FARK.com: (6977452) White House to House and Senate Democrats: No money for you, not yours. It's about that $1 billion we thought we had, well we need to watch the bottom line. You're on your own

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		White House to House and Senate Democrats: No money for you, not yours. It's about that $1 billion we thought we had, well we need to watch the bottom line. You're on your own (politico.com)		59
		More: Interesting, White House, Senate, senate democrats, David Plouffe, Obama for America, congresses, President Obama, Jim VandeHei

• • •

3160 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2012 at 1:39 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6977452

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

59 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Ender's		2012-03-05 11:28:59 AM

Good.

FlashHarry		2012-03-05 11:33:54 AM

the koch bros. have personally pledged something like $100 million to defeat obama. that's from two people. and the republican super pacs will spend more than that. this will easily be a billion-dollar election. so it's no wonder that obama wants to safeguard all the cash he can.

NewportBarGuy		2012-03-05 11:51:16 AM

How much can it possibly cost to reply highlights from the GOP debates? That's all he has to do. No bumper stickers, no ground team, no t-shirts. Just play those highlights over and over, have two debates and cruise to victory.

hillbillypharmacist		2012-03-05 12:02:15 PM

NewportBarGuy: How much can it possibly cost to reply highlights from the GOP debates?

Especially Romney. He's got quotes for and against all positions.

Codenamechaz		2012-03-05 12:11:38 PM

Probably could send the House some money, but the senate can go fark themselves since they spent more time begging Obama to do their work for them.

Aar1012		2012-03-05 12:15:37 PM

hillbillypharmacist: NewportBarGuy: How much can it possibly cost to reply highlights from the GOP debates?

Especially Romney. He's got quotes for and against all positions.

Just wait till the Romney Attack Ad that attacks the President's Attack Ads.

/Romney was for and/or against attack ads before it was popular.

jehovahs witness protection		2012-03-05 12:52:23 PM

He's making Nancy angry. You wouldn't like Nancy when she's angry.

FloydA		2012-03-05 12:54:25 PM

Aar1012: hillbillypharmacist: NewportBarGuy: How much can it possibly cost to reply highlights from the GOP debates?

Especially Romney. He's got quotes for and against all positions.

Just wait till the Romney Attack Ad that attacks the President's Attack Ads.

/Romney was for and/or against attack ads before it was popular.

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve and/or disapprove of this message.

Elandriel		2012-03-05 01:22:13 PM

NewportBarGuy: How much can it possibly cost to reply highlights from the GOP debates? That's all he has to do. No bumper stickers, no ground team, no t-shirts. Just play those highlights over and over, have two debates and cruise to victory.

I'm guessing it will cost them a lot of money to air "They are lying to you again" ads when the opposition just starts making crap up from thin air. It's largely how they won 2010. I for one am not going to underestimate the abject stupidity of the average American voter. There are few immutable laws in this universe, one of them seems to be "American voters are functional retards with the attention span of a gnat."

Guaranteed that the media will spin this in late summer as neck and neck, as landslides don't sell much print. They need the controversy, they need the tension and drama of a close race and they will invent that narrative even if every legitimate poll suggests otherwise. When that happens, the Obama campaign is going to need to actually campaign, because they can't count on a media which is more interested in profits than reporting.

what_now		2012-03-05 01:29:26 PM

Well, people who donated to Obama didn't necessarily donate to the Senate and House democrats.

I'd be pretty pissed if I knew the donation that I made (to purchase a set of Joe Biden beer koozies) went to pay for Ben Fng Nelson's* re-election.

* I know he's retiring. I'm making a point.

Garet Garrett		2012-03-05 01:43:54 PM

Boy, it's almost like their number one priority is getting Obama re-elected.

Of course, stating the opposite position is dam' near treason.

Raharu		2012-03-05 01:44:47 PM

Wheres your Winterwhile now!

CaptainCliche		2012-03-05 01:45:20 PM

And this is why I fear Mittens will carpetbomb the general election and beat Obama the same way he's winning the primaries.

