# "Lobbyists Won't Find A Job in My White House!" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573 "2009-01-29T16:49:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/81 "2009-01-30T17:08:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/82 "2009-01-30T17:41:59Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/83 "2009-01-30T18:10:33Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/84 "2009-01-30T18:14:05Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/85 "2009-01-30T18:50:24Z")
> [@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? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/86 "2009-01-30T18:55:18Z")
> [@Discordia](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/87 "2009-01-30T19:20:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/88 "2009-01-30T19:31:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/89 "2009-01-30T19:44:47Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/90 "2009-01-30T19:47:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/91 "2009-01-30T19:48:25Z")
> [@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? See post #60 and subsequent discussion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/92 "2009-01-30T20:00:56Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/93 "2009-01-30T20:51:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/94 "2009-01-30T21:08:29Z")
> [@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. 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_. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/95 "2009-01-30T21:10:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by\*\* elucidator\*\* > _How long, oh Lord, how long!_ > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > An exclamation I hear frequently, though not in this particular context. > > 😃 Whenever _ **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] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/96 "2009-01-31T12:31:41Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/97 "2009-01-31T14:17:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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- ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/98 "2009-01-31T14:17:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/99 "2009-01-31T15:20:41Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573/100 "2009-01-31T17:46:25Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lobbyists-wont-find-a-job-in-my-white-house/483573.md?page=4)