TYT: Hypocrisy in the Obama Administration?

[ejbr]

Run time: 05:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WUqjvl5_Lc   Posted on YouTube: January 24, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 24, 2009 By DU Member: ejbr Views on DU: 1666

 
"Yes, but keep it in perspective."

[acsmith]

1. well, the integrity thing was good while it lasted.

[ihavenobias]

2. Did you watch the clip? It's not that simple.

K & R, Cenk nails it here with his fresh perspective. Yet another example of why .

[Wizard777]

3. Obama needs to replace Lynn with someone that conforms to the policy or revise the policy to allow -

for Lynn. As far as the gotcha game goes. It's a valid gotcha. In his Baltimore speech Obama said he will make mistakes. That's fine as long as Obama promptly admits those mistakes and take the proper action to correct those mistakes. So the question is, was the mistake in the hiring of Lynn or the formulation of the policy? Once that question is answered. What action that is needed to correct that mistake will be perfectly clear. It's really that simple.


Edit: promptly admitted and corrected my mistakes. :blush:

[Celebration]

6. this was handled adequately in the press conference

The rule is a general rule, but it will not be 100% as far as past lobbying ties. It will be 99%. A few people are needed by the administration who have had the lobbying ties, and Obama will not exclude them just to satisfy the general rule. In his eyes that would be stupid. So, Lynn fits into the 1% exceptions, and going forward, he will be subject to the same lobbying rules.

This sounds totally reasonable to me. I mean, I know nothing about Lynn. Since this is a self imposed rule, I see no reason not to make exceptions to it when called for. He is being open about it. The past lobbying ties are known; they are highlighted, in fact, for us and the press to see. I am just going to guess here that Raytheon will get no favoritism because of this past lobbying tie. Uh, we would all know about it, if that happened. Then, and only then, would it be time to get upset.

[robinlynne]

9. Why is Lynn needed? Why do we need a highpowered lobbyist in the number 2 pentagon seat?

just because Gates requested him. This man is responsible for the legal theft of billions of dollars from our public coffers.

[Celebration]

11. That, I don't know

But I gotta suspect there will be a whole lot of pressure on this guy not to favor Raytheon. It would be better for Raytheon NOT to have him in this job. That is just my guess of course.

[robinlynne]

13. That doesn't matter. This is a man who spent years selling crap to our government and stealing

taxpayer money. I do not believe he can possibly represent the best interests of our country all of a sudden. There is a REASON not to have lobbyists in the government. Not just because of one particular company.
Unless the person has been lobbying for CITIZENS rights or for NATURE or SCIENCE, it is not ok with me to put them in office.

[pleah]

4. My opinion, either adhere to your rule or don't, but

don't go wishy-washy on it. The minute that it was stated who this guy worked for sent an icy shiver down my spine.

[OhioChick]

5. K&R

:kick:

[robinlynne]

7. I for one am strongly against a defense contractor lobbyist in a high position in the

Pentagon. 1000% against this man taking office. The PEntagon is where most of our antional corruption takes palce. This is the man who successfully sold billions of dollars worth of useless weaponry to our country. The Pentagon was missing 3 trillion dollars at last count, which was during Rummy's time. Come on there is somene better for the job! Wesley Clark, why not, for example?

[ihavenobias]

14. You raise an excellent point, where the hell is Wesley Clark and why is he not in the Obama Admin?

It's such a no-brainer.

[Seldona]

15. I am with you there.

Although I believe Wes has taken his hat out of the ring so to speak. Sad.

[ihavenobias]

16. I'm not sure if *he* took it out or if someone took it out for him.

I'll be pissed to find out it's the latter.

[Life Long Dem]

8. Shoot first and ask questions later?

??

[soulcore]

10. Now that's Change I can believe in!

:sarcasm:

Either follow the rules or don't. It's shady to break the rules this early on, especially since the administration made them in the first place.

[Celebration]

12. "the rules"

It was never meant to be a 100% rule, but a general guideline. When there are exceptions made, they are highlighted for all to see, as was done in this case.

[20score]

17. K&R.

[ihavenobias]

18. Kick n/t

[Redstone]

19. Ah, ba, uh, buh, well, I uh, the, you know, well, the thing is, uh...

Get a lot more articulate and I might listen to you, dude.

Redstone