Everywhere we turn, we hear that the 0 campaign is struggling to raise campaign cash because those evil Republicans are taking full advantage of the Citizens United ruling. They’re going to buy the election, shriek fanatical anti-capitalist leftists. They’re going to steal it from Teh Won! How can we let this happen? It’s wrong to raise so much campaign cash, it’s obscene, it’s unethical, it’s downright undemocratic.
Flashback. Remember when the 0 campaign was being lauded for their potential to run the first (“unprecedented” and “historic”) billion dollar campaign? MSNBC does. That’s why when you click on their post extolling the virtues of massive campaign coffers: “Obama to run moneyed campaign. He amassed a record $750 million in 2008 … he’s expected to hit $1 billion or more in 2012,” you receive the message: “Text: We’re sorry. The text content of this page is no longer available.”
I expect all of these slobbering awe-struck posts will soon be removed (good thing we can grab them first, huh?):
Reuters didn’t find it gauche or unseemly when they thought their buddy would amass a billion dollars to “buy the presidency”: “Analysis: Billion-dollar Obama to run moneyed campaign”
President Barack Obama is no longer the outsider candidate who fueled his bid for the White House in 2008 with a flood of small donations from new and young voters inspired by his message of hope and change.
As a sitting president he has far greater authority and media access and his 2012 re-election campaign is expected to raise $1 billion, which is unprecedented in U.S. politics.
ABC was predictably drooling at the idea. “Obama set to announce reelection bid“:
Some believe that Obama, who has a true knack for raising election money, may cross the threshold and could become the first $1 billion presidential candidate.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
According to The Associated Press, Obama intends to stay out of the fray until Republicans settle on a candidate next spring. But exactly who that will be is the billion-dollar question.
Roll Call was on the story. “GOP Has New 2012 Target: Obama’s $1 Billion Campaign”
But a fat bank account is rarely a bad thing in politics. And most Democrats laugh off the suggestion that hitting the billion-dollar mark could be a political liability. At the very least, Obama’s fundraising prowess could become a distraction as the campaign progresses.
Dems aren’t laughing off big campaign coffers any longer . . . not since 0 started lagging behind in fund raising, that is. Indeed, now a “fat bank account” is a bad thing. A very bad thing for Democrats. Now that it’s future president Mitt Romney hauling in the massive cash, they find huge campaign coffers unAmerican and wildly proclaim that (suddenly) large amounts of campaign cash “put our democracy at stake.” After all, when it’s 0 outspending his opponent as he did in 2008, that’s awe-inspiring leg-tingling good, that’s “democracy” in action, but when it’s future president Mitt Romney, it’s suddenly a threat to our “democracy”?
And they honestly expect to be taken seriously. Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?