Is Lobbyist Bill Lynn “Uniquely Qualified” For The Pentagon?

You know, you could post his bio. It may be the case that experience in “general business management” is all that is needed. But IME, there are sui generis elements to government program management. Lynn’s experience with managing Pentagon budgets seems pretty close to unique to me.
.
Now, this may not be a good thing. If the goal is to continue to perpetuate a bloated, corrupt military, then that’s a problem. He certainly could work to facilitate that. But if the goal is to make the military leaner and less corrupt, his experience seems pretty hard to match.
.
In short, this isn’t about Lynn. It’s about Obama. Time will tell.

.
And Mark Thompson’s opinion should impress us — how?
.

.
Is that kind of like Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson arguing with Paul Krugman about macroeconomics? Or does Mark Thomson have some kind of special expertise in determining who is qualified and who isn’t for staff positions? It would seem that is the purview of the Senate to determine that, and not some opinionated journalist, no?
.

Well said, James.

the only thing most folks will remember is that Obama made an exception to that rule for one of his top officials
.
Gee, why do you suppose that is? It wouldn’t have anything to do with folks like Scherer harping on it, would it?
.
I’ll finish the article now…more to come.

This is about as nonsensical of an article as I have ever seen in a “reputable” magazine. That the author never even delves into the man’s background except to say he cut over 1 trillion dollars in Defense spending, which in and of itself could probably make the case that he is INDEED uniquely qualified as I would bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone else who has done that, could only be described as negligent journalism. I looked up the man’s bio in less than 30 seconds and here is what I came up with.
.

After this he was employed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he was the executive director of the Defense Organization Project from 1982 to 1985.[1] That last year he published the book Toward a More Effective Defense.[2] At some point in time he was a senior fellow studying strategic nuclear forces and arms control at the National Defense University’s Strategic Concepts Development Center, and went on to be the legislative counsel for defense and arms control matters for Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy between 1987 and 1993.[1] During this time he also worked as Kennedy’s staff representative on the Committee on Armed Services.[1]
.
Lynn later worked as an assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Budget, and in April 1993 joined the office of the Secretary of Defense (then Les Aspin) to be director for program analysis and evaluation.[1] On October 21, 1997, President Bill Clinton nominated Lynn to be Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and after a Senate confirmation on November 13, he was officially sworn in on November 19

.
Now if someone else has the same kind of resume I propose that Mark Thompson name them. Otherwise the only thing that is bogus here is him being employed as a journalist by Time magazine.

Your tough as nails semantic argument “uniquely qualified” “very limited number” is “impressive”
.
What did you sing this weekend MS?
“Reporters who covered the McCain campaign reconvened over the weekend for a happy hour that soon turned into a karaoke jam session.
.
At the happy hour: Jill Zuckman, Laura Meckler, Scott Horsely, Tucker Bounds, Juliet Eilperin, Scott Conroy.
.
Those who hit up karaoke later: Sasha Issenberg, Lizzie O’Leary, Mark Salter (who reprised his Dylan performance from Nashville), Ana Marie Cox, Adam Aigner-Treworgy, Holly Bailey, Michael Scherer.”
.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/news_notes/mccain_reporters_reunite_106866.asp?c=rss

This is a first for me, and I hope not too many times in the future:
.
Obama, tear down that loophole!
.
Actually, yeah, maybe a Reagan-ism really isn’t all that appropriate, but he should do what he says and say what he does. Close those loopholes and move those people elsewhere.
.
They’ll survive, and so will Obama…

J,LA:

Mark Thompson won a Pulitzer Prize for public service for his investigative reporting of the Pentagon:
.
http://tinyurl.com/adbnxv
.
I’m impressed.

It ought to be possible to publish a run down of Mr Lynn’s work to date. I don’t know what Mark Thompson’s particular qualifications are, but, as a general rule one can say: there are exceptions to all rules.

James’ point is well taken, The Donaldson/Roberts pretence to be know alls on ABC this past Sunday should warn us about how glib the chattering class is on most topics.

The key is to make a cogent case for the exception. Second: it ought to possible to circumscribe Mr Lynn’s contact with Raytheon and work on their file. But hey, we are asking the Republicans to be rational.

J,LA:

Mark Thompson has also covered the Pentagon for a very long time, and with great distinction.
.
You might want to turn down your shrill meter just a bit. Or perhaps read some of his award-winning work. Some of it is referenced at the end of that wikipedia entry.

K Tizzle
.
Then as they say in the financial services world “Past performance is not an indicator of future success”

Oh and K Teezie, I guess that not being a media critic thing only works when it comes to CRITICIZING other journos huh?
.
Im just sayin.

I’ll ditto jay’s “Well said, James.”
.
After watching the Krugman segment on ABC last weekend, and after processing the challenge from Open Left: ‘imagine what this segment would have looked like without Krugman’ I realized that Rachel Maddow has nearly the only news discussion show on teevee where the guests are consistently qualified to comment factually on the segment’s topic.
.
On a related topic, here’s a gasbag spewing RW CW: Chris Matthews: Government Support for Family Planning "Sounds Like China".

KT: I am glad you are impressed. Winning a Pulitzer Prize is great.That prize is important to journalists, but it does not confer sainthood. There are always exceptions to rules.

OK done.
.
The article predictably fails to address the question that matters. What is it about Lynn that make him ‘uniquely qualified’ to implement Obama’s agenda? It’s easy to quote good-government types to find someone who disagrees with the assessment but NONE of the reporting I’ve encountered has included any detail about what Obama sees in the guy.
.
That’s the sort of reporting that would actually add value to the debate.
.
I’ve also said that I’m afraid that this pick represents an ‘enomoured with technology’ viewpoint on Obama’s part that was one of our weaknesses before 9-11. Relying on cruise missles to enforce policy may keep American casualties down but it guarantees that Anti-American resentment will continue to grow breediing fresh enemies.

Why is the “Not Media Critic” critiquing other comments in someone else’s blog post no less? If you going to defend them than you should be able to say so when they are wrong.

sgw #13 had a direct hit.

bitter:

No, but it shows that Mark Thompson is an excellent reporter who is not afraid to take on the establishment, and I think that commenters who dismiss his qualifications to write about a branch of government that he has covered for decades with great distinction and courage and accuracy and fairness might reconsider whether their own biases are at work here. What really bothers me is that people immediately start insulting Mark if they don’t like what he writes. He knows a lot about the Pentagon and how it works, which he has proven time and again for decades.

.
KT,
please tell me how that qualifies him to offer opinions on Adinistration staffing issues.
.
I have no opinion, myself, on Lynn’s qualifications, I’m commenting on the bad journalism here. Your colleagues seem to have lost any pretense of journalism standards — see the prior two posts as another example. It appears that Time Mag is out for blood.
.

gunny:

I’m not playing media critic. I am answering a very snarky (and clearly ignorant) question as to whether Mark Thompson is qualified to write about the Pentagon.
.
If you wish to attack what is in the story, go right ahead.

J,LA: He is qualified, because he has a great and deep understanding of the Pentagon. Perhaps even more than you and I do.

“his qualifications to write about a branch of government that he has covered for decades with great distinction and courage and accuracy and fairness”.
.
That sounds like it came right the off plaque in his honor.

This is the specific comment that I am addressing:
.
And Mark Thompson’s opinion should impress us — how?
.

.
Karen, I’m getting tired of you calling me shrill. I am not shrill at all, and you are using that epithet to dismiss and diminish my opinions. I am a media critic, and you don’t like to be criticized, I get that, but name-calling isn’t very constructive.
.

KT: He knows a lot about the Pentagon and how it works, which he has proven time and again for decades. Then I think it would not be unreasonable to ask him to respond to the good substantive questions asked by PaulD and sgw above that would fill in the gaps in his article. There is certainly precedent for non-swampies getting face time here, such as Amy Sullivan before she was on the roster.
.
So how about it KT? Would you transmit the questions to Mr. Thompson and ask him to respond here?

I am not being a media critc. I am being a commenter critic.

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 was “uniquely qualified” for the job.
.
Not that this matters but no one in the thread that MS linked to asked that.

KT-First off all I didn’t attack Mark’s greatness or the story. But if you are not playing media critic than you must be playing comment critic. Since you apparently can assess an question as ignorant if you don’t personally like it.

So I just read Thompson’s thing. Pretty thin gruel. He may have done great work in the past, but there’s mot much in this one.

I am answering a very snarky (and clearly ignorant) question as to whether Mark Thompson is qualified to write about the Pentagon.
.
There you go again, Karen, misrepresenting what I said. I asked nothing of the kind. I asked why we should take his opinions on the qualifications of nominees seriously. That’s much different. Fair enough, if you want to criticize my comments, that’s entirely fair and indeed lots of fun and constructive, but there’s no need to misrepresent, is there?
.

Paul-no, Stuart Zechman asked it, though not verbatim as I phrased it, around comment 30, and it was echoed by several commenters afterwards. One other note, I did not quote Mark’s entire story in the blog post. I would recommend reading it for more clarity about Lynn’s background, and what his appointment means.

For the record, I’m fine with KT’s “(and clearly ignorant).” Vigorous debate is what makes the world go round, after gravity, of course.

I highly recommend a few days away from Swampland for everyone…it’s good for self reflection. I have a question. Would the world stop spinning on its axis if Mr. Lynn was not confirmed?
.
And a second question would be we be having this discussion if President McCain nominated a former Defense contractor VP to be his number two at Defense?

Did somebody hijack KT’s display name? She doesn’t sound like herself at all.

K Tizzle
.
I don’t want to go hard at you about this because I appreciate the fact that you interact with us, but you can’t have it both ways. For the last few days we have been talking about the “reporting” on a CBO report that doesn’t exist or at the least didn’t portray what it has been reported it portrayed. In your own words you wouldn’t play “media critic” because that wasn’t your job. Several times people called into question the abilities of the journos involved but you didn’t see fit to admit or deny their deficiencies. But now when someone questions Thompson’s ability you find your “media critic” voice. No matter what awards he has in the past this current article is a steaming pile of bullsh!t period. It doesn’t address the question except to point out one accomplishment in Lynn’s life without providing much in the way of his bio and then balancing that with one quote from a “good government” representative that is as general and inconsequential as you can get. Or do you believe the only requirement to be a number 2 in the DOD is a good business background? I am going to say this and its the truth, just because a journo covers a beat and wins an award doesn’t mean they know what the phuck they are talking about period. And even if it did he gave no indication of any of his own experience factoring into WHY the thought that Lynn is uniquely qualified is “bogus”. The funny thing is most of us actually want to, you know, know if he IS uniquely qualified or not but that article did absolutely nothing to further the conversation.
.
If Da Vinci came to paint your house and he did a sloppy job wouldn’t you question his credentials? Or would just the fact that he is Da Vinci be enough for you regardless of how his work on YOUR house turned out?

I mean, what’s up with this:
.
As with most federal-government arcana, there are arguments on both sides of Obama’s leaky lobbyist ban.
.
The waiver provision is in the executive order. This guy is gonna be confirmed through Senate hearings. He’s interesting mostly because a waiver is, unlike other appointments, required if he is to serve.
.
So we have, so far, one person nominated for a political appointment who needs a waiver. that’s a “leaky lobbyist” ban? Yes, I also know about the stop kids from smoking guy, but that doesn’t seem to qualify as a leaky lobbyist instance.
.
And, you know, we’ve just moved on from an administration that brazenly violated the law, and the constitution–that deleted hundreds of thousands of emails, that refused to honor subpoenas from the Congress. And now we have outrage over “leaky lobbyist” provisions. Post-Cheney.
.
IOKIYAR

Paul-no, Stuart Zechman asked it, though not verbatim as I phrased it, around comment 30, and it was echoed by several commenters afterwards
.
I also commented in the same vein. The resume did look particularly strong to me, for this role, and I would be surprised to find that there are very many people with this experience and skill set.

Andy, You bet we would. The context for all of this discussion is the campaign demonization of lobbyists as, by definition, corrupting influences on our political process, a theme which both Obama and McCain returned to consistently during the campaign. (Though Obama used it more.) Of course this, by definition, standard is not always the case. Lobbyist registration is just one measure to find who is using public institutions for private gain, and it is a clumsy one, since not all lobbyists have the same agenda. The public discussion, however, is in the end a healthy one, I think.

Let’s see how silly we can get.
.
James, LA is a brillant poster who has is an excellent commentor who is not afraid to take on establishment reporters, and I think that establishment reportes who dismiss his qualifications to write posts in the comment section of the Swampland blog that he has covered for days if not months with great distinction and courage and accuracy and fairness might reconsider whether their own biases are at work here. He knows a lot about things and he has proven that time and again.

Fewer lobbyists please!
.
Personally, I don’t care if the media goes over the top on this. Sure, it may reflect sloppy and knee-jerk journalism, but that may be an unavoidable cost of greater governmental oversight.
.
Of course, since the press is incapable of this scrutiny when the GOP is in office, it is one more reason that Republicans must never again occupy the White House.

@jayack
Don’t forget that both Joe and Michael both stated here that reporters are fighting the perception that they are ‘in the tank’ for Obama. Without even addressing the validity of that perception, its obvious that there’s a channel of communication in play that is far removed from the bloggity world we inhabit.

I am not being a media critic. I am being a commenter critic. And a media defender. Even a reporter with “a great and deep understanding of the Pentagon” can mess up, and it is not unreasonable to challenge him/her to do better and to acknowledge mistakes and omissions.
.
Particularly at this interesting moment in time when the RW message machine has cranked into full attack Obama mode and many in the media are simply transmitting RW messages. And when folks like JoeK put out a piece yesterday saying Obama should just ignore Limbaugh because he is “irrelevant” when in fact he is a central player in coordinating and amplifying the party line.
.
Oh, and ditto sqrl1: Of course, since the press is incapable of this scrutiny when the GOP is in office, it is one more reason that Republicans must never again occupy the White House.

KT: your reply noted with thanks. Let’s see what happens at the hearings.

Just want to point out that the wikipedia link in KT’s comment is not going to the right bio – it works if you copy and paste the link though. The Mark Thompson linked to (Director of the BBC) is a tool for refusing to broadcast the DEC Gaza appeal. Mark Thompson the reporter seems like an ok guy.

OMG. gunny, no! Don’t do it!
.
.
The context for all of this discussion is the campaign demonization of lobbyists
.
Now I get it. This is all about hurt feelings as McCain’s messenger boy. How was that karaoke par-tay, Michael? Still have that hangover?
.

“Lynn, Obama’s choice to serve as the Pentagon’s No. 2 civilian, got high marks for struggling to bring some accountability to Pentagon spending when he served as its top money manager from 1997 to 2001. By one account, he reduced the amount of undocumented Pentagon spending from $2.3 trillion to $1.3 trillion (prior to the federal banking bailout, only at the Pentagon could $1.3 trillion in undocumented spending be deemed progress).”
.
Now I ask you KT, MS please explain: Obama has said that he wants to use smarter practices in military procurement and has gone as far as to say that John McCain will be his point man on the GOP side to focus on spending cuts etc. So how is high marks for doing something that in the authors own words intimates the rarity of the very act that’s at the top of the presidents agenda not constitute being uniquely qualified?

drunk with Tucker Bounds
difficult to wash away
the barbecue stains

BTW just to point out the obvious, notice that Scherer didn’t post the “other side of the argument” about him cutting 1 trillion dollars from the Defense spending. Hmmmm imagine that.

The very existence of this debate is a sign that the new rule has tremendous value. As for Lynn, “Uniquely Qualified” does not equal “One Of A Kind.”

One more thing
.
Since evidently winning awards for doing your job well is a litmus test for who should be taken seriously, why don’t we have more posts here at Swampland pointing out Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman’s views on the economic stimulus package and what it should look like? Just a question.

He’s uniquely qualified if the administration says he is? Being in power works out well like that…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

sgw: BTW just to point out the obvious, notice that Scherer didn’t post the “other side of the argument” about him cutting 1 trillion dollars from the Defense spending.
.
Perhaps MS could rectify that with an update. Being what updates are for and all.

Well, Dirks, it’s kind of amazing. They’ve been straining at gnats and swallowing camels for eight years. And so this, which might well be a valid issue to raise, becomes prominent. Torture. Trashing of the constitution. Routine violation of the law. Dismissal of subpoenas.
.
Not so much.

KT — I am a media critic because I have no other choice you people refuse to keep yourselves in check. Frankly, I wouldn’t be less incensed if the reason for this post wasn’t because the media can’t tell the difference between skepticism and cynicism. You people blew it big time on Bush and now a week into to the job you figure you’d make up for it by paralyzing the next guy with meaningless attacks.
.
I think not! I for one am not in favor of a blanket rule that does not allow for exceptions. Any time you get a zero tolerance policy, mandatory sentencing, or take the discretion from any authoritative body in favor of predesignated edict, then you leave yourself open to enforcing stupidity.
.
There are always exceptions to the rules and while this time you are talking about perhaps the only guy in the last twenty years to whose ever been able to make spending cuts, remember that a no exception attitude is the same mentality that points to a zero tolerance drug policy that has us expelling kids for bringing an aspirin to school, a zero weapons policy that had us expelling a child because her mom packed a butter knife and folk in with her lunch and expelling a 6 year old for sexual harassment. This is stupidity folks and there is no shortage of it in America. And having rules with no means of exceptions is the quickest way to discover that stupidity writ large.

And Mark Thompson’s opinion should impress us — how?
.
Actually Danielle Brian’s opinion seems more relevant in the excerpt.
.
And I think the Mark Patterson appointment – if it goes through – is far more troubling. A Goldman Sachs lobbyist at Treasury? No, that cannot be a good idea.
.
Finally, I’m not a fan of journalists coming to explicit conclusions about who is wrong or right in non-black and white situations. But I’ve heard other Swampland commenters ask countless times for MS and other MSM journalists to do just that. Well, that kind of journalism will go against Democrats sometimes. Sometimes – e.g. Ron Fournier – it will result in terrible journalism, which is why I don’t think it’s a good idea; Journalists already have too much power, IMO. But saying that a Raytheoon lobbyist is not uniquely qualified to hold the number two position at the Pentagon? That’s not even daring. Would anyone be criticizing Mark Thompson – except me perhaps – if McCain had won and nominated Lynn?
.
Your tough as nails semantic argument “uniquely qualified” “very limited number” is “impressive”
.
P-NNTO, Thompson is wrong, grammatically speaking. (Sorry stuart, jayackroyd, etc.) “Uniquely qualified” means qualified in a unique way – e.g. his qualifications are like no other candidate’s. It doesn’t mean he’s “better” qualified than anyone else. To be fair, perhaps some grammarians argue otherwise, but we shouldn’t assume that Gibbs was using the definition of “uniquely qualified” that gives his statement the most ridiculous meaning.

pourme,
Your tweet about Iceland reminding you of Saeglopur reminded me of Bjork slamming a journalist’s head into the pavement. Funny how that works.

I used e.g. when I should have used i.e.! It’s impossible to correct someone’s grammar without making a grammatical mistake…

You’re, of course, correct, rose. that’s what “unique” means. And, no, I don’t think he is the only organism on the planet who can do this job. But I do think the skill set for someone dedicated to Pentagon budget cutting is hard to come by, and, if that is to be this guys role, then the waiver doesn’t bother me.
.
As I said, this is not about Lynn. It’s about Obama. If he really is going to clean up this deeply corrupt part of the government, then I don’t really care that he uses a lobbyist to to do it. And if he is not gonna clean up this deeply corrupt part of the government, then his appointment of someone corrupt is part of his failure.

Well, I’m glad to see media scrutiny of lobbyist picks. That said, wvng is right that an update wouldn’t be out of order– there’s another side to the story, which this post doesn’t cover.
-
I don’t recall telling Michael Scherer that he was in the tank for Obama; why does he have to defend himself from those charges? Hey Michael, I think you were in the tank for McCain. Defend yourself against that! Josh Marshall has been pointing out lately that to many in the media, GOP opinions are by definition Serious and Important, while opinions from the other side are… less so. It seems to me this attitude is a reflection of that imbalance.
-
And “campaign demonization of lobbyists” came from McCain trying to cast himself as a crusader with a phalanx of insiders running the show. But that’s all in the past; who cares now? Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, as JayAckroyd puts it, is about perfect.

The problem with media critics is that perhaps the most prominent one – Howie – is so deep in the RW tank he can write things like this: Kristol Severs Ties With the N.Y. Times when, in fact, as John Cole so clearly says:
.
Bill Kristol was fired. Let go. Canned. He severed his ties to the Times in much the same way that a barnacle severs its ties with a ship when it is scraped off and tossed into the smelling muck.
.
I suppose the WaPo editors have to spin his FIRING FROM THE NY TIMES positively, since they have decided to give him a shot.

I don’t think commenters are knee-jerk criticizing Mark Thompson so much as they’re knee-jerk criticizing anything Scherer has to say — which is not hard to sympathize with.
.
So while it’s true that even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn, it’s not something you can count on.

@jarais – I have tried but can’t get into Bjork. Crosses the insane line for me.

Oh, Michael.
http://wonkette.com/405775/ex-mccain-reporters-hold-drunk-karaoke-party-with-ex-mccain-staff

rose83
.
A point you seem to be missing is none of us at least not most of us are even pushing Lynn. We actually want to know if he is or isn’t uniquely qualified. But if you read that article there is no way that you come away thinking its “bogus” to assert he IS uniquely qualified as Thompson explicitly does. This is about sh!tty journalism, nothing more nothing less. If you can find on this thread or any other a commenter saying that they are sure Lynn is “uniquely qualified” I would love to see it. You have created a strawman here about whether we would complain if McCain had won and you might want to reread the whole thread before you continue it going forward.

Rose83 — I think you missed the point. It’s the suggestion that Lyn is not uniquely qualified (meaning qualification that are unique in some way) and not posting why although in the body of the article in fact demonstrating that his qualification are unique in some way.
.
And let’s face it, if the motive was not to bring down Obama a peg or two this wouldn’t be an article at all. So far the msm has been about carrying water for the GOP, whether intentional or not makes little difference.
.
Obama promises more transparency and the MSM decides that means an all access pass all the time, so the failure to witness the second oath means he lied and the opening up the freedom of information act is irrelevant?
.
He signs an executive order banning lobbyist that includes an exception because any intelligent person understands that at some point there may be a few extraordinary cases that we might want to waive and the msm view is he’s not true to his word, despite it being a radical departure for the previous regime.
.
Give me a break! Let’s stop pretending that the msm doesn’t have its own agenda. Like I posted earlier the msm can no longer tell the difference, or at least don’t care to, between skepticism which is healthy and cynicism which is destroying this country.

okay SG this is getting to be a pattern — thinking a like and then posting right after each other.

At the risk of addressing the merits of the issue…
.
Could there be anything worse for Raytheon’s Pentagon contracting prospects than to have Mr. Lynn confirmed? Rest assured the esteemed Mr. Thompson and similarly qualified reporters would be all over any deal carrying even a suggestion of impropriety. It may be difficult for Raytheon to enjoy fair treatment in contracting, much less any favoritism.
.
The “news” here is that the president, in full public view, might call on a small number of erstwhile industry reps he deems uniquely qualified to advance his agenda effectively. If you have problems with the agenda, address the agenda; if you have problems with the fairness or effectiveness of an appointee’s performance, address the performance. Otherwise, go look for real rather than conjectural problems – there were plenty of them under the last regime, and the media either gave them a brief mention or took a pass entirely. The current Lynn obsession effectively condemns Obama for raising the ethical standard by an order of magnitude.
.
I’m glad the media finally have re-grown a pair, but please save the journalistic testosterone for matters of consequence – in the real world, the Lynn appointment is a self-limiting problem.

jayackroyd, SG, and Dee, I’m just pointing out this is a logical extension of the kind of journalism I’ve seen many commenters ask for. As for the Lynn issue, well as I said I think Patterson is far more troubling. Also I never suggested anyone here was saying that Lynn’s uniquely qualified (according to either definition of the term). I’m really surprised anyone read that into my comment.
.
About Kristol being fired from the NY Times editorial page, I have a suggestion for who should take his spot: Cokie Roberts. Sure I’d rather see Chris Bowers or another progressive there. But that’s not going to happen. And at least with Roberts the NY Times would have a genuine feminist voice commenting on politics, since Kristof rarely discusses (electoral and Washington) politics.
.
They need to balance MoDo with some kind of genuine feminist, and it’s not going to be Digby…

I forgot to add…
.
Give me a break! Let’s stop pretending that the msm doesn’t have its own agenda. Like I posted earlier the msm can no longer tell the difference, or at least don’t care to, between skepticism which is healthy and cynicism which is destroying this country.
.
Dee, again I agree with that.

And again here is the thing that none of the MSM folks covering this issue ever bring up. There are TWO characteristics of President Obama’s ban on lobbyists. Not only are they not allowed in except by unique exception, they can’t lobby his White House for as long as he is in office. That means that should Lynn decide DOD isn’t the place for him OR he gets sh!t canned he can’t lobby the White House for the next 4 to 8 years. And there are no exceptions for that particular rule. Thats motivation for him to not only do a damn good job, but also to stay where he is at for the duration. But do you ever see that part of the Executive Order amplified? Of course not.

MS thanks for answering my question. Now let me ask this, does his previous Pentagon experience and knowledge of the culture and his effective leadership there make him a more viable candidate than Eliot Spitzer, who has experience regulating abuses in the financial industry and other industries(yeah I know about the hooker but that’s not relevant to my question). I’m using Spitzer as an alternative, as he is brilliant, tenacious, and effective. What skills sets does Lynn possess, that Spitzer does not.

I don’t like the hyperbole about “uniquely qualified”, but is there a valid arguement that Lynn could get up to speed faster than other candidates. Who would the other candidates be? I’m curious about knowing about who are the alternative candidates. Thanks again for the interaction.

rose83
.

Also I never suggested anyone here was saying that Lynn’s uniquely qualified (according to either definition of the term). I’m really surprised anyone read that into my comment.

Then what did you mean by this quote?
.
Would anyone be criticizing Mark Thompson – except me perhaps – if McCain had won and nominated Lynn?

Dee
.

Nice to know the Post has hired the moderate-centrist Kristol to balance this guy (via PA):
.
Apparently, he was a spokesperson for Jesse Helms from 1995 to 2001, where he, among other things, declared the International Criminal Court "the the most dangerous threat to sovereignty since the League of Nations."

In yet another instance of McCain being for something before he was against it, did anybody else notice that he voted against Geitner yesterday after saying he would vote FOR him over the weekend? Gotta love that bipartisan spirit!

Then what did you mean by this quote?
.
Would anyone be criticizing Mark Thompson – except me perhaps – if McCain had won and nominated Lynn?
.
SG, I still don’t get the confusion, but I’ll spell it out. I would describe the general thinking about the Lynn nomination on Swampland as undecided. BTW, that’s pretty much where I am also. This comment of yours captures this thinking, IMO: We actually want to know if he is or isn’t uniquely qualified. But if you read that article there is no way that you come away thinking its “bogus” to assert he IS uniquely qualified as Thompson explicitly does. Basically the criticism is about Thompson’s unambiguous conclusion opposing Obama’s decision. So as you can probably tell by now, that comment of mine you quoted means I doubt you and other Swampland commenters would be similarly critical of Thompson if he had taken an unambiguous position opposing a McCain nomination of Lynn. I think you (vous not tu) would be firmly against the nomination instead of undecided if it were McCain nominating a Raytheon lobbyist, and consequently you’d probably applaud Thompson’s article.
.
I, OTOH, don’t think journalists should take clear-cut positions on debateable issues. Which is why I would be critical of this article even if McCain had won and nominated Lynn. I’d also probably be strongly opposed to the nomination if it were McCain’s idea, but I’d still see the problems with this kind of journalism.
.
Is that clearer?

Again rose83 its not that he took a clear cut position. (And for the record I’m against zero tolerance policies of any kind period I don’t care who issues them). It’s that he took a clear cut position based on a standard I couild not identify and he on information he did not provide. Moreover he did so in an article where his own words seemingly contradicted his position. I don’t know about the rest of the commenters, okay maybe I know about SG — because he’s a kindred spirit, but I tend to protest stupidity where ever I find it — call if a personal pet peeve.

OT, but it appears that even Politico has noticed that Partisanship is officially back
.
Josh noticed the same thing: I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama’s governing approach can be ‘bipartisan’ if good number of Republicans don’t vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: that the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it’s in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what.

OT, but very nearly perfect: Obama taking attention away from where it belongs: the White House press corps

.
My issue is this:
.

[T]he idea that Lynn is “uniquely qualified” — the White House’s language — for the post is simply bogus. The phrase doesn’t mean merely good or talented — it means that Lynn, of all the possible candidates for the position, is the only person who could fill it.

.
And then selectively omits much of the nominee’s bio, much of which is asserted to be what actually “uniquely” qualifies him. With all due respect to Thompson’s journalism awards and knowledge of the Pentagon, cherry-picking someone’s bio to fit the predetermined narrative that it to claim he is uniquely qualified is “bogus” qualifies as journalistic hackery in the extreme.
.
That kind of judgement, expressed in that way, is highly unprofessional, which is why I asked why I should take him seriously. A serious journo wouldn’t write something that requires judgement “simply bogus.” That is hackery, not journalism. It’s disrepectful to the newsreading audience.
.
As I said, I don’t really care if Lynn is confirmed or not.

the problem with Thompson’s piece is that he defines “uniquely qualified” as “it means that Lynn, of all the possible candidates for the position, is the only person who could fill it.” That is where the BS is — uniquely qualified means that ones qualifications for the job are unique; not that others couldn’t fill the position, but that others don’t bring to the table the same kind of knowledge, record, personal qualities, and experience set.
_
So its probably easy to find someone with appropriate knowledge of Pentagon practices.
And its probably easy to find someone with a record of imposing efficiency and accountability in a large organization.
And its probably easy to find someone that the military establishment approves of.
And its probably easy to find someone who has worked at the highest levels of the Pentagon in the past.
_
But how many people are there who have all four qualities and (one assumes) shares Obama’s vision of the future of the military?
_
my guess is the number is vanishingly small — and that just about all of them have ‘conflicts’ of one kind or another.
_
that being said, Obama made such a huge deal out of “lobbyists” during the campaign that the GOP and the media SHOULD hold his feet to the fire on this appointment. Obama never talked about “exceptions” to his “no lobbyist” rule, and if Clinton or McCain had tried to make an argument that some lobbyist employed by their campaign was “uniquely qualified”, Obama would have treated that assertion with contempt. Obama made this bed, and now he has to lie in it…

Obama brought this on himself a bit, by saying he would ban lobbyists with some exceptions. Which got interepreted as “Obama will ban lobbyists, period.” He should have said something like, I will only hire lobbyists if they do not have conflicts of interest.
-
The defenders of Lynn are echoing what Clinton said about lobbyists during the primiary (for which she was excoriated).

The Thompson piece was somewhat informative. Too much focus (IMO) on the perception of the issue (how does this hurt/help Obama), and not enough on the actual issue.
-
“Uniquely qualified” is silly – Even if it does not mean “most highly qualified”, it still implies that nobody else would be as good a choice. Really?
-
The issue for me is not whether he’s qualified, or most qualified, but whether he’s got conflicts of interest that outweigh his qualifications. And that’s what confirmation hearings are for … in theory. In reality, they seem to be mostly about grandstanding.

And KT – you seem to have taken James’ remark somewhat personally, which I understand, Thompson being a colleague.
-
But this ties in with the issue that you won’t address, in your role as non-media-critic, which is the manipulation of the news cycle by the GOP. I don’t think Thompson’s piece was an example of that, but after 16 years of irresponsible press (I count the Clinton years), the making of the story can be as important as the story.

Again rose83 its not that he took a clear cut position. (And for the record I’m against zero tolerance policies of any kind period I don’t care who issues them).
.
Dee, no I understand that’s only my complaint. It’s my pet peeve! Also, I think everyone – probably even Mark Thompson – agrees with you on zero tolerance policies.

KT, so yesterday you were b!tching that you’re not a media critic and you jump into someone else’s thread to be….a media critic? Color me not surprised. Though I do note Karen, you didn’t bother jumping to Jay Newton Small’s defense, which I think speaks volumes to JNS’s degenerate hackery.

“While Lynn may be well qualified, it is absurd to argue that he is uniquely qualified,” says Danielle Brian, head of the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group in Washington. “There are plenty of people with far greater business management experience than that of a lobbyist.”
.
What an idiotic quote to include in discussing Lynn’s qualifications.

The Honorable William J. Lynn is senior vice president
of Government Operations and Strategy at Raytheon
Company. He was elected an officer of the company
in May 2005. Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN), with
2007 sales of $21.3 billion, is a technology leader
specializing in defense, homeland security and other
government markets throughout the world. With
headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs
72,000 people worldwide.
.
Lynn joined Raytheon in August 2002 from DFI
International, a Washington-based management consult-
ing firm, where he was executive vice president. Prior to
joining DFI in 2001, Lynn served four years as the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). In that position, he
was the chief financial officer for the Department of
Defense (DoD) and the principal advisor to the Secretary
of Defense for all budgetary and fiscal matters. From
1993 to 1997, Lynn was the director of program analysis
and evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

.
So Lynn has plenty of “business management experience” from his years at Raytheon and CFO at DoD before that. I might also point out that the banking community, Wall Street and the past administration practically drip with “business management experience”. How’s that working out for you?
.
Thompson may know the Pentagon and have a nice shiny award and all but that article is still crap.

Thanks for this post, Michael Scherer.

“unambiguous conclusion”

According to TIME, cutting $1 trillion in Pentagon spending must not a qualification for a job at the Department of Defense, because everyone from the most incompetent hack to the overqualified reporter sees that that is a unique accomplishment.

Well, “this job” at any rate.

This whole argument about whether Lynn is ‘uniquely qualified’ or not is silly. For Mark Thompson to declare that Lynn is not ‘uniquely qualified’ is absurd. He doesn’t have sufficient information to make that argument.
.
Lynn has been selected by Obama to enforce Obama’s policies at the Pentagon – not to simply perform whatever tasks Mark Thompson thinks Lynn ought to perform. If Obama thinks that Lynn is the best person to enforce the policies he intends to implement then who is Mark Thompson to say that he isn’t? Has Mark Thompson discussed with Obama what Obama future plans are? Does he know what Obama expects of Lynn? Does he know how Obama intends to go about reshaping the Pentagon? If not, then Thompson doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says that ‘it is absurd to argue that he is uniquely qualified’.
.
What is absurd is to make judgments based on insufficient information and prejudices.

According to TIME, cutting $1 trillion in Pentagon spending must not a qualification for a job at the Department of Defense,
_
he did not cut $1 trillion. What he did was find out find out where $1 trillion was being spent (out of 2.3 trillion that was unaccounted for.) Basically, the Pentagon kept lousy records, and Lynn improved the record keeping somewhat — but he didn’t reduce spending, he merely provided a better accounting of it.

Cokie Roberts!?
~
Sorry, but I prefer Kristol. I can learn a lot more from reading enemy bombast than yet another elephant in “liberal” attire. Kristol’s self-satire is far less damaging.

Try Phil Rucker’s article in the Washington Post for a detailed resume on Bill Lynn. He is more than qualified for the job.

What other qualifications or reporting Thompson has done are irrelevant to evaluating this piece, which is poorly thought out and poorly written. He states that calling Lynn’s qualifications ‘unique’ is ‘bogus’ (I gather he’s also a graduate of the Keanu Reeves School of Journalism) without providing even one example of someone with the same qualifications. When did assertion become proof, or even evidence? He misinterprets the word by implying that it means no one else could do the job, which it absolutely does not as others have pointed out. Finally, there is not paying attention to the endgame, which is that accepting the job disqualifies him from ever cashing in on the revolving door afterwards. There are literally dozens of more important issues related to the future of the Pentagon than this that Thompson should be paying attention to. This is lowball Villager trope tripe… of the staff here, only Klein seems to get it. The stakes are too high for this nonsense.