McCain/Lobbyists 2008

[WinCrimson 61]

It's essentially what it would be...

The veteran political operative chosen by Sen. John McCain to run the Republican National Convention this summer abruptly resigned yesterday after Newsweek reported that the lobbying and public relations firm he heads once represented the Burmese government.

Doug Goodyear, the chief executive and co-founder of DCI Group, said in a statement that he resigned the post "so as not to become a distraction in this campaign."

DCI, a well-known Republican firm that provides lobbying services mostly for corporate interests, was paid $348,000 in 2002 and 2003 to represent Burma's junta, Newsweek reported on its Web site yesterday.

"It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," Newsweek quoted Goodyear as saying.

News outlets including The Washington Post have previously reported on the firm's links to Burma's military leaders, including that it arranged meetings with White House officials to press the generals' agenda, but the ties gained new relevance in the wake of two recent developments.

The first was the McCain campaign's choice earlier this month of Goodyear as convention coordinator, citing his management skill. The second was the junta's response to Tropical Cyclone Nargis's ravaging of Burma, also called Myanmar, where as many as 100,000 people are dead or missing from the storm.

The Burmese government has drawn international condemnation for blocking international relief organizations from distributing much-needed food and supplies to the more than 1 million residents left homeless by the storm.

Goodyear told Newsweek that the junta's handling of the cyclone crisis has been "reprehensible."

Goodyear, a resident of McCain's home state of Arizona, co-founded DCI Group in 1996 after being active in politics, according to the firm's Web site. He was political director for the Colorado GOP in the 1980s and managed Pete Dawkins's unsuccessful 1988 U.S. Senate campaign in New Jersey.

As national convention coordinator, Goodyear served as a liaison between the McCain campaign and the national party.

Matt Burns, a convention spokesman, said the convention staff will proceed with mapping out details of the event, to run Sept. 1-4 in St. Paul, Minn.

"We're going to have a successful convention in September," Burns said. "We look forward to it, and planning is moving forward, as it has been for more than a year."

Maria Cino, who served as deputy transportation secretary to President Bush, is the president and chief of the convention.

McCain has been attacked by rivals for allowing his campaign to be run by lobbyists and former lobbyists, despite his own rhetoric against special interests. His inner circle of staffers include senior adviser Charles Black, who recently left his lobbying firm to join the campaign full time, and campaign manager Rick Davis, who also had once been a registered lobbyist.

DCI's many clients over the years have included General Motors, Exxon Mobil, Verizon and Morgan Stanley, according to federal disclosure forms. The firm is expert in targeting voters and persuading them to contact their elected officials, a mechanism called grass-roots lobbying. But it has also lobbied lawmakers directly and has registered to lobby for a long list of clients at the federal level.

WaPo

[AUTiger1 0]

Didn't Obama have a foreign policy adviser resign for meeting with Hamas? Does this mean it will essentially be Obama/Hamas 2008? Not trying to drop a one liner on you here, but I think it only fair to point this out. If you are going to attack McCain on him having a lobbyists on his campaign to resign, then it should be pointed out that Obama had foreign policy adviser resign over a meeting with Hamas.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Didn't Obama have a foreign policy adviser resign for meeting with Hamas? Does this mean it will essentially be Obama/Hamas 2008? Not trying to drop a one liner on you here, but I think it only fair to point this out. If you are going to attack McCain on him having a lobbyists on his campaign to resign, then it should be pointed out that Obama had foreign policy adviser resign over a meeting with Hamas.

Link?

[AUTiger1 0]

Didn't Obama have a foreign policy adviser resign for meeting with Hamas? Does this mean it will essentially be Obama/Hamas 2008? Not trying to drop a one liner on you here, but I think it only fair to point this out. If you are going to attack McCain on him having a lobbyists on his campaign to resign, then it should be pointed out that Obama had foreign policy adviser resign over a meeting with Hamas.

Link?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/943467,...Sweet11.article ----Chicago Sun Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3897414.ece -----TimesOnline UK

There's two for you.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Didn't Obama have a foreign policy adviser resign for meeting with Hamas? Does this mean it will essentially be Obama/Hamas 2008? Not trying to drop a one liner on you here, but I think it only fair to point this out. If you are going to attack McCain on him having a lobbyists on his campaign to resign, then it should be pointed out that Obama had foreign policy adviser resign over a meeting with Hamas.

Link?

Damn you have waited months to make that post haven't you?

But as you can see he did it. It really isn't hard.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Didn't Obama have a foreign policy adviser resign for meeting with Hamas? Does this mean it will essentially be Obama/Hamas 2008? Not trying to drop a one liner on you here, but I think it only fair to point this out. If you are going to attack McCain on him having a lobbyists on his campaign to resign, then it should be pointed out that Obama had foreign policy adviser resign over a meeting with Hamas.

Link?

Damn you have waited months to make that post haven't you?

But as you can see he did it. It really isn't hard.

Just wanted to make sure we were "Fair and Balanced"

FOX NEWS

[Tiger Al 0]

Does this mean it will essentially be Obama/Hamas 2008?

Not likely. From your link:

"Sen. Obama strongly opposes talking to Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction. As president, he will work to isolate Hamas and target its resources, and rejects any dialogue until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abides by previous agreements."

Opposes and rejects. I wonder, has McCain opposed or rejected any of the whackjobs he's aligned himself with?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Does this mean it will essentially be Obama/Hamas 2008?

Not likely. From your link:

"Sen. Obama strongly opposes talking to Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction. As president, he will work to isolate Hamas and target its resources, and rejects any dialogue until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abides by previous agreements."

But on the other hand Obama has stated his intention to negotiate with terrorists states (and terrorists) with no preconditions. Which is in his official policy statements. So which is it?

[autigeremt 6,717]

Obama wants to dance with the Devil to see how it feels. Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbolah.......next he will want to offer Osama Bin Laden a chance to reconcile and sign a peace treaty with him.

Are we going to look at history and learn instead of making the same mistakes over, and over, and over again when it comes to our ememies and foriegn policy???? I'd be all for isolationism, but WWII proved that it would only create a much larger problem.

[AUTiger1 0]

So, let me get this straight, McCain has stated before that he will not pander to lobbyist, and has one that was on his campaign to step down, so it is automatically condemn him to Hell for his evilness?

Obama has a foreign policy adviser step down for meeting with Hamas, when Obama has said he is against meeting with them, and I am supposed to jump for joy?

Hard to see past that double standard.

[autigeremt 6,717]

So, let me get this straight, McCain has stated before that he will not pander to lobbyist, and has one that was on his campaign to step down, so it is automatically condemn him to Hell for his evilness?

Obama has a foreign policy adviser step down for meeting with Hamas, when Obama has said he is against meeting with them, and I am supposed to jump for joy?

Hard to see past that double standard.

Hmmm.....I see what your saying, and it has some validity (even though the lobbyist in question was a friend of McCain prior to that career choice, and I expect a shot back about the Aires or 20 years with Wright) but here's the delima:

Hamas v/s a Lobbyist.

I see your point oh so clearly now.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, let me get this straight, McCain has stated before that he will not pander to lobbyist, and has one that was on his campaign to step down, so it is automatically condemn him to Hell for his evilness?

Obama has a foreign policy adviser step down for meeting with Hamas, when Obama has said he is against meeting with them, and I am supposed to jump for joy?

Hard to see past that double standard.

I think it's a double-standard of your own making and condemnations to hell are an overreaction.

Lobbyists jobs are to schmooze politicians with special favors in order to garner special favors for whatever special interest they represent. McCain co-sponsored a bill that would restrict/eliminate this, yet, he welcomes them into his campaign to advise him on policies. If he wanted to, for example, formulate an energy policy, wouldn't there be other people as qualified to involve other than lobbyists (employees) for the oil companies, especially since McCain stated he won't pander to lobbyists? We've already had 8 years of the fox guarding the hen house.

Rob Malley, on the other hand, has met with Hamas and, I would assume, others. By his own admission, from your article, "He told NBC News that his job "is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say."" Among his areas of expertise, according to the International Crisis Group's website, are the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestinian politics as well as developments in the United States that affect policy toward the Middle East. I don't know how he could do all that while pretending that Hamas doesn't exist. That Obama could get some firsthand insight into Hamas seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, I'm not sure I see the problem with talking to someone who talked to Hamas. He hasn't broken his word to not meet with them.

[AUTiger1 0]

So, let me get this straight, McCain has stated before that he will not pander to lobbyist, and has one that was on his campaign to step down, so it is automatically condemn him to Hell for his evilness?

Obama has a foreign policy adviser step down for meeting with Hamas, when Obama has said he is against meeting with them, and I am supposed to jump for joy?

Hard to see past that double standard.

I think it's a double-standard of your own making and condemnations to hell are an overreaction.

Lobbyists jobs are to schmooze politicians with special favors in order to garner special favors for whatever special interest they represent. McCain co-sponsored a bill that would restrict/eliminate this, yet, he welcomes them into his campaign to advise him on policies. If he wanted to, for example, formulate an energy policy, wouldn't there be other people as qualified to involve other than lobbyists (employees) for the oil companies, especially since McCain stated he won't pander to lobbyists? We've already had 8 years of the fox guarding the hen house.

Rob Malley, on the other hand, has met with Hamas and, I would assume, others. By his own admission, from your article, "He told NBC News that his job "is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say."" Among his areas of expertise, according to the International Crisis Group's website, are the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestinian politics as well as developments in the United States that affect policy toward the Middle East. I don't know how he could do all that while pretending that Hamas doesn't exist. That Obama could get some firsthand insight into Hamas seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, I'm not sure I see the problem with talking to someone who talked to Hamas. He hasn't broken his word to not meet with them.

Actually that was a sarcastic remark not an overreaction. Has there been any proof that McCain has taken any "special favors" from the lobbyist? So he can't have employees of oil companies give him advice on energy policies b/c they either have lobbying firms hired or lobbyist on staff? Wouldn't it be smart for both candidates to have Shell, Chevron, Texaco, Exxon and others talk to them about energy and tell them what the future may have in store as far as thier companies are concerned since they are some of the leading petroleum companies? We are still dependent on oil and this doesn't seem like that bad of an idea to me.

I know what Robert Malley's job is and that he has talked to Hamas. If it is so smart for Obama to get some of that "firsthand insight" then why let him go and "sever all links with him"? Was it the fact that it was going to become politically unpopular? I think this not to be a bad idea, even if it was Obama's.

The double standard is that McCain said no pandering to lobbyist, and had one resign from his campaign. Obama has stated that he will not have talks with Hamas, until they recognize Israel and denounce violence. Yet he had someone on his campaign that has done what he said he is not willing to do himself, also resign and we can slam McCain and not Obama. That is the way I am seeing this.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, let me get this straight, McCain has stated before that he will not pander to lobbyist, and has one that was on his campaign to step down, so it is automatically condemn him to Hell for his evilness?

Obama has a foreign policy adviser step down for meeting with Hamas, when Obama has said he is against meeting with them, and I am supposed to jump for joy?

Hard to see past that double standard.

I think it's a double-standard of your own making and condemnations to hell are an overreaction.

Lobbyists jobs are to schmooze politicians with special favors in order to garner special favors for whatever special interest they represent. McCain co-sponsored a bill that would restrict/eliminate this, yet, he welcomes them into his campaign to advise him on policies. If he wanted to, for example, formulate an energy policy, wouldn't there be other people as qualified to involve other than lobbyists (employees) for the oil companies, especially since McCain stated he won't pander to lobbyists? We've already had 8 years of the fox guarding the hen house.

Rob Malley, on the other hand, has met with Hamas and, I would assume, others. By his own admission, from your article, "He told NBC News that his job "is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say."" Among his areas of expertise, according to the International Crisis Group's website, are the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestinian politics as well as developments in the United States that affect policy toward the Middle East. I don't know how he could do all that while pretending that Hamas doesn't exist. That Obama could get some firsthand insight into Hamas seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, I'm not sure I see the problem with talking to someone who talked to Hamas. He hasn't broken his word to not meet with them.

Actually that was a sarcastic remark not an overreaction. Has there been any proof that McCain has taken any "special favors" from the lobbyist? So he can't have employees of oil companies give him advice on energy policies b/c they either have lobbying firms hired or lobbyist on staff? Wouldn't it be smart for both candidates to have Shell, Chevron, Texaco, Exxon and others talk to them about energy and tell them what the future may have in store as far as thier companies are concerned since they are some of the leading petroleum companies? We are still dependent on oil and this doesn't seem like that bad of an idea to me.

As long as there's transparency in the talks there's nothing wrong with it. Lobbyists usually avoid transparency, though, because they're only there to represent the interests of the group who hired them. I personally don't have a problem with McCain having them advise him at this point. He's the one who claims to have an aversion to lobbyists. McCain set this standard himself and I'd be curious why he's casting it aside already.

I know what Robert Malley's job is and that he has talked to Hamas. If it is so smart for Obama to get some of that "firsthand insight" then why let him go and "sever all links with him"? Was it the fact that it was going to become politically unpopular? I think this not to be a bad idea, even if it was Obama's.

It sounded to me, based on your article, that Malley was the one who severed the relationship. I'm with you, though. I don't have a problem discussing things with people I disagree with. It's healthy.

The double standard is that McCain said no pandering to lobbyist, and had one resign from his campaign. Obama has stated that he will not have talks with Hamas, until they recognize Israel and denounce violence. Yet he had someone on his campaign that has done what he said he is not willing to do himself, also resign and we can slam McCain and not Obama. That is the way I am seeing this.

Again, the only interest lobbyists represent is that of their employer and the company. Malley doesn't represent Hamas nor has Obama had talks with Hamas.

[arnaldoabru 11]

So, let me get this straight, McCain has stated before that he will not pander to lobbyist, and has one that was on his campaign to step down, so it is automatically condemn him to Hell for his evilness?

Obama has a foreign policy adviser step down for meeting with Hamas, when Obama has said he is against meeting with them, and I am supposed to jump for joy?

Hard to see past that double standard.

I think it's a double-standard of your own making and condemnations to hell are an overreaction.

Lobbyists jobs are to schmooze politicians with special favors in order to garner special favors for whatever special interest they represent. McCain co-sponsored a bill that would restrict/eliminate this, yet, he welcomes them into his campaign to advise him on policies. If he wanted to, for example, formulate an energy policy, wouldn't there be other people as qualified to involve other than lobbyists (employees) for the oil companies, especially since McCain stated he won't pander to lobbyists? We've already had 8 years of the fox guarding the hen house.

Rob Malley, on the other hand, has met with Hamas and, I would assume, others. By his own admission, from your article, "He told NBC News that his job "is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say."" Among his areas of expertise, according to the International Crisis Group's website, are the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestinian politics as well as developments in the United States that affect policy toward the Middle East. I don't know how he could do all that while pretending that Hamas doesn't exist. That Obama could get some firsthand insight into Hamas seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, I'm not sure I see the problem with talking to someone who talked to Hamas. He hasn't broken his word to not meet with them.

Actually that was a sarcastic remark not an overreaction. Has there been any proof that McCain has taken any "special favors" from the lobbyist? So he can't have employees of oil companies give him advice on energy policies b/c they either have lobbying firms hired or lobbyist on staff? Wouldn't it be smart for both candidates to have Shell, Chevron, Texaco, Exxon and others talk to them about energy and tell them what the future may have in store as far as thier companies are concerned since they are some of the leading petroleum companies? We are still dependent on oil and this doesn't seem like that bad of an idea to me.

I know what Robert Malley's job is and that he has talked to Hamas. If it is so smart for Obama to get some of that "firsthand insight" then why let him go and "sever all links with him"? Was it the fact that it was going to become politically unpopular? I think this not to be a bad idea, even if it was Obama's.

The double standard is that McCain said no pandering to lobbyist, and had one resign from his campaign. Obama has stated that he will not have talks with Hamas, until they recognize Israel and denounce violence. Yet he had someone on his campaign that has done what he said he is not willing to do himself, also resign and we can slam McCain and not Obama. That is the way I am seeing this.

Does Charles Keating count?

[Tigermike 3,055]

Does Charles Keating count?

Not as much as Bill Ayers, Jemimah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, Daniel Noriega & Fidel Castro.

Just saying.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Does Charles Keating count?

Not as much as Bill Ayers, Jemimah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, Daniel Noriega & Fidel Castro.

Just saying.

You left out Jeffery Dahmer, Pol Pot, Atilla the Hun,and Tim McVeigh

[Tigermike 3,055]

Does Charles Keating count?

Not as much as Bill Ayers, Jemimah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, Daniel Noriega & Fidel Castro.

Just saying.

You left out Jeffery Dahmer, Pol Pot, Atilla the Hun,and Tim McVeigh

A very juvenile attempt at deflection, but. All the ones you named are dead, but they could most likely vote in Chicago.

The ones I listed have all endorsed Obama.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Does Charles Keating count?

Not as much as Bill Ayers, Jemimah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, Daniel Noriega & Fidel Castro.

Just saying.

You left out Jeffery Dahmer, Pol Pot, Atilla the Hun,and Tim McVeigh

A very juvenile attempt at deflection, but. All the ones you named are dead, but they could most likely vote in Chicago.

The ones I listed have all endorsed Obama.

and the relevence of your endorsers are

Bill Ayers-radical 60's guy,planted bombs... now a college professor

Rev Wright- US Marine, took over small church,turned it into big church.Gave thousands of sermans,reduced to 2 crazy comments lasting about 30 seconds

Louis Farrakhan-does anyone even give a S#$T what he says

Hamas- proved wrong in another post

Daniel Noriega- if you google the name it comes up some guy who got kicked of American Idol

Fidel Castro-if he's not dead yet,it will not be long.I do love Cuban cigars though.Does that make me a tratior?

Of mine- they may be dead,but I bet the Federalist Society and Bill Kristol can figure out some way to link them to Obama.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Does Charles Keating count?

Not as much as Bill Ayers, Jemimah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, Daniel Noriega & Fidel Castro.

Just saying.

You left out Jeffery Dahmer, Pol Pot, Atilla the Hun,and Tim McVeigh

A very juvenile attempt at deflection, but. All the ones you named are dead, but they could most likely vote in Chicago.

The ones I listed have all endorsed Obama.

and the relevence of your endorsers are

Bill Ayers-radical 60's guy,planted bombs... now a college professor (and unrepentant and says he should have (bombed) more.)

Rev Wright- US Marine, took over small church,turned it into big church.Gave thousands of sermans,reduced to 2 crazy comments lasting about 30 seconds (have you gone through all those sermons? Yeah, yeah we all know Obama was asleep during those comments.)

Louis Farrakhan-does anyone even give a S#$T what he says (Wright does. Wright and Farrakhan knew Obama would have to distance himself from them.)

Hamas- proved wrong in another post (Oh no, no, no.)

Daniel Noriega- if you google the name it comes up some guy who got kicked of American Idol

Fidel Castro-if he's not dead yet,it will not be long.I do love Cuban cigars though.Does that make me a tratior? (No a bad speller.)

Of mine- they may be dead,but I bet the Federalist Society and Bill Kristol can figure out some way to link them to Obama.

See the difference is you are making a huge stretch and the ones I listed have made the endorsements.

[RunInRed 16,492]

John McCain's national finance co-chairman has stepped down — the latest adviser to leave the Republican senator's presidential campaign due to ties with lobbyists.

Former Texas Congressman Thomas G. Loeffler, a major fundraiser for McCain, is the fifth person to leave the campaign in the last eight days over questions about lobbying or past connections to lobbyists.

"Mr. Loeffler has resigned from his position with the campaign," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds told CNN Sunday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[arnaldoabru 11]

Does Charles Keating count?

Not as much as Bill Ayers, Jemimah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, Daniel Noriega & Fidel Castro.

Just saying.

You left out Jeffery Dahmer, Pol Pot, Atilla the Hun,and Tim McVeigh

A very juvenile attempt at deflection, but. All the ones you named are dead, but they could most likely vote in Chicago.

The ones I listed have all endorsed Obama.

and the relevence of your endorsers are

Bill Ayers-radical 60's guy,planted bombs... now a college professor (and unrepentant and says he should have (bombed) more.)

Rev Wright- US Marine, took over small church,turned it into big church.Gave thousands of sermans,reduced to 2 crazy comments lasting about 30 seconds (have you gone through all those sermons? Yeah, yeah we all know Obama was asleep during those comments.)

Louis Farrakhan-does anyone even give a S#$T what he says (Wright does. Wright and Farrakhan knew Obama would have to distance himself from them.)

Hamas- proved wrong in another post (Oh no, no, no.)

Daniel Noriega- if you google the name it comes up some guy who got kicked of American Idol

Fidel Castro-if he's not dead yet,it will not be long.I do love Cuban cigars though.Does that make me a tratior? (No a bad speller.)

Of mine- they may be dead,but I bet the Federalist Society and Bill Kristol can figure out some way to link them to Obama.

See the difference is you are making a huge stretch and the ones I listed have made the endorsements.

I'm still trying to find this Daniel Noriega guy?

[autigeremt 6,717]

John McCain's national finance co-chairman has stepped down — the latest adviser to leave the Republican senator's presidential campaign due to ties with lobbyists.

Former Texas Congressman Thomas G. Loeffler, a major fundraiser for McCain, is the fifth person to leave the campaign in the last eight days over questions about lobbying or past connections to lobbyists.

"Mr. Loeffler has resigned from his position with the campaign," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds told CNN Sunday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Let me give you a little information about the "connections" with lobbyists......McCain used a lot of people for his campaign who worked for free after he was left dead in the water last summer. The people who ran his finances in the ground were removed, and the McCain campaign reached out to anyone who was willing to help him regroup. As it turns out, some of these people were former lobbyists in Washington. After he (McCain) was able to bounce back and claim the nomination, his campaign had to dig into many of the advisers and associates they had allowed into the campain during the restructuring. That's when they found some flaws, and started culling them out.

McCain is not perfect, and he's not trying to tell you that. His record in the Senate speaks for itself. Obama can't even use his record, because he has little to show. Even his days in Illinois are filled with ties to land contractors who have sense been called to question and even indicted. Either way, associations are fair game, and McCain isn't immune to it. Obama just get's a pass with his through deflection and "I wasn't there" replies.

[RunInRed 16,492]

You mean his record of raising more private campaign dollars from the largest grass routes campaign this country has ever seen without taking a single dime from a federally registered lobbyist? Just checking.

[Tigermike 3,055]

You mean his record of raising more private campaign dollars from the largest grass routes campaign this country has ever seen without taking a single dime from a federally registered lobbyist? Just checking.

Would you like to expand that statement?

If it quacks like a lobbyist, it's a lobbyist

In his speeches and his TV ads, Barack Obama criticizes the influence of lobbyists.

"I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," he says in the television spot. "But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

The announcer says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."

But his anti-lobbyist policy includes one caveat and a few loopholes that weaken his claim to be funding his political campaign in a way that's truly different from his competitors.

He almost always qualifies his statement to note that he won't take money from federal lobbyists, a distinction that allows him to accept money from well-connected state lobbyists.

For example, South Florida lobbyist Russ Klenet and his wife will host a fundraising event in Broward County for Obama on August 25. Klenet represents state groups such as the Florida Association of Mortgage Brokers, but also companies such as Match.com and Election Systems & Software.

And Obama still accepts tens of thousands of dollars from people who work for Washington firms that do substantial lobbying. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is an Obama contributor who isn't a registered lobbyist, but works as a consultant for Alston & Bird, a lobbying firm in Washington.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that Obama accepted $55,019 from employees at lobbying firms, and much more from companies that are not classified as lobbying firms but have lobbying divisions.

So we give Obama's statement a Half-True on the Truth-O-Meter. While Obama can accurately say that he does not accept money from federally registered lobbyists, he still accepts thousands from people in the influence industry.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/32/

Don't bother, there is no doubt what your answer will be. But I do have to ask, is that deflection or nuance?