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
Mike A, LOL, you’re entirely correct, let’s do the auction properly. 🙂 Nice to see a posting by you.
Don S,
The guy is a winner, no doubt, which is probably what the Clinton people saw early on in the nomination process and thus signed on to be part of. (excuse the poor wording) (Bill Clinton saw it too which is why, in my opinion, he got so testy.) Obama also was free of sex issues and had a strong “family values” lifestyle … which added to Bill’s testiness. 😉
Political operatives are always looking for “The One” and Obama proved to be it. That’s why Biden and H. Clinton went to work for him.
I strongly suspect he’s going to win big in November and it will be very interesting to see what he does in his second term when his “Legacy” becomes important to him.
For anyone who is interested in a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United … here is a link
http://www.sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1112cuna/
Blousie,
“People failed to do their homework before elevating this man to nomination and then election four years ago. Now they are blaming him for their own self-imposed blinders.”
Right, and the resume was pretty thin and malleable, and to a large extent Obama did nothing to disabuse anyone from attributing all things to him — as long as they supported him.
It’s a lesson in politics, of a sort. Unique in a way, but certainly typical in the manner in which big name pols are either convinced or coopted insiders.
I’m an old guy. I’m disappointed but not surprised. Those I feel sorry for are the armies of young, committed voters and workers whose idealism, really not seen in US politics for a long, long time, has just been trashed. I feel bad for them, and I feel bad for the even sleazier politics that has followed in the wake and who knows how far into the future.
The writing was on the wall early on when all those former Clinton people went to work for him.
I know, I know … moot point
Blouise,
It is moot. I wasn’t an Obama supporter, but disliked Bill C. on policy. I didn’t believe Hillary would be any less Republican than Bill. I didn’t vote for either in the primary, but knew McCain was a crazy hardline warrior and his pick of Palin disqualified him from consideration. John Edwards had the best message, but like many men was compelled by below the belt urges that sapped his common sense. Been there, done that but not after age thirty, when I finally grew up. He, like many men in politics never matured.
Mike S.,
I agree with you that the Dems will probably make some gains in the Senate and the House. I hope that is accurate, but I hope that the newbies keep Obama’s feet to the fire.
Mike S,
The question for me is … how much better would things have been if someone other than Obama had won the nomination?
“As I recall, then-Sen. Obama did much the same when he reneged on his promise to run using public financing.”
Mahtso,
You are absolutely right, but how much worse, or better, would things be if McCain/Palin had won?
“understanding Liddy opens a window of understanding into the intelligence community that found themselves so entangled in Watergate.”
Blouise,
You’re right and that understanding is vital in trying to combat that mindset. Though they exhibit corruption, many of these people are “true believers” as is Liddy. It’s just that their belief system puts them in a different universe and so they cannot be reformed by reason.
“My guess is that it will outdo the madness you correctly point out.”
Dredd,
Being wrong in this would thrill and amaze, rather than disappoint me.
mahtso,
Yep … your recall matches my own. People failed to do their homework before elevating this man to nomination and then election four years ago. Now they are blaming him for their own self-imposed blinders.
What he is now is what he has always been and no one stands a chance at defeating him in November.
Bonnie,
All right Bonnie! Once again you have pointed a most polite finger, as you did yesterday at the Founding’s view on public education, at what was really going on with the Citizens United brouhaha.
The uncovering of Nixon’s cover-up of the Watergate break-in threw a huge wrench into the political money contribution machinery. Citizens United removed that wrench and allowed things to, finally, get back on track. In that vein, Citizens United was another superb cover-up nicely cloaked in the official black robes of the Supreme Court.
I was a student of Watergate, as you seem to be, and would disagree slightly with you on the importance of reading G Gordon Liddy. I find him as disgusting as you seem to but he was at the center of the initial break-in and his attitude towards the enemy (democrats) was most telling. As a former FBI agent under Hoover and the recipient of many commendations from Hoover, understanding Liddy opens a window of understanding into the intelligence community that found themselves so entangled in Watergate. His “Charlie the Tuna and Jaws” analogy is still very much in play today as the intelligence community seeks to offer excuses for any number of infractions, including torture.
Mike Spindell 1, February 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm
“… 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.”
Dredd,
You know I respect you, but I disagree … I am a generally optimistic person, living a very blessed life and yet I feel much dread at the future of this country. Even in the 50′s and 60′s this country never had such prominent and powerful crazy people.
=============================
Hey, there are several big time memories stored in this old fellow’s head … some of my favorites are being wrong on various issues.
Since I highly respect you, and Turley Blog in general, I will give you a secret view … my expectation is based on the advent and tenaciousness of populism at this time in our history. My guess is that it will outdo the madness you correctly point out.
If we are going to sell the presidency, we ought to have a proper auction. We can cancel all of the remaining primaries, eliminate the party conventions, hire Christie’s or Sotheby’s and televise the event (after all, we all believe in government transparency).
Anonymously Yours 1, February 8, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Dredd,
…what do you think will happen next…
=================================
Everything. 😉
As I recall, then-Sen. Obama did much the same when he reneged on his promise to run using public financing.
“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.”
Dredd,
You know I respect you, but I disagree. The 2010 election Republican victory was pretty certain to me also. However, if by some chance there is a Republican Presidential victory in 2012 it will be because of turnout. That turnout will vote a straight, rather than split ticket. Ergo a House victory at least. Right ow with the insane filibuster rule the Senate has become merely inconsequential and stultified. A Republican House, Republican President and Republican SCOTUS will set this country so far back at this locus in time, that short of a Revolution, our course will be set for the next 100 years. If a Revolution, which is quite dubious, there are much greater than even odds that the winners will represent an even worse alternative.
I am a generally optimistic person, living a very blessed life and yet I feel much dread at the future of this country. Even in the 50’s and 60’s this country never had such prominent and powerful crazy people.
Many blue collar republicans are voting for Santorum, and they would not vote for Obama under any circumstance.
“If he rejected the Super PACs and fought for the working class, a lot of blue collar Republicans would probably come over to his side.”
Christine,
These are indeed noble sentiments, but sadly our politics are such that appeals to reason are always drowned out. Blue Collar Republicans are basically Right Wing Authoritarians as defined here.: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/ These individuals constantly vote against their own best interest, so swaying them with principled stands is again noble, but futile.
I understand that many people I respect like JT and Robert Reich (see today’s Huffpost) think the President is wrong. I disagree. Living in Florida I got to see the working of a Super Pac up close. Prior to South Carolina the Romney TV blitz began and I have never seen so many TV ads, so far from a n election date. This was well-produced saturation advertisement and we see it could even take such a seemingly uninspiring candidate and make him a winner in a key state. To me it is simply the “knife to a gunfight” situation and with stakes too high to take chances. I am not at all a violent person, but I would kill without qualms someone who is trying to kill me, rather than ethically debating in my mind the moral question as I die. I can do little to impress you of my belief that the 2012 election represents such a life or death question for the 99%, but I for one believe it does and so requires extraordinary measures.
Knowing the ebb and flow of debate here as well as I do, I anticipate “holier than thou types” attacking me as a “Obamabot”. Attack away, but riddle me this?
1. Do you believe that ANY Republican winning as President, with coattails ensuring a House Republican Majority, will make things better or worse for the 99% of this country’s population?
2. If your answer to the above is neither, then am I right to assume that you believe it doesn’t matter who wins, because “they’re all the same”?
3. If they are “all the same” am I correct that you want things to change in this country for the 99%, or do you think a Republican victory will actually improve the salient issues?
4. If you agree as in 2. above that they’re “all the same”, but disagree that a Republican victory will make things better, what is your specific strategy to deal with our country’s incipient Plutocratic Corporatism, while ensuring things simply don’t get much worse for the 99%?
My answers to the above are obviously as follows:
1. Much Worse.
2. I believe the Democratic Party at this point, while being Corporatist, represents a Corporatist belief system that will make things better for the 99%.
3. I believe a Republican victory this year will destroy any semblance of freedom we still have and lead to a Presidential dictatorship, creating a society similar to 1920’s America, except for the 20’s lacking an activist President.
4. I am very open to alternatives that represent a better strategy for 2012, however, I don’t think that when your dealing with the current Authoritarian nature of the Right Wing of this country that nobility, political purity and hopefulness represent winning strategy. Hitler took his 34% Reich-stag vote and created one of the worst totalitarian governments in history. I see no difference between the proffered ideology of any Republican candidate and that of Adolf Hitler. It all adds up to the same thing to me.
As you take your best shots at me, I would urge you to remember that on this site I have a history of written statements being as critical of the President and of the trend in America towards a frightening Feudalistic Corporatism, as anyone else. However, forgetting history dooms one to repeat it and I clearly remember my “politically pure” colleagues of the Movement refusing to vote for Humphrey in 1968. The result was an escalation of the Viet Nam War, the destruction of both the Civil Rights, Anti-War protest movements and the nascent movement to gather them all into one overarching philosophy that included the economically disadvantaged. Today the critical issues are joblessness, the social safety net, misogyny, homophobia, racism, a march to war in Iran and a unfettering of corporate greed. My contention is that Obama has at least made positive efforts in all of these, that they were not enough is certain. The victory of the Republican Candidate, which will inevitably lead to a Republican House, will certainly affect all those issues with a negativity that to my mind be inevitable.