• 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

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Boo-yah! And there we have it. I ain't merely a lie or a realization that governing is more difficult than his naivete would let him see...

The issue is that his entire political platform was change and his moves to nominate Clinton retreads and hire corporate lobbyists represents simply...more of the same.

Obama is violating the core principle of his campaign, his candidacy.
 
JMak said:
Boo-yah! And there we have it. I ain't merely a lie or a realization that governing is more difficult than his naivete would let him see...

The issue is that his entire political platform was change and his moves to nominate Clinton retreads and hire corporate lobbyists represents simply...more of the same.

Obama is violating the core principle of his campaign, his candidacy.
Click to expand...

:lol: when I say this, I get yelled at. look for posters to attack you now, not discuss this reality.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, what you say here is true.

But the very people upset by this "politics as usual" didn't vote for change. They were perfectly fine with lobbyists in the White House. They were worried about "radical change". Yet here they are acting as if they were hoping for change. Yes, I am disappointed that he hired a lobbyist. It's hypocritical of him to do this. I have yet to see a person not be hypocritical at least once in their life. All you have to do is look at this thread to find it on all sides.

I realize that politics is a 24/7 gotcha game. There's always something to say gotcha about.
 
Goobieman said:
Are you OK with the fact that Obama lied about having lobbyists in his administration?
Click to expand...

Obama is definitely taking a hit for this so Lynn better do a damn good job.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates specifically requested Lynn. I wonder what the reason for his request is? Should Obama deny the requests or recommendations of his cabinet members? Also it appears that Lynn must succumb to annual ethic reviews as part of the "waiver" for his appointment.
 
Zyphlin said:
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. :D
Click to expand...


Zyph, I very much appreciate your reasonable and thoughtful response.

I do see what others are getting at. While I will concede that his attack(s) on McCain was/were in bad taste, it seems that is the norm these days. He didn't take the high road, nor did McCain. I can only hope in years to come that this style of campaigning will stop. It does seem, thought, that there was less of it this time around (from both sides), and I think it's a good start.

Now to the lobbyists. I can only hope that Obama does not make important decisions/policies based-on powerful lobbyists that represent powerful companies/groups. I hope that these decisions will be made for the benefit of Americans, and not to line anyone's pockets.

By hiring lobbyists, that would no longer make them lobbyists. They now work for the people. If their performance--at any time--indicates that they do not have the American best interest in mind, then yes, they should be scrutinized.

This is why I don't see this as a big issue. At this point, there are much bigger fish to fry, IMO. If people here want to staunchly hold the position that Obama is a big liar, fine I'll go with it. I guess I just see things differently as this issue is not a big whoop to me. Semantics bore more, while I find results most interesting and important.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Yes, what you say here is true.

But the very people upset by this "politics as usual" didn't vote for change. They were perfectly fine with lobbyists in the White House. They were worried about "radical change". Yet here they are acting as if they were hoping for change. Yes, I am disappointed that he hired a lobbyist. It's hypocritical of him to do this. I have yet to see a person not be hypocritical at least once in their life. All you have to do is look at this thread to find it on all sides.

I realize that politics is a 24/7 gotcha game. There's always something to say gotcha about.
Click to expand...




Once again, talking about others to avoid the reality of the early days and promises broken by the Obama presidency.
 
To continue on this theme of "breaking the general promise of his campaign". We were told things were going to be "different" or "changed" from the way things used to be under the Bush Administration. One would imagine one of those ways would be enacting laws or guidelines and then specifically violating them or creating loopholes with them. Essentially, saying one thing and then specifically manipulating and working the system to go around them. Right?

To steal from this blog, and from the great scoobie-doo....ahrwoo?

Reference

Okay, so from the New York Times on Jan 22nd, Obama said this about the new ethics rules:

In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.
Click to expand...

However, after Republicans pointed out two of his appointments ALREADY violate those rules the following came out from a Senior White House official

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, conceded the two nominees did not adhere to the new rules. But he said that Mr. Lynn had the support of Republicans and Democrats, and would receive a waiver under the policy, and that Mr. Corr did not need a waiver because he had agreed to recuse himself from tobacco issues.

As the philosopher Scooby Doo might say: Awhroo? (That's cartoon dog for "Huh?")

"When you set very tough rules, you need to have a mechanism for the occasional exception," this official said, adding, "We wanted to be really tough, but at the same time we didn't want to hamstring the new administration or turn the town upside down."
Click to expand...

So, set rules and guidelines, make big over reaching statements, to set the appearance that you're doign something the public wants and then specifically put in loopholes that you can manipulate and twist so taht you can essentially ignore it completely.

In the words of our Vice President.

That's not Change, That's more of the Same.
 
How is Mr. Corr in violation if he adheres to the ethics rules set in place?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Yes, what you say here is true.

But the very people upset by this "politics as usual" didn't vote for change. They were perfectly fine with lobbyists in the White House. They were worried about "radical change". Yet here they are acting as if they were hoping for change.
Click to expand...

This is true, they didn't have a problem with Lobbyists in the White House.

They don't have one now either. Really, I'm not seeing many republicans that previously had no problems with Lobbyists in the white house now saying its bad. Actually I've seen two, me and Right, even coming out and saying "Its perfectly fine and actually understandable".

The issue people have though and the reason its being made an issue is two fold:

1. The Republicans lost an election in part because Obama convinced the American People he was here for change. One of those Changes was from "politics as usual". Another of those changes, enough to make two ads about it, was Lobbyists entrenched in government.

In regards to Politics as Usual, Obama made a campaign promise and made at least a decent campaign issue about Lobbyists, and then broke it within the first month of his Presidency. He created new ethics rules, and then immedietely created loopholes and backdoors so he doesn't have to follow it to put in who he really wants. That's not change from politics as usual. That's not changing the way Washington works, that's working like Washington.

2. Accountability and consistancy. Republicans want to see Democrats own up to the fact that the guy they voted for is going against the very message he, and many democrats, whalloped people over the head saying to vote for him for. They want to see them go after Obama when he does these things with even a quarter of the amount of ferocity that they did for McCain and Bush.

(I'll acknowledge that some of the Republicans themselves aren't being very consistant in wanting this, but that's still the reason).

Its not about him bringing lobbyists in...its about him winning an election in part by doing EXACTLY what republicans were saying....selling an empty suit and empty promises with lofty rhetoric that he had no plans to actually uphold.

Yes, I am disappointed that he hired a lobbyist. It's hypocritical of him to do this. I have yet to see a person not be hypocritical at least once in their life. All you have to do is look at this thread to find it on all sides.
Click to expand...

Its not "a" Lobbyist, its in double digits. Its not just the lobbyists, its him creating ethics rules and then specifically using loopholes in them in a Bush-esque move. And yes, while everyone can be hypocritical once in his life, does it not concern you that this is within the FIRST TWO WEEKS of his Presidency and its already being a hypocrite about something he actually made a portion of his campaign platform?
 
WillRockwell said:
Obama himself qualified his statement over a year ago when he realized the most experienced Washington administrators had some links to lobbys.
Click to expand...
Not so much:

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.

Yet in the past few days, a number of exceptions have been granted, with the administration conceding at least two waivers and that a handful of other appointees will recuse themselves from dealing with matters on which they lobbied within the two-year window.
Click to expand...

Obama finds room for lobbyists - Yahoo! News
 
Gibberish said:
How is Mr. Corr in violation if he adheres to the ethics rules set in place?
Click to expand...

He's in violation, he just doesn't need a waiver, because he's using a different loophole..."promising" to not be involved in tabacoo issues...to bypass the rules.

Its a technicality, its a loophole, its a bush-esque move that would likely have many Democrats screaming "bull****" and claiming he's lieing and will actually be involved just not "officially".

Its not change, its more of the same.
 
What so hard about this??? Obama lied/"changed his mind". Just admit it. It doesn't mean he will do it in the future with other campaign promises. Only time will tell.

Why is it so hard for Obamaphiles to be honest? Admit it and move on!
 
Zyphlin said:
He's in violation, he just doesn't need a waiver, because he's using a different loophole..."promising" to not be involved in tabacoo issues...to bypass the rules.

Its a technicality, its a loophole, its a bush-esque move that would likely have many Democrats screaming "bull****" and claiming he's lieing and will actually be involved just not "officially".

Its not change, its more of the same.
Click to expand...

It is suspect I give you that. I wouldn't call stating you will follow the rules as a "loophole" though. I would wonder what checks are in place to monitor if he does violate the rules though.
 
Gibberish said:
It is suspect I give you that. I wouldn't call stating you will follow the rules as a "loophole" though. I would wonder what checks are in place to monitor if he does violate the rules though.
Click to expand...

I'm going to sit and wait to see what develops be befor I jump.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Yes, what you say here is true.

But the very people upset by this "politics as usual" didn't vote for change. They were perfectly fine with lobbyists in the White House. They were worried about "radical change". Yet here they are acting as if they were hoping for change. Yes, I am disappointed that he hired a lobbyist. It's hypocritical of him to do this. I have yet to see a person not be hypocritical at least once in their life. All you have to do is look at this thread to find it on all sides.

I realize that politics is a 24/7 gotcha game. There's always something to say gotcha about.
Click to expand...

Right, nothing to see here. No major violation of his campaign's primary principle. Move along... :roll:

I love this effort to dismiss this issue by noting that everyone does it.

No, not everyone runs for President and no, not everyone who does run for President makes change a central campaign theme, and, no, not everyone who does run for President and makes change their central campaign theme then promises to run lobbyists out town, except for those lobbyists that candidate happens to want on his campaign staff or in the White House.

Obama could have at least told us which lobbyists were the bad ones and promised to run them out... :roll:
 
Middleground said:
By hiring lobbyists, that would no longer make them lobbyists. They now work for the people. If their performance--at any time--indicates that they do not have the American best interest in mind, then yes, they should be scrutinized.
Click to expand...

Now you're just behaving naively.

Obama certainly doesn't agree with the statement above. That's why he promised to rewrite the rules regulating how lobbyists move in and out fo government (see, again, the campaign declaration I cited earlier from Obama).

This is why I don't see this as a big issue. At this point, there are much bigger fish to fry, IMO. If people here want to staunchly hold the position that Obama is a big liar, fine I'll go with it. I guess I just see things differently as this issue is not a big whoop to me. Semantics bore more, while I find results most interesting and important.
Click to expand...

Semantics???

Sematics??

What did Obama say? That lobbyists would not find jobs in an Obama White House.

He didn't say that he'd only some lobbyists. He said none would.

There is no semantic problem here.

The problem is yet, again, Obama has completely reversed himself on a campaign issue that he determined was important to have expressed an unconditional and unequivocal promise about.

This is an indisputable pattern: FISA telcom immunity, NAFTA, public campaign cash, immediate closure of Gitmo, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, not having lobbyists on his campaign staff, a divided Jerusalem, playing the Washington game differently with different people, etc., etc.

How some of you brush this off as "everyone does it" (they don't), a semantics game (it's not), or just partisan rancor (it may be but you guys were the ones calling Bush a liar for eight years) is simply amazing.
 
winston53660 said:
Let look in my crystal ball............
Click to expand...



Nah I am asking cause 1st it was "Wait until he takes office", now that he has you are all telling me to wait to "See who he picks", to now "wait a little longer"... .

I'd like the official date of permission to critisize obama. ;)
 
It seems Obama put an exception in his ethics rules, as would be expected from any rule in the government.
"If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years," Obama said. "When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."

Later, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama's ethics rules included a provision for waivers if they are approved by the White House Counsel. He said Lynn "is superbly qualified" for the deputy defense secretary job.
Click to expand...

And it seems our Defense Secretary believes this man is the best for the job and requested the exception.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters he asked for an exception to be made for Lynn because he is the best candidate for the job.
Click to expand...

Lynn Gets Waiver From Obama Lobbyist Rules - Defense News
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Nah I am asking cause 1st it was "Wait until he takes office", now that he has you are all telling me to wait to "See who he picks", to now "wait a little longer"... .

I'd like the official date of permission to critisize obama. ;)
Click to expand...

I live by the idea that rules are meant to be broken. I want to see what happens before I damn people. I even said this in regards to Bush's spying programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom