McCain Promotes Aide Who Lobbied For Saudi Arabia

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, McCain, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, The World

McCain hits Obama on an endorsement from Hamas he couldn’t control, then uses the situation to raise money, but then promotes a guy to one of the top spots in his own campaign who worked for a country where a majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from?

Hmmm…

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to name former Rep. Tom Loeffler (R-Texas) as his consigliere for the 2008 presidential race, bringing a longtime friend and backer into the inner circle of the Arizona Senator’s national campaign.

After leaving Congress, Loeffler spent time in the Reagan Administration and then went on to found the Loeffler Group — a lobbying shop. Loeffler has stayed actively involved in presidential politics, however, particularly on the fundraising end. In 2000 Loeffler served as then Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s national finance co-chairman; four years later Loeffler was a “Super Ranger” for the Bush campaign — meaning that he raised better than $500,000 for the president’s re-election effort and the Republican National Committee.

While McCain is already benefiting from Loeffler’s connections in the donor world, Loeffler’s lobbying ties could be a source of some controversy for McCain. Loeffler has lobbied for Saudi Arabia for several years and has been richly rewarded. In the first six months of last year, The Loeffler Group collected more than $5 million in fees, according to a report in O’Dwyer’s PR Services Report.

Now, I don’t know about you…but this doesn’t seem like a very smart idea if he’s calling Obama’s terrorist connections into question.

You can read more from the Washington Times.


This entry was posted on Monday, May 12th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, McCain, Saudi Arabia, Terrorism, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “McCain Promotes Aide Who Lobbied For Saudi Arabia”

  1. TheMiddle Says:

    And any attempt by Barack or his surrogates to use this against McCain would reek of desperation, and the ‘same old,’ politics Barack is supposed to be against. This is exactly the sort of thing Barack can’t get baited into – if he says he wants the campaign to be about issues, then giving even a moments glance to this complete NON-ISSUE would be hypocritical.

    I don’t think it’s right that the American people get distracted from real issues that face our nation, by things like Hagee, Wright, Bosnia, whatever! I don’t doubt Barack’s patriotism, nor McCain’s desire to be far more moderate while still knowing he has to find a way to get his base out. Call it pandering, its what he needs to do, but I don’t think that changes who he is in my mind one bit.

    What I do want to hear about is the substantive differences in their economic, foreign, domestic, and energy policies. I want to know how they’re going to make it easier to send my kids to college, and how we can shrink our MASSIVE military expenditures.

    Really, I am a huge believer that nearly all of our nations ‘ills,’ could be cured with a huge hack off our military’s bloated budget, and subsequent reprioritization of those funds. I hear the right complain about the left’s, ‘tax-and-spend,’ policies, while watching them dump hundreds of billions a year into completely unnecessary military expenditures. Total hypocrisy. And as a former military guy myself, and a huge military buff, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt, 90% of it is completely unnecessary. The modern battlefield simply doesn’t require it.

    Its sad kind of, I find myself hating both parties for various reasons. I’m a tough to cater to demo. I hate abortion, though not for religious reasons, but am a huge proponent of the notion that the government shouldn’t legislate morality in situations where a clear public sentiment doesn’t exist. As much as people on the right think everyone is “pro-life,” they aren’t and I’d rather protect freedom to choose than force unpopular moral decisions primarily backed by religion, which of course shouldn’t play a role in a secular government anyways.

    The same belief that people ought to be able to chose their own way as often as possible is also what makes me pro-gun. I certainly don’t think citizens need to be running around with AK’s and M-4′s, but they should be allowed to own guns, and I can see a rational for allowing licensed groups to form militia’s where automatic weapons can be stored and trained with. Again, where clear public sentiment doesn’t exist, we shouldn’t legislate.

    In my mind, that makes both of these highly contentious issues, non-issues for me. Until the public decides one way or another in an over-whelming fashion, I don’t want these types of issues keeping politicians from getting us (the people) health care, ensuring that we have something to protect us in retirement. I want to know that I’m not going to be paying 10 bucks a gallon for gas 5 years from now, and that ten years from now I’m not buying gas at all. I want a government that cares about defending us against things that actually harm us, like tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and obesity. Not invented enemies like the big, bad, terrorists who’s effect here in America is so incredibly small that it borders on complete irrelevance. Yet we allow that infinitesimally small fear drive us to spend wildly disproportionate amounts of our budget. Unreal.

    I’m so fed up with all of the distractions. That’s what appeals to me about Barack – a willingness to understand that certain issues are simply there to divide us, and are probably best left to the people to deal with – not the government. But he also seems to understand that there are certain fundamental issues that must be addressed for the good of our nation.

    Are his plans as well detailed as Hillary’s? No! And I know that, but the truth is, when was the last time a President came in with a plan and then saw those objectives carried out the way he drew them up? It just doesn’t happen very often. Hillary can have perfect plans, but they sure aren’t going to get through Congress that way, so what the hell does it matter? Give me the person with the vision and the ability to unite enough people of both parties to get real legislation that can help real people pushed through.

    McCain could be that guy, he certainly appeals to me, and has shown that willingness to shake the hand of the people on the other half of the aisle which appeals a lot to me. Barack is the young visionary who has a track record of working on both sides at the state level, though was very partisan at the national level. But the truth is the Congress is going to be Dem loaded the next few years, and in that scenario, McCain pretty much only serves four ineffectual years, waiting for Congress to turn over so he can hopefully win again and THEN do something. Barack will have the support of a Dem run Congress to actually get some real legislation passed through.

  2. gerryf Says:

    Issues like this are just as nonsensical as trying to tie Obama to Hamas.

    Does it really matter that 15 of the 19 hijackers were born in Saudi Arabia if Saudi Arabia wasn’t sponsoring or harboring the terrorists? No. So, does it matter if a McCain staffer was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia?

    Again no. If you want to blast McCain for surrounding himself with lobbyists, it is a much more valid point than that the lobbyist had a country for client and that country happened to be the birth place of some terrorists.

    The relevent issues about this guy are

    a) he is a lobbyist. If you have a problem with lobbying and “Washington as usual” then his previous job is relevent. IF you don’t, it shouldn’t matter (to the best of my knowledge, beyond campaign finance reform, McCain has never made lobbying a major issue, so he is not a hypocrit for bringing these people into his camp)

    b) he has close ties to George W. Bush–if you believe McCain is going to be significantly different from W. then this connection is a red flag. That doesn’t mean McCain=Bush. Loeffler could be no more than a money man for the GOP and backs whomever is the party’s nominee, but it is at least worth discussing.

    But lobbying for Saudi Arabia because some terrorists come from there? C’mon….

  3. TheMiddle Says:

    I agree. Complete non-issue. We have so many far more important things to be worrying about.

  4. Justin Gardner Says:

    And any attempt by Barack or his surrogates to use this against McCain would reek of desperation, and the ’same old,’ politics Barack is supposed to be against.

    Right guys, and that’s kind of my point. You don’t call somebody else as being Hamas’ choice while promoting somebody who worked hand in hand with Saudia Arabia. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

  5. Donklephant » Blog Archive » McCain Aide Resigns Over Saudi Arabia Lobbying Ties Says:

    [...] a week ago I wrote about Thomas G. Loeffler, a lobbyist who was being promoted to a top position in the McCain campaign. However, he’d [...]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: