Senator John McCain, the maverick, as some of you may know has several former lobbyists serving as top advisors in his campaign. Despite risking the appearance of hypocrisy, McCain tries to convince voters that he wants to eliminate the influence of lobbyists in Washington.
McCain eliminating lobbyists seems very unlikely. Consider the selection of Cheney as Bush's VP - Bush gave Cheney a high ranking position in his campaign (selecting his Vice President) as a result Cheney somehow managed to assume this high ranking position. So, it seems obvious that a high ranking campaign advisor to McCain (i.e. lobbyist) will also be given a high ranking position in the White House.
Given this context, Sen. Barack Obama delivered a blatant, entertaining statement today in Grand Junction, CO - "It's great that he now wants to talk about putting corporate lobbyists in their place. But he needs to explain why he put seven of them in charge of his campaign. If you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska."
What are your thoughts?
Best regards,
Jay
Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net
Jay - The problem is that with the current crisis on Wall Street there isn't any more money left for even the republicans to buy Obama's bridge.
The sad part, one person can only"TRY" to change things form the status quo. One person is not responsible for a good or bad economy. The President, (NO matter which one you pick) may have an agenda, but that agenda still needs to be OK'D by congress. So, we need everyone to get off the "high" horse, and get to work for what will be best for all of America!!
I think that electing McCain will give us four more years of the "same old same old".
McCain is now a former shade of the " Maverick " he once was. Once he actually began the process of becoming a Presidential candidate he caved in and started pandering left and right. The most high profile example of this is his courting of the evangelical vote. He heaped scorn upon them pre 2000, but completely changed course once he started running. I'd be very leery if I were a voter in The Bible Belt.
Now now Jay I am a firm supporter of Obama's. But, to be fair; those lobbyists have not been lobbyists foe a few years. Lobbyists make very good advisers for campaigns. I do not want McCain as my President. We need to be fair even if the other guy is not.
Carol NovaStar
Jay - the name calling and demonizing that goes on in our political system is discouraging because it accomplishes nothing and does not add to the voters knowledge of the issues or the positions of the candidates.
I have news for all - John McCain is not George Bush. He may be better or worse depending on your point of view, but he is his own man. Mr Bush is not appearing on the ballot in November.
In my view, lobbyists are not the problem in Washington. In fact, because of their role in facilitating the petitioning of the government for redress of grievances, they are the only Constitutionally protected species on the planet. No member of Congress can be an expert in the regulatory environment in each field of legislation. Lobbyists provide a needed function by providing advice to legislators on topics in the field of expertisee of the lobbyist. The intent is that lobbyists from opposing sides of questions will provide a balanced view of a topic just as opposing and adversarial attorneys provide the case for the defense and the prosecution in a criminal trial. The corruption that Senator Obama speaks of is not part of the system. It is brought to the system by bad-actors who would commit crimes in whatever field of endeaver they chose. Perhaps we need to hire better Congressmen and Senators to avoid the problem.
But my point is that people who know things in Washington become lobbyists. It is the way they get paid for their knowledge. Yes there are probably lobbyists on Senator McCain's election staff - but there are lobbyists on Senator Obama's staff and Senator Clinton's too - and he has had problems during this campaign because of it. If there were not lobbyists there would only be inexperienced advisors - not a desirable result either.
Politicians shoot from the hip with joke lines to entertain the crowd - but this is a straw man argument that will not stand. Lobbyists are not the problem - corruption is the problem and, as usua;, the solution is prompt and very public disclosure on the internet of all payments to lobbyists and contributions to politicians.
While Mr. Obama appears to have many "former" lobbyists on his campaign as well as many, including Axelrod, who are lobbyists in all but name (Axelrod states he is not a lobbyist because he doesn't work in D.C.
It's just another pot calling the kettle black kind of statement, or maybe a glass house kind of thing.
Jay ~ Obama doesn't need lobbyist. He is getting money from Freddy and Fannie. He is getting money from Hollywood tonight...$31,000 a plate no less. This is such hypocracy, but don't let me spoil your rant.
You guys for Obama are really funny. I don't think I get as many laughs out of one subject as i do when Obama supporters start up. "Palin has no experience" is porbably my favorite, but for Obama to start questioning who McCain is hanging out with almost defies belief. Thanks for the laugh.
Nicholas, I normally feel argumentative when I read an opposing comment to one of my blogs, but your comment made me laugh. Nonetheless, what is wrong with support from Hollywood? $31k is certainly out of my price range. However, relative to McCain and/or Obama's total monthly campaign contributions, $31k couldn't possibly buy much influence.