SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (28919)11/21/2008 3:52:08 PM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
So How Do You Define 'The Same Washington Players'?

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

Barack Obama, December 27, 2007:


<<< "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result." >>>

Vice President Biden: First elected to Washington office in 1972.

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: Worked on his first congressional campaign in 1980; first presidential campaign in 1984; moved to Washington in 1993. Worked as Clinton staffer for five years; went to the board of Freddie Mac; elected to Congress in 2002.

Expected Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton: First came to Washington in 1993. Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000.

Secretary of Homeland Security nominee Janet Napolitano: Anita Hill's attorney during the 1991 hearings; Clinton appointee to be U.S. Attorney in Arizona in 1993.

Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle: First elected to Washington office in 1978.

Attorney General nominee Eric Holder: first began working at the Department of Justice in Washington in 1976.

Boy, good thing this administration isn't full of the "same Washington players."

UPDATE: Two more:

Greg Craig, the incoming White House counsel, began his career at a Washington law firm and started his career inside the Beltway as an aide to Ted Kennedy in 1984.

Peter Orszag, the incoming head of the Office of Management and Budget, worked on Bill Clinton's National Economic Council starting in 1997 and went on to work at the Brookings Institution and the Congressional Budget Office. He is the "fresh face" among the named staffers so far in the sense that he has only been in Washington for about 11 years.

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)11/21/2008 3:59:59 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    He could hardly draw on personal friends like Ayers, 
    Khalidi, Pfleger, Rezko, and Wright.

But Why Not the Clintonites?

Victor Davis Hanson
The Corner

There is much talk about Podesta, Emanuel, Holder, Hillary and all the other Clintonites that now seem to have done pretty well despite their brand name losing the primaries. But I don't think their presence is explained by 'keep your enemies close' logic.

Instead, why the surprise that we get 1993-2000 instead of hope and change? Obama's victory was unique in a lot of ways, but none more than in his lack of a prior political career from which to draw inside advisors. There is apparently no Hamilton Jordan, Jody Powell, or Bert Lance in Chicago.

Nor is there a Reagan California kitchen cabinet, or the Arkansas Webb Hubbell /Vince Foster pack that followed the Clintons to Washington or Bush, Rove et al. from Texas.

That is, given Obama's absence of executive experience and brief tenure in the Senate, Obama never was in a position to assemble an insider team other than the Chicagoan Axlerod. So what was Obama to do when he needed savvy advisors and a brain trust he could count on from the old days to form the nucleus of his advisors and cabinet?

He could hardly draw on personal friends like Ayers, Khalidi, Pfleger, Rezko, and Wright. Other than Friends of Bill, the last Democrats to be insiders were the Carterites now in their 80s. So if a Democrat were to be elected President without much experience, and without friends or advisors he could draw upon who were qualified for office and worldly about Washington's macabre politics, who but the Clintonites were there?

This seems to be an unprecedented development entirely neglected by the media, this sudden reliance on a primary rival's team—ipso facto an illustration of Obama's thinner political resumé. It is striking really how there is simply not a dozen or so Chicago vets who worked for Obama in the past as was the case with most other Presidents. But then who knows, given the careers of a Bert Lance or Webb Hubbell or Scott McClellan perhaps the already vetted old Clinton hands will work for Obama? But then on the other hand...

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)11/21/2008 4:06:57 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The King Is Dead; Long Live the King!

Victor Davis Hanson
The Corner

One dilemma for Obama is that his campaign was especially apocalyptic about America: Bush ruined everything. But not long after his tenure begins, he 's going to have to suddenly assure Americans that things really aren't all that bad: there really is progress and quiet in Iraq; until we get universal health care, there are really many ways we are currently providing it; Gitmo has a lot of complexities that mean its instant shut-down is difficult; the problem in Afghanistan is not necessarily that we took our eye off it and so can't be remedied with simple infusions of troops, FISA and the Patriot Act had some utility; public campaign financing has some merit; we may have to hold off on the civilian security force as large as the Pentagon; coal and nuclear power, and drilling have some temporary advantages; our former lobbyists we appoint can't be demonized simply because they were once lobbyists; greenhouse gas emissions may be curbed after the recession, not during it; anti-Americanism abroad has deep roots and involves envy and resentment at least at some level.

It all reminds me of the farmers' market shopper in the 1980s who used to berate me at our stall for all the horrible things we farmers did—until one day she lamented that she and her husband had recently bought a small patch of ground of their own, and suddenly the government, the regulations, insurance, taxes, labor, even the weather were all out to get her.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)11/21/2008 4:20:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Honestly, Another Abe?

That ain’t what America is like today — and thank God for it.

By Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online

In an attempt to dial down expectations for his administration, President-elect Barack Obama’s supporters have dropped much of the “messiah” talk.

No more talk of him being The One (Oprah), or a Jedi Knight (George Lucas), or a “Lightworker” (the San Francisco Chronicle), or a “quantum leap in American consciousness” (Deepak Chopra). Instead we have more humble and circumspect conversation about the man. Now he’s merely Abraham Lincoln and FDR and Martin Luther King, combined.

It’s a step down from divine redeemer, but you have to start somewhere.

Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post, 60 Minutes and, of course, The O Network (formerly known as MSNBC) have all run wild with this stuff. Depicting Obama as FDR or Lincoln has become a staple of the self-proclaimed “objective” media.

I was on Fox News the other night to throw some cold water on this Obama-as-Lincoln stuff. Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes chastised me, asking if we shouldn’t give Obama “a chance to actually spread his wings and fly a little bit” before disparaging him.

Fine. I actually agree with that. Conservatives should not denounce Obama’s performance before he’s had a chance to, you know, perform.

But, shouldn’t we also hold off on comparing the guy to FDR and Lincoln before he’s done anything?

Obama hasn’t even taken the oath of office yet, and it’s already an unfair right-wing attack to say that Obama isn’t on par with Lincoln and FDR. What’s next? Will it be slander to say Obama’s a carbon-based life form? Will the Secret Service investigate you if you’re overheard saying you think Obama’s merely “OK”?

While such sycophancy from the national press is lamentable, at this point it’s hardly news.

What I find fascinating, however, is not so much the Obama hagiography, but the burning desire for another FDR or Lincoln that underlies it.

According to the various Obama-as-Lincoln narratives, including those from the president-elect himself, Obama is a new Lincoln because he is a “uniter.” In several of his most famous speeches, Obama insinuates that he wants to bring the country together the way Honest Abe did. Newsweek and others tout his fondness for Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals, in which Goodwin argues that Lincoln displayed his political genius by inviting adversaries into his Cabinet.

There are real problems with this model; it didn’t work too well for Lincoln. Moreover, who looks at how Lincoln staffed his Cabinet as the defining feature of his presidency? Saying Obama is the next Lincoln because the two men share staffing styles is like saying George Bush is Thomas Jefferson because they both liked chicken soup. If I wear a pointy hat, can I call myself John Paul II?

Lincoln was Lincoln because he fought and won the Civil War and freed the slaves. News flash: That ain’t what America is like today — and thank God for it.

I think Lincoln was just about the greatest president in American history, but I sure don’t want to need another Lincoln. Six hundred thousand Americans died at the hands of other Americans during Lincoln’s presidency. Lincoln unified the country at gunpoint and curtailed civil liberties in a way that makes President Bush look like an ACLU zealot. The partisan success of the GOP in the aftermath of the war Obama thinks so highly of was forged in blood.

Likewise with FDR. Listening to liberals gush over a “new New Deal” and Obama’s call for us to emulate the “Greatest Generation,” you’d think they want another Great Depression and World War.

Indeed, liberals have long idolized the 1930s as a decade of great unity. It wasn’t. The 1930s was a miserable decade of poverty, domestic unrest, labor strife, violations of civil liberties and widespread fear. If liberals really loved peace, prosperity and national cohesion, they’d remember the 1920s or 1950s more fondly. And yet they don’t. Why? Because liberals didn’t get to impose their schemes and dreams on the country in those decades. Behind all the talk of unity and bipartisanship and shared sacrifice lies an uglier ambition: power. The audacity of hope behind all this Lincoln-FDR-Obama blather is the dream of riding roughshod over the opposition, of having their way, of total victory.

The Chinese curse and cliche “may you live in interesting times” is on point. Liberals (and a few conservatives as well, alas) seem desperate to live in interesting times. Not me.

You know what I hope? I hope Obama is another Coolidge or Eisenhower. But I’m not holding my breath.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

© 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
article.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)11/21/2008 5:10:21 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Instapundit: MEET THE NEW BOSS, YADA, YADA:

Obama to delay repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. I’m guessing that this bodes poorly for a repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act, too.

UPDATE: Brian Doherty:

<<< “Still, his apparent unwillingness to be bold on something he considers a matter of both justice and wise policy–and that he has clear political support on–should be disconcerting to his fans.” >>>

And Gay Patriot is not amused.

pajamasmedia.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/10/2008 8:20:26 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Obama-Blagojevich Ties - Don't Forget Rezko

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

Boy, since a lousy Election Night, the news really has been pretty good for the GOP. The RNC is gleefully pointing out the longtime ties between Arrested and Indicted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and President-Elect Obama:


<<< Obama Advised Blagojevich On His Victorious Gubernatorial Run. “That year, [Obama] gained his first high-level experience in a statewide campaign when he advised the victorious gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, another politician with a funny name and a message of reform.” (Ryan Lizza, “Making It,” The New Yorker, 7/21/08)

* Obama: “If the governor asks me to work on his behalf, I’ll be happy to do it.” (John Patterson, “Senator Says He’s Still Willing To Help Blagojevich Despite Hiring Concerns,” Chicago Daily Herald, 7/27/06)

Obama Endorsed Blagojevich For A Second Term. “Obama, who endorsed Blagojevich for a second term nearly 18 months ago, said he’s ready to help Illinois democrats in the upcoming elections.” (John Patterson, “Senator Says He’s Still Willing To Help Blagojevich Despite Hiring Concerns,” Chicago Daily Herald, 7/27/06)

* Obama: “We’ve got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois.” (Deanna Bellandi, “Illinois Democrats Talk Unity But Don’t Show It,” The Associated Press, 8/16/06) >>>


But this is actually the mild stuff. What's really interesting is Blago's ties to the man Barack Obama bought his house with, Tony Rezko:


<<< But his strongest ties have always been with Blagojevich. Rezko's and Blagojevich's families often socialized. Rezko and the governor's wife, Patti, a real estate agent, even worked on several property deals together since 1997, earning Patti Blagojevich at least $38,000 in fees.

So when Blagojevich was elected governor in 2002, Rezko said he felt an overwhelming urge to help get a Democratic administration up and running after two decades of Republican governors.

Rezko recommended numerous candidates for Cabinet positions and state boards and commissions. And in a sign of how closely he meshed his pizza business deals with his forays into politics, a close circle of Rezko business investors and their relatives received jobs and appointments to influential state posts under Blagojevich.

Blagojevich appointed three Rezko pizza business investors to a controversial board that oversees hospital projects. (That board was replaced amid an ongoing federal kickback investigation that led to the indictment of the board's vice chairman.)

The state's business development agency, run by a former Rezko real estate firm executive, employed the daughters of two other pizza business partners, including a man who is a fugitive on federal tax charges.

And another Rezko partner got a loan for pizza franchises through a California businessman whose firm won an $83 million contract for redeveloping the restaurants at Illinois Tollway oases. The loan came after an introduction from Rezko. Blagojevich has said those who secured jobs and appointments were qualified. >>>

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/10/2008 8:27:09 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
President-Elect 'Mr. Cool' Doesn't Call For Blagojevich's Resignation

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

President-Elect Obama's statement today was strikingly muted:


<<< Well, let me start off. Obviously, like the rest of the people of Illinois, I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the U.S. attorney's office today. But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor, I don't think it will be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time...

Q Mr. President-elect, did you have any contact — were you aware of — were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: I — hold on, hold on, hold on a second, guys. I'll just answer this one question.

I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not — I was not aware of what was happening. And as I said, it's a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate to comment. Okay?

Q Thank you very much. >>>


Mr. President-Elect, this was your Senate seat he was auctioning off. He was shaking down the Chicago Tribune. He was shaking down children's hospitals, for God's sake! A little anger might be justified.

Every other figure in the state is calling for Blagojevich's resignation. I know we're all supposed to swoon at Obama's famous unflappability, but doesn't this warrant a flash of anger or two?

Why on God's green earth would it be inappropriate for Obama to comment on the governor of his state being arrested and charged with trying to sell off his Senate seat?

Who told Obama to keep his mouth shut about this? The guy was quoted on FBI wiretaps as saying, "f*** him" in reference to Obama? Why on earth is that "saddening"?

And is this a "sad day," or an outrageous day?

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/10/2008 8:29:37 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Who Lied, Obama or Axelrod?

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

Obama, today:

<<< Q Mr. President-elect, did you have any contact — were you aware of — were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: I — hold on, hold on, hold on a second, guys. I'll just answer this one question.

I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not — I was not aware of what was happening. And as I said, it's a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don't think it's appropriate to comment. Okay? >>>

Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, back on November 23: "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

Team Obama says that Axelrod "misspoke" back in November. Hmmm.

If Obama and Blagojevich talked by phone, the FBI might have an audio recording of that.

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/10/2008 9:33:28 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    Maybe it's time to take notice of the fact that Barack 
    Obama is either 1) an astonishingly poor judge of character,
    or 2) a politician who swims comfortably and successfully 
    in what must be America's most corrupt pond. This is, 
    apparently, the "change" that millions of Americans voted 
    for.

Today's Bombshell

By John
Powerline

I've been traveling and immersed in work for a while, and have just emerged to news of Governor Blagojevich's stunning downfall. The story prompts any number of questions, beginning with: how does a profane, corrupt moron become governor of one of our largest states?

Public interest will center, naturally, on the fact that it was Barack Obama's Senate seat that Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell. I don't think for a moment that Obama had anything to do with it, of course, for many reasons. Still, Obama's proximity to the scandal highlights a basic fact about his career: Obama's political career began, and was lived until very recently, in the very dirty pond of Chicago politics. It is quite remarkable that Obama has been able to emerge not only intact but ostensibly pristine from that political swamp. In part, this is because his history and associations have been too little scrutinized.

Today, Obama answered just one question, in his trademark stammer. He managed to get out these words:

<<< "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." >>>


But, as Jake Tapper points out, Obama's claim to have kept aloof from the Senate selection process was contradicted two weeks ago by his spokesman David Axelrod, who said:


<<< I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them. >>>


So already Obama has been caught in a contradiction.

Beyond that, Obama has been a loyal soldier in the Democrats' corrupt Cook County machine. Obama's first statewide campaign was as an adviser to Blagojevich. He endorsed Blagojevich for re-election and offered to campaign for him. In August 2006, the Associated Press quoted Obama saying, "We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois."

No doubt Obama would now say that the Rod Blagojevich who tried to sell his vacant Senate seat "isn't the Rod Blagojevich I knew." Maybe it's time to take notice of the fact that Barack Obama is either 1) an astonishingly poor judge of character, or 2) a politician who swims comfortably and successfully in what must be America's most corrupt pond. This is, apparently, the "change" that millions of Americans voted for.

To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/15/2008 12:15:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Famous Leaders From Illinois

By Tom McMahon on Diagram

4-blockworld.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/15/2008 2:27:53 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
HMM: More groundwork-laying for an Obama approach to terror that looks a lot like Bush’s?

By Glenn Reynolds
Instapundit


    Mr. Obama will soon face the same awful choices that 
    confronted George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and he could 
    well be forced to accept a central feature of their anti-
    terrorist methods: extraordinary rendition. If the choice 
    is between non-deniable aggressive questioning conducted by
    Americans and deniable torturous interrogations by 
    foreigners acting on behalf of the United States, it is 
    almost certain that as president Mr. Obama will choose the 
    latter.

I wouldn’t be surprised.

pajamasmedia.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/15/2008 2:49:19 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Wright's wrong, cont'd

By Scott
Powerline

It is sad but true that Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama's long-time pastor at the Trinity United Church. Obama admired his wit and wisdom, citing one of his sermons as a turning point in his life in Dreams From My Father and drawing the title of The Audacity of Hope from the same sermon. He had a long and close relationship with him until earlier this year when it became politically inconvenient.

Wright is liberal with his hatred toward America. Who can forget "God damn America," "chickens coming home to roost" and "the U.S. of KKKA"? Wright also peddled one of the stupid old canards about Pearl Harbor: "The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Government's lied."

These were among the highlights of the sermons that provided the occasion for Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech vindicating his long relationship with Wright this past March 18. Obama instructed us in the speech: "He is a man who...has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country."

Obama's speech was hailed as the greatest since the Sermon on the Mount by luminaries of the left-wing punditocracy including Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein and Garry Wills. When Wright reemerged in May to reiterate his views, Obama called a press conference to repudiate Wright and announce his withdrawal from Trinity United Church.

This past Sunday Wright returned to the pulpit of Trinity United Church in honor of its forty-seventh anniversary (video here). Wright commented on the historical significance of the date:


<<< "Today is December 7, the day that this government killed over 80000 Japanese civilians at Hiroshima in 1941, two days before giving an additional. 64000 Japanese civilians at Nagasaki by dropping nuclear bombs on innocent people." >>>


TigerHawk asks: "Why did Barack Obama spend twenty years listening to a man whose command of history is such that he thinks that December 7 commemorates the day the United States bombed Hiroshima?" As I tried to point out in "The Kennedy-Khruschchev conference for dummies," however, Obama's knowledge of history is somewhat less than expert. Maybe he didn't know any better.

We learn from Wright's sermon that in addition to hating the United States, he is an ignoramus. TigerHawk asks: "Forget the fact that the Obamas listened to this clown. The exigencies of national politics have rescued them from Wright's silliness. What about all the other people who still do?"

To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/18/2008 1:39:25 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
BARACK OBAMA

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

If the Chicago Sun-Times's Michael Sneed Is Right . . .

<<< "President-elect Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is reportedly on 21 different taped conversations by the feds — dealing with his boss' vacant Senate seat." >>>

Hmmmm.

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/18/2008 2:13:27 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Day by Day

Chris Muir

daybydaycartoon.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/18/2008 2:53:47 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
**** OUCH! ****

The Left-Side Of The Blogosphere Reacts To Barack Obama Choosing Rick Warren To Do His Inaugural Invocation

Right Wing News

rightwingnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)12/22/2008 11:59:04 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Day by Day

Chris Muir

               In Corruption & Graft
               Past the Slippery Slope.



daybydaycartoon.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/7/2009 6:39:16 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Six Quick Thoughts on Panetta at CIA

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

After a bit of mental digestion, it appears the nomination of Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency is the first major-league screw-up on the part of the Obama Administration. Five thoughts . . . .

1. Institutional memory. I’m reading Timothy Weiner’s supremely critical history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes. I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, but it is meticulously researched.

The CIA is the only government agency where the public expectation is to know everything about everything, from how many tanks Russia could put into Georgia in 24 hours to what is going on in the head of a jihadi in the mountains of Pakistan. To try to fulfill that impossible mission (no pun intended), the organization spends billions of dollars, has thousands of officers running operations around the world, handling thousands of agents in foreign governments and organizations, using everything from the most advanced satellites and eavesdropping technology to horses to run around the peaks of Afghanistan. It is, in effect, the biggest and most complicated information-gathering system ever assembled.

And Leon Panetta steps into the top job knowing very little about any of that. He has, presumably, not seen the organization's "product" in at least eight years, and quite possibly not in the past twelve years (he departed as White House chief of staff in 1997).

Panetta is a smart guy, and he’s worked in some tough jobs before. But he’s starting with a knowledge base of specific CIA operations and analysis that is next to zero. The learning curve is going to be supremely steep.

2. Briefings. One of the reasons George W. Bush and George Tenet managed to have a good working relationship was that Tenet often joined the President for his morning briefing, and answered questions personally.

How long do you think it will take Panetta to get up to speed on the hundreds of different issues in intelligence, national security, and foreign policy that the PDB will include? Six months? A year? Two years? By the time Panetta finds his sea legs, he'll probably be ready to leave. This is because of . . .


3. Burnout. Director of CIA is a job with a supremely high burnout rate: Of the 20 CIA directors in the organization’s history, seven lasted only a year or so: Porter Goss, John Deutch, George H.W. Bush, James R. Schlesinger, William Raborn, Hoyt Vandenberg and Sidney Souers. James Woolsey lasted two years, as did Robert Gates, Walter Bedell Smith, and William E. Colby (roughly). It may be the hardest job in Washington next to the president. I hope Mrs. Panetta isn't expecting to spend much time with her husband in the coming years. The exhausting nature of the job raises the question of . . .


4. Age. The country spent much of the past two years deriding the idea of a 72-year-old serving as president. But a 70-year-old in this job — with the 4 a.m. wake up calls after the 3 a.m. phone calls — is fine, apparently.


5. Preparation. Panetta was on nobody’s short list, or long list, when possible names were thrown around in recent months. The Obama team had to know that he would be their most surprising pick, even beyond Hillary Clinton at the State Department, and they didn’t feel out the views of the leaders of the relevant congressional committees?

And finally . . .


6. Consequences. Say what you will about Tenet, and about 9/11 and the botched Iraq WMD intelligence occurring on his watch, but the response to 9/11 also occurred on his watch, and he and the organziation deserve at least some credit for the lack of attacks on American soil from 9/11 to 2004. Goss rubbed many in the organization the wrong way, but again, he presided during a year of no attacks. Current director Gen. Michael Hayden is generally well-regarded inside and outside the Agency, and indeed, no attacks (knocking on wood).

If there is a terror attack on American soil during Panetta's watch, it will set off a firestorm of criticism that will make the 9/11 Commission hearings look like a tea party.

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/7/2009 6:54:21 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Did Obama Seriously Vet Richardson?

Byron York
The Corner

From the Washington Post this morning:

<<< Sources within the transition and the Justice Department said that Richardson had played down the importance of the probe and did not reveal that his office and staff could be at risk. The seriousness of the matter became apparent after the FBI began its own background check on Dec. 2. >>>

The news in this is the Post's report that the FBI background check began on December 2. Why is that news? Because Barack Obama formally announced the Richardson nomination, with Richardson standing at his side, on December 3. Now perhaps the Post has it wrong. But if the December 2 date is correct, did Team Obama really give Richardson a full vetting? I seem to remember criticism of the McCain campaign for an allegedly rushed and incomplete vetting…

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/7/2009 7:10:43 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Krauthammer's Take

NRO Staff
The Corner

From "All Stars" last night.

On Panetta:

<<< Look, this is somewhere between surprising and shocking. Choosing someone with no experience in intelligence to head CIA at a time of two wars, what we saw in India just a few weeks ago, bad guys out there trying to do collect weapons of mass destruction.

The reason this happened is because Obama has caved to his left. The left will not accept anybody who served in any way in the last eight years under the Bush administration because of the enhanced interrogation, the secret prison programs, and the eavesdropping programs.

That's why, for example, Jane Harmon, who is head of the House Intelligence Committee, who would be an excellent CIA director and the first woman, was nixed because she early on had approved of the listening in on terrorists abroad.

So he chose a novice. I think it's a mistake. I think he's going to get a lot of heat in the end. He'll pass because Panetta is known and liked. But you got a rookie as a president, a novice as head of the CIA in a time of war—not a good idea. >>>



On tax cuts as part of Obama's stimulus:

<<< I think it was a very smart political stroke. Look, Bernanke, the head of the Fed, once said the way to cure recessions is to drop dollars out of a helicopter. Attacking our recession can be done with spending or tax cuts, either way.

Democrats like both. The Republicans only like cuts. So by having a large percentage of this package, about a third of it or more, being in cuts, this is the way Obama is drawing in the Republicans.

Why is that important? It isn't just that it creates an atmosphere of comity at the beginning, it's because it's going to be a long recovery. It's going to be slow. And the last index of recovery is unemployment. It could be at 10 percent in two years at the midterm election.

If you started entirely with Democratic votes, it means the Democrats will be blamed and attacked and could have a massacre in that election.

If he brings in the Republicans as he has, he is ecumenical, he brings them in, he protects himself in two years in what is going to be a very slow recovery. >>>

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/8/2009 1:41:08 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Political Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily

ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/8/2009 1:43:14 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Political Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily


ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/8/2009 2:45:33 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Dennis Ross and diplomacy-derangement syndrome

By Paul
Power Lone

Marc Ambinder reports that Barack Obama will make Dennis Ross his "chief emissary" to Iran. This strikes me as bad, though hardly surprising, news.

Ross' presents himself as reasonable and moderate in his writings and television appearances. But in social settings, when the cameras are off, he can come across quite differently. In such a setting, I heard him say of Hurricane Katrina that people already think we don't care about the rest of the world and now it turns out that we don't care about our own people either. This kind of vicious, stupid remark is the stuff of left-wing bloggers, not U.S. "emissaries."

But my main objection to Ross isn't Bush-derangement syndrome, but rather diplomacy-derangement syndrome. By this I mean boundless faith in diplomacy which, when possessed by a diplomat, probably reflects boundless faith in himself.

For roughly a decade, Ross persisted against all the evidence in believing that Yasser Arafat was a "peace partner" with whom Israel and the U.S. should negotiate and to whom Israel should make concessions. If Ross could believe this, the odds aren't terribly long that he believes, or will come to believe, that negotiations with, and concessions to, Ahmadinejad (as evil as Arafat and even more dangerous) and the Iranian regime are just what the doctor ordered.

At that point, for diplomats with diplomacy-derangement syndrome, "getting to yes" can easily become an imperative, without serious regard to the cost of getting there or what (if any) the actual benefits of "yes" may be. The resulting mischief is likely to be great, as was the case for Israel the last time Ross was an "emissary."

To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/9/2009 7:08:08 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Re: The New Deal

Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

I have a piece in the next issue about the hysterical reaction to any suggestion that the New Deal might have prolonged the Great Depression. But if I might add to Jim Powell's point: Another bit of hype about the New Deal is that it was about helping the little guy, the forgotten man, and all that. Whereas Republicans want to reward their cronies in Big Business, liberals, as loyal followers of FDR, are all about putting the people before the powerful. Why Republicans even allow lobbyists to influence legislation! FDR would never do anything like that. Well. From my book (which came out 1 year ago today, by the way):

<<< The propaganda of the New Deal—“malefactors of great wealth” and all that—to the contrary, FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated (as they had been begging to do in many cases). The National Recovery Administration, or NRA, was even more aggressive in forcing industries to fix prices and in other ways collude with one another. The NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering roughly 95 percent of all industrial workers.

It was not only inevitable but intended for big business to get bigger and the little guy to get screwed. For example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes in such a way that independents were nearly run out of business, even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theaters in America were independently owned. In business after business, the little guy was crushed or at least severely disadvantaged in the name of “efficiency” and “progress.” The codes for industries dealing in cotton, wool, carpet, and sugar were — “down to the last comma”—simply the trade association agreements from the Hoover administration. And in almost every case big business came out the winner. In “virtually all the codes we have examined,” reported Clarence Darrow in his final report investigating Hugh Johnson’s NRA, “one condition has been persistent . . . In Industry after Industry, the larger units, sometimes through the agency of . . . [a trade association], sometimes by other means, have for their own advantage written the codes, and then, in effect and for their own advantage, assumed the administration of the code they have framed.” We may believe that FDR fashioned the New Deal out of concern for the “forgotten man.” But as one historian put it, “The principle . . . seemed to be: to him that hath it shall be given.” >>>

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/9/2009 8:22:47 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Obama Plans $200B Boost to Consumer Confidence

Satire from ScrappleFace
By Scott Ott on U.S. News

(2009-01-08) — With U.S. consumer confidence near historic lows, President-elect Barack Obama today plans to announce an increase in his $800 billion economic stimulus package, adding another $200 billion to pay for confidence-building classes for all Americans.

“Like most economic problems, the real challenge is mental,” Mr. Obama will reportedly say during an address at George Mason University. “But the only thing we have in which to lack confidence is lack of confidence itself.”

Across the nation, the Obama administration will set up “attitude boot camps” to teach people how to ignore facts and “place their hope in change that we can believe in.”

The program is based on the successful strategy employed by the Obama for America presidential campaign, which combined professional stagecraft, appearances by celebrities, free concerts by pop stars and soaring rhetoric, to persuade a majority of voters that they could place confidence in a rookie senator to serve as commander in chief.

“For those of you who have been to leadership and team-building seminars,” he said, “think of this $200 billion as an investment in one huge national trust fall.”

scrappleface.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/14/2009 9:26:59 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
When I Said It Would Take a While, I Meant I Would Start Immediately

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

Yesterday Barack Obama pledged to take action on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp on his first full day in office, shortly after saying that closing it would be "more difficult than I think a lot of people realize" and that the prison was not likely to be closed in his first 100 days.

Reaction from Campaign Spot reader Steve:

<<< "Man, even his expiration dates come with expiration dates." >>>

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/14/2009 9:31:47 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
I Intend to Win This War . . . After I've Reappraised the Meaning of the Word 'Win'

The Campaign Spot
Jim Geraghty Reporting

Obama on the campaign trail: Afghanistan is a war that we have to win.

Obama once in office: Afghanistan is a war that we have to reappraise.


Then:


<<< “Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq,” Obama said. “I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.” >>>

Now:


<<< President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.

Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror.". . .

Obama has offered few public comments on Afghanistan since the election. "We haven't seen the kinds of infrastructure improvements; we haven't seen the security improvements; we haven't seen the reduction in narco-trafficking; we haven't seen a reliance on rule of law in Afghanistan that would make people feel confident that the central government can, in fact, deliver on its promises," he said last month on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We've got to ramp up our development approach," he said, without providing details.

The president-elect set out a "very limited" objective of ensuring that Afghanistan "cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States." He cited the need for "more effective military action" — even as he warned of fierce Afghan resistance to the presence of foreign troops — and said the "number one goal" is to stop al-Qaeda. >>>

campaignspot.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/14/2009 9:50:54 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Gitmo Gone

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: On Jan. 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan welcomed the return of American hostages in victory. On Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama will welcome the closing of Guantanamo in appeasement. Yes, change has come.


For anti-war liberals, closing the prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo has long been a cause celebre, one the president-elect warmly embraced.

On ABC's "This Week," he gave supporters pause when he suggested actually closing the facility within his first 100 days would be a "challenge." At least one Obama transition team adviser reassured them on Monday not to worry.

An executive order to close the camp could be issued as early as Inauguration Day. The pathway to trials in American courts with American lawyers and American rights would be set for those jihadists captured on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.

One of the problems is exactly where to relocate the remaining 248 prisoners. Few places are standing in line for the privilege. Maybe ACORN could use a few more volunteers.

This moment stands in stark contrast to the day in 1981 when President Reagan took the oath of office as American hostages were winging their way back to freedom after 444 days of captivity in a Tehran prison. The mullahs set them free rather than deal with a resolute new commander in chief, and in the knowledge they wouldn't have Jimmy Carter to kick around anymore.

Now it is we who are capitulating. Last May, the Defense Department said at least 36 former Guantanamo detainees are "confirmed or suspected" of having returned to the battlefield. If Obama orders a shift out of Gitmo, you can be sure more terrorists will return to the front.

Among those previously released are Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, who was first detained in Afghanistan and spent three years at Gitmo before being released in 2005. Al-Ajmi returned to Kuwait and last May went to Iraq to become a suicide bomber. He was successful in his new line of work.

Abdullah Mehsud spent 25 months at Gitmo until his release from such inhuman bondage in March 2004. While out on his own recognizance, he returned to his native South Waziristan where he rebuilt and led a Taliban cadre estimated at 5,000 foot soldiers conducting cross-border raids from Pakistan.

Guantanamo is home to some of the world's most dangerous Islamists: Chechen jihadists, Afghan mujahedeen and Taliban fighters, and al-Qaida terrorists from across the Middle East and North Africa. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, architect of the USS Cole bombing in 2000, are among the 14 "high value" detainees.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Gitmo detainees have not been held without some form of adjudication. All have undergone two levels of review, one to determine their status as enemy combatants, the other an annual review to determine their fitness for release. Obviously this part is not an exact science.

Guantanamo and the incarceration and interrogation of its inhabitants have saved thousands of American lives and untold tragedy. While it has existed, America's enemies have had a harder time plying their trade.

In his first post-election interview with "60 Minutes" last Nov. 16, Obama said: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I've said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture.

"Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."

We are more concerned with guaranteeing America's survival.

ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/14/2009 9:52:38 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Political Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily

ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/14/2009 10:01:23 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Skeptical of Obama's Stimulus Plan

Consensus, or dangerous groupthink?

By Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online

Barack Obama has a curious definition of “non-ideological.” He’s insisting on bipartisan support for a stimulus package that will cost more than anything Uncle Sam has ever bought, save perhaps for victory over the Axis powers. He says he wants “to put good ideas ahead of the old ideological battles” and doesn’t care whether they come from Republicans or Democrats. But he also says that “only government” can pull us out of this crisis.

It’s like Henry Ford’s line that you could buy any color car you wanted, as long as you wanted black. Obama is interested in any idea, as long as its peddler starts from the same “non-ideological” assumption that government experts know best.

In fairness to Obama, there is a huge consensus around the notion that government must do, well, something — something big. Conservative economists such as Harvard’s Martin Feldstein support a stimulus package. Heck, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell passes for a fiscal conservative these days because he opposes any bill of more than $1 trillion.

It’s the consensus that scares me. Chin-stroking moderates and passionate centrists often glorify consensus to the point where they sound like it’s better to be wrong in a group than to be right alone — an example of ideological dogmatism as bad as any.

Obviously, consensus can be good. But it also can lead to dangerous groupthink. Everyone knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Everyone at 60 Minutes knew those memos about George W. Bush and the Texas Air National Guard had to be right. Everyone knows everything is right, until everything goes wrong. If that’s not one of the great lessons of the financial collapse of 2008, I don’t know what is.

Last fall, the smartocracy said the Treasury Department had to be given $700 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program because the government had to buy all that bad paper right away. Since then, Treasury has bought no toxic assets, done nothing to help with foreclosures and, a congressional report released Friday revealed, can’t adequately explain what it did with the first $350 billion.

The current climate reminds former Freddie Mac economist Arnold Kling of the battle of the Somme in World War I (a war everyone knew would be over in six months). “Having experienced nothing but failure using offensive tactics up to that point, the Allies decided that what they needed to try was ... a really big offensive,” Kling writes. “My guess is that in 1916, anyone who doubted his own ability to direct an enormous offensive involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers would never have made it to general. Similarly, today, anyone who doubts the ability of a handful of technocrats to sensibly allocate $800 billion would never make it into government or the mainstream media.”

That might overstate it a bit, because some naysayers can be heard. Economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute notes that whatever the benefits of the proposed stimulus, they probably don’t outweigh the enormous costs of the debt we would incur. As a result of the stimulus, the deficit this year would equal the total cost of the federal government in 2000. That’s on top of $7.76 trillion in bailouts pledged by the government, according to Bloomberg.com.

The real reason the stimulus package will be gigantic is not that the smartest people with the best ideas say it needs to be. It’s that Obama’s real priority is to get the bill out as quickly as possible, which means every constituency gets something, including Republicans. Indeed, Republicans are a priority because if he can bribe them into supporting the bill, that might prevent them from campaigning against it in 2010 if it proves ineffective or counterproductive. Hence Obama’s proposed billions in tax breaks for corporate welfare addicts and the lobbyists who love them. Democrats are justly skeptical about a tax break for a company that decides not to lay off its workers.

The GOP is right to question this “shovel-ready” infrastructure “investment.” From World War II to the early 1990s, according to economist Bruce Bartlett, not a single stimulus bill succeeded at moderating the recession it was aimed at, while many bills helped invite the next recession. Bartlett supports a stimulus in theory (as do I); he merely notes that the political process tends to be just that — a political process — and it produces political results.

The best stimulus might be to trim — or temporarily eliminate — the payroll tax. That would put money in the hands of the people who need it — and know best how to spend it. But that would be “too ideological” because it rejects the assumption that government knows best, and it would reward taxpayers, not politicians.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

article.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/15/2009 12:13:23 PM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Welcome to the White House, Mr. Obama

The honeymoon doesn't last long.

By KARL ROVE
The Wall Street Journal [Opinion]

On Tuesday, America can take pride in a special transfer of power as Barack Obama becomes the first African-American to be sworn in as president.

Shortly after the ceremony, the new president's aides will slip away to inspect the offices they now inhabit. They've put much of their lives on hold to take jobs that will last, for most, two or three years. Hours will be long, pressure unrelenting, decisions momentous, and families often neglected. Every American should respect their sacrifices.

What these aides will soon realize is that they aren't history, but passing through it. I learned that from an elderly man who told me "to honor the house" as he emptied my trash bin late my first day at work.

That is what an administration owes the country. But it is not all it owes. There is also the matter of governing. Team Obama is about to learn that it's easier to campaign than to govern.
In fact, they are already learning it. Last February, Congress passed a stimulus bill, adding $152 billion to the deficit. Mr. Obama called it "deficit spending" and criticized the "disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting" in Washington. Now he forecasts trillion dollar deficits on his watch. Mr. Obama, the candidate, criticized the "careless and incompetent execution" of the Iraq war. But as president-elect, he decided to retain George W. Bush's defense secretary and put a Bush adviser in charge of the National Security Council.

More significantly, Team Obama is stumbling on its biggest priority -- an economic stimulus package. One stutter step came when Mr. Obama said he looked forward to signing a stimulus bill on Jan. 20 and then failed to lay out a proposal by mid-December so Congress could chew it over. That led House Appropriations Chairman David Obey to carp that "We've got to have some signals called by Obama . . . it's hard to negotiate" when Team Obama "hasn't decided what they want."

Mr. Obama also tripped himself up by sending advisers to Capitol Hill on Dec. 18 to say that he wanted a stimulus bill to cost between $670 billion and $770 billion, but that he would accept $850 billion. This invited Congress to roll him and spend more. Now he may see not only his number shredded but the elements of his package as well.

Mr. Obama can recover. But he has to avoid losing his footing again by allowing Congress to enact its wish list instead of policies that will help the economy. He seems to be mistaking what may be good ideas for economic stimulants. Ensuring "that within five years, all of America's medical records are computerized" is a fine idea, but the Bush administration already set that goal and developed standards and structure to make it happen. Mr. Obama will claim credit for it but it won't quickly create jobs.

And then there's Medicaid. Mr. Obama wants to give about $100 billion to help states expand the program. This will add $100 billion or more a year to the baseline of an entitlement everyone admits is out of control.

Many Obama proposals are spending marketed as stimulus. Much of his "middle-class tax cut" goes to people who have no federal income tax liability. It's really a $500 per worker annual tax credit. Is $20 a week ($40 for couples) in welfare stimulative?

Top Obama adviser David Axelrod's polling and focus groups may suggest that calling new spending "investment" instead of "infrastructure" wins support. But in the end, spending money on the same old junk will do little for the economy.

Obama is riding high and setting lofty expectations as well. This is evident in the ever increasing number of jobs he promises to save or create. On Nov. 22, it was 2.5 million. On Dec. 20, it was three million. Then it was 3.675 million. And finally this past weekend it was 4.1 million. Mr. Obama may be counting on the fact that it will be impossible to verify how many jobs he really "saved." But the claims seem unrealistic anyway.

Take the "green jobs" he promises. There are 6,856 people who work for companies that make solar cells in America and 2,150 people who work for the biggest wind equipment maker. Mr. Obama says he'll create 459,000 new "green energy" jobs like those. Can he really do that? A lot of people will be keeping score.

Mr. Obama says 244,000 of his new jobs will be in government. Will these new government employees disappear when the economy recovers? Or is Mr. Obama pushing the largest expansion of government since LBJ's Great Society?

For all the pride America can have next Tuesday, these issues are real and not going away. The inauguration is a moment of constitutional significance and important symbolism. Team Obama should enjoy it. As I can attest personally, it won't last long. By the next day, the realities of governing will intrude.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

online.wsj.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/30/2009 2:09:04 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Only 12 Cents of Every Dollar Is For Something That Could Plausibly Be Called a Growth Stimulus

Andy McCarthy
The Corner

So say the editors of the Wall Street Journal in their analysis of this mother of all boondoggles. And note that (a) the editors are, as they make clear, being generous in denominating about $90B of the $825B as potential stimulus; (b) they do not address the interest on the borrowing, which (though Democrats don't talk about this) will add another $300B or so to the final tally—making it closer to $1.2TRILLION; and (c) they do make the much missed point that even more perilous (if such a thing is conceivable) than the apparent cost of the bill is the likelihood that "this spending bonanza will become part of the annual 'budget baseline' that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future."

So to repeat, a commitment of untold trillions of taxpayer dollars dedicated to left-wing social engineering that taxpayers themselves would never in a trillion years agree to pay for, guaranteeing generations of crushing debt and an inevitably declining quality of life, all to achieve a comparatively miniscule $90B of stimulus ... most of which will not actually be spent during the current downturn.

If Republicans can't take that ball and run with it, I don't know what to say about them.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/30/2009 2:36:03 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Tsk, Tsk

Andrew Stuttaford
The Corner

'Climate change' moralists are always talking about the need to take responsibility/set an example in the face of the imminent planetary apocalypse. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I read this:

<<< WASHINGTON — The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat. “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there. >>>

Thermostat down, coat on, Mr. President: the planet's in peril (or so you tell us).

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)1/30/2009 3:07:33 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Time To Beam Back To Earth, Mr. President

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Last week, the United States got lucky again and took out several suspected terrorists by Predator drone attacks over Pakistan.

Anti-war critics before Jan. 20 used to decry "collateral damage" from such controversial strikes. But there was a weird silence here about the Obama administration's successful first attack — despite the usual complaints from abroad that several civilians had perished.

The president just announced, to great applause, that he wanted to close Guantanamo right away — sort of. But meantime, he rightly worried over the immediate consequences. So instead, in circumspect fashion, he appointed a "task force" to prepare for such closure within a year.

We forget that a less politically adept George W. Bush years ago conceded that he likewise wanted Guantanamo closed at some future date. But the media then, unlike now, largely ridiculed such pedestrian worries over what to do with unlawful wartime combatants who would either have to be released or tried as criminals in U.S. courts.

Upon entering the presidency, a saintly Obama announced to great fanfare that he would once and for all stop revolving-door lobbyists and end shady business as usual in Washington. But during the transition and the first two weeks of governance, Obama's team has already experienced a number of ethical problems of the sort that often plague incoming administrations.

Obama's first commerce secretary nominee, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, has been under federal investigation and withdrew from consideration. Attorney General-designate Eric Holder, as Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, helped pardon a fugitive on the FBI's most wanted list who was a big Clinton campaign donor.

Timothy Geithner, just confirmed as secretary of the Treasury, cannot adequately explain why he didn't pay thousands of dollars in Social Security and Medicare taxes and took illegal tax deductions. Obama's staff has already waived its new ethics rules for ex-Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn, nominated for deputy defense secretary.

Such embarrassments sometime happen in politics — but to humans, not gods — and they often create media firestorms, not a mere flicker or two.

Throughout the campaign and after the inauguration, Obama also talked grandly of bipartisanship. The fact that he once had the most partisan record in the U.S. Senate, played tough Chicago-style politics to win elections and toed a strict liberal line in the Illinois legislature caused few in the media to wonder about such promises.

Yet despite aspiring to be an Olympian president, Obama just warned Republicans not to listen to earthy Rush Limbaugh. In words more like those of George Bush than of Mahatma Gandhi, Obama privately rubbed it in with "I won."

Despite the near-evangelical sermons, Obama, like most savvy presidents, assumes bipartisanship is the art of persuading, and coercing, the opposition into following his polices. Bush likewise called for an end to acrimony while he pushed his agenda. The difference is that media mocked the "divider" Bush's clumsy talk of bipartisanship but is still hypnotized by the "uniter" Obama.

Why is Obama's grand talk already at odds with his actions? For one reason, he is unduly empowered by media that too often root for him rather than report critically about his actions. Second, in the last two years, Obama and his supporters advanced two general gospels that are coming back to haunt him:

First, that George W. Bush was a terrible president, and that his toxic policies had done irreparable damage to the United States. Second, and in contrast, that Obama was an entirely novel candidate with fresh hope-and-change ideas that would bring a renaissance to the U.S. and the world.

Bush's Texas twang and tongue-tied expressions strengthened the first supposition. Obama's youth, charm and multiracial background enhanced the second.

But we are already seeing that that simplistic polarity was infantile — even if the enthralled media desperately wanted to believe in the mythology.

In truth, Bush, after the left-wing hysteria over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, governed mostly as a traditional conservative rather than a reactionary extremist. Meanwhile, candidate Obama predictably embraced old-style and well-known liberal orthodoxy.

As a result, Obama is discovering many of those easy Bush-blew-it issues of the campaign really involved only bad and worse choices of governance. Most solutions now call for realism instead of doctrinaire left-wing bromides and catchy speechmaking.

Obama should decide quickly whether to beam back down to earth. If he doesn't, at some point even a sympathetic media won't be able to warn him that his all-too-human actions are beginning to make a mockery of his all-too-holy sermons.

© 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 3:13:58 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
An Elephant Never Forgets

By Matthias Reynold
American Thinker 

    If you let someone lie long and loudly and long enough 
    without opposition, people will regard it as reality.
The past two weeks have featured at least three violations of President Obama's promise to limit the influence of lobbyists within the executive branch. Despite all this, Robert Gibbs maintains that "The policy we have is the strongest that any administration in the history of our country has had." Putting aside Gibb's obvious nonsense, you might be left wondering how an administration so unparalleled in "brain power" (to quote George Stephanopoulos) could act so unwisely. I believe the answer is simple, they think that people will forget. They are counting on the short memory of the American voter. Sound cynical? Maybe, but some of us are not so quick to forget. Some will remember. I will remember.

It is not the only thing I will remember either. I will remember Speaker Pelosi's idea of immediate stimulus being a decrease in human population, evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars she supported including in the stimulus for family planning services. I will remember all the other wasteful spending and pork that has no place in an immediate stimulus plan, such as the $200 million for sod on the National Mall, $44 million for a facelift to the exterior of the Department of Agriculture, and the $5.2 billion headed for the Community Development Block Grants, a chief financier of ACORN. I will remember and be thankful that as of this moment, no Republican has voted for the package and that a similar scenario is likely in the Senate.

I will not forget the reckless steps President Obama has taken with regard to the War on Terror. I will remember his executive orders to defang the war on terror by closing Gitmo and CIA Black Sites. And I will not forget his appointment of Leon Panetta to the CIA, a man who has no experience in the intelligence field and whose only qualification seems to be his opinion on what does and does not constitute torture.

I will also remember what the President thinks of me. I will remember what he said in San Francisco about rural voters when he believed his comments were being made in private. I will remember being lectured about the importance of understanding Jeremiah Wright's comments in context and Obama's twenty year relationship with a racist that no white man could ever have and retain public office.

And while it's now considered an anachronism to be aware of the threat of radical Islam, I will remember that it still exists. I will remember 9/11. I will remember the leadership of former President Bush and his justified and necessary invasion of Iraq. I will remember how the far left treated our former president and their mindless comparisons of him to fascist dictators. I will remember what they would like me to forget.

If the GOP wants to recover, it will need to remember as well. It must explain why the stimulus will result in failure and bloated government. The GOP must understand that it is a broad tent and despite what the Peggy Noonans and the Georgetown cocktail party crowd say, the full strength of the conservative spectrum will be required to face the juggernaut the Democrats have created. They must remember the folly of putting forward candidates that are pro-amnesty, pro-bailout, and anti-free market. They must realize that they still live in a center-right nation, a nation that still largely sees the government as the problem and not the answer.

Republicans must remember and learn from a key mistake of the Bush administration. Too often Bush was content with letting history be his final judge. Ultimately, this is the case with many presidents, but it was not wise to merely leave it at that when full throated and compelling policy defense could and should have been made to the American people. Letting the opposition define him is what led to his abysmal approval rating. If you let someone lie long and loudly and long enough without opposition, people will regard it as reality.

Republicans must remember to do what they can to control and shape the perception of what is happening. If President Obama and his cohorts continue with their reckless appointments, dangerous executive orders and out of control spending Republicans may just remember who they are and what they stand for. I know I do.

Matthias Reynolds blogs at AmericaAdNauseam.blogspot.com and can by reached at Matthiasreynolds@verizon.net.
americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 3:37:59 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Why do we need a tax cheat as head of the HHS?

Betsy's Page

Sure, maybe we needed Geithner at Treasury. Some well-respected people thought he was the perfect nominee and, in a time of crisis, the president needed to have the man he wanted at Treasury. But Tom Daschle? How unique are his skills? As Yuval Levin puts it,

<<< He is the co-author of a book about health care, and has certainly taken an intense interest in the subject over the last few years, but he was never thought of as a particular health care expert as a legislator, his background and professional experience do not otherwise distinguish him in this area from dozens of people we could think of, and he has never run anything in his life (HHS employs more than 60,000 people and in a normal year spends about a quarter of the federal budget). That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be Secretary of HHS—he’s as qualified as many cabinet appointees are when they’re chosen—but it means he is not somehow uniquely qualified in a way that should override other concerns about his suitability. >>>


And, it turns out, he has even more tax problems than originally thought.


<<< The report indicates that Daschle's failure to pay more than $101,000 taxes on the car and driver a wealthy friend let him use from 2005 through 2007 is not the only tax issue the former Senate Majority Leader has been dealing with since his December nomination prompted a more thorough examination of his income tax returns.

Mr. Daschle also didn't report $83,333 in consulting income in 2007.

The Senate Finance Committee Report also notes that during the vetting process, President Obama's Transition Team "identified certain donations that did not qualify as charitable deductions because they were not paid to qualifying organizations. Daschle adjusted his contribution deductions on his amended returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 to remove these amounts and add additional contributions." This adjustment meant a reduction in the amount he contributed to charitable foundations of $14,963 from 2005 through 2007.

With the unreported income from the use of a car service in the amounts of $73,031 in 2005, $89,129 in 2006 and $93,096 in 2007; the unreported consulting income of $83,333 in 2007; and the adjusted reductions in charitable contributions, Daschle adds a total of $353,552 in additional income and reduced donations, meaning an additional tax payment of $128,203, in addition to $11,964 in interest.

On January 2 of this year, Daschle filed amended tax returns to pay the $140,167 in unpaid taxes.

The Finance Committee staff still is reviewing whether travel and entertainment services provided Tom and Linda Daschle by EduCap, Inc., Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation, Academy Achievement, and Loan to Learn should be reported as income. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Daschle made use of the jet belonging to EduCap, a non-profit student loan organization. >>>

Remember, this is a former Senate Majority Leader. How does he just forget to pay taxes on over $80,000 in consulting income? Not quite a member of the hoi polloi, is he when what is many people's yearly income just slips his mind at tax time.

And the whole story of his suddenly realizing that, "hey, maybe I should have paid taxes on that free car and driver" in June last year is quite fishy. As Ed Whelan points out, this is right at the time that Obama clinched the nomination and that Daschle started talking publicly about how he'd like to be Secretary of HHS. What a nice coinky-dink of a coincidence for Mr. Daschle's sudden stroke of conscience concerning his taxes on that free car and driver!

Do the Democrats really want to be known as the party of tax cheats? That is what they will be if they close ranks to push Daschle's nomination through. And President Obama is the one who, knowing both Geithner and Daschle's problems paying taxes, cynically nominated them anyway or allowed their nominations to go forward in the hubris that such mundane concerns just don't matter for anyone that he cared to extend favor towards. And I'd be interested in seeing a timeline of when this information was made known to the Finance Committee. Was it after Geithner got approved? I just wonder if the Obama administration didn't make sure to get Geithner through before revealing that they had another nominee with tax problems. I would have guessed that, if Republicans on the Finance Committee had known that there was another nomination coming down the pike with a similar question, one of them would have raised the issue or leaked it to the press during the debate over Geithner. Now the press is out there to absolve Obama of knowing about Daschle's problems before the nomination but he still went ahead and continued the nomination instead of sending Daschle over to Bill Richardson-land.

Scrappleface has the best defense of the Obama administration.


<<< In office less than two weeks, President Barack Obama has already increased tax receipts at the U.S. Treasury with an innovative plan to get tax-dodgers to pay up, in full, immediately.

“The president’s plan is simple but ingenious,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, “He targets wealthy individuals who filed inaccurate tax forms, cheating the government out of tens of thousands of dollars. Then he just nominates them for cabinet positions. They suddenly see the error of their ways, and they cut checks for the full amount owed, plus interest.”

In the month of January alone, Mr. Obama has forced Timothy Geithner, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to cough up $43,000 he owed the IRS, and former Sen. Tom Daschle to pay off his $128,000 tax obligation. Mr. Geithner will put his tax-paying experience to good use, overseeing the IRS as Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Daschle hopes his recently-good behavior will garner Senate confirmation as the next Secretary of the Health and Human Services.

“With the IRS underfunded as it is,” said Mr. Gibbs, “this collection method is much more efficient than dispatching field agents. Arresting these men, or compelling them to pay penalties would take years, and make them feel bad about themselves. The president’s method not only gets more money to the government to help our economy, but provides a self-esteem boost by giving these wealthy men important-sounding titles.”

The Obama administration will reportedly expand the program by creating hundreds, perhaps thousands, of additional cabinet posts, available to any rich person willing to “fess up and settle up” with the IRS. >>>

betsyspage.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 4:10:46 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
When Idolatry Becomes Narcissism -- Or Vice Versa

By Jonah Goldberg

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 4:26:53 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A Time of War?

Victor Davis Hanson
The Corner

That was a very odd Frank Rich column.

nytimes.com

He argued that our current economic distress is the moral equivalent of war and requires a patriotic unity behind economic commander-in-chief President Obama. Thus, the Republican opposition to the stimulus is moral bankruptcy, or worse.

Does anyone remember "The war is lost" from Harry Reid, or Senator Clinton's "suspension of disbelief" about General Petraeus's account of the surge (cf. the moveon.org ad, General Betray Us), or Guantanamo's guards compared to Nazis and Pol Pot by Senator Durbin (and cf. the Kerry quote about our troops)? The war in Iraq was won despite the opposition in congress and in the media—note that the current elections seem to have had less security attention in Baghdad than our president's recent inauguration in D.C.. Not voting to print $1 trillion dollars in new money, and take on trillions more in new debt is not quite the same as declaring that U.S. soldiers under fire in the field or on duty were doomed to failure or conducting themselves in a manner similar to history's worst monsters.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 4:32:54 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Heh! Heh! The rose is coming off the bloom of "Hope" & "Change".

*****

Rezkozation

Victor Davis Hanson
The Corner

Tom Daschle is a three-fer:

a) he makes a mockery of a new administration pledge to free itself from lobbyists since he and his wife are, well, power lobbyists incarnate.

b) he makes a mockery of past Democratic praise of taxes as patriotic given his own tax cheating and his own former invective about those who do what he did;

c) he makes a mockery of the old Democratic populist creed.

Like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, he rails about corporate greed and Wall Street perks while he too is deep at the trough. If an administration is going to make a moral case against the pernicious role of D.C. lobbyists and insiders, for the moral need for taxes on the upper incomes, and for suspicion of perks and freebies—then why pick Daschle, whose free limo and tax evasion make all that look ridiculous? (But then why pick Geithner, or Richardson, or Lynn, or . . . ?)

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 4:42:44 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Fiscal Responsibility

David Freddoso
The Corner

Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly, on why eleven Democrat House members voted against the stimulus:


<<< The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district . . . Many of the districts are more conservative, and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that. >>>

Surely he did not mean to imply that the stimulus bill was fiscally irresponsible.



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 4:51:46 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Obama's Cool Clothes

Michael Ledeen
The Corner

He lectured us about "virtue" in his Inaugural Address, and he was quite right to do it. But ever since, he has thrown virtue under the campaign bus—an attorney general who lied under oath, tax cheats at Treasury and HHS, and now (h/t Instapundit), despite all the pious talk about putting an end to torture, he seems to be retaining what is arguably the worst component of our "interrogate the terrorist" programs: rendition.

I well remember the first time I heard about this noxious practice. An intelligence-community official told me, with evident satisfaction, "We're sending these guys to places where they don't have Miranda rights. Or lawyers." I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. It's a total moral copout: We enable torture while claiming to have abolished it.

This is what appears to be the SOP of the Obama administration—moral lectures, immoral practices. They pose as virtuous citizens and tell us what to do in myriad ways, and then install serial offenders in the highest positions. They pose as human-rights defenders, and then turn over our prisoners to some of the worst human rights offenders.

This is a prescription for moral and political disaster, because either the electorate will figure it out, and deliver a stinging rebuke to Obama and his people (with considerable disruption at a time when we need to seriously address our many problems), or there will be an immoral free-for-all, to the ruin of the common good.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 4:55:09 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Return to Render

Mark Steyn
The Corner

I agree with Michael re rendition, and the President's newfound enthusiasm for it. He won't abolish torture, but he's happy to outsource it, and make it one of those jobs Americans won't do. And everyone else seems content to be governed by moral poseurs: Re that Human Rights Watch flip-flop— "Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for rendition—the circumstances seem to be limited to when there's a Democrat in the White House.

On balance, I prefer an Administration with the cojones to waterboard you themselves rather than stick a bag on your head and ship you to some Third World genital-clampers.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 5:01:18 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
A Fight Not Worth Winning

Rich Lowry
The Corner

The Democrats can probably force through Daschle. But why would they want to? This could be one of those battles that's more costly if you win. With Geithner and Daschle in prominent positions in the Obama administration—and Charlie Rangel heading Ways and Means—Democrats will have saddled themselves with three prominent symbols of non-compliance with tax laws at the same time they will eventually have to push for higher taxes. And as any journalist knows, three makes a trend. Geithner/Daschle/Rangel will be perfect foils for the kind of small-government populism I wrote about here.

corner.nationalreview.com

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 5:09:32 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Day by Day
Chris Muir



daybydaycartoon.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 5:13:02 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Day by Day
Chris Muir

daybydaycartoon.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 5:15:36 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Day by Day
Chris Muir


daybydaycartoon.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 5:22:24 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Hat tip to Dr. Sanity

townhall.com
drsanity.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/3/2009 5:35:23 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Biden's Prophecy

By John
Power Line

Late in last fall's Presidential campaign, Joe Biden predicted that if elected, Barack Obama would be tested by foreign powers within the first six months of his administration:

    Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world 
    tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... 
    Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember 
    anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an 
    international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the 
    mettle of this guy.

It's starting to look as though we may have several, and it may not take six months. The latest is North Korea's threat of war against the South:

<<< North Korea warned Sunday that South Korea's confrontational policies may trigger a war on the divided peninsula, a message coming two days after the communist country vowed to abandon all peace agreements with its southern neighbor.

... Tension heightened Friday when the North said it was ditching a nonaggression pact and all other peace accords with South Korea.

The tension may lead to "an unavoidable military conflict and a war," North Korea's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried Sunday by the country's official Korean Central News Agency. >>>

Obviously, it's unfair to blame everything that happens in the world on Barack Obama, just as it was unfair for the Democrats to blame everything on President Bush. But, as Biden implicitly recognized, our new President is regarded around the world as inexperienced and weak, and that could make the next few months a critical period on a number of international fronts. So far, Obama's missteps have done nothing to dissuade our enemies from that assessment.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/4/2009 9:10:49 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Taxes: Tim and Tom

By Tom McMahon on 4-Block

4-blockworld.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/4/2009 9:12:48 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Governor Jim Doyle, The Pride of Wisconsin

By Tom McMahon on 4-Block

4-blockworld.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/4/2009 9:17:00 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Stop pledging to have the most ethical administration in history

Betsy's Page

Politicians frequently come into power promising that they will bring ethics to their administration. Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi demonstrated how empty such promises to have the most ethical administration or House in history. We're still waiting for the Ethics Committee to report back to us about Charlie Rangel's tax problems. Meanwhile he sits as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee writing our tax laws.

Barack Obama campaigned strongly on the ethics rules that he was going to demand in his White House and an executive order establishing those rules was one of his first signature acts as president. However he's now finding, as the New York Times writes, that it is a lot easier to campaign about ethical changes than to actually carry them out in real life. But banning all lobbyists from his administration turned out to be harder in reality.

<<< 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. >>>

What this really means is that the Obama administration finds that some lobbyists are better than others. Having the blanket condemnation against all lobbyists was short-sighted. Lobbyists are actually helping interests fulfill their First Amendment rights to petition the government. They often know more about their particular issue than almost anyone else because information is their stock in trade. Ban corrupt lobbyists, but don't assume that any lobbyist is corrupt.

And don't tell us that all lobbyists are too corrupt to work in your administration and then tell us that it's okay to grant waivers for particular experts that you want to have work for you. This is what happens when you have these broad, unnuanced condemnations of a whole group of people.

It was never practical to say that you weren't going to hire any lobbyist. But it wouldn't have made such an appealing campaign process to proclaim that you were going to limit your hiring of lobbyists to those people you really wanted to work for you.

There is more to ethical reform than demagoguing against the entire class of lobbyists while waiving through exceptions. Sure it made a nice campaign promise and photo op but the fact is that in order to stock any administration with experienced people in these policy areas, you're going to end up with people who have done some lobbying in their past. They're not evil or unethical unless there is something in their individual records that indicates they were. Base your choices on those individual records rather than on broad accusations.

betsyspage.blogspot.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/4/2009 9:24:26 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Time for Tim Geithner to Step Down, Too

Larry Kudlow
The Corner

Now that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination for health secretary because of his failure to pay taxes, and Nancy Killefer, who was appointed chief performance officer and deputy OMB director, has also withdrawn because of non-payment of taxes, it is time for Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner to do exactly the same.

Geithner never answered the question put to him by senators Kyl and Bunning: Would he have paid his back taxes if he were not nominated to run the Treasury? His issue has never been resolved. He will never have the full trust of the country.

Consider this: Daschle said today that he would not have been able to lead a reform of the nation’s health-care system “with the full faith of Congress and the American people.” Well, Geithner will not be able to lead a reform of the nation’s financial system either. Mr. Geithner will not have the full faith of the American people or Congress, where 31 no votes were cast against his nomination — by far the largest nay vote for a post-WWII Treasury secretary.

Ms. Killefer was appointed chief performance officer to monitor the incredible spending increases now under consideration for the so-called stimulus package. Similarly, Geithner is the chief performance officer of the U.S. economy. What does it say about him, that he neglected to pay taxes? What does it say to ordinary Americans that Geithner was in effect a tax cheat right up to the point he was appointed to one of the highest offices in the land? Will he ever be trusted? It is doubtful.

For all of Mr. Geithner’s apparent skills and knowledge and other professional qualifications, he still has a tremendous ethical problem. Pres. Obama has made much of the need for a new era of responsibility and ethics. Obama is right. But Mr. Geithner is wrong. He should follow Daschle and Killefer by submitting his resignation.

This is a matter of personal character and accountability. It is a matter of honesty. Too many of our leaders suffer big deficits in these areas.

Pres. Obama should wipe the slate clean with a Geithner resignation. No one is irreplaceable. There are no supermen. In fact, somewhat ironically, new commerce secretary Judd Gregg would make an excellent Treasury secretary.

It is time for Mr. Geithner to step down.

corner.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/4/2009 9:44:56 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Political Cartoons of Michael Ramirez

Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily



investors.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/4/2009 9:46:35 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Political Cartoons of Michael Ramirez

Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily



ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (28919)2/5/2009 1:15:46 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (50) | Respond to of 35834
 
It's amazing how the death & destruction in Kentucky & surrounding areas is hardly noticed by the MSM & President Nagin, 'er Obama?

Note how the Associated Pravda [AP] reporter spins the pathetic response. They quote Obama "officials" & KY's Dem Governor, ET AL, "insisting" that FEMA's response was good, but what about facts on the ground?

********

FEMA gets decent marks for its ice storm response

By ROGER ALFORD - Associated Press Writer

EDDYVILLE, Ky. -- In the first real test of the Obama administration's ability to respond to a disaster, Kentucky officials are giving the federal government good marks for its response to a deadly ice storm.

Yet more than 300,000 residents remained without power Monday and some areas had yet to see aid workers nearly a week after the storm, a fact not lost on some local authorities.

"We haven't seen FEMA. They haven't been here," said Jaime Green, a spokeswoman for the emergency operations center in Lyon County, about 95 miles northwest of Nashville, Tenn.

Federal authorities insisted they responded as soon as the state asked for help and promised to keep providing whatever aid was necessary.

FEMA has been under the microscope since the Bush administration's botched response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which Barack Obama and other Democrats made a favorite topic on the presidential campaign trail. FEMA was reorganized and strengthened after that, and it has avoided the onslaught of negative feedback Katrina generated.

The agency hasn't been tested the same way it was after the hurricane, however.

Gov. Steve Beshear raised Kentucky's death toll to 24 on Monday, meaning the storm has been blamed in at least 55 deaths nationwide. And while it also knocked out power to more than a million customers from the Southern Plains to the East Coast, it's still considered a medium-sized disaster, the kind FEMA has traditionally been successful handling.

The Kentucky disaster will be closely watched, said Richard Sylves, professor of political science at the University of Delaware, particularly because Obama hasn't yet named the top FEMA officials, many of whom must go through Senate confirmation.

"If it's perceived not to be handled very well, or if there's a sense that there's insensitivity at the federal level to the plight of people suffering, I imagine the people President Obama has appointed to senior positions in FEMA will be grilled in their confirmation hearings," said Sylves, who has written four books on federal disaster policy.

Beshear asked Obama for a disaster declaration to free up federal assistance Thursday, two days after the storm hit, and Obama issued it hours later. Trucks loaded with supplies began arriving at a staging area at Fort Campbell, Ky., on Friday morning, said Mary Hudak, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

On Saturday, Beshear ordered all of the state's Army National Guardsmen into action to distribute supplies, many of which came from FEMA.

Beshear has consistently praised Obama, a fellow Democrat, for the attention he's devoted to what Beshear calls the biggest natural disaster to hit his state.

"We have had tremendous and quick response from President Obama and his administration," Beshear said Monday. "I don't think any of our folks that have dealt with disasters before ever recall as quick a response as we got last Wednesday."

Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, based in Lexington, Ky., said that from what she's heard, FEMA's response has been very good so far. Her group represents emergency management directors from all 50 states.

"The governor's declaration request for an emergency was turned around very, very quickly by FEMA and the White House," said Sheets, who just had her power restored Monday after four days without it. "And President Obama has spoken with the governor of Kentucky on several occasions throughout the event."

Sheets said she hadn't heard any complaints so far about the federal response.

"FEMA and the Kentucky National Guard are doing everything they can to get things back up and running," Sen. Jim Bunning said.

By Monday, FEMA officials were checking in on supply distribution points in some rural areas. FEMA official Don Daniel stopped by to ask emergency management officials in Grayson County, who had criticized FEMA's absence late last week, what they needed.

More generators, they told him, to keep essential services such as hospitals and water supplies running.

"If they need more, they'll get them," Daniel said. "That need has to be met."

Federal authorities hadn't made it everywhere yet, however.

Brocton Oglesby, director of emergency management in Hopkins County, said he has seen virtually no contribution from FEMA in the county, where more than half of the 27,000 homes remained without electricity.

"They need to be here - at least a presence, a liaison to work with us, to start feeding information and gearing up for the next stage," Oglesby said. "That's where they're going to be needed the most."

Oglesby's seen FEMA show up after other disasters to assess the damages and write checks. Beshear asked for FEMA to have a role on the front end this time, though, and Oglesby said that hasn't happened.

"As soon as they want to come in and start working, we're ready to go," he said.

Oglesby said he would like FEMA to bring in outside electricians to help go door to door to make sure the electricity is operational in each house once it comes back on.

"Right now, mom and pop are going to have to fend for themselves and find an electrician," Oglesby said. "This is where we're needing FEMA's presence."

Associated Press writers Joe Biesk in Frankfort, Ky., Dylan T. Lovan in Louisville, Ky., Jeffrey McMurray in Lexington, Ky., Bruce Schreiner in Leitchfield, Ky., and Eileen Sullivan and Frederic J. Frommer in Washington contributed to this report.

thestate.com


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News