E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Earlier this morning, we wrote that President Obama and his campaign would be taking heat from good-government groups, the media, and liberals on their decision to encourage donors to give money to a pro-Obama Super PAC.
Two of those groups (the good-government groups and media) have followed through with their criticism. But with one notable exception -- former Sen. Russ Feingold -- the left so far has largely supported the move.
Here are a few takes from prominent liberal bloggers and writers, who've sometimes openly disagreed with the president:
[T]here's a reasonable case to be made that the president and his team are simply adapting to circumstances beyond their control. The far-right and well-financed Republican super PACs are going to exist and will spend hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012, whether Obama likes it or not. The question, then, is whether the president and his allies are prepared to fight fire with fire. As of today, the answer appears to be "yes."
New York magazine's Jonathan Chait:
The phrase “unilateral disarmament” has been used, in a negative sense, to justify a lot of unjustifiable behavior. But President Obama’s argument against unilateral disarmament in the super PAC war seems totally persuasive.
The Washington Monthly's Ed Kilgore:
Super PACs have already become a huge factor in this presidential race. Wishing them away won’t do a bit of good, and until such time as the composition of the Supreme Court changes, they will remain an unfortunate but immovable part of the political landscape.
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent:
Outside money of this nature is bad for democracy, no matter who is spending it. But here are the plain facts of the matter. Obama and Democrats tried to pass legislation that would have limited outside money and ended non-disclosure; Republicans opposed it. Democrats would close down their Super PACs tomorrow if Republicans agreed to do the same.
So Dems have a choice: Either they can lead by example — which is to say, by setting an example that Republicans will never agree to — and give the GOP a lopsided advantage in outside spending and the tsunami of ads it will finance. Or they can play by the rules as Republicans have defined them, and continue to work to change those rules.
Leave a Comment:
Why wouldn't we?
It's about time the playing field was leveled!
Look, until something is done with the abomination known as Citizens United, all if fair in love and war!
Having been following the right wingers & their playbook closely, they have declared all out hand to hand combat!
No reason Democrats should have to fight with one hand tied behind their back!
Best to pull up your GNOP big boy/girl panties & DEAL WITH IT!
Yes indeed, we are happy.
You don't have to take my word for it!
Check out this mornings First Thoughts - the jack boot wearing right wingers turned it into a nuclear wasteland with the collapsing of comments!
Feisty your references to war and combat is very misguided.
If money is now considered free speech why should we lose our voice?
I suppose the republicans thought that this sham of a SCOTUS decision should only benefit themselves. I hate super pacs as much as I hate the electoral college, but there is nothing to be done about it and I don't count on getting rid of either of them in my life time. Go for it Mr. President!
We cheer this reversal because we're not stupid. Our hearth is gladdened. Tell them it's our right.
Obama/Biden, the clear choice 2012.
The Obama re-election campaign is for constitutional amendment. But right now, this is the reality.
There cannot be two sets of rules for the 2012 election campaigns - where Republicans get the OK for unlimited spending while Democrats roll over and get steam-rollered.
Ain't going to happen! We have to face the reality of the law AS IT NOW STANDS.
btw. Mr Romney is extremely funded by Big Oil and Gas.
@ Backhouse,
Listening to Romney's speeches, he probably gets more funding from gas than oil concerns.
The left largely cheers Obama's Super PAC reversal
Did you expect anything else? The left gave up on principles a long time ago. Look at Libya, bush tax cuts, gitmo, patriot act, raising the debt ceiling to name just a few.
Of course we do, why wouldn't we? Good call Mr. President, now the we can get on with the business of re-electing you and we will. Your supporters have something the right doesn't have, we like you and have a passion to give you another four years, that is something the right can't buy, no matter how much money they receive or how much hate they can generate.
Backhouse, where do come up with "There shouldn't be 2 sets of rules"?
Did SCOTUS only say the Republicans could use PACS?
The playing field has always been level.
Do you all know how silly you sound?
For months you all have been whining about PACS, while many here asked if you were still going to hate PACS once Obama endorsed them. It was just a matter of time.
Well here we are and you all are acting like you won something.
Feisty's violent references only mirror her boss Axelrod's statement that 'all guns are pointed at us'.
Remember the Left's pompous tirade about Gabby Giffords and the need for civility... they sure don't.
My Bob, you do go off the deep end on a daily basis. How is your blood pressure?
Bravo GM!
Why in the world would be bring a knife to a gun fight?
I don't know if you're having as much fun as I am watching the RWNJ's flail & wail when getting a taste of their own medicine?
They are positively pissing themselves! lmao!
*popcorn*?
(The gun reference is just for you Booby) ♥
The right-wing always think something will benefit them only, like Alito, et al ruling on Citizen's United. And though I detest Mutually Assured Destruction, the GOP/TP better take care about a lot things including abuse of the filibuster and a few other machinations.
The bigger concern in regard to Super PAC money will be at the Congressional/state level. If anyone wonders why all the Teapublican-controlled states are trying to rush through union-busting legislation, this is one reason why. Unions have the largest Super PACS compared to all the zillion conservative ones. Even governors who promised not to bust unions (Mitch Daniels in Indiana), or governors already suffering a backlash from unpopular overreach like that fat-arse hag Jan Brewer in Arizona have and will succumb to the far-right conspiracy in this nation...
...A wide-ranging conspiracy that includes religious wedge issues and pressure on Susan G Komen, JCPenny, Lowes, and includes conference calls about the Occupy movement, Koch-backed ALEC, and on and on.
Get your donations in to your local Democratic candidates all the more. It's bad enough some Democrat congress persons are not going to run next term. My gawd people, stop the Tyranny of the Minority -- donate, volunteer, vote!
Obama/Biden - 2012
Obama could strangle a puppy on live tv, and the Left would applaud. "Sold out" doesn't even begin to describe the Left.
Oh Dear!
Poor Sniffy is out of ammo & had to swipe the nut job from NJ's line...
Careful dearie, Donna doesn't take lightly to thiefs! ;o)
Found a video of Red.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb8iH3F28LA
Trying to pass off your home video as me, is pathetic & desperate, which should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with you!
Although, it did confirm what I suspected about your size 15 EEE jack boots!
Also, could be called advertising which is a no-no around here darling! ;o)
I don't know if you're having as much fun as I am watching the RWNJ's flail & wail when getting a taste of their own medicine?
Yes ma'am!!! This is the best free entertainment around and it appears unscripted. Thanks, I'll have some of that delicious popcorn. Cheers GF.
Looks like the green eyed monster is out and about too. Poor smitty, Jealously/envy one of the seven deadly sins.
Remember the Left's pompous tirade about Gabby Giffords and the need for civility... they sure don't.
I sure remember the thousands of blogs about the sarah palin targets (even though media matters used the same targets in the previous election on republican districts) and how they drove jared loughtner to shooting giffords. They sure did their level best to drawn a cause and effect.
Did you hear about the 15 year old occupier that choked both his adoptive parents to death and then put them in the family car and set it on fire? Apparently, the parents didn't think he should spend so much time at the occupy camps and he took exception. Now that's what I call cause and effect. But you won't see that on the evening news.
No that is you Betty. You can tell by the unique bite marks from you running around here all day on all fours.
And nice moo-moo. Plus size?
JSA1 & WCA
Why are you guys so pissed? What you are witnessing, which is conspicuously missing in GOP, is the relationship we have with our President. This President always make the right calls and this is one of them.
We do not see this as a reversal rather the right call.........a big touch down for November.
Obama is no worse than Romney or Gingrich for finally accepting the political reality of SuperPacs, but the teabaggers on this site are squealing and pointing at Obama merely because he tried to buck the trends their favorite candidates have already embraced. Get over it. This is yet another non-issue to which the right wing lunatic fringe is clinging in a desperate attempt to find a genuine issue it can finally understand.
Some of the instigators are on this very thread. You have to have a short memory to be a Liberal. You have to forget what you wrote one day and when you a proven wrong the next day. You have to forget about what Obama says one day, and does the complete opposite the next. You have to not hold your hero's responsible for their actions. In short, you have to have this infatuation with Obama and "The Cause" that won't let you hold anyone on your side accountable for their actions.
Case in point.
JSA1
Ramble on.
Man OH Man - the RWNJ's are all over the place today...
Focus little right wingers - it's embarassing watching all of you! lol
Feisty's reference to war is VERY appropriate. After all, it is the conservatives who keep spewing the crap about War on Religion, War on the Wealthy, War in Iran, WAR, WAR, WAR. Every point the right speaks to is WAR. How long will it be before the National Anthem is changed by the nut cases to "Onward Christian Soldiers".
Rob, as per your line-up of nonsensical attacks on the Democratic Party. For starters:
ON DEBT & THE DEBT CEILING:
The United States has had a public debt since its founding in 1791.
Under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. **NOT THE PRESIDENT.**
Since 1979, the House of Representatives passed a rule to automatically raise the debt ceiling when passing a budget, without the need for a separate vote on the debt ceiling, except when the House votes to waive or repeal this rule...
However, over the last 30 years, beginning with deficit spending from the Vietnam War and 1970s recessions, the overall debt has increased under every president...[8]
Debt relative to GDP rose rapidly during the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies increased military spending and lowered tax rates...[9]
Gross debt in nominal dollars QUADRUPLED DURING THE REAGAN AND BUSH PRESIDENCIES from 1980 to 1992...
The net public debt quintupled in nominal terms. Debt held by the public had declined from 28% to 26% of GDP in the 1970s, by contrast, it rose to 41% of GDP by the end of the 1980s...
Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[14]
During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[15] due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.."
(From good old Wikipedia)
GBM, so true, WE LIKE OUR CANDIDATE.
My, oh my, nothing funnier than watching the right whine about President Obama's decision. Apparently, they really have gone a bit looney if they think what's good for their goose is not good for our gander.
And as senator, obama voted AGAINST the debt ceiling being raised. You know before he encouraged all congressmen to vote for his increase in the limit. It's kind of just like this flip flop on pacs. Get it?
Backhouse, #1.29 well said!
Rob, and republicans do the same thing. It is customary for whatever party is out of power to cast only enough "yea" votes to increase the debt. Republicans have done this as much as democrats so get over it.
And speaking of consistency. Whats up with Obama on Syria? Obama bombed the crap out of Libya after roughly 1000 libyians were killed by their dictator. Yet, we have 7000 killed in Syria and no bombs.
I thought Obama couldn't "stand by" and let people be killed.
In days of yore, some congressionals voted against the debt ceiling for various reasons, to highlight current bones of contention.
But always with an eye to the getting it through congress. Senators knew it had to pass, even if they wanted to make a statement about something.
But they know IT WILL PASS.
The US does not default on the debt.
Unlike this year,
when the hoodllums on the right were serious about defaulting on the National Debt.
...........................
NO connection with SECRET, UNDISCLOSED $BILLIONS FROM TRANSNATIONALS FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
GOP/KOCH VOTED AGAINST DISCLOSURE 3 TIMES.
That is IT Jody!
This guy is throwing in his desperately-consume-your-time list:
Gitmo (GOP voted it down),
Bush tax cuts (GOP held it hostage to unemployment benefits and payroll tax cut extension for the middle class Christmas 2010),
And now Syria. (We had an international co-operation on Libya and it was successful. Nothing on Syria so far).
But when will Rob throw in the kitchen sink for good luck?
Is he just grossly misinformed? And by whom?
JOANNA -
In your own words, please go ahead and "strangle a puppy on live tv."
Then we will be DONE with you.
Linking this kind of statement to the President's name,
Is gross and sleazy (understatement) and you should be kicked off here for it.
Rob, to answer your question about why the President hasn't attacked Syria. There is this little country over their, maybe you heard of it, Russia? Maybe not? Anyway, Obama doesn't want to start a war with them. See unlike the Repubs and Wild Bush, we don't want World War III.
[Obama could strangle a puppy on live tv, and the Left would applaud.]
Smiffy, this isn't the first time you've used this bizarre statement.
