Congress, Politics, Society

Obama Embraces The “Threat To Our Democracy” and Endorses Use of SuperPac

President Barack Obama has pledged that he would not accept help from “super” political action committees — denouncing them as a “threat to our Democracy.” That pledge, like many of his civil liberties pledges, has now gone into the waste basket. Obama has now called on supporters to load up the Superpac funds — erasing any difference (again) between him and his Republican rivals.

Once again, Obama supporters are blaming the GOP for the flip-flop — arguing that Obama had to lower himself to their level. Two former Obama aides are organizing the effort just as a former aide organized Romney’s controversial SuperPac. For about a week, I have noticed leaks going into the press about how Obama staffers are warning about the expected dirty attacks that will come from the Romney SuperPac. It now appears that those stories may have been placed in anticipation of this flip flop.

What is interesting is that Obama is not lacking funding. He is hauling in huge contributions. Yet, principles seem to be the first to go in this Administration when it is not politically convenient. What they have lost (beyond credibility) is a campaign issue. They could have run on the corporate influence on our political process. What is left is the cult of personality surrounding the President: it is not the principle, just the person.

Source: CNN

173 thoughts on “Obama Embraces The “Threat To Our Democracy” and Endorses Use of SuperPac”

  1. Frankly 1, February 7, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    I’m not a huge fan of Obama, he is not nearly liberal enough for my tastes. That said the choice is to have him play the game without the SuperPAC and have his ass handed to him in the fall or fight fire with fire.
    =============================
    Gingrich used the swift boat technique in Florida but got his but kicked, even though he PAC-surged more than Romney.

    Money alone can’t usually change elections that are not really close.

    There are a million rationalizations for every wrong, “he did it first” being one of them. The people are not trusted to be able to resist PAC propaganda by candidates who cave.

    Obama denounced PACs as dangerous to democracy as Professor Turley pointed out, but now embraces them.

    Thus, the plutocracy is more firmly ensconced, and should all politicians cave in, is here to stay, but unfortunately, then, America is not.

  2. Yes, let’s all shed a tear for Barack Obama- a man of great principles, driven by forces beyond his control to give up his principles one by one, until he now has no principles left but one: to get himself re-elected.

    This is precisely why I will never vote for him again.

  4. I’m not a huge fan of Obama, he is not nearly liberal enough for my tastes. That said the choice is to have him play the game without the SuperPAC and have his ass handed to him in the fall or fight fire with fire.

    Not having gone with a PAC would have gained him a negligible number of votes; the majority of people he still needs to win over have only a dim idea of what this means or what he decided once the step in the booth. But to be without the ugly money & dirty work of his own side he would be fighting a losing battle against the sea of slime that is coming his way this fall.

  6. What’s it called when you perform favors for money? Shoring? Snoring? Boring? Something with “oring” in it . . .

    He sold out to monied interests during his first term.

    That he’s doing the same on the second go around is no surprise.

  7. Perhaps HenMan would care to post the fundraising from this year, wherein Willard is by far the leading recipient of Wall Street money, because he is one with that Borg, and because Obama hurt their little feelings.

    The professor is right that Obama is raising big sums (98% in donations under $250). The problem is that KKKarl Rove and his minions are raising a lot more through super PACs, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to condemn Obama for not wanting to get swift boated.

    Why would we want the lesser of the evils to fight with one hand tied behind his back? So he could lose to Willard on principle?

  11. The professor stated “What is interesting is that Obama is not lacking funding. He is hauling in huge contributions.” (emphasis added)

    Once Senator Russ Feingold is worried about the decision:

    Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ripped into both President Barack Obama and his re-election team on Tuesday morning for backing off its previous criticism of outside spending on campaigns and embracing the role that super PACs will play in the 2012 election.

    “It is a dumb approach,” Feingold said in a phone interview …

    (Huffington Post). Are we to express the notion that “good is defined by what other people do that is not good but with which we must concede?”

    Go with the flow, no matter what, when it is expedient?

  14. Blouise, I started laughing when I read it, too. Paul supporters must be disheartened after his poor finish in the Nevada caucuses.

  15. Scott Supak, Those you refer to are probably wishing for Willard. Some were McCain supporters.

  18. Scott Supak,

    The economy is also improving and that is really frosting their gourds.

  20. “No matter a character like her will support Obama and justify his actions no matter how low !’ )Frank)

    SwM,

    You character you … well, at least you have character … 😉

Comments are closed.