Please, what is the justification for these ethic rules "waivers"? What was the point of

[CTyankee]

establishing rules and guidelines about former lobbyists working in the Obama Administration if they are going to be "waived", and not just once, immediately after?

We progressives need an explanation right now. We have defend our president (and we do) but this makes it difficult...

[KittyWampus]

1. sometimes it's about competence

[tyne]

2. For one....

Sec Gates urged the waiver for Lynn. Obama gave it to him.

Just sayin.

[Thrill]

3. Obama appoints hundreds of people. And he asks for 2 waivers

and people go crazy. You don't deserve an explanation. He asked for the waivers because he thought the people were the best for the positions.

[CTyankee]

4. I'm not saying I "deserve" an explanation. I am saying that waivers, coming on the heels of the

public announcement of the ethics rules, don't look good. Obama is one who "deserves" better than this. We need to stay forceful in our support for our president. If there are reasons, fine, let the public know if for nothing more than to put a sock in the mouths of the naysayers...

[Paulaguyon]

10. Then Obama should have said "I will appoint very few lobbyists"

But his exact campaign words during the campaign were:

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

To me it boils down to this: it is much more appealing to voters to hear "no lobbyists" than saying "with a few exceptions."

[EffieBlack]

15. Yes, he should have said that

Unfortunately, he boxed himself into a corner on this one.

[biopowertoday]

5. There is a mentality that says these people are just too good

not to have them at top people in the administration. I think that is wrong. Plenty of smart people out there that obey the rules. It sends the wrong message to all.

[emilyg]

6. I agree.

[phleshdef]

7. The people who got the waivers never disobeyed any rules.

[nsd]

9. ..

[biopowertoday]

12. oh but 'forgeting' is sooooooooooo convenient.

[EffieBlack]

8. In reality, sometimes the most qualified people have worked as lobbyists

When people leave government, if they stay in Washington, there's a good chance they will work, in some capacity, as lobbyists. There's nothing wrong with that at all. They have considerable experience in their field and it's perfectly logical - not to mention perfectly legal - for them to put their experience to good use.

Lobbyists are not all evil and greedy. Yes, some are little more than glorified pimps. But most are simply advocating for issues they believe in. The NAACP has lobbyists. The National Organization for Women has lobbyists. The Chidren's Defense Fund has lobbyists.

One of the primary reasons that yesterday's House and Senate compromise didn't zero out housing, job training and education programs that the Republican "moderates" tried to eliminate was that lobbyists (hired and in-house) for non-profit housing, education and civil rights groups busted their asses on Capitol Hill lobbying members to put the funding back into the final bill.

I think it's a shame that anyone who has ever lobbied is now being tarred by some as corrupt and unfit for government service. Some of these lobbyists are the absolute best for these positions. They know and care about the issues, they know the people and they understand the process. And many of these people are willing to take big paycuts to go back into government for no other reason than that they care.

Sadly, some people now insist that they aren't good enough because they spent their careers fighting to protect us.

That's really too bad.

[acmavm]

11. Bullshit to the 'competency' argument. Not one person here can justify

Vilsack's appointment. Not after his stint as a Monsanto whore. He's worse than Daschle was.

<snip>

Vilsack’s business as usual positions have included the following:

· Vilsack has been a strong supporter of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.

· The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He is also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.

· When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child for economic development was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

· The undemocratic 2005 seed pre-emption bill was the Vilsack’s brainchild. The law strips local government’s right to regulate genetically engineered seed.

· Vilsack is an ardent supporter of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more energy to produce as they generate and drive up world food prices, literally starving the poor.


-MORE-
http://www.counterpunch.org/cummins12182008.html

Some people can and will accept any excuse when it comes to their hero.

[GeorgeGist]

13. SOS ...

different Ahole.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Paving a way of making the Perfect the enemy of the Good is

a madman's road.

[liberalsince1968]

16. There is NO justification. Obama did something he said he wouldn't do.

No other way to spin it.

[EffieBlack]

18. Horrors!

God forbid a president change his mind after realizing that maybe his original plan isn't feasible.

Yes, it's SO much better to have a president who stands firm on every issue no matter. The more stubborn and obstinate the better.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

[Uzybone]

17. Horrible isn't it

Impeach now!

Not that we have anything to worry about.