NYTimes: Obama transition tangled in ties to lobbying

[FreeStateDemocrat]

Source: NYTimes/MSNBC

Dozens of former influence seekers are among those getting jobs

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
The New York Times
updated 11:43 p.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 14, 2008

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama has imposed stricter conflict-of-interest restrictions on his White House transition team than any president before him. But a list of transition team members that his office made public on Friday includes a complicated tangle of ties to private influence-seekers.

Among the full roster of about 150 staff members being assigned to government agencies between now and Inauguration Day are dozens of former lobbyists and some who were registered as recently as this year. Many more are executives and partners at firms that pay lobbyists, and former government officials who work as consultants or advisers to those seeking influence.

After campaigning on promises to end the influence of lobbyists in the White House, Mr. Obama has imposed rules that bar officials on his transition team from handling any issues in areas of policy where they have lobbied over the last 12 months or from seeking to influence the same agencies for the next 12 months.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27728496/

[jody]

1. The more things change, the more they stay the same. n/t

[L0oniX]

5. Change ...like bringing back the Clinton geezers Madeline Albright & Warren Christopher?

[treestar]

12. They have to be qualified for the job, though

What's wrong with those two?

They'd know what they were doing. If you're talking foreign affairs, that's where Obama is said to need the most help.

Change does not have to mean putting anyone into an office just because they are new.

[Zhade]

30. Oh, just that Albright said the death of half a million Iraqi kids was "worth it"...

...to keep the sanctions in place.

That's a direct quote, btw.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Look. Washington is systemically polluted by the culture of lobbiests.

It would be hard to find a floor sweeper or driver that wasn't tainted. That said, the telling of the tale will be in how this administration moves forward from these realities and institutes firewalls between it, its people and lobbiests.

[underpants]

4. Did the NYT forget about the "no lobbying in the area you are working in" rule

from LAST WEEK?

you are right. When political operatives don't have campaigns to work on they lobby. Man's gotta eat you know :shrug:

[L0oniX]

7. Every ship has its rats n/t

[L0oniX]

3. I voted for Obama but I figured he'd lie like all the rest of em. He's just the lessor of 2 evils.

If you didn't want more of the same you should have voted for Kucinich.

[ananda]

8. We need more Kuciniches.

nt

[knixphan]

21. Hell yes.

[still_one]

6. fuck the nytimes, judith miller and other merchants of misinformations who helped

push us into a war based on lies

At least Obama is trying to setup a standard, and though it may not be perfect at least it is a start

Even the article mentions that, but it sure wants to highlight in key words the "tangled ties to lobbyists"

Where were they the last eight years

In fact, since the election the airtime given to the extreme right wing has been so unbalanced they should be embaressed

I think tonight larry king is interviewing palin

The whole media in this country is a joke

I am not saying that they should not be critical of an Obama administration, but please tell me where the f**k they were the last eight years

[Triana]

10. The media IS a joke. They pretentiously pretend to present factual, 'fair and balanced' news when..

....what they REALLY present is their corprat owners' (read: Republicans) views. So goddamned slanted you can cross-country ski down it. The media was soft on bu$hit/BFEE - they will be NASTY to Obama. Get ready for a tandem of the lame$team media and the GOP to attack Obama RELENTLESSLY on every thing he does (or doesn't do) and any petty, rediculous thing they can find to attack him on - for the next four solid years. They will underreport or ignore anything good or factual, and blow out of proportion and sensationalize anything else. They will MAKE stuff up if they have to. They've done it before.

The are the propaganda arm of the GOP and little else.

They will LYNCH Mr. Obama on the airwaves and in print and on radio. That's their objective. They always do that to Dems while giving the Grand Old Pretentious party a free ride.

I H8 the lame$tream media. I mean I DESPISE those bastards. They are at least as big a problem as terrorists. They need a sledgehammer taken to their 7-corprat ownership stronghold and the Fairness Doctrine needs to be reinstated. Time to bust the bastards.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Impossible to exaggerate their moral turpitude.

[cliffordu]

14. Yep.

[Mari333]

9. sigh..

'John L. White, a former Clinton official charged with overseeing the new Defense Department, is a partner in a firm that invests in defense contractors. Michael Warren, charged with overseeing Treasury, is chief operating officer of a firm that lobbies for clients including the U.S.-India Business Council.'
just sigh.

[elbram]

11. corporate influence has purposefully targeted those with government experience

I think corporate influence has targeted so many of those that would be considered most qualified to run our government that it might be very hard to find many without some sort of ties to it.

As long as the Obama administration has strict controls in place, which I am sure they are focused on, they should be just fine. They seem to only be in the "candidate interview" phase right now anyway...

[shireen]

13. it's not easy

to find people with expertise in a specific field AND experience dealing with it in government. That's why there are so many lobbyists involved. But not all lobbyists are evil. There are good ones and bad ones. Obama is a very wise man; he knows how to get what he needs out of them. I'm not worried.

[Gin]

15. Hire me...I am unemployed....and have no ties to lobbyists.

[Realityhack]

19. and your field of expertiese and experience?

The poster you responded to makes a valid point. The Obama administration may be able to do better but...
it IS hard to find people who are actually qualified for these potions without any past ties to interest groups.

[Politicalboi]

25. Me too

I smoke the bud and am gay but I could work for Obama. And as far as taking all ex Clinton people. Obama has a big mess on his hands and he is using everyone who can help him right now. I bet in 4 years after he is reelected he will bring in new young people who can be trained by the Clinton people.

[Realityhack]

20. Well said. n/t

[jwirr]

22. I agree with what you just said. In order to find qualified people one

will be forced to deal with people who know and have worked with lobbyists. The trick is to make the influence of the lobbyists less of a problem - transparent. If we can see what is going on then we can control it. NO SECRET energy meetings!

[Doremus]

16. There are 33 lobbyists for every member of congress.

Probably a hell of a lot more than that, but that's the figure I read last year.

Where the hell is Obama supposed to get his staff from? A Jesuit Order?

If they aren't IN congress, 99.999% of people with any skill/experience/talent in politics have been or are lobbyists.

He's instituted restrictions which is a far cry from what anybody else ever did. I give him credit for that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. Precisely. As Triana said, they'll find any way to vilify Obama and the Democrats

they can, and where they can't, they'll make stuff up.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

23. Obama is working on a transition of power

This is not something to be taken lightly, and he needs the benefit of those with experience. To have experience in Washington, you have to have been around and there's not much chance of avoiding the "taint."

That said, I firmly believe that Obama himself is a stand-up guy, and unlike his predecessor, HE'S be the one in charge. He's dealing with the employee pool that's available to him, has put safeguards in place, and what lobbyist connections his transition team might have is irrelevant.

I think we need to trust the guy. For now, at least.

[Baby Snooks]

24. A portent of things to come...

The reality of the Obama administration is it is beginning to look like we will have a Clinton White House to go with it and so the Bush-Clinton dynasty and its oligarchy will continue on.

The reality of the "restrictions" is that while Barack Obama may have an inherent sense of ethics, many of the people he is hiring to form policy and develop strategy do not.

Hillary Clinton being offered the position of Secretary of State is a good example if not the best example.

There are immediate conflicts-of-interests because of Bill Clinton's ties to the Persian Gulf countries that are making him quite rich with his "wheeling and dealing" which no doubt explains why he and George HW Bush are always smiling in the never-ending photos of the two of them. And of course the relationship between Bill Clinton and George HW Bush is in itself the biggest conflict-of-interest of all.

There are any number of people with the experience to fill these positions who have never been lobbyists and yet the lobbyists are the ones whose experience "qualifies" them for the jobs?

Something wrong with the picture. Same thing that's wrong with the picture every time there's a picture of Bill Clinton and George HW Bush.

[junior college]

32. At least the Clinton side of the Bush-Clinton dynasty is in power n/t

[ryanmuegge]

26. Actions matter more than talk. No excuses should be made for this.

[quiet.american]

28. I find the article title a bit misleading -- it gives the impression no efforts are being made.

In reading the article, though, it's clear there are many efforts being made to effect change in the way lobbyists press their influence throughout an administration. It's not perfect, but I don't read this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge. The whole first two-thirds of the article details how his administration is making an effort to control wholesale lobbying.

[quiet.american]

27. WTF is this Kool-Aid passage near the end of this piece:

What is this Kool-Aid passage near the end:

Jami Miscik, leading a review of American intelligence agencies, was the head of intelligence analysis at the Central Intelligence Agency during its biggest embarrassment: the botched assessments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

You'd think the press would have learned it's lesson by now, but they apparently still can't get enough of assisting the Bush/Cheney war criminal efforts. That passage completely ignores the by now well-known pressure exerted by Cheney over the CIA; the purging of analysts that didn't go along with them, the McCain glimmer in the eyes of "let's attack Iraq," after 9/11, the Rumsfeld glimmer in the eye of "let's attack Iraq!" after 9/11, all of Richard Clarke's testimony about Bush's demanding "let's attack Iraq" hours after 9/11, Condoleeza's Rice's "mushroom clouds" B.S., Colin Powell's now well-known pack of lies at the UN -- :grr:

[No Elephants]

33. There have been lobbyists in every administration. Where was the NYT hiding until some guy

who tries to minimize their impact got elected?

[CreekDog]

29. what of lobbyists for the Children's Defense Fund, unions, environmental groups, etc.?

did i miss the memo that said all lobbyists were bad people and corrupt?

[goforit]

31. Quite frankly there is no way you can avoid it. Everyone is a lobbyist at one point

or another. But I would be concerned hiring someone directly employed by Haliburton
or AIG or Carlyle ...a huge conflict of interest.