BO tells dems to contribute to superpacs

[dogtowner]

read

and why not ? no one can be shocked at his reversal on this , reversals are pretty common with him especially when it comes to money. and more to the point, whats fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

what I'm scratching my head over is this...

Aides said the president had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to deliver speeches on behalf of Mr. Obama at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action

this seems a lot like the campaign is coordinating with the superpac which is not permitted.

the author seems to be wondering too

The decision, which comes nine months before Election Day, escalates the money wars and is a milestone in Mr. Obama’s evolving stances on political fund-raising. The lines have increasingly blurred between presidential campaigns and super PACs, which have flourished since a 2010 Supreme Court ruling and other legal and regulatory decisions made it easier for outside groups to raise unlimited donations to promote candidates.

this I find interesting though

“We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back,” Jim Messina, the manager of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said in an interview. “With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”

he didn't seem to object that the unions were given unequal treatment in terms of campaign finance, but thats water over the dam.

 

[Openmind]

read

and why not ? no one can be shocked at his reversal on this , reversals are pretty common with him especially when it comes to money. and more to the point, whats fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

what I'm scratching my head over is this...



this seems a lot like the campaign is coordinating with the superpac which is not permitted.

the author seems to be wondering too



this I find interesting though



he didn't seem to object that the unions were given unequal treatment in terms of campaign finance, but thats water over the dam.

Well, I'm sure you never thought that Obama was dumb enough to let the GOP's superpacs win without a fight. . .just because the SCOTUS (on a party line) have decided to legalize what should be illegal. . .BUYING the elections!

And. . .now that that monstrosity is "LEGAL," why would Obama just bend his head down and take it with a smile?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! I don't like, I'm sure he doesn't like it. . .but what is at astake is much greater than "likes."

 

[dogtowner]

Well, I'm sure you never thought that Obama was dumb enough to let the GOP's superpacs win without a fight. . .just because the SCOTUS (on a party line) have decided to legalize what should be illegal. . .BUYING the elections!

And. . .now that that monstrosity is "LEGAL," why would Obama just bend his head down and take it with a smile?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! I don't like, I'm sure he doesn't like it. . .but what is at astake is much greater than "likes."

why ? no idea but thats exactly what he stated that he wanted. he has changed his mind.

 

[Gipper]

If an R did this, the scummy left wing media would go CRAZY. No problems if a D does it.