Obama has already broke Campaign promises

[joerockhead]

Guess the Change he was talking about is not this kind.


President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico.

Obama aides did not challenge the the list of lobbyists appointed to administration jobs, but they stressed that former lobbyists comprise a fraction of the more than 8,000 employees who will be hired by the new administration. And they pointed out that before Obama made his campaign-trail promise, he issued a more complete - and more nuanced - policy on former lobbyists.

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.

“It would be more honest if they admitted they made a mistake and came up with a narrower rule,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Obviously, they can’t live with the rule, which is why they keep waving the magic wand and making exceptions. They’re saying one thing and doing another. It’s why the public is skeptical about politicians.”

But another watchdog, Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, praised Obama’s rules as “a good starting place” and urged patience in judging their efficacy.

“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule,” McGehee said. “I don’t think we’re at that point yet.”

At the White House, spokesman Tommy Vietor insisted the president has been consistent.

“During the campaign, then-Sen. Obama put forth the toughest ethics and lobbying reform policy in history,” Vietor said, “and now he’s acting on it to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington.”

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

[fmb]

I was wondering how this (or any) administration expected to find "qualified" political appointees that had not lobbied the government in the previous two years. Hell, after leaving government, lobbying is the prime new employment group.

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.

[Krasch]

I was wondering how this (or any) administration expected to find "qualified" political appointees that had not lobbied the government in the previous two years. Hell, after leaving government, lobbying is the prime new employment group.

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.
That would assume the mainstream media picks up on it, which I highly doubt as they're all still in the middle of their multiple Obamagasms.

[CD]

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
CD: How does the National Education Association have anything to do with agriculture?

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
CD: I got to tell you... limiting tobacco among kids seems like a good thing for our health. Even smokers know that it's bad for their health.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
CD: how long ago?

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
So you know what's the biggest thing I picked up from this post? More then half of these lobbyists they found were "registered" to lobby. So does that mean they did lobby, or they were certified to lobby until that time? Even still, a few of those that don't say registered, are more then 2 years ago. Just saying... you go to the trouble of picking apart Obama's picks, but go ahead and look up Bush's picks. I will practically guarantee you that he had a lot more... in fact, my guess would be 800+ % more lobbyists.

[Krasch]

So you know what's the biggest thing I picked up from this post? More then half of these lobbyists they found were "registered" to lobby. So does that mean they did lobby, or they were certified to lobby until that time? Even still, a few of those that don't say registered, are more then 2 years ago. Just saying... you go to the trouble of picking apart Obama's picks, but go ahead and look up Bush's picks. I will practically guarantee you that he had a lot more... in fact, my guess would be 800+ % more lobbyists.
You may well be right about Bush, don't know the numbers myself, but then again I don't recall Bush making a promise during his campaign "lobbyists won't have a job in my White House".

Obama did.

If Bush did not, then how many lobbyists he had is irrelevant. The issue is whether Obama is breaking his campaign promise regarding lobbyists.

[CD]

You may well be right about Bush, don't know the numbers myself, but then again I don't recall Bush making a promise during his campaign "lobbyists won't have a job in my White House".

Obama did.

If Bush did not, then how many lobbyists he had is irrelevant. The issue is whether Obama is breaking his campaign promise regarding lobbyists.
True points... but a person who was a lobbyist 7 years ago may be the best person for the job currently. And since so many people were lobbyists at one point or another, shouldn't there be a cutoff to let them in? My argument would be if they were pulled from a lobbyist job, or had been there very recently, then that would definitely be a broken promise, but not necessarily a bad choice.

It almost reminds me of when the government was hiring former computer hackers or counterfetors because they knew the best ways of preventing it. Sure, you'd like to think the government would never hire a crook, but sometimes you need a crook to outsmart a crook. Anyway, from everything I've heard and seen, his picks seem to be very good, so if you can't fault him on his picks, I guess you have to find something else...

[Krasch]

True points... but a person who was a lobbyist 7 years ago may be the best person for the job currently. And since so many people were lobbyists at one point or another, shouldn't there be a cutoff to let them in? My argument would be if they were pulled from a lobbyist job, or had been there very recently, then that would definitely be a broken promise, but not necessarily a bad choice.

