The Sunday Night Blue Hampshire Challenge (x2)

Jim Demers has some 'splaining to do -- big time (4.00 / 1)

Rath was referring to Jim Demers, a former co-chairman of President Obama's New Hampshire campaign, who is now the face of the Millennium's push in the Legislature. As of last month, the Demers Group had been paid $42,000 this year by Cannery Casino Resorts, a Millennium-owned outfit, plus $15,250 by slot-machine manufacturer IGT, according to filings at the secretary of state's office. In 2008, as of December, Cannery had paid $102,000 and IGT $39,000 to the Demers Group.

Jim Demers also serveds as a registered lobbyist for PhRMA, the reactionary pharmaceutical company trade organization that has spent millions of dollars fighting (a) importation from Canada, and (b) an expanded drug benefit.  In 2002, PhRMA devoted $500,000+ to an independent expenditure campaign in defense of Charlie Bass on this issue.

I realize that Demers was an early Obama supporter, but I really don't know how he can call himself a progressive -- or, for that matter, how he sleeps at night.

Someone should remind him that gambling interests and pharmaceutical companies don't need more hired guns.  Working people do.  That's why we're Democrats.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 19:51:08 PM CDT

Another Demers Client - Fedex (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Demers also represents one of the most notorious union-busting companies in America.  Here's one of their latest hits:

http://www.commercialappeal.co...

$6.7 billion threat: FedEx warns lawmakers over union legislation
By Wayne Risher (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal
Tuesday, March 24, 2009

FedEx could cancel contracts for $6.7 billion in American-made planes if Congress makes it easier for unions to organize the delivery giant's workers.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 19:59:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe he's a "win some; lose some" kind of guy (0.00 / 0)

and backing Obama seemed like a good bet.  

Licensing and permitting various human activities is attractive because, while postulating a serious public purpose for requiring a license or permit (barbers wielding razors, for example, should know what they are doing) is sometimes fraught with speculation (that children suffer deprivation when parents gamble away their earnings), once the conditions have been met, the license or permit must be issued.  This is considered a positive because, if a permit isn't, the claimant has a cause of action in court.  In other words, having set up a permitting regime, the legislators are immunized against further citizen imprecations.  

The permit applicants/holders, on the other hand, in exchange for accepting regulation of activities they're entitled to engage in anyway (absent a clear proof of public harm in the case of gambling, for example), actually consider the license or permit as the ticket to a monopoly situation.  And it's long been such. (Remember when air line regulation meant they enjoyed dedicated routes?)

The commitment of American enterprise to competition has long been dubious.  Wiping competitors out and achieving a monopoly situation has been their holy grail.  Which is why we now have only three automobile manufacturers and no public transport to speak of.  The official story is that the demise of enterprise is "natural" or responsive to "market forces" while the role of acquisition, consolidation, mergers, orchestrated financial ruin and other predatory measures are overlooked.  Legislative preference is just one of a large repertoire of strategies available to aspiring monopolists.

The Clintons, btw, were already in the pockets of a monopolistic clan (WalMart, Monsanto, Carlisle, etc.), so Demers banked on a candidate whose affiliations were less firm.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 06:48:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You don't know what you are talking about (4.00 / 5)

While Jim Demers and I were on different sides in the most recent presidential primary, he is still a friend of mine, and he is being subjected to a pretty brutal beating here. So you don't like some of his clients? I don't like a lot of your comments, and you frequently get things wrong but that doesn't mean I should subject you to ad hominem attacks based on a speculative analysis of your motives.

 

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 07:10:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rather, "I don't like what you are talking about." (4.00 / 2)

Hannah seems to be asserting a number of unrefuted facts here that combine to make a substantial argument. You respond 1) he's a friend of mine. 2) He's getting a beating here. 3) I don't like your comments. 4) You get things wrong. The critical part of an ad hominem logical fallasy is that there are not arguments presented, rather. Here, there are a number. Associations, conditions, results, examples. Did I miss any?  

---

by: xteeth @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 07:41:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The sun rises in the east n/t (0.00 / 0)

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 10:26:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The beating came from me, Kathy (4.00 / 2)

. . . and I'll take the credit/blame for it.

I don't know Jim Demers, but have no doubt that he's a friendly guy.  And I know that he has contributed enormously to the party's growth and development over the years.

But I do not believe that shilling for major pharmaceutical companies and union-busters -- corporations that subvert the interests that Mr. Demers has advocated through his political involvement, and that spend millions undermining progressive activism -- is an acceptable way to earn an income.    

Lobbying is not always a bad thing, and lobbyists are not necessarily bad people (quite the contrary). And Mr. Demers is by no means alone.  But this doesn't excuse him from being accountable for his chosen clients.  He deserves the heat.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 07:46:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

expand and ex-pound (4.00 / 1)

"I don't know" him. You go off half cocked, 'beating' on someone you don't know by damming them on an issue that will almost certainly not pass muster this session. The House is not on board. The Governor is not on board. The issue has many on both sides pro and con, and here comes DD riding in on his high hobby horse, holier than thou. I am curious what this is really about.

Pindell thinks its a non-starter

DOWN
http://www.nhpoliticalreport.c...
Pro-gambling forces: After riding high last week the reality of their weak support in the House is settling in again.

Why the rant DD? Is there a list of other people you want to defame along with Jim,(Howard Dean) that you don't know but you believe shill for major interests ? You are so on it I would be surprised if Mr. Demers is the only one you don't excuse "from being accountable for his chosen clients".

You worked in Congress for the father of a NH resident who herself has political aspirations, but you live and work out of state. So I am  not sure if you are commenting out of altruism. I can see your heart on your sleeve though from here. Look DD, you weren't born yesterday.You know exactly how the game is played in Washington, because you played it.  The Constitution protects the right of citizens and companies for a redress of grievances. Just like attorneys represent anyone, lobbyists can too. I have never heard from you before on this issue...being against gambling. Or is it that you think we should outlaw the ability of legitimate interests to be represented in the halls of government ?

What I missed is the plan you have for balancing the State's budget...what cuts you would make and what taxes you would raise. Since you live and work in a state with an income tax and a huge deficit...why don't you focus on that and leave NH to us ? Unless perhaps you have aspirations to work for a NH Congressperson again...then by all mean keep stirring the pot.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 10:28:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, JB, since you asked. . . . (4.00 / 1)

"I don't know" him. You go off half cocked, 'beating' on someone you don't know by damming them on an issue that will almost certainly not pass muster this session.

I didn't "beat" on him for backing gambling.  Read my comments, above, Jon.  I criticized him for lobbying on behalf of specific gambling provider, pharmaceutical companies, and anti-union corporations.  And it wasn't "half cocked" -- NH lobbying records are public, feel free to check them out.

Why the rant DD? Is there a list of other people you want to defame along with Jim,(Howard Dean) that you don't know but you believe shill for major interests ? You are so on it I would be surprised if Mr. Demers is the only one you don't excuse "from being accountable for his chosen clients".

You obviously have not been paying attention.  I have been critical of Gov. Dean and Sen. Daschle as well, because I believe that it is unacceptable for progressives to earn money by lobbying on behalf of anti-progressive causes.  Am not sure why that's so hard to accept.  If we can hit Gov. Sununu for selling out to foreign dictatorships, want should we accept at least as high a standard from Democratic leaders.

I don't think my personal knowledge of Jim Demers is relevant here, as the facts are undisputed.  For the same reason, I don't believe that my lack of personal familiarity with Gov. Sununu is germaine, either.

As for my "list", you'll notice it didn't include Anne McLane Kuster, because I don't think there's anything wrong with lobbying for Dartmouth College.  Dartmouth does not seek to undermine unions or derail health insurance reform.  But I will criticize others whom I believe are hypocrites.  

It makes no sense to support "standing up to special interests" -- a foundational principle for both the Obama and Edwards campaigns last year -- without actually doing that.  If you disagree, then you don't have a leg to stand on when special interests derail progressive interests.

You worked in Congress for the father of a NH resident who herself has political aspirations, but you live and work out of state. So I am  not sure if you are commenting out of altruism. I can see your heart on your sleeve though from here.

Please explain why this is relevant.  I never pretended to live in NH -- I did so for 8 years and, like many ex-Pats, I feel a strong connection to the state.  Have never hidden my current residence, or my previous employer.

As far as your "altruism" crack, I can't imagine what lobbying for illicit interests has to do with the 2nd CD.  Please enlighten.

You know exactly how the game is played in Washington, because you played it.

Wrong.  I have never worked as a lobbyist, and never will.  But I did serve on the Hill for nearly five years, and that gave me sufficient exposure to the role of special interests in our legislative process.  And that's why I'm committed to changing it.

The Constitution protects the right of citizens and companies for a redress of grievances. Just like attorneys represent anyone, lobbyists can too.

I never questioned anyone's "right" to be a lobbyist -- quite the contrary.  I only questioned the chutzpah involved.  (And, in Mr. Demers' case, it appears to be quite a bit.)

I have never heard from you before on this issue...being against gambling. Or is it that you think we should outlaw the ability of legitimate interests to be represented in the halls of government ?

My post didn't concern gambling.  Quite honestly, I don't have much of a position on it -- like most people, I think it sucks, but can't see other viable options.  Rather, I was sounding off about lobbying on behalf of some pretty crappy special interests.

Since you live and work in a state with an income tax and a huge deficit...why don't you focus on that and leave NH to us ?

Nice cop out.  JB, there are a lot of people on this site who don't live in NH right now.  That doesn't eliminate their right to present information and debate points.  If you think it should, than this blog will be A LOT smaller.

Unless perhaps you have aspirations to work for a NH Congressperson again...then by all mean keep stirring the pot.

I left the Hill voluntarily five years ago, and will not go back, regardless of who is elected in 2010 or beyond.  Not that that's relevant. . . .  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 11:59:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay thanks for the response (0.00 / 0)

You provided the clarificiation I was looking for, but
I don't always get where you are coming as an avenger for all that's right and true...what are your top three issues to fight for and how do these posts help your causes ?

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:22:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Any time, JB (0.00 / 0)

Top three issues:

1. Advancing global human rights
2. Supporting health care reform
3. Cleaning up the way government works

You'll find that most (but certainly not all) of my posts address these three issues. . . . I don't consider myself an "avenger", but, as you know, I get very sticky when certain folks (Burt?) launch unsubstantiated broadsides on fellow Democrats, because I believe that's exceptionally counterproductive.  

My reasons for calling out "progressives" who earn a living by shilling for anti-progressive causes are listed above.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:33:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Contradictory (4.00 / 2)

If attacking fellow Democrats is counterproductive, why attack fellow Democrats who lobby? We all have to eat, and unfortunately regressive causes are better funded, and therefore more likely to hire a lobbyist.

I agree with you that they shouldn't, but I give people a lot of slack for how they put food on the table (perhaps because I've had good jobs and not-so-good jobs).

---

by: JimC @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:44:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

If attacking fellow Democrats is counterproductive, why attack fellow Democrats who lobby?

Last I checked, Jim Demers is not a candidate for office, so criticizing his lobbying efforts does nothing to undermine Democratic chances for winning and holding elected office.

We all have to eat, and unfortunately regressive causes are better funded, and therefore more likely to hire a lobbyist.

That's not an acceptable excuse for me.  Is the "we all have to eat" argument applicable to tobacco lobbying?  How about lobbying for the government of Equatorial Guinea, which lops the hands off political opponents?  (An old acquaintance from the Hill is doing this now.)  Where do you draw the line?

When you're a progressive, that line should be drawn at a point where lobbying for established reactionary causes -- companies and trade groups that are solely devoted to undermining progressive interests -- begins.  Jim Demers (and others cited) are not struggling artists.  There are lots of ways for them to earn a living without betraying the causes that they claim to espouse.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:55:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whoa there (0.00 / 0)

Last I checked, Jim Demers is not a candidate for office, so criticizing his lobbying efforts does nothing to undermine Democratic chances for winning and holding elected office.

Completely untrue. You could easily hang Jim Demers around a candidate's neck. Hell, you could attack Dean by attacking someone who posts here. Really shaky premise there.

As to where I would draw the line, I would apply a reasonable man standard. Lobbying is to be avoided, and the higher one's rank in the party, the more it should be avoided (the logic being, greater conflict plus greater opportunities for better work). But we don't always know what circumstances may be in play.

To use an imperfect analogy, to this day Michael Caine will take almost any role hs is offered -- for the money. He is worth about $20 million and says that's not enough. Maybe I'd agree if I grew up like him.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 13:04:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly, he's not a candidate for anything. So why attack? (4.00 / 1)

Last I checked, Jim Demers is not a candidate for office,

If he were a candidate, or held himself out as a public voice of progressive politics, it might be reasonable to attack him for inconsistency. The last time I looked, Jim Demers held himself out to be a professional lobbyist working within the rules of the system we have. It seems to me to make no sense to attack individuals as long as they aren't representing interests that are intrinsically evil (see Dictators, Former Soviet Republics). While I dont like the bill he is working for here, having bought a handful of lottery tickets two weeks ago, I would be hard-pressed to call gambling malum in se. (How's that Dean?)

If there were some context here that made him individually relevant, perhaps it would make sense. Thus I didnt have any problem with the Clinton campaign making an issue of his work given Obama's stress on the role of lobbyists and his role as state co-chair . (In fact I would have been shocked if they hadnt brought it up and so told the Obama campaign a year before it became an issue).

The saints among us aside*, we are all a jumble of contradictions, and I dont see any value in attacking individual people who dont seek or hold office for perceived failures.

Full disclosure: I like Jim Demers a lot and know him to be a kind and thoughtful person.

* yes it is JBB I have in mind.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:47:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response (0.00 / 0)

If he were a candidate, or held himself out as a public voice of progressive politics, it might be reasonable to attack him for inconsistency. The last time I looked, Jim Demers held himself out to be a professional lobbyist working within the rules of the system we have.

Valid point.  But it's not as though Mr. Demers isn't actively engaged in progressive politics (on one hand) and in lobbying for companies that stand firmly opposed to progressive politics (on the other hand).  If we don't call out our friends for selling this type of crap, how do we criticize our opponents?  Or the system that enables them?

It seems to me to make no sense to attack individuals as long as they aren't representing interests that are intrinsically evil (see Dictators, Former Soviet Republics).

Perhaps.  Personally, I place pharmaceutical companies that strive to make life-saving drugs as unaffordable as possible in that category.

The saints among us aside*, we are all a jumble of contradictions, and I dont see any value in attacking individual people who dont seek or hold office for perceived failures.

I respect that line -- and I do see Bresler as a saint, of course.  At the same time, if you accept money from illicit sources to campaign for illicit policies, you should get some heat for it.

Full disclosure: I like Jim Demers a lot and know him to be a kind and thoughtful person.

Based on the testimony of folks like you, Kathy, and JB, I have no doubt this is true.  But I'd encourage you to ask him to use his considerable talents elsewhere.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:58:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

saints and sinners alike n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 13:10:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shoddy (4.00 / 1)

DD,
This is not your best work.

A few points:
-No one that I drink with likes the current state of affairs with lobbying. When citizens act as absentee landlords, special interests fill the void. Damn their cursed "redress of grievances." But let's see how it works out. Right now, the President is giving it to the AMA with his pinkies up. Health care reform may redefine "the game." If not, then I'm sure a more stern tact will be forthcoming. Definately, lobbying reform is in store. Hell, John McCain will carry water on this effort.

- You said "lobbying is not always a bad thing, and lobbyists are not necessarily bad people (quite the contrary)." Words like that are not kind. It could be reread as, "most lobbying is bad, not all bad, but mostly. And those kinda nice people doing that mostly bad work are OK, but they really could define their niceness by not doing mostly bad lobbying."

-I am the son of a Teamster and my nephew works for Yellow. No one likes a scab shop, but they do provide a working wage. At family BBQ's, this conversation occurs often: Scabs are tolerated and the butt of many insults, like Yankee Fans. At the end of the day, though, we are all glad that we can each feed our kids. How many NH families live off of the FEDEX brand?

-The guilt by association thing is a tricky angle. You have been clear on your personal feelings. I don't completely agree with you, but I'm feelin' ya, bro. Having met several times with Demers, he doesn't strike me as the Nick Naylor kinda guy. Now, Sununu and his pals the "foreign dictatorships," that is some ugly shit.

Your years in NH should have taught you how they love to amuse themselves with the sport of politics. And folks like you and me, the politcal tourists that we are, should enjoy what we can and watch our boundries. Taking potshots and whacks at their friends is something just for them. Intrusion into this delicate area can have deleterious effects as the calculus is convoluted.

Or as my friend Dan's ol' man used to say, "Don't shit in your own backyard." For a IBEW guy, that's wisdom.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 13:20:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response to your points (0.00 / 0)

No one that I drink with likes the current state of affairs with lobbying. When citizens act as absentee landlords, special interests fill the void. Damn their cursed "redress of grievances." But let's see how it works out. Right now, the President is giving it to the AMA with his pinkies up. Health care reform may redefine "the game." If not, then I'm sure a more stern tact will be forthcoming. Definately, lobbying reform is in store. Hell, John McCain will carry water on this effort.

No argument there.  We're in violent agreement, brother.

You said "lobbying is not always a bad thing, and lobbyists are not necessarily bad people (quite the contrary)." Words like that are not kind. It could be reread as, "most lobbying is bad, not all bad, but mostly. And those kinda nice people doing that mostly bad work are OK, but they really could define their niceness by not doing mostly bad lobbying."

We're dealing with semantics here.  I don't really see the difference, but I respect the fact that you do.

I am the son of a Teamster and my nephew works for Yellow. No one likes a scab shop, but they do provide a working wage. At family BBQ's, this conversation occurs often: Scabs are tolerated and the butt of many insults, like Yankee Fans. At the end of the day, though, we are all glad that we can each feed our kids. How many NH families live off of the FEDEX brand?

I believe that scabs and scab shops undermine organized labor's fight for economic justice in America.  Lots of people live off the FedEx brand -- and Halliburton brand, and the Wal-Mart brand.  But that doesn't make taking money from these companies to enable their political efforts any less wrong. . . . If you disagree, I respect that.

The guilt by association thing is a tricky angle. You have been clear on your personal feelings. I don't completely agree with you, but I'm feelin' ya, bro. Having met several times with Demers, he doesn't strike me as the Nick Naylor kinda guy. Now, Sununu and his pals the "foreign dictatorships," that is some ugly shit.

I realize that it's a slippery slope.  I would never argue that Jim Demers in Nick Naylor (especially since I don't know him), but I also don't see much difference between (a) lobbying for tobacco companies that give money to Republicans to undermine federal regulations, and (b) lobbying for pharmaceutical companies that give money to Republicans to undermine federal regulations.

Taking potshots and whacks at their friends is something just for them. Intrusion into this delicate area can have deleterious effects as the calculus is convoluted.

I respectfully disagree.  Perhaps I'm a little frustrated because of my 2002 experience with the pharmaceutical lobby.  But if PhRMA donates another $500,000 to defeat our 2nd CD candidate in 2010, I'm guessing you will agree with me that enabling such behavior should not be tolerated.

Or as my friend Dan's ol' man used to say, "Don't shit in your own backyard." For a IBEW guy, that's wisdom.

I don't have indoor plumbing.  Where else am I supposed to take a dump?

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:49:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

its continual on a certain wavelength. (0.00 / 0)

Whenever certain topics that flip you out are raised on this blog or in the local press/newmedia you attack, if not the issue, the issuer. It never stops.

http://www.bluehampshire.com/d...
I have a very hard time with the "centrist" crap that Pindell is pushing

Pindell attempts to report on NH politics without a bias, something you may not recognize. I am proud to call him a friend, though he has savaged a candidate here or there that I was supporting. I hated it, but all's fair in love war and politics. Whatever Jame's personal beliefs on issues, he is a qualified professional journalist in the Columbia School tradition.
http://www.journalism.columbia...

He's also committed many years covering the Republican and Democratic Parties, their Conventions, their governing efforts, through a three different jobs. As a writer for the Boston Globe, PoliticsNH.com, etc etc. but always with the saem sharp focus. I would say his work is far from "crap". He gave my friend Paul Hodes a grilling on the WMUR/NECN Congressional Debates, and I was pissed, but he maintains his integrity and it is beyond besmirching by you sir. I would describe like tough but fair ref who calls it the same both ways. I hope in his new endeavor,
http://www.nhpoliticalreport.com that he keeps hitting the soft spots that we are too timid to.

You demean the effort to have a real press,and we surely do have to rely on independent voices for reporting. With no DiStaso for months, and WMUR- the msm old hat UL light, I look to the Pindell's New Hampshire Political Report to provide a fair and focused channel for news of New Hampshire Politics. I expect news, not outcomes from him.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 13:49:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Big-Time Overreaction, JB (0.00 / 0)

I was not "attacking" Pindell.  I appreciate and respect him.  Rather, I was criticizing a very specific generalization that he made about Katrina Swett.  

Am not sure where you got "you demean the effort to have a real press" out of that.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Way, way over the line, JB.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 14:38:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

calling peoples' work crap, which you used again today in another context n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 19:26:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, Jon. Not at All. (0.00 / 0)

1. I only referred to Pindell's characterization of Katrina Swett as "centrist" as crap.  It was very specific and very clear.  I never said a thing a Pindell himself or his overall journalism, nor would I. Have been reading him since his politicsnh days.

2. Yes, I most definitely called lobbying for PhRMA crap, and I meant every word of it.  And, quite frankly, I'm stunned that you (and others) continue to defend it. . . .  Here's a pretty good summary of PhRMA's pernicious influence on public policy:

http://www.iccr.org/publicatio...

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:26:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Before you defend PhRMA lobbying. . . . (0.00 / 0)

Please read a summary of PhRMA's involvement in New Hampshire politics and policy during the past several years, which I compiled at the bottom of this tread.  And think about whether you want to continue to defend it.

Thank you.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 21:19:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not defending anything regarding PhRMA (4.00 / 1)

where do you get that ? But when Jim stood up for Obama, the first African American to win the Presidential nomination, his was not the choice of the establishment, he worked hard for change, and what he does for a living is not something I want to attack. I disagree with some of his clients but I defend his right to work for whomever he chooses.
I thought about this as it relates to me. I have no problem taking print orders from anyone, as long as they are a legal entity, as constituted under the laws of NH, and they have credit. I have printed for Casinos, and for Pfizer, because I had employees to pay, and a family to feed. If I only worked for people I agreed with on politics, or ethics, I might go broke.
In business we don't talk religion or politics, because it is stupid to use those yardsticks. Lawyers take cases all the time for people with whom they might never socialize, or agree on anything. Lobbying is a little different, but not that much, and like Hillary said, there are good lobbyists.
Don't damn them all by their billable hours. I think who folks choose to support in their private lives is as important as who their clients are.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 05:54:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree to Disagree (0.00 / 0)

JB, I respect your judgment.  Here's where I stand -- will leave it at that:

I would never question Jim Demers' right to lobby for an organization that fights progressive reform (like PhRMA).  This isn't about rights -- it's about judgment.

I know that you -- and others -- take issue with my shpiels about Demers, Dean, and other progressives who choose to make a living in this manner.  The reason I do so is clear to me:

* Lobbying is about perverting the policymaking process to meet your client's ends. When you lobby for, say, NEA-NH (like Rick Trombley), this can be a very good thing.  When you do this for PhRMA, an organization dedicated to undermining drug affortability, it's a very bad thing.

* Lobbyists for organizations like PhRMA -- and the money and influence they bring to bear -- are the greatest impediment to reform in America today.  When they are able to employ progressives like Jim Demers, it provides them with credibility that they do not deserve.

* President Obama was elected with a message of fixing our broken political process. If we can't challenge our fellow believers to support this -- in deed, not just word -- then we are in no position to, say, criticize our opponents (aka the Sununus) for shilling on behalf of illicit interests.

I accept that Mr. Demers is a nice guy who stood up for Senator Obama before almost anyone, and has done more for the party than almost anyone around (including me).  This has given him the influence that, no doubt, contributes to his lobbying effectiveness.  All I ask is that he -- and other lobbyists -- use this influence in a manner consistent with their long-held beliefs.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 06:30:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay but (0.00 / 0)

"Lobbying is about perverting the policy making process to meet your client's ends."
No, lobbying is an integral part of the policy making process. It insures that there are opportunities for redress of grievances per the Constitution. If the Ted Stevens( =corrupt elected officials using seniority and influence to help his backers) of the world can take gifts from Oil Companies and get away with representing their interests, then there needs to be a NRDC to fight back.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 06:36:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response to Jon (0.00 / 0)

If the Ted Stevens( =corrupt elected officials using seniority and influence to help his backers) of the world can take gifts from Oil Companies and get away with representing their interests, then there needs to be a NRDC to fight back.

As I noted in my very next sentence, lobbying can be used for good ends (e.g. Rick Trombley and NEA-NH).  But PhRMA ain't the NRDC, Jon.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 08:03:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

dd are you saying that only.. (0.00 / 0)

Are you saying that only the former Democrats who were elected officials are potential 'good' Lobbyists, or can former Republican elected officials be good lobbyists too?
And by the way, just for the record name three things Trombley has done without googling...how can you judge ? Because you knew him before ? Isn't your thesis that money 'perverts' the process? So then theoretically once one becomes a lobbyist one becomes perverted by money, unless you knew him before as a good person. Or put another way, you 'looked into his eyes, and he's a good man.'

What we're back to is that you have decided that your list of what is and what isn't moral holds sway. I don't care what you list, because unless we change the Constitution, all the parties you don't like will still have rights.

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:16:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Response to JB (4.00 / 1)

Democrats who were elected officials are potential 'good' Lobbyists, or can former Republican elected officials be good lobbyists too?

Both can lobby for interests that support (or, at the very least, don't fly in the face of) progressive values.  No doubt about that.

And by the way, just for the record name three things Trombley has done without googling...how can you judge ? Because you knew him before ?

Rick Trombley was a vague acquaintence over a decade ago.  I don't know him, and I can't cite his accomplishments. . . . Rather, my point was that he's lobbying on behalf of public school teachers.  In my opinion, if you are going to get paid to influence public policy, there are few better beneficiaries.

Isn't your thesis that money 'perverts' the process? So then theoretically once one becomes a lobbyist one becomes perverted by money, unless you knew him before as a good person. Or put another way, you 'looked into his eyes, and he's a good man.'

Yes, I do believe that money can pervert the process, especially when it's spent to further the interests of large drug companies and at the expense of sick people who aren't wealthy enough to buy their products.

As noted, I don't know Rick Trombley.  I do know some lobbyists, though, and many are friends.  They are mostly good people (like Mr. Demers, no doubt) -- albeit good people who, depending on their clients, engage in professional activities that I find abhorrent.

What we're back to is that you have decided that your list of what is and what isn't moral holds sway.

No.  I believe that lobbying for public school teachers and public education is a more worthy endeavor than lobbying to make life-saving drugs less accessible.  Don't you?

I don't care what you list, because unless we change the Constitution, all the parties you don't like will still have rights

.

No doubt.  But that doesn't mean we can't place pressure on politicians to strengthen lobbying laws, nor does it suggest that we can't call out our allies who serve as well-paid hired guns for organizations that engage in disgusting behavior.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 12:17:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dig After Dig (0.00 / 0)

You make many fine points, worthy of deep consideration. It is phrases like this from which, imo, you should refrain.

This has given him the influence that, no doubt, contributes to his lobbying effectiveness.

We talked semantics before, so let me interpolate your quote above.

Jim Demers uses people to serve his scumbag clients. He plays footsie with the top NH Dems, as a means to an ends. His effectiveness is predicated on either one of two things. He is either the master of all bullshit artists, a regular Rasputin OR the top NH Dems are so fucking stupid that they don't see the wool over their eyes, as the shepherd leads them to the slaughter.

I can't for the life of me fathom how you can persist in degrading a man for his work and by doing so, degrade the community of friends and allied progressives that, for years, have worked and fought beside this man and folks like him.

Is "lobbying" out of whack? Yes. Is there undue influence and corruption in the system? Most assuredly.

Unfortunately, by kicking Demers square in the nuts, you call into question the community that has vetted Demers over the decades.

Now, partner. What do you know that they do not? Speak now or pull off target and approach the subject from an impassioned, but impersonal angle.

Please.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 07:21:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's NOT what I meant (0.00 / 0)

If I wanted to say the words you put in my mouth, I would have.  Furthermore, I took pains to be clear that I wasn't talking about Jim Demers as a person - as I don't know him - but rather the nature of lobbying for PhRMA et. al.

At the same time, I don't know how you can argue that lobbyists' political influence isn't their chief drawing card for their corporate clients.  Why do you think that so many former elected officials are recruited for this purpose?  Why are the most prolific -- and valued -- lobbyists in NH are names like Rath, Clegg, Monahan, and, yes, Demers?  Do you really feel that this is an accident?

This is an unpleasant topic.  But, imho, the reason there has been no action on lobbying reform for so long is precisely the behavior in which you and others are engaging in -- overlooking the act because the actor is a decent guy.  But, to paraphrase Howard Beale, I'm sick and tired of seeing my government perverted by special interests, and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 08:02:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this goes to campiagn finance reform-Hodes CLEAN (4.00 / 2)

Representative Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) explains why he feels that the Clean Law for Earmark Accountability Reform Act is so important for Congress. He believes that it will help to restore Americans trust in their elected officials. (0:45)
http://odeo.com/episodes/24486...

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:09:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My Bad? (0.00 / 0)

Furthermore, I took pains to be clear that I wasn't talking about Jim Demers as a person - as I don't know him

Jim Demers has some 'splaining to do -- big time
Another Demers Client - Fedex

The whole "guns blazing" thing threw me off.

Reform related:
http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...
http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...

That is my part of the defense to the "you'se guys" charge. Methinks Thou Doest Protest Too Much, Yo.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 11:25:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps we both went a little far (4.00 / 1)

I have tried to walk a fine line between (a) Mr. Demers' decision to lobby for causes I dislike intensely, and (b) the testimonies about his decency and integrity from people I respect.

If I fell off that line in a couple of places, then I sincerely apologies.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 12:21:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For verily I say unto you... (4.00 / 2)

Blog On!


www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 12:27:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish that there were some way to bring the discussion out to the edge again. (4.00 / 1)

Maybe youse guys can start again here. I am very interested in your attitudes on these subjects much more than in the particular subject (Demers) My only observation is that there seems to be this strange aversion to realizing that no one is all of anything. People do good and bad things for good and bad reasons in my opinion and they don't always manage to match up the good things with the good reasons. Besides, why not just agree that this person did something right or wrong and get on with it. There is no system in which if you do something wrong, I get to do a bad thing to make up for it. By the same token even the baddest guys seem to do good things once in a while. Why not just leave it like that. I am not convinced that there is the popular consistency in behavior that allows you to rely on some person who did something good in the past to do only good things in the future. That is why we attempt to bring those things up - improve actions. If bad people were always bad, what would be the point?  

---

by: xteeth @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 13:41:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

PhRMA in New Hamsphire (0.00 / 0)

Most of us are well aware of PhRMA's role in national politics -- as a fierce opponent of drug reimportation and related measure to reduce costs.  But, to add to my earlier comments, I thought it would be wise to add a recent history of this organization's connection to New Hampshire.  This is by no means a complete list, but it tells a pretty clear story.

I certainly don't intend to blame these actions on Jim Demers, although, as a lobbyist for this organization throughout this entire period, he should bear some responsibility:

October 2002 - The United Seniors Association (USA) spends more than $500,000 in television advertisements touting Charlie Bass's record on prescription drugs.  These ads have been funded almost entirely by a "general education grant" from the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) - the major drug manufacturer industry group.  Furthermore, USA's ad campaign has been produced by PhRMA's former marketing director.  

July 2004 - Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduces an amendment to strip $500,000 from the budget of the FDA's Office of the Chief Counsel, noting that the FDA Chief Counsel had repeatedly interceded in civil suits on behalf of drug and medical device manufacturers that were accused of harming patients who had used their products.  PhRMA - a beneficiary of these efforts - fights Hinchey tooth and nail.

The amendment's most fervent opponent?  None other than drug company shill Judd Gregg, who speaks against it in the 7/22/04 Congressional Record.

October 2005 - Ken Johnson, a senior vice president of PhRMA, writes a Union Leader op-ed in opposition to Democratic-sponsored legislation restricting drug company marketing to doctors.  He dubiously claims:  "It's simply not true that the marketing of medicines somehow causes the cost of medicines to increase."

May 2006 - Gov. Lynch signs legislation to stop drugmakers from getting access to physician prescribing data, over PhRMA's fervent opposition.  According to bill sponsor Cindy Rosenwald: "My committee chairman and vice chairman both told me they never experienced such intense lobbying pressure, and both have served for over a decade."

July 2006 - Over PhRMA's fervent opposition, the US Senate passes an amendment to allow importation of prescription drugs for personal use.  According to the 7/13 Pharma Marketletter:

The vote was vociferously criticized by some Republican Senators, including Judd Gregg.

October 2006 - Democratic candidate Paul Hodes slams Congressman Charlie Bass for his fealty to PhRMA.  According to the 10/25 Manchester Union Leader:

"Billy Tauzin, the Republican chairman of the (House) Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote the bill to the specifications of the big drug companies. And on the day he retired from Congress that year, he went to work for the head of PhRMA, the lobby for the drug companies," Hodes said.

"We've got to cut off this connection between Congress and lobbies," he added.

Hodes said money could be saved if Medicare is allowed to use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices.

April 2007 - Rep. Miriam Dunn writes the following letter to the editor of the Concord Monitor.  It reads:

Change this now

On Wednesday morning, the New Hampshire chapter of AARP held a press conference. About 50 members gathered to hear informed speakers discuss giving Medicare stronger bargaining power to lower prescription drug prices. We were urged to contact Sens. Gregg and Sununu to express our support for this effort.

On the same day, AARP ran a half-page "Paid Political Advertisement" in the Concord Monitor outlining its position.

In the same Monitor, Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America ran a full-page "Paid Advertisement." How timely! PhRMA has earned its reputation as the special-interest arm of the drug industry, lobbying mightily and expensively against negotiations of lower drug prices because the practice threatens the profits of its drug-company members.

The PhRMA ad tells you to call Congress and "tell them to leave Medicare alone." This is an outright political statement and should be labeled as such. This may seem nitpicky to some, but this is the political season, and readers should be aware who is paying for political lobbying.

If veterans can negotiate drug prices through the VA, why can't seniors have the same opportunity through Medicare? Because PhRMA says no way and the government says okay! Time to change this is now.

MIRIAM DUNN

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 21:17:19 PM CDT