Obama’s Odd Super PAC Flip Flop
February 9, 2012 13 Comments
President Obama this week is under fire for his reversal on Super PAC’s. You’ll recall that during the 2010 elections Obama repeatedly criticized Super PAC’s, their super secret donors and their harmless sounding names. He whined that the super rich were trying to steal elections with secret PAC donations. In 2007 Obama declared that you can’t be against outside groups and then for them. Apparently that didn’t actually mean anything when he said it in 2007.
This is another strange political miscalculation by this President. It starts out as a miscalculation in 2007 when boxed himself into a corner in order to make a thinly veiled attack on Hillary Clinton. Obama made matters worse in 2010 when he tried to, unsuccessfully, score political points by criticizing Super PAC’s at campaign events. The Supreme Court had already issued the Citizen’s United decision, it was clear during the 2010 election that Super PAC’s were here to stay. Knowing that Obama attacked them anyway, even though he must have known that he would need their support in 2012.
Fast forward to today, Obama could have continued his opposition to Super PAC’s. He doesn’t need to send his Cabinet out to fundraise for these PAC’s. He could have winked and nodded at the liberal PAC’s while publicly opposing the Citizens United case. There’s nothing forcing the President to send members of his cabinet to fundraise. Did he think the public wouldn’t notice? It makes you wonder what this administration is thinking politically. Obama is going to run a $1 billion campaign. Does he really need to have his cabinet fundraise for outside PAC’s as well?
Obama’s opposition to PAC’s was always a fraud. Obama seemed to have no problem when SEIU spent $80 million on Obama’s election in 2008. Other unions spent millions as well. Apparently union money in politics is acceptable but PAC’s funded by conservatives are evil, shady and misleading. It’s this sort of absurd argument that makes you wonder about the sanity of Washington.
Meanwhile the administration that came into office attacking lobbyists, all before hiring one lobbyist after another, has been caught in another lobbying scandal. Robert Klein is a major Obama campaign bundler, he’s also a lobbyist for Spirit Airlines. Klein claims he was never a lobbyist and never intended to register as a lobbyist. I find myself constantly registering for things I have no intention of registering for, so I’m completely sympathetic. The Obama campaign is distancing itself from Klein but the damage is done. They’ve got a lobbyist bundling campaign donations, no one buys Klein or the campaign’s story.
There shouldn’t be any problem with having Super PAC’s back campaigns or having lobbyists fundraise. The idea that money in politics is evil, especially when spoken by a President running a $1 billion campaign, is absurd. But if you’re going to make the argument that Super PAC’s are terrible and that lobbyists have no place in your campaign or administration then as President you really need to stick to that.
Obama’s reversal on Super PAC’s is a major political miscalculation. It will hurt him in the credibility department. It makes you wonder why in the span of three weeks the President has arrogantly attacked religious faith and flip flopped on Super PAC’s, which he spent a considerably amount of time attacking as unethical. Is this an administration that is politically inept, do they think the election is in the bag or are they just taking a play out of the Alinsky playbook?
About Steven
So now you are an expert on Saul Alinsky too? Amazing! I have shown you that you are completely wrong and have embarrassed you about your stance on health insurance and the Caholic Church but you ignore that reality and continue to plug away at it. I think it would be inept of Obama’s people to ignore the huge impact the wealthy conservatives are going to have on this election as already shown by the donations made to Gingrich and Santorum. Money is evil in politics but anyone trying to get elected has to have lots of it. Money means that one rich bastard can drown out the voices of millions. If that is your idea of a democracy then I’ll take the old Soviet Union. The evil liberals and the Godly conservatives should both oppose the corruption that money has had on our political system. This problem is not a liberal versus conservative issue. It goes to the root of what a democracy is supposed to be: Equality before the law and equality at the voting booth!
So the rich should not have freedom of speech? If you’re going to ban money in politics then you’ve entered a slippery slope towards the ban of all speech in elections. If I can afford to buy a website and broadcast my views on it how is that any different than buying an ad on television? Under the original version of McCain-Feingold, I could not buy an ad and broadcast my opinion via that ad within 30 days before an election. Why should I be able to buy a website to broadcast my views but not be able to buy a 30 second ad on television?
The issue isn’t whether Obama has Super PAC’s supporting him. We all know that he does and always has. The unions spent millions for Obama in 2008, Soros funded groups like moveon.org and other 527′s also spent millions on Obama in 2008. Obama could have left the liberal Super PAC’s alone and they would have raised hundreds of millions to spend on Obama’s behalf. By leaving them alone, Obama could have maintained that he opposed Super PAC’s and he could have made an issue out of it this fall when people will undoubtedly get annoyed with all the political ads.
Instead Obama is sending his cabinet off to fundraise for these PAC’s. Why? The small amount these PAC’s will gain in contributions doesn’t even come close to offsetting both the negative political backlash over Obama’s flip flop and the positive political capital Obama could have earned by attacking PAC’s in October. To me this is a huge political error. Obama could have easily winked and nodded at liberal PAC’s while publicly opposing them. Instead he flip flopped after savagely attacking the PAC’s for the last several years. Politically it’s not a smart move.
