Obama’s Lobbyist Hypocrisy
From Hot Air:
Back we go to this tedious subject about which few voters much care but which The One, lacking any compelling evidence that he’ll bring a new type of politics to Washington, loves to invoke as proof of his immaculate Change-iness. Unlike the insiders, you see, he doesn’t take money from federally registered lobbyists or special interests, and from now on neither will the Democratic Party. Except that he does sometimes take money from federally registered lobbyists; and so does the Democratic Party, per its congressional reelection committees; and he’s overflowing with cash from employees of special interests, including employees of those dastardly oil companies; oh, and needless to say, he misleads voters about all of this by choosing his words very, very carefully even while he’s busy tossing out zingers about McCain’s lobbyist “old boys network.” (Get it?)
But if none of those earlier posts penetrated and you’re looking for a concise, all-in-one recap of The One’s cynicism on this point, dive into Matthew Cooper’s piece for Portfolio.
He takes money from lobbyists’ spouses too, and even has federally registered lobbyists working for his campaign — but as volunteers, not paid employees, so that’s cool. The worst part is, his stance on this isn’t even the most glaring example of his opportunistic hypocrisy on “reform” issues, so since we’re dredging up old posts to revisit, go ahead and re-read this one too. The guy’s a poseur. Case closed.
Barack Obama has spent his entire political career accomodating shady politicians (the Chicago machines of Stroger and Daley), cozying up to crooked special interests (Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, the Pritzkers, numerous others that donated to his campaigns and got earmarks or other favors back), and affiliating with characters of extremism (Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright) and disrepute (Tony Rezko).
And even his rhetoric on not taking money from lobbyists or having them associated with his campaign rings empty. Change you can’t believe in.








Leave a Reply