StrongBad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 09:48 PM
Original message |
Ok, I must voice my disapproval regarding the "ethics waiver" issue. |
|
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obamas-pick-for-no-2-post-at-pentagon-gets-ethics-waiver/This is one of the first times Obama and his team have caused me to disagree with them. If we are to be truly serious about no lobbyists in our government there should be no exceptions. Be honest, if Bush did this you'd flip your shit.
|
elleng
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 09:52 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Sure, but bush had no judgment; |
|
I tend to trust Obama's judgment, and choose to give him a chance.
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It's not 'ethics' really, it's a lobbyist. I'm just not that worried. nt |
Still Sensible
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I would agree that at least |
|
if he was going to be put in an administration position, it should be one unrelated to the lobbying entity he came from.
At the same time, I understand the argument that sometimes the best person for a given position could be someone like this.
And on its face, a nominee for Treasury with a tax problem is an obviously screwed up situation, especially when there appears to be available highly qualified alternatives.
|
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 10:01 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I wonder about how they're getting around Daschle's wife |
|
being a lobbyist - and doesn't she lobby for health care interests?
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. Did he appoint Tom Daschle's wife for something? |
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. There is certainly the appearance of a conflict here. |
|
though I'm sure Daschle's wife will have no influence on him at all. No doubt they have promised not to discuss health care or what her clients want with each other :sarcasm:
|
jefferson_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 10:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This is one of the few times I have found disagreement. Consistency on this issue is critical...if he really wants to claim an era of "new politics" has arrived.
|
ErinBerin84
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-23-09 10:11 PM
Response to Original message |
6. it's hard to believe that there was no one else that they could get |
|
And it's an important area for there not to be a former lobbyist in.
|
formercia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 05:36 AM
Response to Original message |
7. It just proves he can be co-opted. |
|
He is a person of weak character, regardless of his qualifications as a manager.
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. It doesn't prove shit about his "character",.....other than you never liked the man. |
formercia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Chains, chains, yank one and see who comes out of the woodwork. :rofl:
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. "A person of weak character" |
formercia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. Who do you think I was talking about? |
|
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 12:30 PM by formercia
It wasn't the President.
Assume= Make an ASS out of U and ME.
|
skeewee08
(434 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 12:39 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I agree, this is 1 thing I disagree with, there has to be someone else. |
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Although Obama assures us Lynn is a noteworthy exception to his ban, |
|
the "appearance of evil" does reek and I think it would behoove Obama to not stray beyond the guidelines he himself has set. That said, if this indeed is an isolated exception and taking into account Obama's assurances, I can live with it with feet firmly planted on this slippery slope.
|
GeorgeGist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 06:00 PM
Response to Original message |
hay rick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 08:42 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Maybe he's the best man for the job |
|
Intimate knowledge of the pentagon is not acquired by accident. Current or former employees of defense contractors probably dominate the small pool of people qualified for this job. I think 1) Obama really likes Lynn better than any other plausible candidate for the job and 2) he thought it was worth paying the broke-the-no-lobbyists-pledge price.
The government-lobbyist revolving door will not disappear overnight. Obama can make large strides in the right direction without going cold turkey.
|
DRoseDARs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-24-09 08:51 PM
Response to Original message |
18. I'd really like more than Peter Orszag's "trust us" explanation. |
|
"...said in a statement that 'it is in the public interest to grant the waiver given Mr. Lynn’s qualifications for his position and the current national security situation.'"
Uh huh. The more things change, the more they stay the same. This is probably a fluke and there's probably a very good reason for it, but still annoying.
|
soccermomforobama
(327 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-25-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
19. I think the "it is in best interest" bit has to do with Gates more than Lynn. |
|
I think Gates agreed to stay on under Obama only if Lynn was made #2. If that is the case, Obama would have to grant the waiver.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 01:18 PM
Response to Original message |