February 8, 2012
Presidential Man of Principle
It's refreshing to see that President Obama is a man of principle. When he takes a stand on something that he believes in, he sticks to it. It doesn't matter how it makes him look, he sticks to his word. Well, I guess except in the case of Super-PACs:
Mr. Obama belatedly decided to give his blessing to so-called super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. Both Obama’s campaign and the White House maintain that the president does not support today’s rules but realized belatedly he must play by them to give himself a competitive chance at a second term.Very nice. Flip, flop.
Campaigning for Democrats before the 2010 midterm elections, Obama railed against corporate interests spending money directly to sway federal elections, calling it a “threat to our democracy.”Wow, so during his Sunday night Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer, Obama backtracks on his word that if he can't get the economy fixed in his first term, he shouldn't get a second and now he's backtracking on his own vows against the Super PACs. He himself is now going to be a part of the "threat to our democracy."
I'm not offering any opinion on the Super PACs themselves, as yes, I know Republicans including Mitt Romney are using them, that's not the point. The point is the president purposely made this a campaign issue two years ago and campaigned against it. Now he's getting into bed with it. I guess I'll just finish with a quote from the House Speaker Oompa Loompa
“Just another broken promise”
ADDENDUM: As commenter David P reminds us, this isn't the first time that Barack Obama reversed course on his campaign finance stances. Remember in 2008, he pledged to stick to the public financing and then later changed it mind, allowing him to raise many millions more.
I've said this here before, but I don't think it's necessarily hypocrisy to advocate for changing the rules of the game while continuing to play by them. People can martyr themselves if they feel strongly enough about a cause to make a point, but I don't think they're under any moral obligation to do so. I've been called a hypocrite by enough progressives to witness the absurdities to which that train wreck of logic leads.
Posted by: Dan at February 8, 2012 9:46 PM"I've said this here before, but I don't think it's necessarily hypocrisy to advocate for changing the rules of the game while continuing to play by them."
But it is hypocrisy to make a campaign issue of it in 2010 and then switch in the other direction in 2012 when it directly affects your own re-election. Maybe Obama's stance on Super PACs cost some Democrats their seat in 2010? We'll never know.
Posted by: Patrick at February 9, 2012 12:34 AMObama might have gotten a pass on this one if he hadn't promised to accept public financing (and the spending limits that go with it) in 2008 only to break that promise when it suited him.
Posted by: David P at February 9, 2012 1:21 AMIt would smell more like hypocrisy if Obama had somehow caused Citizens United, but he didn't. He's playing by the rules, he didn't make them.
Obama's playing the hand he was dealt by the disgusting, vile and nauseating right-wing-nuts on the supreme court
Posted by: Sammy in Arizona at February 9, 2012 11:31 AMHypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.[1] Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.[1]
Wikipedia
Where does it say anything about "playing the hand he was dealt?"
Posted by: Max D at February 9, 2012 2:20 PM