Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Report: Nearly 80% of Obama’s Top Bundlers Given “Key Administration Posts”

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Report: Nearly 80% of Obama’s Top Bundlers Given “Key Administration Posts”

    President Obama launched his campaign in 2007 promising a change in the way business is done in Washington, DC, but today a report from the Center for Public Integrity says that when it comes to major campaign donors scoring plum administration positions, it’s business as usual.

    The report says that 184 out of 556, or about one third of 2008 Obama campaign “bundlers” -- donors who agree to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a campaign – “or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took ‘key administration posts,’ as defined by the White House.

    The Center points out that candidate Obama suggested that big moneyed interests would not have as prominent a role in DC during his administration.

    "The cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play,” said then-Sen Obama in his February 2007 announcement speech. “They get the access while you get to write a letter…The time for that kind of politics is over."

    The White House today pushed back on the Center report, saying it’s “hardly a story” and insisting that donations play no role in these plum jobs.

    "The people who got those positions got them because of their credentials," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "They also happen to be donors in some cases. ... Being a supporter does not qualify you for a job or guarantee you a job, but it does not disqualify you."

    It's essentially the same explanation the Bush administration gave.

    "We make no distinctions about people on the basis of whether they've given or not," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in January 2001.

    Tom Perrelli raised $500,000 for Obama in 2008 and is now associate attorney general. Charles Rivkin did the same and is now ambassador to France, so did Donald H. Gips, ambassador to South Africa, and John Roos, ambassador to China.

    Carney insisted that all bundlers given these positions were qualified, but earlier this year, the Ambassador to Luxembourg, Cynthia Stroum -- who also was a half-million dollar Obama bundler -- resigned right before a State Department report was issued calling her "aggressive, bullying, hostile and intimidating."

    Schulte, Senior Reporter with the Center, says that there is a difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

    “We did look at the administration of George Bush which was widely criticized for appointing donors to these kinds of posts, and they had about the same number in four years that the Obama administration has had in two years,” Schulte said.

    And according to the American Foreign Service Association, President Obama has nominated more “political” appointees for ambassadorships versus foreign service candidates than any president in at least the past 20 years. A full 36.2% of Obama’s ambassadors are political, while just over 30% of Bush’s were political. Former President Clinton, 27.82% were political, for President George H.W. Bush, 30.3% were political.

    -Jake Tapper and Kirit Radia
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ion-posts.html
    This just proves the liberal media is in love with Obama and won't say anything bad about him.

  • #2
    What's the problem ? If you buy a politician, you expect some return in the future.
    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

    Steven Weinberg

    Comment


    • #3
      I love how you try to deflect withering criticism by declaring that the criticism proves Obama isn't coated in teflon.
      If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
      ){ :|:& };:

      Comment


      • #4
        He's Danish. It just the way things are done over there.
        “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

        ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

        Comment


        • #5
          An additional 6% over the previous administration. "Withering". Yeah.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gribbler View Post
            An additional 6% over the previous administration. "Withering". Yeah.
            or 20% over the previous administration.


            lies, damn lies, and statistics........
            “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

            ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

            Comment


            • #7
              This is the sort of corruption which really pisses me off. Yes, everyone has done this since at least Reagan but that doesn't make it any better.
              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

              Comment


              • #8
                But, if you donate $5 to Obama now, he will enter you into a drawing where 4 lucky donors get to have dinner with him!
                “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

                ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gribbler View Post
                  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ion-posts.html

                  This just proves the liberal media is in love with Obama and won't say anything bad about him.
                  Not many people would consider Jake Tapper part of the "liberal media"; he's been notably willing to criticize Obama for quite a while now.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    liberal = unwilling to criticize Obama
                    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                    "Capitalism ho!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tupac Shakur View Post
                      Not many people would consider Jake Tapper part of the "liberal media"; he's been notably willing to criticize Obama for quite a while now.
                      What, and ABC News hasn't fired him? The liberal media is really slipping up.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DaShi View Post
                        liberal = unwilling to criticize Obama
                        "liberal = unwilling to criticize Obama in 2008" is more accurate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Change FAIL.

                          I have to say, I'm not one to believe in Pols. But I did think he'd be at least marginally better on something like this. Instead... worse. Sweet. Well, let's look at the alternative... Yep, folks, we're screwed.

                          -Arrian
                          grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                          The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It could be reasonably commented that successful individuals who have political aspirations are also the same people who would likely make donations to a political party in completely independent circumstances. Believable, not so much.

                            What's the option then. Ban those who make direct or indirect donations (e.g close family or associated companies) of a particular amount and above from holding a particular office?
                            One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tupac Shakur View Post
                              "liberal = unwilling to criticize Obama in 2008" is more accurate.
                              I'm not a liberal? Should I be or or
                              One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X