Obama scores well for first year on ethics, say watchdog groups

[ProSense]

Obama scores well for first year on ethics, say watchdog groups

By Kevin Bogardus

President Barack Obama scores well among ethics watchdog groups in his first year in office, though they’d still like to see more from the president.

<...>

“After the last eight years, it is refreshing to see a president, through his rhetoric and action, who understands the way that the system works is a problem. That just a great place to start with,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center.

<...>

“What I find most encouraging is that there is a core group of people at the White House who genuinely care about these issues,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at Federation of American Scientists. “There is now ‘someone to talk to’ at the White House in a way that there wasn’t before. And we are already starting to see some results from those conversations, such as the Open Government Directive, and other emerging policies.”

<...>

“The greatest surprise is just how extensively these revolving door restrictions apply,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. “Obama has ushered in the first-ever policy addressing ‘reverse’ revolving door abuses: screening potential nominees to the federal government and managing conflicts of interest among appointees so as to prevent special interests from ‘capturing’ the agencies that regulate them.”

more

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

2. These groups have a much better understanding of ethics

than you ever will.

[ixion]

4. apparently not

because they think someone who has continued bush-era policies is acting ethically, which I find intellectually dishonest.

Now back to the Kool-Aid® buffet with you.

[MH1]

5. Obama has changed several policies, which you would know if you read the article.

But your mind is already closed, apparently.

Oh and I don't drink Kool-Aid ... strictly fair trade coffee for me, my friend.

[ixion]

13. not closed at all

if Obama were to start behaving in an ethical manner, I would be the first to change my opinion.

I'm waiting for that to happen. I don't really expect it will. In all fairness, it is impossible for ANY US President to behave ethically. Overall, there have been some small changes, but the things that matter -- the very ugly and unpleasant things -- are still very much in place.

[MH1]

6. and they aren't giving him a pass either

although it appears their focus is somewhat different than yours:

But McGehee said Obama nees to spend more political capital next year on ethics issues, even though this could cause fights with Congress.

“It is like an appetizer. The main course is yet to come,” McGehee said.

[SargeUNN]

11. What ???

Ah another if I am not miserable and griping, then I am not happy person. Holy cow, if Obama gets a good statement made some of you take it as an insult, if he does something good then it is time to forget and look for something to disagree with. This is hideous and insulting since apparently you would rather have McCain in office instead. Well keep trashing Obama and that is what you will get. Certainly he isn't perfect and makes decisions that we disagree with, but pick up the phone and call the White House and congress instead of wasting time posting and not following up on it.

We seem to have people who are as much a part of teabaggers on our side and acts foolish. Disagree with Obama for sure, but to be an obsticle is stupid.

[ixion]

12. *sigh* unfortunately, I do not practice "relative ethics"

which is what you propose.

When Obama uses the Bush Doctrine to justify our continued hostile occupation of that Afghanistan, and further extends it to include Pakistan and Yemen, et. al, when his justice department provides cover for war criminals and makes every effort to see that lawsuits challenging their criminal acts go unheard, when one bush-era policy after another is renewed -- the same policies I spent 8 years railing against -- well, I'm sorry to not be able to use pretzel logic and suddenly declare all these behaviors ethical.

I put truth and ethics above party, rather than subordinate to.

[SargeUNN]

14. what do you practice?

I do a radio show and I hear people gripe about everything good or bad and even get a few right wing callers, sometimes I can't tell the difference because so called progressives sound just like the right wingers. You seem to be confused as changing things isn't done overnight and when people you should be able to count on to help you see what do to make change quit on you then you have to find a way to try and figure out what to do.

I call the White House and congress. I go to see congress members when they are in the area and talk to them. Yes somethings I am disappointed in but having built football programs and worked on Katrina issues for all these years, I find just griping doesn't cut the mustard and just feeds the ones doing the damage.

So if you help feed the ones that want to continue the problems, then what ethics are you practicing? If you expect Eutopia then you are too idealistic for your own good, and you need to stop and think a little more. I have seen people in Mississippi hurting from Katrina and they still support the Repubican crap that brought them to this stage. They think Obama is bad and McCain would have been great. I have to tell them what a miserable Senator McCain is for the people here in AZ. and it is soaking in to them. No Obama isn't perfect, but his record of progress is greater than JFK's was. Things have to be seen in a total picture not some fantasy world.

[ixion]

31. It's very simple: The Golden Rule

I'm not religious, I have more of a spiritual bent. However the concept of the Golden Rule goes along way.

It's very simple. Would you like it if Pakistan were flying drones over your city and launching raids on people they called "terrorists"?

I doubt very much that you would. And I know for a fact that the US Government wouldn't tolerate that for one minute. Not for one second.

So for the reverse to be okay simply because of self-proclaimed "American Exceptionalism" -- for actions like that and the continued hostile occupation(s) to be justified using the Bush Doctrine, a doctrine which I reject in its entirety because of the flawed premise -- well, that is something I simply cannot accept. I didn't accept it when Bush did it, and I certainly don't see why that should change just because the person commanding the action has changed. The act is unacceptable in-and-of-itself, no matter who performs it.

And I don't see the WH and Congress as being capable of effectively changing the status quo. Therefore my critiques of the Obama administration are going to be consistent with my critiques of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and so on.

That is, I am not concerned about the actor, but the action. That is what I mean when I use the phrase "relative ethics".

I don't really consider it Utopian, just consistent, common sense.

[live love laugh]

72. Why weren't you ranting and raving about it while Bush did it then? nt

[ixion]

73. uh, I was

I've been ranting about it since he was (s)elected.

In fact, I've been ranting about it since the days of Reagan.

[old mark]

3. Rec. I'm glad to see something positive on the administration, even if it's already been

unrec'd here. Sevaral RW er replies to the original article read like they could have been written by some of the "Democrats" here, just with a little more hate but similar limited insight.

mark

[Mari333]

7. I prefer one of the responses

'I would feel better about transparency in the government if the torture pictures were released, if the war criminals of the last "administration" were brought to trial, if Obama didn't take single payer off the table from day one, and if the white house made a real honest push to financial election reform'

I add to that the Nuremberg protocols being dumped by Obama.
Not happy about Gitmo and lack of real trials for people either.

[FLAprogressive]

8. +1

[Dappleganger]

9. K&R

[itsrobert]

10. How ethical is it to campaign on a public option

And then not do it and then say you were never for it?

[MH1]

15. Link to where Obama said "public option" please

This has been puzzling me for awhile. I don't recall Obama ever mentioning that phrase before the bill got into debate and the compromise was made to have a public option instead of single payer.

Obama would have signed single payer if it got to his desk, and you know it.

[itsrobert]

47. You are not serious?

Pull it out. Don't try and deny he never implied he was for a public option. You are playing 'cute' games on different phrasing is not going to change that.

[MH1]

55. I am serious. Obama campaigned on health care reform.

I don't recall anything about a public option. I do recall the mandates issue. That is a valid critique, but he explained why he changed on that. I would say in either case, his hand was forced by the makeup of the senate. People who don't like what came out of the senate should put their energy to changing the senate.

[Bluebear]

61. For you >>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7318893

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7318881

[ProSense]

63. Campaign promises are what President's set out to do

Reality is what happens when Congress gets involved.

Of course, Obama could have failed like Clinton did in 1994, but fortunately he has succeeded in bringing reform one step away from becoming a reality.

Obama provided nearly $1 billion for community health centers this year. The bill include another $10 billion ($14 billion in the House). Those centers will provide health care to millions.

[rollingrock]

19. He also campaigned on NO mandates and NO fines

...but now supports them completely in this bill.

[ProSense]

20. He campaigned on reforming the health care system

He is on the way to accomplishing that primary goal, according to these people (who I'm sure you will reject as having no credibility).

[rollingrock]

24. He specifically campaigned on NO mandates

are you actually claiming that he supported the mandates during the campaign?

because that would be rather dishonest...and unethical.

[ProSense]

32. Obama stated many times over why he changed his mind

An awkward statement, which he clarified, seems to be all the critics have. The public option was not what he campaigned on, it was a component of his campaign to reform the system. I suppose if health care reform had failed to pass Congress, he would be slammed for breaking his promise.

[rollingrock]

50. Clarified?

1) do you have a link to this 'clarification?' or am I supposed to just take your word for it?

2) clarification or not, it doesn't change the fact that he broke a campaign promise that there would be no mandates.

3) I heard Obama talk about the importance of the public option or public plan dozens of times during the campaign, a public plan that ANY American could sign up for...and even after the campaign, as recently as July 2009, he continued to promise that he would NOT sign any bill that does not include a public option...so has he ever clarified his sudden flip-flop on the public option?? or was that just another lie?





'Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange, including a public option to increase competition and keep the insurance companies honest'

-President Obama, July 2009

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x417278

[ProSense]

59. Yes, here is his direct quote

That’s why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family. And that’s why we’ll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry: no more yearly caps or lifetime caps; no more denying people care because of pre-existing conditions; and no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change jobs.

link

As with everyone who was advocating that the plan include a public option, Obama pushed for it. Though the critics insisted he never supported it, that is until now.

[rollingrock]

80. Huh?

I don't see any explanation for Obama's sudden change of position on either the public option or the mandates in your quote. where's the clarification? :crazy:

[rollingrock]

16. This article has no credibility

it fails to mention and simply ignores a long list of ethics violations by this administration. Obama not only continued the Bush policy of torture, for example, but has made it legally permissable by enshrining the practice of torture into law, shredding the constitution and due process.


After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7330184

[ProSense]

17. Sorry, the article you posted has no credibility

After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request

Obama has no sway over Supreme Court decisions.

[rollingrock]

21. Can you prove that?

on what basis do you make such an empty assertion?

[ProSense]

23. Can you prove that he or any other President influences the Supreme Court?

If only I believed in fairy tales, I could be slamming Clinton for not influence the Supreme Court to declare Gore the winner.

[rollingrock]

29. You assume too much

the president can't tell the Supreme Court what to do, but he does have some influence over their decisions if he chooses to use it. and in this case, president Obama chose to use his influence to convince the supreme court to rule in favor of legalizing torture and arbitrary arrest and detention.

[ProSense]

34. He has no influence, none. n/t

[rollingrock]

36. Your unsupported assertions

are getting rather tiresome.

[ProSense]

41. Did you provide support for your assertion that the President influenced the Supreme Court?

Yeah, facts are tiresome to some, especically facts that debunk bogus claims.

[rollingrock]

42. Read the article

I provided a link. if you prefer to ignore it, well that's your choice.

[ProSense]

49. I read the article and

all I see is someone building a narrative around a bogus claim. For example, the excerpt you cited is complete spin, someone's ridiculous opinion (Obama influenced the Supreme Court decision) being passed off as fact.

In fact, the word used was "acquiesced." Absurd.

[rollingrock]

52. You prefer to ignore reality

as does your article. that is your choice.

[ProSense]

60. Reality is not someone's absurd opinion that Obama can control the Supreme Court

Period.

[rollingrock]

83. No one said that

he doesn't 'control' them, but Obama does have influence, just as he has much influence over his party if he chooses to wield that influence, though he cannot dictate how each each individual member of congress votes. try to deal with the real world instead of your strawman fantasies.

[rollingrock]

44. I find this statement to be pretty absurd

...considering that the president himself is the one who appoints the members of the supreme court.

[MH1]

18. Public Citizen has no credibility?

“The greatest surprise is just how extensively these revolving door restrictions apply,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. “Obama has ushered in the first-ever policy addressing ‘reverse’ revolving door abuses: screening potential nominees to the federal government and managing conflicts of interest among appointees so as to prevent special interests from ‘capturing’ the agencies that regulate them.”

The president has repeatedly targeted K Street, limiting contacts between lobbyists and administration officials on stimulus projects and issuing agency guidance banning lobbyists from serving on advisory boards. That has led to consternation among lobbyists who have pushed back against the measures.

The decision on advisory boards has been condemned across K Street, and groups have pressed the White House, with little success, to change the new rule.

[rollingrock]

35. I find it hilarious

that Public Citizen praises Obama for closing the 'revolving door' while failing to mention that the Obama administration itself is filled with revolving door appointments from Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, Monsanto, Freddie Mac, etc...yeah, I'd say this group's credibility leaves something to be desired.

[ProSense]

45. I find it hilarious that

only baseless claims are accepted by many here. Some guy says the administration sucks: 200 recs.

The problem with you citing the the appointees, is that you cannot show where these appointments influenced policy.

For example, Monsanto is under investigation

Monsanto’s statement comes as the Justice Department is investigating possible antitrust concerns in the seed business, looking in particular at Monsanto, which dominates the business of supplying crop traits developed through genetic engineering. Critics, including some competitors, say that Monsanto has great leverage over the seed business and growers through restrictive contracts that must be signed to use Monsanto’s genes or to grow the genetically modified crops.

The constant distortions of the administrations actions is all the some people have.

[rollingrock]

54. That article was written in Decemebr 2009

Obama wasn't even in office at the time...so what is your point?

[ProSense]

62. Obama wasn't in office December 2009? n/t

[rollingrock]

79. oops, I read that wrong (the date)

but anyway, I still don't see your point.

Monsanto is being sued by a private party, so what?
is that supposed to somehow reflect well on the Obama administration?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

74. Self-delete, Wrong place.

[notesdev]

22. Astonishing

To think that a guy who opens his administration by appointing a Raytheon lobbyist to a high Defense post (giving himself a "waiver" on his own rules just days after taking office), who has filled his Treasury department and economic advisory staff with Wall Street insiders, who picks up a Peace Prize (in violation of the Constitution, btw) with one hand and issues orders to escalate a war with the other, who endorses what may be the most corrupt deal in the history of Congress in the name of getting something, anything passed that he can put his name on... one would have to wonder how that kind of record can get an ethics thumbs-up.

Then perhaps one can look at these "ethics" groups more closely. Who sponsors them, keeps them in business, who runs them? When you look closely you find that these groups are dominated by people with strong interests in the status quo, in defining ethics down. When an "ethics" group has lobbyists and government employees on its board, there's something fishy going on.

[ProSense]

26. "Then perhaps one can look at these "ethics" groups more closely." Not surprising. Are

you going to question CREW's credibility too:

<...>

Under the terms of the settlement, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) will restore a total of 94 days of missing emails, which will then be sent to NARA for preservation and eventual access under either the Presidential Records Act or the Federal Records Act. The dates for restoration were chosen based on email volume and external events because there simply was not enough money to restore all the missing emails. In addition, the EOP will continue to provide CREW and the NSA with records documenting the missing email problem, the response of the Bush White House to that problem, and the options the Bush White House considered for preserving electronic records, but inexplicably rejected.

To date, the Obama White House has produced thousands of pages of documents relating to these issues, all of which CREW has posted on www.governmentdocs.org. Finally, the EOP will be providing a publicly releasable description of the system it now uses to manage and preserve electronic records, including its email archiving and backup systems. CREW and the NSA will then dismiss their lawsuits.

Documents produced so far show the Bush White House was lying when officials claimed no emails were ever missing. The record now proves incontrovertibly that Bush administration officials deliberately ignored the problem and, in fact, knowingly allowed it to worsen. Some questions remain unanswered. Why, after the Office of Administration told then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers about the problem and presented her with a plan to restore the emails, did she do nothing? Why did the White House abandon -- at the last minute -- a system it had developed to manage and preserve electronic records, despite having spent millions to create it? Did the Bush White House properly respond to requests for records from the Department of Justice and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald during the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert CIA identity?

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s Executive Director, said, “We may never know exactly what happened to all the missing emails, and which Bush administration officials were involved in the coverup, but we do know the American public never got the full story.” After the Obama administration produces all the promised records, CREW will release a report, providing as much detail as possible. Sloan continued, “The Obama administration, which inherited the lawsuits and the dysfunctional White House email system, has done a terrific job straightening out the mess. Thanks to the Obama White House, a critical part of our nation’s missing history will be restored. This is yet another example of the administration living up to its promise of accountability and transparency.”

link

[notesdev]

30. I would say one has to question it

http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/staff

Look at that list, nearly every last one of the key staff comes from a political advocacy background. Whether or not one agrees with the politics of this group, it is disingenuous in the extreme to present them as some sort of objective arbiter of ethics.

[ProSense]

38. "it is disingenuous in the extreme to present them as some sort of objective arbiter "

I suppose that's why someone posted a list from CREW below, right?

It's getting to the point where everyone who says anything positive about the administration loses credibility with some people.

At that point, those people lose credibility.

It's no longer about disagreement on an issue, it's all about disdain for the administration.

[notesdev]

43. It's about not being able to trust anybody

and way too many conflicts of interest all around.

Who I want to see on the board of an ethics group are engineers and philosophers, not experienced political hands. I want to see people with a commitment to logic and reason, not causes. I want to see people who can't be connected to any politician at two removes. That's the kind of ethics group I could take seriously.

[ProSense]

46. That sounds more like paranoia and

a determination to ignore the facts.

[notesdev]

48. No, it's a realistic assessment of where this country is now

You can't trust anyone in government to tell the truth about anything

You can't trust a bank to manage money

You can't trust a school to educate students

You can't trust a cop to enforce the law

You can't trust a judge to administer the laws fairly and equally

You can't trust a professional to work for your interests rather than working to maximize the revenue he can pull from your pocket

You can't trust an auditor to audit rather than collaborate with financial mismanagement

It's really all quite in-your-face. If you still have trust for institutions and authorities then you aren't paying attention.

[ProSense]

57. You can't trust people posting on the Internets n/t

[notesdev]

66. Exactly!

[EFerrari]

25. CREW's Top Ten Ethics Scandals of 2009

http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20091222%20-%20TopTenScandalsFinal.pdf

[ProSense]

27. Great list. It must be disappointing that the administration isn't listed. n/t

[EFerrari]

28. It must be exhausting to project constantly. n/t

[ProSense]

33. Why did you post the list in this thread?

No relevance.

[EFerrari]

37. It supports your OP? But if your object is to continue splintering DU,

then I can see how you wouldn't see the relevance.

:)

[ProSense]

39. Yes, you're right. Sorry for the misunderstanding. n/t

[Vidar]

40. Apparently honesty is no longer a component of ethics.

[Kansas Wyatt]

51. Could you please provide links to these alleged 'watch dog' groups?

I went to your link, and it was only a story, without any links to these alleged 'watch dog' groups.

Just so we can all verify the validity of the claim being made, please list the alleged 'watch dog' groups and provide links please. I would like to check out who actually runs these groups.

[MH1]

53. The names are in the article, some of them very well known. Google is your friend.

[Odin2005]

56. Our standards have fallen that low?

[FrenchieCat]

64. No......your rabid cynicism is simply at a record high.

[Odin2005]

65. My cynicism is certainly at a high right now, but it ain't rabid.

I feel betrayed by my president right now.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Like I said.

[billh58]

58. K&R n/t

[inna]

68. absolutely laughable.

:(

[Sultana]

69. Woot

Take that haters

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

70. Much of this is a matter of semantics. You don't need lobbyists when the primary chickens

are in the hen house. The people the WH is hiring are not lobbyists but actually worked directly for the industries...ie, Michael Taylor (check out his record on GM foods) tapped for the FDA or most of the financial adviser banksters.

[ProSense]

71. It has nothing to do with

semantics.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

75. Monsanto SUCKS, big time! They are copyrighting seeds (do you know what that means?)

and creating genetically modified plants (that are destroying non-modified crops) and here goes Obama and hires one of their honchos.

Google is your friend.

[ProSense]

76. I guess you missed the point of the post. n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

78. Too bad they don't give the prize for

posting flawed logic on the Internets.

[Nikki Stone1]

81. Opinions are like belly buttons: Everyone has one.

30K troops in Afghanistan is not ethical.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

82. K&R