During a speech to the Alliance of American Manufacturing yesterday Obama said the following:
It’s an outrage, but it’s not an accident – because corporate lobbyists in Washington are writing our laws and putting their clients’ interests ahead of what’s fair for the American people. The men and women you represent haven’t been getting a seat at the table when trade agreements are being negotiated, or tax policies are being written, or health care and pension laws are being designed because the special interests have bought every chair.
That’s not the America I believe in. That’s not the America you believe in. And that’s why when I’m President, we’ll make sure Washington serves nobody’s interests but the people’s.
I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists, and I’m here to tell you that you can count on me to stand up for you after this election, just as I’ve been standing up for workers all my life. That’s why I’m running for President of the United States.
And then we get this news:
Last fall, Barack Obama quietly slipped into the Miami headquarters of a major law firm scarred by the scandals of Jack Abramoff, its once-powerful Washington lobbyist who now sits in jail.
Arriving a little after 10 a.m. on Oct. 1, Obama spent the next three hours schmoozing, speaking in a video conference to branch offices and raising money at Greenberg Traurig, a billion-dollar firm with one of the biggest lobby shops here.
Obama has now raised about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees — nearly half of it at the time of the event — more than from any of the other top law and lobby firms.
Symbolically, it was a starkly contradictory event: an appearance by the candidate who crusades most adamantly against lobbyists at the onetime firm of the poster child for out-of-control influence peddling.
Public anger over the Abramoff lobbying scandal led Obama to institute the ban on lobbyist money in the first place, an aide said last year.
The way Obama can continue to say that he is grassroots is to get the lobbyists money from the little guy. Each employee of the firm gave instead of just one lump sum. Pretty shrewd, but it doesn’t take a Einstein to figure out he is after the lobbyists money, at the same time he says he isn’t.
Ed Morrissey on how to fix this kind of stuff and why Obama is doing exactly the opposite…he will make lobbyist that much more relevant:
Here’s how politicians can reduce the influence of lobbyists: shrink the size and scope of the federal government. When taxpayers keep more of their own money and the federal government has less power, lobbyists won’t have a reason to plague Washington or to spread money and temptation around Capitol Hill. Since Barack Obama pledges to do the exact opposite, his election would have the direct effect of making lobbyists all the more relevant, and much richer.
Brilliant!
UPDATE
In other Obama news it appears his description of rural Pennsylvanians as a bunch of xenophobic bigots who cling to their guns has come home to roost:
| Pennsylvania | ||||
| Democrats | Mar 7-8 |
Mar 26-27 |
Apr 5-6 |
Apr 11-13 |
| Clinton | 52% | 51% | 45% | 57% |
| Obama | 41% | 39% | 45% | 37% |
| Someone else | 1% | 2% | 4% | 2% |
| Undecided | 6% | 8% | 6% | 4% |
Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 48% to 44% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 64% to 31%.
Clinton leads 64% to 29% among white voters (82% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 79% to 18% among African American voters (14% of likely Democratic primary voters). …
10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.
See author page
“because corporate lobbyists in Washington are writing our laws and putting their clients’ interests ahead of what’s fair for the American people … I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists”
“Barack Obama quietly slipped into the Miami headquarters of a major law firm scarred by the scandals of Jack Abramoff … [A]rriving a little after 10 a.m. on Oct. 1, Obama spent the next three hours schmoozing, speaking in a video conference to branch offices and raising money at Greenberg Traurig, a billion-dollar firm with one of the biggest lobby shops here.”
The only conclusion you can draw is that Obama is part of the problem in Washington. He’s peddling his influence to the highest bidder. And, like the Clintons, he’s willing to do anything to get financial contributions from anyone, and to pander to whatever group he’s in front of. But, then again, we’re suppose to be too stupid to know that because we’re too enthralled with the Bible and firearms.
But there’s no problem being in bed with the unions! Drives me insane. I grew up a mill rat in Pittsburgh. Left there in 1985. The grandson of immigrants. They brought with them a sea-chest of all they owned, their faith and a belief that if they worked hard they could make a better life for their familes. Hell, I don’t even know what my “real” last name is because it was written down as what the person heard at Ellis Island. My father, uncles and cousins were in the steel mills. The other side of the family was in the mines. My brother just retired from Ford Motor. None of them were union workers, they actually earned and used an education. I worked in Detroit for almost 5 years (computer industry so I worked with the big 3 and their suppliers). I’ve watched what has happened in these areas. What has helped kill the economies of both cities? Unions and stupid promises by corporations. Add to that the environmentalists. It is only a matter of time before the rich are taxed so high and are extorted for entitlements so much, that they say f*% it and take their ball and go else where. Do not get me wrong, corporations if left unchecked will take advantage as well as we had seen in the early days of each of those industries.
If you get government out of regulating business, business won’t have to lobby government. Big business wants rules to handicap competition. Then it wants to make sure that government doesn’t make rules that handicap _them_. Get government out of business regulation.
I agree with you almost totally on that suek. I’m a big fan of the government doing those few things that they were originally tasked to do and leave the people to handle the affairs of the people. My only point to it would be this, somehow the “voice” of business should be heard since they too pay taxes. One of the problems I see is government is hitting them for the corporate taxes, then they are covering half of employees social security and medicare along with unemployment insurance. The unions are extorting them for job security, increased wages, paychecks and healthcare after retirement. The environmentalists hit the govenment with junk science and have regulations imposed and Wall Street wants to see a profit. And we wonder why we’re losing jobs and paying twice as much for products made here. But, left unchecked, corporations can and will take advantage of employees as we have seen countless times before. There’s a very good article on Detroit vs. Toyota here:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3714235.ece
(I’m not exactly sure why it is under the Women section of Life & Style)
Speaking of Obama, we had a gem come from my home state…check this out:
#1: Why on EARTH is Davis talking, in public, about a “highly classified national security simulation?” If it’s truly classified, one would strongly suspect that the participant list is classified as well.
#2: One would think that Davis should know better than to refer to any adult as a “boy,” much less a black man. He’s already sent Obama an apology, saying that his was–you just know what’s coming, don’t you?–a “poor choice of words.”
#3: This wasn’t a “old guy” thing; Davis is all of 49. (Obama is 45.)
#4: You know that McCain is probably going to be asked about this.
suek wrote:
So, Bear Stearns’ failure was the result of government regulation? You’ll have to explain that one to me.
If, however, we accept your notion and suggest that government should “get out” of business regulation, does that extend to “no bailouts?” No Fed-brokered buyout of Bear Stearns? No loan guarantees for Chrysler (way back when) or airlines? No bankruptcy judges allowing Chapter 11 firms to toss their pension plans?