Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, I'm talking about the corrosive appearances. I don't think Barack Obama had a quid pro quo with Cantor Fitzpatrick. I do think that his taking that money from them will cause some people to think he did, and some of them will be swing voters.
I think you're missing my point. See this by Jeffrey Toobin, for example. Citizens United OK'd a lot of conduct which does not involve a quid pro quo and which, nonetheless, a lot of lefties view as corrupt in a broader sense. It would have been better for Democrats if Obama had not taken the $400K. |
Dems (and everyone sensible) need to work on requiring even-handed disclosure of financial relationships across the board and prohibitions of actual conflicts, not prohibiting anything that might trigger paranoia whether it is a problem or not. Those are laws we can get through and that will make sense, and they would really help a lot right now.
Focusing your time and energy on Obama taking a speaking fee after he's left office at a time when we have a President who has made minimal disclosure of his financial ties at a point while his children are cutting deals we don't know about in the white house with foreign powers is insanity.
