• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama finds room for lobbyists

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How many of you remember Obama's promise, made during his campaign, that lobbyists would have no place in an Obama administration? Turns out that we have replaced one liar in the White House with another liar in the White House.

The issue here, folks, is quite simple. Either Obama lied, or Obama did not lie. This is the question that I ask Obama supporters right now. You guys were quite vocal about Bush lying. Are you going to be consistent and call Obama out for his untruthfulness too, or are you going to come up with partisan excuses for him, like Bush supporters did during his administration? And don't come up with "Bush's lies were worse". A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. Aren't you a little miffed right now that the man you supported went back on his word, and treated you like a chump?

Discussion, anyone?

Article is here.
 
Obama lied. This thread will be avoided like so many pointing out the emporers fine new duds often are.


;)
 
It's worth reposting the list as well:

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
Click to expand...

Bolded some of the ones that seem most egregious to me.
 
RightinNYC said:
It's worth reposting the list as well:

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:



Bolded some of the ones that seem most egregious to me.
Click to expand...

The Service Employees International Union is the one that organized the strike against the Hotels here in Houston a couple of years ago, where crowds of illegal aliens were stomping on American flags and flying Mexican flags.
 
This should not come as any surprise to anyone. Obama went back on his word after the primaries also. Public Financing comes to mind as one of the big ones. That is a bad precedent he set on that.

It is no surprise to me that he is continuing to go back on his word with lobbyists, and he will keep it up on other issues.
 
RightinNYC said:
It's worth reposting the list as well:

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:



Bolded some of the ones that seem most egregious to me.
Click to expand...


Meh.

What does that mean, anyway? Because they were lobbyists, they are not qualified for the job? Conflict of interest?

Me, I'd wait to see how they perform before making any critique. Unless, of course, their credentials seem way off for the position. Say like a horse competition judge. :2razz:
 
Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
Click to expand...

Obvious conflict of interest, eh? I am OUTRAGED!
Oh, and what about this one...another example of outrageous influence.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Look at this way, there are far far far far fewer lobbyists in an Obama administration than there would have been in a McCain administration. A huge chunk of McCain's main campaign staff and backers were lobbyists, and I dont doubt for a second that they would have had top jobs in his administration.
 
Middleground said:
Meh.

What does that mean, anyway? Because they were lobbyists, they are not qualified for the job? Conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

I don't see how there's not a conflict of interest in some cases. That being said, I'm not generally opposed to lobbyists working in government, regardless of who they work for. The only reason it's an issue now is because Obama ranted and raved about this exact issue, making promises that he hasn't kept.

PeteEU said:
Look at this way, there are far far far far fewer lobbyists in an Obama administration than there would have been in a McCain administration. A huge chunk of McCain's main campaign staff and backers were lobbyists, and I dont doubt for a second that they would have had top jobs in his administration.
Click to expand...

PeteEU said:
No conflict of interest as it follows the Cheney exception.........:roll:
Click to expand...

Then I guess it's a good thing McCain didn't pledge to keep lobbyists out of his administration and then pass an executive order banning them, isn't it?
 
danarhea said:
How many of you remember Obama's promise, made during his campaign, that lobbyists would have no place in an Obama administration? Turns out that we have replaced one liar in the White House with another liar in the White House.

The issue here, folks, is quite simple. Either Obama lied, or Obama did not lie. This is the question that I ask Obama supporters right now. You guys were quite vocal about Bush lying. Are you going to be consistent and call Obama out for his untruthfulness too, or are you going to come up with partisan excuses for him, like Bush supporters did during his administration? And don't come up with "Bush's lies were worse". A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. Aren't you a little miffed right now that the man you supported went back on his word, and treated you like a chump?
Click to expand...





PeteEU said:
Look at this way, there are far far far far fewer lobbyists in an Obama administration than there would have been in a McCain administration. A huge chunk of McCain's main campaign staff and backers were lobbyists, and I dont doubt for a second that they would have had top jobs in his administration.
Click to expand...
That's not the point, and McCain lost so what he would have would have not done is irrelevent. Obama said lobbyists would have no place in his administration, not that there would be fewer places for them than a McCain administration. Did Obama lie or did he not lie?
 
RightinNYC said:
Then I guess it's a good thing McCain didn't pledge to keep lobbyists out of his administration and then pass an executive order banning them, isn't it?
Click to expand...

He did however call them "birds of prey" and other not so flattering words and did promote himself and Palin as "mavericks" that were not in the pockets of the "usual politics" which of course includes lobbyists. Now the funny part is the amount of lobbyists in his staff... including his top campaign staff... but that is of course ancient history and he did loose.. big time.

But other than that, yes it is disappointing that Obama did not keep his promise 100% on this issue, but then again, I would rather have a lobbyist that is an expert in said field that he or she is suppose to be in charge off, than the Bush Republican way of promoting personal friends, brownnosers and other "friends" to positions where they are not qualified in any way what so ever.
 
Pete.

Mcain and Palin lost.



Concentrate.


Obama promised change from politics as usual and thus far is a miserable failure.
 
Ah I see...

Lobbyist in a Bush or McCain administration = bad evil things that try to suck the money from the government, give kick backs to their croonies, and all around bad doods.

Lobbyist in the Obama administration = Experts in their field that will be wonderful and respectable civil servants.

Bush never actually directly says that Iraq had anything to do the actual 9/11 attacks, but "Bush Lied"

Obama flatly said there would be no lobbyist in his white house, then puts lobbyist in his white house, and he just didn't keep his promise "100%".

How does that percentage work PeteEU? What? His promise is damaged 5% per lobbyist? So he can have 12 lobbyists in his white house and he's only what? 40% breaking his promise? How do you get the equation there for that percentage Pete, I'd love to know it.
 
PeteEU said:
He did however call them "birds of prey" and other not so flattering words and did promote himself and Palin as "mavericks" that were not in the pockets of the "usual politics" which of course includes lobbyists. Now the funny part is the amount of lobbyists in his staff... including his top campaign staff... but that is of course ancient history and he did loose.. big time.

But other than that, yes it is disappointing that Obama did not keep his promise 100% on this issue, but then again, I would rather have a lobbyist that is an expert in said field that he or she is suppose to be in charge off, than the Bush Republican way of promoting personal friends, brownnosers and other "friends" to positions where they are not qualified in any way what so ever.
Click to expand...

****ing hilarious. You rip on McCain for having lobbyists on his staff, and then turn around and point out how great and useful lobbyists are when Obama uses them.

You and so many others were all up Cheney and everyone else's asses for this exact same thing, calling them "corrupt," "criminals," "tools of Halliburton," etc.

Now that the Democrats are doing the exact same thing, after explicitly pledging not to, you couldn't care less.

It's depressing, more than anything.
 
This is great:

PeteEU said:
Considering that McCain has 179 lobbyist running his campaign, people who have links to failed banks, countries and questionable people, then sure.... shake up Washington by getting rid of his own people?
Click to expand...


And even better:

PeteEU said:
And to be fair, John McCain has been "anti lobbyist" for years.. and then he flip flops AGAIN, and hires tons of them. Hypocrite... but he probably just forgot his stance.
Click to expand...
 
That's not good. I think that he should definately be taken to task for this, and that people should demand he ask them to resign.
 
PeteEU said:
Look at this way, there are far far far far fewer lobbyists in an Obama administration than there would have been in a McCain administration.
Click to expand...
So.. its Ok that Obama lied, so long as he has fewer lobbyists than you think the other guy would have had.

Roger roger.
 
RightinNYC said:
****ing hilarious. You rip on McCain for having lobbyists on his staff, and then turn around and point out how great and useful lobbyists are when Obama uses them.

You and so many others were all up Cheney and everyone else's asses for this exact same thing, calling them "corrupt," "criminals," "tools of Halliburton," etc.

Now that the Democrats are doing the exact same thing, after explicitly pledging not to, you couldn't care less.

It's depressing, more than anything.
Click to expand...

Yup, you hit the nail on the head. Hypocrisy is not confined to just Republicans. Democrats have just as much of it. Now we can watch the shoe on the other foot for at least the next 4 years.
 
RightinNYC said:
You and so many others were all up Cheney and everyone else's asses for this exact same thing, calling them "corrupt," "criminals," "tools of Halliburton," etc.
Click to expand...


..there seems to me like there is substantially larger difference between the former CEO of Halliburton being part (and by that I mean second in command) of the same administration that gave Halliburton billion dollar contracts...

And a guy who is :

Deputy health and human services secretary nominee

On another note though :

.....what exactly is a : Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary?
 
PeteEU said:
Look at this way, there are far far far far fewer lobbyists in an Obama administration than there would have been in a McCain administration. A huge chunk of McCain's main campaign staff and backers were lobbyists, and I dont doubt for a second that they would have had top jobs in his administration.
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding that obviously exagerrated descriptions in your post, Obama's also had many lobbyists on his campaign staff and accepted tons of money from individuals employed by lobbying firms and corporations that employed lobbysists despite Obama claiming that he didn't accept constributions from special interests. Of course, as usual, you have to look at the details as Obama's declaration really only meant he didn't accept $$$ from, say, the NEA but he surely did accept tons of cash from NEA employees and lobbyists.

BTW - there is no Cheney exception. That is, if you want to believe that Cheney's receipt of deferred compensation constituted a conflict of interest, well, you're free to do so, but I'd like to invite you back to reality.
 
Hatuey said:
..there seems to me like there is substantially larger difference between the former CEO of Halliburton being part (and by that I mean second in command) of the same administration that gave Halliburton billion dollar contracts...

And a guy who is :

Deputy health and human services secretary nominee

On another note though :

.....what exactly is a : Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary?
Click to expand...
Are you OK with the fact that Obama lied about having lobbyists in his administration?
 
PeteEU said:
But other than that, yes it is disappointing that Obama did not keep his promise 100% on this issue, but then again, I would rather have a lobbyist that is an expert in said field that he or she is suppose to be in charge off, than the Bush Republican way of promoting personal friends, brownnosers and other "friends" to positions where they are not qualified in any way what so ever.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'cuz, Obama has not appointed such friends, has he? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom