Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 26, 2013

President Barack Obama's political team is raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington's biggest lobbying operations. Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Obama's group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Obama's top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

MUSTANG

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

From Washington Examiner:

The normally easygoing Chuck Todd sounded rather upset this morning, highlighting a New York Times story that exposed President Obama's plan to sell access to the White House for wealthy donors to his reorganized campaign operation, Organizing for Action.

"Excuse us? This just looks bad," Todd said heatedly, criticizing the President for "ceding the moral high ground. ... This is how a bad system gets worse. I wonder what candidate Obama would say about this."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Here is Carney fleeing the podium after being questioned about it: www.weeklystandard.com

washingtonexaminer.com

#1 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02-26 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The normally easygoing Chuck Todd sounded rather upset this morning"

It burst Todd's bubble and he is upset with both Obama AND having to report it.

He's just a mainstream, non-idealistic Journ-0-List.
--- The DR Left ---

#2 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-26 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

My first thought was that donating a half-million dollars gets them more access to the President than the press gets. Maybe NBC should earmark some money to OFA so they can get reporters into the Oval Office once every few months for a sit-down with the Prez.

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-26 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Once again...*crickets* from the DR libs.

#4 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-02-26 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

hello??/

hellllooooooo?????

DR LEFT??? sleeping late today????

come on dudes...SURELY one of you can get on here and tell us that 'they all do it'

at least give us that..

hee heee heeeee heeeeeeeee

#5 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-02-26 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. When not even Doc or Danni can find something defensible, this must be bad indeed!

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-26 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess after Billy Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom, Barry didn't have anything left so sell?

#7 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-26 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey, if you want the money out of politics then help us take out of all of politics, don't cheer on candidates taking money from the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson and then get all upset when the other side does it too.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-26 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Excuse us? This just looks bad," Todd said heatedly, criticizing the President for "ceding the moral high ground."

This POTUS was never on a "moral high ground" but only in the eyes of his starry-eyed supporters. Obama's "high ground" has had an odiferous wafting from it for some time.

t2.gstatic.com

#9 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-26 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

then get all upset when the other side does it too.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-26 01:27 PM | Reply

The "other side" isn't in power now----it's got to start sometime---lead the charge, Danni.

#10 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-26 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you actually defending what he's doing, Danni? He's being PIMPED by OFA and is actively selling a chance to become a power player.

Didn't another Chicagoan recently go to jail for a similar crime? Oh, right, ROB BLAGOJEVICH. Just think, if Blago had been a little more patient, he could have just bribed his way into the Oval Office and bought a nice Ambassadorship....

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-26 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey, if you want the money out of politics then help us take out of all of politics, don't cheer on candidates taking money from the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson and then get all upset when the other side does it too.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-26 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag

Hypocrisy at its best!

#12 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-02-26 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is how the game is played after Citizens United. Expecting one party to let the other exploit the campaign financing system while it takes the high ground is exceptionally unrealistic.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-26 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is how the game is played after Citizens United. Expecting one party to let the other exploit the campaign financing system while it takes the high ground is exceptionally unrealistic.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-26 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag

Really, particularly when the center piece of the campaign was to stop this.

This a one issue we have all seen the authoritarian liberal complain about for the last 10 years and now they hear their leader is doing it becomes OK.

I see, no character or ethical and moral high grand should be expected from the left except when they are critical of the right....right!

#14 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-02-26 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with this nation and why the democrats are losing me more and more is the lack of character and the excuses those supporters make for the failures of their chosen leaders.

Apparently it is about staying the party and not staying the nation.

The hypocrisy of the left keeps getting bigger and wider.

#15 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-02-26 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#13
Unilateral disarmament by Dems on this issue is what [Repubs] pray for.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-26 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow, money equals access in Washington. I wouldn't be more surprised if the cancervatives blacklisted Christie. Oh wait a minute....

#17 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-26 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think the main point of this article, contrary to the users weblog headline that was changed by the administrator, is that Obama is selling access to the WH through his own group.

That is a big problem.

#18 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02-26 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess after Billy Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom, Barry didn't have anything left so sell?

#7 | Posted by paneocon

Given that Bush donated America's military, moral compass, foreign standing and several thousand of its sons and daughters to the oil companies, what's left?

Heck, the NRA bought the GOP for way less than 50 million. I guess you get what you pay for.

I just hope the sequester doesn't mean a cut in waahmbulance services for the Etchifiers.

It's looking like it's gonna be a long four years for the DR righties. maybe Michelle will gain some weight or something.

#19 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-26 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hypocrisy at its best!

#12 | Posted by moneywar

So what's YOUR take on the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson buying GOP candidates?

#20 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-26 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with this nation and why the democrats are losing me more and more is the lack of character and the excuses those supporters make for the failures of their chosen leaders.

Apparently it is about staying the party and not staying the nation.

The hypocrisy of the left keeps getting bigger and wider.

#15 | Posted by moneywar

didn't seem to be an issue with you when conservatives were pushing Citizens United. Funny that.

#21 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-26 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

the new cash demands on Obama's top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

"Praise the Lord Dubya didn't give Ambassadorships to his bundlers!

What, he did? Well 9-11 changed everything."

The DR Right

#22 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-02-26 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

What, the original title hit too close to the truth?

#23 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-02-26 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

My take is it doesn't matter party, is it right or wrong and stop making justification for one party cause of the other party.

either we expect our representatives to perform to our wishes or we voice our disapproval.

Obama attracted voters for being against this and stated he would stop it. Now the voters are not represented but were lied too.

#24 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-02-26 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not hypocritical in the slightest.

The Dems have to do it to stay competitive.
Repubs call it hypocritical but have been doing it themselves.
Dems offer to give it up by nixing Citizens United.
Repubs say no, we want our special interest groups and you are hypocrites.

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2013-02-26 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The really scary thing is that a sitting POTUS wants to raise a $50 mil warchest to attack American citizens. Something is just wrong with that whole concept.

#26 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2013-02-26 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let Lord Obama do whatever he wants. Do not deny his power!

#27 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-02-26 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#19 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3

Nice deflection, had much practice lately? ROFL

#28 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-26 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Another dark money group. A roll-over of the re-election campaign. Compliments of Citizens United. Next up, aggregate campaign contribution limits.

#29 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-26 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it's funny how the left compares the POTUS to other "candidates". I hate to break it to you but he's not a candidate, he IS the POTUS and this is very sad. It's even worse because he campaigned against this very thing but you can never trust a liberal to speak the truth, much less any politician, so it's accepted by those on the left but it's "their guy".

#30 | Posted by T_Man at 2013-02-26 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

You idiots didn't even squeak when a freaking Horse Pamperer was made into the head of FEMA, leading to the loss of hundreds of lives.

But this? Ohhhh this!

#31 | Posted by Kreator at 2013-02-26 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope this is one of the tools that Obama buries your entire ideology with. You people do not belong in the world of the future.

#32 | Posted by Kreator at 2013-02-26 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can understand liberals who hate big-money politics and oppose Obama for initiatives like this.

But it's pretty funny when Republicans get irate over a Democrat raising large amounts of money. Obama is a two-term president because he is a juggernaut at fundraising. If he wasn't, Clinton or McCain would be beginning a second term.

You don't get to be president without raising obscene amounts of money. You don't get to achieve your agenda as president without being involved in groups that raise more money to further that agenda. That is the nature of the beast.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2013-02-26 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

No president spends more to less effect than Obama does. Give him $50 million, give him $50 billion. It won't matter. Conservatives don't have anything to worry about. He'll throw it all away. And the "Friends of Retard" Committee that he's setting up? Don't worry about them either. $500,000 doesn't even buy a company 10 seconds of airtime during the Super Bowl. And if White House access and patronage and Obama grandstanding really mattered, Solyndra would still be around.

Nothing to worry about at all. Just liberals moving money from one pocket to another, and pretending any of it matters.

#34 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-27 06:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Watching liberals dance around their own hypocrisy is entertaining.

#35 | Posted by Axiom at 2013-02-27 06:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

#33 This is true. Of course that makes it the case that Obama's words and actions do not add up. That is the nature of hypocrites. Of course Obama was originally elected to change things, now those who support these initiatives of "more of the same" are hypocrites themselves.

#36 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02-27 08:22 AM | Reply | Flag:


This is how the game is played after Citizens United. Expecting one party to let the other exploit the campaign financing system while it takes the high ground is exceptionally unrealistic.

#13 | Posted by rcade

Citizens United has nothing to do with this. Also, Citizens United struck down parts of McCain-Feingold as unconstitutional (they were). But McCain-Feingold was enacted 11 years ago. So I guess before 2002 it was common for presidents to sell access to the White House.

I get the notion of fundraising for an election campaign. But fundraising to push an agenda? Way to move the goal posts, Rcade.

It is laughable that this group claims to be "independent". This so-called independent group just happens to have the exact same agenda advocacies as Team Obama on everything. This 'independent' group just happens to be staffed with all-sorts of former Obama people.

It is downright pathetic that if one ponies up $500K they have bought the privelege to attend quarterly meetings with the president.

It's not at-all surprising to see the typical cadre of leftist Obama supporters deflect, move the goal-posts, rationalize and even outright defend the indefensible.

Also, for the deflectors...if you have evidence of Bush doing something comparable to this I'd love to see it.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-28 08:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Citizens United?? Really???

McCain-Feingold (parts of which were struck down by this boogey-man of the left) was a campaign-finance law. It was dealing with election campaigns. We are now in a post-election period. This has NOTHING to do with Citizens United; a ruling that was constitutionally-sound, I might add.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-28 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

"if you have evidence of Bush doing something comparable to this I'd love to see it."

Bush Pioneers are people who gathered $100,000 for George W. Bush's 2000 or 2004 presidential campaign. Two new levels, Bush Rangers and Super Rangers, were bestowed upon supporters who gathered $200,000+ or $300,000+, respectively, for the 2004 campaign, after the 2002 McCain–Feingold campaign finance law raised hard money contribution limits. This was done through the practice of "bundling" contributions. [1] There were 221 Rangers and 327 Pioneers in the 2004 campaign and 241 Pioneers in the 2000 campaign (550 pledged to try).[1] A fourth level, Bush Mavericks, was used to identify fundraisers under 40 years of age who bundled more than $50,000. [2]

The Pioneer system was devised by Karl Rove. The network has roots in Texan GOP donor lists compiled by Rove, whose political roots are in direct-mail solicitation in the 1980s.[3]

Nineteen of the original Pioneers became ambassadors in 2001. Six Pioneers have been convicted of politics-related crimes.
en.wikipedia.org

#39 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-02-28 09:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

"a ruling that was constitutionally-sound, I might add."

Ridiculous. Show me the word corporation in the Constitution, show me where they are persons in the Constitution. Citizens United was just the five corporatists on the court playing politics. Remember these are mostly the same guys who also decided they had the right to appoint a president but had the good sense to make sure that decision couldn't be used as precedent when and if it were ever a different court tryint to appoint a Democrat.

#40 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-28 09:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nobody knew that "hope and change" meant Obama's hope for $50 million in change.

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-28 09:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hag,

As I've already pointed out, this is completely different than an election campaign.

If this happened during the campaign, it wouldn't be making any kind of waves.

Now, if you have evidence of Bush doing something like this post-election, I am all ears...er...eyes.

#40 | Posted by danni

1st Ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it say except for: corporationans, unions, advocacty groups, etc.

It just isn't there. Sorry. On top of that, government suppression of political speech was the primary concern of the founders when the 1st was written.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-28 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:


Nobody knew that "hope and change" meant Obama's hope for $50 million in change.

#41 | Posted by nullifidian

"Hope and change" translated: The tax-payer hopes they have a little change left in their pocket after Obama taxes all of it an re-distributes it.

Full disclosure: That is not mine. I borrowed it from Kid Rock - he did a hilarious skit with Sean Penn during the waning days of the campaign and that's when he used the phrase.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-28 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement