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
Bob Esq. You might be right but could you name a president that had integrity? I think Carter had integrity but he did not have a successful presidency. Some say Coolidge had integrity.
Mike,
As I said before, it’s not the policies he stands for that bothers me, it’s the duplicity he employs in selling them.
There’s no ‘wholeness’ to Obama because the man lacks integrity.
As Neil Young sang “You pay for this but they give you that.”
Bonnie,
He’s pure scum, that’s for sure.
I’ve been thinking more and more about the relationship of Citizens United to Watergate and am going to start looking back through the archives to see what some of the posters had to say about it … in depth.
SwM,
You would certainly know more about Jr.’s appeal in the South, living there … could I suggest that perhaps some of his appeal was his wife?
Thanks, Blouise, on your answer to my question. I really appreciate it. It is something I have been wondering about for a long time. Just kept forgetting to ask the question until now. I understand what you are saying about Liddy; but, I really got my fill of him during that period. He was all over TV after his jail time and has a radio program. There were other sources that gave that take on him. He is a pretty transparent man.
Mike,
I should have known it all boiled down to guys thinking with their penis again. lol
Mike, I spent four hours interviewing a schizophrenic who I also suspect has Asperger’s. I have a monumental headache; however, he would fit right in with the Republican field, as I see it. Made just as much sense to me as the frothy mix that looks suspiciously like Judge Roy Taylor, or that guy who always looks as if he just stepped out of a Brylcreem commercial.
OS,
My sympathies, that couldn’t be easy. My clinical advice is take either two aspirin and/or four ounces of Jack Daniels and call me in the morning.
Just found out today Canada has joined the glorious ranks of countries that try to justify torture. There was an article on CBC news regarding the new policy allowing for testimony from tortured victims. The Road to Serfdom is now pervading another supposed place that cares for the rule of law ( but only that others follow it). Tim Thomas of the Boston Bruins also had another great fb post today regarding freedom for those of you who follow such matters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/frank-rich-mr-inevitable-pummeled-again.html The republican primary is not going according to the predictable script.
Blouise, I told you that he was not my candidate either. I think the younger Bush had the ‘indefinable something”. His appeal was limited to the south, Texas and parts of the west. He was viewed as god like here and still is by many.
SwM,
I would have preferred Biden or Clinton but Obama had/has that indefinable something. Kennedy had it, Reagan had it, Bill Clinton had it … Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, and the two Bush boys didn’t.
Read it and weep.
Have to go for the only pro -choice person in the field, Obama. Now, I can add the only pro-birth control candidate. So he loses a few guys to Ron Paul or Rocky or whomever. He will more than make it up with planned parenthood supporters. More women are going his way everyday. Look at the polls.
AY,
Think about it. If you placed integrity on one side of the scale and hypocrisy on the other, Obama is far more of a hypocrite than a man with integrity. But, if you simply invert it all, i.e. have Obama just come out and say he stands for the principles he reverts to via hypocrisy, he’d be a self-respecting republican; a rare breed these days.
Bob,
I have thought about that for quite awhile….. Sometimes I get in trouble for saying exactly what your sayingthat I agree with intotality…..
Bob,
I agree with you that Obama is for all intents and purposes a moderate Republican. However, we must remember his age and the fact that being born in 1962 he grew up in a different era from us. Unfortunately, the rightward shift of politics in this country occurred when he was 18 and many prominent Democrats cowered at Reagan’s popularity and became Republican-lite. I don’t think he and they (Right -Centrist Democrats) know that Eisenhower was as far Left Wing as they are. It isn’t lack of integrity it’s lack of historical context, complicated by their maturation experiences. i.e. The NY Giants won the super bowl. This team bears name continuity, but it is really unrelated to the team led by Phil Simms as that team was unrelated to the team led by Joe Pisarchik. Yet Giant fans remain Giant fans and Democrats remain Democrats, as do Republicans.
Like Teddy Roosevelt for instance, Progressive meant something radically different from what it means today. As for Republicans, Barry Goldwater would be considered a Centrist traitor today.
Bob,
Shhhh….You’re gonna get me in trouble if I respond to how I really want to….
“Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.
The word “integrity” stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of “wholeness” deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others “have integrity” to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity
Can you imagine how Obama’s integrity would soar if he just came out and declared himself republican?
Sorry, but I can’t vote for Obama in November. Hand sanitizer gives me a rash.
Thanks, Lotta. I’ve been extremely busy for the last couple of months and have missed a lot of great topics on this site.
“He, like many men in politics never matured.”
Mike,
I’ve been wondering about that a lot myself lately. I understand the psychology that attracts certain types of personality to politics, but what is it about politics that attracts the immature? I’m thinking that perhaps the mental/psychological stagnation merely “enhances” the other character traits (narcissism/egomania/power lust) that seem to be par for the course in our candidates, but that in itself the immaturity isn’t a prime driver.
“I’ve been wondering about that a lot myself lately. I understand the psychology that attracts certain types of personality to politics, but what is it about politics that attracts the immature?”
Gene,
I’m not being flippant when I answer that in one word: sex. I’ve had enough of a taste of inside politics in my life to know that for many politicians their lust drives them. They become “oh so” attractive to political groupies, who dole out their favors for “great” men, so they can bask in their “glory”. Why would someone as beautiful and intelligent as Jill St. John go out with Henry Kissinger?
Now you might question why I say that is immaturity on the politicians part? My answer is that any man who would go to bed with any women simply because she is attracted to his image, is stupid and immature. A mature male wants to be in bed with someone attracted to them personally and not because of their accomplishments. When you’re sleeping with someone the image disappears, replaced by the functioning of the human underneath. As my father once wisely told me find someone who you can comfortably fart in front of and that’s a good guide for compatibility. In the throes of passion, image fades and in the end Kissinger was just an ugly, fat guy with an egotistical personality. There’s nothing wrong with a lack of physical beauty, but people hung up on image, like political groupies, soon get disenchanted after they’ve been with the real man a few times. Then they have juicy inside tales to tell their friends and in these days the media. That is unless you are like Callista and really get your hooks into them. Don’t you know in your gt that Newt is basically immature when it comes to women. Easily flattered into thinking he’s a stud.
This is not to say that you’re wrong and that there aren’t other things in play like narcissism, sociopathy and lust for power.
Lotta,
I agree with your knife to a gunfight comment. We may not like it, but you need to fight fire with fire.
I file this situation under ‘don’t bring a knife to a gunfight’. Just sayn’.