The Blue State

Hopefully Obama doesn't campaign for this Democrat

Especially if Obama is serious about eliminating lobbyist influence from politics:

After spending more than a decade in Washington making millions of dollars at one of the nation's most prestigious law firms, the former Democratic congressman from Topeka is jumping back into the political arena in a bid to unseat Sen. Pat Roberts , R-Kan.

Roberts' campaign has already gone after Slattery with radio ads calling him a "Gucci loafers  and all" lobbyist who's out of touch with voters.

People like that who go to and from K-Street have no business returning to the public arena.  Who are they serving?  Their Firm?  The American public?

Powerful lobbyist joins McCain Campaign

So much for being a champion of ethics reform.  This is from The Hill's web site:

Top Washington lobbyist Charlie Black is leaving his firm to join Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign.

Black, chairman of BKSH & Associates, told The Hill his resignation would be effective Monday, March 31. He will join McCain's campaign on a full-time basis starting Tuesday.

“McCain asked me to play a pretty significant role in the campaign," said Black, whose clients have included JP Morgan and Lockheed Martin, according to Senate records.

Therefore, Senator McCain has absolutely no right to claim to take the moral high ground by taking public financing.  He has lobbyists running his campaign, and Obama has real people donating to his.  Big difference.

Lobbyists made $2.9 billion in 2007

Maybe why electing a president that refused money from lobbyists is an important thing to think about this election cycle:

Lobbyists reported $2.9 billion in fees last year according to a new study by the National Journal, which declared that a record sum.  It's roughly double what the industry pulled down in 1998, according to the magazine's figures.

Lobbyists likely made "hundreds of millions of dollars more" in income they aren't legally required to report, the magazine said.

Now that Democrats toppled Tom DeLay's empire, it's time to bring in a president that has always been tough on ethics reform.  We're not going to get anywhere if we elect someone that has been in Washington their entire political career.

The White House Attacks Hillary **VIDEO ADDED**

This post is a follow up to a story in today's 'Blue Radar' regarding the White House's attack on Hillary Clinton:

In response to her campaign ad that was released yesterday, the White House attacked Hillary Clinton's claim that Americans are not well-represented by this administration.  WH Depouty Press Secretary: "As to the merits of it, I think it's outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helped millions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at a much lower cost." ("Have access to?"  But at what cost?)

More Specifically the line:

"As to the merits of it, I think it's outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helped millions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at a much lower cost."

The audacity of that statement made my skin crawl, so I figured I would post a reminder about the republicans wonderful victory of Medicare Part D. Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes did a segment on Part D back on April 1, 2007, and it is more than worthy to get it back out there.

The unorthodox roll call on one of the most expensive bills ever placed before the House of Representatives began in the middle of the night, long after most people in Washington had switched off C-SPAN and gone to sleep.

The only witnesses were congressional staffers, hundreds of lobbyists, and U.S. representatives, like Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Walter Jones, R-N.C.

"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones. "The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning," remembers Jones.

Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?

"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.

"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it was the ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."

The voting which is supposed to remain open for 15 minutes remained open for almost 3 hours! Read the transcript HERE.

A brief 2 minute video which outlines the story can be viewed HERE.

Here is the complete '60 Minutes' segment 'Under The Influence'

And let's hope Romney isn't elected. Last night on Hannity & Colmes Romney talked about his idea of healthcare.

Well actually, the plan I put forward said no one got free insurance. Everybody could pay what they could afford. And so we had a sliding scale and still do, based on your income. And the state will help pay the portion of your premium you can't afford for the poor. The good news is it costs us less to help people buy their own private insurance than it was costing us giving out free care at hospitals. So I do talk about that. And I'll be giving a speech to the Florida Medical Association describing to them our plan in some detail. But I insisted that everyone pays something. I didn't want to have anything free. Our legislature overrode that idea and so the people at the very low got it free. I think that's a mistake. I think everyone should pay something. Read the complete transcript HERE

Great plan Mitt, the poor can pay something for healthcare and eat cardboard boxes.

Lobbyists own Romney more than he owns himself

It is true that Hillary Clinton received more DC lobbyist money than any candidate in either party during this presidential cycle.  However, over an extended time frame, no one should thank special interests more than Mitt Romney.  Clinton has name recognition, and would still be among the top-tier even if she did not accept lobbyist money.  But as far as Romney is concerned, these interests are responsible for his rise to power, and he will owe them if he wins the presidency:

Republican Mitt Romney , the wealthiest candidate in the presidential race, earned as much as $15 million in 2006 and early 2007 from the private equity firm he left eight years ago, helping him expand his personal fortune and bankroll his campaign.

The extent of Romney's continuing relationship with Boston -based Bain Capital Partner , which has also supplied him with scores of savvy fundraisers and well-heeled donors, was detailed in a financial disclosure report filed yesterday with the Office of Government Ethics. The report revealed the holdings of Romney's blind trust and provided the most complete accounting of his wealth, estimated at between $190 million and $250 million.

The filing, which listed 47 pages of investments spanning the globe, estimated that Romney earned between $17 million and $69 million last year.

According to the campaign finance disclosure site Open Secrets, Mitt Romney has failed to disclose where 7.2% of his money originated from -- that's $2,348,704 of possibly dirty money.  In addition, 20% of all Romney's campaign money came from his own bank account -- $6.5 million in the second quarter alone. 

Romney was also out-raised by Giuliani $15 million to $14 million that quarter.  This guy is the Republican front-runner, yet average Americans are not donating to his campaign at the same ratio as other GOP candidates. 

Romney's donations in Massachusetts, his home state, fell by 69% in the second quarter.  He only has 80,000 donors, which is less than one-third what Barack Obama has.

Mitt Romney will owe those that gave him funding, and they will do anything to see that he gets in.  He is the anti-populist candidate, if you are looking for one.

Hillary gets more from lobbyists than any candidate in either party

If Clinton denied at the Yearly Kos Convention that she took in money from lobbyists, this story would make her look even worse.  It was going to eventually come out, now we will see whether this has any effect on her double-digit lead in the polls.

Newsweek's Sam Stein and Michael Isikoff noted on which kinds of lobbyists have already donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign:

An upcoming study by the watchdog group Public Citizen finds that at least 16 of her campaign's "Hill-raisers"—elite fund-raisers or "bundlers" who have pledged to bring in at least $100,000—are registered D.C. lobbyists who represent corporate interests that include financial, airline, defense and pharmaceutical firms. Among the players: Matthew Bernstein (whose client list includes Raytheon and Merrill Lynch), James Blanchard (Bristol-Myers and an Indian gaming tribe), Steve Ricchetti (Eli Lilly and General Motors), Richard Sullivan (Delta and Freddie Mac) and John Merrigan (Starwood Hotels). Figures compiled by another group, the Center for Responsive Politics, find Clinton has raised $668,250 from registered lobbyists and "government relations" officers—far more than any of the other presidential candidates, including the GOP contenders (who openly seek lobbyists' cash).

So what about Obama and Edwards?  They did receive donations from some individuals that were lobbyists during their previous careers.  But neither of them took money from current lobbyists:

The Public Citizen study also found that, despite their campaigns' public disavowals, five top Obama bundlers had been registered lobbyists, and one of Edwards's major fund-raisers had run a lobbying firm. Both campaigns say none of these fund-raisers is currently registered to lobby.

The groups Public Citizen (founded by Ralph Nader) and the Center for Responsive Politics have been exposing lobbyist-driven campaigns for the last several years.  Now progressive candidates think twice before polluting their wallets with special interest money.

Lieberman slams "vested interest groups" on the left

In what appeared to be a direct shot at the blogosphere, when asked which party he would back for president, Joe Lieberman slammed Clinton and Obama for agreeing with left-leaning interest groups about the war:

Democratic candidates including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards oppose the Iraq war out of deference to "vested interest groups within the left."

"It's a very disappointing issue," Lieberman said. "The leading Democratic candidates for president are competing with each other to see which one can more quickly pull more of our troops out of Iraq, while our troops are there fighting and now succeeding with a lot on the line."

It all boils down to what you consider to be an 'interest group'?  An interest group could be passionate citizens that organize to end the war.  An interest group could also be the defense industry that donated $120,100 to Lieberman's '06 Senate campaign.   So it depends how you look at it.

Net Neutrality 101: Get Involved

Most of us have heard the term Net Neutrality, some understand it and some don't. so I decided to help those that don't and keep it fresh in the minds of those that do. Crooks & Liars inspired me with their post 'There's a problem. It's called Net Neutrality'

The easiest way to explain what Net Neutrality is, and the issues surrounding it, is through Save The Internet's video 'Save The Internet'. You can go to Save The Internet and click on your state and see where your representatives stand on this issue. You can also send them messages through the site. More videos at Save The Internet's YouTube account

Save The Internet (explains Net Neutrality)

Big Ed's Swan Song (their latest video)

We're all guilty of sitting around complaining about issues, but rarely take the initiative to do our part. Let's not be sitting around drinking coffee in 5 years wishing we did our part.

Q: What Do You Call a Song Titled 'Let's Impeach The President'? A: A Good Start

I feel compelled to find and post the truth every time I hear Our Great President open his mouth which has become synonymous with lying. Thanks again to "granny" for sending us the link for the video.

It didn't take the liberal bloggers and general long public to react and speak out against the dems for caving in on the funding bill. And it seems that they better grow a set quickly before we start shopping around. Think about this for a moment, you tell your spouse or significant other you are going shopping, but instead go to a friends house...simple right? umm, NO!, you are confronted by them and are told you lied. Maybe that's a simple minded analogy, but compare that to The President of the United States lying on an ongoing basis, changing the story and then his supporters actually lie further to support him. Wrong, just plain old everyday kindergartenly,  fundamentally, unacceptably wrong.

Well lets start this thing....

'Let's Impeach The President' Song by Neil Youg. Check out Neils page of Song Videos HERE. (check out the hompage) The Lyrics are HERE.

I do not like Andy Dick in just about everything I have ever seen him in...except this video

'Bush Idiot Speech'

Here is a huge list of anti-war songs worth a peak. List of Bush lies.

There is just so much more content which could be added to this post, but I need to move on from this "consumption" of me.

Military.com: Army Taking Dragon Skin to Hill

Most of us are familiar with the latest controversy regarding the Body Armor the military currently issues to our troops, and the rejection to use another available vest that may be "better" called Dragon Skin. MSNBC did an investigative story on this controversy, and in this interview the developer of the vest  (Ret. Marine Lt. Colonel Jim Magee) currently being used said "Dragon Skin is the best out there, hands down. It's better than the Interceptor. It is state of the art. In some cases, it’s two steps ahead of anything I’ve ever seen."

Magee, who has no financial stake whatsoever in Dragon Skin, told us, “If you would ask me today, ‘Jim we’re sending you to Iraq tomorrow. What would you wear?’ I would buy Dragon Skin and I would wear it.”

I don't know why it took so long for this issue to make its way to the Hill, but wouldn't we love to know?

"Since the report, we have gotten a flurry of interest" from Capitol Hill, Brown said at a May 21 Pentagon briefing. "We're planning on going over to the Hill ... for discussions with key members."

Military.com is reporting the Army is planning "another" test to make an attempt to clear their name. I hope they have cameras and a few honest witnesses there.

The Army plans to brief Congress about test failures of Dragon Skin body armor after recent news reports touting the vest's capabilities prompted calls from lawmakers for an official explanation.

The service's top soldier equipment buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, said he plans to meet with lawmakers and staff this week after NBC News broadcast an investigative report Sunday claiming Dragon Skin - which uses a series of interlocking ceramic disks to stop armor-piercing bullets - outperformed armor currently issued by the Army.

The testing is quite convincing (until you get to the biased military testing). You can contact your public officials Here about this issue, I expect a fair test and a QUICK one!

Army officials say they want to field a system similar to Dragon Skin, whose interlocking ceramic disks provide more protective coverage and more flexibility than currently-issued armor. But at nearly 20-pounds heavier than the Army's vest, Dragon Skin technology isn't there yet.

I think the military is making the "20-pounds heavier" part up. According to the spec sheet, its a total weight of  17.2 pounds.

The SOV-3000™ Level IV, with our large standard tactical front and back panel configuration weighs approximately 17.2 lbs. and varies depending on the level of coverage needed. The SOV-3000™ is manufactured with a ceramic composite.

Videos of the testing can be found here. From the information I have read and videos I watched, Dragon Skin looks pretty good.

History Channel's 'Mail Call' (More videos here)