On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Perhaps you weren't paying attention again, but I already said what >> he's done that I consider change. Look at lobbying rules during >> transition and public comment period on legislation as examples. > > Perhaps he was, again, and you weren't.
He asked what I thought he'd done that I would consider change. I pointed out that I had already given examples early in the discussion. > Transition Team Chock Full of Bundlers > Public Interest Advocates Fret About the Appearance > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303891.html?sub=AR > > The involvement of so many bundlers has irritated public interest > advocates who worry that Obama is building his transition team based > on fundraising skills, not qualifications. I worry about the appearance of bundlers on the transition team as well. I think that is a valid criticism and I'm glad the Post pointed it out. I think the effect is more than mitigated though by Obama's rules related to lobbying and jobs in the administration for people involved in the transition. If Obama had not put those ethics rules in place I would be far more concerned about the presence of fundraisers. >>> Just like the $2,000,000 party where it was not part of the 'change' >>> philosophy becasue everyone else before him did it, I guess only appointing >>> Democrats to posts gets a pass for the same reason. >> >> What posts are you referring to? The only high profile appointment >> that I know of so far is Chief of Staff. And yes, he is a Democrat as >> I would expect someone in that position to be of the same party most >> likely. > > The transition team. That's possible I suppose but the discussion seemed to be about nominees for administration jobs like Secretary of State. Perhaps he was talking about the transition team but that did not see to be the case. >>> I am still holding out hope. Actions speak louer than words and so far I >>> have not seen an indication that we truly are headed for 'real change'. >>> >> >> He's not announced nominations, as far as I am aware, for any >> Senate-confirmable posts like Cabinet positions. He has done actual >> 'real change' in the way the transition is being conducted. >> So...yeah....actual change in the things he has control over and needs >> to do first. No change yet in the other places because he hasn't >> finished vetting candidates for other positions. >> >> So what's your problem with this? > > You mean screwing up a bad joke about Nancy Reagan or leaking details > of his meeting with Bush? Is this some sort of Tourettes? Yes, there was a bad joke about Nancy Reagan. It was dumb, he apologized. What has that got to do with his handling of the transition? And I don't get your point about the meeting with Bush. Was he not supposed to discuss the meeting? And what does that have to do with appointments to jobs in the administration, which is what we were talking about? You seem to just be spouting off random crap that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280404 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
