Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on mydd?

I know that this blog is chiefly concerned with the election process, but does that mean that issues, themselves, don't matter on mydd.com? It seems their only functions are to serve candidates rather than the reverse. Big Tent Democrat had an excellent diary up on this subject recently, and I want to add to it.

Right now, there is this silly debate about lobbying that is ocurring on this site because the debate is framed as "my candidate didn't take lobbying money" or "your candidate is a hypocrite" because they took lobbying money.

Isn't this besides the point? That is- isn't the question of what each candidate has or has not done besides the point of what we should think with regard to the question raised about the influence of lobbists in DC? You may or may not agree about their influence, but one gets the feeling in reading some of these diaries that the agreement or disagreement is based on which candidate one supports.

more below

I had a good conversation with a Hillary Clinton supporter yesterday , but I felt like the supporter was sometimes missing my point that my concern isn't about this or that candidate- it was about the issue of lobby money in general.  Well, not even lobby money in general, but instead from whom DEMOCRATIC candidates are receiving lobbying money and what that means for issues of importance to Democrats.

I don't have a problem with what Big Tent Democrat and others call pandering. He doesn't either. We had a nice back and forth yesterday in which the real issue became to whom are our candidates pandering? If it is to us, then we don't care. If it is to the GOP and "Big corp interest that are against us" (I am being very specific here)- then we should care. The same is true of issues.

Clinton almost did a great job of blurring the question for those who didn't get what she was doing by saying that nursing orgs and groups like unions also lobby. But, that's not really the point, now is it?

The question isn't whether we have a problem with all lobbying. The question is who is doing the lobbying, and the level of their influence, accordingly on each candidate. I care that she is taking money from Big Pharma and Big Insurance because they are the entrenched interest against healthcare reform. They  have drawn up plans to redefine universal healthcare in a way that will maximaze their profit, and leave Americans in the same bind we find ourselves now. This to me is where the lobbying money shit hits the fan. Pandering to these interests is where I say Clinton and I would butt heads.

In response to this, everyone seems to say "trust me." No, I don't trust any candidate or politician when it comes to money to do the right thing. Not the least of which is because I want them to pander to us the voters, not the lobbying dollar that redefines universal healthcare to mean something other than universal healthcare.

Others here have tried to play the same "blur the line" games by saying "well x has a book deal, and this is the same." It's a false statement, but let's assume for the sake of argument- that it is the same. Does that make it right?

Not in terms of candidates- but in terms of where we should stand on issues electorally? I expect the common throwing shit against the wall approach will be used in response to my concern, ie, the litmus test argument, or you are on the far left or blah, blah blah.

For the record, I am a moderate. My concerns as a moderate are process issues like what influences the ability to come to the best answer for the American people. I think the best answers, right now, are coming out of the Democratic Party.  I want them to pander to those ideas because it will increase our chances of winning elections.

Hence, why I think pandering to the Democratic base is exactly what candidates should be doing since poll after poll says we are the natural majority in terms of what most Americans think when they aren't being asked to label it my team versus your team.  The only interest being served by lobbist such as Big Pharma are their own, not Democratic, not the American people. To me, that's the bigger point.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, issues, John Edwards, Politics, Presidential Race (all tags)

Comments

157 Comments

Re: Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on myd

"Pandering to these interests is where I say Clinton and I would butt heads."

I see no evidence of pandering.

Perhaps your argument would have more substance to it if Hillary had not just championed a huge expansion of the SCHIP program that passed the Senate with a veto proof majority.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on myd

I am really not going to debate you about a particular candidate along this thread. You are responding as I expect partisans on this site to respond- according to your candidate, and meanwhile you are more than willing to use the same issue to then attack another candidate. What I am interested in is the issue itself- not examples of the issue.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on myd

Then you shouldn't have mentioned "a particular candidate" in your diary. I responded to what you stated. But more below....

by DoIT 2007-08-05 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on myd

I mentioned her because she is the only party making the particular argument in defense of the issue I am raising. If Obama had done the same, despite his hypocracy, I would include him. If edwards him too. This is where I mean you are incapable of separating issues from candidates- in you rmind- mentioning the candidate is bout the candidate rather than an illustration of an issue. And there is lies the difference between you and m yself

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on myd

I agree that nurses PAC's, Union PAC's, Educational PAC's, MoveOn.Org, even corporate PAC's have a right to make donations to political candidates.  I will remind you that is part of how we won back the house.  As long as they do not favor lobbyist writing laws, and are not doing unethical favors for lobbyist than I am not at all concerned.  I support federally funded elections, as does Hillary.  But, I do not support hypocritical arguments like Obama's.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 09:42AM | 0 recs
Okay

So now you are calling Obama a hypocrite and you wanted this to be a fact based discussion?

Good luck.

by Populism2008 2007-08-05 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay

each of your supporters- whethe edwards obama or clnton keep proving my point. i could care less on this issue who is on the wrong side of the issue- i care that they are on the wrong side. for you its about obama. and thats why you will never get my point.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on myd

Partisan? bruh21, come on now. Are you being serious?

by lonnette33 2007-08-05 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- Do issues matter to Democrats on myd

i know the concept seems to confuse many of you- but its possible to hve a discussion on an issue even discussing candidates thats really not bout the candidate. well its possible if you aren't so entrenched in your own candidates narrative. an example, the other day Big Tent Dem had a diary on edwards being highly critical of edwards. I agree with his point bout edwards, and I am an edwards supporter. does that make me more or less partisan? or is it more accurate to say ont he issue being raised i wanted to iscuss the issue, not the candidte even as the candidate that is supported was on the wrong side of the debate>

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I do care about the issues, bruh21.  I try to make that abundantly clear.  I think the contest between Obama and Hillary(taking Edwards out of this, he has the record to criticize on this issue), they both take lobbying money from interests that sometimes I am uncomfortable with in one way or another, so that is why I don't find this a valid point for Obama.

On issues, Hillary's SCHIP plan includes eliminating Medicare Part-D subsidies to private insurers, so it seems to me they are not buying her influence on that, I'd say, vital point.  She is strongly in favor of allowing the government to negotiate prices for medicare-Part D, not very helpful to pharma. I just don't see that there is any quid pro-quo here.

Now there are countless other issues that I feel strongly about that Hillary has proposed including enormous SCHIP expansion, FMLA expansion(to include adult children caring for a parent, one year subsidy for low-income mom's to stay home with their children, and pay for people who when they take sick leave), appollo like project on alternative energy, universal pre-k, refunding of COPS, drug courts, second chances for young offenders, repealing don't ask don't tell, restoring funding to municipalities, universal broadband, reducing the deficit, global universal education for children, expanding opportunites in vocational training for the 65% of young people who won't go to college, UHC, withdrawing from Iraq in a careful, thoughtful manor, fighting chronic disease, repealing the part of DOMA that mandates the feds to not recognize marriages between same sex couples(by the way, I also appreciate how she point blank does not mention religion when she talks about marriage equality.  She is not willing to validate that canard the way to some extent Edwards does, but particularly Obama does)etc..

Some issues matter more to me than others.  Hillary has said she supports public financing for elections, but this is the system we have, and I appreciate her honesty, and do not find her to have a record of corruption.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

OT: I am gay. I don't have anything but contempt for her and her husband on gay rights issue, but I would over look this is their reasons were religion. At least that's principles even if I disagree with it. No, their reasoning is strictly how to obtain and retain power. Her response to DADT and DOMA are nothing less than offensive. And yes, I am very familar with what she has said and done on the issue.

I know what the candidates say they support on gay issues-

http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releas es/prMF_062707

The point , however, is talk is cheap. Of the three canidates, only one has actively supported anti gay legislation,  including in 2004, according to Kerry's campaign staff advocating that he favor bans of marriage for gays. In a way , I am glad you bring this up- its an example of why I don't trust her. I know she will do whatever is most expedient for her rather than go out on a limb.

I would take Edwards personal feelings that he is able to separate out from what he will do legislatively over her I am with you until its not convenient anyday of the week including Sunday.

Back OT: This isn't about Clinton- I use her as example. So long as the money is there- they have undue influence. Clinton could be mother teresa and this would still be a problem for me.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

So you have a personal beef with the Clintons because you are gay and you think they don't support gays. At least you are being honest. I disagree with your position but at least you are open about it.

Name a single thing that John Edwards would do for gays that Hillary wouldn't?

by DoIT 2007-08-05 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I am calling bullshit. I don't have a personal anything with the Clintons. None of the candidates are perfect on the gay issues. My point is about the question at hand lobbying. In fact- who brought up the gay issue  here? Bookgrl. I am respondign to what she said, and I even point out its ouff topic and have nothing to with the conversation. You rpost is disingenous at best, and straight manipulative and dishonest at worse.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

"I don't have a personal anything with the Clintons."

"I don't have anything but contempt for her and her husband on gay rights issue"

Right. Sure ya don't. Uh huh.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I rated your last comment zero because your response was offensive. essentially you are saying that because i disagree about lobbying and what should be done its coming out of the fact i am gay- thats offensive and i let you get away with it on this one comment just to clear the air, but i am not going to have you hijack my diary will vilness.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Try reading the comments before you respond to them. I said nothing of the sort.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

one day i am going to have to find a class on line is logic. implicit  in  what you said was the notion that i was to be dismissed and the arguments i was making because of the gay issue- hence all the talk about how i am just some disgruntle gay man. why bring that up when it was bookgrl who listed gay as one of her issues for why she supports clinton and i was responding to her?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

heteronormative thought.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

What is that comment meant to convey? Not trying to be dense. I just don't get it.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

hetero normative thought- not that always agree its a factor- is the idea if i understand it correctly that you are assuming a lot based on sexual orientation. that you create a lot of normative, probbly subconciously based on it. for example, that the issues of gay rights, despite the discrimination taking on different forms, is really all that different legally from the treatment of african americans, women, etc. you wouldn't think it accept to argue what you were arguing if you were dealing with women's rights or the rights of african americans, but because you are dealing with gays- its okay because the norm for you is heterosexuality. my problem wth that approach is i have no idea what you are thinking-a nd frankly don't care. i just care about outcome. i am only guess that this is the point- the other poster may say that i am wrong on this.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-
well honestly i just felt like throwing out a big academic word, but its just a way to describe the subtle ways in which ones perception of life and society is influenced by heterosexuality. I'm just saying that to me the subtext of your comment was "bruh cares about gay issues cause he's gay, so no big deal." It seemed to belittle the fact that we live in a society which terrorizes anyone who doesn't have a traditional gender role. To some it is seen as not a huge political issue, secondary to other progressive causes, but personally I feel that it is cowardly and calculating for the mainstream democratic party to 1) not support complete and equal marriage rights and 2) to not openly fight for discussion of queer issues.
Oh and DADT has been disasterous. I'll look for articles for you to check out.
(didnt mean to be pretentious with heteronormative)
by leewesley 2007-08-05 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

thank you for saying what i got from what this poster said. and dont find him an article- let him do it himself if he is truly curious about understanding rather than denying that there is an issue with DADT

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Oh come one that is just a silly rumor.  I think it matters very much to have a president that won't support, "Oh, my relgion says I can not support marriage equality."  That is not principled.  I give Edwards credit because he a)admits it is generational, and b)admits he is struggling with it.  But, I will not give anyone credit who willingly endorses that taking a stand against equality is somehow related to believing in God.  

You are not fair to Hillary Clinton at all.  If she said it was morning you would say it is night. I really don't understand that.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Which part is silly rumor? I am assuming you are referring to 2004. basicaly it comes down to this- either you believe Kerry's campaign or you believe Clinton. It's clear you choose to believe Clinton. Based on what? their support of DADT or DOMA? And why does the Kerry campaign have a reason to lie about what Bill Clinton said?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Not Kery's campaign, buddy.  Just Bob Shrum who also lied about Edwards.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

cut to the chase- it wasn't just shrum who said clinton did this. here are some links

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archi ves/017546.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6415858/site newsweek

http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill- clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html

given the surrounding facts, given what we know clinton has done in the past, the facts support clinton more likely than not having said it. the problem with the clintons as i have said before is that many of you seem to trust the out right and i am looking for proof because the past indicates this trust is misplaced.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I'm saying it is a matter of framing and a willingness to hide discrimination behind religion and I appreciate that someone who wants to be President isn't afraid to break that bad routine.  But this was all a part of my larger argument that a) the two leading candidates are bot soliciting money from PACs one way or another, and b)this isn't the most important issue to me.  I listed several that are.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Your response to my proving that one of the issues you used to defend Clinton is in factually wrong is to say that issue isn't the most important to you?  Indeed, you seem to do so at the very moment where it brings into play the central question that I was raising- not one of importance of issue in your hierachy- but honesty of the candidate. I assume whatever list you are using and how you order them- trust is a basic factor?

I have pointed out, in other words, betrayal of values and more importantly political allies, which brings into relief the issue of character. It also brings into relief your point that they can be trusted not to be influenced by money.

Based on what are we suppose to make this judgement? That they attempted legislation that had no chance of passing in this Congress? The problem is that by the time we find out whether they are really interested in the issues- when they are in office as President- it will be too late to change our minds. So we are left with the tealeaves of what they have actually done.

