Page 2 of 3
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 2:02 pm
by Feesh
alphabits wrote:So let me see if I understand the issue here .....
You're complaining that Obama isn't delivering the change that you didn't want?
I'm not complaining. I didn't vote for the guy. I knew he was corrupt and was another politician who doesn't keep his word. His first two weeks in office already prove that.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 2:04 pm
by Feesh
ph4ever wrote:alphabits wrote:So let me see if I understand the issue here .....
You're complaining that Obama isn't delivering the change that you didn't want?
I guess for some 15 days in office is time to do everything
Actually - that was pretty quick to me that he already broke his word. Oh, wait, compromised. Sorry about that.
I thought it would take at least a month.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 2:26 pm
by LIPH
I suppose if McCain had won the election and did what Obama is doing, including choosing 3 tax evaders for cabinet level positions, the left would be cutting him some slack. Excuse me while I chuckle.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 4:40 pm
by LIBuffettFan
LIPH wrote:I suppose if McCain had won the election and did what Obama is doing, including choosing 3 tax evaders for cabinet level positions, the left would be cutting him some slack. Excuse me while I chuckle.
Oh you know that would never happen. This guy is getting such a pass when it comes to the media. They throw him nothing but softball questions and look the other way when something goes wrong. I expect at somepoint the love affair has to end. In the mean time grin and bear it.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 5:05 pm
by flyboy55
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the previous guy set the bar quite low. Actually, the previous guy did a splendid job of convincing most of us that the name of the game wasn't high jump but limbo.
Because of this, Obama has lots of room to maneuver on the down side but I don't think he'll be using it.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 5:27 pm
by C-Dawg
flyboy55 wrote:Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the previous guy set the bar quite low. Actually, the previous guy did a splendid job of convincing most of us that the name of the game wasn't high jump but limbo.
Because of this, Obama has lots of room to maneuver on the down side but I don't think he'll be using it.
But we shouldn't be comparing Obama to GWB, as throughout his campaign, Obama distanced himself from the former President and even McCain. Now, 2 weeks into his Presidency, he's already gone back on campaign promises that he said differentiated himself from the Republicans. That has to be troubling to even his most ardent supporters.
As I stated in previous posts, I want Obama to succeed. I truly do. But this isn't a good start. I don't want this to be a "bash Obama" post, but merely to point out he made promises, and we should expect them to be kept. We should be able to expect that from a President of either party, but sadly I haven't seen it in almost 20 years.
I hate Political threads...so this is my last post on the subject hopefully.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 9:03 pm
by SMLCHNG
As so many people complained about the vetting process with Sarah Palin during the campaign, I wonder if they used the same people to do the vetting of these cabinet nominations?
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 4, 2009 9:12 pm
by Tequila Revenge
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 5, 2009 7:26 am
by drunkpirate66
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 5, 2009 8:11 am
by a1aara
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 5, 2009 8:30 pm
by Elrod
CNN wrote:More tax woes as Labor nominee vote postponed
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Senate committee delayed its confirmation vote for Labor Secretary-designate Hilda Solis on Thursday in order to review a potential tax controversy relating to Solis' husband, two sources familiar with her confirmation told CNN.
You can't make this stuff up. At least she wasn't a lobbyist.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 5, 2009 9:40 pm
by Crazy Navy Flyer
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 5, 2009 9:48 pm
by Elrod
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 6, 2009 8:08 am
by drunkpirate66
Elrod wrote:
CNN wrote:More tax woes as Labor nominee vote postponed
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Senate committee delayed its confirmation vote for Labor Secretary-designate Hilda Solis on Thursday in order to review a potential tax controversy relating to Solis' husband, two sources familiar with her confirmation told CNN.
You can't make this stuff up. At least she wasn't a lobbyist.
is there still "hope"?
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 6, 2009 9:16 am
by UAHparrothead
I guess all that talk about "coming together" and "putting aside differences" when people were ragging on Sarah Palin was all just BS right? I tried to stay outta this, but come on? How quickly the tide changes?
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 6, 2009 9:36 am
by drunkpirate66
All I know is Obama promised "I will not hire lobbyists as President". Not sure what Sarah Palin has to do with that. But I do know 62 million people who voted for Obama were lied to . . . and that IF Obama was just honest and said "Yeah, of course I am going to hire lobbyists and not CHANGE anything in that regard . . ." people wouldn't feel as cheated and and stupid for believing his BS.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 6, 2009 9:36 am
by LIBuffettFan
In Obama's own words to republicans.."we won", so with that being said don't expect any bipartisan behavior. They own the car now so they are gonna kick the tires and see where they can take it at our expense. I am amazed that so many of their cabinet nominees have tax problems, really are you kidding me. I think they should approach this bunch of tax evaders with Helmsley way. Don't just let them pay their back taxes and continue to give them a job. I am still having a hard time choking down the fact that the head of the IRS evaded taxes himself and got away with it. I would expect their will be a party box appearing on your tax forms, if you check Democrat than you don't need to complete the forms, just send back and they will talk to you in a few years 
or if you attempt to get a government job.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 6, 2009 9:47 am
by UAHparrothead
drunkpirate66 wrote:All I know is Obama promised "I will not hire lobbyists as President". Not sure what Sarah Palin has to do with that. But I do know 62 million people who voted for Obama were lied to . . . and that IF Obama was just honest and said "Yeah, of course I am going to hire lobbyists and not CHANGE anything in that regard . . ." people wouldn't feel as cheated and and stupid for believing his BS.
I agree that he should never made that promise, because you can't throw a rock in any direction in DC without hitting a lobbyist. I don't think he realized how difficult that particular promise would be to keep. I think that he is trying to pick the best people for the job and not necessarily his "buddies". Every president since Washington had to deal with people who helped him get elected wanting jobs at the White House The point is that I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. But some people were waiting with baited breath for his first screw up just to scream and yell as loud as they could. I am just saying give the man a month or two. Yeah he will screw up and he won't be able to meet all the hype of the campaign, no president ever has.
As for Sarah Palin, the talk from the Neo-Cons on this board was "Don't make fun of her, what about 'coming together' or 'coming across the isle'"? I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy that they now are making fun of Obama instead of making contributions that might help.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 6, 2009 10:05 am
by drunkpirate66
UAHparrothead wrote:drunkpirate66 wrote:All I know is Obama promised "I will not hire lobbyists as President". Not sure what Sarah Palin has to do with that. But I do know 62 million people who voted for Obama were lied to . . . and that IF Obama was just honest and said "Yeah, of course I am going to hire lobbyists and not CHANGE anything in that regard . . ." people wouldn't feel as cheated and and stupid for believing his BS.
I agree that he should never made that promise, because you can't throw a rock in any direction in DC without hitting a lobbyist.
I don't think he realized how difficult that particular promise would be to keep. I think that he is trying to pick the best people for the job and not necessarily his "buddies". Every president since Washington had to deal with people who helped him get elected wanting jobs at the White House The point is that I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. But some people were waiting with baited breath for his first screw up just to scream and yell as loud as they could. I am just saying give the man a month or two. Yeah he will screw up and he won't be able to meet all the hype of the campaign, no president ever has.
As for Sarah Palin, the talk from the Neo-Cons on this board was "Don't make fun of her, what about 'coming together' or 'coming across the isle'"? I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy that they now are making fun of Obama instead of making contributions that might help.
They he wasn't ready to make such bold promises - - - IMO. That is ignorance (not a bad thing . . . but he should've checked before basing his ENTIRE campaign on something he didn't "know" according to you). People trusted him. Obama should atleast know that much. And, I bet, there are plenty of non - lobbyists available he could have hired just the same. But he didn't.
Re: Lobbyists
Posted: February 6, 2009 10:05 am
by LIPH
I don't see anyone making fun of Obama, I see them criticizing him for doing exactly the opposite of what he spent the entire campaign saying he would do and for making poor choices. Monday he said he "absolutely" supported Tom Daschle. After Daschle withdrew his name from consideration, Obama said he made a mistake. To go from absolute support to saying it was a mistake in 2 days doesn't fill me with confidence that any other decision he makes will be any better.
As for the talk of "coming together" and "putting aside differences", if I'm not mistaken that was mostly from Obama supporters. Most of whom weren't saying that until after their guy won. Obama shouldn't be above criticism just because his name isn't George W. Bush.
I'm sure it's different. The American People did not vote for those Lobbyists...errrrr... I mean Cabinet Posts 