember Newt Gingrich during December. Gingrich is probably fatally flawed, but it didn’t help that he couldn’t defend himself or go after Romney early on.
Finally, money doesn’t make all the difference — unless it does. Much as Obama did in 2008, Kerry raised prodigious sums, a lot on the internet, during the primaries four years before. The campaign then made a mistake of accepting federal funding in the general election; this meant that Kerry had the same amount of money for a thirteen-week campaign that Bush had for eight — because the Republican convention came more than a month after the Democrats, and Bush could keep spending primary dollars in the meantime. The result was a form of financial disarmament which deterred a swift response to the Swift Boat ads — because that would have drained limited end-of-the-race funds in mid-August. More broadly, as the 2008 Obama experience suggests, staying outside federal funding could have let Kerry broaden the list of target states and potentially prevail in a tight contest where a football stadium’s worth of voters in Ohio decided the outcome.
So gold doesn’t always glitter in politics — but you better have some of it, and sometimes, sometimes, having the most can matter the most.
Jeff Milyo is an economics professor at University of Missouri at Columbia. His research includes campaign finance, state and local health policy, elections, and the media.
The misperception that political spending drives electoral outcomes is reinforced every campaign season by sensational media coverage, post-election debriefs from losing candidates and the exaggerated rhetoric of professional reform advocates. And this first presidential election cycle post-Citizens United promises to bolster that errant view as sanctimonious posturing by pundits on the evils of money in politics will likely crescendo to a spectacle rivaling only a North Korean grief orgy.
It is true that winning candidates typically spend more on their campaigns than do their opponents, but it is also true that successful candidates possess attributes that are useful for both raising money and winning votes (e.g., charisma, popular policy positions, etc.). This “reverse causality” means that campaign spending is potentially as much a symptom of electoral success as its cause.
In order to identify the treatment effect of campaign spending on electoral success, researchers exploit natural experiments. For example, imagine re-running a race between two candidates but varying the campaign spending of each; repeat that exercise enough times and you have an experiment that will allow you to observe the causal effect of campaign spending, all else constant. That’s basically the approach taken by Steve Levitt in his seminal study of repeat meetings of the same Congressional candidates over time.
Levitt finds that changes in campaign spending produce negligible changes in electoral outcomes when candidate characteristics are held constant. Now that doesn’t mean that candidates don’t need to get their message out to voters. We’re talking about marginal changes in campaign spending. Given you are already spending a million dollars running for a House seat, another hundred grand or so won’t make any appreciable difference.
Of course, repeat meetings of candidates don’t happen by chance, so Levitt’s study is susceptible to the criticism that it isn’t the cleanest of experiments. However, I have poked at those results without being able to overturn them, even though I was highly motivated to do so (Steve is a great friend, but the professional acclaim I might have had from reversing his finding far outweighs the value of one friendship at the margin).
I have examined several other natural experiments and found similar results. For example, large shocks to campaign spending from changes in campaign finance regulations do not produce concomitant impacts on electoral success, nor do candidates with vast personal wealth to spend on their campaigns fare better than other candidates.
These findings may be surprising at first blush, but the intuition isn’t that hard to grasp. After all, how many people do you know who ever change their minds on something important like their political beliefs (well, other than liberal Republicans who find themselves running for national office)? People just aren’t that malleable; and for that reason, campaign spending is far less important in determining election outcomes than many people believe (or fear).
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#21
It's being ignored that Obama is in fact right. SuperPAC's are destroying democracy. It's hard to criticize Obama for playing by the rules that are in place. He didn't make the the rules, the shitty Supreme Court did.
Did you almost in the backwards flowing river when you were a child or something? Obviously something has interrupted the oxygen flow to your brain at some point.

I would love it if the Presidential candidates did this.
Do you honestly think Barry wouldn't renege?
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#23
One side wouldn't be able to get away with it, and you know that. Look at the shitstorm that arises every time a Republican says ANYTHING that's even remotely out of what the media considers acceptable. While I don't doubt someone like Romney or Newt would try to go back on a deal like this, they wouldn't be able to do it. Hell, Eric Holder would probably have them arrested if they tried.