Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« A Copy of the 9th Circuit's Opinion… | Dept. of Unfortunately Timed Promot… »

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

2012 On President Obama and SuperPACs

Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Even though Republicans are using superPACs, they're still outraged that President Obama will use superPACs, too. I think it had to happen—pundits have said that if the Obama campaign didn't allow superPACs, they'd be "bringing a knife to a gun fight." But really, it'd be more like bringing a gun to a nuclear war; all the Obama campaign's funds would be spent on trying to undo the damage done by the Republican superPACs. It's not pretty, but it is pragmatic. And all kinds of noisy Democrats, especially progressive bloggers, hate pragmatism.

Unfortunately, when David Axelrod claims that President Obama will continue to fight superPACs after the election, it sounds terrible. This is the sound of capitulation, of losing the high ground: "The president is going to continue to fight for ways to reform this system, in the future, but that's not going to happen in this campaign." But it was a decision that had to be made, like the 2008 decision to opt out of public funds.

The campaign was smart, at least, to make the decision earlier, during a relatively strong week for the president. If this news dropped in June, it would be terrible for the campaign's image. They're hoping that the issue will be talked-out by the time general election voters start paying attention. But Mitt Romney is just the kind of candidate to hit his opponent for using superPACs even while his own campaign uses superPACs. He's done this over and over again, nailing Gingrich and Obama for things that he himself has done. Thing is, sometimes that strategy works. This decision was a calculated risk for the Obama campaign. There's a very small chance it'll backfire, but there was practically no way to win this election without accepting help from superPACs.

FacebookShare

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

It was the only decision, really. More voters will be swayed by an unending barrage of SuperPAC ads than by a high-minded refusal to use them.

You cannot win if you do not play.

Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on February 7, 2012 at 11:34 AM

And all kinds of noisy Democrats, especially progressive bloggers, hate pragmatism.

The fact that you, a progressive blogger, are showing this level of self-awareness gives me renewed faith in the future of humankind.

Posted by seandr on February 7, 2012 at 11:43 AM

This is reason #8,361 on the "Why people don't vote" list. That folks think it's pragmatic and that he has no choice but to bring a knife to a gun, er, gun to a nuclear...um, whatever...that this is the game of politics and he has to do what he must to win is a key reason so many think the whole process is rotten. I don't condem or blame Obama for this (I have plenty of good reasons already) but I do blame those who chatter away about it without pointing out what a broken and corrupt system the whole thing is; it's absurd to continually think that this time it'll be different and this time your vote will count for something.

Posted by bhowie on February 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Considering the money funneled to superPACs is like 8:1 skewed toward the GOP, I find their outrage a bit forced.

Posted by Knat on February 7, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Why doesn't Obummer just seek out and off his political opponents with use of the new surveillance drones..?

Posted by PapaKipChee on February 7, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I don't think Axelrod's line sounds so terrible. Most sane people (that is, people who don't write for National Review) can understand how you can both work within the system we have and at the same time want to change it.

Posted by shabadoo on February 7, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Republicans, being hypocritical assholes? I, for one, am shocked.

Evil bastards, the lot of them.

Posted by Helix on February 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I do love the Republican response. It boils down to "See, he's every bit as corrupt and venal as we are, yet he claimed to be better! So, vote for us!"

Posted by also on February 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I thought the whole point of superPACs was that you could deny them and their tactics.

Posted by Gee... Gorden Liddy? Never heard of him! on February 7, 2012 at 12:25 PM

There's a substantial subset of progressives who would rather maintain the ideological purity of complete powerlessness than sully themselves with anything that smells of compromise. They can be spotted by their constant reminders that the whole system is corrupt, that anybody who doesn't agree with them on every point is a hopeless sell-out, and that nothing will change, ever, unless everything changes immediately.

If you encounter one of these, don't ever criticize them for encouraging people not to vote, because after denying that they're telling people not to vote they will again explain, as if talking to a child, that voting doesn't really matter and only chumps think it does. Then they'll call you a hopeless sell-out.

Posted by Proteus on February 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM

@10: Great stuff. Your comment is rich with fodder for the essay I'm working on. You could have just summed up by saying, "If you encounter one of these, make a sweeping generalization." I will try and not do the same.

Posted by bhowie on February 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I just hate that Obama has had to give in and get his own superPAC. I hate that the Democrats have to be like the Republican assholes. However, I'd hate it a lot more if Mitt the Git or The Adulterer or, GOD FORBID PLEASE, Santorum manages to become president. So, go Dems! superPAC now!

Posted by Bugnroolet on February 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

This is how Democrats used to fight, before Reagan. Maybe we need to do it more often.

1960s CA Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh (D) on lobbyists, ""If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here."

Dirty? Yes. Uncouth? Yes.

But he did give us the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which the national Civil Rights Act was based on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil…

Posted by passionate_jus on February 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney released this statement regarding the 9th Circuit’s decision:

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

Enough said.

Vote Obama 2012

Posted by passionate_jus on February 7, 2012 at 1:48 PM

@10 Great strawman, man!

Oh, how I sure do hate pragmatism.

Posted by OuterCow on February 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Huh? SuperPACs aren't allowed to coordinate with candidates. The Obama campaign isn't using SuperPACs any more than the Gingrich or Romney campaigns are. That's the twisted beauty of the SuperPAC: plausible deniability.

That aside, I see no problem with working in the system to gain power and then using that power to smash the system. The problem with Obama is that he hasn't really been following through on a lot of his promises. I don't think there's an issue with the point Axelrod is making, I just think he's lying.

Posted by John Horstman on February 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

@11: Is it going to be an essay on how Democratic voters act as apologists and stooges for wolf-in-sheep's-clothing politicians who, in spite of all their claims to progressivism, are actually quite conservative? Politicians who sponsor drone attacks, and who are in many other ways unworthy of support? I can't wait to read it! I'm sure it'll blow my mind in the way that only the introduction of ideas that I've never thought of before can. (bonus points if you link to Glenn Greenwald, an author I've never heard of before.)

@15: If those aren't your positions, how'd you know I was talking about you?

Posted by Proteus on February 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM

@17: There you go again with the sweeping generalizations. Though the answer to your questions are all no, except the part about liberalism being a variation of conservatism. You know, generalizing and pigionholeing individuals to deflect debate on an issue (or issues) is a hallmark strategy of conservatives.

Posted by bhowie on February 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Shorter GOP: "Waaaa! You PROMISED not to play by our rules! Now you're CHEATING by - um - PLAYING BY THE RULEZ!"

Posted by COMTE

on February 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM

This article is the sound of a piece of shit Democratic Party ass licker making yet another excuse for the ones who run his party. Obama is Wall Street's whore. He knows it. His party knows it. But the morons who will vote for him in November refuse to believe. Please join the Tea Baggers in your war on reality.

Posted by Zepol on February 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

I feel sorry for anyone who supports this guy still. Sure he's better than the republicans. That's totally not the issue. This is a corporatist. He doesn't give a fuck about you, just how much more money he can milk off us. It's pathetic. The only reason people would support him is that they don't know, care, or want to.

Posted by watchout5