Obama’s secret telecom advisor pushing his company’s interest

[celticlord]

Obama’s secret telecom advisor pushing his company’s interest
If there was any doubt our esteemed President-Elect was for sale to the highest bidder, this should lay those doubts to rest.

So much for ending the influence of lobbyists.:roll:

 

[DarkWizard12]

lol, its quiet in here!

 

[Renae]

lol, its quiet in here!

OF course it's quiet, Obama's Hope and Change isn't worth a damn.

 

[jfuh]

There're 3 additional problems with this accusation.
ATT, Comcast and the recession.
Clearwire's WiMAX Launch - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com

So even if the article were true - I don't see how 2 or 3 months give it any real advantage over a more established providers like Verizon, ATT, and comcast.

I'll hold judgment until more reliable non-super partisan sources report on this matter.

 

[Renae]

There're 3 additional problems with this accusation.
ATT, Comcast and the recession.
Clearwire's WiMAX Launch - BusinessWeek.com- msnbc.com

So even if the article were true - I don't see how 2 or 3 months give it any real advantage over a more established providers like Verizon, ATT, and comcast.

I'll hold judgment until more reliable non-super partisan sources report on this matter.

Jfuh, jfuh, jfuh.

In the world of business, the longer you are the only one able to provide a new service or product, the better chance you have of controlling the majority of that market.

Also when you have plans to launch a new service, have the products ready, advertising ready, have your customers all ready to go, then you have to delay (and doubly so if the government is the cause), your customers are more likely to go to that other guy that has the product/service they want.
Oh and all the while you sir there holding products that you cannot sell, this means you either keep making more and warehousing them, or you slow the flow of production. I'm no business genius but that figures to completely hose your system.

 

[jfuh]

Jfuh, jfuh, jfuh.

In the world of business, the longer you are the only one able to provide a new service or product, the better chance you have of controlling the majority of that market.

Also when you have plans to launch a new service, have the products ready, advertising ready, have your customers all ready to go, then you have to delay (and doubly so if the government is the cause), your customers are more likely to go to that other guy that has the product/service they want.
Oh and all the while you sir there holding products that you cannot sell, this means you either keep making more and warehousing them, or you slow the flow of production. I'm no business genius but that figures to completely hose your system.

Allegedly, see what you don't realize yet is that you guys still have yet to prove that these allegations are true. That there is a conspiracy against Verizon by Sprint and the new administration.

 

[Renae]

Allegedly, see what you don't realize yet is that you guys still have yet to prove that these allegations are true. That there is a conspiracy against Verizon by Sprint and the new administration.

Hehehe, oh these next four years are gonna be SOO much fun. "You can't prove that!" And this coming from a guy that took the word of a man he met in a bar on his life story.

You crack me up Jfuh, you really do.

This digital change over is YEARS in the making. Not a word from the Bush Admin about there being a problem big enough for a set back. Obama is incomming and suddenly we have to set it back?

Oh and btw the guy that helped write this proposal up HAPPENS to stand to make a lot of money if it does get pushed back... and you can't connect the dots?

Please. You can, you just choose to ignore it.

 

[danarhea]

I find it funny that those who supported the same kind of crap under Bush now condemn it under Obama. I have bashed the crap out of Bush corruption for more than 5 years, but I won't be a hypocrite. If the story is true, then the Obama administration needs to be called out for its own corruption, and I call on Obama supporters to do the same, while calling on Bush supporters to acknowledge the corruption in the previous administration. After all, corruption is anti American.

To Obama supporters who have have bashed Bush corruption - Are you also going to be even handed in your condemnations?

 

[jfuh]

I find it funny that those who supported the same kind of crap under Bush now condemn it under Obama. I have bashed the crap out of Bush corruption for more than 5 years, but I won't be a hypocrite. If the story is true, then the Obama administration needs to be called out for its own corruption, and I call on Obama supporters to do the same, while calling on Bush supporters to acknowledge the corruption in the previous administration. After all, corruption is anti American.

To Obama supporters who have have bashed Bush corruption - Are you also going to be even handed in your condemnations?

If there is even the slightest hint that these charges are true? Abso****inglutely

 

[Zyphlin]

I find it funny that those who supported the same kind of crap under Bush now condemn it under Obama. I have bashed the crap out of Bush corruption for more than 5 years, but I won't be a hypocrite. If the story is true, then the Obama administration needs to be called out for its own corruption, and I call on Obama supporters to do the same, while calling on Bush supporters to acknowledge the corruption in the previous administration. After all, corruption is anti American.

To Obama supporters who have have bashed Bush corruption - Are you also going to be even handed in your condemnations?

Of course not...

They're going to rationalize it as being needed or okay. They're going to attack the "partisan" source. They're going to claim its some kind of conspiracy to "get" him. They're claim its just republicans obsessed to the point of derangement with Obama. They're say "George Bush Did It!" just like it used to be done with Clinton. They're come up with excuses as to why its actually OKAY for this to happen. And some of the time, they may be right, but being right or not won't matter to most of their defenses.

You know...

All the exact same things the people that will be launching these attacks were doing for the past 8 years

Aren't you excited Dana!

:hammer:

 

[jfuh]

Of course not...

They're going to rationalize it as being needed or okay. They're going to attack the "partisan" source. They're going to claim its some kind of conspiracy to "get" him. They're claim its just republicans obsessed to the point of derangement with Obama. They're come up with excuses as to why its actually OKAY for this to happen. And some of the time, they may be right, but being right or not won't matter to most of their defenses.

You know...

All the exact same things the people that will be launching these attacks were doing for the past 8 years

Aren't you excited Dana!

Have any proof this is what's happening? Or just the ramblings of disgruntled hyper partisan republican hacks?

interesting how there's no follow up on this and not even faux news has picked it up.

 

[Hatuey]

www.dcexaminer.com >> Timothy Carney

A telecommunications company has confirmed for this columnist that its vice president for policy—who is also an Obama donor and a former lobbyist—is advising Barack Obama’s transition team on telecom policy.

Obama’s transition team, which has failed to disclose this executive’s involvement, happens to have proposed a significant change in telecom policy that will profit that very company, called Clearwire.

Why would this company disclose to a conservative newspaper that it's vice president of policy is advising Obama when his name doesn't appear anywhere on Change.gov? Wouldn't that kind of work against them once it gets out to the public? I mean. If his name isn't listed anywhere other this Opinion piece as Obama's advisor on anything, why would they risk it by making it known to a source that'll use this against Obama, that one of their execs is advising Obama? Seems a tad bit contradictory.

 

[Hatuey]

I've looked this up on google and it seems like all sources lead to Tim Carney's blog & another blog by Julia Sanchez :

R. Gerard Salemme | Politicker MD

If you think President Obama wants to delay the switch to digital broadcasting to give the folks who haven’t procured the converter boxes extra time, think again.

As Tim Carney writes in the Examiner:

Advance Indiana: Obama Delaying Digital Conversion To Help Campaign Contributor

The Examiner's Tim Carney confirmed that Salemme is advising the Obama transitition team on telecom policy, but his name is nowhere to be found on Change.Gov, Team Obama's official transition team's website. Obama's transition team did not return Carney's calls seeking comment on the obvious conflict of interest. Carney writes

4G war, conflicts of interest loom behind possible DTV delay

As of this writing, Salemme is not mentioned anywhere on the Change.gov site—which lists members of the Obama transition's staff, policy working groups, and agency review teams—nor has there been any public announcement of his involvement with the presidential transition. A spokesman for his company says that Salemme "remains in his position as Executive VP at Clearwire." But Ars has learned that Salemme has been on leave using accrued vacation and joined the Obama transition team as a key adviser on DTV issues.

Red Maryland: Obama's Rent Seeking Transition Advisor

If you think President Obama wants to delay the switch to digital broadcasting to give the folks who haven’t procured the converter boxes extra time, think again.

As Tim Carney writes in the Examiner:

So this all brings me back to my question. Why would this company make it public that one of it's execs is advising Obama when his name doesn't appear on Change.Gov and revealing such information will only endanger the benefits they'd get if nobody found out about this?

 

[SWM]

I find it funny that those who supported the same kind of crap under Bush now condemn it under Obama. I have bashed the crap out of Bush corruption for more than 5 years, but I won't be a hypocrite. If the story is true, then the Obama administration needs to be called out for its own corruption, and I call on Obama supporters to do the same, while calling on Bush supporters to acknowledge the corruption in the previous administration. After all, corruption is anti American.

To Obama supporters who have have bashed Bush corruption - Are you also going to be even handed in your condemnations?

Totally with you. As an Obama voter, I have no qualms saying that this is totally ****ed, if it is true.

It's worth noting - and I think you will agree with me - that we need to take everything written about Obama, positive or negative, with several grains of salt. There are a huge number of groups and individuals who will print and say anything that will portray the man in the way they would like him to be portrayed. This was of course true of Bush(and any other president) as well, but I think the effect is somewhat exaggerated with Obama, due to his overwhelming success of popularity.

I'm not saying this is necessarily not true; it may be. But from here on out we need to hold off on quick judgments about stories that pop up all of a sudden in one or two places. Give it a few days, we'll see what comes of it. He's gonna have a lotta 'splainin to do if it turns out true.

 

[Zyphlin]

Have any proof this is what's happening? Or just the ramblings of disgruntled hyper partisan republican hacks?

interesting how there's no follow up on this and not even faux news has picked it up.

Hahaha, I think me being called a hyper partisan republican is one of the funniest notions I've seen in ages. I'll have to pull this one out in a week when some republican on this forum claims I'm a closet liberal or something of the sort.

Yes, look at the vast majority of negative Obama threads about actual choices, decisions, and positions he's taking now...not what books are in the background of a speech. The responses from many democrats are almost identical in tenure and tone to republicans at the beginning of the Bush administration and doing exactly what I stated above. This thread has an example of it itself.

 

[Dezaad]

I've looked this up on google and it seems like all sources lead to Tim Carney's blog & another blog by Julia Sanchez :

R. Gerard Salemme | Politicker MD



Advance Indiana: Obama Delaying Digital Conversion To Help Campaign Contributor



4G war, conflicts of interest loom behind possible DTV delay



Red Maryland: Obama's Rent Seeking Transition Advisor



So this all brings me back to my question. Why would this company make it public that one of it's execs is advising Obama when his name doesn't appear on Change.Gov and revealing such information will only endanger the benefits they'd get if nobody found out about this?

Sounds like something similar to the right wing echo chamber. Sounds like this is turning out to be an indictment against Obama's detractors, rather than one against Obama.

Completely unsurprising, though. Also unsurprising are the people here who are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

I do feel that Obama is different, and that he really does have integrity and that he sincerely wants to change Washington to more closely resemble his ideals. Republicans would hate for a Democrat to be the one who does that. Oh, how they would hate that.

 

[Hatuey]

Sounds like something similar to the right wing echo chamber. Sounds like this is turning out to be an indictment against Obama's detractors, rather than one against Obama.

Completely unsurprising, though. Also unsurprising are the people here who are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

I do feel that Obama is different, and that he really does have integrity and that he sincerely wants to change Washington to more closely resemble his ideals. Republicans would hate for a Democrat to be the one who does that. Oh, how they would hate that.

I just find it funny that this 'columnist'(blogger) made such a peculiar statement that would draw such a big question that it seems none of the right wingers here asked :

Why would this company endanger the position a clearly secret adviser within Obama's administration holds by telling a conservative columnist what it's doing?

 

[Arch Enemy]

Why bother trying to pin-point this kind of crap to the President.

Didn't we learn anything from finding out the relations between the Bush Admin and Haliburton that revealing this information only leads to more and more partisan squabble. I mean, sure, the Right takes the cake when it gets to influences by large corporations, but we have to be so critical at everything Obama does because the right would feel a bit sick-to-their-stomach if their premonitions of Obama's failure doesn't come true.

 

[Hatuey]

Why bother trying to pin-point this kind of crap to the President.

Didn't we learn anything from finding out the relations between the Bush Admin and Haliburton that revealing this information only leads to more and more partisan squabble. I mean, sure, the Right takes the cake when it gets to influences by large corporations, but we have to be so critical at everything Obama does because the right would feel a bit sick-to-their-stomach if their premonitions of Obama's failure doesn't come true.

Difference is nobody ever claimed that Haliburton, the Company, told them that Cheney made it possible for them to get their contracts. Why would they? They'd gain nothing from it and lose a hell of a lot. It'd be like a thief telling his victim's neighbor he's going to rob the victim tomorrow. They'd gain absolutely nothing and yet that is exactly what this guy is claiming in his very first paragraph like some badge of honor :

Quote:
A telecommunications company has confirmed for this columnist that its vice president for policy—who is also an Obama donor and a former lobbyist—is advising Barack Obama’s transition team on telecom policy.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Difference is nobody ever claimed that Haliburton, the Company, told them that Cheney made it possible for them to get their contracts. Why would they? They'd gain nothing from it and lose a hell of a lot. It'd be like a thief telling his victim's neighbor he's going to rob the victim tomorrow. They'd gain absolutely nothing and yet that is exactly what this guy is claiming in his very first paragraph like some badge of honor :

I bet the Neo-Cons will give a badge to whomever busts open Obama the most in his first few months.

 

[jfuh]

Hahaha, I think me being called a hyper partisan republican is one of the funniest notions I've seen in ages. I'll have to pull this one out in a week when some republican on this forum claims I'm a closet liberal or something of the sort.

Yes, look at the vast majority of negative Obama threads about actual choices, decisions, and positions he's taking now...not what books are in the background of a speech. The responses from many democrats are almost identical in tenure and tone to republicans at the beginning of the Bush administration and doing exactly what I stated above. This thread has an example of it itself.

Just a wee bit oversensitive aren't we? I was never calling you a hyper partisan hack, I was saying that the article itself and accusations are the work of hyper partisan hacks. If that came off wrong on you my apologies.

 

[Zyphlin]

Just a wee bit oversensitive aren't we? I was never calling you a hyper partisan hack, I was saying that the article itself and accusations are the work of hyper partisan hacks. If that came off wrong on you my apologies.

No problem. Your comment read like you were questioning if my statement of the likely "Bush support-esque" denial and excuse making from the left had proof it was happening, not the article in question. Thus the confusion.