Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money
by Big Dog on Feb 7, 2012 at 16:15 Political
Barack Obama said he was against super PACs and their involvement in American politics. He excoriated the Supreme Court for its decision in the matter of political donations during one of his State of the Union Addresses. In 2010 Obama said that PACs were a corporate takeover of our Democracy (we have a Republic). Here is what he had to say about it:
“The worst thing of all they don’t have to reveal who is having to pay for them.” Obama said, criticizing Republicans for “keeping the American public in the dark.”
“We cannot allow a corporate takeover of our democracy,” Obama added, vowing to fight this type of advertising. “Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us is stopping it.” he declared.
“Millions of Americans are struggling to get by and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising,” Obama added, “Their voices should be heard.” [emphasis mine] Washington Examiner
Obama said our voices needed to be heard and that the challenge was for every elected official to defend the infusion of PAC money or to join Obama in stopping it.
Looks like the Won, the messiah, the change we can believe in has changed his mind on the subject.
In a change of position, Barack Obama’s reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. CNN Political Tracker
In a change of position, well he did promise us change.
Obama is now playing the game he said he opposed. He is getting involved in the super PAC game in order to raise money for his reelection effort. His minions (and no doubt his toadies who will read this) claim that he needs to do this because of the large influx of money from super PACs on the Republican side.
Obama is doing this because he needs more money and that is supposed to make it OK. The same argument could be made that those who do not oppose super PAC money take it because they need the money to get elected. They too are outgunned (David Axelrod said there is an “array of guns pointed at us” so is this a violent metaphor we can use to blame him if there is violence?) by the people who they are running against. Democrats get large amounts of money from donors (despite the claims of small donors there are lots of big name and big money donors) and they use that money for Democrats to get elected.
A few years ago when Obama was getting boatloads of money for his campaign would he, Axelrod (or any other Democrat) have accepted the excuse from John McCain that he had an array of guns pointed at him so he needed to take PAC money? Hell no! They would have screamed what Obama said in 2010 about corporations taking over our Democracy.
But since Obama wants the money it is now OK to be involved with super PACs.
Here is a video of Obama slamming John Edwards for claiming to be against this kind of money but taking it. Obama says that you can’t just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Mr. Obama, you are now taking the money when you claim to be opposed to it. You can’t talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Obama is a hypocrite. I know that liberals will defend this position because they will claim lil’ Barry has to keep up with opponents but that does not make it right. He said he was against the money so he should not take the money.
Then again, this is the guy who said that George Bush was unpatriotic and demonstrated poor leadership for adding trillions of dollars in debt to the country and then promptly added 5 trillion dollars of debt to the country.
If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you were not a racist you must vote against him in 2012 to prove you are not an idiot.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: axelrod, hypocrisy, lies, money, Obama, super pacs
This is definitely a flip-flop on his part and he understands that fully and doesn’t care. I don’t know where I come down on SuperPACs so much but it is disconcerting to see the amount of money being spent by these groups. SuperPACs spent over sixteeen million dollars on the Florida primary alone and that’s just for the GOP. Sixteeen million? That’s nuts and I think it’s things like that which Obama is willing to flip over. These groups are going to spend billions on this election.
Obama had the super Pacs before, labor unions and the media. The spend a lot of money and give him lots of free ads (by talking favorably about him and pushing the agenda). I don’t care about the PACs. It is an exercise of free speech to spend your money on that stuff. I don’t think individuals should be limited. But the big issue is that Obama said it was a threat to our Democracy and he is doing it which means he does not care about the threat he claims exists. He shows he will say or do anything to get the office and is not as principled as he claimed to be. This is not the first issue (public funding was another).
Obama spent a lot of money last time and some of it came from questionable (and likely illegal) places.
SuperPACs didn’t exist in 2008 and in 2012 it’s a whole new ball game. Obama’s stance was against it until at least as late as November of last year. That’s probably when they realized the Democratic SuperPACs were not on the level with Republican ones and decided it was time to flip on it.
No but PACs existed and the issue of Super PACs was on the burner because it was before the courts. It matters not whether they existed, he said they were a threat and then he signed on. Suppose abortion was illegal and a politician said that it should be illegal and that it was a threat to our society. Then it becomes legal and that same politician supports it and encourages it because it will help him get elected. There is no real difference betweeen jumping on that bandwagon for political purposes and jumping on the Super PAC bandwagon for the same reason.
I agree that Obama flip-flopped on it. No one can deny that. I don’t think it merits the seriousness of an abortion comparison but a flip nonetheless.
My intention was not to compare it in the level of seriousness but to indicate that just because something does not yet exist changing positions is not justified when it finally does exist.
I think Adam also made “a comparison” when he said, “That’s probably when they realized the Democratic SuperPACs were not on the level with Republican ones and decided it was time to flip on it.”
Why is Adam’s comparison ‘legit’ but BD’s not?
First, we have to aknowledge that Obamma is a liar- that is the truth, as is the reasons he lies- he will say ANYTHING and then repudiate it in a heartbeat if he sees it doesn’t suit his fawning flock. He is a despicable liar, and one can hope for an early and painful heart attack.