Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

The problem is that we don't need a "perception," what we need is the real 
thing.

Take for example the lastest bruhaha on the news.  McCain and lobbyists. 
Bad McCain and all those lobbyists.

O.K., my question is what is worse.  The transparency of McCain and 
lobbyists OR the deciet of Obama and his lobbyists?

As I've said before, Teflon Obama makes Slick Willy look dull as coal dust.

Obama doesn't take any money from the lobbyists *themselves.*  Instead, he 
has the lobbyists volunteer for his campaign OR he asks their wives to 
donate money to his campaign, "you're a lobbyist and we don't want 
contributions from lobbyists.  But your wife can contribute and we like your 
network."

And, yes, before anyone gets all in a twitter, I do have names:

Mike Williams, direct of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities 
(lead in what is known as the K Street Supporters)
Tom Daschle, consultant for Alston & Bird
Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC
Mark Keam, lead lobbyist at Verizon
Jimmy Williams, VP of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers 
of America
Thomas Walls, vP of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting
Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young

And that's the short list!

Lynda

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <paxamicus AT earthlink.net>


> I could be wrong but isn't that Obama's strength, constitutional law?
>
> And Lynda, I'm sorry, I never answered your question on the Obama
> thread, I just got buried for a few days. I'd like to clarify
> something, though. I am not sure we gain anything in terms of "good
> will" from other counties if we do elect Obama. I was asking if people
> think there *might* be. I know as a kid my Irish Catholic family was
> as proud of Jack Kennedy as if he was born to us. I just can't help
> but wonder if there is something to be gained in what will surely be
> perceived as something different than business as usual.
>
> The other thing you said, and if I'm wrong do please correct me
> because I'm that buried, I can't even find the original thread now,
> the other thing is that I think we didn't agree on was my use of
> "we".  By this I meant the U.S. as a country, doing badly. If that is
> correct, than I strongly disagree with you. We have met the real
> enemy, and it is us.