Another Obama Nominee Seems to Run Afoul of Anti-Lobbyist Campaign Rhetoric

BertieW: "Lobbyists are usually the most knowledgeable people about a issue or industry."

This is a very important point. Just like corporations, lobbiests are not evil, and in fact provide a very valuable service to the country. They provide an enormous amount of free research to our government. Although it is important that they don't bribe officials, don't lie (officials need to check their research for veracity), and that all interests have one (all to often diffused interests - like taxpayers - don't have a lobbiest...).

Obama's demonification of lobbiests and free trade are two parts of his campaign that worried me (social liberal, fiscal conservative) so frankly this is one 'pledge' I'm honestly happy to see him 'break' (like when Bush Sr broke his 'no new taxes' pledge for the good of the country, albeit the detriment of his career).

"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.

jhw539,

Great comment.

Some people see in black and white, but everything is in gray, so what they see is completely based off opinion.

If they like it, its white.

If they hate it, its black.

Most Americans are certainly NOT liberal. Most mainstream Americans have traditional, conservative values.

Do you really have to put in the weasel words "insists it is abiding by..." Obama's team IS abiding by that pledge. You can certainly argue they backslid when they defined the pledge, but by the agreed definitions of the English language, they are meeting that pledge (at the moment) without debate.

Let me break every comment down:

If you like Obama,

then you think that Lobbying to stop kids from smoking is a great thing. Just because you discribe this action as "lobbying" doesn't change the fact that this man is trying to make our future healthier. You simply think of this man as a "reformer" or a "Health advisor," and not an evil lobbyists.

If you hate Obama,

You think that because you call this person by the discription "lobbyist" then he must be evil like the people who lobbied to remove the regulations on banking that caused the crisis we are in. You think that the word "lobbyist" must immediately mean that he is evil and selfish like most other people who are called lobbyists. Obviously if you call him a lobbyist, then Obama is a hypocrit because he is doing exactly what he said he wouldn't do, hire a lobbyist for the white house. The flaw in your logic is that this man is not the kind of lobbyist that Obama was refering too.

This same logic can easily be applied to the word "liberal." This word is a one-stop label to people who are "tree hugging hippies." The truth is that most Americans are liberal, and most of these liberals ARE NOT "tree huggers." This is just another way that people label other people so that they feel like they are superior.

BertieW: " "You can't see the difference between lobbiests working for an industry looking to maximize their profit from the public trough and a lobbiest working for a non-profit group supported by donations?"

There is always a justification. "

So I take it the answer is no, you see not difference between lobbying to enrich a private interest via pork barrel legislation and lobbying to advance the concerns of a large group of private citizens.

This sort of black and white zero-tolerance nonsense is exactly why Republicans governed so badly. For example, most Americans see a difference between lying about being a philanderer (Clinton) and lying about the need for a half trillion dollar (trillion dollar if we properly care for all our injured vets), 4,000+ American dead war (Bush). Republicans apparently don't - they're equal lies in their book. No shades of gray, no subtly in the world, just simplistic answers to every possible problem.

I just want to point out that Raytheon has nothing to with kids, tobacco, or cancer. Some of you apparently missed that part of the article.
____________________________________

No, but that's what Corr lobbied for, which is what I was talking about, not Raytheon.

Most of you are missing the point. He lied.

Also, say what you want about saving the children and such. Have at it. I just want to point out that Raytheon has nothing to with kids, tobacco, or cancer. Some of you apparently missed that part of the article.

Note the several supporting posts that argue that a lobbyist is acceptable if they agree with what he lobbied for (though that information is selectively distorted for convenience). Like Obama, these people have no principles or sensitivity to the slippery slope they advocate), just retoric to argue for a a conflicted cause. Most tyrants think the end justifies the means.

Obama's position regarding lobbyists has always been just rhetoric. It only ever affected Federal lobbyists, but State lobbyists were just fine and dandy, even though they may have lobbied for the same national and international corporations. It was always hypocritical. Why did nobody in the media question him about that during the primaries, or the general election, or at all?

His ardent followers, who are unable to recognise a liar when they see one, or to admit to themselves that they were taken in by a master con artist, will make differences between "good" lobbyists and "bad" lobbyists. Well, what's "good" for one person, may be "bad" for another, but they're both still lobbyists.

Tapper,
If you would have been half as intent on parsing every word GWB spoke, the country would be in lot better shape right now. We might have even been willing to elect another Republican. But just keep it up. That way President Obama will be assured of a full 8 years to turn this government around. By the way, where is your comment on that ridiculous news conference of Mr Bush, yesterday. What an embarasment to himself and to the United States.

Obama was elected because Americans could see the country going down the tubes as the result of Republican corruption. Yes, politicians are dishonest on both sides of the aisle, but Republicans equate public office with personal gain and have shown that they take every advantage. McCain's campaign manager still drew a salary from his lobbying firm while active in the campaign, but heck, if he could get away with it, what's the big deal. Regretfully, he did. Lobbying to keep the tobacco companies from killing children is a noble cause. Lobbying to give corporations the right to send jobs overseas while raking in huge CEO salaries sucks.

" You can't see the difference between lobbiests working for an industry looking to maximize their profit from the public trough and a lobbiest working for a non-profit group supported by donations?"

There is always a justification.
Car lobbyists are working to support the American worker
Farm lobbyists want to help support the family farmer.
ACORN lobbyists just want to make sure every vote is counted at least once.

I personally like Corr's type the least since he wants to erode peoples rights for his own pet ideological hobby horse.

Obama flip-flopped on positions repeatedly during his campaign. Now he abandons his campaign promises. Guess the "change" he sold hsi supporters was to change from appealing promises to dishonest politics. Welcome to Obama's United Socialist States of America. And he has not even taken office yet! Imagine the treachery to follow.

So this guy lobbies for higher cigarette taxes, smoke free work places and to prevent kids from starting to smoke? Sounds good to me! I see nothing wrong with people like this.

Umm, lobbying to keep kids smoke free as well as workplaces is terrible.

How dare Obama try and keep these kids off of cigarettes.

matt: "So, in Obama's world, lobbyists are clean if they're working for "good" causes? Makes no sense..."
Really? You can't see the difference between lobbiests working for an industry looking to maximize their profit from the public trough and a lobbiest working for a non-profit group supported by donations? One lobbiest is looking to direct your tax dollars, the other one is not. But if you see no difference then I guess that speaks more to your blinkered view than reality.

Hmmmm! He's such a liar. He has already breaking promise to the voters. I am glad that I didn't vote for him because he came form Chicago.

I guess this is the "change" that B.Hussein Obama was promising. Looks like the same ol' politics to me.