CNN: Obama defense choices include lobbyist as deputy secretary

[Fred Jones]

Disappointing, but one of many questionable decisions to come. However, still nothing compared to the previous president.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It's not a great choice just on appearances sake. So, he'd better do a bang up job.

The ***** of the situation is that there are apparently few people in this country who are:

1. Qualified to do important government jobs and

2. Not dirty in some way.

As a pragmastist, I would rather have dirty qualified people than unqualified clean people. Still, it's depressing.

[Redskins Diehard]

It's not a great choice just on appearances sake. So' date=' he'd better do a bang up job.

The ***** of the situation is that there are apparently few people in this country who are:

1. Qualified to do important government jobs and

2. Not dirty in some way.

As a pragmastist, I would rather have dirty qualified people than unqualified clean people. Still, it's depressing.[/quote']

Do you mean by "appearances sake" that it looks bad because it violates a rule he instituted? I think it looked bad on "appearances sake" before he passed the rule that he broke. I'm not sure what it looks like when you pass a rule that you break...within a few days. Pragmatic people definitely wouldn't do that

[jnhay]

So is this guy still going to be working for Raytheon while being deputy secretary of defense?

EDIT: Oh I get it now. He'll be making decisions that involve Raytheon. What a stupid decision to backtrack so quickly. He obviously knew this guy would probably get the job before he announced his rules for lobbyists.

I understand that the waiver clause was written in the executive order, but did he mention the waiver clause when he spoke to the press? Did he mention William Lynn during his announcement?

EDIT: And these waivers pretty much only have to be accepted by Obama himself, and another guy who he appointed? There's no one else who has to agree to this?

[Burgold]

This is good for the gander fodder for the Republicans after all the Cheney/Haliburton grief. However, I hope that some of it is just insincere. W. Bush tapped a ton of Bush I people in 2000, were they condemned as retreads or understood to be the pool of experienced, betted talent from within the party. If Obama wants people with government experience and who are Dems... well, he has to go Clinton. Carter was too long ago. I do hope a good crop of newbies flow under them who will soon rise and gain experience. Then again, by and large the country suceeded under Clinton and so going back to people who did their job well doesn't really disgust me.

[Redskins Diehard]

This is good for the gander fodder for the Republicans after all the Cheney/Haliburton grief. However, I hope that some of it is just insincere. W. Bush tapped a ton of Bush I people in 2000, were they condemned as retreads or understood to be the pool of experienced, betted talent from within the party. If Obama wants people with government experience and who are Dems... well, he has to go Clinton. Carter was too long ago. I do hope a good crop of newbies flow under them who will soon rise and gain experience. Then again, by and large the country suceeded under Clinton and so going back to people who did their job well doesn't really disgust me.

Uhhhh, I think you meant this response for another argument. This isn't a "Clinton retread" problem...it is a look "I broke my very own change to Washington rule before the ink even dried on it".

[Jumbo]

Here's a bit more detailed presentation of the fubar

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2009/01/president_barack_obamas_strict.html?wprss=washingtonpostinvestigations

Obama's ethics rules state that ex-lobbyists in his administration cannot work on issues they lobbied on for two years:

"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

( participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or

© seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.

That rule complicates matters for Lynn. It also affects William V. Coor, the nominee for deputy secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, who has lobbied for the nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But Coor has pledged not to work on any tobacco issues in his new job.

Lynn, however, lobbied the Pentagon on so many Raytheon projects -- acquisitions policy, space, intelligence and command and control, among others -- that it might be hard to find an area within the department that was untouched by his previous work.

(Lynn's biography, as released by Obama's transition team, said he "brings decades of experience and expertise in reforming government spending and making the tough choices necessary to ensure that American tax dollars are spent wisely.")

Lynn was thought to have "broad support in Congress" and had been considered a "shoo-in," according to The Associated Press.

But watchdog groups, the Republican National Committee and even Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee have expressed their reservations.

In a statement, Levin said:

"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."

Others on the committee thought it would be impossible for Lynn to be appointed without a clear-cut waiver.

"I have no reason to impugn Mr. Lynn's integrity, but it's a problem," Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Congressional Quarterly. "You can't just recuse yourself from huge programs at the Pentagon if you're going to do that job."

[twa]

Hey rules sound good till they get in the way.

Welcome to reality O.

It's just a piece of paper.

[Thiebear]

It's not a great choice just on appearances sake. So' date=' he'd better do a bang up job.

The ***** of the situation is that there are apparently few people in this country who are:

1. Qualified to do important government jobs and

2. Not dirty in some way.

As a pragmastist, I would rather have dirty qualified people than unqualified clean people. Still, it's depressing.[/quote']

I remember this EXACT quote about Haliburton and the war.

Didn't fly to the dems then, so please don't use it now.

[Burgold]

Uhhhh, I think you meant this response for another argument. This isn't a "Clinton retread" problem...it is a look "I broke my very own change to Washington rule before the ink even dried on it".

Ah, okay. In that case I have three thoughts although some contradict one another.

1) It's a bad move to hire lobbiests because you may have favoritism or the perception of favoritism. See eight years of dems whining (rightly so) about Haliburton. That makes me skittish of this dude.

2) You need guys who are the top and brightest and know what they're doing and have some experience doing it and unfortunately many of these really top flight guys when they leave the military or government originally are recruited straight into lobbying firms because they are very good. So, which devil do you choose? I'd probably want the best most experienced guys and swallow some of the bad that comes with it.

3) The timing on this is really poor and unwise for Obama and he's creating a PR mess that's completely his own fault. I think the instinct behind the executive order is good, but he's cooking his own goose with it.

[DeanCollins]

Obama has basically just rehired 90% of the Clinton era minions. Man is that all the Dems have? Retread Clintonistas?

hmmm....don't remember you complaining about dubya rehiring his father's crew. . care to compare track records between dubya and clinton admins? Any of us would gladly go back to the mid/late 1990's, the greatest economic exapansion in the history of this country and during a time of peace.

[twa]

Any of us would gladly go back to the mid/late 1990's, the greatest economic exapansion in the history of this country and during a time of peace.

Before it blew up(in more ways than one)

But yeah,it was great while it lasted...maybe they won't repeat the same mistakes this time.

[alexey]

I am troubled by this. Not sure about details, but I am having a hard time seing this as unaviodable.

Also big FU to those who think that Obama supporters are as spineless as yourselves. You are justifying your own lack of principles by projecting them onto others.

[Redskins Diehard]

Ah, okay. In that case I have three thoughts although some contradict one another.

1) It's a bad move to hire lobbiests because you may have favoritism or the perception of favoritism. See eight years of dems whining (rightly so) about Haliburton. That makes me skittish of this dude.

2) You need guys who are the top and brightest and know what they're doing and have some experience doing it and unfortunately many of these really top flight guys when they leave the military or government originally are recruited straight into lobbying firms because they are very good. So, which devil do you choose? I'd probably want the best most experienced guys and swallow some of the bad that comes with it.

3) The timing on this is really poor and unwise for Obama and he's creating a PR mess that's completely his own fault. I think the instinct behind the executive order is good, but he's cooking his own goose with it.

Sorry about the "not a Clinton era" comment. It looks that at least 2 people are arguing that point in this completely unrelated thread(one from each side which I guess is necessary for a argument).

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise in number 2. In fact I probably agree with it in principle. My problem is completely with selling something to get elected(see the commercial earlier in the thread), making righteous comments about "ending" lobby influence in Washington(see words in second part of the thread), all the while breaking the very rule you are signing. And according to Jumbo's post more than once. Kind of makes the whole "change" thing a bit of a fraud.

[Redskins Diehard]

I am troubled by this. Not sure about details, but I am having a hard time seing this as unaviodable.

Also big FU to those who think that Obama supporters are as spineless as yourselves. You are justifying your own lack of principles by projecting them onto others.

If it is unavoidable then does that make the rule foolish, or naive, or not well thought out? If it is unavoidable to have lobbyists in the administration then what does it say about passing the rule in the first place?

[Burgold]

Sorry about the "not a Clinton era" comment. It looks that at least 2 people are arguing that point in this completely unrelated thread(one from each side which I guess is necessary for a argument).

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise in number 2. In fact I probably agree with it in principle. My problem is completely with selling something to get elected(see the commercial earlier in the thread), making righteous comments about "ending" lobby influence in Washington(see words in second part of the thread), all the while breaking the very rule you are signing. And according to Jumbo's post more than once. Kind of makes the whole "change" thing a bit of a fraud.

I wouldn't state it as broadly as you just did, but I agree. It does paint Obama as a fraud and hypocrite in this instance.

[alexey]

If it is unavoidable then does that make the rule foolish, or naive, or not well thought out? If it is unavoidable to have lobbyists in the administration then what does it say about passing the rule in the first place?

Exactly. And I think it is pathetic for people who have been spoonfed poo for years to try and claim that Obama supporters won't recognize poo when they see it either.

[Redskins Diehard]

I wouldn't state it as broadly as you just did, but I agree. It does paint Obama as a fraud and hypocrite in this instance.

I did say "a bit of a fraud". Now when you say "this instance" do you mean it as "no lobbyists in my administration" or do you narrow it down to specifically Mr. Lynn?

[Redskins Diehard]

Exactly. And I think it is pathetic for people who have been spoonfed poo for years to try and claim that Obama supporters won't recognize poo when they see it either.

Good deal and a respectable response on your part no doubt. You do gotta admit that not many Obama supporters have recognized this poo. A lot more people recognized the NSA poo.

[SUSkinsFan]

Politico has an article about this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17914.html

What makes William Lynn so special?

Just after announcing tough rules for lobbyists, President Barack Obama waived them to clear the way for Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to become deputy defense secretary.

[alexey]

Good deal and a respectable response on your part no doubt. You do gotta admit that not many Obama supporters have recognized this poo. A lot more people recognized the NSA poo.

I think it is important to mercilessly squash impulses that are aimed at reinforcing natural human weaknesses.

[Burgold]

And according to Jumbo's post more than once. Kind of makes the whole "change" thing a bit of a fraud.

Now when you say "this instance" do you mean it as "no lobbyists in my administration" or do you narrow it down to specifically Mr. Lynn?

I was reading your statement to mean that the entirety of the "change" concept was now fraudulent and the Obama's trustworthiness to be quite poisoned by this hypocritical nomination.

[Redskins Diehard]

I was reading your statement to mean that the entirety of the "change" concept was now fraudulent and the Obama's trustworthiness to be quite poisoned by this hypocritical nomination.

No, definitely not the entirety. A portion of it for sure.

I would not be nearly as bothered, probably not at all, about Mr. Lynn's appoinitment had the lobbyist issue not been such an issue during the campaign and the fact that he wrote a rule and then broke his own rule almost immediately. Mr. Lynn will probably do a great job in his new position(and I'm sure Raytheon would like him there;))

[Burgold]

Then we're probably really close in our positions on this one.

[Redskins Diehard]

Then we're probably really close in our positions on this one.

Sometimes that happens with reasonable people!

And to steal something from Larry....sometimes it happens with people like us also!