Why is the Carlyle Group lobbyist endorsing Hillary instead of one of the (R)

candidates?

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html

Edited to point out that it's the Carlyle group's lobbyist, which is somehow different and distinct from Carlyle themselves.

very telling indeed, on both accounts.

Carlyle hasn't endorsed anyone. A lobbyist who works for Carlyle endorsed her

I guess the truth doesnt matter when it comes to the Hillary Haters

backing the Repugs in this election?

Presumably, the guy brings the clout of who he represents to the table as an endorsement, if not, it's just some Joe Schmuck with one vote like the rest of us.

Or do the facts not count anymore when it comes to slamming Clinton?

any preference for any candidate over the other.

I saw this listed on another board and wondered WTF?

There is no distortion, the fact is that the lobbyist for Carlyle company is endorsing HRC versus (I'd have asked the same had they chosen Obama, Edwards or Kucinich)

What I wanted to know is why they would back a (D) candidate over a (R) - they are not known to do anything without consequences.

If that makes me a Hillary Hater, so be it. Wow.

Did you even look at your own link?

Did you bother to even google the name of the individual endorser, before spouting off with the lie that "the carlyle group endorsed Hillary"?

Thanks for revealing the deceit of the OP

I believe you

"the fact is that the lobbyist for Carlyle company is endorsing HRC"

Yes, that's "the fact". The headline says something different

But the truth isn't important to everyone

"Was the David Marchick acting on behalf of The Carlyle Group, or was he all on his own?"

Your indignance over the OP's failure to make the distinction between the lobbyist and the CG hinges entirely upon the assumption that he was acting alone.

Is that your assertion? Or are you just looking for a convenient source of disingenuous outrage?

Personally I doubt any lobbyist would shell out his own support and say "BTW... I'm with the Carlyle Group." without their patronage.

So, can you answer the question?

so therefore I am justified in disregarding anything it says.

And yes, Marchick acted on his own behalf and you have absolutely no evidence to refute that. You may think you're being clever, but without any evidence you're just another stranger on the internet with a looney conspiracy theory

A prominent Clinton official now working for the Carlyle Group as a lobbyist endorses Clinton. Come on...

So you're saying that you have evidence that he acted on his own?

I didn't see that he did. Unless you have some evidence that he did, then you're as much of a 'theorist' as anyone.

My evidence is that he's a CG lobbyist supporting Hillary.

If your evidence is that he's a Hillary aquaintance supporting Hillary, then your 'evidence' is no more or less compelling than anyone else's.

Sorry, but your indignation is still overblown.

Now if you have 'evidence' that the OP is a liar, I'm sure you can put that up too. Heck, if it's true, it couldn't hurt for me to know for future reference... right?

"It's not a conspiracy theory. It really is true. It's not a conspiracy theory. It really is true. It's not a conspiracy theory. It really is true. It's not a conspiracy theory. It really is true. "

Like I said, given the source it's not unreasonable to get the impression that the CG gave support to Hillary. Upon inspection it may be that the fellow was acting on his own. That's merely balanced speculation on my part.

Meanwhile it appears you're the one who's becoming unhinged.

no big mystery why David Marchick endorsed Hillary. It is a personal endorsement, not an endorsement by the Carlyle Group, as you falsely assert.


David M. Marchick, current Carlye Group Global Head of Regulatory Affairs.


Previously a partner with Covington & Burling, where he advises US and foreign companies on foreign investment and international trade issues. He is widely recognized as an expert on the Exon-Florio amendment. Marchick served in the State Department during the Clinton administration (1993–99) as deputy assistant secretary of state for transportation affairs, deputy assistant secretary for trade policy, and principal deputy assistant secretary of commerce for trade development. He has also held trade policy positions at the White House and the Office of the US Trade Representative and is a senior adviser to Kissinger McLarty Associates. He is coauthor of US National Security and Foreign Direct Investment (2006).

Sure, perhaps he was acting on his own, but that in no way makes the OP a 'liar' as the source simply states he's a lobbyist with The Carlyle Group.

It's a rather honest mistake to assume that he is acting on behalf the CG... and we're not necessarily sure he wasn't.

All that indignation really has to tear a person apart.

is to accuse one's opponent of over-reacting due to emotion (ie indignance)

The OP hasn't made one accurate statement, and in your mind, pointing that out is the wrong thing to do. Like the OP, you have no facts or evidence to offer. All you have are looney accusations with nothing to back them up.

That their source lists a Carlyle Group lobbyist as Hillary's supporter.

If you were merely interested in "Setting the record straight", you wouldn't have jumped in accusing the OP of lying. No, you would have simply and calmly pointed out that 'just because he works for the CG doesn't mean he's representing them in his support'.

If you wanted to be a more effective abiter you wouldn't launch into such an attack.

Now, please tell me just what 'looney accusations' I've made here.

That should tell us who has the problem.

I haven't accused anyone of lying. Please hallucinate in another thread.

No, you just accused the OP of "Misleading" and "distorting", being "untrustworthy" and "deceitful"... Gosh, how could I ever get the impression you were calling him a 'liar'.

You're an idiot.

B'bye.

We aim to please

You may have to relate it to your buddy.

Oh... and 'You're Welcome'.

;)

Definition deceit: the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating

Going to play semantics?

Lying is lying.

The OP did not say, "Please help me, I don't know what I'm talking about and could use some assistance figuring out what this link means."

The OP said the Carlyle Group had endorsed Senator Clinton.

Your concept of "honest mistake" is hilarious. There are hundreds of similar "honest mistakes" in DU headlines every week, and by some amazing coincidence these "honest mistakes" are NEVER made in the direction of understatement or caution.

The OP was aggressive in spreading bogus information in a way to smear a high profile Democrat, and deserves all the heat that follows that kind of behavior.

I've asked for evidence, you don't have it. You've offered no proof the OP has deliberately lied before. It's obvious if you follow his link that the lobbyist giving support to Clinton is listed as working for the Carlyle Group.

I'm afraid you're hysterical, and certainly not worth anyone's time or attention here.

B'bye.

You're an asshole. You're an operative.



Your first post to DU was September 28th... less than two months ago;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1931767

I'm willing to bet that 'Kurt' and 'Hunter' take turns posting here in order to get that count up and cover as much ground as possible. I don't think there are rules about sharing log-ins, but neither do I really care.

Your co-screamer 'cuke' signed up on October 12.

Now, I don't really have a problem with that at all. Anyone can sign up and say what they want within the rules. Good for you.

Now I'm going to explain some things to you;


1) DU'ers are not snowed by people who rack up 1001 posts in less than a month. 30+ posts a day isn't that great of a feat even though it takes diligence. Your buddy cuke racked up over 3000 posts in barely a month and a half... that's more than just 'diligence'. You conveniently have your profile disabled so we really don't know how 'diligent' Kurt and Hunter have been. I'd wager quite a bit.
The reason DU'ers do not automatically defer to a poster's prolific post count is because of all the years of troll operatives assuming their opinions count more if they have 'the magic number'. - Sorry... notsomuch.
Obviously I'm not saying that you're a troll, but your M/O reflects quite the troll panoply.

2) No matter who you are or what you want, donate as much and as often as you wish to DU. If you believe that your donor status gives you credibility above and beyond the features it allows you, see above.

3) The vast (and I mean 99%) majority of earnest DU'ers see very clearly through your vitriolic attacks. In short; 'They don't work here'. Why? -Because we have all had the course from the screeching right-wing media hacks and are more than acquainted with their tactics. When you use those tactics here, they don't work... it's that simple. The best result you can hope to achieve is becoming known and ignored as an operative of some kind. The worst result would be your tombstoning. Again; DU'ers are not fooled by concerted action to give the illusion of legitimate contention. Here, legitimate disagreement is self-obviating as is dishonest contention as you have displayed openly in this thread.

Now for some friendly advice;

Cut the shit.

You obviously have one of two purposes here;

a) You're an actual supporter of Hillary, which is otherwise fine, who hasn't the first clue how to actually engender support for your candidate and somehow believes that bellicose posturing will do that.

It won't. You're stupid.

b) You're more clever than that and you are here to make Hillary supporters look like complete assholes. Well, you've definitely made an ass of yourself. If you doubt that, then you are obviously here for the first purpose I described. See the advice that directly follows 'a)'. If you really are trying to paint an ugly picture of Hillary supporters, you got the part about looking like an idiot down, but most people here will not ascribe your behavoir to her... they will just assume you're an asshole.

Mission failed.


You see, there are all kinds of assholes supporting different candidates, but unless a given asshole represents powerful interests (hence the intrest of the OP in Hillary's big name supporters), their behavoir is not attributed to the candidate except in right-wing world. Not so much here.

So if you really want to support Hillary, great... just put the vitriol where it belongs.
If you're trying something else, keep flailing away.... and don't forget to donate so you don't lose your star!


Cheers,

Dr. E

;)


PS: If you're really ignoring me, your ignorance just cost you some valuable advice whether you'd use it or not. :evilgrin:

David Marchick is. He's the Carlyle group's Global Head of Regulatory Affairs.

ugh!
The only Hillary supporters I "know" are online.

Only the military and a bunch of civilian contractors did. I wish the America-haters would quit distorting that.

Isn't it beautiful?

or she has them fooled (double agent) and they think they have her in their pocket? Go ahead, pick one.

Why must it be so difficult? :freak:

I'm sure a Hillary supporter will jump in to say "because they know she's going to win", which is *partially* correct, but only partially.

It's dishonest to ignore the shift of the democratic party (overall, economically speaking and WRT trade, etc.) since the 90's toward the conservative end of the spectrum.

NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, the FCC Telecom Act of 1996 are just some examples of this.

And of course there's the fact that democrats didn't used to be quite so eager to gobble up mountains of Big Business money (relative to their republican counterparts). That's a relatively new development, and not a good one.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm?postversion=2007062509

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-on-business/

nominee. I suspect that she is the one they can most easily challenge because of the baggage and figure they can beat her.

have to back a DINO this go 'round.

because the Carlyle Group is in the business of making money, and they think their best chance of making money in a strong economy is under Hillary?

a "strong economy" for who? The top 10%? The top 1%? The 15% of people in the US who own 85% of the stocks?

Becuase the list is of individual endorsements, not corporate endorsements. The fact that a Carlyle lobbyist is supporting HRC is hardly a surprise. Carlyle has Democrats as partners, including former Clinton FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, to name one. And it has Democratic lobbyists.

I'm going to chalk up the OP as reflecting naievete rather than malice.

Google it and weep!

didn't you were a Dr! ;)

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

... an (R) is not going to get elected and HRC is the next best thing.

Ever think of that?

Makes as much sense as the Pope being a Wickin.

When did you first acquire the telepathic powers necesary to determine which was more important to Marchick?

Geese. I wonder what kind of D emocrat wouLd work for a Company like that

CARLYLE is aspiring to be a global super company.

They hire politicos like puppets all over Europe, America, Asia (George Bush Sr. is one of their US puppets) and they don't really care about politics or political parties. Their end game is control of infrastructure, telecomms, etc. so they can empower their big business clients to do business without government intervention.

they use their Government influence to get LUCRATIVE contracts to fund all their other pet projects.

I was on location at Hawaiian Telecom. It was clear they would use Bearing Point (a company Carlyle has a financial interest in) to take HT off Verizon ownership, and flip the company at a $300MM profit in 2 years. There were 2 problems with that story. #1 bearing point sux at everything they did for HT, really screwing up the billing to the point that years later what should have been a finished billing system is still a bunch of folks sending out hand created paper bills.

the other problem, is during my tenure we got paid a visit from our friendly neighborhood HOMELAND SECURITY guys. The message was this:
install our boxes now.

our Ops guy was like "No, not unless you give me admin access to the boxes and tell me what you will be accessing in our network."

They were like "no". made a few phone calls and to this day, their boxes are in the network roughly monitoring all traffic from Hawaii to Asia and inland to the US.

for Carlyle HT was strategic. a way to monitor incoming and outgoing traffick to europe.

Their goal was 2 fold.

strategic interest in communications networks and information. They have a network of telcos allowing them to pump their own traffic unmonitored by any government all over the world (think about the old drug dealer cellnetwork of powertel that later got bought by Tmobile), it's a great thing to offer your NEOCON thugs who want anonymity as they phone folks about torture, or surveillance etc.

the other goal was quick cash. flip the company with enough hooks that they still have a key interest but sapped it of cash the same wall all investment banks sap companies and owners of cash and liquidity.

*** BOTTOM LINE..

carlyle doesn't care who's in power, so long as they can get their hooks in Hillary they are cool. and so long as bill is looking for a job with money , the clintons are vulnerable.

we need a buffet or a soros to make up some stupid payroll for Bill and HIllary to be on so they are not tempted by the big bucks of carlyle.


while in hawaii I saw carlyle cut a check for $500K for a pet homeland security project to a friend of mine and not even blink an eye or add an invoice for what it covered. they are so rich, 500K is 'startup money' to folks they want to put on the hook.

thankfully my friend declined.

and the loyalty is only to those cutting the checks.

that's a wonderful frame.

SO IN THE END, we blame bush, we blame the media, we blame the 'masses'

when in the end, it's about a HUGE # of people letting greed take precedent over an integrity based government, country, neighborhood, society, etc.

how does a good hearted person battle the evil of greed?

Miami-based, operates the "NAP Of The Americas", which some reckon will be eavesdropping in the way you describe (not only for 'National (and/or NATO) Security' reasons but also for the Cronies and others who can pay), in relation to national and international (Latin American) communications.

Terremark, working with reputedly-corrupt local politicians, is now setting up a "NAP Of Africa" offshore in the Spanish Canary Islands (on the island of Tenerife) is presumed by some to be planned to do the same in relation to Africa.

I'm especially interested in the 'industrial (and commercial/financial) espionage' aspects here... as well as potentially criminal activities you mention.

Perhaps a separate thread on this subject could be useful. :hi: (from the aforementioned Canary Islands).

http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html#Clinton

The list of lobbyists supporting Hillary is much longer than any other candidate, Republican OR Democrat). The fact that Edwards and Kucinich are missing from this list are reason enough for me to support them.


I'm posting the whole strongly scented list of Lobbyists for Hillary.

Cory Alexander (Fannie Mae)
Michael Anderson (AndersonTuell)
Don Auerbach (Investment Company Institute)
Lyndon Boozer (AT&T)
Bill Broydrick (Broydrick & Associates)
Gerry Cassidy (Cassidy & Associates)
Steve Elmendorf (Elmendorf Strategies)
Janice Enright (Ickes & Enright Group)
Vic Fazio (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld)
Holly Fechner (Covington & Burling)
Jeff Forbes (Cauthen Forbes & Williams)
Adam Gluck (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Richard Goodstein (Goodstein and Associates)
J. Eric Gould (Tew Cardenas)
Fred Graefe (Law offices of Frederick H. Graefe)
Charles Hansen (Hansen Government Relations)
Tom Hebert (Ogilvy Government Relations)
Harold Ickes (Ickes & Enright Group)
Peter Jacoby (AT&T)
Joel Johnson (Glover Park Group)
John Jonas (Patton Boggs)
David Jones (Capitol Counsel)
Tim Keating (Honeywell International)
Alison Kutler (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Reta Jo Lewis (Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge)
Joel Malina (Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates)
David Marchick (Carlyle Group)
Tama Mattocks (Strategic Health Care)
Chris McCannell (Quinn Gillespie & Associates)
Mike McNamara (Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal)
Gwen Mellor (Hogan & Hartson)
John Merrigan (DLA Piper)
Mike Merola (Winning Strategies)
Linda Morgan (Covington & Burling)
Evan Morris (Roche Pharmaceuticals)
Ben Noble (Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group)
Sean O'Shea (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld)
Steve Palmer (Van Scoyoc Associates)
Peter Pappas (Pappas Telecasting Cos.)
Scott Pastrick (BKSH)
Heather Podesta (Heather Podesta & Partners)
Joe Pouliot (The CJR Group)
Steve Ricchetti (Ricchetti Inc.)
Mark Siegel (Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell)
Sandi Stuart (Clark & Weinstock)
Richard Sullivan (Capitol Counsel)
Dan Tate Jr. (Capitol Solutions)
David Thomas (Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti)
Paul Thornell (Citigroup)
Loretta Tuell (AndersonTuell)
Blair Watters (The Madison Group)
Anne Wexler (Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates)
Marcia Wiss (Hogan & Hartson)


Sure looks like a Hillary Presidency will change how things are done in DC......NOT.
More of the same...Pay to Play!


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone