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/communi...nt-unilaterally-disarm-on-Super-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.
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-...od-to-raise-millions-for-re-election-bid.html
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.
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... ).
So the standard is set.Literally Nothing Obama says can be taken seriously because he Lies as a matter of course.This is important. Obama says whatever the hell is convenient and politically expedient. Therefore all his statements about a Birth Certificate and even Killing Osama Bin Laden are lies. It can't be both.Either Obama is a compulsive,serial Liar or he Isn't. I think the Isn't right now isn't very reliable. Get the drift.I think most Real Americans do.
Ummm, first of all the Obama administration is only considering reducing deployed warheads. It's not a done deal. Not like there will be much worth living for but even if he does reduce our stock, we'll certainly be able to "defend" ourselves with 1,000 deployed missiles and ICBM's.
If Obama wants save some money by reducing our national defense I'll understand as long as he cuts $4 from the rest of the federal budget for every $1 he cuts from defense. Otherwise we are becoming less safe while getting nothing in return.
Nor is he honest, ethical or difficult to see through. With the 2008 presidential election, when Obama declined to be bound by accepting federal money (becoming the first major candidate in history to do so), he indulged in an orgy of money grubbing never seen before in a city (Washington DC) where politicians swimming in donations are as common as the sidewalks. And all the time he piously cried crocodile tears over Citizens United (which allow unions as well as corporations to pour money into PACS) he was amassing yet another billion dollar war chest with which to bury his opponent (which is stunning considering how the main stream media serves as his personal propaganda and disinformation bureau, as it is). So the manufactured uproar over PACS, by an administration not constrained by spending limits anyway, has been an exercise in sheer hypocrisy and this newest wrinkle (Gosh, I guess I'm forced to use PACS too) rings very hollow considering his shady history. http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/02/obamas-fishy-200-million
..... Since unlimited, secret funds (called SuperPacs) can be used to buy elections, why would any politician refuse to use this valuable campaign tool since the USSC ruled it legal? Since it is a new republican/T-bagger election tool, why do you only criticize the Democrats for using the exact same tool?
Obama is going to need those super pacs after we crush his union funding by enacting Right to Work in most States.