Thread: Obama: I Won't 'Unilaterally Disarm' on Super PACs

Obama: I Won't 'Unilaterally Disarm' on Super PACs

By David Jackson | USA TODAY | Feb 15, 2012

“President Obama says he doesn't like the idea of super PACs, but won't oppose Democrats using them in his re-election campaign to fight off the spending of the Republicans.

"We've got some of these (Republican) super PACs that have pledged to spend up to half a billion dollars to try to buy this election," Obama said yesterday in an interview with WBTV, the CBS affiliate in Charlotte, N.C.

"And what I've said consistently is, we're not going to just unilaterally disarm."

Obama has criticized the 2010 Supreme Court decision that said the Constitution does not limit the amount of money that corporations and unions can spend on political campaigns.

That ruling gave rise to the "super" political action committees that have played such a large role in the Republican primaries; our OnPolitics blog reports on the latest super PAC battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in Michigan.

Super PACs will also play a large role in the race between Obama and the GOP nominee.

Last week, Obama and campaign aides began urging supporters to give money to Obama-centric super PACs, triggering accusations of hypocrisy from Republicans and campaign finance reform advocates.

"We can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters.

In yesterday's interview with the Charlotte television station - located in the same city where Obama will accept the Democratic nomination in September - the president said, "my strong preference would be to completely eliminate that super PAC process."

"But," he added, ‘we're not going to just let a whole bunch of folks who are not only self-interested but aren't always disclosing what their contributions are to be able to simply purchase an election.’ "

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-PACs-628192/1
……

Well it looks like President Obama is going after the mother of all SuperPacs in his quest for a second term. Money is the least of his worries as he goes up against the probable republican nominee, Mitt Romney, an extremely wealthy ‘empty suit’ who owns a multi billion dollar SuperPac.

So it will be a “war of the SuperPacs” which will be enlightening. While the airwaves are heating up with the attack ads, Romney and Obama will stand there trying to stare each other down with George and Diane Sawyer ask subliminally asinine questions like: “If you suddenly found yourself in the broad spectrum of the rain forests of equatorial regions, what would you use as a deodorant?”. ...or…”What do you usually regard as an emotionally healthy way of life other than having politics as a truly sustaining career?”

These hard question lines are what make George Steph and Diane Sawyer the greatest debate moderators in the whole f**king world.

good...either way the losing side can blame superpacs and maybe we can fix the system

Obama is a typical Pol in this regard.......pretending to hold his nose while he works the system.

Campaign finance reform is a prisoners' dilemma. It is in most politicians' best interests to keep things as they are and complain about it as they take advantage of it. They will only vote to reform it if they are pressured mightily to do so.

I just don't get it. Without even considering super pacs. Obama's campaign stated that they were going to spend $1Billion on his reelection, yet he talks about others wanting to buy the election.

He spent more than any candidate in history last go round.

Does he really think people are that stupid?

And once again, in spite of right-wing claims otherwise, President Obama demonstrates that he is not stupid.

look at this little article.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ction-bid.html

Obama Looks to Hollywood to Raise Millions for Re-Election Bid

Originally Posted by Consmike

I just don't get it. Without even considering super pacs. Obama's campaign stated that they were going to spend $1Billion on his reelection, yet he talks about others wanting to buy the election.

He spent more than any candidate in history last go round.

Does he really think people are that stupid?

Why not?

They elected him once just because he's black.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Why not?

They elected him once just because he's black.

after electing 42 guys jsut because they are white doesnt that seem fair?

Obama: I Won't 'Unilaterally Disarm' on Super PACs

Of course he won't.

Disenchanted liberal aliens like him would rather unilaterally disarm our nuclear deterrence and leave the United States too weak to defend itself.

Originally Posted by Agent_286

Obama: I Won't 'Unilaterally Disarm' on Super PACs

By David Jackson | USA TODAY | Feb 15, 2012

“President Obama says he doesn't like the idea of super PACs, but won't oppose Democrats using them in his re-election campaign to fight off the spending of the Republicans.

"We've got some of these (Republican) super PACs that have pledged to spend up to half a billion dollars to try to buy this election," Obama said yesterday in an interview with WBTV, the CBS affiliate in Charlotte, N.C.

"And what I've said consistently is, we're not going to just unilaterally disarm."

Obama has criticized the 2010 Supreme Court decision that said the Constitution does not limit the amount of money that corporations and unions can spend on political campaigns.

That ruling gave rise to the "super" political action committees that have played such a large role in the Republican primaries; our OnPolitics blog reports on the latest super PAC battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in Michigan.

Super PACs will also play a large role in the race between Obama and the GOP nominee.

Last week, Obama and campaign aides began urging supporters to give money to Obama-centric super PACs, triggering accusations of hypocrisy from Republicans and campaign finance reform advocates.

"We can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters.

In yesterday's interview with the Charlotte television station - located in the same city where Obama will accept the Democratic nomination in September - the president said, "my strong preference would be to completely eliminate that super PAC process."

"But," he added, ‘we're not going to just let a whole bunch of folks who are not only self-interested but aren't always disclosing what their contributions are to be able to simply purchase an election.’ "

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-PACs-628192/1
……

Well it looks like President Obama is going after the mother of all SuperPacs in his quest for a second term. Money is the least of his worries as he goes up against the probable republican nominee, Mitt Romney, an extremely wealthy ‘empty suit’ who owns a multi billion dollar SuperPac.

So it will be a “war of the SuperPacs” which will be enlightening. While the airwaves are heating up with the attack ads, Romney and Obama will stand there trying to stare each other down with George and Diane Sawyer ask subliminally asinine questions like: “If you suddenly found yourself in the broad spectrum of the rain forests of equatorial regions, what would you use as a deodorant?”. ...or…”What do you usually regard as an emotionally healthy way of life other than having politics as a truly sustaining career?”

These hard question lines are what make George Steph and Diane Sawyer the greatest debate moderators in the whole f**king world.

Translation: "Do as I say, not as i do".

Just more glaring hypocrisy from Obama, the biggest political campaign spender in history, about his "opposition" to Big Money in politics..(except for HIS money, of course... ).