Obama finds room for lobbyists

Zyphlin said:

No, but I'm pretty sure you've made similar type notions in the past.

Yet I've not seen you speak up in any thread about some frivilant things with Obama.
Happily to be corrected though.

Click to expand...

Frivilant things.... like what?

Zyphlin said:

Yes, this is debate politics. And if she feels that a point you're making is frivilous and not worthy of discussion her pointing it out is not "attacking" you. Just because YOU or even I feel that a matter is legitimate doesn't mean others have to. Stating that you believe something is frivilous and thus you don't care about it IS a legitimate feeling and thought...NOT an attack on you.

Click to expand...

Yeah like I think this post of yours is your typical "whining and bitching" (her words) nonsense?


It is the method of the intellectually challenged (no offence) in my opinion who choose to whine and complain about me and not discuss the topic as a means of avoiding honest discussion.

You see no problem with it. Me, I see it as a core problem here.

Yes...yes...relating him to Kim Jong-Il repeatedly with your childish "Dear Leader" crap is certainly not a derogatory name, and I'm sure "The Messiah" is meant completely with endearment. Additionally, my post wasn't wasn't talking about you specifically, but the left in generald and the right on general. And those on the right HAVE been calling him a socialist, or calling him an "Obamanation", how about "Nerobama" I'm sure that term is meant to be endearing.

Click to expand...

Show me where I have done that unprovoked or take off your bash righty fightin gloves you are known for.


You get what you give with me.


Yes Nerobama was a clever historical reference. I was going to use the obamatoinette one as well.But hey I ran out of space.


"nerobama" refers to him having a cocktail party with wagyu beef while the country is in the "worst economy since the great depression".....


Nero fiddling while rome burns. Sorry you didn't get it.


But anyway, Please, if you want me to do a day of treating Obama the way the left treated Bush, let me know., I will make your day a very busy one.

Guess what Reverend, you're not the entire Right. I'm not the entire Right. Yes, there are people on the right that ARE going after him for pointless, idiotic things, just like the left did. From sentiments like "OMG he had drinks and STEAK during a recession!?" to "I can't believe he had the nerve to use Kennedy books behind him in a speech!", there are pointless things being brought up by our side that are hardly even minor issues in my mind.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I made the wagyu beef thread. If you can't see this in the same light as flyin your lear to get bailout money, I can't help you in your comlaining.

It was a poor judgment call. And a legitimate topic.


And this conversation was about me, MG made it so....

But everyone has a different view of what is an issue. The steaks weren't an issue to me, they were to you. Things that the left have brought up over the past 8 years may've included things that you thought wasn't an issue, I thought was a minor issue, and they thought was major. There's no universal rule on what is frivilous and what isn't, there's just opinion.

Click to expand...

Its not the steaks, its about the image it projects. Sorry you missed that.

But it is an absolutely uniformed, blind position to say that those on the Right aren't going to complain about issue that people consider minor, and its the same uniformed, blind position to say those on the right haven't been saying derogatory attacking things about him on par with Facist Chimp.

Click to expand...

Dear leader says more about his swooning supporters than it does about Obama.

Middleground said:

Now if Obama decided to poo-poo the more major promises from his campaign, then yeah, there better be some 'splaining. Till then, give him his 100 days.

Click to expand...

Now you're just ignoring the forest...

We've already seen Obama expire several major campaign promises from NAFTA to FISA telcom to public campaign cash to playing the Washington game with different players to the current lobbyist problem.

Look, his entire campaign was premised on change. That Obama represented change as a new kind of post-partisan politician and promised to change how Washington was run. That was the overarching of his campaign.

You're already conceding that Obama has poo-pooed major promises, yet, you're willing to give him a generous benefit of the doubt. Given that he's already poo-pooed major campaign promises, why do you grant him such a broad benefit of the doubt?

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.

Oopsie!

Click to expand...

There's no oops, there. Throughout 2002 and into early 2003 Iraq displayed no substantial change in behavior which would lead any reasonable person to conlcude that it was going to alter its behavior. Iraq had already violated that ceasefire a decade prior and had remained in violation. Iraq had and continued to violate 16 UN resolutions on the matter. The UN had already imposed several different rounds of economic sanctions and embargoes without Iraq changing its behavior. Hell, Iraq, with France abd germany's aid, was attempting to have those sanctions rescinded, i.e., telling us that Iraq was not going to change its behavior, but working to altr the consequences of that behavior.

By the way, it seems to me that you never would have conceded that diplomacy had been exhausted anyway so you're kinda holding Bush accountable to an unattainable standard.

WI Crippler said:

So whats your problem with this particular thread then?

Click to expand...

It seems he hired lobbyists for positions.

a) They could be the best people for the job
b) They don't appear to be crony pals
c) It's too early to decipher whether they're doing a lousy enough job to complain.
d) They're not former horse show judges. :2razz:

Of course kidding about the last one, but sorry, I just don't see the big whoop about this.

Middleground said:

I highly doubt it was an important issue amongst the voters. I think people were most concerned about the economy, taxes and change, I would think.

Click to expand...

It's quite irrelevant whether it was an important issue among voters.

Obama made it important by campaigning on it.

I guess all of Obama's promises can be ignored if you judge that such promises or the issues that the promise addresses were important?

By the way, you do realize that Obama's carping about lobbyist influence in Washington was directly tied to his campaign theme of change, right? Obama was arguing that Washington was run by powerful lobbying interests rather than by the people and that he was going to change that.

I don't think you really understand what you are typing before you mash that submit button.

JMak said:

You're already conceding that Obama has poo-pooed major promises, yet, you're willing to give him a generous benefit of the doubt. Given that he's already poo-pooed major campaign promises, why do you grant him such a broad benefit of the doubt?

Click to expand...

Barack Obama (D)

By the way, it seems to me that you never would have conceded that diplomacy had been exhausted anyway so you're kinda holding Bush accountable to an unattainable standard.

Click to expand...

Needless to say...

Middleground said:

It seems he hired lobbyists for positions.

a) They could be the best people for the job
b) They don't appear to be crony pals
c) It's too early to decipher whether they're doing a lousy enough job to complain.
d) They're not former horse show judges. :2razz:

Of course kidding about the last one, but sorry, I just don't see the big whoop about this.

Click to expand...

The big whoop, of course, is that he made a plenary declaration that he would NOT hire lobbyists.

The bigger whoop is that this (and other similar) threads illustrate the very unsuprisingly partisan nature of The Obamanistas, in that they're giving The Secular Messiah a pass.

:rofl @ Secular Messiah

Yes Reverend, I obvious see it now. People on the Right, or you, aren't really using negative terms for Obama because you use them when you're provoked it doesnt' really count. People on the Right, or you, aren't really using negative terms for Obama because you rationalize that its just an insult to his supporters, not him. Great ot know, I'll roll that up with the wonderful logic that Obama isn't "100%" breaking a promise on this.

:roll:

Also, little advise reverend. If you don't want me at least in some way referring specifically to you then don't respond to a post I make that is a generalized about some people on the right and then start talking about yourself. If you reference it towards you personally, the only way I can respond is to speak about your reference to you personally.

However, you show your true desire and mindset here and how honest you were giving a damn about the theory of "debating politics" when you talk about me just "bashing righty" after I've spent this entire thread going after Obama and the illogical hypocracy of many on the left.

Sorry reverend, not playing this pathetic little game. You apparently don't feel like even going within the same neighborhood of that horrible word called "objectivity". So keep on yapping if you wish, I'm sure someone else will respond to you.

middleground said:

It seems he hired lobbyists for positions.

a) They could be the best people for the job
b) They don't appear to be crony pals
c) It's too early to decipher whether they're doing a lousy enough job to complain.
d) They're not former horse show judges.

Of course kidding about the last one, but sorry, I just don't see the big whoop about this.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you're missing some peoples point here Middle.

Most here aren't arguing necessarily that "Lobbyists = bad". Actually, if you go back and look at posts by me and Right, we both actually say that lobbyists being in positions aren't necessarily bad.

The issue is the fact that OBAMA and many of his supporters are the ones that said lobbyists in government are bad. Obama is the one that promised his supporters that he wouldn't have lobbyists in his white house while at the same time making it a campaign issue...to the point that one of Obama's approved commercials was specifically attacking McCain for having lobbyists on his staff....a semi important, if not "major" campaign issue.

The issue that those on the Right are pointing out here is not that Obama is using Lobbyists. Its the fact that Obama promised to be a change from politics as usual, yet at best made poor judgement by making it a campaign point to be big and mean agaisnt Lobbyists and then had to bring them into his white house....or at worst flat out lied and made that a campaign issue becaue it'd work, but had no desire to keep it. Either way, both is extremely playing "Politics as Usual", latching onto something you can condemn your opponent for while you have no qualms doign it yourself.

You say its still inside the first 100 days. It is...and already we're seeing Obama breaking campaign promises, promises on issues that were big enough to cause him to have a TV ad dedicated to attacking his opponent over it. What are we going to see 50 days in, 100 days in, a year in? If he's already breaking promises, potentially lieing, and just playing politics as usual what are we to expect going further.

Its not about the lobbyists. Its about principle, honest, politics as usual, and hpyocracy of many on the right that complained about lobbyists for 8 years unconditionally with Bush and complained about lobbyists all through the campaigin unconditionally with McCain, but are now suddenly saying "lets wait, they may turn out good!"

My other issue is just with people on the right hypocritical complaining about the left being hypocritical.

Goobieman said:

You're trying to misdirect the conversation.

"Everyone does it" isnt a defense.

Click to expand...

My point was that it always happens so it should not come as a surprise.

The big deal is that Obama lied.

Click to expand...

You see black, I see gray.

Oh, I see. Its OK that your guy lied, because the lie was 'small'.
:roll:

Click to expand...

Yes. Small and unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

More misdirection (never mind that W did exactly that).

Click to expand...

You're right. I should not have mentioned this.

Middleground said:

It seems he hired lobbyists for positions.

a) They could be the best people for the job
b) They don't appear to be crony pals
c) It's too early to decipher whether they're doing a lousy enough job to complain.
d) They're not former horse show judges. :2razz:

Of course kidding about the last one, but sorry, I just don't see the big whoop about this.

Click to expand...

Of course you don't see the problem with this...you're covering for Obama.

Obama declared that he represented change.

Obama declared that lobbyists had too much influence in Washington.

Obama campaigned on changing on the game was played in Washgington vowing not to hire lobbyists and to rewrite the rules regarding how lobbyists move in and out of government positions.

Obama not only hired lobbyists for his own campaign, but now for his administration.

It's a straight up violation of a major campaign promise.

Now, you could argue that now in office Obama realizes that his unqualified campaign promises were bad ideas and that governing is actually more difficult than he thought it was, but that just exposes his real naivete.

Zyphlin said:

Yes Reverend, I obvious see it now. People on the Right, or you, aren't really using negative terms for Obama because you use them when you're provoked it doesnt' really count. People on the Right, or you, aren't really using negative terms for Obama because you rationalize that its just an insult to his supporters, not him. Great ot know, I'll roll that up with the wonderful logic that Obama isn't "100%" breaking a promise on this.

Click to expand...

wahhh keep crying. I care not about your nonsense. You are being dishonest when you make up my point and give it to me.

Then when I point out your flaw, you change it in your typical whinefest.



My challenge still stands. If you want me to act like the last 8 years for a day, You will have quite the busy day.

:roll:

Also, little advise reverend. If you don't want me at least in some way referring specifically to you then don't respond to a post I make that is a generalized about some people on the right and then start talking about yourself. If you reference it towards you personally, the only way I can respond is to speak about your reference to you personally.

Click to expand...

First, its "advice"..... Second, try to follow along, MG called me out you butted in, I continued the conversation.

you fail.

However, you show your true desire and mindset here and how honest you were giving a damn about the theory of "debating politics" when you talk about me just "bashing righty" after I've spent this entire thread going after Obama and the illogical hypocracy of many on the left.

Click to expand...

You have plenty to bash the left on, but here you had to go out of your way to throw the Zyphlin mantrum at me.... Sorry man. The only dishonesty is yours.

Sorry reverend, not playing this pathetic little game. You apparently don't feel like even going within the same neighborhood of that horrible word called "objectivity". So keep on yapping if you wish, I'm sure someone else will respond to you.

Click to expand...

Awesome, See how you want to act like a jerk, I will throw it back in your face. As I have always done.


There is no game. Only you throwing a mantrum.




You get what you give my friend.

Middleground said:

My point was that it always happens so it should not come as a surprise.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not at all surprised given that Obama had already violated this change principle both during the campaign ad in nominating cabinet positions.

But I don't the others are carping because they were surprised. They're rightly reacting to Obama violating a major campaign promise.

You see black, I see gray.

Click to expand...

Of course you do. Obama is The One and, more importantly, a Democrat.

JMak said:

By the way, you do realize that Obama's carping about lobbyist influence in Washington was directly tied to his campaign theme of change, right? Obama was arguing that Washington was run by powerful lobbying interests rather than by the people and that he was going to change that.

Click to expand...

How is this topic relevant to what I bolded???

These people are no longer "powerful" lobbyists, therefore they are now representations of the American government, not a corporation. I hope that Obama will NOT fall to the powerful lobbyists when it comes to decisions/policies made for healthcare and the environment. See the difference?

And BTW, as far as I know, Obama campaign of change was a heck of a lot more than that. Transparency is a biggie, don't you think?

I think it's clear that the right has an agenda to defeat Obama which began the moment he was inaugurated. It has nothing to do with what Obama actually does or says, it has to do with picking the most appropriate weakness and exagerating it into outrage.

Every president makes mistakes, the right plans on using each mistake as a concrete example of why Democrats should not be allowed to govern. Today, all they have is the nomination of former lobbyists after Obama indicated a distaste for lobbyists in government. It's not much, but it will do.

The basic strategy of the right is not to allow Obama to govern. A Democratic success is unacceptable. Republican legislators will not vote for legislation that casts Democrats in a favorable light. This is war. The notion of working together to strengthen America is immaterial and naive.

Middleground said:

How is this topic relevant to what I bolded???

These people are no longer "powerful" lobbyists, therefore they are now representations of the American government, not a corporation. I hope that Obama will NOT fall to the powerful lobbyists when it comes to decisions/policies made for healthcare and the environment. See the difference?

And BTW, as far as I know, Obama campaign of change was a heck of a lot more than that. Transparency is a biggie, don't you think?

Click to expand...

What "transparency"?


Please list.

WillRockwell said:

I think it's clear that the right has an agenda to defeat Obama which began the moment he was inaugurated. It has nothing to do with what Obama actually does or says, it has to do with picking the most appropriate weakness and exagerating it into outrage.

Click to expand...

Interesting that Obama's opposition expects him to keep his promises, and his supporters do not. Say whatever it takes to get elected, I guess...

Every president makes mistakes

Click to expand...

Lies are not mistakes.

WillRockwell said:

I think it's clear that the right has an agenda to defeat Obama which began the moment he was inaugurated. It has nothing to do with what Obama actually does or says, it has to do with picking the most appropriate weakness and exagerating it into outrage.

Every president makes mistakes, the right plans on using each mistake as a concrete example of why Democrats should not be allowed to govern. Today, all they have is the nomination of former lobbyists after Obama indicated a distaste for lobbyists in government. It's not much, but it will do.

The basic strategy of the right is not to allow Obama to govern. A Democratic success is unacceptable. Republican legislators will not vote for legislation that casts Democrats in a favorable light. This is war. The notion of working together to strengthen America is immaterial and naive.

Click to expand...

Say this is true...

how is it different from the past 5 years?

Zyphlin said:

Say this is true...

how is it different from the past 5 years?

Click to expand...

You know, I was thinking, maybe the GOP refusal to reach across the aisle so far is to take away any claims of bipartisanship from Obama. Let's say that Obama realizes this and let's Rove hang. The GOP gets the war it is looking for.

Or maybe I need to take a nap. :lol:

Goobieman said:

Interesting that Obama's opposition expects him to keep his promises, and his supporters do not. Say whatever it takes to get elected, I guess...


Lies are not mistakes.

Click to expand...

Obama himself qualified his statement over a year ago when he realized the most experienced Washington administrators had some links to lobbys. Yet you continue to repeat the word "lie" as if impeachment were in order. Did you turn your back on George Bush so soon? Did you, in fact, ever turn your back on him?

independent_thinker2002 said:

You know, I was thinking, maybe the GOP refusal to reach across the aisle so far is to take away any claims of bipartisanship from Obama. Let's say that Obama realizes this and let's Rove hang. The GOP gets the war it is looking for.

Or maybe I need to take a nap. :lol:

Click to expand...

You need to take a nap. The dems shut any sort of compromise or republican input an expect them THEN to reach accross the aisle? :shock:



I will give Obama credit here. He appeared willing to listen to Republicans. Too bad princess pelosi and the rest of the dems shut them out.

WillRockwell said:

Obama himself qualified his statement over a year ago when he realized the most experienced Washington administrators had some links to lobbys. Yet you continue to repeat the word "lie" as if impeachment were in order. Did you turn your back on George Bush so soon? Did you, in fact, ever turn your back on him?

Click to expand...

Please quote and link, I think you made this up. :2wave:

Actually, scratch what I said sorry, he didn't have AN ad dedicated to attacking McCain for lobbyists...

He dedicated TWO ads at least to it:

First

Second

Seems the Obama campaign said lobbyists in the white house was "more of the same". That the use of lobbyists showed you weren't really a "reformer". So much for a change in Politics as Usual.

Why is this an issue? Its not just that he lied. Its counter to EVERYTHING his campaign was run on. It was ran on Hope. Hope for what? Hope for change...yet by Obama's own definition this isn't change, its more of the same. Hope for no more Politics as usual...yet by obama's own definition this isn't change, its more of the same. He ran that it was to clean up the image of government, yet already he's being at least dishonest....that's not change, its more of the same.

The reason this is significant is because its a CLEAR example of his campaign being nothing but...well...Politics as Usual.

Middleground said:

How is this topic relevant to what I bolded???

These people are no longer "powerful" lobbyists, therefore they are now representations of the American government, not a corporation. I hope that Obama will NOT fall to the powerful lobbyists when it comes to decisions/policies made for healthcare and the environment. See the difference?

And BTW, as far as I know, Obama campaign of change was a heck of a lot more than that. Transparency is a biggie, don't you think?

Click to expand...

If you don't think it's relevant than you really are clueless here.

Obama has long been carping about the level of influence that lobbyists play in Washington. His response to this level of influence was to promise that he would a) not hire lobbyists on his campaign and administration; and b) that he wuld change the rules regulating how lobbyists could move in and out of government.

This was a major political ethics issue in his campaign.

My comment that you bolded is relevant because it's the basis of his promises not to hire lobbyists and to change the rules about lobbyists moving into and out of government service.

Here's what Obama said repeatedly during the campaign:

One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I’ve won. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won’t find a job in my White House.

Notice, no qualifications, no conditions, no equivocating. Rather, an explicit declaration that, "they won’t find a job in my White House".

And, again, this was Obama's campaign theme...lobbyists setting the agenda will end and I will make it end by not hiring them and by changing the rules on how they move in and out of government service.

You cannot cover for this without looking foolish.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Obama said:

One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I’ve won. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won’t find a job in my White House.

Click to expand...

hmmmm... Game set match?