I will not allow our democracy to be corrupted by this! I will fight to take back our government!”

Sounds awful good, but when the shit hits the fan you can't lose an election for lack of money.

Besides, Obama handed the POTUS over to the super rich in Jan 2009.

Besides, Obama handed the POTUS over to the super rich in Jan 2009.
#2 | Posted by 726

Sarcasm?

Actually, a rwing activist SC handed the election over to the super rich with their CU decision.

"But would refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament? To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind: “More of the nation’s wealth and political power is now in the hands of fewer people and large corporations than since the era of the robber barons of the Gilded Age. I will not allow our democracy to be corrupted by this! I will fight to take back our government!”

Small donations would have flooded the Obama campaign, overwhelming Romney’s billionaire super PACs. The people would have been given a chance to be heard."

Is that Robert or Pollyanna Reich?

Obama already gets twice as much from small donors as he does big ones, while Rmoney gets 6-1 large to small.

Are the samll donors expected to make up for what Unkle Karl brings in, too?

It would indeed be unilateral disarmament and a shirking of responsible Party leadership to say after we lost that, "gee, maybe we shouldn't have put down our rifles when the rules changed to cannons."

McCain Feingold is a farce and it id bad law. We need to understand that money is part of politics and create a law that allows transparency. No one knows who donated to these super packs. We need a law that lets Business's and Union's donate directly to candidate but requires accountability. If a candidate gets $200,000.00 from Goldman Sacks we need to know that.

"Senate Republicans today blocked legislation calling for new disclosure rules for campaign advertisements."

#6

That was a very close vote to almost overcome GOP obstruction to even modest transparency reforms to the CU decision.

But the Partys are "both the same" so I guess it doesn't matter.

"Obama already gets twice as much from small donors as he does big ones, while Rmoney gets 6-1 large to small."

corky must get a lollipop for each time he posts that.

corky must get a lollipop for each time he posts that.

#8 | Posted by eberly

And 3 more inches of nose....

Funny how trolls with nothing to say prove it with their posts.

I read the article. There were a number of reasons why a principled person could vote against the bill. Some of it seems unworkable, forcing the biggest donor to appear in every ad, and other measures seem to restrict the right to participate in the marketplace of ideas by forbidding companies who have government contracts from contributing to PACs. You both know full well the value of putting a good spin on a lackluster bill.

Sarcasm?

#3 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-02-08 11:45 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Not really.

We need to understand that money is part of politics

Bullshit. We need to remove money from politics or else America will be fucked over for special interests.

But I suppose as long as they are your special interests that is okay.

Not really.
#12 | Posted by 726

The reason I ask is because your post at #2 seems to be inconsistent with the sentiment you expressed in #1.

Senate Republicans today blocked legislation calling for new disclosure rules for campaign advertisements."
#6 | Posted by danni

Once again Danni is unaware of the real facts here.

But I suppose as long as they are your special interests that is okay.
#13 | Posted by 726

When you dems are willing to give up your pet Unions then the talk can proceed

-When you dems are willing to give up your pet Unions then the talk can proceed

oh hell, the dems have accepted millions from anybody who has offered it. not just the unions.

if the oil companies started giving them real money....they'd accept it and then blame it on the "system" for taking all that dirty money.

When you dems are willing to give up your pet Unions then the talk can proceed

#16 | Posted by paneocon

Pets have unions?

This was a blatant attempt by the Majority to use the people's House to sway the November election in the Democrats' favor, at the expense of Americans' constitutional right to free speech but at great favor to special interest union bosses," Republican House Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said after last month's vote in the lower chamber of Congress.

Beyond Republican members of Congress, the bill's opponents include the Center for Competitive Politics, the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"Congress should not be wasting its time on an 'Incumbent Protection Act,' but instead should be focused on job creation," Chamber President and Chief Executive Officer Thomas Donohue recently said. "The DISCLOSE Act is an unconstitutional attempt to silence free speech and a desperate attempt by [Democrats] to gain political advantage in the 2010 elections."

we all know how right leaning the ACLU is-- nothing funnier than watching libs try and save a sinking ship

"When you dems are willing to give up your pet Unions then the talk can proceed"

I'd be careful proffering that offer. Rs would never accept it.

nothing funnier than watching libs try and save a sinking ship
#19 | Posted by kersh

I know something funnier. Confusing the Democrats in support of this for liberals. That's actually pretty freakin' hilarious.

So, Hag, seriously.

You really believe this Pollyanna Scenario presented by our friend Bob Reich that an additional 500M coming from Rethug Super PACs won't matter to the results of the election because the public will rally and counter it with small donations?

I mean, it's a loveley thought and all, but highly improbable.

That being the case, and since the election rules were changed in mid-stream, do you really think the Dems should bring a knife to a gun fight?

Obama has come out in support of a constitutional amendment to change or moderate the CU decision, which seems the non-emotional, rational way to win the debate over how money is used in politics, rather than unilateral disarmament and a sense of moral pride while giving the election, and the country, away to the yahoos.

"Obama has come out in support of a constitutional amendment to change or moderate the CU decision"

Sounds disingenuous to me. If it's politically too risky to forgo Citizen's United $$ now, why will it be any less risky, or any more probable, to get an Amendment to do so down the road? If we're being realistic here you'd have to agree that its not and that for that reason, expressing an advocacy for it is functionally meaningless beyond keeping the troops in line.

Nobody is willing to risk losing in order to stand up for what is right. People notice and that affects voter enthusiasm.

The reason I ask is because your post at #2 seems to be inconsistent with the sentiment you expressed in #1.

#14 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2012-02-08 12:28 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I didn't mean to be.

Obama has been bought and paid for since 2008.

Until money is outlawed in elections, every candidate will be. Anyone who tells you otherwise cannot win or is lying.

-If it's politically too risky to forgo Citizen's United $$ now, why will it be any less risky, or any more probable, to get an Amendment to do so down the road?

Apples and oranges.

An Amendment is a long drawn out legislative process that will, over time, educate Americans to the problems with current law and hopefully make needed changes.

The election is this year, and the rules have been changed.

Should we not play because we disagree with the rules and lose, or should we both work to change the rules and work with the rules we now have to win?

So, since you didn't respond directly as to whether you agree with Reich's starry scenario and whether you think Dems should self-destruct, I take it you think that taking the short-term moral high ground and losing the election is preferable to taking the long-term moral high ground and winning.

"Obama has come out in support of a constitutional amendment to change or moderate the CU decision"

He can also come out in support of universal health care, the end to poverty and universal peace all four of those things are never going to happen. Especially a constitutional amendment to end the boatload of cash that will go to candidates.

I'd be careful proffering that offer. Rs would never accept it.

neither side will. the suggestion is absurd.

Yeah, he should have brought that Magic Republican Wilting Wand to Washington with him.

The election is this year, and the rules have been changed.

If you are a coach in the NFL and hate instant replay, you still use it if you can get a win from it.

Nobody remembers the losers who take a moral stand and lose, they only remember the winners.

#29 | Posted by 726

What I said.

Only better.

"Should we not play because we disagree with the rules and lose, or should we both work to change the rules and work with the rules we now have to win?"

I think it would be an incredibly powerful statement to make. A game changing statement. My money is burning a hole in my pocket looking for a candidate that deserves it.

Nobody remembers the losers who take a moral stand and lose, they only remember the winners.
#29 | Posted by 726

I disagree.

-Yeah, he should have brought that Magic Republican Wilting Wand to Washington with him.

so if you admit the gesture of "supporting a constitutional amendment to change CU" is meaningless, then why deflect with it?

the dems aren't gonna shoot themselves in the foot over a moral point.

Obama has been bought and paid for since 2008.

"yes, that is true but I just HAVE to believe he hates it"

-corky

-so if you admit

I didn't. Reading is fundamental.

-the dems aren't gonna shoot themselves in the foot over a moral point.

Obviously not. It wouldn't be prudent, lol.

--

-I think it would be an incredibly powerful statement to make. A game changing statement.

And unless one believes Reich's Pollyanna scenario, it would cost us an election that represents much more in the way of moral high-ground for the everyday lives of the American people than one highly unlikely win on this single, albeit important, issue.

Giving the GOP the chance to dismantle what gains, wholly imperfect as they may be, that have been made in health care and financial regulation and civil rights and international diplomacy among others in my mind offsets the loss on this issue.

-Obama has been bought and paid for since 2008.

That must be why most of the WS money is going to the GOP again this year.

That must be why most of the WS money is going to the GOP again this year.
#36 | Posted by Corky

Don't hate on the GOP for holding out for more.

They almost always got more until 2007 when it was obvious to them that McCain would lose (they thought to Hil) and they started putting more into Dem coffers.

Now they are back to supporting their guy, Rmoney, even though they don't think he'll win.

Why the change? Maybe they didn't get as much from the Dems as they wanted.

But I'm glad to see that you agree with me (by absentia, lol) that a loss on one moral issue is not worth major losses on multiple moral issues.

But the Partys are "both the same" so I guess it doesn't matter.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-08 12:15 PM | Reply

Call 911. I think I'm going to have the "big one"---doggone, Dorky, would you stop speaking some truth. My opinion of you would change. You got it right. Obummer is a political deviant just like the rest. He's so in bed with wallstreet that he'll eventually pick up an STD.

-He's so in bed with wallstreet that he'll eventually pick up an STD.

corky better start insisting obama start wearing a condom going forward then....

I've got to give credit to Reich for his honesty. Reich to me has always seemed to be intellectually honest.

Santorum just took 3 states despite being outspent ~4 to 1.

t#39 | POSTED BY MATSOP AT 2012-02-08 06:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG: That whistling noise you hear is the sarcasm flying over his head.... again.

= He's so in bed with wallstreet that

That WS has given much more to Mutt than Obama.

Facts are nasty little anklebiters for moronic rwingers.

Santorum just took 3 states despite being outspent ~4 to 1.

Mitt and Rick are tied at 3 states apiece with Mitt outspending Santorum 41-1.

The non binding thing makes this less than it appears but the optics are terrible for Mitt and he knows it.

Be Well.

Obama's comments in 2007 railing against Super-Pacs were extremely harsh. He's going to get beat up over his massive, hypocritical flip-flop in the general over this.

Personally, I don't have a problem with his embracing the super PAC. These entities have been around for a long time and it would be stupid for any politician not to take advantage of what they have to offer. However, he can't have it both ways (which is what he ALWAYS tries to do). His blatant hypocrisy is what needs to be used as a bludgeon.