Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Axelrod: Obama's Not A 'Hypocrite' For Accepting Super PAC Money (updated)
Axelrod: Obama's Not A 'Hypocrite' For Accepting Super PAC Money
Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod told MSNBC Tuesday morning that the president is not a "hypocrite" for agreeing to accept super PAC money. The president and his campaign have spoken out against the unlimited corporate financing now allowed in political campaigns, but Axelrod said Tuesday that the campaign cannot "play by two sets of rules."
"We have to live in a world as it is, not how we want it to be," Axelrod said.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/axelrod-obamas-not-hypocrite-for-accepting-super-pac
Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod told MSNBC Tuesday morning that the president is not a "hypocrite" for agreeing to accept super PAC money. The president and his campaign have spoken out against the unlimited corporate financing now allowed in political campaigns, but Axelrod said Tuesday that the campaign cannot "play by two sets of rules."
"We have to live in a world as it is, not how we want it to be," Axelrod said.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/axelrod-obamas-not-hypocrite-for-accepting-super-pac
Republicans would love to have the financial advantage as Mitt Romney did in the GOP Florida primary. It's the reason they're 100 percent behind Citizens United.
Updated to add:
'Democrats can't be unilaterally disarmed'
By Steve Benen
<...>
The general spin on this story so far has been that Obama's position has shifted -- he opposed the court rulings that cleared the way for these super PACs; he'd prefer that the outside groups not exist, and yet he's now urging financial backers to invest in an allied super PAC anyway.
<...>
The question, then, is whether the president and his allies are prepared to fight fire with fire. As of today, the answer appears to be "yes."
Indeed, Jim Messina argued overnight that the Obama campaign just doesn't have a choice.
He added that Republican super PACS, in aggregate, are "expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President." That may sound like hyperbole, but it's a reasonable estimate. The Koch brothers alone are prepared to spend $100 million later this year to defeat Obama.
Under these circumstances, the Democrats' move is easy to understand: they didn't want the post-Citizens United changes to the system, but they're stuck with them nevertheless. In this case, Dems simply intend to play by the rules -- rules they don't like, rules they wish were different, rules they'd gladly change, but the rules nevertheless.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10339851-democrats-cant-be-unilaterally-disarmed
By Steve Benen
<...>
The general spin on this story so far has been that Obama's position has shifted -- he opposed the court rulings that cleared the way for these super PACs; he'd prefer that the outside groups not exist, and yet he's now urging financial backers to invest in an allied super PAC anyway.
<...>
The question, then, is whether the president and his allies are prepared to fight fire with fire. As of today, the answer appears to be "yes."
Indeed, Jim Messina argued overnight that the Obama campaign just doesn't have a choice.
The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action -- by constitutional amendment, if necessary -- to place reasonable limits on all such spending.
But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.
But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.
He added that Republican super PACS, in aggregate, are "expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President." That may sound like hyperbole, but it's a reasonable estimate. The Koch brothers alone are prepared to spend $100 million later this year to defeat Obama.
Under these circumstances, the Democrats' move is easy to understand: they didn't want the post-Citizens United changes to the system, but they're stuck with them nevertheless. In this case, Dems simply intend to play by the rules -- rules they don't like, rules they wish were different, rules they'd gladly change, but the rules nevertheless.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10339851-democrats-cant-be-unilaterally-disarmed
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
It's not a contradiction if the President says it isn't. 
I was illustrating the phenomenon that, as POTUS, men believe that whatever they do is right; and when they reverse position, it isn't a flip-flop. It's called hubris, look it up.
