• 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

Goobieman said:
When you make the statement that "[lobbyists] won't work in my White House.", your answer to that question is "yes".
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Government positions should go to people that can't do the job quite as well because a statement was made during a campaign rally in 2007.
 
Gibberish said:
Ah yes. Government positions should go to people that can't do the job quite as well because a statement was made during a campaign rally in 2007.
Click to expand...
Don't blame ME, blame The Messiah -- they're his words, not mine.
 
Gibberish said:
Obama passed the ethics rule on January 21. There are now regulations in place and processes and monitoring of the exceptions. He obviously took steps to limit lobbyists that previous Presidents never cared to.
Click to expand...

:roll:

The EO is a total abandonment of a core campaign principle.

"total abandonment of a central campaign principle." is pretty melodramatic.
Click to expand...

And still it is factual.

Why? Because he didn't setup a press conference to state such a thing?
Click to expand...

No, because Obama would not have thought to make changing the game in Washington his core change principle had he believed that such an endeavor reflected naivete.

If you think Obama believed such a declaration regarding change was naive and yet still carried it as a campaign principle, well, now you're saying that Obama is a liar.
 
Gibberish said:
Ah yes. Government positions should go to people that can't do the job quite as well because a statement was made during a campaign rally in 2007.
Click to expand...

Come on now...

I would have expected Obama to at least acknowledge that he was abandoning his core change principles. He could have simply stated that he had to modify his prior promises to change the game because there are some very good people out there that we should want in government despite their past lobbying experience, their tax troubles, their lying about pardoning terrorists, etc.

Seems reasonable to me.
 
First of all I'm going to start out using the repub form of excuse making.

1) define what Obama meant by "won't find a job in my White House."
2) He didn't say anything about former lobbyists (this one is right from the Rev, American, Jmak... playbook)
3) define what a lobbyist is. Isn't it someone who worked for a lobbying firm? How many of the appointees worked for a lobbying firm?

Formalized in a recent presidential executive order, it forbids executive branch employees from working in an agency, or on a program, for which they have lobbied in the last two years.
Click to expand...

Now for the honest answer. I don't think he lied, I think he's realized that it's harder to find the best people for the positions than he thought it would be. It just so happens that some of the best people worked in related industries. Lying implies that he knew when he said it that he would be hiring lobbyists. I don't think he did that.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Now for the honest answer. I don't think he lied, I think he's realized that it's harder to find the best people for the positions than he thought it would be. It just so happens that some of the best people worked in related industries. Lying implies that he knew when he said it that he would be hiring lobbyists. I don't think he did that.
Click to expand...

Honest question here. Do you think any of his plethora of advisers told him or alerted him of the fact that he likely would need to hire lobbyists to work in his white house but he took the advise of others and his own principled belief and made this a campaign issue and statement?
 
Slippery Slope said:
Now for the honest answer. I don't think he lied, I think he's realized that it's harder to find the best people for the positions than he thought it would be. It just so happens that some of the best people worked in related industries. Lying implies that he knew when he said it that he would be hiring lobbyists. I don't think he did that.
Click to expand...

That's a perfectly acceptable answer. But its indicative of the overarching problem: how many more campaign promises is he going to fail to keep for one reason or another?
 
JMak said:
:roll:

The EO is a total abandonment of a core campaign principle.
Click to expand...
No it's a realistic establishment of a campaign principle. It eliminates the ability for lobbyists to serve in the administration except for this exceptional circumstances voted on by the White House counsel.

JMak said:
No, because Obama would not have thought to make changing the game in Washington his core change principle had he believed that such an endeavor reflected naivete.
Click to expand...
The principle is not naive. Thinking that ideal should equate the the literal phrasing of his sentence is.

JMak said:
If you think Obama believed such a declaration regarding change was naive and yet still carried it as a campaign principle, well, now you're saying that Obama is a liar.
Click to expand...

I don't think he believed such before but came to realize the issue cannot be so black and white, like most things.
 
Gibberish said:
No it's a realistic establishment of a campaign principle. It eliminates the ability for lobbyists to serve in the administration except for this exceptional circumstances voted on by the White House counsel.
Click to expand...
which directly contradicts his campaign promise.


The principle is not naive. Thinking that ideal should equate the the literal phrasing of his sentence is.
Click to expand...
:lol: so we shouldn't take what Obama says literally except when it doesn't contradict his promises? :lol:

I don't think he believed such before but came to realize the issue cannot be so black and white, like most things.
Click to expand...
So his critics are seeing their fears realized: he severely lacks experience.
 
scourge99 said:
which directly contradicts his campaign promise.
Click to expand...
Well, is this man serving in the White House?


scourge99 said:
:lol: so we shouldn't take what Obama says literally except when it doesn't contradict his promises? :lol:
Click to expand...
You shouldn't take any politician for their literal statement. Obama is no exception.

scourge99 said:
So his critics are seeing their fears realized: he severely lacks experience.
Click to expand...
If you mean he lacks experience at being the President. Yes, he did lack experience never being President before.
 
WillRockwell said:
I'm not speaking of Bush "judgement calls", but deliberate lies, uttered to take advantage of the public's trust of their president. Lies to generate approval to go to war, lies about the results of that war, lies about political dirty tricks to justify that war, lies about torture and incarceration of many innocent people. Americans trust their president....Bush used that trust to make fools out of the American people and their elected representatives. And I have little tolerance for those who rationalized and supported his lies while he was in office.
Click to expand...
I've already discussed this, there is no good proof he lied, if there was I will grant you that, but we as conservatives have explained over and over that mistakes aren't lies.
 
Goobieman said:
Just another example of the partisan bigotry from the Dems.

Their guy lies, and he gets a pass.
Click to expand...
Which brings us to the basic premise of this thread, and surprise, the Bush attack machine doesn't like it.
 
Middleground said:
Name me a President that kept all of his campaign promises, and I'll sell you a bridge. :doh
Click to expand...
That's not the point, the left went on full attack mode for the very same thing against the last president, and are now circling the wagons to defend their candidates outright lie. This is admittedly a smaller issue, but speaks to a much larger one, Obama promised change and got elected on that mantra, and now we see the S.O.S. The best "change" could be the simple act of keeping a campaign promise.


You know, didn't Dubya promise in 2000 that he'd not start a war without exhausting diplomacy? LOL I'll have to find that video.
Click to expand...
Twelve years of failed U.N. diplomatic dealings with Iraq was pretty patient if you ask me.
 
Middleground said:
Take a look at all the petty thread started by democrats, and I doubt you'll find my participation.
Click to expand...
To your credit, I have seen you as a rational debator, so thanks for that.

Having said that, you bet there were a lot of good and legitimate issues to bitch about when it came to the Bush Administration. No one should be faulted for that.
Click to expand...
The conservatives on this board have conceded the real issues with the Bush administration for the most part, however we have seen some real moon-bat behavior among the rabid leftists around here, so if you get caught in the crossfire, my apologies, but threads like this are payback and I have no problem participating, I owe it to the Bush Hate Syndrome crowd.
 
Middleground said:
a) They could be the best people for the job
Click to expand...
Could be, but the burden of proof is higher because of the no lobbyist promise.
b) They don't appear to be crony pals
Click to expand...
Who knows with Chicago style politicians, but I can't say either way.
c) It's too early to decipher whether they're doing a lousy enough job to complain.
Click to expand...
That's fair.
d) They're not former horse show judges. :2razz:
Click to expand...
You had to bring Brown up! Ouch, but yeah, he sucked.:doh
Click to expand...
 
Middleground said:
3) It's seems he's hiring quality people for the right positions. As far as I know, none are buddy appointments. Cool.
Click to expand...

Curious - where are you getting this from? You know that a huge portion of the appointments he's made are either people he's worked with before or people he knows from Chicago, right?

I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad, or that these people aren't qualified, I'm just amused by how quickly you declare that these people aren't "cronies" while you were so quick to label anyone Bush knew before appointing as exactly that.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
hmmmm... Game set match?
Click to expand...

You know, I was about to respond to this sarcastically, saying "Well, once they get jobs in the white house, then they're not lobbyists anymore, right?!:lol:" Then I saw this:

Middleground said:
By hiring lobbyists, that would no longer make them lobbyists. They now work for the people.
Click to expand...

And I didn't really need to.
 
Slippery Slope said:
First of all I'm going to start out using the repub form of excuse making.

1) define what Obama meant by "won't find a job in my White House."
2) He didn't say anything about former lobbyists (this one is right from the Rev, American, Jmak... playbook)
3) define what a lobbyist is. Isn't it someone who worked for a lobbying firm? How many of the appointees worked for a lobbying firm?
Click to expand...



Really, fom my playbook? I need you to prove this lest you look like a liar. :2wave:


If you bothered to take your "I love Obama, he is so dreamy tweeny fan club" hyper partisan glasses for a moment you would see your ilk doing exactly what you just lied about the Good Reverend about....

FAIL.


Now for the honest answer. I don't think he lied, I think he's realized that it's harder to find the best people for the positions than he thought it would be. It just so happens that some of the best people worked in related industries. Lying implies that he knew when he said it that he would be hiring lobbyists. I don't think he did that.
Click to expand...


:lol: imagine you gave that same benefit of the doubt to Bush. :roll:
 
What happened to the VETTING process we heard so much about during the campaign?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
No it's a realistic establishment of a campaign principle. It eliminates the ability for lobbyists to serve in the administration except for this exceptional circumstances voted on by the White House counsel.


The principle is not naive. Thinking that ideal should equate the the literal phrasing of his sentence is.



I don't think he believed such before but came to realize the issue cannot be so black and white, like most things.
Click to expand...



Hmm just this one? wasn't turbo tax geitner a lobbyist as well? :roll:
 
RightinNYC said:
Curious - where are you getting this from? You know that a huge portion of the appointments he's made are either people he's worked with before or people he knows from Chicago, right?

I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad, or that these people aren't qualified, I'm just amused by how quickly you declare that these people aren't "cronies" while you were so quick to label anyone Bush knew before appointing as exactly that.



You know, I was about to respond to this sarcastically, saying "Well, once they get jobs in the white house, then they're not lobbyists anymore, right?!:lol:" Then I saw this:



And I didn't really need to.
Click to expand...
\





:lol: yeah that logic shocked me as well.... i bet you didnt think anyon actually believed that..... :mrgreen:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
\





:lol: yeah that logic shocked me as well.... i bet you didnt think anyon actually believed that..... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Looks like Chicago and DC have lots in common now. :lol:
 
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...

I love it; first we ignore the fact that Obama lied. Then we speculate that it COULD have been worse with McCain. You just can't fabricate such hypocrisy people.

Then to top it off there are other Liberal deniers who suggest that it is no big deal if these people "perform" their jobs. But it was OBAMA who claimed to his minions that there would be NO lobbyists in his administration to the cheers of all his empty headed supporters!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom