It seems the infallible Mr. Obama has his faults showing early, this was a recent article explaining these, there are more, but this is a quick article. we have made our thoughts after this article.
Obama’s Pledge to Reform Ethics Faces an Early Test
By PETER BAKER
Published: February 2, 2009
WASHINGTON — During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obamavowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a “new era of responsibility.” What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.
The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.
President Obamasaid Monday that he was “absolutely” standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Mr. Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had “no excuse” and wanted to “deeply apologize” for his failure to pay $128,000 in federal taxes.
But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Mr. Obama has proved willing to compromise.
Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.
“This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”
And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by television comics and questioned by reporters about whether Mr. Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.
Some Republicans saw a double standard. “What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?” asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bushand Senator John McCain, referring to Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary. “It would be roundly attacked and roundly criticized.”
Several Democrats, including some who have advised Mr. Obama, said privately that he had only himself to blame for delivering such an uncompromising message as a candidate without recognizing how it would complicate his ability to assemble an administration.
In the campaign, Mr. Obama assailed Washington’s “entire culture” in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” He vowed to “close the revolving door” and “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.”
The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hired them. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employment and did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name.
Mr. Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including some in the health industry. Mr. Obama also gave himself the right to grant waivers in cases he deemed exceptional, most prominently to William J. Lynn III, an ex-Raytheon lobbyist he nominated as deputy defense secretary. Others were lobbyists more than two years ago, and therefore not covered by the Obama rules.
Some who worked as lobbyists have found places in the administration, including Mark Patterson, who represented Goldman Sachs and is now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. William V. Corr, who lobbied for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has been selected as deputy health and human services secretary.
Obama advisers said that the exceptions were minimal given the thousands to be hired and that appointees would be barred from work on issues they lobbied on in the last two years. The exceptions, they said, were needed for particular skills and experience.
Some advocates said the rules were still more significant than any previously imposed. “This is a direct attack on the culture of Washington and in an extremely powerful way,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group.
As for Mr. Daschle and Mr. Geithner, who also failed to pay some taxes, White House officials said the errors should not obscure their records. Mr. Obama “believes that both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-Designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, “and he does not believe that that will undercut their ability to move forward on an agenda that makes sense for the American people.”
That argument has drawn sharp criticism from left and right. “Is this really the message he wants to convey to voters in just his first month in office, a message that it’s O.K. to break or skirt the law just as long as you’re a good guy with a special skill set?” asked Andy Ostroy, a blogger writing on The Huffington Post, a liberal Web site.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine, said Mr. Obama should withdraw Mr. Daschle’s nomination to “revive the change brand he campaigned and won on.”
Mr. Obama is running into crosscurrents that bedeviled his predecessors. Jimmy Carterpromised a new day in Washington after Watergate but still found top associates caught up in scandal. Bill Clintonpromised “the most ethical administration in history” and then endured the most independent counsel investigations in history. Mr. Bush vowed a new era of responsibility only to be accused of selling out to energy and military industries.
Jody Powell, who was Mr. Carter’s press secretary and later founded a prominent lobbying firm, said it was better to establish lofty goals that might not be met than to not have any at all.
“If you set standards, you’re going to fall short on occasion and you’re going to have to compromise on occasion,” Mr. Powell said. “But you’re probably also going to get more done.”
David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on February 3, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.
ok, so here is our 8 cents worth (hey we're pontiffs we are worth more than 2 cents ;-) -----)
In business if a company strives for a brand that states one thing but delivers another, they go out of business or at least get a reputation for not delivering on their promise. It is a stigma that just wont go away that easy. We all fail to live up to expectations we set for ourselves and others from time to time (some times the client is just wrong!) it is not something we do all the time, but it will happen. So what do we do?
What we try to do with our clients, agents, and employees is build trust, trust is important, it is crucial. In everything we do we explain the positives AND the negatives of a transaction; we explain to them what should happen and what can happen in any given transaction. we also tell them that things may go wrong but that we promise to fix them right away. They know we are not perfect, but that they can trust us to do our best, and when we don't meet our best, we will do everything we can to fix it. What this does is build trust between us and the client. Our image of always striving for our best is kept intact and we have the flexibility of making mistakes.
Mr. Obama and the media have created a brand of infallibility and highest excellence, this cannot be achieved in the highly complicated world of politics and power. I do not excuse him from these blatant attempts at "do as I say not as I do," attitude, it is his own fault. The public will slowly (A lot slower than if he was a part of a different administration or party) lose trust, and without trust, the mistakes will only compound. All of us should always strive for goals, but not absolutes. Mr. Obama has set himself up for an unachievable goal and when it comes down to it, a goal he is not really trying to achieve, so in reality it is just rhetoric.
We do not believe that politicians or business owners should strive for mediocrity, not at all, we should put high standards and stick to them and make the tough decisions that need to be made and swallow the pride when necessary. A skill Mr. Obama seems to be lacking.
If we say we will do all we can for the client and it comes down to paying a part of our commissions to get it done, or possibly driving an hour and 1/2 (which we have done many times) to finish the job for the client, then we do it.
When these issues came up about the numerous administration oversights, Mr. Obama should have simply stated that it was unacceptable and stuck to his promises. But even during the campaign we saw MANY current and former lobbyists working in his campaign and now it continues with the Clinton all-stars and many lobbyists and tax evaders in his cabinet and potential nominees. So where is the change?
Make the hard decisions, don't compromise values for expediency, always strive for the best, but build trust by letting your clients (and the American people) know that you will always strive for those values but you are not infallible and when a mistake occurs, own up and swallow your pride to fix it. that way you don't tarnish the image you are attempting to get people to believe in. We like the phrase "striving for excellence," because it is showing that it is ongoing, something you see, and you will always strive to do.
good luck all!
This seems to happen time and time again. And I think that the ignorant voters may be the ones to blame. We are so quick to forget all of the empty promises of the past. When election times come around, it is who has makes to most promises and says all the right things. It's not about the reality of those promises being fulfilled or the time frame it will take to make changes. If the candidates spoke realistically and honestly, they would lose popularity of the imbeciles who don't question the contents of what a candidate is promising. I really wish that there was a test that had to be taken in order to vote.
Posted by: Cherie Doughty | December 06, 2009 at 05:30 PM
My thoughts are both political parties are dirty, corrupt, untill corporate monies are excluded from politcal financing nothing will change. Obama has some nice ideas but Washington is one tough nut to crack. The reality is he is not in charge of anything. The inside rulers, with money bags control everything and he is basicly a puppet, just as was Bush Jr. Cheeney was the the direct channel to those money bags and that is just one reaon major our country is in shambles.
In the 70's our President visited China to set the ground rules to outsource our jobs there. President Clinton encouraged NAFTA another outsourcing of jobs. Now our unemployment rate is nearly 10%. It's been many years of coming that corporations whom fill those money bags in Washington have foresaken the other stakeholders and just please the stockholders. Seeems to me that these business leaders taught at big named schools were taught business without ethics and how to corrupt our easy prey in government.
Posted by: David Acantilado | September 01, 2009 at 04:13 AM
Wow politics confuse me! I think that Obama had a good motive for what he wanted to change but promises dont mean anything unless they are acted upon. For Obama to just pat those who have not payed their taxes or lobbied during his campain, on the back, what does that say for him. Like you said, if you cant uphold the promise, do what you can do to fix it. That is a better promise than one that isn't tangable.
Posted by: Jessica Campa | June 01, 2009 at 05:38 PM
I understand your point of view. Now that Obama has made it pass his 100days can you tell me if you think differently?
I am a little jaded when it comes to politics just because there is always a lot promises and not a lot of action on those promises.
Posted by: Melanie Chaney | May 06, 2009 at 08:41 AM
Here! Here!
Posted by: Robin Redd | February 28, 2009 at 06:57 PM