Another Obama Nominee Seems to Run Afoul of Anti-Lobbyist Campaign Rhetoric

Another example of Obama being “pragmatic,” which is another way to say “lying.”

So, in Obama’s world, lobbyists are clean if they’re working for “good” causes? Makes no sense…

I guess this is the “change” that B.Hussein Obama was promising. Looks like the same ol’ politics to me.

matt: “So, in Obama’s world, lobbyists are clean if they’re working for “good” causes? Makes no sense…”
Really? You can’t see the difference between lobbiests working for an industry looking to maximize their profit from the public trough and a lobbiest working for a non-profit group supported by donations? One lobbiest is looking to direct your tax dollars, the other one is not. But if you see no difference then I guess that speaks more to your blinkered view than reality.

So this guy lobbies for higher cigarette taxes, smoke free work places and to prevent kids from starting to smoke? Sounds good to me! I see nothing wrong with people like this.

” You can’t see the difference between lobbiests working for an industry looking to maximize their profit from the public trough and a lobbiest working for a non-profit group supported by donations?”
There is always a justification.
Car lobbyists are working to support the American worker
Farm lobbyists want to help support the family farmer.
ACORN lobbyists just want to make sure every vote is counted at least once.
I personally like Corr’s type the least since he wants to erode peoples rights for his own pet ideological hobby horse.

Tapper,
If you would have been half as intent on parsing every word GWB spoke, the country would be in lot better shape right now. We might have even been willing to elect another Republican. But just keep it up. That way President Obama will be assured of a full 8 years to turn this government around. By the way, where is your comment on that ridiculous news conference of Mr Bush, yesterday. What an embarasment to himself and to the United States.

Note the several supporting posts that argue that a lobbyist is acceptable if they agree with what he lobbied for (though that information is selectively distorted for convenience). Like Obama, these people have no principles or sensitivity to the slippery slope they advocate), just retoric to argue for a a conflicted cause. Most tyrants think the end justifies the means.

I just want to point out that Raytheon has nothing to with kids, tobacco, or cancer. Some of you apparently missed that part of the article.
____________________________________
No, but that’s what Corr lobbied for, which is what I was talking about, not Raytheon.

Let me break every comment down:
If you like Obama,
then you think that Lobbying to stop kids from smoking is a great thing. Just because you discribe this action as “lobbying” doesn’t change the fact that this man is trying to make our future healthier. You simply think of this man as a “reformer” or a “Health advisor,” and not an evil lobbyists.
If you hate Obama,
You think that because you call this person by the discription “lobbyist” then he must be evil like the people who lobbied to remove the regulations on banking that caused the crisis we are in. You think that the word “lobbyist” must immediately mean that he is evil and selfish like most other people who are called lobbyists. Obviously if you call him a lobbyist, then Obama is a hypocrit because he is doing exactly what he said he wouldn’t do, hire a lobbyist for the white house. The flaw in your logic is that this man is not the kind of lobbyist that Obama was refering too.
This same logic can easily be applied to the word “liberal.” This word is a one-stop label to people who are “tree hugging hippies.” The truth is that most Americans are liberal, and most of these liberals ARE NOT “tree huggers.” This is just another way that people label other people so that they feel like they are superior.

Most Americans are certainly NOT liberal. Most mainstream Americans have traditional, conservative values.

“Let me break every comment down:”
Third position here, Tim.
Lobbyists are usually the most knowledgeable people about a issue or industry. After all they knew enough to get paid in the field. Therefor excluding them just because of their background is disadvantageous to government policy making.
If they still have loyalty to their previous employer or ideology then that is a separate issue that would cause concern.

“Let me break every comment down:”
Third position here, Tim.
Lobbyists are usually the most knowledgeable people about a issue or industry. After all they knew enough to get paid in the field. Therefor excluding them just because of their background is disadvantageous to government policy making.
If they still have loyalty to their previous employer or ideology then that is a separate issue that would cause concern. ”
Good point, that is the gray color that some people can not see.

Yes General George Washington was a LIBERAL that owned slaves.
I still can’t figure out what a LIBERAL would be doing being a GENERAL like Washington

Can anyone honestly look at the facts about the harm tobacco does to health and say William Corr was on the wrong side of the issue for public good with his previous lobbying?
William Corr will be a public servant and has shown he has the public’s well-being at heart, not some corporation’s profits. That should be the litmus test for anyone hired who has been a lobbyist.
(Since tobacco is extremely addictive and harmful and the cigarette companies put all kinds of nasty chemicals in to boot, it all should be looked at and regulated by the FDA. Their job is to protect the public from harmful substances.)

Lydia: Your comment does make a lot of sense; however – the issue isn’t whether it’s a “good” lobby or a “bad” lobby. Obama said he wouldn’t hire lobbyists to be part of his administration. This is twice now he’s gone back on that promise. THAT’S the problem here.

That just shows, that if you holler CHANGE loud and often enough, people will follow, even if the have no clue what the change will be.

“Mr. Obama’s campaign pledge did not differentiate between lobbying for causes he approved of, and one he didn’t.”
Jake, this is not the relevant distinction.
There is, I think, a world of difference between a lobbyist for a nonprofit and a lobbyist for corporate interests.

Obama is a hypocrit. This man is a lobbyist. Just because smoking is bad for you doesn’t mean it should be illegal. BUT just because Obama may not be following the platform that he ran on, isn’t a bad thing. This, and I am a republican, shows me that he is trying his best to follow his word, while keeping the best in mind for our country.
However, there is still a lot about him that is weird and shrouded in a cloud that the media refuses to expose. He continues to talk about “change, reform, and a new washington”, but have we seen anything so far that suggests this? With the rising conflict in the middle east involving Isreal, shouldn’t we be a little more worried about our world? It seems that with every passing day the predictions of the Bible are coming true. We have seen the deserts bloom (oil), a temporary peace in the middle east, the rebuilding of Babylon “Bagdad – boy did we get screwed with this one… the American tax payers are paying for this one), and now even more violence. When does the lion lay with the lamb?? Does anyone else think that all these events that have/are occurred as a little bit more than a quincedence? Or maybe the Beast has shown his head and we are too busy listening to him talk about change, reform, and coming together….
Just a thought.

As I’ve said and others have, there is a world of difference between a corporate lobbyist (seeks legislation and contracts for the profit of a company) and a public-interest lobbyist (who seeks government intervention on topics harmful to the public). Mr. Corr is no one to fear. Think about it. The world is not only black and white.
And to nathan, if you read carefully, no one is saying smoking should be illegal. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids simply wanted the FDA to regulate tobacco. And well they should, as tobacco’s use affects health so adversely. Did you know that cigarette companies put many chemicals on the tobacco? There are 43 known carcinogens in their smoke. Would smoking result in as many deaths if these harmful chemicals weren’t added to the tobacco? In my opinion the FDA should be involved in something that is poisoning so many people. Any product that is addictive and harmful should be regulated to protect the public. That’s what we are paying the FDA to do. There shouldn’t be exceptions, especially of this magnitude.

This article is a sick joke.
A lobbyist for a public interest group does not create a danger to the public interest.
As a member of the public I like the idea of spokesmen for the public interest getting jobs in the Obama administration.
The ex Raytheon man is another matter. Maybe we should find out more about him. We might find out why he was made an exception to the policy.

You Republicans just don’t get it. You lost. The job of the new administration is to promote the causes he promised to promote during the campaign. This is how we are going to judge whether he kept his pledge to us.
So we look at appointments and ask whether they are consistent with the objectives. Hence I do have a concern with this Raytheon man. But I still trust.
Ultimately results will count.

None of this even matters. Tobacco lobbying ultimately fails; lobbying had nothing to do with the tobacco bill. Congressmen know as well as everybody else does that tobacco will always be a proliferant product; a bill making restrictions would only cause huge national backlash. The FDA and other anti-smoking groups have many more lobbyists than the tobacco industry. Lobbying had nothing to do with the failure of tobacco bills. If anything, the fact that anti-smoking groups lobby so much harder than the tobacco industry proves that lobbying is a key defense against the promotion of tobacco.