Skip to main content

Nader on Obama: Lobbying we can believe in

From Ralph Nader (via Third Party Watch):

But Obama is now head of the Democratic Party, and the Democrats convention in Denver is inviting corporate donors to become ’sponsors’ of the convention, promising executives a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity to rub shoulders with Democratic senators, members of Congress, and governors. According to The New York Times of June 7, donors who give $1 million or more are given access to all hospitality suites and private events, providing what one public interest group called, ’special access to federal elected officials [and] national party leaders.’

Perhaps fearing that some corporate officials might be as dense as the proverbial piano player at the whorehouse who claimed not to know what was going on upstairs, a brochure from the host committee proclaims that ‘this is a rare opportunity to play a leadership role in a substantive discussion on timely issues affecting your industry with . . . elected officials and members of the media.’


This is, of course, only news if (A) you've been running as the candidate for change who does not take PAC money; and (B) is facing a significant defection among staunch Clinton loyalists.

Just remember, all of you out there already selecting Michelle's inauguration dress, that there are 4 1/2 months to go until the general election. 4 1/2 months ago, Senator Hillary Clinton was still the Democratic front-runner and people were still wondering exactly how John McCain came back from the dead to bypass all the other GOPers.

And because the MSM really liked what the Barack-Hillary slugfest did for its ratings, even though the current narrative supports Senator Obama, they'll be more than willing to drop it for really good, juicy stuff.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...