AT&T says "thank you" to Democrats for telcom immunity at DNC

[IAMX 3,055]

.. and #### our rights. Way to go Democrats.

What's this #### I keep hearing about change we can hope for?

Change?! Hah. Before you think Democrats represent, in the slightest, the middle class worker, or the lower class worker, or even the upper middle class worker, consider these two damning articles that just came out to put a foot in the ### of "change". Salon got some very nice footage:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/...7835&page=2

The Influence Game in Denver: What Are They Hiding?

Not even the emotionally charged speech by Sen. Ted Kennedy kept corporate lobbyists from carrying out their multi-million dollar campaign to wine and dine and influence Democratic lawmakers at a series of lavish parties last night in Denver.

Nor did the speech by Sen. Barack Obama's wife, Michelle.

Dozens of private corporate parties continued through the convention hours, ABC News found.

At one large party thrown by large financial institutions, including CitiGroup, Merrill Lynch and UBS, television monitors showed the speeches, but the audio was drowned out by a live jazz band.

Party sponsors attempted to block ABC News cameras from taking pictures of the scene.

(Watch Brian Ross on the Money Trail tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.)

"This is all under the radar," said Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit group that has tried to track the hundreds of convention parties planned by corporations for Democrats in Denver and Republicans in St. Paul.

"That's where money meets power, behind closed doors," said Miller, "the parties and events that are really just set aside for the most elite."

The millions being spent on entertaining and parties is a result of loopholes created by Congress in its own ethics reform law passed last year, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, Miller says.

Outside one gathering last night, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) said it was "his duty" to attend lobbyist and corporate parties.

"You must visit, make sure the food they serve is okay, that it passes the taste test and the liquor is the right vintage. Other than that, it's one's responsibility," Sen. Lautenberg told ABC News, with his tongue apparently in his cheek.

Ethics watchdog groups say there's nothing funny about it.

"It's a very unhealthy, symbiotic relationship between elected officials and lobbyists," Miller said.

For example, while the new law bans certain seated dinners, it does not ban "finger food" being passed, as long as no one is sitting down.

So Denver chefs have been told to find ways to turn their creations into food that can be served on a toothpick or a spoon, but not forks or knives.

Chef Jennifer Jasinski, of Denver's Rioja restaurant, said for her ribs dish, she created "a little spoon just specially made for the convention since they couldn't have a fork."

The new ethics law prohibits parties in honor of one particular member of Congress, but does not prohibit a party for two or three or ten members, or an entire state delegation.

"It's really the same old, same old," said Miller.

"It was Mark Hanna, an old time Republican politico in the late 1800's who said 'there are two important things in politics. The first is money. And I can't remember what the second one is'."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...dogs/index.html

AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party

Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. Matt Stoller has one of the listings for the party here.

Armed with full-scale Convention press credentials issued by the DNC, I went -- along with Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Stoller and others -- in order to cover the event, interview the attendees, and videotape the festivities. There was a wall of private security deployed around the building, and after asking where the press entrance was, we were told by the security officials, after they consulted with event organizers, that the press was barred from the event, and that only those with invitations could enter -- notwithstanding the fact that what was taking place in side was a meeting between one of the nation's largest corporations and the numerous members of the most influential elected faction in Congress. As a result, we stood in front of the entrance and began videotaping and trying to interview the parade of Blue Dog Representatives, AT&T executives, assorted lobbyists and delegates who pulled up in rented limousines, chauffeured cars, and SUVs in order to find out who was attending and why AT&T would be throwing such a lavish party for the Blue Dog members of Congress.

Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests.

It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions -- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of -- let alone involvement in -- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation -- AT&T -- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears -- virtually attached to it -- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.

The only other media which even attempted to cover the AT&T/Blue Dog event was Democracy Now -- they were also barred from entering. I was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning to discuss what happened. They put together a 5-minute video montage, including our efforts to enter the event and interview the guests, which they broadcast before my segment. The video and my segment can be seen and/or heard here -- it begins at the 1:00 mark. A transcript will be posted shortly.

Jane Hamsher also filmed some of what transpired, and Salon has created our own video of last night, including the efforts by the private security teams and Denver Police to prevent us from standing on public property to interview the arriving members of Congress and AT&T executives and lobbyists. That will be posted shortly. There's nothing unusual about this event -- other than that it was more forcibly private than most and just a tad more brazenly sleazy. The democracy-themed stagecraft inside the Convention is for public television consumption, but secret little events of this sort are why people are really here. Just as is true in Washington, this is where -- and how and by whom -- the business of our Government is conducted.

UPDATE: Here is the video from last night's festivities, with our attempt to interview various attendees and interactions with the private security forces and Police -- filmed by Jane Hamsher and edited by Salon's Caitlin Shamberg:

(check out the link for the video)

For some this won't be surprising, but a good portion of this country, of both parties, need to give their heads a shake and consider their bickering back and forth for two parties that do NOT represent them, and that's the way both parties want it. If people believe in the free market, or freedom of choice, it's certainly time to start putting emphasis on choice and consider alternatives.

[Ban Hammer 14,614]

exactly why the usa needs a 3rd party.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yes I did find that to be quite disgusting.

[dalegg 143]

.. and #### our rights. Way to go Democrats.

What's this #### I keep hearing about change we can hope for?

Change?! Hah. Before you think Democrats represent, in the slightest, the middle class worker, or the lower class worker, or even the upper middle class worker, consider these two damning articles that just came out to put a foot in the ### of "change".

Come on man. You have to admit that having the Democrats in power would be a little bit different than having a Republican. I'm gonna side with you that its not going to be some massive dramatic shift, but we're never going to wake up one day and be 180 degrees in another direction overnight. That's probably not even a good idea. You've got to take baby steps. The money that drives politicians is fact of life. Politics is politics and every candidate has to do things they don't really want to do so they can get some of the things they really want to do accomplished.

[HAL 9000 96]

.. and #### our rights. Way to go Democrats.

What's this #### I keep hearing about change we can hope for?

Change?! Hah. Before you think Democrats represent, in the slightest, the middle class worker, or the lower class worker, or even the upper middle class worker, consider these two damning articles that just came out to put a foot in the ### of "change".

Come on man. You have to admit that having the Democrats in power would be a little bit different than having a Republican. I'm gonna side with you that its not going to be some massive dramatic shift, but we're never going to wake up one day and be 180 degrees in another direction overnight. That's probably not even a good idea. You've got to take baby steps. The money that drives politicians is fact of life. Politics is politics and every candidate has to do things they don't really want to do so they can get some of the things they really want to do accomplished.

Only those in denial would disagree with you Dale.

[IAMX 3,055]

.. and #### our rights. Way to go Democrats.

What's this #### I keep hearing about change we can hope for?

Change?! Hah. Before you think Democrats represent, in the slightest, the middle class worker, or the lower class worker, or even the upper middle class worker, consider these two damning articles that just came out to put a foot in the ### of "change".

Come on man. You have to admit that having the Democrats in power would be a little bit different than having a Republican. I'm gonna side with you that its not going to be some massive dramatic shift, but we're never going to wake up one day and be 180 degrees in another direction overnight. That's probably not even a good idea. You've got to take baby steps. The money that drives politicians is fact of life. Politics is politics and every candidate has to do things they don't really want to do so they can get some of the things they really want to do accomplished.

You have to ignore all the bad things they do to suggest their intentions are good for the people. They show pretty much nothing of the like. They could be spending money on the people. They could be confronting people. Instead they have secretive meetings and parties with companies who, while providing services, do not have the best intentions either for the people. Ultimately you wind up with corporate socialism. The "small government" argument by Republicans is a sham, and the "do-good, big government" argument by Democrats is a sham.

Think about it.

Terrorists rammed into twin towers, now we're going to wiretap everyone. Terrorists rammed into twin towers, now we're going to make sure you can't picket anywhere close to our parties/conventions.

To simply suggest they don't give a #### about Americans (beyond their family/friends and corporate interests) is a nice way of putting it.

And it's American's faults. Too complacent, too boxed and caged up in the two-party mindset to make a real change. So the only thing left is to simply continue the charade until it's reached a boiling point and either we've pissed away too many resources, pissed off enough countries, or pissed off enough voters to finally merit a change. I'd rather it be the latter than any of the former two.

[dalegg 143]

.. and #### our rights. Way to go Democrats.

What's this #### I keep hearing about change we can hope for?

Change?! Hah. Before you think Democrats represent, in the slightest, the middle class worker, or the lower class worker, or even the upper middle class worker, consider these two damning articles that just came out to put a foot in the ### of "change".

Come on man. You have to admit that having the Democrats in power would be a little bit different than having a Republican. I'm gonna side with you that its not going to be some massive dramatic shift, but we're never going to wake up one day and be 180 degrees in another direction overnight. That's probably not even a good idea. You've got to take baby steps. The money that drives politicians is fact of life. Politics is politics and every candidate has to do things they don't really want to do so they can get some of the things they really want to do accomplished.

You have to ignore all the bad things they do to suggest their intentions are good for the people. They show pretty much nothing of the like. They could be spending money on the people. They could be confronting people. Instead they have secretive meetings and parties with companies who, while providing services, do not have the best intentions either for the people. Ultimately you wind up with corporate socialism. The "small government" argument by Republicans is a sham, and the "do-good, big government" argument by Democrats is a sham.

Think about it.

Terrorists rammed into twin towers, now we're going to wiretap everyone. Terrorists rammed into twin towers, now we're going to make sure you can't picket anywhere close to our parties/conventions.

To simply suggest they don't give a #### about Americans (beyond their family/friends and corporate interests) is a nice way of putting it.

And it's American's faults. Too complacent, too boxed and caged up in the two-party mindset to make a real change. So the only thing left is to simply continue the charade until it's reached a boiling point and either we've pissed away too many resources, pissed off enough countries, or pissed off enough voters to finally merit a change. I'd rather it be the latter than any of the former two.

Okay, lets just say they are all corrupt for a minute. Aren't there issues nonetheless that are somewhat near and dear to you? If John McCain is elected the wealthy are still definitely going to have their tax breaks. There will be almost no chance of socialized medicine. And.. if he gets a chance to nominate a Supreme Court judge its probably going to be someone who is anti-choice (just trying out the term). Don't all of these things bother you a little bit? At least with Obama you've got a chance to get all of these things right for you. Or is corruption your number 1 issue and that's all that matters?

And the masses are not going to blame the Democrats equally with the Repbulicans if they haven't been in power for 12 years. If you want the bulk of the nation to realize that both parties are equally to blame you have put the Democrats in full control for a good 4 years- I mean congress and President.

THEN the people will see your point. Right now its still a bit blurry.

[IAMX 3,055]

.. and #### our rights. Way to go Democrats.

What's this #### I keep hearing about change we can hope for?

Change?! Hah. Before you think Democrats represent, in the slightest, the middle class worker, or the lower class worker, or even the upper middle class worker, consider these two damning articles that just came out to put a foot in the ### of "change".

Come on man. You have to admit that having the Democrats in power would be a little bit different than having a Republican. I'm gonna side with you that its not going to be some massive dramatic shift, but we're never going to wake up one day and be 180 degrees in another direction overnight. That's probably not even a good idea. You've got to take baby steps. The money that drives politicians is fact of life. Politics is politics and every candidate has to do things they don't really want to do so they can get some of the things they really want to do accomplished.

You have to ignore all the bad things they do to suggest their intentions are good for the people. They show pretty much nothing of the like. They could be spending money on the people. They could be confronting people. Instead they have secretive meetings and parties with companies who, while providing services, do not have the best intentions either for the people. Ultimately you wind up with corporate socialism. The "small government" argument by Republicans is a sham, and the "do-good, big government" argument by Democrats is a sham.

Think about it.

Terrorists rammed into twin towers, now we're going to wiretap everyone. Terrorists rammed into twin towers, now we're going to make sure you can't picket anywhere close to our parties/conventions.

To simply suggest they don't give a #### about Americans (beyond their family/friends and corporate interests) is a nice way of putting it.

And it's American's faults. Too complacent, too boxed and caged up in the two-party mindset to make a real change. So the only thing left is to simply continue the charade until it's reached a boiling point and either we've pissed away too many resources, pissed off enough countries, or pissed off enough voters to finally merit a change. I'd rather it be the latter than any of the former two.

Okay, lets just say they are all corrupt for a minute. Aren't there issues nonetheless that are somewhat near and dear to you? If John McCain is elected the wealthy are still definitely going to have their tax breaks. There will be almost no chance of socialized medicine. And.. if he gets a chance to nominate a Supreme Court judge its probably going to be someone who is anti-choice (just trying out the term). Don't all of these things bother you a little bit? At least with Obama you've got a chance to get all of these things right for you. Or is corruption your number 1 issue and that's all that matters?

While these things are dear to me, there are no promises. There's nothing in writing. Words are words. Action is action. Obama has shown a clear favoring of corporate dominance over people's rights, so why would it matter to me who he may nominate to the Supreme Court if he's already shown in his actions as a Senator he doesn't favor my rights?

And the masses are not going to blame the Democrats equally with the Repbulicans if they haven't been in power for 12 years. If you want the bulk of the nation to realize that both parties are equally to blame you have put the Democrats in full control for a good 4 years- I mean congress and President.

Well, being in control of the Senate and House, that's enough to come to a premise. I was one of those Democrats who would make excuses, and cling to a few "promises", or even laws/propositions they might get passed, but ultimately those personal gains are not even close to the impending disaster that things have become due to both parties.

Is there a guarantee third parties will do better? Certainly not. However, at one point the unknown seems a bit favorable when the known gets far too souring. I've actually had a few encounters with Brian Moore's staff, the guy on the Socialist ticket, and they are people who are of action, so to me it's worth a shot. But putting faith in people who have consistently let you down, to me, seems pretty stupid. You know in those psychological tests to determine how impaired memory is/has become? They place two metal, 3d shapes on a table, one with voltage running through it to shock you if you touch it. The idea is to see if the person, when asked to touch the object, remembers (through experience or subconscious repetition) their experience and does something different. Continuing to vote for either of the same two parties is like touching the same object over and over again and not learning from mistakes. As someone who has made the mistake, this is first hand experience.

And voting for Democrat because it isn't as bad as Republican is disingenuous at best. Things ended pretty horrendously for my ex and I. If things didn't work out here with my current fiancee (I know it will, but for the sake of analogy), is my only alternative go back to my ex? Or can I look elsewhere? It's baffling to me how people aren't considering voting for the "best" they can vote for, rather than the least worst.

I have to admit though, that was a pretty good analogy you gave.

Edited August 27, 2008 by SRVT

[dalegg 143]

Well, being in control of the Senate and House, that's enough to come to a premise. I was one of those Democrats who would make excuses, and cling to a few "promises", or even laws/propositions they might get passed, but ultimately those personal gains are not even close to the impending disaster that things have become due to both parties.

Is there a guarantee third parties will do better? Certainly not. However, at one point the unknown seems a bit favorable when the known gets far too souring. I've actually had a few encounters with Brian Moore's staff, the guy on the Socialist ticket, and they are people who are of action, so to me it's worth a shot. But putting faith in people who have consistently let you down, to me, seems pretty stupid. You know in those psychological tests to determine how impaired memory is/has become? They place two metal, 3d shapes on a table, one with voltage running through it to shock you if you touch it. The idea is to see if the person, when asked to touch the object, remembers (through experience or subconscious repetition) their experience and does something different. Continuing to vote for either of the same two parties is like touching the same object over and over again and not learning from mistakes. As someone who has made the mistake, this is first hand experience.

And voting for Democrat because it isn't as bad as Republican is disingenuous at best. Things ended pretty horrendously for my ex and I. If things didn't work out here with my current fiancee (I know it will, but for the sake of analogy), is my only alternative go back to my ex? Or can I look elsewhere? It's baffling to me how people aren't considering voting for the "best" they can vote for, rather than the least worst.

I have to admit though, that was a pretty good analogy you gave.

Thank you, but one more question- would you still support the Socialist party if California wasn't a lock for the Democrats?

[IAMX 3,055]

Thank you, but one more question- would you still support the Socialist party if California wasn't a lock for the Democrats?

Yep. I wish Pelosi's district didn't have her in for a lock. I have lots of faith in San Franciscans, and while they should be voting her out (as she less represents the district she's running in, who most certainly wanted Bush impeached), there's simply not enough competition within her own party or third parties to overtake her. In the full Ahnold election (not the recall), I voted Peace and Freedom, knowing it might have been a tight contest for Democrats. They lost, and I have no regrets for voting my conscience. I cannot control the votes of everyone else, so it makes no sense to me to vote defensively, as it limits my options, meaning everyone else decides my vote instead of me. I don't see why this should be the case.

[dalegg 143]

Thank you, but one more question- would you still support the Socialist party if California wasn't a lock for the Democrats?

Yep. I wish Pelosi's district didn't have her in for a lock. I have lots of faith in San Franciscans, and while they should be voting her out (as she less represents the district she's running in, who most certainly wanted Bush impeached), there's simply not enough competition within her own party or third parties to overtake her. In the full Ahnold election (not the recall), I voted Peace and Freedom, knowing it might have been a tight contest for Democrats. They lost, and I have no regrets for voting my conscience. I cannot control the votes of everyone else, so it makes no sense to me to vote defensively, as it limits my options, meaning everyone else decides my vote instead of me. I don't see why this should be the case.

Hmm. You're an inspiration. Maybe I'll vote Libertarian again.

[HAL 9000 96]

Go Bob Barr!

[dalegg 143]

Go Bob Barr!

yeeah...What party is Ron Paul with these days?

[HAL 9000 96]

Ron Who?

[IAMX 3,055]

Ron Paul was certainly one to caucus with the Republicans.

Much like the farce of Cynthia McKinney going Green Party, Ron Paul being Libertarian would be as much of a joke.