jerryzflies 0 #26 January 25, 2009 QuoteI'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. Holy Crap batman! Even Obamas mistake is the repubilicans fault????Time to make Obama King. King Obama can make no mistakes"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. I remember when Bush tried to do a little of this in a Dept and the Dems screamed about it!!!! Oh, this is good shit"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #29 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. I remember when Bush tried to do a little of this in a Dept and the Dems screamed about it!!!! Oh, this is good shit Are you trying to deny that Gates recommended the nomination and the waiver? Gates IS a Republican.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. I remember when Bush tried to do a little of this in a Dept and the Dems screamed about it!!!! Oh, this is good shit Are you trying to deny that Gates recommended the nomination and the waiver? Gates IS a Republican. Nope, not doing that at all. Why?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #31 January 25, 2009 QuoteAre you trying to deny that Gates recommended the nomination and the waiver? Gates IS a Republican. This is funny shit. Maybe it's a little FU to his boss to make him look weak.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 January 25, 2009 BTW, the waiver request is, at this moment, still pending and has not yet been granted, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #33 January 25, 2009 QuoteI'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. I was wondering the same thing. I thought for sure that at least Amazon would enlighten us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 January 25, 2009 QuoteBTW, the waiver request is, at this moment, still pending and has not yet been granted, right? Help me if I am missing something. Didnt Obama write the rule? If he wrote it for himself he can ignore it or create the waiver to."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #35 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. I remember when Bush tried to do a little of this in a Dept and the Dems screamed about it!!!! Oh, this is good shit Are you trying to deny that Gates recommended the nomination and the waiver? Gates IS a Republican. Nope, not doing that at all. Why? It is odd that the right is being so hypocritical about this. You all applauded when Obama kept Gates as SecDef, but when Obama accepts a recommendation from your hero Gates, you get your panties in a wad over it. It's not like Obama is breaking his own rule, because his rule contains the provision for a waiver and a process for approving it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 January 25, 2009 Absolutely. And I am in agreement that he is following his rule. Being one of those "strict constructionist" types who generally is not fond of the "intent" of the law, what he is doing is perfectly reasonable from a political perspective. The only issue that is faced is that "revolving door" is considered unethical by the administration. This is a "waiver" of the breach of the ethical standards. I know I tend to parse words because words are the tools of my trade. Maybe Obama should amend the language of the EO by adding adding "exception" instead of just "waiver." For example, it is listed as an exception if the contact is de minimus. Perhaps the conduct should have been more narrowly defined. Perhaps more exceptions should have been laid out right from the start. Just my thoughts... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 January 25, 2009 QuoteI was wondering the same thing. I thought for sure that at least Amazon would enlighten us. I could but I was hoping you children would be working on your own cognitive skills My position on Lobbyists is fairly draconian... I would put all of them in jail for attempting to bribe government officials. ALL OF THEM Its a heinous practice that denies equal aqccess to our public servants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #38 January 25, 2009 Quote Maybe Obama should amend the language of the EO by adding adding "exception" instead of just "waiver." Hmm, the word "precedent" comes to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 January 25, 2009 Indeed. But in the world of policy, things are subjec to change. "Precedent" really doesn't mean anything in the world of statutes and regulations. In case law? Absolutely. For an "unprecedented" executive order? Well, those can be changed, too. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #40 January 25, 2009 QuoteIndeed. But in the world of policy, things are subjec to change. "Precedent" really doesn't mean anything in the world of statutes and regulations. In case law? Absolutely. For an "unprecedented" executive order? Well, those can be changed, too. No but when President Palin wants to appoint the chief lobbyist for Blackwater as Sec Defense her supporters will point to this "exception." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 January 25, 2009 ABSOLUTELY!!! TOTALLY!!! "Precedent" is always important when you want to do EXACTLY what a previous person did. Clinton did it first. No, actually, Bush did it before that. Reagan before him, and Carter before him. It's why I have pointed out so often that the very same procedures that the progressives used to increase federal power in those matters of substance for which the progressives agreed were then used by the right to increase THEIR powers in substantive arenas to which the progressives disagreed. "That's not fair" said the left, as of to say, "You can't do it that way, unless we agree with it." p.s. - it is the reason why I do not believe that there is any "conservative" judiciary remaining. The Rehnquist court of the 80's and 90's, which sought limitations on federal power, is a thing of the past. The SCOTUS has over recent years supported the expansion of federal powers into purely inrastate commerce and exapnded executive discretion over constitutional protections. The right and left are now perfectly content to cheat. The left and right merely differ on which rights they want to limit. Working together, they can help to ensure that all rights are gradually eaten away. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #42 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. I remember when Bush tried to do a little of this in a Dept and the Dems screamed about it!!!! Oh, this is good shit Are you trying to deny that Gates recommended the nomination and the waiver? Gates IS a Republican. Nope, not doing that at all. Why? It is odd that the right is being so hypocritical about this. You all applauded when Obama kept Gates as SecDef, but when Obama accepts a recommendation from your hero Gates, you get your panties in a wad over it. It's not like Obama is breaking his own rule, because his rule contains the provision for a waiver and a process for approving it. Did you even read what I posted? I have not commented on the choices one way or another anywhere I can remember. Basicly, I am saying he is the pres. He can do what he wants to. If he wants to break his owr rule then giddy up. I dont care. I am enjoying the comments form his supporters, like you in this case. You are the ones that have to hold him to his word. Douby you will but anyway. Let the show continue"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #43 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote I was wondering the same thing. I thought for sure that at least Amazon would enlighten us. I could but I was hoping you children would be working on your own cognitive skills My position on Lobbyists is fairly draconian... I would put all of them in jail for attempting to bribe government officials. ALL OF THEM Its a heinous practice that denies equal aqccess to our public servants. Dont know if I could go that far but, in principle, you and I are not that far apart on this topic"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #44 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. I remember when Bush tried to do a little of this in a Dept and the Dems screamed about it!!!! Oh, this is good shit Are you trying to deny that Gates recommended the nomination and the waiver? Gates IS a Republican. Nope, not doing that at all. Why? It is odd that the right is being so hypocritical about this. You all applauded when Obama kept Gates as SecDef, but when Obama accepts a recommendation from your hero Gates, you get your panties in a wad over it. It's not like Obama is breaking his own rule, because his rule contains the provision for a waiver and a process for approving it. Did you even read what I posted? Does anyone?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #45 January 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I'm still wondering where any of obama's followers are on this. Obama's mistake was keeping on a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who then recommended a crony to be his deputy and recommended a waiver from ethics rules for him. Obama SHOULD have cleaned house across the board. I remember when Bush tried to do a little of this in a Dept and the Dems screamed about it!!!! Oh, this is good shit Are you trying to deny that Gates recommended the nomination and the waiver? Gates IS a Republican. Nope, not doing that at all. Why? It is odd that the right is being so hypocritical about this. You all applauded when Obama kept Gates as SecDef, but when Obama accepts a recommendation from your hero Gates, you get your panties in a wad over it. It's not like Obama is breaking his own rule, because his rule contains the provision for a waiver and a process for approving it. Did you even read what I posted? Does anyone? Oooohhhhhhh oooowwwwweeeeeeee "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #46 January 25, 2009 Quote when President Palin wants to appoint the chief lobbyist for Blackwater as Sec Defense her supporters will point to this "exception." Yes, thus attracting attention to the appointee that will lead to more scruity, accountability, and transparency in the matter. Nobody really seems to have a problem with Bill Lynn and he appears to be relatively blameless. At the end of the day, I think we will see that Lynn is the best man for the job...and because of the additional attention, we'll all be a little more comfortable and have a better understanding of the decision to appoint him. This waiver is important to the best interest of the country in regard to national security and the economy, and is only to be utilized within the scope of exigent circumstances related to those two issues alone....I think we'd have to admit that this order still elevates the level of accountability and transparency, even if the waiver is used.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #47 January 25, 2009 QuoteNobody really seems to have a problem with Bill Lynn and he appears to be relatively blameless.The problem is whether we should pony up, take a lesser candidate, and follow the rule, or take what is offered as the best candidate, with an asterisk. Sucks either way. Precedent is now set to go back to the old way of doing things (the revolving door), only with more investigations and expense. Maybe the thought is that if the govt makes it enough of a pain in the ass people won't be as likely to try this. Dunno. Frankly, I'd've liked to have seen them go ahead and say that the candidate was unacceptable. If there are clear and overriding reasons for him to be the only candidate (and that's possible), then fine, and it'll be aired. But if he's really only the best by a margin, rather than a mile, nope, we should take the guy who fits the newly-established standard. In this case, it sounds as though the non-SecDef team proposed a number of others, but Gates really wants this guy, so they're letting it go forward. Maybe it's time to just see what transpires. But I sure wish the choice were a little clearer. I'd like to understand exactly why this guy is so good that he's worth asking for a waiver to a new ethical rule. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #48 January 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteNobody really seems to have a problem with Bill Lynn and he appears to be relatively blameless.The problem is whether we should pony up, take a lesser candidate, and follow the rule, or take what is offered as the best candidate, with an asterisk. What this demonstrates is that Obama's executive order (EO) forbidding lobbyists is folly, because it, as many are saying in this case, eliminates "the best man" from consideration. And that shouldn't happen. If he's the best man for the job, then his former associations in industry shouldn't matter. So what Obama should do is rescind his EO, since he isn't going to abide by it. It just makes him look foolish to issue an order and then immediately turn around and disobey it. This breeds discontent and mistrust. But he won't do that, because it would make it look like he was admitting that he made a mistake with that order. Thus, what he'll do instead is to just waive anyone he wants that would otherwise be excluded. And with that, he'll again look foolish, for issuing orders that are ignored. So in the end, now he's boxed in, looking stupid no matter which way he goes. It would have been better if he had thought about this more before jumping into office and writing hasty EO's that don't make sense. The savior is a fool. And so it begins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #49 January 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteNobody really seems to have a problem with Bill Lynn and he appears to be relatively blameless.The problem is whether we should pony up, take a lesser candidate, and follow the rule, or take what is offered as the best candidate, with an asterisk. What this demonstrates is that Obama's executive order (EO) forbidding lobbyists is folly, because it, as many are saying in this case, eliminates "the best man" from consideration. And that shouldn't happen. If he's the best man for the job, then his former associations in industry shouldn't matter. So what Obama should do is rescind his EO, since he isn't going to abide by it. It just makes him look foolish to issue an order and then immediately turn around and disobey it. This breeds discontent and mistrust. But he won't do that, because it would make it look like he was admitting that he made a mistake with that order. Thus, what he'll do instead is to just waive anyone he wants that would otherwise be excluded. And with that, he'll again look foolish, for issuing orders that are ignored. So in the end, now he's boxed in, looking stupid no matter which way he goes. It would have been better if he had thought about this more before jumping into office and writing hasty EO's that don't make sense. The savior is a fool. And so it begins. Bzzzt - Wrong. Incorrect. BS. The waiver process is built in to the EO. It allows for this scenario, and has a process to deal with it.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #50 January 26, 2009 Quote Quote In all seriousness, folks, cannot just about any position be waivable? Is there nobody else who could do the job effectively? I nominate Nerdgirl! Thanks Don! I do rather like SecDef Gates (aka 'my favorite PhD historian') -- he's done an excellent job under some very difficult circumstances & situations. And I hope President Obama nominates former SecNav Richard Danzig in 12-18 months for SecDef. We do have the first woman nominated for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy: Ms. Michelle Flournoy. Lots of Deputy and Assistant Secretary positions yet to be filled. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
