Dems "Easy but Not Cheap" ?

[392cobra]

So,if The One wasn't so quiet and humble about victories such as this we would have know this earlier.
We are all grateful Steve,that you are getting this great news out there.
I just hope The O will start doing a better job of tooting his own horn and not have to rely on you so much.

We are all pulling for him,just very little extra polish is needed here and there.

[Dan40]

Wether the lobbyists spent a little more or a little less in 2000, or 2005, or 2010 is not my major concern. Exactly what the politicians did with the money is more relevant. And some HAD to be straight payola.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Dan40

Wether the lobbyists spent a little more or a little less in 2000, or 2005, or 2010 is not my major concern. Exactly what the politicians did with the money is more relevant. And some HAD to be straight payola.

Good point - and it is probably a somewhat consistent percentage every year (think around 92% is close?? ). And if that is true, then it either went down, or did not grow as much, based on previous years.

Steve

[VRM]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

So,if The One wasn't so quiet and humble about victories such as this we would have know this earlier.
We are all grateful Steve,that you are getting this great news out there.
I just hope The O will start doing a better job of tooting his own horn and not have to rely on you so much.

We are all pulling for him,just very little extra polish is needed here and there.

You should be thrilled - whether the downward trending numbers are the result of the economy or anything Obama is doing does not seem to be known (though your highlighted 'because of the Obama administration’s aggressive legislative agenda.' indicates that you think the opposite.

Basically, I don't think you have a clue as to what you are posting about - you posted a misleading and poorly researched article. Was that to get the base all fired up over the wrong thing? What is the deal with you GOP types posting nothing but crap here these days? I think there is plenty that Obama and the DNC are making a mess of that you guys could go after without inventing all this BS.
Or maybe this just shows how delusional and unable to deal with facts that the GOP base really is.

Either way, as CW said
How is this enriching user visitation to this site?

Steve

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by VRM

Basically, I don't think you have a clue as to what you are posting about - you posted a misleading and poorly researched article. Was that to get the base all fired up over the wrong thing? What is the deal with you GOP types posting nothing but crap here these days? I think there is plenty that Obama and the DNC are making a mess of that you guys could go after without inventing all this BS.
Or maybe this just shows how delusional and unable to deal with facts that the GOP base really is.

Either way, as CW said
How is this enriching user visitation to this site?

Steve

Well Steve,we get to read your enlightened view points.I know I appreciate you taking the time to do so.


No Lobbyist in the Obama Administration ... Except When There Is One

In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.

OK. Stand by your guns; fulfill a campaign pledge. I'm with you.

The Republican National Committee criticized that requirement and said the new administration was already violating it. Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, conceded the two nominees did not adhere to the new rules. But he said that Mr. Lynn had the support of Republicans and Democrats, and would receive a waiver under the policy, and that Mr. Corr did not need a waiver because he had agreed to recuse himself from tobacco issues.

As the philosopher Scooby Doo might say: Awhroo? (That's cartoon dog for "Huh?")

But if you're going to campaign on sweeping condemnations about the evil of lobbyists and then, with great fanfare, ban them from your administration, you need to live by your own rules; or at least you shouldn't start making exceptions for them on Day 1.

Else the message is: It is important to prevent other administrations from doing business with lobbyists; but we are of such moral character that the rules need not apply to us.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-s...re-is-one.html