Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Jonathan Turley would have supported a "threat to our democracy" (updated)
Here is Turley on Obama's decision.
Obama Embraces The “Threat To Our Democracy” and Endorses Use of SuperPac
<...>
Once again, Obama supporters are blaming the GOP for the flip-flop — arguing that Obama had to lower himself to their level. Two former Obama aides are organizing the effort just as a former aide organized Romney’s controversial SuperPac. For about a week, I have noticed leaks going into the press about how Obama staffers are warning about the expected dirty attacks that will come from the Romney SuperPac. It now appears that those stories may have been placed in anticipation of this flip flop.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/07/obama-embraces-the-threat-to-our-democracy-and-endorses-use-of-superpac/
<...>
Once again, Obama supporters are blaming the GOP for the flip-flop — arguing that Obama had to lower himself to their level. Two former Obama aides are organizing the effort just as a former aide organized Romney’s controversial SuperPac. For about a week, I have noticed leaks going into the press about how Obama staffers are warning about the expected dirty attacks that will come from the Romney SuperPac. It now appears that those stories may have been placed in anticipation of this flip flop.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/07/obama-embraces-the-threat-to-our-democracy-and-endorses-use-of-superpac/
Here is Turley on the Citizens United decision
<...>
I was sympathetic with Citizens United and the free speech groups. In the end, I have to favor more speech than less in such conflicts. While I would have written a concurrence and have difficulty with aspects of the majority opinion, I probably would have voted to support the majority in the result in this case. However, I do consider this to be one of the most difficult free speech cases to hit the court in decades. Many of my friends are on the other side and I understand that this is quite a blow. People of good faith can disagree on such issues. It really broke along a fine line. It depends on whether your gravitational point tended to fall along the free speech line or the good government line. It is a rare case where those lines ran perpendicular rather than parallel with each other.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/
I was sympathetic with Citizens United and the free speech groups. In the end, I have to favor more speech than less in such conflicts. While I would have written a concurrence and have difficulty with aspects of the majority opinion, I probably would have voted to support the majority in the result in this case. However, I do consider this to be one of the most difficult free speech cases to hit the court in decades. Many of my friends are on the other side and I understand that this is quite a blow. People of good faith can disagree on such issues. It really broke along a fine line. It depends on whether your gravitational point tended to fall along the free speech line or the good government line. It is a rare case where those lines ran perpendicular rather than parallel with each other.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/
This is pure hypocrisy.
Beyond that, there is too much finger wagging while ignoring the real life implications of idealism. There is also the word "principled," which doesn't refer to a smart move, just one consistent with one's stated beliefs. It can be and has been used to characterize some Republicans.
Not all principled stances lead to good outcomes simply because the person taking the stand is a progressive.
Russ Feingold issued a similar condemnation about Obama's decision, but think about this:
- Feingold stood on principle and voted for John Roberts.
John Roberts delivered the Citizens United decision that struck down McCain-Feingold.
Feingold loses his Senate seat because he's outspent and refuses to fight fire with fire.
I prefer that President Obama employ common sense in this situation.
Robert Reich also criticized the decision: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/08-3
The following comment was posted in response to this Daily Kos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/08/1062788/-Fmr-Labor-Sec-Obama-Has-Handed-The-Election-Over-To-The-Super-Rich
Phyrric Moral Victory
So Obama takes the moral high ground and eschews the use of SuperPAC money. The tsunami of right wing largesse waiting to be unleashed against him will make the circus that is the Republican primary look like an April shower.
They will crucify him, and he will lose. Then what?
The Corporatist Party (formerly known as the Republican party) controls both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. To keep "The Base" mollified, conservative social legislation that would warm the cockles of of the Taliban's hearts.
For the paymasters, tax and budget provisions that will take the US back to medieval times insofar as the working and middle classes are concerned (you do remember that there is such a thing as the "working class don't you)?
Your poor bleeding liberal hearts will not have time to bleed for the oppressed workers at Foxconn plants in China, for you will either be them or envying them for having jobs.
Robert Reich can take the moral high ground as he's not in the fight. He doesn't need to win. He can pontificate from atop the ivory tower.
This election is going to be old-school Chicago-style politics. That's not something to run from. If one is going to go up against thieves, liars, and crooks then one needs to leave one's copy of the Marquess of Queensbury Rules at home and bust out the brass knuckles and bicycle chains.
We win the White House, The House, and the Senate. We appoint some Supreme Court justices without ideological bias. Then, we repeal Citizen's United with legislation that won't be overturned on appeal. Then we enact campaign finance law with teeth.
We can fight from the back benches. We just can't win much from there.
So, quit whining and get ready to bust some heads because this one's going to be brutal and dirty.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1062788/44891461#c18
So Obama takes the moral high ground and eschews the use of SuperPAC money. The tsunami of right wing largesse waiting to be unleashed against him will make the circus that is the Republican primary look like an April shower.
They will crucify him, and he will lose. Then what?
The Corporatist Party (formerly known as the Republican party) controls both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. To keep "The Base" mollified, conservative social legislation that would warm the cockles of of the Taliban's hearts.
For the paymasters, tax and budget provisions that will take the US back to medieval times insofar as the working and middle classes are concerned (you do remember that there is such a thing as the "working class don't you)?
Your poor bleeding liberal hearts will not have time to bleed for the oppressed workers at Foxconn plants in China, for you will either be them or envying them for having jobs.
Robert Reich can take the moral high ground as he's not in the fight. He doesn't need to win. He can pontificate from atop the ivory tower.
This election is going to be old-school Chicago-style politics. That's not something to run from. If one is going to go up against thieves, liars, and crooks then one needs to leave one's copy of the Marquess of Queensbury Rules at home and bust out the brass knuckles and bicycle chains.
We win the White House, The House, and the Senate. We appoint some Supreme Court justices without ideological bias. Then, we repeal Citizen's United with legislation that won't be overturned on appeal. Then we enact campaign finance law with teeth.
We can fight from the back benches. We just can't win much from there.
So, quit whining and get ready to bust some heads because this one's going to be brutal and dirty.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1062788/44891461#c18
Spot on!
Updated to add:
<...>
The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.
http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/we-will-not-play-by-two-sets-of-rules
The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.
http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/we-will-not-play-by-two-sets-of-rules
Given the unusual alliance supporting Citizen United, it's going to take public pressure and Democrats to change it. Remember, the ACLU sided with the decision and strongly urged a "no" vote on the DISCLOSE Act.
14 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
in this fashion.
Although I respect the integrity of all three individuals and their right to express their opinion in regards to super pacs, it's pretty obvious super pacs are the new campaign weapon of choice.
With Koch industries stating they intend to spend $100 million alone to defeat Obama it is hard to find fault with the Prez for amply preparing himself for the upcoming political battle.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/koch-brothers-100-million-obama_n_1250828.html
Why oh why ProSense? His article had a lot of promise, and you just ripped it up and threw it in the fire.
Nice Job 
