OOOPs: About that no lobbyist promise...

[memyselfI]

The more things 'change' the more they stay the same...:doh!:ROFL

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15transition.html?bl&ex=1226984400&en=719e1c29c315aea6&ei=5087%0A


WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama has imposed stricter conflict-of-interest restrictions on his White House transition team than any president before him. But a list of transition team members that his office made public on Friday includes a complicated tangle of ties to private influence-seekers.

Among the full roster of about 150 staff members being assigned to government agencies between now and Inauguration Day are dozens of former lobbyists and some who were registered as recently as this year. Many more are executives and partners at firms that pay lobbyists, and former government officials who work as consultants or advisers to those seeking influence.

After campaigning on promises to end the influence of lobbyists in the White House, Mr. Obama has imposed rules that bar officials on his transition team from handling any issues in areas of policy where they have lobbied over the last 12 months or from seeking to influence the same agencies for the next 12 months.

The rules also bar officials from working on matters where family members or recent business associates may have a direct conflict of interest. In cases where there is even an “appearance of conflict,” officials must seek a waiver from the transition’s executive director, an Obama Senate aide and law school classmate, Christopher Lu.

At least one official initially involved in the transition appears to have been reassigned because of concern about his lobbying or legal work. Henry Rivera, a former Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communication Commission who was involved in planning for the agency’s transition, has dropped out of that role because he had represented clients on communications policy in the last year, the newsletter Communications Daily reported Friday.

Instead, on the list that was made public on Friday, Mr. Rivera was listed on the team handling science, technology, space and the arts. The rules permit people who have lobbied in one area to join an Obama transition team in another. (With Mr. Rivera is Jim Kohlenberger, executive director of an advocacy group for Internet companies.)

Representatives of the transition team declined to comment on the assignment, and Mr. Rivera did not return a phone call seeking comment.

[BigRedChief]

Are we going to have to listen to you trash Obama for 4 years regardless of what he does? jeeezz the man isn't even in office yet.

[memyselfI]

the man isn't even in office yet.

Exactly. Already breaking hearts, er, promises. ROFL

[stevieray]

Stop crying BRC.

[BigRedChief]

Stop crying BRC.
Jeeeezzz, the man hasn't done one official thing yet. He doesn't take off ice for another 2 months.

It's time to let the election results go.


The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.
John McCain

[memyselfI]

Jeeeezzz, the man hasn't done one official thing yet. He doesn't take off ice for another 2 months.

It's time to let the election results go.


The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.
John McCain

Oh, so all those promises and pledges are to be let go? No chance in hell, baby. He's going to be held accountable.

The ELECTION is over. The SCOREBOARD just started running...

[tomahawk kid]

Oh, so all those promises and pledges are to be let go? No chance in hell, baby. He's going to be held accountable.

The ELECTION is over. The SCOREBOARD just started running...

You have got to me one of the most bitter people I have ever encountered.

I hope you find some happiness and balance in your life.

[BigRedChief]

Oh, so all those promises and pledges are to be let go? No chance in hell, baby. He's going to be held accountable.

The ELECTION is over. The SCOREBOARD just started running...
ROFL I dont think the President is going to be paying attention to your personal scorecard.

[penchief]

Oh, so all those promises and pledges are to be let go? No chance in hell, baby. He's going to be held accountable.

The ELECTION is over. The SCOREBOARD just started running...

If I'm not mistaken, he indicated early on that there would be a different standard for his transition team than there would be for his cabinet. He said that the standard would not be as strict for the transition team, which seems reasonable since they will not be permanent members of his cabinet and because they serve the specific purpose of transitioning.

He's already leaps and bounds ahead of the game when it comes to that. Until he actually starts taking lobbyist money and hiring lobbyists to shape his policies, his track record thus far has earned him the benefit of the doubt from me.

On a serious note, what is it going to take for you to give him a fair chance?

[patteeu]

Are we going to have to listen to you trash Obama for 4 years regardless of what he does? jeeezz the man isn't even in office yet.

You didn't really care about his promise of "no lobbyists" anyway, did you?

[petegz28]

The Obama supporters are in for 4 years of denial...

[penchief]

The Obama supporters are in for 4 years of denial...

And the loyal opposition is hunkering down for four years of noncooperation and obstructionism. Probably even worse than their pathetic behavior during the Clinton years. Politics before country. The idea of a democrat in the White House is too unbearable.

[Dr. Van Halen]

Read the part of the article that isn't in bold. Denise, you're a nut.

[petegz28]

And the loyal opposition is hunkering down for four years of noncooperation and obstructionism. Probably even worse than their pathetic behavior during the Clinton years. Politics before country. The idea of a democrat in the White House is too unbearable.

Are you talking about the Dems the last 8 years when you say "Politics before country"?

If the Repubs did that, it would be nothing more than a page out of the Dems playbook the last 8 years.


The problem you obviously fail to see or wish to ignore, is Obama is not going to make good on 3/4 of his "promises". It won't happen. Mark my words.

And here is the capper.....it won't be soley because of Repub obstruction. There will be a ton of Dems that will not side with him on a lot of his promises.


You will be one of the people on this board who suffers the most from denial, I can see that already. You are bitter and partisan and that will be the basis of your argument on anything related to Obama and the Dems.

History obviously has taught you nothing.

[BigRedChief]

You didn't really care about his promise of "no lobbyists" anyway, did you?
I cared that he didn't take Lobbyist money. You can't take Lobbyist money and then say they don't influence you.

No money was given so no expectation of assistance with the Lobbyist's agenda should be expected.

[petegz28]

I cared that he didn't take Lobbyist money. You can't take Lobbyist money and then say they don't influence you.

No money was given so no expectation of assistance with the Lobbyist's agenda should be expected.

HA! Ok....

Are we still talking about Washington Politics, or are you in the world of Oz?

[penchief]

Are you talking about the Dems the last 8 years when you say "Politics before country"?

If the Repubs did that, it would be nothing more than a page out of the Dems playbook the last 8 years.


The problem you obviously fail to see or wish to ignore, is Obama is not going to make good on 3/4 of his "promises". It won't happen. Mark my words.

And here is the capper.....it won't be soley because of Repub obstruction. There will be a ton of Dems that will not side with him on a lot of his promises.


You will be one of the people on this board who suffers the most from denial, I can see that already. You are bitter and partisan and that will be the basis of your argument on anything related to Obama and the Dems.

And at this point, anything other than the Cheneyburton agenda is progress.

History obviously has taught you nothing.

Are you talking about the Dems that buckled for Bush on everything? Other than handing Social Security over to the crooks on Wall Street, tell me what Bush hasn't been able to do that he wanted to do. His ultimate goal of "starving the beast" is even in sight thanks to the Wall Street scam that his buddies have perpetrated.

On the other hand, republicans have already resorted to cloture more times in this last session than at any other time in history. Yes, that's right...the party that threatened the "nuclear option" in order to neuter cloture now uses cloture more than anyone in history. And they have made it clear that they will try to paint the democrats as a "do-nothing" congress by continuing to use cloture as a weapon.

Look, I'm a realist. I know that Obama's not going to be a knight in shining armor. But I do know that his ideals are truer to the ideals of this country than are the ideals of the corpo-fascist agenda advanced by the republican party.

And at this point, anything other than the Cheneyburton agenda can be considered progress.

[Velvet_Jones]

Are we going to have to listen to you trash Obama for 4 years regardless of what he does? jeeezz the man isn't even in office yet.

Bush has been bashed for 8 years - except for a lull at the end of 2001. Just sit there ans take it biatch.

[petegz28]

Are you talking about the Dems that buckled for Bush on everything? Other than handing Social Security over to the crooks on Wall Street, tell me what Bush hasn't been able to do that he wanted to do. His ultimate goal of "starving the beast" is even in sight thanks to the Wall Street scam that his buddies have perpetrated.

On the other hand, republicans have already resorted to cloture more times in this last session than at any other time in history. Yes, that's right...the party that threatened the "nuclear option" in order to neuter cloture now uses cloture more than anyone in history. And they have made it clear that they will try to paint the democrats as a "do-nothing" congress by continuing to use cloture as a weapon.

Look, I'm a realist. I know that Obama's not going to be a knight in shining armor. But I do know that his ideals are truer to the ideals of this country than are the ideals of the corpo-fascist agenda advanced by the republican party.

And at this point, anything other than the Cheneyburton agenda can be considered progress.


You mean his rhetoric is more "feel good". I won't disagree that the Repubs screwed the pooch. I am not a Repub. But that doesn't change the fact that people are going to turn a blind eye when Obama does the same thing Bush did on a lot of things.

[jAZ]

President-elect Barack Obama has imposed stricter conflict-of-interest restrictions on his White House transition team than any president before him.
Do you know or even care what this means?

[penchief]

Bush has been bashed for 8 years - except for a lull at the end of 2001. Just sit there ans take it biatch.

Bush has done a good share of that bashing. He rammed an ideological agenda down our throats and told us that we were either with America or against America. He and his surrogates implied that we were not patriotic if we did not agree. He has been arrogant in the execution of his duties. He has been an extreme partisan and has corrupted the people's government and the Justice Department with that partisanship.

There is a distinction between dissenting against policies and presidential conduct and running a personal smear campaign the way republicans do. There is also a difference in attacking a president over conduct directly pertinent to the people's business and attacking a president over conduct irrelevent to the people's business. Equating the two is counterproductive.

[petegz28]

So there no conflicts of interest between Hillary being SoS and Bubba's international business "stuff"?

[dirk digler]

The non bolded part of the article as someone mentioned above is the most important part.


Mr. Obama has imposed rules that bar officials on his transition team from handling any issues in areas of policy where they have lobbied over the last 12 months or from seeking to influence the same agencies for the next 12 months.

The rules also bar officials from working on matters where family members or recent business associates may have a direct conflict of interest. In cases where there is even an “appearance of conflict,” officials must seek a waiver from the transition’s executive director, an Obama Senate aide and law school classmate, Christopher Lu.

At least one official initially involved in the transition appears to have been reassigned because of concern about his lobbying or legal work. Henry Rivera, a former Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communication Commission who was involved in planning for the agency’s transition, has dropped out of that role because he had represented clients on communications policy in the last year, the newsletter Communications Daily reported Friday.

[petegz28]

Bush has done a good share of that bashing. He rammed an ideological agenda down our throats and told us that we were either with America or against America. He and his surrogates implied that we were not patriotic if we did not agree. He has been arrogant in the execution of his duties. He has been an extreme partisan and has corrupted the people's government and the Justice Department with that partisanship.

There is a distinction between dissenting against policies and presidential conduct and running a personal smear campaign the way republicans do. There is also a difference in attacking a president over conduct directly pertinent to the people's business and attacking a president over conduct irrelevent to the people's business. Equating the two is counterproductive.

Lol...Bush corrupted the people's government??? WTF do you get this shit?

Dude , our government was corrupt long before you, me, and Bush were even thought of.

STFU

[chiefforlife]

The non bolded part of the article as someone mentioned above is the most important part.

Thank You, I was just going to quote that. Why is this being ignored?
This should be the bold part. Lets give him credit where its due.

[petegz28]

Thank You, I was just going to quote that. Why is this being ignored?
This should be the bold part. Lets give him credit where its due.

Give who credit for what? There is a direct conflict of interest with Hilly as SoS and Bubba having several foreign business interests.


But, we are supposed to pretend that isn't so.........I know, I know

[Sully]

After campaigning on promises to end the influence of lobbyists in the White House, Mr. Obama has imposed rules that bar officials on his transition team from handling any issues in areas of policy where they have lobbied over the last 12 months or from seeking to influence the same agencies for the next 12 months.

The rules also bar officials from working on matters where family members or recent business associates may have a direct conflict of interest. In cases where there is even an “appearance of conflict,” officials must seek a waiver from the transition’s executive director, an Obama Senate aide and law school classmate, Christopher Lu.

At least one official initially involved in the transition appears to have been reassigned because of concern about his lobbying or legal work. Henry Rivera, a former Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communication Commission who was involved in planning for the agency’s transition, has dropped out of that role because he had represented clients on communications policy in the last year, the newsletter Communications Daily reported Friday.


Doing a great job already, President-Elect Obama. Keep up the great work, sir!!!

[penchief]

You mean his rhetoric is more "feel good". I won't disagree that the Repubs screwed the pooch. I am not a Repub. But that doesn't change the fact that people are going to turn a blind eye when Obama does the same thing Bush did on a lot of things.

Why do you or anyone else feel the need to jump to conclusions? Why do you presume that we will turn a blind eye? I have my own mind and my own beliefs. I've advocated them forcefully on this board. Why would you think that I would betray six years of advocating for my beliefs? I've already been critical of Obama over things I didn't agree with, most notably his support of the new FISA bill and telecom immunity.

Just because republicans have turned a blind eye while the Bush Administration has run roughshod over the constitution and destroyed the government and the economy doesn't mean that republicans should project their own sins onto democrats prematurely.

That said, let's give Obama a chance. And let's not condemn democrats until they are actually negligent in their diligence. But let's also remember that trends are more important than ideological purity or 100% compliance with campaign promises. There is more than one party in Washington and republicans will have to cooperate with Obama and Obama will have to make concessions. Turning everything into a game of gotcha is counterproductive, IMO.

[penchief]

Lol...Bush corrupted the people's government??? WTF do you get this shit?

Dude , our government was corrupt long before you, me, and Bush were even thought of.

STFU

Corrupting the Justice Department in order to perpetuate partisan politics isn't an example of taking it to another level?

[petegz28]

Corrupting the Justice Department in order to perpetuate partisan politics isn't an example of taking it to another level?

I'm telling you it's nothing new. Let's look at Janet Reno and some very questionable uses of the Justice Dept. I'd shut up now if I were you.

[mlyonsd]

Turning everything into a game of gotcha is counterproductive, IMO.

Funny I didn't see you object when this was happening to Bush.

[petegz28]

Funny I didn't see you object when this was happening to Bush.

that is all he and most of the Obama supporters on here seem to do. It is typical though as i have seen it on other boards too.

[mlyonsd]

Obama in a South Carolina campaign speech...."I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."


Laughable. Just fricking laughable.

[dirk digler]

Give who credit for what? There is a direct conflict of interest with Hilly as SoS and Bubba having several foreign business interests.


But, we are supposed to pretend that isn't so.........I know, I know

I think he was talking about the article.

Obama right now has done more about lobbyists than the previous 43 presidents so he should get credit for that don't you think?

As far as Hillary goes if she was good enough to be POTUS there is no reason why she can't be SoS.

[vailpass]

The Great Uniter will do more to divide this country than Bush or any before him. It has already begun and will continue until his term ends or he is removed from office.

[petegz28]

I think he was talking about the article.

Obama right now has done more about lobbyists than the previous 43 presidents so he should get credit for that don't you think?

As far as Hillary goes if she was good enough to be POTUS there is no reason why she can't be SoS.

No. Cause he is smoke and mirrors on this as they all are. He has not shown any signs of change imo. He has tapped 2 peeps from the Clinton machine already.

As far as Hillary goes, I am pointing out the obvious conflict of interest that exists with her being SoS and her husbands' foreign business interests. And she wasn't good enough to be POTUS, OBVIOUSLY!

[Messier]

Bush has been bashed for 8 years - except for a lull at the end of 2001. Just sit there ans take it biatch.

So you want to bash for the sake of bashing? Bush has done plenty to deserve his bashing, do you disagree? My God, he's leaving office with a lower approval rating than Nixon during Watergate!

[dirk digler]

No. Cause he is smoke and mirrors on this as they all are. He has not shown any signs of change imo. He has tapped 2 peeps from the Clinton machine already.

As far as Hillary goes, I am pointing out the obvious conflict of interest that exists with her being SoS and her husbands' foreign business interests. And she wasn't good enough to be POTUS, OBVIOUSLY!

He has put the toughest limits on who can help with the transition than any previous president.

Also I think people need to chill a little bit until he actually takes office to see who he is going to bring in.

Also if Obama hadn't run Hillary would be the President-elect today. She would have beat any of the Republicans just as bad or worse than Obama did.

[petegz28]

So you want to bash for the sake of bashing? Bush has done plenty to deserve his bashing, do you disagree? My God, he's leaving office with a lower approval rating than Nixon during Watergate!

Yes, but let us not pretend for 1 second that Bush wasn't getting bashed even before he deserved it. I seem to recall the dems saying they would do everything they could to obstruct his Presidency, cause of Florida 2000.


How quickly some forget.

[BigChiefFan]

The Great Uniter will do more to divide this country than Bush or any before him. It has already begun and will continue until his term ends or he is removed from office.
Yes, I can I can see the unity you're bringing to the conversation. Yes!!!

[petegz28]

He has put the toughest limits on who can help with the transition than any previous president.

Also I think people need to chill a little bit until he actually takes office to see who he is going to bring in.

Also if Obama hadn't run Hillary would be the President-elect today. She would have beat any of the Republicans just as bad or worse than Obama did.


You are making an assumption. You have no way to prove Hillary would of beaten McCain. That is just pure specualtion, so save that shit.

Secondly he has tapped Rahm and Hillary. 2 people from the Clinton machine. Let's not start revising history already ok?

[Chief Henry]

How quickly some forget.


Obots = head in sand

[BigChiefFan]

Yes, but let us not pretend for 1 second that Bush wasn't getting bashed even before he deserved it. I seem to recall the dems saying they would do everything they could to obstruct his Presidency, cause of Florida 2000.


How quickly some forget.
Hence his re-election.:doh!:

[BigChiefFan]

Obots = head in sandNo, we prefer to be fucked over by oil companies like the bushwhacker backers.

[petegz28]

Hence his re-election.:doh!:

He was re-elected cause Kerry was actually worse than Bush. ROFL

[petegz28]

No, we prefer to be ****ed over by oil companies like the bushwhacker backers.

Then why do none of your Dem heros ever talk about revoking the billiosn of $'s in tax paid subsidies to said oil companies?



OOOPS! STFU

[Chief Faithful]

Yes, but let us not pretend for 1 second that Bush wasn't getting bashed even before he deserved it. I seem to recall the dems saying they would do everything they could to obstruct his Presidency, cause of Florida 2000.


How quickly some forget.

While the Democrats carried out their promise to obstruct his own party undermined him with spending. It was the perfect storm against a President.

[chiefforlife]

Yes, but let us not pretend for 1 second that Bush wasn't getting bashed even before he deserved it. I seem to recall the dems saying they would do everything they could to obstruct his Presidency, cause of Florida 2000.


How quickly some forget.

Bush enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings ever, remember. He then destroyed it along with the country, remember.

[petegz28]

Bush enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings ever, remember. He then destroyed it along with the country, remember.

Yes and the Dems running to the side of the French, after they voted to go into Iraq did us a whole heep of good didn't it?

Whether Bush was right or wrong, the Left sided with France and the UN who only pretended to be on our side until the bullets were going to start flying. Then they got pissed cause their oil for food scandal was just fucked up by Bushie.

Dems used that as the opportunity to break free from the patriotic tones from 9-11. Cause let's not pretend they wanted to be on Bush's side. They had to be at that point.

Again, if you are going to revise history please do a better job.

[dirk digler]

You are making an assumption. You have no way to prove Hillary would of beaten McCain. That is just pure specualtion, so save that shit.

Secondly he has tapped Rahm and Hillary. 2 people from the Clinton machine. Let's not start revising history already ok?

All the polling indicated a generic Dem would have beat McCain by double digits. Obama won by 8 so I think Hillary would have at least matched that.

He has picked more than 2 people from the Clinton administration only because they were the last Dem administration in the White House and he wants some people with experience in the White House.

One of the major problems the Clinton administration had was the hired a bunch of inexperienced people and they basically wasted the first year or so haggling with Congress and making a ton of mistakes. Obama wants to get out of the gate fast and start pushing his agenda through.

[chiefforlife]

Yes and the Dems running to the side of the French, after they voted to go into Iraq did us a whole heep of good didn't it?

Whether Bush was right or wrong, the Left sided with France and the UN who only pretended to be on our side until the bullets were going to start flying. Then they got pissed cause their oil for food scandal was just fucked up by Bushie.

Dems used that as the opportunity to break free from the patriotic tones from 9-11. Cause let's not pretend they wanted to be on Bush's side. They had to be at that point.

Again, if you are going to revise history please do a better job.

Bush had the whole country behind him until people realized he had no idea what he was doing. No exit strategy, no path to victory even after he declared "mission accomplished". He was wrong about everything he sold to the people. That was his downfall but you can try to blame it on the Democrats if it helps you feel better.

[petegz28]

Bush had the whole country behind him until people realized he had no idea what he was doing. No exit strategy, no path to victory even after he declared "mission accomplished". He was wrong about everything he sold to the people. That was his downfall but you can try to blame it on the Democrats if it helps you feel better.

Exit strategy is nothing more than a politcal term used for rhetoric. The exit strategy is the same for ever war. When we win we are done. No one has a crystal ball. So that whole Exit strategy argument is bullshit.

How is Clinton's exit strategy going for Kosovo? Which Christmas did he have in mind for bringing the troops home?

And yes he did have a path to victory in Iraq and it is working. Not as nice and neat like some would care for it to but there was a clear path to vicotry.


You are doing nothing more than spoutiing off bullshit talking points which most of have been refuted for years.

[petegz28]

All the polling indicated a generic Dem would have beat McCain by double digits. Obama won by 8 so I think Hillary would have at least matched that.

He has picked more than 2 people from the Clinton administration only because they were the last Dem administration in the White House and he wants some people with experience in the White House.

One of the major problems the Clinton administration had was the hired a bunch of inexperienced people and they basically wasted the first year or so haggling with Congress and making a ton of mistakes. Obama wants to get out of the gate fast and start pushing his agenda through.

So when he slammed Hillary in the debates in Iowa, calling her the same old problem in DC, now all the sudden she is "change"?


GTF out with this shit man. Do you actually believe the bullshit you are telling yourself?

[Messier]

Yes, but let us not pretend for 1 second that Bush wasn't getting bashed even before he deserved it. I seem to recall the dems saying they would do everything they could to obstruct his Presidency, cause of Florida 2000.


How quickly some forget.

So you feel it's not right to bash someone before they deserve it?

[chiefforlife]

So you feel it's not right to bash someone before they deserve it?

This is a guy who compares Kosovo to Iraq...

[bsp4444]

Give who credit for what? There is a direct conflict of interest with Hilly as SoS and Bubba having several foreign business interests.


But, we are supposed to pretend that isn't so.........I know, I know

I don't see where Hillary has been selected yet, and her own camp is debating how to deal with this issue. So for you to say already there is corruption is really giving them an unbiased view, don't you think?

[petegz28]

So you feel it's not right to bash someone before they deserve it?

I feel a politican at any time is fair game on their actions. That would equate appointing a SoS or CoS.

Much how Bush was maligned over Ashcroft, etc, etc.

So, not to ruin the "gotcha" you thought you had, Obama has taken actions. Therefore he is not covered under said "before they deserve it" premise.

By the same token I bet you support the polls that say he is the best President-elect ever?! How would one even conduct such a poll if said PE had not done anything? :)

[petegz28]

I don't see where Hillary has been selected yet, and her own camp is debating how to deal with this issue. So for you to say already there is corruption is really giving them an unbiased view, don't you think?

Man are you really this obtuse? There was, is and always will be corruption in politics. You think Obama is the first person in hostory to promise otherwise?

Man you guys are in deep. :shake:

[petegz28]

This is a guy who compares Kosovo to Iraq...

What is the difference? Oh yea, your boy Clinton did one, against the Un and without a vote and Bush got the UN and Dems approval.


ROFL

[Chief Faithful]

Bush had the whole country behind him until people realized he had no idea what he was doing. No exit strategy, no path to victory even after he declared "mission accomplished". He was wrong about everything he sold to the people. That was his downfall but you can try to blame it on the Democrats if it helps you feel better.

Rumsfeld was a disaster for Bush and this country.

[bsp4444]

Man are you really this obtuse? There was, is and always will be corruption in politics. You think Obama is the first person in hostory to promise otherwise?

Man you guys are in deep. :shake:

I understand there is corruption, but you have not even given them the chance to make any changes that may be required to address this conflict of interest issue. Your view appears to be "Obama was elected, we're all going to die".

[chiefforlife]

What is the difference? Oh yea, your boy Clinton did one, against the Un and without a vote and Bush got the UN and Dems approval.


ROFL

I am a Republican, never supported Clinton. Looking back that was probably a mistake. I supported Bush, both times. Looking back that WAS a mistake.

I have learned from my mistakes.

There are huge differences between Kosovo and Iraq, surely you see that, right?

[chiefforlife]

Rumsfeld was a disaster for Bush and this country.

I would agree with that.

[BucEyedPea]

The Obama supporters are in for 4 years of denial...

Yeah, that happens to partisans usually. ( both sides)

[petegz28]

Rumsfeld was a disaster for Bush and this country.

agreed

[petegz28]

I understand there is corruption, but you have not even given them the chance to make any changes that may be required to address this conflict of interest issue. Your view appears to be "Obama was elected, we're all going to die".

I never charged Obama with obstruction outside of what is typical. Perhaps you should go back and read more carefully.

[petegz28]

I am a Republican, never supported Clinton. Looking back that was probably a mistake. I supported Bush, both times. Looking back that WAS a mistake.

I have learned from my mistakes.

There are huge differences between Kosovo and Iraq, surely you see that, right?

I'd roll with Bush over Gore and Kerry any day.

No there is not a huge difference. Sending our troops into combat is sending our troops in combat. Clinton did not get approval from the UN nor our Congress as far as I know. Bush did.

That is not to say Iraq was all cake and ice cream. I am just pointing out the facts of the matter and those facts are, Bush had more backing than Clinton did.

Aside from that, you can go back to the 1992 elections when it was a strategy for Clinon and Al Gore to slam Bush Sr for not finishing off Sadam. You can even take Clinton's speeh from 1998 when he was ready to invade Iraq and put Bush's name on it, they were both so similar.

So again, if you are going to revise and\or ignore history, do it elsewhere.

[chiefforlife]

I'd roll with Bush over Gore and Kerry any day.

No there is not a huge difference. Sending our troops into combat is sending our troops in combat. Clinton did not get approval from the UN nor our Congress as far as I know. Bush did.

That is not to say Iraq was all cake and ice cream. I am just pointing out the facts of the matter and those facts are, Bush had more backing than Clinton did.

Aside from that, you can go back to the 1992 elections when it was a strategy for Clinon and Al Gore to slam Bush Sr for not finishing off Sadam. You can even take Clinton's speeh from 1998 when he was ready to invade Iraq and put Bush's name on it, they were both so similar.

So again, if you are going to revise and\or ignore history, do it elsewhere.

I admittedly dont know enough about Kosovo to argue this with you, perhaps if it had lasted 8 years and cost a Trillion dollars, I would know more about it? Maybe that fact alone will show you the enormous difference?

I do agree with Bush over Gore but I do wonder about Kerry, he isnt the man Bush made him out to be.

[petegz28]

I admittedly dont know enough about Kosovo to argue this with you, perhaps if it had lasted 8 years and cost a Trillion dollars, I would know more about it? Maybe that fact alone will show you the enormous difference?

I do agree with Bush over Gore but I do wonder about Kerry, he isnt the man Bush made him out to be.

Well, Iraq has not lasted 8 years for one, so I am not sure you are even on a stable premise.

Yes Kerry, an admitted war criminal who slammed his fellow troops and was given a medal. Real classy guy. The guy who voted for Iraq before he was agaisnt it....good choice.

[J Diddy]

I'd roll with Bush over Gore and Kerry any day.

No there is not a huge difference. Sending our troops into combat is sending our troops in combat. Clinton did not get approval from the UN nor our Congress as far as I know. Bush did.

That is not to say Iraq was all cake and ice cream. I am just pointing out the facts of the matter and those facts are, Bush had more backing than Clinton did.

Aside from that, you can go back to the 1992 elections when it was a strategy for Clinon and Al Gore to slam Bush Sr for not finishing off Sadam. You can even take Clinton's speeh from 1998 when he was ready to invade Iraq and put Bush's name on it, they were both so similar.

So again, if you are going to revise and\or ignore history, do it elsewhere.

A speech is a far cry from action. Bush SR should be criticized for not finishing off Saddam when he had the chance. We were right there already with a real multinational force. Think of the lives and money that would have been saved had he seized the moment.

Also Kosovo was a peace keeping mission while Iraq the second time was an invasion based on false information. Of course everybody was with him on this wehn he lied. As soon as the truth got told and we realized there were no WMD then became the question of why we went there in the first place.

The speech on clinton more reflects that they had fired at one of our planes and refused to let weapon inspectors in pursuant to UN decree. This had nothing whatsoever to do with bush sr, but more their unwillingness to comply.

[petegz28]

A speech is a far cry from action. Bush SR should be criticized for not finishing off Saddam when he had the chance. We were right there already with a real multinational force. Think of the lives and money that would have been saved had he seized the moment.

Also Kosovo was a peace keeping mission while Iraq the second time was an invasion based on false information. Of course everybody was with him on this wehn he lied. As soon as the truth got told and we realized there were no WMD then became the question of why we went there in the first place.

The speech on clinton more reflects that they had fired at one of our planes and refused to let weapon inspectors in pursuant to UN decree. This had nothing whatsoever to do with bush sr, but more their unwillingness to comply.


Action Congress, Dems included, as well as the UN voted for. Kosovo a peace keeping mission? Did we drop bombs? Ask the people at the Chinese embassy we blew up how peaceful it was?

I will agree once we figured out there were no WMD's we should of got out. However Clinton and several other Dems stated during the Clinton admin the same WMD rhetoric Bush did. Please, let's not pretend otherwise.

As far as Bush Sr you would do yourself a favor and go research the campaingns back then. In no uncertain terms did Clinton and Gore slam Bush sr for not "finishing" in Iraq.

[J Diddy]

Action Congress, Dems included, as well as the UN voted for. Kosovo a peace keeping mission? Did we drop bombs? Ask the people at the Chinese embassy we blew up how peaceful it was?

I will agree once we figured out there were no WMD's we should of got out. However Clinton and several other Dems stated during the Clinton admin the same WMD rhetoric Bush did. Please, let's not pretend otherwise.

As far as Bush Sr you would do yourself a favor and go research the campaingns back then. In no uncertain terms did Clinton and Gore slam Bush sr for not "finishing" in Iraq.



Regardless of their opinions in this matter. He still should have finished the job.

[petegz28]

Regardless of their opinions in this matter. He still should have finished the job.

And we would of been in then what we are in now. That is why Bush Sr did not go in. On top of Colin Powell telling him we would lose the cooalition of forces if we went in.

Now Bush jr was slammed for allegedly going into Iraq alone, even though we weren't. But Clinton\Gore was bsically championing that during hteir campaign.

See man, its all bullshit politics.

[chiefforlife]

Well, Iraq has not lasted 8 years for one, so I am not sure you are even on a stable premise.

Yes Kerry, an admitted war criminal who slammed his fellow troops and was given a medal. Real classy guy. The guy who voted for Iraq before he was agaisnt it....good choice.

We invaded in 2003, we are supposed to be out by 2011, 8 years, right.

I think most people were for the Iraq war, (after being fed false info) before they were against it.

[petegz28]

We invaded in 2003, we are supposed to be out by 2011, 8 years, right.

I think most people were for the Iraq war, (after being fed false info) before they were against it.

You said lastED. I would bet it goes beyond 2011.
And save me the false info crap. It was re-hashed, Clinton intelligence from his own CIA guy.

[Messier]

I feel a politican at any time is fair game on their actions. That would equate appointing a SoS or CoS.

Much how Bush was maligned over Ashcroft, etc, etc.

So, not to ruin the "gotcha" you thought you had, Obama has taken actions. Therefore he is not covered under said "before they deserve it" premise.

By the same token I bet you support the polls that say he is the best President-elect ever?! How would one even conduct such a poll if said PE had not done anything? :)

You're the one who brought up the "before they deserved it" part. You feel Bush was unfairly criticized before he had done anything wrong.

[petegz28]

You're the one who brought up the "before they deserved it" part. You feel Bush was unfairly criticized before he had done anything wrong.

No I am not.

[patteeu]

I cared that he didn't take Lobbyist money. You can't take Lobbyist money and then say they don't influence you.

No money was given so no expectation of assistance with the Lobbyist's agenda should be expected.

ROFL

It's one thing to fall for a candidate because you agree that it's high time to make the tax code more like a welfare transfer system or because you believe that anyone who spent 20 years worshiping with a Black Liberation theologian is finally going to take from the white power structure to give to the poor, brownish underclass, but to fall for this kind of political sleight of hand is kind of embarrassing.

While Obama claimed that he didn't take money from lobbyists (a claim that is questionable to begin with), what he really meant was that he didn't take money from a very narrow class of people who are currently registered as federal lobbyists. He was more than willing to take money from state lobbyists. He was more than willing to take money from law firms that had major lobbying operations. And most hilariously, he was more than willing to take money directly from the big corporations whose agendas are pushed by the extremely narrow group of lobbyists on his no contribution list.

If your concern is that lobbyists for Big Tobbaco or Big Oil or Big Pharma might expect a quid pro quo on behalf of their corporate masters for their contributions, it's baffling why you'd be content with contributions coming directly from the corporations themselves. This was a con and you were apparently one of the marks.

But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.

“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.” - LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/22/nation/na-obama22)

[patteeu]

Bush has done a good share of that bashing. He rammed an ideological agenda down our throats and told us that we were either with America or against America. He and his surrogates implied that we were not patriotic if we did not agree. He has been arrogant in the execution of his duties. He has been an extreme partisan and has corrupted the people's government and the Justice Department with that partisanship.

There is a distinction between dissenting against policies and presidential conduct and running a personal smear campaign the way republicans do. There is also a difference in attacking a president over conduct directly pertinent to the people's business and attacking a president over conduct irrelevent to the people's business. Equating the two is counterproductive.

It's telling that you took his "either with us or against us" comment to be directed at you.

[Messier]

Yes, but let us not pretend for 1 second that Bush wasn't getting bashed even before he deserved it.



When was it he didn't deserve it?

[morphius]

This article has me shocked, absolutely shocked, lol.

Oh and taking money without the middle man, aka lobbyist, is still taking money from that company. I'm amazed how many people actually believed that just adding the word lobbyist somehow changes things.

[patteeu]

I think he was talking about the article.

Obama right now has done more about lobbyists than the previous 43 presidents so he should get credit for that don't you think?

As far as Hillary goes if she was good enough to be POTUS there is no reason why she can't be SoS.

He hasn't done much of anything "about lobbyists" that makes any difference at all.

[penchief]

I'm telling you it's nothing new. Let's look at Janet Reno and some very questionable uses of the Justice Dept. I'd shut up now if I were you.

Shut up? Why? I'd prefer you give me examples equal to what Bush did with Gonzalez by promoting a bogus voter fraud campaign and firing those who wouldn't go along with it.

And by the way, very rude of you to tell me to shut up. Just give me some examples instead of being a butthole.

[penchief]

Funny I didn't see you object when this was happening to Bush.

Funny, but Bush has gotten away with more than any other president in history. Zero accountability for all the shady crap his administration has pulled.

[penchief]

that is all he and most of the Obama supporters on here seem to do. It is typical though as i have seen it on other boards too.

Bush has a track record of abusing his power and belittling those who disagreed with him. Again, attacking a president's policies and the way in which he went about implementing them is not unreasonable.

[patteeu]

Bush had the whole country behind him until people realized he had no idea what he was doing. No exit strategy, no path to victory even after he declared "mission accomplished". He was wrong about everything he sold to the people. That was his downfall but you can try to blame it on the Democrats if it helps you feel better.

But yet, he has reportedly achieved victory (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196768) and is in the process of exiting. Something about your analysis seems divergent from reality.

[penchief]

The Great Uniter will do more to divide this country than Bush or any before him. It has already begun and will continue until his term ends or he is removed from office.

Those on the right will do everything in their power to make sure that the country remains divided. That has been their mode of operation because that is what butters their bread. That is where their leverage resides.

The right wing masters of petty personal smears and wedge issues did their best to manufacture division during the Clinton years and they will do it again during the Obama years. All one has to do is turn on right wing radio and it is abundantly clear what Obama and the country is in for.

[dirk digler]

So when he slammed Hillary in the debates in Iowa, calling her the same old problem in DC, now all the sudden she is "change"?


GTF out with this shit man. Do you actually believe the bullshit you are telling yourself?

And McCain, Huckabee and Romney said alot of shit about each other too. I imagine if McCain was POTUS one of those people would be in his cabinet.

Don't forget Hillary said alot of shit about Obama and now he is POTUS so I guess that means words don't mean alot.

[penchief]

Yes, but let us not pretend for 1 second that Bush wasn't getting bashed even before he deserved it. I seem to recall the dems saying they would do everything they could to obstruct his Presidency, cause of Florida 2000.


How quickly some forget.

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt because I believed his father was way more moderate than the Reagan Neocons. But it only took six months before I realized he was going to be an extreme ideologue bent on imposing his agenda by hook or by crook. His bellicose attitude toward the American people and our allies in the world really concerned me. So much in fact, that I was angry at him on the morning of 9/11 because I felt that his belligerence contributed to a growing hostility towards America.

[penchief]

Obots = head in sand

The issue is not Obots. Get some new talking points, parrot.

[penchief]

He was re-elected cause Kerry was actually worse than Bush. ROFL

That he would have been worse is merely a presumption. And a mighty big one at that, considering how horriblie Bush has been.

Bush was re-elected because the republican party puts all of it's muscle in getting elected and none of it in governing properly or effectively. You can thank a lot of hanky panky in Ohio for his re-election in 2004.

[penchief]

Bush enjoyed one of the highest approval ratings ever, remember. He then destroyed it along with the country, remember.

He also had the entire world behind him, but then alienated the entire world.

Probably the worst president ever.

[penchief]

Yes and the Dems running to the side of the French, after they voted to go into Iraq did us a whole heep of good didn't it?

Whether Bush was right or wrong, the Left sided with France and the UN who only pretended to be on our side until the bullets were going to start flying. Then they got pissed cause their oil for food scandal was just ****ed up by Bushie.

Dems used that as the opportunity to break free from the patriotic tones from 9-11. Cause let's not pretend they wanted to be on Bush's side. They had to be at that point.

Again, if you are going to revise history please do a better job.

They sided with not rushing in before the inspectors could finish the job, which in hindsight looks like it was the correct position to take.

[patteeu]

I am a Republican, never supported Clinton. Looking back that was probably a mistake. I supported Bush, both times. Looking back that WAS a mistake.

I have learned from my mistakes.

There are huge differences between Kosovo and Iraq, surely you see that, right?

I would compare you to Lincoln Chafee, but at least Lincoln Chafee had the decency to stop calling himself a Republican after faking it poorly for a while. :)

[penchief]

It's telling that you took his "either with us or against us" comment to be directed at you.

It wasn't just one comment. It's telling that he would use that tact as often as he did.

[Messier]

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt because I believed his father was way more moderate than the Reagan Neocons. But it only took six months before I realized he was going to be an extreme ideologue bent on imposing his agenda by hook or by crook. His bellicose attitude toward the American people and our allies in the world really concerned me. So much in fact, that I was angry at him on the morning of 9/11 because I felt that his belligerence contributed to a growing hostility towards America.

I agree. I was willing to give Bush my support. It took several years of questionable words and actions before I grew to see him as unfit. It started for me after we invaded Afghanistan, which I was all for, and started closing in on Iraq. In a speech Bush gave as one of the justifications for invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein, "Don't forget, he tried to kill my dad."

[HolmeZz]

Why the hell are we talking about Obama's transition team?(ignoring the fact the article states they're former lobbyists anyway)

and lol CCW thought McCain was going to win

[patteeu]

In a speech Bush gave as one of the justifications for invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein, "Don't forget, he tried to kill my dad."

What do you think that means? Serious answer please.

[jjjayb]

You have got to me one of the most bitter people I have ever encountered.



Really? Is this so different from the Bush haters the last 8 years?

[penchief]

Really? Is this so different from the Bush haters the last 8 years?

Bitter about losing an election is different than being angry about the way Bush has arrogantly and beligerently rammed a failed ideological agenda down this country's throat for eight solid years.

I'd say those who disagree with what Bush has done to this country have every right to be vocal about their unhappiness with the consequences of his policies and his conduct.

[mlyonsd]

Funny, but Bush has gotten away with more than any other president in history. Zero accountability for all the shady crap his administration has pulled.

Yea, he forced thousands of US citizens into interment camps just because their eyes were slanted.

I can't remember the last time your objectivity wrestled your partisanship into submission to keep you from bloviating at epic levels. If I had to pick one person in real life you could be it'd be Paul Begala. :)

[petegz28]

Bush has a track record of abusing his power and belittling those who disagreed with him. Again, attacking a president's policies and the way in which he went about implementing them is not unreasonable.

I have no problem with you attacking policies. Where have I said otherwise?

[petegz28]

Bitter about losing an election is different than being angry about the way Bush has arrogantly and beligerently rammed a failed ideological agenda down this country's throat for eight solid years.

I'd say those who disagree with what Bush has done to this country have every right to be vocal about their unhappiness with the consequences of his policies and his conduct.

I keep hearing Bush rammed all this shit down your throat but everything he has done has been supported by Dems..

Iraq=Dems voted for
No Child Left Behind=Ted Kennedy Program that Dems voted for
Patriot Act=Dems voted for


I saw nothing rammed down your throat but lower taxes.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Stop crying BRC.?

[penchief]

I have no problem with you attacking policies. Where have I said otherwise?

That's pretty much all I've ever done. That and the manner in which he as executed those policies.

[Chief Henry]

The issue is not Obots. Get some new talking points, parrot.

Its you that is parroting DNC talking points. It gets very old to read you
rant about the same stuff on a daily basis. Many of you guys need to find a new game because your current one is very old and dull. You keep rehashing the same old shit in different threads and its boring as hell.

Bush sucks blah blah blah...You know what, I hope like hell your messiah doesn't have half the problems President Bush had to endure during his presidency.

[FishingRod]

"You know what, I hope like hell your messiah doesn't have half the problems President Bush had to endure during his presidency."

I think that is something we can all hope for.

[penchief]

I keep hearing Bush rammed all this shit down your throat but everything he has done has been supported by Dems..

Iraq=Dems voted for
No Child Left Behind=Ted Kennedy Program that Dems voted for
Patriot Act=Dems voted for


I saw nothing rammed down your throat but lower taxes.

Iraq: the cherry picking of intelligence and the manufacturing of bogus evidence is a conscientious act of imposing one's agenda through deception. Accusing those who were advocating caution as being unpatriotic, weak on national security, and enabling terrorists is an example of railroading an agenda via fear-mongering and PR.

No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part B were both trojan horses. The real agenda was to undermine government programs or starve government by creating corporate boondoggles that transfer great gobs of taxpayer money over to private entities. Just like the Wall Street bailout, that is not an agenda that the people of this country support. Trojan horses are methods by which an unpopular agenda is imposed. By the way, not all democrats voted for the those programs.

The Patriot Act was opposed by a lot of democrats. In fact, that was one of the fights that inspired many on the right to attack democrats as unpatriotic. I remember those fights because I was arguing against the Patriot Act right alongside many of the democrats in congress. The Patriot Act is another trojan horse that promoted a stealth agenda of power consolidation rather than the agenda of security that was sold to the public.

[penchief]

"You know what, I hope like hell your messiah doesn't have half the problems President Bush had to endure during his presidency."

I think that is something we can all hope for.

Too late. Bush left him a mess far worse than what Bush had to deal with. Bush created most of his own problems.

[penchief]

Its you that is parroting DNC talking points. It gets very old to read you
rant about the same stuff on a daily basis. Many of you guys need to find a new game because your current one is very old and dull. You keep rehashing the same old shit in different threads and its boring as hell.

Bush sucks blah blah blah...You know what, I hope like hell your messiah doesn't have half the problems President Bush had to endure during his presidency.

I'm not parroting anyone's talking points. I'm speaking my own mind. I keep rehashing the realities that exist.

[petegz28]

Iraq: the cherry picking of intelligence and the manufacturing of bogus evidence is a conscientious act of imposing one's agenda through deception. Accusing those who were advocating caution as being unpatriotic, weak on national security, and enabling terrorists is an example of railroading an agenda via fear-mongering and PR.

No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part B were both trojan horses. The real agenda was to undermine government programs or starve government by creating corporate boondoggles that transfer great gobs of taxpayer money over to private entities. Just like the Wall Street bailout, that is not an agenda that the people of this country support. Trojan horses are methods by which an unpopular agenda is imposed. By the way, not all democrats voted for the those programs.

The Patriot Act was opposed by a lot of democrats. In fact, that was one of the fights that inspired many on the right to attack democrats as unpatriotic. I remember those fights because I was arguing against the Patriot Act right alongside many of the democrats in congress. The Patriot Act is another trojan horse that promoted a stealth agenda of power consolidation rather than the agenda of security that was sold to the public.


Every President "cherry-picks". Are you really this fucking naive?

No child left behind was a Ted Kennedy bill. Sorry. The Patriot Act was voted on by several Democrats. I don't care what you argued against, we know who voted for what.

You seem to think this is some talk show where the people you talk too are clueless of recent history. You have an excuse for everything and everyone on the Left and blame everything on everyone on the Right.

And obviously you are ignorant to the realities of politics that have existed since man came to be.

[bsp4444]

Its you that is parroting DNC talking points. It gets very old to read you
rant about the same stuff on a daily basis. Many of you guys need to find a new game because your current one is very old and dull. You keep rehashing the same old shit in different threads and its boring as hell.

Bush sucks blah blah blah...You know what, I hope like hell your messiah doesn't have half the problems President Bush had to endure during his presidency.

If someone could just point out something that Bush fixed or made better than it was before he took office I would feel differently. Obama is taking over a country with all of the issues still going on that Bush was trying to deal with.

[penchief]

Every President "cherry-picks". Are you really this ****ing naive?

No child left behind was a Ted Kennedy bill. Sorry. The Patriot Act was voted on by several Democrats. I don't care what you argued against, we know who voted for what.

You seem to think this is some talk show where the people you talk too are clueless of recent history. You have an excuse for everything and everyone on the Left and blame everything on everyone on the Right.

And obviously you are ignorant to the realities of politics that have existed since man came to be.

1. President's don't cherry pick and make shit up so they can invade and occupy a sovereign nation that didn't attack us unless they have ulterior motives. Especially at the risk of bankrupting the country, depleting the military, and turning the world against us. Except for Bush, of course. He does that kind of stuff.

2. No Child Left Behind was Bush's baby but Kennedy got on board.

3. Several democrats supporting the Patriot Act does not make it something that the entire party supported wholeheartedly. The opposition to the Patriot Act came primarily from the democratic party and libertarian wing of the republican party.

Calling me ignorant doesn't make you right. You offer nothing of substance in support of your claims. Just saying stuff doesn't make it so.

[penchief]

If someone could just point out something that Bush fixed or made better than it was before he took office I would feel differently. Obama is taking over a country with all of the issues still going on that Bush was trying to deal with.

I've presented that challenge at least a dozen times and nobody ever responds.

[petegz28]

1. President's don't cherry pick and make shit up so they can invade and occupy a sovereign nation that didn't attack us unless they have ulterior motives. Especially at the risk of bankrupting the country, depleting the military, and turning the world against us. Except for Bush, of course. He does that kind of stuff.

2. No Child Left Behind was Bush's baby but Kennedy got on board.

3. Several democrats supporting the Patriot Act does not make it something that the entire party supported wholeheartedly. The opposition to the Patriot Act came primarily from the democratic party and libertarian wing of the republican party.

Calling me ignorant doesn't make you right. You offer nothing of substance in support of your claims. Just saying stuff doesn't make it so.

You really should look into a career in creative writing. You have a very active imagination. That or you would be good at writing one of the "excuse" joke books people read while they take a dump. You are ignorant to the ways of the world if you think cherry picking and corruption in the government is something new.

[petegz28]

If someone could just point out something that Bush fixed or made better than it was before he took office I would feel differently. Obama is taking over a country with all of the issues still going on that Bush was trying to deal with.

I am far from rich and my taxes are lower. My wife got to keep a lot more of the money she inherited from her mother passing than she would of otherwise. Those would be two things anyway.

[penchief]

You really should look into a career in creative writing. You have a very active imagination. That or you would be good at writing one of the "excuse" joke books people read while they take a dump. You are ignorant to the ways of the world if you think cherry picking and corruption in the government is something new.

I'll accept your reference to my "creative writing" skills to mean that you intend to ignore the points I made.

[petegz28]

I'll accept your reference to my "creative writing" skills to mean that you intend to ignore the points I made.

Your posts are based on rhetoric and talking points and totaly ignorant of the facts.

[penchief]

Your posts are based on rhetoric and talking points and totaly ignorant of the facts.

Not so in regards to who argued against many of the provisions in the Patriot Act and whose baby No Child Left Behind was.

Also not so on the count that Bush not only cherry picked and suppressed intelligence, but that he manufactured bogus intelligence in his dogged determination to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us. That, IMO, far exceeds any cherry picking that previous presidents have resorted to.

[petegz28]

Not so in regards to who argued against many of the provisions in the Patriot Act and whose baby No Child Left Behind was.

Also not so on the count that Bush not only cherry picked and suppressed intelligence, but that he manufactured bogus intelligence in his dogged determination to invade and occupy a country that didn't attack us. That, IMO, far exceeds any cherry picking that previous presidents have resorted to.

Dude, the Dems voted for them. Sorry if that fact fucks your argument. Manufactured intelligence? Proof please?

[penchief]

Dude, the Dems voted for them. Sorry if that fact ****s your argument. Manufactured intelligence? Proof please?

Yellow cake from Niger = equals manufactured evidence. Especially since it was already debunked and the president knew it. They also took information and transformed it into evidence (aluminum rods, weather labs = mobile weapons labs, armed drones that could hit the U.S., etc.). Dude, you would have had to be either blind or an enabler to not know that they were trumping up the evidence.

It's all cool, though. Look how well it worked out for us. We should do it again.

[Messier]

What do you think that means? Serious answer please.

Sure. I thing it means that Bush used a personal vendetta as a reason, even if it was a very small reason for the invasion. Why would Bush invoke this publicly unless he wanted this perception?

[petegz28]

Yellow cake from Niger = equals manufactured evidence. Especially since it was already debunked and the president knew it. They also took information and transformed it into evidence (aluminum rods, weather labs = mobile weapons labs, armed drones that could hit the U.S., etc.). Dude, you would have had to be either blind or an enabler to not know that they were trumping up the evidence.

It's all cool, though. Look how well it worked out for us. We should do it again.

Considering the UK stood by their intelligence, I can care less what Joe Wilson claimed.

[patteeu]

Sure. I thing it means that Bush used a personal vendetta as a reason, even if it was a very small reason for the invasion. Why would Bush invoke this publicly unless he wanted this perception?

It has nothing to do with a personal vendetta. It's an example of the type of thing that made Saddam a dangerous man and evidence of his deep enmity toward the United States that he would attempt to assassinate a former US President. It was merely a coincidence that that President happened to be GWBush's father.

It never ceases to amaze me how unequipped so many of you guys are when it comes to analyzing and understanding the things politicians say.

Here is an excerpt from a CNN.com report (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/) where they even tie the fact that Bush was making a point about the focus of Saddam's hatred to his use of the assassination plot against his father as an example.

Houston is the adopted hometown of the president's father, former President Bush, and in discussing the threat posed by Saddam, the current president offered his staple list of complaints about Iraq's defiance of the United Nations and his contention that Iraq is working aggressively on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. "This is a man who continually lies," Bush said.

He said the Iraqi leader's "hatred" was largely directed at the United States and added: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

[patteeu]

Yellow cake from Niger = equals manufactured evidence. Especially since it was already debunked and the president knew it. They also took information and transformed it into evidence (aluminum rods, weather labs = mobile weapons labs, armed drones that could hit the U.S., etc.). Dude, you would have had to be either blind or an enabler to not know that they were trumping up the evidence.

It's all cool, though. Look how well it worked out for us. We should do it again.

Don't let the facts get in your way. From factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html):

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

[SHTSPRAYER]

It's sad how libtards talk about Darfur, and how the USA should "do something!" about that situation, yet, Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, and had the means at his disposal to do it again, and the libtards are upset that we stopped this.

[BigRedChief]

It's sad how libtards talk about Darfur, and how the USA should "do something!" about that situation, yet, Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, and had the means at his disposal to do it again, and the libtards are upset that we stopped this.

You need a history lesson. Try google to start.

Kurds were gassed how many years before Bush invaded Iraq?

Where were the WMD's that Iraq had?

[petegz28]

You need a history lesson. Try google to start.

Kurds were gassed how many years before Bush invaded Iraq?

Where were the WMD's that Iraq had?

Oh since it was before Bush, then we should not of done anything? Is that your point?


You people are arguing the same shit in a different place. Fucking amazing!

[penchief]

Oh since it was before Bush, then we should not of done anything? Is that your point?


You people are arguing the same shit in a different place. ****ing amazing!

Well, I guess we could look at it this way. We could have done something while it was going on instead of using it as a convenient excuse to serve our own interests and implement a controversial agenda long after it happened.

Your reasoning is even more hollow when considering the fact that we sold those WMD to Iraq, knew they were using them on the Kurds, and turned a blind eye while it was happening.

So to come back years later and say that those crimes against humanity (which we aided and abetted) are somehow justification now for invading and occupying a country resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is, IMO, asinine.

[mlyonsd]

LOL, you know what's funny? Back in 2001 when Bush became president everything he did was scrutinized. Some back then invoked the "Well look what Clinton did" defense. I know, I was guilty of doing it.

It's ironic that same thing is happening this election cycle. It'll be fun to watch the Obama backers reference Bush like some of us did with Clinton.

The facts are:

Obama stated during the campaign lobbyists wouldn't work in his WH.

Obviously he went back on that promise before he even took office.

[morphius]

You need a history lesson. Try google to start.

Kurds were gassed how many years before Bush invaded Iraq?

Where were the WMD's that Iraq had?
And how were we ever going to confirm that if Saddam kept illegally breaking the peace treaty he signed and kept kicking out investigators from the UN over and over and over and over and over again, not to mention the acts of war of continually shooting at US planes in the no fly zones. Of course Saddam succeeding in buying off countries in the security council would mean he obviously didn't mean to follow through with rebuilding the programs right after the UN left, as he himself stated that he would after being arrested.

[morphius]

LOL, you know what's funny? Back in 2001 when Bush became president everything he did was scrutinized. Some back then invoked the "Well look what Clinton did" defense. I know, I was guilty of doing it.

It's ironic that same thing is happening this election cycle. It'll be fun to watch the Obama backers reference Bush like some of us did with Clinton.

The facts are:

Obama stated during the campaign lobbyists wouldn't work in his WH.

Obviously he went back on that promise before he even took office.
The fact is simply that we haven't had a good President in a while. People can point at the last 8 years, but the argument should be the last 16, cause that great surplus that Clinton left us with was built on the Internet Bubble, Enron scandal and MCI Worldcom scandal, not something we really want to repeat as ways of improving our economy...

[dirk digler]

Obama stated during the campaign lobbyists wouldn't work in his WH.

Obviously he went back on that promise before he even took office.

:spock:

He hasn't taken office yet unless we are in a time warp.

[Messier]

It has nothing to do with a personal vendetta. It's an example of the type of thing that made Saddam a dangerous man and evidence of his deep enmity toward the United States that he would attempt to assassinate a former US President. It was merely a coincidence that that President happened to be GWBush's father.

It never ceases to amaze me how unequipped so many of you guys are when it comes to analyzing and understanding the things politicians say.

Here is an excerpt from a CNN.com report (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/) where they even tie the fact that Bush was making a point about the focus of Saddam's hatred to his use of the assassination plot against his father as an example.

You know what, it's up for interpretation. The fact he said "my dad", makes it personal. Analyzing a politician is a two way street. It's funny that you seem to think that liberals are the ones "unequipped" to analyze the words of politicians. If only they all just gave everything Republicans said the benefit of the doubt, and took everything Democrats said with a grain of salt. Yes. I see now.

[Messier]

The idea if you don't agree, or have a different view, that you just "don't get it", is a simple and O'Reillyish argument. I know both sides do it but it's dumb.

[patteeu]

You know what, it's up for interpretation. The fact he said "my dad", makes it personal. Analyzing a politician is a two way street. It's funny that you seem to think that liberals are the ones "unequipped" to analyze the words of politicians. If only they all just gave everything Republicans said the benefit of the doubt, and took everything Democrats said with a grain of salt. Yes. I see now.

Some things are up for interpretation, but this isn't even close to being one of them.

[SHTSPRAYER]

You need a history lesson. Try google to start.

Kurds were gassed how many years before Bush invaded Iraq?



Did you have a point? I'm not sure.

[mlyonsd]

:spock:

He hasn't taken office yet unless we are in a time warp.

Right, which makes it even funnier.

[penchief]

Did you have a point? I'm not sure.

Yeah, the point is that you can't use something that you didn't care about when it was happening as a reason to justify your own bad behavior many years later.

The entire notion that those atrocities were reason enough to invade and occupy a sovereign nation and lead to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is rank with hypocricy considering that we supplied Saddam with the WMD he used to gas the Kurds. We didn't care all that much when he was using our WMD to gas his own people so why did we conveniently care so much only when it suited Bush & Cheney's imperialist agenda?

[SHTSPRAYER]

Yeah, the point is that you can't use something that you didn't care about when it was happening as a reason to justify your own bad behavior many years later.

The entire notion that those atrocities were reason enough to invade and occupy a sovereign nation and be responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is rank with hypocricy considering that we supplied Saddam with the WMD he used to gas the Kurds. We didn't care then so why did we conveniently care so much only when it suited Bush & Cheney's imperialist agenda?

Prattle.

:rolleyes:

[penchief]

Prattle.

:rolleyes:

As opposed to your nonsense?

Why not explain to me exactly what is prattle. What in my statement is not true?

[SHTSPRAYER]

As opposed to your nonsense?

Why not explain to me exactly what is prattle. What in my statement is not true?

You seem to know so much about me and every thought I've had in my entire life.

:rolleyes:

[penchief]

You seem to know so much about me and every thought I've had in my entire life.

:rolleyes:

Where did you get that from? My post? Wow, that's kind of an overreaction, don't ya think? Chill bro, it's going to be okay.

By the way, nice job answering the question.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Where did you get that from? My post?

Gee, ya think. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the point is that you can't use something that you didn't care about when it was happening



By the way, nice job answering the question

Your loaded question? I'm not gonna indulge you.

[penchief]

Gee, ya think. :rolleyes:

I still don't see how you made that leap. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Your loaded question? I'm not gonna indulge you.

Sounds like a cop out to me.

[SHTSPRAYER]

I still don't see how you made that leap. Maybe you can explain it to me.



Sounds like a cop out to me.

:ZZZ:

[dirk digler]

Right, which makes it even funnier.

Right so it makes your post false since he hasn't taken office yet how can he hire lobbyists?

[Messier]

Some things are up for interpretation, but this isn't even close to being one of them.

Yes it is. Do you remember it, because I do.

[penchief]

Right, which makes it even funnier.

But it also makes your accusation premature and your point moot.

Those who are qualified to facilitate the transition are not necessarily going to hold influential positions within the administration once he occupies the White House. He may very well apply a more rigid standard to his cabinet members. That has yet to be seen and any judgment on that should be withheld until such time an accurate assessment can be made.

The matter of who makes up the transition team may simply be a matter of practicality when it comes to who can most effectively facilitate a smooth transition. It would be erroneous to conclude that those who fill a transient role somehow serve as a final assessment on his commitment to eliminate the influence of lobbyist from his administration.

[penchief]

:ZZZ:

heh.

[Messier]

Yes it is. Do you remember it, because I do.

His handlers wanted him to say, "A former US president." but he went with my dad. Why do you think that is? What interpretation did they think could be made by saying my dad?

[mlyonsd]

But it also makes your accusation premature and your point moot.

Those who are qualified to facilitate the transition are not necessarily going to hold influential positions within the administration once he occupies the White House. He may very well apply a more rigid standard to his cabinet members. That has yet to be seen and any judgment on that should be withheld until such time an accurate assessment can be made.

The matter of who makes up the transition team may simply be a matter of practicality when it comes to who can most effectively facilitate a smooth transition. It would be erroneous to conclude that those who fill a transient role somehow serve as a final assessment on his commitment to eliminate the influence of lobbyist from his administration.

Oh, now it's just influential positions Obama was talking about? I feel better knowing you'll be here to tell me which ones those are. I trust your judgement.

I also didn't realize the transition team wasn't that important so the rules don't apply for them.

Obama had lobbyists work on his campaign and now they're getting paid to help transition. That's change we can all believe in.

[RaiderH8r]

Tom Daschle, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Position of influence-Check
K Street Lobbyist-Check
Beltway insider-Check
Partisan-Check

Yep, there's your change ladies and gentlemen.

[mlyonsd]

He may very well apply a more rigid standard to his cabinet members.

ROFL Next you're going to tell me some Cabinet positions aren't very important or influential. Like, maybe, the Department of Health and Human Services?

[Ari Chi3fs]

quit quoting denise people... those of us who have the perpetually unhappy gunt on ignore, would prefer to forget her existence.

[penchief]

ROFL Next you're going to tell me some Cabinet positions aren't very important or influential. Like, maybe, the Department of Health and Human Services?

Not at all. But how can you judge his White House by those who are merely on board to facilitate a transition and nothing more?

Like I've said before, I don't expect 100% purity from Obama. I do, however, anticipate a 180 degree turn in the direction this country is trending and I believe that his vow to limit lobbyist's access to the decision-making process is one of the ingredients of that turn around.

For the most part he has put his money where his mouth is in that regard when compared to previous administrations. But let's wait until the dust settles before we try to paint him is the "real deal" or "more of the same." So far I feel like I still have reason to be hopeful.

[ROYC75]

Obo is your typical politician, say anything, do anything to get elected and back track once elected. He will move to the left to please his base.

[memyselfI]

For the most part he has put his money where his mouth is in that regard when compared to previous administrations. But let's wait until the dust settles before we try to paint him is the "real deal" or "more of the same." So far I feel like I still have reason to be hopeful.ROFLROFLROFL

CNN is reporting that the company Daschle has been working for has been health care lobbying.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32604-2005Mar13.html

Daschle Moving to K Street
Dole Played a Key Role in Recruiting Former Senator

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A17

Former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), following a bipartisan path blazed by many prominent ex-members of Congress, has moved from Capitol Hill to K Street, joining Alston & Bird as a special adviser in the law firm's legislative and public policy group.

Daschle, 57, the former Democratic leader in the Senate, starts work today providing the Atlanta-based firm's corporate clients strategic advice on such issues as energy, health care, financial services, tax policy, trade and agriculture. He was recruited by another former Senate leader, Republican Robert J. Dole, 81, who joined the firm as a special counsel in 2003.

Former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), said Alston & Bird will allow him to pursue outside interests. (Rich Lipski -- The Washington Post)

Neither Daschle nor his new employer would discuss how much he will be paid. Other influential former members of Congress have drawn annual compensation packages of as much as $1 million and higher after making such moves. Dole has been reported to earn $800,000 to $1 million annually, a range the Republican called "more or less" accurate in an interview Friday.

Daschle, whose record of taking on the Bush administration probably cost him support in South Dakota, was denied a fourth term in the Senate after Republican John Thune defeated him Nov. 2. Dole soon sought him out to offer condolences and plant the idea of working at Alston & Bird.

"He was kind enough to come to my office and talk to me about this last year after the election," Daschle said Friday. "And he made several calls between then and now. He's just been tremendously welcoming."

Dole said the Democrat would be a valuable asset to the firm even though Congress is run by the GOP these days.

"He's got a lot of friends in the Senate, and I've got a lot of friends in the Senate, and, combined, who knows -- we might have 51," Dole joked. "It's going to work fine. You need some flexibility and diversity. I don't think any successful firm is all Democrat or all Republican."

Daschle is merely the latest high-profile former lawmaker to jump to the lucrative world of lobbying and law firm work in what has become an increasing trend.

Others who recently made the switch include John Breaux, former Democratic senator from Louisiana who became a senior counsel at Patton Boggs, and W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), former chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce who is the new head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

"The revolving door is just spinning out of control these days," said Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.

Holman said that in the 1970s only about 3 percent of retiring members of Congress wound up in K Street law and lobbying firms. These days, the figure is more like 32 percent, he said, in part fueled by the dramatic increase in pay for such positions.

Daschle, who will maintain a home in South Dakota, said he was attracted to Alston & Bird in part because of the firm's willingness to let him pursue outside projects. Within the next few weeks, he plans to announce an affiliation with a university, and he also wants to take on a separate project involving Native American issues, he said. Daschle said he will go on the paid-speaking circuit and that he recently joined an advisory board for InterMedia Advisors, a New York-based private investment firm.

"They've been very kind to allow me the flexibility to put some time into other activities that I care a lot about," he said of Alston & Bird.

Daschle, whose wife, Linda, is an airline industry lobbyist at another firm, cannot legally lobby his former colleagues for one year. The former senator and his new employer say they don't expect him to do much traditional lobbying anyway.

"It will be more meeting with clients and providing broad strategic advice as to how to deal with matters both domestically here in Washington as well as internationally," said Frank M. Conner, the partner in charge of Alston & Bird's Washington office.

Conner said hiring Daschle is part of an effort to increase the firm's visibility. The 700-attorney firm's gross revenue increased 21 percent in 2003, to $362.5 million, putting it at No. 50 in American Lawyer magazine's most recent rankings of the nation's top law firms.

[penchief]

Well, that's not good. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. I'm going to withhold judgment until I see some more details.

Is he still working there? If not, how long ago did he stop and why did he stop?

By the way, you aren't even going to give this administration a chance, are you? It's going to be a nonstop campaign to discredit everything they do, isn't it? Will you ever admit it if they do make changes for the better? Will you give credit when credit is due?

[memyselfI]

Well, that's not good. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. I'm going to withhold judgment until I see some more details.

OMG, the guy you have sold your soul to is ALREADY breaking promises and your reaction is 'that's not good.'

You and/or jAZ would be two of the FIRST folks posting this if the shoe were on the other foot. Or are the rules and principles you used to hold dear now merely on hold.

[memyselfI]

Ah, and the plot thickens. Apparently Daschle's buddies at his lobbying firm were one of the first in line to 'help' with the bailout dispensation. So NObama's campaign cochair was working for one of these firms seeking to profit from the taxpayer funded bailout. :spock::doh!:

The Mo things change...

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081112/BUSINESS/811120391/1036/NEWS07?Title=Lobbying_frenzy_drains_bailout_fund


The first wave of lobbying came in early October when Paulson announced the plan to buy troubled mortgage-related assets from banks. The Treasury said it would hire several outside firms to handle the purchases, and would dispense with federal contracting rules.

Law and lobbying firms that specialize in government contracting immediately fired dispatches to clients and potential clients explaining opportunities in the new program. Capitalizing on the surge of interest, several large firms, including Patton Boggs; Akin Gump; P&L Gates; Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson; and Alston & Bird, have set up financial rescue shops.

Alston & Bird, for example, highlights its two biggest stars -- former Sens. Bob Dole and Tom Daschle. Dole "knows Hank Paulson very well" and has been "very helpful" with the financial rescue groups, said David E. Brown, an Alston & Bird partner involved its effort.

"And of course, Sen. Daschle is national co-chair of the Obama campaign," Brown added, noting that because Daschle is not a registered lobbyist, his involvement is limited to "high level advisory and strategic advice."

[SHTSPRAYER]

OMG, the guy you have sold your soul to is ALREADY breaking promises and your reaction is 'that's not good.'

You and/or jAZ would be two of the FIRST folks posting this if the shoe were on the other foot. Or are the rules and principles you used to hold dear now merely on hold.


These Kos Kids are in for a very, very bad come down.

[penchief]

OMG, the guy you have sold your soul to is ALREADY breaking promises and your reaction is 'that's not good.'

You and/or jAZ would be two of the FIRST folks posting this if the shoe were on the other foot. Or are the rules and principles you used to hold dear now merely on hold.

What do you want me to do? I said, that's not good. But I'm not like you. I'm not willing to make final judgments based on low information. I want change. I want pragmatism. I don't want ideological purity on either side.

I have never considered Daschle a corporate lackey. Honestly, when he was in the senate he was a champion for the people. He paid the price for standing up against Bush's corporatocracy. So I like Daschle. I'll need to find out a little more about the details of his lobbying before I condemn this move.

I am sick and tired of the partisan bullshit that has made progress in this country impossible. I'm tired of the culture war and politics of personal destruction. I feel confident that when all is said and done you will see much of the change that is a prerequisite for progress.

[RaiderH8r]

What do you want me to do? I said, that's not good. But I'm not like you. I'm not willing to make final judgments based on low information. I want change. I want pragmatism. I don't want ideological purity on either side.

I have never considered Daschle a corporate lackey. Honestly, when he was in the senate he was a champion for the people. He paid the price for standing up against Bush's corporatocracy. So I like Daschle. I'll need to find out a little more about the details of his lobbying before I condemn this move.

I am sick and tired of the partisan bullshit that has made progress in this country impossible. I'm tired of the culture war and politics of personal destruction. I feel confident that when all is said and done you will see much of the change that is a prerequisite for progress.


This move flies in the face of everything Obama said about lobbyists and his administration. Ooooh, no money from PACs. Ooooh McCain's surrounded by lobbyists. Funny how you and your ilk have only grown tired of the partisan bullshit in the last two weeks when it was all the rage a mere 21 days ago. Well played Obots, well played indeed. What you didn't count on was that some folks might actually hold the Savior-Elect accountable.

[penchief]

I did a search for Tom Daschle and lobbying and I all I could find was stories about his wife's lobbying efforts.

But I did find this particular site which allows you to look at each company and it lists the lobbyists for each year. Maybe there is an omission but I am not able to find Daschle's name on the list of lobbyists from 2005 to 2008. Bob Dole's name is on there but not Daschle's.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmlbs.php?year=2008&lname=Alston+%26+Bird

Maybe D.enise can clarify a little further the depths of Daschle's lobbying. I did find one article that said he was a policy advisor for the company. Maybe that's a fancy title for lobbyist but I don't see any specifics on who he lobbied and what he lobbied for.

[RaiderH8r]

I did a search for Tom Daschle and lobbying and I all I could find was stories about his wife's lobbying efforts.

But I did find this particular site which allows you to look at each company and it lists the lobbyists for each year. Maybe there is an omission but I am not able to find Daschle's name on the list of lobbyists from 2005 to 2008. Bob Dole's name is on there but not Daschle's.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmlbs.php?year=2008&lname=Alston+%26+Bird

Maybe D.enise can clarify a little further the depths of Daschle's lobbying. I did find one article that said he was a policy advisor for the company. Maybe that's a fancy title for lobbyist but I don't see any specifics on who he lobbied and what he lobbied for.

That's exactly what the title is. Former Members continue to enjoy the privelege of floor access and engage in talks with current Members. His wife just opened up her own lobbying firm. F'ing A man, Obama's just pissing on your heads and telling you its raining.

[penchief]

That's exactly what the title is. Former Members continue to enjoy the privelege of floor access and engage in talks with current Members. His wife just opened up her own lobbying firm. F'ing A man, Obama's just pissing on your heads and telling you its raining.

But he's not listed as a lobbyist. Check for yourself. Change the year and check for all four years. My guess is that he was hired as an advisor and didn't relly do any lobbying.

If he has been lobbying since 2005 as D.enise has said, why does she have to rely on an article from 2005? Wouldn't there be something more current that detailed his lobbying activities?

[RaiderH8r]

But he's not listed as a lobbyist. Check for yourself. Change the year and check for all four years. My guess is that he was hired as an advisor and didn't relly do any lobbying.

If he has been lobbying since 2005 as D.enise has said, why does she have to rely on an article from 2005? Wouldn't there be something more current that detailed his lobbying activities?

Just because he hasn't registered doesn't mean he doesn't lobby. There is a loophole in the HLOGA and LDA acts which says if you don't spend more than 20% of your work hours lobbying you do not qualify as a lobbyist. Former Members rarely work the usual 40 hour weeks. They don't have to spend aching hours talking to staff members. They call their buddies up directly or head to the floor.

Has anybody done any articles about any former Members and their lobbying? If so, it isn't much. Bob Dole lobbies for the same firm how many articles have been done on his lobbying activities?

Fact is Daschle works for a lobbying/law firm but doesn't practice law and has access to Members directly and is compensated for his position, knowledge and access. Sounds like a lobbyist to me.

[penchief]

Bob Dole lobbies for the same firm how many articles have been done on his lobbying activities?

And Bob Dole is listed as a lobbyist but Daschle isn't.

[RaiderH8r]

And Bob Dole is listed as a lobbyist but Daschle isn't.

Perhaps an ethics investigation is in order.

[penchief]

Perhaps an ethics investigation is in order.

Perhaps he wasn't a lobbyist at all. Perhaps he was just an advisor.

[memyselfI]

But he's not listed as a lobbyist. Check for yourself. Change the year and check for all four years. My guess is that he was hired as an advisor and didn't relly do any lobbying.

If he has been lobbying since 2005 as D.enise has said, why does she have to rely on an article from 2005? Wouldn't there be something more current that detailed his lobbying activities?



Ok, how about one from today that might aid you in deciding how best to deal with your denial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20daschle.html?em


President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of former Senator Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services posed new questions on Wednesday about how broadly the new administration would apply Mr. Obama’s campaign promises to limit potential conflicts of interest among his appointees.

At issue is Mr. Daschle’s work since leaving the Senate four years ago as a board member of the Mayo Clinic and a highly paid adviser to health care clients at the law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird.

In a detailed list of campaign promises, Mr. Obama pledged that “no political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.”

Although Mr. Daschle’s work might not preclude his appointment, it could raise the possibility that the administration could require him to recuse himself from any matter related to either the Mayo Clinic or some of the clients he advised at Alston & Bird — a potentially broad swath of the health secretary’s portfolio.

No presidential administration has sought to extend its conflict-of-interest policies to previous employers as Mr. Obama has pledged to do, earning high marks from government ethics groups. Mr. Daschle’s selection reflects a clash, widely predicted by Washington lawyers and lobbyists, between Mr. Obama’s unusually sweeping self-imposed ethics rules and his desire to recruit experienced policy hands.

[petegz28]

Ok, how about one from today that might aid you in deciding how best to deal with your denial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20daschle.html?em

Oh come on...you can't use the NY Times ..I mean they ....


oh wait! ROFL

[mlyonsd]

Ok, how about one from today that might aid you in deciding how best to deal with your denial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20daschle.html?em

The red glasses make him look like a Super Hero.

[patteeu]

Not at all. But how can you judge his White House by those who are merely on board to facilitate a transition and nothing more?

Like I've said before, I don't expect 100% purity from Obama. I do, however, anticipate a 180 degree turn in the direction this country is trending and I believe that his vow to limit lobbyist's access to the decision-making process is one of the ingredients of that turn around.

For the most part he has put his money where his mouth is in that regard when compared to previous administrations. But let's wait until the dust settles before we try to paint him is the "real deal" or "more of the same." So far I feel like I still have reason to be hopeful.

I think you mean to say that "he's put corporate fat cat's money where his mouth is, sometimes without bothering with middle-man lobbyists as much as is traditional".

[patteeu]

But he's not listed as a lobbyist.

:LOL:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/WearingBlinders.jpg

[memyselfI]

Perhaps he wasn't a lobbyist at all. Perhaps he was just an advisor.

I know, he was merely advising in the LOBBY of Alston & Bird. :doh!:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b64/winkiees/See-Speak-Hear-Monkey-.jpg

[penchief]

I know, he was merely advising in the LOBBY of Alston & Bird. :doh!:

Look D.enise, I said that it was troubling but I also said that I'd like to know more about it. So I did a search and I posted what I had found out. That was before the NY Times article was posted. And I found out that he was not listed as a lobbyist. In fact, I said that the only thing I could find was that he was listed as an advisor. So I didn't deny anything. Let's get that much straight.

You still have not provided me any proof that he actively lobbied and who is clients were. Does that mean that I don't think he worked for the company? No. It just means that it has not been proven that he actively lobbied. Does that mean that he didn't? No. It just means that there hasn't been any evidence yet.

As far as the Mayo Clinic goes, I really don't have a problem with that position. As far as his advisory role with the firm goes, I don't think we can assess what, if any, conflicts of interest might exist unless we knew what he was advising.

While you may accuse me of being cautious in my support of Daschle, you are being equally careless in applying the worst case scenario to the situation. I just want to give the new administration a chance. And I'm willing to give Obama the leeway he needs because I believe he is trying to build a team that is formidable enough to affect change.

[RaiderH8r]

Look D.enise, I said that it was troubling but I also said that I'd like to know more about it. So I did a search and I posted what I had found out. That was before the NY Times article was posted. And I found out that he was not listed as a lobbyist. In fact, I said that the only thing I could find was that he was listed as an advisor. So I didn't deny anything. Let's get that much straight.

You still have not provided me any proof that he actively lobbied and who is clients were. Does that mean that I don't think he worked for the company? No. It just means that it has not been proven that he actively lobbied. Does that mean that he didn't? No. It just means that there hasn't been any evidence yet.

As far as the Mayo Clinic goes, I really don't have a problem with that position. As far as his advisory role with the firm goes, I don't think we can assess what, if any, conflicts of interest might exist unless we knew what he was advising.

While you may accuse me of being cautious in my support of Daschle, you are being equally careless in applying the worst case scenario to the situation. I just want to give the new administration a chance. And I'm willing to give Obama the leeway he needs because I believe he is trying to build a team that is formidable enough to affect change.

Yeah, I'm sure they kept the former majority leader around the office to fetch coffee and donuts.

[memyselfI]

Look D.enise, I said that it was troubling but I also said that I'd like to know more about it. So I did a search and I posted what I had found out. That was before the NY Times article was posted. And I found out that he was not listed as a lobbyist. In fact, I said that the only thing I could find was that he was listed as an advisor. So I didn't deny anything. Let's get that much straight.

You still have not provided me any proof that he actively lobbied and who is clients were. Does that mean that I don't think he worked for the company? No. It just means that it has not been proven that he actively lobbied. Does that mean that he didn't? No. It just means that there hasn't been any evidence yet.

As far as the Mayo Clinic goes, I really don't have a problem with that position. As far as his advisory role with the firm goes, I don't think we can assess what, if any, conflicts of interest might exist unless we knew what he was advising.

While you may accuse me of being cautious in my support of Daschle, you are being equally careless in applying the worst case scenario to the situation. I just want to give the new administration a chance. And I'm willing to give Obama the leeway he needs because I believe he is trying to build a team that is formidable enough to affect change.

So you would agree that there is an appearance of conflict of interest at best and an outright break of lobbyist promise at the worst?

Would you also be willing to admit you would not extend the same BOD courtesy if the shoe were on the other foot?

[memyselfI]

Yeah, I'm sure they kept the former majority leader around the office to fetch coffee and donuts.

He couldn't. He was too busy in the LOBBY. They don't keep the Starbucks and Krispy Kremes there. :D

[penchief]

So you would agree that there is an appearance of conflict of interest at best and an outright break of lobbyist promise at the worst?

Would you also be willing to admit you would not extend the same BOD courtesy if the shoe were on the other foot?

Yeah, I wouldn't have said that it was troubling if it didn't bother me. But I'm not ready to throw my arms up in the air and declare the whole situation a lost cause. I think Daschle has represented the interests of the people well his entire career and this alone isn't enough to convince me otherwise.

As difficult as it may seem for some people to believe, extending the benefit of the doubt is in my nature. I am most vocal about only those things which I have come to conclude are clearly antithetical to what I believe is best for our country.

As far as lobbying goes, yes, I believe it is a bane on democratic governance. That said, I have never singled out any particular individual for scorn. I believe that it has to be addressed as a systemic problem.

It can be very counterproductive to eliminate capable and committed public servants from consideration simply because they have played the game in the way it has been rigged. The bigger question is where do they stand when it comes to serving the greater good by eliminating the improper influence of narrow interests in a democratic society. And that is where I think Obama is ultimately headed in the right direction. And I believe that Daschle's track record puts him on board.

The issues that require attention in this country are much too complicated to simplify them in black and white terms the way those who only want to play gotcha politics tend to do.

[patteeu]

Look D.enise, I said that it was troubling but I also said that I'd like to know more about it. So I did a search and I posted what I had found out. That was before the NY Times article was posted. And I found out that he was not listed as a lobbyist. In fact, I said that the only thing I could find was that he was listed as an advisor. So I didn't deny anything. Let's get that much straight.

You still have not provided me any proof that he actively lobbied and who is clients were. Does that mean that I don't think he worked for the company? No. It just means that it has not been proven that he actively lobbied. Does that mean that he didn't? No. It just means that there hasn't been any evidence yet.

As far as the Mayo Clinic goes, I really don't have a problem with that position. As far as his advisory role with the firm goes, I don't think we can assess what, if any, conflicts of interest might exist unless we knew what he was advising.

While you may accuse me of being cautious in my support of Daschle, you are being equally careless in applying the worst case scenario to the situation. I just want to give the new administration a chance. And I'm willing to give Obama the leeway he needs because I believe he is trying to build a team that is formidable enough to affect change.

You pretend to be very impressed with Obama's supposed rejection of lobbyists, but if superficial realities like whether or not he meets the technical criteria to be required to register as a lobbyist are enough to relieve your concern then you couldn't have been very worried about such things in the first place. Not very "pragmatic" of you.

[penchief]

You pretend to be very impressed with Obama's supposed rejection of lobbyists, but if superficial realities like whether or not he meets the technical criteria to be required to register as a lobbyist are enough to relieve your concern then you couldn't have been very worried about such things in the first place. Not very "pragmatic" of you.

I didn't say that any of my concerns were relieved. I said that at this point, considering Daschle's track record and Obama's choices thus far, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I've expressed my concerns over Obama in the past. But compared to what we have had to deal with over the past eight years he is proving to be quite competent and pretty pragmatic (doubts and concerns considered).