A hypocrite turns 'super' - All that special interest money!

Well it is plainly obvious to someone who isnt super partisan. Obviously the guy who thinks it is wrong and a threat to democracy is the better of the two. As he is less likely to be beholden to the money after he gets reelected.

PS libertarian, RON PAUL RAILS AGAINST EARMARKS AND THEN PUTS THEM IN EVERY BILL HE CAN. When questions about this seemingly hypocracy, about this FLIP, ron paul said YES OF COURSE I AM STILL AGAINST EARMARKS, BUT AS LONG AS THEY EXIST, I AM GOING TO GET BACK AS MUCH MONEY FOR THE TAX PAYERS OF MY STATE AS I CAN.

He thinks they are wrong and yet he still takes them, but I am quite sure a court of law would take his remorse into account.

Only difference I see is Ron Paul didn't stand up and say " I will not use ear marks". That should have been Obama's stance. He could have argued against Super Pacs and at the same time acknowledged that everyone would be forced to use them if they are allowed to exist. Like he is now.

duplicate post.

When did Obama stand up and say "I will not use Super Pac's" i only recall him admonishing the SCOTUS for allowing them.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests," Obama said at the time. He called super PACs a "threat to our democracy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/president-obama-super-pacs_n_1258925.html

The righties are just disappointed that Obama won't hobble himself in this election. You don't enter a nascar race with a prius and expect to win.

The righties are just disappointed that Obama won't hobble himself in this election. You don't enter a nascar race with a prius and expect to win

Hobble himself? Good one

Mr. Obama has nearly doubled the fundraising total of his two main Republican challengers.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Mr. Obama has nearly doubled the fundraising total of his two main Republican challengers.

So what. Why should he not use all the available resources just like the repubs are? Until Citizens United is changed, you have to fight fire with fire.

So what. Why should he not use all the available resources just like the repubs are? Until Citizens United is changed, you have to fight fire with fire.

Ok so atleast you can finally admit Obama is not a man of principle but rather just another politician trying to get elected -

He may think Super Pacs are a "threat to democracy" but who cares right? If it helps him get re-elected who cares about democracy right?

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests," Obama said at the time. He called super PACs a "threat to our democracy."

No were in that statement did he say he would not use them, He is still correct in his statement, they are a threat, and the Republican are and will see how much of a threat they will be. But Republicans are the ones saying their is to much regulation... It's a matter of I want my cake and eat it too for the Republicans.

It sure sounds like the righties are scared. LOL

It's a matter of I want my cake and eat it too for the Republicans.

On one hand he says Super Pacs are a threat to democracy yet with the other he is taking money from SuperPacs -

He wants to tell all you he is not bought by big business( which all politicians are) while at the same time taking big business money - Yeh that is not a man wanting his cake and eating it too right?

Yes in Jan 2010 he saw, and today still sees them as a threat. Where as republican only now see them as a threat after they have raised billions to support their own candidates.

With an opposition he is facing he would be a fool not to.

Who said it was a threat? I merely pointed his hypocrisy - Which you just keep denying

Maybe you guys shopuld read more of the writers at Huffington Post

Even they are getting it that Obama is a fraud

The Sad Spectacle of Obama's Super PAC

And now he's made a total mockery of the Court's naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by officially endorsing his own super PAC and allowing campaign manager Jim Messina and even cabinet officers to speak at his super PAC events. Obama will not appear at such events but he, Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the Obama super PAC.

One Obama adviser says Obama's decision to openly endorse his super PAC has had an immediate effect. "Our donors get it," the official said, adding that they now want to "go fight the other side."

Exactly. So now a relative handful of super-rich Democrats want to fight a relative handful of super-rich Republicans. And we call this a democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obama-super-pac_b_1262386.html

I merely pointed his hypocrisy

It would only be hypocrisy if he said he would never use superpacs and then used one.

Maybe you guys shopuld read more of the writers at Huffington Post

And who was the Huff Post sold to.... didn't read it before, don't need to read it now.

It would only be hypocrisy if he said he would never use superpacs and then used one.

Oh railing against them and then using them is not hypocritical ? So if a Republican runs on family values then cheats on his wife but he never said " I will not cheat on my wife" then he is not a hypocrite?

And who was the Huff Post sold to.... didn't read it before, don't need to read it now.

It was sold to AOL i believe - But it is a left leaning news orginization - The point it SOME on the left are seeing thru Obama's hypocrisy while others are not

I thought he was closing in on a cool $1 Billion anyways. It could be argued in reverse that the GOP candidates had no choice but to turn to the Super Pacs to keep up with Obama; not the reverse. He didn't need the money, he wanted the money.

If he needs double the money to defeat the GOP then that speaks volumes about his message, doesn't it?

Oh railing against them and then using them is not hypocritical ?

He made a statement in a speech, if that is want consider railing I'm glad we are not friends.

So if a Republican runs on family values then cheats on his wife but he never said " I will not cheat on my wife" then he is not a hypocrite?

They are, because it was used as a party tag line, not just one member of the party.

It could be argued in reverse that the GOP candidates had no choice but to turn to the Super Pacs to keep up with Obama;

It could be, except for the fact that the right wing euphoria over Citizens United, and the fact that Citizens United itself is right wing, was due to the fact that they were convinced they could bury this president in virtually endless false propaganda with this money. Consider swift boating taken to the 10th power. They were so sure that this would be the key to the doors of power it appears that they never considered that it could backfire on them. That's what this is really all about: the usual right wing whining and weeping about being beaten. It's as if even they are seeing the inevitability of a second Obama term and are laying the groundwork for what they're going to rant about for the next four years.

Public funding, fail. Lobbyists, fail, Super PAC's, fail. He's a politician, they lie, the best liars get to the top.

Can you supply a verifiable quote from this President saying he would never let a SuperPac help his re-election effort? I've looked far and wide for that specific statement and can't find it or anything like it. I know he criticized the Cit. Uni. decision but I never heard him say he'd never take support from a SuperPac. I think before someone calls him a liar on this matter he ought to have clear proof that there was, in fact, a lie. Don't you?

well to be fair that is the right wing way, people like krugman and buffet are welcome to send a check to the irs if they think their taxes are too high but they are all hypocrites for taking tax cuts.

Dont you know that hypocrit al gore still breathes? Everyone knows humans exhale CO2 how can we believe a thing he says on global warming when he is still breathing?

They are pissed that Obama is actually a decent president and they dont have any @!$%# that will stick to the wall, so they want to play up the most minor things.

Like Obama reluctantly taking PAC money, after the GOP have out raised him 4 to 1 in corporate money, is so much worse than say romney tying his dog to the roof of a car while it @!$%# itself as he drove 80 mph down the highway and romney still thinks the dog enjoyed it. I mean the two things are practically identical.

There is something about intelligence, competence and success that drives the right wing round the bend (which is never a long distance to travel for them anyway).

Not wanting it in the first place but using it when it's there isn't hypocrisy, it's just playing by the rules

Not wanting it and saying it is a threat to our democracy are two different things

After all, whining and sniveling are the only things right wingers do well because of all that practice.

So when the SCOTUS ruled on Cigtizens United the liberals were whining about it but now it is ok right? But that is different i know - It is ok when YOUR side does it

It's not okay, but it's what we got. Until both sides reject Citizens United, expect more of the same.

Like Obama reluctantly taking PAC money, after the GOP have out raised him 4 to 1 in corporate money

Where did you come up with that?

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html?hpid=z1?wpisrc=al_politics

The corporations support the GOP, but most of their employees support Obama. Now before you throw the next talking point out there to try to counter this fact, stop and think about how much the majority of employees of said corporations are paid compared to the few in the $1+ million/year club.

Talking point like" the employees give to Obama but the corporations give to Republicans"

Of course that is not completely true though either - atleast not in 2008 - 2012 is not complete yet though

It was not always this way. In his campaign for the White House, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street -- $15.8 million -- than any politician in history. (This is campaign donations only. Super PACS are new to this presidential election cycle.) As late as October 2009, Democrats were hauling in 70 percent of all money donated by banks and their allies.

It is still relatively early in the campaign, and it is likely that Obama will start to close the Wall Street fundraising gap once the Republicans choose a nominee. Even if the bankers stay away, Obama isn't exactly struggling to convince people to give him money.

Romney has pulled in $80 million, including Super PAC donations to groups supporting him, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's war chest is bulging with more than $120 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-wall-street-campaign-contributions_n_1247866.html

Obama has supposedly outraised Romney for now yes, but not the entire GOP field. The republicans aren't locked to one candidate yet so it makes sense that their "warchest" isn't concentrated as it is for the democrats.

No he hasn't "supposedly " outraised Romney - He has outraised Romney - and if you look at the chart below you will see Obama has raised almost the same amount as ALL the Republican candidates combined

Mr. Obama has nearly doubled the fundraising total of his two main Republican challengers.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

I looked at the chart from the Center for Responsive Politics that you linked which clearly showed the Republican candidates outraised Obama even if you only count the top 3. Now you want to use a different chart?

Now before you throw the next talking point out there to try to counter this fact, stop and think about how much the majority of employees of said corporations are paid compared to the few in the $1+ million/year club.

Well let's talk about that terrible Bain Corporation - I mean it is a "vulture capitalist" right?

But wait

Democrats have accepted more political donations than Republicans from executives at Bain Capital, complicating the left’s plan to attack Mitt Romney for his record at the private-equity firm.

During the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democratic candidates and party committees more than $1.2 million. The vast majority of that sum came from senior executives.

Republican candidates and party committees raised over $480,000 from senior Bain executives during that time period.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop

I looked at the chart from the Center for Responsive Politics that you linked which clearly showed the Republican candidates outraised Obama even if you only count the top 3. Now you want to use a different chart?

I did not look at that link - I was only referencing the Huiffington Post article - Ok lets use this chart - which is more up to date

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

The link you accidentally provided shows the republican candidates having raised more money than the link you are trying to say is more current. How can that be?

The link from the Huffington Post included Super Pacs the other did not i believe - here is another story which is dated Feb 6 so should be pretty recent

Obama leads in fundraising

Obama also leads the money race nationwide, raising about $125.2 million through Dec. 31 while the four GOP candidates raised a combined $96.8 million.

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/feb/06/1/romney-leads-in-north-carolina-campaign-contributi-ar-1898186/

Obama leads in fundraising

Good, I hope he squashes his opponent.

Good, I hope he squashes his opponent.

And if he has to jump in bed with big business who cares right? It was never really about Republicans and big business it is just that you wanted your side to win right trm?

Party first country second right? Isn't that a liberal saying on here ?

Boston there is no gaurantee that Obama will accomplish anything on behalf of the people. There is nobody that can ensure they will be able to clean up the mess, right the wrongs, and steer our country out of the disaster the fright-wing policies led us into. What we do have are promises from Obama to continue to fight for better policies that lead to lifting all boats. While Romney promises to scrap the progress we have made and return to the nonsense (along with a few more wars) that created the disparity of wealth and decimation of the middle class... not to mention the debt.

You can throw the "big business" boogey man and hypothetical fantasies of Obama being in their pocket around all you want. But none of it erases the fact that the fright-wingers blatantly display the behavior you are trying to scare people with.

Yeh i am trying to scare people by posting newspaper articles and facts - Then again i guess some liberals are afraid of the truth so maybe you have a point - But then again probably not

Anything to keep the Repubs out of office is putting country first as far as I'm concerned.

So Obama calls Super PAC's a threat to Democracy, then Obama uses Super PAC money = Obama a threat to Democracy?

Obama a threat to Democracy

Nope, he's a pragmatist.

Would you say he was being pragmatic when he switched his views on lobbyists in his administration also?

Would you say he was being pragmatic when he switched his views on lobbyists in his administration also?

I haven't really given it much thought, but that isn't the subject at hand, is it? As far as I'm concerned, Obama is preferable to anything the GOP is serving up. The right wing assault on women's rights, and their "cut taxes for the rich" mantra is enough to turn me away.

I know it's a major disappointment to the GOP that Obama is going to play the game on a level playing field. But hey, when in Rome...

Now you say "switched his views" but earlier called him a liar. Changing views and lying aren't really the same thing.

I didn't call HIM a liar, dont put words in my mouth, I called politicians liars, all of them, left, right, middle and I stand behind that statement, prove me wrong.

You have anything to contribute to my question?

Okay, I'll use your EXACT words:

He's a politician, they lie, the best liars get to the top.

To whom is the "He" in that sentence referring, then?

He's a politician, they lie, the best liars get to the top.

In that sentence when I use the word "they" that means plural and cancels the singular, which was the word "He".

Got it? I really, truly, hope so.

So "He" refers to the President, right? (if you won't admit the obvious, I guess I have to make it clear). You unwittingly created what's called a syllogism up there cannonball (although you reversed the conventional order a bit without changing the meaning) by which one can only conclude that you called President Obama a liar, specifically about this SuperPac deal. So, I still waiting for you to tell me the specific statement that is a lie. I'm not saying there isn't one, only that I haven't been able to find it and you seem to know what it is.

Obama has been a corporate tool

Oh, THAT explains why the bulk of the corporate money is going to Republicans and right wingers keep screaming "SOCIALIST" every time his image is shown on the teevee.

Oh, THAT explains why the bulk of the corporate money is going to Republicans and right wingers keep screaming "SOCIALIST" every time his image is shown on the teevee.

Yeh Obama never got any corporate money did he?

Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,095 in donations to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS

thats why the banks sent out a memo about OWS and it specifically targeted Obama and dems in states where Obama isnt popular?
He is trying to change the tax code on multinationals which enjoy all the benefits of being american, our military, our courts, our intelligence, and they they keep their money out of the US. Obama wants a min tax on all multinationals. GUESS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT. Obama wanted BP to pay for the spill, the right said that was stepping on the neck of BP. Obama wants to tackle global warming, guess who is against that? Guess who the chamber of commerce is against?Obama took student loans from the banks, the right were for letting the banks keep free tax payers money and so were the banks. Obama gave us consumer reforms, yep wallstreet didnt like that either. He gave us elizebeth warren who is now going to be one of the best senators we ever had. The banks and corporate america REALLY HATE HER. Obama also came out against sopa and pipa.

Tool not so much, the foools i agree with.

The banks and corporate america REALLY HATE HER

And yet she still got millions from Wall Street -

Warren, who has portrayed herself as a Wall Street opponent and a pioneer of the Occupy movement, has acknowledged receiving donations from Wall Street financiers. Last night, she refused to reveal how much of her massive campaign cash haul came from financial execs and instead accused Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown of being Wall Street’s candidate

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20220112warren_out-raises_brown_defends_

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=MAS1

Here you go.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=MAS1

Where are the millions from Wall Street?

Last night, she refused to reveal how much of her massive campaign cash haul came from financial execs and instead accused Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown of being Wall Street’s candidate

She has not disclosed how much she has recieved has she? So that site you gave is no good -

She 5.7 million uthe last three months of 2011 - That link you gave does not total 5.7 million does it?

Wall Street money for Warren

But it turns out she may be indirectly accepting Wall Street money. The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is helping the Harvard Professor, has taken over $40 million from Wall Street during the last 7 years according to records from OpenSecrets.org. In fact, Wall Street is the biggest contributors to them. They beat lawyers and labor union. Just during this election season the DSCC has already received $1.5 million from Wall Street.

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/lone_republican/index.php/2012/01/06/wall-street-money-for-warren/

Just during this election season the DSCC has already received $1.5 million from Wall Street.

DSCC is not Warren. Nice try.

I notice you ignored my other posting - Let me post it again for you - I guess she is not saying how much she got from Wall Street because it was not a significant amount right? Yeh thats it

Last night, she refused to reveal how much of her massive campaign cash haul came from financial execs and instead accused Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown of being Wall Street’s candidate

Yeh Obama never got any corporate money did he?

Oh, sure. Maybe 10% of what R-money's getting.

Oh, sure. Maybe 10% of what R-money's getting.

Any proof to back up that claim ? See post 3.5 to dispute it - Oh and isn't it funny that Dems have gotten more from that "venture capitalist" company Bain Capital than Republicans?

Democrats Received Over Twice As Much Bain Cash As Republicans Did

This doesn't look terribly good from a PR standpoint for Democrats, but it's not that surprising. It's no secret that Barack Obama and many other Democratic politicians have received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Bain employees. And considering the president's rather cozy relationship with big business and Wall Street, it seems only natural that his reelection campaign is awash with financial-sector cash.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/democrats-received-over-twice-much-bain-cash-republicans-did-romney-obama

Here are a couple of Open Secrets pages that help

top contributors Obama
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

top contributors R-money
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286

Note that the top 6 contributors to R-money are the huge banking/finance players while I can identify only one of these in the 20 on the President's list, Goldman Sachs at no. 19. GS employees gave about 8 times more to R-money than to Obama. (Note that these contributors represent an aggregate of donations by individuals at these companies or other entities, not the companies or entities themselves.) Also note how, in general, the magnitude of these top donors: R-money's contributors give several times what Obama's do right down the line. Open Secrets also shows the percentage of large to small donors. R-money has raised 5% of his money from small contributors (I believe those are defined as $100 or less) while the percentage for Obama is around 45%.

If you add up all the big banking dough R-money got on that list above it comes to much more than 10 times for R-money than for Obama.

Yeh Obama does not have big money behind him - Good one

Two $35,000 Obama dinners in one day

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/09/19/two-35000-obama-dinners-in-one-day/

New York, NY - Obama to Hold $30,800-Per-Head Dinner in Harlem

http://www.vosizneias.com/78813/2011/03/16/new-york-ny-obama-to-hold-30000-per-head-dinner-in-harlem/

You guys are right - It is the little people who are supporting Obama - It is the "employees" who are spending 30,000 a plate for dinner right?

Further on Bain: Bain Capital and Bain & Co. both show up on R-money's top 20 (to the tune of about $300k combined) but not on the President's. As far as other Dems go, that's a totally different matter, isn't it.

Well THREE employees at Bain gave 76600 to Obama - But they are more of the "little people" right?

