Ruck.us

Blog

Double Standard?

Posted on in Community, General

The New York Times reported today that President Obama has officially “given the signal” for major Democratic donors to start giving to Priorities USA Action.  If that name is unfamiliar to you, it wont be for long.  Priorities is the Super PAC supporting the President that is run with former Obama staffers.  Super PAC?  Yes.  Although the President was adamant in his objections to “outside money” in Washington, and on the campaign trail, he has gone ahead and said they are now OK.  

 To me, there are two ways of looking at this.  We have seen that Mitt Romney, or whomever is the eventual GOP nominee, is absolutely going to be heavily supported by Super PACs.  So why should the President cede that ground?  Isn’t it right to at least  level the playing field?  On the other hand, this is obviously something the President feels strongly about.  Why else would he have highlighted it in his State of the Union?  And if that is the case, doesn’t the President have a obligation to be true to what he actually believes?  And further, our President and leader is not going to play by the rules, can we expect anyone else to?  Should he not show some leadership by setting an example here?  

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1789713718 Dan Palma

    Unfortunately I don’t see it that he has any other choice.  The Republicans declared war on Obama when they won their takeover of the House almost 2 years ago.  For him to go into the next election season without a Super PAC’s support, it would be akin to being sent out on the front lines without a gun.  The game of the election process is what it is and I see no moral obligation to not include a Super PAC money as part of his own election war chest.  As a matter of fact, it seems unless Super PACS are made illegal prior to the election cycle, in my view he has an obligation to his supporters to use EVERY legal means for getting himself re-elected possible.  From there his commitment to ending Super PACS if he is elected would be the moral thing to do.

    • Ruck.us

      Great comment Dan.

  • Harold

    Sadly, this is typical behavior from the president.  He likes to lecture from the bully pulpit and instruct us on what is right and wrong.  However, he oftentimes changes his mind or doesn’t follow through when he realizes that the said matter can benefit him.  As we all know, he loves to preach how he is not a typical Washington politician. In reality, he plays the worst kind of politics with his hyper-partisan nature.

  • acaya

    Easy does it Harold, your true colors are showing. If Obama had decided to forego a Super Pac this country, full of ignorant yahoo’s as it is, would simply have voted for the most effective hate campaign, which the republicans are more than capable of mounting. He has to play with the cards he was dealt by the Supremes, and that is collect as much money as you can to defeat the liars, cheats and hypocrites. 
    The Democrats are liars, the Republicans are lying hypocrites. I would rather vote for a straight up liar, than a lying hypocrite. Unfortunately, at this time we don’t have a better choice.

    • Harold

      Acaya, your elitism shines through by referring to most US citizens as ignorant yahoos.  And great labeling by calling the Dems liars and the Repubs lying hypocrites.   I don’t know where you come up with this rich, thought-provoking insight 

  • Shelly

    Just the facts: 
    In 2010, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case opened the door to a new wave of so-called Super PACs — non-candidate political committees that can receive and spend unlimited money from special interests. For the first time, these committees could accept money from corporations, not just wealthy individuals.The decision has accelerated a dangerous trend toward a political system increasingly dominated by big-money interests with disproportionate power to spend freely to influence our elections and our government.It’s a trend the President has fought against, coming into office with a mission to limit special-interest influence in Washington. He put in place the most sweeping ethics reforms in history to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists. And he’s overseen the most open administration ever — reversing Bush-era policies designed to limit Freedom of Information Act requests and disclosing White House visitor records so that Americans can see how their government works.

    The President opposed the Citizens United decision. But this cycle, the re-elect campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands. In 2011, the Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney raised $30 million from fewer than 200 contributors. Ninety-six percent of what they’ve spent so far, more than $18 million, has been on very negative attack ads. Romney’s campaign has an average contribution of roughly $150,000.

    With so much at stake, it’s not fair to the President to have him play by an antiquated set of rules in an election where the Republican nominee is and will be the beneficiary of unlimited spending. Especially in a campaign where the mantra is “Beat Obama” and that’s the most passionate driver that I’ve heard from every single Republican candidate.

    • Ruck.us

      Great comment Shelly

      –
      Nathan Daschle
      Ruck.us