I'd like to respond - to any right-winger here who acknowledged the unprecedented corruption of the Bush administration giving regulatory positions to industry donors.
Oh, wait, there isn't a single one who had the honest to do so, in years of the facts being pointed out. So I guess not one is in any position to say anything on the issue.
But that would leave the issue without a response, so having made the point, let's just respond anyway.
Basically, and this will be lost on the 'team players', there are different types of appointments, with different impacts.
Bush had a major political operation with numerous flaws. He had a 'K Street project' that took advantage of public disclosure laws to make lists of any interests who gave to Democrats - even if they split donations - and made it clear they were expected to give not only to Republicans, but ONLY Republicans, and with the Republicans controlling every branch, it was pay to play - pay, and you can write your own bill; don't, and your issue will not get handled, worthwhile or not.
They put Republican political staff actually as employees in the donor industries to watch the donations and ensure they went only to Republicans, insisting they be placed.
That's the main issue but I'll note they also put highly incompetent people - kids who had applied to AEI - into important positions in places like Iraq, and they illegally gave political interviews - 'did you vote for Bush', 'do you support Bush in his policies', 'are you pro-life' - to non-partisan positions in the Justice Department, google Monica Goodling. We don't need a reminder of 'Heckuva job, Brownie'.
Back to the donor corruption - this was the bad stuff, it was policy. Industries could violate the law and not be held accountable by their own representatives. Laws could be passed bad for the public the industries themselves would write sometimes, or at least have a big say or 'veto power' (for example, Ken Lay was given a veto over anyone appointed to be Secretary of Energy. He used it.)
This was the disaster for the country - it undermined our very democracy, it was very corrupt. From the Republicans: silence, excuses, no accountability, more votes for Bush.
Now, this report. The first question is, are the 'industry' donors, and are they buying regulatory positions and policy?
I haven't begun to see there's anything anywhere close to Bush on that.
Ambassadors have long,if not always, gone to 'political connections' and donors in large part. Look at the horrible comparison - 27% versus 36% in a handful of presidencies -practically the same, and they don't go into older ones. It's a hyped issue - just as the 'donor favor' of big donors sleeping inthe Lincoln bedroom was hyped into a national scandal by the right-wing noise machine under Clinton, shortly before Bush did the same thing to complete silence from the right.
Let's say a person bundles $500,000 for Obama and is appointed ambassador to France.
The first question and most important is, what is the agenda of these people, what are they getting as far as policy? If they're just Obama supporters, if they aren't from the lobbying group from an industry buying a tax credit, it's far less bad than if they are buying policy. Let's see the evidence there.
For Bush, we had plenty, studies showing hundreds of people appointed to regulatory positions for the very industries they were executives or lobbyists from; not 'bundlers' who call friends and collect donations, but corporate donations, industry donations, for buying things that get a return on the money. And buying bills.
The second question is, what kind of positions are they being appointed to? On the one hand, the article is talking mainly about ambassadors. But it does also talk about 'key positions'. We need more specifics to say much - who, what is their agenda, have their policies favored the public interest or one they represent? No information.
There is reason for concern and investigating - not for comparing it to Bush.
Let's review one of many examples under Republicans. One of the top 2 domestic priorities for Bush in his first term (with tax cuts for the rich) was Medicare Part D.
Their biggest donor industry was big pharma and they were going to pay their debt. Big time.
They came up with the scheme of a new prescription benefit which would both give them ammunition against Democrats of something they could hype they did for the public and seniors so they weren't just attacked for selling them out on other issues, while also giving a massive windfall profit of tax dollars to their donors.
They intentionally wrote into the bill that the government could not negotiate prices - as it did in other departments like the VA, adding hundreds of billions to the cost.
Then they intimidated the public official who provided Congress with the estimated cost, demanding he say it was below a number that Congressional conservatives had said was a limit - or they'd terminate him. They played games with the numbers to try to fool these conservatives, and a vote was held, with a Congressman appointed the position of getting it passed - late at night, to try to force it through.
It failed. Then the Republican leadership simply said 'the 15 minute vote is being made into a longer vote', and walked the floor, threatening and bribing members who voted no to twist their arms. One member said the leadership told him if he didn't change his vote, his son who was running for office would be blackballed from the party - if he changed his vote, he'd get $100,000 donation from the party. He later withdrew the story when it got the media going, but still indicated he was pressured, as were many.
Several hours later, at something like 5 or 6 AM, they finally had the votes to just barely pass it. The Congressman who had led the passage resigned shortly after from Congress and was made the head of Big Pharma lobbying for $2 million a year, a position he's still in.
Now, that's corruption. Nothing like it in the Obama administration IMO.
Now, having the righties all bleating 'Obama is worse just because':
Obama has big problems too, they're just a lot less bad, mostly (not all are).
His biggest private donor was Goldman Sachs, and Goldman Sachs is in place as Government Sachs like nothing changed. Wall Street has deeply penetrated the Democratic Party. He's had some questionable deals - much smaller than Bush - like ones involving 'green companies' who have been supporters.
But if he appointed a $500,000 bundler to ambassador, where is the big public harm?
It's not there, especially compared to the industry appointees to oversee industry regulation.
I'm not about to say Obama doesn't have bad examples in these areas. He's a politician in our current system, not somehow immune. And IMO he has overstates his 'clean' politics, as the report notes, contrasting his criticism of such appointments while Senator with his actual appointments.
But there's a massive difference IMO from the current info that he's been far better than Bush was, and that an important difference - one lost on the right.
If Bush did 1000 of something and Obama does 20, Obama's worse.
So, reasonable discussion on the issue comparing, fine. The kind of crap there's not much doubt will actually be posted - a waste to bother with.
There's plenty of room to criticize Obama - but not as 'worse than' or nearly as bad as Bush on most of these issues.
On some, he's breaking new ground past Bush - Bush wasn't setting a lot of precedent on assassinating US citizens on only the President's instruction. Different topic.
I'd like to hear the specifics of Obama's appointments linked with info on the donors - who they represent, what policies they are pursuing.
I'm ready to blast Obama for his errors, depending what we find. Let's get some facts and find out how good or bad his appointments - and compare to Bush.
By the way, could the right send out a memo, and pick either 'radical socialist out to destroy America', or 'corporate sellout worse than Bush'? Kind of dizzying to get both.
I'm not expecting anything worth a response. Surprise me. If you want to argue ambassador to France and overseeing energy regulations are the same, waste of time.
By the way - I'm pretty convinced there IS 'dirt', IS 'scandal' with Obama. On the one hand, it's worth discussing. On the other, comparing him to Bush is a different question.
The people who refused to take any accountability for Bush's facts are not expected to say anything honest now.
Post your specifics. Post your 'Medicare Part D' stories. Post your 'Ken Lay given veto over secretary', post your 'hundreds of regulatory positions sold to industry' stories.
I'm against the corruption, no matter who does it. If Obama is worse, I'll oppose him for that and happily credit Republicans for doing better.
Facebook
Twitter