Steve I don’t think that Obama “savagely’ attacks anything. The rich have freedom of speech. But without responsible actions and respect for our democracy then our system of government will die. With democracy comes responsibility for everyone-the rich and the poor.We need to learn about the people who want to lead us and we need to learn about the issues that are important. If wealthy people want to distort the system with their megabucks then the cynicism and disgust with our electoral process will rise to dysfunctional levels. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Is their not some room for legitimate regulation of the electoral process, free enterprise and health care? There is no such thing as an absolute right in any civil society other than the right to your own beliefs. There is no absolute right of free speech. Where should the line be drawn in our electoral system? How corrupted and pathetic does the process have to become before something is done to correct it? You want to spit hairs about Obama’s SUPER PACS versus Republican SUPR PACS? I don’t. It all disgusts me.
Obama had plenty of nasty comments for Super PAC’s in 2012. We must allow absolute political free speech. It’s one thing to say that the first amendment doesn’t protect yelling fire in a theater, slander or libel. It’s another thing to say that government should decide where the line is between free speech and a “distortion” of the system. You’re talking about allowing the people who are elected, who most want to keep their jobs and limit the ability of their opponents to attack them deciding where that line is.
That was the biggest problem with McCain-Fiengold, it more or less protected those already in power from being challenged. Those in power have an easier job raising money than their opponents. Thus when you limit the ability of third parties to use speech in television ads, you more or less insulate those in power from challenge.
The idea that cynicism in American politics is a recent creation shows a lack of historical understanding. It’s the same thing with the idea that campaigns are so much nastier today than they used to be. It ignores the past. The fact is, there’s been plenty of distrust of the Federal government, of pols and of the system throughout American history. Campaigns have always been nasty. In the 19th century we had a President accused of fathering a bastard child, we had another whose birth was questioned, we had a vice president get into a gun duel with a political opponent etc. We also had hundreds of partisian newspapers opening attacking political opponents. The idea that cynicism and nasty politics is new just doesn’t jive with history.
Sure politics has always been a rough and tumble world but that is not the issue. The issue now is whether or not the voice of the average American is going to be smothered by the ultra loud voices of the rich. There should be absolutely free political speech. But with that freedom comes responsibility. Not only for the average American to be informed but for those in a position to corrupt the system with loads of money. As responsible citizens we can make REASONABLE rules to try to keep the electoral system as it was meant to be. So your view of politics and politicians is that it has always been filled with cynicism. Then why do you find the antics of the current politicians to be so contemptible? Did I say that cynicism is new? Fast forward Steve, I said cynicism will rise to a dysfunctional level. When the majority of people are convinced that they have been disenfranchised by the rich and powerful-without a voice or a choice then we have lost the most precious legacy our founders bequeathed to us: democracy. But hey Steve, its only money. You know what Bob Dylan said about money: “Money doesn’t talk it swears.”
“Jive” is a nice word Steve,but I never said cynicism and nasty politics were something new. Maybe you should spend a little more time reading and less time writing.
Who said: Only a fool is without doubt? Do you ever doubt yourself Steve?
Who decides what’s responsible speech? Do you get to determine that? Do I? You talk about citizens making “reasonable” rules but who do you think is going to make those rules? Congress of course. The very Congress that stands to benefit if their opposition has trouble raising funds and is unable to be aided by private outside groups.
I couldn’t care less what Bob Dylan says about anything. The fact of the matter is that private individuals and groups have every right to speak and it is outrageous that the government would attempt to limit their speech by banning them from spending money. The fact is, there’s no way to stop these ads or groups unless you stifle the first amendment. It’s really an all or nothing situation. We either have free political speech or we don’t. But we can’t have Congress trying to determine whose political speech is reasonable and whose isn’t.
I would tend to agree, Steven. This is a severe political miscalculation on the part of the President. Does he seriously believe the public is going to ignore the obvious double standard that is embedded in this flip flop?
Steve, you don;t admire Bob Dylan? You don’t think he had anything important to say? How much do you know about Bob Dylan? Steve, I asked you if you ever doubted yourself .You did not answer. Is there any room in your world for doubting your own beliefs? Are you human?
You say that it is “outrageous” that the government should limit funding of political campaigns. So, Steve for nearly the last 90 years this rule has been an outrage and that anyone who supported this rule is I, I guess, in your opinion an idiot. That makes for an awful lot of idiots including Supreme Court judges. Is anyone who supported this limitation an idiot Steve? Is there room for discussion or is this just an outrageous assault on our beloved Constitution?
Lastly: the public could care less about PACS, Super PACs etc. The issue that is going to matter is the economy-stupid! Since no Republican has offered any reasonable alternative as to 1. What they would have done to have had a better result after four years since the election and 2. What he will do to mend the economy, then there is little doubt that Obama is going walk away with this election.
What would the Republicans have done to have fixed the economy in the last four years?
You act shocked that a conservative might not admire Bob Dylan. I don’t think much of musicians. As an aside, I actually saw Dylan in concert when I was in college. I worked as an usher at the Breslin Center, Dylan played there in the late 90′s. It was sort of a dreadful concert, very boring and full of old hippies trying to sneak a smoke of weed.
I don’t believe campaigns have been limited for 90 years, certainly not in the way McCain-Feingold sought to limit them. As far as I’m concerned funding of campaigns should be unlimited so long as all funding is disclosed. That would in large part eliminate Super PAC’s and it would allow for more or less complete disclosure as to who is funding campaigns.
Who said the Super PAC issue was the biggest issue of the campaign? It isn’t. But it’s now an issue that the GOP can point to Obama’s hypocrisy. He gave up the oppertunity to point fingers at the Republicans.
Obviously the economy is going to be the biggest issue. I’ve already predicted an Obama victory, largely because the presumptive GOP nominee has no conservative base of thinking and has no real plan. So far Romney hasn’t won a single state without smearing one or more opponents. He can’t win a general election simply by attacking Obama, he has to give the people a heart felt reason why his plan is better. Well, what is his plan? Whose going to go through all 56 detailed points? The GOP deserves to lose if we nominate a man who is almost as liberal as Obama.
Does it bother you that I actually believe in what I vigerously defend on this blog? If so, why?
A problem with committed ideologues ( among many) is that they are out of touch with what the average person really focuses on. What seems like an outrage to an ideologue is nothing but the boring news pablum for the majority of people. ( e.g. Super PACS) I love this forum because I actually get to respond to the uninformed, hate filled opinions of the far right-unlike the talk radio hot air buffoons who would never allow an opposing opinion to air on their shows.
Did you ever hear Rush’s advertisement for a computer back-up company: ” Now folks I would be the last person to try and profit from a disaster such as the tornadoes that destroyed Joplin, but’ if those good people has used my sponsor’s back-up system then they would have saved their computer data.” So Rush tells us what a great guy he is, that he would NEVER exploit a human disaster and then goes ahead and does it anyway! So do any ditto-heads complain? Do any ditto heads call and say, Rush, I’m confused! The moral of the story is that Rush’s ditto heads are so blinded by ideology that they swallow the bullshit this moron has to say day after day without argument.
This is a political blog and I’m going to talk about all political issues, not just the hot button news of the day. I’m as interested in the process of politics as I am in the issues themselves. I don’t care one way or another about Obama’s actual position on Super PAC’s. The issue to me isn’t his support or his opposition to them, the issue to me is purely political at least insofar as we’re talking about Obama’s flip flop. We can talk about campaign finance reform as its related. But to me the big issue is Obama’s political miscalculation.
I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, so I don’t know what his ads are nor do I know what his callers are like. In the last 12 years I’ve probably listened to Rush 5 times, usually on longer trips to northern Michigan courts wherein there’s nothing else on the radio. Each time I’m reminded why I don’t listen. He’s entertaining for about five minutes but after the innitial amusment I always realize that I’ve already read the stories he’s talking about and my commentary is more interesting and/or his commentary isn’t particularly insightful.
No, Whether you believe what you say here is between you and your maker. Just like any Catholic can believe anything he or she wants as long as they don;t try to control my life by their beliefs.
Steve, I asked you if you ever doubted yourself. If you said yes, then you might be seen as human rather then just a radical far right wacko nut who has an icon of himself in a very hostile pose with a finger pointing at the world. The icon seems to say: ” I am not listening to you. I am sick and tired of all of your lies and deceit! Just shut your mouth and do as I say or I will have you liquidated! I have figured this world out and I know what is best! I do not have the time to explain it to you so just shut your stupid mouth and I will tell you the way it is!” Is that what your icon says Steve?
On Dylan: Ever heard “Blowing In the Wind”? – like it? “Times They Are A Changing”?-like it? Did you know that Bob Dylan was involved in the civil rights marches of the sixties? Are you against the Civil rights Act of 1965?
What kind of music do you like Steve? I really do not know what kind of music the far,far-right listens to. I know that John Wayne did an album once. You like Wagner? Any American composer? Copeland? John Williams?
Actually my icon says “I want you to fight against socialism.” I don’t believe that is seen here on WordPress but it can be seen on Facebook.
Actually Dylan wasn’t involved in the 60′s marches for the most part. This annoyed lefties like Peter Seegar and Joan Baez to no end because while he got credit for being at the marches, in reality he was nowhere to be found. As for Dylan’s music, I don’t like it. I don’t care for left-wing political folk/rock music. Why do you assume I’m against the 64 Civil Rights Act? And why would you assume I like Wagner? I don’t appreciate such insinuations.
I would rather listen to big band jazz than any of the trash put out today.