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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
13. So you think Obama should depend upon Wall Street and corporate funding to "win"?
Thu Feb 9, 2012, 10:22 AM
Feb 2012

And that's their sponsorship is necessary? Like Reich pointed out in his article:

How many billionaires does it take to buy a presidential election? “With so much at stake” wrote Obama campaign manager Jim Messina on the Obama campaign’s blog, Obama couldn’t “unilaterally disarm.”

But would refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament? To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind: “More of the nation’s wealth and political power is now in the hands of fewer people and large corporations than since the era of the robber barons of the Gilded Age. I will not allow our democracy to be corrupted by this! I will fight to take back our government!”

Small donations would have flooded the Obama campaign, overwhelming Romney’s billionaire super PACs. The people would have been given a chance to be heard.

And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by officially endorsing his own super PAC and allowing campaign manager Jim Messina and even cabinet officers to speak at his super PAC events. Obama will not appear at such events but he, Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the Obama super PAC.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Given how horribly nasty Mz Pip Feb 2012 #1
Not taking the super big bucks would be like taking a knife to a gunfight. Any message shraby Feb 2012 #3
Sorry, sounds like rationalization to me. "But he started it". nm rhett o rick Feb 2012 #4
Maybe Mz Pip Feb 2012 #6
Does to me, too. SammyWinstonJack Feb 2012 #26
Ok, where do I begin DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #2
dupe thread Electric Monk Feb 2012 #5
Unrec. You want Obama to enter the race with one leg tied behind his back? FSogol Feb 2012 #7
Yup ... seems like the word went out. JoePhilly Feb 2012 #10
So you think Obama should depend upon Wall Street and corporate funding to "win"? Better Believe It Feb 2012 #13
I want Obama to win. FSogol Feb 2012 #15
That sounds just a wee bit evasive to me. Care to answer the question? Better Believe It Feb 2012 #20
Evasive? I want Obama to use all legal methods to win. Here's FSogol Feb 2012 #27
Reich makes a huge assumption here based on facts not in evidence. Ikonoklast Feb 2012 #17
Reich is so uneven in his logic flamingdem Feb 2012 #23
This point can't be posted enough. Le Taz Hot Feb 2012 #8
Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad JoePhilly Feb 2012 #9
You cannot fight evil without first embracing it.. Fumesucker Feb 2012 #11
Buy-Partisan corruption. Now, both parties have put out the "For Sale" signs. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #12
Don't hate the player, hate the game. FarLeftFist Feb 2012 #14
Appropriate.. one_voice Feb 2012 #24
It's okay if our guy does it. woo me with science Feb 2012 #16
There's no doubt it's a shame US politics JNelson6563 Feb 2012 #19
Julie: The sad spectacle of those who WANT Obama to lose JNelson6563 Feb 2012 #18
Well said...nt SidDithers Feb 2012 #22
Keep trying...nt SidDithers Feb 2012 #21
meh... SammyWinstonJack Feb 2012 #25
I agree with Reich -- Hell Hath No Fury Feb 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Robert Reich: The Sad S...»Reply #13