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
Dredd,
I too think that you are correct….But, when will the Political Corruption cease….I thought it was all cleaned up after Tammany Hall and then Watergate….Damn…what do you think will happen next…
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/209409-forty-eight-percent-of-obama-donations-from-small-donors Only 9 percent of Romney’s donations came from small donors.
Frankly 1, February 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Dredd – what makes you think this fall won’t be close?
==========================================
I am on record on this blog saying Obama will win by 3%, which I think is a low number, but hey once on record, since I am not a politician, I can’t walk it back … Anyone else want to put in a number?
I got the last election correct, got Obama’s drop in popularity correct. When he was at ~70% approval rating I estimated ~45% and gave the reasons.
I got the House landslide (Republican win) correct in the summer before the election.
I expect the House to go back to the Dems this year, and if the Republicans keep it up, I expect them to lose seats in the Senate too, increasing the Dem edge there.
The Santorum win in three states last night, together with the potential that the Republican campaign will go like the last Dem primary, i.e. all the way to the convention before resolution, means the far right will do significan damage to themselves before November.
Hope that answers your inquiry.
“The announcement fully implicates the president, his campaign and his administration in the pollution of the political system unleashed by Citizens United and related court decisions.
. . .
“As misguided as it was, the Citizens United decision naïvely believed that the super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns. The White House’s decision to allow insiders like Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, and Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, to speak at Priorities USA Action events shows how ludicrous that notion has become, raising questions about whether the law is being violated. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/another-2012-campaign-for-sale.html?_r=1&hp
The Republican with the least amount of campaign money won in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri last night.
He openly declares that Global Warming is a Hoax that he has never believed.
He also says that the educational system of the U.S.eh? is a left-wing engine designed to keep the left in power.
All these folks who wring their hands about how Obama has no choice but to cave time after time because of how bad the alternative is, etc, etc. At some point it ought to become clear that the so-called democracy that these apologists are lecturing us about is worth less each day, each cave. So when does principle become more important than claiming that sleaze is the only viable option?
So I guess Prof. Turley and other critics of this flip would prefer more Roberts-, Alito-, Scalia-, Thomas-type Supremes and more all-pro-big-bucks -decisions-all-the-time? B/c that’s what it comes down to after all. I, too, am disgusted by all the other broken promises, including nose-thumbing at civil liberties, at poor people and all the rest, but I sure as hell don’t want Pres. Romney appointing the next few Justices.
Plus, what Swarthmore Mom and Rafflaw said early on here.
Gene–“What’s it called when you perform favors for money? Shoring? Snoring? Boring? Something with “oring” in it . . .”
I think it rhymes with good government.
rafflaw–“Obama had no choice but to accept SuperPac money.”
Yes he did have a choice and he chose to exchange one of his stated principles for the expedience of more cash for his campaign. The man is therefore unprincipled and he has earned scorn, not respect.
I agree with Gene::
“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.”
Puleeze, argue all you want about who shot John, relativity, and the price of, uh, say votes.
But don’t try to pretend that Saint O. is somehow more than a politician.
Whoops. For the uninformed, Willard is Romney’s given first name on his Birth Certificate and any inquiring Birthers out there would want to know.
I will throw another bone of contention into the pack, since I am familiar with both terms. The central strategy of the Republican party has not altered dramatically since Nixon and Reagan. Lyndon Johnson opened the door to the Republicans to the South when Lyndon pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and then proudly signed both measures in front of the cameras. Lee Atwater of South Carolina articulated the Southern Strategy and the blurb from Wikipedia is here:
Atwater on the Southern Strategy
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis’ book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater’s name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the 6 October 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP’s Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan’s version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”[6][7]
[edit] 1988 election
Atwater’s most noteworthy campaign was the 1988 presidential election, where he served as campaign manager for Republican nominee George H.W. Bush. A particularly aggressive media program included a television advertisement produced by Floyd Brown comparing Bush and Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis on crime. Bush supported the death penalty for first-degree murderers, while Dukakis opposed the death penalty. Dukakis also supported a felon furlough program originally begun under Republican Governor Francis Sargent in 1972. Prison furlough programs had been long established in California during the governorship of Republican Ronald Reagan, prior to 1980, but never allowed furlough for convicted murderers sentenced to life in prison.
In 1976, Massachusetts passed a law to similarly ban furloughs for first-degree murderers and Dukakis vetoed the bill. Willie Horton was serving a life sentence for first degree murder for stabbing a boy to death during a robbery. Horton while on weekend furlough kidnapped a young couple, tortured the young man and repeatedly raped his girlfriend. This issue of furlough for first degree murderers was originally brought up by Democratic candidate Al Gore during a presidential primary debate. Dukakis had tried to portray himself as a moderate politician from the liberal state of Massachusetts. The Horton ad campaign only re-enforced the public’s general opinion that Dukakis was too liberal, which helped Bush overcome Dukakis’s 17-percent lead in early public opinion polls and win both the electoral and popular vote by landslide margins.
Although Atwater clearly approved of the use of the Willie Horton issue, the Bush campaign never ran any commercial with Horton’s picture, instead running a similar but generic ad. The original commercial was produced by Americans for Bush, an independent group managed by Larry McCarthy, and the Republicans benefited from the coverage it attracted in the national news. In reference to Dukakis, Atwater declared that he would “strip the bark off the little bastard” and “make Willie Horton his running mate.”[1] Atwater’s challenge was to counter the “where was George” campaign slogan Democrats were using as a rallying cry in an effort to create an impression that Bush was a relatively inexperienced and unaccomplished candidate. Furthermore, Bush had critics in the Republican base who remembered his pro-choice positions in the 1980 primary, and the harder the campaign pursued Dukakis’ liberal positions, the bigger his base turnout would be.
During the election, a number of allegations were made in the media about Dukakis’ personal life, including the unsubstantiated claim that his wife Kitty had burned an American flag to protest the Vietnam War and that Dukakis had been treated for a mental illness. In the film Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story, Robert Novak reveals for the first time that Atwater personally tried to get him to spread these mental health rumors.[8]
The 1988 Bush campaign overcame a 17-point deficit in midsummer polls to win 40 states. Atwater’s skills in the 1988 election led one biographer to term him “the best campaign manager who ever lived.”
During that campaign, future president George W. Bush, son of Vice President George H.W. Bush, took an office across the hall from Atwater’s office, where his job was to serve as “the eyes and ears for my dad,” monitoring the activities of Atwater and other campaign staff. In her memoir, Barbara Bush said that the younger Bush and Atwater became friends.
[edit] RNC Chairman
After the election, Atwater was named chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Shortly after Atwater took over the RNC, Jim Wright was forced to resign as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and was succeeded by Tom Foley. On the day Foley officially became speaker, the RNC began circulating a memo to Republican Congressmen and state party chairmen called “Tom Foley: Out of the Liberal Closet.” The memo compared Foley’s voting record with that of openly gay Congressman Barney Frank, with a subtle implication that Foley was himself gay. It had been crafted by RNC communications director Mark Goodin and House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich had been trying to get several reporters to print it.[9] The memo was harshly condemned on both sides of the aisle. Republican Senate leader Bob Dole, for instance, said in a speech on the Senate floor, “This is not politics. This is garbage.”
Atwater initially defended the memo, calling it “no big deal” and “factually accurate”. However, a few days later, he claimed he hadn’t approved the memo.[9] Under pressure from Bush, Atwater fired Goodin, replacing him with B. Jay Cooper.
Following Bush’s victory, Atwater focused on organizing a smear campaign against Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.[10] Atwater viewed Clinton as a serious potential threat to Bush in the 1992 Presidential election.[10]
In 1989, Atwater was appointed as a new member of the historically black Howard University Board of Trustees. The university gained national attention when students rose up in protest against Atwater’s appointment. Student activists disrupted Howard’s 122nd anniversary celebrations, and eventually occupied the university’s administration building.[11] Within days, both Atwater and Howard’s President, James E. Cheek, resigned.
—-end
Now, me Dog talking again:
This year the Southern Strategy is the central theme within the closed doors of the Romney pack. The strategy is expanded nationally. Romney, Newtster and Ricky Boy Santorum all push the code words: welfare cheats, States Rights, forced busing, school vouchers and others.
The key is to pit the poor white trash bulls against the poor African Americans. The so called Middle Class pitted against the Lower Classes.
Ignore the One Percent dialog.
Super pacs are big money. Both sides need big money. The Atwaters of the world want the Democrats to remain noble and outgunned. I took a poll today of my dog pack and they are all Democrats. We got the best dog in the race. Ours is a Labrador and Willard is a Rat Terrier.
…which makes it all the more mysterious why Republicans don’t just re-elect the one in office.
It’s becoming reminiscent of the fall of the Roman empire, you think after Bush anyone has to be better than Bush. Then you get Obama, who has done more to offend liberty and war monger than
Bush. Re-elect him or elect Romney, the people will continue to say it has to get better. Yet, they aren’t, deficits don’t shrink, wars expand, liberty vanishes almost daily now. At what point does this false partisanship end and people realize that America’s Emporers really do have no clothes?
Dredd – what makes you think this fall won’t be close? The success the GOP has had with disenfranchising groups that tend to vote Dem (with more to follow) the media fluffing the GOPs candidate because thats what their masters want, the medias love of a horse race so that’ll want them to make it close.
its really only about 10% of the population that is up for grabs & they don’t pay attention to much other than having a warm place to defecate and the impression they get from TV.
As someone who remembers Watergate vividly and read all material on Watergate that was available, I remember it for impacting campaign financing. Many convicted of crimes were people involved in providing much of the money that was in Nixon’s “slush funds”. I have been curious lately if the decision of Citizens United undid many of the laws that were enacted as a result of Watergate. If so, then, I think Americans need a refresher course on Watergate. It seems that asking this question at this very fine and upstanding legal blog will get me a better answer than asking elsewhere. P.S. The one thing I did not read about Watergate was Gordon Liddy’s account. I find the man quite reprehensible and did not care what is opinion was.
Curious 1, February 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Refusing PAC money in 2012 is akin to buying a squirt gun for defense in Syria.
============================================
Why is that … if a pol can receive all s/he needs to get the job done without a PAC, i.e., with a normal political campaign’s normal funding?
PAC’s are used for ad hominem swift boat politics for the most part.
Why is such indecency required in order to be elected in a decent society?
Oh, now I see what you are saying about our society’s politics.
Refusing PAC money in 2012 is akin to buying a squirt gun for defense in Syria.
Gene H. 1, February 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm
What’s it called when you perform favors for money? Shoring? Snoring? Boring? Something with “oring” in it . . .
========================================
Shake shake shake … shake shake shake … shake your booty.
Let’s see WH = White House, so WHoring … ???
That is so legal for the 1%, but so illegal for the 99% …