Lobbyists in the White House?
 

Of course not.

Wait a doggone minute here:

Snippetty snip snip snip:

"....

Although Mr. Obama has made a point of not accepting contributions from registered lobbyists, a review of campaign donations and White House visitor logs shows that special interests have had little trouble making themselves heard. Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits.

More broadly, the review showed that those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times.

......."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us...pagewanted=all

Pete

Yeah, so?

I'm still not voting for Mitt Romney.

This sleazy admin will go right ahead and claim that they have very little to do with lobbysts and the big donors they work with just like they did when Hillary Rosen melted down on in front of the entire nation... when her 35 or so visits exceeded visits by most of his cabinet members.

You`re gonna love the moderate Mitt Romney... and I`m still not convinced that you won`t be bragging that you voted for him sometime next year.

????????? Point????????

No change my friend.

Pete

oh, OK got it

why would you think there would be?

a subtle shift is all we can expect in a country as fully developed as the USA and that is what we got.

I recall the tune being just a wee bit different not that long ago ;)

Pete

You can't swing a dead cat in DC without hitting a lobbyist. FWIW, as big as a scoundrels as we wish to paint them, they're exercising their rights to petition the government. Lobbyists aren't the problem. The problem is politicians who allow lobbyists undue influence. The poster child of bad lobbyist/politician relationships was Jack Abramoff (a Republican, BTW).

They go where the money is.

Pete

Not from me.

As I said a subtle shift is all we can expect in a country as fully developed as the USA and that is what we got.

Are you saying you had unrealistic expectations?
and if so why so?

You are an educated guy not one of the left or right dolts who don't think.

I love how they remarked about Nixon's comment that an ambassadorship could be had for $250k. Where's my change purse? LOL

I dunno noone, something about a truckload of hope and change.....

I said when he was running he was FOS. Not just a little bit either. Now that it's obvious I'm calling him on it.

Pete

I don't see it. How can you change a Goliath as is the USA?

We have had change, just not nearly enough. The GOP has put status quo ahead of change and what is best for the country.

As a reasonable educated person you could not expect more except maybe he should have rammed more substantive healthcare and banking/credit rules down the legislative throat when he had both houses.

You mean, Obama did lie to all those kids?

http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-c...bamaChange.jpg

Pete

OK pete. What kids did he lie to? :cool:

All of them?

http://img.discountpostersale.com/po...ign-Poster.jpg

Although perhaps it should be "no we can't" now lol.

Pete

If what you are fumbling to say is that Obie was too optimistic given the slash and burn philosophy of the GOP then we do agree.

But hudred dollar bills are not a petition. The First says "... to petition the government for the redress of grievences." That my friend is a post facto function, the government has to have done summat. It does not mean the Prince Dickie gets to invite Enron and ExxonMobil into the Whitehouse to write the energy bill. Someone needs to rovide some remedial reading traing to the members of SCOTUS.

Do you think that it's possible that during the parade of influential people in and out of the White House there might be a bit of persuading by the White House folks going on. I mean, if these folks are so influential, is it irrational to believe that some are not being convinced to support programs and policies advocated by the Administration?

Regards,

D-Ray

Like...inviting your kids teacher to dinner? :D

I understand D but would you have given Bush that benifit?

Pete

The probllem is that Obama said "HOPE" but Mitch said "NOPE". So there has been little or no change. The Preidencey suffers from all those checks and balance as well as that assinine idea of Advise and Consent - what were they thinking?

Maybe someone who would launch a public/private education initiative.

Regards,

D-Ray