Olbermann breaks story? Why no play?

[Lugnuts]

I caught part of Countdown last night and saw KO detail McCain's ties to Phil Gramm, who has ties to UBS/lobbying.

It's a bit complicated, but an interesting story nonetheless.

Why no play today? It doesn't seem like anybody's picked it up. Is it because KO is a TV guy whose show really isn't seen by that many people?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/27/233320/204/832/523934

dailykos link = [/Fen]

 

[andyouare?]

It's a bit complicated, but. . .

There's your answer.

Seriously, though, I think we're going to hear a lot more about McCain's ties to lobbyists in the coming months.

 

[Pastor]

I don't currently have MSNBC as Verizon doesn't carry it.

I can only assume that the "Straight Talk Express" is not actually asking people to board but instead is hoping you just lay down on the tracks.

 

[spinning27]

I watched it ... very good reporting, but too complicated for the average person to understand. I had to pause and rewind a couple parts. The regular media would rather cover the "performance" aspect of the horse race.

I find it very troubling that McCain has employed Phil Gramm to be his top economic advisor given Gramm's ties to UBS and his documented lobbying against bills that could have helped some people avoid foreclosure.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

It's that damn liberal media, at it again ....

 

[Boomer7]

I generally like Olbermann, but the more he establishes himself as the Special Commenter, the more difficult it is for him or for "Countdown" to have credibility as a news show. This story probably should be bigger than it is, but perhaps a lot of other news outlets are saying, "Well, consider the source..."

 

[The Big Ragu]

This should be a story... but it shouldn't be unique to John McCain. You don't get to play in this game without being beholden to a lot of people. Whoever gets elected president will ride in with a lot of IOUs -- whether it is John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

In this particular case, though, Phil Gramm isn't John McCain. The fact that there is a revolving door between political service and private industry, in which former elected officials later use their influence with their old cronies to make money in the private sector shouldn't surprise anyone. It is VERY common. There are hundreds of former congressmen and senators involved in the game at any given time and they may yield more power in this role than they did when they actually were in the House or Senate. Phil Gramm is an example. And they get rich doing it.

This is hardly damning for McCain, though. It should be--but it if it damns him, it damns just about every candidate who ran for president. They are all being advised by people who come from industry. Just some examples:

Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000 to 2007 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.

Is anyone surprised?

Either way, damning the candidates because of the private sector dealings of someone on their advisory team would be a slippery slope that would kill every candidate.

If you wanted to find the people McCain himself actually does take money from, it isn't all that hard. The thing is, he's no different than Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in that regard, either. This link is pretty interesting.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

 

[Chi City 81]

It's Barack, Ragu.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I know it wasn't clear who I was talking about. Thanks for the clarification. :)

 

[andyouare?]

This should be a story... but it shouldn't be unique to John McCain. You don't get to play in this game without being beholden to a lot of people. Whoever gets elected president will ride in with a lot of IOUs -- whether it is John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

In this particular case, though, Phil Gramm isn't John McCain. The fact that there is a revolving door between political service and private industry, in which former elected officials later use their influence with their old cronies to make money in the private sector shouldn't surprise anyone. It is VERY common. There are hundreds of former congressmen and senators involved in the game at any given time and they may yield more power in this role than they did when they actually were in the House or Senate. Phil Gramm is an example. And they get rich doing it.

This is hardly damning for McCain, though. It should be--but it if it damns him, it damns just about every candidate who ran for president. They are all being advised by people who come from industry. Just some examples:

Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000 to 2007 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.

Is anyone surprised?

Either way, damning the candidates because of the private sector dealings of someone on their advisory team would be a slippery slope that would kill every candidate.

If you wanted to find the people McCain himself actually does take money from, it isn't all that hard. The thing is, he's no different than Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in that regard, either. This link is pretty interesting.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

The difference, though, is that McCain has made "fightin' the lobbyists!" a cornerstone of his campaign, much more so than Obama. It's supposed to be a part of his maverick image/attitude. Instead, it turns out that his campaign is run by the same lobbyists he says he's against.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

This should be a story... but it shouldn't be unique to John McCain. You don't get to play in this game without being beholden to a lot of people. Whoever gets elected president will ride in with a lot of IOUs -- whether it is John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

In this particular case, though, Phil Gramm isn't John McCain. The fact that there is a revolving door between political service and private industry, in which former elected officials later use their influence with their old cronies to make money in the private sector shouldn't surprise anyone. It is VERY common. There are hundreds of former congressmen and senators involved in the game at any given time and they may yield more power in this role than they did when they actually were in the House or Senate. Phil Gramm is an example. And they get rich doing it.

This is hardly damning for McCain, though. It should be--but it if it damns him, it damns just about every candidate who ran for president. They are all being advised by people who come from industry. Just some examples:

Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000 to 2007 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.

Is anyone surprised?

Either way, damning the candidates because of the private sector dealings of someone on their advisory team would be a slippery slope that would kill every candidate.

If you wanted to find the people McCain himself actually does take money from, it isn't all that hard. The thing is, he's no different than Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in that regard, either. This link is pretty interesting.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

Legislators kowtowing to special-interest dollars is Kryptonite to legitimate
representative democracy.

And I don't claim to be the originator of that insight. It's been declaimed for decades, and few are willing to listen.

 

[spinning27]

This should be a story... but it shouldn't be unique to John McCain. You don't get to play in this game without being beholden to a lot of people. Whoever gets elected president will ride in with a lot of IOUs -- whether it is John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

In this particular case, though, Phil Gramm isn't John McCain. The fact that there is a revolving door between political service and private industry, in which former elected officials later use their influence with their old cronies to make money in the private sector shouldn't surprise anyone. It is VERY common. There are hundreds of former congressmen and senators involved in the game at any given time and they may yield more power in this role than they did when they actually were in the House or Senate. Phil Gramm is an example. And they get rich doing it.

This is hardly damning for McCain, though. It should be--but it if it damns him, it damns just about every candidate who ran for president. They are all being advised by people who come from industry. Just some examples:

Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000 to 2007 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.

Is anyone surprised?

Either way, damning the candidates because of the private sector dealings of someone on their advisory team would be a slippery slope that would kill every candidate.

If you wanted to find the people McCain himself actually does take money from, it isn't all that hard. The thing is, he's no different than Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in that regard, either. This link is pretty interesting.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

The difference, though, is that McCain has made "fightin' the lobbyists!" a cornerstone of his campaign, much more so than Obama. It's supposed to be a part of his maverick image/attitude. Instead, it turns out that his campaign is run by the same lobbyists he says he's against.

I wouldn't begrudge Phil Gramm the opportunity to make money in the private sector. But when he does it by lobbying Congress on behalf of a company that bought up a bunch of bad loans and wanted legislation to diminish its financial burden by ruining American families, then he should not be the chief financial advisor to a presidential candidate.

It looks particularly bad for McCain on two fronts. The obvious one is that it goes against the spirit of his "no lobbyist" campaign pledge. The less obvious one is that McCain is taking economic advice from shady people with bad track records like Phil Gramm, an outgrowth of the fact that McCain admittedly doesn't understand the economy very well and has never produced much of a plan to confront the housing crisis. I guess we now understand why.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Consider the source. Even the lefties in the media know Olbermann is WAY off their reservation.

 

[spinning27]

Consider the source. Even the lefties in the media know Olbermann is WAY off their reservation.

The source being federal documents that list Gramm as a lobbyist for UBS?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

This should be a story... but it shouldn't be unique to John McCain. You don't get to play in this game without being beholden to a lot of people. Whoever gets elected president will ride in with a lot of IOUs -- whether it is John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

In this particular case, though, Phil Gramm isn't John McCain. The fact that there is a revolving door between political service and private industry, in which former elected officials later use their influence with their old cronies to make money in the private sector shouldn't surprise anyone. It is VERY common. There are hundreds of former congressmen and senators involved in the game at any given time and they may yield more power in this role than they did when they actually were in the House or Senate. Phil Gramm is an example. And they get rich doing it.

This is hardly damning for McCain, though. It should be--but it if it damns him, it damns just about every candidate who ran for president. They are all being advised by people who come from industry. Just some examples:

Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000 to 2007 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers.

Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.

Is anyone surprised?

Either way, damning the candidates because of the private sector dealings of someone on their advisory team would be a slippery slope that would kill every candidate.

If you wanted to find the people McCain himself actually does take money from, it isn't all that hard. The thing is, he's no different than Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama in that regard, either. This link is pretty interesting.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

The difference, though, is that McCain has made "fightin' the lobbyists!" a cornerstone of his campaign, much more so than Obama. It's supposed to be a part of his maverick image/attitude. Instead, it turns out that his campaign is run by the same lobbyists he says he's against.

I wouldn't begrudge Phil Gramm the opportunity to make money in the private sector. But when he does it by lobbying Congress on behalf of a company that bought up a bunch of bad loans and wanted legislation to diminish its financial burden by ruining American families, then he should not be the chief financial advisor to a presidential candidate.

It looks particularly bad for McCain on two fronts. The obvious one is that it goes against the spirit of his "no lobbyist" campaign pledge. The less obvious one is that McCain is taking economic advice from shady people with bad track records like Phil Gramm, an outgrowth of the fact that McCain admittedly doesn't understand the economy very well and has never produced much of a plan to confront the housing crisis. I guess we now understand why.

The spirit of Charles Keating is alive and well in the halls of Congress.

 

[andyouare?]

Consider the source. Even the lefties in the media know Olbermann is WAY off their reservation.

The source being federal documents that list Gramm as a lobbyist for UBS?

The facts have a well known liberal bias.

 

[Beaker]

Consider the source. Even the lefties in the media know Olbermann is WAY off their reservation.

The source being federal documents that list Gramm as a lobbyist for UBS?

The facts have a well known liberal bias.

solid, damned solid. :D

 

[BrianGriffin]

I caught part of Countdown last night and saw KO detail McCain's ties to Phil Gramm, who has ties to UBS/lobbying.

It's a bit complicated, but an interesting story nonetheless.

Why no play today? It doesn't seem like anybody's picked it up. Is it because KO is a TV guy whose show really isn't seen by that many people?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/27/233320/204/832/523934

dailykos link = [/Fen]

Simple answer: Olbermann's position as an advocate/commentator colors the perception of anything he might have that might be considered actual news. Any story he breaks comes with a heavy, an understandable, dose of "consider the source."

If Anderson Cooper breaks the story, if the WaPo breaks the story and if (ha, ha, like this would ever happen) Fox breaks the story, it might have an easier time gaining traction...

And never mind if there is actual merit to the story. That hesitation you see to acknowledge a story broken by a partisan commentator is out of fear of being perceived to have "taken sides."

 

[Pastor]

The American public awaits the "Straight Talk Expresss."

 

[Ben_Hecht]

I caught part of Countdown last night and saw KO detail McCain's ties to Phil Gramm, who has ties to UBS/lobbying.

It's a bit complicated, but an interesting story nonetheless.

Why no play today? It doesn't seem like anybody's picked it up. Is it because KO is a TV guy whose show really isn't seen by that many people?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/27/233320/204/832/523934

dailykos link = [/Fen]

Simple answer: Olbermann's position as an advocate/commentator colors anything he might have that might be considered actual news. Any story he breaks comes with a heavy, an understandable, dose of "consider the source."

If Anderson Cooper breaks the story, if the WaPo breaks the story and if (ha, ha, like this would ever happen) Fox breaks the story, it might have an easier time gaining traction...

Keith boasts greater gravitas than AC. It'd be hard, not to.