It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:38 PM


All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:01 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
OpenSecrets already parses this information. They just don't take the same step you're asking the campaign to take, listing on one page the bundlers, their employers, and occupations.
If this were the case, why would OpenSecrets be asking for this information from the Obama campaign?

Again, for the third time now. I'm not asking for it, Obama sponsored a measure requiring it.

Additionally, the link you provided shows individual contributions only, and apparently only ones below the $2300 mark, and makes no reference whatsoever of the names of bundlers on Obama's own web site (found here: http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi ... _topview=1).


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:28 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
Jox,
You are not going to get anything even remotely damning about Obama from Leo. Remember he IS a Democrat running for election. He can't be negative about his party's candidate. It is his job to attack Sen. McCain at all costs and to make Sen. Obama appear like the Second Coming.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:06 PM 
For the old school!
For the old school!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:57 PM
Posts: 1147
Leo can be a few things, but a sell-out isn't one of them. You or I couldn't even come close to scrounging up the balls to do what he's done in the past few years. Kudos for SOME amount of tact at least, but don't be a dick.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:22 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
I don't have a problem talking about things I don't like (like the FISA vote), but krby's sentiment is right, even though what he actually said is mostly wrong. If Joxur is trying to convince me to vote for McCain, he's not going to get anywhere, though I don't believe that's his goal.

And no, he's not going to get me to say anything damning either, though it's no secret that I'm not in love with Obama. November will be the first time I vote for him and I'll do it because I of differences between the candidates, their positions, and predicted effects of their possible presidencies. Every candidate has strikes against them, especially when running for president. None among us are saints.

joxur wrote:
Quote:
OpenSecrets already parses this information. They just don't take the same step you're asking the campaign to take, listing on one page the bundlers, their employers, and occupations.
If this were the case, why would OpenSecrets be asking for this information from the Obama campaign?

Again, for the third time now. I'm not asking for it, Obama sponsored a measure requiring it.

Additionally, the link you provided shows individual contributions only, and apparently only ones below the $2300 mark, and makes no reference whatsoever of the names of bundlers on Obama's own web site.
Jox, I hate to call you out on this, but your remarks here indicate that you really don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to spend my time publicly debating someone uninformed. It distracts from the truth and makes it far too easy to make false claims with plausible deniability.

Let me tell you why I say this.

First, you're standing behind OpenSecrets without having a clue what they want or what they do.

Second, and most importantly, you've displayed no understanding of campaign finance law, which limits contributions to a maximum of $2,300 per election for federal campaigns.

For your benefit, I'll use OpenSecrets to look up some the folks in Florida. I'll limit myself to OpenSecrets and Googling the company name to determine industry and won't use any personal information I've picked up through my campaigns -- strictly anything anybody can use. You can learn a lot more about many of these people just by Googling them. (s/e = Self Employed)

Karim Alibhai - Gencom Group (Hospitality)
Jeremy Alters - s/e (Law)
Eddie Arriola - Inktel Direct (Marketing)
Ricky Arriola - Inktel Direct (Marketing)
Jean-Philippe Austin - s/e (Medical)
Lea Black - s/e (Law)
Mitchell Berger - s/e (Law)
Charles Clarkson - The Clarkson Group (Hospitality)
Clark French - French & Co. (Real Estate)
Barbara Garrett - s/e (Law)
Mark Gilbert - Lehman Bros. (Investment)
David Grain - s/e (Investment)
Donald Hinkle - s/e (Law)
Max Holtzman - s/e (Law)
Allan Katz - Akerman Senterfitt (Law)
Caren Lobo - s/e (Marketing)
Bob Mandell - Greater Construction Corp. (Development)
Lynn Overmann - Kubiliun & Associates (Law)
Steve Pajcic - s/e (Law)
Don Peebles - The Peebles Group (Real Estate)
Frank Sanchez - Renaissance Steel (Steel)
Bobby Stein - Chartwell Capital (Investment)
Kirk Wagar - Wagar Feit (Law)

You see, this info's not hard to find or compile. That's everyone from Florida. Toss in some other public information and you can build good profiles of these folks. Berger, for example, you may have seen portrayed in the HBO Movie Recount. Katz is a Tallahassee Commissioner. Ricky Arriola heads the board of Miami's new performing arts center. That's not even scratching the surface of what you can find online.

Campaigns have a sole purpose: win. It's purely for political points to be harsh on them for not doing things that don't help them reach their goal, especially when you're fully capable yourself.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:58 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
First, you're standing behind OpenSecrets without having a clue what they want or what they do.
How am I showing a lack of understanding for what OpenSecrets wants or what they do?

For the record, here is their mission statement:

- Inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives
- Empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information
- Advocate for a transparent and responsive government

I am the one arguing for transparency, and you are accusing ME of not understanding their mission. "Transparent and responsive". The irony is thick.

Quote:
Second, and most importantly, you've displayed no understanding of campaign finance law, which limits contributions to a maximum of $2,300 per election for federal campaigns.
I think my earlier quote where I stated that your link shows contributions - "only ones below the $2300 mark" (my words) - shows that I clearly understand what the contribution limit is.

If my thrust isn't clear by now, let me clear it up with a very simple statement.

I want to know who Obama's bundlers are, who they work for, and how much they brought in to the campaign through their bundling efforts.

Feel free to keep accusing me of being uneducated and uninformed. At least I'm making an effort to research this, unlike 99% of the general population. And it just so happens that I am right. Show me how I am uninformed since I've rebutted each of your points thus far. All I want is for Obama to follow his own standards. Rather than attacking me, rather ineffectively, you might simply acknowledge that this is an area Obama needs to work on.

Obama sponsored a measure requiring presidential candidates to post names, employers and contributions of bundlers. I guess the best we're going to get is a name and a range of their contributions, but absolutely nothing about their employers (unless we do it ourselves, which defies his own requirement). McCain doesn't give exact contributions, but at least the range is much more granular. But he did release employers, hometown and occupation.

Quote:
Campaigns have a sole purpose: win. It's purely for political points to be harsh on them for not doing things that don't help them reach their goal, especially when you're fully capable yourself.
This quote scares me. The first sentence is true, although it contradicts your previous statements about hope and change.

No, the part that terrifies me is your apparent belief that if someone is harsh on a campaign for not being transparent it's "purely for political points". If a campaign is doing something wrong, unethical or simply stupid, it's our job to provide dissent and push back on those politicians. Once we start believing that everything is ok so long as the campaign is "trying to reach its goal", we absolve our rights just like we did with Bush.

Maybe if more people in the public and (more importantly) the press had pushed back on the Bush admin BEFORE they started illegal wiretapping, going to war on suspect grounds and everything else, we wouldn't be in the position we're in. You are advocating a position of more of the same. I am completely and utterly disgusted that you took that position. I'd invite you to rebut my claims, but I'm sure all I will get is a "it's not worth a response", which seems to be your templated response when I challenge you.

Don't get me started on the subject transparency. You don't want to go there.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:56 PM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Yeah, Leo. You *don't wanna go there*.

You're intimidated now, I bet.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:21 PM 
Bridge Dweller

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Posts: 4844
Joxur is wrong most of the time, yet insists he's right and will go to any lengths to "prove" it. I love seeing him post back and forth thinking he has the upper-hand in a discussion. Ha.

Don't get me started. You don't want to go there.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:25 PM 
For the old school!
For the old school!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:38 PM
Posts: 1132
Location: Behind the Couch
EQ1: Syuni D'zpecyzczn
I felt the need to add that to my sig. Then I noticed Sky had it as well. Oh well, even a blind pig can find an acorn sometimes.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:05 PM 
Bridge Dweller

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Posts: 4844
Haha. Yours is italic, at least. :)


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:41 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Neat!

I did get a little carried away there. But I stand by my other points :)


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:28 PM 
Blackburrow Lover!
Blackburrow Lover!

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:29 PM
Posts: 634
Location: Crestview, FL
EQ1: Arunhah
WoW: Scathain
Rift: Arunhah
EQ2: Scathian
And despite all that, opensecrets.org still rates Obama higher in regards to their quality of disclosure, having only 5.9 percent of donations undisclosed. While this does nothing to mitigate the fact that he isn't providing specific information regarding his bundlers other than names, I think it is dishonest to gloss over this fact when comparing Obama and McCain's disclosures.

I agree that Obama should provide bundler information. It's hypocritical not to in my opinion. That said, it's not a deal breaker for me unless Obama turns this into a trend and McCain does a complete reverse on numerous issues.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:54 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
from the NYT:

Big-Dollar Donors Are Major Force in Obama Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/po ... ref=slogin

Quote:
But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.


Quote:
The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season.

Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:08 PM 
Bridge Dweller

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Posts: 4844
That's great news! Great thing that funds are coming in!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:06 AM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
I think Joxur is trying to point out that Obama is popular :).


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:29 AM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
All the details aside, it's disgusting to see the amounts of money that go into campaigning. Jeez.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:17 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Yeah, good thing he's so popular.

Obama Fatigue - 48% Hearing Too Much About Him
http://people-press.org/report/441/obama-fatigue


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:00 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
This election is turning not into an Obama vs McCain contest but a referendum on Obama.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:15 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
With the strength of the Dems positions and all of the opinion and feelings swinging in Dems favor, it was going to be that even if Hillary were the nom. Obama's popularity and attention have just magnified that by quite a bit.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:38 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
I think both of those are fair statements. America knows we don't want more Bush, which also means we don't want McCain.

That means McCain's "Is He Ready" commercials have a funny underlying premise.

The question they're really asking is, "What can we tell you to make you settle for McCain?"


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:48 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Leo, I think it was until recently, but I think you will see a bit more interest in McCain soon. Not as much as Obama and the statement you made is fair and probably accurate. But there are opportunities for McCain to take back the dialogue on certain issues like energy. Rightly or wrongly, it could be seen as a strength if he plays it right.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:17 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
I agree with that last sentence, at least. I'm not sure how much more energy McCain can muster up. Even McCain doesn't seem to be excited about McCain.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:47 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Regarding our previous debate, Leo.

Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/us/po ... =permalink

My favorite part:

Quote:
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week. The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.

Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions. . . . The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:16 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm afraid a campaign like that may just push out more soft money and actually lower accountability.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:33 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
PDF of the letter here.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/p ... letter.pdf

Really scary. Talk about intimidation. You'd be hard pressed to name many things that are this blatant and anti-democratic in recent memory. Obama should denounce this.

Quote:
2. Many of the leading donors to 501(c) and 527 organizations have had their business and personal affairs closely scrutinized by the media and well‐funded “watchdog” groups. Those groups ‐‐ as well as the major political
parties and candidates ‐‐ have routinely filed complaints with the IRS and the FEC about 501(c) and 527 group activities.


Quote:
8. Accountable America will publicize the political and business relationships and corrupt activities of donors to these 501(c) and 527 organizations both in the media and to shareholders of public companies where a donor is a major shareholder, director or officer.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:36 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Oh, and it's all being orchestrated by the same guy behind "general betray-us". Nice.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/10/t ... betray-us/

You stay classy San Diego!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:45 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
I thought it was just Republicans that did dirty campaign tricks.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:26 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
If I got a copy of that letter, it'd end up in the circular file with most other mail. I didn't find it particularly intimidating, especially considering that neither the link to their own website nor the IRS seems to be valid.

Their cover goal is respectable: to document political donors so we know who is financing campaigns. There are still too many ways to use soft money (unreported funds) to win elections. A good cover goal, like this one, is more or less universally acceptable.

But it doesn't take a genius to understand their underlying goal: reduce the amount of funding available to Republican soft money groups. Whether that's going to happen through intimidation or people being more cautious about how their money is being spent, I can't say... maybe a little of both.

What can I say is this: there are a lot of people on the left who've yearned for political operatives to engage the right using their own tactics. And while I can understand that desire, if my goal was exposing the truth behind soft money, I don't think sending a letter would bring me significantly closer to that goal. No, the purpose behind the letter is to slow the flow of cash into those groups.

The letter seems to be geared toward people who are making large contributions, probably far in excess of the cap imposed on candidate or political action committees. I find myself in agreement with the Republican strategist quoted toward the end of the article. They're not likely to intimidate easily.

It's a ballsy move, but we won't know the effects for a while. Off the bat, I'd say the odds of it backfiring are just as good as the odds of success.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:42 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
Their cover goal is respectable: to document political donors so we know who is financing campaigns. There are still too many ways to use soft money (unreported funds) to win elections. A good cover goal, like this one, is more or less universally acceptable.
Didn't you and I just get in a row about Obama reporting his own, above the board contributions? It's a little strange that you are taking that stance now.

Quote:
But it doesn't take a genius to understand their underlying goal: reduce the amount of funding available to Republican soft money groups. Whether that's going to happen through intimidation or people being more cautious about how their money is being spent, I can't say... maybe a little of both.
Wait a sec, I thought you just said you didn't find it intimidating.

Quote:
It's a ballsy move, but we won't know the effects for a while. Off the bat, I'd say the odds of it backfiring are just as good as the odds of success.
I agree with you there.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:04 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
I personally don't find it intimidating, but I agree that some people might... just not likely many in their target audience.

And no, I'm not rehashing that thread again. By definition, all contributions given to the Obama campaign (or any federal candidate's campaign committee) are hard money. Those contributions over $200 are all documented and available online at http://www.fec.gov.

Move on and let's take solace in our agreement.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:49 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Judicial Watch Launches Investigation of Effort to Intimidate Conservatives
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/ ... servatives

Quote:
Attempts to intimidate individuals from participating in the presidential campaign can be a violation of federal law. A key federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)), popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, may be applicable if “two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy.”
Ouch. Not good PR. Democrats-as-Rove. And the lines continue to blur. heh


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:56 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
I'm glad there's an official investigation. There's a fine line between intimidation and investigation. This could help better define it.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:46 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Obama funnels federal money to top campaign contributors
http://thenextright.com/davidb11171/cha ... an-earmark

Quote:
In 2006, Sen. Obama requested an earmark $300,000 to replace and update the projector system at the Adler Planetarium. In 2008, he requested $3,000,000 for replacement of the projector system and other equipment in the Sky Theater. For reference, this is three times the amount he earmarked for the HIV/AIDS Policy and Research Institute at Chicago State University.

While the Adler Planetarium earmarks look normal on the surface, there is a catch. The Chairman and two of the Vice Chairman of the Adler Planetarium Board of Trustees raised a total of almost $250,000 for Sen. Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign. The Adler Planetarium was probably pleasantly surprised when they found that their earmark increased by $2.7 million dollars, in other words, by a factor of ten.

The Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Frank Clark, stands out amongst Obama supporters. On Sen. Obama’s website, Mr. Clark is listed as a bundler who raised in excess of $200,000 for the Senator’s Presidential campaign. In 2004, Mr. Clark donated $5,000 to the then State Senator Obama’s U.S. Senate bid. In 2005, Mr. Clark became the Chairman of the Board at Adler Planetarium, and in 2006 Sen. Obama earmarked $300,000 to the Planetarium. Then, in the same year that Mr. Clark’s involvement in the Obama campaign skyrocketed to raising an excess of $200,000, Sen. Obama’s earmark for the Adler Planetarium increased tenfold to $3,000,000.

Mr. Clark isn’t the only problematic donor. Two of the Vice Chairmen of the Board, Brian Cressey and Peter Thompson are also significant donors. Between donations from Mr. Thompson and the Cressey household, Sen. Obama received $13,800. The most significant donor here is Mr. Cressey. As a first time donor, Mr. Cressey gave the maximum possible individual donation in essentially one big check. What makes this even more troubling is that Mr. Cressey had never given to Sen. Obama before 2008, the year in which the Adler Planetarium’s earmark increased tenfold.

The fact that three ranking members of the Adler Planetarium’s Board donated huge sums of money (at least $200,000) is interesting by itself. The fact that these enormous contributions came in the same year that Sen. Obama increased their earmark by 900% is truly unsettling.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:04 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
He has a history of doing that Jox...

(link here)
Quote:
Obama Helped Supporters Get Millions in Illinois State Business John Rogers, Whose Business Obama Helped as a State Senator, Is Now One of Obama's Chief Fundraisers

In a speech to the Urban League last July, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., boasted of his efforts in 2001 to help a handful of African American-owned investment firms in Chicago get a larger share of business with Illinois state pension funds. "And in six months, they got about a half-billion dollars' worth of business simply on their excellence," Obama said.

What he did not say in his speech was that the owner of one of the investment firms, John Rogers of Ariel Capital, is a principal campaign fundraiser. Nor did he reveal that employees of the firms he helped have since contributed to or helped to raise more than $765,000 for his campaigns, according to campaign documents. Nor did he mention that two of the firms have allowed him to use their private jets. Nor did he mention that two of the firms have since been dismissed by the state pension fund for "underperformance."

Following Obama's efforts, the Illinois Teachers' Retirement System gave Ariel Capital $112.5 million to manage, and added hundreds of millions more over the next few years.

In 2006, the teachers' fund took its money back out, citing Ariel's "underperformance." Ariel said the hot stock market of 2006 made its funds' growth look modest, guided as it was by the firm's conservative buy-and-hold philosophy. Ariel is positively rated by several investment experts.

Now, Rogers is an Illinois finance co-chairman for Obama's presidential campaign, having raised more than $200,000 for the campaign. Ariel employees have given nearly $70,000 to Obama's White House effort -- for a total of more than $130,000 to Obama's political career since 2001, when the politician went to bat for the company. The total includes $8,100 donated by Ariel Capital president Mellody Hobson, an ABC News financial contributor. Hobson is listed by the Obama campaign as a "bundler" who has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign.

In addition to fundraising, Rogers provided Obama with Ariel Capital's private jet in 2005, following his election as a U.S. senator. At the time, Obama took advantage of a loophole in the law that allowed for politicians to reimburse corporate jet owners at first-class ticket rates. He later signed on as a co-sponsor of a Senate measure that would require campaigns to pay full charter cost, and said he would no longer take corporate jets.

Three other minority-run firms -- Holland Capital, Loop Capital and Capri Capital Partners -- also saw hundreds of millions of assets turned over to them to manage after meeting with Obama and the state pension boards.

The state teachers' fund also terminated Holland in 2006 for the poor performance of the assets it managed, according to the business publication Crain's. Holland did not respond to a request for comment.

The executive director of an Illinois ethics watchdog group calls it politics as usual. "Did he get contributions from those companies down the line? Yeah. That story's been told a million times in American politics, and it will be told a million times more," said Jay Stewart of the Illinois-based Better Government Association. "I don't think Obama's any different."


sounds like more of the same to me...


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:09 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
It's not uncommon for people officials who are supportive of a cause or organization to be helped to re-election by people who agree with them.

The difficult -- and important -- question is: Is that official acting unethically, based on those contributions?

Mr. Stewart was absolutely right when he said, "that story's been told a million times ... and it will be told a million times more."

Until we're able to separate money from politics, we need to watch our officials vigilantly. However, simply showing that a campaign accepted money from someone benefited by the official's actions isn't enough to prove wrongdoing. It makes complete sense for an individual or entity to support a candidate who agrees with them.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:33 AM 
Bridge Dweller

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Posts: 4844
No it's wrong under any circumstance when Obama does it.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:35 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Leo, just let us know whether it violates his "no special interests" platform or his "Plan to Change Washington" platform.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:59 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
I really can't say. It never looks good to tie a politician's contributions to people who are now better off when he's in office. But as I said, that's something that can't change until we take the money factor out of campaigns.

The only thing I can say about those contributions: at least they're legal. McCain's problems with his bundler, Harry Sargeant III, aren't. He can thank Charlie Crist for that one. Yay, Florida. And my 2006 opponent was a recipient of his, as well.

Quote:
Harry Sargeant III, a former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that recently inked defense contracts potentially worth more than $1 billion, is the archetype of a modern presidential money man. The law forbids high-level supporters from writing huge checks, but with help from friends in the Middle East and the former chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit -- who now serves as a consultant to his company -- Sargeant has raised more than $100,000 for three presidential candidates from a collection of ordinary people, several of whom professed little interest in the outcome of the election.
Quote:
Jihan Nassar, a homemaker in Corona, Calif., is listed as a $500 donor to the campaign of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. But she insists she never gave a dime.

''I can't make any donations, financially,'' Nassar said Friday. "We never made any donations, sir. I have no idea what you are talking about.''

Nassar and her husband, Waleed, are among more than three dozen California donors listed as giving to Crist's campaign on June 19, 2006 -- donations bundled by a controversial Delray Beach defense contractor now under scrutiny for contributions to GOP presidential candidate John McCain.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:22 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
But as I said, that's something that can't change until we take the money factor out of campaigns.
Wouldn't committing to public financing be a step in the right direction?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:23 AM 
Bridge Dweller

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Posts: 4844
No.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:40 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
No, because current public financing isn't comprehensive public financing. Groups that aren't the campaign committee can still raise and spend private money, many of which can do so without reporting a penny.

Rejecting that flawed system and pushing donors to give directly to the campaign and not 527 groups brings more transparency to the process, which is the best we can hope for in lieu of a comprehensive system.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:57 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Since we were debating the issues of campaign contributions and, specifically, bundlers and Obama's terrible reporting on it, I thought it would be fun to point out this article.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=6949


Quote:
The Washington Times ran a story today on a topic I’ve been digging into myself – the striking number of political appointments granted by the Obama Administration to the most prodigious fundraisers of the Obama campaign. These top fundraisers are known as “bundlers”. Since campaign finance laws restrict any one individual from donating more than $2400 to a single candidate, these bundlers achieve prominence within a campaign by soliciting for and then – you guessed it – bundling up individual donations received via their extended network of friends, family, business contacts, etc. While exact figures are not available, the top bundlers within the Obama campaign each delivered in excess of $1 million in campaign contributions, and there were nearly 50 bundlers who were responsible for at least $500K in donations.

As the Times notes, it’s somewhat of a Washington tradition for an incoming President to appoint choice ambassadorships to key political donors and allies. While this may be the case, for a President who declared a “new era” of accountability, and who championed ethics reform while in the Senate, a look at the appointments made to date reveals what I think is a surprising level of cronyism on the part of this Administration. And notably, many of these appointments extend outside the relatively ceremonial realm of diplomatic posts.

Let’s first run through the appointments highlighted by the Washington Times article:

John Roos .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - Japan
Charles Rivkin .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - France
Bruce Oreck .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - Finland
Louis Susman .......... $200K-$500K .......... Ambassador - United Kingdom
Vinai Thummalapally .......... $100K-$200K .......... Ambassador - Belize
Laurie Fulton .......... $100K-$200K .......... Ambassador - Denmark

Perhaps budget cuts have impacted the research team at the Times because I was able to find several other ambassadorship appointments that they apparently missed:

Nicole Avant .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - Bahamas
Matthew Barzun .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - Sweden
Don Beyer .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - Switzerland
William C. Eacho III .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - Austria Kingdom
Donald Gips .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - South Africa
Howard Gutman .......... $500K+ .......... Ambassador - Belgium
David Jacobson (added 7/8) .......... $50K-$100K .......... Ambassador - Canada

Add these up and that’s 12 13 appointments (12!) to key diplomatic positions that were awarded directly to top Obama fundraisers. And that’s within only the first 6 months of the Administration. I expect there will be more to come, which is why I had initially held off on posting this.

But that’s not all. The tables above represent only the ambassadorship appointments. Take a look at some of the other Administration positions awarded within the ranks of the campaign bundlers:

Jeff Bleich .......... $500K+ .......... Special Counsel to the President
Julius Genachowski .......... $500K+ .......... Chairman, FCC
Scott Harris .......... $500K+ .......... General Counsel, Dept. of Energy
Karl Mason .......... $500K+ .......... Deputy Asst. Attorney General
Thomas Perrelli .......... $500K+ .......... Associate Attorney General
Francisco Sanchez .......... $500K+ .......... Under-Secy. for International Trade
Alan Solomont .......... $500K+ .......... Chairman, Corp. for Nat'l & Community Service
Tony West .......... $500K+ .......... Asst. Attorney General, Civil Div.

Yes, the Chairman of the FCC. Three positions within the Attorney General’s office. A key legal advisory role within the White House itself. And the Corporation for National & Community Service has made headlines over the past month for the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
Since the hope and change is dead, and transforming Washington is dead, and transparency is dead, I guess we can fall back on Obama's huge resume of accomplishments governing in his career. Thank God for that, otherwise we'd be totally fucked!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:04 PM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
By those accounts, Obama's recent appointment of Joe Garcia, one of Miami's '08 congressional candidates to a position in the Dept. of Energy should be somewhere near the top of your list. After all, he raised nearly $1.8 million to help get votes out for himself and Obama. (I use him as an example because I know some people here followed his campaign.)

But the situation's a little more complicated than that. Joe chaired Florida's Public Service Commission, so he knows a thing or two about the way energy companies operate. He also made his political career in researching and reaching out to minority communities, experience that'll come in handy in his new role as Director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact.

My point is, if you're going to post a list of names, contributions, and appointments, it's meaningless unless it provides some explanation of the individual's qualifications for that role.

Or the lack thereof, if you're trying to make a point about cronyism. The problem with cronyism is their inherent inability to actually do the job they're given. That's why Bush got in trouble with people like Michael Brown and Alberto Gonzalez.

If I raised $500K and was named Ambassador to Japan, when my only qualifications are owning a Japanese car and knowing how to order at the nearest an all-you-can-eat Sushi restaurant, then you'd have a strong argument. But so far, I don't see one.

What I do see is an argument for removing private money from politics, however.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:26 PM 
Camping Dorn
Camping Dorn
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:21 PM
Posts: 151
Location: Anchorage, AK
EQ1: Brigitmorgaine
WoW: Brigitmorgan
Textbook example(s) of cronyism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po ... palin.html

Quote:
So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.


One of those five is Joe Schmidt, whom she appointed to head the Department of Corrections and just this past spring, put him in the order of succession. As a result of her resignation, he's in line to be the new Lite Guv. Now he doesn't want it (he says) and she wants to put the head of the AK National Guard, Craig Campbell in that position instead. Of course, Craig gave the media an earful about her lack of support for the Guard back in September...until she gave him a never-heard-of promotion, then he sang her praises. I wonder if this is part of the deal?

Also, we discovered through mucho research that Palin by far has more (unqualified) appointees who are donors or family members of donors than any previous Governor.

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:38 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Quote:
My point is, if you're going to post a list of names, contributions, and appointments, it's meaningless unless it provides some explanation of the individual's qualifications for that role.

Or the lack thereof, if you're trying to make a point about cronyism. The problem with cronyism is their inherent inability to actually do the job they're given. That's why Bush got in trouble with people like Michael Brown and Alberto Gonzalez.


Summed it up right there.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:45 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Quote:
The problem with cronyism is their inherent inability to actually do the job they're given.
Well, not really. That's the worst case result of cronyism. The problem with cronyism is giving people jobs who would not get them without doing favors, donating money or something else that is in no way related to the job they get but profoundly benefits their friend in office.

And no, I'm not going to research every single one of those appointments to justify whether that person is qualified for the job or not. That's not the point and you know it - and frankly I'm tired of doing your research for you.

Furthermore, this is coming full circle on how Obama did not follow his own rules of exposing and listing his bundlers during his campaign, and perhaps shows why it was important for him to do so.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:06 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Well I don't think Leo would want you to hurt yourself trying to back up your own claims. It wouldn't be a recipe for happy thoughts!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:03 AM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Quote:
And no, I'm not going to research every single one of those appointments to justify whether that person is qualified for the job or not. That's not the point and you know it - and frankly I'm tired of doing your research for you.


Given that 95% of the time you're a huge link-farming, news-quoting google ninja, I think what you're really saying here is, "Crap, I might not be really right here, I'm not gonna risk actually looking."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:31 AM 
Froaaak!!!
Froaaak!!!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Posts: 1859
Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Joxur, so are you saying that if someone donates to a politician they should automatically be excluded from appointment by that politician? I'm with Leo on this one...the key is experience and qualification for the role. If their sole qualification is that they are a "friend" of the politician, we have an issue. If they are actually qualified and their personal politics led them to supporting said candidate? Not sure that is an issue.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:40 AM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Quote:
Joxur, so are you saying that if someone donates to a politician they should automatically be excluded from appointment by that politician?


That's one of those situations where it's better to just err on the side of caution, really.

Sure, said friend might be a great person for the job, but being that they're some of the most important jobs in the nation perhaps we should just go ahead and ensure the absence of any impropriety.

Of course, there's no real way to do that. There's a million ways they could get money to the politican in question without it being immediately obvious. But oh well.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:48 AM 
Froaaak!!!
Froaaak!!!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Posts: 1859
Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Quote:
That's one of those situations where it's better to just err on the side of caution, really.


I'm not sure I can agree with saying that a qualified person for X role should be disqualified because their personal politics led them to supporting a candidate. Whereas, I have huge issue with a completely unqualified person being given the role regardless if they donated or not. It isn't the donation that is the issue for me. It is the qualifications and the question of: "Is the only reason that they got this job the fact that they are friends with the giver of the job?"

So ultimately, the donation is irrelevant to the equation for me. Like politics are going to find like politics when it comes to money. Hell, if you stripped everyone of title or possibility of title based on donations, the Republican party would have a whooooooole lot less money available.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:54 AM 
Vanguard Fanboy!
Vanguard Fanboy!

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:07 PM
Posts: 2689
Quote:
I'm not sure I can agree with saying that a qualified person for X role should be disqualified because their personal politics led them to supporting a candidate.


But you're assuming a lot with that view.

It's just as likely that - even if they're qualified - they're just buying the position. Just on principle I think that's terrible.

I know I'm being a tad idealist again.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:33 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
Ahh fuck it. Here you go. Looks like a who's who of the wealthy and privileged and only one with any foreign policy or diplomatic experience. Those are the ambassadorships.

====================

John Roos, Japan:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Quote:
WASHINGTON, May 19 (AP) - (Kyodo)—California-based lawyer John Roos has emerged as President Barack Obama's likely choice as the next ambassador to Japan, a source close to Japan-U.S. relations said Tuesday.

The source said the formal choice will be announced soon.

If nominated and approved by the Senate, Roos, one of Obama's top fundraisers during the presidential campaign, will serve as the point man of U.S. policy on Japan, a key ally in Asia.

The post of ambassador to Japan was initially to be awarded to Joseph Nye, a Harvard University professor emeritus and former assistant secretary of defense.

But Roos is now seen as more suitable since he enjoys strong personal ties with Obama, similar to those between former President George W. Bush and his envoy to Japan, Thomas Schieffer.

Roos is little known among U.S. and Japanese officials, raising some doubt about his qualifications.


Roos graduated from Stanford University's law school in 1980. He is chief executive officer of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a law firm in Silicon Valley.


Charles Rivkin, France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rivkin

Quote:
Charles Rivkin has been named as President Obama’s candidate to serve as the United States Ambassador to France. He was the president and chief executive officer of W!LDBRAIN, an entertainment and animation production company whose television series include Yo Gabba Gabba! and Higglytown Heroes. Rivkin is an executive producer of Yo Gabba Gabba!, which airs on Nickelodeon and Noggin cable networks.[1]

Prior to joining W!LDBRAIN in September 2005, Rivkin had worked for The Jim Henson Company for 15 years. He joined the company in 1988 as director of strategic planning and in 1995 was named president and chief operating officer. Rivkin served as the company's CEO from 2000 to 2003—the first chief executive who was not a member of the Henson family.[2]

Rivkin was also the California Finance Co-chair for Barack Obama's campaign and is in line to be chosen as U.S. Ambassador to France.


Bruce Oreck, Finland
http://diplopundit.blogspot.com/2009/07 ... sinki.html

Quote:
Bruce Oreck was a partner in the New Orleans, Louisiana law firm of Liskow & Lewis from 1981 until 1992 where his practice was centered on the representation of the oil and gas industry. He went on to found his own firm: Oreck, Crighton, Adams & Chase, where he represented primarily Fortune 100 companies in connection with state and local tax issues. Mr. Oreck also served as Vice President and General Counsel for his family business, The Oreck Corporation (the manufacturer and seller of Oreck vacuum cleaners), from 1993 until the company was sold in 2003.

Mr. Oreck is the author of a number of treatises and legal publications. Separate from his legal practice, Mr. Oreck founded and operated a real estate development company. Originally focused on historic restorations, he renovated and restored over 100,000 square feet of historic homes and apartment buildings in New Orleans, Louisiana.

He also founded The Zero Carbon Initiative, is a founding member of the Board of Trustees for The Grand Canyon Trust, and remains very active in environmental matters. Mr. Oreck served as a member of Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s New Energy transition advisory team and as a member of the Colorado Climate Action Panel.



