Obama declares to vast applause,
“So one of the things that we’ve got to do is not just change the health-care system, but we’ve also got to change our political system. And that’s why I don’t take PAC money. I don’t take money from federal registered lobbyists, because I want to answer to you when I’m in the White House. I don’t want to answer to all these fat-cat lobbyists!”Matthew Cooper @ Portfolio takes a close look at this element of Obama's Fundraising Tactics
So now that he’s scoring political points for the ban, what impact has it actually had?Posted by Vanderleun at September 18, 2008 10:54 AM | TrackBackVirtually none.
The campaign has no problem accepting money from the spouses of Washington lobbyists. A database search conducted for this column by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign-finance issues, found that more than 20 spouses of prominent Washington lobbyists have donated to the Obama campaign, including the wives of Dan Glickman, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America; Norman Brownstein, a prominent Denver-based lawyer who has lobbied for Oracle, Toshiba, and Comcast; and Stuart Pape of Patton Boggs, Washington’s foremost lobbying firm, who has lobbied for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and the Smokeless Tobacco Council.....
Perhaps the weirdest moment in anti-lobbyist posturing came this year when Max Cleland, a former Democratic senator from Georgia, was disinvited from appearing with Obama at an Atlanta fundraiser. The reason? Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who lost three limbs while fighting in Southeast Asia, is a registered Washington lobbyist on behalf of Tissue Regeneration Technologies, a company that makes medical devices for wounded veterans and others. Cleland charitably says he was not offended by the disinvitation. But the rest of us should be.
Just as a matter of record, while Max Cleland did fight in Vietnam and was decorated for doing so, he sustained his major injuries in a grenade-related training accident that occurred in Vietnam, but on a U.S. military base, not a battlefield.
Posted by: Dick Eagleson at September 19, 2008 9:03 AMDick, I hope you're not questioning his patriotism .. :)
Posted by: Bod at September 19, 2008 9:13 AMActually the claim is he "dropped" a grenade in an exercise that did not have any reason for him to be handling a grenade. There was NO reason for the pin to be out. Another story is that it got pulled from his webgear, OK, was was he dumb enough to hang it from the pull ring? I think people should reflect on why Lieutenants had grenade problems in RVN. It usually had to do with a callous disregard for troop welfare which would fit with his political affiliation.
Posted by: RRRoark at September 19, 2008 9:46 AMI think this would make another great McCain ad. It follows on the theme of saying one thing and doing another. Have you sent this to the campaign?
Posted by: OCBill at September 19, 2008 9:54 AMI personally don't agree with 90% of what Max Cleland stands for or subscribes to, but he was in a warzone, as a fighting soldier, and issued equipment which is designed to be dangerous. A grenade doesn't discriminate between enemy or friend, and accidents happen during training and wartime.
He was there, he did his duty, he was seriously injured doing something that a lot of Lefties wouldn't dare do. In fact, when Cleland was in Viet Nam, the Left in our country were routinely calling him and all his buddies "baby killers" (not unlike the Leftards of today).
Let's not get caught up in how he was injured. He stood with the other soldiers who went to Viet Nam, paid a terrible price, and I for one, a staunch conservative and 22-year veteran of the Army, say that he is to be congratulated for even being in Viet Nam, not denigrated for getting injured in a non-combat incident.
So... wives are simply extensions of their husbands? They're not allowed to make their own decisions? Any money coming from them is automatically assumed to be coming from their husband instead?
Why is this even an issue? What century is this again?
Posted by: John in Chicago at September 19, 2008 3:06 PMWhat you are neglecting to mention is that Lobbyists are Citizens. And as American Citizens they have the Freedom to donate to political campaigns. Now on principle Obama may, and has the Freedom to do so, exclude Lobbyists to show a commitment to being a leader to the common citizen and not a pansy of special interest. But if a Lobbyists spouse or even a Lobbyists themselves want to donate to the general elections fund as Citizens of the United States of America and not as a spokes person for a particular interest group than Obama would have no moral or political conflict excepting their money than he would excepting a donation from any other person in our nation.
I have made a campaign contribution to Obama, does that mean should consider approving or vetoing bills bases on how the would favor me. No absolutely not, he should make the decision based on how it would affect the American people not me a private Citizen.
Posted by: james at September 21, 2008 6:46 AM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.
AMERICAN DIGEST HOME