To be perfectly honest in an embarrassing way, I don't really know what lobbyists do nor how much impact their actions can have on a presidency.
Have you ever seen Thank You for Smoking? It's hilarious and you should, and it's about a tobacco lobbyist.
Essentially, people are paid to schmooze politicians - take them out for nice dinners and give them hefty donations - in order to get them to vote in favor of the business or industry the lobbyist represents. If a restrictive tobacco bill is coming down the pipe, the goal of tobacco lobbyists will be to woo a Senator or two to help vote it down.
In addition to this, they also inform legislators about bills that they'd like to see passed and any of the nuances held within. Advocacy groups like Green Peace and MADD would have lobbyists. They're not by definition, sleazy.
MADD is about on-par with PETA for crazy-ass extremists.
They're basically the modern temperance movement.
The difference is hat Drunk Driving is actually a huge godsdamned problem.
Is there any way of knowing what lobbies a candidate is beholden to, specifically? If so, what lobbies have some degree of influence over Clinton and McCain?
Presumably, from campaign finance reports, to see who's given money.
Of course, I don't understand Federal campaign financing at all. I thought any one person could give no more than $2,000 to a candidate for an election, so I don't know how corporations can have anyone in their pocket, unless there's some slick deal where money from the corporation is given to individual people with strict agreements that those people are required to give $2,000 to the candidate.
Well, generally speaking they're the only ones contributing, especially to the non-Presidential campaigns which get less attention. That's why the Obama fundraising totals are so remarkable and unprecedented and awesome.
Also it's $2300 once in the primary and then again in the general. And you can get around things by contributing a ton of cash to say, the DNC which can then run ads on behalf of your candidate, or avoid the system all together with 527s as long as you avoid the magic words of support, vote for, vote against, etc. That's why you'll see ads during a campaign like "John McCain is a fascist, call him and tell him what you think about that. Paid for by The People for the American Way." Or the same argument calling Obama a socialist from one of the faux patriotic sounding groups that all blend together in my mind. Citizens for Freedom or some shit like that. Anyway, most of that is big donors giving huge amounts of money helping a candidate win.
And that's just campaigns, until recently lobbyists could fly Representatives and Senators around, pay for their meals, give them random gifts, etc. The reform legislation that ended that's sponsor? Barack Obama. So there's one thing for Richy.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
To be perfectly honest in an embarrassing way, I don't really know what lobbyists do nor how much impact their actions can have on a presidency.
Have you ever seen Thank You for Smoking? It's hilarious and you should, and it's about a tobacco lobbyist.
Essentially, people are paid to schmooze politicians - take them out for nice dinners and give them hefty donations - in order to get them to vote in favor of the business or industry the lobbyist represents. If a restrictive tobacco bill is coming down the pipe, the goal of tobacco lobbyists will be to woo a Senator or two to help vote it down.
In addition to this, they also inform legislators about bills that they'd like to see passed and any of the nuances held within. Advocacy groups like Green Peace and MADD would have lobbyists. They're not by definition, sleazy.
MADD is about on-par with PETA for crazy-ass extremists.
They're basically the modern temperance movement.
The difference is hat Drunk Driving is actually a huge godsdamned problem.
So is animal cruelty. That doesn't excuse them from rational thought.
Stylish, but undoubtedly negative. I don't approve.
I'm fine with this kind of negative advertising. It's the "my opponent supports Al Qaeda" or "Willie Horton" kind of advertising that is actually the problem. Something like this which is all "Hey, you know how Washington sucks and lobbyists suck even more? My opponent loves her some lobbyists."
And that pro-lobbyist quote came at YearlyKos of all places. There's a reason they hate her.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It was one of those typical questions from a reporter gaggle on Capitol Hill: Does Harry Reid think the protracted nomination fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will harm the party?
Reid didn't miss a beat.
"It makes me bitter," he deadpanned.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
It was one of those typical questions from a reporter gaggle on Capitol Hill: Does Harry Reid think the protracted nomination fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will harm the party?
The last time McCain did TDS Jon ripped him apart. So much so that it was a topic in an interview with PBS a couple days later where they asked him (Jon) what he felt seeing McCain "at a loss for words and defeated" at his probing. He tore him on his positions on troop levels in Iraq, going back on his "agents of intolerance" moniker for certain members of the Christian Right, and a whole bunch other hypocritical stances he had taken over the past year or so.
If its to score election points I doubt we'll see McCain on again soon.
It was two times ago, I think he came back and after a brief awkward we're still kinda friends right? thing they were not exactly chummy, but Jon wasn't killing him again.
I think I missed that one then, my mistake. That said, Stewart definitely ripped him apart.
Can someone with more knowledge of campaign finance law than me tell me what the rules are regarding ads released on the internet? Are they subject to the same rules as ads shown on television or print media w.r.t. where the money comes from?
The last time McCain did TDS Jon ripped him apart. So much so that it was a topic in an interview with PBS a couple days later where they asked him (Jon) what he felt seeing McCain "at a loss for words and defeated" at his probing. He tore him on his positions on troop levels in Iraq, going back on his "agents of intolerance" moniker for certain members of the Christian Right, and a whole bunch other hypocritical stances he had taken over the past year or so.
If its to score election points I doubt we'll see McCain on again soon.
It was two times ago, I think he came back and after a brief awkward we're still kinda friends right? thing they were not exactly chummy, but Jon wasn't killing him again.
I think I missed that one then, my mistake. That said, Stewart definitely ripped him apart.
For sure, outside of Bill Kristol that might have been as aggressive as Jon's ever been with a guest.
In other news: Bloomberg/LA Times poll upcoming primaries:
NC: Obama +13
PA: Clinton + 5
IN: Obama +5
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Can someone with more knowledge of campaign finance law than me tell me what the rules are regarding ads released on the internet? Are they subject to the same rules as ads shown on television or print media w.r.t. where the money comes from?
I'm reasonably sure they're not in the legislation as they weren't a big deal when McCain-Feingold passed and I haven't heard of a revision to them.
It was one of those typical questions from a reporter gaggle on Capitol Hill: Does Harry Reid think the protracted nomination fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will harm the party?
Is there any way of knowing what lobbies a candidate is beholden to, specifically? If so, what lobbies have some degree of influence over Clinton and McCain?
Presumably, from campaign finance reports, to see who's given money.
Of course, I don't understand Federal campaign financing at all. I thought any one person could give no more than $2,000 to a candidate for an election, so I don't know how corporations can have anyone in their pocket, unless there's some slick deal where money from the corporation is given to individual people with strict agreements that those people are required to give $2,000 to the candidate.
I'm curious about this as well. If Clinton has taken over $100,000 from drug lobbyists, does that mean each one gave her no more than 2300 for the primary and 2300 for the general, or is it something else? Are personal "cash gifts" exempt from the donation caps?
Marty81 on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Is there any way of knowing what lobbies a candidate is beholden to, specifically? If so, what lobbies have some degree of influence over Clinton and McCain?
Presumably, from campaign finance reports, to see who's given money.
Of course, I don't understand Federal campaign financing at all. I thought any one person could give no more than $2,000 to a candidate for an election, so I don't know how corporations can have anyone in their pocket, unless there's some slick deal where money from the corporation is given to individual people with strict agreements that those people are required to give $2,000 to the candidate.
I'm curious about this as well. If Clinton has taken over $100,000 from drug lobbyists, does that mean each one gave her no more than 2300 for the primary and 2300 for the general, or is it something else? Are personal "cash gifts" exempt from the donation caps?
The gifts are banned outright, I believe. But yeah, that is what it means. It only takes 24 of them contributing the max for both the primary and the general to get to that gaudy $100,000 total.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I demand more where they came from and even tougher.
I still hope we can keep the positive:negative ratio high. Was it the 2004 election where the positive:negative ratio of ads coming out of Bush's side was something like 1:3? That's the sort of stuff that turns people off politics. Negative ads have their place, but I think the principal focus should be saying why you rock, not why your opponent sucks.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I demand more where they came from and even tougher.
I still hope we can keep the positive:negative ratio high. Was it the 2004 election where the positive:negative ratio of ads coming out of Bush's side was something like 1:3? That's the sort of stuff that turns people off politics. Negative ads have their place, but I think the principal focus should be saying why you rock, not why your opponent sucks.
Agreed. And, this ad was nice because, while negative, it was still classy and not outright vicious or malicious.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I demand more where they came from and even tougher.
I still hope we can keep the positive:negative ratio high. Was it the 2004 election where the positive:negative ratio of ads coming out of Bush's side was something like 1:3? That's the sort of stuff that turns people off politics. Negative ads have their place, but I think the principal focus should be saying why you rock, not why your opponent sucks.
Agreed. And, this ad was nice because, while negative, it was still classy and not outright vicious or malicious.
Yeah, I liked the tone. Factual (afaik) and not more malicious than it needed to be to get the point across.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Negative ads are, in my opinion, what candidates do when they have a lack of good ideas themselves.
The only time I think a negative ad is justified is if the person they're attacking did something absolutely appalling that actually effects whether or not they'd make a good president. Anything else is just superficial bullshit.
That's a large part of why I can't stand Clinton. The majority of her campaign seems to be attacking Obama about pointless bullshit, and being as blatantly fake as possible during public appearences.
Negative ads are, in my opinion, what candidates do when they have a lack of good ideas themselves.
I disagree. Negative ads can be artfully done, it's just that most of them are over stupid shit like "Obama's pastor said somethign contraversial!" or "Bill Clinton took a puff on a joint when he was in college!" or "Obama: Stealth Muslim or Angry Marxist Radical?" Pointing out a candidates legitimate weaknesses in such a way as to contrast them with your own strengths is defensible as long as it's factual. I wouldn't mind an ad from McCain, say, that pointed out McCain's decades in the Senate and Obama's comparatively short tenure. It's accurate, arguably relevant, and voters can decide for themselves if they care.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
IMO they fucked up. They should have had the prescription picture go before the oil picture. The oil going in first dissociated the point from the first couple clips.
Yeah, while I think that high gas prices are one of the major concerns these days, there are way too many factors involved than whether Hillary took money from pharmaceutical companies.
I'm willing to be charitable enough to view the context of that as "When politicians take lots of money from lobbyists, problems don't get solved. High gas prices and high drug prices are two such problems. Guess who bakes her cookies with lobby-dough?"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Yeah but the totals for healthcare and pharma worked up to double of energy so I kinda figured the pill picture shoulda gone before the oil to make a small chain rather than a cascading order of statements. The video portion broke apart the two lists so the pill bottle would have tied part III back to part I better. It's just personal preference. It really only deals with switching two frames within a 3 second period.
Hembot on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I think there is a big reason there's an age difference in a lot of these polls. Because once you've reached a certain age, you won't sit there and listen to somebody tell you there's really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there's not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.
Edit: I can't speak for small-town Pennsylvania, but small-towns in northern Indiana have been hurting since the Nixon administration. Maybe they would have been even worse off now if Clinton had never been President, but not many people around here remember the '90s as being such great economic times. I think Obama's right when he says the economic boom of the late '90s never found its way into the communities of Appalachia and the Rust Belt.
Hedgethorn on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
I think there is a big reason there's an age difference in a lot of these polls. Because once you've reached a certain age, you won't sit there and listen to somebody tell you there's really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there's not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.
Completely ignoring the part where the voters with college degrees are in the tank for Obama to where his task in college towns is simply to run up the score.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I kind of agree with his point though, Bill Clinton was a far, far better president than Bush is, and it's a bit unfair to shovel everyone into the category of "the same old washington games." However using that point to explain the age difference is kind of stupid. Why don't these smart old people learn math? Or figure out that seating delegates where only one person is on the ballot is unfair?
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
I kind of agree with his point though, Bill Clinton was a far, far better president than Bush is, and it's a bit unfair to shovel everyone into the category of "the same old washington games." However using that point to explain the age difference is kind of stupid. Why don't these smart old people learn math? Or figure out that seating delegates where only one person is on the ballot is unfair?
You have to realize that old people are retarded. It's taken me 26 years to figure this out, but it's so very true.
I kind of agree with his point though, Bill Clinton was a far, far better president than Bush is, and it's a bit unfair to shovel everyone into the category of "the same old washington games." However using that point to explain the age difference is kind of stupid. Why don't these smart old people learn math? Or figure out that seating delegates where only one person is on the ballot is unfair?
Earth to Bill: just because you didn't suck as much as Bush doesn't mean you were great. You were a middling President that got lucky, and doesn't that just make your insides burn and you get so angry? Come on, call his supporters dumb and naive so the media can talk about that for a week.
I half think Obama says things like that to get Bill to do something outrageously self-destructive.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I kind of agree with his point though, Bill Clinton was a far, far better president than Bush is, and it's a bit unfair to shovel everyone into the category of "the same old washington games." However using that point to explain the age difference is kind of stupid. Why don't these smart old people learn math? Or figure out that seating delegates where only one person is on the ballot is unfair?
I've never seen Obama say or imply that there was no difference during the Bush years. One could charitably take his comments about Bush squandering surpluses and an economic boom as implicit endorsement of Clinton's presidency over Bush's. But there are certain things on Dem wish lists that weren't accomplished under Bush or Clinton, certain things Dems ostensibly oppose that were furthered by both Bush and Clinton. And it's clearly true that a lot of the people Obama wants to help, people he claims have fallen through the cracks, have received the same helping of squat for over 16 years.
Which isn't to say I agree with all of Obama's remedies, but from the POV of a liberal democrat, Clinton's tenure had a lot of failings.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'd be willing to bet that Bill Clinton wasn't exactly rocking the elderly demographic in his two campaigns.
It's funny cuz when he first ran he wasn't too unlike Obama. He was fairly young, very charming and something of a Washington outsider
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
The first poll of South Dakota democrats (June 3rd Primary) has Obama over Clinton by 12 points. That is not surprising, given Obama's domination of contests in the Upper Midwest/Great Plains.
What is surprising is that the same poll reports that, in a matchup of Obama vs. McCain in North Dakota, McCain is ahead, but within the margin of error. This matches a results from SUSA in early March that everyone dismissed as an implausible result.
Could North Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, be competitive this fall?
Posts
Well, generally speaking they're the only ones contributing, especially to the non-Presidential campaigns which get less attention. That's why the Obama fundraising totals are so remarkable and unprecedented and awesome.
Also it's $2300 once in the primary and then again in the general. And you can get around things by contributing a ton of cash to say, the DNC which can then run ads on behalf of your candidate, or avoid the system all together with 527s as long as you avoid the magic words of support, vote for, vote against, etc. That's why you'll see ads during a campaign like "John McCain is a fascist, call him and tell him what you think about that. Paid for by The People for the American Way." Or the same argument calling Obama a socialist from one of the faux patriotic sounding groups that all blend together in my mind. Citizens for Freedom or some shit like that. Anyway, most of that is big donors giving huge amounts of money helping a candidate win.
And that's just campaigns, until recently lobbyists could fly Representatives and Senators around, pay for their meals, give them random gifts, etc. The reform legislation that ended that's sponsor? Barack Obama. So there's one thing for Richy.
Stylish, but undoubtedly negative. I don't approve.
Heh, that was my initial thought when I was just going to reference them, so I threw in Greenpeace.
On second thought, that was also a bad choice. So instead I could reference whatever cancer group it is that Lance Armstrong is a part of.
Edit: Ah, flowing through the DNC makes sense, and explains everything.
I'm fine with this kind of negative advertising. It's the "my opponent supports Al Qaeda" or "Willie Horton" kind of advertising that is actually the problem. Something like this which is all "Hey, you know how Washington sucks and lobbyists suck even more? My opponent loves her some lobbyists."
And that pro-lobbyist quote came at YearlyKos of all places. There's a reason they hate her.
I demand more where they came from and even tougher.
That's just beautiful.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I think I missed that one then, my mistake. That said, Stewart definitely ripped him apart.
For sure, outside of Bill Kristol that might have been as aggressive as Jon's ever been with a guest.
In other news: Bloomberg/LA Times poll upcoming primaries:
NC: Obama +13
PA: Clinton + 5
IN: Obama +5
I'm reasonably sure they're not in the legislation as they weren't a big deal when McCain-Feingold passed and I haven't heard of a revision to them.
That was the original interpretation of the FEC.
Still looking for something more modern.
Doesn't look like you know much about the modern MADD.
The tip of the iceberg? The founder quit the group in disgust.
I'm curious about this as well. If Clinton has taken over $100,000 from drug lobbyists, does that mean each one gave her no more than 2300 for the primary and 2300 for the general, or is it something else? Are personal "cash gifts" exempt from the donation caps?
It also does not say that Obama approved it.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The gifts are banned outright, I believe. But yeah, that is what it means. It only takes 24 of them contributing the max for both the primary and the general to get to that gaudy $100,000 total.
It's a web only ad that they're trying to make go viral in that way they're generally pretty good at.
I still hope we can keep the positive:negative ratio high. Was it the 2004 election where the positive:negative ratio of ads coming out of Bush's side was something like 1:3? That's the sort of stuff that turns people off politics. Negative ads have their place, but I think the principal focus should be saying why you rock, not why your opponent sucks.
Agreed. And, this ad was nice because, while negative, it was still classy and not outright vicious or malicious.
Yeah, I liked the tone. Factual (afaik) and not more malicious than it needed to be to get the point across.
The only time I think a negative ad is justified is if the person they're attacking did something absolutely appalling that actually effects whether or not they'd make a good president. Anything else is just superficial bullshit.
That's a large part of why I can't stand Clinton. The majority of her campaign seems to be attacking Obama about pointless bullshit, and being as blatantly fake as possible during public appearences.
I disagree. Negative ads can be artfully done, it's just that most of them are over stupid shit like "Obama's pastor said somethign contraversial!" or "Bill Clinton took a puff on a joint when he was in college!" or "Obama: Stealth Muslim or Angry Marxist Radical?" Pointing out a candidates legitimate weaknesses in such a way as to contrast them with your own strengths is defensible as long as it's factual. I wouldn't mind an ad from McCain, say, that pointed out McCain's decades in the Senate and Obama's comparatively short tenure. It's accurate, arguably relevant, and voters can decide for themselves if they care.
I wouldn't put too much faith in polls that show 20% of North Carolinians and Indianans as still undecided.
Edit: I can't speak for small-town Pennsylvania, but small-towns in northern Indiana have been hurting since the Nixon administration. Maybe they would have been even worse off now if Clinton had never been President, but not many people around here remember the '90s as being such great economic times. I think Obama's right when he says the economic boom of the late '90s never found its way into the communities of Appalachia and the Rust Belt.
Comparing a fender bender to a 30 car pileup
I half think Obama says things like that to get Bill to do something outrageously self-destructive.
I've never seen Obama say or imply that there was no difference during the Bush years. One could charitably take his comments about Bush squandering surpluses and an economic boom as implicit endorsement of Clinton's presidency over Bush's. But there are certain things on Dem wish lists that weren't accomplished under Bush or Clinton, certain things Dems ostensibly oppose that were furthered by both Bush and Clinton. And it's clearly true that a lot of the people Obama wants to help, people he claims have fallen through the cracks, have received the same helping of squat for over 16 years.
Which isn't to say I agree with all of Obama's remedies, but from the POV of a liberal democrat, Clinton's tenure had a lot of failings.
It's funny cuz when he first ran he wasn't too unlike Obama. He was fairly young, very charming and something of a Washington outsider
What is surprising is that the same poll reports that, in a matchup of Obama vs. McCain in North Dakota, McCain is ahead, but within the margin of error. This matches a results from SUSA in early March that everyone dismissed as an implausible result.
Could North Dakota, a state that hasn't voted for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, be competitive this fall?