Some grade “A” whining from Salon:
It’s official: Barack Obama has decided — not for the first time — that leading by example is just too risky.
On January 27, 2010, in one of the most celebrated moments of his presidency, Obama stood in the rostrum of the U.S. House and called out to their faces the five members of the Supreme Court who had ruled six days earlier that the federal government has no authority to limit the independent political activity of corporations and unions.***
But all of that abruptly changed last night, with word that Obama has decided to give in and play the Super PAC game just as aggressively as his Republican opponents. As the New York Times reports:
Aides said the president had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to make clear to donors that they should support Priorities USA Action, the leading Democratic “super PAC,” whose fund-raising has been dwarfed by Republican groups. The new policy was presented to the campaign’s National Finance Committee in a call Monday evening and was set to be announced Tuesday.
“Dwarfed” is definitely the right word. Fund-raising reports released last week showed that the pro-Mitt Romney Super PAC Restoring Our Future has outraised Priorities USA by more than seven-to-one. And that’s just one component of the Republican Super PAC arsenal. Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who has given $10 million to a Newt Gingrich-aligned group, is sending signals that he’ll move his support to Romney if the former Massachusetts governor is Obama’s fall opponent, while a Super PAC launched by Karl Rove has taken in more than $50 million.
It’s not good enough that Obama win re-election, he has to do it with one hand tied behind his back. We went through this crap in 2008 with public financing, and I imagine we will be hearing kvetching from the usual suspects for a while about this.
Look- I wish Super PACS didn’t exist. I wish politicians weren’t as beholden to monied interests and slaves to raising campaign cash. I really do. But that is the reality we live in, and I’m not going to hamstring my candidate and demand he play by different, tougher rules.
Shorter Salon asshat: Obama should set an example by losing, thus assuring the nation will turn away from SuperPACs henceforth.
Some people can’t handle too much reality.
These are roughly the same people always criticize the Democrats for not being “tough enough” and for always bringing a “knife to a gun fight.” They have about as much credibility as Fox News.
They want the horse race. And the only way to get a horse race when you’ve got one of the best politicians in history on the Dem side and a pack of charisma-free, increasingly-crazy whackaloons on the Rep side is to demand that Obama handicap himself. Anything for the horse race. The horse race sells ads, baby.
c u n d gulag
Look, if them’s the rules – USE THEM!
I’m sick and f*cking tired of Democrats/Liberals/Progressives who disdain fighting – so when the Conservatives declare a gunfight, our side comes bearing sporks and foons.
Why, John, how foolish of you. Didn’t you know the highest goal of politics is to go down in principled defeat?
EDIT: Democratic politics of course. Republicans are free to do whatever they want in order to win.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I was only surprised this soggy snotrag of Oh-So-Disappointed Idealism was written by Kornacki. I guess David Sirota was still worn out from whatever he churned out yesterday. I’m just glad Saint Stewart is on vacation so we’ll miss his pose of “sadness” over Obama’s fiendish insistence on living in the world as it is, instead of the one where Aaron Sorkin and Lawrence O’Donnell script the response of the opposition, and the electorate.
mistermix ... World Peace
You don’t understand the purification ritual. Once Democrats have lost to Republicans using some new technique, then it has been purified by that loss, so it’s OK to use it the next cycle. The Pope of the DC Press Corpse sent out an encyclical on this. I’m surprised you haven’t read it.
I don’t know about this, John. Buddy Roemer may have gotten almost .000001% in the Republican primary. Who wouldn’t want a piece of that action for themselves?
No Obama is worse than Bush etc. tag?
Just to make a point, but how exactly was Obama supposed to stop an independent group from raising money? If the SuperPAC is genuinely independent, they can raise money and spend it to support his campaign whether he likes it or not. We have to acknowledge either that these “independent” groups are nothing of the sort or that the matter is really out of Obama’s hands. You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t give a rat’s ass who wrote it. it’s a piece of garbage. POTUS and team will not be taking a knife to a gun fight.
And if Obama had rejected superpacs he’d have been a hero, right? A man of the people, whose donations from individual citizens was an unstoppable financial juggernaut that caused the creation of superpacs to begin with? My ass.
Fuck off. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy is hypocrisy, now matter how much it’s rationalized. Here: In order to save the village, we had to destroy it.
The 1%’rs rule. QED.
Fuck this shit. I say we and Obama double down on Doug J’s strategy that got him that Moore Award nomination.
It’s more important to be pure and lose. Just ask Russ Feingold.
Fuck these self-loathing pussies.
Good for Obama. Use the rules these fuckers wanted and put them down for the count.
The village has already been destroyed. We’re trying to rebuild it, but we need to be in a position to do that.
Ok, motherfucker. Win what? What part of your ass do you sell to the highest bidder to win what you want?
Dead brown Muslims? Oil money? Wall Street?
Track the money and take a position? Even a whore chooses clients.
Villago Delenda Est
Concern trolls are concerned. Film at 11.
@Wee Bey: As night follows day, Feingold is loudly condemning the move.
I wouldn’t even call that Grade A whining. It’s just the standard Salon contrarianism as applied to today’s headlines. As an example of the form, I’d give it a B- at best; execution is reasonable, but there’s no originality or creativity evident.
That is the problem with arms races: by definition the other side has to adapt to the tactics of the aggressor.
Villago Delenda Est
@mistermix … World Peace:
Time to storm the Vatican hill of the DC press corpse, find the Pope, and string the motherfucker up.
It’s really too bad Broder died a natural death.
Why, John, how foolish of you. Didn’t you know the highest goal of politics is to go down in principled defeat?
Sometimes I suspect that a lot of support for Obama in 2008 was from a group of people who thought it would be honorable to support a candidate who had a chance at going down in “honorable defeat” by running a high minded campaign that got steamrolled.
This is another reason that the whole “Chicago politics” claim from the right doesn’t resonate. Obama has the exact opposite temperament than that, and some of his admirers get upset when he departs from that and actually goes nuclear.
@wilfred: You have your own soapbox at Speaker’s Corner, don’t you.
Of course he is. He’s also too chickenshit to stand for Governor in Wisconsin, so I could give a fuck what he thinks.
President Obama, on the other hand, knows he has a duty to the party to, you know, win an election.
@Roger Moore: This. The PrioritiesUSA SuperPac was formed long ago, but they couldn’t raise any money. The Obama campaign is now trying to remedy that by asking people to support it. If they disclose all the donors, I’m not sure I see a problem.
And Al Gore once flew to Europe instead of kayaking, therefore global warming is false.
@mistermix … World Peace:
I’ve got a set of 95 theses that I’d like to nail to a door somewhere. Perhaps the front door of the headquarters of the Post?
Rationalization is a pretty powerful defense mechanism.
For knuckle dragging twits, anyway.
In order to save America, save the good people, the true believers, we had to whore ourselves.
But only just a little.
Ok, to whom? And at what price?
The Moar You Know
@hildebrand: Fuck Feingold. The rules are the rules. I don’t like them more than anyone else, but they are the rules and we have to play by them. I want us to fucking not just win, but to destroy the Republican field by any means necessary, so bring on the SuperPACs and let’s start the burning of the Confederacy now.
@Villago Delenda Est: We could reenact the Cadaver Synod, in which the corpse of Pope Formosus I was put on trial. They dressed the corpse in the papal vestments, propped him up in a chair, and conducted a full day long trial. Shockingly he was found guilty – they cut off three of his fingers and buried him in a common grave (until somebody dug him up again and threw the body into the Tiber).
I sit humbly, corrected.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yeah, but the vacation also spares him from having to respond to Kindly Grandpa Ron’s comments about “honest rape.” At most he’ll play a clip at the top of a show, make a sadface, and move on to some cutting edge comedy about Rick Santorum’s last name.
Bet you he still comes back to Obama’s Super PAC support, though. There’s always time for Balance.
No matter how much money gets flung into this election, I think Obama supporters can outwork the other side and turn out an amazing number of voters.
The Supreme Court depends on it.
Work off our frustration by contacting voters, and ensuring clean elections.
Fuel to the pyre: The right’s stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left
Probably my single favorite tidbit, “On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won’t drown in it.”
ETA: no, no still evolving “Yes, conservatism thrives on low intelligence and poor information. But the liberals in politics on both sides of the Atlantic continue to back off, yielding to the supremacy of the stupid. It’s turkeys all the way down.”
@wilfred: Again, PrioritiesUSA has been in existence for a while, but they weren’t raising much money. The Obama campaign, seeing the need to at least try and counter the right wing’s coming SuperPAC assault, asked their donors to support it. If they disclose the donors, what is the problem?
And it’s so important to make sure Obama has long, long coattails.
Need to clean up the House and Senate; give him a Congress that will work for us.
John Cole @ Top:
Exactly. You have to play by the rules that are, not the rules as you want them to be.
Obama has the advantage of incumbency, and maybe he could win without SuperPacs, but I’d rather not take that risk — especially since we know, from the GOP primary race so far, that whoever Obama’s eventual opponent is, they will be taking every SuperPac advantage they can get away with.
The Moar You Know
@wilfred: You’re getting all three whether it’s Obama or Romney – and those are the only two choices you have, sorry – so pick some other criteria.
Ok, this goes back to the real problem with Mitt and his tax returns – and the media doesn’t seem to understand the real problem.
Mitt’s problem isn’t that he makes a lot of money, or that he pays 15%. Hell, Obama is hauling Warren Buffet around as a role model who makes way the fuck more than Mitt doing exactly what Mitt earned his money on, and paying the same 15%. Clearly the income and the tax rate isn’t the problem. The problem is that Buffet looks at his return and says “I’m paying way the fuck too little, this is unfair.” Mitt looks at his return and says “I’m paying way the fuck too much, this is unfair.” That’s the problem. We know this because of the tax policy that carries Buffets name and his statements in interviews, and we know this because of the tax policy that Romney is promoting.
The GOP are using the SuperPACs and saying “This is good, we like this”. I don’t think they actually do, because I think it’s destroying them, but they’re supporting the policy, so they’re stuck with it. Obama is using the SuperPAC and saying “This is bad, I don’t like this, but I have no choice” and voluntarily using the FEC contribution guidelines for transparency to help make it less bad.
Yeah, it’d be better to not use the SuperPAC, but he can’t well change the finance situation if he loses in November. If he has to use the SuperPAC, he can at least set an example for how to make them less bad – which it appears he will do, and keep advocating that the SuperPACs go away. The media will never grasp that distinction – but a lot of voters inherently do.
Villago Delenda Est
The irony here is that the most exciting horse race I’ve ever seen was a blowout. The 1973 Belmont Stakes.
Davis X. Machina
I think Obama should follow the shining example set by Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, who never takes PAC money yet consistently gets re-elected.
Shawn in ShowMe
I hereby designate this week the Clint Eastwood Awakening.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
What I am really waiting for the ragegasm form the Right over Obama forming a super PAC. That decision was only made by the Supreme Court for conservatives. Am I Right?
Agreed. But since the Poland Solidarity movement isn’t likely to help us out of this one, we’re going to need a good war plan.
@ Hill Dweller:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that Gingrich sucks superpac cock. His variety is: Aipac, Palestinians are invented, kill the brown-skinned motherfuckers. In exchange for that, he’ll give something else. I mean, Newt, he assumes a position.
Disclose the donors? Absolutely. But I want to know the dialectic here.
It’s a simple question. What we’ll you give for the superpac money.
A whore give a list of dos and don’ts Let’s hear it.
On further reflection, I think Obama did this wrong. What he’s supposed to do is to tell people how they should never, ever give money to PrioritiesUSA, no matter how much they want the Democrats to win in November. It doesn’t matter that it’s perfectly legal for PrioritiesUSA to raise and spend as much money as they like, and that it would help the Democrats enormously if people gave generously. Nope, they shouldn’t go to http://www.prioritiesusaaction.org/, click on the donate link, and give until it hurts. It would be much better to let the Republicans win and run the country into a ditch than to give money to an independent group that might help the Democrats win.
As someone who will knock on doors and make calls, I like the decision. It’s not just the president that would be playing with one hand tied behind his back, his volunteers would be too.
I’ve rid myself of lofty idealistic notions on campaigns. It’s a blood sport. A principle loss is still a loss. We would lose momemtum and that would put us back at least four years if not more.
Suffering for your principles builds character, but making others suffer for your principles is pride. – my dad.
After the election,
Not to mention, since the late Pope Formosus wasn’t able to answer the charges against him, his antagonist, Pope Stephen VI(VII) (a GOP type avant-la-lettre apparently) appointed a church official to answer for him. Oddly enough, old Formosus pleaded “guilty”….
“They will sell us the rope we will hang them with”.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Exactly, the media, including the liberal sliver of it, seems unable or unwilling to make the connection between Romney’s personal finances and policy. Not just Romney’s proposed policies, but the trickle-down economics that has been the Republican party’s only real position for the last thirty years. See also “I don’t care about poor people, we have a safety net”; Romney has embraced very specific proposals about the safety net: Talking about his robotic personality is fun, but after a minute of that, connect the fucking policy dots.
I’m glad we have a pragmatic President, instead of someone “pure” like Ralph Nader. And this isn’t beanbag; lives are at stake, lots of them. Besides, the Republicans made the rules… they say it’s legal, and so does the Supreme Court!
I wonder just how much principle the ones who scream about it… have? Who made your underwear? Do you drive a car? Do you have a choice?
@wilfred: Show me the way to do even half of what needs to be done without getting our hands dirty.
Does Salon allow comments? I’ve noticed that only paid subscribers can comment on there now. It’s a shrinking website — not as good as it used to be.
I thought he could too, but after looking at the 2011 hauls, I think we’re missing the bigger problem.
The GOP SuperPACs alone brought in nearly $100M. Obama brought in $86M for himself and the party. Toss in what the RNC raised on top of that $100M, and the Dems are in trouble. Obama is probably okay, but fundraising for governor races and Congress would be wildly disfavorable to the Dems. That SuperPAC money can be used for ANYTHING, and the Dems need a figure that can draw the big donations – something the GOP has cultivated. Rove can raise as much as Romney can. So can quite a few of the social conservative leaders, the Kochs, and so on. The Dems are built around small money, not big, and just don’t have a big money infrastructure to compete. Obama is pretty much the only path to big money to support downticket races, and the Dems need to win back Congress.
@Shawn in ShowMe:
I’ll happily go along, though I didn’t need Clint Eastwood.
There’s actually an Aaron Sorkin reference that’s appropriate.
Because I am tired of working for candidates who make me think I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam. I’m tired of getting them elected. You all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on communism, soft on defense, and we’re going to tax ya back to the stone age, because people shouldn’t have to go to work if they don’t want to. And instead of saying ‘Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, leave it to beaver trip back to the fifties,’ we cowered in the corner. And said ‘Please Don’t Hurt Me’.
No more. I really don’t care who’s right, who’s wrong. We’re both right. We’re both wrong. Let’s have two parties, huh, what do you say?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
as if on cue. the voice of losing purity pipes up
Think Russ ever bumped into Evan Bayh or Mary Landrieu in the Senate dining room?
I don’t think so.
And so Salon is demanding a bit of Gesinnungsethik from Obama. Bue Obama has the vocation of a politician; Verantwortungsethik must do.
Don’t hate the playa, hate the game, Salon.
A fair question. I have to laugh because back during the nomination process I was one of the only people, if not the only person, on this blog that supported Obama from the beginning – this when all the ‘pragmatists’ were rolling over Clinton or Edwards.
One reason was for his position against lobbyists and money in politics.
Appeal to the ideals of people. That’s how he won in the first place.
Pragmatism is for Jamie Dimon and fat, French whores. Stand on principle and maybe you’ll win.
Fall back on superpac money and you already lost.
It’s a fucking disgrace.
I think these people are confusing the real world with “Once Upon a Time.” The moral high ground only has the advantage in fiction.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
You see? Canon law invented the right to counsel. Where is the problem?
Shawn in ShowMe
We can save a lot of time here. What whore list of dos and don’ts would be acceptable to you? Then as the information trickles in we can check them off.
This means that the GOP gets to run against the man they really want to run against…………..Soros. Throw the jew down the well.
I’m surprised nobody has posted the West Wing episode clip where this exact issue comes up and they decide to use the equivalent of outside money (soft money in that case):
I am also a hypocrite, I confess.
I am opposed to all sort of laws, regulations, and government processes, and yet I continue to obey them as I participate in the process to change them.
I should just go shoot myself now and join the rest of them in the sixth circle of hell.
The Moar You Know
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Russ was far too pure to use the Senate dining room. He ate his lunch out of a brown bag, in his car, parked in a public parking lot miles away from the capital building.
HE’S THAT FUCKING PRINCIPLED
I hope his unicorn is OK.
Purity Troll types with pinkies extended.
The issue is downstream. Congressional races, and some big local ones.
@ Shawn in ShowMe:
Fair cop. Here – 4 years ago, I donated plenty of money to Obama’s primary campaign.
I want to know his superpac donors. If I see Wall Street, Big Oil or Aipac, he’s not getting any of money.
Burden is not on me, or any individual donor. The burden is now on the apologists to a) disclose, and b) explain what the superpacs expect to get.
That’s critical thinking.
The Moar You Know
@wilfred: You’re demanding a standard of behavior that has never been practicable in American politics. I get your point, but this is the real world we’re living in, not Russ Feingold’s Purity Town Of Amazement™.
EDIT: “If I see Wall Street, Big Oil or Aipac, he’s not getting any of money.”
Well, you’ll see all three. And you’ll see all three giving to Romney as well. So…what do you do?
To those saying ‘OMG! Obama is bought and paid for by corporate interests?!??!!’, think about it for a second. Even if Horrible Corporation X gives his PAC $10m, Obama doesn’t need to do anything for them. This is the last election that he’ll ever run in, so he can take their money and not give a shit about what they want him to do because he doesn’t need their help in the next election cycle. Of course, Horrible Corporation X might decide never to give to Democrats ever again, but I think that’s a risk that Obama’s willing to take.
And I don’t think people fully understand the possible implications here. The Buffet Rule is projected to raise about $50B per year off of about 100,000 people. Most of that money would be raised off of a handful, though – guys with names like Koch and Adelson and Walton. They have to look at a value proposition here – if they can gang together and dump $1B into GOP SuperPACs and knock Obama out of office so the Buffet Rule can’t get signed, that’s a GREAT deal, and they can easily afford the $1B.
Obama has been raising about $80 per donor. There are about 55 million registered Democrats in the US. Obama would need to raise $20 from every registered Democrat in the nation in order to match the donation that a dozen super-wealthy individuals not only could put forward, but likely have a financial incentive to put forward.
This is the notion of asymmetrical warfare taken to an extreme. It could quite literally come down to the entire country vs enough guys to fit in a minivan.
@wilfred: Because it’s impossible to be beholden to special interests when you lose the f*&king election by 34 points.
On a serious note, if we don’t win by fairy dust and rainbows the magic flying pony won’t come down to make our dreams come true. Winning in the real world just isn’t as exciting.
I’m much more afraid of 3 SCOTUS Justices in their 80’s and Romney in the Oval Office than I am Obama’s Super PAC sources.
Every single one of us should be as well.
Well said, Cole.
The big guns are coming out this campaign, and the demands from some on the left that Obama fight them unarmed is insane.
Republicans will above and beyond the rules in this campaign — we’ve seen plenty of instances of that lately. The least we can do is to do everything we can within the rules.
Obama says he supports a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizen’s United. It is something I’ve heard MoveOn and OWS ask for.
You remind me of an old adage I heard on how Brazilians view their national soccer team: It’s not enough to win, they have to win with style or it doesn’t count.
“We went through this crap in 2008 with public financing,”
Except it was a complete nothingburger. Obama said he would ignore public fincning because it was not nearly as much as he could raise and spend without it, and did so. two weeks of whining but no actual change in behavior – nothing burger.
I bet there were zero voters who changed their minds in 2008 based on his non-use of public finncing. Likewise for this.
This isn’t about purity. Purity would be about appealing to the essential decency and honor of people and ignoring such mundane tripe as politics.
I pose the question again. What are you willing to surrender to superpacs to get what you think is best for the most?
Gingrich sold his ass to kill Palestinians. I reduce, but the point stands.
The superpacs are in the game. What does the thoughtful ‘pragmatist’ do?
You’re against purity? So were the Romans. Where, so to speak, is the Rubicon?
The Moar You Know
@Martin: Best post on the subject today. Thanks, Martin.
Criticism from Russ Feingold, a guy who lost his Senate seat to a Citizen’s United funded zillionaire, must really, really sting.
I ain’t even close to here.
And let me tell you something else. You know when I started thinking Obama was my guy?
When I read about how he won an Illinois Senate seat by challenging the nominating petitions of all his primary opponents, and getting every last one thrown out.
Silly me, I like a guy who plays to win.
It’s President Romney, appointing justices to John Roberts’ Supreme Court.
And a Romney administration destroying what little we have with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The Moar You Know
@boss bitch: The rules:
You’re not getting Republicans to sign off on a repeal of Citizen’s United. It is not going to happen.
@ The Moar you know:
“Well, you’ll see all three. And you’ll see all three giving to Romney as well. So…what do you do?”
That’s a fair question. The kind you see at Pat Lang’s, no? Not here.
Me? I give my money to PDA, that’s Progressive Democrats of America. I’m waiting for OWS to consolidate a praxis, but in the meantime I’m staying out of false binary oppositions.
Superpacs are superpacs.
These emoprogs want Obama to win like SGK wants to cure breast cancer.
The list of what we could lose by not using all the tools we have is much longer & much more important than what you think we would have to give up to these Super PAC’s.
I don’t think you understand what’s at stake here. You think you do, but you don’t.
Pretty much what Alinsky says in Rules for Radicals.
I registered as a Reprivitizan this year just to ratfuck. I’m even nominating myself tonight to be a delegate! So, I approve of thermonuclear politics if it’s our guy with the red phone. The GOP is out to destroy my life and the life of my kids, and damned if I’m gonna let them.
Given the alternative, I don’t object to the president playing the game by the rules that exist, although our side is never going to be able to out-money the money men. For us, it’s going to be more about bodies than dollars.
Let’s win and then change the rules.
I’d rather have Obama, who is far from perfect, appointing the next 2 or 3 justices to the Supreme Court than Romney.
It’s President Romney, appointing justices to John Roberts’ Supreme Court.”
You know, that’s exactly fair. But for me, it’s a different Rubicon, and yours is not mine. My point is that the minute that the big money, the superpacs, get into the game, we can’t negotiate, we can’t work it out. We become bit players, to a whom a bone is flung from the table of joy.
But we don’t sit at the table. That’s the problem, it’s not the solution.
@The Moar You Know: Very true, but after people have watched ten thousand TV ads, seven thousand internet ads, five thousand radio ads, four hundred billboards, and gotten two hundred robocalls, I don’t especially see the downside in talking about how it would be great to get big money out of politics. Citizens United was a really unpopular decision even before there were any ramifications from it.
Obama has suggested (we’ll see in the details) that he’s going to ask that the same rules he applies to donations to his campaign apply to the SuperPAC. That would suggest full disclosure of individuals as is done with the FEC, and the same no lobbyists rules as he’s voluntarily adopted.
I think that’s reasonable. You seem to be taking the attitude that Obama is trying to push the rules here, but even on the FEC overseen contributions Obama has voluntarily adopted rules limiting who can contribute. He didn’t need to do that, but he did it anyway – and he tightened it up between 2008 and 2012. He didn’t need to disclose small contributions, but he did. I think on this issue, he deserves the benefit of the doubt until we get to see it in action.
But isn’t it more fun to beat the mofos at their own game, playing by their rules?
Tone In DC
@ boss bitch:
Don’t even think about patronizing me. I’ve spent most of the past 4 years explaining the worst excesses of American foreign policy to people who don’t give a fuck about Supreme Court appointees.
It’s a big world – consequences extent to infinity.
The Moar You Know
@wilfred: Yeah, I’ve been spending a lot of time over at Pat’s. There’s a lot to recommend that guy – he is honest and he gives everyone a fair shake while tolerating not much in the way of bullshit. Would have loved to have had him as a CO.
Fair answer from you, thanks. Not my answer, but a fair answer nonetheless.
I’m a “lesser of two evils” guy myself – for the moment.
Goddamn right about that. I’m trying to figure out a way to extract my country from that situation without letting us be repeatedly sodomized by either party in the process. It may well be unavoidable. Not sure what I’ll do if I come to that conclusion. I have a family to protect these days.
Wrestling in the mud may be the game; but that doesn’t mean it is fun. Just necessary.
Or else what?
give me a break. I don’t care what you’ve been explaining over the past 4 years. Your outrage says to me that you don’t freaking get it.
Shawn in ShowMe
In a recent NY Times article, the top donors for Romney’s SuperPAC were revealed. Strangely, none of them were from Big Oil. It’s almost like they’re trying to keep a low profile in this area. Huge amounts came in from Wall Street, including Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs.
If Obama is the politician I think he is, he’ll use his donor list to draw a sharp distinction between the two candidacies, just as he’s been doing in the past several weeks in his speeches. I would be really surprised if Wall Street gave in any significant amounts to Obama’s SuperPAC. The Prez saved their asses but just like they did in the days of FDR, they refuse to acknowledge it. Too absorbed in the myth of their own genius.
So, we’ve lost already, since they are already in the game? I refuse to believe that, and I find it insulting that you expect me to. Citizen’s United makes a behavior legal that dwarfs all other forms of political speech. Until it gets repealed, it is going to be almost impossible to compete against an opponent with access to SuperPACs without doing the same.
Obama is going to be disclosing far more information than is required, and seems to be striking a balance here. It is a shame that you and the others shrieking in the name of purity refuse to see that. But hey, you go ahead and lament how you are the One True Supporter, driven off by this latest betrayal. It won’t be the last time we see that, I’m sure.
Komen official at center of Planned Parenthood dispute quits
(PROTIP: Don’t attack Obama’s critics from the left; their criticism helps the Democrats in 2012)
All those opposed need to keep in mind that anti-Obama Super PAC’s are not going to only affect his re-election chances. And its not only going to affect Supreme Court nominations. The only truthful thing Mitt Romney has ever said is that this election will be a fight for America’s soul. All that’s important to Liberals is on the table and ya’ll better start fighting like a mother bear protecting her cubs.
@The Moar You Know:
You’re probably right, but I think there are quite a few folks in the GOP that think they should repeal it. The GOP primary is in absolute shambles, mainly because of the SuperPACs. Because they can’t give the appearance that they’re coordinating with the campaigns, they can’t operate as pro-candidate organizations. Instead, they have to operate as anti-candidate organizations, so the only utility for the SuperPACs is to attack and tear down the opposition. That’s not so bad in the general, though it can go overboard and backfire, but during the primary it’s simply catastrophic. You can literally watch Romney and Mitts disapproval ratings rise as SuperPACs spend money. SuperPACs are why the GOP is likely to put forward a candidate for President with a -20 or -25 approval rating. That’s disastrous. If the Dems can resist the SuperPACs in the primary phase (I wouldn’t count on it, mind you) and the GOP can’t, the Dems are going to win every presidency from here until the Federation of Planets bans the use of currency.
For the GOP, I suspect the only way to win is to not play, and certainly the guys at the top are looking out and saying “We can’t afford this. Candidates will never be able to resist the big, easy hauls and it’ll destroy the party.” Convincing the folks that actually cast the votes to see it that way is probably impossible, but my guess is they’re already trying to stuff this genie back in the bottle.
i.e., if you want to temporarily accept this “no unilateral disarmament” phrase that gets trotted out EVERY ELECTION YEAR, don’t make a big deal out of its critics if you agree that we need money out of elections
Because those people will NOT vote for Republicans
And naturally, Cato-at-liberty states: “Money Is Speech”.
I always get a chuckle from that too, because if you’re amateur enough to get your ass thrown out because you can’t get good petitions…you don’t deserve to be able to run.
That’s a good point. I can’t say I didn’t giggle over the guy who keeps giving Newt $5 million like it’s a stick of a gum saying he’d also be just fine with Romney too. Due to Mittens’ particular lack of appeal this may turn out to be a somewhat unusual primary, but it sure doesn’t bother me if they burn through boatloads of money tearing each other down.
Criticizing Obama about campaign finance from the left is an effective way of promoting a Democratic win in 2012.
What? Who? Yes, that’s right, “promoting”.
Because people have two choices, and if they support Citizens United, they’re agin Obama, and if they oppose Citizens United, they’re fur Obama.
I do not foresee a mass left-wing sit-out of this election, but if someone else does, please tell me why.
So don’t even bother responding to stuff like this – it’s achieving both your goals and theirs
If the republican’s lose elections even with Citizens United, they’ll squeal to overturn or amend it out of existence. If they win with it, we’ll never get rid of it. It will take several loses IMO before they concede and then the test of the democrats will come up…will we (the voters as much as the pols) still hate the descision. Or maybe a test of a new court.
The Republicans seem crazy right now, in a way they didn’t before, though I haven’t liked them in a long time. I fear them winning right now in a way I didn’t when Bush was elected. Not only are they crazy, our institutions and economy are a lot more frail than they were in 2000.
We need to make their own invention bite them.
We already had a front-page post about that, you know.
Bingo. We have a bingo.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
That’s fascinating. Never thought about it that way.
I refused to cast a vote for Obama in 2008, and may well withhold it again this November. But Cole is right.
The Man simply cannot decline to play the Super Pac game and compete for the presidency, any more than he could move the White House to Kenya and expect to be re-elected.
Yes, but I pimp the FoxNews.com stories, as Soonergrunt has personally requested that I do so
Part of playing the game is paying people back.
If Hollywood gives Obama 50 million dollars is he going to support their censorship of the internet?
If Wall Street gives Obama 100 million dollars is he going to give them the Social Security trust fund?
If the military-industrial complex give Obama 150 million dollars is he going to go to war in Iran?
@JWL: I hope you live in the bluest of blue states, because otherwise you run the risk of throwing the game to the other side.
What is it about Americans that make them so willing to throw away their votes? People are dying all over the world, fighting to get the right to vote, and we use it as a purity counter.
Off topic, an Appeals Court panel has just overturned the California ban on gay marriage. Next stop, the Supreme Court most likely.
@wengler: You want to play roulette with all the chambers full, go ahead. Because that seems to be the other option.
I’m amused that this “rules are rules” and you cannot expect Obama to handicap himself the same day as Belicheck post about using the rules to maximum benefit…
I’m conflicted, but I don’t aim to cut my nose off to fend off an offensive odor.
I don’t think it’s black and white. The GOP has been experimenting with their
own notion of ‘purity’, by raising up their savior-du-jour, then summarily crucifying same, and we see how that’s working out.
Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight is the tougher, meaner Democratic strategy. The danger is we become as they, but we can worry about that afterward; can’t we?
More true than any election I’ve lived through. At least we’ve got the smart mama bears on our side.
I never understand those too pure to vote. Is this a common threat for rightwingers too? I fear not …
The easiest way to get rid of Citizens United is by packing the court with left-leaning justices and letting legal challenges work their way up to the court…the Montana SC already basically said they don’t care what the SCOTUS says, no SuperPACs in Montana.
If cases like that make it up to the SCOTUS on appeal and 1 of the 5 justices who joined the majority has been replaced by Obama, there’s a good chance you overrule Citizens United.
If the justice(s) was replaced by Romney, it’s probably upheld, and you need to get a Constitutional Amendment or wait another 5-20 years in court.
Good luck getting supermajorities and 2/3s of the states on board with a constitutional amendment!
Well If you have a special pass, I shouldn’t play the hall monitor.
@scav: I just don’t want people to be surprised when playing the SuperPAC game has consequences that they don’t like. Right now our electoral system is frightfully broken thanks in part to the corporate dictators on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I’ve heard very little in the way of challenging their power.
@Emma: Re-read what I wrote. I did vote, as a matter of fact, just not for Obama (and the thought of anyone wondering “did he vote for McCain?” makes me chuckle).
I’ll spare everyone a re-hash of the ‘lesser of two evils in a democracy’ debate by declining to cite my reasons. Suffice to say, they suit me.
@JWL: As it’s proper. In a functioning democracy, who you vote for, who you pray to, and who you sleep with are none of anyone’s business.
Now, we had one of those mythical beings, a functioning democracy, we could ignore the problems caused by the third party voters…
@Emma: Likewise, I have never understood the pouty “you don’t deserve my vote” declarations. Guess what? You’ve just made it easier for our opponents to win.
Not only that; witholding one’s vote is NO THREAT AT ALL to the political power structure. Why should they care what you think… you don’t vote.
It’s a fair question, and the low Republican primary turnouts lead me to think there could be a significant fraction of the population in Wingerville sitting this one out. Not counting on that, mind you, because they’ll be whipping up Obama hatred for six months before the election.
I gave up third-party purity voting a long, long time ago upon the election of St. Ronaldus. His vile reign disabused me of the idea “it doesn’t matter who wins.”
That Obama should do whatever he can to win with the rules as written, even if he opposes some of the rules, seems to me self evident. Of course it then makes sense for voters to examine just who is re-election effort is getting funds from, and one if anything those donors are getting in return. But that’s not the point of the article linked, which seemed to imply there was something shameful in playing by the rules, even if one disagreed with them and was attempting to overturn them.
I have no room for the argument that Obama accepting a Super PAC supporting him means he’s corrupt. First, it’s an argument of absolutes, and arguments of absolutes are garbage up and down the board. This is not even ‘I’ll let our guy be corrupt to win.’ This is ‘We’ve decided to use a tactic we’d rather be taken off the board, because our opponent will use it heavily and it can’t be taken off the board.’ There is no absolute change of anything here. It’s not even a big deal.
Why is it not a big deal? Well, for one thing, as was said above rich people from all directions are already giving money. There is no purchase here that is not already being made. Second, the assumption that this money equals a purchase of services is an assumption, and the major argument of absolutes here. Do you think ANY current GOP candidate isn’t completely for sale on any issue? People gave money to the candidate who already supported their needs – which is why Obama gets damned little money from the corrupt interests we hate, and they pour money into the GOP.
But way beyond all of that, where would I put my ‘Rubicon’, since all arguments are relative and you do have to draw a line? How about with my candidate’s actual proven record, rather than some suspicion that he’ll be bought and suddenly change? FinReg stuck it to Wall Street, and they hate him. One of his major campaign platforms is ending oil company subsidies. He pulled us out of Iraq on schedule, followed his campaign promise of a surge and then withdrawal from Afghanistan to the letter, and utterly failed to embroil us in a permanent war with Libya when given the chance. None of this stuff is going to reverse because he’s publicly accepted a Super PAC supporting him, or he’d have been bought a long time ago.
The man’s record speaks for itself. The action he’s taken here is a small tactical adjustment. Assertions that this somehow corrupts him come from a world of ideals that mixes wishful thinking and paranoia and has nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
@wengler: Oh I won’t be surprised, I’ve been conscious, oh, say, the last zillion decades. But I’ll know the alternative was worse (at the very least, the same).
I’ll add that the liberal objection to Super PACs was not that it would amount to bribing candidates. The objection was that it would help already bought candidates get elected vastly more than it would mostly honest candidates.
“If we do it your way, Kingslayer, you’d win. We’re not doing it your way.”
Lord Stark, the younger.
@wilfred: such pathetic trolls. Honestly, what a bunch of complete horseshit. Bitching, whining, moaning about everything. Absolutely EVERYTHING. This kind of shit is why it is impossible for a rational person to believe the alleged “constructive” “criticism” is nothing but continued thinly-veiled personal hatred for Obama.
@boss bitch: wilfred has been trolling left wing sites with anti-Democrat messages since 2003. He’s a Naderite, nihilist moron who hates all democrats, including of course Obama. Don’t bother with him.
I should be used to Firebaggers going completely batshit insane any time Obama trims his nails, but this is beyond stupid:
Fuck You, Jon Walker
Bot of course he died, didn’t he?
Hey, concern trolls who are shrieking about Obama doing this. The way to end Super PACs is by *winning more elections* and passing new laws. And guess what? We’re not going to win those elections if we concede the money game to the GOP. So stop being a bunch of holier-than-thou gutless idiots and accept that Obama is actually fighting for you by taking the war to the GOP’s own battleground.
Well, the elder was beheaded towards the end of Season 1. I don’t know what happens in Season 2….have not read the books either. Plz, no spoilers.
Big money and superpacs are already in the game. What you’re advocating is trying to pretend that they’re not in the game for the sake of “purity,” which will be about as helpful as pretending that the guys you’re playing a basketball game against are only 5 feet tall when they’re all over 7 feet.
You’re advocating Obama voluntarily handicap himself in a game that’s already started. I’m guessing that you read “Harrison Bergeron” and thought that’s the way the world should work.
I thought the article was pretty fair:
I mean, don’t even a lot of his supporters kind of agree with that, at least in some respect?
I think you’re naive to think that Democrats are any more concerned about campaign finance reform than Republicans are. And even if they were, they’d have the Supreme Court to contend with. Campaign finance reform will not be affected by electing more Democrats.
It’s not a matter of political convenience, it’s matter of survival.
Not really, no. For just one example, a lot of us Obots really prefer that we have the PPACA in place making the changes to our system that it’s making than have nothing at all because Obama decided to make the public option a hill to die on so he could try to force reality to match his rhetoric.
There’s a reason they compare the process of writing laws to making sausage, and it’s not because soaring, inspirational rhetoric has a whole lot to do with the nitty-gritty of actually getting shit done.
No, actually. We don’t. We think the world is complicated and that he’s lived up to his campaign rhetoric marvelously unless you have some vision of a black and white world where he can say ‘Lo, Super PACs shall BE NO MORE!’ and it happens. The man’s expanded the safety net, ended one war and is ending another, defeated a batshit insane GOP movement again and again at the negotiating table, turned around the economy, ended DADT… he’s lived up to his rhetoric just fine, unless you consider anything less than an absolute, total, immediate victory on everything to be violating his principles. He certainly has not proven to be all powerful, just amazingly competent compared to actual presidents.
I don’t get the shock here. Rachel Maddow already made the argument in 2010 that it was the influx of Citizens United money that made the difference for Republicans, esp. in the case of unseating a lifer like Russ Feingold.
People lost their seats because they didn’t have the money to fight Republican talking points. They lost their seats and that is why Democrat and liberal causes are DOA. Are people commenting on the internet born yesterday? Why wouldn’t a candidate in trouble seeking to secure his seat, facing a massive wave of cash going to his opposition, try to grab some of the flow for himself? Why should Obama, to paraphrase Colbert, be the one chump?
In answer to wilfred, the POTUS may be be selling something, but it’s not like he is your only source of income. It’s progressives’ own damn fault if they think they need to depend on Daddy. The only way to fight organized money is through organized people, and I don’t think that for all of their whining on the internet and even at Occupy Wall Street leftists have any fucking clue how to get organized.
Sort of election related: Zut alors–the French have just discovered Callista’s helmet.
@The Moar You Know:
This. Right. Here.
If you don’t like the rules of the game, don’t play.
If you’re have to play with those rules, you play to win the game.
After you win, you can change the rules.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Ah, during the whole recall situation in Wisconsin, we don’t hear a peep from this muhfucka. Now all of a sudden, he raises his head to bitch about this?
Yeah, that’s why he’s now FORMER Senator Feingold.
Get back in my pocket, Russ.
What the fuck is wrong with Feingold? Man up and rid us of Walker instead of being the stereotypical self-defeating dem.
If anyone wants to congratulate Russ on his immaculate purity….
Our entire secret government began with this rationale–the commies do it, and if we don’t also, we’ll be at a disadvantage. I don’t think Obama should handicap himself with ideals, but I am glad there are people screaming about it if only to keep alive the argument that our campaigns are built on shit.
Oh, pardon. I will just that much:
Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died. – Ser Jorah Mormont
Giving advice to an aspiring queen. Song of ice and fire is not a very happy world.
@The Moar You Know: Technically the first 10 were done at a constitutional convention.
I am so happy that Obama is the pragmatist he is. Hopefully his strategy is to take in so much money that it shows how ridiculous Super PACS are and both parties try to get rid of them.
Should I merely roll my eyes at you or outright laugh in your face? One side has been uniformly against the Citizens United decision, and the other side has been for it. The against-side isn’t the GOP. If you don’t realize this, then you haven’t been paying attention.
And electing more from the against-side won’t help over-turn Citizens United? Seriously? Now *that* is serious naivete. Whether we can do it with a bill through Congress, or (as I suspect) it will require a full-on Constitutional amendment, the way to start this is by booting out the GOP from Congress and replacing them with Democrats. If you can ignore this obvious reality and call me naive for pointing at it, then we really have nothing to talk about.
I don’t agree with that.
Not all decisions are created equal. Back during the campaign, there were people trying to tear Obama down by noting that he opposed the Iraq war, but supported funding the troops, and used that as evidence that he was a flip-flopper or hypocrite or some such.
But they were completely different kinds of decisions – and Obama has spoken on the difference between reversible and irreversible decisions, so he understands this well. Many people don’t. An example:
Your wife wants you to go to her cousin’s wedding but you don’t want to go. You really don’t want to go – her cousin is an asshole, whatever. You could have the best reasons behind not going (I was going to provide free cataract surgery to poor people that day!) but one way or another, your wife wins and you agree under protest to go. You’ve lost that decision.
The day of the wedding comes. You still don’t want to go. You get another decision here – you can get ready, look your best, go and make the best of it, dance with your wife, kiss the bride, give a nice toast, all that and on the way home reiterate that you still didn’t want to go, and the next time you have to choose between wedding and surgery, you’re going to insist on surgery – or you can toss on your worst suit, complain the whole way, sit in the corner and refuse to participate, holding to your ‘principle’ of the earlier preference the whole way. Which is the right decision? I think everyone would agree to make the best of it, that being an asshole doesn’t reinforce your position – it just makes you an asshole.
The first decision might have been reversible for a while, but once the day of the wedding came, it no longer was. It was a decision that like it or not you were stuck with. Your position on that decision doesn’t need to change one bit for the next decision (how to deal with the wedding) to be made. And how you deal with the wedding doesn’t invalidate your earlier position, nor does it undermine your next position. In fact, it might make your next position stronger: “But dear, you seemed to have a really good time at my cousin’s wedding – why don’t you want to go to my nieces wedding? Well, I did have a really good time – but that wasn’t the point – I would have a good time at your nieces as well, but it’s important to me that I do this surgery.” You can’t make that argument if you were an asshole.
On the SuperPACs, Obama’s opposition to them is clear. Clearer probably than most other positions that he’s taken as he went out of his way to castigate SCOTUS in front of the nation. But he lost that fight. They exist. Congress didn’t reign them in. He’s stuck in a world where they exist, like it or not. His position on the SuperPACs since then hasn’t changed at all – he still things they are wrong, were wrongly decided, should be eliminated. But he’s not given that choice – he can’t unmake them. It’s not in his power. So he needs to make the best of them, and make the best of them in a way that doesn’t undermine his position. So he’ll take the money, but (from what he’s saying) he’ll disclose the donors, hold them to the same scrutiny as FEC overseen donors, and so on. He’ll treat them just like regular contributions, with the exception that the dollar cap is off. That’s really the only thing he’s saying he’s giving in on – raising the dollar cap.
So no, I don’t think he’s junked anything because his position hasn’t changed at all. He’s merely accepting a reality that he cannot refuse. That’s life. We all have to do that.
I have a friend who’s a Mormon. Super nice guy. I like him a lot, and he’s reasonably devout. He’s an IT guy and lost his job a number of years ago. Looked and looked and looked and couldn’t find anything. He took a bunch of filler jobs to pay the bills, but nothing permanent and nothing that would actually feed his family long-term. He applied everywhere and around the time that he was pretty certain they were going to lose the house, he relented and took a job. He was really embarrassed to tell me about the job because it was for a hosting company that primarily hosted online porn. He’s doing something that he’s otherwise morally opposed to, but he’s not the one watching porn (except when he has no choice), but he feels like an enabler and he’s ashamed of the job, but it was a good offer, it’s permanent, and it let them keep the house and pay off the bills. I don’t think any less of him for taking it. I don’t think his opinions on porn are any different today than they were before he took the job. I know he’s ashamed of the decision, but in a way I’m proud of him for accepting a reality he couldn’t avoid. And as soon as he finds an alternative, even if it probably pays less or whatever, I’m sure he’ll take it. I suppose others would think of him as a sell-out, but we all have to walk a line between our convictions and what we really can control in life.
Just one thread over we’re admonishing the Catholic church for sticking to their convictions in the same manner we insist Obama stick to his here. We’re demanding the church donors accept a compromise based on reason there, one that we wouldn’t hear of here. I have trouble with that inconsistency.
Obama had a huge Dem majority when CU was decided. He had ample time to rally and walk the walk regarding campaign reform but chose not to, just like nearly every other promise he made in 2008. People who think the first candidate in history to reject public funding would also be against corporate funding are fucking retarded and should have their heads examined.
Just another reason to not acknowledge Salons existence much less actually read their garbage.
But of course Cole being the twit that he is, gladly helps their search engine positioning with a back link.
Democrats need to stop bringing knives to a gunfight and hit back every way they can. But they shouldn’t handle guns or hit back because if they do they will become what they oppose. Am I making myself clear?
@dmsilev: Oh goodie, the future of gay marriage in this country depends upon the goodwill of the author of Citizens United, or perhaps the health of some other elderly justice. Anyone who says the Supreme Court isn’t reason enough to vote for Obama and any Senate Democrat has just been awarded an honorary membership in the Westboro Baptist Church.
Anytime someone posts about the “huge Dem majority” they brand themselves a Firebagger and a concern troll.
It never existed.
@172 – so you think Obama is against corporate campaign dough? Please point to one action (not pretty speeches) that would establish the truth of such nonsense.
@Martin: I believe your response would have been better without the last paragraph.
The reality has hit them, and the Catholic leadership is making damn sure to be a asshole at the wedding using your example.
@rikryah: Actually, I’d prefer he bring nuclear weapons to said gunfight, but that’s just me.
@Dave: Good for Obama. Use the rules these fuckers wanted and fucking destroy them.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
all that fighting a good fight shit gets stuck in the drain if we get another politically activist conservative justice on scrotus.
its not just scrotus itself, its the shameless suck-ups in the legal system who will fall in line without being told. winning is everything.
i am sure funds will be raised, and fundraisers praised if the shit stops going down, but that isn’t the point and it never was. we need to win to keep any progress flowing, because their goal is to clog the drain.
You lying asshole. He NEVER had 60 votes. Not ever.
Some smart-ass here (maybe it was DougJ) already referred to the 60 votes thing as the left’s version of “keep your government hands off my Medicare!”.
The bloody trail of the Elder Wand is splattered across the pages of Wizarding history. But, it was hypocritical for Harry to use the Elder Wand to kill Voldermort.
Hey y’all, dickhead Steve from Salon is apparently reading his emails, and he didn’t like my criticism one bit! So I larded it up with lots of profanity and sent it back. Fun times!
I’m so glad they made this decision. I’m not the least bit disappointed. Salon can join us in the real world anytime.
Poor Obama, he wants to do the right things but those mean Republicans won’t let him.
Another classic stupid argument. Obama disagrees with the decision, but it was the decision. Which means it’s the law. I don’t find that hard to understand, because I see it the same way.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@myiq2xu: HILLAREE WO0D HAVE SMASHED THE SUPERPACS!
I understand that Obama is going need the half a billion dollars or so that his rich friends are going to put up. But you need to understand that the money isn’t free. That money is paying for ridiculous Internet censorship and the destruction of the tech industry to benefit Hollywood (they couldn’t get SOPA/PIPA so now there are a slew of international agreements being negotiated in secret), and it’s also paying for a sweetheart deal for the banks and Wall Street. Yes, Obama is certainly preferable to the Republicans, but thanks to this dependency on large piles of money he’s going to enter 2013 deeply in debt, to the wrong people.
But it hasn’t hit them yet. The rules don’t go into effect for at least a year. They have time to lobby for a change, and I don’t begrudge them too strongly for lobbying. The left would do the same under a GOP rule change that they opposed to.
The ‘day of the wedding’ for the church is when the policy goes into effect. On that day, if the policy is still in effect the church has a choice – they can suck it up and pay the premiums, or they can close their hospital. That truly would be the asshole move, but that’s a ways off yet.
And for what it’s worth, the whole birth control poutrage isn’t what it appears to be. This is nothing more than a manufactured story ginned up by Newt, with the willing accomplice of the church, to create a double-victory – an anti-Obama message *and* an anti-Romney message. This is bullshit insider politics. If there’s traction here, the administration can very subtly change the funding without changing the mandate. That’s not a loss. If there’s no traction here (and I suspect it’ll die off as soon as Newt gets bored and wants to talk about moon bases again, but I’m not sure) then it’ll fade like so many death panels.
Pat In Massachusetts
Yep, it’s a billionaires country now, but some of us lucky duckies still get to vote in it.
So, granny, be prepared to take some huge hits on your entitlements, because who else do you think will be paying for all those promises made to the super pacs loaded with super donors?
@maryQ: “The bloody trail of the Elder Wand is splattered across the pages of Wizarding history. But, it was hypocritical for Harry to use the Elder Wand to kill Voldermort.”
And here we see the moral difference between the the Harry Potter books and Lord of the Rings.
Does anyone truly believe this is a positive decision? At the same time, who wants President Romney or, worse, President Santorum?
I think this is just part of the psychwar-messing with Republicans heads. On This Week Sunday, Axelrod taunted Romney as a “very weak frontrunner”.
So, everyone is r-rah for Obama here again. Gggrrrreat. Did it just get turgid in here? I didn’t vote for Obama – or any Republican. If he actually kept to most of his principles, he may have earned my vote, but he hasn’t. I’m not voting for him this year, either.