ABC Uniquely Highlights Report Showing Obama Worse than Bush on Paying Off Donors
Wednesday’s World News on ABC led with a report from the left-leaning Center for Public Integrity (Arianna Huffington is one of several liberals on the Board of Directors) documenting Barack Obama’s failure to meet his promise to “change” politics as usual and thus not sell access and give jobs to big donors, a report not touched by the CBS or NBC evening newscasts.
“Today,” Jake Tapper relayed, “the Center for Public Integrity issued a report concluding that, quote, ‘about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role,’ and ‘80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts” as defined by the White House.’”
Tapper zinged: “There is a difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration, according to the Center: The Obama administration is worse.”
It probably didn’t hurt CPI’s quest, to get publicity on ABC for their report, that ABC’s own Christiane Amanpour is on the group’s Board of Directors and ABC News President Ben Sherwood sits on CPI’s “advisory council.”
From the Wednesday, June 15 ABC World News, closed-captioning corrected against the video by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:
DIANE SAWYER, IN OPENING TEASER: Tonight on World News, Washington watchdog. Candidate Obama promised the big spenders would no longer get the plum positions. Tonight, we report on whether he kept that promise. And how does his White House compare to the Bush administration he denounced?
...
SAWYER: Good evening. Most of us agree it is a stark reality of modern politics: the hammer lock of money on American power and government. Three years ago, candidate Obama promised he would change that in his White House. First up tonight, Jake Tapper, who spent the day looking at new evidence about what has actually happened, three years later.
JAKE TAPPER: They’re there at fancy White House state dinners-
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: My good friend from law school, Associate Attorney General Tom Perelli.
TAPPER: -in high-ranking positions, and, of course, in ambassadorships. From France to South Africa to Japan. They're called bundlers, campaign donors who agree to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a candidate. Today, the Center for Public Integrity issued a report concluding that, quote, "about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role," and "80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took ‘key administration posts’ as defined by the White House."
FRED SCHULTE, IWATCH NEWS: What our report says is that it has sort of been business as usual.
TAPPER: The Center points out that then-Senator Obama promised a new way of doing business.
OBAMA CLIP #1, IN 2007: The cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who’ve turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.
OBAMA CLIP #2: They get the access while you get to write a letter.
OBAMA CLIP #3: The time for that kind of politics is over.
TAPPER: The White House today insisted that donations play no role in these plum jobs.
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Being a supporter does not qualify you for a job or guarantee you a job, but it does not disqualify you, obviously.
TAPPER: That’s generally what White Houses say.
ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, JANUARY 2001: We make no distinctions about people on the basis of whether they have given or not.
TAPPER: There is a difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration, according to the Center: The Obama administration is worse.
SCHULTE: We did look at the administration of George Bush, which was widely criticized for appointing donors to these kinds of posts. And they had about the same number in four years that the Obama administration has had in two years.
TAPPER: And, Diane, according to a separate study by the American Foreign Service Association, President Obama has nominated more appointees to ambassadorships who were political over the career diplomats than any President since the Ford administration.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments






TAPPER: -in high-ranking positions, and, of course, in ambassadorships. From France to South Africa to Japan. They're called bundlers, campaign donors who agree to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a candidate. Today, the Center for Public Integrity issued a report concluding that, quote, "about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role," and "80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took ‘key administration posts’ as defined by the White House."
TAPPER: There is a difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration, according to the Center: The Obama administration is worse.









Comments
Well no mystery here... given
Submitted by swenk22 on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 11:16am.
Well no mystery here... given his previous experience, the only people pres Obama knows to choose from are either major supporters/donors or friends from his community organizing days (radical leftists)
Someone had better go....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 12:16pm.
...check the thermometer in Hades.
That's a timely story
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 1:24pm.
That's a timely story (although with regard to the matter of press bias, the more salient question is why every administration does this, but it's only highlighted in this way when it's Obama).
Perhaps the conservatives, here, will agree this is a very corrupt practice on Obama's part? Sound off.
Awful quiet around here. And
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:08am.
Awful quiet around here. And for a corrupt Obama practice!
Psssst!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:49am.
(It's called being ignored.)
Oops! Damn!
"It's called being
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:58pm.
"It's called being ignored"
They're ignoring a story critical of Obama, though. OBAMA!. And it's a real story, not the imaginary ones about Obama being a Kenyan Muslim socialist terrorist befriender out to destroy capitalism and kill old people with death panels. They obsess over the fairy tales, and ignore a real story.
To be clear, a lot of the conservatives who congregate here have a real reason to avoid this. That's why I called them out. The only reason it surprises me that they don't want to say anything about this particular story is that the posters in question have shown no evidence of being rational (or of having any sense of shame).
For my part, every time I post on any Newsbusters item, I'm besieged by a gaggle of them that throw around a never-ending barrage of personal smears, insults, fecal references, and, in a deployment of the Big Lie technique, bizarre accusations that I'm some sort of compulsive liar, repeated into infinity. I've poked around conservative hang-outs like this over the years looking for a little intellectual honesty; that's the necessary first item in finding any common ground. I haven't found it in any measurable amount among the posters, here. An item like this story--because it is critical of Obama corruption--could theoretically be a great place to start. But they stay away.
Good Gawd!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:03pm.
I post a light-hearted poke and you go on a damned rant! Give it up Ted! We. Don't. Care. For. Your. Shiite!!! Get it?? Prolly not.... sigh.
~Ted
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:05pm.
has never used the word "salient" in his life.
LOL
Yep
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:26pm.
Make a small, light-hearted point and BAM! Ted goes into a big rant! Projecting, jumping... etc. sigh...
Poor beseiged little liberal victim
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 3:52pm.
We're crying for your pain.
Too bad, so sad....if you are stupid enough to pick a name like "classicliberal" and have a bio that reads thus: "Professional rabble-rouser, troublemaker, and defender of unpopular causes, with an ongoing mission to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".....and then you proceed to be a general liar and pain in the ass....yeppirs, Skippy, you are going to be nailed to the wall here.
Although you, being a typical liberal idiot, keep moving the goal posts, lying, backpedalling, in a feckless attempt at making one iota of sense. EPIC FAIL on your part.
I'll leave it to my alter ego Bru's post....to enumerate your continued stupid tactics here (below).
Beware, little liberal. You have encountered two of the three Stygian Witches....and although we're missing our Redhead, our boots are still pointy and our stilettos are still sharp.
Now whine some more for us about how much of a pathetic little victim you are.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
classic "smearing myself with chicken scat" liberal2 LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:01pm.
classicLyingLiberal2 on the constitution: ...any effort to envision a right to own kittens on the premise that it isn't explicitly stated is anti-constitutional...
Can't says it's any surprise
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:15pm.
Can't says it's any surprise those remarks (totally unrelated to this subject) went right over your head, by about a mile; those who can read English with understanding, though, will find it extremely amusing that you debunked your own claim via the link with which you made it.
classic "smearing myself with chicken scat" liberal2 LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:28pm.
classicLyingLiberal2 on the constitution: ...any effort to debunk your own claim on the premise that it isn't explicitly stated is anti-constitutional...
classic "smearing myself with chicken scat" liberal2 LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:54pm.
ClassicLoon2: The entire premise of the presumption of a premise is anti-constitutional....
What about the promise of a premise pertaining to a purple porpoise that lives on the premises?
Very Hypocritical
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:57am.
For Mr. Transparency and the Waivers Band.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~"Everyone does it"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:02pm.
Liberal defensive tactic #1: Lie. Lie. "Distraction". Lie.
Liberal defensive tactic #2: When your lies have more holes shot through them than an Obama campaign poster on a rural West Texas highway, pretend that the original F-up and the cluster F that followed it don't really matter, anyway. Cuz everyone does it.
Liberal defensive tactic #3: Bush did it, too. Cheney did it. Halliburton! Palin is an idiot. Breitbart lies!
Liberal defensive tactic #4: This is a personal matter between my spouse and myself, and I will be seeking the advice of my pastor/psychologist. Please give me time to heal and move on.
Liberal defensive tactic #5: Sympathetic interview with Bawbwa Walters, shed tears, murmur "mistake", "human", "flaws", and "vast right-wing conspiracy".
LOL!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 3:34pm.
Nail, meet Mr. Hammer!
quid-pro-quo
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 4:02pm.
It's the way of D.C. and probably has been since the beginning.
Criminalize: what for what.
edited : removed pasted content.
Typical
Submitted by russedav on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 9:35pm.
For Obama ego's not the most important thing, it's the only thing. I'm surprised he's ever able to tear himself away from gazing in the mirror. One wonders how he was able to father kids; maybe they had to to IVF.
We can't ever win
Submitted by barretone on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:43am.
Brent, you can't have it both ways. You bash the Center for Public Integrity for being "left-leaning" but this story is all about the failure of the Obama administration's promise to do things differently when it comes to monied special interests. We hold everyone accountable, left or right. You might also want to check our recent story about the Obama administration's purchase of limosines. It was a big hit among conservatives.
If we were as captive to our supposed left-wing overseers as you imply, the Center would not be writing such stories.
Randy Barrett
Communications Director
Center for Public Integrity
barretone,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 11:12am.
I would agree that you do have more balance than many news sources but in my estimation you do lean left on a whole. That in itself is not so bad since you at least don't seem to ignore news simply on an ideological basis.
I would like to ask though, do you still refer to the Big Three auto producers in the generic term of 'Polluters' now that GM is owned by UAW and government run? Or was that practice dropped?
As the CPI is about (as its
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 12:34pm.
As the CPI is about (as its title suggests) public integrity, specifically about tracking money in politics, it is inherently a liberal project, but beyond its basic nature, it doesn't offer liberal "bias," and never has. It's one of the very few absolutely indispensable resources for those who aim for a genuine understanding of how government works.
cl2,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:17pm.
When a liberal can't see liberal bias - isn't that evidence of liberal bias? I don't judge CPI harshly though they appear to have become a lot closer to the middle over the past couple of years judging by the archives. I see less bias in their news selection than in their terminology as evidenced by my follow up question in the previous post. Under Bush the Big Three were simply referred to as polluters but the more recent articles use more sympathetic terms for auto makers.
Titles mean nothing in the new world of socialist slogans. The Soros funded, like them or not, political/media groups read like Mao's little red book of campaign slogans. So a title suggesting the public integrity only means that as a reader I have a certain expectation - whether those expectations are reached is up to the information provider.
That being said - right or left- anyone who can do an expose on what the taxpayers actually are paying for in Washington for our supposed representation will garner my interest.
"When a liberal can't see
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 1:40pm.
"When a liberal can't see liberal bias - isn't that evidence of liberal bias?"
No, that's completely irrational--a sasquatch hunter's argument that the fact there has never been a sasquatch found means sasquatch is an elusive species.
Cl2,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 2:53pm.
Point taken but that is not my point.
Perspective wise when some looks at an object they are judging from their perspective so something left of center to someone farther left of center will appear closer to the middle than than to someone with the perspective of right of center.
no big deal though.