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.
.

i don’t know how it looked on tv, but there was not bad blood over that point here, or if there was i didn’t feel it. The AP was just asking for something Gibbs didn’t know about, and Gibbs said he would provide it in the future.

.
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.

I have no problem with predators but surely the question of conflict of interest is legitimate.
-
I guess the danger of issuing ethics rules is that inevitably it invites more scrutiny. Certainly it would never have occurred to anyone to hold the outgoing admin to an ethical standard.
-
The other problem is that I don’t trust the GOP to play the part of loyal opposition. Does McCain have actual concerns or is it a cheap shot to score points?

Art, the outgoing admin had ethics? I stare into space in wonder.

I would ask Sen. McCain, how many thieves do you know in government? Are you one? Is Obama one? The government being riddled with corruption and thieves, this is such nonsense.

“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?”
.
If Republicans, or their press sycophants, were still capable of anything but hypocrisy, it might be useful to ask. Of course, to anyone but a never-wised, ever-credulous beltway “journalist,” the only sensible response to McCain would be: “you’re joking, right?”

Michael Scherer:
.
This post sounds like it’s straight from RNC opposition research.
.
That said, my question to you is: does McCain have a substantial point or not?
.
I’d like to hear you explain in detail why it is that the Obama administration believes that a former big defense industry lobbyist is the most qualified person available for the job, so that we can make up our minds as to whether this is hypocrisy or systemic corruption –or not– rationally, and not from simple partisan prejudice.
.
How does knowing now what John McCain has to say about an appointment make us any better informed as to the substance of the issue?
.
Mind you, I’m not asking for more he said-she said; I could care less if the Obama Administration merely asserts an appeal to qualification, and then expects friendly stenographers to write it down. I’m asking for you to inform us, not merely write down what important people say (or are about to say).
.
Is this too much to require from a competent, articulate journalist such as yourself, Michael Scherer?

I’m much more in favor of having lobbyists being the exception rather than the rule. Lobbyists/administration members are so interchangeable that completely banning lobbyists from serving in an administration limits the available talent pool to puddle sized wet spot. A ban is unworkable but restrictions are fine. I do agree that telling lobbyists from bloodsuckers is like trying to pick out indiviual songs on a country music cd.

“Mind you, I’m not asking for more he said-she said; I could care less if the Obama Administration merely asserts an appeal to qualification, and then expects friendly stenographers to write it down. I’m asking for you to inform us, not merely write down what important people say (or are about to say).”
.
I predict that Mr. Scherer will not inform because the important, larger (and unspeakable) truth is that for President Obama, professional, corporate lobbyists are mostly adversaries or otherwise necessary evils, while for McCain (as with most Republicans) they are his constituents.

stuart –
.
Allow me to respond on Mr. Scherer’s behalf:
.
Yes.

That’s absolutely great. That’s exactly what McCain should do, and I’m glad he’s doing. Skepticism of the executive appointment power is part of his job, and I’m glad he is, for the first time in 8 years, doing his job.
.
Process matters. I’m sure that Obama is also perfectly fine with this scrutiny. It’s appropriate, should be done, and is the role of the legislature in the confirmation process.

It’s going to take awhile to get used to the notion that our representatives might actually start doing their jobs.

And, by the way, there is no equivalence here between McCain’s lobbyist stuffed campaign, and this appointment. This appointment is taking place in the light of day, under Congressional scrutiny, and will be confirmed, or not. Not at all the same as having your campaign run by these people.
.

It’s going to take awhile to get used to the notion that our representatives might actually start doing their jobs.
.
It’s going to be irritating to see republicans who let the nation be trashed suddenly become concerned. But that doesn’t mean the concern is wrong. And we’re a lot better off with legislative scrutiny than not. Sure, it may often be mindlessly partisan, but that’s better than rubberstamping. Obama can handle this, by all available evidence.

I’m in my 50′s and this might be the first time in my life that I have been able to use the the words hope and government in the same sentence without laughing.

“It’s going to be irritating to see republicans who let the nation be trashed suddenly become concerned.”
.
I just heard Boehner complain (for the first time I can recall) about the idea of passing debt to our children. All hypocrisy, all of the time.

Michael, it doesn’t matter if Obama surrounds himself w/ lobbyists…rhetorically he’s against it.

I’m fairly new here and one thing does puzzle me. TIME is fairly conservative and yet most of the comments have a more liberal flavor. I’ve been on Fox and it’s all Klan rallies and deathcamps. What gives?

So I’m guessing this will be one of those times where Scherer hides himself behind the couch until someone asks about a minor typo or point of order, at which point he’ll pop back up and resolve the tiny issue. Then he’ll duck back down and stick his fingers in his ears and hum to himself until we go away.
.
I feel this scene is just as likely to be literally true as metaphorically.

Sure, it may often be mindlessly partisan…
.
Al D’Amato and Whitewater hearings come to mind…

Time is a centrist rag.

Thanks stuartzechman. I guess I must be liberal enough that it seems center R-C to me. I’m somewhere to the left of Ghandi.

You know what Obama should about this? Ask Mitt Romney to be the new auto czar.

@ sacredh: I’d like to say we’re smarter than the Fox folks. Eh, maybe more compassionate, because the Repugs _are_ smart – devious little buggers – but they just care more about hate, fear and greed than they do about John Q. Citizen and good government, as it applies to _all_ of us.
‘
But, in spite of our otherwise charming facade, this little coterie has its own schisms, complete with the way-out-there nuts on polar extremes. It depends on the topic. For the most part, we’re against the excesses of the Repugs and downright bad government; that seems to be a unifying theme for us. But when talk turns to the middle east, for example, we’re as frothy at the mouth – on both sides – as the rabies-infected beasties in “I Am Legend.” You’ll get used to it.

I’d say TIME is center-right but not wingnutty – I mean it’s not the Weekly Standard or FOX. The swamp posters tend to be left or leftward, not counting the trolls. It got pretty heated during the campaign!

Gibbs must get his act together. A Press Secretary does not have to accommodate fools (and there is a sprinkling of them in the WHPC). Some of them were aggressive at the first presser because they wanted to show us how tough they are.

After bending over these past years they got up and saw someone at the podium actually wanting to ANSWER questions. The light in their eyes blinded them.

Memo to Chuck Todd: Chuckie T: you are good with gizmos and figures; but your questions could do with a makeover. Not sure if you are an improvement on Gregory Sahib.

That said, my question to you is: does McCain have a substantial point or not?
.
I’d like to hear you explain in detail why it is that the Obama administration believes that a former big defense industry lobbyist is the most qualified person available for the job, so that we can make up our minds as to whether this is hypocrisy or systemic corruption –or not– rationally, and not from simple partisan prejudice.

Lind got high marks for his years at the Pentagon under Clinton, especially in his role as Comptroller. In that capacity, he had his fingers in every Pentagon pie, and is thus highly suited for this job (which is about running the day-to-day operational aspects of the military.) He is thus extremely qualified (I hesitate to say “most”) in terms f knowledge and experience.

The problem is that its practically impossible to find a highly qualified person without conflicts of interest for these kinds of jobs.

That being said, Lind is practically a poster child for the DC lobbyist revolving door — the kind of person who exploits his contacts in the Pentagon to qualify for a high-paying lobbyist job. I’d have far less of a problem if Lind had worked for a defense contractor in another capacity — lobbyists like Lind are essentially influence peddlars.
_
How does knowing now what John McCain has to say about an appointment make us any better informed as to the substance of the issue?
_
McCain is probably the “best qualified” politician when it comes to espertise on both the military and ethics (and btw, MS doesn’t do the booking for Meet the Press.)

*********
on another note, why all the attacks on Michael for posting about this topic? Obama made a big deal about ethics and his (swiss cheese) ‘no federal lobbyists in my campaign’ stuff during the campaign, and should be held accountable on that basis. And Michaels post(s) on this subject have been decidedly neutral; its as if the Oborg wants to sweep the ethics question under the rug now that Obama is President, after endlessly (and rightfully) complaining about Bushco’s egregious ethical lapses.
_
(I’d also point out that there is a big difference between having lobbbyists “working” on your campaign (work that mostly consisted of getting a title, and raising money), and having lobbyist in key decision-making posts in your administration — a distinction that the Oborg doesn’t recognize in their hypocritical rush to ignore Obama’s “flexible” ethics.
_
So lay off Michael — he’s made a career of reporting “against the grain” (read his work at Salon, which was at odds with conventional media establishment wisdom). Somebody has to tell the Oborg things that they’d rather not hear about.

.
MS: We don’t have to wait to find out what he will say.
.
Meh. The excerpt you posted positively screams ‘sore loser’ and is yet another example of stoking controversy by Fox News…and by you, Michael. Besides, who really cares what McCain says? His own party doesn’t really listen to him, so why should we?
.
The real story is why Obama is making an exception for this guy.
.
jayackroyd: Process matters. I’m sure that Obama is also perfectly fine with this scrutiny.
.
Obama’s transparency pledge is a signal to the press and Congress that they can begin to do their f**king jobs again.

.
He does seem to be exceptionally qualified for the position. And I have no problem with a transparent waiver like that. Lawrence Wilkerson is strongly against the appointment, though his objections aren’t that clear except that he was a lobbyist. He should clarify what his objections are.
.
With due respect to pluk, McCain’s opinion is kind of laughable — not that he had lobbyists on his campaign but that he pretended he didn’t, by claiming they *weren’t* lobbyists because they had resigned their lobbying position. Well, let’s have a consistent standard, then. I don’t think he has much room to talk about lobbyists. To claim that he holds some kind of high ground on military and ethics is, well, preposterous.
.

I observe that all the courting of The Maverick resulted in The Maverick, 4 days into the administration,
sounding like DeMint.
.
But to the substance-this is what hearings are for, ferreting out information. Ask away Senator.

McCain will always be for McCain: the only thing he has, after his failed campaign, is his mavericky bill of goods. We should welcome scrutiny. His job is oversight, so let him do it.

This is not the first time McCain retorted with an ” up yours” regarding Obama.

James…
The key distinction isn’t whether a “former lobbyist” can be considered a lobbyist, its the distinction between a political campaign and an administration.
_
and I didn’t say that McCain held any ethical high ground — practically no politician (and certainly not Obama)can claim the high ground when it comes to ethics. What I said was that McCain is qualified to comment on this issue because of his expertise in both military and ‘ethics’ issues.
_
I mean, lets face it, if ‘not being a hypocrite’ was the standard for getting quoted by the press, there would be no cable news networks or sunday gasbag festivals — not that that would be a bad thing

“who was attacked for months by Barack Obama’s campaign”
.
A minor but amusing point. The post MS links to is an MS post defending/explaining/minimizing/contextualizing McCain’s “lobbyist problem”.
Classic.

Yowsa-I’m not sure how I screwed that formatting up so much. Sorry.

.
pluk,
I must have misunderstood what you meant when you wrote “because of his expertise in both military and ‘ethics’ issues.” I took it that you meant that McCain held some sort of high ground on those issues, which is anything but the case. If that’s not the case, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. (I see i must have missed your quotation marks around ethics.)
.
I have no problem with these kinds of hard questions being asked at the hearings. That’s their job, and they didn’t do it during Bush, which is one reason why the bushies ended up with so many incompetents and toadies. So sure, ask away, and enlighten us, I say to the committee. Perform your function, which is advise and consent. No problem whatsoever with that.
.

PNNTO-
.
thanks for pointing out that link. I hadn’t bothered with it. But, where did all those lovely comments go? Didn’t they save the comment archives? Because I recall that that particular piece of piffle generated a LOT of extremely good commentary. Hundreds, as I recall. It would be tragic if those archives are gone.
.

pnnto
.
The formatting thing happened because you had an exceptionally long string of characters (all those slashed gerunds), which messed up the (inexplicable) forced right justification.

It’s always uplifting to read about Republican outrage about lobbying. It’s strange though, over the last 8 years, barely a peep was heard on this issue. Luckily, there are willing stenographers like Fox News and people like Michael who will happily take up the crusade.

James, Los Angeles:

“Didn’t they save the comment archives?”

.
I’m not sure whether TIME lost all it’s blog comment archives or not, even though it appears that they were. Over on The Curious Capitalist, all of the previous commentary were added back to the posts. It is possible that the comments were lost, but recovered (using the Google cache, maybe?); or it is possible that the comments were saved, and added back in.
.
Either way, comments were lost and not recovered at Swampland, and comments were lost and recovered at The Curious Capitalist.
.

“So lay off Michael — he’s made a career of reporting ‘against the grain’ (read his work at Salon, which was at odds with conventional media establishment wisdom). Somebody has to tell the Oborg things that they’d rather not hear about”
~
Thus says the oracle–those of who have almost uniformly deemed MS an estab-hack who sold his writer’s soul to join this rag, whose campaign title was “profuse Mac apologist,” well, clearly, we were all too dense to see his inner journalistic goodness. Thanks for clearing that up you umitigated wanker blowhard (and I’m an authority on that brahmein).
~
Likewise, for all of us, ya know, a wee bit enthusiastic about a dem in the WH (you know, 5 days into his presidency), again, kudos to P-Luk for tempering any satisfaction we might have. Cuz, like, to go valley on ya, we’d never have realized that Obama might be a centrist estab. politician without your trenchant insights.

“those of US who…”

[...] by michaelscherer | Comments (0) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This A few days back, some Swampland commenters asked if Bill Lynn, the former Raytheon lobbyist appointed by Barack Obama to a top Pentagon job, really [...]