Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 11:19 am

I got a good chuckle out of yet another meaningless campaign "promise" gone out the window. The revolving door of his top people are leaving in droves, funny how when they left Bush we heard outcry's from the liberals yet not now?
It started with his hiring at least a dozen lobbyists despite his claim lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."

Then they started leaving for lobbyist positions, industry positions, and so on
again despite his promise: working in his administration would not be “about serving your former employer, your future employer or your bank account.”
further promises...
On his first day in the White House, Obama announced that all his appointees would be required to sign an ethics pledge barring those who become lobbyists from “lobby[ing] my administration for as long as I am president” and — more broadly, for all former employees, not just lobbyists — “from any attempt to influence your former government colleagues for two years after you leave.”

The pledge, he boasted, “represents a clean break from business as usual” and will “help restore that faith in government” by “clos[ing] the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave.”


Good stuff that is going seemingly unnoticed. Why are liberals so vocal about the evil Bush but stay quiet as sheep when Obama not only loses more but breaks his campaign promises in doing so?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47713.html
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 11:58 am

Uh Oh... Sounds like more "Whataboutery". To quote another on the boards "Yes, I am talking about the use of words, Tom, and their proper meanings and the contexts in which they are used. I know you prefer the Humpty Dumpty method, but I, alas, don't like to see the language rent asunder. [Danivon: Blood Libel forum]"

Maybe the words were taken out of context.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 12:05 pm

Well, did they sign the pledge, and are they being held to it?

(It's not 'whataboutery', GA)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 1:38 pm

regardless if they signed it or not, it was Obamas pledge. If they signed it, it's (apparently) non binding and/or unenforceable and he doesn't seem to be doing anything about cracking down on the turn style in the White House. Yet another stupid promise he failed to follow through on, and the outcry ...where is it?
(and FYI, my "outcry" isn't there, I just think it's funny how he makes and breaks promises and nobody seems to care ...when it's a Democrat, I'm guessing rules and promises don't apply the same to them as they do Republicans because you know we would have heard of it in that case.)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 1:49 pm

Article wrote:On his first day in the White House, Obama announced that all his appointees would be required to sign an ethics pledge

That was what I was referring to. My question was, were they made to sign it?

What he said was fairly specific - that they could not lobby his administration. Could they lobby anyone else? Sure. That's not what was promised.

Technically, if they did sign pledges, and those pledges say that they cannot lobby the US Executive branch during Obama's tenure or for two years after leaving, then his promise is kept. One advantage to highly caveated promises is that they are easier to keep than wide open ones. Of course, that doesn't mean that it won't look iffy later on when what people thought you meant appears to have been broken.
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:10 pm

Danivon,
That leaves two options:
1). Appointees signed the pledge, and disregarded the pledge that Obama requires.
2). Appointees did not sign the pledge that Obama requires.

As the ultimate supervisory authority over the Executive branch what should the President do when his promise is disregarded? Should the people in question be fired for this? If I was in charge they would be, whether they be Libs or Repubs.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:18 pm

Green Arrow wrote:Danivon,
That leaves two options:
1). Appointees signed the pledge, and disregarded the pledge that Obama requires.
2). Appointees did not sign the pledge that Obama requires.
Or, 3). The pledge does conform to what Obama stated, but not to what you think he did

Oh, sorry, we can only deal with false dichotomies!!!
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:36 pm

Is your third option something that was not what the President said? He said no lobbyists would be allowed to work in his White House. I had not considered that the President was the one lying.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 2:57 pm

No, I can read what he said. I just think that it's not totally clear that people claiming a broken promise can.

He said no lobbyists would be allowed to work in his White House.
Not really. He said staff could not leave and then lobby the administration. He didn't say they'd be barred from lobbying anyone else.

Is reading comprehension a common problem over there?
 

Post 18 Jan 2011, 3:38 pm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7411.html

From 2007...

Candidate Obama says "They won’t work in my White House!" Comprehension is not a problem for me. Taking him at his word is where I have issue with him. Sure, he said "They are not going to dominate my White House". Nice backtrack...

What else could he have meant when he said "They won’t work in my White House!". He was speaking of Lobbyists, and he did not make ANY delineation of what type of lobbyist or where the lobbyist would work.

Further corrections:
“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,” Candidate Obama said.

Let me bring a few names up and you tell me if they still worked in the industry that is controlled by the office that they are in.

Geithner - Treasury (Wasn't he the head of a financial institution?)
Solis - Labor (Worked for American Rights at Work, and I don't think she was secretarial staff)
Kirk -Trade Relations (one of the four highest paid lobbyists for Energy Future Holdings Corporation, the group created by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs)

These are just his Secretary level positions. I am sure there are exponentially more at a lower level. All I am saying is Obama said something, and he didn't back it up. You said "but I, alas, don't like to see the language rent asunder." Are these 3 regulating an industry they worked in or lobbied for?

Chu and LaHood are great picks for cabinet posts. His cabinet is not all bad. Chu is great. I don't always agree with him, but the man is brilliant.

Just hold Obama to the same level of inspection that you would people you do not agree with. It shows much less hypocrisy.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 18 Jan 2011, 4:11 pm

anyone who tries to defend his position on a matter of technicalities here has already lost. If you wish to pursue this in a court of law, you might win (reminds me of Clinton, "define sex") but this is not being held, nor will it be held in a court but rather by public opinion. If you must resort to these games, you are only helping those already against him. If you want to be sympathetic and claim he can only do so much or what he can legally do to prevent this, then fine. But as I expected, you took the low road.as GA states, hold him to the same level of inspection, would Bush have gotten away with this? Bush was horrible, even the most Conservative of us here had multiple gripes with the man and we admitted them, somehow you liberals here think the man wears a halo around his head.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 2:17 am

GMTom wrote:anyone who tries to defend his position on a matter of technicalities here has already lost.
Well, I was basing it on the quotes provided in the thread at the time. I don't really have the time to look up everything he's ever said.

Now it seems that he's made other, wider pledges, then it does appear that he's failed to live up to them.

On the one presented at first, it wasn't actually clear that it was a failure.

The difference? George Bush (I) said "No new taxes" and then taxes went up under his presidency. He failed on a pledge. Had he said "No increase to taxes on x or y" and there had been increases, but not on x or on y, then he'd have kept his pledge, but perhaps not been seen to be totally truthful.

Looks like Obama fails based on the 2007 quotes.

So yeah, righties, you get some red meat. It was a good intention (to reduce the influence of lobbyists), but doomed to failure. The Hope did not outweigh the reality. I think that will be the hallmark of Obama's 8 years :-)
 

Post 19 Jan 2011, 7:53 am

We have made some good progress here. Join us next week on "Words Really do Matter"
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 10:49 am

and Conservatives also hammered Bush on those broken promises. Problem here is none of the liberals or Democrats are saying a word about this line of broken promises.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 19 Jan 2011, 11:00 am

This got me to wondering, to be honest I have heard NOTHING as far as media and/or liberal complaints regarding broken promises (while I seem to recall plenty of Bush broken promises). So I looked some up (there are quite a few more by the way):

*Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers

*Expand the child and dependent care credit

*End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000

*End no-bid contracts above $25,000

*Allow imported prescription drugs

*Form international group to help Iraq refugees

*Reinstate special envoy for the Americas

*Double the Peace Corps

*Centralize ethics and lobbying information for voters

*Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

*Double funding for afterschool programs

*Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws

*Require plug-in fleet at the White House

*Recognize the Armenian genocide

*No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

*Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year