Ex-Googler Obama Appointee Gets Buzz'ed

theodp writes "Hillicon Valley reports that Rep. Darrell Issa of the House Oversight Committee is pressing White House Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin to explain his relationship with Google, where McLaughlin was employed as Google's chief lobbyist. 'The American people have a right to expect that White House employees are working to advance the public interest and not the interests of the lobby shops who formerly employed them,' Issa noted in the letter. 'The use of a Gmail account to communicate with lobbyists and evade transparency laws is at odds with President Obama's promises to limit the influence of lobbyists.' Concerns emerged after screenshots of McLaughlin's Google Buzz account emerged showing that a number of the search giant's top employees subscribed to the deputy Web chief's updates."

Comments

No lobbyists ...except mine.

[sycodon]

How many former lobbyists have been exempted from the no lobbyist rule now?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[hawkingradiation]

Maybe this one Who does he represent?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

Come on man, that guy driving the Toyota was as likely as not lying about it. In any case Toyota doesn't seem to be a significant donor. Neither is Google, which may be part of the problem. Microsoft, on the other hand, is, along with Raytheon.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[erroneus]

Without a doubt, it would be very difficult to put someone into a position like CIO without the person having had much in the way of experience with large and successful companies. If they selected someone that was not of that sort, they would be asking some other very serious questions like "what makes you qualified for this position?"

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

or this one?

"Bill Gates gives me money, but that does not make me a Microsoft apologist," Issa said"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6236239-503544.html

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless he is a member of the Administration, his status as a lobbyist is irrelevant to the OP.

But you go ahead and try to distract anyway.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[delvsional]

Come on man, that guy driving the Toyota was as likely as not lying about it. In any case Toyota doesn't seem to be a significant donor. Neither is Google, which may be part of the problem. Microsoft, on the other hand, is, along with Raytheon.

There is absolutely no reason that a company should be allowed to donate to a politician's political campaign or the government. Taxes are one thing but donations make obvious strings

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[eudaemon]

I'm afraid that argument was lost when "they" decided corporations are people, and more recently created a ruling that allows corporations to run for office. I happen to agree with you, but there it is.

There's actually a corporate policy that prevents me from naming my employer publicly (LOL) but they shamelessly and regularly plug their PAC via company e-mail trying to raise donations. But frankly what's in the best interest of any large corporate is rarely in the best interest of the consumer; most corporations simply want to suppress the competition and dominate their respective markets to maximize profitability... economics 101 but the consumer pays when these corporations "win" and dominate their markets.
We live in interesting times when an entity is required by the document that creates it to conduct itself amorally, and by that I mean that ponderous bromide "maximize shareholder profits" which is used to justify all kinds of corporate misbehavior that would never be tolerated in individuals.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[zippthorne]

He didn't say he'd hire zero lobbyists. He said he wouldn't hire a lot of lobbyists. As in, of the field of lobbyists, most would not be getting a job offer in the Obama administration. Depending on how many positions there are to fill, he could hire 100% lobbyists and still fail to hire the vast majority of them.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

It wouldn't make a difference. If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place. There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government. As far as direct donations go, the campaign donations from individual companies are not that huge. If a thousand or so blue collar workers got together to form an organization, they could easily out-donate the biggest donor to Mr Issa, which this year was $17,000. That would only be $17 each, very doable.

Complaining about corporate donations is really just a complaint about lack of citizen participation. The fact is, in a democracy, if the citizens don't pay attention, the people who are paying attention will get what they want. This is what's happened in America.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[__aasqbs9791]

And having seen that exact effect with FEMA, this really is a catch-22 situation. They have to hire someone qualified (with a proven track record) whose never worked for anyone before. That might be a problem.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, according to your link, Issa got $6000 from Microsoft for 2009-2010. Sorry, but if you want to point out this guy for his connections to Google, your (Issa's) connection to Microsoft is worthy of just as much question. Hell, it makes me wonder if they have a hand in this coming up and Issa is just willing enough to be their government pawn. To be fair, AT&T also gave him $5000, and AT&T is just as questionable.

This is why I forget sites like that. I already know not to trust anyone in government, but sites like that just make me want to vote for Mickey Mouse.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[poetmatt]

wow, talk about a pot meet kettle of him giving scrutiny to the google apointee.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[AHuxley]

The way out would to be public funding.
Then make any gifts to a politician a criminal, police matter.
Great for grass roots democracy as any local issue at a state or federal level would have the same weight as the military industrial complex lobby.
Arms dealers, oil, drug laundering, military contractors, software providers and big pharma would move to safer parts of the world where trading in the dark is welcomed.
The problem with a clean up like that is a fiat currency, pensions and savings would be wiped out.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Immortal Poet]

"They... created a ruling that allows corporations to run for office"

Perhaps you should actually read the article before you link to it. A public relations firm announced they are running for office, true. Also true is that it is part of a publicity stunt to A) call attention to the potential implications of corporations gaining personhood from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and B) raise their own public image as an effective PR firm. No one created a ruling - whatever that means - and quite probably, no one is going to allow Murray Hill, Inc. to run for the House, no matter how hilarious it might be.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would vote for them.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, one would argue the only lobbyist a Democrat can see is the one giving money to a Republican.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[jdigriz]

People always claim that if such-and-such would happen, 'x would move'. Or 'capital would flee; Well, sure, if you only change one thing, in your quest to reform the world. The reason the pro-corporate faction is always "Rah, rah free trade" is exactly so they have that option. to hold no allegiance to any country, and to flee if the People get uppity. If, at the same time you enact your other reforms, you reenact the capital controls that used to exist and you embargo trade with any corporation that pulls up stakes and leaves, then they're stuck. The megacorps need access to the largest (by dollar value) economy in the world. They'll fold like Glass Joe if we stand up to them. But people are surprisingly cowardly when it comes to the moneyed classes.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ropes and Chains you can believe in Commi's.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, I'd much rather trust my public policy to the Fortune 500 than Sierra Club, Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Focus On the Family, NRA, etc. True, they may work to stifle competition, but they also push to remove ineffective or counterproductive regulations. I include Sierra Club in that group deliberately to note that I don't really care what issue organizations with one track agendas push, regardless of the trade offs.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Idiomatick]

replying to kill bad mod.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[mi]

He didn't say he'd hire zero lobbyists. He said he wouldn't hire a lot of lobbyists.

Weaselese...

As in, of the field of lobbyists, most would not be getting a job offer in the Obama administration.

Meaningless. There are tens of thousands of lobbyists in the US. Even if Obama staffed (stuffed?) his White House only with lobbyists, most of the the lobbyists would not have a job offer from him.

Here is, what he declared on the first day in the office though — already a change of tone from the election campaign:

In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.

That policy was immediately violated:

Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

And the list keeps growing...

It would've all been fine, of course — the President is entitled to pick anyone for his Administration (save for a few posts, which must be approved by Congress), but his pre-election grandstanding is now hurting him — despite your and yours best efforts.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Idiomatick]

"If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place. There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government."

In many countries that isn't true. Hell McCain and Obama supported a bill pushing 'clean elections' where you aren't allowed to accept campaign donations and instead the government gives you a set allowance. So it isn't impossible to change or anything.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Idiomatick]

Lots of countries have done this and haven't been doomed. The US is far LESS likely to be affected than european countries. The US is the largest economy they can't just abandon the place totally. Plus it is easier to abandon European countries, physically more options around.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[BlueStrat]

There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government.

The corollary of that statement is also just as true; There will always be someone with power willing to take the money when the fat purses open.

There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation. If you have a very small and limited national government that has little power to do too much harm and/or affect the economy, society, or individual freedom, then corruption has little reason to exist as it's simply too much risk for far too little reward.

Many if not most of the nations' core domestic, economic, and even foreign problems are the result of the Federal Government abrogating State & individual rights and powers in clear violation of the Constitution, using them to grow out of control while seizing ever-more power and wealth from the nation and increasingly restricting individual freedoms including the right to disagree. Just ask Kenneth Gladney.

Strat

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[FiloEleven]

Without a doubt, it would be very difficult to put someone into a position like CIO without the person having had much in the way of experience with large and successful companies. If they selected someone that was not of that sort, they would be asking some other very serious questions like "what makes you qualified for this position?"

This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would probably rethink the Google connections if I were you.

If you were to tally up all of the time spent campaigning for Obama and the value of Eric Schmidt's endorsement, that donation amount would be quite a bit higher. But with Eric Schmidt doing the campaigning himself instead of Google doing it officially, then the rewards to Google (the company Eric Schmidt heads up) wouldn't be seen as benefiting as much from their donations.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like "What makes you qualified to be Commander in Chief?" or "What do you know about job economics when you have never had a real job?" that "makes you qualified for this position?". Those type questions?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[atheistmonk]

I lost all faith in FEMA when they put Walton Simons in charge.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

They have to hire someone qualified (with a proven track record) whose never worked for anyone before.

Hire someone from another country then. A Canadian or a Brit can do the same job with a pretty sure guarantee that they aren't in any American's pocket at least.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[the_other_chewey]

This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.

Huh? Why? A good lobbyist better be aware of the stuff the competition is up to.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[LordLucless]

The fact is, in a democracy, if the citizens don't pay enough, the people who are paying more will get what they want.

Fixed that for you. What you're essentially saying is that the solution to corporate interests influencing government is to out-bribe them. That the people need to pay the government to represent them, where that should be the government's whole purpose.

And while it wouldn't be too hard for a small-ish gathering of workers to raise $17,000, raising the half a million that SAIC donated in total to all the candidates it was bribing in 2010 would require $50,000 each - more than their total annual income, I'd guess.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

*Whoosh*?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

Sure, but if you have half a million people, that million dollars becomes easy to deal with as well. The half a million actually has more power, because in a democracy votes count more than money. The money is only useful to the degree it can buy votes.

The bottom line is this: the people who don't pay attention are going to be manipulated by those who are. If we want a fair system, everyone has to pay attention. Those who don't, lose. (I'm not trying to say how I want it to be, I'm just describing how it is. Still, it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the average guy who gets ripped off for not paying attention).

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Vintermann]

> There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation.

Then they can just take the power they want through non-governmental channels. Where there are no chiefs, you need to have a very special environment indeed, or people will start making themselves into chiefs with tooth and nail.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Vintermann]

Wow, you can kill bad mods just by replying? Cool - but Isn't it a bit harsh, though?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[sco08y]

Perhaps you should actually read the article before you link to it.

Now that's just crazy talk.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[linzeal]

He could give them jobs as, Front Line Infantry!

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Runaway1956]

Define "real job". I can't think of any recent Presidents who have had a "real job". The last one would probably have been Carter, who actually "worked" for Admiral Zumwalt, and helped to make the nuclear powered Navy what it is today. Please don't point at Reagan - acting isn't a "real job". Maybe Ford - I don't know enough about him to say for sure, and I'm to lazy to google his biography. And, whatever you do, DO NOT point at the junior Bush. All that fool ever did was to bankrupt companies that his father helped to set up for him. Bush Senior? Again, maybe. He was born into money, so he never worked the kind of work that "normal" people do. He didn't dig ditches, or wash dishes to get through college.

Go on, I challenge you to name any presidents to have actually worked their way from the bottome, where most of us live, up to the top. Kennedy might qualify, but his daddy was a criminal with lots of money. That's real qualification, huh?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[cthulu_mt]

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before being elected President.

George HW Bush was director of the CIA and Vice-President among other things.

George W Bush was Governor of Texas.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[T.E.D.]

If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place.

That was actually another little-noticed effect of Citizens United. The fetters are now off of wealthy individuals as well as companies, as long as they aren't giving directly to parties or campaigns. But there are no realy limits on what their "independent" groups can say or when they can say it. So effectively they can run a shadow campaign with all the anonomous money from any source they desire. It doesn't even have to be money earned in the USA...

People aren't whining about the effects on realeasing wealthy individuals not because it isn't horrible, but because the implications of freeing up corporate money is potentially far worse.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally do not work for Google, so I am never aware of new google technology. I'm lucky i can search for slashdot. Which I do from yahoo. I don't know what they're up to either. And this windows 7 thing came as a complete surprise to me.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[stubob]

The fact is, in a democracy, if the citizens don't pay, the people who are paying will get what they want. This is what's happened in America.

FTFY

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[AndersOSU]

Right, he might just be in Canada's or Britain's pocket instead. The national CTO might be involved in some national security issues like cyberwarfare, right? Do you really want foreign nationals in sensitive appointed positions? (I say this as a child of an immigrant).

Also keep in mind that public service positions pay comparatively poorly. This guy doesn't want to be a life-long civil servant, he either wants to get out and retire after Obama leaves office, or he wants to return to the private sector where he can make some real money again.

I've got real issues with the intersection of money and politics. On the one hand I'm an ardent free-speech supporter. On the other, I think that "legal persons" have undue influence. It's a sticky situation, one that would work itself out with what I consider a fairer income distribution. The middle class needs to make more money (this includes civil servants) and the middle-upper and upper-upper classes need to make a lot less.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Runaway1956]

To me, "real jobs" do not include politics and acting. I mean, productive jobs, jobs that support productive jobs, research, service work of some sort, you know, people that "do things". At best, a governor merely orchestrates all the busybodies who want to know what everyone else is doing, and how to control and exert power over them.

George HW Bush was director of the CIA - yes, I forgot that. That is a "real job". Not quite a "real job" as in "common people do that sort of thing", but it is a "real job" in that he performs needed services for other people who actualy "do things". In some cases, the CIA actually does "do things", but that is more rare than the Department of Defense actually "doing things".

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[russotto]

Go on, I challenge you to name any presidents to have actually worked their way from the bottome, where most of us live, up to the top.

Reagan; your saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Carter
Ford (born to a wealthy father who did not raise him, served in the navy during WWII)
Nixon (though he started in law, which you might not count)
Eisenhower

Obama was political from almost day one, as was LBJ, and the Bushes and Kennedy were born to money.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Aceticon]

His job was to influence lawmakers - a cross between a Saleman and a Power Broker.

The skill set necessary to manage anything or evaluate any kind of technology barelly if at all overlaps with the skillset required in his previous job.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[mcgrew]

I have no problem with a rich man in my voting district contributing to a campaign. I do have something against bribery, which is what a donation to more than one candidate in a race is, and this should be illegal. I also have a problem with somone who isn't eligible to vote in my district contributing to candidates who are supposed to represent ME.

I'm as much against my union being able to donate as I am the company I work for, even though the union's donations are in my own interest.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Compaqt]

While I appreciate the corrupting influence of corporate and other special-interest money on politics, how do you do that (strict public funding) and also not infringe on 1st amendment rights?

I'm not necessarily talking about corporations' free speech, just real people. I'm also not talking about giving to politicians, but rather spending your own money in favor of who or whatever you want to support.

Let's say you were talking to a Iranian, Belarussian, Ossetian, or some such, describing the US of A. "We have free speech in our country; we can freely support our candidates of choice."

Iranian: "OK, can you talk to your friends and tell them to vote for candidate X?"

You: "Yes."

Iranian: "Can you pass out flyers in favor of your candidate?"

You: "As long as it doesn't involve spending money."

Iranian: "??? How do you make flyer without spending money? What a country!"

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

Once again, I'm going to say that it really doesn't matter. You can set up any sort of electoral system, and as long as people aren't paying attention, I can find a way to manipulate it, given enough resources. Fox 'News' is one easy example. Someone said, "democracy gives people the government they deserve" and if people vote more for American Idol than for president, it's hard to convincingly argue they deserve anything other than a corrupt, incompetent government.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

It doesn't really matter. If people don't pay attention, the election system doesn't matter, there will always be a way for powerful people to manipulate. That's why it's important for people to pay attention to what's going on.

A government given allowance has problems too: the leading political parties have too much motivation to make it hard for a third party to get funding, for example. It just moves the power center from one place to another.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't make a difference. If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place

There's an easy way to handle that: Make it law that 1) All such donations cannot be written off on taxes and 2) All donations for a particular election are to be put into a common pool, with a limited donation window, and then divided equally between all registered candidates.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

Bush 41 was a bomber pilot in World War II. He was also relatively successful as an oil man, although his father's connections certainly helped out.

Go on, I challenge you to name any presidents to have actually worked their way from the bottome, where most of us live, up to the top. Kennedy might qualify, but his daddy was a criminal with lots of money.

??? Kennedy doesn't qualify as someone that worked his way up from the bottom. He was born every bit as wealthy as George W Bush was.

Reagan worked himself up from nothing. Clinton worked himself up from nothing. Obama, arguably, worked himself up from nothing (although he apparently got a lot of help from "Fellow Travelers"). But Kennedy sure as hell didn't.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

Wait, what do you have against the NRA?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

Um, sure, Obama supported the bill, right before he pulled out of public campaign financing when he realized he had a corporate fund raising juggernaught that smashed all fund raising efforts.

I'm incredulous that the same folks that have problems with corporations making campaign contributions don't see ANY problem with having the government (!) completely control the purse strings for elections. Because the government is full of civic minded, responsible, hard working individuals that would never abuse their positions of power to enrich themselves, attack their enemies, and establish political dominance.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

What you're essentially saying is that the solution to corporate interests influencing government is to out-bribe them.

No the solution is to out-vote them. As long as there is full transparency, I don't have a problem with Senator X getting $50,000 in campaign contributions from EvilCorp PAC, as long as that information is public. Then you know when Senator X votes in favor of a windfall for EvilCorp.

Fundamentally, the problem is lack of citizen involvement at all levels of the political process. Not enough people that "care" about good governance get involved in the party process by participating in campaigns, and even fewer get involved in the actual running for office. In theory, the US is supposed to have a citizen LED government, but somewhere along the line we created a permanent political and bureaucratic class that views it as their divine right to lead the citizens. This is the fundamental problem, not corporate money.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

How is "Fox 'News'" one easy example, but MSNBC not? The "News" is NOT some vaunted Fourth Estate like it pretends to be. It is a business that caters to a market. Fox News caters to a market that was grossly under served by the mainstream news shows for 3 decades as they (the MSM) dispensed with all vestiges of impartiality and began wearing their left-wing ideologies on their sleeves. Fox News is no better or worse, in that regard, to CBS or MSNBC. They are just on the other side of the spectrum.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

That's not a solution, it's just a dumb idea.

Almost always, the most money makes its way to the most viable candidates. Your "solution" is a recipe for removing everyone but self-financed candidates, because I sure as heck would not donate money to a pool of candidates, only one of which I may support.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

How is "Fox 'News'" one easy example, but MSNBC not?

Simple......because I am too lazy to make an exhaustive list of all examples. It was enough to give the reader something to extrapolate himself if he so desired, and which you have done.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[DragonWriter]

Without a doubt, it would be very difficult to put someone into a position like CIO without the person having had much in the way of experience with large and successful companies.

Its quite easy to have experience with large and successful companies without ever having worked as a lobbyist.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Zot Quixote]

Well, regardless of qualifications, he's probably one of the top 5 presidents we've ever had.

It'd be interesting to see how well the US would be doing if war wasn't constantly being waged on it by the wealthy and the stupid.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, he might just be in Canada's or Britain's pocket instead. The national CTO might be involved in some national security issues like cyberwarfare, right? Do you really want foreign nationals in sensitive appointed positions? (I say this as a child of an immigrant).

Also keep in mind that public service positions pay comparatively poorly. This guy doesn't want to be a life-long civil servant, he either wants to get out and retire after Obama leaves office, or he wants to return to the private sector where he can make some real money again.

I've got real issues with the intersection of money and politics. On the one hand I'm an ardent free-speech supporter. On the other, I think that "legal persons" have undue influence. It's a sticky situation, one that would work itself out with what I consider a fairer income distribution. The middle class needs to make more money (this includes civil servants) and the middle-upper and upper-upper classes need to make a lot less.

Oy (slaps head)... Yes, of course he should have talented CTO types in his administration fer chrissakes... McLaughlin isn't one of them. HE WAS THEIR HEAD LOBBYIST!!!! He wasn't a CTO, he wasn't a tech guy, he was a lobbyist! Why would you give a lobbyist the job of deputy CTO for the entire government when there are tons of corporate CTO's (who aren't lobbyists) who would do a much better job? It's because Obama was buying off Google for all of their support of his campaign... Pure and simple. Same as it ever was.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Zxern]

Why not promote from within?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[__aasqbs9791]

Then you get people complaining about career bureaucrats. What's the name for a three way catch-22?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Idiomatick]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638

Most (88%) of Obama's campaign money came from individuals. Mostly in the form of small donations. So I'm not sure which corporate juggernaut you are speaking of.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[BlueStrat]

> There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation.

Then they can just take the power they want through non-governmental channels. Where there are no chiefs, you need to have a very special environment indeed, or people will start making themselves into chiefs with tooth and nail.

Take the power they want from *whom* exactly, if no single government official or body has any serious power and most governing is done locally? Are they going to take over/corrupt every single local and state government position of power?

That's precisely the reason for one of the main ideas behind having a weaker/smaller/more-restricted Federal government and having most domestic governing done locally with very little or no Federal involvement in things that are Constitutionally to be left to the States and the People respectively.

It makes it harder for any individual or cabal/group to seize enough power over enough people without their full consent to make it a successful strategy for seizing power over the nation. Why lobby/bribe some Representative or Senator in Washington if they don't have the power to help you? If you're a shallow, power/wealth-seeking amoral climber, why be a career Washington politician if you know you won't be able to gain much wealth or power?

Federal power was meant to be kept in check by the States who were supposed to have more domestic power over their own affairs than the Federal Government, and the Federal Government was intended to be financially dependent on the will of the States to fund itself fully. It's now completely the reverse...the States are dependent on the Federal Government to get some of their own money back and must dance to the Federal piper or face economic collapse.

IMHO the Founders were far, far ahead of their time in the designing they put into the Constitution. We "improve" and "re-interpret" the Constitution at our freedoms' peril. Over 200 years ago they designed a system with remarkable similarities to the internet, in that instead of packets, it's power, and it's meant to be a balanced, distributed network of power that will route around/blackhole bad nodes to minimize system damage as opposed to a centralized "master" network node that leaves the entire network vulnerable to catastrophic failure through a single/central point or points of failure. I think they had DARPA beat by over 2 centuries.

Strat

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it even possible to zero out lobbyists in an utterly capitalist and meritocracy driven country which doesn't give a shit if sb dies of cancer?
I think not. What CAN be done, however, is to make lobbyists play by the people's rules. One good step is to increase transparency in
govt. by making laws which require politicians' assets to be thoroughly screened. That way you know that some1 really doesn't give a shit
about you if they take money from an evil HMO, for instance.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[XDirtypunkX]

But Mickey Mouse is a lobbyist for copyright extension!

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html

I think given that 2/3rd of Obama's campaign contributions came from opaque online fund raising, you can't really definitively say where he got his money from. There were more than a few cases (as pointed out in the article) where people circumvented campaign finance laws to donate more than the legally allowed amount. It's highly probable that corporations and PACs bypassed it as well.

You don't raise $750 million on the backs of old folks mailing in their $5 donation. That requires a corporate effort.

In any event, you are quibbling over minutia. The main point is, how in the hell can you trust the government to be a fair distributer of campaign money (given the distribution of the bailout funds which went overwhelmingly to Democratic districts, why wouldn't the same happen to campaign funds)? Or maybe that's your point...if government controls who gets a voice, and government is controlled by your people, we can usher in a Chavez-like polity of one party Democratic rule.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Idiomatick]

Tons of countries do it fairly. Give every candidate the same amount. And give them the same air time. Many countries have state sanctioned televised debates where each party gets air time. As well many countries give air time for advertisements to each candidate. I think japan even has a poster limit. But generally speaking giving each party/group the same amount of money is fair. It also reduces overall election costs which is nice. Oh and you'd determine which groups get funding the same way you currently decide who gets to go on the ballot. Simple, cheap, fair.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Xonstantine]

A capped, government controlled monopoly on campaign air time is inconsistent with the principal of free speech. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both (as example, as a private citizen, what if I want to pay for an add in the NY Times criticizing Bush prior to an election?)

I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

The American people have a right to expect that White House employees are working to advance the public interest and not the interests of the lobby shops

*snicker*

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

The sad thing is people don't expect this at all. They hope for it, but they certainly (mostly) know better than to expect it. Obama's brand of change is no different than the brand of change pushed by any politician who's ever promised "change." The only difference is more people are willingly allowing the proverbial wool to be pulled over their eyes.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[mabhatter654]

not really, the media is at least reporting on the matter... because Obama isn't putting out weekly "scripts" like the last guy was. The Bush Administration was the peak of lobby shops being officially part of the cabinet.... and if the President didn't like the department, he simply didn't appoint anybody to it... or worse somebody to "neuter" it... as a matter of policy..... the media NEVER QUESTIONED it in 8 years.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

Not only is this President putting out scripts just like the last President (and quite honestly, every President since before FDR), but a good chunk of the press not only prints it, but eats it up. I've never seen as much press love for a President as I've seen with the current one. The same people that are supposed to help hold the government accountable and keep them at least semi-honest are really just reporting what the talking heads are saying. You want to talk about the media questioning anything. First off, the media was all over Bush for most of the 8 years. The boy didn't do a thing without people questioning his motives, for better or worse. Some of it was well warranted questioning, and some of it was just smear campaigns run by the opposing party. This time around it's much different. Almost all of the reporting about Obama on virtually all of the news networks is basically how the mean Republicans are being mean to him and how he's just trying to be a nice man. Some things Obama is getting attacked on by the conservatives are justified, and then some is typical bias smear. But really, you don't see many people honestly and openly questioning anything this current government does, and the ones that are, mainly conservative news outlets, are getting smeared for trying to keep people at least semi-honest, regardless of their own motives (it's well documented that media outlets themselves are only semi-honest at best and have their own agendas, so let's not have that argument). I miss the days when the media was a watchdog against abusive government, and not a cheerleader for it. Those days are long gone, obviously.

Please don't try to pretend that somehow the media is being fair and aggressive in keeping the current administration honest, and also don't try to pretend that the media wasn't all over Bush pretty much from day one, but especially after the Iraq invasion. The man could've saved puppies from a burning tree, and the media would've tried to make him out to be a tyrant for it. The man fucked up plenty, and he did plenty that he was also made to appear to fuck up on and really didn't deserve flak for, but for all of the media reporting you'd have to be really kidding yourself to think that somehow the media gave him a pass on anything. I mean, seriously, please tell me you aren't that naive, are you?

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Daniel Dvorkin]

First off, the media was all over Bush for most of the 8 years.

Dear God, you really believe that, don't you?

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear God, you really believe the msm doesn't lean left, don't you?

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

Dude, I don't have to believe anything. I was alive and had good vision and hearing tests over the last 8 years. Love him or hate him, but the Bush Administration, for at least the last 5-6 years of his stay in office, was all over the news, and most of it was highly inflammatory. Or do you just get all of your news from WhiteHouse.gov?

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

Sadly, there are many people who think of them as an honest unbiased source of news. I think of them as a new age Benny Hill show. Funny to watch, grows old after a while, but added absolutely nothing of value to my life.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty selective memory you have there. Or do you just get all of your news from Fox?

My memory is that the media let him skate on WMDs and terrorist fearmongering. Now my memory is probably just as selective as yours - I just don't pretend it isn't.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

The media leans towards educated and questioning - that may look 'left' from where you're sitting, but it's not exactly the same thing.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Vintermann]

Considering what he did, the news were extremely favorable. Before Bush, no one would have thought you could thump your chest about doing torture (after first denying it), invade foreign countries on trumped-up charges, and purge the legislative branch of people suspected of being insufficiently supportive, without getting impeached.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[value_added]

Not only is this President putting out scripts just like the last President (and quite honestly, every President since before FDR), but a good chunk of the press not only prints it, but eats it up. I've never seen as much press love for a President as I've seen with the current one.

Is that so hard to understand?

The press (along with the rest of us) endured 8 long years of a White House that considered the press an enemy, routinely refused to answer questions (speeches and press conferences were few and far between), believed as a matter of ideology and law that they were above accountability, and a President had trouble speaking in complete sentences.

So with adults back in charge, what's not to love?

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

it sounds like you can't tell the difference between Bush and Obama, and based off that, you expect the media to handle things the same way. You actually feel the same way about previous presidents too?

As the saying goes, there is only one common denominator in this situation...

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

Do you love the ponies in that fantasy land you live in? I'd like to come visit some time (although I'll already have an exit strategy planned before I arrive).

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

So with adults back in charge, what's not to love?

Where the fuck do I start? Let's see, the ramrodding of legislation that is grossly unpopular down our throats by the same people we elected, the favors and promises given to special interests directly opposite to the promises of the man who said he would not cater to special interests, the continued transfer of legal power from states to the federal government (which has slowly been occurring for the last 50 years or so), a plan in Afghanistan, the one conflict that has been just in the last decade, that has turned the situation from tolerable to terrible, and a flood of spending that has done absolutely shit to help with economic problems in this country, but will end up funneling more money to horribly run banks and not-for-profits and in return, will make our economic sector worse, not better. You say adults, I say a different flavor of morons, only this time, it will be bad intentions, not incompetence, that will put us in a bad situation. Thank god midterm elections are coming up. I have a strong feeling that a lot of those morons are about to be tossed on the street. If a moderate can be elected in a liberal hell hole like Massachusetts, then it can happen just about anywhere (well, except for San Fransisco, I think Nancy Pelosi is their definition of a moderate which is really scary).

Personally I'd love nothing more than for both parties to get fucked in the ass and let's just start the fuck over. And be done with unlimited terms and a lifetime pension. You want to see real change? Pay congressmen and women on a per diem for the days they actually work, only give benefits for the time they are in office, and limit them to 2 terms in office like the President. Then maybe the radical dick fucks who are in charge right now who want a cushy long-term power trip will go back to their corporate jobs or their lifetime annuities because they have old money and we'll get some people who actually give a half-fuck about what actual people who actually work for a living want. I know, pipe dream. But a man can dream, right?

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

The media leans towards educated and questioning

Whereas educated seems to have passed you by.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[mcgrew]

First off, the media was all over Bush for most of the 8 years. The boy didn't do a thing without people questioning his motives, for better or worse.

HUH??? The media didn't question why he let Bin Laden's relatives fly out of the US on 9-11 (except Michael Moore). They didn't question the Iraqi WMDs. The press went along with everything he did until Katrina, which was such a clusterfuck they HAD to jump him.

Obama's taken a lot of heat for his health care proposal. He's taken heat for not fixing the economy in a year when it took Bush eight years to fuck up. He's taking heat for the Bush defecit; where were the teabaggers when Bust ran that debt up?

Obama hasn't been in office long enough to judge how good his administration is.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[kenp2002]

where were the teabaggers when Bust ran that debt up

They were doing the same thing then, they were just called fiscal conservatives. There wasn't any ratings in covering them. The marketing aspects of conservatives and liberals is as stark as marketing to blacks and caucasians and asians. They are different in their tastes, background, and life experiences. No one covered 3000 protesters complaining about Bush's spending because they weren't marketable. Now that they have a slogan, theme (tea party) that is catchy and marketable, they get coverage.

It isn't the squeaky wheel that gets the media grease, it's the interesting sqeaky wheel that gets the grease. Conservative protester are pretty boring and lack a good hot-chick ratio...

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[yuhong]

Yea, I know. The real problem is how to fix this.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[mcgrew]

They were doing the same thing then, they were just called fiscal conservatives.

They were marginalized by the neocons, told to STFU, and did what they were told.

There wasn't any ratings in covering them.

Ratings? Newspapers got ratings? And when is "news" dependant on ratings?

Conservative protester are pretty boring and lack a good hot-chick ratio.

They're still boring, even at tea parties. The fact is, the teabaggers are simply there to get Democrats out of office. If they weren't newsworthy then, they still aren't.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[Anonymous Coward]

HUH??? The media didn't question why he let Bin Laden's relatives fly out of the US on 9-11 (except Michael Moore)

What is there to question? I saw the reporting on my TV but seriously, why should Bin Laden's family leaving the country be of any importance? I mean we won't imprison your mom when you do something illegal and terrible. And we certainly won't stop your family from hiding or seeking refuge when a good number of people are pissed at your asshatery. So what's the deal with this? Perhaps the reason why you didn't see the coverage you wanted to see is because there wasn't a story there until some half baked political hack attempted to do a hit job that failed miserably and disguised it as a mockumentory.

They didn't question the Iraqi WMDs.

Perhaps your google finger is broken or something. This statement is just an outright lie.

The press went along with everything he did until Katrina, which was such a clusterfuck they HAD to jump him.

No, they didn't. This is just another lie. The press was already questioning WMDs and Powel's speech to the UN well before Katrina.

Obama's taken a lot of heat for his health care proposal.

That's because it's bad legislation that doesn't fix the problem being ranted about. All it technically does is put people under the penalty of imprisonment of they do not pay the big insurance companies money for the shit service they offer. IT takes freedoms away from the people, power away from the states, causes worse not better health care coverage for existing participants, and it serves special interest groups more then the people.

BTW, the problems with health care that we see today are directly related to the HMO act that the democrats sponsored in the 1960's which created the environment and allowed the system of abuse that is being ranted about today. When congressmen claim that there isn't enough time to read a bill, let alone understand it, then instead of pushing a vote on it by making back room deals with them, they should slow down and understand what they are doing. Hell, they didn't even manage to get the pre-existing conditions coverage for children into the bill's effect until 2014 because they A: didn't read it, B: didn't understand it, C: didn't bother to do either while pushing it through, and C: had alternative motives for getting it passed.

He's taken heat for not fixing the economy in a year when it took Bush eight years to fuck up.

If you have been paying attention to the latest hearings on why the economy isn't being fixed, you will see that it wasn't Bush who fucked it up. You will also see that it was GSE's like Fanny and Freddie who were pressured by congress to make sub-prime loans and the entire default credit swaps that caused the financing failures was created by congress as a tool for the GSE's to use. I'm not going to point to which party was behind most of that, but I do know that Fanny and Freddie were making campaign donations to a couple of senators who were at the front of it. These senators also derailed legislation that would have adverted the entire economy collapse by placing stricter regulatory provisions on the GSEs as well as some of the banks the GSEs were doing the swaps with.

You can add oil prices to the mix there too but I'm not going to spend an exorbitant amount of effort properly educating you. The information is completely available if you are interested beyond political sound bytes.

The president cannot fix or ruin the economy, they can only support policies that either help or retard it. Obama still can't grasp the failures so he will not be able to aid it.

He's taking heat for the Bush defecit

No, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Perhaps you are naive and believe anything you are told

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[mabhatter654]

The main stream media is not "left" by any remote measure. The guys like Murdoc sensor their editors more than you think.

More importantly, Main Stream Media became focused on "social" issues rather than real right-vs-left issues a long time ago. Discussing Gays is MORAL Conservative versus Moral liberal.... it's just a great big distraction. That's why Fox or Rush or Springer pull out crazy morality stuff... You rarely see them have "equal" parties discussing anything. Capitalism is "Donald Trump" Socialism is a drunk blonde at Marti Gras....

This gives you the illusion BBC or NPR is "liberal" because they invite guests of similar social and educational level from both sides to politely DISCUSS an issue and let the LISTENER decide... MSM has already made the choice for you... don't trust the "stupid" guy.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

Drop a bomb on the shit and start over. That's honestly the only truly effective way. Short of that, citizens need to start getting their heads out of asses, do some real research on the actual issues that matter, and then not vote based on a letter next to a name. I'm a registered Republican (although I consider myself closer to a Libertarian) but I'll vote in an Ind. or Dem. over a Republican candidate if they are honestly a better choice. Shit, did it last elections with our Sheriff, since the Republican incumbent was a douche bag among douches who liked to throw his power around with local business owners. And sure enough, the man lost his job and the new Sheriff is reigning in spending by the local county SO and actually doing some good. Funny how sometimes politics (on rare occasions) actually works for the people.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[mcgrew]

What is there to question? I saw the reporting on my TV but seriously, why should Bin Laden's family leaving the country be of any importance?

Because they were the only ones allowed to fly! Why were all American citizens grounded, while the Bin Ladens were allowed to go? Nobody else could leave, why should they be allowed to?

That's because it's bad legislation that doesn't fix the problem being ranted about.

I agree; the heat was warranted, as was the heat on Bush for his repeated gaffes.

You can add oil prices to the mix there too but I'm not going to spend an exorbitant amount of effort properly educating you.

I think oil prices were the trigger. When Bush took office, gasoline was a buck a gallon, four by the time he left. That was a huge drain on most Americans.

The president cannot fix or ruin the economy, they can only support policies that either help or retard it.

A distinction without a difference. It's like saying "you can't see the ball, only the photons bouncing off of it." Sound economic policies can fix an economy (but it takes time), and unsound policies can ruin it.

Obama has been in office long enough to see that most of his campaign promised have been broken.

I'm no Obama worshiper; the longer he's in office the less hopeful I am. But all politicians break campaign promises; even Bush's father "read my lips."

His health care campaign isn't even real as the bills that became law do not even get health care for all individuals.

Agreed.

It's late enough to know Obama is on the wrong track and his presidency is a failure.

I don't think so; it's only been a year. But like I said, the more time goes by the less hopeful I am.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[yuhong]

Drop a bomb on the shit and start over.

I am trying to avoid actually dropping bombs if at all possible.

Short of that, citizens need to start getting their heads out of asses, do some real research on the actual issues that matter, and then not vote based on a letter next to a name.

Sounds like a good idea, personally my favorite US president would be Ron Paul.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

I wasn't a big fan of Ron Paul but honestly after the current political environment I'm really starting to warm up to him.

Personal account?

[Anonymous Coward]

The big question is whether or not this is his personal account. Many lobbyists might be people with their own lives (maybe).

Re:Personal account?

[e9th]

No, the big question is whether he used his personal account to circumvent rules regarding communications made in his official capacity.

Re:Personal account?

[Shadow of Eternity]

No, the real difference is we've finally collectively realised that no matter what we're fucked so from now on we're going by what color we feel like decorating with for 4 years.

Re:Personal account?

[mabhatter654]

You mean like Bush/Cheney advocated in their administration? It was a matter of "official" unwritten policy that much of the behind the scenes work was "off the books". The guys in the White House now are kids compared to the last administration with many non-elected "administrators" that served every republican since Nixon.

Re:Personal account?

[e9th]

If Bush/Cheney did it, does that somehow make what McLaughlin allegedly did okay?

Re:Personal account?

[mabhatter654]

Bush/Cheney made it a matter of "unofficial" policy specifically KNOWING they were skirting the law, and still continued doing it until the day they left as far as we know. In this case an executive is using his "normal" tools, and mostly to communicate WITH the public but outside FOIA-approved methods. Business executives even at SOX-paranoid companies don't have as many silly document restrictions as government does. I'd chalk this one up to not fully grasping all the technicalities... and in Politics you're "wrong" on the front page until proven "right" on page 8.

Yawn

[Mathinker]

> ... is at odds with President Obama's promises

Reality is at odds with (many of) President Obama's promises.

Details at 11.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

You know its funny how outraged people get over appointments. Guess what. Each party has its set of 'experts'. Many have been around for 20-60 years in various positions in the government and private industry. When their party is out of favor they get cushy jobs at some company and wait for the tide to come back around.

These dudes are professional politicians.

When the republican party is back in favor (and it will be) they will trot out their group of experts to fill all those positions. Just as the Democrats have done in the past year or two.

What do people honestly think these guys do while they are not in some sort of official office? They are helping some company weave its way thru the corridors of power. They are helping write up bills that they can give to their buddies in congress to get passed.

I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on. The American government is about favors. Not about actually helping anyone... That gigantic healthcare bill that just passed? You dont think it was 1200 pages just because it was that hard to do? No. I would be large portions of it is little 'I will vote for it if you put my pet project in' type things. The reason you didnt see any republicans voting for it was because the Democrats didnt want to owe any favors to them, not because they were actually listening to their constituents. Just as the republicans did in 2001 with the tax bill.

Re:Yawn

[B1oodAnge1]

I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on.

I'm not at all shocked.
I am fucking pissed though, and you should be too.

Re:Yawn

[phantomfive]

The American government is about favors. Not about actually helping anyone... That gigantic healthcare bill that just passed? You dont think it was 1200 pages just because it was that hard to do? No. I would be large portions of it is little 'I will vote for it if you put my pet project in' type things.

This sort of thing doesn't bother you at all?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on.

Maybe people expected something better than they got under the last administration. Maybe they didn't like billions of tax-payer dollars being funnelled into companies associated with folks in the administration? Maybe that's why they voted for "Change"?

OK, this is several orders of magnitude less corrupt than the Cheney/Halliburton relationship, but what's wrong with a little disclosure? What's wrong with consciously disassociating yourself from ex-colleagues where such association might reasonably raise concern of undue influence? At least for the time you hold high office?

It's the jaded attitude of people like you that have allowed politics to descend into the quagmire it is in today. Raise your expectations!

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Every politician, regardless of gender, race, religion, political stance/party or country makes empty promises. Nothing new there. I do have difficulties in grasping how Obama has failed in so many ways, though.

First of all, I am not some right wing nutjob, quite the opposite. I am an atheist, bisexual, pacifist, far left political activist in an european country (and far left on european standards, not american. My vote will probably go to the communist party in the next elections). I was extremely happy that Obama got elected (though partially because the alternative was THAT bad). I still am: I still consider him to be the lesser evil Yet... He seems to screw up everything, at least everything in regards to left wing ideologies.

USA still has massive presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the government hasn't opened up (ACTA, etc.), the health care reform is a farse (I am all for socialized health care and would never live in a country without such. However, the socialized insurance thingy really manages to take the worst of both worlds), Abu Ghraib still hasn't been closed, the lobbyists are as strong as ever, the government spent loads of money to bail out banks and large companies (something that doesn't fit the left wing mindset OR the right wing mindset), he hasn't put that much effort to pressuring Israel and Palestine to peace (USA being the only country in the world that might have a chance to do that)... I'm nearly speechless. It is getting more and more difficult to support him for any other reason than that the alternative could have been even worse.

Re:Yawn

[GPSguy]

It's a bit problematical to be a politician. If you don't promise things, but rather say, "I'll try to get this past Congress", folks don't think you'll do anything. If you do promise something, it's subject to the whim of the folks in Congress, and who they're trying to curry favor with at the time.

If you have a party bent on denying you any successes, using any of the arcane methods at their disposal through Roberts' Rules, or the Byzantine Senate and House rules, you suddenly look unsuccessful. If, un the other hand, you hold a solid majority and have leadership that whips you into line if you step out, you can pass whatever you want.

If you're the current Democratic leadership, you can manage to swap a supermajority for something less without getting legislation passed. If, on the other hand, you're Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich, you can keep your party in line and push through what your Party wants.

No one ever said politics at the National level was pretty, or subject to the rules of logic. In fact, while I'd like to have seen some of Obama's "promises" (I'm a bit more realistic in my expectations) passed and enacted, I'm pretty glad we're getting toward deadlock. That way, the Congress-critters can't break too many more things.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Before anyone thinks that 'i like it this way' you couldnt be more wrong.

My expectations used to be much higher. Until I realized I was being played by both sides. In a power game.

I have my reasons for being cynical. I show others how they are being played now.

One day I realized something. Even though I didnt vote for someone they are still my representative. Honestly 'i did/didnt vote for you' holds very little sway with them after they are in office. My uncle once had some 'tax problems'. A small 2000 dollar contribution to his local congressman and the 'tax problems' 'went away'. Straight up bribes are what runs our country. They call them 'campaign contributions'.

The lobbyists currently run our country and states (as they have the most money to throw around). The most egregious one I saw last year was in my state. A rep for the state senate here didnt even pretend that he wasn't acting for a corporation. The lobbyist paid someone to answer the phone for him (at his office) and do the talking points. He later resigned 'for family issues'. But this sort of crap goes on all the time at ALL levels of government and if you dont think it is you are ignoring facts or have not seen them yet. Until this is fixed you are taking sides in a battle that was already decided in some board room. I have many examples of this from both Republicans and Democrats.

There is little hope that it will be fixed. Term limits do not seem to be the answer as we end up with people who have no political power or experience to represent you. Funding has been set free by the highest court in the land, so lobbyists can turn up the money spigot even higher. So yeah I am a bit cynical that our government has been corrupted on all levels by people with 'agendas' instead of helping everyone as best as they can.

To your points. Yes people expected change. But instead they got even MORE of the same things that the people were voting against. That change campaign will totally hurt the Democrats in the next round of elections. Especially the way they acted in the past few months.

I just think its funny that people cover their eyes and ears when their party is in favor. Looking the other way, and making excuses for them to somehow prove that 'their vote counted more than others'. Just remember 'i did/didnt vote for you' means jack squat at this point. They are in charge. Also in this case it seems he wasnt 'consciously disassociating' himself. Quite the opposite. I dont care who he is. I am glad he got called out on it. I want less of these lobbyists in our government not more.

Re:Yawn

[Improv]

Not shocked, but bothered. I would like to see the influence of lobbyists sharply curtailed, as a general part of reform in how elections are run. I'll grumble at anyone, regardless of party, when my grumbling might help.

That said, the healthcare bill is not actually private, and as far as I can tell any favours in it are not blatant.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I do enjoy the fact that you think it's funny how uninformed and clueless the american people are about the government, then proceed to speculate what's really in the healthcare bill while admitting you haven't read it.

(at least I assume you meant "I would [bet] large portions of it is...")

Re:Yawn

[mabhatter654]

Exactly, we didn't have these arguments in the Bush years because Cheney ruled the party with an Iron Fist. Republicans that spoke out were replaced... even Democrats that spoke out had their districts targeted for Republican PR during elections. Bush enjoyed a majority in both houses for 6 years... and used flag waving/soft on terrorist to constantly push a few Democrats to their side simply because they weren't going to win, and why burn the bridges.

Obama did exactly what he said he would... pushed through health care. It was mean and nasty but unlike the Clinton attempt Obama was able to flip a few Republicans to get it through. I often wonder if the Patriot act (and the massive Homeland security cabinet seat and department created) would have gotten this much scrutiny the rest of the press would be saying much worse about Bush.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Rofl, are you real? just hang yourself.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell does abu ghraib have to do with anything? that prison has been under iraqi control for the last four years! are you suggesting that the obama administration should march in and force the current iraqi government to close it?!

what is with this modern fascination with communism? i'm in my early thirties and have noticed a startling number of people near my age wearing soviet-emblazoned shirts, buttons, etc. i've also seen the same with che gueverra, mao, and castro. noticibly absent are hitler, sar, mussolini. i just really don't understand how anyone in the modern era can be interested in such a political system.

the utopia that marx visioned is nothing like reality. people are, have always been, and will always be, corrupt. like smoke, that corruption permeates the halls of governing estates, eventually choking any hope of the original promise. unrestrained capitalism certainly has its flaws, but at least there exists an opportunity for advancement. hell, even i grew up in a trailer in the south that often went without electricity, but by legally navigating "the system" i've done really well and have been able to help others along the way.

finally, i have to congratulate you on constructing what is probably the least useful enumeration of generalizations i have _ever_ encountered.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

the utopia that marx visioned [sic]

Strictly speaking Marx refused to envisage any future "utopia." In fact he cautioned against it, writing that it was not for our generations to envisage what a post-revolutionary world would look like. Admit it, you haven't even read the guy! Probably not even the Manifesto.

The most we can say about what he thought such a system would involve, was that individuals, as an act of pure self-expression (for Marx you are what you make), would produce goods in accordance with their creative abilities and consume those produced by others in accordance to their needs. He would have loved FOSS, but maintained that such a model could not escape the realm intellectual commodities until such time as humanity achieved the level of maturity to take ownership of the means of production unmediated either by private owners or the state. As you must know, under communism, (as opposed to "transitional" socialism) there exists neither a state nor private property. This is why the states set up by Communist Parties were always called socialist republics.

people are, have always been, and will always be, corrupt.

But not all people surely? And are you seriously arguing that levels of corruption are independent of the economic and political environment in which said people operate?! You don't even need to go back in history to see what nonsense that is.

unrestrained capitalism certainly has its flaws, but at least there exists an opportunity for advancement.

Hmm maybe you have read Marx, that's what he wrote, but maybe in the reverse order. ;)

What Marx, and apparently you too, missed, was how much could be achieved under restrained capitalism.

Re:Yawn

[shadowbearer]

    I can't think of a better place to repeat the old saying:

  "All this has happened before, and will happen again."

  Great post, Anon, whoever you were. ;-SB

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see the influence of the American government be sharply curtailed.

Re:Yawn

[Mathinker]

> Obama did exactly what he said he would... pushed through health care.

Oh, I think that many of the things he has managed to do are good. I was just commenting on something another poster explained in more detail --- all politicians promise things which they don't manage to do. It's inherent in the current political culture.

This particular failing is small change in my eyes compared to Obama's failing to restore some of our fundamental rights at the cost of removing some of the security theater.

Re:Yawn

[Mathinker]

> (I'm a bit more realistic in my expectations)

Oh, I'm also realistic. Which is why I think the "outrage" on this issue is particularly farcical compared to, for example, the current administration's failure to work to restore basic liberties which we lost in the security theater after 9/11.

But, I suppose, everyone has their own priorities.

Re:Yawn

[Johnberg]

What's worse? A oil company lobbyist as vice president or a google lobbyist in a position no one cares about?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and I was pissed when an Oil Company Executive was Vice President...albeit MORE pissed.

Re:Yawn

[lwsimon]

Cheney was Chairman and CEO of Halliburton. McLaughlin was a lobbyist - his entire job was to interact with government on behalf of Google.

Do you not see the difference?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

And everyone else would like to see your influence curtailed, you Rand worshiping Mad Max fantasist.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think he's doing a pretty decent job on his campaign promises, at least. Details at:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love US politics. It is so hard to imagine that someone who had previously been employed in a role to further the advancement of one lobby group may consider a government position where you are advancing all kinds of areas and helping your fellow citizens a more challenging and rewarding position? Hasn't Andrew joined the "dark side" from Google's perspective?

News flash: I have friends from companies I've worked at previously. That hardly makes me unique. The same goes for Andrew.
News flash: I have a GMail account. I have Google Buzz. People I've worked with in the past follow me. This is also hardly unique.

Now, I'm all for stringing this guy up if he's been double-dealing, or passing on stuff to mates as 'favours'. But having friends (or gmail accounts) isn't illegal.

Disclaimer: I am not an American. I am not and have never been a Google employee.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[vux984]

Now, I'm all for stringing this guy up if he's been double-dealing, or passing on stuff to mates as 'favours'. But having friends (or gmail accounts) isn't illegal.

I guess that's why they are simply investigating whether anything untoward is going on.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[zill]

No one mentioned anything regarding illegal activities. The congressmen is simply asking Mr. McLaughlin to explain himself. There's no accusation of criminal activity at all in this case.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[pcolaman]

I am not and have never been a Google employee.

So you are saying you are evil?

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[Miseph]

On the contrary, doing that in a public, official way IS making such an accusation. Reporting it in this way is a means of making the current administration look corrupt. The entire thing is most likely going to come to naught (but hey, if it turns out the guy is dirty, great), but any time it can be stuck into the back of people's minds that "Obama is corrupt", there are many people who will attempt to do so. If there is nothing to it, nobody will ever hear about it again anyway.

This is not new, nor is it unique to Obama. For some reason people seem much more eager to jump on any potential issue, no matter how trivial, with him than most, but the principle is the same.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[jeffmeden]

If by "simply investigating" you mean "stringing him up without so much as a word in his defense" then yes, they are indeed simply investigating.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[Miseph]

"1) You seem to think that the current administration ISN'T corrupt.'

I've seen nothing to credibly indicate that it is particularly corrupt. Corruption is nearly universal to social constructs, including governments, businesses, clubs, schools, consortiums, and even informal groups of friends... it is, in some form, almost omnipresent. The question isn't whether or not the current administration is corrupt, it is to what extent it is corrupt, and to what extent it is more or less corrupt than others. In my opinion, there is insufficient credible evidence to conclude that it is notably more corrupt than other presidential administrations I can recall. This is not even remotely the same thing as concluding that there is no corruption.

"2) The political news media types jump on any potential issue, no matter how trivial, and no matter who it's about, because scandal brings ratings"

Yes, that was pretty much what I said... How am I fooling myself again?

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[joocemann]

Of course a large number of people want to stick it to him -- and far beyond any other partisan or previous personal prejudice... He is black. Millions of people are still far too ignorant and prejudiced to give him the due criticism that has been applied to every white president before him for the usual reasons.

Socialist? Try JFK and FDR. Corrupt? Try Nixon, Reagan, Cheney. Fool? Try Bush Jr. and Ford.

----But being black makes it so much worse for many. Every day I love and appreciate the youth because race is fading fast, especially in denser populations; and yet every day I am embarrassed by the blatant racism and ignorance of my peers and elders.

One piece of advice for the racist: Racism is only making your life more negative; you're making your life worse by maintaining those beliefs.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[mabhatter654]

No, we need somebody from the "moral majority" action group to act as Federal CIO... preventing moral foibles and preventing federal offices from looking at "bad things" is much more important than somebody that was part of setting up one of the fastest growing companies in the US right now. That would be like appointing radio engineers or broadcast owners to the FCC... instead of a lobby for "moral content". (Oh wait... that was the last guy)

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like:

If your Father / Uncle / close friend was a cop, would they let you off a speeding ticket (or help get you out of one) vs would they help you out of a DWI if you were pulled over?

Depending on where you live or the type of police officer encountered (State trooper vs county), the answer to that can be extremely different.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[vux984]

From the full artical:

"Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is pressing White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin to explain his relationship with his former employer, Google.

The congressman, who serves as ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said McLaughlin's account on Google's new Buzz social network suggests he remains in touch with "more than two dozen individuals currently employed by Google, Inc., including a number of senior lobbyists and lawyers."

That isn't "stringing him up".

Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[kimvette]

Maybe the automatic opt-in of Buzz isn't so evil after all!

--Kim

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[phantomfive]

In case there was any doubt in the mind of anyone, and lest people think this guy is actually trying to fight corruption, the right honorable Rep. Darrell Issa is a Republican. You would not find him making such comments about a Bush appointee.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[Nutria]

You would not find him making such comments about a Bush appointee.

He wouldn't have to; a Dem would do it.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[phantomfive]

Very true, very true. Strange how the division of labor is split so equitably.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[pcolaman]

Let's be fair. The Bush administration got raked over the coals (rightly so) for using private webmail accounts to keep a lot of internal discussions off of public records. That's a big no-no. The Obama administration doing it is no more right than any other administration doing it. Keep the personal email for personal use. But it shouldn't be used for government business. Chances of him not using it at all for business related to his position within the Obama administration: Probably greater than 50% is what I'm guessing. If he's got nothing to hide, he should let a private auditor go over his gmail account to ensure that nothing government business related is on the gmail account, and if there is anything there government business related, he should disclose this and make those emails part of the White House document chain.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[Carl.E.Pierre]

He wouldn't have to; a Dem would do it.

Correction: He would not, period. A Dem would certainly do it though.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the attitude that has led to a republican party where if you get two of them in the room the odds are you'll get a criminal conspiracy.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[Nutria]

this is the attitude that has led to a republican party where if you get two of them in the room the odds are you'll get a criminal conspiracy.

While I'm sure this is true, it's the kind of one-sidedness that led to the creation of FNC.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[macshit]

No doubt, but from the description, there doesn't really seem to be any indication that he's done anything bad.

It reads more like grand-standing by some random Republican trying to smear by insinuation ("the Bush administration intentionally used private email accounts to bypass public accountability laws ... therefore if someone in the Obama administration merely has a private email account, they must be doing the same thing!").

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[pcolaman]

There is a difference between having a private email account and using it to avoid the scrutiny of the public eye when doing business as a representative of the people of the United States of America. If he has nothing to hide as a representative of the people, have a private audit conducted to determine if there is anything that would need to be entered into the public log on his private email. That way if he has nothing that needs to be documented, then his personal email isn't aired out like dirty laundry, and he's kept looking honorable.

And if he has emails that should be documented, then honestly, it shows he has something that he shouldn't be hiding. The whole point of making all email created while doing business under the hat of the US White House public knowledge is to keep the accountability ever present. You just assume that everything done on a private email is private business without at least doing due diligence and it creates a problem with the accountability, even if it's only the appearance of impropriety.

There are a lot of things about the Bush White House that are probably legitimately honorable but because of appearances, took away credibility. Not defending them, but just saying that a lot of things that the Bush White House got smeared about were probably not as big a deal as made out to be, but because of actions they did take that raised questions, a lot of things were looked at as improper. I'd be willing to bet that half of the crap the prior administration took would probably have been avoided if they had been more open with their communication and not all smoke and daggers. Or perhaps there would be indictments for crimes committed. Who knows? The point is, if the Obama White House really wants to be about change, they'll change the way that the White House shows itself to the American People. Because from where a lot of people stand, this WH is hiding itself from public scrutiny (or trying to anyway) just as much as the last one did. Having public staffers who are previous lobbyists, which is precisely what the President said wouldn't happen, already betrays a bit of the trust that voters put in him. But then finding out that this staffer has a lot of private communications with the people he previously lobbied for, whether honest private communication that in no way affects how he advises the President or dishonest private communication that helps to dictate policy advise, appears to be cloak and dagger stuff just like what was seen with Bush 43. And really, appearance is everything.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[Compaqt]

>You would not find him making such comments about a Bush appointee.

Probably not, but that's the point of an opposition. It's the same theory in law courts: the adversarial justice system.

lolwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ex-Googler Obama Appointee Gets Buzz'ed"
That realy sound like babble from a far, far future...

"Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."

Re:lolwut?

[kameslett]

i just now read this post and i like this but i am not free right now to leave a comment about this post but i appreciate with this post http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/pro-cleanse-gold-review-amp-free-trial-2113776.html

Re:lolwut?

[mcgrew]

That realy sound like babble from a far, far future...

A future where rules for the use of apostrophes have changed completely. A world where contractions don't contract, and possessives don't possess, and... oh wait

Re:lolwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Stupid, arrogant Amerifag. Not everyone is a native english speaker.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now can we apply it too the media companies, the pharma companies, the banks, the...

Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean their former co-worker who now holds a government position important to their jobs might be interested in what he has to say? Surely this is neo-islamic-communism at its worst!

Yeah, right

[shadowbearer]

'The American people have a right to expect that White House employees are working to advance the public interest and not the interests of the lobby shops who formerly employed them,' Issa noted in the letter.

  That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Is he serious? As other posters have noted, he has ties to lobbyists from other industries.

  Glass House, Issa.

  We really need sane contribution laws here in the US. Like, contributions from corporations are flat out illegal.

SB

I wonder if he cut off his friends on Facebook

[OctaviusIII]

WTF? The fuss makes no sense for a number of reasons: 1) A former high-level Google official has emailed other high-level Google officials through his Gmail account, and is probably friends with them.
2) High-level Google officials will be interested to see what the CTO of the Executive Branch is up to, no matter who that CTO is.
3) This needs to be kept an eye on, but is not indicative of endemic corruption by any stretch. Get a grip, folks!

Re:I wonder if he cut off his friends on Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? The fuss makes no sense for a number of reasons:
1) A former high-level Google official has emailed other high-level Google officials through his Gmail account, and is probably friends with them.

2) High-level Google officials will be interested to see what the CTO of the Executive Branch is up to, no matter who that CTO is.

3) This needs to be kept an eye on, but is not indicative of endemic corruption by any stretch. Get a grip, folks!

Exactly right OctaviusIII !!!

I wonder how many of us cut off all social networks when we switch jobs!!

There is absolutely nothing to see here folks (except bad journalism), move along quietly please.

Re:I wonder if he cut off his friends on Facebook

[Compaqt]

When people go into high-level jobs, they do all sorts of things to cut ties to former employers or holdings to avoid being influenced or the appearance of impropriety.

For example, people sell off partnerships and put assets into blind trusts.

Would it have been OK if this exec had gone to work for Microsoft and continued to give updates to Googlers?

Re:I wonder if he cut off his friends on Facebook

[hey!]

I think you've got it right.

What we have here is an official who's been shown to have the *means* to commit a crime. Not evidence that he *has* committed a crime. It's like owning a gun. It doesn't make you a criminal. The fact you own a gun may be significant if there's evidence you used it in a crime, but the ownership of the gun itself proves nothing.

This doesn't compare to the RNC email scandal. There was no question that Bush administration officials were within their rights to have separate email accounts for running the political campaign. The problem was that they used those accounts for official business like discussing Executive Branch appointments and firings. That's illegal.

I hate the phrase "false equivalence" because it's so vague. This is really more of a "begging the question" situation. It simply makes no sense to compare this to the RNC fiasco where the problem was a violation of the Presidential Records Act. When a violation of that law comes up, we can then ask whether the Obama administration is being held to a lower standard than the Bush administration.

Uh - nobody has figured it out yet?...

[Anonymous Coward]

President O isn't Carter version 2 - he's simply a corrupt Chicago politician who said what he knew people wanted to get elected.

He has no plans on keeping any of these promises except those that fit his long term agenda.

For you, the reader, you must decide if his agenda matches what you believe or not.

He's a politician - plain and simple :(

Sad

[ericdano]

You know, they said no lobbyists.....yet......

Change and hope was just a slogan huh? Marketing? I don't see any change at all.......

Perspective

[The Wooden Badger]

It's Google Buzz. It isn't that huge from what I'm seeing. It makes sense that current and former google employees are using google buzz. The closest I've come is noticing that there is a new icon when I check my gmail.

the irony is

[circletimessquare]

if, after the lengthy political and legal fight that would finally expose his google buzz messages to american officials, chinese officials, via their google hackers, would have already probably read them a long time ago

Re:the irony is

[Anonymous Coward]

The chinese aren't the ones who need to know, the american people are. Thus the legal battle.

What about all the Justice Department

[greenbird]

They're investigating this but not that pretty much every appointee to the Justice Department formerly worked for the entertainment industry in one form or another?

Re:What about all the Justice Department

[Anonymous Coward]

Strippers?

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

“The American people have a right to expect that White House employees are working to advance the public interest and not the interests of the lobby shops who formerly employed them,"

The irony is thick here when that kind of statement comes from a Congressman. It's too bad the self-realization will be lost.

CTO

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Obama should have chosen a CTO with more experience running an International Arabian Horse Association instead of some technology insider?

Trying to see the line here....

[argStyopa]

"Obama's promises to limit the influence of lobbyists."

Wouldn't it just be simpler to hire oh, NO LOBBYISTS?

Or are you telling me that in a country of 330,000,000 there is not a single qualified person for this job who hasn't already Lewinski'd congress or the White House?

change in his pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

yea so obama's definition of not many is like 50% right?

Re:change in his pocket

[zippthorne]

He could hire 3% of the extant lobbyists, yet fill a much larger fraction of his administration with that number. So he'd be right that he hadn't hired many - just 3% - from a certain point of view.

Re:Do no evil vs Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I know which one I prefer: neither.

Bush isn't in office. This has nothing to do with what Bush has or hasn't done.

Let's try to judge our officials objectively, instead of praising them for being "less evil" than the last guy.

Don't be a fanboy.

Utterly

[SpaghettiPattern]

'The American people have a right to expect that White House employees are working to advance the public interest and not the interests of the lobby shops who formerly employed them,'

In US politics this an utterly preposterous proposition.

Re:Utterly

[PaulMeigh]

Yeah. Focusing on banning lobbyists from American politics is like focusing on border enforcement to fight the drug war.

Corporate influence?

[Anonymous Coward]

What... what?? A Republican is complaining about corporate influence?

Green Zone

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch it. Wake up call for Americans.

Sure politics is dirty, but there is no reason to let criminals and sociopaths become president..

WTF? Buzz'ed?

[edittard]

Is this some new rule about apostrophe usage? I tell you what, I'll be pretty piss'ed if there was a memo and I miss'ed it or it whizz'ed over my head.

Financial Industry..

[0ld_d0g]

employees/lobbyists routinely accept jobs in the US Government and influence laws and do all kinds of other evil acts to benefit their former employers and when they "retire" they get re-hired back with huge bonuses. Funny that...

Not saying Google is doing the same but it never hurts to double check...

Then we could talk about Monsanto appointees...

[toby]

(What, you think this is off topic? None of you eat, in between Google searches??)

Re:WTF? Buzz'ed?

[selven]

Yes the rules have changed, but:

1) It's a rule about a'po's'tro'phe usage, I don't know where you're getting this word "apostrophe" from.
2) You don't say "there was a memo", you say "they're was a memo"

Than'queue for you're co'operation.

Am i crazy or is this extreme hypocrisy ?

[unity100]

when i watch news in usa, i go half crazy.

a GOP senator questions a guy that has formerly worked in google, in regard to 'lobbyism'.

how many people from lobbies were employed by gop administration in the past 8 years ? how the fuck these people can have the guts to exercise hypocrisy and doublespeak to THAT extent and you people dont do anything ?

Re:Am i crazy or is this extreme hypocrisy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GOP didn't make it a selling point that McCain was going to be above listening to the lobbies. The GOP didn't make promises of tranparency for the good of the American people. Why is it that you people can't see this for what it is? Why is it that people complain when elected Candidate X doesn't do what former Candidate Y said he would do if elected?

Are people really this dense?

Re:Am i crazy or is this extreme hypocrisy ?

[unity100]

so, it all depends on whether you sell your candidate as above lobbies in the election or not, eh ?

so, if you dont do it, and then employ lobbiysts, its ok, and oversight committee doesnt intervene ?

Pot..

[Yfrwlf]

..calling the kettle black.

But yes, just, pot in general, too. :P

Re:WTF? Buzz'ed?

[Compaqt]

>Than'queue for you're co'operation.

Do you mean Thank'cue ?

Re:Do no evil vs Evil

[mcgrew]

Google's motto isn't "do no evil", it's "don't BE evil." Big difference, especially since they have, in fact, done evil.

Promises kept

[slapout]

Let's see...

  Close Gitmo...chec...oh wait...
  Health Care negotiations in public view..chec...oh wait...
  No lobbyists...chec...oh wait...

Politics as usual...check.

nothing wrong here??

[seekertom]

it may or may not make sense for govt to employ folks with max knowledge of their fields, even lobbyists, but that's not the issue. the issue is, we just don't trust them anymore, maybe with good reason. so, if govt wants to employ a lobbiest, and said govt always works 'in the sunshine', no problemo. unfortunately, we have come to see that our wonderful govt has absolutely no problem with slamming the conference doors in our collective faces. what's to trust in that? now comes something questionable, like a favored son of a specific corporation working to advise the prez on matters that definitely DO concern said corporation, is it any wonder that we get a little excited about it? any time something like this comes about, i don't care if the info comes to lite due to political backstabbing or not, I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT! keep the spotlite on govt, and keep that info flowing freely. thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom