The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

Fair enough, but Obama didn't really have any way of knowing that this schlep was going to become embroiled in a bribery investigations. Crimes you aren't even being investigated for as of yet don't tend not to show up on background checks. Unless this guy told Obama there was a problem, he would have had no way of knowing about it. Obama has had quite a run of bad luck, but this is hardly the first time that this has happened to a president's appointments. It is, in fact, quite common -- we just seem to forget about it every 4-8 years.

This is all it was? Martaug, Obama didn't get his wife her $120,000 position, since she had it well before his election to the senate. As to whether he had anything to do with her promotion, all you have is a time-line correlation. As to the hospital's decision to eliminate her position, positions are getting eliminated everywhere in these bad economic times -- even executive positions -- so all you have here is innuendo. Now, if insinuation and innuendo are enough for you to damn someone, that's fine, but where were you during the Bush administration?

 

You are correct she got her $120K job when he was a state senator, while he was on the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee (I may be incorrect about the second part as I know in 2003 he became that committee's chairman. Shame on you Martaug for missing that.

 

The thing I would be more interested in is whether or not her salary of $120K, and then of $317K is the going rate for positions like that. It seems like her resume of education and experience would qualify her for the position. Claims of nepotism would be stronger if it was shown that he pay was sginificantly higher than what those high ranking executive positions at other hospitals pay.

 

http://volokh.com/posts/1206498650.shtml

She wasn't given her new high paying job until after he was elected a us senator. How many of you have gotten a 260% pay increase in 1 year?
Another nice quote from volokh

And since this is about transparency & honesty
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/

Spoiler

The tale thickens with the appearance of Michael R. Klein, a top legal adviser to Feinstein and a long-time business partner of Blum's. The vice-chairman of Perini's board of directors, Klein was a partner in Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, a powerful law firm with close ties to the Democratic Party, for nearly 30 years. Klein and Blum co-own ASTAR Air Cargo, which has military contracts in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Klein also sits on the board of SRA International, a large defense contractor.

In an interview with this reporter in September, Klein stated that, beginning in 1997, he routinely informed Feinstein about specific federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake. The insider information, Klein said, was intended to help the senator avoid conflicts of interest. Although Klein's startling admission was intended to defuse the issue of Feinstein's conflict of interest, it had the effect of exacerbating it.

Klein said that he regularly gave Feinstein's chief of staff, Mark Kadesh, lists of Perini's current and upcoming contractual interests in federal legislation, so that the senator would not discuss, debate, vote on or participate in matters that could affect projects in which Perini was concerned. "Earmarks, you know, set asides, you name it, there was a system in place which on a regular basis I got notified, I notified her office and her office notified her," Klein said.

"We basically identified any bid that Perini was going for and checked to see whether it was the subject of already appropriated funds or funds yet to be appropriated, and if it was anything that the senator could not act on, her office was alerted and she did not act on it."

This is an extraordinary thing for Klein and the senator to do, since the detailed project proposals that the Pentagon sent to Feinstein's subcommittee for review do not usually name the firms already contracted to perform specific projects. Nor do defense officials typically identify, in MILCON hearings, which military construction contractors are eligible to bid on upcoming work.

In theory, Feinstein would not know the identity of any of the companies that stood to contractually benefit from her approval of specific items in the military construction budget--until Klein told her.

Klein explained, "They would get from me a notice that Perini was bidding on a contract that would be affected as we understood it by potential legislation that would come before either the full congress or any committee that she was a member of. And she would as a result of that not act, abstain from dealing with those pieces of legislation."

However, the public record shows that contrary to Klein's belief, Feinstein did act on legislation that affected Perini and URS.

According to Klein, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics ruled, in secret, that Feinstein did not have a conflict of interest with Perini because, due to the existence of the bid and project lists provided by Klein, she knew when to recuse herself. Klein says that after URS declined to participate in his conflict-of-interest prevention plan, the ethics committee ruled that Feinstein could act on matters that affected URS because she did not have a list of URS' needs. That these confidential rulings are contradictory is obvious and calls for explanation.

Klein declined to produce copies of the Perini project lists that he transmitted to Feinstein. And neither he nor Feinstein would furnish copies of the ethics committee rulings, nor examples of the senator recusing herself from acting on legislation that affected Perini or URS. But the Congressional Record shows that as chairperson and ranking member of MILCON, Feinstein was often involved in supervising the legislative details of military construction projects that directly affected Blum's defense-contracting firms.

After reviewing the results of this investigation, Wendell Rawls, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C., observes that by giving Feinstein notice of Perini's business objectives, Klein achieved the opposite of preventing a conflict of interest.

Rawls comments, "Sen. Feinstein has had a serious conflict of interest, a serious insensitivity to ethical considerations. The very least she should have done is to recuse herself from having conversations, debates, voting or any other kind of legislative activity that involved either Perini Corporation or URS Corporation or any other business activity where her husband's financial interests were involved.

This a small part of the spoiler above

Is this not one of those rulings where you scratch your head & go WTH??

Spoiler

Here are a few examples from the Congressional Record of questionable intersections between Feinstein's legislative duties and her financial interests:


At a MILCON hearing in 2001, Feinstein interrogated defense officials about the details of constructing specific missile defense systems, which included upgrading the early warning radar system at Cobra Dane radar on Shemya Island, Alaska. In 2003, Perini reported that it had completed a contract to upgrade the Cobra Dane radar system. It has done similar work at Beale Air Force Base in California and in the United Kingdom. URS also bids on missile defense work.


In the 2002 MILCON hearings, Feinstein questioned an official about details of the U.S. Army's chemical demilitarization program. URS is extensively involved in performing chemical demilitarization work at key disposal sites in the United States.


At that same hearing, Feinstein asked about the possibility of increasing funding for anti-terrorism-force protection at Army bases. The following year, on March 4, 2003, Feinstein asked why the antiterrorism-force protection funds she had advocated for the year before had not yet been spent. On April 21, 2003, URS announced the award of a $600 million contract to provide, among other services, anti-terrorism-force protection for U.S. Army installations.


Beginning in 2003, both Perini and URS were awarded a series of open-ended contracts for military construction work around the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Feinstein's leadership, MILCON regularly approved specific project "task orders" that were issued to Perini and URS under these contracts.


At a March 30, 2004, MILCON hearing, Feinstein grilled Maj. Gen. Dean Fox about whether or not the Pentagon intended to prioritize funding the construction of "beddown" maintenance facilities for its new airlifter, the C-17 Globemaster. After being reassured by Fox that these funds would soon be flowing, Feinstein said, "Good, that's what I really wanted to hear. Thank you very much. Appreciate it very much, General." Two years later, URS announced a $42 million award to build a beddown maintenance facility for the C-17 at Hickam Air Base in Hawaii as part of a multibillion dollar contract with the Air Force. Under Feinstein's leadership, MILCON approved the Hickam project.

In mid-2005, MILCON approved a Pentagon proposal to fund "overhead coverage force protection" in Iraq that would reinforce the roofs of U.S. Army barracks to better withstand mortar rounds. On Oct. 13, 2005, Perini announced the award of a $185 million contract to provide overhead coverage force protection to the Army in Iraq.

In the 2005 MILCON hearings, Feinstein earmarked MILCON legislation with $25 million to increase environmental remediation at closed military bases. Year after year, Feinstein has closely overseen the environmental cleanup and redevelopment of McClellan Air Force Base near Sacramento, frequently requesting that officials add tens of millions of dollars to that project. URS and its joint ventures have earned tens of millions of dollars cleaning up McClellan. And CB Richard Ellis, a real estate company headed by Feinstein's husband Richard Blum, is involved in redeveloping McClellan for the private sector.

This investigation examined thousands of pages of documents, including transcripts of congressional hearings, U.S. Security and Exchange Commission filings, government audits and reports, federal procurement data and corporate press releases. The findings were shared with contracting and ethics experts at several nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based government oversight groups. Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit organization that analyzes defense contracts and who examined our evidence says, "The paper trail showing Sen. Feinstein's conflict of interest is irrefutable."

On the face of it, there is nothing objectionable about a senator closely examining proposed appropriations or advocating for missile defense or advancing the cleanup of a toxic military base. Blum profitably divested himself of ownership of both URS and Perini in 2005, ameliorating the conflict of interest. But Feinstein's ethical dilemma arose from the fact that, for five years, the interests of Perini and URS and CB Richard Ellis were inextricably entwined with her leadership of MILCON, which last year approved $16.2 billion for military construction projects.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, remarks, "There are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest. [California Republican Congressman John T.] Doolittle, for example, hired his wife as a fundraiser, and she skimmed 15 percent off of all campaign contributions. Others, like [former] Speaker [Dennis] Hastert and Cong. [Ken] Calvert were earmarking federal money for roads to enhance the value of property held by their families.

"But because of the amount of money involved," Sloan continues, "Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."

Not thats chutzpah. The sheer scale makes the halliburton-cheney deal looks minuscule.
Read the whole article, it is just amazing what some democrats(not all, as there are some good ones) have done while at the same time lambasting republicans for the exact same thing!

 

I was listening to a talk show this morning. It was a conservative talk show and the host was making some good points about the stimulus package and really destroying Dodd in the process (which was rather fun to listen to). The he started to attack the Obama administration, which was okay until he started referring to President Obama as "brownie."

IMO the talk show host just lost all credibility in his arguments. He was doing well, then he decided to use a racial slur. What a moron. Political commentary and racial slurs DO NOT GO TOGETHER. Period.

 

"Brownie"? You're kidding. A station might fire a guy for a comment like that. I know I would if I were the program director.

I was just thinking about Obama and his appointments. I was thinking about the idea that we seem to want our politicians to be 1000% crystal clean. Pure, sinless, spotless, born yesterday with 3 university degrees and no other past activities that may sully their purity as they labour away for the common good. This, I believe, is unrealistic. I guarantee that every member on these boards has some skeletons in their closets somewhere, and that applies to the entire population of the earth.

Now some things are beyond the margins, like felony convictions and the like, but come on now! Criticism and the outing of said skeletons is fun and I would argue even necessary, but the hyperbole that goes along with it sometimes leaves me shaking my head. Obama does not have a pool of perfect avatars to choose from. Neither did Bush, for that matter. I can understand a lot of the right wing glee in pointing out the blindingly obvious about some of these appointees. I myself enjoy doing it not so much because I believe that these men (and women! Mustn't alienate the feminists out there!) are not qualified to be in their places but rather to point out the stunning hypocrisy in the left, who criticized the living crap out of all of Bush's "cronies" but suddenly have no problem now when imperfect people are being appointed by the Democratic government. If any right winger is seriously criticizing the appointees fitness or worthiness themselves (rather than the hypocrisy) then they too are hypocritical idiots who should be flogged.

 

@LKD: I agree, but I must make a qualification. It is obvious that high-ranking civil servants (a phrase that should more often be remembered) are humans too; they have their problems and issues just like everyone else. Plus, Obama probably doesn't a pool of perfect candidates for each job (especially anything that has something to do with the economy), and that's not even counting all the political and other pressure he and his team are under to favor this side or that. However, his picks should be held to standards that reflect their status and responsibilities. When someone that, say, should be in charge of fighting corruption turns out to be involved with a ring of indicted politicians/lobbyists/etc, that isn't just a human failure, but may show they may not be able to do their job. Whether the administration is Democratic or Republican should have nothing to do with it.

Still, for now I have not seen a really blatant problem, and Obama's cabinet has been fairly responsive to any disappointing revelations about their picks. I remain much more optimistic about his presidency than I was about his predecessor, and I hope that he can rise up to the great challenge he faces.

 

Haha, this is getting just too funny(& kinda sad too), http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...ring_Address_With_Irish_PM_On_St_Patricks_Day

Wait, wait, the great orator can't figure out he shouldn't be thanking himself ?
Now, you & i know without a doubt, if bush had done this it would have been on every news station within 10 minutes. Just how much favoritism do we allow pres. teleprompter??

 

Funny you should mention that. Bush did make the news just yesterday for mis-speaking. Bush announced that he recently signed a new book deal. (I'm sure he won't be doing the actual writing, as hardly any politicians actually do.) What Bush meant to say at the time of the announcement was that the book would be an authoritative account of his presidency. However, what he said was it was an account of his authoritarian presidency. Fruedian slip?

 

The difference is, Bush's gaffes were notable for their frequency and for his obliviousness to have made them. Obama's gaffes are notable for precisely opposite reasons. World of difference.

Martaug, you're trying way too hard. It's unbecoming. Think these through a little please, even if it costs you a zinger now and then.

 

It is now time for some thing i don't do often, give praise to a democrat.
The first big handclap goes out to Senators Tester and Baucus of Montana, who got the DoD to realise that their brass mutilation directive was in fact a really bad idea & got it reversed. For those that don't know what i'm talking about.
http://www.theshootist.net/2009/03/dod-ends-sale-of-expended-military.html
http://www.downrange.tv/artman2/publish/shepherd/427.shtml
&
Also the 65 pro-gun democrats led by mike ross, D-Ark. who sent the following letter to eric holder, http://www.downrange.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/awblettertoholder309.pdf
Big thums up to these guys.

 

I'm not so sure about this. Obama has been in office about 60 days and so far he has

1. Tried to get into the oval office through a window instead of a door
2. Banged his head getting into Marine One
3. Blindly read the teleprompter like Ron Burgandy

At a pace of a gaffe every 20 days, it could add up to a very impressive number.
If he would just fall down a couple of times we may all forget Gerald Ford.

 

I'm curious as to where all this "gaffe control maina" was lurking while GWB was in office. All of a sudden it's a big rage among those know-nothing internet bloggers. Yet, when GWB was in office it hardly seemed to matter to those who not only supported him, but voted for our Gaffe-King-In-Chief all over again in 2004. I could of course continue to post the history of GWB gaffes, yet that would be quite pointless, since "everyone" knows they are all there for the reading. Could it be that Republicans have double-standards? Or that they only parody themselves? But again, it seems pointless to state the obvious. So why bother?

 

I see what you're saying, Snook. However:

One and two I would think are pretty forgivable for obvious reasons (new to the White House, tall guy / unfamiliar helicopter, etc.). Much like Bush trying to walk through a locked door in Japan. The third didn't even happen as you described.

So yeah, I'm sure. Obama is going to look like a doofus from time to time, as has (and will) every President. But Obama is obviously self-aware enough to recognize and make comical light of the few gaffes he does make. Bush rarely (if ever) showed the humility necessary to be capable of that.* Obama could stick his foot in his mouth clear to the kneecap once every 20 days and still won't come close to being as embarrassing for us as Bush was. I'm not a betting man, but that one I'll take to the bank.

* Don't believe me? Pronounce "nuclear."

 

Sorry DR, but it happened EXACTLY like that. When the Irish prime minister told obama that his speech was still on the teleprompter, obama laughed & then blindly read what was on the prompter, which was thanking himself for inviting everybody to the whitehouse.

On a different matter, Don't you think it's funny that for the last 2 months obama has ranted & rave that the economy is going to collapse at any moment but the second he gets his Multi-Trillion dollar socialist pipedream bills passed, sudennly, the economy is "basically sound".
Hypocracy, thy name is obama.

 

Martaug, did it honestly not occur to you that maybe - just maybe - Obama laughed, and read the "thanks" part anyway because it was funny? To laugh off the situation? Add in a little self-deprecating humor to make the Irish PM look a little less foolish? Do you really think he's too stupid to recognize his own name on a teleprompter? Or is getting your "NOBAMA SUX" scratch-and-sniff sticker so important to you that you can't exercise a little common sense and think these through a little before posting?

Trying too hard to Obama-bash, thy name is martaug. It's lame. Grow up.

 

Watch the video DR, he says it than blinks like "uh, what did i just read?"

But on to bigger and better things, "The bridge to nowhere" that everybody(rightfully) ridiculed was a major attacking point for the dems against the reps.
Yet, for some reason, noone talks about the democrats "road to nowhere", the dreaded corridor H in west virginia. The have been building this road for 4 DECADES!! At a cost so far of 1.5 Billion dollars & expect it to take another 25+ years to complete with a cost of another 1.5 Billion dollars.
If they ever do get it complete do you know where it will end? The border with virginia, as virginia has NO plan to build to it!!
It received $21 million in obamas budget & almost $10 million in the omnibus bill for this year.
No outcry from the dems about this boondoogle is there?
Sen Byrd is one of those guys that should be impeached & thrown in jail for how much he has stolen from the nation over the past 50 years he has been a senator!!

*edit*
They have scratch & sniffs now ?!? COOL!!

 

Fixed for spelling. Why does that phrase sound familiar to me? Oh yeah, it was some guy named John something who said it and if I recall correctly he was mocked and ridiculed for saying it by our current President. Interesting don't you think?

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 34 seconds later... ----------

DR, you are going to have to work on this defensive reflex you have or you are going to have a very long four years.

 

Went back & fixed it, thanks Snook.

Sshhhhh! Don't mention the sheer chutzpah that obama is displaying by using phrases and ideas that he ridiculed mccain for!!

 

It looks like Obama did it again.

While I admit to using the same phrase, the President should know better and to say it on Leno is even worse. Maybe he isn't the "gifted speaker" we have been led to believe. Maybe it is all the "teleprompter"