Obama Leads From Behind, Rationalizes Why He Needs A Super PAC

07 Feb, 2012 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

Can we even term this leading from behind? He may be a “leader”, based on his position he purchased, but leading denotes guiding, directing, showing the way. Interestingly, a synonym of leading is “ruling.” Anyhow

(Politico) President Barack Obama – in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder – has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks.

Pure hypocrisy, and, what the hell is “dark-money attacks”? Looks like Glenn Thrush is offering up stealth raaaaacism.

On Monday morning, Obama reviled the “negative” tone of the super PACs, a dominant fundraising source in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. But by the evening, word leaked to POLITICO that Obama had offered his support for Priorities USA Action, which thus far has raised a fraction of what GOP-backed groups have raked in.

Obama’s top campaign staff and even some Cabinet members will appear at super PAC events. The president himself will not address super PAC donors, although there’s nothing to legally prohibit the president, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden from expressing their support for the group – as GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has done for his own pet super PAC.

But, Mitt has never complained about Super PACs, especially since Team Obama has talked about raising $1 billion for the 2012 election as a stated goal.

Over at the re-coronation website of Mr. 1%, they are officially rationalizing the need for Super PACs for Obama, where

We will not play by two sets of rules

Interesting. Syria plays by a different set of rules. So does North Korea, Al Qaeda, and Iran. Canada has different rules, as does England, France, and Greece. Does this mean we should play by those rules because they do?

The (Citizens United) decision has accelerated a dangerous trend toward a political system increasingly dominated by big-money interests with disproportionate power to spend freely to influence our elections and our government.

Jim Messina writes that this is a “dangerous trend”, so, instead of the POTUS leading and refusing to take their money and help, having railed against them for over a year now, he’s going to capitulate and become part of that “dangerous trend”. The rest is rationalizing the need for Obama to dump his year long whines against Super PACs, because they have “accepted the reality of the law as it currently stands” and it’s “consistent with the law.”

Meanwhile, other Super PACs established for the sole purpose of defeating the President–along with “nonprofits” that also aren’t required to disclose the sources of their funding–have raised more than $50 million. In the aggregate, these groups are expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President.

Well, yeah, that’s the point of an election: defeating the other campaign.

With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

This from the guy who wants to raise a billion dollars. The guy who disabled the credit card verification system during the 2008 election. The guy who has the backing of super rich guys like George Soros and Peter Lewis. The guy who has the backing of all the unions. Hollywood. The teachers. Lawyers. 90% of the news media. All the people sitting on welfare being taken care of by the Central Government. The companies which he has purchased. Sounds like unilateral disarmament, eh?

This is Barack Obama in a nutshell: no principles.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.