My Kitchen Table

Obama tries to get around no lobbyists pledge

Well, it seems that not all lobbyists are persona non grata in the new administration. Turns out that Obama's words are carved in stone on this matter ... unless they're not. For example, take the case of William J. Lynn III (I never trust a man with Roman numerals after his name). Mr. Lynn, the Boston Globe reports, is a "former" Raytheon lobbyist who Obama wants for the Pentagon of all places.

Lynn's nomination to be deputy secretary of defense hit a snag late last month when lawmakers from both parties questioned whether his ties to Raytheon, which was awarded more than $10 billion in Defense Department contracts last year, should disqualify him from serving as the day-to-day manager of the Pentagon, with enormous influence over decisions that would affect the Waltham-based defense giant.

Indeed, Lynn's lobbying ties are a clear violation of Obama's own ethics rules. Implemented by executive order on Jan. 21, they bar lobbyists from positions in the new administration that oversee the industries they advocated for in the previous two years. Lynn, however, was a registered lobbyist for Raytheon until July 2008.

Sen. John McCain had put a hold on the nomination, but has since let it go after he was assured that gee, Lynn is a swell guy after all. Only Senator Chuck Grassley remains between Mr. Lynn and the job. And as Sen. Grassley noted, the Lynn nomination "gutted the ethical heart" of Obama pledge to keep lobbyists out of his administration.

No kidding.

I hope Sen. Grassly holds his ground. To paraphrase Yoda if I might, there is no trying to keep lobbyists out. There is either keeping them out or not keeping them out. Obama can't have it both ways.

Enough with the flubbed oath

Well, the blogosphere has to have something to talk about, now that the legality of Obama's birth tactic came up flatter than Kansas.

To recap:

Chief Justice Roberts (or Obama ... my money's on Roberts) flubbed the oath and put the word faithfully in the wrong place. So now some people -- including some constitutional scholars -- are saying he has to redo the oath. (They point to two previous presidents who flubbed oat and redid it.) The right-wingers are saying it because they'll do anything to undermine Obama. The constitutional experts are saying it because they are lawyers and lawyers will argue over anything.

Other constitutional experts say the oath is just icing on the cake. The Constitution states that as of noon on January 20th, Obama is the president. Period. Oath or no oath. They point out that in 1929 then Chief Justice Taft (himself a former president yet) added a whole new word to the oath ... and Hoover was still president. (Although maybe it would have been nice it he wasn't, but that's a whole other blog post.)

My money is on the latter. Obama is the president. Legally, morally, etc. I see it like getting married. What you do in the church is nice, the wedding vows and all that, but none of it matters until you sign the legal papers afterwards. Plenty of people get married without a church service. (Like me, for instance.) And they are just as married as anyone else. (Like Princess Di mixing up Charles official name at their wedding in 1981. They were still married even if she got it wrong, because even they had to sign the papers ... although maybe Di would have had second thoughts too. But that is also another blog post.)