Jump to content

Am I seeing a conflict of interest here?


flaps15

Recommended Posts

Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let me see if I have this straight... A guy helps set up a company, then leaves it after making bundles of money. Later, that same company, of which he has no part in direct management, gets a big lobbying contract on a policy in which the guy is heavily involved in his new job. Conflict of interest? No. Uncomfortably cozy? Perhaps; but the direct relationships are adequately severed.

 

I mean, it's not like the guy is still pulling a retirement package and stock options from a war profiteer while orchestrating the same wars that are making him and his friends rich. Now if something like that was going on, I'd certainly expect a lot of outrage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, it's not like the guy is still pulling a retirement package and stock options from a war profiteer while orchestrating the same wars that are making him and his friends rich. Now if something like that was going on, I'd certainly expect a lot of outrage.

 

And rightly so. Good thing stuff like that doesn't happen. Anymore. Well, mostly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

And this relates to Axelrod's $2 million payoff from the lobbying firm that is taking Phama money to advocate for Obamacare how?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

Really? :D Care to show us in detail where the government is not involved in the orchestration and operation of health-care rules and policies for the United States and it's citizens, both presently and in the near future?

Thanks.

 

Yet even more RNC dis-information

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

Many of the advocates of the current health care reform bill have publicly stated that they see this as the first step towards single payer, universal health care.... how can we not see this bill as anything but the first step towards a "government takeover of health care"?

 

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1257

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not too difficult to look at other failed govt systems in other nations that brought poor medical care and yes rationing of it as it went bankrupt and ran out of funds {we are trillions in debt } .

 

If you follow Obama and the extremist D running the nation now they all advocated govt health care {single payer} . That seems the real adgenda longterm by them .

 

People realize where govt. options lead and the inherant failures of govt --the govt policies dictated and political cronies placed on the board of F MAE {RECIEVING MILLIONS IN BONUSES } the morgage giant that lead to the morgage meltdown and subsequent economic recession ie .

 

People that understand all this and voice their concerns are not "liars" --politicians decieving the public are however habitual liars . The independant congressional budget office debunked Obamas false claims about imaginary "savings" ie yet it did not prevent him from repeating the false numbers for days adfterward .

 

Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

 

The same on the left screamed because a defence company owed the former VP back pay --it was proof of corruption to them --now it is --oh nevermind . The former VP donated the back pay to chairity --perhaps Axlerod should do the same now {at least} to avoid being total hypocrites and the appearance of impropriety in the WH .

 

The firm ows Axlerod 2 million which it is paying him OVER TIME --he hires the firm to sell govt health care .

 

The Left is just fine with this unless it involves others that hold different opinions --any that hold them accountable or differ in opinion are "evil mongers " . liars etc etc etc --and deserve to be beaten by union thugs with DNC connections such as Mr Gladney was at a recent townhall .

 

 

 

Welcome to your hopeychangey socialist utopia . ;)

 

more details

 

 

Obama Campaign Ad Firms Signed On to Push Health-Care Overhaul. “Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul. One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan. The other firm is Washington-based GMMB Campaign Group, where partner Jim Margolis was also an Obama strategist. . . . Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama’s victory, government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it’s due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod’s son, Michael, still works there. He didn’t return a phone call. The firm’s Web site continues to feature David Axelrod’s work on the Obama campaign.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aV3dLt6wmZH4

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

And this relates to Axelrod's $2 million payoff from the lobbying firm that is taking Phama money to advocate for Obamacare how?

 

Crooks in government surely you jest

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

And this relates to Axelrod's $2 million payoff from the lobbying firm that is taking Phama money to advocate for Obamacare how?

 

It 'relates' by virtue of the fact (yeah, I know, pesky little buggers) that Axelrod sold his interest in a successful firm, that firm has continued on and garnered new clients. Sounds like the bogey-man socialist is one helluva capitalist, eh? I was simply remarking that deliberately mis-representing the proposed legislation is more disturbing to me than what David Axelrod did and profited from before he being offered his current position.

 

Clear now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

And this relates to Axelrod's $2 million payoff from the lobbying firm that is taking Phama money to advocate for Obamacare how?

 

It 'relates' by virtue of the fact (yeah, I know, pesky little buggers) that Axelrod sold his interest in a successful firm, that firm has continued on and garnered new clients. Sounds like the bogey-man socialist is one helluva capitalist, eh? I was simply remarking that deliberately mis-representing the proposed legislation is more disturbing to me than what David Axelrod did and profited from before he being offered his current position.

 

Clear now?

 

 

When you villify others as "new Nazis " or whatever the DNC slur du jour is currently -- "Unamerican --swaztike carrying mobs --crazy --liars " evilmongers "etc are the curent ones you are mouthing .

 

As you parrot party tactics and propaganda contstantly here and excuse ever more blantent corruption you become ever more the party tool or usefull idiot and promote and enable ever more corruption .

 

we know chucky --its for "the common good"

 

Dodds wrote the stimulus bill full of bonuses for bailouts and ever more potential for more graft and corruption in the power money grab schemes that keep THE PARTY PROPAGANDA MACHINE AND VILLIFICATION OF OTHERS GOING and corrupt politicians in office .

 

CULTURE OF CORRUPTION: “Gosh, what a surprise: A committee of their fellow senators has decided that Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad did nothing unethical when they took out loans from Countrywide Financial on the kind of favorable terms not available to us mere mortals without their financial or political standing – or a personal connection to the head of Countrywide. . . . The senators on the committee have a point: This VIP program – called Friends of Angelo after Angelo Mozilo, the head of Countrywide at the time – wasn’t restricted to U.S. senators; it seems to have been open to a wide, bipartisan range of politicians with pull as well as anybody Angelo Mozilo took a liking to. . . . Something else seems to have escaped these two U. S. senators – namely, that they are U.S. senators. Which means their getting a loan at a preferential rate through the head of a corporation like Countrywide, which was very much dependent on favorable treatment by the government before it came crashing down at great expense to the taxpayers, is quite different from a private citizen’s getting a mortgage at the same preferential rate.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

And this relates to Axelrod's $2 million payoff from the lobbying firm that is taking Phama money to advocate for Obamacare how?

 

It 'relates' by virtue of the fact (yeah, I know, pesky little buggers) that Axelrod sold his interest in a successful firm, that firm has continued on and garnered new clients. Sounds like the bogey-man socialist is one helluva capitalist, eh? I was simply remarking that deliberately mis-representing the proposed legislation is more disturbing to me than what David Axelrod did and profited from before he being offered his current position.

 

Clear now?

 

 

 

Sure, quite clear.

 

Sell firm, but remain a $2 million dollar interest in the firm.

 

Has he really sold it?

 

And the firm, BTW, happens to employ his son.

 

That would be called a conflict of interest in a court case.

 

Clear?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

And this relates to Axelrod's $2 million payoff from the lobbying firm that is taking Phama money to advocate for Obamacare how?

 

It 'relates' by virtue of the fact (yeah, I know, pesky little buggers) that Axelrod sold his interest in a successful firm, that firm has continued on and garnered new clients. Sounds like the bogey-man socialist is one helluva capitalist, eh? I was simply remarking that deliberately mis-representing the proposed legislation is more disturbing to me than what David Axelrod did and profited from before he being offered his current position.

 

Clear now?

No not clear at all! You are skipping a few pertinent facts

 

1) The company still owes Axelrod $2 million

2) His son still works there

3) The company is touting their close ties to the current administration

 

The big question that is not answered is: DOES AXELROD STILL OWN STOCK IN THE COMPANY HE FORMED?

 

From the link Flaps provided:

It revolves around two separate $12 million ad campaigns advocating Obama’s health care plan that were produced and placed partly by AKPD Message and Media, a firm founded by Axelrod that employs his son and still owes Axelrod $2 million. A separate firm, GMMB, is also handling the campaigns. Both AKPD and GMMB did millions of dollars of work on Obama’s presidential campaign, continue to tout their connections to the campaign and still maintain close ties to his inner circle.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an additional question - Where is the money coming from? It sure as hell better not be tax dollars or even campaign contributions, because I'm pretty sure that it would not be legal to use those funds to promote a Congressional Bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an additional question - Where is the money coming from? It sure as hell better not be tax dollars or even campaign contributions, because I'm pretty sure that it would not be legal to use those funds to promote a Congressional Bill.

 

Ah yes, the money…Remember the closed door meetings with pharma et al that we were told would be on CSPAN but for some reason were not...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aV3dLt6wmZH4

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an additional question - Where is the money coming from? It sure as hell better not be tax dollars or even campaign contributions, because I'm pretty sure that it would not be legal to use those funds to promote a Congressional Bill.

 

Ah yes, the money…Remember the closed door meetings with pharma et al that we were told would be on CSPAN but for some reason were not...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aV3dLt6wmZH4

I guess the lefties are ignoring this because AKPD doesn't have the same evil ring to it as Halliburton :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it that this firm continues to exist and do business after Axelrod sold his interest what bothers you? That they're doing business with a particular interest? That by virtue of doing business with Axelrod's x-firm that they're (maybe) receiving some sort of 'special' treatment from the Obama admin?

 

I'm sorry, but if its the last case, you've got a tougher row to hoe than just this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it that this firm continues to exist and do business after Axelrod sold his interest what bothers you?

 

In all honesty... I think most of us could care less about Axelrod or his silly PR firm. I'm not going to act like I'm somehow offended or bothered by this story... because I'm not.

 

It's more fun to point out 'supposed' examples of hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. We heard nonstop whining for the past 8 years about 'supposed' favoritism towards Haliburton, so its just funny to see things flip the other way and watch the Democrats squirm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it that this firm continues to exist and do business after Axelrod sold his interest what bothers you?

 

In all honesty... I think most of us could care less about Axelrod or his silly PR firm. I'm not going to act like I'm somehow offended or bothered by this story... because I'm not.

 

It's more fun to point out 'supposed' examples of hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. We heard nonstop whining for the past 8 years about 'supposed' favoritism towards Haliburton, so its just funny to see things flip the other way and watch the Democrats squirm.

 

 

Though there is at least a qualitative difference between this supposed / perceived / potential issue, and the fact that Haliburton and subsidiaries were awarded hundreds of millions in no-bid contracts. Right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have personally not seen evidence to suggest that. From what I have read, The White House was not in charge of appropriations. On top of that, Halliburton was one of the few companies around that was able to meet the needs of the government at the time they were contracted.

 

I'm as big a cynic as anyone, so I'll definitely admit that there is an appearance of impropriety. Whether anything illegal actually took place... who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it that this firm continues to exist and do business after Axelrod sold his interest what bothers you? That they're doing business with a particular interest? That by virtue of doing business with Axelrod's x-firm that they're (maybe) receiving some sort of 'special' treatment from the Obama admin?

 

I'm sorry, but if its the last case, you've got a tougher row to hoe than just this.

 

Please cite where Axelrod has "sold" his interest? Just the fact that his son works there See nepotism should be enough to set off the same alarm bells (as Balboa put it) that rang so loudly when it came to Cheney and Halliburton - Squirming indeed ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not as troubling to me as the deliberate dis-information in language that the RNC chooses to use to describe "a government takeover of health care" ... when its nothing of the sort.

 

And this relates to Axelrod's $2 million payoff from the lobbying firm that is taking Phama money to advocate for Obamacare how?

 

It 'relates' by virtue of the fact (yeah, I know, pesky little buggers) that Axelrod sold his interest in a successful firm, that firm has continued on and garnered new clients. Sounds like the bogey-man socialist is one helluva capitalist, eh? I was simply remarking that deliberately mis-representing the proposed legislation is more disturbing to me than what David Axelrod did and profited from before he being offered his current position.

 

Clear now?

 

 

 

 

Sounds like he still has interest in the company...$2million interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it that this firm continues to exist and do business after Axelrod sold his interest what bothers you? That they're doing business with a particular interest? That by virtue of doing business with Axelrod's x-firm that they're (maybe) receiving some sort of 'special' treatment from the Obama admin?

 

I'm sorry, but if its the last case, you've got a tougher row to hoe than just this.

 

Haliburton/Cheney...........this is different how?

 

Cheers,

KG

Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it that this firm continues to exist and do business after Axelrod sold his interest what bothers you? That they're doing business with a particular interest? That by virtue of doing business with Axelrod's x-firm that they're (maybe) receiving some sort of 'special' treatment from the Obama admin?

 

I'm sorry, but if its the last case, you've got a tougher row to hoe than just this.

 

Haliburton/Cheney...........this is different how?

 

Cheers,

KG

 

 

Sorry, but Cheney is no longer VP.

 

Back to the topic now, ok?

 

Axelrod family, $ millions changing hands, conflicts of interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So is it that this firm continues to exist and do business after Axelrod sold his interest what bothers you?

 

In all honesty... I think most of us could care less about Axelrod or his silly PR firm. I'm not going to act like I'm somehow offended or bothered by this story... because I'm not.

 

It's more fun to point out 'supposed' examples of hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. We heard nonstop whining for the past 8 years about 'supposed' favoritism towards Haliburton, so its just funny to see things flip the other way and watch the Democrats squirm.

 

 

Though there is at least a qualitative difference between this supposed / perceived / potential issue, and the fact that Haliburton and subsidiaries were awarded hundreds of millions in no-bid contracts. Right?

 

Halliburton is not the topic here.

 

And when it was your side whined incessantly.

So where is the outrage now? Has the left decided that Axelrod is doing God's work and must be spared?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have personally not seen evidence to suggest that. From what I have read, The White House was not in charge of appropriations. On top of that, Halliburton was one of the few companies around that was able to meet the needs of the government at the time they were contracted.

 

I'm as big a cynic as anyone, so I'll definitely admit that there is an appearance of impropriety. Whether anything illegal actually took place... who knows.

 

Definitely a different set of rules when the payor isn't Uncle Sam.

 

But they should have been careful for the sake of appearences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...