Lets all congratulate or favorite special guy on his new staff choice. Steve Ricchetti who runs one of the most powerful lobbying firms on K street, Ricchetti Inc., has been selected to serve as Vice President Biden's top aid.
Ricchetti brings a fabulous pedigree of lobbying for clients including:
American Council of Life Insurers
American Hospital Assn
Assn for Advanced Life Underwriting
AT&T Inc
Eli Lilly & Co
Health Management Assoc
Intellectual Ventures LLC
National Industrial Sand Assn
NaviMedix
Novartis AG
Sanofi-Aventis
Siemens AG
ASCAP
Fannie Mae
GM
AMGEN
Lucent Technologies
"Lobbyists won't find a job in my White House."
I've lost count now.
Just three words.
Bush. Karl. Rove.
The bar was set so high it is impossible to be raised further.
(http://prof77.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/a-senator-not-a-nascar-driver1.png)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 13, 2012, 09:49:52 AM
Just three words.
Bush. Karl. Rove.
The bar was set so high it is impossible to be raised further.
So keep on blaming Bush as an excuse to keep lowering the bar of ethics? Nice strategy.
Truth hurts.
Not so much Bush, although he was an enthusiastic accomplice, but more a Karl Rove kind of lifestyle.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 13, 2012, 09:49:52 AM
Just three words.
Bush. Karl. Rove.
The bar was set so high it is impossible to be raised further.
Rove was a lobbyist?
Bush hired lots of lobbyists, so did Clinton. Neither of them ever said that they wouldn't hire lobbyists. Neither of them made a big deal of portraying lobbyists as unacceptable to serve in an administration.
Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by various people or groups from private sector individuals or corporations.
Adding to Rove's efforts the attempt to influence the decisions made by the electorate, then yes, you have the consummate lobbyist in Karl Rove.
And no, none of them said they wouldn't hire lobbyists. It is a time honored tradition.
And Obama's two year window is the wiggle room he needs to get clear of the whole thing. Since Richetti has not been listed as a lobbyist by his firm since 2008. So this is a non-issue, given the total constraints defined at the beginning.
First: cite the post.
Second: if true, it's distasteful but I think we can all agree not entirely without precedent. The system is built to accommodate and encourage appointments like that. And without appointments like that, you are at a political disadvantage. As we've come to see, unilateral disarmament is much less of an option than this Administration might have first thought/advertised.
I find it hilarious that a couple of the more liberal thinking posters on here are apologizing or making excuses for such obvious corporate influence within the White House.
What I find particularly repugnant is the Obama Admin purposely put misleading window dressing out there when they said they would bar lobbyists from having a spot in the Obama Administration. But, if you stuck around to read the 2 pt. typeface disclaimer, it really was no ban at all. In case you weren't paying attention in the winter/spring of '09, Heir, the administration was hiring former lobbyists by the car load.
Why does a president or VP need the "political advantage" of corporate influence, Wevus?
Quote from: we vs us on March 13, 2012, 10:19:12 AM
First: cite the post.
Second: if true, it's distasteful but I think we can all agree not entirely without precedent. The system is built to accommodate and encourage appointments like that. And without appointments like that, you are at a political disadvantage. As we've come to see, unilateral disarmament is much less of an option than this Administration might have first thought/advertised.
Is this not all over MSNBC? Hmm?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-08/lobbyists-Biden-Obama-law/53422454/1
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/team-obama-hires-lobbyist-again-ethics-be-damned/422491
http://freebeacon.com/tag/steve-ricchetti/
http://specials.forbes.com/article/06YqdaNebe9CU
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/biden-hires-president-of-a-lobbying-firm/2012/03/05/gIQAFCMGtR_blog.html
Clients going back to 2001: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000037088
Quote from: Conan71 on March 13, 2012, 10:24:54 AM
Why does a president or VP need the "political advantage" of corporate influence, Wevus?
It's not corporate influence per se. It's general political connectedness.
Look, it's obvious from the list of people he's done business with he knows how to get things done in Washington. This is an important -- and considering our current congress -- a crucial skill. Arguably, the people who know best how to get things done in Washington are lobbyists. Especially considering the degree to which our legislators and lobbyists bounce back and forth between sides of the aisle, it shouldn't be a surprise. Weak-sauce legislation, like that in Gassy's USA Today link, does nothing to fix the revolving door.
I don't like it. But like taking SuperPAC money, Obama's found that taking principled stands on that stuff amounts to unilateral disarmament. I happen to agree. It gets him a small amount of cred and a whole lot of missed opportunity. Money in politics is such a huge problem -- in part buttressed by Supreme Court ruling -- that fixing it will take years and some incredibly concerted effort by both parties. Embracing it whole hog isn't the way to go, either, but I'm much less concerned about this relatively minor thing (IMO) than some of Obama's other lapses/blind spots.
I agree with Wevs. This guy is great for Biden.
Biden needs a good wheeler/dealer word man to help bolster his image, especially with the election coming up. He's suffered an image problem with his free tongue and frequent gaffs. A smooth operator like Ricchetti with gobs of influence might help to focus Biden's attention away from shiny things.
Before Hagen, he was an image man for Clinton and a wiz at making important deals and keeping tight lips. I have a feeling that his placement as Biden's top aid may have been orchestrated from a higher level, like from President Obama or even as high as David Axelrod himself.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 13, 2012, 12:06:12 PM
Biden needs a good wheeler/dealer word man to help bolster his image, especially with the election coming up.
I doubt they worry about this election.
His staff might be tired of the administration keeping him hidden so much. Just a theory.
Quote from: Townsend on March 13, 2012, 12:30:51 PM
I doubt they worry about this election.
His staff might be tired of the administration keeping him hidden so much. Just a theory.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RVEtVdT6slA/S7AHs4TDMDI/AAAAAAAAAKM/d_Gnlo8l9Wg/s1600/biden-game-boy.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on March 13, 2012, 12:30:51 PM
I doubt they worry about this election.
His staff might be tired of the administration keeping him hidden so much. Just a theory.
Kind of a nice change of pace, seeing how often Vader was in the public eye.
Quote from: Hoss on March 13, 2012, 12:45:50 PM
Kind of a nice change of pace, seeing how often Vader was in the public eye.
Yeah, this one doesn't seem to be starting any wars to help out his buddies.
Quote from: we vs us on March 13, 2012, 11:56:58 AM
It's not corporate influence per se. It's general political connectedness.
Look, it's obvious from the list of people he's done business with he knows how to get things done in Washington. This is an important -- and considering our current congress -- a crucial skill. Arguably, the people who know best how to get things done in Washington are lobbyists. Especially considering the degree to which our legislators and lobbyists bounce back and forth between sides of the aisle, it shouldn't be a surprise. Weak-sauce legislation, like that in Gassy's USA Today link, does nothing to fix the revolving door.
I don't like it. But like taking SuperPAC money, Obama's found that taking principled stands on that stuff amounts to unilateral disarmament. I happen to agree. It gets him a small amount of cred and a whole lot of missed opportunity. Money in politics is such a huge problem -- in part buttressed by Supreme Court ruling -- that fixing it will take years and some incredibly concerted effort by both parties. Embracing it whole hog isn't the way to go, either, but I'm much less concerned about this relatively minor thing (IMO) than some of Obama's other lapses/blind spots.
To me, that's like saying:
"You've had cancer this long, you'd look out of step with other cancer sufferers if we put you on curative chemo. Instead, we will give you a steady diet of carcinogens since that's what you've been used to for the last few years."
Sorry, I'm not okay with looking at such a corrupt system and saying more of the same is acceptable because that is what it has become.
Fiscal conservatives are all about cutting waste & pork until it affects one of the pet programs or sweetheart tax breaks they care about. I hear people say, "But if our congressman or senator declines to accept pork, then my state is left out." All it takes is one solidly-principled person to foment change, and for others to see and appreciate what that person is doing.
It's unfortunate that President Obama's first term results aren't solid enough that he could refuse the aid of Super PAC's in his reelection bid or not have to rely on power brokers to try and help him get re-elected.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 13, 2012, 10:24:54 AM
I find it hilarious that a couple of the more liberal thinking posters on here are apologizing or making excuses for such obvious corporate influence within the White House.
What I find particularly repugnant is the Obama Admin purposely put misleading window dressing out there when they said they would bar lobbyists from having a spot in the Obama Administration. But, if you stuck around to read the 2 pt. typeface disclaimer, it really was no ban at all. In case you weren't paying attention in the winter/spring of '09, Heir, the administration was hiring former lobbyists by the car load.
Why does a president or VP need the "political advantage" of corporate influence, Wevus?
Apologizing or excusing?? Not me. I'm no fan of Obama. I am even less of a fan of the lies and distortions that Karl Rove has been and still is associated with. I think Mitt will take care of the Obama problem, but who is gonna cure this country of that boil-on-the-bu$$ Karl Rove?
That was the two year cooling off period I mentioned. It is the wiggle room he needed to achieve the state of Window Dressing. As opposed to no time for previous ones. The point is, this is a non-issue - he didn't lie about it, he just set conditions that were meaningless and allowed them to do what they want to do. Business as usual. (Obama is just one of many reasons I don't have a fine appreciation of Illinois in general, and don't go through the state if there is any other reasonable choice. And NEVER spend money in the state.)
In case you hadn't noticed, Atlas Van Lines moved Rove's desk out of the White House about 38 months ago.
Obama brought no change to Washington, just some smoke and mirrors. Ricchetti hasn't been a "registered lobbyist" for three years, yet he's been the CEO of the same lobbying firm ever since he left the Clinton Admin. I'm sure he's steered clear of any and all conversations with lobbying clients on pertinent issues and hasn't advised the lobbyists working for him either.
It's all more completely indefensible BS from this administration which created a huge distortion with this "no lobbyist" crap in the first place.
Conan,
I agree with you. The only point where we have any difference is on the idea of "no lobbyist". You still think that was a hard and fast rule, but as always, there are wiggle words, which "cured" the problem. No real lie, 'cause the was no real promise about it.