They're BAAACK! Obamalamadingdong transition rife with lobbyists...

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Karl K, Nov 15, 2008.

  1. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Yes sirree...there's going to be change....

    Pre-election, here's what the Mutt told us:

    Great...fantastic....

    oh, wait, sorry...let's whitewash...excuse me, REVISE that...just a few days later...

    Ah, yes, the old Potomac backslide.

    Now complete...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403922_pf.html

    Wooo...hoooo!!! Change we CAN believe in!!!!
     
  2. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    I also love the phrase "my White House."

    Maybe Tony Rezko got him a sweetheart deal on that piece of real estate.
     
  3. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    I just knew that some blogger would jump all over this. Have you seen the Plumb Book yet? There are ridiculous prohibitions on lobbyist ties for his administration.

    Transition team /= administration. Who cares whether there are lobbyists in his transition team? The transition team will cease to exist in a couple of months. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    So, in other words, it will be OK if Obambi has lobbyists in his transition team...but if he has them in his ADMINISTRATION!!...well, then's the time to get really worried??

    Yes??

    If so, we'll put that in the old liberal hypocrisy tickler file....
     
  5. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Talk about a bullshit non-starter. No other president-elect that I know of has ever laid down any standards regarding lobbyists. Obama has fairly significant standards that would prevent anyone from working on his transition and then lobbying the White House for a significant period.

    The point is to try to remove the influence. If you are denying access for that purpose then you are effecting the "change" you are looking for.

    Virtually everyone in Washington has served in some sort of lobbying capacity. Would you prefer him to stick to a pledge -- at least your standards of a pledge that do not reflect the reality of what he said -- and then bring in a bunch of people with no street smarts in Washington.

    In one breath, conservatives like to say that he will be the second coming of Jimmy Carter not JFK and then in the second breath, you want to hold him to a pledge (that he really didn't make) that would result in a bunch of Mack McClarty's running around the White House.

    No big deal. You are just looking for things to be hyper-critical of. Most of the nation thinks his transition, like his campaign, is running very smoothly and effectively and are just counting the days to January 20.
     
  6. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Non starter?? NON STARTER?

    So tell me, which words of Obambi's mean what they mean, and which words don't?

    Can you tell me what sentences he spoke we can take at face value, and what sentences we can't?

    Can you tell me when he was sincere, genuine, and authentic, and when he wasn't?

    Please, PLEASE tell me. I await the answer.
     
  7. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What standards? He casually abandoned public campaign financing and I have seen nothing in his campaign that even resembles a moral or ethical judgment. Can you cite a single high standard decision he has made?

    Yeah... all the Bubba Clinton cronies are easy to transition back in power... I mean... The Change We Need means Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? What bullshit Change is that? Why isn't Obama considering retaining Secretary of State Rice? Is Obama really ready for Hillary to offend other nations as she has offended this nation? What about Jamie Gorelick - yet another Bubba Clinton cronie - she's the one that screwed up the Justice Department...I really didn't think Obama's Change meant reinstalling Bubba's regime!
     
  8. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    What harm could lobbyists have if they're only part of the transition team? They're going to work for Obama for a couple of months.

    But the GOP also doesn't get to play the hypocrite card here. McCain railed against lobbyists with just as much fervor as Obama, and pretty much his entire campaign staff consisted of high-powered lobbyists.
     
  9. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Again, once again, the old lefty debating trick of accusing the other side of doing the same think, only worse. It's positively Pavlovian; does someone give you a treat so you reply in this fashion?

    Meanwhile, in case you hadn't heard the news, let me fill you in:
    • McCain is not President elect; Obama is.
    • Obama railed against lobbyists, and now is gainfully employing a whole bunch of them.
    I really really look forward to four years of revising, whitewashing, and promise breaking from the great, post racial, "transformational" Barack Obama.

    Yep, transformational all right. He's transform any statement into a broken promise if it suits his needs at the moment.
     
  10. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Glad you brought this up. I am the first to admit that Obama could have followed through on his pledge to aggressively pursue an agreement with McCain much better than he did. Instead, he had lower level staff meet with his and that did not live up to his pledge.

    The Obama haters instead scream how he pledged to take public financing when he never did. He wanted to insure that if both sides didn't take public financing that there would be a fair election using that money and that third parties wouldn't sucker punch a candidate the way they did to Kerry.

    Given McCain's expressed outrage at the NC GOP for running a Rev. Wright ad and his apparent inability to stop it, I would say that Obama's people approached the meeting with McCain's people thinking that it was a near impossibility.

    The bottom line is intentions and results. The intent was to get influence money out of the campaigns. I'm not going to stand here and say that Obama did that, but he certainly lessened the influence a great deal by relying on the volume of small donations that don't look for anything in return.

    McCain on the other hand was still out there holding thousands of dollar a plate dinners straight through to the last two weeks of the camaign -- and that was WITH public financing. So, the system is broken and Obama achieved the more desirable result. I'm good with that.

    Here, Obama made campaign statements about lobbyists not running his white house. So far, his appointees are not lobbyists. We have Emmanuel, Jarrett and Gibbs. In addition, I am far more concerned with results. I don't want people stepping down from a lobby job, working for the administration and then stepping back into the lobby world as soon as possible.

    For his transition, Obama is actually addressing standards for his people -- much stricter standards than in the past. What I don't want is Obama hiring less competent people because he thinks he might be tiptoeing on some campaign rhetoric.

    You see, you and Karl are just sitting there ready to pounce even though he hasn't done anything yet. Most of us want him to do the right things on the big issues AND work within the spirit of his campaign rhetoric. In other words, I want a primo energy policy that will reduce our long term dependence on oil, make us safer and if he can lower my costs in the bargain, then bravo.

    THAT is of prime concern. Now to the spirit of his promise, what I don't want is a secret energy committee like cheney's of industry insiders looking out for their own interests. So, I, like most Americans, will reserve judgment on Obama's actions and on his personnel decisions until: a) we actually know who they are; and b) we see them in action and see if they have our best interests in mind while they do their job.
     
  11. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    I swear, it is as if you guys have never seen a campaign before. A politician saying "lobbyists are bad?" Oh the horror.

    Honestly, the guy hasn't made any key hires past his chief of staff. I think bo's point is not "the other side does it too" so much as it is "politicians of all stripes use popular rhetoric in their campaigns."

    Now, Obama has promised real change. So, I will be watching to see if he brings the goods. When it comes to lobbyists within his whitehouse, it will depend on results and not a technicality here and there. Screams of "oh, oh, oh, that women once went to a lobbyist training course and registered for two weeks five years ago" will ring hollow. A massive influx of K street into his cabinet will bring calls of foul from me as well.

    One of the things I love about soccer is how the spirit of the game drives how it is conducted. If you are coming to the end of three minutes of stoppage time and one team has been providing incredible pressure and has the ball on the wing with a fast guy on the dead run with the ref looks at his watch, he doesn't blow the whistle. He waits another 5 seconds to see the result of the developing play.

    This game hasn't even started yet, and you guys want to instill instant replay and review every ticky tack decision. The cool thin about politics and government is that you guys can go ahead and do that without bothering the rest of us who will watch the game unfold.
     
  12. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    However, that's not what he said. He said they weren't going to be a part of his staff, and then he said they weren't going to "dominate" his staff (whatever THAT means).

    For a guy who is supposedly this genius with rhetoric, a guy dripping with sincerity, he can be awfully slippery.

    In other words, you mean politicians "lie?" To get elected? Even the great Messiah, the savior, the great transformational post racial "changer?" Oh, the horror.

    Goods? Whatever THAT means. He's bringing change all right -- a change BACK to White House that may look awfully like what a Clinton White House would. No to say that's a BAD thing necessarily, but it's not a change thing.

    One of the things I love about soccer is how the quality of individual players, and teams, ultimately reveal themselves over the course of a game, and a season. Even in the first few minutes of a game, you can get a pretty good idea of who is quality,and who is not.

    So far, Obama has shown that he is not much more than a slick politician. Which means he's a liar, and a cheat, and when he isn't kissin' babies he's stealin' their lollipops.
     
  13. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago

    Strange. I know precisely what he is saying about lobbyists and their influence on his administration. Frankly, I don't want a pledge from him or anyone else saying that anyone who ever had ties to lobbying is excluded. I do not, however, want lobbyists dominating his or anyone's staff. Frankly, I think we have seen that with cheney and Halliburton (although not direct "lobbyists" but the influence and conflict of interest thing makes the point).

    We don't want the "open for business" sign hanging from the whitehouse and it is easy enough to see. I thought Clinton was properly criticised for some of his antics like the appearance of selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom. I have also been critical of his post presidential shenanigans like his new uranium mining friend who he set up with a massive contract and then who conveniently donated millions to the library.

    We will know soon enough if that sign is posted at 1600. I doubt it will be.

    Yes. I never suggested otherwise. I was critical of Obama for running the spanish language ads linking McCain to rush. I thought that those ads were a total misrepresentation. Now, on lobbyists, would I go as far as to say that either Obama or McCain lied? Well probably not but that just shows there is a different standard for politicians. Btw, I am not talking prospectively as are you because he hasn't hired very many people yet and none of them are lobbyists.

    Still, I think most of us can parse campaign language. Another example is Iraq. If Obama DOESN'T immediately call in his joint chiefs to formulate an exit plan then I will call him on that as well. If we aren't out in 16 months? Not a big issue. I expect him to react and change as commander in chief. Still, we will all know if he is keeping his basic pledge on Iraq in due time. Same with lobbyists.

    I would be truly frightened if he didn't bring in many Clintonites. They are the only ones who aren't ancient that know how a democratic administration works. In fact, Clinton's biggest problem at the beginning was that there were no democrat veterans available to him except Carter people -- many of whom were not qualified to begin with.

    It won't be the people working there that will inspire change. That will come from the top. They just need to follow their marching orders.

    I would disagree completely, but that is not much of a surprise. We now have two games in the books. In the first one, a young unheard of phenom made a quick strike and then showed the mental edge to run out the clock on the established (democratic) champion. A real shocker that required a superior tactical plan, a game changer up top and incredible organization in the back.

    Then in the second game, he was favored and had to fend of Richie Williams-like ankle biting during the first half that ended in a goalless draw and the introduction of another phenom as a sub at half time that gave the other side a lead. He showed remarkable patience and cool under pressure before exposing their weaknesses and hammering them in the final half an hour.

    There. How is that for dragging this soccer analogy I started out way too far. :D

    I would say that he is in the preparations for game three -- the biggest yet -- and he has made one great purchase and is positioning himself nicely with a great tactical plan to win.
     
  14. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    Why are you guys arguing with Karl? He hates Obama and no amount of debate is going to change his mind. Let's spend our time with some real discussion here. I think you'll find most of us here don't like Obama's ideas but are willing to wait and see before going ballistic.
     
  15. west ham sandwich

    Feb 26, 2007
    C-bus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's not that he's breaking campaign pledges. It's that he preached that taking campaign contributions inherently make the acceptor of contributions beholdened to contributors and then turned around and did so.

    etc., etc.
     
  16. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    I don't think that is what he said. I am not sure how you can run a campaign without taking campaign contributions. Even after taking public finance money, McCain and Palin were out there holding multi-million dollar fundraisers. That's the current system and no one would pledge that they wouldn't accept campaign contributions even if they take the public money.
     
  17. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There is yet another path grasshopper; that is, crossing over and becoming a liberal now... I know the thought is absolutely detesting but I have been giving it some real consideration lately... giving up patriotism, the American way, and conservative principles and slapping on a liberal Che Guevara badge and becoming a revolting lefty one can fit right in among the coming liberalness! From "Becoming A Liberal Lefty Overnight," the ten-step method:

    - Stop bathing and shaving; nothing says liberal like that homeless smell.

    - Ponytails are in, particularly if you're also a leftist academic.

    - Don't cut your lawn; brag to all about how much you're saving the planet.

    - Park the F-150/drive a foreign econobox with a suitable lefty eco-bumper sticker.

    - Adopt minority status; working in a physical and sexual afliction adds gravitas.

    - Max out credit cards, don't pay the mortgage, and declare personal bankruptcy.

    - Practice weekend flag burnings and polish up those nasty curses at the military.

    - God is out; worship monkeys, secular humanism, weed, and Jane Fonda.

    - Be the first on your block to start a backyard 'Hope' garden with arugula.

    - Speak in hushed tones about Obama; genuflect after anyone mentions His name.



    That's all; ten steps and you too can be a liberal... blend right in... waiting to see may be too late; get started on your liberal lefty act now saves time later.
     
  18. west ham sandwich

    Feb 26, 2007
    C-bus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I saw video/heard audio of him saying so. Obviously that's not a direct quote, so I'm likely making a stronger statement than he did, but the inference was there. Unfortunately all I can find from a quick search is his questionaire that he filled out where he says his plan to for public financing would reduce special interest influence.
     
  19. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Again, I'm not providing an all out defense of Obama's actions on public financing and I was critical of his half-hearted attempt to meet with the McCain camp. Having said that, I think he would have screwed himself with public financing. The volume of negative stuff that came from places outside of the official campaign in the last few weeks was huge. Had he tied his own hands, he may not have been able to defend himself and might have lost ground in key states.

    Second, if the goal -- as he stated it -- was to reduce special interest influence, then by going the route he did, I would say Mission Accomplished. Yes, he held some traditional fundraising with big ticket donors (as did McCain, even after he accepted public money) but the great weight of money that poured in was from small donors expecting nothing more in return than competent government.

    While I was critical of him, I think the thing conservatives need to get is that the public didn't care. My guess is that most of them felt good about the lack of big traditional money to the campaign (whether real or not, I'm sure that is the perception). People aren't in the mood to care about technicalities. They want results. The perception that Obama eschewed the big ticket money that would come back looking for favors is enough to create a big yawn when repbulicans cried foul on public money.
     
  20. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    For the reasonable ones. :D

    This is yet another sign that you should fear not the coming of Obama. This is from conservative columnist David Brooks:

    Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haut-bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

    Read the whole thing as he goes through Obama's picks so far and in broader terms, discusses his transition.
     
  21. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Not true -- I don't hate him.

    I find him to be a sleazy politician, who'd throw anybody under the bus to get elected. I find him pompous and arrogant, and that he thinks of himself first and foremost as a "symbol" beyond preposterous. I find many of his supporters to be brainless in their worship.

    No, I don't hate him.

    Now, for hate, I reserve for guys like Pavel Pardo. I definitely hate him. But not Obambi.
     

Share This Page