Robert Reich - "Obama Has Handed The Election Over To The Super Rich"

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i encourage you to continue reading robert reich. he makes a lot of sense.

in the meantime, don't expect democrats to take it in the nuts like 2010 when their campaign strategy of whining about citizen's united proved ineffective vs. billions in dollars of anonymous money.

it's the law. democrats aren't going to handicap themselves another election cycle by playing under a different set of rules.

i don't think this is reichs point; i think it was that perhaps obama and co could have done something about superpacs, rather than just shrug their shoulders, tie on their bibs, and sit down to the feast.

You forget that hig is still entrenched in the false left-right paradigm. He's basically a power bottom for the democratic party. He likes it raw dog.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't think this is reichs point; i think it was that perhaps obama and co could have done something about superpacs, rather than just shrug their shoulders, tie on their bibs, and sit down to the feast.

"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."


Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/17251255054#ixzz1m0OicAo2

i think reich was asking the president's campaign to "set an example" and that american's would swarm to him with small donations.

that's unbelievably optimistic and ultimately the campaign made the calculation that they wouldn't risk a second term on it. they'd play by the rules everyone else is playing by.

obama's state of the union address right after the ruling (the one that had sam alito shaking his head in disagreement) called for congress to pass new rules requiring disclosure. no surprise that following their sweep in 2010 republicans weren't terribly interested.

since the administration can't unilaterally change the rules by themselves i'm not sure what else they were supposed to do. they could be virtuous losers or they could play the game to win.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

"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."


Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/17251255054#ixzz1m0OicAo2

i think reich was asking the president's campaign to "set an example" and that american's would swarm to him with small donations.

that's unbelievably optimistic and ultimately the campaign made the calculation that they wouldn't risk a second term on it. they'd play by the rules everyone else is playing by.

obama's state of the union address right after the ruling (the one that had sam alito shaking his head in disagreement) called for congress to pass new rules requiring disclosure. no surprise that following their sweep in 2010 republicans weren't terribly interested.

since the administration can't unilaterally change the rules by themselves i'm not sure what else they were supposed to do. they could be virtuous losers or they could play the game to win.

It isnt a game, if you believe that something is a very specific and dangerous threat to our way of life and system of government (and say so) then you should hold your moral ground or done something about it when you had the chance. Not sell out and get on board because everyone has more cash than you do. BS.

[Riot]

In 2010, after Citizen's United, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act in response. Senate Republicans blocked it's passage.

Yesterday Pelosi announced the Dems are going to re-present it. Let's see what Republican Leader Boehner does with it.

I missed the calls of hypocrite regarding Mitt Romney, last year, saying the very same things Obama did, then supporting his nice SuperPac.

And anger against the GOP for blocking the Dem attempts to reverse some of Citizens United.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

It isnt a game, if you believe that something is a very specific and dangerous threat to our way of life and system of government (and say so) then you should hold your moral ground or done something about it when you had the chance. Not sell out and get on board because everyone has more cash than you do. BS.

someone who is in favor of gun control deserves what they get if they bring just a knife to a fight where they know everyone else carries a gun.

citizen's united was a bad decision and congress has done nothing to ameliorate it's shortcomings.

and now everyone's going to play by the same rules because no one is actually stupid enough to go first on roshambo twice.

it's unfortunate but inevitable.