Banner ad

Friday, January 29, 2010

Cruising the Web

Ah, the unsurprising hypocrisy of the Obamanians. Right after trashing lobbyists in his State of the Union, the Treasury Department invited lobbyists to come in for private briefings to discuss the President's policies.
A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”
Once again, we get the rhetoric, but the actions are completely different.

And Jonah Goldberg reports the facts
on all the lobbyists working in the Obama administration. Obama bashed the lobbyists but then handed out waivers for the lobbyists he wanted to hire. Either lobbying is a despicable profession or it isn't. But Obama wants to have his populist rhetoric, but just not have it encompass his own magnificence.

George Will is exactly right as he discusses the Citizens United decision. Will exposes how Obama's rhetoric is, once again, at odds with his own behavior.
Barack "Pitchfork" Obama, in his post-Massachusetts populist mode, called the court's ruling a victory for, among others, "big oil" and "Wall Street banks." But reports that in 2008 lawyers gave more money than either of them, and gave 78 percent of the donations to Democrats, who also received 64 percent of contributions from the financial sector.
The White House has pushed back against critics of Obama's bald statement in the SOTU that the Court decision will open the floodgates to foreign corporations by saying that American corporations with foreign ownership could still try to influence our elections after this decision. Bradley Smith explains the law once again and how this cannot happen. There are laws regulating such businesses and none of that was changed by the Court's ruling.

Kimberley Strassel exposes
, once again, how the President's trashing of business interests ends up paralyzing capital investment. Obama is repeating the habits of FDR who trashed business leaders and the result was stagnant business investment in the second half of the 1930s. People won't risk their money if they don't trust the government. And so the economy will not bounce back as well as it might.

Ron Radosh expresses my thoughts on the passing of Howard Zinn. History should not be used to "change the future."

John Kerry says that the John Edwards we're reading about now "isn't the person he campaigned with." But this is all personal so it shouldn't matter, right? I guess Kerry was for him before he was against him.

Speaking of being for something before being against it, Ben Nelson is desperately trying to walk back his vote in favor of Harry Reid's health care bill. He's heard the response from Nebraska loud and clear. And now, while rumors of the Democrats trying to ram the bill through the Senate using the reconciliation process, Nelson is scrambling around trying to rally other Democrats to help stop their own party from walking off this cliff.

Another liberal group not practicing what it preaches: The Scottish office responsible for protecting Scotland's environment and decreasing its carbon use by 25% has actually increased its usage by 10%.

Susan Anne Hiller asks a good question: why is Paul Kirk still casting votes in the Senate? He was the interim senator appointed to Ted Kennedy's seat. Hiller points to a history of how this has been handled previously which reveals that Senate precedent from the 1930s plus the wording of the 17th Amendment clearly indicate that an interim senator cannot vote once a new senator has been elected even while waiting for the election to be officially certified. Kirk cast the 60th vote to raise the debt ceiling yesterday. Why should his vote count and why aren't the Republicans objecting?

On a totally different note, here is a fun interview between Dan Patrick and Coach K. The coach has some interesting things to say about the "one and done" rules in the NCAA>


LarryD said...

Lobbyists are enabling this hypocritical behavior by going along with it. If they took a collective vacation just before a fund-raising cycle (or are the politicians now in permanent fund raising mode), then maybe the politicians would realize they can't talk out of both sides of their mouths.

tfhr said...

Seems to me that each Senator and Representative, along with the President, should publicly disclose all meetings held with lobbyists and all contributions, assistance received, and "perks" taken from lobbyists. The appropriate places for full disclosure should be on the home page for each member of Congress and at The time limit for disclosure should be within 48 hours of the "transaction".

Yeah, that'll happen.

LarryD said...

Hmm, I like it. It needs to be extended to staff and immediate family, though.

tfhr said...


They'll never go for restrictions on nepotism.