Certainly, if someone is a lobbyist but then files forms with the Senate's Office of Public Records that he or she is no longer lobbying, then that person would be a "former lobbyist." The question is, though, what is that "former lobbyst"'s plan after the campaign? Is he/she going to go back to lobbying? Does he or she maintain ties to a business that lobbies?
In this specific instance, Hodges registered with the OPR to be a lobbyist for 2007. His registration statement was received on July 16, 2007. There are no records that show he has been a lobbyist since 2000. So this is a new occurrence, Mr. Hodges being a federally registered lobbyist. (check it out: http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_gifvi
If it doesn't work, go to sopr.senate.gov and search by lobbyist name James Hodges.)
Also, check out the website for his company, where he is currently (1/3/08) listed as CEO & Managing Director. Here's what his bio says (http://www.hodgesconsulting.com/attorne
As CEO of Hodges Consulting Group, Hodges:
Assisted one of the nation's leading government consulting and privatization firms in earning large cost savings contracts in several states
Assisted a Fortune 100 company in developing business opportunities for energy savings products for state and local government in the southeastern states
Led a major life insurance trade group in its state and federal regulatory affairs
He's a lobbyist. No doubt about it. And he'll go back to being a lobbyist after the Obama campaign is over.
My wife's a great example of exactly what you're talking about. She's an Edwards supporter (as am I), but she's said repeatedly that she feels a lot of guilt for not supporting the first viable female presidential candidate. If Clinton had Edwards' positions, we'd both be supporting her!
Margie Vanderhye. She's running for State Senate right now, but after watching the video of her debate with Rip Sullivan from April (link), she'd be an awesome candidate.
If the Republicans nominate Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, which wouldn't surprise me at all, she'll run a "clean" campaign and bring out all of Connelly's dirty laundry. A progressive, successful woman candidate would be able to tie Davis into the national GOP much better than Connelly.
Absolutely right. These posts weren't "anti-Catholic;" they were accused of being "anti-Catholic." Even using that frame is accepting wack-job's premise, which we shouldn't do. Edwards said he was personally offended by some of the statements. Good for him. Me, I found them to be cringe-worthy, but not personally offensive.
Statements that some people might be offended by? Yes. But wouldn't this be a good time for religious Democrats to emphasize critical thought and not knee-jerk reactions?
Calling statements critical of religion "anti-religion" is just a way to dismiss the criticism without actually addressing it.
And that's why we hold "religious Democrats" (whatever THAT means) to a higher standard--we expect more.
That's why the Democratic Party should take the lead in fighting to maintain solvency beyond the 75-year CBO (or OMB?) budgeting window.
The simplest solution, of course, is to raise the cap on FICA taxation from $92,000. I've heard that raising it to $150,000 will maintain solvency through the 75-year window.
We could probably bring some Republicans along by raising the cap on tax-free retirement savings contributions. Not all savings, just those for retirement. We could also increase the penalties for pulling those funds out, with a series of exemptions for medical/family emergencies. Heck, maybe throw in matching funds for those who have an annual salary less than $XX,000...as your salary goes down, the percentage of matching $$ goes up.
Not only would it buttress our arguments to continue to win over the under-30 set, it would bring along a lot of middle to upper-middle class voters who are the mythological "swing" voters.
And General Clark did so well, he was named the Vice Presidential nominee.
The bottom line is that I feel that Edwards' message is inspiring and cohesive. Something Clark just doesn't have. He also has maintained a lot of ties to the activist base in the early primary states and a campaign-ready staff.
He's in a better position to run and win than General Clark.