I’m still trying to figure out why they even bothered writing this article.
Published by Lisa Kansas July 29th, 2008 in Media hackery, My Brain Hurts, Obamarama, for realsMaybe I just don’t understand the definition of “news.”
Main Entry: news
Pronunciation:
\ˈnüz, ˈnyüz\
Function:
noun plural but singular in construction
Usage:
often attributive
Date:
15th century
1 a: a report of recent events
1 b: previously unknown information
2 a: material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
2 b: matter that is newsworthy
I think my problem is that I tend to expect the “news” to be skewed a lot more heavily towards being 1b and 2b above, rather than 1a and 2a. Clearly having expectations is my problem!
Analysis: Obama, McCain both have lobbyist ties
How astonishing in United States senators running for President. Really! (snork!)
During this campaign, lobbyists and trade groups donated $181,000 to McCain, while Obama received $6,000, according to the New York Times.
You know, $6,000 doesn’t look too shocking when it’s sitting next to $181,000.
In all, lobbyists reported contributions of $4.7 million to Democrats and $3.3 million to Republicans, the Times reported this week.
So are we supposed to adjust each candidate’s actual numbers by some kind of percentage based on party affiliation..? If not, I’m not clear on what that snippet is doing in this article at all, purportedly specifically targeting Obama and McCain as individuals.
Still, both candidates maintain they are above the influence of lobbyists.
$181,000 is being above the influence? $6,000, maybe, but–?
The senator from Illinois also has taken in $18.8 million from lawyers and law firms, according to estimates from the Center for Responsive Politics, and some of those firms employ lobbyists for special interest clients.
Gosh, this reminds me of studying logic in high school. Let’s see how it works out!
Obama = A
money = B
laywers and law firms = C
lobbyists = D
Given facts:
A takes B from C.
C gives B to D.
..um, there is no way to link A to D there..?
“People who are not directly registered as lobbyists but perhaps working for a company, maybe working for a company in a capacity that’s tangentially related to the government affairs, can give money,” said Lisa Lerer, who covers lobbying for Politico.
I work for a company in a capacity that’s tangentially related to government affairs. Oh, wow, I’m like a LOBBYIST!
The rest the article is much the same, a whole lot of confused and impossible-to-substantiate inferences that contradict each other, though it is hard to avoid that if either candidate IS somehow tied at the hip to the lobbyist racket, it ain’t Obama.
Do they seriously get paid for this crap? Like, more than minimum wage..? If so, I’m clearly in the wrong business.
In fairness to CNN (I’ll take “Things Violet Never Thought She’d Say” for $500), you can’t really consider either candidate separately from their party. Their parties are going to help them get elected, they’re going to determine the platform they (officially, at least) run on, they’re going to be extremely influential in driving the future administration’s agenda. Neither candidate can function politically separate from their party, so looking at where their parties are getting money isn’t a total non-sequitur.
“..um, there is no way to link A to D there..?”
Assuming you’re saying “There is no way to link A to D”, I think what you’re trying to get at is the fallacy of the undivided middle. But your argument isn’t a syllogistic one, so that’s an inappropriate criticism.
If a law firm pays a lobbyist for a given cause, there can be two reasons behind it. One is that the law firm itself wants to promote the cause, and is therefore paying a lobbyist and also donating money to candidates. The money is donated with the expectation that it will influence the candidate towards the cause. The other is that the law firm has no interest of its own in promoting the cause, in which case it is being paid by an external entity which does have an interest but has no lobbyists of its own. But this is a similar case, because the money is also a form of lobbying for their client.
V: I agree that you can’t dissociate a Presidential nominee from his party, but I also don’t know what exactly we’re supposed to be doing with the number provided for the amount of money that all Democrats take from lobbyists for whatever undefined time frame the newspaper is referring to in terms of Obama in particular and his individual commitment to stay away from lobbyists–maybe he’s also supposed to be controlling how much money other Democratic politicians take from lobbyists?
Marnanel: So there is a logical way to link A and D, given the two preceding statements? I couldn’t see it, but then, I haven’t studied logic in a serious way ever, and not even casually since high school. So do tell.
Your arguments are interesting and possibly even true–they sound good, anyway–but they still don’t link Obama to any receipt of money from lobbyists, which I thought was the whole point of the article.
Internet News - Catchy headlines that link to shallow stories written in 4th grade vernacular pretending to be insightful and educational but only about increasing the big news company’s bottom line.
*Note - Some sites like Foxnews are also about furthering its editor’s agenda.
In the United States there is no news, only sensationalism. Which of these would be the biggest headline on CNN.com?
A. Miley Cyrus may hang up ‘Hannah’ wigs
B. Troop build up result of growing Thai-Cambodian border tensions
C. A-Rod seen leaving Madonna’s apartment during wife’s labor.
D. UN fears new Ethiopia-Eritrea war
If you said A and/or C you win a prize. A and C were headlines in CNN’s “Latest News” and B and D were not. B and D are current and potentially effect a large number of people, but real ‘mericans don’t care. To quote the Morgan Freeman character in Se7en, “Most people just want to watch TV and eat cheeseburgers.” I could go on and on, maybe another time.
The sheeple love a scandal because they feel empowered, they can judge and feel superior, but actual news is such a downer. By the way I keep hearing about a war, but I don’t see any flag draped caskets or pictures of dead people; it must not be that bad, you liberal pussies.
Synikal
I suck. I guess if I am going to comment I should at least talk about the subject of the blog!
Buying influence is not Democracy, rather you are a lobbyist or not a lobbyist the “he/she who raises the most gets to be President” game sucks.
Check out this list of heavy hitters. I love the ones on both lists. I guess they don’t care who wins as long as they have influence with the winner. How transparent of them.
Obama
Goldman Sachs $606,080
University of California $488,159
JPMorgan Chase & Co $378,357
Citigroup Inc $371,704
UBS AG $370,850
Lehman Brothers $333,310
National Amusements Inc $332,839
Harvard University $325,424
Google Inc $321,964
Sidley Austin LLP $307,345
Skadden, Arps et al $281,163
Morgan Stanley $274,463
Time Warner $268,227
Jones Day $251,250
Exelon Corp $237,311
University of Chicago $230,175
Latham & Watkins $228,276
Microsoft Corp $222,578
Wilmerhale Llp $222,080
General Electric $210,329
McCain
Citigroup Inc $251,551
Merrill Lynch $249,960
Blank Rome LLP $188,176
Morgan Stanley $174,271
Goldman Sachs $171,945
AT&T Inc $160,930
Greenberg Traurig LLP $157,087
JPMorgan Chase & Co $148,900
Credit Suisse Group $123,225
UBS AG $110,915
Lehman Brothers $99,550
Bank of America $98,425
Blackstone Group $97,200
US Government $96,306
Wachovia Corp $96,062
Bear Stearns $94,200
Bank of New York Mellon $89,500
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $81,000
FedEx Corp $80,653
PricewaterhouseCoopers $79,720
Can you link to where you got this list?