- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Please don't take this personal, I'm just trying to maintain a friendly dialogue. Your OP linked to a Fox News article that said Leon Panetta had been paid money for speeches from some of the same financial institutions that later received bail-out money. There was no insinuation in the article, and it was surprisingly neutral for Fox. But then you remarked:
"lobbyests, tax cheats, and washington insiders. The Mantra of change is dead. In less than a month Obama has shown he is no different than any other politician and his whole campaign on "change" was a farce. Instead we have seen incompetence, businessas usual, and naivitey......."
The story you cited provided no support for your statement. Panetta is not a lobbyist, received no money from anyone who would influence the CIA, and was not paid to advocate for anyone. When you have the experience of a Leon Panetta, people pay big money to hear you make a speech. It's one of the more benign ways that former government leaders can make money.
I think the disagreement started when you made your statement without reason, without any example or justification. It's as if you cited a story about the SuperBowl, and used it as a springboard to rant about government incompetence. It made no sense. We like sense.
If you view this story in a vaccume you are absolutley right. But please consider these very turbulant two weeks for Mr. Obama.
He signed an EO, then immediatly applied a waiver for a lobbyist. He has what 4 now nominees that have tax problems. This Panetta fellow is not just woeflly unqualified, but a deep washington insider.
He campaigned on change from Washington Business as usual. However, in my opinion, what he has shown is naivety, poor judgment, and politics as usual.
Can you perhaps tell me in your own words what "change" has Obama brought to Washington thus far, and please do not say "well its a change from Bush". This was never the "change" he was talkin about.
He said no lobbyists, we have lobbysists. He said no washington insiders (or he said he would look to people like warren buffet), we got washington insiders. He talked ethics, we got tax cheats in line for jobs.
I really thought he would bring in this fresh crew of outsiders and what not. I may have disagreed with ALL of whoever he would have picked, but I would have respected him actually doing things differently. Sadly he has not and I am more concerned believe it or not with the next republican president continuing the use of the same piglets at the washington trough.