• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama to support SuperPACS

when you're in the middle of a war you don't leave weapons on the table.
 
Not surprising, but I wish he wold have taken a stand against them. He has the cash in his campaign to wage a war vs. the Republican nominee + the Super PACs, but it certainly would be an equivalent to leaving weapons on the table while your opponent grabs them up. When it comes down to it, Obama wants to win in November and he isn't going to martyr the chance to be a two term president over not using PAC money. The reality is that the Super PAC's ability to wage attack ads against the opponent while giving the candidate deniability is a powerful weapon to wield.

I got the email this morning from Obama's staff, and they can paint it however they want, but they are selling out with this decision. I am disappointed.
 
I can't wait to see what the resident moderate has to say about this.
 
Meh. What's he supposed to do? Gotta play by the rules as they are, not as you want them to be.
 
KitchinDeac said:
Meh. What's he supposed to do? Gotta play by the rules as they are, not as you want them to be.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it still sucks and ensures that the practice will become increasingly entrenched.
 
Exactly, Kitchin. I'm not for SuperPACs but I surely can't begrudge Obama for using them. Not supporting them would be like a basketball coach refusing to let his team shoot 3-pointers or a football coach not using the forward pass. Such highmindedness will only lead to a loss.

I think the best way to get Republicans on board for reforming SuperPACs and other shady areas of campaign finance are to beat them with SuperPACs. I do think it may work against the Obama campaign for one major reason. Liberals are politically stupid and have no idea how to frame a message. I think a "Venture Capitalists for Truth" SuperPAC would be very effective, but I doubt liberals could pull it off.
 
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
 
If he takes a stand agasint them, he looks like a hypocrite when the ones supporting him raise $200-600M.

He'd be crazy to unilaterally disarm. We know Romney whii have over $500M in superpac money on his side.
 
I'll throw in a nerd analogy as long as we're using them. Having the honor of a Stark will only lead to a beheading when you're dealing with Lannisters.
 
RJ throwing in the Dem talking point about how he can't "unilaterally disarm."

However, I agree with the Dems and RJ here. All the anti-Super PAC stuff was never anything more than lip service anyway. They always intended to benefit from them, and they would be idiots not to.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
RJ throwing in the Dem talking point about how he can't "unilaterally disarm."

However, I agree with the Dems and RJ here. All the anti-Super PAC stuff was never anything more than lip service anyway. They always intended to benefit from them, and they would be idiots not to.
Click to expand...

I would like it if the President unilaterally disarmed Iran.
 
Hey, you're back, jhmd!
 
What else to you expect from capitalism? Money talks.
 
Changing how Washington does business would mean changing how America and now the world does business. Sad but true.
 
He's the one guy that wouldn't need a super pac. Very disappointing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top