CNN: Obama defense choices include lobbyist as deputy secretary

[Redskins Diehard]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama, who campaigned on lessening lobbyist influence in government, has chosen a defense expert who is currently a vice president and lobbyist for one of the country's biggest defense contractors to be his deputy secretary of defense.

Obama's transition office announced that William Lynn, an undersecretary of defense in President Bill Clinton's second term, has been nominated as Defense Secretary Robert Gates' deputy.
Lynn is currently a senior vice president at Raytheon, which has billions of dollars in Defense Department contracts and is the maker of the Army's Patriot Missile system and the Tomahawk missile used by the Navy. The company is also developing a global positioning satellite communication system with the Air Force.
As deputy secretary, Lynn would be involved in the process of budgeting and acquisitions, in addition to running the day-to-day operations of the Defense Department.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/08/defense.appointments/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
From a "Can't afford more of the same" commercial.....


"John McCain's chief adviser lobbies for oil companies, even from Russia and China. His campaign manager lobbies for corporations outsourcing American jobs. The campaign chairman he picked last year -- a bank lobbyist. If seven of McCain's top advisers are lobbyists, who do you think will run his White House? John McCain. We just can't afford more of the same."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/obama-ad-calls-out-mccain_n_125995.html


-------------------------------------------------------------
"His Undersecretary of Defense -- a defense lobbyist"

Not only did he select Lynn for an Undersecretary position...Undersecretary for Acquisition!!!:applause::applause:

[Thiebear]

Quick,
someone come in and say:

But, {insert excuse here}

[twa]

But...at least he is qualified:2cents:

Hey you didn't actually believe the words coming out of his mouth did you?

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Quick,
someone come in and say:

But, {insert excuse here}

But, {it's not like this is Secretary of State or something, he's got the support of both Repub's and Dem's, and is highly qualified for the position, so he shouldn't be disqualified automatically.}

How was that?:D

[Toe Jam]

Sarge.. where art thou?

Fine, I'll do it myself...


CHANGE!!!!!!!

[aREDSKIN]

Obama has basically just rehired 90% of the Clinton era minions. Man is that all the Dems have? Retread Clintonistas?

[twa]

Sarge.. where art thou?

Fine, I'll do it myself...


KLINTON :)CHANGE!!!!!!!

Followed by a page about Klinton's cuts to the military and his general unworthiness to breathe our air.


I miss Sarge

[Redskins Diehard]

But, {it's not like this is Secretary of State or something, he's got the support of both Repub's and Dem's, and is highly qualified for the position, so he shouldn't be disqualified automatically.}

How was that?:D

C+ at best:).

1) A stronger argument could certainly be made by not referencing "Secretary of State" and "highly qualified" in the same statement

2) I think we were looking for "pragmatic" somewhere in the perfect "yeah, but...."

----------------
Honestly this isn't a thread about an "unqualified Undersecretary for aquisitions" it is about "more of the same"

[Spaceman Spiff]

Obama has basically just rehired 90% of the Clinton era minions. Man is that all the Dems have? Retread Clintonistas?

Looks like it.

Sad.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Maybe you guys would be happier with some unknown like uh, Jim Zorn? :silly:

[Art Monk Fan]

He's a politician, none of this surprises me from him. What surprised me was how willing the majority of Americans were to believe differently of him. I keep reminding my Obamaniac friends that he's just a politician -- folks need to stop confusing him with Jesus.

[Redskins Diehard]

Is C+ as good as the Obamacons have today?

[Thiebear]

well at least he's had a job before.

[Jumbo]

Quick,
someone come in and say:

But, {insert excuse here}

...the first thing I thought of went in the other direction...

"...and so it continues..." :rolleyes:

but u b rite 2, T <---- practicing for when I send my FIRST text ever :silly:

...slowly but Shirely, the partisanship over-bias inhibiting the making of objective even-handed assessments, has been awakening from it's post-election slumber, and is warm-n-comfy in it's cave...:cool:

[Redskins Diehard]

...the first thing I thought of went in the other direction...

"...and so it continues..." :rolleyes:

but u b rite 2, T <---- practicing for when I send my FIRST text ever :silly:

...slowly but Shirely, the partisanship over-bias inhibiting the making of objective even-handed assessments, has been awakening from it's post-election slumber, and is warm-n-comfy in it's cave...:cool:

The first text seems to make more sense then the last paragraph...but yeah it would be nice to see an even-handed assessments from the Obamaniacs.(By the way, I support leaving Gates, the Blair pick, the Brennan pick, and am withholding judgement on the Panetta decision until we see what Kappes does)

[techboy]

he's got the support of both Repub's and Dem's

I'm sure he does. He's a lobbyist. :)

[skinsfan_1215]

The first text seems to make more sense then the last paragraph...but yeah it would be nice to see an even-handed assessments from the Obamaniacs.(By the way, I support leaving Gates, the Blair pick, the Brennan pick, and am withholding judgement on the Panetta decision until we see what Kappes does)

Wait, Obama picked Colt Brennan!?!?! He IS the Messiah after all!:silly:

[Jumbo]

The first text seems to make more sense then the last paragraph...but yeah it would be nice to see an even-handed assessments from the Obamaniacs.(By the way, I support leaving Gates, the Blair pick, the Brennan pick, and am withholding judgment on the Panetta decision until we see what Kappes does)

Expecting objectivity from someone who would legitimately be considered a "maniac for Obama" would seem a fools errand. :D

The also-fun paragraph, that you suggest was elusive in understanding, was made in support of Thiebear and his frequent non-partisan approach.:applause:

I was noting, as the words I wrote state, the limiting aspects strong partisanship often brings to any competent evaluation of such matters, with neither a right or left fixation singled out. :cool:

I agree with you point for point on the picks so you mentioned far. I think Obama has had a range of good to very questionable. I remain open-minded since people haven't even begun their job, and the challenges ahead would daunt even the most exceptional folk.

BTW, to me, and not aimed at you, reading terms like "Obamamaniac, usually prompt me to wonder how many of the people who embrace that term were likely Palin-worshipers of the same intellectual stripe, just for the other side. I sat that because it was particular form of hypocrisy I saw frequently on display during the campaign.

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/campbell.brown.lobbyists/index.html

President Obama: "The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm, I wonder how his new rule pertains to Mr. Lynn?

[FanboyOf91]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/campbell.brown.lobbyists/index.html

President Obama: "The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."



The minute he said that, I wondered how long it would take for a lobbyist to be found.

[81artmonk]

Yup....that change he was talking about.......it was his people for Bush's people.

This presedency is going to interesting...:munchout:

[Redskins Diehard]

The minute he said that, I wondered how long it would take for a lobbyist to be found.

Actually the lobbyist was "found" 10 days before he took the oath. Maybe he wanted to get all his lobbyists in before he passed a rule that they couldn't work for him.

[Thiebear]

as stated previously:


President Obama: "The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history.

If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on

(President-elect Barack Obama, who campaigned on lessening lobbyist influence in government, has chosen a defense expert who is currently a vice president and lobbyist for one of the country's biggest defense contractors to be his deputy secretary of defense.,)))

or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."



PLEASE follow your OWN RULES.. for goodness sakes..
I can understand not following a rule someone else made to the letter.
BUT YOUR OWN?

*Fail*

[Redskins Diehard]

as stated previously:



PLEASE follow your OWN RULES.. for goodness sakes..
I can understand not following a rule someone else made to the letter.
BUT YOUR OWN?

*Fail*

I guess the argument could be made that the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions won't be working on acquiring defense systems;)

[Prosperity]

This is bull**** Obama ought to retract his nomination. A lobbyist for Raytheon, being in charge of acquisitions? :doh:

[Fred Jones]

Disappointing, but one of many questionable decisions to come. However, still nothing compared to the previous president.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It's not a great choice just on appearances sake. So, he'd better do a bang up job.

The ***** of the situation is that there are apparently few people in this country who are:

1. Qualified to do important government jobs and
2. Not dirty in some way.

As a pragmastist, I would rather have dirty qualified people than unqualified clean people. Still, it's depressing.

[Redskins Diehard]

It's not a great choice just on appearances sake. So, he'd better do a bang up job.

The ***** of the situation is that there are apparently few people in this country who are:

1. Qualified to do important government jobs and
2. Not dirty in some way.

As a pragmastist, I would rather have dirty qualified people than unqualified clean people. Still, it's depressing.

Do you mean by "appearances sake" that it looks bad because it violates a rule he instituted? I think it looked bad on "appearances sake" before he passed the rule that he broke. I'm not sure what it looks like when you pass a rule that you break...within a few days. Pragmatic people definitely wouldn't do that

[jnhay]

So is this guy still going to be working for Raytheon while being deputy secretary of defense?

EDIT: Oh I get it now. He'll be making decisions that involve Raytheon. What a stupid decision to backtrack so quickly. He obviously knew this guy would probably get the job before he announced his rules for lobbyists.

I understand that the waiver clause was written in the executive order, but did he mention the waiver clause when he spoke to the press? Did he mention William Lynn during his announcement?

EDIT: And these waivers pretty much only have to be accepted by Obama himself, and another guy who he appointed? There's no one else who has to agree to this?

[Burgold]

This is good for the gander fodder for the Republicans after all the Cheney/Haliburton grief. However, I hope that some of it is just insincere. W. Bush tapped a ton of Bush I people in 2000, were they condemned as retreads or understood to be the pool of experienced, betted talent from within the party. If Obama wants people with government experience and who are Dems... well, he has to go Clinton. Carter was too long ago. I do hope a good crop of newbies flow under them who will soon rise and gain experience. Then again, by and large the country suceeded under Clinton and so going back to people who did their job well doesn't really disgust me.

[Redskins Diehard]

This is good for the gander fodder for the Republicans after all the Cheney/Haliburton grief. However, I hope that some of it is just insincere. W. Bush tapped a ton of Bush I people in 2000, were they condemned as retreads or understood to be the pool of experienced, betted talent from within the party. If Obama wants people with government experience and who are Dems... well, he has to go Clinton. Carter was too long ago. I do hope a good crop of newbies flow under them who will soon rise and gain experience. Then again, by and large the country suceeded under Clinton and so going back to people who did their job well doesn't really disgust me.

Uhhhh, I think you meant this response for another argument. This isn't a "Clinton retread" problem...it is a look "I broke my very own change to Washington rule before the ink even dried on it".

[Jumbo]

Here's a bit more detailed presentation of the fubar

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2009/01/president_barack_obamas_strict.html?wprss=washingt onpostinvestigations

Obama's ethics rules state that ex-lobbyists in his administration cannot work on issues they lobbied on for two years:

"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.
"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or

(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.

That rule complicates matters for Lynn. It also affects William V. Coor, the nominee for deputy secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, who has lobbied for the nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But Coor has pledged not to work on any tobacco issues in his new job.

Lynn, however, lobbied the Pentagon on so many Raytheon projects -- acquisitions policy, space, intelligence and command and control, among others -- that it might be hard to find an area within the department that was untouched by his previous work.

(Lynn's biography, as released by Obama's transition team, said he "brings decades of experience and expertise in reforming government spending and making the tough choices necessary to ensure that American tax dollars are spent wisely.")

Lynn was thought to have "broad support in Congress" and had been considered a "shoo-in," according to The Associated Press.

But watchdog groups, the Republican National Committee and even Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee have expressed their reservations.

In a statement, Levin said:

"Given the President's new stricter rules requiring his appointees to recuse themselves from matters or issues on which they have lobbied, the Senate Armed Services Committee will need further information before proceeding with the nomination of William J. Lynn III to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. The committee will await the administration's assessment as to whether the new rules will preclude Mr. Lynn, who was a registered lobbyist for a defense contractor, from participating in key Department of Defense decisions, and if so, whether a waiver will be forthcoming and what the scope of the waiver will be."
Others on the committee thought it would be impossible for Lynn to be appointed without a clear-cut waiver.

"I have no reason to impugn Mr. Lynn's integrity, but it's a problem," Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Congressional Quarterly. "You can't just recuse yourself from huge programs at the Pentagon if you're going to do that job."

[twa]

Hey rules sound good till they get in the way.

Welcome to reality O.

It's just a piece of paper.

[Thiebear]

It's not a great choice just on appearances sake. So, he'd better do a bang up job.

The ***** of the situation is that there are apparently few people in this country who are:

1. Qualified to do important government jobs and
2. Not dirty in some way.

As a pragmastist, I would rather have dirty qualified people than unqualified clean people. Still, it's depressing.

I remember this EXACT quote about Haliburton and the war.
Didn't fly to the dems then, so please don't use it now.

[Burgold]

Uhhhh, I think you meant this response for another argument. This isn't a "Clinton retread" problem...it is a look "I broke my very own change to Washington rule before the ink even dried on it".

Ah, okay. In that case I have three thoughts although some contradict one another.

1) It's a bad move to hire lobbiests because you may have favoritism or the perception of favoritism. See eight years of dems whining (rightly so) about Haliburton. That makes me skittish of this dude.

2) You need guys who are the top and brightest and know what they're doing and have some experience doing it and unfortunately many of these really top flight guys when they leave the military or government originally are recruited straight into lobbying firms because they are very good. So, which devil do you choose? I'd probably want the best most experienced guys and swallow some of the bad that comes with it.

3) The timing on this is really poor and unwise for Obama and he's creating a PR mess that's completely his own fault. I think the instinct behind the executive order is good, but he's cooking his own goose with it.

[DeanCollins]

Obama has basically just rehired 90% of the Clinton era minions. Man is that all the Dems have? Retread Clintonistas?

hmmm....don't remember you complaining about dubya rehiring his father's crew. :rolleyes:. care to compare track records between dubya and clinton admins? Any of us would gladly go back to the mid/late 1990's, the greatest economic exapansion in the history of this country and during a time of peace.

[twa]

Any of us would gladly go back to the mid/late 1990's, the greatest economic exapansion in the history of this country and during a time of peace.

Before it blew up(in more ways than one)

But yeah,it was great while it lasted...maybe they won't repeat the same mistakes this time.

[alexey]

I am troubled by this. Not sure about details, but I am having a hard time seing this as unaviodable.

Also big FU to those who think that Obama supporters are as spineless as yourselves. You are justifying your own lack of principles by projecting them onto others.

[Redskins Diehard]

Ah, okay. In that case I have three thoughts although some contradict one another.

1) It's a bad move to hire lobbiests because you may have favoritism or the perception of favoritism. See eight years of dems whining (rightly so) about Haliburton. That makes me skittish of this dude.

2) You need guys who are the top and brightest and know what they're doing and have some experience doing it and unfortunately many of these really top flight guys when they leave the military or government originally are recruited straight into lobbying firms because they are very good. So, which devil do you choose? I'd probably want the best most experienced guys and swallow some of the bad that comes with it.

3) The timing on this is really poor and unwise for Obama and he's creating a PR mess that's completely his own fault. I think the instinct behind the executive order is good, but he's cooking his own goose with it.

Sorry about the "not a Clinton era" comment. It looks that at least 2 people are arguing that point in this completely unrelated thread(one from each side which I guess is necessary for a argument).

