• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama changes tune, urges fundraisers to back super PAC

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's campaign is asking top fundraisers to support a Democratic-leaning outside group that is backing the president's re-election bid, reversing Obama's opposition to "super" political action committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.Obama's campaign urged wealthy fundraisers in a Monday night conference call to support Priorities USA, a super PAC led by two former Obama aides that has struggled to compete with the tens of millions of dollars collected by Republican-backed outside groups.

Read more: Obama Changes Tune, Urges Fundraisers To Back Super PAC | Fox News​
Click to expand...

Flip-Flop.

Not a shock really.
 
MrVicchio said:
Flip-Flop.

Not a shock really.
Click to expand...
It's not rally a Flip-Flop since President Obama still holds to the same principle, he wants the money of politics. However, he needs to fight fire with fire.
 
Dickieboy said:
Errr, per your link:

Charles, 76, will put up $40million from his personal fortune, while David, 71, has pledged $20million to the battle.

Read more: Oil billionaires David and Charles Koch pledge $100m to oust Barack Obama from White House | Mail Online

$60 million does not equal $100 million...try again...:2wave:
Click to expand...

The important thing to remember here is that these bozos don't have their taxes raised by 3%. They need this money to help another wealthy man to get a job. :2razz:
 
The U.S. presidency......the best that money can buy.
 
It was a poor political move for President Obama to artificially restrain himself by laws that do not exist. Now he recognized the errors of his ways and has decided to play by the same rules that everyone else is.

The other interesting thing to watch is how this will influence the growth of SuperPACs that support liberal causes. Political analysts speculated that President Obama's position made liberals more hesitant to support them, but now he has given his blessing to support SuperPACs we might see them grow in similar size to their conservative counterparts.
 
pbrauer said:
It's not rally a Flip-Flop since President Obama still holds to the same principle, he wants the money of politics. However, he needs to fight fire with fire.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It sucks, but the best chance to blunt the horrible CU decision is for Obama to win, and it's not worth risking a run with his hands tied behind his back.
 
Golly gosh, President Obama and Barack Obama before becoming President... No, not a surprise at all. In fact, I am having a hard time coming up with something he hasn't gone back on when originally campaigning in 08.

And to the partisans on both sides, the we have to fight fire with fire, or in this case money with money to remove the money, good lord, I am sooo tempted to try the koolaid, it must be sooo tasty.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
It was a poor political move for President Obama to artificially restrain himself by laws that do not exist. Now he recognized the errors of his ways and has decided to play by the same rules that everyone else is.

The other interesting thing to watch is how this will influence the growth of SuperPACs that support liberal causes. Political analysts speculated that President Obama's position made liberals more hesitant to support them, but now he has given his blessing to support SuperPACs we might see them grow in similar size to their conservative counterparts.
Click to expand...

Obama's campaign manager characterized it as "unilateral disarmament". That would be a worse political move.
 
MrVicchio said:
Flip-Flop.

Not a shock really.
Click to expand...

Not a flip-flop. The GOP have set the pace for this election and that pace is to encourage SuperPACS. Obama is simply responding to the pace that the GOP frontrunners (Romney and Gingrich) have set. To do otherwise would be political suicide, which is of course what righties want.
 
pbrauer said:
It's not rally a Flip-Flop since President Obama still holds to the same principle, he wants the money of politics. However, he needs to fight fire with fire.
Click to expand...

How can you hold a principle but not follow it?
 
Republic Now! said:
How can you hold a principle but not follow it?
Click to expand...

It's similar to Republicans that hate earmarks, yet still receive earmarks.

They might think that earmarks should be banned, but while they are in congress it is their job to fight for their constituents to get what they need.

This is the same thing, Obama thinks that these superpacs are bad things and that we'd be better off without them, but as long as there legal he pretty much has to use them to have a fair shot at getting reelected.

Let's say you were coaching a college baseball team and thought that all teams should switch to wooden bats for safety. Should you switch your team over while everyone else still uses metal bats? Nope, it puts you at a disadvantage, and everyone is still going to be in danger from all of the other metal bats still being used. Therefor, you are not being a hypocrite for arguing one thing and being forced to do another.
 
Republic Now! said:
How can you hold a principle but not follow it?
Click to expand...

So you think Obama should not use SuperPACS while the GOP candidate does? I'm sorry but that is just stupid.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Let's say you were coaching a college baseball team and thought that all teams should switch to wooden bats for safety. Should you switch your team over while everyone else still uses metal bats? Nope, it puts you at a disadvantage, and everyone is still going to be in danger from all of the other metal bats still being used. Therefor, you are not being a hypocrite for arguing one thing and being forced to do another.
Click to expand...

If I felt so strongly that using metal bats were wrong I'd stop coaching.


So you think Obama should not use SuperPACS while the GOP candidate does? I'm sorry but that is just stupid.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about my opinion.
 
pbrauer said:
It's not rally a Flip-Flop since President Obama still holds to the same principle, he wants the money of politics. However, he needs to fight fire with fire.
Click to expand...

It's hypocritical.

"Abortion shouldn't be legal." "But I'm going to have one because it is now, and I want one."

It's no different at all.
 
MaggieD said:
It's hypocritical.

"Abortion shouldn't be legal." "But I'm going to have one because it is now, and I want one."

It's no different at all.
Click to expand...

As was pointed out by conservatives, which politician isn't hypocritical?
 
TheNextEra said:
As was pointed out by conservatives, which politician isn't hypocritical?
Click to expand...

The one no one is voting for because they're too afraid of the "greater of two evils?"
 
MaggieD said:
It's hypocritical.

"Abortion shouldn't be legal." "But I'm going to have one because it is now, and I want one."

It's no different at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, there's nothing hypocritical about "I am playing by these rules but I think they should be changed."

I don't expect everyone who thinks we should go back to the gold standard to trade all of their money in for gold.

I also don't expect a candidate who thinks that the campaign rules should be changed to put himself at a severe disadvantage.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Sorry, there's nothing hypocritical about "I am playing by these rules but I think they should be changed."

I don't expect everyone who thinks we should go back to the gold standard to trade all of their money in for gold.

I also don't expect a candidate who thinks that the campaign rules should be changed to put himself at a severe disadvantage.
Click to expand...

I guess, reluctantly, I must agree with you here. Can't argue this: "I am playing by these rules, but I think they should be changed." Ya' got me!
 
Hypocritical or not I know more than a few 'left-leaning talking heads' who will have to back track after hammering the Republican candidates for their PAC's over the last little bit. Of course some may maintain consistency and rail BHO on his reluctant concession.
 
MaggieD said:
I guess, reluctantly, I must agree with you here. Can't argue this: "I am playing by these rules, but I think they should be changed." Ya' got me!
Click to expand...

I think you made a good point with the abortion argument but that got me thinking, I would find someone who got an abortion but wanted to outlaw it a hypocrit, but only because they were pushing to ban abortion on a strictly religious/moral reason and because many of them feel abortion is the same as murder in their eyes. I can't say the same for many other ideas, especially the one from this thread.
 
It comes down ultimately to whether the ideology is a practical one or a moral one. Is he against the practice because it isn't practical or is he against it because he thinks the act is morally reprehensible?
 
He did the same thing in the last election. He promised to restrict campaign spending by accepting public money, then flip flopped and did not. He was then able to spend an unlimited amount of money.
 
So the GOP is going to run Willard and still want to mention flip-flops? :rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom