• 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

What I wonder more is, are those individual who he appointed the best for that position or are there better candidates? If they are the best would those whining about Obama willing to not have the best in a position just to hold true to a single statement?

Obama was definitely naive in making such a statement.

Does all this mean Obama will now fail as President and fall into corruption and incompetence? I doubt it.

Obama is a politician and as a politician he cannot be held to his literal word but should be held to the ideals of what he says. It's easy to say when you are not President, "I will do X" as an absolute, only to find out doing exactly that without any budging is not really feasible.
 
I expect that if you are staffing a new government in Washington, it would be next to impossible to find people who have never been employed by lobbying firms. What's more, most of the time that connection is quite innocent.

Then I guess it was poor judgment at best, and utter dishonesty at worst, for Obama to make not having people that were tied to lobbyists involved in his government
 
Well the very first one that came to me was his support of the patriot act and all the civil liberty that it distinctively took away.
and what has he done SINCE becoming president??? Did he revoke the act? Or restore some civil liberty or is this a non-sequitur regarding broken/kept Obama campaign promises?

I complained about that as soon as I read about it but it was left to drown under all the other junk that was being thrown around at the time.

I really kind of feel responsible. I feel like a lot of people out there may have been influenced by my logic because it was similar to theirs and I was really just a fool because no one on either side is going to really represent me and my opinions. The fact is that I mean jack to them and they don't care about that in itself either and it's just the same for all of us really.
:roll: Please stop, this isn't a therapy group. :mrgreen:

I don't approve of him being compared to Martin Luther King Jr. nor do I approve of him putting Martin Luther King III on the podium because that was absolutely disrespectful to the memory of his father if anyone has actually done research on what his son does to disrespect his family's name and honor. This guy is selling his name to the highest bidder and it really seems like Obama is doing just the same but he is selling out every single african-american with him.
what a ridiculous worry: "Obama is selling out blacks". That is a non-issue.

These people believe in him and it really makes me sick because a lot of people, black or white, have a lot of other junk to put up with without all this crap being thrown at them, crap they can't even see clearly... every empathic nerve in my body gets angry when I think about it.
that "crap" has always been there. Its just that the hype is finally wearing off so you finally smell it.
 
What I wonder more is, are those individual who he appointed the best for that position or are there better candidates? If they are the best would those whining about Obama willing to not have the best in a position just to hold true to a single statement?

Obama was definitely naive in making such a statement.

Does all this mean Obama will now fail as President and fall into corruption and incompetence? I doubt it.

Obama is a politician and as a politician he cannot be held to his literal word but should be held to the ideals of what he says. It's easy to say when you are not President, "I will do X" as an absolute, only to find out doing exactly that without any budging is not really feasible.

That's pretty much how I feel.

All politicians break promises, and I didn't expect Obama to keep all of his. It would be impossible. Now if these people turn out to be hacks, then yeah, he made piss-poor choices. Why cry now about it? Wait and see. They could turn out to be excellent choices.
 
What I wonder more is, are those individual who he appointed the best for that position or are there better candidates? If they are the best would those whining about Obama willing to not have the best in a position just to hold true to a single statement?

Obama was definitely naive in making such a statement.
The left took shots a Bush for over 6 years over intelligence and called it a lie with no proof, we have Obama's own words and actions proving he lied and you don't think we on the right are going to fire back? But on the other end of the argument, if the lobbyists are the best people for the positions that is understandable, however the onus is now on the president to explain why he they are the best for the position and he is making exceptions to the no lobbyist pomise.

Does all this mean Obama will now fail as President and fall into corruption and incompetence? I doubt it.
This doesn't mean anything more than he already broke a promise in less than a month in office, if he keeps making ill advised moves he will fail, if his advisors were picked for anything less than qualifications he will fail, but that is for the future to decide, no one can predict anything with certainty yet.

Obama is a politician and as a politician he cannot be held to his literal word but should be held to the ideals of what he says.
I don't agree with his ideals, likewise with many Americans, so his word is all he has with us, and if he fails, those who don't share a solid idealogy with him or can't trust him will be lost in the re-election campaign, so yes, this is kind of important.
It's easy to say when you are not President, "I will do X" as an absolute, only to find out doing exactly that without any budging is not really feasible.
That courtesy wasn't extended to other presidents in history, so why start that now.
 
Comparing an elected figure, the Vice President, to appointed figures, Seceretary's and others, is kind of apples to oranges.

There's definitely lobbyists in Bush's camp that you could've used to use an honest comparison. Instead, you choose Dick Cheney whose not a good example because its a completely different TYPE of position. This makes me wonder why you didn't go for an actual legitimate analogy. And, even if you had...so what? Why is it okay for people to have no problem with Obama doing something (having lobbyists AND seemingly purposefully breaking a campaign promise and/or lieing) that they had a problem with Bush doing it?

You're right. Dick Cheney is VICE PRESIDENT. This guy is....ummmm deputy of a position what is a mostly irrelevant position as far as final decision making goes? And when did I go after Dick Cheney? Dude...get a clue....I didn't even bring him up. Somebody else did. I commented that THEIR comparison was faulty. It's like comparing a chihuahua(the deputy) to a Pitbull and saying they have the same amount of bite in the end. Which they don't.
 
Last edited:
In practice, I would assume that a Deputy Secretary of Defense will have far more contact with and influence over matters involving Raytheon than a Vice-President would have with Halliburton

Unless that Vice President is of course the former CEO of Halliburton and then Halliburton makes retarded money from a war that Vice President heavily lobbied for. But if this is what you want to compare the guy who is......the assistant bitch of some position most of us find irrelevant. Then sure?
 
Last edited:
The left took shots a Bush for over 6 years over intelligence and called it a lie with no proof, we have Obama's own words and actions proving he lied and you don't think we on the right are going to fire back?

What is the actual quote you are talking about?
 
What is the actual quote you are talking about?
I was just saying that in general people are doing the apologist thing about Obama but many were the same calling Bush a liar because of the war buildup, now, we know the intelligence was innaccurate, but not that Bush lied, Obama said no lobbyists and we have lobbyists.
 
The left took shots a Bush for over 6 years over intelligence and called it a lie with no proof, we have Obama's own words and actions proving he lied and you don't think we on the right are going to fire back? But on the other end of the argument, if the lobbyists are the best people for the positions that is understandable, however the onus is now on the president to explain why he they are the best for the position and he is making exceptions to the no lobbyist pomise.
Are you seriously liking Bush's statments (Iraq, WMD, hunting Bin Laden, etc) to Obama saying "lobbyists will have no part in my White House"?

It is on those people to prove themselves worth of their positions and they hold a piece of Obama's credibility in their actions, or lack there-of.

This doesn't mean anything more than he already broke a promise in less than a month in office, if he keeps making ill advised moves he will fail, if his advisors were picked for anything less than qualifications he will fail, but that is for the future to decide, no one can predict anything with certainty yet.
Which promise are you talking about? The one where he said Lobbyists will not be in his White House or that Lobbyists won't dominate his administration?

Obama has changed his opinion from "no lobbyists" to a "maybe some lobbyists but they won't dominate", several times through his campaign. Which one is the promise?

I don't agree with his ideals, likewise with many Americans, so his word is all he has with us, and if he fails, those who don't share a solid idealogy with him or can't trust him will be lost in the re-election campaign, so yes, this is kind of important. That courtesy wasn't extended to other presidents in history, so why start that now.

His ideals in this instance is that Lobbyists will not be controlling the White House anymore. We will not have no-bid partnerships with corporations (Haliburton, BlackWater) above what is best for the country and the people.

What don't you agree with?
 
None of which deals with:

1. Obama making getting lobbyists and former lobbyists out of the government system part of his campaign.
2. Obama making a campaign promise not to have former lobbyists in his white house.
3. People who were railing agaisnt McCain and Bush about having lobbyists on staff now doing anything from giving Obama to a pass to actually saying its a GOOD thing.

I actually don't personally mind lobbyists in government. I don't instantly think "Lobbyist = bad". I've said as much in other threads, and before the election. I think choosing someone that's less qualified to be in a position simply because they've not been a lobbyist would be idiotic. I think you can be a good person and an honorable civil servent and have lobbyed for something before.

The problem is, my position is consistant. I've said it before the election, I've said it after before this happened, I've said it now, and I will likely continue to say it unless something substantial happens to make me change my mind.

Apparently though, for many people like PeteEU, that "something substantial" is simply "Someone I like is in power".

It was poor judgement by Obama at best for making the campaign promise, and a flat out lie at worst. Its absolute hypocracy on the part of people who blasted Bush for having lobbyists in his white house, blasted Mccain for having lobbyists on his campaign staff and likely to be in the white house, but then talk glowingly about lobbyists when Obama puts them in and says its okay. Its hypocritical to complain, for 8 years, about all of Bush's "Lies" but when a very clear and evident contradiction is presented for the guy they support and suddenly there are "percentages" that one can break a promise by.

Admitting Obama lied...err I mean, "CHANGEd his mind" would mean admitting he is not the Messiah and is in fact a politican who manipulated the medias muckraking of Bush magnifcantely to make unrealistic promises to win a campaign. No Obamaniac can admit this without inducing a stroke. Thus, cognitive dissonance in Obamaphiles usually results in denial or red-herrings, E.G., B...B...Bu...Bu.....Bush is bad!!!

Note: I voted for Obama. He's acting exactly as I expected: as a lying sack of politician.

RIGHT ON THE MONEY! :rofl

That's pretty much how I feel.

All politicians break promises, and I didn't expect Obama to keep all of his. It would be impossible. Now if these people turn out to be hacks, then yeah, he made piss-poor choices. Why cry now about it? Wait and see. They could turn out to be excellent choices.

It seems you're purposely missing the point, although I'm not terribly surprised. Can't say I blame you either, because I would also try avoiding the issue if the person I supported for President started lying their ass off from the get-go. Let me see if I can help you understand the significance of the Obama-lobbyist connection.

If I went through your post history would I find any instances of you bad-mouthing lobbyists in the Bush administration or McCain's campaign? Or even better, give me a rough estimation as to how many liberals in this forum having been singing a chorus about lobbyists in the Bush administration for the past eight years...think about it....alright, now think about this...

Why is that when Obama does something so blatantly hypocritical and dishonest all I'm able to hear from Obama's resident acolytes is...

*CRICKET* *CRICKET*

You guys act like you owe him something. You don't even know the man and you're afraid to simply call him out on a lie. He's the PRESIDENT. We are SUPPOSED to criticize him when he does something wrong. That's how a Democracy works! And the Obamaphiles wonder why people pejoratively referred to him as the Messiah, or why some people were concerned he might abuse his power while in office.

Man, he played you guys like a fiddle...embarrassing.
 
Then I guess it was poor judgment at best, and utter dishonesty at worst, for Obama to make not having people that were tied to lobbyists involved in his government

If an issue this trivial sets you off, how will you be able to participate in ideological debate when serious issues arise? By venting your outrage in Obama's first ten days you seem determined to marginilize yourself as an obstructionist partisan. Have you made the decision to work for the failure of the new administration?
 
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.

Do you have a link for that?
 
If I went through your post history would I find any instances of you bad-mouthing lobbyists in the Bush administration or McCain's campaign?

And if I went through your post history, would I find you defending George Bush when he lied about WMD, about Iraq's nuclear capability, about torture, about issues that actually cost the lives of American servicemen? Probably. I find your outrage over a misplaced statement about the hiring of lobbyists curious, considering how much you overlooked from a Republican president.
 
Meh.

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

Of course, the promise means nothing to you BECAUSE YOU LIKE HIM. I think we all see it now. THough I commend your courage to be the first OBama supporter to make a comment on this thread.
 
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.

Obama didn't say "fewer." And any other claims are mere partisan speculation. There are some lobbyists in some pretty plum positions.
 
If they no longer work for lobbying firms, they are not lobbyists. And unlike Dick Cheney, who went directly from CEO of Halliburton to the guy who picked Halliburton to rebuild Iraq, former lobbyists no longer care about the concerns of their former employers.
 
Frankly, I am enjoying the squirming the leftists are going through in this thread. Is this an indication of how much fun the next couple of years are going to be until Mid-TErms?
 
Frankly, I am enjoying the squirming the leftists are going through in this thread. Is this an indication of how much fun the next couple of years are going to be until Mid-TErms?

I find it amazing that people would be willing to give up lucrative lobbying careers to go into public service with a 100k cap.
 
Of course, the promise means nothing to you BECAUSE YOU LIKE HIM. I think we all see it now. THough I commend your courage to be the first OBama supporter to make a comment on this thread.

I like Obama so far. But it's been only 10 freaking days! :doh
This is petty, and I'm not going to get riled up by it.

If I were you, I'd focus on results. Let's see how he does. But give him at least 100 days, m'kay?
 
If I went through your post history would I find any instances of you bad-mouthing lobbyists in the Bush administration or McCain's campaign?

Search away. Don't let the sound of crickets lull you into sleep when you're working on this most important task.
 
I like Obama so far. But it's been only 10 freaking days! :doh
This is petty, and I'm not going to get riled up by it.

If I were you, I'd focus on results. Let's see how he does. But give him at least 100 days, m'kay?

Frankly, this wouldn't bother me at all except for all of the ALLEGATIONS for years about Bush "lying" and the ramifications of that. However, Obama is caught in a lie and that is ok. You don't see a problem with that?
 
Frankly, this wouldn't bother me at all except for all of the ALLEGATIONS for years about Bush "lying" and the ramifications of that. However, Obama is caught in a lie and that is ok. You don't see a problem with that?

It is a delicate dance. If lobbyists that agrred to the terms of the executive orders come come back to lobby then I will call it a lie.
 
Back
Top Bottom