Kelly the Dog Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Then he shouldn't lay out grandiose visions of American government where he has removed all undue influence from politics. Its not total bull sh-- by the way - its called a completely, 100%, publically financed campaign system, with bans on lobbiests giving jobs to former politicians, and lobbyists becoming politicians or working in their offices. Anything short of that is not good enough from the guy who claims he's going to instutue a new kind of politics. Do you understand who bundlers are? Do you understand what they do? Bundlers are corporate CEOs, bundlers are lobbyists, bundlers are hedge fund managers, bundlers epitomize everything thats wrong with American politics. They get around the disclosure laws by not ever touching the money, so that they don't have to report it. They are performing the same exact function as the "Special Interests" and lobbyists that he blasted Clinton for. The same lobbyist money he claims to not have accepted. Really? Planning on raising 100-150 million from bundlers cuts out "50-80% of the undue influence"? It does no such thing - it just narrows down who the power players are to a smaller number. No, he hasn't done just the opposite. He simply has shifted HOW he kowtows to big money organizations. Doing just the opposite would be only accepting donations that are given by individuals. Accepting absolutely no money from the DNC, no money from bundling, no money from PACs, no money from corporations, no money from anything other than individuals. He has NOT done this, and he is NOT planning on doing it. Great, so we'll just trust the guy. Given that he's a politician (by your own admission), do you really think this is likely to happen? Especially since its already reported that he's cozying right up to Clinton's bundlers? Really? Is this why Barack Obama has 14 lobbyist bundlers working for him, after claiming he doesn't accept lobbyist money? Is this why Barack Obama has 358 bundlers raising tons of money for him? Sure, he's done a fine job of turning the donation system on its ear. 1. Like I said, you're asking a guy who never said he wasn't going to be a politician, who never said he was going to completely overhaul the political system, who never said he was going to only take money in tiny increments from random citizens with no political affiliation and agenda to do just that. Oh, and lose the election because he can't raise money from anyone who has ever even visited Washington. 2. I was talking about moveon.org when I mentioned the big money organizations. When he does something they approve, you accuse him of kowtowing. When he goes against them, showing he's not indebted, he's get no credit. You accuse him of lying. 3. Of course I know what bundlers are. The 20-50% was the remaining people that weren't the tiny indiviudal donors. Some reports are that 80% of his money so far have been small donors, the lowest I have seen is 50% so I used those parameters. He doesn't have to worry at all about undue influence of between 50-80% of his total donors because they are the little guy. He does have to be aboveboard for the bundlers and the rest of the money but I have seen little influence so far. You can't and shouldn't just automatically assume he is going to just kowtow to anyone with money because he doesnt need to or need it, he has shown he can generate without them. That doesnt mean he should just turn it down. 4. He's already changed the way politicians are going to raise money from here on out. It's been extraordinary. Even before and without all the bundlers and the Clinton fundraisers and the new people since the primary. If you don't want to acknowledge the greatest fundraising machine in the history of American politics, mostly from regular Americans, and without any evidence of foul play, fine. Don't. He's not perfect.He's not the messiah. He's not without fault. He's not above politics or politicking. He never said he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 1. Like I said, you're asking a guy who never said he wasn't going to be a politician, who never said he was going to completely overhaul the political system, who never said he was going to only take money in tiny increments from random citizens with no political affiliation and agenda to do just that. No. I'm asking a guy who claims to be about a new brand of politics to be about a new brand of politics. He's putting lipstick on a pig, not creating a new brand of politics. Oh, and lose the election because he can't raise money from anyone who has ever even visited Washington. You don't think his small-donor network would have raised the amount necessary for him to win? If you don't, then no, he hasn't done this in a "revolutionary way". 2. I was talking about moveon.org when I mentioned the big money organizations. When he does something they approve, you accuse him of kowtowing. When he goes against them, showing he's not indebted, he's get no credit. You accuse him of lying. You'll have to expand on this. I don't recall moveon.org having an influence on my thinking or position. 3. Of course I know what bundlers are. The 20-50% was the remaining people that weren't the tiny indiviudal donors. Some reports are that 80% of his money so far have been small donors, the lowest I have seen is 50% so I used those parameters. He doesn't have to worry at all about undue influence of between 50-80% of his total donors because they are the little guy. He does have to be aboveboard for the bundlers and the rest of the money but I have seen little influence so far. You can't and shouldn't just automatically assume he is going to just kowtow to anyone with money because he doesnt need to or need it, he has shown he can generate without them. That doesnt mean he should just turn it down. Sorry, but there is no way that you'll get me to agree with this. If he actually felt he didn't need the money, the right thing to do would have been to take the public financing and accept donations from only small donors and no bundlers (which, as you acknowledge, is extensive - and would have been more than enough to beat McCain). If someone raises 500k+ for a candidate and is their largest donor, its going to impact policy, if not on a conscious level, at the very least an unconscious one. There have been a few political psychology studies done showing that this is indeed the case. In any event, thinking that someone who is donating a lot of money isn't going to get kickbacks while they are in office is foolish. The candidates accept this money knowing that there is an unspoken agreement that policy will be made for them. If Obama's ambition is to have two terms (and there are no indications that this isn't the case), he's going to need that extra fund raising, and that extra fund raising is only going to come through for him if he gives them what they want during the first term. There is a reason that all the larger corporate bundlers and lobbyists are the top donators to all the major candidates. 4. He's already changed the way politicians are going to raise money from here on out. It's been extraordinary. Even before and without all the bundlers and the Clinton fundraisers and the new people since the primary. If you don't want to acknowledge the greatest fundraising machine in the history of American politics, mostly from regular Americans, and without any evidence of foul play, fine. Don't. It was going to happen anyway (if Obama used traditional fund-raising methods, Paul would have been viewed at as the extraordinary one). It was more of the internet coming of age than anything else. What would have impressed me is Obama running a campaign without resorting to traditional politics. He has the fund raising network to do it, be ethical, and win while doing so. So why doesn't he? Because he's not actually about "Change we can believe in". He's about "change that is politically advantageous to me". That's the mark of a continuing line of politics, not change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Because he's not actually about "Change we can believe in". He's about "change that is politically advantageous to me". That's the mark of a continuing line of politics, not change. As much as I enjoy watching you lay the uber smackdown uber pwnge on him, it's a moot point. The only way you'll understand (and therefore be able to debate) KTFBD et all is to take a couple sips of the Kool-Aid® of which they indulge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 There is a huge backlash from people like me because Obama has convinced a multitude of morons to vote for him simply because of his "honest, open, and post-partisan" image, which isn't supported by any evidence. Wow, I totally see your perspective. I guess its an Indy vote for me again. Not that what you said changed my mind, just I am in total agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts