The other day I responded to a Facebook post written by an old High School contact. My response was unexpected, and I failed to follow a few rules of common courtesy that might have prevented any hard feelings, so overall the exchange was unsatisfying.
The reason I commented was that a quote from a Democratic Party leader implied that the DNC & Obama's choice to spurn PAC and Super-PAC money in the upcoming General Election was indicative of the righteousness of their party, candidate, and ideology.
I disagreed, and said as much. It was not well-received.
What are we to make of this news? From CNN's Political Ticker blog:
Obama campaign to support super PAC fundraising
Obviously, it puts the lie to Obama's holier-than-thou approach to super-PAC's in the past.
I wouldn't have had a problem with this strategy had he, and his surrogates, not staked out a philosophical basis for refusing to participate in this way.
07 February 2012
Pot Calling Kettle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's all about the "benjamins" in every aspect of life. Politics is no exception. I can't envision a world where any candidate would ever turn down money...even with long, thick strings attached. Sad but true. Elections are won and lost sometimes simply by who has the most coin.
Tangentially related:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast-full-transcript/
Excellent link A.J.
To your point Bruce, I agree that money and politics are inextricable, and I don't take issue with Obama's use of the resources available to him. Just the facade of righteousness that he has casually abandoned when convenient.
Post a Comment