If you cant beat em, join em
 

Update: Fundraisers encouraged to raise for PACs Obama once denounced
Posted by
CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin
Washington (CNN) – According to several participants on a conference call with major bundlers late Monday night, Barack Obama’s re-election campaign encouraged donors to fundraise for a Democratic super PAC supporting the president, marking an about-face on Obama’s position toward outside spending groups.

Obama has been an outspoken critic of current campaign financing laws, in particular a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the creation of super PACs. Until now he has kept his distance from the group, Priorities USA Action.


:smash:

He can still be against the law that created this mess. If his campaign doesn't engage with PACs, they are cutting nose to spite their face. I am not a fan of the law that allows keeping 2 bass a day. If my job depending on keeping two fish a day and the person who wanted to take my job was doing it, darn well better believe I would do what I had to do under the current law.

shameless...but hardly shocking...


Until this week, the Obama administration vehemently condemned the Citizens United decision and vowed to eschew super PACs. The entities are a “threat to our democracy,” Obama railed two years ago. The ruling would “open the floodgates for special interests,” he warned. And last July, Obama-campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt kept talking the anti-super-PAC talk. “Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs,” he asserted. Now? President Obama and his wife won’t fundraise for the democracy-undermining super PACs. But countless other cabinet members and advisers, partying with Obama bundlers gone wild, will.

In 2008, Obama lambasted rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for criticizing independent expenditures while raking in big PAC bucks: “So you can’t say yesterday you don’t believe in them, and today you have three-quarters of a million dollars being spent on you. You can’t just talk the talk.” yes you can!

Obama 2012 campaign motto: Empty talk? Yes, we can!

Obama?s Super-PAC-Men - Michelle Malkin - National Review Online
great read detailing the remarkable degree of the hypocricy

can we make a list of things that this president has excoriated others for and then turned around and done himself?...it's very long...seems to be habitual...oh well....more do as I say not as I do.. from "THE ONE"

or.....you could show some leadership and integrity like Scott Brown did....

Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren Make Pact to Fight Super PACs - ABC News

Fixed for you

Brown is an elected official which is a better comparison to Obama

I'm sure Obama would be happy to do that. A bit different since he doesn't know who he is running against. The fix is for congress to legislate on it. Are you not going to vote in Nov. if either candidate is supported by a PAC? I am suprised you aren't happy about it. It is a constitutional right, free speech; maybe he has seen the light, no? Keep the government out of regulating.

Tasmanian Devil quality spinning right there :rotf2:

i can care less what he does, but he opened his mouth and now he did 180

The thought don't bring a knife to a gun fight comes to mind.

I'm glad he did, cause 4 years of Santorum would be beyond a disaster :devil2:

looks like we agree on something

you agree on speculation? based on? very pessimistic :)

thought this was interesting the other day...some at the NY Times already looking WAY ahead...and not feeling to good about the last 3 years apparently...thought everyone was happy with O and all of his great accomplishments over there at the Obama Times?...

NY TIMES Sunday
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: February 3, 2012

WASHINGTON

DISTANT as it may now seem, with the Republican race dominating the news and President Obama sitting in the White House, the Democrats are not all that far from the tumult of another nominating contest themselves.

No matter what happens on Election Day in November, when Mr. Obama wakes up the next morning, he will no longer be the future of his party. If he loses, attention will immediately turn to which Democrat might be able to pick up the pieces from the deep disappointment of his one term. If he wins, the party will begin turning to who might be able to accomplish the difficult task of winning a third straight term for one party. Already, the jockeying for 2016 has begun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/su...s.html?_r=3&hp

AP Today

Even so, an AP analysis of year-end spending reports showed Santorum may have to stretch to cover all the states that vote in the next few weeks.

While current figures are not available, he reported that at year's end he had a 10-member campaign payroll at a quarterly cost of $49,000—the smallest of any of the Republicans in the race. He also is helped by paid consultants and unpaid volunteers, as are other candidates.

By comparison,
Romney reported a 92-member staff and a quarterly payroll of $1.3 million.
Gingrich said he had 23 paid aides, at a cost of $279,000,
Paul, who has yet to win a primary or caucus, paid $381,000 for a staff of 33.

President Barack Obama reported a 430-person campaign staff, which cost $4.7 million for the final three months of 2011.

I just wish they would just pick the next dipstick for this president job and tell us who it will be. Then we wouldn't have to listen to them talk on the radio, watch them on TV and read about them on the internet. I don't think it matters who, or which party wins, they are all the same.