|Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery.
|Obama say he doesn't
take money from DC lobbyists and special interest PACS. This is
the type of double-talk "politics of the past" rhetoric Obama rails
While his claim is technically true, what he does do is
take money from state lobbyists and other big money contributors who
have substantial lobbyist machines in DC, like law firms and
In April 2007, the LA Times quoted the Campaign
Finance Institute’s Stephen Weissman as pointing out that the
distinction Obama makes on lobbyist money is meaningless: "He gets an
asterisk that says he is trying to be different. … But overall,
the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other
candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists."
The Capital Eye
reported that "[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics,
14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending
a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the
first six months of 2007."
Obama’s no stranger to being influenced by
those campaign donations, either.
reports how the leftists of the nutroots went gaga when Barack Obama
claimed that he'd stand against taking money from lobbyists, and so did
the media. He was for a "new era" in politics. He is for
"change." Isn't he special, the nutrooters and media sighed
Well, apparently Obama's standard of a "new age" in politics doesn't
carry too far into his campaign, because the Democratic National
Convention (DNC) is being funded by ... you guessed it ... lobbyists.
As a New York Times report says, "Democrats Look to Lobbyist to Finance
Convention," the man being tapped by the DNC to head the fundraising for
their national convention is well connected lobbyist Steve Farber.
"Mr. Farber’s vast contact list could prove crucial in raising the
millions of dollars needed by the Denver host committee to showcase
Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in August in Denver."
Well, so much for getting the influence of lobbyists out of politics, eh
|Despite his solemn promise to the American people to keep
lobbyists out of his administration, two more have
slipped in. The latest waivers were provided for Jocelyn Frye,
director of policy and projects in the Office of First Lady, and Cecilia
Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs in the executive office of
Munoz was a senior vice president for the
National Council of La Raza. She was heavily involved in the
immigration battles in Congress in recent years, and is now a principal
liaison to the Hispanic community for the administration.
only has Obama flagrantly violated his pledge to keep lobbyists out of
his administration but only a couple weeks after his inauguration he
began doing this -- probably a record for repudiation of a campaign
promise. Even worse, he's hired an ethnocentric spokesperson for
the non-citizen, pro-amnesty Hispanic special-interest factions.
La Raza ("The Race") is a group adamantly committed to an open-borders,
pro-amnesty, and special privileges policy ('affirmative action') for
Latinos. The choice of Munoz clearly illustrates that amnesty will
be the goal of the Obama administration.
|Timothy P. Carney says more than 40 former lobbyists work in senior
positions in the Obama administration, including three Cabinet
secretaries and the CIA director. Yet in his State of the Union
address, Obama claimed, "We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking
Did Obama speak falsely?
Well, it depends on what
the definition of "excluded lobbyists" is.
I asked the White
House if he chose his words poorly, but the media affairs office
defended Obama's statement: "As the President said," a spokeswoman wrote
in an e-mail, "we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions."
So, the country may have heard, "we haven't hired lobbyists to
policymaking jobs," but the White House tells us Obama meant, "we only
hired some of the lobbyists who applied for policymaking jobs." In
other words, they've excluded some lobbyists.
And this was in the
context of reducing the "deficit of trust."
So Obama has, indeed,
taken a Clintonian turn, but not toward the center. Instead, he
has adopted our 42nd president's use of clearly misleading statements
that can be parsed so as to be factually correct, at least in a general
sort of way.
here . . .
Copyright Beckwith 2010
All right reserved