One question: what's your perverse obsession with strangling puppies on live TV? I can understand your obsession with everything Obama...you hate black people...we get it...but puppies?
I suggest a good psychiatrist.
Ha when Obama debates Romney it will be mighty close to "Obama strangling a puppy on live TV"
Aside from Romney traveling with his dog on the roof of the car... Romney is also very critical of Super PACs, yet accepts the money because he wants to win. Someone needs to tell Rush Limpballs (who has man boobs too).
It was really great cheap entertainment to watch the GOP establishment falling all over themselves when Gingrich won SC.
They loved that red meat bomb-throwing until it looked like it might get left on the table until election day.
Backhouse,
Only when Feisty is kicked off this board will people actually care what others say about one another...you of all people should know that...
Do not try to link Feisty with such a heinous comment either.
Thank you.
Only your blindness to inequatlity about free speech precludes you from seeing the truth on this board day in and day out. I can cite hundreds of samples of that posters vile filth and not once has any action ever been taken against him/her. You and the regular posters on this board think you have free reign and when one person makes a comment then you become the wounded animal. Why don't you grow up!
You seem upset.
Feisty did not make that cold-blooded comment about the puppy. Apparently, JAS1 makes this unfeeling, trashy comment quite often.
I like dogs and have a large golden retriever. You?
I grew up with dogs and love them. But what differentiates the vile filth that your buddy makes day and day out? If the moderators don't really care about the insults that your friend makes then why in the world would they care about an off handed remark about a dog? It's was a simple comparison and any right minded person would have taken it as such. To blow this out of proportion and want action from the moderators when other comments/insults go unaccounted for day in and day out is just plain silly.
Wow!
Someone's quite whiny today.
Of course we do! Not because we like Super PACs but because we recognize the rules won't be changed anytime before November. The Obama campaign not allowing Super PAC money would be the equivalent of telling Tom Brady that because he has three Super Bowl rings, he could only throw a pass every three plays because Eli Manning only had one ring.
Obama, just another politician like the "intelligent people", knew years ago. By any means necessary, right Barry?
Just get the damn repuicks out and we can have a different supreme court and other good judges also
I am sick of these 2 year campaigns..I think every member running should get 500K when its gone the campaign is over ..and a 2 week campaign period . Oct 1-15th and that's it . Talk about a waste of money.
Campaign finance reform!!
Get ALL private (Corporations and Unions and Billionaires) out of our political system
Move to Amend!! Corporations are NOT People and Money is NOT speech
And so I notice that you omit "unions" from your statement. When we can eliminate union contributions from the mix as well will we truely have equality!
This was a pretty simple decision. The Obama campaign needed to weigh whether opening themselves up to criticism of "flip-flopping" was worth several hundred million (maybe more) dollars of advertising on their side. Really an easy decision when you look at it that way!
Yup, and if you are going to subject yourself to criticism, now is the time while Newt and Romney are busy eating each other for lunch. Waiting until there was just one republican candidate would have allowed the other candidate to rant on very loudly.
Grimey---if the Republicans had said we are not going to have any Super PACs this year and we will fund all campaigning by contributions to the candidate and the party as in the past, I think the President would have gone along with that. But he has to have watched what just went on in your state and what they did to each other---he knows worse is coming his way and he will have to fight it.
Citizens United became a reality in early 2010. (NOT 2008)
Now in 2012, we have the fallout from that law.
Democrats are equal=equal=equal, and choose to be equal in the Campaign Cash Department in 2012.
"Flipflopping' is not the issue: campaign cash in 2012 is the issue.
"Flipflopping" is exactly the issue... Yet another example of Obama talking without thinking first...or as others have said...it's a Homer Simpson "DOH!" moment!
Thanks Homer.
Make sure circumstances in your life NEVER change,
Or are NEVER changed by someone or something outside of your control, like eh, a bad Supreme Court ruling.
The circumstances changed before Obama made his infamous flip flop. He should have just kept his mouth shut and then he would avoided the grief of changing his his stance on a topic (again...and again and again).
Again, again.
Look to your own party for flip-floppers on a very grand scale.
The SC law cannot be changed overnight - as unfair and terrible for the democratic process, as it is.
A word about pipelines.
There are existing right of ways that can and will be used to build a pipeline from Canada into Cushing and from there to Houston. Other pipeline companies see an opputunity to step up and build. So even if the Key Stone pipe line is never built, the Canadian oil will move south.
A word against pipelines.
Let the Canadians handle it themselves. They have a big country. They have 3 oceans to choose from. Soon they will be able to load tankers in the Arctic Ocean if they want. The northwest passage will soon be wide open.
My point:
The Keystone pipe line is now a political foot ball. It is not an economic or jobs issue. The oil will end up in Houston, be refined and sold. Once refined it will be bid on by the world markets and sold here in the US and over seas. My statement is based on facts and is not an opinion either pro or con.
A lot of people feel the the same way toward nuclear power plants and airports as they the do toward pipelines. Not in my backyard! I think that these feelings often cross party lines.
And guess how that oil get there? Via Freight Trains owened by Warren Buffett
Perfect JFK! Trains are the safest form of transportation! Warren Buffett is my favorite billionaire!
Regarding criminal investigations into these Super PACs...do you suppose that means Susan G. Komen Foundation will pull their funding?
I understand why the decision was made.
I am not cheering.
A easy way to fund political campaigns - outlaw funding from everyone. Force the media to allow so many minutes to each candidate to educate the public on their views on running. After some many public service appearances, have four or five debates bwtn the candidates with the primary vote from all states to begin withing a week of the final debate.
Have the two party winners debate during seven appearances prior to the election. Take funders and the party elite out of the equation.
Now would this be more 'fair' for everyone?
Fair except to the media. They're cashing in HUGE with all this advertising so they have little motivation to facilitate a civilized campaign process. Besides which, "force the media" is really stepping on some 1st amendment toes...
True Ursula, 'forcing' the media is a bad choice of words, and you are right, the media would cry over allowing each candidate free time on their network.
But then again, as it is now, the media is an unofficial SuperPac for the Obama re-election campaign.
Fine, "winemaker", but unfortunately the
Keystone KopsSupreme Court made thedumbest decision on the planetruling in Citizens United that money equals speech. I don't see how to change the current system without a Constitutional Amendment.That just depends on what channel you're tuned into or which newspaper you pick up.
The media can't afford that. Such a short time-frame doesn't give voters a chance to learn what a candidate is all about. All these states pushing their primary and caucus dates doesn't help either. The big problem is the PACs and Super PACs. There are plenty of ways to reduce the amount of money or at least provide transparency to the process.
What an insightful, well thought through non-political statement! [NOT!]
... And do you also believe the President is counting on support from Rupert Murdoch for his second term?
Unbelievable....
"The mean conservatives made me do it!"
What a crock of BS.
Progressives are less interested in principles, than power.
Liberals have zero credibility, having sold out their supposed principles regarding this issue a long time ago. Same as with Gitmo, signing statements, drone attacks, increasing debt limit, deficits, etc etc.
@ Bob,
All you need to do to make sense is to substitute "regressives" for "progressives" and "conservatives" for "liberals."
What a LARGE load of horse hockey!
You never fail to astound me Bob; not certain what I will do for entertainment if you ever do sober up....
It doesn't matter if both sides use Super-Pacs the amount of money spent on elections is obscene.
I agree 100% Bob! It's funny how all the whining and complaining the left did but now that they feel threatened that they will lose in November, now their principals and all their objections fly out the window! Too damn funny!
JK, you are so completely wrong. It's called fair play, both sides following the rules that the SCOTUS created for them. You mistake liberals supporting the pragmatic decision made by President Obama as supporting the idea that "corporations are people". If Congress passed Constitutional Amendment to eliminate that concept, I'd be one of the first to cheer. What's funny is the right thinking it's fine for their side to throw all kinds of secret donor money to support republicans but it's not fine for democrats to decide they must do the same.
Jody,
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled, all the rage was from the left...and how unfair it is and how it is to be abused and how supposedly Obama was better than all that and now, well, now we find that it's ok for Obama to do it and all you lefties act like "what's fair is fair". I don't have a lot of love for either party, but at least the Republicans didn't stand there and claim that they were holier than thou...Obama on the other hand had done a complete 180 and so is no better than the criticism that the left threw at the right... I could care less whether or not Obama involves himself with SuperPACs or not...but to sit there and claim one thing and then do what every one else does is just hypocrisy and instead of calling Obama out on him flip-flopping you act like he's just invented the cure for cancer.
Did you really think the Dems would roll over and let the Repubs swift boat them on this?
What planet are you from? Consevatives say "anything goes and any amount of money spent is OK for them but the Dems should not do the same thing.: Dems say "jeesh all this money being spent on campaigns is horrible but the Repubs don't care so inorder to stop them we at least gotta beat them in the election so they can't make it worse." All of my consevative friends think the ends justifies the means but only for them. There seems to be no sense of fairness and decency on the right side. It almost seems that conservative minds are sociopathic minds (look it up). Where is your decency?!?
Lets get ALL private money OUT of our political process. Move to Amend NOW!!
Where do the Conservatives say "....but the Dems should not do the same thing..."?? Like I said before, I don't care for either party, but at least the Republicans didn't flip flop on the issue of SuperPAC...Obama is the only one that did the flip flop and it's amazing that instead of calling Obama a hypocrite, the left applaud his actions..
Jody, Noisynosylib, JK1963 can not understand subtle distinctions, especially if they go against their already made up mind, or involve thinking.
Now that President Obama has decided to play by the rules that the Republican/TP Inc. team has decided they want, it suddenly scares them that President Obama will win, playing by their rules. It's one of those 'Oops' moments when someone realizes that the other person is perfectly happy to play by their rules since the other person is the better choice, no matter whose rules are used.
Matthew,
Well...you obviously didn't get the post, but that's ok...I'm sure with practice you might do better. Like I've said (for the third time now), I could care less about either party, I just find it very hypocritical of the left to be whining about how unfair PAC's are and then turn around and use them. I could care less if Obama wants to use a PAC and I'm sure he will raise a great deal of money from the unions. And last I checked it was the Supreme Court that ruled on the legality of PAC, not the "Republican/TP Inc. team".
The left cheers ALL the presidents "reversals" and there have been many. The president already has a BILLION to spend on his campaign and he needs to reverse his stance on super PACs so he can pick up another 50 million? Please spare me, he will have more money than any republican, even moneybags Mitt without reversing his stance on super PACs. By the way, he also reversed his stance on campaign financing in 2008. He also reversed his stance on several campaign promises after he was elected. Mr Obama has made it very clear that he will reverse any stance that could possibly further his campaign, he has already done it several times, this is the "change" he was talking about.
Thank-you for proving my point, JK1963. Well done.
The supreme court decided on the rules...........The president is just abiding by them. I don't see it written anywhere that he said he agrees with the rules. Does anyone else?
The supreme court made a huge mistake when they decided that corporations were people............my friends... Now we have to live with it. BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
Does he get to count the tens of billions of dollars in free positive media coverage he gets from socialist news agencies like NBC as a "super pac"?
Paidmyfee, According to "Cit United" there is no limit so nobody has to "count" anything. Hey it was your SCOTUS who ruled well beyond the scope of "Cit United" to make the rules. Yoo Hoo let the games begin!! Get the white catholic old men (sociopaths?) OUT of SCOTUS and maybe sanity will rule again in the election process one day.
Well...it's YOUR President that can't decide what side of the issue he wants to be on... If he had just kept his mouth shut back when the Supreme Court ruled and didn't stick his nose in the issue, then no one would say boo about him flip flopping on the issue. It's the same over and over again...he opens his mouth before he thinks...
[Well...it's YOUR President...]
So, you live in another country and feel qualified to chime in on American politics?
Ohhhhhhh...I get it...you're making a funny cuz you didn't vote for Obama...
Sorry to break the news to you hotshot, but he's YOUR president too...
Conservatism truly is a mental disorder, right JK?
mickey
You should be well versed in personal experience with mental disorders, after all being a DemocRAT and Obama supporter qualifies you as crazy.
Well...Mickey...I notice as usual that you didn't chastise one of your own (noisynosylib) when they made the comment about "your" SCOTUS.... I was merely pointing out the riduculous nature of the poster. Try and keep up will ya?
Progressives are less interested in principles, than power.
But the conservatives all have haloes and would never ever be interested in power would they? Money isn't important to the conservatives either and the principles of people like Newt Gingrich are impecable.
Wow, Bob, what a crock!
Talk about credibility... Bob you realize that both parties have people whose credibility is questionable don't you? But you are so one sided that that would never cross your mind would it?
Presidents and all politicians make promises they don't keep because of circumstances or information they gain after attaining office that they were not aware of before taking office. Ever hear of state secrets?
But you're ok by me Bob, we need an opposition and someone to laugh at when they provide really ridiculous statements and ideas. Keep it up. Make my day.
It seems reasonable to me that if one side is going to use Super PACs the other should also. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Once the election is over we need a concerted effort to make SUPER PACs illegal with some sort of election reform. I like the idea of limited funds and limited time to campaign.
Give each candidate the same amount to spend. Where they get the money is their business but they can't spend more than that set amount. For caucuses and primaries they would allow so much and they would have two weeks before the election or caucus to campaign and spend their allotment. One televised debate could be done. Then for the general election they would have a bit more to spend on their campaigns and one month prior to election day (roughly all of October) and one each televised presidential and vice presidential debate. Within each state or congressional district the candidates could agree to a televised debate but they would work it out with all parties concerned. Those truly interested would pay attention those not interested wouldn't. The media may not like it due to lack of the revenue from the campaigns but that is too bad. This denies no one their right to free speech or free assembly. How debates are staged would be up to the campaigns working with t he media. Which media covers the debate is up to them. Any willing to cover it should be allowed at their own cost.
I think we all are losing....its just that some people don't yet know they are. The concentration of influence to those with wealth is nothing new. What is new is that they (those with) have been able to convince so many (those without) that its in their best interest to advocate on behalf of the wealthy. They can do this in ways previously unavailable... unrestricted money now called speech coupled with technology and a 24/7 cycle on hundreds and hundreds of outlets.
Until we step as a people and demand substantial changes in our political processes nothing will change. Your representatives cannot afford to neglect their major donor's issues and therefore has precious little bandwidth for issues that effect you their constituency. You probably don't vote anyway much less contribute. OK so what do we do.What the heck I'll take a shot.
Advocate for nonpartisan change in election and funding processes...yes you will all have to give up some sacred cows...
1. Restrict political contributions to limit contributions from outside a constituency. Not sure why someone in one region/state should have an overwhelming influence on my representation or anywhere else for that matter. Let people truly choose their representatives through both contribution and votes. Take ownership in all ways
2. Maximize democracy. For example perhaps all election should require at least 60% voter turnout to be valid. May require weekend voting. What's wrong with that?
3. No opinion on term limits. Could be interesting options but we would need to somehow restrict lobbying options.
4. Super PACs gotta go. They should scare the heck out of everyone. Can't for the life of me understand how they did not scare the SCOTUS. Go Figgur.
5. Heres the big one... Change the presidential term to 1 six year term. We might actually get 5 good focused years out of someone. Someone with that much power and responsibility does not need to be constantly considering the next election, fund raising and perhaps doing dumb things for political reasons. Do the job, write a book, build a library and most importantly live with honor and the knowledge that everyday in the office you did the peoples bidding.
Anyway thats my list.... thanks for listening... I feel better now :)
I really like # 5. I worked in a orphanage in Guatemala years ago long term. We had volunteers come for 3 weeks and we long term volunteers hated it. The first week they were sick from the food and the bugs, the second week we got some work out of them, the third week they were taking pictures and thinking about going home and telling all of their crazy stories to their families so thier heads were not in the game anymore. Elections get in the way of governing.
Catholicvote.org has endorsed Rick Santorum and NOT Romney. Romney is NOT conservative, Romney IS a LIBERAL. Romney is a super wealthy individual who does not care about the economy by helping start-ups, bringing jobs back into the US and much less a good Healthcare package for the people and NOT ONLY for Congress, the Senate and himself. He is a narcissistic person much like Obama is a narcissistic sociopath... (he loves seeing his picture all over yahoo, msn, everywhere). Michelle is a close second. Anyway, in Massachusetts all the people are FOR Romney. Doesn't that tell you something from the SUPER LIBERAL state that ONLY slaps the wrists of would be murderers (domestic violence and other instances) and many other criminals? Massachusetts defends and stands by the criminals and NEVER defends or stands by the victims. Please DO NOT vote for their bad guy with a smiling face, just flirting with the women so they will vote for him. We, the smart women, know better though.
Susan, judging from your posts, you are not smart.
Susan,
Don't worry about Matthew...you just have to ignore the insults and the noise on this board...trust me, you get used to it...
Thank you JK1963. By the way, I wish I had time to translate (from French, German, Spanish, etc.) some of the articles published in other countries' papers plus add a picture of the articles as corroboration. I tried to do that with the UK article (with the cartoons, since it was already in English) so people would know it was true that it was publshed in the UK but could not paste them here.
Not an insult, simply the truth. Deal with it.
We URGENTLY NEED CHANGE from Obama! All Obama cares about is seeing his picture in the news.
Excerpt from a series of Funny cartoons about Obama from UK newspapers, which by the way, the Liberal Media would NEVER SHOW in the US:
"The US President arrived in Europe for the Economic
Summit with an unprecedented entourage of over
500 people inclusing his personal chef...hairdresser,
make-up people, writers, a man to play basketball
with and 12 teleprompters. The president is there to
convince the world that America is going to be more
thrifty"...and in another portion, it says:
"Instead of sending troops to guard the Arizona border,
we sent signs warning about the areas controlled by
the Mexican Drug Cartels...using the same Logic,
wouldn't it make sense to take away your secret service
and surround you with signs that say [Please don't shoot
the president]?"
You are a liar, Susan.
Ad this latest HYPOCRISY to Obama's impressive list of accomplishments!
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States .
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space-defunded NASA.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company (Boeing) in which State they are allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date & counting.
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to not know how to properly pronounce Navy 'corpsman'.
First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’-including bowing to foreign rulers.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to say that America was not a Christian nation.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) just for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
So how is this hope and change working out for ya? Don't you feel better now?
Bravo to you!
More and more cut and paste from RWNJ's!
Romney will be stunned by tonight's results. He believes he can buy anything he wants and Wall Street is heavily invested in helping him realize his dream of Occupy the White House (OWH). Mitt may become a toxic asset for Wall Street. But, they temporarily own the House of Representatives. Don't be so greedy.
I read First Read quite a bit and I have to say that I fear for our country as a whole. We are so divided as a nation that frankly I do not believe we will ever come back together. As an Independent I have voted for both Democratic and Republican Presidents over my lifetime. I am proud to be an Independant, because I don't have a blind loyalty to either party. Rather then discussing issues and having differing opinions, both sides of the aisle hurl insults at each other which does nothing to help your cause. I believe we are beyond repairing the damage of divisibility, and I would not be suprised if we see another Civil War in the US in my lifetime. Perhaps a diplomatical cessation of the US between the red states and blue states is the answer.
Obama has made clear that he would like to see SuperPACs and unlimited campaign donations be eliminated, but he also has always adhered to the mantra: Pragmatism over Dogmatism.
It makes perfect sense that he would recognize the necessity to stay competitive using the resources that are so eagerly being utilized by the opposition, even though he would prefer that these resources not be available to anyone running for public office in the future.
In other words, you are describing a hypocrite!
More from the UK papers criticizing Obama:
#hl=en&sugexp=lttma%2Cn%3D200&tok=x2NtFcIjiaYdBEInOQg49A&cp=16&gs_id=1l&xhr=t&q=Obama+in+the+UK+news&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Obama+in+the+UK+&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=be136677e0bc5054&biw=1024&bih=584
How hypocritical of him wanting to play on an even field. He should just leave his hands tied behind is back while his opponent have free movement. /sarcasm.