Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, but many of these lobbyists still have ties to corporations and special interests.
See my post #18 to see my story about how many lobbyists are working outside the system these days. It really seems to me that if the media is the 4th Estate those lobbyists must be the 3rd house of Congress and none of them git any votes in an election.
My opinion only, Obama is everything he claimed he would not be! end of story. No difference, in him, he is nothing special, has done nothing remarkable for our economy, or are situation we currently are in. Appears everything has got to be about him.
Things he promised he would not do he has. Things he promised he would do he has not.
A lot of bait on his line!
See my post #18 to see my story about how many lobbyists are working outside the system these days. It really seems to me that if the media is the 4th Estate those lobbyists must be the 3rd house of Congress and none of them git any votes in an election.
So why are you so opposed to OWS then? If you have a problem with lobbyists peddling money to buy votes (that's the problem--not the lobbyists themselves), then why don't you support getting big money out of politics, and moving toward publicly funded campaigns? That's the part that I don't get.
But how many votes did he "buy" with the promises about lobbyists? All of them had to be very unhappy to see him appointing lobbyists go bureaucratic jobs before he got his bed warm in the White House.
Lobbyists may not be bad people but when they start throwing money around to politicians they become bad people. Your argument is very weak and holds no water at all.
I don't think he bought any votes by saying he wasn't going to hire former lobbyists--I think he didn't think it through, and then reality hit him when he actually got into office. It was a dumb campaign promise.
Lobbyists aren't throwing their own money around--a lobbyist is hired by a group to represent them. The group has the money--not the lobbyist. In big business, a lobbyist may tell that group that a nice big contribution might grease the wheels to get something done, but it's not the lobbyist's own money. Many groups with lobbyists never make campaign contributions at all.
A lobbyist is a person hired by a group who a) knows the legislative process inside and out, so they can follow bills effectively and bring together coalitions of leaders on their issues and 2) understands the issue (especially on a federal level--some lobbyists in state government are more likely to learn the issue as they go, or have multiple groups that they represent.)
The lobbyists talks to the leaders about the issue, expresses their organization's support or opposition to a proposed bill, and makes suggestions over how a bill is written to address concerns their group might have. Sometimes the group itself identifies something they would like to have changed in the law, and the lobbyist helps them draft a bill to take to the elected leaders, and looks for politicians to sponsor and introduce it. The contributions are only a part of that process if the group makes it part of the process.
I was a lobbyist in my state for a coalition of church groups at one point--do you think they were buying off politicians? My job was to go in and explain the impact of proposed bills on issues that coalition cared about, and to try to convince them to either vote yes or no. That was it.
The Left would vote for him if he admitted to being an axe murderer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
Both sides do. When one side builds up a war chest, you'd be a fool do not do the same, and they're both getting money from the same people. That's why we need to get big money out of politics--the problem is with the game, not the candidates. They're just playing by the rules. Change the rules and end the problem.
WHO made the pledge he wouldn't?
Is there ANY pledge of obama's you will hold him to?
I think claiming to be a "moderate" republican just flew out the window.
Some on the Left will continue to be a supporter, no matter what, a defender of his failed policies, no matter what, an apologist for his lies and broken promises, no matter what.
I just heard a very annoying bit of news about lobbyists. What was said was, essentially, that lobbyists who are not registered as such are bundling money from those who are registered and spreading it around. Explain how that works out with your statement about influence and registration. If hey are so untruthful with politicians maybe they can play the same games among themselves.
It's illegal to give campaign contributions in a direct exchange for legislation--it's called quid pro quo. It still happens all the time, but the money gets run through different channels to cover it up. I'd have to see a link to make sure I understand what you're saying, but it looks like the groups that wanted something passed channeled the money to a third group to give the contribution, so it couldn't be linked back to them. Other groups form a PAC--a separate organization just to give contributions. One group lobbies, and then the PAC gives the funds.
Like I said--if politicians couldn't raise campaign funds--if they had to run their campaign on public funds--all of this would stop. That's why I don't understand why you're so opposed to that part of OWS.
The Left would vote for him if he admitted to being an axe murderer.
WHO made the pledge he wouldn't?
Is there ANY pledge of obama's you will hold him to?
I think claiming to be a "moderate" republican just flew out the window.
Some on the Left will continue to be a supporter, no matter what, a defender of his failed policies, no matter what, an apologist for his lies and broken promises, no matter what.
Why do you think I'm defending him? It was the dumbest campaign promise ever. He didn't know what he was doing, and he got into office and found out pretty quickly that things were not as simple as he thought.
EDIT--there's a big difference between defending him, and trying to patiently explain why it was a dumb promise, and why he made the decision he did later. If you want facts, great--I'm all about that. If you want to go off on a rant just because you can, then talk to someone else.
Why do you think I'm defending him? It was the dumbest campaign promise ever. He didn't know what he was doing, and he got into office and found out pretty quickly that things were not as simple as he thought.
EDIT--there's a big difference between defending him, and trying to patiently explain why it was a dumb promise, and why he made the decision he did later. If you want facts, great--I'm all about that. If you want to go off on a rant just because you can, then talk to someone else.
OH PLEASE, just stop.
Of course he knew what he was doing, knew how he would get around the self-inflicted ban, knew how he would "explain" it to the media...from the VERY beginning.
What about his other "dumb" promises, made I'm sure in your opinion out of his naivete?
Oh, you have NO facts to explain away the broken promises. Just your opinion.
If Capone or Madoff invested in Solyndra under the same conditions, they would be convicted.
You do realize that if a mobster like Capone was found to have invested large sums of money into a documented, about to fail' company like Solyndra that would be enough evidence to convict him of money laundering. As no benefit to the investors/taxpayers could be realized, that evidence would be the final nail in his conviction with no other evidence needed.
When you consider guns were allowed to 'walk' in an unprecedented move by the DOJ you might be convinced you are looking at a larger pattern of something other than well intended motives.
So when prospective contributors send money to re-elect Obama we have to assume they endorse the above behavior and a legion of other demonstrated actions of dubious intentions. Those contributors are also telling us they embrace Nancy Pelosi and her philosophy of having to pass legisalation to see what's in it. If you can defend these actions then by all means send money to Obama so he can pay the poor from his 'stash'.
Of course he knew what he was doing, knew how he would get around the self-inflicted ban, knew how he would "explain" it to the media...from the VERY beginning.
What about his other "dumb" promises, made I'm sure in your opinion out of his naivete?
Oh, you have NO facts to explain away the broken promises. Just your opinion.
You know what--you lose me lots of the time. What advantage did he gain by making a campaign promise that he knew he would have to break, knowing that he was going to be attacked for it later? Making that promise was a really stupid thing to do, and he's taking heat for it now that he wouldn't have had to deal with if he'd never brought it up.
You hate him--we all know that. This is the logic that just makes me laugh--Obama broke a campaign promise, but somehow someone who explains why that promise was really stupid to begin with, and how he never should have made it--that's supporting him? For real? Pointing out a stupid mistake is support? I'd hate to see what you think is opposition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Capone or Madoff invested in Solyndra under the same conditions, they would be convicted.
