Posted by Sir Four at 10:49am Jun 11 '12People like Mr. Uygur here are always setting these litmus tests. No politician is ever just good enough; they must pass all the tests, and if they don't, then undermine them. Turn all the young progressives against him. Here, he's even expressing regret that McCain lost to Obama...how misguided this dude is!
I hadn't heard that McCain sent a letter to the SCOTUS objecting to the Citizens United decision, and I commend him on that. I also wish Obama would send a similar letter. But is that the single defining test of where someone stands on this issue?
Uygur rightly notes that Obama called out the Court in the 2010 State of the Union address--denouncing a Court's decision in this way is quite a high-profile attack from one branch of government to another. But okay, did Obama let it rest there?
Not quite. In 2010, Democrats in Congress attempted to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would've undone some of the damage of Citizens United. Obama backed this strongly, again outlining the damage SCOTUS had done:
DISCLOSE died due to Republican filibuster. And ah, look at that, Cenk's BFF McCain joined the filibuster.
Obama this year stated his support for a constitutional amendment undoing Citizens United, but I don't see how such a thing would get through Congress considering Republicans killed the weaker DISCLOSE Act.
But in Cenk Uygur's world, Congress bears no responsibility. Everything that happens or doesn't happen is the fault of the President (a novice political mistake, and Uygur should know better). I'm supposed to believe that the overturn of Citizens United depends on whether or not Obama sends a sternly-worded letter to the Court (as if his position is currently unknown to them)?
Finally, let's look at the issue from a Court nominee perspective. Obama's sole nomination on the Court at the time, Sotomayor, dissented on the decision. It's not outlandish to believe future Obama nominees would also be opposed to Citizens United. Mitt Romney, in contract, supports Citizens United and promises to nominate justices similar to Alito, Thomas, and Scalia...all of whom were in the 5-4 majority on this case.
I'm not naive enough to not see the conflict of interest that Obama and all politicians have here. It's an election year, and nobody wants to piss off donors. That said, Obama will never be seeking office again after this year, so that one final conflict is removed in his case. Strong viewpoint against Citizens United + removal of conflict of interest = ... ? Progress? I don't know, because it's so dependent on Congress.
I do know the outcome of crap like that of Mr. Uygur will be a suppressed progressive turn-out for Obama, possibly leading to a Mitt Romney victory. Tell me how we'll be less fucked in that scenario.
I hadn't heard that McCain sent a letter to the SCOTUS objecting to the Citizens United decision, and I commend him on that. I also wish Obama would send a similar letter. But is that the single defining test of where someone stands on this issue?
Uygur rightly notes that Obama called out the Court in the 2010 State of the Union address--denouncing a Court's decision in this way is quite a high-profile attack from one branch of government to another. But okay, did Obama let it rest there?
Not quite. In 2010, Democrats in Congress attempted to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would've undone some of the damage of Citizens United. Obama backed this strongly, again outlining the damage SCOTUS had done:
A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy.
They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads -- and worst of all, they don't even have to reveal who's actually paying for the ads. Instead, a group can hide behind a name like "Citizens for a Better Future," even if a more accurate name would be "Companies for Weaker Oversight." These [private] groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections.
DISCLOSE died due to Republican filibuster. And ah, look at that, Cenk's BFF McCain joined the filibuster.
Obama this year stated his support for a constitutional amendment undoing Citizens United, but I don't see how such a thing would get through Congress considering Republicans killed the weaker DISCLOSE Act.
But in Cenk Uygur's world, Congress bears no responsibility. Everything that happens or doesn't happen is the fault of the President (a novice political mistake, and Uygur should know better). I'm supposed to believe that the overturn of Citizens United depends on whether or not Obama sends a sternly-worded letter to the Court (as if his position is currently unknown to them)?
Finally, let's look at the issue from a Court nominee perspective. Obama's sole nomination on the Court at the time, Sotomayor, dissented on the decision. It's not outlandish to believe future Obama nominees would also be opposed to Citizens United. Mitt Romney, in contract, supports Citizens United and promises to nominate justices similar to Alito, Thomas, and Scalia...all of whom were in the 5-4 majority on this case.
I'm not naive enough to not see the conflict of interest that Obama and all politicians have here. It's an election year, and nobody wants to piss off donors. That said, Obama will never be seeking office again after this year, so that one final conflict is removed in his case. Strong viewpoint against Citizens United + removal of conflict of interest = ... ? Progress? I don't know, because it's so dependent on Congress.
I do know the outcome of crap like that of Mr. Uygur will be a suppressed progressive turn-out for Obama, possibly leading to a Mitt Romney victory. Tell me how we'll be less fucked in that scenario.
The liberal circular firing squad - Sir Four