| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: NYT on Obama: the lobbying & the lies |
Topic: NYT on Obama: the lobbying & the lies
| Author | Message |
| arewrites | Posted – 2/3/2008 7:22:39 AM | show profile http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?th&emc=th >>Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ?the only nuclear legislation that I?ve passed.? ?I just did that last year,? he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators<< [snip] >>The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country?s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama?s largest sources of campaign money. Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama?s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers. Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry?s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon?s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.<< |
| jazzreport | Posted – 2/3/2008 9:26:56 AM | show profile Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. isn't the angel that libs and the MSM makes him out to be. http://www.obamatruth.org/ |
| JCB | Posted – 2/3/2008 10:04:05 PM | show profile Seems mild compared with the Clintons' laundry list of lies and scandals. Or any politician's, for that matter. You've got one article about a supposed Obama "scandal," and volumes and volumes written about the Clintons' (and many, many others') misdeeds, misrepresentations, and downright criminal activities. (Just take one day--ANY DAY--out of Clinton's tenure in office and I'm sure you'd find much, much worse--an entire INDUSTRY has been built from chronicling their atrocities.) So as for this supposed Obama "scandal," I've gotta borrow from a Hillary campaign official: "How do you quote a yawn?" |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 2/4/2008 12:14:35 AM | show profile Hellllooooooo!!!! Can anyone say BUSH/CHENEY? Any idiot off the street would be gold compared to what we have now. |
| keltoi | Posted – 2/4/2008 1:19:32 AM | show profile Hard to take the Times righteous indignation regarding political lies seriously since they are one of the main media reasons we wound up in Iraq. |
| arewrites | Posted – 2/4/2008 3:20:34 AM | show profile You guys are so missing the point. This is a man who runs his entire campaign on the premise of "new politics" and "change." He carries on about how he rejects lobby groups. And yet: not only did he not pass the legislation he claims to have passed, but he altered it to suit lobbyists. It is one more example of his two-faced approach. It's one thing for politicos to lie. It's another to run an entire campaign and political presence on the premise that you don't -- and lo and behold, you do. The guy can't be trusted. I don't know why this isn't obvious to people, but somehow, his speechwriters manage to obliviate that fact magnificently. Too bad they're not the ones who will be in office. |
| JCB | Posted – 2/4/2008 3:52:37 AM | show profile The point is, in the grand scheme of things, this sort of "lying" pales in comparison with what else is going on out there. The bill got passed, albeit in a much altered form from the original (which is commonplace in passing legislation). If Obama misspoke, it was a misrepresentation of a much milder form than what usually outrages people about politicians. The bill DID get passed, and progress was made on the issue. He's not running on an "I'm Perfect" platform. No one is really naive enough to believe the guy's the Second Coming, for god's sake. But he does offer a DRASTIC alternative to the status quo, and a huge improvement over what we've seen so far from Washington. So unless you're prepared to dig up dead bodies or actual criminal behavior, this kind of second-rate mudslinging will really not change too many minds. Watergate it ain't. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 2/4/2008 1:18:55 PM | show profile Wait a minute, arewrites--you mean to tell us that Obama has actually let lobbyists sway legislation?!? And then says he doesn't like lobbyists controlling politicians? Well thank the lord that no OTHER politicians behave like that! The point, as made above, is that, in context with most of the corruption and corporate control galloping through Washington, Obama's less mired in the muck than most, including Billary. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 2/4/2008 1:42:47 PM | show profile Obama touts the point he did not vote for the war but he conveniently omits the fact he was not in the Senate at the time. As for mudslinging, it will get ugly in November no matter who at the Dems are running. At least with Hillary it is hard to imagine the Repugs coming up with anything new. They will have a field day digging up stuff about Obama that even he forgot. Hillary has proved she can take the heat. Can he? |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 2/4/2008 2:05:10 PM | show profile Hillary is a gift to the Republicans. Why do you think even Ann Coulter has come out in favor of her against McCain? The GOP rightwing WANTS Hillary to win the Dem nomination because they have nothing else to energize their rabid right. Bush is a disaster, the economy is heading for the dumpster, Iraq is a wreck, Afghanistan (the war we were supposed to be fighting) is spinning out of control, and abortion and gays just aren't having the same pull this time around. The ONLY thing the GOP has to get their nut fringe excited is Hillary as the Dem standard bearer. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 5:05:46 PM | show profile >> touts the point he did not vote for the war but he conveniently omits the fact he was not in the Senate at the time << That is not true. Obama has never tried to imply through "convenient omission" that he was in the Senate at the time. In fact he clearly made this point in the last debate. Anyone who doesn't know that Obama wasn't senator at the time isn't informed enough. "Conveniently omits" is an unfair accusation that implied he's trying to fool people. I reject that claim. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 5:07:20 PM | show profile PS: When it comes to taking money from PACs, nobody is innocent, except perhaps "unelectable" Kucinich and a handful of others. (Though they usually take donation from unions.) This is all verifiable through opensecrets.org. Everyone should be looking up the candidates there. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 5:16:14 PM | show profile >> Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. isn't the angel that libs and the MSM makes him out to be. http://www.obamatruth.org/ << That video claims Barack Obama owns the University of Chicago Hospitals? Huh? The website of the hospital is a .edu and the name implies it's a UC Health Center. The video says "his hospital, the University of Chicago Hospitals. . . " Please explain, oh Sage of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.! |
| arewrites | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:16:58 AM | show profile Chucho, that's just not true. He specifically spoke of making the "right decision" on Iraq in the last debate. And most people DON'T realize where he was when, and what authorities he had. I think that if they did, they'd have a very different take. The fact is, as VG points out, there's a lot of stuff there that's only now starting to come out, in part because of Obama's own secretiveness (gotta love it). You can be sure that the republicans will pull out all the stops, clean and dirty, when it comes time. It's not just a matter of him taking the heat; it's also a matter of just how bad that stuff may turn out to be. |
| arewrites | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:19:13 AM | show profile Okay. Apparently this isn't clear enough yet, so I'll try again. Barak Obama is running on the specific platform that he does not do X. People are supporting him because he does not do X. Then it turns out he *does do X. So what's to support? Does that make it easier to understand? |
| arewrites | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:22:26 AM | show profile >> The bill got passed, albeit in a much altered form from the original (which is commonplace in passing legislation).>> 1. No, it didn't. 2. "altered" is a funny thing to call it. The bill Obama claims to have passed -- and presumably wanted -- is actually the total opposite of the bill he put in the second time around. Can you take a stance, Mr. Obama? Pick one side of an issue and stick to it. Once. Just once. He has never done that. Ever. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/5/2008 4:19:13 AM | show profile Arewrites, by your standards there are no electable candidates running fro president. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 2/5/2008 11:42:10 AM | show profile The least hypocritical candidates in this election are probably Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Last time I checked, the American voters, and definitely the media, weren't that interested. Kucinich is out and Paul has an avid Internet following that hasn't translated into votes. What does that say about the political process in this country? |
