Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Stop playing the Democrats’ lobbyist game

    Stop playing the Democrats’ lobbyist game

    Dr. Melissa Clouthier writing about An Indictment Of Right Leaning Journalism By Ben Domenech:

    Here’s the nutshell: The Left-leaning journalism investigates the right. The Right-leaning journalism provides commentary and (and Ben doesn’t say this, but I am) when they do rarely investigate, investigates the right after being given oppo research by someone on their own side…..

    So much of the investigative work is being done by bloggers and they are under-funded and often over-worked.

    One thing Ben doesn’t mention is how the right-leaning DC journos don’t want to be hated. They hang out with other journalists and want to be included. The social pressure in DC is liberal. Always.

    Journalists are people (most of them). They want to be liked, included and respected. The way to be a skunk at a garden party is to criticize Democrats or investigate them.

    Note also: bloggers and commentary from outside DC tends to be a lot more strident, and, I’d like to add, truthful. That social pressure isn’t there. It’s difficult to write about friends.

    That’s what so infuriates me. We pile on and investigate ourselves, and in some cases just regurgitate Democratic talking points.

    A good example is Tim Carney’s post at The Washington Examiner insisting that Newt Gingrich was a lobbyist even though Carney admits that Gingrich was not a lobbyist as defined by the law.

    This whole focus on lobbying and lobbyists is nonsense Democratic talking points.  Mitt Romney‘s campaign has hired them and received substantial contributions from them, so all the Romney supporters who think that Newt’s alleged non-lobbying lobbying is a negative should prepare for it to come around to their candidate.

    Petitioning government for redress is a constitutionally protected right.  The issue is not whether Newt Gingrich or any other candidate lobbied or hired lobbyists, but whether there was anything improper about the way it was conducted.

    Stop playing the Democrats’ game.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Think the point is that gasping like a shocked maiden aunt when we hear the dread word “lobbyist” is playing right into the Left’s hands. Of COURSE politicians are going to have ties to lobbyists- talking to politicians is what lobbyists do. And as the Prof pointed out, talking to elected officials to try to get them to see things your way (petitioning for redress) is a constitutional right.

    Need to start simply ignoring the Left/MSM when they start shrieking “LOBBYIST!” Just like all their other tactics (race card, etc) they only apply it to their opposition, never to themselves. Don’t LET them make such a big deal of what is, in the end, a normal and predictable thing.

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | November 21, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    I’m no lawyer and don’t know the ins and outs of lobbyists. But it is not the petitioning that is the problem, it is the “pay to play”. Petitions should not have cash attached (directly or indirectly). There should be citizen signatures, easily done in the internet age.

    The question I have is, how does influence peddling work, exactly? I assume there are no printed receipts for the quid pro quo’s. And how do former politicians still have clout? Is it just an “honor system” of payback for past (dishonorable to the citizens) favors? Surely a lot of people know details, but are in on the game. Is the whole system made of “hear, see, speak no evil” deranged monkeys?

    Doctors were supposed to quit taking vacations and the like as reward for selling certain drugs. It was found that even taking a free meal had influence. Yet our laws and subsidies seem to be wholly written on a pay to play basis. Dem’s and Repub’s trade off “looking the other way” moments with each other, as I see it. (eg. You slide this into the fine print on page 1250, and I’ll slip this into page 2150, we can both claim ignorance.)

    I guess the actual transactions are behind closed doors, perhaps involving drugs and prostitutes if Elliot Spitzer is any indication. Was Newt really paid for advice, or did he have channels of clout he was selling?

    (I’m still leaning toward Newt for his ability and record of stating the conservative case (not for his white hair), and certainly Obama is sold out to union money, but lobbying isn’t just petitioning, is it?)

    Meh. If you’re going to hold getting chummy with a lobbyist against a politician, then you’re gonna have to vote “None of the Above.”

    I’m NOT saying that the “pay to play” business is fine and dandy. We should keep our eyes open, be aware of what’s going on with our elected representatives. I mean WE too- holding officials accountable is our responsibility as citizens; expecting them to police themselves (honestly and without bias by the ruling party, whichever it is) is just naive.

    Midwest Rhino (not RINO) | November 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    For president it doesn’t seem we have a chance to go “cold turkey” from the DC playahs to a Palin, or someone perceived as pure. We might even be concerned that Newt doesn’t have ENOUGH big money that is already backing him. Perhaps the question is … who are the quiet big money people that are backing Perry and Romney, and do we need them?

    The sleeping giant, We the people, is still awakening. WE are still in negotiation with the old regime, and probably have to have a “transitional” candidate/president, that still represents old influence, but begrudgingly gives “We the people” a better seat at the table.

    Massive investigations can come later, after rebuilding congress a little more than we could do in 2010. ABO is current priority .. and it still looks like Newt or Mitt.

    Ragspierre | November 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    The point of Carney’s article was Newtie’s statement that he had not lobbied, and the truthfulness of that statement.

    He made a fact-based case that Newtie HAD in fact done what anybody (honest) would consider lobbying in the non-statutory world of plain meanings.

    Now, those putative facts can be refuted…or not.

    And, for the record, what he recited had nothing to do with the Freddie/Fannie consulting.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend