« How Much Worse Can Obama's Foreign Policy Team Get? I Give You Michael McFaul | Dan K's Blog | January, 2009: America Celebrates, and Averts Its Eyes from a Massacre »
Obama: Withdraw William Lynn
Obama needs to drop William Lynn, the Raytheon lobbyist and strategic planner whom Obama has nominated for Deputy Secretary of Defense. If the famous Obama rule against lobbyists is canceled and granted an exception when it comes to the greatest government procurement program of them all, the Pentagon, then the rule doesn't mean anything. This is a flat-out broken promise, but it is not too late for Obama to fix the problem.
Advertisement
I agree. I'm aware that there's so much we don't know about why Obama thinks it must be William Lynn for this spot. I'm also aware that there are no absolutes in politics.
He hedged on his promise that there would be no lobbyists in his administration. He qualified it by saying there would be no lobbyists running his administration. Now he's qualified that.
Having said all that, I'm not prepared to look myopically at this--let's give his team a chance rather than pick out possible but inconsequential negatives like Republicans do.
January 24, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This appointment makes quite clear, if it goes through, the all the vaunted talk of not letting the lobbyists run the show was just window dressing. It's made all the worse since the request for suspending the rule comes from Bush's Defense Secretary!
Obama should have this man's name withdrawn from consideration.
January 24, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least show better planning if you want the guy so bad. It doesn't show very much savvy to have to make an exception a few hours after you do an executive order, does it? Better to have your exceptions included in your executive orders before you announce them?
Lots of interesting flak can already be found in a quick web search, like this:
McCain Hits Obama For William Lynn Pick It's going to be very distracting now.
January 24, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
fixed link.
January 24, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How distracting? Point being that some distractions are acceptable.
I think McCain almost gets it right, as cited in that article. If Lynn is subject to greater scrutiny than usual in areas covered by the Exec Order, is that insufficient?
January 24, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was my thought, AA. Did he think no one would notice?
January 24, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Lynn has almost no baggage when compared to that secretary of treasury. That sumbich needs to be prosecuted for repeated tax evasion and given ten years in the Federal Penitentiary. That whole cabinet is nothing but an aggregate of criminals.
January 24, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it Dan. I usually find your posts and comments highly insightful. But you offer no rationale for your rejection besides some blind (dogmatic) attachment to absolutism. Rules are mean to be broken; waivers exist for special cases. It's a question of factual details and intent, when judging rule bending and breaking.
How is Lynn so bad in fact? Or are you blinded by the symbolism, valuing image over idea?
January 24, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't accept the "rules are made to be broken" defense. Obama's commitment not to put lobbyists in his administration was one of the centerpieces of his campaign. It is one of the key Obama promises. And we are not talking about a small department here, but the very epicenter of lobbyist and revolving door procurement mischief. If he doesn't stick to his principle here, it will evaporate.
January 24, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I already admitted your absolutism. You're merely repeating yourself and "borrowing trouble" again.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dan_k/2009/01/obama-withdraw-william-lynn.php#comment-3350362
If we see a flow of waivers, I might agree with you. Until then, keep the pressure on Obama to limit waivers to rare key positions and as I suggested in the link re AA, put in place added oversight and reporting requirements during the "probationary" period (one year I think in this case).
Sometimes the right man for the job doesn't fit the standard profile. Until you can show me that Lynn is not the clearly best available man for the job, I'm willing to let Obama have this one.
January 24, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point. I just don't have enough insight into the story behind the story on this appointment. Is this guy so supremely qualified that Obama decided it was worth the embarrassing lack of principle it would demonstrate?
I found this excerpt from a Bloomberg article interesting:
"Raytheon had $10.5 billion in fiscal 2008 contracts and is a major participant on missile and air defense, providing the warhead on the ground-based intercept program and radar on the U.S. Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer project. The Pentagon is weighing the Navy’s plan to truncate this program, building only three destroyers instead of seven. Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon, the lead systems integrator for the combat system, is fighting this plan."
Anyone have more context?
January 24, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"embarrassing lack of principle"
uh, Obama is a principled pragmatist, nothing lacking in the way of principle here.
It IS curious to see both sides attacking Obama by misrepresenting things.
January 24, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not an "attack"; it's just criticism. You accept that citizens need to hold Obama's feet to the fire. This is what holding a politician's feet to the fire looks like. Get used to it.
January 24, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mindless anti-pragmatic complaints are probably not as effective as reasoned argument, but whatever floats your boat!
January 25, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe I'm attacking or misrepresenting.
January 25, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't take it personally unless you feel it personally! (I thought you asked a good question)
Dan said "This is a flat-out broken promise". I consider that an attack on Obama.
January 25, 2009 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone said Obama was pragmatic. Sure. But so what? Surely even Obama apologists can see that the choice of Lynn isn't just pragmatic, it's also probably cronyism, and certainly it's a huge conflict of interest. It's ludicrous to buy the argument that there's only one qualified person for the job, or even that Lynn is the "best" qualified. If anyone believes that they're naive.
January 25, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say/imply it's obvious that Lynn is a crony of Obama and that there's no good reason to put him in there. What's your basis for those?
Who is better qualified, or comparably qualified but has no troubling issues?
Understanding the principles involved in a waiver is not being an Obama apologist. This mindless reaction suggests that a lot of lefties are rather absolutists more than progressives.
January 25, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatic or hypocritical -- take your pick. I'd say for Obama to accept and endorse a "waiver" for someone who has such a blatant conflict of interest is hypocritical, in light of his very public renunciation and rules for lobbyists in his administration. An absolutest where ethics is concerned is a very good thing and a long time coming for government.
I understand the principles involved in a waiver, to be sure. Ever heard of a "waiver" for someone who wasn't a well-connected crony? There's always some excuse for a waiver and this time it's because Lynn's the only one or best qualified. Asking who's more or better qualified than Lynn is like asking who's more or better qualified than Biden for VP, or Guinther for treasury, or Brennan for the CIA, or Holder for...... There are boatloads of qualified people, no doubt, for all those positions and some who we've never even heard of. [Okay, maybe a small boat. But clearly there's more than just a few.]
"Troubling issues" (extramarital affairs, taxes that one "forgot" [ahem], etc.) are one thing, and a conflict of interest is much more than a "troubling issue". It's the mother of all "troubling issues".
January 25, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you have no facts and no alternatives.
Whining absolutism needs a "time out". It's fine to note the waiver and raise the question of conflicts. It's simply anti-pragmatic to leave it at that. Government and politics generally runs on pragmatism, and Obama has made it clear that he's a principled pragmatist. Whether his Administration will be as progressive as he thought, or as we might like, is a separate issue.
You guys are complaining that Obama having cleaned up 90% of a pre-existing mess has openly left one questionable spot. You should be also praising him for doing the 90% in the same breath.
Call this an "apologist's post" if you like, I just don't get absolutist ideology being applied here.
January 26, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you hold on tightly to the meme of "pragmatic principles", as if that's the be all and end all for politicians to achieve and strive for. Silly.
For starters, the "alternative" you say I didn't mention is to dump Lynn and choose someone else. I thought that was obvious. Guess not. Dump Lynn!
Who to choose? Reread my post as that's a ridiculous question given the breadth of knowledge and experience in DC alone. Are you saying that it's a fact that Lynn is the only one qualified for the job and that there couldn't possibly be anyone as good or even better?
Are you disputing the fact of there being a glaring conflict of interest?
And what are your facts for Obama clearing up "90%" of anything? That's just a number from your head and hardly a fact.
January 26, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget it. I thought you were serious about this.
Having no undersecretary is not an alternative.
January 26, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you willfully misread me? Never, not once, did I so much as suggest that we shouldn't have an undersecretary! In fact, I practically state the opposite -- that there are "boatloads" of other choices for undersecretary!
Geeeesh! What a waste of time it's been. I suspected you weren't really reading my posts based on what you choose to answer and choose to avoid. But, possibly you really did read them and realizing that it is you who have no "facts", decided to make things up.
Sophistry!
January 27, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is kind of like the Clintonites getting into the cabinet, is it not? At last count, the primary, Clintonites made up a substantial part of the democratic Party. You cannot get compeltely away from them and still be a Democrat.
There have been particular restrictions placed on Lynn. His appointment is made in the clear light of day. We have all been advised of the conflict. We are going to keep an eye on the guy. Ain't it grand that this time around there is only one, rather then one in every position. Obama is not giving Lynn carte blanche.
[And ain't it grand we can speak French again?!? And French Fries too, which the French have adamantly denied are theirs, which only convinces me more that they are French.]
January 25, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink