Obama, McCain and Lobbyists, Cont'd

.
Michael,
.
Why all the bad faith posturing on the part of the White House Press Corps in these briefings? Most of the time, the housekeeping stuff like the "week ahead" schedule, is taken care of in the gaggle or private chat. All that tantrum-throwing and foot-stomping by your press colleagues looks really bad and is unprofessional. Shouldn't Jennifer Loven, the president of the WHPC, be serving as liaison to smooth this stuff over?
.
You guys seem to be purposefully making Gibbs' team look stupid and unprepared, and that is bad faith. It's needless, because most of the time, that kind of stuff takes place out of public view, and certainly not on television.
.

.
What I'm saying is, this kind of housekeeping stuff is normally handled off-camera. Jennifer Loven, the AP reporter, is the president of the WHPC. She knows how it is normally handled. It is needless and unprofessional to throw public tantrums over this. And yes, that is exactly how it looks.
.
Can you see, how questions are taken? Is it random, do youthink, or the most aggressive, or familiar face, or what?
.
Does Gibbs have a gaggle in addition to the briefing?
.
.

You can bet that McCain, a former presidential candidate who was attacked for months by Barack Obama's campaign for his close ties to certain former lobbyists
.
Care to add any sort of proportion or context to that statement? Such as how very many of McCain's staff were active lobbyists?

Michael,
Wouldn't you agree that after surrounding himself with lobbyists for his campaign, McCain would look like a complete hypocrite to complain about the (remarkably few) lobbyists Obama is bringing into his administration?
.
Also, do you think that there can never be an exception to a rule? That the perfect must be the enemy of the good?

Ethics in DC? MSM reporter common courtesey? They are buried in concreate under the Washington Monument. BTW, MS, in case you missed my earlier post on the debacle of our President trying to informally visit with the animals in the WH press room, it was disgusting.

McWho? Why are we talking about this guy again?

False equivalency is boring. McCain had dozens of lobbyists, Obama might have 2 or 3. It is EXACTLY THE SAME ZOMG.
.
Yawn.

John McCain has his lap dog Michael Scherer well trained. Randy Scheunemann was an active lobbyist that was never mentioned in the February post linked above.
.
I assume Fox News Sunday won't be asking John McCain about his experiences taking contributions from companies with business with the FCC? (His connections being the army of lobbyists running his campaigns, of course.)

Again, the question arises. Do the Republicans have substantive reasons to oppose the nomination? Are there significant policy differences between the nominee and Senator McCain? Does expressing their oppostion have anything to do with good government?
.
You've already said that they're trying to 'score points' but if their efforts are actually hindering efforts at DOD then they certainly don't represent an example of 'putting country first' now do they?
.
(I'm still having trouble imagining a former Raytheon rep that a typical Republican wouldn't love....)

@ bobcn: Wouldn't you agree that after surrounding himself with lobbyists for his campaign, McCain would look like a complete hypocrite to complain about the (remarkably few) lobbyists Obama is bringing into his administration?
'
To sentient beings, yes, it would appear hypocritical. But to the "base" - aka "real Americans" - this is chum in the water. Pragmatically speaking, it's not important how pragmatically Obama runs his operation; it's how the Repugs can spin things.

@ PD: I'm still having trouble imagining a former Raytheon rep that a typical Republican wouldn't love.
'
Oh, they probably _do_ love him, but you have to weigh the "greater good": pulling for a guy you might nominate, yourself, or scoring points against Obama.

Scherer just can't quit McCain
.
This isn't a new story, its just being covered like it is. Here is the funny thing, had Obama not put in his own higher standards nobody would be blinking an eye about this guy. Besides that as we discussed before there are waiver provisions in place for tis situation. So in the end they will all cave and allow it. Here is the thing that is starting to piss me off, nobody is pointing out that the prohibition on lobbyists isn't just about incoming officials. The REAL strength of the executive order that President Obama signed is that if Lynn takes office and Obama serves two terms Lynn won't be able to lobby the White House for the next 8 years. That serves two purposes. First Lynn has a lot of motivation to do a good job so he can continue all 8 years. And second if he leaves early looking to enrich himself he will have to do it without being able to lobby the White House. And that goes for anybody else in any other department who gets a waiver. Good grief, get a grip. I haven't heard anybody question the guy's credentials and I am more concerned with getting someone in who can do the damn job.

Anybody wanna bet that Drudge ends up linking to this article?
.
The WingNut triumverate strikes again

I am all for ethics in government. Let's just have transparency. All thieves must declare themselves for what they are.
"I am here to steal as much money as I can, and I want to have several mansions around the world for my pleasure. Private jets. Leisure days. Only the best for me and screw the rest of you." Something like that would be nice. Transparency, for the idiots who don't really believe that these pigs exist until their portfolios crash for the fraud.

Good grief, get a grip. I haven't heard anybody question the guy's credentials and I am more concerned with getting someone in who can do the damn job.
.
But again the whole thing that the Raytheon connection brings to the table is furtherance of the notion that we can conduct wars by remote control. Their expertise is in cruise missles and guidance systems and I can't help but notice that we're still conducting Predator strikes with the new administration in place.
.
I'm not sure how I feel about it but I can't help but remember that an overreliance on technology and insufficient 'boots on the ground' in the form of intelligence assets helped 19 guys with box-cutters bring the US to its knees.

Paul Dirks says
.
But again the whole thing that the Raytheon connection brings to the table is furtherance of the notion that we can conduct wars by remote control. Their expertise is in cruise missles and guidance systems and I can't help but notice that we're still conducting Predator strikes with the new administration in place.
.
I'm not sure how I feel about it but I can't help but remember that an overreliance on technology and insufficient 'boots on the ground' in the form of intelligence assets helped 19 guys with box-cutters bring the US to its knees.
.
Well I for one have no problem with predator strikes. They are very efficient in a war like the one we are about to shift to in Afghanistan. As for policy I don't believe he will have the kind of pull that could keep the CIA from executing their post 9/11 commission agenda. As for Army Intelligence I would think that Gates has more of a say on what they do than Lynn.
.
Are we automatically supposed to believe that all lobbyists are blood sucking self serving scumbags? If so send me the memo next time before I start posting and make an ass out of myself. But if not again I go back to the fact that if Obama didn't prohibit lobbyists of his own accord and with his own executive order all of this would be moot and nobody would bat an eye. So how is something that wouldn't have been an outrage if done on tuesday all of a sudden an outrage today? (not saying you are outraged Paul but moreso talking to others who are)

Paul Dirks, but technology is so easy and detached. That is modern warfare. No need pay attention to the bleeding children. I am still waiting for an Obama comment on the Isreali carnage in the Gaza. Change in foreign policy? Yeah, right, don't hold your breath. The positive sign is that the fascists zionists jews did time the halt of the murder of palestinian children with the inaugration of Obama, not knowing if he would be as supportive as the bushies and the christian supporters hoping for the armegedon and rapture.

sg, so you support the most technologically advanced means of killing. OK. Are all lobbyists blood sucking self serving? Yes, by definition. You are an individual representing yourself, and post away. Whatever or whoever you are, I always enjoy your insight, whether I agree or not.

Paul Dirks - I get what you are saying, but it strikes me that that's a problem coming from the way our military is set up, and therefore somewhat seperate from the lobbying issue.
.
I don't see Obama tackling the military-industrial complex, even in my wildest dreams, so I'll be happy if he's able to address the lobbyist aspect first.

formerlyjames
.
If we are going to be in Afghanistan and at this point we really don't have a choice, I absolutely favor the most efficient AND technologically advanced means of killing. We aren't over there to plant trees and where these people are hiding makes it pretty hard for us to get troops in there. There is no way in hell I would ask a young man or young woman to expose themselves to that kind of risk if we have predators that can do the job.
.
As for lobbyists, evidently we have different dictionaries. Personally I don't think Tom Daschle is a blood sucking self serving scumbag. I also don't think the other guy who the Obama team has waived the rules for whom lobbied for the "Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids" is any of those things either. But hey everyone is entitled to their own definition/opinion.

As MS patiently explained to us at the time, McCain didn't have lobbyists on his staff, because they all resigned their lobbying positions minutes before joining the campaign.

Cliff, the military-industrial complex is Eisenhower old hat. The current threat is the religious-idiot complex. Hope Obama can deliver us beyond that, knowing that he has some faith, so he says.

formerlyjames - and I hate using that term, because it is old and so commonly used (at least in my family). And you're right - so many other things are getting tied into it: religions, the media, the political class.
.
Maybe I should just refer to it as The Man.

sg, lobbyists are lobbyists, however you want to cut it. I say self-serving, in every case, no exceptions that I know of. On Afghanistan, I would go on my knees, preditors in hand, and ask Russia if they wouldn't join in the effort, appologizing for our idiot foreign policy that caused them misery in the past. When all this talk of reforming foreign policy is bandied about, like by Joe, that is the kind of thing I have in mind for reform. Anything short of that is just bs nonsense, no change.