More civility, I see.

Posted by BetheKoolaid

File under: Fighting Fire With Fire And Super Pacs are still a relative threat to democracy. Such is our world, post-Citizens United.
Posted by MattyScornD

Hmm, so when you or your party are the big money raisers super pacs are bad but, when others are raising big money too, then super pacs are OK!?!?!?!?!?
Posted by sk8ter2008

 Haha tolerance is easy when it's your guy huh!!! lol That's awesome!!


Posted by sk8ter2008

In Response to 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Well, no, he's saying the same thing said in defense of red states who express outrage at government largesse, redistribution of wealth, and "pork", all while taking government largesse, redistribution of wealth, and "pork" from blue states via the federal government. I talked to some BDC conservatives about that, and they said that this isn't hypocrisy because if there's money, you can take it even if you oppose taking it. So I'm not sure what the complaint is about Obama here? He said Super PACs are bad, then said, "well money is here, so I'll take it while expressing outrage." Either both are hypocrites, or neither are. Which is it? And if they're both hypocrites for doing what they claim to be against, what exactly is the RNC person who is expressing outrage at this decision? A prototype Do*che-o-matic 3000? _____________________________________________________ WASHINGTON — President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to an outside group supporting his re-election, reversing a long-held position as he confronts a deep financial disadvantage on a vital front in the campaign . Aides said the president had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to deliver speeches on behalf of Mr. Obama at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action, the leading Democratic “super PAC,” whose fund-raising has been dwarfed by Republican groups. The new policy was presented to the campaign’s National Finance Committee in a call Monday evening and announced in an e-mail to supporters. “We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back,” Jim Messina, the manager of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said in an interview. “With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.” Neither the president, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., nor their wives will attend fund-raising events or solicit donations for the Democratic group. A handful of officials from the administration and the campaign will appear on behalf of Mr. Obama, aides said, but will not directly ask for money. The decision, which comes nine months before Election Day, escalates the money wars and is a milestone in Mr. Obama’s evolving stances on political fund-raising. The lines have increasingly blurred between presidential campaigns and super PACs, which have flourished since a 2010 Supreme Court ruling and other legal and regulatory decisions made it easier for outside groups to raise unlimited donations to promote candidates. The Republican National Committee sharply criticized the decision. A spokesman, Joe Pounder, declared: “Yet again, Barack Obama has proven he will literally do anything to win an election, including changing positions on the type of campaign spending he called nothing short of ‘a threat to our democracy.’ ” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/with-a-signal-to-donors-obama-yields-on-super-pacs.html?hp#h[]
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Would you like to take back your defenses of red states sucking up federal largesse while proudly campaigning against it? Or of rugged independent no-government Alaskans whom whose government pays them to live there, enabled by a pipeline my tax dollars bought? No?
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Do you not see a difference in state issues and the POTUS standing on principle and then saying "f@ck principle I need the money"??
Posted by sk8ter2008

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Interesting way of framing it. I'll put it this way: I do not see how calling Republican hypocrisy "state issues" creates a difference between it and Democrat hypocrisy. (Of course, the RNC guy getting all outraged at Obama for playing the Super PAC game is.....well.....that's just something special)
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Haha tolerance is easy when it's your guy huh!!! lol That's awesome!!
Posted by sk8ter2008

 The executive branch should be principled and show leadership!!


Posted by sk8ter2008

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : No, Super Pacs and Citizens United are still total bulls**t. I regret the campaign's decision to go this route, but the alternative would be like consciously fielding a team with fewer players. And it's clear the opposition has no intention of ceding the low ground on the issue.  In fact, they wanted it all along.
Posted by MattyScornD

Ok, but, the alternative would be to run a campaign based more on issues and less on ads and financial status!!
Posted by sk8ter2008

If all candidates did that, then yes, that would be a viable alternative. Obama is a politician. Winning comes first. If it doesn't make sense for red states to refuse federal largesse on principled grounds, then it most certainly doesn't make sense for Obama to hamstring himself in a Presidential election on principled grounds. It's downright shameful that advertising works on human beings so damn well, imo, but it does. He'd be a fool to refuse the Super PAC support, even if accepting it is hypocrisy.
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Ok, but, the alternative would be to run a campaign based more on issues and less on ads and financial status!!
Posted by sk8ter2008

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Ok at least you're honest in that you think he should abandon his principle on what's good for our country in order to better insure his own re-election!
Posted by sk8ter2008

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : "Should"? Should is your word. I'm simply recognizing the obvious: He's a politician, and you're crazy if you expected him to refuse Super PAC money while Republicans are taking it. It's extremely rare, unfortunately, for people to sink on their own principles. The Burrs usually win. (In the short term, at least). But my oh my. Thank you for showing how "fair" your viewpoint is.They're both hypocrites for doing exactly the same thing. But, magically, Obama's hypocrisy is the only thing to worry about. Let's get really mad about that. /eyeroll.
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : I have stated that both parties are full of corrupt hypocrites that would rather rule over the ruins than lose their hold on power! But, in this case it's Obama showing he is not a principled leader or leader of any kind for that matter!
Posted by sk8ter2008

In Response to Re: 2010 Obama says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy! 2012 Now they are OK!! : Then neither are any of the Republicans who campaign against taking federal largesse while takign federal largesse. That's all. I'm just not going to ignore them and say, "oh, well, it's worse when Obama does it" Either both are hypocrites, or both are not hypocrites.
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow