• 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

winston53660 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But we have seen what has happened.

Obama declared that no lobbyist would find a job in his White House.

Obama has hired lobbyists for jobs in his White House.

What are you waiting for?
 
JMak said:
But we have seen what has happened.

Obama declared that no lobbyist would find a job in his White House.

Obama has hired lobbyists for jobs in his White House.

What are you waiting for?
Click to expand...





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. -President Barak Hussein Obama
Click to expand...




.............
 
I've got nothing against Democrats that will say something along the lines of:

"Yes, I don't like this. Yes, it does seem like politics as usual and he was being dishonest. However, its still early on and while this does make leery I would like at least a year to see what promises he keeps, what promsies he doesn't, and what steps he takes to fulfill his promises."

Its understandable. Its completely understandable not to want to judge the guy you voted for based on a single incident. No one expects the guy they voted for to be perfect and I understand the feeling of wanting to judge him over a reasonable course of time, like 1 or 2 years, before really making a judgement on rather he was completely lieing or being dishonest about his platform as a whole or if there was just certain issues where he had to compromise his principles due to the reality of situations.

Say I'm told that a movie is supposed to be a great comedy, filled with moments where I'm bursting at the seams laughing, and then I go to see it and just get a few chuckles in the first 5 minutes and one moment that was just HORRIBLY unfunny. For some people, that may be enough to make them think that the reviews and the commericals for the movie were a lie and get up and walk out. Others may think that sometimes things aren't going to deliver IMMEDIETELY, but you gotta give it a bit of time to see it pan out. If its a two hour movie and 30 minutes or an hour into it it STILL hasn't really been that funny, and at some points downright unfunny, then yeah, those initial people may then think they've got enough to go on to make a decision.

Same thing here. He's been in for 2 weeks, and while to me this is a bad sign, I even am can't say for certain what it pertains to the future because its two weeks out of 208 that he's going to be in office at least. Less than 1%. And during that time, I'm sure he's done things that HAS kept campaign promises.

The problem is, for most of the Democrats that are saying something akin to that they're adding in an attack at republicans daring to actually point out this issue. Whether it is them harping on him too early, or not giving him enough time, or other such excuses...none of those negate what he did and that it IS something to consider.

The amazing thing is this therad would've likely ended 3 pages ago if the majority of the democrats went "Yep, I don't really like his move on this. It goes against part of what he campaigned for. However, its only been 2 weeks, and I've liked more things than disliked that he's done so far, so I'm going to hold off on Judgement".

A few rabid republicans may still have gone "OMG! You didn't say you hate him and that he's a horrible human being, I'm going to bite your leg off now!" but for the most part it would've died out.

Instead we got responses that "he didn't keep his promise 100%" whatever that means, or that its okay that he broke the promise because these guys may be good so its not REALLY the kind of people he was talking about when he made the promise, and other such "rationalizations". The sad thing is, a lot of these rationalizations give credance to some of the attacks from the more rabid people on the right during the campaign about the Messiah-complex (really, could say the Reagan-Complex as republicans do the same thing with him) during the campaign.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I've got nothing against Democrats that will say something along the lines of:

"Yes, I don't like this. Yes, it does seem like politics as usual and he was being dishonest. However, its still early on and while this does make leery I would like at least a year to see what promises he keeps, what promsies he doesn't, and what steps he takes to fulfill his promises."

Its understandable. Its completely understandable not to want to judge the guy you voted for based on a single incident. No one expects the guy they voted for to be perfect and I understand the feeling of wanting to judge him over a reasonable course of time, like 1 or 2 years, before really making a judgement on rather he was completely lieing or being dishonest about his platform as a whole or if there was just certain issues where he had to compromise his principles due to the reality of situations.

The problem is, for most of the Democrats that are saying something akin to that they're adding in an attack at republicans daring to actually point out this issue. Whether it is them harping on him too early, or not giving him enough time, or other such excuses...none of those negate what he did and that it IS something to consider.

The amazing thing is this therad would've likely ended 3 pages ago if the majority of the democrats went "Yep, I don't really like his move on this. It goes against part of what he campaigned for. However, its only been 2 weeks, and I've liked more things than disliked that he's done so far, so I'm going to hold off on Judgement".

A few rabid republicans may still have gone "OMG! You didn't say you hate him and that he's a horrible human being, I'm going to bite your leg off now!" but for the most part it would've died out.

Instead we got responses that "he didn't keep his promise 100%" whatever that means, or that its okay that he broke the promise because these guys may be good so its not REALLY the kind of people he was talking about when he made the promise, and other such "rationalizations". The sad thing is, a lot of these rationalizations give credance to some of the attacks from the more rabid people on the right during the campaign about the Messiah-complex (really, could say the Reagan-Complex as republicans do the same thing with him) during the campaign.
Click to expand...


The situation is something I will keep an eye on.
 
It seems Obama put an exception in his ethics rules, as would be expected from any rule in the government.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is only partially true, and not relevant to Lynn's case.

Executive Order said:
Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine in all of these quotes.

(a) "Executive agency" shall include each "executive agency" as defined by section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and shall include the Executive Office of the President; provided, however, that for purposes of this order "executive agency" shall include the United States Postal Service and Postal Regulatory Commission, but shall exclude the Government Accountability Office.

(b) "Appointee" nshall include every full time, non career Presidential or Vice-Presidential appointee, non career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (or other SES type system), and appointee to a position that has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an executive agency. It does not include any person appointed as a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commissioned officer.
Click to expand...

So there are exceptions to this rule, but they are in no way related to Lynn's case, as the Department Secretary of Defense is not part of the Government Accountability Office or the Senior Foreign Service and is not a uniformed service commissioned officer.

This is why Obama's administration, instead of just having him approved outright, must first seek a waiver for Lynn, based on Section 3 of the Executive Order:

(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.

(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
Click to expand...

So what they are going to have to do in seeking this waiver is proving that the appointment of Lynn is "in the public interest" (i.e. "includ[ing] but not limited to exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy").

The sticking point with people like Reverend is not that the appointment of Lynn goes against the Executive Order, but that the Executive Order goes against what Obama claimed he was going to implement.

Executive Order
 
Zyphlin said:
I've got nothing against Democrats that will say something along the lines of:

"Yes, I don't like this. Yes, it does seem like politics as usual and he was being dishonest. However, its still early on and while this does make leery I would like at least a year to see what promises he keeps, what promsies he doesn't, and what steps he takes to fulfill his promises."
Click to expand...

Well, we know of several that he has not kept and that I keep highlighting.

So, again, what are you waiting for?

FISA and telecom immunity.
Immediate Gitmo closure.
Immediate Iraq withdrawal.
NAFTA.
Public campaign financing.
Lobbyists.
Changing the same old Washington players.
A divided Jerusalem.
Debating McCain.
Declaring Iran the greatest threat to the US then calling Iran a "tiny country" not "posing a serious threat."
Preconditions on diplomacy with Iran.
Throwing Jeremiah Wright under the bus.
Jim Johnson.
Flip-flopping on nuke energy - against, for, against.
Partial birth abortion.

Now, given all of this...

What the hell are you people waiting for?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So it was not:
Click to expand...
As I said, he was naive in making such a statement back in 2007.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
To, "except the ones I like"...... :roll:
Click to expand...

In this case it is "except one's requested by heads of departments.". You may not agree but, personally, if the Defense Secretary said "This is the best man for the job". I would try to get that guy on my staff.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many people in this thread posted in the "The treatment of Bush is a disgrace" thread and what their stances were. :cool:
 
Gibberish said:
As I said, he was naive in making such a statement back in 2007.




In this case it is "except one's requested by heads of departments.". You may not agree but, personally, if the Defense Secretary said "This is the best man for the job". I would try to get that guy on my staff.
Click to expand...






So he was naive then and lobbyists are NOT a problem now? :confused:
 
Gibberish, it doesn't matter whether you judge it naive. Your judgment ain't a basis for defending Obama's total abandonment of a central campaign principle.

Obama certainly didn't think it was naive.
 
To, "except the ones I like"......
In this case it is "except one's requested by heads of departments.". You may not agree but, personally, if the Defense Secretary said "This is the best man for the job". I would try to get that guy on my staff.
Click to expand...

This is the rationalization to which I was referring.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I wonder how many people in this thread posted in the "The treatment of Bush is a disgrace" thread and what their stances were. :cool:
Click to expand...

I have posted there.

I don't see the relevance, though?

I guess if I defend Bush from deliberate lies and distortions that I cannot credibly call out Obama for lying?
 
JMak said:
Gibberish, it doesn't matter whether you judge it naive. Your judgment ain't a basis for defending Obama's total abandonment of a central campaign principle.
Obama certainly didn't think it was naive.
Click to expand...
The Obamaistas should just be honest with us and admit that 'He's our Messiah, so we don't care if He lied!"
 
JMak said:
I have posted there.

I don't see the relevance, though?

I guess if I defend Bush from deliberate lies and distortions that I cannot credibly call out Obama for lying?
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you like.
 
Gibberish said:
No lobbyists are a problem. They need to be regulated and monitored, which is what is occurring.
Click to expand...

It was occurring before.

And regulating and monitoring doesn't address the real problem, Obama, once again, abandoning a core campaign promise to change the game in Washington.
 
Ever feel good about what you've wrote and the point you're making and then look back at some of the things being said by other people making similar points and just want to put your head in your hands, shake your head, and mutter curses.

Yeah...yeah, not a fun feeling.

I swear to god with the idiotic names that get thrown around here on both sides I'd think I'm in grade school, not a political message board. I'm afraid peoples head may explode if an entire thread referenced Bush as Bush, Obama as Obama, and their supporters as supporters. Screw the "Doomsday Device" in Europe, I think THAT would cause the world to implode.

IT said:
I wonder how many people in this thread posted in the "The treatment of Bush is a disgrace" thread and what their stances were.
Click to expand...

I'd say a vast majority of them on both sides.
 
JMak said:
Gibberish, it doesn't matter whether you judge it naive. Your judgment ain't a basis for defending Obama's total abandonment of a central campaign principle.

Obama certainly didn't think it was naive.
Click to expand...
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.

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

JMak said:
Obama certainly didn't think it was naive.
Click to expand...
Why? Because he didn't setup a press conference to state such a thing?
 
Zyphlin said:
Ever feel good about what you've wrote and the point you're making and then look back at some of the things being said by other people making similar points and just want to put your head in your hands, shake your head, and mutter curses.

Yeah...yeah, not a fun feeling.

I swear to god with the idiotic names that get thrown around here on both sides I'd think I'm in grade school, not a political message board. I'm afraid peoples head may explode if an entire thread referenced Bush as Bush, Obama as Obama, and their supporters as supporters. Screw the "Doomsday Device" in Europe, I think THAT would cause the world to implode.



I'd say a vast majority of them on both sides.
Click to expand...

Exactly.....
 
Gibberish said:
I didn't know you had evidence to show that it was Obama and not Gate that requested Lynn's placement. Please do share.
Click to expand...




Please do tell me how you find this relevant. The buck stops with whom, and whose promises.
 
JMak said:
It was occurring before.

And regulating and monitoring doesn't address the real problem, Obama, once again, abandoning a core campaign promise to change the game in Washington.
Click to expand...

How does it not address the problem? Is it your opinion that someone who is the top choice for a job should be denied it because they worked for a corporation that does business with the government?
 
Gibberish said:
How does it not address the problem? Is it your opinion that someone who is the top choice for a job should be denied it because they worked for a corporation that does business with the government?
Click to expand...
When you make the statement that "[lobbyists] won't work in my White House.", your answer to that question is "yes".
 
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...

Technically, he'll work in the Pentagon. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom