Gay Patriot Header Image

This is the Change Obama Voters Hoped For?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:36 pm - December 22, 2009.
Filed under: Obama Hopenchange

CHANGELobbyists On Pace For Record Year.

Share

29 Comments

  1. Let’s see that’s right up there with
    “net spending cut”
    I’ll bring home the Olympics
    Your taxes won’t be raised one thin dime
    No lobbyists in my administration
    CLUB GITMO will be closed by jan 1
    I will work with Republicans
    yada yada yada
    LIAR

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 22, 2009 @ 7:55 pm - December 22, 2009

  2. Waiting for tano to explain this one…

    Comment by DaveP. — December 22, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - December 22, 2009

  3. Charlie Brown is on his back in the grass again. Lucy has, again, snatched away that football.

    I was a fool for the Democrats one last time in 2008. From now on, Lucy can go play with somebody else.

    Comment by Lori Heine — December 22, 2009 @ 7:59 pm - December 22, 2009

  4. In ancient Greece a “sin” was defined as, missing the mark in archery. Too bad the same can’t hold true in 2009. The good Lord knows I often pray long and hard to find strength enough to forgive… and so it is, this time I will for sure. 



    Mr. Obama thinks himself beyond reproach, he imagines, he constructs, he pursues, he squeezes out every drop of juice in the orange. Yet transgressions, no matter how slight, have a funny way of shaping a man. Unfortunately for the president, this will prove to be the rule not the exception. 



    Yesterday’s interview with the Washington Post was offensive and contained untruths; enough to regret in advance the embarrassment not yet realized. Are we to believe Obama completely forgot the interview he gave the Washington Post back when he was a candidate, “My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage.”…. 



    Was it not Obama addressing the nation on Saturday, July 18, 2009, saying, ” Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family.”



    Our president…. ever the consumate orator, can charm a snake with the orotund rhetoric of his prose… However, this time the reptile is poised to bite back.

    Comment by Spartann — December 23, 2009 @ 1:16 am - December 23, 2009

  5. ???????????

    What on earth is your point here Dan?
    “Lobbying” is the activity of free people petitioning their government. It represents the exercise of core freedoms.

    Obama never promised to reduce lobbying – how could any president do such a thing even if they wanted to?

    He promised to reduce their influence – to no longer have lobbyists writing the legislation and the regulations, as they did under the Bush administration. He promised an end to privatizing democracy – and outsourcing governance to special interests – as Republicans do, given that they have no coherent vision for how to govern the nation.

    This, for example, is a story LINK about Obama doing the precise thing that he promised to do. Its a big change – one wonders why you didn’t cover it (or did you – did I miss it?).

    But he never promised to restrict the freedom for people or corporations to try to make their case to their govenment.

    Comment by Tano — December 23, 2009 @ 2:12 am - December 23, 2009

  6. Tano, lobbyists wouldn’t be hiring up if they didn’t think they could buy influence.

    And with all this federal money flowing from Washington spigots, there are more favors to be gained.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 23, 2009 @ 2:42 am - December 23, 2009

  7. Obama’s ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to “work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect.

    But the order has a loophole — a “waiver” clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver.

    After examining the administration’s actions for the past two months, we have concluded that Obama has broken this promise.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/17/obamas-lobbyist-rules-promise-broken/

    Grassley demands waivers and recusals on former lobbyists in the Obama administration

    Updated: Friday, June 12th, 2009

    Former lobbyist in the White House? It’s okay if they say it’s okay.

    Updated: Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

    The waiver for William Lynn

    Two more waivers for former lobbyists

    Defense, Treasury appointees have conflicts

    Updated: Thursday, February 5th, 2009

    Waiver for former defense lobbyist moves the needle

    Updated: Friday, January 23rd, 2009

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

    So on and so forth.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 23, 2009 @ 2:46 am - December 23, 2009

  8. SEIU White House Visitors Shatter Obama’s “No Lobbyist” Policy
    http://www.redcounty.com/seiu-white-house-visitors-shatter-obamas-no-lobbyist-policy/34574

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 23, 2009 @ 2:54 am - December 23, 2009

  9. C’mon, Tano. Answer my question. I’m sure there’s at least 420,400 people who would like to know.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 23, 2009 @ 3:05 am - December 23, 2009

  10. Ah, I understand Tano’s logic.

    Tea parties, phone calls, mailings, polls showing that people don’t want this crap sandwich = whiny protests.

    organizations paying to have access, now that’s a different story.

    TGC, he won’t answer that question, just like he won’t answer the question in Iranian graffiti, ‘who’s side are you on’?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 23, 2009 @ 6:47 am - December 23, 2009

  11. “Lobbying” is the activity of free people petitioning their government. It represents the exercise of core freedoms.

    Tano comes out full tilt for the first amendment except the part about conservative talk radio.

    Look, there are a lot of Democrats who will be out of work come November and they need to build up their retirement nest eggs and line up work on “K” Street. Did Bob Dole go back to live among the good people of Iowa? Did Bill Clinton head back to Hope where he Jimmy Cartered his time away building shabby housing? Did Tom Daschle go back to care for the folks of South Dakota?

    Nope. They got all swept up in the glamor and joy of representing the little people and stayed in the land of limousine travel, maitre’ D’s, gift bottles of $400 wine and the perks of having people who handle their perks.

    Lobbyists are pimps. Congressmen are their customers.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 23, 2009 @ 10:06 am - December 23, 2009

  12. While Tano is correct that there is nothing wrong with lobbying, that is not the issue here.

    The issue is that Obama said, loud and clear, that lobbyists would not be part of his administration and that they would not influence the legislative process. That has not been the case.

    So, like basically every other promise he made to get elected, this is another one that has proven to be a lie. And, if I was running the campaign for whoever runs against him in 2012, I would run commercials non-stop that compare what he said in 2008 to what actually happened.

    Comment by Chris — December 23, 2009 @ 10:21 am - December 23, 2009

  13. Chris, who are you going to believe: Tano or your lying ears and eyes?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 23, 2009 @ 10:38 am - December 23, 2009

  14. Hey, look change you can be carted off to Europe for.

    Everyone happy? (H/T NRO)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 23, 2009 @ 11:18 am - December 23, 2009

  15. Heliotrope,

    It’s a tough decision. I mean, Democrats have taught me that they know what’s best for me better than I do, so it’s hard to resist the temptation to just believe Tano. But, I think i will go with my lying eyes and ears.

    Comment by Chris — December 23, 2009 @ 11:38 am - December 23, 2009

  16. ‘Tano, lobbyists wouldn’t be hiring up if they didn’t think they could buy influence.”

    Good point. Only problem is, ya see, they are NOT hiring up.
    Quite the contrary. In the very article you link to, the point is made that there are about 1500 FEWER lobbyists now.
    Probably because the Obama administration is not allowing lobbyists to hold all the positions as outlined in the link I provided.

    But yeah, spending is up. Maybe that is yet another indication that influence is waning – they are having to work harder and harder, spend more an more in order to get their messages out.

    Comment by Tano — December 23, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - December 23, 2009

  17. Spedning more money,

    Check.

    Flying more people in ‘off the books’

    Check.

    Lobbiests writing legislation

    Depends, are communists and terrorists writing legislation considered lobbyests too?

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 23, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - December 23, 2009

  18. Tano, nice try, but I doubt they’d be spending more if there weren’t more influence to be leveraged.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 23, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - December 23, 2009

  19. I don’t see your logic there Dan. The whole point of having illegitimate amounts of leverage is that you don’t have to do all the hard work of persuading people on the merits of your case – you have your buddies on the inside do your bidding for you.

    Being on the outside, with the rest of us, and having to really work to make your case to all the relevant players (a totally legitimate undertaking for citizens or groups of citizens to do) takes a lot of time, energy and money.

    Trying to point to overall lobbying spending, while ignoring the number of lobbyists, and ignoring the reforms that Obama instituted – as I pointed out in that link – and then trying to conclude that the _influence_ of lobbyists is somehow increased contra Obama’s promises, is a total non sequitor.

    But I suspect it was not meant as much of a serious argument. Just another little instapundit salvo – a round of name-calling – with nothing to back it up. Standard MO for the right these days.

    To answer your question – yeah, follow the link I gave you, that is the change I was hoping for.

    Comment by Tano — December 23, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - December 23, 2009

  20. Instapundit salvo. . . the way you define it, makes it sound just like a Tano comment.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 23, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - December 23, 2009

  21. “Nothing to back it up” = questions I’ve not gotten the talking points for, so I’m not going to reply.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 23, 2009 @ 2:35 pm - December 23, 2009

  22. It’s funny to watch just how much Tano lies.

    I have a suggestion. Since Tano refuses to answer the questions posed to him and just spews talking points, how about we line up all the questions Tano has been asked and delete any comment he posts that does not provide answers?

    The poor Tano has a habit of hit-and-run lying. This should break him of it quite nicely by forcing him to either explain his lies or have his comments deleted. Since he refuses to follow the rules, he need not be extended any courtesy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2009 @ 2:44 pm - December 23, 2009

  23. So the health care industries and financial services sectors have poured amazing amounts of money into their lobbyists to stop comprehensive reform in both areas, with the GOP on their side all the way, and this is Obama’s fault?

    Comment by torrentprime — December 23, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - December 23, 2009

  24. 21 – since Tano was talking about BDB’s post, your response
    (questions I’ve not gotten the talking points for, so I’m not going to reply)
    was directed to BDB and was unintentionally accurate.

    Comment by torrentprime — December 23, 2009 @ 3:16 pm - December 23, 2009

  25. No, No, NO!!!!! Tano is their useful idiot. If he is made to be responsible in his remarks, where will we turn to seek instruction on how sheep fall into nose-to-anal-pore formation?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 23, 2009 @ 3:19 pm - December 23, 2009

  26. Darn, I think Tano just did his metamorphosis thing.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 23, 2009 @ 3:21 pm - December 23, 2009

  27. Yup, looks like it’s talkingpointsprime that got access to the computer.

    Glad to see he agrees that if Tano doesn’t have the talking points, he can’t answer the question.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 23, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - December 23, 2009

  28. TGC, he won’t answer that question, just like he won’t answer the question in Iranian graffiti, ‘who’s side are you on’?

    Surely he can answer that plus explain, to the millions unemployed and the hundreds of thousands losing their homes this month, exactly why so much energy has been poured into this. If they’re not ramming it through, as he claims, why is the senate still in session during Christmas? Why not wait until next year? That way, they can go home and bask in the love and adulation of their voters for a few weeks.

    Tano and Tim “The Eyebrow” Kane both said once it passes, everybody will love it once they find out what’s in it. Why not tell us now and catapult Chairman Maobama to stardom immediately?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 23, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - December 23, 2009

  29. > This is the Change Obama Voters Hoped For?

    If your shorts don’t need changing, you aren’t paying attention…

    Comment by OBloodyhell — December 25, 2009 @ 3:35 am - December 25, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.