First he said "lobbyists will not find a job in my white house," now they have found jobs there, and he has simply limited them to issues they haven't worked on in the last year. He is a liar. If that's what he planned to do, that's what he should have said he would do.

The worst part of all this is that in searching for an article on google news, the headlines all said things like "Obama Imposes Tough Ethics Code," and "Obama Team Moves to Keep Its Distance From Lobbyists." Anyone writing a headline like that should be fired.

Change? Or More of the Same?

"First he said "lobbyists will not find a job in my white house," now they have found jobs there, and he has simply limited them to issues they haven't worked on in the last year. He is a liar."

You do know that working on the transition team is not the same as "jobs in the White House", right?

Right - he's hired them before he even gets there. Are you saying he's not going to hire them in the white house?

Podesta justified the transition team's shorter one-year time limit on handling matters of interest to a former lobbying client by noting that transition staff jobs offer only short-term employment.

The transition staff also will be barred from lobbying the Obama administration for one year on policy areas they addressed in their work.

Joe-anyhting in the story says he will? or is Bob's conspiracy theoryitis getting to the Right

OK, fine explain it away, but when you have to split hairs like that I get suspicious.

I guess we will have to wait to see whether it is Change or More of the Same.

You do know that working on the transition team is not the same as "jobs in the White House", right?

#3 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Your not serious right? You know that McCain never said he wanted a "100-year war" in Iraq then?

"The transition staff also will be barred from lobbying the Obama administration for one year on policy areas they addressed in their work."

How is limiting their lobbying to new issues, or issues they lobbied on 366 days ago, the same as "not hiring lobbyists?"

Your not serious right? You know that McCain never said he wanted a "100-year war" in Iraq then?

#7 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

Yes, I am serious. And yes, I know he never said that, and I NEVER claimed he did. Thanks for playing.

Only the lowest of Obama's ball-lickers will be here to defend him in this thread. AmericanUnitard is the only one missing.

Only the lowest of Obama's ball-lickers will be here to defend him in this thread.

#10 | Posted by JOE

Ah, petulant child syndrome boy is talking nasty again.

But yet it seems as if it was actually you who told a lie here. Curious.

If you don't think railing against lobbyists throughout a campaign, ripping the other guy for hiring them, and saying you wont - followed by hiring lobbyists the minute you get elected - is not hypocritical or dishonest, that's your problem. I prefer reality.

A politician who says one thing and does another? Unbelievable! Sheer absurdity!

On another note why isn't this on the front page?

I prefer reality.

#12 | Posted by JOE

And yet not a single lobbyist (or anyone else except Emmanuel) has been hired for a job in the White House, despite your false claim to the contrary.

How about waiting until he actually hires somebody, then see if you have something to cry about?

He did hire lobbyists. The fact that he doesn't have access to office space in the white house doesn't change that. If you think he's going to fire them in two months, that's fine. Once again, I prefer reality. What you prefer is your own choice.

If Joe works out the difference between "transition team" and "White House staff", does he win a free trip to Didney?

Why would lobbyists be okay for your transition team and not for your white house team? Is there something about a transition team that requires lobbyists more than they are needed in the white house?

No surprise that Obama is two faced politician. He did rise through the ranks of one of the major parties. If people really wanted change they would vote for candidates outside the DNC/GOP establishment.

As it stands now, people call a vote for real change "wasting your vote".

Having said that, I'd like to believe he'll be alot more sensible than his predecessor, which isn't really asking for much.

Many of the people on the transition team are unpaid staff as opposed to paid positions in the WH.

He did hire lobbyists.

#16 | Posted by JOE

No, Joe. He didn't. No one except Rahm Emmanuel has been hired for a job with the Administration.

Oh, and also...

"Transition participants will be barred from lobbying the White House for a year; the length of the ban will be doubled for officials who join the Obama administration, Mr. Podesta said." - WSJ

Why would lobbyists be okay for your transition team and not for your white house team? Is there something about a transition team that requires lobbyists more than they are needed in the white house?

#18 | Posted by JOE

Go back and reread that post again and maybe you'll recognize that it doesn't actually make any sense at all.

"Go back and reread that post again and maybe you'll recognize that it doesn't actually make any sense at all."

Blah blah blah. The post asks a legitimate question. You claim that Obama will not hire lobbyists in the white house. He is already going to allow lobbyists on his transition team. Is there something about a transition team that requires lobbyists? For someone so against lobbyists, Obama must see a special need for them if he's going outside what you consider his boundaries to be.

#1 - they are not currently lobbyists.

#2 - you claimed in your original post that he has hired lobbyists for White House jobs. He has not.

"Is there something about a transition team that requires lobbyists?"

What does that even mean? Its nonsensical. Neither "require" lobbyists - and no current lobbyists have been hired. However, it does put greater restrictions on anyone who is considered for a WH job than for a transition job. They are not the same thing.

So again. Could you at least wait until he actually does something before you crybaby about it?

I can't wait to hear how raising taxes is really lowering taxes. That should be a good one too...

"What does that even mean?"

You apparently think that even though he is willing to hire lobbyists for his transition team, he will not hire them for his white house team. My question is, what is special about a transition team that requires lobbyists? If Obama is anti-lobbyist but for some reason is hiring them "only" for his transition team, then there must be some extraordinary circumstances. According to morons like you he is going to fire them in January. So why does he need them now?

"it does put greater restrictions"

Translation: He went from saying "no lobbyists" to "yes lobbyists, but with restrictions" and I am okay with it.

I can't wait to hear how raising taxes is really lowering taxes. That should be a good one too...

#26 | Posted by sawdust

Taxes are going to have to be raised, unless you don't mind visiting your burden onto the backs of your grandchildren.

So in this sense, a tax increase in the short term is a tax decrease in the long term.

If they want to be on the transition team they have to (a) stop being lobbyists, (b)cannot work on any area they lobbied for in the past, and (c) cannot lobby the WH for 1 year after their employment ends.

These people do not work for the WH. They are temporary employees whose jobs end on Jan. 20. Anyone who wants a permanent job with the WH is subject to stricter regulations.

Get off the "what about the transition team REQUIRES lobbyists" kick. Nobody said or even implied that. Its simple - the rules are not as stringent for the temporary jobs. Your entire premise is the proverbial straw man.

"According to morons like you he is going to fire them in January. So why does he need them now?"

Maybe a little reading on your part of what a transition team actually does would help you look less foolish.

"Translation: He went from saying 'no lobbyists' to 'yes lobbyists'"

No. He didn't. Read it again.

Perfect point Joe in post #27

And since they will only be temporary--why not just keep a few for the administration--pfft

Perfect point Joe in post #27

#32 | Posted by MURPHY

Support from the uninformed for the poorly informed?

"cannot work on any area they lobbied for in the past"

Wrong. In the past "year" is the rule.

You don't know why he needs lobbyists for the transition team either. It is implied that they are required, because he is so anti-lobbyist yet is hiring them anyways. There must be some special need for them - and somehow he will have no need for them as president. Can't wait to see your comments then.

And since they will only be temporary--why not just keep a few for the administration--pfft

#33 | Posted by MURPHY

You know what Murphy, IF he does that THEN he has gone back on his promise. But as of now - no. So like I told Joe, wait to commence crybabying until he actually does something.

"You don't know why he needs lobbyists for the transition team either."

Good grief. Nothing says he NEEDS them or REQUIRES them. He's just not excluding them under certain circumstances.

Oh and this...

Government watchdogs applauded the ethics rules in an unusual statement issued through the campaign. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution called the rules "tough and unequivocal" and said they come with a cost of keeping some honorable people from serving the transition, while Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute called them "far-reaching, bold and constructive" to restore trust in government.

"Nothing says he NEEDS them or REQUIRES them."

Even an idiot like you can understand, however, that if somebody is staunchly anti-lobbyist but will hire them anyways, that there must be some need to have them. Some need that will not be present when he is in the white house and keeping his promise. Right?

And it doesn't matter what some other Obama ball-licker thinks of his new stance on hiring lobbyists. The fact is that he went from "no lobbyists" to "yes lobbyists, but with restrictions" and now the media will praise Obama for his "ethical restrictions" and ignore his backing out of a promise.

"The fact is that he went from "no lobbyists" to "yes lobbyists, but with restrictions"

#39 | Posted by JOE

No. He didn't.

Then tell me why the new ethics rules for lobbyists that will be working for him are necessary. If he is not going from "no lobbyists" to "yes lobbyists, but with restrictions," then why is he imposing restrictions on the lobbyists that will be working for him? Are you actually this retarded?

Wait, I know your answer: He only said "no lobbyists in the white house" and he's not there yet.

Which leads to the other question: If somebody is staunchly anti-lobbyist but will hire them anyways, for now, there must be some need to have them, right now. Some need that will not be present when he is in the white house and keeping his promise.

Show me where he said no one who has ever been a lobbyist is prohibited from working on the transition team.

Are you actually this retarded?

#41 | Posted by JOE THE PETULANT CHILD

"Show me where he said no one who has ever been a lobbyist is prohibited from working on the transition team."

Looks like I called it in #42.

Yes, you continued to look as silly in #44 as you did in #42, and many others prior.

I'll ask you one more time. If somebody is staunchly anti-lobbyist but will hire them anyways, for now, there must be some need to have them, right now. Some need that will not be present when he is in the white house and keeping his promise. What is that need?

But let's just go back to your original lie from your very first post...

First he said "lobbyists will not find a job in my white house," now they have found jobs there, and he has simply limited them to issues they haven't worked on in the last year. He is a liar.

#1 | Posted by JOE at 2008-11-12 11:01 AM

And with that, I don't think there is much more to be added to this discussion.

Great answer. Later.

Obama has already broken two promises and he has not even gotten in the White House yet. When will he tried to get Slave Reparations passed

The dems gave Bush a chance.

Republicans attacked Clinton from the day he won the nomination every day, day after day after day for his entire time in office. Always trying to separate the country. Always pulling against progress.

Expect the same with Obama.

Mindless attacks, day after day after day for the next 8 years. Always trying to separate the country. Always pulling against progress.

This is two countries. The Star Spangled Banner no longer waves over the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. It waves over the land of the homophobes and the home of the pants pissers afraid of the terrorists in their closet.

I don't consider any republican to be an American. I don't think any relublican understands the concept of "freedom and justice for all". They need their own country--they are fucking up America.

Obama told Republicans that if we voted for McCain, we would get four more years of the same.

Well, many of us did. And he was right--we got four more years of the same. Welcome to Obama's Washington. The same as Bush's Washington.

Bob, this thread would not even exist if Obama would not have hired lobbyists after promising not to.

If you want to blame someone blame Obama.

"...but will ban them from working on policy areas on which they have lobbied for the past year."

So Osama will only hire lobbyists for jobs they know nothing about?

If they are an expert in ground water issues then they can get a job on the Social Services team, dealing with urban housing. If their area of expertise is biotechnology then they can only work on things like Defense policy.

Just like a Democrat to hire people and turn them into idiots who can't get the work done.

Is there something about a transition team that requires lobbyists more than they are needed in the white house?

#18 | Posted by JOE

Joe:

While this thread has predictably degraded into a political shit sling, the reality is that you hire lobbyists because they are often the most knowledgable on a subject.

That's how they get jobs as effective lobbyists. They understand the details of a subject, and they know how to politik to get it done.

Despite the worship Lefties have for government workers, those people only work for the government because they are too lazy or too stupid to transition to the private sector.

As an analogy, do you want your surgery done by a medical expert, who spent 15 years in college and residency? Or do you want surgery from the counter clerk at the DMV?

#50 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-12 05:57 PM | Reply

Politics obviously offends your tender feelings. Perhaps you would be happier in a place with a single party that controls everything.

North Korea comes to mind.

Politics obviously offends your tender feelings. Perhaps you would be happier in a place with a single party that controls everything.

North Korea comes to mind.

#55 | Posted by vernon at 2008-11-12 07:38 PM | Reply

Not at all---two or twenty parties is fine--as long as they are all for freedom and progress. Republicans are for neither, and simply hate the concept of America. It is you that should leave a country whose liberal foundations offend you so much. I've heard there aren't many liberals in North Korea---you'd love the place.

If you want to blame someone blame Obama.

#52 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-11-12 06:53 PM | Reply

It is a petty point, and those who point it out are simply assholes who want the country torn apart. I agree---assholes like you need your own country with McCain as President. I don't consider you an American since you hate every principle America was founded on. You have made up your own concept of America, and freedom isn't part of it. Work for separation instead of attacking Obama on minor points.

Ah, the old hire lobbyist after the election trick.

Nothing like a man of integrity keeping his word to the american people.

Well we get what we deserve for taking the word of a flip flopper.

Sawdust---and take buzkiller with you.

Sorry folks but obama is violating the tone an atmosphere he portrayed while running.

It appears obama's idea of change isn't very far from normal DC politics.

Sad, losing his honor one step at a time.

Obama Flip-Flops, Hires Lobbyists

So republicans have problems with lobbyists now? That's funny!

Sawdust

Your country is filling nicely--buzkiller, moneywar, darthcheney---all doing their very best to tear the country apart. I suggest focusing your energy on separation rather than tearing apart this country. You and 57 million others would obviously be happier in your own country with McCain as President. I support that cause.

Oops Sorry---not Darthcheney---he wouldn't be happy in your country.

What a riot, Buffalo Bob is crying that we are "tearing the country apart." You're the one who wants two Americas - I'd say you are tearing it apart more than anyone. I can live comfortably despite knowing that there are people in my country stupid enough to vote for Barack Obama. The same can't be said for a whacko like you.

"#64 | Posted by JOE The Mouth at 2008-11-12 10:13 PM

What a treat. Mighty Mouth is back with his worthless whining.

Sorry folks but obama is violating the tone an atmosphere he portrayed while running.

It appears obama's idea of change isn't very far from normal DC politics.

Sad, losing his honor one step at a time.

#60 | Posted by moneywar

Bush had his 20-%-ers (whatever the number was) that rabidly followed him no matter what he did. The only difference will be that Obama will have a bigger cult.

Joe

I'm just facing simple facts. People like you hate America--hate freedom for women--gays--Americans in general by supporting Bush and his fascist ways. You aren't an American, and have no concept of American ideals. You want to tear America apart.

You have no respect for the liberal foundations America was founded on, and never will. Man up, and join with others who hate freedom for women and gays as much as you--hates welfare as much as you---hate taxing the rich as much as you--hates liberals as much as you, and start your own country. Try building something instead of tearing things apart.

, and simply hate the concept of America. It is you that should leave a country whose liberal ....

#56 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-12 08:04 PM | Reply

I don't consider you an American since ...

#57 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-12 08:08 PM | Reply

You and 57 million others would obviously be happier in your own country ....

#62 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-12 09:52 PM | Reply

People like you hate America-- .... and start your own country. Try building something instead of tearing things apart.

#67 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-11-13 02:02 AM | Reply

Boob sounds like a broken record.

He can't counter any arguments relevant to the thread, so his only response is "America ... Love Osama or Leave it"

VERNON

The right accused anyone not in lock step with them about Iraq as 'hating America'.

You have a very short memory.

Bob, hypocricy is hypocricy. If Obama says one thing and does another, he is a hypocrit. It probably would not be as striking if this was not a very key part of his campaign.

And please do not get all "tearing the country apart" on me.

What the left did to Bush over the past several years is far, far worse than chiding Obama for hiring Lobbyists.

I don't consider any republican to be an American.

That is because you are a coward who is scared to death of diversity. You are exactly like the KKK: If everyone can't be like you, you don't want them around.

What a loser both you and he Klan are, not to mention cowards

The funny thing as that if Patrick Henry and John Jay were alive today they would both be part of the Christian Right. Patrick Henry wanted this country to have a state church and believed in states rights. John Jay did not believe in the separation of church and state. Ben Franklin would be a ruthless CEO in media. He would be like a Mort Zuckerman and Alexander Hamilton would be running a banking comglomerate(BONY/Mellon)

Meanwhile Thomas Jefferson would be sending the marines halfway arounf the world to attack Libya while Europe uses diplomacy. Thomas Paine would be laying off staffers at the NY Times because no one reads his paper anymore.

Remember the founders were rich white men who didn't want to pay taxes. Some liberals.

OH I GET It

he said they would have no place in his administration but now he says it okay as long a they arent around people who they have lobbied for??

well sure that sounds like it will work out okay...

and yet another nail in the one and done obama administration

What the left did to Bush over the past several years is far, far worse than chiding Obama for hiring Lobbyists.

#70 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-11-13 07:06 AM | Reply

Take Goatman with you. Bush attacked America---not the other way around. Start your own fascist country---you can even have Bush as your President again.

BuffaloBob is just as crazy as Celery, but much less dangerous because he's old and feeble.

the list of bush attacks and insults is too long to list here...........

hitler and murderer are some of the tamer ones but you see...that was okay

I am waiting on the news conferences and what questions people like helen thomas will ask barry and then claim that its all in the idea of good journalism like they said when they attacked bush with questions

my money is on little more than softballs or jabs at the most

have a great day

We don't need to start our own country. We already have you by the balls. Just give us another $700 billion and you can keep our job

Take Goatman with you. Bush attacked America---not the other way around. Start your own fascist country---you can even have Bush as your President again.

???

I have no idea where I fit in with that post, but I think it's hiliarious I scare you so, bOoB. You relly are a coward the likes of I've never seen before

BOO!

LOL! Gotcha

"BOO!"

signed Bush

LOL! Gothca again! The bogeymen are right around the corner. Look out bOoB!

BL2

When you murder people, you are a murderer. Lots of Iraqi civilians are dead because of Bush. I see no difference in their deaths and murder. I see no difference in the Iraqi deaths than in the civilian deaths caused by Stalin.

t about all those innocent Vietnamese that Kennedy and LBJ killed. Wait a minute bombs away I forgot about all those dead civilians in Bosnia

"People like you hate America--hate freedom for women--gays--Americans in general by supporting Bush and his fascist ways."

I don't support Bush, and I have nothing against freedom for women or gays. The fact that you would think such a thing, all because I posted a thread exposing Obama for a fraud shows how narrow-minded you really are.

The only Change in the White House is the color of the President's skin.

You have no respect for the liberal foundations America was founded on

Yes, at the time the things the founding fathers fought for were considered liberal simply because they were so far removed from anything that had come before. Definitely far removed from the oppressive monarchy they were rebelling against.

However, if you actually read the Constitution as written, and the other writings of the founding fathers, you will find that the term liberal doesn't apply to them as it is used today. By today's standards their vision was a modern conservative's vision, not a liberal's vision.