Hence, why I picked one of the issues you mentioned to demonstrate what this particular tea leaf tells me about their wider approach to politics. It's not just that they are pragmatic. it's that they are willing to do things that obviously bother even you. Hence why you felt the need to  say what I was saying as not being true in the first place.

You also again say things like she is breaking with tradition by not mentioning religon- how is she doing that if she is substantively doing the same thing? I mean- its a little like someone telling me well my candidate doesn't discriminate because she didn't call you fag. Or, if you prefer, that my candidate isn't anti women's rights because she doesn't use the word "bitch" some other equally offensive term.  It's just an odd argument to make, and seems form over substance. It's also ultimately irrelevant to the deeper point that I was making.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

by the way- that linke I provide you says exactly what each candidate say they support and don't support on gay rights issues- show me the difference substantively betweeen Edwards and Clinton. Or Obama for that matter. You have made this an issue in this diary, so I am going to go along with it to make a point. What you seem to be saying is that because Edwards voiced the reasoning thats going on- he is to be considered more suspect, than others who come to the same exact substnative conclusion but you don't know why. I mean- look at the scorecare on marriage- they are all three the same across the board. So what actual policy different informs your judgement?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

You do know that Clinton pushed hard for allowing homosexuals to serve opnely but the military rebuked him very adamently which is why he came up with DADT to at least prevent witcthunts to find and expel homosexuals

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

"homosexuals"?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Afraid to respond?

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

whats there to respond to- i mean lets be clear - we are talking multiple issues here where they have sold gays down the river- and your response is to use one example. what do you want me to say- oh well, since they were being pushed around by the GOP that makes it okay? Is that really the argument you want to hear?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

They werent being pushed around. They didn't have the political power to make the full scale change they wanted so they compromised and still brought out a positive net change .

Absolutism doesn't get things passed in government. What other issue did they sell homosexuals up the river on? DOMA? Considering that the republicans controlled congress overwhelmingly and wanted to push forward on a constitutional amendment on marriage I don't think DOMA was a bad policy considering the circumstances. it also pushed back the republican movement to define marriage as between a man and a woman on a state level for nearly a decade.

Next?

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

saying next doesn't make your post a strong argument, no more than bare assertion does. So your argument- again- if I understand you- is that they lacked political power? Are you sure this is the argument you want to make for a second clinton being put in office?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Saying next doesn't prove that my argument is strong, your inability to respond to it is what proves its so strong.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

all you did was make a series of assertions. there wasn;'t anything to respond to. ie, sticking the word "absolutistm" in response to whether or not you really want to make an argument about political power when the implication of my point is that many of you taut her political accumen seems - well- silly. It's really not designed to argue with anyone so much as bully them with words and get them defensive. I don't do defensive anymore. Your argument's aren't an answer to my poiint.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I hope you don't use this kind of arguing style to persuade people to be accepting of gay rights.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

by the way- when asked about whether she thinks DADT was wrong or DOMA- her response most recently has been- no she doesn'[t think they were wrong for the time. My response is fuck you. Morality -a nd this is a moral cause- isn't a matter of right for the time. that's a little l ike telling a black person, which I also am, that Jim Crow was right for the time. It's patently an offensive argument which no one calls her own beause of the mystique of her being clinton and peo give her a pass.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

"My response is fuck you."

How about taking a chill pill. That type of comment was uncalled for.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

if you want respect-g ive it.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I have given you nothing but respect. You are the one going off onto tangents and attacking people.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Don't worry DoIT bruh acts like he wants to have a real discussion and then when he starts losing he flips out. Standard Bruh

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

please.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

In fact, it is horrid and a bannable offense.  Bruh21 really needs to chill with this stuff.   Way too angry.  

by georgep 2007-08-05 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

tell you what- link this armstrong- ask him if he thinks what i am saying here is bannable stuff. either that or stop trotting that out when you disagree with my arguments. the things i am saying here - on what happened are assertions that can be proven or disproven. if you don't want to talk about it-t hats fine, but please don't pretend like there is something deeply offensive about talking about what the clinton's did  in 2004 with teh Kerry campaign.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Morality -a nd this is a moral cause- isn't a matter of right for the time. that's a little l ike telling a black person, which I also am, that Jim Crow was right for the time.

Except Jim Crow laws promoted racial discrimination where as DADT decreased homosexual discrimination.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

And now you show historical ignorance. Jim Crow was designed as the 'moderate' view when the laws started to come about. Separate but equal was considered the way of continuing equal protection under the 14th A. It was designed to give blacks more rights not less. When they served in the military they served under different divisions up until and through the second world war. Spike lee is doing a movie about it. In fact, since you bring it up- the conditions of service were actually better for AAs because they weren't continually facing a witch hunt under the guise of support in which the actual application of the law included dishonorablly discharging more than 12,000 servicemembers who often didn't tell, and the military found ways to get around asking officially.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Actually Bruh, the idea of seperate but equal promoting the same rights was never considered to be an actual promotion of African American rights as much as it was about enforcing segergation. Hence why most Jim Crow laws including language ensuring seperate but never encouraging equal.

Jim Crow laws were simply code in the same way the Southern Strategy was a code.

The significant difference between DADT and Jim Crow was that when most of the Jim Crow laws were passed the country was still more or less racist.  Hence why when the country gradual moved towards rejecting racism the laws were struck down so rapidly.

With DADT the country was making gradual movements towards accepting gays and the policy reflected the public sentiment at that time.

I'd like to see your citation for DADT leading casually to witchhunts and dischargers of 12,000 service members.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

and when DADT was created the country wasn't more or less homophobic?  The anlogy I make, to the extent analogies can be, is a strong one. Nearly everything you say about how the structure of discrimination works including how laws were codified to reinforce existing deiscrimination (the moderate view) rather than radicalize them right or left can be said of gays and blacks. What do you think DADT did or do you think no gays served in the military beofre then? And look up the issue of the discharges yourself. If you don't know this you really aren't equip to even have this conversation with me.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

typical Bruh

"I'm right if you dn't know why look it up yourself"

I love it when you lose an argument and then just start pouting.

I respectfully await an actual response from you

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

don't*

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

man i am honestly not here to give you a history lesson. if you find it typical that i am not going to waste my time and effort on things  a progressive should know- thats your deal. these aren't hidden facts that are classified by the govt. its american history that if you were curious you could look up.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I think you just proved my point. But please keep going I find your inability to support your arguments amusing.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

by the way- another of her supporters such asyourself tried that above- with both the number of peop in terms of DADT and with what happened in 2004. When i provided the link- silence. Thats what you come here to do. Claim someone is lying or smearing or etc and then when asked to prove it, someoen does, and then you spin the proof. I am really not interested in that game.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Doesn't Obama support Civil Unions? IE seperate but equal? If this is YOUR issue that you feel strongly about then why are you supporting him instead of Kuchnich?

by world dictator 2007-08-05 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

All three of the leading candidates say exactly the same thing. My answers was a response to Bookgrl who listed gay rights as one of the issues on which Clinton is better when in fact she is worse than any of the candidate running given her history. I support Edwards- I am not looking for a perfect candidate on gay rights or any other issues. Thats the assumption often made by those who can't understand why someone wouldn't support Clinton or have a problem with her. In fact, if you bothered to check you will see above that I provide Book with a scorecard of the major candidates and their views. All three main candidate are exactly the same.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

No one said you had to pick a top 3 candidate. My point is that if you critisize Bill Clinton for DADT because its seperate but equal the same critisism has to go for your candidate for seperate but equal civil unions

by world dictator 2007-08-05 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Pardon me- but your arguments like several of Clinton's supporters here grow increasely bizzare. First Book brings up the issue of gay rights in the middle of a discussion about lobbying, and I respond OT to her about that. I am told by a nother supporter above- well I am a disgruntled gay man so thats why I don't like the Clintons. I point out - no actually I think all the candidates are actually abotu the same int erms of where they stand on the issue, but my concern is the trust factor with clinton, and how this issue illustrates the point- and your response is "I can choose someone other than the big three" Well here's the problem- inherit all of this is your assumption that I vote just on the gay issue or that I am bringing this up because i m gay. Actually, I am bringing it up because bookgrl did, and it nicely illustratates my bigger point about when people say "trust clinton" when it comes to her taking money from Big Pharma as to why I don't trust her. That I would like to see some positive examples of that she gets it. Here for example with lobbying or the money she receives its easy enough for her to say no to cerftain types of money- but she does not choose to do so. That brings us full circle to my poiint. I don't trust any of them with this kind of money because I know these folks don't give something for nothing.  And yes  my candidate is imperfect on the gay rights issue- never said he wasn't. Never said perfection was my requirement. That's your approach. My approach is to clearly know where i stand on issues outside of my candidates, criticize them for it even if i support them, and try to get them all to be better. It's probably not something you can undrestand being so "real."

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

You are not being fair here many of the positions they took on gay issues were positions that were taken in a very tough climate , you cannot compare the relative softening of feelings towards gay individuals in the national mood to the intensely negative mood in the 90's . They took a position to stand up for the gay community in a tough climate while other forces which were in the majority then took the opposite view. Their intention then and now is to move the nation to a place where gay rights are no different from any other rights of american citizens . She is receiving overwhelming support from the gay community because they recognize that their heart was in the 90's and now in the right place and  have always been in the thick of the battle , obviously their are many others who won't be satisfied with their efforts or will judge their efforts through the prism of today's reality and I suspect you are in the boat but thats the minority.

by lori 2007-08-05 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

And in 2004? Was it easy for Kerry to take the positon he did? Remember I am not the one who brought it up. but as my uncle taught me - don't start a fight,b ut certainly finish one. You actually have no idea- and I am being polite- what i think on issues. I am actuallyt alking issues of character. If you want to see what I think on issues- check out what I say on Pakistan- tell me if that sounds like some wide eyed pacificst. Or for tha tmatter ask me my views of gay rights rather than assuming. What I don't want to deal with anymore is "lets play pretend" about people's character. The clinton's have consistently shown a willingness to sell gay people down the river including as of 2004.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I never said I had any idea what you thought about issues , I wonder why you will bring that up . Frankly I am not interested . I am generally responding to the claims you are making about them on gay issues . No one is a perfect human being and I would disagree with your claim about them " Consistently showing a willingness to sell gay people down the river " , you confuse selling down the river with doing what is pragmatic in the political climate to promote a better life for gay people . Most things they have done starts with an " intention " to look for ways to make things better for the gay community . It seems you look at it from another angle " intention is to make things bad for the gay community " , thats where you and I differ . They make practical and pragmatic decisions with the intention of moving the ball forward . With regards to the John Kerry statement I will rather not deal with hearsay issues period , I will look at their body of work and intention and judge them by that . Something you are obviously not intent on doing.  

by lori 2007-08-05 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

here's the problem with your post- i cite several speficic examples- and your response is a) well, but there were reasons for that (it doesnt' disprove my point and more problematically it has continued until 2004 at the latest) b) you claim you don't care yet you bother to give me  long explaination of how i am never the less wrong. people who don't care don't do that.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

I will explain it to you plainly

" Things do not happen in a vaccum " , the sooner you come to grips with that the better you would understand the full context of how decisions are made .

I am trying to have an adult conversation with you here and I frankly don't respond to frivolities .Consider this the last reply from me.

by lori 2007-08-05 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

your definition of adult conversation seems to be that i must accept the way that you define things. thats not an adult like behavior to require acceptance of one's personal definitions and nor is it adult to cut off conversation with such statements about how adult someone is acting.

now to your substantive point- in 2004- you still have not explained that. What I did there- was to let you have for the sake of argument the 1990s so that we can get beyond the pretense that this is about the "times" What did you do with that issue? You turned it into "well thats hearsay" as if we are in a court of law. And when I produce the links as I did above for Bookgrl that show that this is indeed what was understood by the Kerry campaign- whats the xplainaition then- that you are still being adult about politics? Interesting? I think the adult response would be to know what ones interests are and fight for those- not follow candidates because one follows candidates. Hence the title and question raised by this diary.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

by the way- here's the other part I love. when confronted you  with facts that directly contradict what you are claiming- you say "i would rather not deal with hearsay." Its coming from staff members from the Kerry campaign- are you saying they are lying? If so, what would be their reasoning? The problem you face is that it seems you are doing a lot of contortions to justify some rather vile behavior by the clintons- that it says they not only are willing to sell us down the river, but use us as a political tool when it suits them. Rather than responding you do as book does above- bring up issues, and then when confronted with what actually happen- say "well I don't care." I think its more accurate to say you don't want to deal with the dissonance having to hear this produces for you.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Here is a cyber enema. You are clearly full of shit!

by DoIT 2007-08-05 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying-

Thank you for that much needed moment of sanity.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

If this is true, that money has no influence, why is it, Hillary, who has accepted over $885,000 in donations from pharmaceutical and private insurance corporations, more than any other Presidential candidate (Democratic or Republican), does not have a Universal HealthCare Plan? Coincidence?

by BDM 2007-08-05 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

The arguement will be that she plans to roll it out in 3 parts over the next few months. Of course, to me, that begs the question in 2 ways a) why is she claiming she will do the impossible  for all those Hillary politicial realist who found their way into this diary- namely do this in a second term when no other Pres has done some a massive effort and b) given her background (however dubious) on the issue why does she need so much time to outline the basic idea of her plan?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

probably because she doesnt want to come out with one and have it labeled hillarycare part II. If she really had no intention of advocating UHC then it would be easier for her to come out with a plan as a way of diverting attention and then just put it on the back burner once in office.

Also if she was really on the take as you claim she wouldnt have said UHC is her number one domestic priority.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

and this shows she will be a good leader how? i see many of you have the dog whistle theory of politics in your views of clinton. basicallly she's doing this to be perceived of as moderate, and really what she will do in office will be something more, you just wait and see. the problem is- we would have to see when its too late to do anything about it.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

I think all candidates need to put their plan's out to the public for evaluation. It is part of democracy. I am not going to take any candidates word that they are for UNH and not have a plan to evaluate as to whether or not it is really UNH.

Any candidate that says they are going to provide UNH their 2nd term is blowing smoke out of their rear end. Tell me what president has made major domestic changes in their 2nd term. Historically the biggest accomplishments are made in the 1st term and little is accomplished in a 2nd term.

by BDM 2007-08-05 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

She's already making strides toward UHC:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/06/socialized_medicine_for_kids.h tml

She has said that the particular role is not as important than building a coalition to get the 60 votes to make UHC law, and that she will lead that effort, and we the people need to be vigilant in backing that UHC.  I happen to agree with that.  Detailed plans become fodder in GE's.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

I think all candidates need to put their plan's out to the public for evaluation. It is part of democracy. I am not going to take any candidates word that they are for UNH and not have a plan to evaluate as to whether or not it is really UNH.

Any other candidate that said what you said would be crucified by all other candidates.

You need a plan to campaign on and have a mandate if elected to propose and have it pass in the congress. That is why Bush got his tax cuts through in the early part of his first term. The democrats had 49 senate votes and could have stopped it, but they didn't.

Youn are making too many excuses for your candidate. We all must hold all candidates accountable and hold them to the fire or we will not get progressive legislation passed.

by BDM 2007-08-05 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

I am not making excuses.  I think the SCHIP move was brilliant.  Bush took it head on, made a big, stinking ideological argument against and lost.  I just fundamentally disagree with you.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

So do you think it had a chance of passing?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

You might be trying to improve democracy but I'm trying to win an election.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence
"Detailed plans become fodder in GE's."
thats a scary comment
by leewesley 2007-08-05 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

Then politics must scare you.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

it scares the shit out of me honestly. I just meant that using the logic taht our candidates shouldn't have specific plans because they might be used against them in the general is doublethink.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

I think Bookgirl's point is that campaigns are meant to get someone elected not "make the world a better place." A smart campaign does what it takes to win. If the majority of people wanted/voted on detailed policy proposals then campaigns would use them more. But people don't vote that way hence why the frontrunners in both races don't offer substantial policies.

Trust me i wish discussions were more policy based, i'm a wonk at heart, but the only people to blame for that is the public not the campaigns.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

hillary doesnt have a UHC plan. I get it- she's got the scars from 93, i commend her for trying then. I just think its rediculous how her supporters are arguing that her lack of a plan makes her more qualified to get UHC. Thats crazytown logic. I understand your thinking, but thats a step too far into the "selling out the reason I care about politics" realm.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

Oh is it crazy town logic?  Seriously, you must be so much smarter than everyone else.  Just because people disagree with, it doesn't mean they are crazy.  I think you are wrong.  I think it is going to take a political strategy more than any particular plan to get to UHC.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: he voted for Nader in 2004!

cmon dude, drop it, i dont feel like arguing for another 6 hours.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: what!

i have no intention of doing taht at all, but maybe i am, so i will in fact watch myself

by leewesley 2007-08-05 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

thats fine. I didnt mean to be as condescending as you percieved it. However, I was responding to the idea candidates shouldnt have specific plans because they could be used against them.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

That doesn't have anything to do with the point I made. My argument above is refering to the nature of politics/campaigns. I'm not making a qualification argument above I'm making a campaign strategy comment

by world dictator 2007-08-05 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbying- has no influence

i have completely lost track of who is arguing with who in this thread, so.... i concede

by leewesley 2007-08-06 11:53AM | 0 recs
The Issue at Hand

On a more substantial level let's discuss lobbying in general. It seems your problem is with Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Coal and all kinds of other BIG things having the right to contribute money to politicians. The courts have already said that they have the LEGAL right to do so, so if it is legal what is wrong with it? I agree that something should be done about the influence of these huge corporations but they do have a legitimate seat at the table. So should we legislate how big their seat can be? I don't have a problem with that at all. But will it pass the LEGAL test? At the present time I am fairly certain it would not.

So if we can't keep BIG this and BIG that from contributing money then we have one of two choices. We either hold our candidates accountable to make certain they are doing what they say they will do or we refuse to allow them take this money. If we tell the candidates that they can't take certain money then we have to draw up rules that state what kind of contributions they can't take. Is it ok to take a contribution from a nurses union but not ok to take money from the AFL-CIO (BIG LABOR)? Or is it cool to take money from the Sierra Club but uncool to take money from BIG Oil? These are perplexing questions and I am not sure any of the answers would pass the LEGAL test. So if we can't pass the LEGAL test that only leaves one option: We hold our candidates accountable. If I thought that my candidate of choice was bought and paid for I wouldn't support her. I choose to hold her to her word. And I intend to do so vigorously.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

You are responding to a ethical and political question with legal analysis? They have a right under the law to donate according to the S Ct under first amendment- however, it doesn't mean that a candidate is required to take it. My question is about the broader point of ethics and politics.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

And my response is based upon political reality. It takes LOTS of money to run for office. Until we have public financing I have no problem with ANY candidate accepting ANY LEGAL contributions. If Rupert Murdock wanted to give me a million dollars I guarantee you I would accept it. Would I therefore watch and agree with Fox News. Hell no, I'm a Democrat... but a richer one thanks to Murdock.

If you want to equate morality and capitalism I am afraid they just don't jibe.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

political reality is a matter of defining it. its not fixed. you pretend as if it is for reasons that i can only assume is convenient to your argument

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

I really think you just want to argue. Political realities do of course change. But the current political reality concerning contributions from lobbyists isn't going to change before the next election.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

That seems a bit disingenuous.  If Hillary came on board it would be a trifecta of leading Democrats aligned on the issue.  Then the onus would be on the Republicans in the general to explain why they want to solicit and keep lobbyist contributions.  I'd like to see that.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

exactly right. the idea that it cant be done now is a excuse for her not to do it.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

But that is a false argument. If you want to do something about lobbyists then support public financing for campaigns. Nothing wrong with that. Hillary said yesterday she would introduce a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen. Why didn't Edwards and Obama come to her side and say hey Hillary, I'm on board with that too. Why didn't she receive a round of applause for that position? The answer is quite simply that her opponents want to USE the issue for the primaries.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

because no one believes her. if she cared she wouldn't take the money now. see thats the problem your argument face. its her choice now whether she takes this money or not. she chooses instead to take it.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

I support campaign finance reform, that's the point.  And Obama took the trouble apply to the FEC for a ruling to insure that he could do so in the forthcoming general with the consent of his Republican opponent.  I would love to see serious reform in public campaign finance and am assuming Hillary is not far from Obama on this either, can't recall where Edwards stands.

But every little bit helps and I don't think my argument is false at all.  Wouldn't this be worth closing ranks on and confronting Republicans with?  I think the electorate is supportive, frankly.  And it could happen this election cycle if Democrats made it happen.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 10:25AM | 0 recs
Excellent point.

Do you ever get the sense that many people on line are just looking for any reason to oppose her? It's startling to me the amount of misinformation being pushed all over the blogs about Hillary and even Bill.  

Then you've got the ring leaders, Kos and Arianna, both former Republicans who made sport of criticizing the Clinton's in the '90's, paticularly Arianna.  I don't even go to her site anymore. It like fox news or right wing radio.  They push Obama endlessly, make Hillary out to be a nazi, and Edwards out to be a fool.  I've even made pro-hillary comments only to have them deleted.  Really, it is sad.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

again and again- and like above you avoid the question. here for example- why exactly must clinton run a campaign that relies ont his money? remembe ragain we are talking about specific types of money such as from Big Pharma? What I dont get is how you think that makes sense with your values or what you stand for whatever that is in terms of being a Democrat?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

I told you up thread and you never responded that I happpen to not have a problem with taking money from PACs including Pharma.  Christ, I hope you never need medication of any kind.  Where the hell do think they come from?  I would support federal funding for elections.  But until then I prefer a candidate who directly takes money from PACs to one who sneaks around and takes them through the back door so they can go around and brag about how they don't take money from PACs. She has supported legislation to make patents shorter so generics could go to market faster.  That's going to save a bundle the people a bundle of money.  She proposes eliminating money to private insurance companies under Medicare Part-D.  And, she proposes the government should negotiate with the pharma companies.  What the hell do want here?   I am directly answering your question.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

I don't know  any nice way to say when you talk about Pharma- and if you look at my diaries- you will see two are on healthcare- that you are really being naive. It's funny there are specific issues that you could talk on and I will readily admit my limitations. Environmental issues, net neutrality , etc are things I don't know much about. But Pharma, gay rights, etc, those are things I know. I know enough to know, for example, that when you make statements like the following:

"Christ, I hope you never need medication of any kind."

a) you don't know much about Pharma or the problems I am raising about Pharma money. b) If you ever want to understand the issues check out Ezra Klein's site who regularly talks at length on this issue.  There are maybe better sites that goes into the regulatory issues, economics issues etc, but he's good at the big picture. So when you say what you are saying about why I have a problem with Clinton taking this money, realize its like the 2004 Kerry campaign issue that I raise as rebuttal above- I've done my research.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

Actually, it is you that doesn't take one any of my points.

Ezra Klien has a man crush on Obama. I don't find him at all compelling.  

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

Ezra from what understand leans Edwards but its kind of irrelevant to what he says on healthcare since he's been talking to issue forever

by bruh21 2007-08-05 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

I actually read Ezra Kline everyday and he rarely if ever talks about the non policy side of health care reform. I don't think refering to him is a correct citation.

Feel free to clairfy

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

you don't read it everyday because he discusses the actual non policy issue on his blog as well. including which candidate is doing what, that its not enough to have  aplan but also a strategy, which plan is better, etc.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

Thank you for telling me how often I read Ezra Kline's blog. Considering I'm a regular poster on there I would beg to differ.

Furthermore, your only response is "nu uh". Yeah thats great analysis.

As I said he rarely if ever talks about health care politics because the candidates rarely if ever make political news about health care. When Edwards and Obama came out with their plan he reviewed them in one post and then went back to talking about the facts of health care. Even the few posts Kline does make about a minor political health care news its often a short paragraph.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

i dont see that, I've only been year a couple months- but I see the Hillary people being quite dominating. But i see it from the exact opposite place, that I need to justify not supporting her like she just deserves to be the nominee. I'm a liberal, if there are other candidates that are more liberal, even on a single issue why should I have to justify not supporting her? Espescially when the most moderate candidate has the highest negatives.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

On this site, yes.   MYDD I do think has become a haven for those of us who supprt Hillary, Kos's site is better, but still pretty bad, Huffington's site is god awful.  Monitor it for a week.  You'll see.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

I should say Kos's site is better than it used to be NOT MYDD.  And, there is an enormous amount of misinformation on the blogs about both Hillary and Bill.  It's frankly astounding.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

I just go to Huffington's site for news links. THe discussion is asinine.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

No it is not, and I hadn't made the comment to you.  Arianna Huffington is an Obama surrogate and a long time Hillary hater and her site is as biased as fox news.  If you don't want to get in this discussion, don't comment.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

no i meant the discussion on Huffington is asinine. Im completely agreeing with you here. and i believe you did make that comment to me, werent we talking about hillary's standing on the web? Im kinda confused and didn't mean to be an asshole.

by leewesley 2007-08-05 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

There is no trifecta. Obama solicits money from the same people through a backdoor.  All that would do is make us look like a Party of hypocrits.  By the way, where were you when we were winning the House?  A whole lot of that money came from corporate lobbyists.  It was a strategic plan to raise this money from lobbyists.  And, yet, I don't remember anyone complaining.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

You've made this claim of hypocrisy numerous times but I am not sure to what you are referring, exactly.  Are you saying Obama is accepting corporate lobbyist contributions in this campaign?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 10:28AM | 0 recs
by bookgrl 2007-08-05 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

From the article in your own link:

Obama raised $32.5 million during the second quarter of fundraising, a record for the Democratic Party and far more than other candidates. That's without tapping political action committees, or PACs, which are traditionally among campaigns' biggest contributors.

And it's true: Checks written or gathered by registered federal lobbyists have been returned.

LEE ROOD Des Moines Register August 3, 2007

That's it?  You're accusing him of hypocrisy because he has done exactly what he said he would do?  And the fact that he isn't promising any more than this or vetting the identities of other contributors who are not registered federal lobbyists is because there is no mandated regulatory structure that makes this feasible at reasonable expense.  I suppose you want him to promise to take no lobbyist's money and then send a PI out to check on every contributor?  Or have one slip through and get done over for it?  

I think he has done all that can be done under the circumstances.  And don't forget he was instrumental in formulating and promoting the recent ethics legislation in Congress.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

The argument is that its backdoor contributions from lobbyists. Hence the articles mention that wives,friends of lobbyists, or firms that lobby have given to Obama's campaign

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Yeah, I get it.  No sale for reasons already stated.  Obama specifically said registered federal lobbyists and before you contribute on his website you must affirm that you are not one as part of the terms and conditions of contributing.

I can see why the issue of intellectual honesty comes up here from time to time.  What could he do to satisfy you on this alleged hypocrisy?  Backdoor, eh?  Like the one the servants use to get into Massa's kitchen.  You guys are a bit rich sometimes.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

He could return the money of associates of known lobbyists.

Why is it okay to take money from wives of lobbyists but not lobbyists? You can't tell me thats not a pretty big loophole.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

How the hell is Obama's campaign meant to identify these people and insure that the commitment he makes is upheld?  You would be the first to complain if he promised to return all such contributions and one slipped through from the lobbyist's cousin or brother or the guy who cleans their pool.  What about a lobbyist's ex-wife or girlfriend?  Where do you actually draw the line without spending the rest of the campaign administering such a commitment?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Hence the problem with making blanket claims about accepting lobbyist money being bad. Its unenforcable because of obvious loopholes, loopholes that he's using.

And like I said, if he wanted to hold true to his promise he could return this money that he discovered has come from known associates of lobbyists.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

The man didn't claim any more or less than that he was refusing registered federal lobbyist and PAC money.

It's been on his web site for months.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

So its okay to get backdoor lobbyist contributions? I thought the point of not accepting lobbyist contributions was his attempts to "clean up washington" and decrease their power. You can't do that if you;re taking their money through other avenues.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Look, I appreciate the dialogue with you, it has been helpful and interesting but it seems unnecessary to go back and start it all over again from the beginning.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

If you don't want to respond thats fine but you haven't given me any justification for why backdoor lobbyists contributions are acceptible. "Its hard" isn't a very good excuse as to why he's not at least trying to eliminate them. Obama could give the money back today given the knowledge he now has.

As I said before if the big picture issue is changing the lobbyist culture in Washington you can't do that if you're still recieving their money.

by world dictator 2007-08-06 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

I object to the 'backdoor' frame, it actually has, to me, a subtle racist undertone and implies sinister activity, which I dispute.  I pointed out the inherent problems with the lobbyist's girlfriend's contribution and the onus it puts on the candidate.  And you are right back to the opening argument as if we hadn't discussed this in good faith all the way to the right-hand margin.

We disagree, I know what your position is and nothing is new.  What knowledge does he now have, anyhow?  Doesn't make sense to me, and it seems you just want to use the word 'backdoor' over and over again.  What's the point?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-06 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Yes .

Read this :

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obam as-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen. -obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-0 4-19.html

I f you are going to be holier than thou better make sure you are Jesus Christ and your hands are clean.

by lori 2007-08-05 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Lori, I read your linked articles, thanks.  The first one says he is accepting advice and non-financial support from people who are lobbyists and the second says some of his major fund-raising staff were lobbyists as recently as last year.

Again, that's it?  That's what opens his up to the accusation of hypocrisy?  He has done exactly what he promised to do and it is disingenuous to expect more in the current structure of US federal elections.

And as for the holier than thou thing, where do I give you that impression?  I try to take care to be cordial under most circumstances and not be offensive.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

My apologies if you mistook the holier than thou comments I was actually referring to the positions of candidates like Edwards and Obama who have staked out a position that can be easily contradicted with evidence . If they make that a bedrock issue of their campaign they are liable to be called out as hypocrites. I don't have a problem with lobbyist given donations because they are Americans as well , but where the line musn't be crossed is a politician selling off their principles and their promises to their constituency to the lobbyists , if that occurs the voters will hold them accountable.

by lori 2007-08-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Oh, sorry, didn't read that correctly.  Thanks for the links, anyhow.  I frankly don't think the accusations amount to much but I was glad to read them.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Honestly Obama isn't any better on this, and its irrelevant to the point. The real question and I ask that again of all of you- is why can they not forgo certain types of money? whats preventing them from saying no to Big Pharma or Big Coal?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

I do not subscribe to any position of shutting people out of the political process , its how it affects the outcome of their legislation that matters to me . If a politician accepts donations from legitimate citizens and it doesn't affect the outcome or principles they describe to their constituency , then frankly I don't care who contributes to their campaign , if it goes against their constituency then they will be held responsible by voters. If you say a certain people should not donate to a particular campaign thats not what our democracy is about as I understand it.

by lori 2007-08-05 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

thats a bullshit arugment and you know it. the issue is the influence of big pharma over a candidate versus say "you" and wheether those interests are at odds with what you want.  i've made that plan and i have to assume at this point you are being disingenous in trying to win an argument rather than respond to the specific point i am raising.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

 If " You " as you put it feel that your politician has sold him/herself out to the lobbyist then vote them out. Isn't that what democracy is all about.

by lori 2007-08-05 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

hav eyou learned nothing from Bush/ i am sure those voters- and I know several of them who didn't do the scrutiny I am suggesting here want to change their votes too- but hindsight is not only 20/20- its too late.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Lets look at the broader point...where is the list of interest groups you can and can not take money from?

Thats the problem with saying we should make widespread rules for taking money from some groups but not others.

Also think about this on a non presidential level, which I think is fair because the Edwards/Obama critique is aimed at all of washington. If you say that democrats shouldn't take money from the coal industry...okay what happens if youre a democrat running in a state that is pro coal? Are you supposed to not represent your state?

Or lets say that you are a democrat from a state like Nevada which has a massive gaming lobby. The vast majority of funds comes from that lobby. Are they supposed to alow all of that money to go to republican candidates who would beat them merclessly with the substantial amount of funds?

by world dictator 2007-08-05 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

what's that got to do with clinton saying no to big pharma or other forces that are at odds with the economic goals of the american people?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

It has to do with who politicians can or can't take money from. You can't just abritarily select groups you don't want politicians to take money from. The standards need to be transparent.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Also I think I explain why you need to have standards for who it is or is not acceptable to take money from and how thats problematic on other non presidential levels. You said you wanted to take about the issue of lobbying so lets examine the big picture.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

I would like to see the entire election publicly funded without exception.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-08-05 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

I really think you have no response to the point about political definitions. If things can change, it seems an odd response to say "why bother to start to do it now." When? 2016 when its not your candidate? How about 2050? When do we do these things?

by bruh21 2007-08-05 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

How about when you are in a position of power where you CAN change things. Somehow I don't think even that completely reasonable response will work for you.

by DoIT 2007-08-05 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

interesting- so when you say that th elaws above can not be changed, you mention until you in a position of power to change it? but then of course since is a constitutional right- how can you do that? and why exactly are you waiting to get into a position of power to change things when what are you changing is a matter of your choice whether to take the money or not? it seems you are doing a lot of contortions to justify your position but ulimately they fail on the basic questions

by bruh21 2007-08-05 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Do you not think that taking big money from insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are for their input in writing a universal healthcare that favors their interests.

That is why I want Clinton's healt plan on the table so it can be evaluated with respect to how favored or not favored to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

These interests $885,000 money to Clinton are not being given out of the goodness of their hearts, They want something for their money and it is not the interests of the citixens of this country.

What Clinton's answer means to me is that she is the establishment and the establishment wants to carry on business as usual.

by BDM 2007-08-05 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: The Issue at Hand

Clinton got 1 million from a group that is opposed to universal health care,allegedly.

However Clinton has got tens of million from people who support universal health care.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 10:57AM | 0 recs
In the Context of a Primary Campaign

Then it's unavoidable.

The argument is that if you accept money in whatever form from a person or a group of people or a corporation, then you are beholden to that Interest.

This is the crux of the matter, and it goes to the very credibility of the candidate.

THere are legal issues involved here.  A Judge can't sit back and say Lobbying from a Drug Company is bad but Lobbying from a Gay Rights or an Environmental Company is Good.  The best that can be done is establish that such a process is indeed corrupting in Politics and that we should, finally, after all is said and done, Publically Fund Elections.  (People can find out for themselves if Clinton supports that!)

But does that mean Internet Donations are no longer Legal as well?  That the only source of funding comes from Tax Revenues??  I don't know the answer there.  Maybe the folks at ActBlue can let us know the answer there!

As I have maintained elsewhere and continue to maintain, Al Gore received substantial Donations from Pharmaceutical Companies in 1999 for his Presidential Campaign.

I also read in Vanity Fair a year or so ago, in one of their "Green" issues that British Petroleum was looking to give Al Gore a substantial amount of money for another run for the President.  Why?  Well.  Because they wanted to beat others to the Alternative Fuels Market.

No harm there.  That's Progressive.

As long as Private Money plays a role in Politics, people will have to be smart enough to make some distinctions between relationships, the Candidate's Record, and the intent of those Relationships.  Can people tell the difference between Tom DeLay Partying Down with the Tan Family and leaving with the Heavy Suitcase, can people tell the difference between that and the Tan Family writing a few checks for 1k each and mailing it off to the Clinton Senate Campaign?

I would submit that, until we truly Publically Fund elections and can remain completely assured that every penny of Private Funding be eradicated, I submit that voters will have to be smarter, and take the actual Record of the Candidate into Account.

When I found out that Pharmaceutical Companies gave money to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign, that didn't bug me, so I still can't figure out why it should bug me that the same Companies have given money to the Clinton Campaign.

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: In the Context of a Primary Campaign

If this is true, that money has no influence, why is it, Hillary, who has accepted over $885,000 in donations from pharmaceutical and private insurance corporations, more than any other Presidential candidate (Democratic or Republican), does not have a Universal HealthCare Plan? Coincidence?

I don't want them to write the democrat's universal health plan.

by BDM 2007-08-05 10:45AM | 0 recs
While I admit Sen. Clinton

Has tried to market a more Incremental Approach, I would suggest that people watch the following three videos before making a decision about her plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnIuRHg04 8Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqGYVykL4 oA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVt0W8KYh h4

If corporate losers are what people are interested in, there will be corporate losers.

And I would also feel it's OK to ask the Obama and Edwards folks how they plan ramming a less incremental approach through a divided Congress.

I hope that's a fair question.

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: While I admit Sen. Clinton

Democrats must campaign and gain a mandate for a Universal health plan. That is what campaigns are for. Remember Bush said he wanted to change Social security. The problem is that he didn't campaign on a specific plan and he lost badly in 2005 in trying to get any changes in social security.

This is a dodge, and if any other candidate took Clinton's approach for UNH in a 2nd term, I would be all over them.. We need to put pressure on all candidates and hold them accountable and not follow them blindly. I trust no politician on these matters.

by BDM 2007-08-05 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: While I admit Sen. Clinton

Ah, no, the problem was his plan to "fix" social security was roundly rejected by the public who saw that what he was actually trying to do was privatize social security.

by bookgrl 2007-08-05 11:07AM | 0 recs
Bush didn't lose

on Social Security cause he didn't articulate a plan.  He lost cause changing Soc. Security is totally unpopular.

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: While I admit Sen. Clinton

Campaigns are only about mandates if you run an issues based campaign. No one is running a health care based campaign. They all talk about health care but its not "their thing".

For Edwards its populism
Obama is change
Clinton is experience

Now if Tom Tancredo won the election then you could make that argument that he has an immigration mandate.

by world dictator 2007-08-05 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: In the Context of a Primary Campaign

there is no legal arugment regarding clinton saying no. its their right to offer, and its her right to say i am not interested.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 11:02AM | 0 recs
Anyone can say "No"

It was Gore's right to say "I'm not Interested" too.

But I brought up an issue there, and I'm kind of curious now.

If and when Elections are publically funded, wither ActBlue?

by Edgar08 2007-08-05 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Anyone can say "No"

probably, but then i don't care because the main force that wins undet the present system aren't liberal democracy interests. peo keep saying i am not realistic here when ever all their other arguments fail as i consistently show how their point either isn't my point or isn't factually true. here'st he thing- i am being real. i know what this money is doing to our system. i watch as candidates adopt definitions created by lobbist and supported by slick marketing campaigns that aren't in the best interest of the american people. i am not against pandering or lobbying- i am against those forces that are clearly anti Democratic in their approach and more importantly result in definitions- which poliicis is about- that hurt rather than help the American people. None of  what I am saying is simple. There are critques to be made of my position- for instance- how does one build a coalition would have been interesting to see? but instead what i got mostly was "my candidate is wonderful" But atleast its answers one question- no mydd can not do anything beyond candidate analysis.

by bruh21 2007-08-05 01:26PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads