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

[dank69]

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 don't see anyone claiming what you said in bold above.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Dont hate the player, hate the game.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How is it hypocritical? He opposed it because he felt that it would be bad policy for elections overall.

But the rule is in effect. And he is a player. He has to fight to the fullest extent of the rules. So this is how he will fight to the fullest extent.

Nothing hypocritical at all.

He felt it was a threat to Democracy itself. Of course what's that compared to getting money? Sure he's entitled to take advantage of the rule, but any moral high ground those who support this pretended to have is now gone.

 

[Paul98]

He still doesn't think it was the right decision, but it turned out that things went against it. He lives in the real world and since both sides can use this he shouldn't pretend that it doesn't exist. Until someone fights that change you can't just let the other side win because you object to a certain part of the process.

We need to get this big money out of politics, but till that happens it's better to have a closer to level playing field so that money on one side can help cancel out money on the other.

 

[woolfe9999]

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

No, he'd only be hypocritical if he criticized other candidates for taking the money that the system allows them to take. Instead, he's criticized the system.

This is yet another in a long line of rather absurd conservative "hypocrisy" arguments that all go like these:

Liberals complain about "intolerance." Therefore, they aren't allowed to criticize peoples' opinions because that is "intolerant."

Liberals say that wealthy people don't pay enough taxes. Therefore, wealthy liberals should donate their money to the government.

You spot the common fallacy. We shouldn't have to do it for you.

- wolf

 

[micrometers]

He felt it was a threat to Democracy itself. Of course what's that compared to getting money? Sure he's entitled to take advantage of the rule, but any moral high ground those who support this pretended to have is now gone.

It is a competitive race. There is nothing good about losing with nobility.

 

[nageov3t]

How is it hypocritical? He opposed it because he felt that it would be bad policy for elections overall.

how is it not hypocritical to campaign against the influence of outside money in politics... and then encourage outside money to donate to your campaign?

But the rule is in effect. And he is a player. He has to fight to the fullest extent of the rules. So this is how he will fight to the fullest extent.

he doesn't have to. he was projecting to raise an unprecedented amount of reelection funds already, without embracing corporate ownership of his campaign.

will this move make his reelection even easier? probably. but having principles doesn't always align with expediency.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see anyone claiming what you said in bold above.

Perhaps not by you but by some. We've all been preached at by individuals who insist there is a qualitative difference in terms of principles. The problems we face go far beyond PACs, but perhaps another time is best to innumerate them.

 

[woolfe9999]

He felt it was a threat to Democracy itself. Of course what's that compared to getting money? Sure he's entitled to take advantage of the rule, but any moral high ground those who support this pretended to have is now gone.

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

 

[Blackjack200]

but this isn't a case of guns or no guns. even without embracing super PAC's, Obama was projecting to raise a historic amount of money to fund his reelection. it's like using a hydrogen bomb instead of an atom bomb to knock down a ramshackle house.

It's too bad the Republicans couldn't find an appealing candidate. I don't blame people for wanting to donate to Obama when I look at what the alternatives are.

They are probably looking an at economy that is in bad shape and finally just starting to recover, and at the same time hearing the looney things coming out of the mouths of Romney and Gingrich, and deciding that it's pretty important to keep them out of power.

If I had some money I'd definiately want to use it as... ahem... "speech". Good thing judicial activists SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are on Obama's side.

 

[dank69]

...

he doesn't have to. he was projecting to raise an unprecedented amount of reelection funds already, without embracing corporate ownership of his campaign.

will this move make his reelection even easier? probably. but having principles doesn't always align with expediency.

Oh, well, if you say he doesn't have to...

Because we all know projections are always right...

 

[Atreus21]

No, he'd only be hypocritical if he criticized other candidates for taking the money that the system allows them to take. Instead, he's criticized the system.

This is yet another in a long line of rather absurd conservative "hypocrisy" arguments that all go like these:

Liberals complain about "intolerance." Therefore, they aren't allowed to criticize peoples' opinions because that is "intolerant."

The idea is to point out that liberals profess to be tolerant. They're tolerant only of certain ideas, and intolerant of others. That is discrimination, not tolerance, and everyone does that. It's not limited to liberals. So stop using the word tolerant as a general term to imply open-mindedness and smug superiority over the intolerant conservatives.

You spot the common fallacy. We shouldn't have to do it for you.

- wolf

He campaigned against the influence of outside money in politics. He's now taking outside money for a political campaign.

Hypocrisy. Wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.

That is hypocrisy.

 

[dank69]

He campaigned against the influence of outside money in politics. He's now taking outside money for a political campaign.

Hypocrisy. Wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.

That is hypocrisy.

He campaigned that allowing outside money in politics would be bad for the system not that it was morally wrong.

 

[woolfe9999]

He campaigned against the influence of outside money in politics. He's now taking outside money for a political campaign.

Hypocrisy. Wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.

That is hypocrisy.

When he "campaigned against the influence of outside money" was that criticism of those taking the money, or a criticism of the system that allows them to take it? Again, you spot the fallacy. Hint: show me where Obama is doing something that he criticized others for doing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, he'd only be hypocritical if he criticized other candidates for taking the money that the system allows them to take. Instead, he's criticized the system.

This is yet another in a long line of rather absurd conservative "hypocrisy" arguments that all go like these:

Liberals complain about "intolerance." Therefore, they aren't allowed to criticize peoples' opinions because that is "intolerant."

Liberals say that wealthy people don't pay enough taxes. Therefore, wealthy liberals should donate their money to the government.

You spot the common fallacy. We shouldn't have to do it for you.

- wolf

I disagree. Hypocrisy isn't a legal term, it's saying something is unacceptable then going out and doing it. This isn't an abstruse principle. Preachers who SAY that adultery is wrong and the COMMIT the act are hypocrites. There is a direct link between the two words and that is just what's been done here.

 

[fskimospy]

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

/thread

 

[dank69]

I disagree. Hypocrisy isn't a legal term, it's saying something is unacceptable then going out and doing it. This isn't an abstruse principle. Preachers who SAY that adultery is wrong and the COMMIT the act are hypocrites. There is a direct link between the two words and that is just what's been done here.

As was just pointed out, he never said taking money was wrong. He said changing the system to allow the money was wrong. A not so subtle difference lost on many here.

 

[woolfe9999]

I disagree. Hypocrisy isn't a legal term, it's saying something is unacceptable then going out and doing it. This isn't an abstruse principle. Preachers who SAY that adultery is wrong and the COMMIT the act are hypocrites. There is a direct link between the two words and that is just what's been done here.

Hypocrisy is doing something that you decry others doing. When precisely did Obama criticize other candidates for taking money?

Look at my analogy above about taxation. Is it hypocritical to say that the wealthy aren't required to pay their fair share of taxes, and be wealthy, but not donate your money to the government? I don't think so, because there again, the criticism is of the system, i.e. the tax code, not the wealthy people who the tax code isn't requiring to pay their fair share.

 

[Atreus21]

Hypocrisy is doing something that you decry others doing. When precisely did Obama criticize other candidates for taking money?

No, it's professing to be principled and then contradicting your principle, which indicates the principle never existed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As was just pointed out, he never said taking money was wrong. He said changing the system to allow the money was wrong. A not so subtle difference lost on many here.

Taking money isn't the issue. Howard Dean took money, but not by a system which is by it's nature unaccountable. He now supports that same system he cried out against by his very action. He wasn't morally compelled to, it was his choice. Pragmatism and hypocrisy are not mutually exclusive. It's Obama's right to make this decision and the right of those who see how the words and the deeds don't match to call it as it is. Don't worry, I believe that the vast majority of politicians are hypocrites, so it merely places Obama in that category. He isn't special.

 

[Atreus21]

When he "campaigned against the influence of outside money" was that criticism of those taking the money, or a criticism of the system that allows them to take it? Again, you spot the fallacy. Hint: show me where Obama is doing something that he criticized others for doing.

What difference does it make at whom the criticism was directed? The idea was to broadcast the image that "taking outside money is against my principles." No, apparently it wasn't.

We are seriously giving this issue a lot more examination then it merits. The truth is so obvious that only the most partisan stoop to defend him. Politicians being hypocrites. What a shocker.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it's professing to be principled and then contradicting your principle, which indicates the principle never existed.

That would make him unprincipled, not hypocritical. If you can show Obama said that no candidate should ever take this sort of money, then I will agree with you that it is hypocritical. (seriously, I won't discount the possibility that he might have said such a thing at one point)

If you can't show that, all you have is him participating in a system that he believes should be changed. There's nothing hypocritical about that. It's similar to the rich people who believe taxes on the rich should be higher, but continue to pay their low rates now. It's not hypocritical there either.

 

[dank69]

No, it's professing to be principled and then contradicting your principle, which indicates the principle never existed.

Obama didn't 'profess to be principled.'

Taking money isn't the issue. Howard Dean took money, but not by a system which is by it's nature unaccountable. He now supports that same system he cried out against by his very action. He wasn't morally compelled to, it was his choice. Pragmatism and hypocrisy are not mutually exclusive. It's Obama's right to make this decision and the right of those who see how the words and the deeds don't match to call it as it is. Don't worry, I believe that the vast majority of politicians are hypocrites, so it merely places Obama in that category. He isn't special.

Taking money is the issue. You are criticizing Obama for taking the money. Why would you say taking money isn't the issue? Obama never said taking money was wrong. How many times does this need to be said?

 

[dank69]

What difference does it make at whom the criticism was directed? The idea was to broadcast the image that "taking outside money is against my principles." No, apparently it wasn't.

We are seriously giving this issue a lot more examination then it merits. The truth is so obvious that only the most partisan stoop to defend him. Politicians being hypocrites. What a shocker.

It makes a difference because you are claiming he did something that he did not do. Otherwise known as lying.

 

[micrometers]

By the same token, Mitt Romney personally did nothing wrong in attaining a 15% tax rate.

The problem is with the tax code that allows a 15% tax rate on investment income. There is a difference between policy and personal behavior within policy. Frankly, no one would care that Obama was taking the "noble" path by refusing to use Super-PACs. People only notice the commercials and issues. THey don't pay much attention to process.