|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Okay, this is just unfair... (Obama, lobbyists) | by firehawk | 2009-01-29 02:10:07 |
| I think the article is dead on. |
by DesiredUsername |
2009-01-29 09:08:40 |
This path just makes him look foolish and people more cynical.
It would have been better to just institute the rule without fanfare, have a few exceptions, and then maybe after the fact subtly point out how many fewer lobbyists they have compared to previous administrations.
I can think of two arguments on the other side though:
1. Everyone knew who the SecTreasury would be. He has to go through a vetting process and confirmation by congress. Part of *their* job is to determine if the guy is suitable for the job. If an ex-lobbyist is OK, and they say so, who am I to argue (regardless of Obama's rule)?
2. I would actually like the exceptions to the rule to be higher up and in visible positions. People in these positions have all of their decisions second guessed and analyzed. They rely on their underlings for information. Anyone in this position (high up) has to be very good at hiding their 'evil lobbyist skills' to not get prosecuted in the press. If their 'evil lobbyist skills' are hidden, maybe they're doing some good after all.
a. Underlings, on the other hand, work in the shadows. No one investigates them or what they're doing. It's really easy to push some data one way or another without anyone noticing. Yes, it's harder when you're only one cog in a great machine. If many of the other cogs around you are also ex-lobbyists, maybe it's a little easier. Obama's rule has (hopefully) cut this way down. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I can't disagree with anything in the body. | by firehawk | 2009-01-29 12:12:31 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