Carth		2012-03-05 01:47:04 PM

Headline would ahve made more sense if the world "campaign" w

Rwa2play		2012-03-05 01:49:19 PM

As far as the Senate Dems are concerned:

farm5.staticflickr.com

They deserved that; they have been more than willing to backstab Obama at the drop of a hat. Fark 'em, fark the lot of them.

DrippinBalls		2012-03-05 01:49:56 PM

Reid & Pelosi? They're 1% elitist whores, they shouldn't have problems finding $$$.

ArcadianRefugee		2012-03-05 01:50:43 PM

Carth: Headline would ahve made more sense if the world "campaign" w

Someone just have a seizure?

odinsposse		2012-03-05 01:51:54 PM

CaptainCliche: And this is why I fear Mittens will carpetbomb the general election and beat Obama the same way he's winning the primaries.

He's spending ten times the money of any other candidate to beat Santorum. He won't have anywhere near that kind of advantage over Obama.

max_pooper		2012-03-05 01:52:49 PM

Garet Garrett: Boy, it's almost like their number one priority is getting Obama re-elected.

Of course, stating the opposite position is dam' near treason.

A campaign committee and seated legislators should have much different priorities. Obama's campaign should prioritize getting Obama re-elected. Congressional GOP douche-bags should prioritize legislating, but instead they have stated that their top priority is Obama being a one term president.

FloydA		2012-03-05 01:59:41 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Carth: Headline would ahve made more sense if the world "campaign" w

Someone just have a seizure?

OMG, THEY GOT CARTH!

bikerific		2012-03-05 02:13:29 PM

Really had to go a long way for the 'not yours' meme here.

It really doesn't work without a picture of a pony.

Muta		2012-03-05 02:14:50 PM

The Dem Congress critters can easily benefit from Obama's Super PAC money. All they have to do is show up to Obama campaign stops and stand near him when the cameras are on them.

PonceAlyosha		2012-03-05 02:16:11 PM

Muta: The Dem Congress critters can easily benefit from Obama's Super PAC money. All they have to do is show up to Obama campaign stops and stand near him when the cameras are on them.

I wouldn't give them any money either after like what, half, tried to explicitly distance themselves from Obama in 2010 in ads and rhetoric?

runwiz		2012-03-05 02:26:23 PM

I don't think it's about the money Obama can raise. He'll probably still raise the $1 billion. But because of the Citizens United ruling, $1 billion may be chump change to what the Republicans will raise. Of course, it's not about the money that is raised, it's about the money spent. In the US, elections are now just a multi-billion dollar industry with growth potential.

Bag of Hammers		2012-03-05 02:28:13 PM

*i'mokwiththispic*

CaptainCliche		2012-03-05 02:29:09 PM

odinsposse: CaptainCliche: And this is why I fear Mittens will carpetbomb the general election and beat Obama the same way he's winning the primaries.

He's spending ten times the money of any other candidate to beat Santorum. He won't have anywhere near that kind of advantage over Obama.

Do you see the Koch brothers saying "Sorry, Mitt. We're tapped out. You're just gonna have to run on your record." I don't. I see the right wing noise machine spending whatever is necessary to win.

BuckTurgidson		2012-03-05 02:30:52 PM

PonceAlyosha: Muta: The Dem Congress critters can easily benefit from Obama's Super PAC money. All they have to do is show up to Obama campaign stops and stand near him when the cameras are on them.

I wouldn't give them any money either after like what, half, tried to explicitly distance themselves from Obama in 2010 in ads and rhetoric?

I can understand the sentiment, but will teaching the Democrats a lesson by putting Mitch McTurtle in charge of the Senate agenda actually advance your interests?

The Numbers		2012-03-05 02:34:47 PM

Well shiat. I figured Obama would make it at least two years into his second term before he became a lame duck. If this is the case, then I'm being too generous. He's gonna be short of support on both sides of the aisle.

PonceAlyosha		2012-03-05 02:35:32 PM

BuckTurgidson: I can understand the sentiment, but will teaching the Democrats a lesson by putting Mitch McTurtle in charge of the Senate agenda actually advance your interests?

This has nothing to do with teaching them a lesson and everything to do with strategy. You don't pay people to fight against you. Congressional Democrats would still be buoyed by Obama having more to campaign with anyway, just maybe not as much as if they had direct access to the money.

Apocalyptic Inferno		2012-03-05 02:43:50 PM

Something I can't figure out is why Obama is not changing VPs to someone that actually would have a chance at continuing a Democratic presidency after his second term. I don't really have anything against Biden, but he won't be the nominee in 2016. They should be setting their party up with a viable candidate next time around.

draa		2012-03-05 02:46:43 PM

PonceAlyosha: You don't pay people to fight against you.

And that's what most of it is likely about. Why give the farking Bluedogs money when they'll just support Republicans anyway. Stop giving them the funds. Those that have solid ideas will be elected, those that don't can keep kissing the Republican's asses from their couch instead of a chair in Congress.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier		2012-03-05 02:55:56 PM

Maybe the House and Senate Dems should have spent more time standing up to the Teatards. It's not the President's job to write laws.

The Numbers		2012-03-05 02:56:52 PM

Apocalyptic Inferno: Something I can't figure out is why Obama is not changing VPs to someone that actually would have a chance at continuing a Democratic presidency after his second term. I don't really have anything against Biden, but he won't be the nominee in 2016. They should be setting their party up with a viable candidate next time around.

Yeah, this. It isn't like he's going to be attacked for a lack of experience this time around. Aside from Clinton, Reid and Pelosi I can't think of that many Democrats who would start with good national name recognition. This is a big thing for setting up 2016.

CaptainCliche		2012-03-05 03:02:20 PM

The Numbers: Apocalyptic Inferno: Something I can't figure out is why Obama is not changing VPs to someone that actually would have a chance at continuing a Democratic presidency after his second term. I don't really have anything against Biden, but he won't be the nominee in 2016. They should be setting their party up with a viable candidate next time around.

Yeah, this. It isn't like he's going to be attacked for a lack of experience this time around. Aside from Clinton, Reid and Pelosi I can't think of that many Democrats who would start with good national name recognition. This is a big thing for setting up 2016.

As a Democrat, I would ask: who? Ever since Wiener wienered it, we haven't had an "up and comer" in the party that is nationally known. A VP nod can elevate a figure, but as Palin so exquisitely demonstrated, you send a unknown rookie up to the bigs too fast, and you might not like what happens after they open their mouth.

PonceAlyosha		2012-03-05 03:10:52 PM

Apocalyptic Inferno: Something I can't figure out is why Obama is not changing VPs to someone that actually would have a chance at continuing a Democratic presidency after his second term. I don't really have anything against Biden, but he won't be the nominee in 2016. They should be setting their party up with a viable candidate next time around.

Because the Dems and camp Obama specifically are already laying the groundwork for Elizabeth Warren. To follow up the first black president with the first female president will give the Dems another foot up in the race because of media sensationalism. Other than that, Biden is too old and the Obama administration will be smart to not attempt direct continuity between their administration and the next one so the GOP can't try to use generic anti-incumbent/Obama sentiment against the 2016 candidate.

hillbillypharmacist		2012-03-05 03:11:19 PM

CaptainCliche: As a Democrat, I would ask: who?

There's always Mike Beebe, the Democratic governor of Arkansas. He has the #1 approval rating of governors, or did in 2010. He's a blue dog, and has a crappy track record on equal rights. But he's otherwise a competent bureaucrat. I'm not sure how charismatic he would be on a national stage, though.

hillbillypharmacist		2012-03-05 03:12:22 PM

PonceAlyosha: Because the Dems and camp Obama specifically are already laying the groundwork for Elizabeth Warren.

Oo0h I like that idea. She's great.

BuckTurgidson		2012-03-05 03:14:33 PM

The Numbers		2012-03-05 03:22:19 PM

CaptainCliche: The Numbers: Apocalyptic Inferno: Something I can't figure out is why Obama is not changing VPs to someone that actually would have a chance at continuing a Democratic presidency after his second term. I don't really have anything against Biden, but he won't be the nominee in 2016. They should be setting their party up with a viable candidate next time around.

Yeah, this. It isn't like he's going to be attacked for a lack of experience this time around. Aside from Clinton, Reid and Pelosi I can't think of that many Democrats who would start with good national name recognition. This is a big thing for setting up 2016.

As a Democrat, I would ask: who? Ever since Wiener wienered it, we haven't had an "up and comer" in the party that is nationally known. A VP nod can elevate a figure, but as Palin so exquisitely demonstrated, you send a unknown rookie up to the bigs too fast, and you might not like what happens after they open their mouth.

True, although you can pretty much rely on Biden for several solid gaffes during the campaign anyway. Personally, I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren get the nod.

PonceAlyosha		2012-03-05 03:25:11 PM

The Numbers: True, although you can pretty much rely on Biden for several solid gaffes during the campaign anyway. Personally, I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren get the nod.

Why do you think she was so quickly promoted from a department appointee to senatorial candidate? She scared the GOP in congress, then when she went on TV, especially the Daily Show and Colbert, people majorly responded.

CaptainCliche		2012-03-05 03:28:57 PM

PonceAlyosha: The Numbers: True, although you can pretty much rely on Biden for several solid gaffes during the campaign anyway. Personally, I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren get the nod.

Why do you think she was so quickly promoted from a department appointee to senatorial candidate? She scared the GOP in congress, then when she went on TV, especially the Daily Show and Colbert, people majorly responded.

A woman VP to a black President? Oh my. The tea party's outrage would finally reach critical mass and we could power our cities for centuries with the energy generated.

Please please please this.

blahpers		2012-03-05 03:31:31 PM

Carth: Headline would ahve made more sense if the world "campaign" w

Well, it's no "Pricipal . Caught sayof".

jjorsett		2012-03-05 03:36:38 PM

It's about that $1 billion we thought we had, well we need to watch the bottom line.

Understandable. It's going to take every dollar they can ~~con people out of~~ scrape together to try to convince Americans to vote against their own best interests and reelect this disaster.

FloydA		2012-03-05 03:40:20 PM

BuckTurgidson:
The Democratic candidate will come from outside the White House.. Maybe Andrew Cuomo or Tim Kaine.or Elizabeth Warren.

Brian Schweitzer is another name that could be on that list. A long shot, perhaps, but I said the same thing about him in 2004.

FloydA		2012-03-05 03:41:56 PM

jjorsett: It's about that $1 billion we thought we had, well we need to watch the bottom line.

Understandable. It's going to take every dollar they can con people out of scrape together to try to convince Americans to vote against their own best interests and reelect this disaster.

[i41.tinypic.com image 640x363]

You're adorable, kitten.

tenpoundsofcheese		2012-03-05 04:10:44 PM

FlashHarry: the koch bros. have personally pledged something like $100 million to defeat obama. .

of course that is a lie, but keep repeating it.

It is about time that 0bama is watching the bottom line about something!

Arkanaut		2012-03-05 04:14:54 PM

ArkPanda		2012-03-05 04:29:22 PM

hillbillypharmacist: CaptainCliche: As a Democrat, I would ask: who?

There's always Mike Beebe, the Democratic governor of Arkansas. He has the #1 approval rating of governors, or did in 2010. He's a blue dog, and has a crappy track record on equal rights. But he's otherwise a competent bureaucrat. I'm not sure how charismatic he would be on a national stage, though.

Word around here is that he'll be going for the Senate seat the Democrats lost in 2010. He's term limited out as governor in 2014.

hillbillypharmacist		2012-03-05 04:38:02 PM

ArkPanda: Word around here is that he'll be going for the Senate seat the Democrats lost in 2010. He's term limited out as governor in 2014.

That's a great idea, really.