Obama doesn't think elections should be bankrolled by powerful interest groups

[Hayabusa Rider]

Incorrect. He didn't 'use the system.' He operated within the system.
The supporters may not be happy, but if they claim he is a hypocrite, they are stupid.

The bolded isn't going to work. "You said I couldn't have a cookie and "a" means one, and so I took two" may be an argument, but any adult would reject it. No one said Obama isn't allowed to do what he did, but he did take advantage of the system for his own purposes and his operating within it does not exclude making use of it.

But you have a set of predefined expectations that you must defend. I think they work against your best interests however if you must protect them so be it.

 

[Ausm]

Then change the laws or amend the constitution. As I've said this may be seen as a matter of pragmatism by some but please don't try to convince anyone that he's any better than anyone else when it comes down to money. Howard Dean was and he found a way around the funding machine. He just might have won if he had kept his mouth shut at the right time but he did not. "I hope to get some change" from PACs is what this is all about now.

I agree that Congress should institute a transparency clause where it will eliminate any anonymous donations.

 

[dank69]

The bolded isn't going to work. "You said I couldn't have a cookie and "a" means one, and so I took two" may be an argument, but any adult would reject it. No one said Obama isn't allowed to do what he did, but he did take advantage of the system for his own purposes and his operating within it does not exclude making use of it.

But you have a set of predefined expectations that you must defend. I think they work against your best interests however if you must protect them so be it.

Your cookie analogy doesn't even come close to being parallel with mine.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah even with your partial concessions, I still sharply disagree. There is a world of difference between criticizing a system and criticizing those who participate in it, particularly when there is no way to reform said system without participating in it to begin with. For those who want to reform the system, participating in it is more than just expedient. It is 100% necessary. Short of armed revolution, there is simply no other choice. The better criticism of Obama would be getting elected then not doing anything to reform it after being elected. Doing what he must within the bounds of the law to get elected is not a very good basis for criticism here.

I have no problem with Obama saying that money is too influential in politics then taking money to be elected. I will, however, criticize him for the way he uses said money, if appropriate. Deceptive and dishonest adverts are a major problem in our system and IMO he does have a choice to not engage in that sort of thing. He doesn't have a choice to not take money, however. He WILL lose if he doesn't. It's the great conundrum of our system that the charge of hypocrisy does nothing to solve. It only worsens it.

- wolf

I look at it another way. The world forces compromises and people will say and do things that they say shouldn't be done. The reasons are varied and usually complex. IMO Obama is being hypocritical, however my problem isn't with his being so as much as those who look at him as a morally superior person who cannot be guilty of such a thing. Hell, I'm hypocritical on occasion because there are times when the need to act outweighs the principle I would prefer to practice. That's the real world. Would I deny it? No. Would I want others to? No. I would want to have people recognize that I can screw up and if things which have a negative connotation result then it's a motivation to try to do better next time around. If I hold myself to that standard I will do the same with a President.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, it would be a more legitimate criticism, but at this point we have a SCOTUS ruling and need a Constitutional Amendment to make the necessary changes.

If he's elected, I'd like to see Obama point out how much the Super PACs spent on both sides, and put some real pressure on Congress to work toward an amendment. There's not else he can do at this point.

Yes, I agree. There isn't anything he can do because the SCOTUS has made a ruling on Constitutional grounds, which ties the hands of both the executive and legislative branches. I was raising that point more in the hypothetical. Pols have to do certain things within the law to get elected in this system, and they can't effect any positive change of the system unless they get elected. In general, the hypocrisy charge works better when you're comparing what they say with what they do in office. If you criticize the system you are duty bound to do something about it once you get in office, assuming of course you are able to.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your cookie analogy doesn't even come close to being parallel with mine.

They are both word games playing at justification.

 

[woolfe9999]

I look at it another way. The world forces compromises and people will say and do things that they say shouldn't be done. The reasons are varied and usually complex. IMO Obama is being hypocritical, however my problem isn't with his being so as much as those who look at him as a morally superior person who cannot be guilty of such a thing. Hell, I'm hypocritical on occasion because there are times when the need to act outweighs the principle I would prefer to practice. That's the real world. Would I deny it? No. Would I want others to? No. I would want to have people recognize that I can screw up and if things which have a negative connotation result then it's a motivation to try to do better next time around. If I hold myself to that standard I will do the same with a President.

Obama is perfectly capable of being hypocritical. I just don't think he's being hypocritical in this case because he has never once said that it is wrong for candidates to take money. He has said the system should not allow people to donate it, at least not to the extent that it is presently allowed.

You want a real example of Obama being a hypocrit? If memory serves, he criticized the Bush admin for its record on civil rights vis a vis terrorism, and for the most part, he seems to have continued those practices (minus water boarding). That's a real hypocrisy.

- wolf

 

[dank69]

They are both word games playing at justification.

Frankly, I find your attempt to portray 'a person' and 'a system' as the same thing laughable at best. Accusing me of using word games is equally laughable.

 

[Blackjack200]

They are both word games playing at justification.

Anyone that eats two cookies has also eaten one or "a" cookie, by definition. Criticizing a system or law is not the same thing as criticizing the people that are operating within that system or following that law.

Are we really discussing this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Frankly, I find your attempt to portray 'a person' and 'a system' as the same thing laughable at best. Accusing me of using word games is equally laughable.

Of course you do because otherwise it would come down to a person doing something by a means he's said is wrong. You take the emphasis away from the person and their judgement and make it about things. Obama isn't evil, but he's imperfect and IMO too preachy, and he most definitely should not be looked at with almost religious devotion of faith. He made a choice and his actions suggest he has a clue. Sorry, but between being an iconoclast and a follower when it comes to humans in office I'm the former. You want to play the latter part? Then go for it. No one is stopping you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Anyone that eats two cookies has also eaten one or "a" cookie, by definition. Criticizing a system or law is not the same thing as criticizing the people that are operating within that system or following that law.

Are we really discussing this?

Then change the "a" to one and have a child argue the point.

 

[dank69]

Of course you do because otherwise it would come down to a person doing something by a means he's said is wrong. You take the emphasis away from the person and their judgement and make it about things. Obama isn't evil, but he's imperfect and IMO too preachy, and he most definitely should not be looked at with almost religious devotion of faith. He made a choice and his actions suggest he has a clue. Sorry, but between being an iconoclast and a follower when it comes to humans in office I'm the former. You want to play the latter part? Then go for it. No one is stopping you.

'Of course you do' implies that you do not think that attempting to portray 'a person' and 'a system' as the same thing is laughable. I just want to be perfectly clear here. Do you think a person is the same thing as a system?

How many times so far in this thread have you accused Obama of doing something he hasn't done? No matter how many times you repeat it as if it were a fact, Obama has not said that taking money is wrong. Until you realize your mistake, you are just reinforcing your ignorance. If you do realize your mistake, yet continue to parrot the false statement, you are just flaunting your intellectual dishonesty. Either way, you are just wasting your time, so why don't you turn your attention to post 34 and attempt to refute it instead of ignoring facts?

 

[spacejamz]

Fight to get a rule implemented.
Cry hypocrisy when opponent plays by said rule.
Hypocrisy indeed, your brain isn't working correctly.

How pathetic when some people here cannot even call a spade a spade...

Even MSNBC is running a story about this hypocrisy..

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10340118-first-thoughts-a-super-reversal

*** And ‘Super’ hypocrisy: But make no mistake: The White House is going to receive plenty of heat -- from good-government groups, liberals, and the media -- for this reversal. Why? Because after all of its criticism of Citizens United and Super PACs, last night’s announcement looks hypocritical no matter how you try and rationalize it.

 

[Blackjack200]

According to this logic, every politician better avoid criticizing the excessive influence of money in politics or else in order to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, that candidate better put him or herself in a position of having virtually no chance to win an election in this system. That's a great formula for ensuring that no politician ever wants to mount such criticism again and that only politicians who take no position against money in politics will ever get elected.

I suggest we focus on changing the system and supporting those who want to do so, then we won't even have to have these "hypocrisy" debates again.

- wolf

 

[dank69]

How pathetic when some people here cannot even call a spade a spade...

Even MSNBC is running a story about this hypocrisy..

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10340118-first-thoughts-a-super-reversal

*** And ‘Super’ hypocrisy: But make no mistake: The White House is going to receive plenty of heat -- from good-government groups, liberals, and the media -- for this reversal. Why? Because after all of its criticism of Citizens United and Super PACs, last night’s announcement looks hypocritical no matter how you try and rationalize it.

Of course the weak minded are going to claim this is hypocrisy. There are weak minded individuals on both sides of the aisle and also in between. That doesn't lend credibility to a false claim when you break it down.

 

[spacejamz]

Of course the weak minded are going to claim this is hypocrisy. There are weak minded individuals on both sides of the aisle and also in between. That doesn't lend credibility to a false claim when you break it down.

MSNBC is weak minded??? wow....just wow....

 

[dank69]

MSNBC is weak minded??? wow....just wow....

Cable news? More dishonest than weak minded, but some of both exist.

 

[soulcougher73]

Come on people this is not hard to comprehend. He would like money to be out of politics. The only way he can influence that is to get into government and make a change. The only way he can get into government and try to make a change is to play the game as the current rules and opponent play the game. Sure its a hypocritical stance but in order to try and make a change he has to get into the position to try to make a change first. Thus he has to use the one weapon he doesnt want to have to use.

And then their is also the "well that is what he says anyways" argument

 

[dank69]

Come on people this is not hard to comprehend. He would like money to be out of politics. The only way he can influence that is to get into government and make a change. The only way he can get into government and try to make a change is to play the game as the current rules and opponent play the game. Sure its a hypocritical stance but in order to try and make a change he has to get into the position to try to make a change first. Thus he has to use the one weapon he doesnt want to have to use.

And then their is also the "well that is what he says anyways" argument

FFS it is NOT hypocritical to claim a system is set up wrong while conforming to said system. AT ALL.

 

[Sonikku]

No one's saying he's unwise to take the money. They're saying it's hypocritical.

And they would be right. Yet, it's hard to see a single politician running that isn't a hypocrite. Obama claims to want to bring about real change to government. Newt claims affair talk is inconceivable in presidential discussion when he himself slammed Clinton for doing the same thing he was doing to his wife with cancer simultaneously. It's basically a case of pick your poison.