Obama Wastes no Time in Breaking Campaign Promise

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023966.html

Obama, who pledged that "lobbyists won't find a job in my White House," has reneged.

Is it so difficult to find people willing to serve on his transition team who are not lobbyists? I'd rather take my chances with a sample of 200 Americans than his professional team.

If he cannot keep an unambiguous pledge, what about all the ambiguous promises?


27 Comments

Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.
3

I was hoping Joe the Plumber's buttcrack

RidingFool's picture

would make it, but as it turns out, he's not actually a plumber. So much for a reality check.

"New" Obama = "Old" Clinton

Missy-Busty's picture

Obama's administration is a trip back to the '90's It's full of Clintonites. Obama & Michelle are two Ivy League lawyers playing & pretending in Barbie's White House. Everyone says he "looks" so presidential. While looks don't count. The only thing different is you won't find any really ugly women like Maddie Albright, Janet Reno & Donna Shalala. Read Camille Paglia's latest column for a wake-up call.

So then,

RidingFool's picture

you're sayin' the '60s are over?

People need to be dissuaded

jazzdrive3's picture

People need to be dissuaded from the notion that Obama is actually much different from other politicians.  Better speaker, inspires hope, whatever.  He's still a politician.  Not only that, he's a Chicago politician.  To succeed in Chicago politics you have to be hardcore.

 

Think I'll wait til he actually becomes president

Rajah's picture

Before I start dumping on him

I seem to recall after Bush Sr. there was a recession...

TMundo's picture

...actually during the end of his term.  I know because my dad was unemployed.  They called it 'the recession' back then.  Then Clinton got elected and things got fixed.  Would it not be a bad idea to employ the same people that fixed the economy the last time?

What exactly was so bad about the Clinton administration?  With all the talk about Obama being inexperienced, wouldn't it make sence to have some folks in the white house that are experienced?  He's not going to hire republicans, so that seems to leave democrats.  Now which kind?  If he picks ones you've never heard of, you'll say they're too inexperienced.  So he picks experienced ones, and that's no good either?

I'm not harping on the

jazzdrive3's picture

I'm not harping on the Clinton Administration.  Clinton actually wasn't that bad, despite some glaring problems like his propensity to bomb stuff.

The point was that Obama has already broken a pretty publicized promise.  What other promises will be poltically expediant.

Don't put your hope on a mere politician, which Obama is.  They will always fail you.  TMundo, I would think that you, as a devout Christian, would understand this.  Give Caesar his due, but for God's sake don't bow down to him in awe and admiration.

And the recession mostly fixed itself, as they usually do after market corrections.  The best thing to say about Clinton in this regard was that he admirably got the hell out the way for the most part.  Obama probably isn't going to get out of the way, as he's already talking about the need to "save" the American auto industry with tax dollars.

 

Yeah, they could sit back and let the economy "fix" itself

Rajah's picture

Meanwhile unemployment soars even higher and people stop buying stuff because they have no money. It has a snowballing effect that can't be stopped. Yeah, I don't like this bailing out anymore than the rest of you. The CEO's of these auto companies should have switched to making fuel efficient cars years ago. Obama is going to have to do some unpopular things just like FDR did. What would you suggest he do instead? The difference between this president and others is he doesn't get a honeymoon. No year to ignore things like Bush when he first took office. I pretty much count on people second guessing every move he makes. Just be glad you're not in his shoes. My personal opinion after listening to the endless cast of pundits go on and on is that no one really knows what the fuck will fix this economy. I'll bet Obama would piss on a spark plug if he thought it would do any good. No, I don't put him up on a pedestal. Why he would want this job is beyond me but I don't question his motives. I see no hidden agenda here. If there is a God and she is talking to Obama I'll bet God is saying "ARE YOU CRAZY? WHATEVER MADE YOU THINK YOU COULD PULL OFF A MIRACLE?!"

Plenty of people know how to

jazzdrive3's picture

Plenty of people know how to fix the economy.  Just no one is listening to them, even though they are the ones in 2006 that predicted exactly the problems we are having now.  EXACTLY.  Also study the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle to why the problems came about.

Two of them are Peter Schiff and Jim Rogers.  And if you want to have anything coming out of this crisis (because it's going to get much, much worse if the government keeps trying to retool crap), then you'll also listen to some of their investment advice.  If I had listened back in 2006, I'd be about $100,000 richer. No joke.

Obama wants to bailout the Big Three Autos because the UAW is such a big lobbyist.  And if the companies go bankrupt, a judge will have the power to retool those ridiculous union contracts.  Bankruptcy is the best option, because that will clear out the current management and allow competant companies and investors to take over and make the industry lean, competitive, and profitable again.

If the companies go bankrupt, it's not like the factories and equipment will just dissapear.  Someone else more competant will utilize them.  This bailout is just the Union and Big Three upper management trying to save their own asses from their own stupid decisions at the taxpayers expense.

Bailing them out, redistributing the wealth, and printing more money to do so, only takes away from productive jobs elsewhere in the economy to prop up these overpaid union jobs.  Besides, it won't do any good.  They'll just be back in 6 months asking for more.

Same thing with most of the finance industry, which got itself into this mess partly because of greedy overextension, but also because of government policies that encouraged them to do so.  Let them fail and actual competant people take over.

It will be a bit painful.  But this correction has been a long time coming and needs to happen.  And the sooner and faster it happens, like ripping a band-aid off, the better we'll all be.  Current government policies will just prolong it and make things worse.  It's like trying to cure a heroin addict of his addiction by giving him more heroin.

 

When the steel industry collapsed no one took over the plants

Rajah's picture

Those jobs didn't return

Where are these competant people you speak of?

I have no confidence in the CEO's or Corporations. Most of them buy up a company only to scrape as much as they can off the top then dump it.

I don't think blaming it all on the unions is right either

So letting a Depression come about is the answer?

interesting....

Damned if he does, damned if he don't

Rajah's picture

He has to do something. Are you suggesting he do nothing?

I think it would be better if he helped stimulate smaller companies into producing electric cars and such.

But he can't just sit by and do nothing. That would be Bush or McCain's approach. I guess it would be fine if he just told the American people to wait it out for a few years. It will get better in the end.

Yes, he most certainly could

jazzdrive3's picture

Yes, he most certainly could do nothing, if he were smart.  But that's not politically tenable.  Politics is all about the moment.

But he can't just sit by and do nothing. That would be Bush or McCain's approach.

You really haven't been paying attention these last eight years, or to McCain.  Bush and McCain were both for the bailout.  Bush was/is a warmonger.  You can't get much more interventionist than that.  And the war and it's drain on the economy is part of the problem as well.  Bush hardly ever vetoed anything, either.

How anyone could think that Bush or McCain are acutally hands-off is beyond me.  Sure, they may pay lip-service to it every once and a while, but that's just their usual "lying through their teeth" bit.

Both parties are for severe intervention.  Sometimes they just differ slightly in where and how they want to intervene.

Of course, the big enabler is the Fed and their printing press.  Inflation is catching up with us, and will really start to hit us fast early to mid next year.  And God help us if they keep lowering the interest rate.

 

I would call all the deregulation a form of nonintervention

Rajah's picture

Perhaps it's more in the matter of appearances. You said so yourself, politically he can't standby and do nothing. The 700 billion bailout was Bush's attempt to appear to be doing something. Congress voting for it was to appear to be doing something. Yeah, some voted against it but that was more a tactic for getting reelected. The sad sad truth is the chances of getting elected are slim to anyone proposing to do nothing about it. People want action of some type. I wasn't around during the Depression but I've talked with people who were and they are of the opinion that the efforts of FDR did do some good.

Maybe we could have another good money making war like WWII!

What we really need is...

Rajah's picture

A program that the government can start that will appear to be doing something and at the same time do no harm. They should recruit cheerleaders, about a million or so, to go around to all the work places, shopping centers, parks and bread lines to cheer people on. This would boost morale in these hard times. If Obama can end that silly war in Iraq he would have plenty money for this project. Not only would this cheer us up it would also provide employment for millions of gorgeous babes!

 

And therein lies the

jazzdrive3's picture

And therein lies the fundamental problem with Democracy.  It's rule of the mob, and once the mob takes over with fear-based voting, there's not much hope.

FDR is a sacred-cow, and of course they think he did some good, because he was the savior, much like Obama, who was going to come in and fix everything.  And he certainly did a lot of stuff.  But economically speaking, taking out the emotional factor, his policies were disastrous and actually prolonged the Depression, particulary his gold-confiscation and price controls.

And the bailout was a form of price control.  Congress not wanting the failed firms' assets to be sold off at market prices, so they buy them at inflated prices.

And just what "deregulation" are you talking about?

First off, I don't praise Obama like he's a god or something...

TMundo's picture

...and second, I was responding to Miss Busty's post about how Obama was installing members of Clinton's old regime in the white house.  I don't see a problem with that.  Clinton for the most part, was a good president.  His biggest error being his infidelity with monika lewinski that took place while he was supposed to be working.  Also his lying about that scandal before congress.

Aside from that, we were left with a surplus, and the economy was good.  I see a pattern when at the end of Bush Senior's term, the economy is bad, then at the end of Clinton's term it's good again, then after Bush junior's term it's bad again.  Now Obama's picking CLinton's people again, I'm thinking that's reason to believe it will go up again.

Clinton is one of our smarter presidents

Rajah's picture

Yeah, he had trouble keeping his penis in his pants but that only proves he's human. Recently he said a smart thing about our economy. We've been putting too many of our investments down one hole "real estate". We need to invest more in other things like green technologies for instance.

Again, I'm not dogging

jazzdrive3's picture

Again, I'm not dogging Clinton.  Those were good years.  If only this Obama presidency was going to be tempered with a Republican Congress, I would have the same hope for this current one.

Party monopolies are only good for 3 types of people; the rich, the super-rich, and gvoernment workers/politicians.

This is partly why Bush's reign was so stupid.  He didn't have a hard-lined Democratic Congress to stem his drunken stupidity.  Of course, we got one in 2006, but they were too eager to bend over for him.

One comment

HS's picture

Normally I'd agree with you, but wouldn't it finally be nice to have some legislation passed these next two years without getting hung up in the wringer of partisan bickering?

 

HS

(sigh) Homie, that's just the sort of comment I would expect

Coaster's picture

from a typical pinko commie welfare statists white flag waving gun hating abortion loving liberal Democrat. 

Dang, I forget to mention godless. 

What is a pinko, anyway?

HS's picture

As for the other dirty words you just called me, I'm afraid that I resemble that remark.  :D

 

HS

I belive it's a type of Japanese bread crumb

Coaster's picture

Yeah, I know: The Japanese bread crumbs are panko.  

Pinko comes from the term "Red" meaning communist, so a pinko commie, a term common in the 50's and 60's, is redundant.  Yet, it is still fun to say. 

I wasn't putting all the

jazzdrive3's picture

I wasn't putting all the blame on the unions, but a big part of the problem are those ridiculous contracts.  As I said earlier, the management is made up of a bunch of fools whose plan of action to remain competitive is hoping the 1980's come around again.  But the companies are burning through money so fast it's crazy.  It's not sustainable, even with a bailout.

Of course you have confidence in several CEO's and Corporations.  You buy and use their products everyday.  Many people don't have confidence in American Car Corporations or there CEO's however, which is another part of the problem. 

Some are very good companies.  In the banking industry, there is BB&T, which has seem unprecented growth in this time where others are collapsing.  Why?  Because the CEO kept them out of the subprime free-for-all.  There are a few other large banks like this. Of course, they're not getting any of that $850 billion.

If some companies were allowed to "fail" and declare bankruptcy, their assets would go on a firesale and would be scooped up by solid companies like BB&T who know a little something about risk management and protecting their customers.

Who knows what would happen with the auto industry.  There's still obviously a demand for them because people are buying, so another company could make them profitable if they could get rid of the 2 ton weight of union contracts on the company shoulders.  These outragous prices also keep them from make really really cheap cars, because the margin just wouldn't be there.

So letting a Depression come about is the answer?

A depression is coming no matter what.  Period.  A correction will happen and there's nothing anyone can do about it.  The government can either get out of the way so it can run it's course in a year or two, or it can try and pump it with more of the disease and extend the pain for a decade like it did during the Great Depression.

I'll wager he does hire some Republicans

Coaster's picture

It's become traditional, starting with Lincoln, for a president to appoint at least one member from the rival party to his cabinet.  Further to that, Valerie Jarrett, a transition co-chair said, "Obama wants to function using a 'team-of-rivals approach, with differences of opinion.'"  There are over 2800 executive positions for which Obama can make an appointment, only 300 of which require congressional approval. 

To get a better idea of what's going on with this, you may want to look at this Time article.

I'll agree with Jazzy that Obama's wanting to bail out the auto industry was disappointing, BUT overall I'm encouraged by what I've seen of the President Elect thus far. 

So basically, you want politicians that are NOT politicians

Coaster's picture

The trouble with those kind of people is they rarely get elected.  At least the Obama campaign was a refreshing break from the legacy of Lee Atwater. 

You're awfully quick to judge the guy. Let's see what he does to put his campaign promises into action. I am well aware of the 230 billion dollar gap between what he promised and the revenue his tax plan would be likely to collect, but that figure was far less than the gap McCain would have been faced with had McCain's plan have been put into play. The four campaign promises I'll be monitoring most closely are extracting us from Iraq, providing a middle class tax cut, fixing health care, and his promising to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. Those four goals mean something to me, personally, and they are reasons why I voted Obama.  I didn't need to read them on some left-wing blog.

As Rajah suggested, why don't you wait until he's been there a while and you have actions by which you can judge the man.

I will bet you even odds that he neither screws interns like Clinton nor the middle class like Bush. 

I for one will be pissed if he goes back on his promise about ..

Rajah's picture

Iraq

The fact that he's already addressing the embarrassment at Gitmo looks promising

Gee, thanks for the Right-Wing Lew Rockwell Spin on that.

Coaster's picture

Here's a quote from one of Lew's three cited sources (Boston Globe)

"That is a step back and there is no other way of seeing it," said Craig Holman, who lobbies on governmental affairs for the watchdog group Public Citizen. Nonetheless, he said, Obama is still making "a very concrete effort to avoid what I consider a potentially corrupting situation."

The above refers to Obama's rule that no lobbyist may work in areas on the transition tieam related to their previous employment and that no transition team member may lobby the Executive for a period of one year after leaving the team.  If Public Citizen is favorably impressed, than I'm okay with it too.

Instead of nit-picking, why don't you celebrate the fact that the days of letting lobbyists formulate our energy policies in secret are over?  Jazzdrive, you can complain all you want about Obama, but the man would have to screw up repeatedly and big time to even approach the abysmal record of the man still holding the office. Personally, if I ever hear the words, "Stay the course" again, I just may puke.  Can you believe Bush actually said late in the Iraqi war effort that,"I've never been a 'Stay the course kind of guy'"?[coaster pukes]  I think it will refreshing and uplifting to have a person of Obama's character in charge for a change. Change. yeah. I like that word.  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.