There’s more detailed discussion of the lobbyist issue at Politifact (which is the St. Petersburg Times):
http://www.politifact.com/trut…
Obama’s promise about lobbyists was a regular part of his stump speech. He said it on the campaign trail again and again. He used it to sharply contrast himself with John McCain, who had former lobbyists on his campaign staff. Obama’s comments against lobbyists were some of the biggest applause lines of his rallies, especially as the economy was roiled in September and October 2008.
“Make no mistake: We need to end an era in Washington where accountability has been absent, oversight has been overlooked, your tax dollars have been turned over to wealthy CEOs and the well-connected corporations,” Obama said at an Oct. 1 campaign stop in Wisconsin. “You need leadership you can trust to work for you, not for the special interests who have had their thumb on the scale. And together, we will tell Washington, and their lobbyists, that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. You have. They will not run my White House. You’ll help me run my White House.”
We previously rated this promise a Compromise while we waited to see whether Lynn was confirmed and how the Obama White House handled its waiver process. Some have said that Lynn alone caused the promise to be broken, but we felt that a transparent, timely and objective waiver process might merit a ruling of Compromise. But the concerns about waivers and recusals outlined above have convinced us that this promise is not being kept in letter or in spirit, and a Compromise rating is no longer appropriate.
Obama was very clear with his promise. He said no lobbyists would “work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” No means none. Promise Broken.
I think it’s time to let Obama know that we are paying attention, and that we do expect him to do more than pay lip service to the promises he made during the campaign.
The influence of the financial industry in the Obama Administration is large, unseemly, wrong, and dangerous.
Mr. Obama announced that Joe Biden was his running mate. There’s a reason Joe was dubbed “Senator Biden, D-MBNA,” instead of Delaware. MBNA was one of the largest banks around until it was acquired by BofA. Biden has always been a big fan of the credit card companies, which is why bankruptcy regulations have changed so significantly in the last few years. No one should be surprised by any of this.
<
p>http://www.philly.com/philly/b…
Bumper sticker: “Where’s the Change?”
I understand the frustration, but really. Obama’s been president for three months.
<
p>Three months.
The “three months” thing is valid (to a point) for things that Obama just hasn’t gotten around to yet, or even things where there is immense inertia.
<
p>But it seems rather irrelevant to respond “three months” when Obama is actively forming bad policy, either with this or with, say, state secrets. There’s really no defense for that if the policy is truly wrong (as I believe it is).
I don’t think the Obama administration is necessarily wedded to any policy yet. I think it’s still navigating and toe-dipping. And there’s nothing to say that the policies that aren’t cool can’t be changed, modified, and even abandoned. Obama is not Bush; just because he starts down a path doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to stay on it right off the cliff.
I’m not Jewish, but I was extremely moved by the idea of Obama hosting a Seder at the White House. I don’t understand why that hasn’t happened before.
<
p>The foreign policy changes sound good. I was pleased that he got a stimulus through, and I think that legislative realities kept it too small. The budget sounds very good.
<
p>I’m somewhat concerned about secrecy and our handling of terrorist suspects. I confess I’ve stayed away from reading that Glenn Greenwald and others. At this point, that’s a smaller concern for me.
<
p>The biggest concern is the one Taibbi addresses: the Administration has consistently lost its way on banking. Many on the left were concerned about Obama’s lack of outreach to the left. For example, left-wing economists are severely under-represented in his circle of advisers. That concern, though, pales against the outsized influence of Goldman Sachs and of people like Summers.
<
p>Getting banking right, that’s priority one. Mess it up, we get an depression or the country goes deeper into debt for nothing. Getting banking right, as the Swedes proved and the Japanese discovered, requires decisiveness, honesty, and transparency. The Obama Administration has provided dithering, stupid excuses for over-valued assets, and a confidence-sapping lack of transparency. These are very, very bad signs.
<
p>I don’t want a lost decade here.
there are significant and alarming issues, but, still, these things must be put into context. There is plenty of room and time to move this administration to the left. If it is, indeed, immovable, then we have serious problems. Taibbi is a bright guy and I value what he does, but there are some judgments that require aging. The picture is so complex; I simply cringe when the criticism feels more like back-seat driving than historical and contextual analysis.
should we be alarmed? How far down the “significant and alarming” road is far enough? I’m just asking.
http://www.google.com/search?h…
Zero for sheer stupidity.