Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Hypocrisy showing
CNN’s Campbell Brown produced a segment this week on her No Bias, No Bull show in which she questioned President Barack Obama’s recent hypocrisy. At issue is Obama’s public announcement that no one who has lobbied on a set of issues within the past two years can take a role in his administration dealing with the same issues.
Obama first backtracked with the nomination of William J. Lynn III, a recent lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon, to serve as the Defense Department’s No. 2 official. And now Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has picked Mark Patterson, a recent Goldman Sachs lobbyist, to serve as his chief of staff.
My view is simple: Mr. President, if you want to hire former lobbyists because you think they are the best people to do the job, then hire former lobbyists. Just don’t hold a big news conference first to tell us how your administration is going to be so different from previous administrations in that you won’t be hiring lobbyists.
Don’t make your disdain for lobbyists and your pledges that they won’t wield influence in your administration a centerpiece of your campaign.
It’s the hypocrisy and the double-talk that makes so many of us so cynical. Do what you think is best for the country. Just be straight with us about how you’re going to do it.
Thoughts?
back to top75 Comments to “Hypocrisy showing”
What does Llama always say: pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
And his so-called outrage with the 50 million dollar plane also hits my cynical button. He still wants to give these same executives more tax dollars! They have lousy judgment, but it’s supposed to make me feel better that he yelled at them a little? It’s not working.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama is very accustomed to people swooning over what he says in speeches and controled statements, while completely ignoring his deeds, policy and voting records and even his lack of past accomplishments. He has had tremendous cover from the media and he is counting on that to continue.
Report comment to moderator
I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
Report comment to moderator
Much of what President Obama has done up to this time was symbolic because he wasn’t in a place where he was able to make real-world decisions. Now that he is in office, he must transition to living in the real world. I don’t know if this is as much hypocrisy as it is using a symbolic event to communicate his ideals and then discovering that his ideals may not always play out well in real life. I’m sure he is in a process of discovering that leading the nation is not as straightforward as his speeches make it out to be.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, vindicated in just a couple days. I told you if a good story showed up, journalists would go after it. And they always love blatant hypocrisy.
[Gloating off]
And Brown’s point is spot on–it’s the changing that’s so irritating. We’re having a major problem of trust in this country–that’s part of what is making the bank problems even worse. People are holding on to cash rather than investing because they don’t trust what could happen to their money.
The president invites us to trust him and is riding on a large wave of good will–even from me. He then makes an announcement which I find refreshing about lobbyists, giving me some hope in a week of dismal news.
Then he starts finding exceptions. Back to the cynics corner for me and now even some journalists. You can’t have it both ways. You need to lead and stand firm. I’ll bet there are plenty of wise financiers who could use a job–posssibly because they were too honest to work at their former companies. My husband likes to take a good long look at, and often hires, the black sheep . . . If nothing else, they know where some of the secrets are.
Report comment to moderator
Wait a minute! Isn’t this the same “liberal media” that won’t dare breate a critical word about their anointed?
I can’t wait to see how Joel Mark pretends this never happened.
I’ll join Campbell Brown’s criticism. Although I was and remain an Obama supporter, I’m disturbed that he’s apparently chosen to disregard such a strong promise.
Joel Mark will pretend I never said that, because everybody knowns Obama’s swooning minions think that his spit is made of lemon drops and milkshakes.
Report comment to moderator
A chronic tax cheat/tax flouter is about to become SecTreasury. An exec for a company that’s made zillions off both wars will be at SecDef.
Next thing you know, Ken Starr will spend upwards of $40 million to publish an exhaustive report telling us what now seems undeniable: BHO is corrupt/incompetent or both.
Report comment to moderator
Thinking that Obama supporters are going to recognize this hypocrisy assumes that they have actually been listening to what he hadsbeen saying rather than how he is saying it.
Report comment to moderator
I think Outdeep has some good insights–governing is more difficult than talking.
It’s probably difficult to govern after you spent 2 years campaigning. And President Obama didn’t have a lot of governing experience before he went on his campaign–so he might not have as many “instincts” to fall back on when he runs into a problem.
President Obama is a savvy man with a lot of advisors. He’ll either learn quickly (my guess), or we’re in for another Carteresque messy presidency.
Either way, plenty for journalists to work with.
Report comment to moderator
Well, ya gotta mention it more than once to be real criticism! If Geithner had been Bush’s choice, they would have been screaming all over the place until the appointment was tanked. And to hear this guy complain about the 50 million dollar plane and call those cheats cheats — well, I guess it takes one to know one. So, no, the MSM hasn’t proven itself to me. They’re tiptoeing through the tulips, so far.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG. The news media is a business first and a soapbox second. It is never a public service. If it bleds it leads.
Report comment to moderator
Reminds me of that joke: “At the first crisis, when you have no alternatives, open the first envelope . . .”
Report comment to moderator
Brown is right. The defense appointment in particular was ill-advised.
NJL: FWIW I have seen the same criticism several times on CNN, at least once fairly fiercely from Rachel Maddow and once from one of the nets.
But I don’t think the so-called MSM feels much of an obligation to proove itself to you any more than Fox feels it has to proove itself to me.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia the only obligation the MSM has is to make money and to keep their jobs.
Report comment to moderator
Why is anybody surprised that Obama promises one thing and then does the other? All his promises have expiration dates. (Or hours)
That has been his modus operandi throughout his campaign.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s the hypocrisy and the double-talk that makes so many of us so cynical.”
The utter distrust of the MSM has sent their ratings into the toilet. Maybe somebody said, “Hey let’s try a little objectivity for a change and gain some of it back.”
I am glad CNN is willing to give at least a semblance of dissemblance. Good for them.
And I am also delighted by SteveG’s and Arcadia’s honest comments above.
Report comment to moderator
I think Campbell Brown is cute. But I liked her better as a reporter on NBC than a commentator on CNN.
What was this thread about again?
Report comment to moderator
“I can’t wait to see how Joel Mark pretends this never happened.”
Report comment to moderator
I agree, Travis. She’s definitely a cutie.
Report comment to moderator
Campbell — “It’s the hypocrisy and the double-talk that makes so many of us so cynical. Do what you think is best for the country. Just be straight with us about how you’re going to do it.”
When Obama fails this will be the reason.
He speaks words, apparently from multiple sources. Because those words are empty to him, and because Obama, clever as he is, isn’t clever enough to recognize or remember all of them—and the disparity they/he presents using them—he’ll trip when they conflict.
When this happens often enough, even the leftist diehards in the MSM will eventually have to say something because they know the American people have noticed what they did to get Obama elected.
Report comment to moderator
#6 Steve G
“Wait a minute! Isn’t this the same “liberal media” that won’t dare breathe a critical word about their anointed?”
A day late and a dollar short.
Report comment to moderator
A think Campbell Brown’s eyebrow raising and shoulder shrug is hardly the equivalent of the relentless skewering Bush 43 got every single day as well as Bush 41. Remember the endless mockery of “Read My Lips”?
The media went after Clinton too, but that is simply because the networks fall all over themselves for any chance to talk about sex. That semen stained dress was a golden goose.
Report comment to moderator
I love the Obama supporters’ take in this thread, like in many others. It goes like this:
The Obama criticism is fine…
BUT SHAME ON YOU HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ON THIS SEMI-OBSCURE FORUM MAKING A HUGE DEAL ABOUT IT!!!!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Any honest person knows that the media is liberal (remember the outrage over Bush spending $40 millin on and inauguration and the widespread worship the media had for Obama as he spent $170 plus million). Does that mean a liberal will NEVER be criticized by anyone ever? Of course not. Think!
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm… Recent events in the Illinois statehouse concerned another Chicago Democrat who said one thing and did another. Could it be that Obama is cut from the same cloth as Blago?
Oh, and remember, it is only hypocrisy if someone else does it.
Report comment to moderator
“Campbell Brown’s eyebrow raising and shoulder shrug…”
Mmmmmmm. Not to mention her slight lisp. (sigh…)
Report comment to moderator
Travis has a cruuuuu-uuuush…..
Report comment to moderator
Re #4 – Outdeep, I think the difference would be that the Big BO would have most certainly known that ultimately his actions couldn’t match his campaign rhetoric. I would venture to say that ANY politician who is at the Presidential Campaign level would have had to learn that much earlier on in their career.
That, however, didn’t change that fact that he went the big facade route anyway, and effectively might I say; considering he occupies the Oval Office.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of the Oval Office, anyone know what kind of rug President Obama put in there? I know Bill Clinton liked W’s a lot. I’d like to hear his thoughts on Obama’s choice.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of the Oval Office, anyone know what kind of rug President Obama put in there?
An oval one.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Joel, I don’t recall any outrage over the cost of Bush’s inauguration. Can you link to some articles?
As far as I know, it’s generally accepted that inaugurations are going to be expensive, but it’s considered a worthwhile thing to do every four years to celebrate our country’s ability to peacefully change leaders.
I suspect that the “outrage” you’re talking about is largely a product of your imagination, but I’m happy to be proven wrong. Find me a few mainstream newspaper or TV reports (not liberal commentators) that criticized the cost of Bush’s.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Remember the endless mockery of “Read My Lips”?
Ah, I guess a truly balanced media would pretend to not notice when a president broke a direct promise to impose no new taxes?
Report comment to moderator
And now, Tom Daschle reveals that he, too, didn’t pay all his taxes. It never occurred to him that the limo and driver was not income? Really? As a member of the govt. he had to pay taxes on his parking spot, didn’t he? The judge did. But it never occurred to him that the limo and driver weren’t income? I’m not buying that one either.
Evidently, there is no one in Washington who can do their own taxes, yet we’re supposed to believe they’re honest and can do the job.
Where’s the change?
Report comment to moderator
#32 No, the media did its job. But all Obama will get is a raise of the eyebrows and a toss of the hair. Sorry, I realize that I am tormenting Travis.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives are often impossible to please due to their ideological rigidity. Republicans demand and received several changes to the stimulus package but not enough hence the no vote. Now the MSM asserts objectivity but its not enough they are still liberal. According to conservatives, the MSM will always be liberal until they are owned by Murdoch.
Report comment to moderator
“Actually Joel, I don’t recall any outrage over the cost of Bush’s inauguration. Can you link to some articles?”
I remember the outrage also. But it was more like $60 million though. OF course we hear not a peep about Obama’s which was almost three times that much…
“Republicans demand and received several changes to the stimulus package but not enough hence the no vote.”
But it passed the house anyway, so it was just a formality and a protest.
Then Obama agreed that there weren’t enough tax cuts for small businesses. So I take that to mean that Obama should discourage the pork and encourage true stimulus in the Senate version….
Report comment to moderator
Oh listen, conservatives are gonna be “outraged” at every thing Obama does or says, or doesn’t do or doesn’t say for the next 4 years.
That said, every President comes to office with only so many goodwill “chits”. Obama has spent a couple here and there. But he’s still got quite a few left.
Report comment to moderator
I would define hypocrisy by acting as if you’re doing nothing wrong, when you are (among many permutations of hypocrisy in politics, obviously). This was one of Bush’s chronic faults: he couldn’t always admit when he was wrong, made mistakes, etc. Obama has a chance to humble himself by saying: I made an error when I did this. I was idealistic, but these are some of the best guys to do this (or they aren’t…)
If he does this, people will forgive him, as they would have for Bush had he done this. Same goes for Clinton, and Nixon long ago. Arrogance is the difficult thing for presidents to overcome, not to mention hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
They just can’t do it! A couple Obama supporters here can bring themselves to offer only the slightest, grudging admission that the President of the U States of A has acted a teense hypocritical…BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS ALL YOU CONSERVATIVE COMPLAINERS!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Have you actually read the thread, or are just spouting off because you are just sure you must be right?
In #6, I unequivocally agreed Obama has gone back on a promise, and said that I don’t like it.
Arcadia joined in the criticism in #13.
RPN and Travis have added a few posts that don’t speak to the issue either way.
Where do you see any of us arguing that “THE REAL PROBLEM IS ALL YOU CONSERVATIVE COMPLAINERS! ” (as you said, all-caps and all.)
Report comment to moderator
SteveG…I’m not talking just this thread. And yes, I’ve read this one, too. See up there where HRW uses his favorite word “ideological” to describe this whole thing as a conservative problem? And where Anlir, a couple posts later doing what he is pathologically committed to doing, which is ignore the point of the thread and spout his meta-criticism of conservatives?
Like I said, yeah, there was some admission that Obama was in the wrong here. But the guy’s off to a horrible start against the backdrop of his campaign rhetoric and the liberal Weltanschauung of the last 8 years, but I know–I just know–we’re not gonna see youse doin’ a lotta complainin’ about that. No, you’ll still be about the important stuff, which is complainin’ about conservative complainers in a little online bulletin board.
Report comment to moderator
#31(SteveG): Actually Joel, I don’t recall any outrage over the cost of Bush’s inauguration. Can you link to some articles?
Aren’t we being just a little disingenuous, Stevey. Try
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050117.asp
top and let us know what you think.
Report comment to moderator
HRW writes: “Conservatives are often impossible to please due to their ideological rigidity.”
And then there’s my news crawler here on the Internet that is running an article about the Liberals/Dems/Leftys up in Alaska who think Sarah Palin’s focus is all wrong. Why? Because the lights aren’t on in the governor’s mansion when they think they should be. It’s just like Biden laughing at Roberts. And Pelosi on inauguration day when Bush’s helicopter left with her good riddance comment. Children, every last one of them.
But is that rigidity or stupidity?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: HRW and Anlir make cogent points on the larger dynamics at work here. But the Obama supporters who have posted in this thread have not defended these appointments that appear to violate his earlier promise. We’ve either shared the criticism of him or not addressed it at all. None of us have said that the conservatives are the real problem with regard to the appointments.
What you’ll notice is that, unlike Rrepublicans (”never speak ill of another Republican,” said St. Reagan), we will criticize Democrats when they really do something wrong. That does not mean, however, that we will join in with every right-wing concocted pseudo-issue when we know there’s no fire behind the smoke.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave:
OK, good catch. At least a couple of examples where mainstream media quoted critics of the costs.
Let’s now consider a couple of other facts. In the first place, when these comparison has been raised, the critic of Obama generall gives the cost for Bush’s core events, NOT COUNTING security — both personnel and equipment, and travel costs for those that had to come in from elsewhere — and other associated costs, while rolling them all in to the Obama figure.
When you add those in, according to the this article, you find that “In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.”
So the more appropriate comparison is not to $40 million but to $115.5 million. (Some estimates put that even higher.)
Then there were other factors that make comparing the two events apples and oranges. From the same article:
Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)
So the reality is this, once you get the numbers onto the same playing field: Obama did NOT spend almost four times as much as Bush for the same event. He spent roughly the same, or maybe just a bit more, for a vastly larger event.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, as if, SteveG. I acknowledge the rose-colored Republican glasses (I, myself, who am not a Republican, think the party’s a joke) but there most certainly is Republican-on-Republican criticism here and elsewhere. And I reject your assessment of HRW’s and Anlir’s points as “cogent.”
What you’ll notice is that, unlike Rrepublicans (”never speak ill of another Republican,” said St. Reagan), we will criticize Democrats when they really do something wrong.
Where? You mean like HRW and Anlir didn’t do here? Or your barely parenthetical admission in #6, where your real point was to slam Joel Mark? The fact is, your criticism is far more applicable to yourself.
Report comment to moderator
HRW and Anlir didn’t choose to address this topic. That’s their right to do so. My criticism was not at all “parenthetical.” I criticized Joel Mark and then I criticized Obama. They were separate, but thorough, criticisms.
Report comment to moderator
“Thourough” huh?
I’m disturbed that he’s apparently chosen to disregard such a strong promise.
OK. If you think he’s “apparently” done that, I don’t suppose there’s much need for elaboration.
So again…where’s all this criticism of Democrats you allude to? Oh, I think I understand: Democrats so seldom do anything wrong, so that explains the dearth of criticism. 10-4 good bud.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah
I did not comment on the initial post because
a) I agree with the consensus on the topic.
b) I thought it was a stupid statement borne out of inexperience – name one experienced adviser/bureaucrat etc who hasn’t got lobbying ties — you’d have to hire someone just off the boat.
c) I wasn’t a big fan of Obama’s platform — too conservative for my taste and his appointments have confirmed that. I admire the man and his abilities but the leftist substance I want is missing.
d) I was more interested in commenting on the reluctance of the conservative posters here to acknowledge that the MSM works to achieve a degree of objectivity and seeks the middle ground.
The inability of an individual or group to reach a compromise or to change their minds due to external evidence is a result of certainty and conceit both of which are derived from an extreme adherence to ideology or religion.
Report comment to moderator
HRW…inability to change “due to external evidence”? Explain.
Report comment to moderator
Apologies to SteveG that in my post 48 I put quotes around Thourough making it look like the misspelling was his. That was all me.
Report comment to moderator
So, we are to believe that the leftys will criticize, but we also know they’ll never remove. Blago is the lone exception.
Report comment to moderator
Honest question here. What happened to the liberal calls to extract ourselves from Iraq? I don’t frequent HuffPo and Kos, etc., so maybe they’re still pushing, but I would have thought that now, with the clear ability of Dems to move that way, anti-war liberals would be like, “OK, let’s do what we’ve been clamoring for all these years.”
So, am I just not hearing what’s being said and a good number of Dems/liberals are unhappy with O in this regard, or was it never really a liberal desire to get out of Iraq, or is it a different story somehow now that their guy is in?
Now is not the time to continue sinking ginormous amounts of money into that worthless fiasco.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, oops. I was going to go back and edit out that silly hypothetical quote at the end of my first paragraph. I’m not really that fey.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah
#50 — The way I phrased it made the sentence confusing. Ideological rigidity results in a failure to change one’s mind even when external evidence contradicts their state of mind or ideology. Does that help? Or the following example, Many western Communists kept the party line even when the corpses started to pile up in Stalinist Russia. That is ideological rigidity.
#53
There’s some dissent on Democratic Underground regarding Obama’s appointments, the continued use of Predator drones in the tribal regions of Pakistan, his silence on Gaza, and, yes, his slowness in moving troops out of Iraq. Although they are willing to give him some leeway due to logistics, etc.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Re: your response to my 50. Which conservative ideological state of mind is held contrary to external evidence? Everyone has an ideology, and everyone has some point at which he considers compromise an unacceptable violation of principle. You talk as if it’s clear as day the liberal “state of mind” is based on some self-evident mathematical equations.
Report comment to moderator
see #35
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, about that #35. It looks to me like this whole ideology construct of yours is nothing more than a way of saying a certain group (the ideologues) is wrong (according to HRW). I feel like invoking Occam. Rightly or wrongly, but certainly, the Republicans wouldn’t phrase their disagreement with the stimulus (so-called) the way you did in 35. Presumably, they’d give reasons for their disagreement beyond, but reflective of, the mere existence of their ideology. You, in turn, would disagree. Why introduce the ideologue aspect? It seems an unnecessary part of the analysis: Group A, which holds to ideology A-I, disagrees with group B, holding ideology B-I. For now, group A is getting its way.
Report comment to moderator
Where’s the change?
Report comment to moderator
#58 — The ideology construct is there to explain the lack of compromise on the right especially with the liberal media myth. Despite examples to the contrary, the myth holds because of the amount of adherence held by the right. They are the true believers. Whereas the US Democratic party is rather more ideologically diverse creating a greater possibility of compromise. Hence, the tax cuts are inserted (Democratic compromise) but Republicans still vote against (ideological adherence).
Report comment to moderator
#60–That’s no different than saying HRW and the Dems with whom he agrees are right, and the others are wrong. I could just as simplistically say it was the ideologue Democrats who did not compromise enough to gain the support of any of the more reasonable Republicans.
The ideology analysis is vacuous.
Report comment to moderator
I should add that I do think it can be fruitful to discuss different ideologies. It’s just that applying the ideologue label to a person or group doesn’t really get us anywhere in the discussion. We’re still left to hash out the pros and cons of the ideologies per se.
Report comment to moderator
This isn’t about ideology. It’s about approach and wanting to change — something the Dems campaigned on. But that’s all it was, campaign rhetoric.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer:
But that’s all it was, campaign rhetoric.
That’s usually all it ever is.
Report comment to moderator
Granted its a matter of perspective but the addition of tax cuts was a compromise suggested by Republicans who then voted against it. The Democrats as the majority party are in a position where they don’t need to offer anything yet they did. The Republicans who have no real bargaining position complain. The very fact the Democrats didn’t steamroll over them is to their credit. In parliamentary democracies in the British tradition, the majority party wouldn’t even talk to the minority parties.
Report comment to moderator
You and I know that Yeah, but will the leftys here admit it? I doubt it sincerely.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Honest question here. What happened to the liberal calls to extract ourselves from Iraq? I don’t frequent HuffPo and Kos, etc., so maybe they’re still pushing, but I would have thought that now, with the clear ability of Dems to move that way, anti-war liberals would be like, “OK, let’s do what we’ve been clamoring for all these years.”
Now that Obama’s in, the calls have subsided because we’re confident he’ll do the job.
Remember all that hot air from the right and “cut and run” and “immediate withdrawal” and how damaging that would be? That was always right-wing mendacity, because no Democrat ever proposed to just load all the troops onto transport planes and get out of Iraq by the weekend.
All of the plans offered involved a careful and orderly sequence of events intended to get us out carefully, so as not to leave a sudden vacuum and make the situation worse.
Democrats are not and never were expecting to be out fast. But now that we have a president we can count on to get us out, on the right timing, we can let him do the job.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Another honest question/request:
What serious plans have been set in motion, or are at least on the horizon, that demonstrate a significant change (sure, I’ll bold it: change) from the previous admin irt: the war.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
Well since he’s been in office less than two weeks, things are still in progress.
But the wheels are in motion both to renew the emphasis on Afghanistan and to get us out of Iraq.
Report comment to moderator
One iraq article. For some reason the system wouldn’t let me put both of the links in one post.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the links, SteveG. I’m underwhelmed, but I know we see these things differently. At some point, I think you’re going to be made to consider taking the red pill.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G writes of Obama: “…we’re confident he’ll do the job.”
And that “we” consists of who?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: What do you expect in two weeks? Nobody can come in and reverse six years of policy in two weeks. Give him six months or a year and see what happens.
And that “we” consists of who?
Those of us who believe Obama is going to be a good president. Those of us who do not buy into the myth that he’s about to put children into indoctrination camps, make abortion mandatory and outlaw Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Clarification: #73 is addressed to two different people, Yeah in the first paragraph and someone else in the quoted excerpt and response to it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I know it’s been 2 weeks, but we also have a handful of dubious appointments, themselves reflective of status quo. We’ve had drones bombing Pakistan, military intentions in Afghanistan, saber-rattling with Iran. This is status quo stuff. But OK, we’ll see what happens in 6 months.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!