Barbara: That was the frustrating part of the Abramoff scandal. Abramoff made personal contributions ONLY to Republicans. But these amounts were within the limits allowed by law and nearly insigificant compared to the tens of thousands his clients gave to Democrats at his direction.

I’ve often said that we will never have any meaningful ethics reform if the Dems are simply able to deny they have their hands in the cookie jar too. What motivation is there for them to reform? They can benefit from the present system while blaming Republicans of doing the very same thing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike

That’s 44 dem senators with one dem leaning independent. I wonder if the other five dem senators wonder where their share of the gravy is. If we have a press that was worth a damn this information would be published instead of calling the Abamoff scandal a republican scandal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

How about Dr. Seuss’s North Going Zax arguing the point with the South Going Zax?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] to do the same….but when it looks like he can make more money foregoing this option he breaks his word. The WaPo is not amused: …Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama’s earlier pledge to [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Right on, Mr. Mike. But wow… that’s a big chunk of chump “change” for John “Lurch” Kerry there… woof. What happened? Did Teresa cut him off of his allowance?

oooo… I like that Obama and “chump change”. Graphic time, Mr. Mike! Need one for “Chump Change” you can believe in!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fit Fit, you’re falling prey to the no lobbyist funds from Obama. He just took an indirect route for his campaign monies kick off. Since you wouldn’t believe it from Fox or conservative blogs, I’ll give you this from… believe it or not… Common Dreams. The way far left/progressive site, as you’d probably know.

While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital. Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from “federal lobbyists.” His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.

But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”

Well now… quite the different story than what’s pounded into the gullible electorate’s brain, eh? And now poised to take further advantage of it with his “change” of morality on public financing.

I’d say the “change” we all believe Obama is capable of delivering is stated quite simply in the graphic below.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Aye: It’s the same scam Dems played with the Jack Abramof scandal. You may recall that was a “Republican Scandal” simply because Democrats never received any personal contributions from Abramoff. It didn’t seem to matter that Abramoff directed the following contributions to Democrats, many in exchange for favors:

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least $22,500
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least $6,500
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least $1,250
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least $20,250
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least $21,765
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least $12,950
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least $8,000
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least $14,792
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least $79,300
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least $1,250
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least $45,750
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least $9,000
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least $14,250
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least $3,300
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least $28,000
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least $4,000
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least $6,000
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least $10,550
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least $78,991
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least $20,168
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least $2,300
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least $3,500
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least $68,941
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least $4,500
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least $4,300
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least $6,250
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least $6,250

And of course, let’s reprint here the amounts that Obama has recieved from PAC/lobbyist bundling:

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262

The claim that Obama is somehow a “change” from the big money Democrat lobbyists and PACs is laughable.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fit fit,

Don’t fly too close to the flame on the lobbyist restrictions.

They aren’t what you think they are.

I seem to recall you saying earlier that they were “largely symbolic” on another thread.

Now you want to tout these changes as significant?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Is this the “change” you people go on and on about?

This is change, and this.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

opting out of his “pledge” doesn’t entail he has “no principles”

Now that right there is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

Breaking his word means he cannot be trusted.

Hopey Changefulness strikes again!

Like or Dislike: 0  0