Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:06 PM
Original message
With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United
On Wednesday it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order that would require companies pursuing federal contracts to disclose political contributions that have been secret under the Citizens United ruling. A senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Hans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors. Mr. von Spakovsky dutifully made all the right-wing, neo-con arguments including bringing Planned Parenthood and unions into the discussion. The draft order did not exempt any entity from disclosure rules and presents a reasonable requirement on contractors seeking government contracts. Several states have similar pay to play laws to prevent businesses from using unlimited donations to buy lucrative state contracts from slimy legislators... The real objection Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have with the order is that it removes the possibility of corporate money influencing government more than it already does. The Citizens United ruling was a gift to Republicans who do the bidding of corporations in exchange for campaign contributions and it became obvious after reports that two Supreme Court Justices attended a secret Koch Industries strategy meeting prior to voting to extend free speech rights to corporations just in time for the 2010 midterm campaigns.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-citizens-united

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Awesome. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. This article is from April, and no executive order like this was signed.
This article is from April, and no executive order like this was signed.

that I can find. That was almost seven months ago. Do we have any more recent evidence that this is even on the President's agenda now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. This is the 2nd post about this very old story
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 10:19 PM by Vinnie From Indy
Why are people posting such an old article and not making it clear that the article is, in fact, more than 6 mos old?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. So Repubs will have to pass a bill to change that, right?
Can't wait to hear their arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Legislation does trump executive order, but I doubt anything will pass. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
46. No, because nothing ever came of this. It was a "draft". The OP headline is false.
and the article is from APRIL. He never did this. He was "exploring" it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
65. So the OP is untrue?
Yikes.

I expect facts and true information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cigar11 Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
49. What argument?
It's something Obama is for, and thus the GOP must repeal it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
great white snark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Whaaaa! Why didn't he do this sooner?
I'm sure a decision like this has to be scrutinized by many people for as much time needed but......I want it all and I wanted it yesterday!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It wasn't campaign season before
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. So nothing good he does counts because "it's election season"?
I love your logic, I really do.

He doesn't even have an opponent yet. If he really wanted this to have an impact on the GE he'd have done it in June or July 2012, not now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
38. The poster asked "why now?" I gave him the answer. You failed to understand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
72. This doesn't count because he never actually did it. OP is false.
Article is from April and as the article states he was only "drafting" this, he never actually did it. Apparently due to Republican opposition from what I've read in other responses to this thread.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Any port in a storm...
:shrug:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Really? Someone posts a positive accomplishment of the President, and you take it as...
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 06:40 PM by ClassWarrior
...an opportunity to slam your fellow DUers who only want a better America as quickly as possible?

What could possibly be the purpose of that?

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
43. When was it accomplished? The article, which is from APRIL, says "draft".
So where is the article that says he actually did it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Everone wanted Obama to fight and it looks like we are going get what we wanted
I really believe we are going to continue to see more of this...Anyone with half a brain knows this needed doing...but Obama still wanted their co-operation, he knows it's not going to happed sooooooo, here we go...the ride will be bumpy and there may be wrecks along the way...Hang on.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. I'm sorry it took him so long to see that he had to play hardball, but...
...better late than never!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
44. NO! This is from APRIL. Apparently nothing ever actually happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. What about if these companies donate it to a PAC or something similar -will they still have to tell?
i would hope so or that would be the hugest loophole ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. K & R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. Delicious! Recommend!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. Hans A. von Spakovsky...remember him?
Gonzales's water boy at the Just Us dept during the Attorney Gate firings.
I see he landed on his feet with the ultra right Heritage Foundation.

which reminds me..did Gonzo ever find a job????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
64. Yeah. He hangs out here at Pajamas Media.
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 04:30 PM by chill_wind
Or at least for the time he posited his story on this:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/leaked-obama-executive-order-in... /

Which is where the hornets' nest got started among the RW, as far as I can gather.


Per sourcewatch (this may not be current anymore)



"Other luminaries on Pajamas' current roster of editorial board members include:
Tammy Bruce, an author, former president of the National Organization for Women's Los Angeles chapter, host of 'The Tammy Bruce Show,' flag-shipped at KABC-AM (Los Angeles) and heard on more than 160 affiliates, and the personality behind www.tammybruce.com
John Podhoretz, a New York Post columnist, Fox News contributor, and blogger for the National Review Online's 'The Corner'
Richard Fernandez, a Sydney, Australia-based software developer and author of the widely-read 'Belmont Club' blog
Jane Hall, an assistant professor at American University's School of Communication and weekly panelist of Fox News Watch
Dr. Michael Ledeen, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and expert on U.S. foreign policy
Clifford D. May, a veteran news reporter, foreign correspondent and editor at The New York Times, and currently president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism
Tim Blair, an Australia-based blogging pioneer and author of 'Tim Blair'
Marc Cooper, an award-winning author, journalist, and contributor for the The Nation, and author of 'Marc Cooper'
Mark Steyn, a noted, internationally syndicated journalist covering global politics and current affairs
Adam Bellow, a widely-respected Random House editor and son of Nobel Prize-winner Saul Bellow




http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pajamas_Medi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajamas_Media


Michael frikken Ledeen :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. Excellent.
Go on now. Executive Order your ass off.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. Cool. Thanks Prez!
NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
47. Thanks for what? He didn't do anything. It was a draft and the article is from April. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Why Syzygy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
18. Decent start.
Much more restraint on the money grabbers is needed. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
20. Good move nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
21. This article is from April and talks about an EO Obama was "reported to be" working on.
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 10:13 PM by woo me with science
Nearly seven month later, I can find no evidence that anything like this was ever produced or signed.

Do we have any more recent evidence that this is even on the President's agenda anymore?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
23. All in good time. Many government contractors are likely hedging their GOP donations...
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 10:38 PM by ClarkUSA
... which was probably the desired effect. When Pres. Obama does sign it, I'm sure there will be a big deal made out of it, given the populist sentiment which a majority of Americans sympathize with, according to recent polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. As far as I can find, Obama never did sign any order like this.
Your article reference even offers that Obama is EXPLORING the use of an executive order in regard to CU. I don't think he ever did. This story is from April.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I'm sure he will in good time. There will be a public event out of it, too.
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 10:27 PM by ClarkUSA
The most important thing is the threat of it is probably keeping many government contractors from donating too much to right wing PACs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Thank you for finally acknowledging that he did not sign such an order,
and for deleting your nasty comment accusing me of unreccing you and of not bothering to do a search to find a signed order that does not exist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Your attempt to move the goalpost is a FAIL. Pres. Obama's actions have no doubt had an effect.
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 11:04 PM by ClarkUSA
When he does sign the executive order, I'll expect you to credit him highly for doing it, since it's such a big deal for you. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Oh, Clark. You posted an article giving the impression that such an order is currently
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 11:13 PM by woo me with science
on the President's agenda, when there is no evidence to back that up.

When I challenged you, you posted a photo and a link to somebody's BLOG post, exclaiming in large font that Obama had actually SIGNED such an order. Then you accused me of not bothering to search for the order.

Your own article didn't even say that. Your own article said it was "reported" that he was "drafting" such an order.

A simple search on the White House website shows that no such order was ever signed. This "report" talking about a draft order is from over seven months ago.

Your OP gave people the impression that an order like this was imminent, when it was, in fact, based on an article over seven months old, with no more recent information even to suggest that such a thing is still on the radar.

Maybe it was an honest mistake, but being belligerent about it does not help your case.

I think you owe this community a clarification OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. lol! That's a false statement. You clearly didn't read the article or are conflating a strawman.
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 11:17 PM by ClarkUSA
If anything, this OP's facts prove once again that President Obama is on the side of the 99% before there was any OWS.

When he does sign the executive order, I'll expect you to credit him highly for doing it, since it's such a big deal for you. :sarcasm:

Bookmarking for that moment, woo me with science. I hope you won't be moving the goalpost once again or dismissing his actions with some minimizing rhetoric such as, "He should have done it sooner!!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Oh, Clark.
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 12:15 AM by woo me with science
You can save the LOL's and the sarcasm. I truly am not interested in fighting with you. These posts were needed, because the date on the article did not make sense along with the breathless implications of the OP. People were reccing based on the impression that there was evidence this had happened or was about to happen.

And as an aside, I honestly believe that you believed the order had been signed. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have posted that link to somebody's blog post saying that, along with the picture of him holding a pen. And you wouldn't have had to edit out your original snark to me about not bothering to look up the order.

I hope he does end up signing the draft. I really do. And you can LOL all you like if it happens; it won't mean a thing to me, because my interest here is not in victory over you. In fact, I wish you *did* have evidence that such an action was imminent or actually being considered. It would be a nice little bone to the 99 percent in a sea of grave disappointments. But your OP needed clarification, Clark. It was misleading, and that's a real shame.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Blossom Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. That was surreal. Kudos on your persistance. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Thank you. nt
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 10:48 AM by woo me with science
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #34
60. Wow.
You have much more patience then I do. My hat is off to you. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
95. This is the difference between someone who actually cares about policy
and another whose agenda is political gamesmanship.

Thanks for your perseverance and your commitment to reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. You linked to somebody's blog. The article itself says no such thing.
The article itself says only that it was "reported" that he was "drafting" such an executive order.

It does not say it was ever signed.

I have been through the list of executive orders a couple of times, and I don't see anything at all like this.

Clark, save the snark. First, I didn't unrec you; I asked for more information, because your claim is not making sense. Here is the list of Obama's executive orders this year, from the White House website. I even went back as far as January for you.





Executive Orders 2011

October 07, 2011
Executive Order -- Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information
October 06, 2011
Executive Order -- Emergency Board to Investigate Disputes Between Certain Railroads
October 03, 2011
Message from the President to Congress Regarding the District of Columbia's 2012 Budget Request Act
September 30, 2011
Executive Order--Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees
September 09, 2011
Executive Order--Developing an Integrated Strategic Counterterrorism Communications Initiative
August 18, 2011
Executive Order--Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce
August 18, 2011
Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria
July 25, 2011
Executive Order--Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations
July 12, 2011
Executive Order--Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska
July 11, 2011
Executive Order--Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies
July 06, 2011
Executive Order--Coordinating Policies on Automotive Communities and Workers
June 15, 2011
Executive Order--SelectUSA Initiative
June 13, 2011
Executive Order--Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government
June 09, 2011
Executive Order - Establishment of the White House Rural Council
May 23, 2011
Executive Order Concerning Further Sanctions on Iran
May 18, 2011
Executive Order--Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria
April 29, 2011
Executive Order --Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria
April 27, 2011
Executive Order--Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service
April 18, 2011
Executive Order -- Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to North Korea
March 08, 2011
Executive Order--Extending Provisions of the International Organization Immunities Act
March 07, 2011
Executive Order--Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantnamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
February 25, 2011
Executive Order--Libya
February 08, 2011
Executive Order -- Establishment of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Advisory Committees
January 31, 2011
Executive Order -- The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness
January 18, 2011
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review - Executive Order
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Reposted above. nt
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 10:57 PM by woo me with science


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. The fact Pres. Obama drafted an executive order is enough to make contractors uneasy...
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 11:03 PM by ClarkUSA
... and very careful about the size of their GOP donations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. People do not understand political strategy...
Or they simply do not care because bashing Obama is the most important thing right now.

It amazes me that articles reporting Obama getting campaign donations from bundlers with ties to lobbyist makes the headline article on the front page but Elizabeth Warren getting donations directly from lobbyist is a non story! Not just any lobbyist but GE lobbyist...The Company that does not pay any Federal Taxes!

I love Elizabeth Warren & like Obama I trust her to do what is right once elected so I don't care so much as how they raise money as long as it is legal because i know the system is such that if you don't have money you don't win!

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. We understand disinformation and propaganda.
This has nothing to do with bashing Obama. Where has anyone bashed Obama in this thread?

woo me's posts had everything to do with truth and accuracy. You have a problem with that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
70. The "fact"? Statistics please. Since it is a "fact" I'm sure you have them.
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 05:22 PM by cui bono
Or is it a "fact" like the OP heading?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
24. Yaybama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
35. Has he put any ink in the pen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nancy Waterman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
39. Evidently Republicans went crazy over this
And some Dems also opposed it. Still, I think he should get to it now.
Here is the latest I could find, dated July:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/obama-executive-ord...

When the executive order leaked, it was criticized from some unlikely corners. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the number two Democrat in the House, said he opposed the order because the disclosure requirement applied to top executives at contractors. Also in opposition are Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), not to mention a slew of Congressional Republicans and trade groups.

A persistent critic has been Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who has repeatedly offered amendments attempting to prevent any executive order on disclosure of donations. On the House floor Thursday, Cole again offered his own amendment to block donation transparency by contractors, saying the order would inject politics into the contracting process and frighten contractors and their top brass from making campaign contributions. "This would clearly chill the Constitutionally-protected right to donate to political parties, candidates, and causes of one's choice," Cole said. "And I think frankly that's exactly what the proposed executive order is intended to do."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. Which explains why he never actually did it. Backed down I guess. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
41. THIS IS FROM APRIL!!! NOTHING EVER HAPPENED!!!
Not to mention this already got posted here yesterday.

Is this the new talking point???

FFS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
42. K&R...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
50. All talk
No action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
52. This OP is more than a little misleading.
It reports an event that NEVER happened.

I will assume that this was done by mistake,
and that for the sake of honesty and credibility
the OP WILL post a correction.


The article cited by the OP is from last APRIL,
and it clearly states:

"...it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order..."


Just last week,
I was "drafting" a design for a low cost space vehicle with a plasma drive that would carry colonists to Mars.
I Struck Back against the high cost of Space Travel!!
Unfortunately, I lost the bar napkin with my original draft. :(



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by an unconfirmed report of a draft for an Executive Order.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. ^LOL^
I wonder if ClarkUSA will start posting under a new name. :7

By their blue links we shall know them. :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
53. Why did you omit the date on this story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
54. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Welcome back!...
:hi:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. WOOT!!!!!!!!!
HOWDY! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
55. ClarkUSA - Why did you post this yesterday, where did you read or see it?
Trying to understand why this story suddenly resurfaced yesterday.

Thanks.

See this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Anyone else find this strange - what are the chances of this happening?
A 6 month old post from a blog gets posted to two separate forums within 16 minutes, just found that to be weird...






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. he's - I mean THEY'RE s***ing bricks right now, vowing to be more careful
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. This had to come from somewhere, maybe here ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #59
68. That's odd, the post revealing the Truth is locked, the misleading ones..not.
Wonder whats up with that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Yeah, and I alerted on the ones that are flat out wrong but nothing happened
yet the one pointing out the truth was locked and the Mod said to use the alert function and not call out another thread.

But the two threads that make this place look like Faux News are still up.

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #69
75. I alerted as well ...
guess we want to be fair and balanced.

:evilgrin:





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #69
87. bookmarked.
for unintentional irony, and to provide an example of the hypocritical standard of indigence relating to posts that are "flat out wrong."

Thanks for your help in this effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #68
74. I wonder too, and since we do not know why this story suddenly resurfaced yesterday ...
and cannot discuus it here, something like this will probably happen again.

:(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. There must be an underlying purpose, and there seems to be
intent to mislead, so what could the posters have hoped to accomplish? I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Only one reason comes to mind, doubt it was the other party ...
undoubtedly we'll see more of this from both sides in the next year, hopefully people will be more careful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. Someone in another DU post said they saw it on another forum, also.
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 03:22 PM by woo me with science
I suspect talking points are being issued and are being repeated. Someone in some office was probably stupid enough to try to use this article as a suggested post.

I got the impression that Clark actually believed that the order had been passed, as he linked to an erroneous (planted?) BLOG post celebrating the passage and snarked at me for not bothering to look up the executive order. He quickly deleted those comments as soon as it became clear that the order never was signed.

Even if some initially repeated it without realizing what they were doing, it is the responses after the truth is exposed that show best who cares about accuracy versus spreading propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #61
71. Looked around earlier and the only source I came up with was this page - lynkly
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

lynkly - This is the only current thing I can find - Top trending links on Facebook and Twitter

It may have been the top link for yesterday???
http://lynk.ly/stories/view/1241990

This old story is still listed at the bottom of their homepage today.
http://lynk.ly /

"In a similar fashion, we predict the popularity of stories that are being shared around the world by using social networks. Help us achieve that goal by connecting your Facebook and Twitter feeds with lynkly!
http://lynk.ly/page/about


"Even if some initially repeated it without realizing what they were doing, it is the responses after the truth is exposed that show best who cares about accuracy versus spreading propaganda."

:applause:

This is so true, all one has to do is scan the subject line of replies to see people were pointing out this was old and not true, yet people continued to knr and think it was a wonderful thing.

:crazy:







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #61
78. The censorship scares me.
Democratic Underground was where I went to to get the TRUTH when Bush was President.

D.U. should not cease to be a reputable source for information just because a Democrat is in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Censorship and propaganda are very disturbing.
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 08:28 PM by woo me with science
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
67. Since the OP is false and misleading, please speculate on it's "Purpose"
I'm curious as to the intent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. As with everything one reads, one must consider the source. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
80. ClarkUSA, did you intentionally attempt to mislead fellow DU'ers with this OP?
I am curious as to your reason for posting it as if (1) it was current, and (2) that it actually happened...which it didn't. What was/is your motivation, and what did you hope to accomplish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. How's that draft coming, President Obama? Finished yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
81. This is great!
Edited on Fri Oct-28-11 09:00 PM by Puglover
A misleading post from 6 months ago has 80 recs in this forum. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-28-11 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. "Great", or simply par for the course? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
84. Anyone can make a mistake.
I expect any member of our community to post a correction/apology after mistakenly posting demonstrably false information.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Yawn. The OP is a FACT which many ignored at the time. Any outrage is a red herring.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 01:02 PM by ClarkUSA
In fact, a very similar OP in GD got even more recs. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #85
100. Yet this "fact" has no effect, in reality.
I'm sure it's also true that he had a bowel movement that day, yet it changed nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbie Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. bookmarked.
This "expectation" should apply across the board, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. Absolutely!
Edited on Sat Oct-29-11 03:52 PM by bvar22
We are in agreement on three items.
1) The information presented by the OP is demonstrably false,
and it is fitting & proper to point this out.

2)Everyone should be held to the same standard.

On Edit:
3)Anyone can make a mistake.
Adults are not afraid to admit mistakes & correct them.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
89. I am in awe of the sheer amount of PANIC this OP inspired
As has been breathlessly posted about 16 times in this thread, this article is 6 months old. And yet, folks just keep posting and kicking the thread in their determination to prove that it's ALL LIESS!!!one

It appears that a draft was created. Republicans as expected, pushed back hard. Not sure what happened after that though this piece says it was still being worked on as late as July. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/21/an-executive-orde... /

Whatever the case, the wailing and flailing over this is ridiculous. If it's an old article, people could have just posted that and kept going. But I guess the temptation to deny that this was an issue that the president was even working on was too great for some. Oh well, at least you got 69 recs out of all of that screeching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. I know what you mean!
The dissemination and propagation of bogus, misleading, or outright false information at DU is such a little thing.
Why would anyone get their panties in a twist? :shrug:
Some people just need to get a life!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. Yeah! And you DEFINITELY should know about all of that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. The OP is a total lie
To post a thread which basicaly states that the President signed an executive order, which he didn't sign, is plain old fashioned lying. This isn't about Obama it is about the OP writer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. The OP is only a lie to those who cannot read
It doesn't say that the president signed an EO. It says that the president created a draft which is apparently exactly what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. The clear implication is he did so this week
which is a lie. He did it months ago. I certainly took it to mean he had decided to really issue the order he had thought about issuing months ago. No date is supplied in the OP. Anyone reading that OP was left with the clear impression that on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 Obama drafted this order. Not on some Wed in March. Oh, and BTW the author of the OP claimed that there was such a signed order until someone literally found and printed the title of every single order issued this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. As you just proved so beautifully again,
the OP was only a "lie" to those who cannot read. The first thing I do whenever I see an OP is check the source and the date.

It is clear on the link that it was from April. It's also clear that that the article was only in reference to a draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. He should have posted the date
or edited the quote (which he did for his benefit by highlighting certain passages). He could have avoided the whole mess by changing Wednesday to April whatever. Instead he posted a seven month old article and then told actual lies as opposed to lies of ommission later in the thread. I notice you don't address that conduct. I can understand why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Could have, should have.
I am sure many, many people here feel that many of your posts "could have" been done differently as well

Hopefully, we're now done with this pointless conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnie Donating Member (706 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-11 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
90. As long as the order is simply requiring disclosure and not
using that information to determine who gets the contracts.

However does the order allow public disclosure or is the information secret?
Other wise the order will have the opposite effect that we want it to have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov 25th 2014, 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC