»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
..where everything old is new again.
| The Alley |
|
..where everything old is new again. |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Daschle lobby ties bump up against Obama vow Barack Obama’s expected pick of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to be secretary of health and human services bumps up against the president-elect’s pledge to rid the White House of special interests. The former Democratic senator from South Dakota is a special policy adviser for the lobbying law firm Alston & Bird. And in his three years there, the firm has earned more than $16 million representing some of the health care industry’s most powerful interests before the department he’s in line to lead. Daschle is not himself a lobbyist. But he has advised the firm’s clients on health care issues, according to the firm’s website. His work as a paid adviser appears to run counter to Obama’s pledge to “free the executive branch from special interest influence.” No political appointee, Obama’s transition team has declared, “will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” As health and human services secretary, Daschle would oversee myriad regulations, ranging from the drugs that can come to market to Medicare and Medicare reimbursements. “We can’t figure out any way that he would qualify to be secretary of health and human services under the policy that [Obama] has laid out,” said Taylor Lincoln, editor of Becoming44.org, the blog of government watchdog group Public Citizen. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081130/pl_politico/16015_3;_ylt=AtQ7PxnLM_BcIMeNa5H8ITIGw_IE Another lofty speech down the tubes..... Deal on donors paves way for Clinton Cabinet post President-elect Barack Obama planned to nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state on Monday, transforming a once-bitter political rivalry into a high-level strategic and diplomatic partnership. Obama will name the New York senator to his national security team at a news conference in Chicago, Democratic officials said Saturday. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly for the transition team. To clear the way for his wife to take the job, former President Bill Clinton agreed to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997. He'll also refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference, and will cease holding CGI meetings overseas. Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton was an extraordinary gesture of goodwill after a year in which the two rivals competed for the Democratic nomination in a long, bitter primary battle. The two clashed repeatedly on foreign affairs during the 50-state contest, with Obama criticizing Clinton for her vote to authorize the Iraq war and Clinton saying that Obama lacked the experience to be president. She also chided him for saying he would meet with leaders of rogue nations like Iran and Cuba without preconditions. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081130/ap_on_go_pr_wh/clinton_secretary_of_state_19 The fox will be guarding the henhouse. That Obama change is...where? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It’s hiding right in front of you Deer, right there in plain sight. quote: Sounds like a change to me but then again I could be wrong - after all I’m not American.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
yes, that's what he agreed to do. Of course, since the list has been private any names he discloses will have to be taken at face value and any names he chooses not to disclose will remain undisclosed with no one to refute them. They will have to take Clinton at his word. He has a history of showing he cannot be taken at his word so I don't see where this "consession" by him carries a lot of weight. What he and Hillary have both shown is their desire and ability to increase their personal fortunes by using their political positions. With her as Secretary of State, they have found the mother lode. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No they won’t. Supplying a full list of contributors and the amounts donated is verifiable data. You wouldn’t even have to wander into the realms of forensic accountancy to verify whether it was correct. I’d go even further, the fact that Clinton will have already realised that it’s verifiable and open to scrutiny almost ensures that it’s correct. If there were anything Clinton wanted to hide he’d have refused the change of policy that Obama insisted on and kept the data to himself. Clinton isn’t that stupid. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
sorry....a full list of contributors is NOT verifyable data. It is a list that only clinton has had. He can juggle it any way he wants with no one being the wiser before making it public. As long as contributors he omitted do not come forward (which they won't if they want to remain anonymous), they will remain confidential. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, No need to apologise but unless he’s been taking cash and stuffing it under his mattress all the contributions are most definitely verifiable once you have access to the list of contributors and contribution amounts. It’d take any half decent accountant no time at all to spot any juggling, heck I’m not even an accountant but given access to the foundations financial records and transaction details even I could verify them given time. And I’m not even American. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, he didn't stuff it under his mattress. He built his library with it, for one thing, with donations he consistently refused to disclose. Clinton is dumb in many ways but not in being sneaky. If you don't think he's smart enough to bury cash where it can't be detected, then you consider him dumber than everyone who can...and there are many. If there were nothing underhanded about it, there would have been no reason for him to be so adamant about not releasing the names before. Do you think accountants would have picked up on the briefcase of cash given to Gore by the monks if he had not been caught with it. Ever hear of Swiss bank accounts or offshore banking? You have your opinion and I have mine. Your "I'm not American" repetitive recording is being ignored so why bother? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Because you made such a big deal about it, of course. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My question was to Grinch, Bob, unless you feel it necessary to cut in. If you care to add to the thread, why not address the subject matter? |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
That’s the way I see it, too, Bob. The post making a big deal about Grinch not being an American seemed like a personal attack to me so I reported it. Never got a reply from the mods about it. Then again, really didn’t expect I would. Feel fairly sure if it had been one of our posts, it would have been deleted with a reminder to "Attack the post, NOT the poster." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see. No one wants to address the actual topic of the thread, save Grinch. Much more fun to play pile-on instead. That's fine. I didn't really expect much else. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Grinch seems to be doing an excellent job of it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Excellent job indeed, especially for someone who's not even an American! That's something to think about, perhaps a little distance gives one a better perspective - less biased and emotional and far more rational. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: Your comment, being in the passive voice, did not in fact address anybody specific. This is a feature of the passive voice. My response to it is as valid as that of anybody else. I lay claim to no magical powers in understanding why you would make this grammatical choice. "Is being ignored" in fact is a grammatical formation that includes me within it, without my permission or agreement, and one that almost obligates a corrective response from me if I see it and do not happen to agree with the point you are making, if only to point out that you are attempting to speak for a group whose consensus you do not hold. In this case I spoke to answer the question you asked. It is not appropriate for you to assume a consensus to castigate Grinch that includes me within it without checking with me first. on a straightforwardly grammatical basis. You asked a question; I answered it, as might anybody, given the way you phrased it. I was not ignoring Grinch's "I'm not an American" comments." And while I did not know why Grinch kept repeating them for certain, I had a fairly high certainty — enough to venture a guess. This is one of the reasons I try to cut the passive voice out of my poetry and as much of my prose as I can. When I use the passive voice, people don't understand me as clearly as I want them to, Mike. As for some of the other material you bring up, I find some of it interesting. I'm interested in the material about Tom Daschel and the drug industry, and would like to do some checking on my own about that. You do have a good and insightful eye about things, and you are able to pick up things sometimes where I have blind spots. This may be one of them; I don't know yet. Having Hilary as Secretary of State seems to me to be a pretty good idea. She did disagree with him about a lot of things in the campaign, and his appointment of her as Secretary of State seems to me to indicate that he's willing to be tough if tough is needed. I know you don't like Bill Clinton, and won't try to change your mind on that. I don't think he's perfect myself, but I do think he's a gifted politician. I think that it's important that you talk to people diplomatically, and if you get too strict about the pre-conditions you may never talk to people you need to talk to. I think, for example, of Nixon and Kissinger talking to China. I think both side probably had to take a lot of deep breaths before those talks came off, and a lot of pre-conditions, though not all, has to be laid aside on both sides. Remember how inflexible we had been before on Taiwan? And how inflexible they had been as well? All that had to be eased back considerably by both sides before talks took place. Support of China for Vietnam? The Chinese Russian axis? The Domino theory? We and they had to do a lot of setting aside of pre-conditions before the meetings happened. They could have gone badly. It was a risk, but things did work out well. It's too easy to confuse rhetoric with reality. I have that at least begins to engage some of the material you're talking about in the thread from your perspective. I'm not intending to throw up roadblocks here, Mike, simply trying to keep the drama down. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.americanprogress.org/projects/healthprogress/pdf/paying_more_getting_less.pdf |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You mean the library that he turned over to taxpayers? It was funded in exactly the same way that the Reagan library was funded Mike, by private donations, and neither has, until now, had any obligation to disclose records of those contributors. That’s not to say that those records don’t exist, in fact they undoubtedly do - neither foundation is exempt from keeping independently audited records of financial transactions to qualify for tax exemption status. They have to account for every penny that they bank and every penny that they spend, in that respect they’re exactly the same as any business. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear J.M., Thank you for the article. It's sensible straightforward thinking and I like it a lot, and I agree with it. The of Mike's comments that I found troublesome was his assertion that TD was coming from a period where he was working as something like a lobbyist for health care and moving directly into a government position directing a health-care agency, suggesting a conflict of interests. If TD was in fact working for a Health Care Lobby, I'd hoped to find out which one that might be, if any, and what their positions were, and what he was paid, if anything. All these things would make a difference in how I thought about the appointment. If he weren't paid, I figure that the man has a right to his personal point of view, and to work with people who agree with him (or her, as the case may be). It's not a matter of financial gain, and everybody has a point of view. If I found their positions personally difficult, I might want to object because I found the positions themselves objectionable. Some of the oil industry people during the current administration went from being paid, I believe, by the industry itself, to being paid by the government to regulate the industry they'd just been accepting their bread and butter from days beforehand. And to which, presumably, they would return at something of a premium for their efforts after they were done. That would be different because of the money factor. I'd like to see that information from Mike, or anybody, if the information were solid. I would find that information upsetting. The contents of the report I am in fact heartened by. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Senator Daschle works for a law firm who specializes in lobbying for various industries. In the last three years the firm has made over 16 million dollars lobbying for various health care interests. The law firm on their web site is featuring the fact one of their lawyers, Sen. Daschle, has received an appt. from Obama. The firm, if you look on their web site in their legislative section of the web, trumpets the efforts of Sen. Daschle. In a technical sense, he is not a lobbyist, he is a lawyer advising clients. I suspect he was paid a pretty penny for his "legal" efforts. Being fair and balanced, Sen. Dole is also an nonlobbyist legal advisor, advising the health care industry and getting paid a pretty penny. I don't have too much problem with Balladeer's concern. Seems to be pretty spot on. http://www.alston.com/ http://www.alston.com/services/ServiceParent.aspx?service=326 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
" Your "I'm not American" repetitive recording is being ignored so why bother?" Your comment, being in the passive voice, did not in fact address anybody specific. This is a feature of the passive voice. My response to it is as valid as that of anybody else. I have no idea what that means, Bob. Perhaps you didn't see the word "your". That signifies a person, actually the person to whom the comment following the "your" was attributed to.Yes, of course, you know all of this and the explanation is basically subterfuge to cover your intent to perpetuate the drama you claim to try to avoid. That's ok. I understand the three musketeer motto, also, and have seen it more than once. If you feel that Daschle represents no conflict of interest that Obama has sworn will not happen, even though he has made a pretty penny lately in dealings with the health care industry, fine. If you feel that Hillary will make a good Secretary of State, even though Obama had claimed she was not qualified enough in foreign affairs during his campaign, fine. There's no need for all of the other balderdash being injected here by a "one for all and all for one" mentality. Don't you agree? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“he has made a pretty penny lately in dealings with the health care industry” A very evasive response to Bob’s question asking what was Daschle paid, who were the clients, their positions, his actual advisory role, etc. To suggest a conflict of interest with no real evidence to back it up, seems like nothing more than a smear campaign. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"A very evasive response" My Bad... I should have realized one of the top law firms in the country might well retain powerful ex-Senators who agree to work pro bono. The law firm itself touts its ability to deal with legislative and administrative matters for their clients. It may well be a false assumption on my part that a law firm would hire Daschle and Dole because of their political influence. You could assume they hire Dole for his sense of humor and Daschle for his good looks just to keep up office comradery. As far as clients, the firm also touts "Our health care practice serves a very broad range of clients, including academic medical centers, national and regional hospital and health systems (profit and nonprofit) and many other health care businesses, such as medical equipment and supply distributors, medical systems providers, dialysis companies, home health providers, diagnostic imaging businesses, medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. Our clients also include medical trade associations, health information technology companies, clearinghouses, health plans and insurers, and financial advisors and equity sponsors for the health industry." |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t see why it should Mike. Obama, as far as I remember, didn’t promise not to give jobs to people who’d had conflicts of interest in the past. He pledged that he wouldn’t allow them to continue in the same way in the future. In which case Daschle’s past and present actions are immaterial - it’s his future actions that he’ll be judged on. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It would seem you overlooked this part..or perhaps I am misunderstanding how it is worded. No political appointee, Obama’s transition team has declared, “will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” Does that mean for the past two years or for two years in the future? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