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise in number 2. In fact I probably agree with it in principle. My problem is completely with selling something to get elected(see the commercial earlier in the thread), making righteous comments about "ending" lobby influence in Washington(see words in second part of the thread), all the while breaking the very rule you are signing. And according to Jumbo's post more than once. Kind of makes the whole "change" thing a bit of a fraud.

[Redskins Diehard]

I am troubled by this. Not sure about details, but I am having a hard time seing this as unaviodable.

Also big FU to those who think that Obama supporters are as spineless as yourselves. You are justifying your own lack of principles by projecting them onto others.

If it is unavoidable then does that make the rule foolish, or naive, or not well thought out? If it is unavoidable to have lobbyists in the administration then what does it say about passing the rule in the first place?

[Burgold]

Sorry about the "not a Clinton era" comment. It looks that at least 2 people are arguing that point in this completely unrelated thread(one from each side which I guess is necessary for a argument).

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise in number 2. In fact I probably agree with it in principle. My problem is completely with selling something to get elected(see the commercial earlier in the thread), making righteous comments about "ending" lobby influence in Washington(see words in second part of the thread), all the while breaking the very rule you are signing. And according to Jumbo's post more than once. Kind of makes the whole "change" thing a bit of a fraud.

I wouldn't state it as broadly as you just did, but I agree. It does paint Obama as a fraud and hypocrite in this instance.

[alexey]

If it is unavoidable then does that make the rule foolish, or naive, or not well thought out? If it is unavoidable to have lobbyists in the administration then what does it say about passing the rule in the first place?
Exactly. And I think it is pathetic for people who have been spoonfed poo for years to try and claim that Obama supporters won't recognize poo when they see it either.

[Redskins Diehard]

I wouldn't state it as broadly as you just did, but I agree. It does paint Obama as a fraud and hypocrite in this instance.

I did say "a bit of a fraud". Now when you say "this instance" do you mean it as "no lobbyists in my administration" or do you narrow it down to specifically Mr. Lynn?

[Redskins Diehard]

Exactly. And I think it is pathetic for people who have been spoonfed poo for years to try and claim that Obama supporters won't recognize poo when they see it either.

Good deal and a respectable response on your part no doubt. You do gotta admit that not many Obama supporters have recognized this poo. A lot more people recognized the NSA poo.

[SUSkinsFan]

Politico has an article about this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17914.html


What makes William Lynn so special?

Just after announcing tough rules for lobbyists, President Barack Obama waived them to clear the way for Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to become deputy defense secretary.

[alexey]

Good deal and a respectable response on your part no doubt. You do gotta admit that not many Obama supporters have recognized this poo. A lot more people recognized the NSA poo.
I think it is important to mercilessly squash impulses that are aimed at reinforcing natural human weaknesses.

[Burgold]

And according to Jumbo's post more than once. Kind of makes the whole "change" thing a bit of a fraud.


Now when you say "this instance" do you mean it as "no lobbyists in my administration" or do you narrow it down to specifically Mr. Lynn?


I was reading your statement to mean that the entirety of the "change" concept was now fraudulent and the Obama's trustworthiness to be quite poisoned by this hypocritical nomination.

[Redskins Diehard]

I was reading your statement to mean that the entirety of the "change" concept was now fraudulent and the Obama's trustworthiness to be quite poisoned by this hypocritical nomination.

No, definitely not the entirety. A portion of it for sure.

I would not be nearly as bothered, probably not at all, about Mr. Lynn's appoinitment had the lobbyist issue not been such an issue during the campaign and the fact that he wrote a rule and then broke his own rule almost immediately. Mr. Lynn will probably do a great job in his new position(and I'm sure Raytheon would like him there;))

[Burgold]

Then we're probably really close in our positions on this one.

[Redskins Diehard]

Then we're probably really close in our positions on this one.

Sometimes that happens with reasonable people! ;)

And to steal something from Larry....sometimes it happens with people like us also!