• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

And another lobbyist joins ranks

Sandhusker

Well-known member
WASHINGTON - The White House on Wednesday defended Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's choice of Mark Patterson — an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs — to be his chief of staff.

The selection is at least the third high-profile exception to a policy by President Barack Obama that says no one who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can take a role in his administration that deals with the same subject matter.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated his claim that that rule is the "strongest that any administration in the history of our country has had."

Until last April, Patterson, a Goldman vice president for government relations, acted as a lobbyist on a wide range of issues that could come under his purview in his new job. Under Obama's restrictions, Patterson would be severely hampered in the new job unless he gets a waiver from the White House on grounds that it is in the public interest.

Patterson's former Wall Street firm has benefited from $10 billion in government bailouts in the current recession.

The issues on which Patterson acted as a lobbyist until last April appear to cover a large swath of his duties at Treasury, according to a lobbying disclosure report filed with Congress last July.

Issues Patterson lobbied on included covered bonds, tax treatment of corporate reorganization transactions, nonbinding shareholder votes on executive compensation, continuation of the industrial loan company charter for Goldman Sachs, over-the-counter energy derivatives, tax patents, extension of tax credits for cellulosic ethanol and market disruptions regarding auction rate securities, a Treasury official said Wednesday night.

Patterson only monitored legislation on mortgage issues and did not lobby, added the Treasury official, who was not authorized to speak about the matter on the record.

His appointment follows two other prominent exceptions to Obama's rule covering former lobbyists.

William J. Lynn III, the president's choice to become the Defense Department's No. 2 official, was registered until July as a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon. Last week, the president granted a waiver to Lynn.

William Corr, tapped as deputy secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate, according to public records. Corr has decided to take no part in tobacco matters in the new administration.

The appointment of a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be Treasury chief of staff flies in the face of Obama's guidelines on ethics, said Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who opposed Geithner's nomination.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I heard a good show on television about this issue. The lobbyists know both their industry or issue and the workings of Washington well and hence they are in many ways ideal for the positions they get. There are scores of lobbyists and in all administrations people who were lobbyists have ended up going from industry to government and back. Including for instance Cheney and Ann Veneman.

I have lobbied Congress on behalf of a grassroots family organization. I imagine a bunch of you have lobbied Congress as part of some group.

I applaud Obama for attempting to improve ethics in Government. This is not a simple problem that can be fixed overnight and his approach is being shown to be too Pollyannaish it seems.

If you were not so intent upon criticizing every fart and toothbrushing of their teeth of this Administration you would agree with me.

You're completely missing the point. Obama claimed there would be no place for lobbyists in the White House while campaigning, then flipped on that with his lobbyist rule, then even flipped on that yet again! How can you believe a word he says?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
If you were not so intent upon criticizing every fart and toothbrushing of their teeth of this Administration you would agree with me.

Saying you will not have Lobbyist and then having them is not a small fart or tooth brushing! :roll:

where is the change we were promised?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I am pointing out that lobbyists may at this point in America's history sometimes be the best informed and hence the best choices and that Obama was naive to think that he could get the best possible leadership without a single lobbyist.

So was he trying to silence some of these "informed" critics, that did not agree with him?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Of course I didn't miss the point. You've been hammering the point for a couple of weeks at least.

I am pointing out that lobbyists may at this point in America's history sometimes be the best informed and hence the best choices and that Obama was naive to think that he could get the best possible leadership without a single lobbyist.

I think "naive" is an understatement. That's what you get when you hire somebody with no experience.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Of course I didn't miss the point. You've been hammering the point for a couple of weeks at least.

I am pointing out that lobbyists may at this point in America's history sometimes be the best informed and hence the best choices and that Obama was naive to think that he could get the best possible leadership without a single lobbyist.

So Obama was either inexperienced when you elected him a couple months ago and had no idea how things worked or he is dishonest now and paying his debts?

Everyone with any sense knew you would most likely end up with someone that has been a lobbyist in the past working for you if you got elected. Why was Obama so dumb back then when us simple folks knew that? Could it be that he lied to get the simple minded peoples vote that really do not know the facts of politics?

It is simple, he said what he needed to say to get elected and now he does as he chooses as all politicians do.

The sad thing is how idiots bought his Change rhetoric a couple months ago, any smart person knew he would be no different once elected. That is what we all tried to tell you back then. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
All I can say is thank heavens the citizens voted for Obama and we didn't end up with Sarah Palin in charge of fixing the mess the previous administrations got us into, in the not too unlikely case that McCain did not live through his term in office. Talk about lack of experience and ideology and lies!

Considering that the office of President is an executive positon, Palin was clearly more experienced that Obama. I"ll also take her ideology over Obama's support of infanicide, whacko gun laws, whacko power plans, etc... any day.

How about a little challenge, Reader? For every lie you can present of Palin's, I'll give you $10. For every lie that I present of Obama's, you give me $5. Interested?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I'd much rather crow as I watch Sister Sarah implode because of her silly actions and you all have to admit that she's a self-serving poseur.

How about a little challenge, Reader? For every lie you can present of Palin's, I'll give you $10. For every lie that I present of Obama's, you give me $5. Interested?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I'd much rather crow as I watch Sister Sarah implode because of her silly actions and you all have to admit that she's a self-serving poseur.

Surely you are smart enough to realize that all politicians are self serving? Or did you really believe Obama would bring change? Did you really think he did not realize his pastor was a racist? Did you really believe that he would not hire lobbyist?

You called Obama naive, maybe you should think more about how naive you were, not Obama! I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, politics as usual and Chicago ones at there best.

You got to hand it to Obama, he was not naive but he sure knows how to exploit those of you that are!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
I'd much rather crow as I watch Sister Sarah implode because of her silly actions and you all have to admit that she's a self-serving poseur.

How about a little challenge, Reader? For every lie you can present of Palin's, I'll give you $10. For every lie that I present of Obama's, you give me $5. Interested?

Talk is cheap. Whiskey costs money.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
I'd much rather crow as I watch Sister Sarah implode because of her silly actions and you all have to admit that she's a self-serving poseur.

How about a little challenge, Reader? For every lie you can present of Palin's, I'll give you $10. For every lie that I present of Obama's, you give me $5. Interested?

Talk is cheap. Whiskey costs money.

I get to be the Judge-eh :???:
 
Top