Feingold compares new Obama fundraising group to Karl Rove

[Playinghardball]

Source: Raw Story
By Sahil Kapur

WASHINGTON – Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) on Friday tore into Democrats for launching a new outside group to aid President Barack Obama's re-election efforts in part by raising undisclosed funds.

"Democrats who mirror the right-wing tactics of Karl Rove and David Koch do our nation no favors," said Feingold, a longtime opponent of industry-funded elections who now helms Progressives United, according to Politico's Ben Smith. "Our democracy is best served by rejecting the fundamentally corrupt strategy of embracing unlimited corporate influence."

The group, Priorities USA, is poised to receive the kinds of unlimited, undisclosed donations that Obama has spoken out against. It's similar in some respects to Karl Rove Crossroads GPS, which spent millions in anonymous money trying to defeat Democratic candidates last year.

More at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/29/feingold-compares-new-obama-fundraising-group-to-karl-rove/

[Vincardog]

1. Why doesn't Obama come out in favor of PUBLIC FINANCING of elections instead?

[bluestateguy]

4. I don't want my tax dollars funding Michelle Bachman's campaigns

nt

[Vincardog]

6. Do you want the corporations and rich to continue to buy the elections?

[bobbolink]

10. So you would rather the elections go to the highest bidder?

[bluestateguy]

17. All so-called public funding will do is create new loopholes to be exploited

and of course that will mean more laws will have to be passed to plug the loopholes, and then new loopholes will be found, and repeat and rinse.

One unintended consequence of more campaign finance laws is the campaigns having to spend more money on lawyers.

And how will you stop some corporate or ideological group from putting ads on TV saying who to vote for?

[bobbolink]

18. So, it is much better to be deluged with corporate money?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

82. Correct. Just like it does in Arizona,

Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia.

[Capitalocracy]

32. I do.

I most certainly do. Because if I'm funding Bachmann's campaigns, she'll have to please me, not the corporations. And Bachmann's not going to last long in a system like that.

[tritsofme]

12. Because he is going to smash his own record

and raise more hard money than any candidate on earth for his 2012 fight.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enrique]

31. he did

in 2007, he was very supportive of public financing and then in 2008 after winning the nomination, he opted out of public financing for his own campaign.

[Horse with no Name]

87. Because my guess is that the grassroots/union dollars

aren't going to be there for him this time and he knows it.

He is going to have to get the money from his real donors but doesn't want to do it under a microscope.

[physioex]

2. I saw his interview on Colbert yesterday.....

Wish him all the success with his organization.

[bluestateguy]

3. And where did being morally pure get Russ Finegold?

Defeated.

[iwishiwas]

His sense of what is right is where it got him. I imagine he would

do it again. I am proud of him.

[TheKentuckian]

7. There is no "winning" under these circumstances because you can't turn a whore into a housewife.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. +1. As Begala says, you fight with the laws you have, not the ones you wish you had.

Citizens United made it all but impossible for Democrats to compete with Republicans. What is Feingold's big plan? When the GOP can blanket the airwaves with lies & distortions, and they go unchallenged, people will be calling the Dems wimps for not responding. You just can't win the new progressives.

[undeterred]

30. Its Feingold.

And if good morals offend you you'll be much more comfortable across the aisle.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. +1

[Admiral Loinpresser]

36. You're correct. Fascism is a much better strategy.

Most of the good ones lose under the currently rigged system. That is why America has lost any claim to moral authority.

[defendandprotect]

52. Where is Dem Party being on corporate-dole getting you -- or nation?

The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC -- !!!

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know -- pass it along -- !!


:)

[bluestate10]

72. With a complete wingnut taking his seat. Yeah, that's progress.

:banghead:

[polichick]

5. And "fighting fire with fire" will ultimately result in MORE corporate rule...

Just look at Obama and Exelon - it's no mystery why he supports more nuclear power even after Japan's disaster.

[KittyWampus]

13. Not that pathetic LIE again. Don't you people ever stop spreading lies?

there is no "Obama and Exelon". Some employees from Exelon donated money to Obama's campaign. As did some employees from McDonald's and many other corporations in the USA.

You could look at ANY business and do this deceptive crap.

That is very different than taking PAC money or a candidate accepting money that's been bundled.

[polichick]

15. Not that pathetic excuse again - don't you people ever stop lying for the prez?

"When he ran for president, the company’s employees gave at least $200,000, and board member John Rogers Jr., chairman of Chicago-based Ariel Investments LLC, was a top Obama fundraiser."



"Two top former Obama aides, onetime senior adviser David Axelrod and ex-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, had business dealings with Exelon earlier in their careers.

Emanuel, who left the administration to successfully run for mayor of Chicago, worked on the $8.2 billion merger that created Exelon in 2000. Axelrod, currently helping run Obama’s re-election bid, had ownership in a consulting business that had Exelon as a client before he joined the White House in 2009."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-23/dealing-with-exelon-helped-shape-obama-nuclear-view.html

[rhett o rick]

23. Just what do you mean by "you people"? Do you mean "you people with principles"?

I guess I can understand your problem. Damn the principles, full speed ahead. I suggest you look up "integrity".

[bluestate10]

73. Oh. Give me a break. The problem that I have with people like you

is that you hold yourselves as paragons of virtual. You are nowhere near that. Kitty is closer to being right than your viewpoint will get in two lifetimes. Don't lecture me or anyone else on integrity.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fredamae]

9. I have a lot of respect for Russ, However

he offer's No other alternative, no ideas for how Dems can be successful in campaigning.
It's going to cost an unprecedented amount of money. Media/Marketing are all controlled....
So, Mr Feingold, what say you for viable alternatives for winning in 2012.

I know and agree a Lot of innovative and fair election/campaign reforms are needed, but we don't have them, now. We have to deal with the situation in front of us.

[rhett o rick]

24. So we should sell our souls to the corporations. Hey look, we are republicans now. nm

[fredamae]

26. Of course not,

that's not the point at all. Sometimes you must "fight fire With fire" before you can gain control.

Do you have a solution for this conundrum?

[rhett o rick]

27. If by "fighting fire with fire" you mean that we give up our principles, then I dont agree.

We have a lot of fight we can give without that. We havent even tapped our resources.
I dont believe that the ends justifies the means. If you do, you might as well hire Karl Rove and do it up right.

[fredamae]

35. Can you share what other resources we have that are

not tapped already? What "fight" can we give without using "back fire" methods?

I would rather do anything that "fight fire with fire", but without solid alternatives.....

Fighting fire with fire...I use it in terms of fighting forest fires. Crews will go around and set fires to create an already burned area that serves as a "fire block". I mean that term in that context. We have to adapt to the reality around us and use the resources we have.
It does not mean we change our core principle, it means we are flexible realists unafraid to be resourceful.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

37. The solution is to put a Democrat* in the White House.

Then we can have the kind of electoral system they have in civilized countries.

*Of course I am not referring to the current so-called Democratic leadership, but people who actually adhere to the traditional principles of the Democratic Party.

[defendandprotect]

55. Think we have to think more in terms of small "d" democrat -- tons of them around ...!!!

Sen. Bernie Sanders would make a great candidate and he can run on

a Dem ticket -- !!

We need two strong anti-war candidates -- maybe someone like Tom Hayden --

Love Wm. Greider but he may be too old --

Who's the new Howard Zinn?

Moving to put someone from the Dem Party who is already pre-bought and pre-owned

by corporations would be just as big a mistake as Obama was!!

We should also watch re professional Dems re CIA connections --

How many CIA presidents have we had so far?

[fredamae]

61. Personally: Weiner/Sanders or Sanders/Weiner :)

[defendandprotect]

94. I'd take it -- either way -- !!

[bluestate10]

74. As much as I admire him, Russ Feingold is shooting bullets into his

feet and the feet of every other person that care about preventing a republican takeover of government. Unconditional surrender when the other side is determined to shoot you under any circumstance is not a good idea, but that is exactly what Feingold is suggesting democrats do. Bubba in suburbia that will decide the election does not give a monkey's ass about whether democrats made public every dollar collected, he care about what he hears on tv and reads on the web.

[JaneQPublic]

11. He and DK spend more time attacking other Dems than the GOPers

I love and respect them both, but after DK's recent "impeach Obama" campaign, it makes you wonder if they couldn't do a better job focusing their remarkable talents. The job of bashing Obama is already filled by every GOPer alive.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. +1

:applause: Russ, Dennis, & their purist followers would have us believe that you can win elections based on ideas alone. That's bullcrap. If Russ truly believed that, he wouldn't have started a PAC, which takes $$$. Alledged "Integrity" gets you sitting at home, making periodic guest appearances on the teevee, where you have little to no impact on effecting the lives of the people you claim to fight for. Russ found this out, as did Alan Grayson, and Kucinich will be joining them in '12.

Like you said, if Russ wants to remain relevant to the whole Democratic Party, he should use his firepower on the GOP.

[rhett o rick]

33. Our first job is to win back control of the Democratic Party from our corporate overlords.

Until we do that, we are spinning our wheels.

[MadMaddie]

40. I keep saying the same thing over and over again

[rhett o rick]

70. I am glad we are on the same page. nm

[Fuddnik]

34. A slight reading comprehension problem?

Dennis pointed out that some of Obama's actions were impeachable. He did NOT call for Obama's impeachment nor did he introduce articles of impeachment, like he did with Bush.

Pointing out a tornado doesn't equal calling for destruction of the wind.

[Autumn]

71. Yeah but "calling for impeachment" sounds so

much better than what he actually said and gives a reason to trash Dennis. Go figure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DutchLiberal]

63. I thought they were supposed to represent the people, not the party or the president.

I thought we, at DU, got mad when congressmen put party before principles?

Oh no, wait, that only counts when it's Republicans!

[bluestate10]

75. +1,000,000. And we know DK sleeps with a winger. nt

[defendandprotect]

95. Unfortunately, it is quite sadly "Democrats" who are undermining New Deal -- !!

Should that be ignored?

[MadMaddie]

14. I like Feingold but until the system is fixed we need to understand

we have to equal the playing field. It sucks and I hate it but the only way it changes is if we get an overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate.

[rhett o rick]

20. Right! "The ends justifies the means!" Karl Rove. Maybe we should just hire Karl. nm

[MadMaddie]

28. Again until we get an overwhelming majority in the House and

Senate to create a law that strikes down the Supreme Court ruling we will struggle to win and lose.

Tell me how the Democratic party competes with the Koch Brothers? If you have the answer then tell everyone so we can use your plan.

We are not fighting the Rovian Plan we are fighting a bigger battle against the Supreme Court.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

38. When we had enough power, Obama squandered it. n/t

[MadMaddie]

41. When we had the power the Senate let 300 bills sit at their

door because of the Republicans putting annoynomous holds on the bills coming to the floor. President Obama cannot sign a bill into law unless it goes through the process.

Continue to blame President Obama for the failure of the Senate if it makes you feel good. REID and the Senate Dems failed to counteract the Republicans bullshit.

[fredamae]

43. What Senate rule could they have depended upon

to end the 375 filibusters brought into action by the pubs?
The Dems had a majority in Numbers Only, clearly, they have never controlled the senate because there was never enough blue dogs and moderate pubs to over-ride the filibuster.

Seriously, What was available based on senate rules that they failed to act upon?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

50. When Bush had fewer in Congress, why was he able

to get his way?

As to rules, reconciliation should have been used when necessary.

[defendandprotect]

57. Exactly -- !! Too much collaboration by Obama with GOP --

[fredamae]

58. They can only use reconciliation once per

session and the Dems used it on health care to get us what we were able to get, given the repub bs.

Giving my best guess upon your other qwuestion, they must have had enough Blue Dog Dems voting with them to pass. I haven't looked up votes for those sessions.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

65. You're making my point.

Reconciliation was used for an unconscionable bill, including major sections from Big Healthcare.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

67. Also, the real difference is cultural.

The GOP, when out of power, uses every available means to obstruct. When the GOP has power, it uses it without negotiation.

We need Democrats to start treating these GOP scumbags as enemies of the state, not legislative colleagues. That's why the GOP is effective and we're not. It's not about specific rules. When rules are inconvenient, the GOP breaks them or ignores them.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

60. How about changing the rules?

Or making them actually filibuster?

Bush had smaller congressional numbers than Obama and got almost everything he wanted due to a hardball style.

Clinton's most important legislation was passed without a single Republican vote.

[MadMaddie]

84. This goes back to my original point we need an overwhelming

Senate majority of REAL Democrats (no Blue Dogs and no dependency on Moderate Repugs) and we need to get rid of the anonymous holds. Reid had the power to make the hold rule change at the beginning of this year, I don't remember it happening.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

47. It's a difference of cultures.

Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes. Democrats aren't. Obama negotiated how far he had to bend over on healthcare.

[fredamae]

59. Ok, however; What Senate Rule could they

have used that was at their finger-tips to use and they failed to employ?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

62. The rules can be changed.

Also reconciliation was available.

The GOP was in total war mode. Obama was not. He was too busy courting favor from the people who make health care unaffordable.

[fredamae]

93. Reconciliation was used

on health care reform they can only use it once per session.

To your second point, I would tend to agree the rules must be changed, but given the obstruction from the pubs with the 375 bills they had already blocked...(bills that if passed would have Positively impacted our economy And relieved the debt/spending burden by generating jobs).
How do you think they could have voted on a bill that would Impede their ability to filibuster? They, for all intents and purpose would have handed the Dems the very solution to the shenanigans the pubs were pulling.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

76. Are you kidding me?

The 61 vote threshold in the Senate is what stopped progress. I am damned glad that threshold exists now, though I hated it before. With people like progressives running around blowing up democrats and seemingly being good with republicans getting elected, democrats are going to have to use the 61 vote requirement to the advantage of the nation, to keep the whole fucking society from being destroyed by republicans.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

92. I'm tired of hearing that cloture prevents

Democrats from using power. When for eight years it did not stop Bush from breaking the tradition of over 200 years of civil liberties and military justice in our moribund republic.

Obama does not appear to have realized that the GOP is a disloyal opposition and enemies of the state. Let's hope we someday have another Democratic president who realizes that no good comes from negotiating with the right wing.

Can anyone explain why the Dems need 60 votes when they are in power while the GOP doesn't?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vi5]

16. Of all the ways he could mimic Rove....

THIS is what he chooses and is o.k. with?

Not the political hardball?

Not the enforcement of rigorous party discipline with consequences for obstructionists?

Not the strict and relentless messaging?

But raising massive amounts of cash from wealthy donors?

Why doesn't this surprise me?

[jbnow]

69. "He" isn't doing it. "He" can't do it if "he' is the candidate.

The candidate can't be connected or consulted

[vi5]

88. O.K., then "they".....

And I'm sure nobody associated with this is at all any of the "they" who lectured people who advocated pushing through and being stronger and playing hardball to get progressive legislation that "we can't be like they are and just ram things through or force people in our party to do anything or punish them if they break ranks....that's what republicans do and we're better than that."

[OHdem10]

19. For the last 30 years we have "played nice" and have lost lost

lost. Until the system is fixed, we must fight fire
with fire.

I admire Feingold, but he is wrong on this.

[rhett o rick]

21. Kinda like "Damn Yankees". Sell your soul for a chance to win. Good idea. Now we are the enemy. nm

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

77. YES!!! If the corporate money to our side allow us to move toward a more

equitable society, FUCKING YES!!!

[DutchLiberal]

64. What do you mean, "we played nice"? You act as if Democrats haven't sold their soul to corporations

They've been doing it for at least the past 3 decades!

[vi5]

91. This isn't the area we need to mimic republicans on...

We should mimic them as far as political hardball.
We should mimic them as far as demanding as much party unity and on-point messaging as possible.
We should mimic them by rewarding Democrats who advocate strong progressive legislation, and by punishing Democrats who break rank.

Those are all things that Republicans do, and that for the past couple of years people advocating we play hardball like they do were told "Oh my. We can't be like Republicans. Nobody likes that. We'll do things nice and bipartisan and then everyone will love us and and reaching across the aisle"

Well that didn't happen and now of all the lessons they are learning and all the ways we are going to "stop playing nice", taking anonymous corporate cash is what the powers that be choose to do in mimicking the Republicans.

I agree the system needs to be fixed, but it needs to be fixed once both sides are playing the same game across the board. Not just picking and choosing.

[Keith Bee]

22. Can you say, "2016," boyce & gurlse?

I know you can. ;-)

[Ship of Fools]

25. it sucks, i hate it

but i'll bet you any amount of $$ that Obama hates it more. Russ, oh wise one -- how about digging in and helping instead of pointing fingers? I live paycheck to paycheck, bubba, but i still contribute monthly to beat back big buck bubbas who want to destroy this place. pfffffftttttt on you.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

39. Feingold 2012. n/t

n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. Yep

:hi:

Sounds like someone needs to start a grassroots campaign. :)

[Admiral Loinpresser]

81. LMAO.

Do you think we have enough energy for one more rodeo?

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. I know I'm pissed off enough

Probably more so than last go round.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

85. Me too.

Even Clinton had some redeeming issues. But Obama is nothing but naked corporatism.

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. It's not just him either

We have a country full of corporate Dems.

The KDP has also allowed the tea party to take over the state. When I heard that Virgil Peck had ran unopposed, I was livid. He didn't just get crazy overnite. We also had some friends in college from his district and spent some time down there. Those are not insane people who want to shoot Mexicans.

[bvar22]

42. And the difference between Republicans and "Democrats" gets even smaller.

:(



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
"By their WORKS you will know them."

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

66. Brilliant strategery, Russ! Derp.

[Azathoth]

68. Yeah Russ, your strategy for dealing with Rove's Crossroads money really paid off n/t

[BzaDem]

79. Our democracy is NOT best served by unilateral disarmament, allowing one side to always win using

unlimited fundraising.

It's tantamount to arguing that one shouldn't use violence to defend themself if violence is being used against them or their family. I find it amazing that anyone agrees with Feingold here.

[Arkana]

90. Why do so many "progressives" view fundraising as evil?

[Arkana]

89. I think we should run in the same election as the other guys, don't you?

No point in playing by rules that no longer exist.

[RB TexLa]

96. Didn't Karl Rove do a good job at raising a lot of money? I'd take it as a compliment from the

senator.