It almost reminds me of when the government was hiring former computer hackers or counterfetors because they knew the best ways of preventing it. Sure, you'd like to think the government would never hire a crook, but sometimes you need a crook to outsmart a crook. Anyway, from everything I've heard and seen, his picks seem to be very good, so if you can't fault him on his picks, I guess you have to find something else...
Not when you make it a featured campaign promise and you build your whole campaign on some ephemeral concept of "change"

The best people for the job?

MAYBE for some of the jobs and that a BIG maybe.

But there must people lawyers out where who aren't lobbyists, why not pick one of THEM for attorney general? Plenty of senior people in uniform or ex-military people who aren't lobbyists to serve as deputy defense secretary, etc.

If a guy is going to say "no lobbyists" and make this big thing of bringing "change", then why not pick qualified people from the real world outside the Beltway from the appropriate vocations? People who actually work in those fields and DO the jobs as opposed to people who hang around Washington sucking up to the Government?

[CD]

Not when you make it a featured campaign promise and you build your whole campaign on some ephemeral concept of "change"

The best people for the job?

MAYBE for some of the jobs and that a BIG maybe.

But there must people lawyers out where who aren't lobbyists, why not pick one of THEM for attorney general? Plenty of senior people in uniform or ex-military people who aren't lobbyists to serve as deputy defense secretary, etc.

If a guy is going to say "no lobbyists" and make this big thing of bringing "change", then why not pick qualified people from the real world outside the Beltway from the appropriate vocations? People who actually work in those fields and DO the jobs as opposed to people who hang around Washington sucking up to the Government?
Since there will be no pleasing the Republicans on this board in all things Obama, I'm going to bow out, since nothing I can say will change a thing. The cycle is complete though... the hate on Bush has already come back to Obama in the first month. I fear to see what topics are created in a few more months...

I would like to point out that it doesn't say zero lobbyists. It says they can't join a branch of his administration if they lobbied for or against it in the last 2 years. So a guy who lobby's for cutting down trees cant be secretary of the forestry commission. BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Krasch]

Since there will be no pleasing the Republicans on this board in all things Obama, I'm going to bow out, since nothing I can say will change a thing. The cycle is complete though... the hate on Bush has already come back to Obama in the first month. I fear to see what topics are created in a few more months...

I would like to point out that it doesn't say zero lobbyists. It says they can't join a branch of his administration if they lobbied for or against it in the last 2 years. So a guy who lobby's for cutting down trees cant be secretary of the forestry commission. BIG DIFFERENCE.
No actually he first said they wouldn't have a job in his White House, no conditions, nothing.

Then LATER he decided to change his tune on lobbyists, doing the old familiar politician two-step (Much like Prime Minister Jean Chretien's promise to scrap the GST in Canada)

The BIG DIFFERENCE is not us reading too much into a promise he made, it's Obama himself breaking his own promise when it's expedient, just like most every other politician before or since, except that this one based his whole campaign around CHANGE. Instead he's just like all the others.

No hate from me here BTW. I may not agree with Democrat policy, but I sincerely hope he ends up doing a good job. A strong President means a strong US, and as our largest trading partner, good things for Canada.

If anything I am more disappointed that CHANGE appears to be only so much lip service. Personally I'd be a lot happier if he had stuck to his guns and actually delivered real change, even if I disagree on many aspects of that change. I value integrity regardless of party.

That being said, what IS your view on the idea of picking experts from the real world instead of lobbyist suck-ups? You never really answered that one.

[joerockhead]

CD - You are arguing because you Support President Obama 100%.

If they had not lobbied for several years, and in an area that they are not serving for him, then it is not an issue.
Yet you only listed two that really met that criteria.
Serving up until Last year would be up to the election, then quit knowing you have a job, in the same field you lobbied. That is what is Wrong.

And you even state "It almost reminds me of when the government was hiring former computer hackers or counterfetors because they knew the best ways of preventing it. Sure, you'd like to think the government would never hire a crook"

Hell he hires a guy that lied on taxes to monitor our Taxes!!!! How Dumb is that!?!?!!

[lsky5101982]

what did you all expect when you voted for this moron..... have fun paying for your bad decision for the next 4 years.... and fuck you for dragging the rest of us into it.

[Krasch]

what did you all expect when you voted for this moron..... have fun paying for your bad decision for the next 4 years.... and fuck you for dragging the rest of us into it.
Ahhhhh but was the election truly a case of people voting FOR Obama, or was it instead people voting AGAINST Bush in effect punishing McCain because he happened to be in the same party as Bush.

Now there's the question...

[CD]

Ahhhhh but was the election truly a case of people voting FOR Obama, or was it instead people voting AGAINST Bush in effect punishing McCain because he happened to be in the same party as Bush.

Now there's the question...
What the fuck ever. I know a lot of people who were excited to vote for Obama, and it had nothing to do with Bush/McCain. Have you heard the guy speak? He's very articulate and comes across well. I would say similar to Clinton, but since most people here dislike Clinton, can we all just agree that Clinton spoke very well? Obama just comes across as a very intelligent guy.

Would you like to cry a little more about how the election was so-called robbed from McCain?

[ronnym]

As far as his speaking goes, he can read a teleprompter. Other than that, he really is a mess. The media won't show him stumbling, but you can find it all over youtube.

The thing I fear most about this pork-laden bill is the 4 billion dollars ACORN stands to get...which means they can continue to fix elections right through our transition to socialism.

[Krasch]

What the fuck ever. I know a lot of people who were excited to vote for Obama, and it had nothing to do with Bush/McCain. Have you heard the guy speak? He's very articulate and comes across well. I would say similar to Clinton, but since most people here dislike Clinton, can we all just agree that Clinton spoke very well? Obama just comes across as a very intelligent guy.

Would you like to cry a little more about how the election was so-called robbed from McCain?
I wasn't crying at all, but asking a valid question.

My own guess was it was a fairly even split among pro-Obama voters and anti-Biush voters that got Obama elected. What I'd really be interested to see is some empirical data on the subject.

Surely you're not naive enough to believe that an "anti-Bush" factor wasn't at least a statistically significant proportion of Obama voters. (which does not at infer that it was or even near the primary factor, jest statistically significant)

[CD]

I wasn't crying at all, but asking a valid question.

My own guess was it was a fairly even split among pro-Obama voters and anti-Biush voters that got Obama elected. What I'd really be interested to see is some empirical data on the subject.

Surely you're not naive enough to believe that an "anti-Bush" factor wasn't at least a statistically significant proportion of Obama voters. (which does not at infer that it was or even near the primary factor, jest statistically significant)
I'd be willing to bet that most Presidents in our history were chosen to counteract the previous 4-8 years. Not saying the previous 4-8 were bad, but we have evolved as a country and will do so after every new President takes office. Bush took office after Clinton because people wanted a more moral and Christian President? Clinton took office because people wanted a President who didn't use trickle down economics? I'm not saying it wasn't a factor... I'm saying that most Obama voters that you think were voting for him because he's not Bush, were voting for him because he IS liberal.

Seriously dude, the people who are more likely to vote for a certain party are more likely to listen to that sides argument. So you can try to make a point by saying you'd like to hear more empirical evidence supporting your claim, but I doubt it's out there in a nice anti-liberal table or chart.

Oh, and thanks for the negative rep.

[Krasch]

I'd be willing to bet that most Presidents in our history were chosen to counteract the previous 4-8 years. Not saying the previous 4-8 were bad, but we have evolved as a country and will do so after every new President takes office. Bush took office after Clinton because people wanted a more moral and Christian President? Clinton took office because people wanted a President who didn't use trickle down economics? I'm not saying it wasn't a factor... I'm saying that most Obama voters that you think were voting for him because he's not Bush, were voting for him because he IS liberal.

Seriously dude, the people who are more likely to vote for a certain party are more likely to listen to that sides argument. So you can try to make a point by saying you'd like to hear more empirical evidence supporting your claim, but I doubt it's out there in a nice anti-liberal table or chart.

Oh, and thanks for the negative rep.
Hate to have to correct you on this, but Bush Sr. didn't use trickle down Reaganomics, nor was he turfed for that reason.

Bush Sr. got fired for pledging those immortal words "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES" then implementing and backing a Democrat designed budget that was one of the largest tax increases ever at that time.

Bush Sr. split from Reagan economically in order to try and reduce political gridlock and get some Democrat support for his policies, something the Dems didn't follow through on, leaving Bush high and dry with large Grade A yolks on his mug.

As for people voting for Obama BECAUSE he's liberal, I will admit it's POSSIBLE but somehow I sincerely doubt it's as high as you'd like to think. According to the most recent polls on the stimulus plan originated by Obama and heavily pushed by him, a bare majority of Americans think the plan is a good one with over a third concluding it's too much money, and it's the liberal Democrats in the house trying to push those numbers higher.

If the populace suddenly turned pro-liberal like you suggest, wouldn't they tend to support the increased spending in the stimulus plan in greater numbers? Numbers that aren't trending downwards? (BTW the numbers of those opposed are growing with undecided shrinking)

By comparison Obama himself enjoys around a 75% approval rating.

Maybe it's misleading, but the evidence we have would SEEM to indicate more love for Obama the man rather than the liberal Democrats at large. Personality as opposed to policy. But who knows you could be right.

[CD]

Hate to have to correct you on this, but Bush Sr. didn't use trickle down Reaganomics, nor was he turfed for that reason.

Bush Sr. got fired for pledging those immortal words "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES" then implementing and backing a Democrat designed budget that was one of the largest tax increases ever at that time.

Bush Sr. split from Reagan economically in order to try and reduce political gridlock and get some Democrat support for his policies, something the Dems didn't follow through on, leaving Bush high and dry with large Grade A yolks on his mug.
Sorry about the trickle down... I was extremely tired when I wrote that. But hopefully the idea behind it was ok. I just think the country goes in a certain direction, and the people try to make slight corrections every 4 or 8 years (every 2 if you count Congress).

As for people voting for Obama BECAUSE he's liberal, I will admit it's POSSIBLE but somehow I sincerely doubt it's as high as you'd like to think. According to the most recent polls on the stimulus plan originated by Obama and heavily pushed by him, a bare majority of Americans think the plan is a good one with over a third concluding it's too much money, and it's the liberal Democrats in the house trying to push those numbers higher.
And I somehow doubt your opinion that most registered Democrats actually considered McCain at all. It's probably more likely that some Republicans got a little ticked at the way things were going and considered Obama. Remember, the Iraq War was unpopular on both sides so Obama was a solution more then McCain was a clone.

Neither stimulus plan was worth a shit. The first one was mismanaged and porked too. I honestly don't think either is gonna work, but I'd love to be wrong.

If the populace suddenly turned pro-liberal like you suggest, wouldn't they tend to support the increased spending in the stimulus plan in greater numbers? Numbers that aren't trending downwards? (BTW the numbers of those opposed are growing with undecided shrinking)

By comparison Obama himself enjoys around a 75% approval rating.

Maybe it's misleading, but the evidence we have would SEEM to indicate more love for Obama the man rather than the liberal Democrats at large. Personality as opposed to policy. But who knows you could be right.
Not all liberals are fans of wasting money. Why would you think they are? I lean towards liberal, but even I know that wasting money is a bad idea in today's economy. You're just trying to generalize a tad too much.

[Krasch]

Sorry about the trickle down... I was extremely tired when I wrote that. But hopefully the idea behind it was ok. I just think the country goes in a certain direction, and the people try to make slight corrections every 4 or 8 years (every 2 if you count Congress).


And I somehow doubt your opinion that most registered Democrats actually considered McCain at all. It's probably more likely that some Republicans got a little ticked at the way things were going and considered Obama. Remember, the Iraq War was unpopular on both sides so Obama was a solution more then McCain was a clone.

Neither stimulus plan was worth a shit. The first one was mismanaged and porked too. I honestly don't think either is gonna work, but I'd love to be wrong.


Not all liberals are fans of wasting money. Why would you think they are? I lean towards liberal, but even I know that wasting money is a bad idea in today's economy. You're just trying to generalize a tad too much.
I didn't say Democrats avoided voting for McCain though, I said "Obama voters" which is a totally different thing. Of course there's a significant number of Democrats that wouldn't vote for McCain. Those same people wouldn't likely vote for Mother Theresa if she was on the Republican ticket. And there are their counterparts among Republicans that didn't vote for Obama and wouldn't do so if their own candidate was Hitler.

That;s maybe 20% for each side for the hardcore voters, it's the 60% in the middle that really decide things, the ones who go largely undecided until voting day.And I might suggest that since the Iraq War is so unpopular that no Republican (save MAYBE Arnold Schwarzenegger who's largely centrist and illegible anyway) would have had a solid chance of winning, regardless of the Democrat candidate. I will admit that Obama's cult of personality and campaign of "change" (whatever that means) helped him get more votes than say Hilary or any other Dem would ever have gotten. But I do still doubt it got him all the way there.

I also didn't say liberals are all about WASTING money, but it is a standard of liberal policy to go for more spending, higher taxes, and more government as a solution to problems, as if the government is really good at running anything which for the MOST part they aren't. They may not be entirely about that, but it is their knee-jerk reaction to issues before anything else gets considered, certainly so for those IN government.

There's a real fallacy of reading too much into what appear to be idealogical shifts in elections. Most people are somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which is why they're more flexible in voting loyalty. If the '92 turfing of Bush Sr. were REALLY because of a liberal shift, then the '94 mid-term election that butchered the Dems in both the House and Senate would never have occurred. So thinking that Obama's victory means that liberalism is breaking out all over is a real mistake and counting your chickens before they hatch. It's WAY too early to make such a conclusion.

[CD]

I didn't say Democrats avoided voting for McCain though, I said "Obama voters" which is a totally different thing. Of course there's a significant number of Democrats that wouldn't vote for McCain. Those same people wouldn't likely vote for Mother Theresa if she was on the Republican ticket. And there are their counterparts among Republicans that didn't vote for Obama and wouldn't do so if their own candidate was Hitler.

That;s maybe 20% for each side for the hardcore voters, it's the 60% in the middle that really decide things, the ones who go largely undecided until voting day.And I might suggest that since the Iraq War is so unpopular that no Republican (save MAYBE Arnold Schwarzenegger who's largely centrist and illegible anyway) would have had a solid chance of winning, regardless of the Democrat candidate. I will admit that Obama's cult of personality and campaign of "change" (whatever that means) helped him get more votes than say Hilary or any other Dem would ever have gotten. But I do still doubt it got him all the way there.
78.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. (aka do you just randomly guess %'s?)

I also didn't say liberals are all about WASTING money, but it is a standard of liberal policy to go for more spending, higher taxes, and more government as a solution to problems, as if the government is really good at running anything which for the MOST part they aren't. They may not be entirely about that, but it is their knee-jerk reaction to issues before anything else gets considered, certainly so for those IN government.
Bush Jr signed the first bailout giving banks and CEO's large amounts of money; and over the last 30 years, Republicans have created more government then Democrats. But other then that, I'd say your assessment of liberals was accurate. :usuck:

There's a real fallacy of reading too much into what appear to be idealogical shifts in elections. Most people are somewhat fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which is why they're more flexible in voting loyalty. If the '92 turfing of Bush Sr. were REALLY because of a liberal shift, then the '94 mid-term election that butchered the Dems in both the House and Senate would never have occurred. So thinking that Obama's victory means that liberalism is breaking out all over is a real mistake and counting your chickens before they hatch. It's WAY too early to make such a conclusion.
Dude... seriously man. If I said Obama was a slight correction, do you honestly think I don't realize that someone less liberal will follow him? For the love of God, I'm saying that we are pointing to the future, and any deviation to the right OR LEFT will be remedied soon.

[CD]

On a side note, I just realized that this thread has gone too far off topic, so all responses from now on will be on campaign promises, or the thread will be locked.

[ddoubleez]

So you know what's the biggest thing I picked up from this post? More then half of these lobbyists they found were "registered" to lobby. So does that mean they did lobby, or they were certified to lobby until that time? Even still, a few of those that don't say registered, are more then 2 years ago. Just saying... you go to the trouble of picking apart Obama's picks, but go ahead and look up Bush's picks. I will practically guarantee you that he had a lot more... in fact, my guess would be 800+ % more lobbyists.

This maybe one of the few times you and I disagree, but many of the appointments by obama are not good... Tom Vilsack is a pro-ethanol corn husker who will make some good changes, but he is in bed with corn farmers and has been for awhile... This will make it difficult to get off ethanol, which is increasing food prices, and alcohol prices... Ethanol is doing nothing for the environment, our national security and is soaking up 20 billion of taxpayers money annually.....

William Lynn is an ex-lobbiest for a military contractor and will, undoubtably favor spending for Raytheon and other unnecessary military spending while in his position for the pentagon... This will further waste tax payers money....

Obama is a better choice than bush was, but he is still in the wrong here... Instead of defending him, we should challenging him on his word....

Despite Pledge to Limit Role, Lobbyists Still a Presence in Obama White House

Despite President Obama’s pledge to restrict former lobbyists in the White House, several are set to play key roles in his administration. The National Journal is reporting fourteen of the 112 White House staffers that Obama has named had been registered as lobbyists at some point since 2005.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/30/despite_pledge_to_limit_role_lobbyists

[CD]

This maybe one of the few times you and I disagree, but many of the appointments by obama are not good... Tom Vilsack is a pro-ethanol corn husker who will make some good changes, but he is in bed with corn farmers and has been for awhile... This will make it difficult to get off ethanol, which is increasing food prices, and alcohol prices... Ethanol is doing nothing for the environment, our national security and is soaking up 20 billion of taxpayers money annually.....

William Lynn is an ex-lobbiest for a military contractor and will, undoubtably favor spending for Raytheon and other unnecessary military spending while in his position for the pentagon... This will further waste tax payers money....

Obama is a better choice than bush was, but he is still in the wrong here... Instead of defending him, we should challenging him on his word....

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/30/despite_pledge_to_limit_role_lobbyists
Actually I don't disagree with you on the Tom Vilsack issue. Corn Ethanol is not a good thing. It's very inefficient compared to rice ethanol, and it's very bad on global food pricing. I just didn't know thats the area that Tom was associated with.

[fmb]

I think many folks are pissed about the lobbyists because Obama was VERY clear about lobbyists (and their influence) in government. I believe many people took his banning or lobbyists to be a total ban on lobbyists being in his cabinet or other appointed positions.

What I think most people missed is that for all the "change" he proposes, Obama still picks policy and decision makers from within the beltway or from persons working for previous administrations. Personally, I don't think this will "change" how anything in Washington works.

Maybe Obama wouldn't be stuck with these types of questions if he looked outside the beltway for cabinet/decision makers. Maybe using "experts" with significant understanding and background in the areas he/she would oversee would actually lead to some type of change.

Unfortunately, these changes wouldn't be politically good changes for Obama

[Krasch]

I think many folks are pissed about the lobbyists because Obama was VERY clear about lobbyists (and their influence) in government. I believe many people took his banning or lobbyists to be a total ban on lobbyists being in his cabinet or other appointed positions.

What I think most people missed is that for all the "change" he proposes, Obama still picks policy and decision makers from within the beltway or from persons working for previous administrations. Personally, I don't think this will "change" how anything in Washington works.

Maybe Obama wouldn't be stuck with these types of questions if he looked outside the beltway for cabinet/decision makers. Maybe using "experts" with significant understanding and background in the areas he/she would oversee would actually lead to some type of change.

Unfortunately, these changes wouldn't be politically good changes for Obama
That's basically what I suggested.

But while I agree such a change would be politically bad with the Beltway crowd and Democrat bigwigs, it would do wonders for the great unwashed Democrats out there.

A real sword of Damocles as it were.

[fmb]

But while I agree such a change would be politically bad with the Beltway crowd and Democrat bigwigs, it would do wonders for the great unwashed Democrats out there.

A real sword of Damocles as it were.
Very true. However, could you imagine the changes which could be made if he were to take that chance? To call out Dems and Republicans which weren't doing the best thing for the country? Encourage those angry voters to write those representatives and get them to do the right thing... Or those bastards be voted out during the next election cycle.

It would be taking a hell of a CHANCE; but that's not too many letters away from CHANGE. Leadership and courage are the two main words!

[kgilly]

NBC News and news services
updated 5:27 p.m. CT, Tues., Nov. 11, 2008
WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama, who said lobbyists would not run his White House, signaled Tuesday that lobbyists could serve in his transition so long as their activities do not involve areas of policy they have tried to influence in the past year.

John Podesta, a top transition aide to Obama, said federal lobbyists will be prohibited from any lobbying while they are at work on the transition.

The transition office said in a statement, "if someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied."

Curb influence
"President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to change the way Washington works and curb the influence of lobbyists," said Podesta in the transition team statement.

"During the campaign, federal lobbyists could not contribute to or raise money for the campaign...the president-elect is taking those commitments even further by announcing the strictest, and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history."

The new rules also call for "a gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests" and an end to transition contributions from federal lobbyists.

In an off-camera briefing Tuesday, Podesta was asked whether potential staff expertise may be lost as the team adheres to these new rules.

He replied, "So be it," reiterating Obama's commitment have the "toughest" rules to "stop the revolving door" in Washington politics

[joerockhead]

He promised no Earmarks in the bills.

The biggest bill he approved has $7 Billion in over 8,000 earmarks.

And both parties created them almost equally!

So, they are all to blame as well.

[Krasch]

He promised no Earmarks in the bills.

The biggest bill he approved has $7 Billion in over 8,000 earmarks.

And both parties created them almost equally!

So, they are all to blame as well.

Yep, it's starting to look like the only "change" he's bringing is a complete disregard for all the things he held to during the campaign.

Or as Rush put it referring to Clinton, "A New Democrat is the same old Democrat with a new label attached." Obama at this point is shaping up to be just another lying politician.

At least we expected it from the rest of them.

[Freemason]

It was only a matter of time, they all do to some degree, but the current president seems to be a run away train who only wants to act like the president instead of being the president.

[Krasch]

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed that Obama is now saying the American economy is fundamentally sound when he criticized John McCain for saying exactly that during the election.

[joerockhead]

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed that Obama is now saying the American economy is fundamentally sound when he criticized John McCain for saying exactly that during the election.

I am sure you misunderstood him, I am sure he meant something else.
There is no way he would ever say that.

Oh, wait, he did!!!

Hmm......Maybe President Obama is NOT fundamentally sound..

[mainstay]

I am sure you misunderstood him, I am sure he meant something else.
There is no way he would ever say that.

Oh, wait, he did!!!

Hmm......Maybe President Obama is NOT fundamentally sound..

I should "Neg" you for that statememt, but I won't because I agree!!!...lol..lol..lol :mstad:

P.S, not that I would ever neg you!

[Krasch]

I wouldn't neg him. The dripping sarcastic delivery was just too good..

As for Obama's switcheroo...

There now Alanis Morissette, THAT'S FRICKEN IRONIC! A traffic jam when you're already late isn't. Try looking in a dictionary sometime!

[ravenshrike]

I wouldn't neg him. The dripping sarcastic delivery was just too good..

As for Obama's switcheroo...

There now Alanis Morissette, THAT'S FRICKEN IRONIC! A traffic jam when you're already late isn't. Try looking in a dictionary sometime!

Irony needs some sort of unexpectedness to it. You personally may find this ironic, but this was the type stuff I had him pegged for before he won the dem primary. Of course, I did pay attention to the fact that he's a chicago pol.