Political Punch

You Republicans just don't get it. You lost. The job of the new administration is to work on the objectives Obama set out during the campaign. How well he does this is how we are going to judge whether he kept his pledge to us. One of these objectives was to defend the public interest against the thousands of business lobbyists that infest Washington. These people seek to promote business interests over public interest.
So we look at appointments and ask whether they are consistent with the objectives. Hence I do have a concern with this Raytheon man but I was actually paying a compliment to the writer when I supposed his reference to Willian Corr was a sick joke. I assumed he could tell the difference between an objective and a means to that objective.

You Republicans just don't get it. You lost. The job of the new administration is to promote the causes he promised to promote during the campaign. This is how we are going to judge whether he kept his pledge to us.
So we look at appointments and ask whether they are consistent with the objectives. Hence I do have a concern with this Raytheon man. But I still trust.
Ultimately results will count.

Obama put all lobbyists in the same category when he said lobbyists rather then perhaps "lobbyists for causes I disagree with". The author of this article simply pointed out the fact that Obama is doing different then he said during the campaign trail.

Nor should any lobbyists be involved in government, sorry close minded individuals that want the world run just you way, we all have a voice. That remark is to those of you that think its all ok because it is a "good cause". Quite a few of the comments remind me of the same thing Bush was accused of so often, only appointing those that supported the views of the right. Its hypocritical to say its ok if Obama does it because we agree with his cause, but not ok if the other guy does because we disagree with his views.

This article is a sick joke.
A lobbyist for a public interest group does not create a danger to the public interest.
As a member of the public I like the idea of spokesmen for the public interest getting jobs in the Obama administration.
The ex Raytheon man is another matter. Maybe we should find out more about him. We might find out why he was made an exception to the policy.

The word "Lobbyist" is usually looked upon as negative, rather than positive.

Would you want corporate lobbyists to run goverment than public-interest lobyists?

Just remember that, lobbyists are middleman job (It can be general public, coporate CEO, or simply pursuing his/her voice alone)

As I've said and others have, there is a world of difference between a corporate lobbyist (seeks legislation and contracts for the profit of a company) and a public-interest lobbyist (who seeks government intervention on topics harmful to the public). Mr. Corr is no one to fear. Think about it. The world is not only black and white.

And to nathan, if you read carefully, no one is saying smoking should be illegal. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids simply wanted the FDA to regulate tobacco. And well they should, as tobacco's use affects health so adversely. Did you know that cigarette companies put many chemicals on the tobacco? There are 43 known carcinogens in their smoke. Would smoking result in as many deaths if these harmful chemicals weren't added to the tobacco? In my opinion the FDA should be involved in something that is poisoning so many people. Any product that is addictive and harmful should be regulated to protect the public. That's what we are paying the FDA to do. There shouldn't be exceptions, especially of this magnitude.

After the US elected Bush, I never thought we would make a stupid mistake in choosing the wrong man for POTUS again.

I was wrong. Obama will be worse.

Obama is a hypocrit. This man is a lobbyist. Just because smoking is bad for you doesn't mean it should be illegal. BUT just because Obama may not be following the platform that he ran on, isn't a bad thing. This, and I am a republican, shows me that he is trying his best to follow his word, while keeping the best in mind for our country.

However, there is still a lot about him that is weird and shrouded in a cloud that the media refuses to expose. He continues to talk about "change, reform, and a new washington", but have we seen anything so far that suggests this? With the rising conflict in the middle east involving Isreal, shouldn't we be a little more worried about our world? It seems that with every passing day the predictions of the Bible are coming true. We have seen the deserts bloom (oil), a temporary peace in the middle east, the rebuilding of Babylon "Bagdad - boy did we get screwed with this one... the American tax payers are paying for this one), and now even more violence. When does the lion lay with the lamb?? Does anyone else think that all these events that have/are occurred as a little bit more than a quincedence? Or maybe the Beast has shown his head and we are too busy listening to him talk about change, reform, and coming together....

Just a thought.

Well -- let's face it. Obama lied.

"Mr. Obama's campaign pledge did not differentiate between lobbying for causes he approved of, and one he didn't."

Jake, this is not the relevant distinction.

There is, I think, a world of difference between a lobbyist for a nonprofit and a lobbyist for corporate interests.

"When I am president, they won't find a job in my White House," Mr. Obama said at a campaign event in Spartanburg, SC, in November 2007.

Yeah, Obama was VERY busy lying his butt off in South Carolina. He lies, redefines, waffles, wiggles.

He's a mob-friendly Republican-lite hustler in a birthday suit. Nice going, media guys ... think how things would be going now if John Edwards were about to be president ... Edwards certainly wouldn't be begging Bush to give ANOTHER few hundred billion to the banks.

That just shows, that if you holler CHANGE loud and often enough, people will follow, even if the have no clue what the change will be.

"Can anyone honestly look at the facts about the harm tobacco does to health and say William Corr was on the wrong side of the issue for public good with his previous lobbying? "

Can anyone honestly look at the economic state of the American farmer and how much we spend on foreign oil and and say that Ethanol lobbyists are on the wrong side of the public good?

Lydia: Your comment does make a lot of sense; however - the issue isn't whether it's a "good" lobby or a "bad" lobby. Obama said he wouldn't hire lobbyists to be part of his administration. This is twice now he's gone back on that promise. THAT'S the problem here.

Regarding those who voted for Obama believing he really planned on doing all the stuff he promised: P.T. Barnum was right.

Can anyone honestly look at the facts about the harm tobacco does to health and say William Corr was on the wrong side of the issue for public good with his previous lobbying?
William Corr will be a public servant and has shown he has the public's well-being at heart, not some corporation's profits. That should be the litmus test for anyone hired who has been a lobbyist.
(Since tobacco is extremely addictive and harmful and the cigarette companies put all kinds of nasty chemicals in to boot, it all should be looked at and regulated by the FDA. Their job is to protect the public from harmful substances.)

liberal are usually the ones cramming down your throat how they love everybody but they are usually the least tolerant and most hateful ones in the world

Yes General George Washington was a LIBERAL that owned slaves.

I still can't figure out what a LIBERAL would be doing being a GENERAL like Washington

Jake T when are you going to learn that Obama hoodwinked every body with his pointing the finger at everybody else and his HOLIER then THOU attitude.

"Let me break every comment down:"

Third position here, Tim.

Lobbyists are usually the most knowledgeable people about a issue or industry. After all they knew enough to get paid in the field. Therefor excluding them just because of their background is disadvantageous to government policy making.

If they still have loyalty to their previous employer or ideology then that is a separate issue that would cause concern. "

Good point, that is the gray color that some people can not see.