Real change in the white house?

Krysilis · 01-23-2009, 08:05 AM

So, this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...nse/index.html

I get that Obama wants to milk the Clinton-years-all-over-again idea, but with the level of outrage over the corruption/ conflicts of interest in Washington lately, I can't feel good about how similar this feels to Bush's gang. I don't know anything about the man personally and as far as I know he was never accused or suspected of any wrongdoing in Clinton's time, but I still don't like it.

Marc v4.0 · 01-23-2009, 09:34 AM

Reading the article in the link and then reading what you've said here, I have to say that I 'm not following you at all. Maybe some further explaination of what you mean is needed.

Krysilis · 01-23-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

Reading the article in the link and then reading what you've said here, I have to say that I 'm not following you at all. Maybe some further explaination of what you mean is needed.

Sorry if I wasn't clear... I find it offputting that one of Obama's first acts as president is to nominate a former defense contractor VP to a position involving the budget for defense contracts. Especially given how outspoken Obama was about that sort of thing going on during the Bush administration.

Marc v4.0 · 01-23-2009, 10:04 AM

That "sort of thing" happens a lot more then we really care to know about. It only become an issue when someone is put in that position for the sole purpose of bending and twisting the position to the will of the one who put them there.

It doesn't scream suspicion and worry, it doesn't even really whisper it. Given the new, stricter constraints that are being put into place, it's very clear that this guys past puts him under a very powerful microscope. There may be an exception made to appoint him, but it would only be to appoint him, it wouldn't be an exception to any and all scrutiny or accountability to the new regulations.

Preturbed · 01-23-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

That "sort of thing" happens a lot more then we really care to know about. It only become an issue when someone is put in that position for the sole purpose of bending and twisting the position to the will of the one who put them there.

It doesn't scream suspicion and worry, it doesn't even really whisper it.

Yes it does. HELL yes it does. I hope the guy is legit, but putting him in charge of budgeting defense contracts is like putting an oil exec in charge of gas prices.

Lesson 1: Never trust those in power. Even if it's ~~John F Ke-~~ Barack Obama.

Marelo · 01-23-2009, 06:43 PM

On the flip side, wouldn't a defense contractor know best the kind of money a private defense corporation needs to operate effectively? I mean, put aside the shadiness of it for a moment and consider that the man has experience in the field.

Sithdarth · 01-23-2009, 06:49 PM

Strictly speaking when you put someone in charge of something important you want them to have two very specific qualities:

1) They have to have experience in managing things in general so you know they aren't going to screw it up.
2) They have to be well versed in the general about the thing they are going to be managing. Otherwise you end up with someone who despite extensive managing experience is unable to make quick, efficient, and effective decisions.

Now that is not to say that people without number 2 haven't done good or great jobs managing something they were put in charge of. Generally though it takes a uniquely talented leader to pull it off. There is also a secondary problem in that this person is going to have to relate ideas to someone who knows little about the thing he his managing. Its hard enough for someone that knows something to explain it to someone who doesn't know it. Now you'd basically have the blind leading the blind.

It is unfortunate that these requirements pretty much always lead to conflicts of interest. There is a delicate balancing act in which the use of oversight limits the appointed persons ability to act in their own self interest without impairing their ability to do there job better than someone with less experience and no conflict.

TheSparrow · 01-23-2009, 07:05 PM

I haven't looked at that article, but I assume its about William J. Lynn III. His being a defense contractor lobbyist isn't what worries me.

It is the fact that one of the key issues Obama campaigned on was getting rid of lobbyist influence peddling in Washington. In fact Obama promised that no political appointees in his administration would be permitted to work on areas that "directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years."

Then before he is even inaugurated he completely goes back on that promise and hires a defense department lobbyist who was a lobbyist right up until July, when he let his lobbyist registration slip, but he kept the same job, just had other people doing the physical lobbying for him.

And it isnt like experience is a big thing for Obama. He DID pick Leon Panetta to run the CIA, even though he has basically no experience in intelligence aside from being on the Iraq study group.

Apparently Obama wasn't kidding when he said that the things he said on the campaign trail were "campaign rhetoric" and not to be taken for their word.

01-23-2009, 08:05 AM	#1
Krysilis Roomba Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Jesusville, FL Posts: 5	Real change in the white house? So, this: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...nse/index.html I get that Obama wants to milk the Clinton-years-all-over-again idea, but with the level of outrage over the corruption/ conflicts of interest in Washington lately, I can't feel good about how similar this feels to Bush's gang. I don't know anything about the man personally and as far as I know he was never accused or suspected of any wrongdoing in Clinton's time, but I still don't like it. Last edited by Krysilis; 01-23-2009 at 08:14 AM.

01-23-2009, 07:05 PM	#8
TheSparrow Waylaid by Jackassery. Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 382	I haven't looked at that article, but I assume its about William J. Lynn III. His being a defense contractor lobbyist isn't what worries me. It is the fact that one of the key issues Obama campaigned on was getting rid of lobbyist influence peddling in Washington. In fact Obama promised that no political appointees in his administration would be permitted to work on areas that "directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." Then before he is even inaugurated he completely goes back on that promise and hires a defense department lobbyist who was a lobbyist right up until July, when he let his lobbyist registration slip, but he kept the same job, just had other people doing the physical lobbying for him. And it isnt like experience is a big thing for Obama. He DID pick Leon Panetta to run the CIA, even though he has basically no experience in intelligence aside from being on the Iraq study group. Apparently Obama wasn't kidding when he said that the things he said on the campaign trail were "campaign rhetoric" and not to be taken for their word. __________________ :rmage: "Clearly I lack arrogance as that would be a flaw"

01-23-2009, 09:34 AM	#2
Marc v4.0 Fight Me, Nerds Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,470	Reading the article in the link and then reading what you've said here, I have to say that I 'm not following you at all. Maybe some further explaination of what you mean is needed.

01-23-2009, 10:04 AM	#4
Marc v4.0 Fight Me, Nerds Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,470	That "sort of thing" happens a lot more then we really care to know about. It only become an issue when someone is put in that position for the sole purpose of bending and twisting the position to the will of the one who put them there. It doesn't scream suspicion and worry, it doesn't even really whisper it. Given the new, stricter constraints that are being put into place, it's very clear that this guys past puts him under a very powerful microscope. There may be an exception made to appoint him, but it would only be to appoint him, it wouldn't be an exception to any and all scrutiny or accountability to the new regulations.

01-23-2009, 06:43 PM	#6
Marelo Napoleon Impersonator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Kansas Posts: 816	On the flip side, wouldn't a defense contractor know best the kind of money a private defense corporation needs to operate effectively? I mean, put aside the shadiness of it for a moment and consider that the man has experience in the field.

01-23-2009, 06:49 PM	#7
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	Strictly speaking when you put someone in charge of something important you want them to have two very specific qualities: 1) They have to have experience in managing things in general so you know they aren't going to screw it up. 2) They have to be well versed in the general about the thing they are going to be managing. Otherwise you end up with someone who despite extensive managing experience is unable to make quick, efficient, and effective decisions. Now that is not to say that people without number 2 haven't done good or great jobs managing something they were put in charge of. Generally though it takes a uniquely talented leader to pull it off. There is also a secondary problem in that this person is going to have to relate ideas to someone who knows little about the thing he his managing. Its hard enough for someone that knows something to explain it to someone who doesn't know it. Now you'd basically have the blind leading the blind. It is unfortunate that these requirements pretty much always lead to conflicts of interest. There is a delicate balancing act in which the use of oversight limits the appointed persons ability to act in their own self interest without impairing their ability to do there job better than someone with less experience and no conflict.