From MSNBC By Michael Isikoff National investigative correspondent
Billionaires give big to new 'super PACS' Group spearheaded by Karl Rove vows massive attack ad campaign to defeat President Barack Obama next year
American Crossroads, the super PAC spearheaded by Karl Rove, is vowing a massive attack ad campaign aimed at defeating President Barack Obama next year. The group reported it had raised $3.8 million during the first six months of 2011.
The group proclaims on its website that its mission is to empower "America's citizens" to "take back control of their government." But the new report suggests American Crossroads is anything but a grassroots funded organization.
More than 90 percent of its money this year came from just three billionaire donors: Jerry Perenchio, the former Hollywood talent agent and ex-chairman of the Spanish language television network Univision, whose trust contributed $2 million; Dallas area hotel magnate Robert Rowling, who gave $1 million; and Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who donated $500,000.
All three have given generously to Republican and conservative causes in the past. Perry, who bankrolled tort reform efforts to limit lawsuits, was American Crossroads' biggest single donor last year, giving the group $7 million.
Does President Barack Obama really deserve to be re-elected as President??? When the stimulus Package was passed by the House and the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama back in February of 2009, the Nation's Unemployment rate was at 8.2%. Now the Nation's Unemployment rate is at 9.2%. (1) The State of California overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama for President back in November of 2008. (2) When the stimulus Package was passed by the House and the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama back in February of 2009, California's unemployment rate was at 10.5%. (3) Now California's unemployment rate is as high as 11.8%. (4) President Barack Obama has Not been successful in getting Californians back to work. (5) During the month of June of this Year, as many as 28 States reported increases in their unemployment rate. (6)
Brackite wrote:Does President Barack Obama really deserve to be re-elected as President???
No.
When the stimulus Package was passed by the House and the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama back in February of 2009, the Nation's Unemployment rate was at 8.2%. Now the Nation's Unemployment rate is at 9.2%. (1) The State of California overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama for President back in November of 2008. (2) When the stimulus Package was passed by the House and the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama back in February of 2009, California's unemployment rate was at 10.5%. (3) Now California's unemployment rate is as high as 11.8%. (4) President Barack Obama has Not been successful in getting Californians back to work. (5) During the month of June of this Year, as many as 28 States reported increases in their unemployment rate. (6)
To understand the impact of the stimulus package and other policies on the unemployment rate, you have to know what it would've been absent those actions. For instance, it's not inconceivable that it could've been a few points higher if not for the programs. Looking at absolute rates doesn't give you the kind of information you want to be implying.
But, more interestingly, you seem to think that it is the president's job to reduce California's unemployment rate and primarily should be judged accordingly. That is an incredibly unconservative thing to think for a arch-conservative like yourself.
JohnStuartMill wrote:EA, you're way too smart too be caught up in deontological libertarianism. What gives?
While I respect Nozick, I'm not caught up in deontological libertarianism. I'm a consequentialist. Given that you post under the handle JohnStuartMill, I have a hard time picturing you being that down on someone who holds political views that can be described as classical liberal due to utilitarian moral views.
If this is due to my Obama comment, I guess things like advocating the authority of the president to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without charge or due process far away from any battlefield or the total immunity of the executive branch from judicial review in instances in which it asserts the subject classified bother me a touch more than they do you.
I think I pegged you as deontological because you have some apparent commitments to individualism that I find difficult to justify empirically. I guess that was my bias showing. Still, I'm curious why you value liberty (in the Lockean sense) so highly, when my understanding is that the social sciences have shown this view to be a pretty one-dimensional representation of values and desires humans actually have.
EAllusion wrote:If this is due to my Obama comment, I guess things like advocating the authority of the president to order the assassination of U.S. citizens without charge or due process far away from any battlefield or the total immunity of the executive branch from judicial review in instances in which it asserts the subject classified bother me a touch more than they do you.
I guess because the OP was about economic policy, I thought your criticism of Obama was along those lines. I have more time for this kind of criticism of Obama -- I think the trade-off between security and Lockean liberty is not an easy line to draw. But I've still found libertarianism is lacking in this area, probably because my experience with discussing civil liberties with libertarians is that they start resorting to "but... freedom!" much too quickly for the conversation to be very interesting. So maybe you can talk a little about why you draw such a firm line in the sand, and I'll see if I can't make it fuzzier.
I'll also add that I don't come down very hard on Obama for his apparently right-wing terror policies because I think he's mostly boxed in by how the wars have been fought -- e.g., there's just not a pretty solution to Guantanamo at this point -- and by institutional pressures on the office he holds. Except for some legitimate criticisms around the edges, I don't see anyone making a credible case for doing things differently while still being able to preside effectively.