He has a waiver. He doesn’t have to recuse himself from anything. Question answered.
And it can’t be a violation of Obama’s policy, since reserving the right to make exceptions is part of the policy.
No it isn’t. Not killing people is very specific too.
Which there are exceptions to as well. But what you have to ask yourself is, why is this guy getting a pass. It’s not Bush wanting a cronie to be given a posh job, in this case:
The current Secretary of Defense is asking for the guy specifically. Don’t you think that is a bit different than a president putting a political bedfellow up for some free money? Do you think maybe, just maybe that this specific issue is an example of why waivers exist?
The rule was never really meant to be enforced, it was window dressing for the “hope & change” mantra.
“…It’s not Bush wanting a cronie to be given a posh job…”
I wonder what the responses would be if Bush had done something like this? No, I do not wonder–I know; vehement denunciation.
I think you’re right on the money, but we don’t know if the waivers are easily had. Now we have to see if Bob Gates has any extracurricular reason to want Bob Lynn in that position.
The rule is in place, now let’s see it either get enforced or a good explanation as to why the waiver was created.
Or conversely it is exactly as it seems and they were smart enough to build in a waiver provision.
It depends. Gates has a pretty good rep. Rumsfeld was a sopping wet clownshoe made of vagina leather.
If you see a few exceptions when you make a rule, that should be the first indicator that your rule is not a very good one.
There are usually a multitude of other “exceptions” that you never see or hear about, but are discarded unwisely because of your new rule.
“…Or conversely it is exactly as it seems and they were smart enough to build in a waiver provision…”
In other words–lie through their teeth.
“…It depends. Gates has a pretty good rep. Rumsfeld was a sopping wet clownshoe made of vagina leather…”
Still waiting for an answer–what do you think the reaction would have been if Bush had issued the EXACT same order, and then claimed a waiver? Simple question.
BTW–try some less disgusting metaphors.
Those are laws, not self-imposed rules that 17 year-olds or minors have themselves agreed not to vote/drink.
The constitution, bill of rights, subsequent amendments, and body of constitutional case law would seem to provide good counter-examples to your proposition.
It’s not a lie if they said from the start that there was a waiver process. If you can’t see that then you simply aren’t thinking clearly.
I’ll say it slow and clear. I think the waiver process is fine. The trouble with Bush and Rumsfeld was that they abused power and embraced croniesm every chance they got. So by the end of the Bush term I certainly would have been at issue with flippant waiver dispensing. However, if it is used with restraint and sensibly I have no problem with it.
No.
Obama takes a huge step in the right direction on lobbyists and people are giving him grief that he is not doing it perfectly.
Since no President ever cared about this before, a lot of people with White House experience are also lobbyists. Obama is taking a big hit by enforcing this new rule. Exemptions give him breathing room to hire some very qualified people, like Lynn.
No one was expecting him to do anything at all about lobbyists. Everyone promises to get rid of lobbyist influence. I’m rather surprised he did something.
“…I think the waiver process is fine…”
Of course. No accountability.
What a pathetically shallow and un-nuanced summation.
Also, learn to use quote tags. It’s really easy. 
I find it hilarious that right-wingers who had no problem with any one the the ten thousand incompetent and/or corrupt actions of our former president are now demanding absolute perfection from the current president, and if not, will accuse the current president of lying through his teeth. El-oh-el.
There was more to that paragraph. I suggest you go back and read the rest of it.
What if Bush had retained Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, and that Secretary had been the one calling for it? You think it would still be denounced?
What are “quote tags”?
An ", followed by …, and then, …, followed by "–means an excised quote.
I am still waiting for any opinions as to what the reponses would be if
GWB had done the same thing? No, “what-ifs”, just an opinion in-re to the exact same order.
Simple–positive, or negative, responses?
If you make a rule which excludes exceptions, THAT is an indicator that you’ve made an asinine rule.
Bush would no more have made a rule like this than he would have marched in a Gay Pride Parade, but if he had, any waiver would have been ignored by the media, and no one would have cared.
Accountabilty for what?
And learn how to use the quote function, will you.
Have you never been on a message board before? Learn how to use the proper tags, it makes your posts easier to read.
There would have been no response at all. No one would have noticed.