"President Barack Obama -- in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder -- has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks."

The wheels are off the tracks now, folks.

You can't expect him to not use available tools and resources. This isn't a case of hypocrisy as much as him just utilizing something the other side is already doing.

This isn't a case of hypocrisy

Condemn it in the morning and embrace it in the evening. No hypocrisy there. It's almost as if he can't decide to Catch_or_Pitch

You can't expect him to not use available tools and resources. This isn't a case of hypocrisy as much as him just utilizing something the other side is already doing.

#2 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-02-07 08:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

That would be all well and good if he didn't say they were bad, if they weren't being used by Republicans (who are bad) and he didn't campaign on the empty rhetoric that he was different and going to change Washington.

Obama is principled until it really matters... then he is the same as the people who tries to pretend he is different from.

It is hilarious.

Of course the Democrats are doing to use statement similar to yours to say "but the Republicans are doing it too", their favorite "The president who said he was going to be different is acting exactly the same as the Republicans" defense.

Only a fool would believe that he would not use all tools available to win.

See #3.

Condemn it in the morning and embrace it in the evening. No hypocrisy there. It's almost as if he can't decide to Catch_or_Pitch

#3 | Posted by Ahairycunt1st at 2012-02-07 09:00 AM

My, how convenient.

That would be all well and good if he didn't say they were bad, if they weren't being used by Republicans (who are bad) and he didn't campaign on the empty rhetoric that he was different and going to change Washington.

Obama is principled until it really matters... then he is the same as the people who tries to pretend he is different from.

It is hilarious.

Of course the Democrats are doing to use statement similar to yours to say "but the Republicans are doing it too", their favorite "The president who said he was going to be different is acting exactly the same as the Republicans" defense.

#4 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-07 09:01 AM

He should handicap himself while Republicans use all available tools at their disposal.

Not what I said at all. If he was planning on taking Super Pac money, he should never have condemned those who were. He's a hypocrite on this matter, plain and simple. Condemning something and then turning right around and doing it is a good (very good) description of the word. Does "backpedaling" sound any better to you?

Apparently Danni is not giving up enough scotch for those $3 donations along with the rest of Obama's "small donor" followers.

Does "backpedaling" sound any better to you?

#8 | Posted by American1st at 2012-02-07 09:22 AM

There's no contradiction in not liking the rules but playing by them anyway.

Only a fool would believe that he would not use all tools available to win.

Exactly. He's a pragmatic politician. It was inevitable that he start to work with Democratic super PACs if not doing so put him at a disadvantage in the re-election campaign.

This is no different from politicians who criticized the stimulus but still accept the money.

This is worth remembering the next time the Liberals wet their panties over one of those situations.

In the real world? It is - unfortunately - the only game in town.

This is no different from politicians who criticized the stimulus but still accept the money.

This is worth remembering the next time the Liberals wet their panties over one of those situations.

#12 | Posted by vernon at 2012-02-07 09:56 AM

#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-07 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

No wonder he put Immelt as his Jobs Czar... it the real world... you have to ship jobs overseas in order to make more money... why fault him for doing what is available to him?

I take it the democrats don't have issue when other people use what is available to them to get ahead?

Wait... I strictly remember them whining and complaining when people use things they are allowed to use... think taxes and other such issues.

Double standard much?

-Only a fool would believe that he would not use all tools available to win.

I agree. He can wash his hands of it because it's "the system".

But only a fool would think leftists see it this way when it's a republican doing it.

You can't expect him to not use available tools and resources.

You can if he denounces those tools and resources. Otherwise the denouncements mean nothing.

"Don't drive Hummers, they're killing America!" [hops in Hummer; speeds off]

I don't expect Obama not to use Super PACs. Everyone's going to. What I expect him to do is not make statements denouncing them prior to taking his money, because it misleads Americans into thinking he's something that he's not.

Obama on Citizens United:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.

This isn't a case of hypocrisy as much as him just utilizing something the other side is already doing.

#2 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-02-07 08:48 AM | Reply | Flag

yes it is and do not try to justify it.

No, what's really hypocritical here are all of the right wing nutbars that are unable to understand what the President is saying.

Which is essentially "I don't like the way that the rules currently in place work but I will play by the same set of rules as everyone else". The simple fact is all of you were pleased as punch with CU when you were just certain that it would only benefit the right, once again showing how deeply the right has gone Full Trig.

You can if he denounces those tools and resources. Otherwise the denouncements mean nothing.

"Don't drive Hummers, they're killing America!" [hops in Hummer; speeds off]

I don't expect Obama not to use Super PACs. Everyone's going to. What I expect him to do is not make statements denouncing them prior to taking his money, because it misleads Americans into thinking he's something that he's not.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2012-02-07 10:06 AM

do not try to justify it.

#19 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-02-07 10:14 AM

That he's also utilizing them might look bad, but what else could he do other than let the other side have a huge advantage?

Well, we're talking about why it looks bad. Because it does. Nobody is saying we expect him not to use them; that's a strawman.

Good for Obama. The only way to fight speech is with more of it- not limiting it. Now if we could just get rid of super pacs, and let citizen groups avoid that hoop (like corporations and unions can), we'll really start making progress.

Oh look, another rtarded fauxrage.

Man, they're just phoning it in now, aren't they?

Be Well.

Hey I'm a huge fan of pointing out the mountains of hypocrisy in the Obama admin, I'm just not seeing it here.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-02-07 10:33 AM | Reply

I don't see any here either.

However, the shitload of spam we are going to see this year from these PACs just may help the DVR market

;)

It might be good to ban nuclear weapons but would anyone be stupid enough to expect the United States to ban them while others still have them?
Same thing here with superpacs and everyone with a brain knows it and everyone intellectually honest admits it.

It might be good to ban nuclear weapons but would anyone be stupid enough to expect the United States to ban them while others still have them?
Same thing here with superpacs and everyone with a brain knows it and everyone intellectually honest admits it.

Obama's playing the hand he was dealt by the right wing supreme court.

Now, after posting I scrolled up the thread and was pleasantly surprised to see folks who normally oppose everything Obama does being intellectually honest enough to admit the truth on this....and a few who aren't.

Now, after posting I scrolled up the thread and was pleasantly surprised to see folks who normally oppose everything Obama does being intellectually honest enough to admit the truth on this....and a few who aren't.

Now, after posting I scrolled up the thread and was pleasantly surprised to see folks who normally oppose everything Obama does being intellectually honest enough to admit the truth on this....and a few who aren't.

Sheeple, that's something we can definitely agree on. I just got an offer from my provider for a free upgrade to whole house DVR and HD. That's a call that I'll be making later today.

Jesus fucking bald headed christ Danni, you need to change browsers, get a Mac, clear cache or something. You've gone from doubles to triples with nearly every post.

Now, after posting I scrolled up the thread and was pleasantly surprised to see folks who normally oppose everything Obama does being intellectually honest enough to admit the truth on this....and a few who aren't.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-07 10:52 AM

I tend to prefer when individuals do what they think is right (in this case Obama things that Super Pacs are wrong) even when it is inconvenient for them.

It is easy to make proclamations of things being wrong and then doing them anyway because it is "pragmatic"... a lot harder to do what you believe even when inconvenient. I remember when Obama ran on that very sentiment. Haven't seen much of it lately.

There's no contradiction in not liking the rules but playing by them anyway.

#10 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2012-02-07 09:33 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

I don't like several rules in the income tax code that allow special treatment for oil and gas investments, but I still take advantage of them for my clients.

"I remember when Obama ran on that very sentiment."

No you don't: Obama said he was in favor of public financing, and then went the private route when he saw it was more lucrative. You probably bitched about it.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag: Missed the point.

"Missed the point."

Not at all: you're lying.

Did you miss that point?

I tend to prefer when individuals do what they think is right (in this case Obama things that Super Pacs are wrong) even when it is inconvenient for them.

#36 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-07 11:12 AM

Say a Republican candidate for President is adamantly opposed to the decision and proclaims its wrongness right up until the legislation is signed, he believes it is wrong to put the burden of election costs on the tax payer. Let's also assume he isn't rich and doesn't have a personal fortune to fall back on.

Should he...

a) Accept the public money and STFU about the issue?
b) Refuse the public money and attempt to run a campaign on his meager personal finances?
or
c) Accept the public money and continue to proclaim its wrongness while working to change it?

(I admit, I'm not good at analogies)

Nobody's forcing him to support donations to Super PACs, but he did it anyways.

Reality is. The Supreme Court jesters decided on how politics works in the US. Obama could avoid Super Pacs and let the conservitards own the government but he didn't. I'm sure there were many conservatives opposed to giving women the vote. How many of them, once suffrage passed, refused to campaign for women's votes? How many conservative politicians oppose abortion? How many of them tell women who have had abortions not to vote for them?

For righties to whine about this is pathetic and hypocritical. Just as their whining will be when some liberal Super Pac starts taking Rmoney apart piece by piece.

Not at all: you're lying.

Did you miss that point?

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dr. Disingenuous, you placed your statements in the wrong order. If I missed the point I would not necessarily be lying. You seep to rather assume someone else is lying (and if wrong then be lying yourself) than make the statements in the proper order.

#41 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-02-07 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

If he does not agree with Public Financing, he should not accept it. If that means he is not able to run or has to run with limited funds that is what the individual should do.

If he thinks it is wrong, he should practice what he preaches and if he wants to work to change it, he should practice what he preaches until it is changed.

For righties to whine about this is pathetic and hypocritical. Just as their whining will be when some liberal Super Pac starts taking Rmoney apart piece by piece.

#42 | Posted by northguy3 at 2012-02-07 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Most people aren't whining about the Super Pac aspect of it. They are pointing out that Obama is using something that he deemed wrong. Strange thing to do if an individual has integrity.

"If he does not agree with Public Financing, he should not accept it."

Nonsense. He can be against it, and still deal with reality. The belief someone should unilaterally disadvantage himself to prove ideological purity is horseshit.

If he thinks it is wrong, he should practice what he preaches and if he wants to work to change it, he should practice what he preaches until it is changed.

#43 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-07 11:33 AM

If he does not agree with Public Financing, he should not accept it.

AKA, he should handicap his campaign just to appeal to your overly sensitive vag. Got it.

"If he thinks it is wrong, he should practice what he preaches and if he wants to work to change it, he should practice what he preaches until it is changed."

That's like telling an NFL football coach who doesn't like instant replay to prove it by never throwing the red flag.

If he was planning on taking Super PAC money.....

#8 | Posted by American1st

You have no idea how a Super PAC works. A Super PAC may not donate directly to the candidate. Even if Obama had continued with complete disapproval of Super PAC's, they could and would have still run ads on his behalf. Just as Romney has already denied any connection to messages put out by Super PAC's on his behalf.

If Obama wants to endorse a Super PAC that is working to fight the attacks of its GOP counterparts, I see no problem with this PAC countering the flood of misinformation that's about to come down the gutter from those special interests intent on defeating him.

Just more of the same from O'blamer. That's All.

The belief someone should unilaterally disadvantage himself to prove ideological purity is horseshit.

Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 11:36 AM | Reply

Coming to Ayn Rand's defense now?

Even reitze didn't do that

;P

Then no one who disagrees with the policy could run for President to change it.

#46 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-02-07 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is not necessarily true. He can run on his own finances. Of course maybe he should not proclaim so many things wrong. This seems to be the point people are making with Obama. Maybe he should think about the reality before making strong proclamations about things being wrong and then turning around and using those very things.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

You can't tell the difference between "not liking" something and saying something is wrong?

AKA, he should handicap his campaign just to appeal to your overly sensitive vag. Got it.

#47 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-07 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: Simplistic mind

Or, he could be more careful what he says so as not to look like he lacks integrity. There are a couple of options.

He can be against it, and still deal with reality

He should be more realistic with his comments about the issue. Ripping on Citizens United as a "victory for big oil and Wall Street" gives voters the impression that he is a populist who is opposed to giving more power to those groups via their campaign donations. Turning around and accepting their donations anyway (thereby ensuring their "victory") isn't something that anyone who listens to his rhetoric would expect him to do. And the uninformed in our society will probably never know it.

I tend to prefer when individuals do what they think is right (in this case Obama things that Super Pacs are wrong) even when it is inconvenient for them.

#36 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Bullshit. I think you've demonstrated significantly that you prefer what ever makes Obama look bad.

If he was against it before the ruling, why wouldn't he denounce them after? That he's also utilizing them might look bad, but what else could he do other than let the other side have a huge advantage?

#21 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE
A man of principle would do what is right no matter the advantage? It just shows Obam puts politics ahead of what he thinks is right. So that begs the question, what else has he done for political reasons that is not what he would consider right?

Is this a surprise to anyone?

Not!

This is no different from politicians who criticized the stimulus but still accept the money.

This is worth remembering the next time the Liberals wet their panties over one of those situations.

#12 | Posted by vernon

Yer such a pants-pissing fool.

Yeah you go ahead and remember that and forget what he said in the State of the Union and how he CLEARLY spelled out his position and criticized the SC decision.

"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," Obama said tonight. "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

It will be worth remembering this when you piss your pants after he gets re-elected using the Republican strategy against them.

And realistically how could he ever possibly influence changing the course of this disastrous Supreme Court decision (by them damn activist judges!) if he did not get re-elected?

#12 | Posted by vernon

Yer such a pants-pissing fool.
#59 | Posted by donnerboy

Actually, Vermin aspires to pants-pissing fooldom.

At the moment, he's stuck between Lost and Found and badly in need of a 4-pack of Depend Underwear for Men (Super Plus Absorbancy) - 4XL.

blah blah blah.

This is a no brainer. Look what happens when you don't fight money with money (aka Mitt v Newt v everyone else). Mitt (via Mitt's SuperPAC) flogged the air waves with slams on Newt in Florida and his ship took off. It is like taking on a gun ship with a side arm. You lose 99.9999% of the time. So no kidding he approved the SuperPAC.

All that said I am with him on eliminating SuperPACs. PACs period. They are evil. Big money means big corruption. Just the way it is. It is not freedom of speech. Hell maximize donations - $1000 per person or corporation per election directly to candidates. More money means more "free speech" today and that is not right either. There is no real separation; I mean the rules are just simply ludicrous and the "separation" is a joke.

The best candidates will never win because they won't sell their souls for $$$. They won't even run because of the personal life scrutiny.

Issue specific PAC spending is constitutionally protected free speech, and until there is an amendment (unlikely) or a law that somehow curbs this while protecting the right to speech for PACs, this will be fair game (and should be).

I have no problem with the President using free speech to win a campaign.

Oh look, another rtarded fauxrage.
Man, they're just phoning it in now, aren't they?
Be Well.

Dethspud, there is a lack of concern from some posters that dislike PAC spending.

With most controversial issues, there is cognitive dissonance on both sides.

Another Al Gore.

"This is no different from politicians who criticized the stimulus but still accept the money."

And I read the defenses right here for those Governors and Representatives. For Obama to let the Republicans have their superpacs and not support superpacs to oppose them would be simply foolish. The GOPers are just mad that Obama isn't that foolish.

"Issue specific PAC spending is constitutionally protected free speech, and until there is an amendment (unlikely) or a law that somehow curbs this while protecting the right to speech for PACs, this will be fair game (and should be)."

The most likely fix will come from a different balance of conservatives and moderates on the Supreme Court, one reason the reelection of Obama in Nov. is critically important for the preservation of democracy.

....preservation of the cleptostate is more like it.

The most likely fix will come from a different balance of conservatives and moderates on the Supreme Court, one reason the reelection of Obama in Nov. is critically important for the preservation of democracy.

I agree (except for the importance of re-electing President Obama), but isn't there weight given to the previous decision of the court making overturning a previous ruling more difficult? (In theory anyway)

"t isn't there weight given to the previous decision of the court making overturning a previous ruling more difficult? (In theory anyway)"

Your last three words are the most salient: decisions stand until there's a bankable majority to overturn them. Scalia almost did it with RvW, but one of the justices got cold feet at the 11th hour.

Obummer is such a fucking Hypocrite.

I was against them before I needed them.

~~~~ obummer

Obama in drastic u-turn to back big-money super PACs... which he once described as 'a corporate takeover of our democracy'
Republicans say u-turn on organisations outside campaigns is hypocrisy
Obama's team say he can't afford to be beaten by negative ads by others

President Barack Obama has reversed course by deciding to encourage Democrats to donate to big-money groups that he previously denounced as representing ‘a corporate takeover of our democracy’ in order to help his re-election bid.
The move brought immediate accusations of hypocrisy from Republicans and underlined Democratic concerns that Republican so-called ‘super PACs’ - outside organisations that can raise money independently from campaigns - are raising too much money.
President Obama is to allow his senior campaign staff and even some Cabinet members to appear at fundraising events for Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC run by two former close aides to President Obama that has struggled to raise money.

Hope and change and backpedaling

SUCKERS

I’m lying on my cot, smoking a doobie. I smoke about ten, fifteen, thirty or so a day, drink a rusty bucket of Everclear and consume a plate of peyote cookies before drifting off to Neverland at night. I like the peanut-butter ones best. Is Obama going to send his people to slap by ass in jail? Top of the world, Mom, top of the world.

FUCKERS!

~ Gashouse

Will he do or say anything and everything he needs to further his political ambitions?

#73 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-07 08:20 PM

Still thinking of me all lathered.

It's ok princess, don't ask, don't tell. Have you come out to your parents?

Fucking child

So now corporate personhood is a good thing?

So Obama can play the righteous indignation card as a candidate. Then, after he's been in office and had big majorities for a couple years... he can now play the sympathy/victim card. How convenient!

Yes--Obama is shocked there is gambling going on in DC!