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations

Obama’s fundraising advantage is clear in the case of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private-equity firm that was co-founded by Romney, and where the Republican made his fortune. Not surprisingly, Romney has strong support at the firm, raking in $34,000 from 18 Bain employees, according to the analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

But Obama has outdone Romney on his own turf, collecting $76,600 from Bain Capital employees through September — and he needed only three donors to do it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html?hpid=z1

76,600.00 vs 300k sounds pretty even right Bostonman? Made any 10k bets lately i know i can't.

That was THREE employees who gave 76600 to Obama - Remember it was YOU who said the employees give to Obama right? And that it was the fatcats who give to Romney?

Three employees each gave about 25000 to Obama - Yeh those are the little people - the "employees" not the rich right?

Remember it was YOU who said the employees give to Obama right?

Really, i don't see that in any of my posts above?

Three employees each gave about 25000 to Obama

Opps how on earth did that slip past the DNC as we know all democrats are dirt poor....

Boston Man, I like how you've decided to ignore the much more detailed and complete Open Secrets numbers in favor of ones that seem to support your claim. I'll give this to you again in even starker terms, despite knowing that you'll still figure out a way to ignore it: From the top 20 donor list, R-money got well more than $2million from financial sector sources alone; The total given by President Obama's entire top 20 doesn't even come to $2million. Furthermore, since Bain shows up nowhere on his list and the amount of $76k would definitely have made on there, if he actually did get contributions from those people they must have gone to the DNC or some other Dem account, possibly at the donors request. It didn't go directly to the President's re-election account.

bse, who made a 10k bet? What? Nobody? I'll be damned.

As far as Obama being a corporate tool, look up how much money GE got, where they sent jobs and what job Obama tagged the CEO to do, not necessarily in that order.

R-money bet Perry $10k in a debate: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gamblin-man-mitt-romney-challenges-rick-perry-to-10000-bet-during-republican-debate/

Who won that bet?

an agreement between two parties that a sum of money or other stake will be paid by the loser to the party who correctly predicts the outcome of an event.

There was no bet was there? It's ok, you can say it.

Oh, I see. The bet wasn't consummated so you think it was never offered then. You really like that moral relativism stuff that right winger say they hate but constantly use as an escape route. Still don't have any quotes from President Obama promised never to accept the help of Super Pacs, by the way?

Oh offered, yeah it was offered, sure. That doesnt make it a bet.

Made any 10k bets lately, thats the comment I was replying to, nobody MADE a bet.

I never said Obama promised never to accept money from Super PAC's.

Okay, so on that point you're conceding he isn't lying by deciding to go ahead and accept pac help, right? By the way, he can't accept Super Pac money. He can't have anything to do with Super Pac planning and spending. All he did say is that he would not object to Super Pacs supporting his candidacy.

No, non, nyet, nein. Dems are supposed to hobble themselves to make it easier for Republicans to win. Don't you know the "rules?"

But the Left and Dems will complain when Republicans do the same things they do.

Comsen LOL czars, trying terrorist on american soil, the deficit, etc

ComSen the right complain when buffet thinks taxes should be hirer when he takes every tax cut he can.

ComSen, the right complain that al gore still flies.

Do you not see the difference between a smoker, who says people should not start smoking because it is bad for you. And a corporate executive who says you should keep smoking because the liberals are all lying to you about cancer and addiction? can you see the subtle differences? THe former is a dem, the later is a right winger, to you they are doing the same thing.

Lassen,

Silly me!!! I forgot! Won't make that mistake again...

:)

But the Left and Dems will complain when Republicans do the same things they do.

Might be because those groups are quite willing to get rid of Super Pacs if the Republicans were. In fact, those groups argued against the C.U. brief in the S.C. and lost. Now right wingers are all butt hurt that the whip they thought they had will be taken away and used on them. Politics aint for sissies, but I guess right wingers can't help their nature.

jupmod

I personally do not like guns that kill people, but I'm not a fool to allow someone to kill me. So if I have too, I will take up arms to defend myself against anyone who wants to kill me, despite my personal beliefs

Excellent analogy! I think everyone here realizes that's exactly what president Obama has done, but the attacks must be made. It wouldn't be politics without that.

If he truly stands by his words, he will be overrun by the Repubs' Super PACs.

Well, duh, yeah. Didn't you know that this was how it was all supposed to work? Now it's all ruined. And ther right wing is haz a sad.

The President is going to face scores of millions of dollars worth of negative and false ads being aimed at him. He'd be a fool not to use all the resources he can muster to fight this off. This President will not be swift boated.

Aren't there any rules in the Republican party about driving impaired?