So much for being a champion of ethics reform. This is from 's web site:
Top Washington lobbyist Charlie Black is leaving his firm to join Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign.
Black,chairman of BKSH & Associates, told The Hill his resignation wouldbe effective Monday, March 31. He will join McCain's campaign on afull-time basis starting Tuesday.
“McCain asked me to play a pretty significant role in the campaign,"said Black, whose clients have included JP Morgan and Lockheed Martin,according to Senate records.
Therefore, Senator McCain has absolutely no right to claim to take the moral high ground by taking public financing. He has lobbyists running his campaign, and Obama has real people donating to his. Big difference.
Maybe why electing a president that refused is an important thing to think about this election cycle:
Lobbyists reported $2.9 billion in fees last year according to a newstudy by the National Journal, which declared that a record sum. It'sroughly double what the industry pulled down in 1998, according to themagazine's figures.
Lobbyists likely made "hundreds of millions of dollars more" inincome they aren't legally required to report, the magazine said.
Now that Democrats toppled Tom DeLay's empire, it's time to bring in a president that has always been tough on ethics reform. We're not going to get anywhere if we elect someone that has been in Washington their entire political career.
This post is a follow up to a story in today's 'BlueRadar' regarding the White House's attack on Hillary Clinton:
In response to her campaign ad that was released yesterday, the White House 's claim that Americans are not well-represented by thisadministration. WH Depouty Press Secretary: "As to the merits of it,I think it's outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helpedmillions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at amuch lower cost." ("Have access to?" But at whatcost?)
More Specifically the line:
"As to the merits of it,I think it's outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helpedmillions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at amuch lower cost."
The audacity of that statement made my skin crawl, so I figuredI would post a reminder about the republicans wonderful victory of Medicare PartD. Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes did a segment on Part D back on April 1, 2007, andit is more than worthy to get it back out there.
The unorthodox roll call onone of the most expensive bills ever placed before the House of Representativesbegan in the middle of the night, long after most people in Washington hadswitched off C-SPAN and gone to sleep.
The only witnesses were congressional staffers, hundreds of lobbyists, andU.S. representatives, like Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Walter Jones, R-N.C.
"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones."The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House thatmorning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning," remembersJones.
Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?
"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night,they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.
"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it wasthe ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."
The voting which is supposed to remain open for 15 minutes remained open foralmost 3 hours! Read the transcript .
A brief 2 minute video which outlines the story can be viewed .
Here is the complete '60 Minutes' segment 'Under The Influence'
And let's hope Romney isn't elected. Last night on Hannity & ColmesRomney talked about his idea of healthcare.
Well actually, the plan I put forward said no one gotfree insurance. Everybody could pay what they could afford. And so we had asliding scale and still do, based on your income. And the state will help paythe portion of your premium you can't afford for the poor.The good news is it costs us less to help people buy their own private insurancethan it was costing us giving out free care at hospitals. So I do talk aboutthat. And I'll be giving a speech to the Florida Medical Association describingto them our plan in some detail.But I insisted that everyone pays something. I didn't want to have anythingfree. Our legislature overrode that idea and so the people at the very low gotit free. I think that's a mistake. I think everyone should pay something.Read the complete transcript
Great plan Mitt, the poor can pay something for healthcare and eat cardboardboxes.
It is true that Hillary Clinton received more DC lobbyist money than any candidate in either party during this presidential cycle. However, over an extended time frame, no one should thank special interests more than Mitt Romney. Clinton has name recognition, and would still be among the top-tier even if she did not accept lobbyist money. But as far as Romney is concerned, these are responsible for his rise to power, and he will owe them if he wins the presidency:
Republican Mitt Romney,the wealthiest candidate in the presidential race, earned as much as$15 million in 2006 and early 2007 from the private equity firm he lefteight years ago, helping him expand his personal fortune and bankrollhis campaign.
The extent of Romney's continuing relationship with Boston-based Bain Capital Partner,which has also supplied him with scores of savvy fundraisers andwell-heeled donors, was detailed in a financial disclosure report filedyesterday with the Office of Government Ethics. The report revealed theholdings of Romney's blind trust and provided the most completeaccounting of his wealth, estimated at between $190 million and $250million.
The filing, which listed 47 pages of investments spanning the globe,estimated that Romney earned between $17 million and $69 million lastyear.
According to the campaign finance disclosure site , Mitt Romney has failed to disclose where 7.2% of his money originated from -- that's $2,348,704 of possibly dirty money. In addition, 20% of all Romney's campaign money came from his own bank account -- $6.5 million in the alone.
Romney was also by Giuliani $15 million to $14 million that quarter. This guy is the Republican front-runner, yet average Americans are not donating to his campaign at the same ratio as other GOP candidates.
Romney's , his home state, fell by 69% in the second quarter. He only has , which is less than one-third what Barack Obama has.
Mitt Romney will owe those that gave him funding, and they will do anything to see that he gets in. He is the anti-populist candidate, if you are looking for one.
If Clinton denied at the Yearly Kos Convention that she took in money from lobbyists, this story would make her look even worse. It was going to eventually come out, now we will see whether this has any effect on her in the polls.
's Sam Stein and Michael Isikoff noted on which kinds of lobbyists have already donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign:
An upcoming study by the watchdog group Public Citizen finds that atleast 16 of her campaign's "Hill-raisers"—elite fund-raisers or"bundlers" who have pledged to bring in at least $100,000—areregistered D.C. lobbyists who represent corporate interests thatinclude financial, airline, defense and pharmaceutical firms. Among theplayers: Matthew Bernstein (whose client list includes Raytheon andMerrill Lynch), James Blanchard (Bristol-Myers and an Indian gamingtribe), Steve Ricchetti (Eli Lilly and General Motors), RichardSullivan (Delta and Freddie Mac) and John Merrigan (Starwood Hotels).Figures compiled by another group, the Center for Responsive Politics,find Clinton has raised $668,250 from registered lobbyists and"government relations" officers—far more than any of the otherpresidential candidates, including the GOP contenders (who openly seeklobbyists' cash).
So what about Obama and Edwards? They did receive donations from some individuals that were lobbyists during their previous careers. But neither of them took money from current lobbyists:
The Public Citizen study also found that, despite their campaigns'public disavowals, five top Obama bundlers had been registeredlobbyists, and one of Edwards's major fund-raisers hadrun a lobbyingfirm. Both campaigns say none of these fund-raisers is currentlyregistered to lobby.
The groups (founded by ) and the have been exposing lobbyist-driven campaigns for the last several years. Now progressive candidates think twice before polluting their wallets with special interest money.
In what appeared to be a direct shot at the blogosphere, when asked which party he would back for president, slammed Clinton and Obama for agreeing with left-leaning interest groups about the war:
Democratic candidates including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obamaand John Edwards oppose the Iraq war out of deference to "vestedinterest groups within the left."
"It's a very disappointingissue," Lieberman said. "The leading Democratic candidates forpresident are competing with each other to see which one can morequickly pull more of our troops out of Iraq, while our troops are therefighting and now succeeding with a lot on the line."
It all boils down to what you consider to be an 'interest group'? An interest group could be passionate citizens that organize to end the war. An interest group could also be the defense industry that $120,100 to Lieberman's '06 Senate campaign. So it depends how you look at it.
Most of us have heard the term , some understand it and some don't. so I decided to help thosethat don't and keep it fresh in the minds of those that do. inspired me with their post ''
The easiest way to explain what Net Neutrality is, and the issues surroundingit, is through video 'Save The Internet'. You can go to and click on your state and see where your representatives standon this issue. You can also send them messages through the site. More videos at
Save The Internet (explains Net Neutrality)
Big Ed's Swan Song (their latest video)
We're all guilty of sitting around complaining about issues, but rarely take the initiative to do our part. Let's not be sitting around drinking coffee in 5 years wishing we did our part.
I feel compelled to find and post the truth every time I hear Our GreatPresident open his mouth which has become synonymous with lying.Thanks again to "granny" for sending us the link for the video.
It didn't take the liberal bloggers and general long public to react and speak outagainst the dems for caving in on the funding bill. And it seems that theybetter grow a set quickly before we start shopping around. Think about this fora moment, you tell your spouse or significant other you are going shopping, butinstead go to a friends house...simple right? umm, NO!, you are confronted bythem and are told you lied. Maybe that's a simple minded analogy, but comparethat to The President of the United States lying on an ongoing basis, changingthe story and then his supporters actually lie further to support him. Wrong,just plain old everyday kindergartenly, fundamentally, unacceptably wrong.
Well lets start this thing....
'Let's Impeach The President' Song by Neil Youg. Check out Neils page of .(check out the )The Lyrics are
I do not like Andy Dick in just about everything I have ever seen himin...except this video
'Bush Idiot Speech'
Here is a huge list of worth a peak. .
There is just so much more content which could be added to this post, but Ineed to move on from this "consumption" of me.
Most of us are familiar with the latest controversy regarding the the military currently issues to our troops, and the rejection to useanother available vest that may be "better" called . MSNBC did an on this controversy, and in this interview the developer of thevest (Ret. Marine Lt. Colonel Jim Magee) currently being used said "DragonSkin is the best out there, hands down. It's better than the Interceptor. It isstate of the art. In some cases, it’s two steps ahead of anything I’ve everseen."
Magee, who has no financial stake whatsoever in Dragon Skin, told us, “Ifyou would ask me today, ‘Jim we’re sending you to Iraq tomorrow. What wouldyou wear?’ I would buy Dragon Skin and I would wear it.â€
I don't know why it took so long for this issue to make its way to the Hill,but wouldn't we love to know?
"Since the report, we have gotten a flurry of interest" fromCapitol Hill, Brown said at a May 21 Pentagon briefing. "We're planning ongoing over to the Hill ... for discussions with key members."
the Army is planning "another" test to make anattempt to clear their name. I hope they have cameras and a few honest witnessesthere.
The Army plans to brief about test failures of Dragon Skin body armor after recent news reports toutingthe vest's capabilities prompted calls from lawmakers for an officialexplanation.
The service's top soldier equipment buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, said heplans to meet with lawmakers and staff this week after NBC News broadcast aninvestigative report Sunday claiming Dragon Skin - which uses a series ofinterlocking ceramic disks to stop armor-piercing bullets - outperformed armorcurrently issued by the Army.
is quite convincing (until you get to the biased militarytesting). You can contact your public officials about this issue, I expect a fair test and a QUICK one!
Army officials saythey want to field a system similar to Dragon Skin, whose interlocking ceramicdisks provide more protective coverage and more flexibility thancurrently-issued armor. But at nearly 20-pounds heavier than the Army's vest,Dragon Skin technology isn't there yet.
I think the military ismaking the "20-pounds heavier" part up. According to the , its a total weight of 17.2 pounds.
The SOV-3000â„¢ Level IV,with our large standard tactical front and back panel configuration weighsapproximately 17.2 lbs. and varies depending on the level of coverage needed.The SOV-3000â„¢ is manufactured with a ceramic composite.
Videosof the testing can be found From the information I have read and videos I watched, Dragon Skin looks prettygood.
Well it looks like the bastards on the Hill will continue to insert the goscrew yourselves suppositories up our asses once again. the Americans ability to buy cheaper prescription drugsfrom outside the U.S.
WASHINGTON - In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate onMonday killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroadat a significant savings over domestic prices.
On a 49-40 vote, the Senate required the Food and Drug Administration tocertify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs before they can beimported, a requirement that officials have said they cannot meet.
"Well, once again the big drug companies have proved that they arethe most powerful and best financed lobby in Washington," said Sen.David Vitter, R-La.
The deep pockets of lobbyists, and the greed that runs rampant in our government,results in one thing ... the royal screwing of the American people.
The with the pharmaceutical companies,and saves a lot of money, however the right to follow suit.
. (and this probably won't bethe last time I repost it)
Once upon a time on an enchanted Hill there was The pharmaceutical industry,the congressmen and the lobbyists, but this isn't a fairy tale. This is thestory of how the Medicare Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003(better known as ) was passed.
The bill made it to the house in the morning, but wasn't voted on until 3:00AM so it wouldn't attract any media coverage. It was supposed to have been a 15minute vote, but voting was left open for almost 3 hours until it received thevotes it needed.
60 Minutes did a story on this .
(CBS) If you have ever wondered why the cost of prescriptiondrugs in the United States are the highest in the world or why it's illegal toimport cheaper drugs from Canada or Mexico, you need look no further than thepharmaceutical lobby and its influence in Washington, D.C.
Referring to the frenzy to pass the bill, Representitive Walter Jones (R NC)said "I've been in politics for 22 years, and it was the ugliest night Ihave ever seen in 22 years."
15 of the staffers and politicians that worked on this bill to get it passed,were eventually employed by pharmaceutical companies making as much as $2million salaries.
digs deeper into what they call . There is a lot of information on their web site.
Recent Comments