Comments on: Two Days After Instituting Ethics Rules, President Obama Waives them for Deputy Pentagon Secretary Nominee

By: CW Olive Branch MS

CW Olive Branch MS — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:57:09 +0000

if this is not speaking out of two side of one’s mouth, then I simply do not know what is!

By: Kate Emerson

Kate Emerson — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:01:06 +0000

Sweeping rules without exemption are almost always a bad idea. Example one, the eight years of the Bush, Jr. presidency. The tension with lobbyists is that they often no the topic of their work better than many others. The point of the ethics rules instituted by Obama was an attempt to prevent lobbyists from entering government to benefit prior affiliations and interests. If the former lobbyist is the best person for the job, commits to performing his government position in the publics best interest, and does so, we should have no problem with the former lobbyist being appointed to a government position. Not all former lobbyists have alterior motivations for accepting a government appointment. The issue should not be about the rule made and the granting an exception to the rule, but whether President Obama has made a wise decision in instituting the waiver and that the appointment of the former lobbyist is in the country’s best interest.
I am tired of the past eight years of adhering to principal when the principal is clearly not in the country’s best interest. Obama has always said that if he takes a position, and that position appears to be not in the country’s best interest, he would change course. As a general rule the ethics guidelines set forth by Obama are a good thing, which is why he has issued “waivers” but has not scraped the program altogether. Any intelligent person working for the BENEFIT of the people rather than PANDERING to the principals of the people would do the same.
I can’t help but not that, as human beings themselves, there is not one commentator on this blog who has not changed course within there lives, leaving principal in favor of good functioning practicality. Our President is human. If you want something else vote for God.
Ultimately, we should want a well run government. We should not waste our time focusing on trifle issues. Time will tell whether Obama has made a wise decision in issuing these waivers, but given the fact that he has already made so many wise decisions, we should be giving him the benefit of the doubt until there is information to prove otherwise.
This blatantly “we, the public” are holier than thou dear, President, really pisses me off, is completely illogical, and results from profound ignorant adherence to principal even where the maintenance of that principal could either not be best for the country or, in the case of Bush, be downright harmful.
Let it go. Move on.

By: John

John — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:56:21 +0000

A lie means when a person knowingly make a false statement at the time of the statement is made. Does that mean our new president lied?

By: FrankyInCharge

FrankyInCharge — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:49:52 +0000

hmmm, i don’t get it. Why would he be so blatantly self-contradictory? What does this guy have or can provide that he would do such a bone-headed thing? Does he really think the Obama Love Train is that strong?
oh and Richard, your comment…
Hey…it’s not like it’s a real
promise, it’s a politician’s promise.
There’s a huge difference that I would
think most everyone over the age of,
say, 25 has learned by now.
That just shows how obviously Obama leaning you are. I seriously doubt you’d have made the same comment had it been Bush. Thank goodness he’s not a dictator, I think ol’ Richie here would be his opposition executioner.

By: Reality2009

Reality2009 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:39:12 +0000

It got to be Bushes fault, what else can it be.
barrack doesn’t lie, doesn’t break promises, doesn’t cheat and always practice what he preached……….so willed yourself to believed that ok.

By: timbruce1

timbruce1 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:34:38 +0000

Bush Lied,…wait, wrong party. This was a perfectly acceptable application of protocols…
Personally I could care less, but spare me the double-standard.

By: Heidi Preston

Heidi Preston — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:15:33 +0000

I am a President Obama supporter but I have to agree that on the surface this looks like a bad judgement call so early in the administration, but then he’s made some other appointments which I’m not thrilled about either. To make rules and then waive them just about cancels them out, and looks unstable in thinking patterns…I think we saw this in the Bush administration with the Constitution which has stood as our guidence since our Nation began. There are exceptions to every rule, but to favor a specific person….not so good.

By: Georgie from Ohio

Georgie from Ohio — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:38:46 +0000

This will be a long 4 years! I just don’t feel safe at 3 AM Knowing the Country is in his hands.

By: BertieW

BertieW — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:42:54 +0000

“bertW you think President Obama would stick his neck out to take the political heat supporting Bush appointee Gates’ selection – for a $4600 contribution to Hillary?
”
Your childlike disingenuous is transparent. Obama is hardly doing Gates a favor, as you try to imply. Why wouldnt Gates keep his own guy, instead of this Democrat accountant?
Now who can he be doing a favor for…. perhaps his Secretary of State who pushes this maximum donor to the front of the line.
Dont pretend that he is uniquely qualified in any other way than being a maxed out Democrat donor.
“HE CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for any abuse or overuse of this waiver. ”
We are holding him accountable right now. And you are objecting wildly.

By: Mary

Mary — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:23:51 +0000

And we’re off…I knew Obama would be breaking his promises, but he’s made history on the time frame. We’re in for a looooong miserable 4 years!! Think about it – he told different things to whatever group he was addressing during his campaign to win votes. Hope he can keep his stories straight, but I seriously doubt it. The man’s a chameleon.