And his prior employer was? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
working as a paid advisor for the lobbying law firm Alston & Bird. And in his three years there, the firm has earned more than $16 million representing some of the health care industry’s most powerful interests |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
So: Daschle will not be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to Alston & Bird for two years. Seems pretty clear - and your point is? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My point is simply re-iterating the watchgroup's point that his being an advisor to the firm's clients, involving some of the health care industry's most powerful interests, would be in conflict since he will be overseeing regulations, ranging from the drugs that can come to market to Medicare and Medicare reimbursement, involving these clients. Btw, if you want to take the time to check out the watchgroup Public Citizen, you will find that they are a non-biased group who have been around for some time, even going after Reagan when he attempted to knock out the Clean Air Act during his presidency. http://www.citizen.org/documents/pctimeline.pdf They seem to believe there is indeed a conflict of interests..and not due to partisan thinking. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No Mike - They believe there could possibly be a conflict of interest, at some point in the future, if Daschle is involved in forming regulations or handing out contracts to some of the ex-clients of Alston & Bird. So does Obama - that’s why he’s so keen to avoid such a situation by having clear and transparent declarations of interest. Partisan thinking, or just common sense? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good question. Is it ok to let the fox guard the henhouse if he promises not to touch the chickens or Dasche run health care if he promises not to favor previous clients or Clinton to be SS if her husband promises to be honest in releasing foreign donor's lists and not take any money from them in the future? Guess it depends whether or not you trust the fox, the daschle or the clinton. Normally the best way to avoid these situations is to take away the opportunity. Obama has chosen to make the opportunity available. Time will tell if it is a good decision or not. Call me cynical or dismiss my comments altogether...no problem |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"We can’t figure out any way that he would qualify to be secretary of health and human services under the policy that [Obama] has laid out,” said Taylor Lincoln, editor of Becoming44.org, the blog of government watchdog group Public Citizen." I ain't the brightest bulb in the string, but Daschle's new job will set guidelines for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and as well as health related regulations. Those guidelines and regulations will only apply to those institutions who did not hire the big time law firm within the last two years? I think not. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That’s just playing the partisan card Mike, there are after all potential foxes on all sides, Republicans aren‘t immune to the odd chicken. Conflicts of interest only become a problem if the potential isn’t recognised or declared. If every fox held up it’s paw if it had an appetite for chicken or an affiliation with Colonel Saunders the farmer could remove it temporarily from guard duty and protect both the chickens and the reputation of the foxes. If the odd fox decides to take a chicken or two you remove it - permanently. That might not happen of course, you could end up with no change at all and a government packed with chicken stuffed foxes. If that happens I’ll be the first to join you in taking pot shots at them, but I prefer to hold fire until then. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If Daschle is working for a health care lobbying firm, or a firm in which clients are health care companies, I find it hard to believe he would be a good, objective Secretary of Health and Welfare, even though I like Tom Daschle and think as a judgement of character, he would probably be a good one. I think he probably needs to wait two years. Perhaps I'm wrong in my understanding that the law is written the other way around — that you can't go from government directly to Lobbying jobs without the two year wait, to prevent people from cashing in on government connections. Whether yes or no, I don't like somebody to go from Lobbyist to government regulator. I objected to it as a frequent Republican practice, especially around oil, environmental and Chemical regulating aspects of things, but also in other areas as well. Simply because I happen top be a Democrat and to have greater trust in Democrats doesn't mean the practice is better now that we Democrats have it available to us. I would still like to see harder informations than the accusation that Mike is making. Name calling and accusations aren't a substitute for data. I much appreciate Tim's attempts to bring light into the arena, with some facts. I simply think that we need to find somebody with credentials and without the baggage for now. It doesn't obligate the Republicans to follow suit, but is is an attempt to listen to something that they're saying that sounds like it has some reality to it; and it's a step toward bipartisanship. It sounds like a right kind of thing to do. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Faced with hiring a new administration, President-elect Barack Obama is learning how hard it is to keep his promise to avoid aides who have been entangled with the capital's lobbying scene. An Associated Press review of more than 400 members of Obama's transition team identified at least 34 who have registered in recent years to lobby government officials on behalf of clients or employers — some as recently as this summer. The AP's review represents the most comprehensive examination to date of people working on Obama's incoming administration. An Obama adviser on immigration issues, Maria Echaveste, lobbied for the United Farm Workers this year to protect immigrant agricultural workers as the Bush administration sought to ease hiring of seasonal farm labor and Congress debated an immigration overhaul. Echaveste, who worked in the White House and Labor Department under President Bill Clinton, assured Obama she will not weigh in on the farmworker visa issue that was her lobbying focus. _An Obama transition adviser for health and human services, Bill Corr, lobbied to prevent children from smoking as executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The group has spent $675,000 this year trying to influence policymakers. Corr has told Obama he will not offer advice on tobacco issues. _A transition advisory board member, Mark Gitenstein, was registered until August to lobby on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AT&T Inc. and financial firms such as Ernst & Young LLP and Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. Gitenstein is working on transition management issues, not specific policies, but has agreed not to deal with topics on which he lobbied. Despite Obama's efforts to insulate his new administration from what might be tainted advice, lobbyists' involvement in the new government warrants close scrutiny, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan institute that studies the influence business. "They are taking a risk by taking these people on board," Krumholz said. "If they're viewed as being in the pocket of industry, that is not going to be beneficial to this administration that is trying so hard to claim a new mantle." note: These are only a few mentioned in the article. The rest can be found here.. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_el_pr/the_influence_game_obama_2 So, along with Daschle and Clinton, the list is growing of appointed people promising not to do what they have been doing for years. The question still is...if they have to promise to be good and change, why were they appointed? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: There must be a reason why you’re still banging this tired old drum Mike but I can’t for the life of me think why. These people weren’t doing anything wrong or illegal, they were simply doing something that Obama has decided could be construed or seen as a conflict of interest and something he wants to change. If Obama insisted that officials didn’t chew gum would you be criticising his choice of appointees and calling him hypocritical based solely on the fact that they once chewed gum? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
They were doing exactly what Obama claimed he would not appoint people doing in his new administration. Faced with hiring a new administration, President-elect Barack Obama is learning how hard it is to keep his promise to avoid aides who have been entangled with the capital's lobbying scene. If I were to promise to hire non-smokers I wouldn't hire a dozen smokers who promise to quit and count on that happening. I would hire non-smokers. It's just another example of pre-nomination promise giving way to post-nomination action. If you think it's a 'tired old drum" that you can't understand, then why bother responding, unless insulting is something you just can't pass up? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If someone stops smoking Mike they are by definition a non-smoker and employing a non-smoker doesn’t guarantee that they won’t start smoking - all smokers had to start somewhere. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Exactly my point. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
If you haven’t got a problem with ex-smokers, and presumably using the same logic ex-lobbyists, that puts you smack bang in line with Obama’s way of thinking. So what was your point again? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Geez...ok, I'll try one more time and then put it to bed. If I wanted to hire non- smokers I would not hire smokers up until the time I hired them with their assurance they would not smoke from then on...because, as you point out, there's no assurance they won't start smoking again. It would be safer to hire non-smokers. If I said I would avoid hiring personnel entangled with the lobbying scene, I would not hire personnel who had been lobbying just before being hired by me, with their assurance that they would not let their lobbying affect decisions involving the people they lobbied for. It would be safer to hire non-lobbists. That was exactly how Obama felt when he said he would avoid hiring people involved in the lobbying scene. Instead he hired 34 of them. You can do whatever you want, grinch, to make some excuse or justify his actions but the facts are going to be the same, regardless of how you word it. He claimed he wouldn't and then he did...period. That is not only my opinion. I did not write that story for AP. Obviously the view is shared by others who know a lot more about the topic than I do. If you can't understand or accept that, fine. That's your right.Have a nice day. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Presumably accepting an assurance from them that they won’t start smoking. Wouldn’t it be easier to put up a “No Smoking” sign and fire anyone who broke the rule? That’s, in effect, what Obama’s done: No political appointee, Obama’s transition team has declared, “will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” I’ll make a deal with you Mike, when the first appointee sparks up in the office you start a thread, I’ll bring the drumsticks, and we’ll both beat out a tune on Obama‘s hide. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
