Today, after much pressure and a critical piece in the NY Times, Tom Daschle has decided to throw in the towel. But before Daschle's exit, another Obama appointee pulled out. Nancy Killefer who was to be the first performance chief, a post created by the Obama administration, had tax problems of her own.
Despite this developing pattern of incompetence, Team O is defending their performance in both the selection process and failure to adhere to its own promises, not to employ lobbyists in the administration.
Despite the tax problems faced by high-level nominees, and the exceptions made to the no-lobbyists pledge, President Barack Obama's spokesman is defending the administration's ethical standards.
Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, "The bar that we set is the highest that any administration in the country has ever set."
Change is a misnomer in this case, and hope is fading fast. The new administration is not delivering very well in these first days, and the anger is beginning to brew. Between the shady appointments and the audacity of Congress to pork up Obama's stimulus plan with wasteful liberal spending, we may see a downward turn in poll numbers sooner than I ever expected.
In due time, I think you will find a shift in confidence from those that were duped into believing this man could do the many things he said he could. These were they, that thought the nation needed to go in a different direction. PYY and its readers were never fooled, and we said so many times in the days leading up to the election.
But hey, what do WE know?
Addendum:
Advance Indiana has details on this story.
It is easy to project yourself as a clean politician after making your debut in South Side Chicago with buddies like Rahm Emanuel. US president Obama has appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist Governance and rooting corruption out of the American Government.
Seventeen!!!
As AI points out in his post, this isn't being carried by the US mainstream media. One had to search the India Times, to locate this gem.
8 comments:
Hello LAS !
/// But hey, what do WE know? ///
(grin)
As usual, the Daily Telegraph has a nice take …
/// Same old fudges and loopholes in Obama's new era of ethics
The sheen is already coming off the Obama presidency.
By Toby Harnden
Last Updated: 7:20PM GMT 03 Feb 2009
What a difference an election makes. On the campaign trail, candidate Barack Obama vowed to fix Washington's "broken politics", which had become "gummed up by money and influence". In the age of Obama, he promised, government would no longer be "a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists". The stakes were too high to play the "same old Washington games with the same old Washington players". The slogan was: "Change you can believe in."
Now that he is in office, however, the new dawn is looking like a false one. His administration is crammed to the gills with alumni of Bill Clinton's White House; Hillary Clinton, whom Obama mocked as the epitome of what was wrong with politics, is now secretary of state.
…/… /// http://tinyurl.com/bxcfo6
Or, as they say here in France: ‘Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose’ (The more that changes, the more it's the same thing) (wider grin)
Best,
L’Amerloque
//On the campaign trail, candidate Barack Obama vowed to fix Washington's "broken politics", which had become "gummed up by money and influence". In the age of Obama, he promised, government would no longer be "a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists"//
Check out the addendum I added to the post for a real winner.
My beef so far with the new administration is their fixation with looking back to score cheap points against Bush for some reason. On their website, in their rhetoric, interviews, and darn near everything else, they are constantly relaying a subtle "the good guys are here now to right the ship" attitude.
I don't recall Bush doing it to this level--I think Reagan probably did but he had his own problems. Mostly I recall Bush trying to tamp down Congressional investigations and defuse the story about the WH being trashed by the Clintons.
Bottom line, when they set themselves up as visions of perfection (knowing full we they are not) they are doomed to fail, even with a complicit media.
//Bottom line, when they set themselves up as visions of perfection (knowing full we they are not) they are doomed to fail, even with a complicit media.//
Bingo.
You can raise the bar so high that nobody can jump over it.
"and the audacity of Congress to pork up Obama's stimulus plan with wasteful liberal spending, we may see a downward turn in poll numbers sooner than I ever expected."
That's an interesting, and somewhat skewed assessment, in my opinion.
When given the opportunity to say what they believed was wasteful spending in the stimulus plan, House Republicans came up with this, that can be seen at the following:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html
Some quick math will tell you that they wanted to eliminate $18.7 billion. A lot of money, to be certain, but it accounts for approximately 2% of the total stimulus plan, which rings in at $884.5 billion. They were OK with the other 98%.
Just saying.
//They were OK with the other 98%.//
Doesn't matter to me what they are okay with, because I am not with the majority of it. If I had time to comb through the entire thing, I bet I'd can 75%, if it were up to me.
The argument is not between Democrats and Republicans here. I don't find either party doing the right thing right now.
But the Dems are in control and are driving the train right now. So, it stands to reason that the lion's share of the blame should go to them. The GOP can bitch all they want, had they did what they said they were going to do years ago, maybe I'd have some faith in them.
Now that I have explained my position, can you explain how my assessment was skewed?
LAS,
After re-reading your original post, I have to admit, you're right. I do a fair amount of political debate and sometimes that makes me forget that liberal can mean more than one's political leanings.
My sincere apologies.
Having re-read it, I see what you were driving at.
But...I support the stimulus package. Many people argue that it is "ridden with pork." Well...personally, I've always found political pork to be pretty subjective. One man's pork is another's vital program.
Honestly, Celt. I am not trying to be flippant here. But do you really think this bill (as it is now) is going to do anything to help Americans find jobs, get out of debt, or bring the deficit down?
Post a Comment