More "change" from Obama
 

yeah, i added this to the 'obamas fault' thread....wonderful stuff.

Change = more of the same.

Any word on whether seats at last night's SOTU address were included as a perk, or were they just reserved for political grandstanding?

So let me get this straight ...

You two are upset that people that support a candidate, and raise money for them, are subsequently invited to the White House for social events. And are sometimes given positions - on advisory panels and commissions - in the administration.

I suppose, yes, all administration appointments should be limited to people from the opposition party, who do not share the candidates vision. And social events should never have supporters invited. And people like Kal Penn - oh, the influence peddling!

I mean, for god's sake, Jack Kennedy appointed his brother Attorney General. How dare he!

:D

And some have landed government contracts that appear to have aided their business interests or investment portfolios.

•At least 30 of the 2012 bundlers have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so.


I guess this eluded you...

I mean the link was eight sentences long and you missed or ignored two of them

I guess the bolded part eluded you. But you think simply knowing someone in the government, and supporting a candidate - hardly rare in agencies that do contract business with federal agencies over the years - is de facto proof of quid pro quo now?

:D

Or just red meat to the hungry?

Dang! If only that article had, you know ... any proof. Or facts. Or was an article revealing actual quid pro quo or payoffs. Rather than "hope" and implication. But I guess we can make a rule, that if you know anybody in government or support a candidate, you cannot have a contract with the government?

It's funny you guys don't seem realize that the very rules that try to create transparency enabled your knowledge of this.

I have no problem with the fact that Newt is a Washington lobbyist. That he lies about it and tries to cover it is what will sink him.

And yes, I think lobbyist cash needs to be removed from Washington, needs to be transparent. Am I 'trying to say" or "do I believe" anything else having nothing to do with the above? I'll pre-empt the straw men with the obvious no.

LOL!!

We all know that had the shoe been on the other foot YOU would be screaming about the evil GOP giving influence and govt contracts and positions in exchange for campaign funds.

Has there ever been a topic that you didn't spin? It is evil for Gov Walker to solicit funds outside his state to help with his recall election but it is ok for Obama to take money from those seeking influence in his govt? Yeah ok.

I realize that ALL politicians are doing this but that doesn't mean I think that is kosher.

Yeah it doesn't "prove" anything, it is all just a huge coincidence...

Ah, yes. I see you are indeed assuming that there is quid pro quo. Then making up a straw man. My god, your "debate" style is predictable. Carry on.

There is no debate. The assumption that there is quid pro quo is a given. Are you making the case that it isn't? This is almost as bad as Cubans aren't Latinos...

Yes. That's kind of my point. Thanks :D

Yet you scream about proof?