"Lobbyists Won't Find A Job in My White House!"

[Bricker]

Didn't then-Senator Obama promise that no lobbyists would find a job in the White House if we elected him President?

Now:

Tom Vilsack was registered to lobby last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn was registered to lobby last year for Raytheon.

William Corr was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

David Hayes, was registered to lobby in 2006 for San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson was registered to lobby last year for Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain was registered until 2005 for the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and ImClone.

Mona Sutphen -- Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes -- 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 Muñoz -- for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard -- for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis -- for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

What happened?

[treis]

Didn't then-Senator Obama promise that no lobbyists would find a job in the White House if we elected him President?


I don't know, did he? Seems to me that you should prove the crucial fact of your debate.

[Mr. Moto]

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. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans - it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

Remarks of Senator Obama in Spartanburg, SC, 11/3/07 (http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php)

[ElvisL1ves]

Is this the Obama version of the Clinton Death List?

[Mr. Moto]

As for the OP, I think this was a stupid promise to make - that doesn't mean, though, that President Obama shouldn't explain better why he is breaking it.

[Gyrate]

I never thought I'd weigh in on Bricker's side of a political thread, but...

Quote (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php):
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. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans - it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

On preview: <shakes fist at [b]Mr Moto>

[Gyrate]

By the way, here's the relevant Executive Order (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/).3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or

(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.


Press Office waffling (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hm1meNn5C8U8sSe48-1Nu4lILEHAD95RT5Q01)"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Our waiver provisions are designed to allow uniquely qualified individuals like Bill Corr and Bill Lynn to serve the public interest in these critical times."

I'm with Mr Moto on this (fistshaking notwithstanding) - a dumb rule to make, but a dumber one to break. These waivers had better be good.

Disappointing.

[Shodan]

I believe Obama put out an executive order about not hiring lobbyists, just to show he was serious. One of, if not his very first (http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/47CAD987-C44D-42B5-81D9-7182AC3A373E/).

I guess this is what he meant by 'real change'.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hamlet]

What happened?Reality. Obama made an over-broad, nigh but impossible, promise on the campaign trail and then broke it. I suppose we could waste some time playing semantics over the definition of the term "lobbyist" (meaning current lobbyists only, which would deal with many of your examples), but to me, that's a waste of time.

I'm heartened by the fact that he instituted his two-year lobbyist rule and other steps, Click here for the text of the Executive Order (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/), and pissed that he granted a waiver to Lynn. If you're looking for apologies or mea culpas, you won't get it from me. I know that every single politician in the world is going to break a loosely worded campaign promise. Such are the vagaries of life. At the end of the day, I'm happy that, at the very least, Obama is taking steps in the right direction rather than the giant leaps he had hoped to. To me, that's progress.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Can you even swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting a lobbyist?

I too agree it seems a silly thing to promise and then so blatantly break it. I really hope the no lobbying rule when they leave the administration has teeth and sticks but I am not holding my breath.

That said lobbyists are usually experts in their respective areas. If you happen to agree with their stance then hiring them to oversee that area in the administration may make practical sense.

Still smells though...

[jk1245]

A dumb thing to promise because it's all but impossible to find people with NO lobbying connection who have the relevant field knowledge and political connection/resume to get appointed to a WH position. If anything, it illustrates how pervasive lobbying is.

I guess you could argue that some of them are fine by the letter of the order (i.e. they didn't lobby on behalf of interests in the area they are appointed to), but that's hair splitting.

So, yep, a misstep. Not on the order of say, invading a country to eliminate their WMD program then finding out they don't have one, but a misstep nonetheless.

[Mtgman]

I took it to mean they wouldn't be able to lobby his White House on behalf of whatever special interest they represented. I don't particularly care if people who used to be lobbyists change careers and work for the administration. I just don't want them to be administration insiders while on the payroll of a special interest. In fact one could argue the lobbyists represent an experienced pool of people who know how to get things done and as long as they're now working for the people as a whole instead of some special interest group or corporation, they're a good asset to the administration. IOW, lobbyists wouldn't find a job in his White House as lobbyists, but once someone is no longer a lobbyist, they're a candidate for a job they're qualified for. Cutting out a pool of people who can get things done in Washington from your prospective workforce could be a waste.

Still, it does raise the specter of "will these people, knowingly or unknowingly, steer the administration in the directions they were dedicated to for however long." This seems a naive take on the situation. Lobbyists are paid professionals, similar to attorneys. They represent a view because they are paid to do so, not because they hold it to be good and true. Once they're paid to work for the people as a whole I don't see why their former careers should be held against them. An obvious exception would be if there were reasonable suspicions they got the appointment as a result of some quid pro quo, and connections between the nominating team and nominees for appointments should be scrutinized for such.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Lobohan]

Bricker, you know there is a process for waivers for national security or economy reasons, in the executive order right?

[Mr. Moto]

Bricker, you know there is a process for waivers for national security or economy reasons, in the executive order right?

In our cabinet State, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs handle national security issues, while Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy and Education handle economic affairs to some degree. Some Cabinet jobs span both of these categories.

So this loophole looks big enough to justify anything if needed. I think we owe it to President Obama to monitor how often this need is cited.

[Sinaijon]

It's understandable, and I guess I count myself as being one of those who didn't believe him right from the start. It was campaign rhetoric, nothing more. There will be more 'promises' broken yet to come.

Lobbyists get to be lobbyists because they are experts in their field. If want experts on your team, you are probably going to find them in the ranks of lobbyists.

[Lobohan]

In our cabinet State, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs handle national security issues, while Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy and Education handle economic affairs to some degree. Some Cabinet jobs span both of these categories.

So this loophole looks big enough to justify anything if needed. I think we owe it to President Obama to monitor how often this need is cited.Oh, no doubt. We should monitor it, that's why I applaud the idea of a public waiver. The real world requires compromise and some of the best of the best have lobbied. If that person is one of the handful on Earth who can do the job, let them have it and publicly note why you're making the exception.

In previous administrations it was given away as a matter of course with a wink and a pat on the back.

[Bricker]

Bricker, you know there is a process for waivers for national security or economy reasons, in the executive order right?

Sure.

Are you suggesting that Mona Sutphen, the new deputy White House chief of staff, fits those exceptions? That Cecilia Munoz, the new White House director of intergovernmental affairs, brings expertise vital to national security or the economy?

I'd buy the argument for someone like Geithner. But Mark Patterson, Geithner's new chief of staff at Treasury, was a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. You're seriously telling me that of all the qualified people out there, the chief of staff had to, for vital national security interests, be a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist?

Come on.

Now, here's my take: it was a foolish promise, made (I assume) without any actual experience in the reality of staffing the hundreds of political appointee jobs. As someone said in this thread, reality happened.

Here's what bugs me: why can't we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? I don't mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. But I do mind the refusal to admit that this is what happened. Many posters in this thread have no trouble saying, in effect, "Hey - promise was made, but it's now clearly unworkable." Why won't the White House say something similar?

[Miller]

In fairness, the quote that Mr. Moto provided seems to specify corporate lobbyists, which would exclude people who worked on behalf of the ACLU or La Raza. Doesn't excuse hiring the guys who worked for Raytheon, or San Diego Gas and Electric, but it does trim the list down quite a bit.

[Lobohan]

Sure.

Are you suggesting that Mona Sutphen, the new deputy White House chief of staff, fits those exceptions? That Cecilia Munoz, the new White House director of intergovernmental affairs, brings expertise vital to national security or the economy?Mona Sutphen was a lobbyist in 2003. How does that go against the policy? I only looked into her background (from the list) because I don't want to waste my time researching them all if you're not going to admit it when you're wrong. So, is your objection to her gone or not?

Cite (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128).

Also, that chick is wicked hot.

[Saltire]

I'd argue that they did say something similar by setting up the waivers. I think you're asking too much if you want the President to publicly rend his garments in apology.

One of the realiities of public life is that people are generally discouraged from public apologies. It leads to a series of gotchas that are counterproductive.

I'd love to have seen the previous administration apologize for a lot of the stuff they did and said that later turned out to be a mistake. But I always knew that the best I could hope for was a reversal in behavior without an explicit apology. Most of the time, I didn't even get that--they just continued the mistake, instead.

I find it refreshing to see the new guys show some flexibility, rather than clinging to something that won't work.

Of course, I hope the press keeps a watch over this. While I accept that zero former lobbiests is impossible, I do want that number to be as low as possible. Corporations exert too much influence in government.

[furt]

Now, here's my take: it was a foolish promise, made (I assume) without any actual experience in the reality of staffing the hundreds of political appointee jobs. As someone said in this thread, reality happened.

Here's what bugs me: why can't we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? Perhaps because the people now working there spent the last two years arguing that experience isn't really important...

[treis]

Remarks of Senator Obama in Spartanburg, SC, 11/3/07 (http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php)


“They won’t work in my White House!” Obama has said repeatedly this week on his Iowa bus tour.

The line — a standard in his 25-minute stump speech — draws some of his loudest applause.

The problem is that the pledge is not as definitive as it sounds.

After reporters sought an explanation from campaign staff Saturday of how he could hold to such a pledge, Obama revised it at the next campaign stop.

“They are not going to dominate my White House,” Obama said at a rally in this town northeast of Des Moines.

“All right!” a woman shouted from the audience, showing the softer approach still worked.

Lobbyists can work in an Obama administration — just not for two years in an area related to their work as lobbyists, according to the candidate’s proposal released earlier this year.

For example, a Sierra Club lobbyist could not move directly into the Environmental Protection Agency, but might be able to do so after two years of working elsewhere in the administration.

“You will not be able to go lobby for an industry that you regulated, and I won’t hire somebody into my administration regulating the industry he or she worked for,” Obama said.

After being questioned Saturday by reporters — first through campaign manager David Plouffe, then directly at a press conference — Obama took pains to be more explanatory. And a bit less specific.

“They are not going to run my White House,” Obama said in New Hampton. “And they won’t drown out the voices of the American people.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html (From December of '07).

I submit that the counselor hasn't quite proven his case. At worst, Obama is guilty of overstating his case in a speech 12 months before the election. A statement which he clarified shortly after, and stopped using (according to the article, I haven't checked) a full 10 months before the election.

[carnivorousplant]

it was a foolish promise, made (I assume) without any actual experience in the reality of staffing the hundreds of political appointee jobs.

But he needed another dig at Hillary Clinton. :)

[Martin Hyde]

I said it when Bush was President and I'll say it now that Obama is President. Apologizing serves no purpose when you're President of the United States. All the really matters is what you actually do. Most smart people know you're going to do whatever it takes to get your ideas through Congress and you'll do whatever it takes to get elected (hopefully short of outright criminality.) The ones who don't know that are probably too uninformed to ever catch you in anything in any case.

All apologizing does is give more ammunition for the opposition, who will never take the apology at face value.

[Bricker]

Mona Sutphen was a lobbyist in 2003. How does that go against the policy? I only looked into her background (from the list) because I don't want to waste my time researching them all if you're not going to admit it when you're wrong. So, is your objection to her gone or not?

Cite (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128).

Also, that chick is wicked hot.

Yeah, based on that, my objection to her is gone. While Obama's literal words don't include a time limit, even at the time I didn't think he meant "forever." And five years is more than enough time. I think anyone who was lobbying in 2007 or 2008 should need a strongly justified exemption, but someone whose most recent lobbying was 2003 is a [i]de minimis[/b] violation of the promise.

And again -- I think it's wise to violate the promise in any event. My gripe is the refusal to admit that the promise is being junked, not the fact of its junking.

[Mr. Moto]

In fairness, the quote that Mr. Moto provided seems to specify corporate lobbyists, which would exclude people who worked on behalf of the ACLU or La Raza. Doesn't excuse hiring the guys who worked for Raytheon, or San Diego Gas and Electric, but it does trim the list down quite a bit.

The problem is, of course, that corporations have interests they may lobby the government to address, just as the ACLU or La Raza might. Given how all of the things we discuss are just conglomerations of people and capital, barring hiring from one set while permitting hiring from the other introduces a clear bias in favor of the second set.

Regulations on lobbying across the board would then be the way to go - assuming, of course, that it is across the board and that certain groups don't more easily slip past the guidelines. Are Obama's policies structured in that way? He has certainly invited questions of the whole process by clearly retreating from a campaign promise.

[emmaliminal]

Here's what bugs me: why can't we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? I don't mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. But I do mind the refusal to admit that this is what happened. Many posters in this thread have no trouble saying, in effect, "Hey - promise was made, but it's now clearly unworkable." Why won't the White House say something similar?Speaking as an Obama supporter, I completely agree with you. I know presidential politics tends not to work that way, but I wish we'd change it so it did.

ETA: I don't think of that as an apology, but as an explanation.

[Mr. Moto]

Lobbyists can work in an Obama administration — just not for two years in an area related to their work as lobbyists, according to the candidate’s proposal released earlier this year.

For example, a Sierra Club lobbyist could not move directly into the Environmental Protection Agency, but might be able to do so after two years of working elsewhere in the administration.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html (From December of '07).

I submit that the counselor hasn't quite proven his case. At worst, Obama is guilty of overstating his case in a speech 12 months before the election. A statement which he clarified shortly after, and stopped using (according to the article, I haven't checked) a full 10 months before the election.

The main objection raised so far is over Bill Lynn, who very recently left Raytheon. He is moving into an administration job as Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Does that sound like working somewhere else in the administration to you?

I know he has received his waiver - that hasn't stopped the questions from coming even from senior congressional Democrats like Carl Levin. Nor should it.

[treis]

The main objection raised so far is over Bill Lynn, who very recently left Raytheon. He is moving into an administration job as Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Does that sound like working somewhere else in the administration to you?

I know he has received his waiver - that hasn't stopped the questions from coming even from senior congressional Democrats like Carl Levin. Nor should it.

As I said, I think that Bricker needs to prove the crucial point to his debate before moving any further. I reject the "throw some shit out there" style of debate. If he wants to debate Bill Lynn then he needs to accurately describe Obama's policy, and then describe why Bill Lynn violates that. Then we can discuss the implications of this.

[Shodan]

Here's what bugs me: why can't we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? Because no one is requiring it of him.

Obviously, if McCain had been elected and had done anything remotely similar, the servers at the SDMB would labor under the strain of the eight million threads all screaming "Liar!" To be fair, a comparably right-wing board would react as the Dope does - a regretful shrug.

But forget that. I don't mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. He issued the executive order on his first day in office. So apparently he believed, or wanted us to believe, that it was workable then. Now, within a few days, he apparently believes that it isn't.

I don't buy that. If he is so all-fired smart, he would have known back when he made the promise, or at least after he had done the work he did before the inauguration picking out his staff, that it was unworkable. But, he went ahead anyway.

:shrugs:

One wonders what else Mr. Squeaky Clean, the outsider with no experience who was going to sweep all the entrenched Beltway culture away in a tide of righteousness, had his fingers crossed when he said it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr. Moto]

As I said, I think that Bricker needs to prove the crucial point to his debate before moving any further. I reject the "throw some shit out there" style of debate. If he wants to debate Bill Lynn then he needs to accurately describe Obama's policy, and then describe why Bill Lynn violates that. Then we can discuss the implications of this.

You're not a moderator here - you may believe what you wish, but you can't set the terms of the debate. And even if you could, your terms don't make sense because they fail to account for very public promises made during the campaign.

As I see it, the actual executive order violates the original promise to a slight degree, and by relying on waivers in certain high profile cases the administration is violating the implicit promise of the order, and winding up even further afield of campaign rhetoric.

Now, it might not be a big issue to you - but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue - moreover, one Obama should address better than he has to date.

[Lobohan]

Obviously, if McCain had been elected and had done anything remotely similar, the servers at the SDMB would labor under the strain of the eight million threads all screaming "Liar!" To be fair, a comparably right-wing board would react as the Dope does - a regretful shrug. I don't think that's obvious at all. Although our servers are probably laboring under the strain of pulling up the smiley at the end of this sentence. :D

But forget that. He issued the executive order on his first day in office. So apparently he believed, or wanted us to believe, that it was workable then. Now, within a few days, he apparently believes that it isn't. Wrong. The order included the provision for waivers. So he apparently believes exactly as he did on day one. Can I trust you'll revise your stance on that?

I don't buy that. If he is so all-fired smart, he would have known back when he made the promise, or at least after he had done the work he did before the inauguration picking out his staff, that it was unworkable. But, he went ahead anyway. 8000 people hired and how many given waivers?

One wonders what else Mr. Squeaky Clean, the outsider with no experience who was going to sweep all the entrenched Beltway culture away in a tide of righteousness, had his fingers crossed when he said it.One wonders if you are actually thinking about your stances or reflexively taking them regardless of what Obama does.

Three snaps in "Z" formation,
Lobohan

[ElvisL1ves]

Perhaps because the people now working there spent the last two years arguing that experience isn't really important...Following the people working there the previous eight years arguing that knowledge and ability aren't really important, either ...

Is there a real conflict of interest that any of you Bush diehards, loyal to the grave, would like to present for us that isn't exposed to the sunlight by the waiver process? Any way you can point to in which government policies will be available to the highest bidder in a way comparable to the previous administration? Any way in which you can say the spirit of Obama's promise (not the letter) is violated?

Or is this really all just sour grapes and crocodile tears?

[treis]

You're not a moderator here - you may believe what you wish, but you can't set the terms of the debate. And even if you could, your terms don't make sense because they fail to account for very public promises made during the campaign.

As I see it, the actual executive order violates the original promise to a slight degree, and by relying on waivers in certain high profile cases the administration is violating the implicit promise of the order, and winding up even further afield of campaign rhetoric.

Now, it might not be a big issue to you - but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue - moreover, one Obama should address better than he has to date.

I never said it wasn't a big issue. What I am saying is that stating the crucial fact to your debate in the form of a question isn't the proper way to frame a debate (especially when the answer is in the negative).

[Miller]

The problem is, of course, that corporations have interests they may lobby the government to address, just as the ACLU or La Raza might. Given how all of the things we discuss are just conglomerations of people and capital, barring hiring from one set while permitting hiring from the other introduces a clear bias in favor of the second set.

No, the problem, as defined by the OP, is that Obama appears to be going back on his promise not to hire lobbyists. However, it appears that he specifically meant corporate lobbyists. The issue of whether this creates a bias (or if that bias is undesirable) is entirely separate from that raised by the OP.

[Lobohan]

Didn't then-Senator Obama promise that no lobbyists would find a job in the White House if we elected him President?

Now:

Tom Vilsack was registered to lobby last year on behalf of the National Education Association.Just hunting and pecking here, going through the list for my own edification. Tom Vilsack was a lobbyist for a teacher's union and was chosen for Secretary of Agriculture. Can we safely assume you'll remove him from the list of objectionable choices as well?

According to the EO they don't want lobbyists from the same field they're being chosen for. Since education and agriculture aren't the same it seems like there is no reasonable objection to him, right?

[Mr. Moto]

No, the problem, as defined by the OP, is that Obama appears to be going back on his promise not to hire lobbyists. However, it appears that he specifically meant corporate lobbyists. The issue of whether this creates a bias (or if that bias is undesirable) is entirely separate from that raised by the OP.

I don't know how you can make this distinction - federal law doesn't seem to recognize it. The executive order mentioned referred to definitions contained in Title 2, section 1602 USC. I looked that up and nowhere are corporate and noncorporate lobbyists delineated - the act of lobbying to influence legislation is defined and all regulations derive from that.

Obama may have wished to place more strict controls on corporate lobbyists - the plain fact, though, is that he cannot do so without those same rules applying to the NRA, or AARP, or teachers unions.

[Mr. Moto]

Just hunting and pecking here, going through the list for my own edification. Tom Vilsack was a lobbyist for a teacher's union and was chosen for Secretary of Agriculture. Can we safely assume you'll remove him from the list of objectionable choices as well?

According to the EO they don't want lobbyists from the same field they're being chosen for. Since education and agriculture aren't the same it seems like there is no reasonable objection to him, right?

That's fair - but you're hunting and not pecking.

William Corr was very recently director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids - where he lobbied and was a registered lobbyist. He's going to HHS as a deputy director. Now, the Obama people are saying he won't work on tobacco related issues, which seems fair - except that tobacco issues are a pretty important part of what HHS does.

[Bryan Ekers]

Can you even swing a dead cat in Washington without hitting a lobbyist?

Sure, but you're risking the wrath of Dead Cats For a Better America.

[Bricker]

Just hunting and pecking here, going through the list for my own edification. Tom Vilsack was a lobbyist for a teacher's union and was chosen for Secretary of Agriculture. Can we safely assume you'll remove him from the list of objectionable choices as well?

According to the EO they don't want lobbyists from the same field they're being chosen for. Since education and agriculture aren't the same it seems like there is no reasonable objection to him, right?

Yes... when I first saw that list, the distinction about "not in the same area" wasn't clear to me. I remembered Obama's promise as more sweeping.

But I agree - SecAg is not the place where you'd think teachers' union issues would hold large sway. I assume he'll take pains to rescue himself from any critical farming education issues, should any arise. Seriously -- that appointment is off the radar.

Looking at the list with this info, in fact, I'd say the objectionable ones are:

Bill Lynn, new deputy defense secretary, who was a lobbyist last year for Raytheon, a company that owes its revenue stream to the Defense Department.

William Corr, new HHS deputy, lobbyist last year for tobacco-free nonprofit.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff at Treasury, last year a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.

Cecilia Muñoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, and last year a lobbyist for La Raza. (Here I'll withdraw objection if it becomes clearer that "intergovernmental affairs" has no policy or regulatory roles in Hispanic-specific interests).

[Miller]

I don't know how you can make this distinction - federal law doesn't seem to recognize it.

I didn't make it. Obama did, in the campaign promise that he's accused of breaking.

The executive order mentioned referred to definitions contained in Title 2, section 1602 USC. I looked that up and nowhere are corporate and noncorporate lobbyists delineated - the act of lobbying to influence legislation is defined and all regulations derive from that.

So what? He still picks who he offers jobs to. What the law says has no bearing on the subject. If he only offered jobs to people who had worked as non-corporate lobbyists, then he wouldn't have broken his promise.

Of course, he didn't do that: there are several corporate lobbyists listed in the OP. But most of them are from non-profit organizations, so most of them do not represent violations of his campaign promise.

[treis]

Bill Lynn, new deputy defense secretary, who was a lobbyist last year for Raytheon, a company that owes its revenue stream to the Defense Department.

Lynn’s responsibilities include company liaison with the
executive and legislative branches of the federal govern-
ment, as well as state and local government relations.
He also directs the corporate strategy office, where he
is responsible for the development of companywide
strategic plans

link (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:IilBHHZIGroJ:www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/rtnwcm/groups/public/documents/content/bio_lynn.pdf+Bill+Lynn&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

That appears to match the general description of a lobbyist, and his hiring does violate Obama's pledge.



William Corr, new HHS deputy, lobbyist last year for tobacco-free nonprofit.

William Corr was the director of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. He may have done lobbying in it's broadest definition, but to call him a lobbyist is inaccurate. He was a director, and that job (presumably) had a lot more to do with directing the organization than direct lobbying. I don't think a reasonable person would read Obama's campaign promise to exclude lobbyists as including directors of public health organizations.


Mark Patterson, chief of staff at Treasury, last year a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.


Another person who was a lobbyist. According to news reports, Patterson stopped lobbying for Sachs 20 months ago. 4 months under the required time to fulfill Obama's pledge.

If this is all of the violations, well, that's not good, but I think if Obama comes this close to fulfilling all of his other pledges, he will have done pretty good.

[Mr. Moto]

William Corr was the director of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. He may have done lobbying in it's broadest definition, but to call him a lobbyist is inaccurate. He was a director, and that job (presumably) had a lot more to do with directing the organization than direct lobbying. I don't think a reasonable person would read Obama's campaign promise to exclude lobbyists as including directors of public health organizations.

The organization was devoted to lobbying for tobacco regulation and he was a registered lobbyist. Fits the definition to me - which is why, presumably, the administration was at pains to say he wouldn't be deciding tobacco issues.

[Pashnish Ewing]

The reason he signed the order, including the waiver provision, right off the bat was to play into his theme of transparency. Even if he is going back on his promise (which happens), everyone has access to know just who in the administration is an exception to the rule, and the public can hold the president accountable for the actions of that lobbyist if there seem to be shady doings a-transpiring. I think the existence of this thread is a good thing, and I imagine President Obama would agree.

[Mr. Moto]

Looking at the list with this info, in fact, I'd say the objectionable ones are:

Bill Lynn, new deputy defense secretary, who was a lobbyist last year for Raytheon, a company that owes its revenue stream to the Defense Department.

William Corr, new HHS deputy, lobbyist last year for tobacco-free nonprofit.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff at Treasury, last year a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.

Cecilia Muñoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, and last year a lobbyist for La Raza. (Here I'll withdraw objection if it becomes clearer that "intergovernmental affairs" has no policy or regulatory roles in Hispanic-specific interests).

I'd add Patrick Gaspard - lead lobbyist for a healthcare union. Unless the White House doesn't indeed intend to make healthcare a priority.

[Mr. Moto]

Also David Hayes - utilities and the Interior Department are not sufficiently removed. Unless, of course, Obama wants to address the issue of transparency a different way.

Right now he's saying there are conflicts but the waiver covers it, by making this public. But it doesn't do that - it just justifies the appointment and then decisions are made as before.

[RaftPeople]

Here's what bugs me: why can't we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? I don't mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. But I do mind the refusal to admit that this is what happened. Many posters in this thread have no trouble saying, in effect, "Hey - promise was made, but it's now clearly unworkable." Why won't the White House say something similar?

Did it bug you when previous presidents (dem or repub) did similar things? I don't know if you are generally a repub or demo but with so many opportunities to be bugged in the past 16 years (Bush and Clinton), why is this the one where it bugs you that the white house doesn't admit error?

(If you're wondering about my motivation for this post, it's this: Let's call a spade a spade. I could be wrong and apologize in advance if so, but it seems that this is about more than simply bi-partisan white house accountability).

[Mtgman]

I could be wrong and apologize in advance if so, but it seems that this is about more than simply bi-partisan white house accountability).Maybe, but who cares? The politicians who comprise the government needs concerned individuals to hold it accountable for the promises made and their actions. I don't care if they supported the politician or didn't as long as their criticisms are fact-based and objectively verifiable. Also the critics should be amenable to reasonable addressing of their criticisms. A waiver for this executive order because of a dearth of qualified candidates in a time of war and economic crisis is eminently reasonable and should be acceptable barring a strong counterargument.

Things like "Clinton's were responsible for this guy's suicide" are pretty dubious. Saying "I won't hire lobbyists" and putting it in writing that he won't hire lobbyists within two years of their time as a lobbyist, and then hiring lobbyists is a different thing. It's objectively verifiable, and should be verified.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Lobohan]

I'd add Patrick Gaspard - lead lobbyist for a healthcare union. Unless the White House doesn't indeed intend to make healthcare a priority.The Office of Political Affairs doesn't set policy. Do you think he's going to be controlling healthcare?

[Rand Rover]

In fairness, the quote that Mr. Moto provided seems to specify corporate lobbyists, which would exclude people who worked on behalf of the ACLU or La Raza. Doesn't excuse hiring the guys who worked for Raytheon, or San Diego Gas and Electric, but it does trim the list down quite a bit.

Gah, the sting of stolen thunder--that's exactly what I was going to say.

[RaftPeople]

Maybe, but who cares? The politicians who comprise the government needs concerned individuals to hold it accountable for the promises made and their actions.

Agreed. The issue is valid regardless. My gut feel says Bricker's problem is with more than purely bi-partisan white house accountability and if so why not be open and up front with that? Again, I could be inferring something that isn't there.

[ElvisL1ves]

Did it bug you when previous presidents (dem or repub) did similar things?Don't expect an answer from him, but any longtime GD'er can tell you anyway: No, it didn't.

it seems that this is about more than simply bi-partisan white house accountability).Exactly, it's about lining up tu quoques.

[Bricker]

Agreed. The issue is valid regardless. My gut feel says Bricker's problem is with more than purely bi-partisan white house accountability and if so why not be open and up front with that? Again, I could be inferring something that isn't there.

This is argument ad hominem. What does it matter?

Suppose I tell you that I voted for Obama. DOes that make my observations here more valid?

Very well: I voted for Obama.

Now care to address the merits?

[Lobohan]

This is argument ad hominem. What does it matter?

Suppose I tell you that I voted for Obama. DOes that make my observations here more valid?

Very well: I voted for Obama.

Now care to address the merits?Well you dropped the ones you have a problem with down to 4 individuals. Even if they were all lobbyists recently. Is waivering 4 people out of 8000 really such an outrage? They put the provisions there for the odd case where they'd need to hire someone who would normally be excluded. 4 people ain't that bad.

[Bricker]

Well you dropped the ones you have a problem with down to 4 individuals. Even if they were all lobbyists recently. Is waivering 4 people out of 8000 really such an outrage? They put the provisions there for the odd case where they'd need to hire someone who would normally be excluded. 4 people ain't that bad.

No, it isn't. It's a perfectly reasonable record.

What I object to is not the specific tiny percentage of four out of 8000. I object to the unwillingness to acknowledge that there was a promise not to do it, period.

Did you even read my earlier posts in this thread? I said: I don't mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. But I do mind the refusal to admit that this is what happened.

Did you read that post? Did you forget its contents at some point before you posted your question?

[Mr. Moto]

They put the provisions there for the odd case where they'd need to hire someone who would normally be excluded. 4 people ain't that bad.

This is assuming that these are the only ones that have come to light - I can't make that assumption yet - especially as there are more jobs to fill.

[Bricker]

Did it bug you when previous presidents (dem or repub) did similar things? I don't know if you are generally a repub or demo but with so many opportunities to be bugged in the past 16 years (Bush and Clinton), why is this the one where it bugs you that the white house doesn't admit error?


Yes, but not to this degree.

This president is unique, in my memory, for his ability to capture the imaginations and support of people, and for his willingness to be specific about his promises. Sure, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all had campaign promises that they broke... but with one other exception, none bugged me, because they were empty, unspecific promises. "Restore ethics to the White House!" That means very little, unless you can rigorously define ethics.

But there has been an earlier case: "Read my lips: no new taxes." Now, that's a very specific promise. People vote for you because you made that specific promise. And then in the White House, you break it. That bugged me greatly.

Now we have this promise -- again, very specific. I don't debate the wisdom of the change, just as I don't debate whether George HW was wise to renege and raise taxes. But when you change your position, on a promise made with the level of specificity, you need to acknowledge your change.

Obama should man up and say, "Yes, I said that - and now I have learned that it was unworkable."

[RaftPeople]

This is argument ad hominem. What does it matter?

Suppose I tell you that I voted for Obama. DOes that make my observations here more valid?

Very well: I voted for Obama.

Now care to address the merits?

It doesn't matter in the context of the debate regarding this specific issue. In addition, I view it as dis-honest to campaign one way and then act differently once elected, although I expect that from politicians.

For me, your motives matter because I detected (rightly or wrongly) that there is a slightly different issue you are getting at. In other words, it seemed to me that it wasn't that it bothers you in general when a president doesn't admit error, but rather that it does bother you that this particular president isn't admitting error (or what seemed less likely to me, that it bugs you this particular president won't admit error on this specific issue).

If it's true that you aren't bugged by other presidents not admitting error, then it seems the issue you are truly concerned with is slightly different than what can be read into the actual text you typed in that post, which would alter responses. That's why I said call a spade a spade.

Or not.

[Bricker]

If it's true that you aren't bugged by other presidents not admitting error, then it seems the issue you are truly concerned with is slightly different than what can be read into the actual text you typed in that post, which would alter responses. That's why I said call a spade a spade.


OK. Now factor in that I was similarly bugged by Bush 41's "Read my lips" broken pledge.

[Richard Parker]

The problem is, of course, that corporations have interests they may lobby the government to address, just as the ACLU or La Raza might. Given how all of the things we discuss are just conglomerations of people and capital, barring hiring from one set while permitting hiring from the other introduces a clear bias in favor of the second set.

I'd submit that there are at least three politically-neutral reasons to distinguish corporate lobbyists from ACLU lobbyists (and the like).

First, the interests represented by corporate lobbyists stand to financially gain from favorable government policies, which creates a feedback loop in which more favorable policies lead to more lobbying money which leads to more favorable policies. We've seen that recently with the financial bailout. For obvious reasons, that doesn't exist with the ACLU. In fact, the reverse is usually true. If the ACLU wins an issue--like ending torture--they lose a very successful means of fundraising.

Second, corporate lobbyists have a more distorting effect than the Human Rights Campaign and similar organizations because of the source of their funds. Suppose I own an oil well and can afford to hire myself a lobbyist. I give him $10,000 from my oil profits to convince Congress not to institute a carbon tax. Suppose that the Sierra Club gets 1,000 concerned citizens to donate $10, and gives $10,000 to their lobbyist to argue for a carbon tax. Consequently, one man's voice is having the same lobbying effect as 100 peoples'.

Finally, part of the concern with lobbyists is the dynamic in which people rotate from high-pay lobbying jobs to government jobs and back. It makes them more beholden to the lobbying interest while in the government job, because they want the lucrative lobbyist job back when they get out. That situation is much worse with corporate lobbyists because the positions pay much much more. I can tell you that no one is working as an NRDC lobbyist for the cash.

So if one's goal is to limit the undue influence of lobbyists, it makes sense to treat corporate lobbyists more strictly than othes.

[elucidator]

Actually, that's what I took him to mean in the first place. I certainly didn't think he meant that anyone who had publicly advocated for a group or a cause fit his description. To my ear, "lobbyist" pretty much means someone who strives to influence laws for the financial gain of their employer.

[RaftPeople]

OK. Now factor in that I was similarly bugged by Bush 41's "Read my lips" broken pledge.

Done. That's what I was wondering was whether that type of situation was an issure regardless of party.

[Frylock]

Obama should man up and say, "Yes, I said that - and now I have learned that it was unworkable."

He didn't quite do this, but its already been pointed out upthread that during the campaign, when asked about this by reporters, he clarified (ahem) that the thrust of his comment was supposed to be that lobbyists won't dominate his administration.

-FrL-

[ralph124c]

This is the "change" we were promised-NOT!:smack::smack:

[Lobohan]

This is the "change" we were promised-NOT!:smack::smack:That was an insightful and well thought out post. NOT! :smack::smack::smack:

On topic:
Bricker, I don't see it as Obama not admitting he was wrong, I see it as Obama having realistic goals. So far as the majority of his rhetoric and the EO goes he appears to be doing an outstanding job. If he overstated things at one of the hundreds of campaign outings he certainly rectified that by later clarifying his position. I really see this as a non issue.

[elucidator]

Nine days! How long, oh Lord, how long!?

[Mr. Moto]

I'd submit that there are at least three politically-neutral reasons to distinguish corporate lobbyists from ACLU lobbyists (and the like).

First, the interests represented by corporate lobbyists stand to financially gain from favorable government policies, which creates a feedback loop in which more favorable policies lead to more lobbying money which leads to more favorable policies. We've seen that recently with the financial bailout. For obvious reasons, that doesn't exist with the ACLU. In fact, the reverse is usually true. If the ACLU wins an issue--like ending torture--they lose a very successful means of fundraising.

Second, corporate lobbyists have a more distorting effect than the Human Rights Campaign and similar organizations because of the source of their funds. Suppose I own an oil well and can afford to hire myself a lobbyist. I give him $10,000 from my oil profits to convince Congress not to institute a carbon tax. Suppose that the Sierra Club gets 1,000 concerned citizens to donate $10, and gives $10,000 to their lobbyist to argue for a carbon tax. Consequently, one man's voice is having the same lobbying effect as 100 peoples'.

Finally, part of the concern with lobbyists is the dynamic in which people rotate from high-pay lobbying jobs to government jobs and back. It makes them more beholden to the lobbying interest while in the government job, because they want the lucrative lobbyist job back when they get out. That situation is much worse with corporate lobbyists because the positions pay much much more. I can tell you that no one is working as an NRDC lobbyist for the cash.

So if one's goal is to limit the undue influence of lobbyists, it makes sense to treat corporate lobbyists more strictly than othes.

Nearly all of what you say applies to unions as well - should we expect similar treatment of their lobbyists under the law?

Recall that when the corporate heads of the Big three lobbied Congress for bailout funds, the head of the UAW was right next to them.

[Mr. Moto]

How long, oh Lord, how long!

An exclamation I hear frequently, though not in this particular context.

:D

[waterj2]

I'll just link to this nifty site (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/) where the guys from politifact.com (a fact-checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times) are keeping track of about 500 campaign promises Obama made. They rate this one as a compromise, and might downgrade it to broken depending on the number of waivers.

Incidentally, they gave him his first broken promise earlier today, as he signed the Ledbetter Fair Trade Act (promise kept) without posting the text on the White House web page for comment for five days.

[Richard Parker]

Nearly all of what you say applies to unions as well - should we expect similar treatment of their lobbyists under the law?

If what I said applies to them, then yes. It seems to me that unions are much more like the ACLU than like the oil lobby on the second factor at least. But if the other two are also true of unions, then I see no reason to treat unions differently.

[Bricker]

If what I said applies to them, then yes. It seems to me that unions are much more like the ACLU than like the oil lobby on the second factor at least. But if the other two are also true of unions, then I see no reason to treat unions differently.

It seems to me the problem is simply influence out of proportion to their numbers -- this is why Obama the candidate contrasted lobbyists with "the people."

[Pashnish Ewing]

I can't say I've ever been upset with a politician who didn't keep a particular promise that I didn't think was a good idea in the first place. I mean, if Bush43 had promised to outlaw abortion completely, won the election, and then didn't follow through - I can't imagine i would have started a GD or Pit thread about it.

(not saying that happened, just an example)

[Bricker]

I can't say I've ever been upset with a politician who didn't keep a particular promise that I didn't think was a good idea in the first place. I mean, if Bush43 had promised to outlaw abortion completely, won the election, and then didn't follow through - I can't imagine i would have started a GD or Pit thread about it.

(not saying that happened, just an example)

Wow, that sure is fascinating.

[Shodan]

I'll just link to this nifty site (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/) where the guys from politifact.com (a fact-checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times) are keeping track of about 500 campaign promises Obama made. An interesting site, although perhaps a little hard to take seriously - no. 34 mentions that Obama promised to enforce pay-as-you-go for the federal government.

It is difficult to understand how tripling the deficit in your first days as President counts as "no action" on this.

It seems to be emerging that he meant all the promises about spending money. He didn't mean any of the ones about tax cuts or government reform. I will assume that he also meant the ones about raising taxes.

It might be interesting to run thru the list of all promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/) and identify the ones he didn't mean, the ones he used to mean but doesn't anymore, and the ones he should keep.

Regards,
Shodan

[Discordia]

What a tedious, pathetic 8 years this will be.

[Sitnam]

No worse then the last 8.

[Discordia]

Unless Obama manages to be worse than Bush (which would take a heckuva effort), that isn't possible.

ETA: Referring to the complaining. The complaints about Bush at least usually weren't so silly and desperate. Not that they wouldn't have been if he wasn't such a terrible President.

[Richard Parker]

It seems to me the problem is simply influence out of proportion to their numbers -- this is why Obama the candidate contrasted lobbyists with "the people."

Disproportionate influence is the main problem, but I think the other two problems I identified are also important. And the degree of the problem also matters. Not everyone who pays fees to a union supports their lobbying goals. But a far greater percentage of people who buy gas oppose the lobbying efforts of the oil industry.

The point I was making was that there are rational, politically neutral reasons for targeting corporate lobbyists and caring less about others.

[ralph124c]

take a look:
-Leon panetta (CIA): WTF is Obama thinking??

[Shodan]

ETA: Referring to the complaining. The complaints about Bush at least usually weren't so silly and desperate. If a candidate runs as a squeaky-clean outsider, and promises to govern as a squeaky-clean outsider, and then almost immediately breaks a promise to govern as a squeaky-clean outsider, it takes several shots of Flavor-aid before calling him on it sounds either silly or desperate.

YMMV. For those who expected Obama to get a pass on everything he does, it definitely will.

Regards,
Shodan

[Discordia]

If a candidate runs as a squeaky-clean outsider, and promises to govern as a squeaky-clean outsider, and then almost immediately breaks a promise to govern as a squeaky-clean outsider, it takes several shots of Flavor-aid before calling him on it sounds either silly or desperate.

YMMV. For those who expected Obama to get a pass on everything he does, it definitely will.

Regards,
Shodan

Everyone with a functioning brain knows that campaign promises get broken frequently and flagrantly. Complaining about it is silly and desperate. Complain when/if he does bad things, not breaks a stupid campaign promise, every politician does that.

I'm not saying he didn't break it, it was a stupid promise that was inevitably going to be broken. This is still petty shit. Complain when he allows people to be tortured or something.

Oh wait, the last guy did that, and you didn't complain. Nevermind.

[Mr. Moto]

I'm not saying he didn't break it, it was a stupid promise that was inevitably going to be broken. This is still petty shit. Complain when he allows people to be tortured or something.

Oh wait, the last guy did that, and you didn't complain. Nevermind.

Quick question - did it really work when Bush supporters mentioned the faults of the Clinton administration whenever Bush was criticized about anything?

What makes you think this will work with Obama? He likely won't try to pull this kind of thing off - I'm surprised you'd try it.

People will be judged by what they do. If this turns out not to be a big deal, it will blow over. But if it turns out to be indicative of other broken promises or even devolves into full-bore corruption, it won't be dealt with so lightly. And what Bush did regarding detainees will have nothing to do with either outcome.

[elucidator]

There's a bit of a difference, Moto. What Clinton handed off to Bush was a country in pretty reasonable shape, surplus money, balanced budget (or as close as that term ever applies....), all in all, pretty good stuff. What Bush hands off to Obama is a shit sandwich, hold the mayo.

And what Bush did with detainees is add another talking point for your local Al Queda recruiter. "America doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights, only about American rights." I'd really like to have some proof that they're lying, or at least wrong. Got any?

[Mtgman]

Complain when/if he does bad things, not breaks a stupid campaign promise, every politician does that.Breaking promises is a bad thing in and of itself. A representative government MUST be trustworthy. People are assigning large amounts of their political power to these individuals. They make the decision of who to invest this power in based on the premise the elected official will stick to their promises barring dire circumstances. The entire reason campaigning politicians make promises is because they know they are being elected both to carry out specific actions AND to use their best judgment when the situation was not foreseeable or changes. Someone who abandons the former without the justification of the latter has broken faith with the electorate and should be held accountable. If they had reasons, let them present them. Adhering to the will of the people is their duty and they should not depart from promises without damn good reason.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mr. Moto]

There's a bit of a difference, Moto. What Clinton handed off to Bush was a country in pretty reasonable shape, surplus money, balanced budget (or as close as that term ever applies....), all in all, pretty good stuff. What Bush hands off to Obama is a shit sandwich, hold the mayo.

And what Bush did with detainees is add another talking point for your local Al Queda recruiter. "America doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights, only about American rights." I'd really like to have some proof that they're lying, or at least wrong. Got any?

But all of this is immaterial to the current discussion, in which even a strong Obama supporter may disagree with his particular actions here.

Right?

[Shodan]

Everyone with a functioning brain knows that campaign promises get broken frequently and flagrantly. Complaining about it is silly and desperate. Complain when/if he does bad things, not breaks a stupid campaign promise, every politician does that.My functioning brain tells me that Obama based much of his campaign on the notion that he was a new kind of politician, and a squeaky-clean outsider. It didn't take very long for that to fall by the wayside.

But I tend to believe that saying things you don't believe is a bad thing, even for Obama. Perhaps especially for him. There were several claims made on the SDMB that Obama was qualified for President because of how he conducted his campaign. Now we are finding out that he conducted his campaign at least in part on things he either couldn't follow thru on, or never meant in the first place.

My take on it is that his lack of executive experience led him into error. Now, within a few days, he has encountered reality. Had he had anything resembling relevant experience, maybe he would not have made a public commitment where someone less naive would have known better.

Which leads to the question raised earlier - what other promises did he make that are too dumb to keep? Are there any? Should he be given carte blanche, and nobody really knows what he will do in the Oval Office?

I realize there will be a core of Obamaniacs who are committed to the man, not the policies (if any). Just as Bush retained the support of a quarter to a third of the electorate, no doubt there is a similar proportion of the electorate would regard him favorably even were he to sodomize a spaniel on the White House lawn. After all, he did promise his girls that they could have a dog in the White House.

But it would be a useful exercise to figure out which are the promises he should be expected to keep, even if it is hard to do. Or are there any?

Some, obviously, he can't - No. 1: Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers

Increase capital gains and dividends taxes from 15 to 20 percent for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)

No. 3: Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups

"Barack Obama understands that small businesses are the engines of our economy, and he will eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up firms."
Some even I recognize as hopelessly naive - "Barack Obama will reform federal contracting and reduce the number of contractors, saving $40 billion a year."especially since he promises No. 30: End no-bid contracts above $25,000

"Will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid."Yeah, that's certain to reduce the number of federal contractors. ;)

But how about the rest?

Did he mean, for instance, this -"Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue."How about this -"Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994."
Regards,
Shodan

[Lobohan]

My functioning brain tells me that Obama based much of his campaign on the notion that he was a new kind of politician, and a squeaky-clean outsider. It didn't take very long for that to fall by the wayside.

But I tend to believe that saying things you don't believe is a bad thing, even for Obama. Perhaps especially for him. There were several claims made on the SDMB that Obama was qualified for President because of how he conducted his campaign. Now we are finding out that he conducted his campaign at least in part on things he either couldn't follow thru on, or never meant in the first place.

My take on it is that his lack of executive experience led him into error. Now, within a few days, he has encountered reality. Had he had anything resembling relevant experience, maybe he would not have made a public commitment where someone less naive would have known better.

Which leads to the question raised earlier - what other promises did he make that are too dumb to keep? Are there any? Should he be given carte blanche, and nobody really knows what he will do in the Oval Office?

I realize there will be a core of Obamaniacs who are committed to the man, not the policies (if any). Just as Bush retained the support of a quarter to a third of the electorate, no doubt there is a similar proportion of the electorate would regard him favorably even were he to sodomize a spaniel on the White House lawn. After all, he did promise his girls that they could have a dog in the White House.

But it would be a useful exercise to figure out which are the promises he should be expected to keep, even if it is hard to do. Or are there any?

Some, obviously, he can't -
Some even I recognize as hopelessly naive - especially since he promises Yeah, that's certain to reduce the number of federal contractors. ;)

But how about the rest?

Did he mean, for instance, this -How about this -
Regards,
Shodan

It seems you are starting at your conclusion and working to the facts. He said the lobbyists wouldn't be in his whitehouse, then clarified. He might be guilty of overstating something a year ago, but his policy has been consistent now. Do you honestly think the EO is being subverted by waivers? Four people? And each of those a particular talent in their field.

As for the other things, you can't expect campaign promises made before the economic meltdown to be in effect after. You do understand that keeping promises made in average economic times is unwise when we're in the Mother of All Recessions, right?

Let's set this line apart so you'll be sure to see it. Do you think that economic campaign promises made when the economy was mid-ranging apply now that the economy is in a crisis?

That seems like ragging on a performer canceling a concert because the stadium is on fire. Are you honestly suggesting that broken economic promises made before the meltdown are a sign of "business as usual"?

So can you point to specific wrongdoing that actually makes sense, or are you simply assuming he's a corrupt shitheel and mining for naughty sounding facts to support your thesis?

[Mr. Moto]

Let's set this line apart so you'll be sure to see it. Do you think that economic campaign promises made when the economy was mid-ranging apply now that the economy is in a crisis?

Nobody said as much - but I think there was a general consensus that an explanation of why it was being done would be helpful.

[magellan01]

What is the reason that hiring a corporate lobbyist might be a bad idea? And wouldn't that reason extend to groups like La Raza? If no, why not?

I think that attempting to draw some distinction is pretty lame. Also, a question: are groups like La Raza corporations? Specifically non-profit corporations?

[gonzomax]

There are lobbyists and then there are lobbyists. One of the lobbyists with a waiver was a Lobbyist for the Keep Kids off Tobacco Lobby. I doubt that would DQ him from government on a conflict of interest charge. The Raetheon Guy should not be let in. The military/industrial complex problem is too big to ignore.

[Richard Parker]

What is the reason that hiring a corporate lobbyist might be a bad idea? And wouldn't that reason extend to groups like La Raza? If no, why not?

I think that attempting to draw some distinction is pretty lame. Also, a question: are groups like La Raza corporations? Specifically non-profit corporations?

See post #60 and subsequent discussion.

[elucidator]

But all of this is immaterial to the current discussion, in which even a strong Obama supporter may disagree with his particular actions here.

Right?

Quite right, I apologize, I'm sorry you brought it up.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Here's what bugs me: why can't we now have that cogent an explanation from the White House? I don't mind that a promise made on the campaign trail a year ago is seen to be unworkable when it comes time to make it happen. But I do mind the refusal to admit that this is what happened. Many posters in this thread have no trouble saying, in effect, "Hey - promise was made, but it's now clearly unworkable." Why won't the White House say something similar?I completely agree with you (and I don't think that is a very common occurrence!:)). At the very least, Obama needs to come completely clean on this and unambiguously admit that he IS in fact reneging on a campaign promise, and also explain WHY he is doing so, and why it is so damn necessary to appoint these particular people (if it indeed is).

[Mr. Moto]

There are lobbyists and then there are lobbyists. One of the lobbyists with a waiver was a Lobbyist for the Keep Kids off Tobacco Lobby. I doubt that would DQ him from government on a conflict of interest charge.

Why not? There are numerous interests at work in our society, aren't there? Aren't there farms growing tobacco and companies making cigarettes at the same time groups like this do their work?

Now, these companies and farmers and the like might have an interest in what goes on in HHS, wouldn't you agree? Which is why this gentleman won't be working on tobacco issues, supposedly. All well and good, but again a severe bending of the original promise - which was that he wouldn't work in the area of government he lobbied in at all.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by elucidator
How long, oh Lord, how long!

An exclamation I hear frequently, though not in this particular context.

:DWhenever I hear it, I can't help but to hear it in this context:

[Rev. Peter Shayne]

"How long Lord? Shalt thou be angry forever? Shall they jealously burn like fire? Shall we keep on fucking and pissing in each other's faces? Behold this wicked woman; she falls, she mends, she crawls, she bends; she sucks it, fucks it, picks it up and licks it!"

[/Rev. Peter Shayne]

[Shodan]

It seems you are starting at your conclusion and working to the facts. He said the lobbyists wouldn't be in his whitehouse, then clarified. Well, no - he started by saying he would not do something, and then immediately proceeded to do it. You can call that clarification if you like, but it seems an abuse of the term.

He might be guilty of overstating something a year ago, but his policy has been consistent now.No, not in the least - that's the point. He made a promise during the campaign (that had nothing to do with the economy, and should not have been nullified by the recession), reinforced that with an executive order, and within days was acting in direct contradiction of his executive order. Contradiction isn't consistency any more than it is clarification.
Do you honestly think the EO is being subverted by waivers? That doesn't address the issue - if Obama didn't mean it, why did he say it (and reinforce it with an executive order)?

I didn't hear Obama making the kind of exceptions for McCain that he makes for himself -Democrat Barack Obama on Monday seized upon John McCain's efforts to shed his campaign of lobbyist ties, saying the Republican’s campaign "is being run by Washington lobbyists and paid for with their money."

"We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American," Obama said at a town hall meeting here.Cite. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_Lobbyists_run_McCain_campaign.html)

So can you point to specific wrongdoing that actually makes sense, or are you simply assuming he's a corrupt shitheel and mining for naughty sounding facts to support your thesis?
No, I was assuming he meant what he said. I find that, within a few days of his inauguration, he didn't mean it very much, and isn't going to be bound by it. So I was asking if he was going to be expected to keep any of his other promises, and, if so, which ones.

Regards,
Shodan

[Frylock]

Well, no - he started by saying he would not do something, and then immediately proceeded to do it. You can call that clarification if you like, but it seems an abuse of the term.

The clarification occured before the election, shortly after he made the comment in question. When prodded by a reporter, he clarified that the thrust of his comment was meant to be that lobbyists "wouldn't dominate" in his white house.

"Lobbyists won't dominate" is hardly a plausible "clarification" of "They won't find a job," I'll grant that. But we can see, at least, that he directly implied before the election that the earlier statement is not in effect.

No, not in the least - that's the point. He made a promise during the campaign (that had nothing to do with the economy, and should not have been nullified by the recession), reinforced that with an executive order, and within days was acting in direct contradiction of his executive order.

Doesn't the executive order contain a provision for waivers? (Maybe not, but I thought it did.)

Democrat Barack Obama on Monday seized upon John McCain's efforts to shed his campaign of lobbyist ties, saying the Republican’s campaign "is being run by Washington lobbyists and paid for with their money."

"We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American," Obama said at a town hall meeting here.

Aren't we down to for former lobbyists in Obama's white house now? That hardly seems like a White House "being run by Washington Lobbyists."

Do you see any evidence that Obama has employed former lobbyists "as a tool to enrich friends" or to enrich the lobbyists themselves?

-FrL-

[ElvisL1ves]

Ah, okay. For you, it's not about the overall picture, whether or not he's putting the government up for auction, or making its function transparent. It's just about thrashing around hoping to find a tu quoque point to score on some anonymous message board.

Okay, you can have it, with our "regards" too. Congratulations.

[gonzomax]

Why not? There are numerous interests at work in our society, aren't there? Aren't there farms growing tobacco and companies making cigarettes at the same time groups like this do their work?

Now, these companies and farmers and the like might have an interest in what goes on in HHS, wouldn't you agree? Which is why this gentleman won't be working on tobacco issues, supposedly. All well and good, but again a severe bending of the original promise - which was that he wouldn't work in the area of government he lobbied in at all.

I believe the stance of HHS would be anti tobacco for kids. He would fit in fine.
Do you think Tobacco Companies and tobacco states are for kids using tobacco? Who is his lobby in conflict with?

[Polycarp]

You know, I'm reminded of an incident from 68 years ago that was repeatedly brought out in books on WWII, American history of the time, Roosevelt's presidency, etc. In 1940, much of Europe was at war; the U.S. was neutral and large parts of the citizenry suspected their political opposition of trying to edge us into the European war. FDR, supporting the U.K. morally and economically, was repeatedly questioned by Republicans as to whether he was trying to send our boys off to die on foreign shores. He repeatedly promised the American public in speeches that we would not get into war -- in the sense of American troops being sent to fight; even many isolationists saw the moral virtue in helping Britain and France against Hitler by sales of armaments and such -- unless we were attacked. Given the recent history of the time, this was a reasonable caveat. Exactly once did he forget to attach that caveat, in a speech in Boston, and a certain nitpicky subset of Republicans attacked him for breaking that promise after Pearl Harbor. (To do the GOP credit, the larger part of the party which had opposed FDR but knew damn well that the Japanese attack changed things, and pointedly ignored, denounced, or distanced themselves froim the first subset.)

Rightly or wrongly, there was a widespread view that the Bush43 administration was in the pocket of, or in bed with, major corporations, particularly those in which its leaders had formerly been in top management positions. (And let us not hijack this thread with that debate -- I'm stating, as what I believe is a perceived fact, that there was such a widespread view -- if you want ot debate whether that view had validity, go somewhere else and do so.)

Now, Obama's promise was, as I see it, at least partially in reaction to that. Haliburton and Exxon-Mobil would not dictate policy to an Obama Administration! Hence the point about corporate lobbyists in the Spartanburg speech. And of course when Obama's actual policy statement is promulgated, it does allow for exceptions where it benefits the common good to allow this guy, with admitted expertise, to help in policy area X when he has been supporting himself as lobbyist for area Y. (My personal hunch is that former President Carter warned Mr. Obama of the dangers of New Broom Syndrome -- having nobody on staff who knows "who did what with whom, and when and where and why" inside the Beltway.)

I'm not out to defend Mr. Obama's choices in naming former corporate lobbyists to specific positions. I don't know either the men or the jobs that well, if at all. What I see is that he stated a broadly expressed general principle, for good reason IMO, defined when and how he'd make specific exceptions to it (also a good idea; there are few broad-brush statements that do not admit of unjust impacts on a few specific situations, and allowing for exceptions to the broad brush in those situations is the mark of a realistic statesman.) -- Now given all that, Bricker has nailed down what at first looked like a good-sized laundry list but got pared down to four specific exceptions. They may in fact not be good choices; I don't know. What I do know is that Mr. Obama seems to be following his stated process -- not a campaign-promise sound bite, but the specific, nuanced program that says, in effect, "No corporate lobbyists, avoid revolving-door employment, two years gap, allowing specific exceptions by waiver for specific needs."

This hardly seems like the sort of thing to constitute a Great Debate. Indeed, while a fair question to be asked and answered, when finally sorted out it barely rises to the level of a Petty Nitpick.