Obama's Cabinet and Staff

[southsider2k5]

Jesus, the more I read of that, it looks like something Cubano would write. Get us more gems, please, ss2k5.

 

Only if you promise to keep missing the point.

[bmags]

You're talking to the poster who posted the articles ABOUT this stuff, I just don't write about it like a 16 year old girl on my xanga

[Texsox]

ABC's Luis Martinez Reports: Yesterday's Executive Orders on tough lobbying rules made some folks take more notice of President Obama's nominee for Deputy Defense Secretary, Bill Lynn, given his recent lobbying position at Raytheon. The order issued by the president on his first full day of office prohibits former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years, and requires them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.

 

This afternoon, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced that he will delay a vote on Lynn's nomination pending "further information" on exactly how Lynn will recuse himself from some decisions given his lobbying history or what kind of a waiver might be necessary for him.

 

"Given the President's new stricter rules requiring his appointees to recuse themselves from matters or issues on which they have lobbied, the Senate Armed Services Committee will need further information before proceeding with the nomination of William J. Lynn III to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. The committee will await the administration's assessment as to whether the new rules will preclude Mr. Lynn, who was a registered lobbyist for a defense contractor, from participating in key Department of Defense decisions, and if so, whether a waiver will be forthcoming and what the scope of the waiver will be."

 

Defense Secretary Gates said at his news briefing today that he had personally vetted Lynn and found him to be the best qualified for the job and that an exception had to be made to bring him aboard.

 

Gates said the Obama transition recognized his Raytheon position might become an issue. "I was very impressed with his credentials; he came with the highest recommendations of a number of people that I respect a lot. And I asked that an exception be made, because I felt that he could play the read of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw. He said that the White House Counsel's office, presidential personnel and the Pentagon's General Counsel are making arrangements to get the necessary information to Levin's committee."

 

So SS, are you suggesting that Obama's executive order barring lobbyists is bad, or the waivers are bad? It would seem to me that this process is pretty good. This way at least someone, perhaps the President, is keeping a look out for this, while still allowing exceptionally qualified candidates to serve. Seems like an improvement over what we had, which was no gate at all.

 

Now I respect the hell out of Mr. Gates® and prefer that he gets his man. So perhaps I'm looking at this wrong. But I would hate to see a well meaning directive derail an otherwise strong candidate.

[southsider2k5]

So SS, are you suggesting that Obama's executive order barring lobbyists is bad, or the waivers are bad? It would seem to me that this process is pretty good. This way at least someone, perhaps the President, is keeping a look out for this, while still allowing exceptionally qualified candidates to serve. Seems like an improvement over what we had, which was no gate at all.

 

Obama is the one who suggested that lobbyists were evil, not me. Ask him.

[Texsox]

Obama is the one who suggested that lobbyists were evil, not me. Ask him.

 

I didn't see Obama posting the article. Makes me wonder why you posted it if you don't want to discuss it. I think it is a good policy, and appreciate that waivers are possible. It's better than what we had.

[DukeNukeEm]

Obama is the one who suggested that lobbyists were evil, not me. Ask him.

Generally speaking, it was you (the American people) that said lobbyists were bad and Obama's stance is a reflection of that. We said we wanted lobbyists out of government and as ridiculous as that might be Obama is obliged to fulfill his campaign promise and at least give the illusion that he's trying.

[southsider2k5]

I didn't see Obama posting the article. Makes me wonder why you posted it if you don't want to discuss it. I think it is a good policy, and appreciate that waivers are possible. It's better than what we had.

 

Oh good god, are you really searching for an arguement today or what? lol.

 

We flat out got lied to. He said lobbyists,

 

"won't find a job in my White House,"

 

Now they can as long as they are "qualified". It was a BS soundbyte for the campaign trail that he never had any intent of following through on. It would be different if this hadn't have happened multiple times before.

[Texsox]

Oh good god, are you really searching for an arguement today or what? lol.

 

We flat out got lied to. He said lobbyists,

 

"won't find a job in my White House,"

 

Now they can as long as they are "qualified". It was a BS soundbyte for the campaign trail that he never had any intent of following through on. It would be different if this hadn't have happened multiple times before.

nope conversation.

I agree 100% that this is not what the sound byte (bite?) was. I'll even say it was lying.

 

But I like this better. I think of this more like you don't get everything you want when you become President. In this case, like others, I'm glad this President is not getting what he campaigned for. I trust Mr. Gates and if he wants this guy, I think it would have been a shame if there was not a mechanism to at least make it possible.

 

So let's call Obama a liar about this. But which policy do you prefer?

• No lobbyist under an conditions
• Lobbyists by exception
• No restrictions

I'll take the second. Especially if they are all on the public record. I like flexibility.

[lostfan]

Anyone who knows how extensive lobbyists' influence is in Washington knows that's a promise that can't possibly be kept 100% and should have known that from jump.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama screwed the pooch on this one. Really no other way to see it. He set rules in an executive order, then proceeded to nominate multiple people who don't fit those rules. His choices were dishonest.

 

We do not know if his rules have been applied to lower level people we don't hear about. If they are, good, but in a way that causes another problem - they see that the highest level people get to break those rules they have to follow. That will not inspire great loyalty among low and mid level staffers in the administration. That is a collateral damage item that Obama has also caused himself.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Anyone who knows how extensive lobbyists' influence is in Washington knows that's a promise that can't possibly be kept 100% and should have known that from jump.

It could have been, it just would have been a nuclear shift in the way business is done there. A monumental task no doubt, but, not truly impossible.

 

He shouldn't have made an executive order that he himself could not abide by.

 

[lostfan]

Obama screwed the pooch on this one. Really no other way to see it. He set rules in an executive order, then proceeded to nominate multiple people who don't fit those rules. His choices were dishonest.

 

We do not know if his rules have been applied to lower level people we don't hear about. If they are, good, but in a way that causes another problem - they see that the highest level people get to break those rules they have to follow. That will not inspire great loyalty among low and mid level staffers in the administration. That is a collateral damage item that Obama has also caused himself.

He could've left himself more wiggle room than he did in the executive order, or at least laid out more specific guidelines for possible exceptions. Come to think of it, I haven't read the EO personally, maybe he did. People tend to deliberately miss things like that so it's entirely possible.

[NorthSideSox72]

He could've left himself more wiggle room than he did in the executive order, or at least laid out more specific guidelines for possible exceptions. Come to think of it, I haven't read the EO personally, maybe he did. People tend to deliberately miss things like that so it's entirely possible.

I read an article, I think in WSJ or Crain's, that laid out large chunks of it (which I took to be most or all of it - most XO's aren't particularly long). I don't recall any flexible parts.

 

 

[Texsox]

He could've left himself more wiggle room than he did in the executive order, or at least laid out more specific guidelines for possible exceptions. Come to think of it, I haven't read the EO personally, maybe he did. People tend to deliberately miss things like that so it's entirely possible.

 

he's writing waivers, maybe that is the "wiggle" room.

[NorthSideSox72]

he's writing waivers, maybe that is the "wiggle" room.

Obama is looking to bring in a "performance czar", and make government run more efficiently. Cut the fat. This is his initiative. Which is a good one.

 

But see, if you are going to do that, you already are going to have some consternation among government employees. It is key, for that kind of effort, to not upset them any further. Do you really think they will be willing to help with the effort, when they see rules put against them that don't apply to higher ups?

 

[Texsox]

Obama is looking to bring in a "performance czar", and make government run more efficiently. Cut the fat. This is his initiative. Which is a good one.

 

But see, if you are going to do that, you already are going to have some consternation among government employees. It is key, for that kind of effort, to not upset them any further. Do you really think they will be willing to help with the effort, when they see rules put against them that don't apply to higher ups?

 

What they saw was years of lobbyists being employed with no checks or balances. Now there is at least a small check and some public record. On the dark side, they could be saying, damn. Obama's trying to take away my free lunch, hockey tickets, probably think he's Don Quixote tilting at windmills. At the best, they see it as a gesture in the right direction.

[southsider2k5]

nope conversation.

I agree 100% that this is not what the sound byte (bite?) was. I'll even say it was lying.

 

But I like this better. I think of this more like you don't get everything you want when you become President. In this case, like others, I'm glad this President is not getting what he campaigned for. I trust Mr. Gates and if he wants this guy, I think it would have been a shame if there was not a mechanism to at least make it possible.

 

So let's call Obama a liar about this. But which policy do you prefer?

• No lobbyist under an conditions
• Lobbyists by exception
• No restrictions

I'll take the second. Especially if they are all on the public record. I like flexibility.

 

I prefer no restrictions. The President should be able to pick whomever he wants to work for him. Why should the most powerful man in the world have to have second rate employees because of who they used to work for? That makes no sense to me.

[Texsox]

I prefer no restrictions. The President should be able to pick whomever he wants to work for him. Why should the most powerful man in the world have to have second rate employees because of who they used to work for? That makes no sense to me.

 

I assume you mean no restriction beyond requiring congressional approve for some positions. I agree he should be able to pick his people, and the voters should know who he is picking and why. Later, in theory, we could use that information to decide our next vote. Which is why I like the gate with exceptions.

[southsider2k5]

I assume you mean no restriction beyond requiring congressional approve for some positions. I agree he should be able to pick his people, and the voters should know who he is picking and why. Later, in theory, we could use that information to decide our next vote. Which is why I like the gate with exceptions.

 

Those that require approval would get congressional approval. Those that don't, wouldn't. I know I don't want our President overseeing the world with a Sunday lineup. Let him pick his best staff. That is a part of the contract of electing a guy.

[Balta1701]

From Bill Moysers'show last weekend, a couple interesting ideas.

BILL MOYERS: Let's spend a moment on the Daschle affair before it becomes a footnote to history. The press zeroed in on the unpaid taxes. But was that really the heart of the story?

 

GLENN GREENWALD: I don't think it was the heart of the story at all. I think there was a much more significant aspect to Tom Daschle's nomination, which is that he spent 30 years in Congress, all of his adult life, in essence, doing nothing but being a member of Congress.

 

And the minute he left, he traded in on his influence and his contacts to make enormous sums of money by telling large corporations and wealthy individuals how they can get the legislation that they want from the Congress, including giving advice to the very companies and giving speeches to the very companies that he would have ended up regulating as part of his duties as Health and Human Services secretary.

 

And I think the press overlooked that, and didn't think that was much of a story was because it's so customary in Washington for members of both political parties. That's how the system works. And the members of the media, being integral parts of that system, want to do everything other than offer critiques of it.

...

 

 

BILL MOYERS: I think you wrote that "The media stars in Washington almost never understand that there's anything wrong with the establishment of which they're a part."

 

GLENN GREENWALD: That's right. I mean, if you were to say to normal Americans, and it's the reason why these issues resonated, and why Barack Obama made them a centerpiece of his campaign, that members of Congress leave office and make millions of dollars doing nothing other than essentially peddling influence to wealthy individuals who can have their way with Congress.

 

Most people consider that to be corruption. That's what Barack Obama called it when he ran. Yet, to members of the media, who have spent their lives in Washington, who are friends and colleagues of the people who are engorging themselves on this corrupt system that is just the way of life. It's like breathing air or drinking water. It's not anything that's noteworthy, let alone controversial.

 

JAY ROSEN: Well, what doesn't get considered, Bill, is that there could be anything radically wrong with Washington. That the entire institution could be broken. That there are new rules necessary. That idea, that the institutions of Washington have failed and need to be changed, doesn't really occur to the press, because as Glenn said, they're one of those institutions. And they're one of the ones that failed.

[BigSqwert]

Bingo

[bmags]

hey there nail.

[southsider2k5]

From Bill Moysers'show last weekend, a couple interesting ideas.

 

BILL MOYERS: I think you wrote that "The media stars in Washington almost never understand that there's anything wrong with the establishment of which they're a part."

 

GLENN GREENWALD: That's right. I mean, if you were to say to normal Americans, and it's the reason why these issues resonated, and why Barack Obama made them a centerpiece of his campaign, that members of Congress leave office and make millions of dollars doing nothing other than essentially peddling influence to wealthy individuals who can have their way with Congress.

 

Most people consider that to be corruption. That's what Barack Obama called it when he ran. Yet, to members of the media, who have spent their lives in Washington, who are friends and colleagues of the people who are engorging themselves on this corrupt system that is just the way of life. It's like breathing air or drinking water. It's not anything that's noteworthy, let alone controversial.

 

JAY ROSEN: Well, what doesn't get considered, Bill, is that there could be anything radically wrong with Washington. That the entire institution could be broken. That there are new rules necessary. That idea, that the institutions of Washington have failed and need to be changed, doesn't really occur to the press, because as Glenn said, they're one of those institutions. And they're one of the ones that failed.

 

And yet Obama was trying to put this man into his cabinet, dispite all of his campaign pledges and speeches to avoid this exact kind of person.

[Texsox]

Are all lobbyists the same? Is there room for experts to offer advice and counsel to elected officials? Or are all paid experts painted with the same brush? SS makes great points about the President being able to select the very best people he can find.

 

Let's say that Soxtalk Inc. developed a cool new device that needed government approval. Who here knows exactly how to get it approved? What agencies? Where do you file the paperwork? Hell, we use attorneys all the time in court, it makes sense that the average Joe or Jane would need help working through this process as well. We use experts to file our taxes, we use experts to verify our OSHA compliance, etc. etc. So it would seem that our government would be more efficient without newbies walking into offices trying to get this kind of stuff done.

 

On the other hand, we have the sleezy, slimeball, lobbyists that we all would like see gone. I'm not certain how to regulate for one without dumping the other.

[Balta1701]

Geithner flying coach.