Morning Briefing: Obama campaign using lobbyists as bundlers?
October 28th, 2011
09:15 AM ET

Morning Briefing: Obama campaign using lobbyists as bundlers?

One article we know the Obama campaign is reading today comes from the New York Times on the close connections many of the president’s big-dollar fundraisers have with the lobbying industry. This seems to be the crux of the article:

At least 15 of Mr. Obama’s “bundlers” — supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and solicit it from others — are involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies. They have raised more than $5 million so far for the campaign.

Because the bundlers are not registered as lobbyists with the Senate, the Obama campaign has managed to avoid running afoul of its self-imposed ban on taking money from lobbyists.

Ben LaBolt, spokesman for the president’s reelection campaign, posted a blog post early this morning, saying that the New York Times story “misses the forest for the trees,” in its reporting, “obscuring the President's long history of advancing ethics and government reform and brushing right past his opponents' records with nothing but a shrug.” Here’s some more from his response:

From the first day he announced he was running for President, Barack Obama hasn't accepted a dime from federal lobbyists or political action committees (PACs). He led the way in disclosing major volunteer fundraisers for his campaign, disclosing both the names of the individuals who raise money for the campaign as well as the levels of contributions that they raise

The New York Times makes a nod in LaBolt’s direction in this paragraph by acknowledging the Obama campaign’s efforts to keep lobbyists away:

As a matter of policy, Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign goes beyond what campaign law requires by refusing contributions from any “individual registered as a federal lobbyist.” Registered lobbyists are not even allowed inside his fund-raising events, and the campaign routinely returns checks from those trying to contribute.

Here are some other articles the White House may be reading today:

Election worries give momentum to deficit talks [Reuters]

US Stock Futures Pull Back Ahead Of Spending, Sentiment Data [Dow Jones Newswire]

Consumer spending up in September on savings [Reuters]

JPMorgan won't charge debit card fee as big banks back away from idea [Wall Street Journal]

Rise in Medicare premiums less than feared in 2012 [BusinessWeek]

Justice Dept. memo writer is mum on pot crackdown [BusinessWeek]


Next entry »
soundoff (48 Responses)
  1. Rick McDaniel

    Obama continues to receive support, in spite of his long list of failures. It is mind boggling, how stupid people are.

    October 28, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • Trace

      Rick,

      It amazes me how utterly vapid you are! You couldn't see reality or the actuals facts if they ran over you. ".....List of failures for Obama?" Please fade into the background noise of Faux News of misfits. Obama has spent 90% of his presidency trying to fix the problems he inherited.

      These are facts you fail to consider in your rather uninformed diatribe of complaints about Obama;

      1) The economy was losing more than 750k jobs per month when Obama was sworn in. So tell me how people with IQ's smaller than their show size, blame Obama for that or site it as a failure?

      2) The financial system of this country nearly completely imploded two months before Obama was elected. So please tell me how the Low IQ people blame Obama for this?

      At some point you might take a critical thinking class, but you might want to turn off Faux news first.

      October 28, 2011 at 10:44 am |
      • Thelookingglass

        Wake em up my brother!

        October 28, 2011 at 10:52 am |
      • daguccio

        As a senator Obama voted for all the things he so called inherited. He is a lying cheating thief just like all politicians. He is selling America like every other president has. When yoiu take money from lobbyist and then give legislative prejudice to those lobbys who paid yo what would you call it. Goverment is as corrupt if not more currupt than any other entity in the world.

        October 28, 2011 at 11:20 am |
      • C-Lo

        Trace, in all fairness, on the flip side you agreed with post that showed Obama continued many of Bush's "failed' policies. If one continues down the same path they accuse the other of failing on, doesn't that, by extention, make his/her policies failures as well?

        October 28, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
      • Randy

        Typical liberal, or Obama Zombie, blame, blame, blame, never take responsibility for anything. Didn't Obama himself state when he was elected that if he didn't have the economy fixed within 3 years he should be a one term president. News flash, when he took office there were 11 million unemployed Americans. Today there are 14 million unemployed Americans. Reagan took over an economy from Carter which was very similar to the economy when Obama was elected. The difference was Reagan added 1.5 million jobs his first term, Obama lost 3 million. Obama spent 90% of his only term forcing socialized medicine down the throats of Americans when the majority of the citizens didn't want it. How many triillions of dollars is it costing to support something that is not wanted? Did you notice that insurance rates are 50% higher this year. He's nothing but an empty suit, a mouth piece.

        October 28, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
      • Randy

        (Reuters) – Americans' opinion of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform in October reached its lowest point since the law passed in March 2010, according to a monthly poll by the non-profit, non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

        The view of the law has been roughly evenly split since its passage, but in October 51 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion, while 34 percent said their opinion was favorable, poll results released on Friday showed.

        In September, the split was 43 percent to 41 percent. And October's gap is closest to the one the poll tracked in July 2010, when the division was 50 percent to 35 percent.

        The gap widened largely because the law appeared to be falling out of favor with Democrats, whose support dropped to its lowest point of 52 percent from 65 percent in September.

        Although Democrats were still much likelier to view the law favorably than Republicans or independents, the percentage of Democrats who said they and their families were better off under the healthcare law dropped significantly to 27 percent in October from 43 percent in September.

        October 28, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
    • jean2009

      Yes, Rick it is amazingly mind-boggling how stupid you think people are.

      Let me see. you expect the American people to be gullible and accept a candidate who calls themselves a Republican (a party which no longer exists) since it has been hi-jacked by a bunch of Libertarian, neo-Nazi, John Bircher, teapotty people who couldn't sell themselves to the public were they to really state who and what they are, and their true motives. Mostly they remind me of the reptilian lizard people on V.

      Thanks Trace.
      Obama-Biden 2012!

      October 28, 2011 at 11:38 am |
      • C-Lo

        Yes Jean, just as gullible as they were in voting Obama for Change. The names may "change" the party may "change" but the corruption and favoritism and pandering remains the same. I ask you, do you not find ANY fault in Obama continuing the same Bush policies you bemoan, in him receiving special interest contribuitons under a "changed" name but same pretense? Just like there are those who "blindly" hate him, there are those who will not fault him for anything.

        October 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
      • jean2009

        @ C-Lo the only party that has changed its make-up is the currently so called Republican Party...at this point it hasn't changed its name, but it should for the sake of the honesty that you bemoan.

        And no, I do not consider those who voted tor President Obama gullible...they were simply not as stupid as those who voted for the other candidate.

        Only those with comment sense understands that change never happens overnight, that change cannot happen without cooperation, and only through a combined vision of social justice for everyone will true change occur. Change is something which will never happen through a self-centered movement whose position of concern is only for the preservation of their present, or their past. The current, so called, Republican party has mainly focused on the well-being and protection of self, and being obstructionist to any helpful changes that would bring about social justice for others.

        October 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Jean–just to be snide on a Friday before I head off for the weekend...
        You are exactly right, the "Republican" party today should change its name to "Democrat...the party of big gov't."

        By saying those who voted for Obama were not as stupid as those who voted for the other guy is still saying they were stupid...

        By saying the Dem's have not changed their make-up says that they have always been in bed with special interests, just like I said. Just sayin'

        No change doesn't happen overnight, but there have been no signs of it until, well really, today. The Dems had 2 years of essentially unstoppable ability to move the country the direction they wanted, and still couldn't come up with anything more than a half baked healthcare plan that catered directly to the Insurance companies by forcing us to enter into private contracts. This is the epitomy of big gov't control and the ridiculous outcomes it creates. What happens when the next administration decides that SUV's provide the best protection (in the name of saving kids and reducing health care costs, mind you) so they legislate that we must all turn in our cars and purchase SUV's? Or if they decide green beans are more beneficial than corn, and we must all purchase greenbeans instead of any other vegitable–I'll even broaden it and just say only fruits and vegis...no more meat or "junk food" including whole milk or coffee and cream because they are unhealthy and drive up the healthcare costs we all now have to legislatively contribute to? Sound far off? California has tried to ban black vehicles, states are legislating sugars, fast food, trans-fats. Once they've laid claim to health insurance (care) EVERYTHING that affects it is up for gov't control.

        Maybe that is what you want. I know there are those out there that do. I, for one don't.

        October 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
      • jean2009

        @ C-Lo i know baloney when I see it and hear it.

        The hijacked neo-Nazi Republican party of today bears no resemblance to the Republican Party of 1956 when I was old enough to cast a vote....it never was Democratic then, or now. The Republican party has always been a party for the rich...and for a big government solely operated for the rich...that hasn't changed. They just didn't have as many neo-Nazi, and "all for me and nothing for anyone else" Libertarians. They have actually always had that John Bircher movement in the form of Joe McCarthyism about it since the 50's.

        Voting for Obama was wise.

        As for Libertarians they believe in a non-existent Libertopia that does not, nor will it ever, exist in the real world. The whole movement is out of touch with reality and made up mostly of self-centered, selfish, whiny brats. basically they are your typical two year old,or teenager, that hasn't learned what the word "No" actually means. Libertarianism cannot work in a democracy.

        Maybe you should read: "Why Libertarianism doesn't work" "the truth at any cost." I think the writer has some vary valid points.

        Having currently volunteered roughly $7,000 in donated hours to non-profit charities this year. (based on the value of $21.36 per hour according to the IRS for 2010), and that does not include cost for mileage also donated. I can honestly say there are many areas that the government can and should provide things like Health Care, FEMA, education, other services, and safety regulations. Yes, all of us should kick in tax revenue to do that. We live in a democratic republic not an anarchist Libertopia.

        October 29, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  2. Brandon

    And what other buffoon might you support Rick? Let me guess... Ron Paul? BWAHAHAHA

    October 28, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • spanglish

      The homeless veteran.., a home economic graduate, a business man or woman,anyone is better than Obama

      October 29, 2011 at 10:01 am |
  3. steve

    Ah Brandon it is probably Bachmann she seems to fit his comments

    October 28, 2011 at 9:56 am |
  4. truindep

    and Obama said in his first campaign – no more lobyists – yeah- he only was slimy about, it, what a slime-ball

    October 28, 2011 at 10:19 am |
    • Trace

      @truindep,

      What a thoughtful post! We are all so impressed with how you've articulated and completely high-school name calling, childish rant of useless-ness. Congratulations! Its people like you that give us tremendous confidence we should continue reducing the number of teachers in classrooms, because we need more thinking people like you in the electorate. NOT!

      October 28, 2011 at 10:49 am |
      • jsmoulder

        At least he did not call him a terrorist.

        October 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
    • Thelookingglass

      Come back to reality truindep, with people like you in place to ensure that only he (Barack) be accountable while your republican leaders, break all laws, plus lie, cheat, and commit high treason. How else is the president expected to fight and win . . . fire with fire!

      October 28, 2011 at 10:58 am |
      • C-Lo

        Fire with fire? We're ALL getting burned!

        October 28, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Emmy Skaddittle

      I don't think the republicans can talk when one of their candidate was a lobbyist (cain)

      October 28, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
  5. Thai

    Using technicalities that are against the spirit of the rule to get by is despicable IMO. Back in when he ran for State Senate in Illinois, Obama used a technicality in the way signatures were gathered to knock his opponent (the Democratic incumbent) out of the primary: if the signatures were hand-printed instead of in manuscript, they didn't count.

    Now he's using narrow definitions for the word "lobbyist" to dismiss the spirit of the whole idea of ridding Washington of lobbyists. Shame really. Lobbyists in Washington are the #1 problem IMO. They are the reason why the health care bill actually HELPS private insurance companies, thus making it HARDER to get a single-payor system or a public option, because the individual mandate ensures more money for the private companies to lobby our congress even more.

    The lobbyists are the reason why the corn industry has been able to get corn subsidized so much that corn oil is now a super-industrialized seed oil that does much more harm to your body than a lot of other things people tell you to look out for. And thanks to the lobbyists, said corn oil is cheap enough to be ubiquitous and make it tough to avoid when eating out or simply buying any pre-made food. Back in the 50s and 60s, people didn't calorie-count so much and ate burgers and fries and pizza time to time without having to worry about it. The lack of today's super-industrialized corn oil made that okay. Today? Private profits and lobbyists rule the day.

    Lobbyists are the reason why big oil has become synonymous with the transportation industry, causing a cyclical dependence on said oil and thus binding America to foreign wars in oil-rich nations (which kills lives) and smog-inducing cars (which kills the atmosphere). The American automobile has not only kept the same basic design for 100 years, but it has also not even improved much in MPG for 100 years. The technology is there. Most of the rest of the world is using cars with way better MPG than what America has. But lower oil prices in America compared to the rest of the world (via lobbyists) and obvious profit incentives for big oil to keep MPG a low number means the average person will be stuck in a rut.

    Take every cynical comment or joke you've ever heard about politicians (other than the sexual stuff) and you can attribute them to lobbyists. Health care bills, jobs bills, environmental bills, and every bill you can imagine will not TRULY work in favor of the middle class or the environment until the big corporate lobbyists are out of the picture (whether they are technically registered as lobbyists or not).

    While I'm not pretending we have a better Republican alternative, I won't make childish excuses for Obama. I think I'll stay home in November of 2012.

    October 28, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • Trace

      Its very patriotic to stay home in Nov 2012 considering how many people have given their very lives for those freedoms....Certainly you come back and complain about the person that wins the presidency the following year, and every right to do so.

      What's that you say(?)..."a person that's supports nothing, stands for nothing, has no right to complain"....Well, that's a mere technicality...stay home anyway.

      Have a nice day!

      October 28, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
    • Thai

      Staying home isn't standing for nothing. It's standing against all given choices.

      October 28, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
      • That Guy

        i wonder when the people of this country will come to fight against the proposed mindset of "its polotics you have to choose the lesser of two evils" Although i dont think staying home helps anyone I understand your fustration and everyone who is ratinal should agree with the majority of your post! The only way to end corruption is to starve the beast.

        October 28, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • Trace

        And pray-tell, how do we count that vote? I can't tell you how incoherent that logic is. It means nothing to say; "I'm going to stay home and virtually pout like a child just to prove you don't like anybody."

        Well, that's your right! The rest of us adults will let you know how things turn out, OK?

        October 28, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
      • C-Lo

        @ Trace–you are absolutely right. Staying home in protest only allows those in power to remain. Thai...if you don't like either of the two "regular" choices, a better option, in my opinion, is to seek out a 3rd (4th, 5th...) party that most closely resembles your ideology and vote for them. At least it will show the leanings of the country and your vote will count for something.

        I'd much rather vote for a losing canditate than not vote at all, personally.

        October 31, 2011 at 11:36 am |
    • jean2009

      @ Thai...I wish people would quit referring to it as the Republican Party it truly bears no resemblance to what was the Republican Party....all it is made up of today is a bunch of self-serving, self-centered neo-Nazi, Libertarian, Tea Party, John Bircher....lobbyist pigs at the trough.

      October 28, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Jean, are you Howard's other personality with your sudden cut/paste posts?

        October 28, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  6. Emmy Skaddittle

    all you have to do is look at the biggest lobbyist/crook of them all, Dick Cheney! he gave billion dollar no bid contracts to his own company haliburton

    October 28, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Trace

      Emmy,

      Do go around posting stuff that would embarass the self-righteous GOP/Tea Pee pants party. They need for us all to forget the failings of the previous administration, so they can continue to criticize the current administration....Absolutely NO Hypocrisy there

      October 28, 2011 at 1:16 pm |
      • jsmoulder

        Hypocrisy is what this article is about. the hypocrisy of the President.

        October 28, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
      • Thai

        Why would you need to forget the failings of the previous administration in order to criticize the current administration? Why not criticize the current administration even while having a negative opinion of the previous administration.

        October 28, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  7. John

    The Libs that post on this site are truly living in their own world. They ignore the facts in the Times story, blame Cheney, tell themselves Repubs don't exist, and simply ignore how bad a situation BO has caused in this country. They say they need more $$ for the governmnet to hire more cops while at the same time support the flea party who are causing riots. Do you Libs think the 2 billion already spent on overtime for officers related to the flea party is not real money? Maybe if BO created a bill related to college loans that saved people about $4. a month he could sell it and get re-elected on it? We all know he can't run on anything else except hate and class war-fare. They true party of hate is on full display in every city now. Keep supporting that flea party Libs...

    October 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
  8. C-Lo

    The Right will jump on this, the Left will dismiss it. Politics as usual. I think it just goes to show that they are all the same...maybe didn't start out that way, but DC corrupts them all.

    October 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • John

      Agreed, but here is the difference. I have no problems telling you Bush was bad for this country. A Lib will never tell you BO has been bad for this country. They follow blindly and never question the poor policies put in place over the past several years. And, somehow avoiding congress is seen as a good thing by the Libs. 20+ Czars to avoid elected officials aren't enough, now he wants to be a total dictator. Can you imagine what the Libs would be saying if Bush did the same thing?

      October 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • Trace

      C-Lo,

      Again, we accept your right to state your opinion, but wouldn't you consider it a bit ostentatious or even resemble being somewhat of a pompous a$$ to say that this administration should simply refuse any effort to collect monied support for the president's policies...especially given the SCOTUS decision in Citizen's United to allow ever corporation to spend unlimited amounts to buy their candidates? I mean come on; Do you expect the President to come to this fight with a water gun while today's GOP is strapped with corporate purchased Howitzers.

      Give it up dude on the hypocrisy thing. That's disingenuous on its very face. I expected more from you than that, given my perspection of your intelligence. But posts like that give me serious pause.

      Sincerely, Your respectful fellow american – Trace

      October 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Trace–I think you mis-read me (or more likely I didn't thoroughly state my point). Just like everything else we experience here, it's more a war of words, terminologies, etc. I meant no more "hypocracy" than pointing it out in shorter terms. It's just as disingenuous for a Repub to condemn a Dem for taking PAC/lobbiest $$ as it is for a Dem to say s/he isn't taking PAC $$ simply by rewording/reorganizing it. Nowhere did I condone or condemn either party of accepting PAC/lobbiest money.

        And I'll be honest, too, in saying I'm torn about PAC's. Like anything they have good and bad points–It gives, when used right, groups of citizens the ability to voice their wishes to lawmakers on what types of laws they want/where they want the direction of the country to head. They allow you, me and any other citizen to pool our resources to have our voices heard. Industries and trade groups use them to "protect" their industries and the thousands of workers and other industries they support. The problem as I see it, is our society is looking for the "easy way out" and rather than taking time to write letters, make phone calls individually, we send some cash to a group (PAC, Union, etc) we hope supports us.

        October 31, 2011 at 10:52 am |
    • jean2009

      @C-Lo I am not surprised that the only thing you can find wrong with the Nazi movement is that it was a "Socialist" form of government. Really honestly is that the only flaw?

      I don't think many Americans (including the 99%) would find fault with the fact that Germans wanted good roads, non-predatory banks, an education system that lifted people out of poverty, government services that worked, energy efficient and affordable cars, modern transportation, modern conveniences, etc. That was the good side of the face that Hitler's Nazism presented to Germany of the 1930's.

      It is the worrisome other side of that face which I see in the current Libertarian/teaparty movement. The other side of that face which really makes the word "Nazi" a bomb when thrown...it is the selfish wanting to dispense with, or desire to not provide those things for those who are not the same or as well off as themselves. The desire to rid themselves of those who believe differently, those who are of a different race or culture, those not at the top of the food chain, those who need extra training to find a job, those who need a hand up not a hand out, those with special educational needs, those who are unemployed, the infirm, the ill, and the old. The same desire that Hitler and European Nazi's had when they rounded up and sent those members of society to slave labor/concentration camps, and the gas chambers. That is the side I see.

      Regardless of what you think, the American colonist were not for doing away with government services, or a well run government. They were not per se against taxation. The citizens of the newly formed United States of America actually paid more taxes after the Revolution than they did as colonist. Their war was for democratic social reform, an end to a system of Feudalism, an end to the British monopoly on trade....and as spelled out by Thomas Paine in"common Sense" if they didn't separate from Britain at the that time, it probably would be much harder (if not impossible) to do so in the future.

      October 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Jean, do you own a merry-go-round? because you are great at spin. Do I have to point out every evil facet of the Nazi regime each time I speak out against it? Or can it be enough that I point out the aspect as it relates to he current discussion?

        With respect to the other issues you pointed out, specifically genocide/eldercide–what created the ability for that to succeed (and you need not look only at Nazi Germany, but Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's N Korea, Mao's China...). It was Big Gov't. When gov't gains more and more control, those in power have more and more ability to make those decisions...Rember, Hitler, Quadaffi, Hussein, the Iranian crack-pot Aber...., were all "democratically" elected.

        I have said before, Libertarianism is not perfect, but neither is any other form of gov't. And contrary to your assertions, Libertarianism does not equate to anarchism. There is no socialist utopia, communist utopia, or any other "ist" utopia. My contention is that under a Libertarian leaning society, we are able to make more choices on our own and suffer/enjoy the consequences of our actions. There is room and need for gov't, but in my opinion it's roll is not to extract "equality of outcome," which is your idea of a utopian society.

        I'm glad you are able to provide time and service to your community and do so. I do as well and could list the many ways I do, but don't feel the need to (which I know you will spin as I am lying about it and that's fine). I don't need to justify to you or anyone else my "status" as a volunteer and contributor.

        October 31, 2011 at 11:21 am |
      • jean2009

        @C-Lo Unfortunately you overlook the fact that in 1930's Germany there was no big government the government had been decimated by WWI it was very weak. In 1930 Germany unemployment was at 3 Million. They were saddled with the debt of reparations for the war, plus the cost of the land they had to concede after the war, and the occupation of the Rhineland for 15 years. They owed $31.4 billion in reparation and it was figured it would take them to 1988 to pay that amount off. (In today's world that would be the equivalent of owing $442 Billion).

        I see the parallel and see the vast flaws in the Libertarian/TeaParty movement. That is why I point out the bad side of the word Nazi since it is very evident in current attitudes of Libertarian/TeaParty members, I see on this comment board every day....toward the less fortunate of society.

        Plan and simple Libertarianism isn't the answer.

        October 31, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
      • C-Lo

        @ Jean–you are getting pretty good at the cut/paste posts...You're tireless attempts to condemn the Libertartian party by associating them with the Nazis are getting tiresome. As I've already addressed this exact same post elsewhere I will respond separately here.

        A. Nazis were the party of National Socialism. Same genre as Sociallist, i.e. big gov't. You have even pointed out the "goodness" in the Nazi idealism.
        B. Tea party/Libertarians are against big gov't Socialist (whether communist or nationalist socialism), unlike the liberal/progressive movement who holds the same values as the Nazis/Commies so dear.
        C. The rise of these "idealistic societies" have consistantly failed throughout history because of the corruption at the gov't level, eerily similar to the US today.
        D. The ONLY way to end this quagmire is to eliminate big gov't corruption. Hence, the rise of the Tea Party and strengthening of the Libertarian ideas.

        November 1, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  9. Fact

    Lefties are evil and should be treated as such.

    October 28, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
  10. sickoftalking

    This isn't news. Obama also took money from lobbyists during the 2008 campaign. I made a YouTube video about it then, citing the Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, and International Herald Tribune. People just didn't want to listen then. I got a few dislikes and negative comments. Maybe this time people won't believe everything Obama tells them.

    My video (Change with an Asterisk): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-At8dnobso

    October 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  11. spanglish

    Obama is a one man Lobbyist, Union Lobbyist, Solyndar lobbyist, health lobbyist, drug lobbyist ,anti senior citizens lobbyist, the hypocrites lobbyist, the acorn lobbyist , the fraud lobbyist , the liars lobbyist...etc.,

    October 29, 2011 at 9:58 am |
  12. zigge

    Deadbeat obama and this administration are as corrupt as it gets. He is laundering taxpayer money through all of the corrupt deals for bailouts to the unions and companys like solyndra .The dibbic obama and the rest of his corrupt administration will be removed in 2012.

    October 29, 2011 at 10:41 am |
  13. Curt

    The Dem response to this seems to be, "Well, the Repubs do it too, and much worse!" That's missing the point. The point is, the President of the United States must adhere to a higher standard. In addition, President Obama himself set a higher standard for himself by stating he would not accept lobbyist money. He might not be accepting money from registered lobbyists, but he is indeed accepting money from those who lobby. That is well-documented in the article and that is the crux of the problem he has made for himself. This has nothing to do with President Bush, nothing to do with healthcare or taxes or the Republican Party; it has everything to do with just more hypocrisy and typical Chicago politics from Obama.

    October 29, 2011 at 11:58 am |
  14. SaveRMiddle

    For those who read more than the headlines of the We Can't Wait programs, The Jobs Plan or the true reasons behind the sudden accelerate­d troop withdrawal from Iraq , it's very clear President Obama thinks most Americans are rather stupid.

    This bothers me far more than his misplaced priorities­.

    October 29, 2011 at 2:02 pm |