October 28th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

Special White House access for big Democratic contributors?


President Obama is pictured golfing on Martha's Vineyard back in August. (PHOTO CREDIT: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama promised to be different - but he's not.

The Washington Times reports that the president has been giving top Democratic contributors special access to the White House. Internal Democratic National Committee documents show this includes everything from private briefings with top administration officials - to invitations to big speeches and town hall meetings - to golfing with the president in Martha's Vineyard - to birthday visits to the Oval Office... plus bowling and movies at the White House.

Remember the hell President Clinton caught when we found out he was letting contributors sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?

Handing out goodies to big money contributors just ahead of the midterm elections flies in the face of all of that high-minded rhetoric about reform, lobbyists, transparency etc. that we heard during the campaign. You can buy access to this president for $30,400 as an individual or for bundling $300,000.

The White House insists President Obama has set the "toughest ethics standards in history" and they say many of these guests weren't only fundraisers, but personal friends of the president. Whatever they are - it smacks of selling access to the highest office in the land in exchange for political donations, and it stinks.

Democratic Party officials say there's "absolutely no correlation" between fundraising and attending White House events, and insist Mr. Obama's efforts to reward major donors are on a far smaller scale than other recent presidents.

Here’s my question to you: Should big Democratic contributors be given special access to the White House?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Jackson from Belgrade, Montana writes:
Are you kidding? Of course high-dollar donors get special access to the highest office in the land. That's the way it works, and everyone knows it. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. And the fact that the president is going back on yet another campaign promise is evidence of a startling pattern. I voted for the man; but I'm beginning to experience buyer's remorse.

Paul writes:
Are you serious? The Washington Times, a notoriously biased right-wing rag, is your source material for outrage over White House access? And pretty frivolous, inconsequential access at that. Golf? C'mon, Jack. Where was the Washington Times' reporting on lobbyists and corporate criminals who had the free run of The Bush Administration for eight solid years?

Gayle writes:
Jack, It's refreshing to see that you do not exclusively rail against Republican antics and unethical behavior. Of course Obama and the Democrats employ pay to play: In the White House or Congress, contributions and special interests rule.

Sonny from Baltimore writes:
Jack, Sometimes I think we have to stop crying about everything the president does. I don't see anything wrong with some campaign contributors going to the White House. It's part of getting elected.

Susan from Birmingham, Alabama writes:
This president is no different than any other president. He promises things that he can never deliver during the campaign, such as change and transparency. Democratic donors getting special treatment should be no surprise, nothing has really changed.

Ralph in Alabama writes:
Oh stop it, Jack. You're starting to sound like Glenn Beck!

Richard writes:
Sure, why not, Jack? During the last administration, we let idiots have special access to the White House starting at the top!

Filed under: Democrats • White House
soundoff (157 Responses)
  1. Tina Tx

    It is business as usual. You promise the moon while running for office and once you get in and realize what great perks there are it becomes the same old lie that has gone out since George Washington was president. Nothing changes except the lies.

    October 28, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  2. JENNA

    Should big Democratic contributors be given special access to the White House?

    Why are you even asking this Jack, knowing that big Republican contributors were given special access to the White House when Republican presidents were in office??

    Roseville CA

    October 28, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  3. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Jack, these people have egos that are bigger than the state I live in, Texas and it must be constantly fed so this is not surprising at all. It's too bad that this goes on and there is not direct accountablity like in some jobs but this is America, the land of the free and the home of the greed.

    October 28, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
  4. Carlos Round Rock, Texas

    Jack I see nothing new here. Other Presidents have aloud such access for years no matter of what party was in office. The access normaly amounts to a B.S. photo opt with the President and or his staff and a great touchy feely visit because of the amount of their contribution. It may well be in smaller scale but former Presidents have done this and many in the future will. It shows more of the need for such donaters to be in the spotlight and less on who the President in office is and having coffee or a beer with.

    October 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  5. Al

    Jack this is a question that takes careful consideration of all the factors, both political and personal. After carefully examining the question, and being aware of past Presidential actions, I arrived at my carefully thoughout answer in less than 1 second. NO!

    October 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  6. JC, Waco TX

    Why Not ? American have let their country and governent be sold to the highest bidders. As long as Americans continue to endorse and re-elect the TWO PARTY candidates it will never change. Most independent voters don't realize independent means voting for the INDEPENDENT Candidate. That's the 3rd candidate.

    October 28, 2009 at 2:55 pm |
  7. Tom from Philly

    Jack you have ASTMDO (american short term memory disorder) I seem to remember the bush administration having panels of contributors who were over the $100,000 threshold.

    October 28, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  8. David Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    Its the good ole boys taking care of the good ole boys... Period!!!!
    Nothing has changed..................absolutely nothing...............

    October 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
  9. Will

    NO! .............................................

    but they will. Money doesn't just talk anymore. It drowns out all intelligent debate.

    Canon City, CO

    October 28, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  10. Jason, Koloa Kauai

    No one political party has a monopoly on corruption. Greed is simply human nature and as long as we base our society on the monetary system there is really no point in arguing about semantics. There are deeper human issues at work and deeper questions need to be asked about how we live as a society, not just polarizing questions to create conflict on the surface.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
  11. Carolyn, Pensacola, FL

    No, no, and no.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  12. Mark

    The White House is the "People's House". I think anyone who passes a background check and walks through security screening should be allowed to visit the White House "once" in his or her lifetime....whether you are the poorest of the poor or the best golfing buddy of the best lobbyist for the biggest political contributor to the current President.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  13. David Gerstenfeld

    At the most, a private tour by the Presidents' mother-in-law.
    David, Las Vegas

    October 28, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  14. Jane (Minnesota)

    Jack, I'm pretty sure there were White House perks for big Republican contributors too during the Bush years & they simply didn't tell America; this was the way they seemed to operate on a lot of levels.

    I don't think it should be allowed period! This issue of buying influence really needs to stop – fat chance of it happening, given the way the Beltway runs.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  15. Melissa

    Honestly, I can't blame the President for doing this. Yes, he's very different. He actually THINKS before he acts. And Mr. Cafferty, you are letting your Republican tendencies show through. You are supposed to present the news, not add your own spin to the news to make things appear worse than they are.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  16. Jimmy in Houston

    No – We shouldn't be surprised you would think we would learn that the glorious speeches politicians give are just that, speeches. We had so much hope for Obama with the promise of transparency and willingness to work for ALL Americans, when in reality it is just politics as usual. Obama is more divisive than any other president.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  17. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    I believe every town in America has a church that has a marquee or sign out front that displays little quotes or quips.

    A few years ago I was driving down the road and happened to read one of these signs, it read: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

    I sure hope Obama is different in that he lives to provide us with more than good intentions.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm |
  18. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: Did it occur to anyone that the communication may have been the President influencing the big contributors instead of the other way around?

    October 28, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  19. vern-anaheim,ca

    jack ,things like what you describe have been going on for years by both parties ,no party does it more than the other and i don't think it can be stopped it will always go on as long as canidates accept money or other favors from companies and individuals.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  20. HD in Phoenix, AZ

    It was OK for Republicans to do this during the Bush / Cheney years. Sounds like business as usual in Washington only this time a different political party is in power.

    HD in Phoenix, AZ

    October 28, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  21. Moe Highland Village tx

    From the picture, does President Obama think he is Michael Jackson now ??

    October 28, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
  22. Jack in Florida

    Gee Jack is President Obama giving special access to the White House? Horrors! What else is new Jack . Are you one of those naive citizens who think that there is a difference between democrats and republicans? The president should do whatever he has to do to correct the disasters of the past eight years. Politics and ethics don't mix. The results are what matters. Give the President at least two years.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
  23. steve in virginia

    Noone should get special access to the President. The DNC's assertion that "Mr. Obama's efforts to reward major donors are on a far smaller scale ..." seems to suggest that an investigation is warranted since this is what Governor Blago was arrested for. "Smaller scale" or not, illegal means illegal. "Smaller scale" isn't relevant until sentencing.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:24 pm |
  24. Jack From West Virginia

    No they shouldn't. What makes them so special to receive an invitation to the White House. How about all those people who supported him during the election and did the work for free?
    This smells like lobyists working through big money once again, sound like politices as usual. I wonder what his explination for this will be, and once said everyone will say see no problem, however if it were the Rep. doing this an all out investigation would have already been introduced.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
  25. Terry, Chandler AZ

    Probably not Jack, but the Republicans did it during the previous administration. However, perhaps President Obama should make a statement that he will discontinue the practice of special privlidges for the rich and powerful.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
  26. Sandra in Temecula, CA

    No, considering the media gave Obama a free pass during the campaign, we shouldn't be surprised that he continues to do as he pleases with no accountability. We can only hope the media starts to report the facts instead of limited what they think we should know.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  27. Adam Simi Valley, CA

    Jack, he also said he believed spirited debate was good for the country and he welcomed different opinions and we have seen where that has gone. First he started to profile embedded reporters in the wars so he can favor those who paint his handling of the war in the best light. Then, he started a White House mailbox to try to accumulate a list of people who did not support his healthcare initiative. Then he decided to declare war on Foxnews because he thinks their Opinion programming fails to cast him in the heavenly glow the other networks do. He first boycotted their Sunday morning chat in favor of every other station short of QVC who would give him a mic. Then his henchmen started telling people an illegitimate news organization and tried to have the other networks evict them from the W.H. pool. Recently he tried to exclude Fox from access to the Pay Czar, and since the other networks didn't back him, he penalized them by cutting their time. Forget politcal favors, it's small potatoes compared to his assault on Free Speech and Free Press.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
  28. Bud Rupert, Reston, VA

    No they should not. And in spite of what the politicians and legal eagles say about not allowing big money donations as going against freedom of speech and therefore unconstitutional I say that's BS.
    They should outlaw corporate donations period.

    Don't ask me what to do after that. I need a scotch.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
  29. Tom, Avon, Me, The Heart of Democracy

    Every family in America with the exception of the Cheneys, overtly or covertly funneled money to the Obama campaign. If we only let him recreate with people who didn't give him money, we risk having him shot in the face duck hunting.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  30. James Prince, Garner, NC

    Have you nothing better to write about. The President would be a fool not to take care of his friends and contributors. After all, it is money that makes leadership possible.
    Get off Obama's back, the press has been trying to shoot him down just because we love him, but the people will be there for their President since we finally have our man in the White House,
    Down with the useless naysayers.
    Keep up the good work, Jocko, your sense of humor makes your stuff a cut above the others. I'm just not sure you know when you are funny. "Jiim Prince
    .Garner, NC

    October 28, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
  31. Mike from Denver

    Ah yes, the more things Change, the more they stay the same.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  32. Jose in Texas

    No, Jack. Fat cat democrats get special access to the president (in an attempt to influence policy, I'm sure). Meanwhile, there's 10% unemployment and the country is suffering. How can he spend so much time playing golf and going to fancy dinners, and not make up his mind on Afghanistan? I voted for obama thinking that this administration was going to be different than others before it, but now I'm having serious buyer's remorse.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
  33. Maria

    Of course not. But Obama is, has and always will be foremost a politician. And when did you ever find one who never lied? I think Obama is great. He just lies less than McCain and some others.


    October 28, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  34. perry jones

    who cares who the obama's have over they are going to do what they want no matter who cares they will be out in 2012
    perry jones
    council bluffs Ia.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  35. Irv Lilley

    Jack, Every president in the last 100 yers has probably given big money contributors access to the White House. Let me now when
    the tradition is stopped.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  36. Vinnie Vino


    No way, why should big contributors only have access to the Preident, because they have money to buy his time and someone like me, with no money, with a real federal problem can't get the President or his predecessors to reciprocate any of his letters or e-mails...

    Vinnie Vino
    Central Islip, N.Y.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  37. Rob in NC

    Sure why not? Most of them have bought and paid for our government anyway so they might as well get the perks.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
  38. frankie

    The way Republicans are acting, it's hard to believe they want to socialize at the White House. And by the way, as a woman, I think men need time to play sports with other men, what's the big deal about that.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  39. Richard Gottlieb [in Mexico]

    Sure, why not, Jack? During the last administration we let idiots have special access to the White House starting at the top!

    October 28, 2009 at 3:55 pm |

    They're paying to play. What's wrong with that, it's politically correct.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
  41. Raoul New Orleans, La

    Jack, lets be honest. The Democratic Party of today has much less money to contribute to candidates than the Republican Party. Many studies have shown a distinct advantage to candidates who outspend their opponents. When there is true Congressional campaign finance reform, our leaders will be able spend more time on governing than fund raising. Who opposed motor voter, same day registration, and individual campaign limits – Republicans. Their advantage in wealth per donor, dogmatic small tent politics, and corporate support gives them a head start in any campaign cycle.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  42. Jeff in E. Lyme, CT

    A little shmoozing is always good for business. I have no problem with entertaining folks who put up the dollars, as long as that's all they get. We're still waiting for criminal charges from the 8 previous years.

    October 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  43. Tina

    If this is true then what good there is for Americans to hope for? When money is the main focus and attention of the current president. Is this the reason why Obama spends more time in campaigning as compared to Clinton and Bush time? Money = Control = Power. This is why more Americans are now tapping their 401k to survive (as CNNMonen reported). I wish Obama gives the money to these citizens that have to withdraw from their 401K because of bad job unemployment.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  44. Cliff Glass - Rego Park, NY


    The date: January 30, 1976

    The Supreme Court decision: Buckley V. Valeo, where the Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

    The day democracy died.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  45. Richard Green


    As long as there is no strict public funding of campaigns and no prohibition against corporate contributions and bundling of corporate contributions, there will be large donors finding themselves on somebody's guest list for some event.

    It'd be good to see someone introduce legislation to end completely corporate funding of election campaigns. Until that happens we will have what we have seen before and what we see before us now in Washington.

    Rich Green
    San Clemente, Cal.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  46. Dennis North Carolina

    no, period.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  47. John in Goodyear,AZ

    No they shouldn't.
    It's the same old story: the dollar rules, not the common man.
    I don't know how many times I've heard that the White House is the "people's house."
    One of these days I'll walk up to the gate and tell the guard that I would like to spend the night in "my house" without writing a huge check.
    I'm sure I'll be wrestled to the ground and arrested by the Secret Service.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  48. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    You mean that Obama is a president that rewards his wealthy contributors like all other politicians? Tell me it isn't so!

    October 28, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  49. ed in ri

    Only if Rahmn Emmanuel OK's it.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  50. David A Whitaker

    Let be for real we all know that your financial influence play a great part in out poltical system. Now if we think, that those with this type of influence cannot get a extra bonus by coming to the White House.

    David Martinsburg, WV

    October 28, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  51. James, NY

    Obama needs to slow down with the golf thing, I give him about 3 more months to prove himself with all the promises he made before I start blaming myself for voting for him.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  52. Sue From Idaho

    If someone gave you money wouldn't you invite them to your home? There's nothing wrong with reciprocation..

    October 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm |

    Its the good old boy club. My faith in President Obama when it comes to being different than past Presidents, is dwindling fast.
    I guess once you are in that position of power you do as the Romans do. I'm begining to think he he is just another bag of hot air who joined the boys club in DC.
    Maybe he should give us his two weeks notice.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  54. Phil in Long Beach, California

    The should have unlimited access. After all, the big donors paid for it. It's their house!

    October 28, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  55. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    Sounds a lot like politics to me. No. Only voters should have access to the WH. This place belongs to me and you, and I do not want those who have money (who most likely got it unethically) to have more access than I have. We paid for and continue to pay for the WH and we should have control over who gets to use it and who gets to influence those who use it.

    This Obama fellow sounds more and more like Bush to me – not just Bush-Lite, but the full bodied variety. It’s Hilary’s turn in 2012.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  56. Michael Roepke - Dallas, TX

    We don’t pay a President a great deal of money but we do offer quite a few amenities including a rent free home. The President should be allowed to use that house as he or she would their own.
    If our President has ten friends who are offering to raise large sums of money for the Presidents party or even for the United Way, and they are invited to his or her home, why is that anyone’s business or seen as something wrong?

    October 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  57. Gigi Oregon

    Are you trying to say this hasn't happened before. Get real Jack... Government is "to big to stop" it's been going on for centuries. It would be nice if it wasn't allowed but the 254 people "we the people" voted for made sure it was legal so they could get away with it. This is democracy at work. This is 254 representatives at work while "we the people" are sleeping.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  58. Jeff crocket in New Britain, Ct

    The democrat party and other politicians campaigning should handle funding raising not the sitting President! Obama bashed Bush for the same behavior and you Jack bashed Bush ruthlessly! It is time to throw Obama under the Bus too!

    He is no better than anybody else!!

    He lied!!!!!!!

    October 28, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
  59. Pablo in Arlington Texas

    Geeze Jack, since when is this news? Money equals access.
    Influence peddlers go door to door and always have. The White House has doors. In fact the American system has worked this way since before we even had a White House.
    Arlington Texas

    October 28, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  60. Allen L Wenger

    Oh my. President Obama has to be the only president to ever stoop this low. It proves he's unamerican.

    Mountain Home ID

    October 28, 2009 at 4:27 pm |
  61. Luwanna Guysville Ohio


    I have a very good answer to this one, I contributed a lot of money to Obama's presidential campaign (a lot of money to me is over $250) so my answer is this: Where the heck is my invite? I contributed more to the Obama campaign than all my previous political contributions combined ($0) so I expect to see an invite in the mail real soon (not holding my breath). Oh shoot, I know why I didn't get an invite now... I'm a Republican... darn it all!

    Luwanna Guysville Ohio

    October 28, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  62. David in Raleigh, NC

    Obama is first a politician and a find raiser. Those are the things he does best. Obama's problem is actually governing once he got elected.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  63. Bob

    Obama has a lot of nerve asking friends in for a visit and never asking his old pals Sarah, Rush or Glenn.

    Louisville, Ky

    October 28, 2009 at 4:39 pm |
  64. Gail, Plano,Texas

    I wish I had money, Jack. Because I would love to go to the WH and meet the President. I admire and respect him. But my $918 Social Security check a month just goes so far. Is it. fair? Better question, Is life fair? You tell me.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  65. Esther Ohio

    Isn't there something better to whine about today? Are we just proving Lindsey Graham right when he said we are a nation of WHINERS? I want to have a civil conversation and If my president wants to have his heavy hitter in that house to entertain them it is none of my business. What would be my business was if he went down to argentina to visit his mistress on tax payer dollars.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
  66. David from WI

    I never thought ANY administration should give special access for the highest contributors.

    Smacks of buying access to the president.

    No reward for giving money should be required I begs one to ask why is their purpose to donate in the first place.

    Are they donating to help the presidint or themselvs

    October 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
  67. Leslie

    The president is playing the political game just like every president before him. This type of pandering goes on in every administation heck for that matter washington as a whole. I think you should do a story on how many cogressmen and senators pander and grant access to the house and senate to their big contributors After all he is a politician and we should not expect anything less. Why if this a story anyway this is the way the game is played

    October 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  68. Susan Frost

    Let's see – two wars, economic crisis, health care reform, etc...and who gets invited to the White House is an issue...why?

    Tuscaloosa AL

    October 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  69. Allan Hanson Placerville,Ca

    Is this something new? It has happened under every Administation. Bush said they were "friends". He sure had a lot of friends who just happened to contribute large sums of money.
    Does anybody think it will change? I don't, it is a perk of donating money.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  70. Bill in PA

    Absolutely! Just ask a Bush Ranger. It is expected for deep financial support. It is the booby prize ambassadorship.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
  71. Meg from Troy, Ohio

    It's been that way for centuries–no matter which party has been in power. It's a lame question.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
  72. Alex in Seattle

    NO! Every citizen should have equal access to our elected officials. I wish I made enough "speech" to have direct access to the president. As a second class citizen I guess I'll have to settle for sending the occasional e-mail that I hope will at least be read by some presidential staffer.

    Jobless in Seattle

    October 28, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  73. Susan from Bham, Al.

    This President is no different than any other president. He promises
    things that he can never deliver during the campaign such as
    change and transparency. Democractic doners getting special
    treatment should be no surprise., nothing has really changed..

    October 28, 2009 at 4:57 pm |
  74. starleo14672 Greensboro N.C.

    Why not? These contributors I am sure are friends, and what is he suppose to do ignore his friends, he lives there for 4 years ,that is a long time to not see your friends. Why are you questioning every move this President does, where were you when then Bush was doing all his secret things that were illegal. So you take President Obama's list of transparency things he is doing for the whole world to see, it is on the internet and I admire him for that, but I see more every day why Presidents should not be so open, the media eats you up.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:57 pm |
  75. Paulette from Dallas,PA

    Did anybody think that it really would be any different? This guy is a politician and would have said or promised anything to get elected and then do exactly as they damn well please. Just like all the rest of the politicians.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
  76. Nico

    Giving Democratic contributors perks to the White House is like giving a Republican contributor perks to a FOX news studio. As long as these perks are only superficial things that make a contributor feel thanked for their contributions there is nothing wrong with them. However, if these perks are found to also contain sessions of 'smoke filled room meetings', then the American people have something to worry about.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
  77. Ed

    Now wait a minute here– do you think Obama is going to give any special access to the Republicans !! Why should he? All they have done is lie about him and try to block any legislation he tries to pass. And they sure as hell have not donated to him.

    October 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  78. Lance, Ridgecrest, Ca

    Jack, the real question is, is there any way to stop it. Answer-NO. This is politics, you pay, you play. Need an ear, cough up a couple hundred thousand, you'll get one. Want the President's ear? $30,500 buys you dinner and a chance for a few words. Want quality time? Make a couple of Million $ contribution to the DNC or RNC, and you can talk to anyone you want to. If all you do is vote, you get 10 minutes every 2 years or so, to have your say, and anything you say is forgotten as soon as the election is done.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  79. Duane in PA

    If I pay for something at any retail business I expect something in return. It,s sad but politics works the same way. You can,t make them all an ambassador. If golfing, bowling or a movie is all thay want for there money, I think it,s great.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
  80. Mollie Bee, Texas

    No absolutely not. Obama is a lawyer/politician and we (tax paying citizens) are losing everything – the whole administration is out of control & everyone is getting more greedy by the second – did this Universe already flip?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  81. luci - Peoria, Il.

    Yes, it is his residence. What right do we have to say who he can have there? Did anyone ever question or investigate who Bush invited in, had a beer with, or watched movies with? I don't remember ever reading anything about him. So much for all the whining.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
  82. JWC in Atlanta

    Whether they "should" get access or not is irrelevent. They will have access, they will lobby for their interests, and generally their interests will be served. It's the world we live in.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  83. Ken in NC

    Depends Jack. Will they bring their own food, fly in their private jets or drive themselves up in Hybrid vehicles and most important is will they be paying by cash or credit?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  84. Greg Hagfors

    Special access for big contributors is nothing new. It starts at the campaign level, reoccurs during the inauguration events, and continues on once the new President is established in office. It knows no political favorites, it continues to grant the big contributors access that ordinary people do not get. It is no different than the annual (or semi-annual) begging for money that "public radio & television" inflict on the public. The big difference with big contributors and politics, we cannot turn to a different program or turn them off when needed.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  85. Mike S

    Why shouldn't they be given special access? After all it is the big donors that got him elected... not all those small donors they bragged about.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  86. Greg Hagfors

    Special access for big contributors is nothing new. It starts at the campaign level, reoccurs during the inauguration events, and continues on once the new President is established in office. It knows no political favorites, it continues to grant the big contributors access that ordinary people do not get. It is no different than the annual (or semi-annual) begging for money that "public radio & television" inflict on the public. The big difference with big contributors and politics, we cannot turn to a different program or turn them off when needed.

    Minneapolis, MN

    October 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  87. Stephen Fox

    No. And I wish lobbying (except by individual voters, and *without* monetary bribes) was outlawed.

    But what do you expect from a President who *knew* he did not deserve the Nobel Prize, yet accepted it anyway? Strong ethics? Not from Obama. He showed the world his lack of honor with that one,...so accepting contributions in exchange for special access or favors wouldn't be off the table, would it?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  88. Randi Dennis


    It is almost like that old song by The Who....'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' [the aptly named from years back 'Won't Get Fooled Again']

    Sadly, it looks like 'ethics in politics' can be filed under the heading of an oxymoron. And something says that is what we have in government, no matter what the political stripe.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  89. Annie, Atlanta

    Why not? Sure it stinks, but until we see campaign finance reform, money talks.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  90. Tony from Southport

    Jack, this president is no different from any other dictator. He lied during his campaign and many Americans now have buyer's remorse. Special access for contributors? Of course. He is a liar. He lied about tax increases. He lied about special interest groups and lobbyists. He lied about nearly everything....except for this. He said "Join me while we fundamentally change America." And he is doing just that. Chavez and Castro are proud of him. How about YOU Jack? Sick of him yet? Or are you thinking about how much the media invested in this scam.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
  91. John Winkelmann

    Absolutely NOT. Enough is too much. It really doesn't take money to make decisions right or wrong. it takes money for parties, dinners, junckets, etc. Accepting money is no more than successful lobbying.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  92. Barbara in NC

    Same as Shooter and Dumbya gave ears to the republicans. So what?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  93. Kay in Ohio

    Should they? no. But, really, why does this surprise anyone? President Obama is a typical politician doing what politicians do regardless of his campaign rhetoric about hope and change and transparency. I have yet to see any of the important promises he made during the campaign yield anything but disappointment.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  94. Colleen Brooks, Charlotte, NC

    I'm getting tired of getting emails requesting donations for a chance to meet the president or go to dinner with the president , or whatever with the president. tell them to stop sending them it is irritating and reeks of low class.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  95. Joshua

    No Jack, I think should have the same access we have. Take a tour, or stand outside and look at it like the rest of us.

    Oh wait! Give them another 10 feet closer per $10,000.00 and maybe a soda.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  96. honestjohn in Vermont

    Same old, same old story. Doesn't matter who is in power they both abuse it when they have it. The REAL power is in the people who buy the politicians. And then, "we the people" elect said politicians. Pretty simple.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  97. Jim from Chicago

    Come on, Jack. I would much rather the President be having a round of golf with his buddy-buddy campaign donors and friends than meeting to carve up the big sweetheart contracts and oil from Iraq like the last guy.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  98. Jeff Barringer

    Anyone using money to curry favor should not get any access to
    the White House whatsoever.

    So, the answer to your question is: " NO, NO, a thousand times NO !!!

    Jeff in Tallahassee, FL

    October 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  99. Gail

    Yes Jack and I also expect an invitation after responding to every "Donate Now" and get involve now request. Keep the access equitable. Invite some of the citizens that voted for you, gave on a continuous basis and still doing it, are making the calls and writing letters to get Health Care Reform passed by a so-called Democratic majority Congress!

    October 28, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  100. KCLaw

    My nine year old does not believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy any more, and I don't believe in "change we can believe in" any more either.
    Business as usual in Washington.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  101. Michael Jones

    Its amazing to me how quickly the media has changed, before Obama was President he could do no wrong. Now that he is everything that he does you guys blow out of proportion. So what if he allows people in the white house, it is after all His House. You don't tell me who i can, and cannot bring into my own house period....

    October 28, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  102. Ed Varchal

    President Bush was criticized for taking people to the Texas ranch. I think President Obama should follow President Bush's lead and take people to South Chicago. That would eliminate the issue of the White House and they would likely have a more 'exiciting' visit. To make it more interesting for the biggest doners, maybe not provide Secret Service security during their visit.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  103. John Morton

    How dare you challenge the efforts of this administation! Big Government has the right to open its doors to its comrades. Socialism does include socializing right? The administration's motto is "Change: money from your hand to mine."

    October 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  104. Paul L.

    Are you serious? The Washington Times, a notoriously biased right-wing rag, is your source material for outrage over White House access? And pretty frivolous, inconsequential access at that. Golf? C'mon, Jack. Where was the Washington Times' reporting on lobbyists and corporate criminals who had the free run of The Bush Administration for eight solid years? Where was the outrage over the corruption at GSA during Bush-Cheney?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  105. Amelia Everhart

    I have no idea if this is the norm, but Obama and his band of hoods are doing what Chicago is used to doing. For them, corruption is 'business as usual.' Everyone hated Bush and so bought in to the whole change thing. Once this socialist presidents gets his way, only the very few elite will have anything. The rest of us will be in the same boat as the people of North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. EVERYTHING will be controlled by the elite few. We think the poor have it bad now? We'll ALL be poor by the time Obama and his cohorts get finished with us.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  106. JORGE

    As long as lobbist and political donor are part of our way of doing goverment business we have to deal with that, I think is time to change the basis of contribution, close the door for lobbist at white house and congress and maybe only maybe we the people we'll be represented at those places, for now hte only thing we can do is talk.
    Jorge, Miami

    October 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  107. ALF

    Quid Pro Quo, Jack. Was your questions serious? Our politicans are all for sale to the highest bidder, be that individual donors or special interest groups. It is time for a REAL movement of the people, not the Fox News Sponsored Tea Baggers, to recall everyone in Washington, wipe the slate clean, and start all over. Repubs or dems, all of you are fired, and lets get some fresh blood.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
  108. anthony bruno

    Absolutely not. Anyone can make statements during an election, but deeds always speak louder than word. A tree is known by its fruit, good or bad.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  109. Cheryl, cocoa,fl

    I drank the kool-aid of change like so many others. But this doesn't surprise me at all. Nothing has changed, there is no transparency , and I will not be fooled so easily again.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  110. Ken in NC

    BUSH had whoever he wanted in at the White House. Why can't President Obama. It seems everything other Presidents did are taboo for President Obama. Get over it people. He is the President and if you don't want him doing the things other Presidents did then vote him out. Otherwise, get over it.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  111. Gayle Vogt

    Jack, it's refreshing to see that you do not exclusively rail against Republican antics and unethical behavior. Of course Obama and the Democrats employ pay to play: in the white house or congress, contributions and special interests rule.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  112. Dorothy from Enfield, CT

    I don't think it is right to give special White house access to anyone that is trying to gain favors but no matter what President Obama does he is under a magnifying glass and it is getting ridicoulus. No wonder nothing ever gets done. You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. He needs to be so careful not to offend anyone that he keeps trying to please the American people and gets flack for it.
    If only we could all try and work together to get things done for the taxpayers and not just for ourselves.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  113. Millie Johanningmeier

    What Pres. Obama is doing is no less than what the Clintons did when they sold access to the White House (and to the Presidency itself). I find it harder and harder to defend many of the things he is doing to my conservative friends.

    I voted for President Obama and had high hopes that "things" would be different - but nothing has changed.


    Millie from St. Louis, MO

    October 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  114. Randy T

    Yes! Barack has sold out on everything else, he may as well get great connections and filthy rich while he's at it. If the american people think the presidency is anything more than an easy way into the pockets of the rich, they have another thing coming.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
  115. Tom Grady Greenville ,SC

    It is just a continuing saga of the celebrity status that the campaign gave Obama and now he can operate without license. Question is how does all the time spent on this stuff by his staff and (endorsed by Him) help us out of the multiple messes we are in. Fiddling while Rome burns sound familiar?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
  116. Amelia Everhart

    Alf, did you forget? We just got fresh blood.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  117. Diane - St.Louis

    No...not big or even not-so-big Democratic contributors should be given "special access"...ever! Inviting a "real friend" to the White House is quite different than inviting a "real contributor" for payback purposes.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  118. Cameron Xavier McLinden from Brooklyn, NY

    Jack, I'm a fan but you're sounding a little too much like Glenn Beck here. Your claim that the message sent is essentially: One can purchase special access to the White House, clearly ignores something simple. If Cheney contributed big bucks to Obama's campaign, would he get special access? No. Those who supported his campaign support him, a man of strikingly transparent ideas and intentions compared to most politicians. Therefore, they support his ideas. The contributors become a part of the band of people who think similarly to the POTUS we elected to enact those ideas. Why shouldn't they then be a special part of the activities? If many of them are friends, what is wrong with this? You're sounding like Beck, molding implicative conspiracy theories. Evil bowling and golfing. C'mon.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  119. gjmauviel

    why not the republicans are already there under usa armed forces war-mongers like haliburton mob who profits on their own (created-conflicts to protect not the people but their own profits at the expense of young and unexperience soldiers dying for a lost cause

    October 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  120. Sky, New York

    When you donate $20 to a charity, they send you return address labels as a thank you gift. I guess if you're the president of the United States, why wouldn't you treat your contributors to a game of golf or bowling in White House?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
  121. Nancy, Tennessee

    If the President wants to entertain his supporters, he needs to do it on his own dime. I still haven't put to rest in my mind the $100 per pound steaks that he served at his Super Bowl party. I wonder how much he paid Stevie Wonder for performing at the White House. This President spends money like there is no tomorrow and the rest of us who are footing the bill are trying to buy food we can aford and it's not steak. Funny how he's entertaining the big donors when he said it was the massive number of people donating $25 each that put him over the top. Where's their party?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  122. Bryan Scott

    You're kidding, right? Why do you report what the Washington Times claims about Obama and then compare it to Clinton (and ask a question about "Democrats").

    Did you forget about Stephen Payne who was caught on tape trying to sell direct access to Bush and Co. for a $600,000+ donation towards the Bush Presidential Library? What about the Bush "Rangers" and "Pioneers" that had access for cash? Don't frame this as a democrats problem. Republicans are racking up hypocrisy points here.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  123. Theodore R. Wade Jr.

    Special White House access to contributors has been the norm since the 18th century. The question is not a real issue but a ploy and just another barb by poor losers. I have heard "He is trying to do too much". "He is not doing enough", "He is going too fast", "He is dithering" ... The man inherited the worse mess in American history. It got that way by another party that was so bad than "even a Black man" could win in the election.
    It took them 8 years to screw everything up. You are expecting the new President to have solved all of these issues in 8 months?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
  124. Ron Coppock

    The first ammendment says that we have the right to petition our government, but where the hell does our constitution say we have to pay ror it. I have noticed that everything of a political news brief on the internet has a section for my donation. Even the news letter from the white house. This is way over the top. Oh by the way, be careful in your persuit of this Jack the funding for your program probably comes from the comercials paid for with these funds.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  125. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    So whats the big deal ive been there before its not like Disney land or something its just a great big energy guzzling white mansion I think we need to build a new one and put that one out to pasture.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  126. Thom Richer

    Not before you, me or any other worthy taxpaying American citizen. I have looked upon the Republican party as the party of the "haves" and the Democratic party as the "have nots." One big reason I have leaned to the left most years in my voting. It has become very apparent that there is no distinguishing difference between the two when it comes to politics or governing. Both are "have" parties now. We do not in truth have a two party system. We are without argument a one party government. We are now the ultimate example of what a Capitalistic government is. Democrats and Republicans no longer exist in our Congress. We are a Capitalist Congress. The only thing trickling down to working class Americans is the tears from their eyes. How much longer will we allow a handful of wealthy "haves"control our livelihoods and determine our fates?

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    October 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  127. Tom in Iowa

    This is nothing new, Presidents have been selling access to themselves, the first ladies and the White House forever. Big donations get you big access to everything. This is just another attempt by those who would see Obama fail to distract people from the important issues (the wars, health care, etc..) It is time these fools started working for the people instead of tossing meaningless accusations ever other day.

    Tom in Iowa

    October 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  128. ken from connecticut

    Jack, If they were smart, they would invite big republican contributers to the white house!!

    October 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  129. george

    Are you serious,why so suprised jack. This is not news and most of us new we were not electing some sort of honest rogue unit politician a maverick if you will that would not act like those that came before him. we voted for this person bedause of the country wrecking stench brough about by the last administration. To be honest pardon the pun most of dont care about this stuff.....americans care about jobs,two ididotic wars,building a car thats worth a damn and health care reform and ending the stranglehold on this country brought about the Bush family and by big oil.
    I personaly dont believe it's rite but then again I have never heard of a truly honest politician.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  130. Ron, in AZ

    What I would question about these visits to the White House is who is paying for the meals and what other perks these donors are receiving. If the DNC is going to benefit from the donations then they should be paying for what ever and I mean any and all perks the donors receive during their visits. The taxpayers should not pay for anything these donors get.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
  131. Bob (currently in Toronto)

    Jack, I've enjoyed your comments for a long time, but lately I've frankly taken issue with a lot of your opinions. Thanks for being back on target (at least that's my opinion). Hopefully the love affair with Obama and his cronneys is coming to an end. I couldn't agree with you more...special access for the "big $" benefactors seems to be the "word of the day". I was born and raised in Chicago and have know for most of the 65 years of my life that it's a fact... that "that's the way it works" – Chicago politics. Obama and his staff have learned the lesson very well!!

    October 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  132. Ley Malilay

    No, nobody should get access to the people's White House because of their monetary contribution to the party currently occupying the White House. That house belongs to the Americans – rich and poor. What is wrong with offering that honor to American soldiers who lost limbs fighting for this country or Americans who made an academic contribution for the advancement of science in this country. But MONEY? NO ! NO ! NO !

    October 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  133. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    If there are some big Republican contributors I'm sure that President Obama would be willing to give them special access to the White House. I wonder if they were invited and refused.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  134. Jameal Johnson

    I dont see the issue here, Pres. Obama invited "right wing" media and journalists to the white house, something George Bush didn't do for for the liberal media during his 8yrs in office.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  135. Bruce - Delaware

    Might as well – the purchasers of the people we 'elect' are actually in control anyway.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  136. Phil in Long Beach, California

    They should have unlimited access! After all, the big donors paid for it. It's their house!

    October 28, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
  137. charles halasz

    I am stll waiting for his big "change" what he promissed.Where is it!Money talks.He have to look after those people who made him the president.I am sure Jack u know, presidents are made.
    Charlie Toronto Canada

    October 28, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  138. Big-K(DC)

    This is a lot of noise about nothing that the cable news CNN included are taking hook line and sinker. Name one President Democrat or Republican who did not give face time with the Leader of their respective party to large doners. The question should be are they being given some other special benefit or is this noise because the President happen to be Obama. Just like before this is a lot about nothing just like the noise from the birthers, tea baggers and right wing zealots.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  139. Elizabeth in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Jack, why don't you be less obsessed with the simple and ordinary fact that big donors get higher levels of access, and be more obsessed with who these donors are, what their motives are, and what policies they support. If donors want access to the President in order to figure out how to help the American people, then I say go for it. I have a strong suspicion that big donors who previously had access to Republican presidents, used their access to rob the American people, start wars, and help themselves. That kind of access I would oppose. Instead of giving us headlines that any 6th grader can understand, give the intelligent people of the country something meaningful.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  140. Carl D.

    No, and I mean no. To me this is just another lobbyist, of which we have way to many.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  141. Antonio from Washington D.C.

    Who cares? You should be asking about health care instead.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  142. Ted, Aloha, OR

    Your lead line is grossly biased and based on fiction spread by the opposition. How abut supportiing America first Jack, and long term changes and foresight, instead of GOP short memores and the knee-jerk legislation they passed. Emphasis on jerk. Of course if you repeat this stuff enough, it becomes truth doesn't it. Is that part of the new CNN look and policies too?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  143. Gary

    For months I have watched and listened to viewers and journalists ridicule the Bush Administration and Republicans for being dishonest and allowing lobbyist a run of the White House. And that the Democrats and the Obama Administration were going to "clean house". Guess what Jack, the Obama Administration are typical "chicago politicans", corrupt and dishonest. When is the mainstream media going to stop this "lovefest" with this Administration and do your job, report "fair and balanced" stories.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  144. Tom in Iowa

    Must be nice to be able to afford to buy access to the President, as bad as this economy is the closest I will ever get to playing golf with President Obama is to play golf with my Chia Obama. Who could really use a hair cut right about now.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  145. Kim, Nebraska

    As the press secretary said today, the names of all visitors are available. He's not hiding a thing. As far as "buying access" to the President, how do you know he's not just engaging in some semblance of a personal social life?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
  146. Kim in Dodge City, KS

    It would be nice if he would give equal access to the average citizen who can't afford to golf with fat white guys on a private course. I'm beginning to think this country will never have a president who represents the common citizen and not just the lobbyists.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
  147. Ron Temecula


    No, and what ever happened to the push for campaign finance reform???

    Ron Temecula, Ca

    October 28, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  148. Worst President Ever

    This smacks of cronyism.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  149. Letitia-Chicago IL

    You mean "Big Democratic contributors or Big Democratic lobbiest" because that's all they are doing. Jack I have came to a conclusion about this president who is suppose to make a "change" the only change Obama has made since he been in office is his mind. He stated that he was not going to allow lobbiest to run his campaign however, they seem to be his top senior advisors, and the blue dog democrats who is holding up the healthcare reform. This administration is full it..and so is Obama The american people put them in the position to get the job done and they are more concern about "wall street" and their "constiuents"

    October 28, 2009 at 5:43 pm |
  150. Dulcie - Denver

    Seriously? Is this such an incredible, burning question? Just exactly who do you think should be invited to the White House? Should the GOP get to vet who gets to go to the WH? I guess that's what they want.

    Huh, I'm sure they don't want to go though I recall that early in his term, President Obama had some kind of cocktail party for the Republican members of Congress. I guess they've forgotten about that already.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  151. Jim Giesige

    Jim – Mansfield, Ohio

    Jack, I can't decide if Barrak Obama has won the presidency, or a 4-year all-expense paid vacation for himself and however many buddies of his choice. Does anyone really want the White House turned into a Disneyland resort for these big money contributors? How much longer before the Oval Office is transformed into an indoor pool complex?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  152. Jackie in Dallas

    Your comment is awaiting moderation...again and still. What's up, CNN?

    And what is new about this? Did not President Bush host big shindigs for oil company execs on more than one occasion? Did not VP Cheney take Halliburton execs hunting (although I'm not sure I'd want to be one of the party!)? This has been going on for decades, if not centuries. EVERY President has hosted influential people at the White House, at least in my recall. Certainly FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bush Sr., Reagan (he put on some real duzzies!), and JFK did.

    You know, Jack, it is starting to sound like you are taking your questions from Limbaugh's programs!

    October 28, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
  153. onemoremom-Alaska

    The better question is "Who Cares?" If the prez wants to bowl, or share some popcorn with his contributors, who cares? I always thank folks for gifts they give me...I just don't have a bowling alley or theatre in my house to share with them. Although, if they fork over a few more dollars, maybe I could afford one!

    October 28, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
  154. michael armstrong sr. TX.

    Turn that old broken down palace into a museum and build a brand new White House.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  155. Chad from Los Angeles

    Come on, everyone likes to show off their new house at first. Give him a break....

    I don't care what he does there as long as they get the unemployment benefits extension completed ASAP!!!!!!

    October 28, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  156. El Mugroso

    Obama is like a good boxer. He's got many managers. And just like boxers and wrestlers, he said, and will continue to say all kind of attractive things, but his managers, at the end tell him what to do. If they have bets against him, on the side, they'll even advice him to loose.

    October 28, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  157. Mari Fernandez, Utah

    Politics as usual Jack. Where were the complainers when BUSH was doing the same thing?

    ALL politicians pander........ ALL of them need contributions. What's new?

    October 28, 2009 at 5:57 pm |