Louis Susman, UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... uis-susman

Quote:
Susman, 71, a vice-president of Citigroup until he retired in February, has long been a backer of the Democrats, nicknamed the Vacuum Cleaner by the Chicago Tribune for his ability to hoover up campaign funding. "I don't think anyone enjoys raising money, but for some reason I seem to have a knack," he told the paper. Susman, who lives in an expensive neighbourhood of Chicago overlooking Lake Michigan, raised at least $500,000 (£320,000) for Obama's campaign and a further $300,000 for his inauguration.

He is so much a part of Obama's inner circle that he was invited to an exclusive party on the Sunday before the inauguration. Other guests included Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, who typifies the sharp-suited, foul-mouthed approach of those brought up on Chicago politics.



Vinai Thummalapally, India
http://diplopundit.blogspot.com/2009/06 ... ly-to.html

Quote:
Mr. Thummalapally is the President of MAM-A Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of recordable optical discs. Prior to his role at MAM-A Inc., he served as the plant manager for Mitsui Advanced Media Inc., which also manufactures recordable optical discs. He has served in several other similar roles in his 31-year career, including as General Manager for WEA Manufacturing, as a Managing Partner of Clines Office Products, and as Manufacturing Manager of Disc Manufacturing, Inc.


He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from California State University and completed post graduate courses in Business Administration.


Laurie Fulton, Denmark
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _S._Fulton

Quote:
'Laurie S. Fulton "is a distinguished attorney with a national trial practice in federal and state courts in complex civil litigation and criminal defense. She has served as counsel in product liability litigation, mass tort litigation defense, and class action lawsuits. Her criminal defense practice includes federal criminal antitrust, bank gratuities, and wire fraud. A graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha and Georgetown University Law Center, Fulton previously served as the executive director for Peace Links and for ACCESS, a security information service. Her government service includes work for Senator James Abourezk (D-South Dakota) and Representative (now Senator) Thomas Daschle (D-South Dakota). She is on the board of directors of Bright Beginnings and formerly served on the boards of both Peace Links and ACCESS.“ [1]



Nicole Avant, Bahamas
http://diplopundit.blogspot.com/2009/06 ... hamas.html

Quote:
Ms. Avant serves as Vice President of Interior Music and Avant Garde Music Publishing. A business woman, philanthropist and activist, she has been recognized for her tireless efforts to mobilize the younger generation towards greater charitable and political involvement. She has worked as an academic counselor at The Neighborhood Academic Initiative, a USC mentorship program for high school students.

Ms. Avant serves as a board member for the Bogart Pediatric Cancer Research Program, the Center for American Progress and Best Buddies, and was named one of the American Cancer Society Next Generation Leaders in 2007.


Matthew Barzun, Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Barzun

Quote:
Matthew Barzun worked with CNET Networks for over a decade. Among the first four employees at CNET in 1993, Barzun was part of the entire range of the company’s growth, from start up to initial public offering and to eventual profitability.[4]

Early on Matthew Barzun was made a Vice President at CNET, during which time he built, launched and grew CNET’s Download.com service. Barzun was also instrumental in establishing CNET’s policy of purchasing domain names for the company to launch new sites, including news.com, builder.com and search.com [5]. The story of Barzun’s acquisition of these valuable web properties was told in Robert H. Reid’s book about the rise of the early Internet, “Architects of the Web: 1,000 Days that Built the Future of Business”[6]:


Barzan’s (sic) teeth-cutting name space assignment was the shareware.com name that later proved so inspiring. […] Emboldened, Barzan (sic) bartered & begged & bought until he had download.com, freeware.com, and (what the hell) activex.com. Somewhere in there he also got rights to news.com, which now points to CNET’s news stories (this switched on in September of 1996),


By 1998 Matthew Barzun was CNET’s Senior Vice President, and by 2000 he was Chief Strategy Officer. The rise through the company was noteworthy for such a young man (prompting columnist Dan Fost of the San Francisco Chronicle to pen the question “How can a 28-year-old be senior anything?”[7] ), but Barzun’s innovative ideas and tactics built upon his earlier successes. Barzun’s most recent business activities have involved Internet publishing start-ups. In 2006 he helped found a company called MedTrackAlert, which was later reportedly sold in 2008 to the Health Central Network.[8]


Don Beyer, Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Beyer

Quote:
Donald S. "Don" Beyer, Jr. (born June 20, 1950) is an American business and political leader. He is an owner of automobile dealerships and is involved in community, political and philanthropic work. In June 2009, he was nominated to be the United States Ambassador to Switzerland.

Previously, from 1990-98 he served as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia as a Democrat during the gubernatorial administrations of Democrat Doug Wilder (1990-1994) and Republican George Allen (1994-1998).


William C. Eacho, III, Austria
http://www.usembassy.at/en/embassy/press_rel_eacho1.htm

Quote:
William Eacho is the CEO of Carlton Capital Group, LLC, a private investment company focused on real estate and private investments primarily dealing with alternative energy and technology. Previously, he was the executive vice president of Alliant Foodservice, Inc., a $6 billion national food service distributor based in Chicago, with primary responsibility for technology and acquisition strategy. He joined Alliant after the company’s acquisition of Atlantic Food Services in Manassas, Virginia. Under Mr. Eacho's leadership, Atlantic increased its sales tenfold. Prior to that Mr. Eacho was a founding co-chairman of UniPro Foodservice Inc., the food service distribution industry's top procurement and marketing cooperative, with combined member sales of over $20 billion. From 1996-1997, Mr. Eacho served as chairman of ComSource, a $9 billion cooperative, until helping to negotiate a merger with its leading competitor, EMCO, to create UniPro Foodservice. Mr. Eacho serves on the boards of directors of Capital Transportation Inc., Stanley Martin Companies Inc., Systems 4 Inc. and Bialek Healthcare Environments Inc.



Donald Gips, South Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Gips
(holy shit someone with foreign policy experience, woohoo!)

Quote:
Donald H. Gips, born in 1960, is the Divisional Vice President of Corporate Strategy and Development for Level 3 Communications.[1] and Director of Mindspeed Technologies, Incorporated. He is also on the advisory board for President Barack Obama's presidential transition team.[2]

In the late 1990s Gips served as the United States Vice President Al Gore's Chief Domestic Policy Advisor
.[3] Previously, he was the chief of the Federal Communications Commission’s international bureau.[1]


Howard Gutman, Belgium
http://diplopundit.blogspot.com/2009/06 ... an-to.html

Quote:
Howard Gutman is a partner with Williams & Connolly LLP. Identified as one of "Washington's Top Lawyers" by Washingtonian magazine, Mr. Gutman’s practice areas focus on commercial litigation, including securities, contracts, antitrust, labor, banking, real estate, intellectual property, insurance coverage, international law and partnership disputes. Mr. Gutman's clients have included Fortune 500 companies, start-ups, financial services firms, labor unions, pension funds, law and accounting firms, government entities, real estate developers, sports teams, and political candidates. He is also litigation counsel for Friedman, Billings & Ramsey, a top ten U.S. investment bank.


Mr. Gutman previously served as a Special Assistant to F.B.I Director William H. Webster, focusing on counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence; as a law clerk to Justice Potter Stewart on the United States Supreme Court; and as a law clerk to Judge Irving L. Goldberg on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Gutman has been an Editor of Litigation Magazine for over 24 years and an active participant in the ABA's Litigation Section. He is a member of the Board of the Washington Hebrew Home in Rockville, Maryland.


David Jacobson, Canada
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06 ... obama.html
(I love that the guy who donated the least got the Canad gig. Gotta pony up if you want the Caribbean or European hot spots, bro)

Quote:
WASHINGTON--President Obama tapped Chicago attorney David Jacobson, who was the Obama presidential campaign deputy finance chair, to be the U.S. ambassador to Canada on Thursday.

Jacobson is already at the White House. He is a special assistant to the president in the Office of Presidential Personnel. His focus is on filling slots on executive branch boards and commissions.

Before heading to Washington, Jacobson, 57, who grew up in north suburban Highland Park, was a partner at the Chicago office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP. He specialized in securities and complex litigation.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:28 PM 
Camping Orc 1
Camping Orc 1

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:35 PM
Posts: 465
Quick observation,

So weird how tunes change depending on who the president's party is...


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:31 PM 
Froaaak!!!
Froaaak!!!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Posts: 1859
Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Quote:
So weird how tunes change depending on who the president's party is...


Tune isn't changing here. My biggest object to, say, Harriet Myers? Lack of qualification and total crony.

It's nice that you think it does, but it hasn't. Money has never featured in my objections on this topic. It is purely about qualifications for me.

Thanks for the list, Jox. Just got back from shopping for homes, so hadn't had a chance to dig further. Gives me a good starting point.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:55 PM 
Shelf is CAMPED!!
Shelf is CAMPED!!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:17 AM
Posts: 1914
Location: Prescott, AZ
EQ1: Tyral
rugen wrote:
I'm not sure I can agree with saying that a qualified person for X role should be disqualified because their personal politics led them to supporting a candidate.

Some pretty similar statements were made by critics who were trying to poke holes into Obama's "no lobbyists" pledge. The point was made that many lobbyists are thoroughly qualified to work for the government in sectors they were lobbying for, so barring them from those positions was a poor idea.

Just amusing to see that the arguments have flipped for both sides on topics that are pretty damned similar.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:57 AM 
Cazic Thule owned RoA
Cazic Thule owned RoA

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:19 AM
Posts: 1656
Location: Baltimore, MD
EQ1: Sarissa Candyangel
WoW: Sarix
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.

Why do we assume the same will not apply to their appointees?

Lobbyists may be qualified, but they are also (generally) very heavily biased. :P


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:53 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
Jox, thanks for the list. As I was saying, it helps to have background when you're talking about qualifications.

Just from the quick read, I don't see anyone who should be immediately removed from consideration. I see attorneys, business leaders, and politicians; people who, without digging deeper, would likely be able to do the job.

That's not to say they're the best candidates in terms of foreign diplomacy experience -- I'll fully agree with you on that. But they're not going to be alone in their positions either. We don't drop our ambassador to Finland off in the streets of Helsinki and force him to fend for himself. A major part of that job is managing a staff, and it sounds like there may be some people with very strong qualifications in that category.

Ideally, we'd have people with both types of expertise -- and who possess all the other qualities the administration should look for.

But again, this argument -- and the comments of the other participants -- seem better suited as one more reason why private money should be extricated from politics, let is damage the functions of our government.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:02 PM 
Shelf is CAMPED!!
Shelf is CAMPED!!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:17 AM
Posts: 1914
Location: Prescott, AZ
EQ1: Tyral
Sarissa wrote:
Lobbyists may be qualified, but they are also (generally) very heavily biased. :P

Yeah, and campaign donors aren't?

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:15 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
a little more on this that I read from The NY Times:
Quote:
The White House has also asserted its privilege in naming ambassadors, passing over Mrs. Clinton’s preferred candidate for Japan — Joseph S. Nye Jr., a Harvard expert on foreign policy — in favor of John V. Roos, a Silicon Valley lawyer who is close to Mr. Obama.
(full article here

I don't know if the State Department had/has any other input for other ambassador appointments but one would think that State would at least get some sort of input for the big ones.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y