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
Speaking of “threats to our democracy”…
“Senate Democrat challenges Obama on killing American terror suspects”
by Ken Dilanian
February 8, 2012, 11:35 a.m.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-senate-democrat-challenges-obama-on-killing-american-terror-suspects-20120208,0,3508378.story
“A Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says it is “unacceptable” that the Obama administration is refusing to provide Congress with the secret legal opinions cited to justify killing American citizens during counterterrorism operations.
Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who has pushed against the notion of classified legal opinions, expressed his concerns in a letter to Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday.”
Gene,
That it is.
(Everybody keeps getting killed on Justified and Bob can’t figure out the loyalty to the Bennetts)
Blouise,
“The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a damn fine read too, as are any of Margaret Atwood’s books.
DonS,
Color me surprised…. not tonight though I hear the country has a real headache though…..
Deado threado??
“What a Fortunate Fund Raising Coincidence for Obama”:
“Less that 48 hours after signalling that Obama wanted very rich donors, like perhaps Wall Street executives, to give unlimited money to his allied Super PAC, his Department of Justice announces it reached a deal on foreclosure fraud that contains very favorable terms for the big banks.”
http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/02/09/what-a-fortunate-fund-raising-coincidence-for-obama/
“The Handmaiden’s Tale” is an excellent reference when endeavoring to understand the danger emanating from those who are indeed actively and openly attempting to diminish (over) half the population to second class status … or lower.
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/154052/knocked_up%3A_republican_presidential_candidates%27_plan_for_american_women?page=2 Paul introduced legislation two years ago that would have allowed states to ban birth control. It died in committee. Thanks, Mike S.
Rafflaw, agree, “Demanding more of your candidate is a necessity, but you also have to be practical in order to stand a chance of winning the right battles in the long term.”
The disagreement seems to come over the notion of ‘practical’ The jury’s still out on that.
On the MIC stuff, I’m not sure O’s not a double agent, so for me it’s a crap shoot.
Paul is not the issue, he’s just the broken clock that’s right twice a day: his civil right’s stance seems to mesh in some ways with some progressives. That doesn’t make him a viable messenger of anything more than those small, perhaps coincidental, synchronicities. At this point he’s a convenient distraction and, too often, here, it seems he’s a foil for other issues folks have. I’m pretty much a outsider looking in; it’s what I see.
DonS,
Noone doubts the principle behind yours and others arguments, but if you lose the war because you are standing on your principle, you have still lost the war. The chances of getting any of these Republican candidates to stand up to big business and the military industrial complex and privacy rights is just about nil. Paul has been strong on some rights issues, but the guy is a racist and a kook, in my opinion in thinking the market place will solve all problems. Demanding more of your candidate is a necessity, but you also have to be practical in order to stand a chance of winning the right battles in the long term.
This is copied from the Catholic/birth control thread comment I made. I personally consider women’s rights issues to be one of the major civil liberties issue, ranking with any put forth I this thread. The attempt to diminish half the population to second class status is ongoing and must be opposed with constant vigor.
“Thanks to Elaine and SwM we have ample proof as to the true motivation of those who disingenuously label themselves Pro-Life. These anti abortionists will not admit the true purpose of their movement and like panderers of the meanest sort cloak it in appeals that focus on babies. Like apple pie, everyone pretends to love babies/children. By playing this cynical card they keep the focus off what they are really trying to accomplish and suck in well meaning people in service of the real misogynistic purpose of their sick inhumane cause.
The aim of this disgusting and immoral movement is the subjugation of women and a return to extremist patriarchy. They pretend to want only to stop abortions, yet they also now are openly adding the previously hidden agenda item of eliminating access to birth control. Obviously birth control would reduce abortion, but that doesn’t matter to them because it has never been about abortion, rather it is the fear that women’s sexual autonomy will free women from patriarchal control. That anti-abortionists are also against sex education has long been the tip off that controlling abortions was just the cover for this rotten agenda. Another is that their legislative proponents are against any support for mothers as single parents, pre-natal care, or health care for children. They do not cherish life, they fear and loathe independent women.
Another component of this scam is the chastity until marriage movement. As the father of now grown daughters I must say that my daughter’s virginity was never an interest of mine, one way or another. My daughters were brought up to be independent thinkers, but given all the information and support they needed to make mature sexual choices based on their particular beliefs. They’ve made their choices and continue to do so in a mature fashion, though I’ve honestly never discussed that aspect of their lives by respecting their right of privacy, I’ve also never been interested in their particular choices. To me fathers who are so interested in their daughters sexuality/virginity are somewhat icky. I understand that as a parent you want to ensure that your child is not taken advantage of by some male user. However, I believe the best way to protect their safety is to teach them to be responsible, provide them with the facts about sexuality and to instill within them the self-confidence that a female needs independence of males whether in or out of love.
The statistics show clearly that in the areas where anti-abortion and abstinence hold sway, the rates of sexuality and out of wedlock births is higher than in less sexually uptight areas. Planned ignorance breeds the kind of climate where unplanned pregnancies thrive. To me this misogyny is one of the premier issues of our time and the right of equality for women is a major issue.”
This is a major issue of the utmost importance and above I’ve just dealt with the tip of the iceberg. Please reference the book “The Handmaiden’s Tale” for a glimpse of what the future might hold should these misogynists succeed.
“No matter who is the President, we should always hold his/her feet to the fire.” -rafflaw
rafflaw,
I agree. At the moment, though, it happens to be Obama. 🙂
Per rafflaw “No matter who is the President, we should always hold his/her feet to the fire.”
Moreso now, in this age of corporate ownership of govt, eh?
. . . just to be clear, all I’m saying is that it is a false dichotomy to serially trade off matters of principle for political expediency.
Others obviously see it differently with perhaps the lead rejoinder being “but what about the Supreme Court”. This is really somewhat of an insulting argument in the sense that it dumps responsibility for some nefarious outcome on those who would stand up for principle, even though the connection between standing for principle and political disadvantage is not evident. Just ask the repub candidates about that one.
Much is in the framing, the PR, etc. And if “we’ve” been abandoned on those fronts by those who control the political levers — whether because they believe that capitulation is strength, or are actually true believer corporatists — why not stand for principle. The “professional left” isn’t welcome at the table anyway.
SwM,
I don’t care who thinks I lack focus or integrity because I lack neither and I always fight to win. Don’t get distracted by out right name calling or innuendo … it directs your attention away from the fight and saps your energy.
Our grandmothers and mothers faced this same fight and didn’t back down and people were putting them in jail and beating them on the street. They took us this far and probably aren’t the least bit surprised that we have to continue the fight for our daughters and granddaughters.
Bob,Esq.,
Be careful with that pizza! 🙂
anon nurse,
No matter who is the President, we should always hold his/her feet to the fire.
Swarthmore mom,
For now, I think that DonS has it right in saying that we have to “hold Obama’s feet to the fire.” (There’s a lot of time between now and the next election. We’ll see what transpires between now and then…)
Blouise, First it was abortion. Now it is birth control
DonS,
Re: the firedog link … if it’s administered as poorly as the last one, it’s just another boondoggle.
Re: second link … “ACLU has some “privacy concerns.” … I bet they do … technology once again is way ahead of the society/culture’s ability to foresee and protect us from the dangers of same.
Blouise, Okay, but I will not accept that those that consider economic and social justice for women high in their priorities lack focus and integrity. Remember what SNCC said. lol
“Blouise,
This isn’t personal. If we don’t win with regard to the larger issues, we’re all screwed. (anon nurse)”
The larger issues? I’m not being purposely obtuse but before I comment I need to know exactly what you define as the larger issues because I don’t want to answer based on an assumption that may be incorrect.