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.Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm calling bullshit. It's too bad we don't live in a country where we could, you know, vote on this stuff or something.
“With all due deference to the separations of powers,” he said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”Since then, Obama has sought to portray himself as the chief conscientious objector to Super PACs, the “independent” advocacy groups that grew out of the court’s Citizens United ruling...
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... campaign manager Jim Messina framed the decision as a pragmatic necessity, insisting that Obama still abhors the Citizens Unites ruling while arguing that “our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands”
More at the link, and in the New York Times.
There's an easy metaphor for this: You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. That's just suicide.
ReplyDeleteWhat crs said.
ReplyDeleteI'm not currently voting for Obama (nor any of the possible Republican candidates) due to civil liberties violations (open government, wikileaks, Bradley Manning torture)
However, I actually agree with Obama's campaign manager here. It's moronic to hold yourself to a rule that doesn't exist when you're the only one trying to create that rule and it puts you at a terrible handicap to follow it.
Granted it might be bullshit. But here you have a choice between someone that will take the money and claims publicly and often that he wants to outlaw it, vs someone that is already taking the money and is consistently saying that it's not only legal but should be more available.
"If the President of the United States does it, it can't be bullshit".
ReplyDeleteThe only problem with super pacs is when the opposition has super pacs in support of it.
ReplyDelete"It's too bad we don't live in a country where we could, you know, vote on this stuff or something."
ReplyDeleteHere in WA, we have an initiative process that ultimately seems to land every single decision at the foot of the voters. When I first moved here in 2002, I thought it was great. Now I realize that the process simply forces us to do our elected official's jobs. They get to escape any political blame by kicking the hard decisions to the public in every instance. Even this week, as our state finally moves to legalize same-sex marriage, there's already work underway on a n initiative to let the voters decide in November. Same with bridge construction, property taxes, you name it.
Yes, it would be good if for very, very important things we as a nation were able to have a coast-to-coast vote. But there are downsides to it too.
You would be correct, Doug, if the people we elected then voted on matters the way they said they would while campaigning, rather than switching to something more politically convenient.
DeleteThe initiative process in California, begun by the Progressives a century ago, has been totally subverted by special interests who throw lots of money to convert their wishes into law.
Delete"If the President of the United States does it, it's probably bullshit."
ReplyDeleteBTW, if you haven't yet, see what Stephen Colbert has done with his "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" PAC - it's pure, unadulterated brilliance.
President Obama is being realistic in this decision. To do otherwise would almost guarantee his defeat in November. He would be foolish to show up for a gunfight armed only with a stick.
ReplyDeleteCan we believe Obama's opposition to Citizens United, or is he just lying as any other politician would be? That's simple to deduct. Wait for the budget accountability in the end of the campaign. If Obama turns out, as he did in 2008, as the far-ahead best funded candidate - and, as consequence, winner of the process - then we can call him a liar. But we will call him mr. President for some four years more, as well.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don't buy the "knife to a gunfight" as a valid ethical argument for embracing a tactic the president had previously condemned, unless something has changed to make the tactic become or seem suddenly ethical. You can't say, "I think this is wrong, but everyone else is doing it, so I suppose I can't _not_ do it, too" and still maintain the moral high-ground.
ReplyDeleteI'll agree with AF's comment. I'm not opposed to politicians (or anyone) changing their minds when new circumstances or facts arise, but that's not the case here. This seems to be an abandonment of a previous moral standard based on political expediency.
DeleteWell, why not? He has been a hypocrite on just about everything else he has said.
ReplyDeleteSo, if a manager says that baseball would be better without the designated hitter rule, then he's a hypocrite if he uses the rule to win games? If Warren Buffett says that he should pay the same tax rate as his secretary, he's a hypocrite if he does his taxes under the current law?
ReplyDeleteJust because you support a change in the rules doesn't mean that you don't abide by them while they exist. The Koch brothers and their billionaire friends will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ads attacking Obama. Is Obama supposed to stand on principle and lose the election?
It would be hypocrisy if Obama refused to back legislation (or an amendment) to overturn Citizens United. otherwise, he's just playing the game according to the rules that exist.
So, let's say that the manager says that the designated hitter rule is against the spirit of the game and condemns other managers for sacrificing the integrity of baseball in order to win. Then, the manager sees that those other teams are starting to succeed and so begins to use the rule in order to "remain competitive." If the manager continues to make the claim for having more integrity than the other managers because he uses the tactic, too, but _he_ thinks the game would be better without it, I would say that claim is then hypocritical.
DeleteSo, the manager should stand on principle, lose the games and his job? Can you show me ANY statement in which Obama has "made the claim that he has more integrity" than is opponents? He has said the Citizens United was a bad decision and he will do what he can to get it changed. I don't recall him ever offering to simply surrender and let the other side run roughshod over him.
DeleteIs everyone who thinks that the capital gains tax rate should be the same as that imposed on regular income a hypocrite if they don't simply pay 35% on their gains?
A button, a button, my kingdom for an edit button! ;-)
DeleteI'll risk being written off as naive by saying "yes."
DeleteIf you don't abide by your own calls to moral or just action, saying you'll only do so when compelled along with everyone else by rule or law, then I think the suspicion of empty rhetoric and, yes, even hypocrisy, is warranted.
The public is only too eager to uncover an example from a public figure's past that undermines the beliefs that individual presently espouses. Why shouldn't the public have at least an equal, if not greater, expectation of present actions matching present ideals?
I'm with Gamble6X, Paul Carney and MikeH.
ReplyDeleteWhy would a sitting president who stands an excellent chance of being re-elected commit political suicide by refusing to use a legal option to fund his campaign? He didn't start this fight but he may be the best person to finish it. Does anyone think that Willard Romney, unemployed middle-class plutocrat, or N Leroy Gingrich, 6 figure Tiffany's accountholder and longtime public employee who argues against the very institution that has paid his wages for 40 years, will do anything to ensure this country doesn't become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Bros? I call bullshit on that argument.
I'll try to start a different thread here by raising my other objection (apart from the moral hazard).
ReplyDeleteI don't buy the argument that Obama HAD to do this in order to get re-elected. I don't see that he HAS to have hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy individuals and corporations in order to compete with the Kochs in flooding the airwaves with campaign rhetoric.
I think a standing president should continue to pursue his goals (to whatever extent Congress allows him to), should approch the next election by explaining what he has done, what he plans to do and ask for another term. If you're saying that nobody can be reelected without spending ungodly amounts of money, then I think there is something dreadfully and fundamentally wrong with our system.
This is especially true if Obama is going to be campaigning against a Romney that the conservative Christians hate or a Santorum that the moderates of the country dislike, or a Gingrich that most sane people dislike, or a Paul that most people think is a bigoted kook.
For that he should not need a bazillion dollars, and he should have stood his ground to eliminate super-PACS from electoral politics.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
It's hard to accept that one's saviour is a lying, conniving opportunist. But to avoid doing so, you'd have to overlook three years of broken promises, mountains of contrary evidence, and the man's very own words. I can see why this might disillusion some who actually beleived the obvious platitudes he spewed back in '08. Face it - you were taken in, you were used, and now you're being abandoned. And still, some of you will vote for him again, just to protect your earlier defense/support. It's like battered woman syndrome writ large. Is awful and a shame.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to argue with you, but I wonder which of the current Republican options you would consider to be best to be President.
Delete@Minnesotastan - Stephen Colbert has already done more than any of the party-backed candidates to shine some much needed sunlight on the backroom dealings which define contemporary US politics - for that reason alone, I think he merits serious consideration as a write-in candidate.
DeleteHe's as close to an "everyman" candidate as we've got - perhaps his presidency would give this country some much needed reflection on the kind of circus DC is running.
Z, I couldn't in good conscience vote for Stephen Colbert. But if Jon Stewart were on the ballot, I would vote for him over the incumbent or any of the passengers in the Republican clown car.
Delete"But if Jon Stewart were on the ballot ..."
DeleteI'm going on the assumption that either of them would thoroughly rankle the noses of lobbyists (who'd presumably be weighing the risk of approaching them with "ideas" against the risk of a very public lampooning on the newly-established president's nightly talk show).
That's the tragedy - split the vote between Colbert and Stewart and one of the old guard is certain to win!
DeleteKevin Drum says it better then I can: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/hypocrisy-trope-wont-die
ReplyDelete