In what he called “my last election,” President Barack Obama scored a hard-fought but comfortable victory over Mitt Romney last month, but that doesn’t mean his email list will no longer be hit up for campaign cash. To wit, Mr. Obama’s electoral operation, Obama for America, is asking their supporters to contribute after filling out a form backing his plan to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
“Thanks for sharing your story. The next chapter begins today. Stand with President Obama for the next four years,” a subsequent contribution form declares. Suggested donation amounts range from $15 to $1,000 and a picture of Mr. Obama is presented with the text, “Stand with me, work with me, let’s finish what we’ve started.”
What the president’s short- or long-term objective might be is a less pressing question than the one pertaining to the legality of his fund-raising appeal. The article quotes former (current?) campaign manager, Jim Messina, as publicly signaling that the Obama for America website will continue to exist. There is no problem there. Campaign finance laws, however, are pretty specific and straightforward about the duration of campaign fund-raising. To wit, it ends with the election.
Messina seems to acknowledge this:
“What’s true is just from FEC [Federal Election Commission] law, the campaign needs to shut down. We cannot expend funds for non-presidential activities. So we have got to figure out what we do next. That’s a conversation we’re having with our supporters now.”
It is presumably with a wink that he added, “I think anything’s possible.”
They must be from ‘Oihi’…
Via Andrew Kaczynski:
Actually, both the women standing behind Biden misspelled “Forward” on their shirts.
Well this seems mildly inappropriate for a presidential campaign website.
It is an e-card with a woman’s image and an attached caption which reads, “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.”
And a comment which accompanies the image states, “because they kinda do.”
You know, because the Republican war on women extends to banishing and/or controlling your lady parts.
Here is the description of the campaign site:
This is the Obama 2012 campaign’s official home on Tumblr. Have a story, photo, or video you’d like to share here? Go ahead and submit it today.
If this were on Romney’s campaign website, it’d be plastered all over the media. But not so for the Obama campaign, where you will hear nary a peep from mainstream journalists.
The childish attempt at humor would seem to be beneath the dignity of the President, but then we’ve learned that little is actually beneath the moral character of this administration.
UPDATE: The campaign has scrubbed the image from their website.
Today, NYGOP spokeswoman Becky Miller released the following statement regarding Senator Gillibrand’s stint yesterday on MSNBC’s “NOW with Alex Wagner:”
“On MSNBC yesterday, Kirsten Gillibrand touted ‘OffTheSidelines.org’, a website she’s running to get ‘more women, Democrats, Republicans, all women, to hopefully run for office.’
But according to an exposé by the Weekly Standard, OffTheSidelines.org is:
“nothing more than a gateway site and fundraising tool for the Gillibrand campaign. A disclaimer at the bottom of the page says the site is “paid for by Gillibrand for Senate.” The homepage has a prominent link to ‘Contribute to Gillibrand for Senate,’ and another link to simply ‘contribute’ leads to a Gillibrand for Senate contribution form.”
“During her interview, Gillibrand referenced the 11 women who are running for US Senate this year. Indeed there are 11 female Democrats running for Senate – but there are also seven female Republicans, which New York’s Junior Senator didn’t deign to mention.
“Kirsten Gillibrand’s career in the Senate is built on a foundation of lies and deceit, from touring New York touting new ‘jobs bills’ that never get passed to lying about her role helping women participate in politics.
“We call on Kirsten Gillibrand to name the Republican women that her organization helps – or admit that OffTheSidelines.org is a sham: just another way to funnel money to her reelection campaign.”
“I want to thank someone who put so much work into this event, Terry Bean,” President Obama said as the crowd began to cheer. “Give Terry a big round of applause.”
Terry Bean is, according to the New York Post, a “gay-porn kingpin.”
“ONE of the ‘bundlers’ who has raised $50,000 to $100,000 for the Barack Obama presidential campaign is Terrence Bean, who once controlled the biggest producer of gay porn in America,” the Post reported in 2008, during the president’s first run the office. “Bean, the first gay on Sen. Obama’s National Finance Committee, is the sole trustee of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which owned Falcon Studios, Jock Studios and Mustang Studios, the producers of about $10 million worth of all-male pornography a year.”
The New York Post reported in 2008 that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongowski returned a $15,000 donation from a company associated with Bean in an effort to avoid the “taint” of the porn connection.
The President however, is clearly not concerned about any ‘taint’. He is shameless when it comes to campaign contributions, having exploited gay issues in the past for his own personal gain. Within a week of announcing his gay marriage flip-flop for example, Obama was hawking ‘My Two Dads‘ onesies on his campaign wesbite.
Pandering is one thing. Should the President of the United States really be courting the campaign prowess of a ‘gay porn kingpin’? Is this not beneath the office?
Politico is reporting on a disturbing new trend, in which Democrat campaign staffers are going to Republican official’s homes with camera in tow, and posting the video on the internet.
Politicians recognize they give up a degree of privacy when they run for office.
But Democrats are testing the outer limits of that understanding with a practice that raises questions about when campaign tracking becomes something more like stalking.
While most serious campaigns on both sides use campaign trackers — staffers whose job is to record on video every public appearance and statement by an opponent — House Democrats are taking it to another level. They’re now recording video of the homes of GOP congressmen and candidates and posting the raw footage on the Internet for all to see.
That ratcheting up of the video surveillance game is unnerving Republicans who insist that even by political standards, it’s a gross invasion of privacy. Worse, they say, it creates a safety risk for members of Congress and their families at a time when they are already on edge after a deranged gunman shot former Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords 18 months ago.
Yes, privacy is diminished when running for public office, but this goes beyond any acceptable level of decorum. Politico’s assertion that this somehow blurs the line is false however. There is no question that the line has been crossed – these actions are flat-out stalking.
The report even goes on to interview a congressman who was videotaped while shopping for groceries, another who had people crouching in their bushes, and another who had video of their parents home publicly posted.
The most shocking aspect of the report isn’t simply the act of stalking political opponents. While you and I might see these videos and become unnerved about their potential use by somebody with a deranged agenda, the Democrats think otherwise – they insist it is all fair game.
They say showcasing the homes — most of which are spacious and neatly maintained —underscores what will be a key avenue of attack for the party this fall: communicating that Republicans just can’t relate to economically struggling voters.
“House Republicans have spent this entire Congress trying to hide that they’re protecting benefits for millionaires and perks for themselves instead of protecting the middle class, but we won’t let them keep it secret any longer,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote in an email.
Democratic officials said placing the videos on the DCCC’s website and YouTube serve a useful purpose, most notably making the footage available to friendly outside groups for use in TV commercials. That way, they don’t violate laws against coordinating with those groups.
Oh the horror of a spacious and neatly maintained home!
It’s unclear how videotaping somebody grocery shopping demonstrates a willingness to protect benefits for millionaires while leaving the middle class to fend for themselves.
See? This guy doesn’t choose the generic brand of Frooty Tooties … um … 1 percenter! Koch brothers! Tax the rich!
Call it what it is … Democrats have turned to stalking in a desperate attempt to win elections.
If President Obama was under the impression that his gay marriage flip-flop-flap was a game changer, readers of the Mental Recession would beg to differ. Our recent poll seems to indicate that people simply don’t care about this social issue, and rank it well below other major problems facing our country today.
Is gay marriage an important issue in the 2012 election?
- Extremely Important – 30%
- Don’t care – 67%
- Undecided – 2%
Not too shabby for a guy who hasn’t officially held a campaign rally yet. White House correspondent Mark Knoller, indicates that the President is really only fooling himself, having already held twice as many campaign fundraisers than George Bush did during his entire 2004 re-election bid.
Via the Daily Mail:
According to Mark Knoller of CBS News, unofficial keeper of presidential statistics, Obama has held 124 fundraisers – about one every three days – since he launched his re-election bid last April compared to the 57 Bush held to raise cash for his re-election bid eight years ago.
Obama’s frenetic fundraising schedule had prompted the Republican National Committee (RNC) to lodge a formal complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about misuse of taxpayer money.
Speaker John Boehner ripped the President, demanding that he ‘pony up and reimburse the Treasury’.
‘Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House … for the president to make a campaign issue about it and then travel to three battleground states,’ he said.
‘This one does not pass the straight-face test. You know it, and I know it. It’s time for the Obama campaign to pony up and reimburse the Treasury.’
He added that ‘the president keeps trying to invent these kind of fake fights because he doesn’t have a record’ and ‘the emperor wears no clothes’.
What exactly has this administration accomplished that does pass the straight-face test?
So how does he get away with using your money as opposed to his own? RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, explains.
‘Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as “official events”, thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his re-election efforts.’
The rate we’re being stuck with? Air Force one costs roughly $180,000 an hour to operate, and the President has unlimited power to use it for his campaign tour stops.
Excitement! Thrills! Hobnobbing with the crème de la crème of American society! All of these can be yours if you toss Barack Obama some cash.
That, at least, is the message of President Obama’s latest campaign to raise money: he’s emailed his supporters asking for donations, which enter them into a lottery to attend a fundraiser at George Clooney’s home. Here’s what President Obama tweeted:
Yes, it is certainly on our life lists to meet President Obama and George Clooney! Who wouldn’t want to meet these intellectual giants, these moral heavyweights? Our lives revolve around such momentous encounters.
A newly released video from a citizen journalist shows that making contributions to the Obama campaign website is significantly easier than say, for other Presidential candidates – because it doesn’t require the standard credit card verification code.
The video can be seen here – Obama Donations – Anyone, Anywhere
The description reads:
The Obama campaign does not have the universal 3-digit security code feature for credit card transactions on their website. It appears that anyone, anywhere can donate to President Obama’s re-election campaign, all you need is a credit card number. Watch me put Obama’s donation system, as well as his opponents, to the test.
Why is this such an issue?
Well for one, the Obama campaign website accepted donations from people named Nidal Hasan, Adolph Hitler, and Aunt Zeituni.
The PJ Tatler explains how this can happen:
Let’s take a look at the three campaign websites mentioned in the video. Here’s Obama’s donation page.
The Obama campaign’s donation page for Americans living outside the US also lacks the security verification code field.
Here’s Mitt Romney’s donation page. I’ve circled the verification number field on it. I would have done the same on Obama’s page, but it wasn’t there.
Here’s Rick Santorum’s donation page. The security code field is circled in red.
Only the Obama campaign’s web site lacks the security code field. The others require it, and will not accept donations unless the security code and payment information match up.
In 2008, the Obama campaign did the same exact thing.
There’s three main points that the Tatler smartly points out with this method of accepting donations…
One, the Obama campaign disabled the verification system. The verification system is turned on on web sites that accept credit cards, by default. I used to manage the website for the Texas Republican Party, so I know this from personal experience. Someone had to take the action of turning it off on the Obama site. Two, the Obama campaign can accept donations without the identity of the donor being positively verified. Three, not only can people in foreign countries donate to the Obama campaign in violation of federal campaign law, so apparently can identity thieves who have access to stolen credit card numbers. People who do not know that their credit cards have been compromised may not notice small amounts in the $3 dollar donation range that the Obama campaign has been targeting, when such donations show up on their statements.