Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (69295)	2/6/2009 4:08:02 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Familiar Territory Peter Wehner The Corner In his Wall Street Journal column today, Karl Rove writes: <<< Democrats are betting that Americans now embrace centralized, top-down government and are willing to pay for it. They are wrong and will suffer politically for their misjudgment. Republicans are right, both substantively and politically, to oppose this monstrosity [Obama’s “stimulus” legislation] and smart to offer a bold alternative. The GOP's road back is about to be partly paved by Mr. Obama's embrace of Democratic trickle-down economics. It's terrible policy — but for Republicans, it provides an opportunity for sharp contrasts that can reset the debate on more favorable terms for the GOP. >>> Karl is on to something important. President Obama is reviving a debate about the size, scope, and role of government that will be as dramatic a contrast as we have seen since 1980. That is a debate Republicans should be eager to engage in, and which they can win. The fact that public support for Obama’s bill is cratering can only serve to encourage Republicans. Some people have argued that the “big” v. “small” government debate had receded in American politics. For a time, it may have. But with President Obama’s “monstrosity,” things are changing. This debate is being conducted on ground Republicans know well, and on which they have won before. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (69295)	2/6/2009 4:28:21 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

re: The Flying Senators Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner From the WSJ on Panetta and the EduCap jet: <<< WASHINGTON — Central Intelligence Agency director designate Leon E. Panetta flew "on one or two occasions" on the airplane of EduCap Inc. founder Catherine B. Reynolds, according to responses Mr. Panetta provided to Congress before his confirmation hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon. Mr. Panetta flew with Mrs. Reynolds, who is under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee and the Internal Revenue Service for possible improper use of EduCap's $28 million corporate jet, from Washington to Sarasota, Fla., for a directors' meeting of Zenith Insurance Co. Both Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Reynolds serve on Zenith's board. Mr. Panetta said he does not recall the dates of his travel, but it was for a business purpose. "As the trip with Mrs. Reynolds was not income to Mr. Panetta, it was not reported on his income tax returns. Mr. Panetta acted in full compliance with applicable tax laws," according to his statement. >>> corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (69295)	2/6/2009 4:44:58 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Strange Ineptitude Peter Kirsanow The Corner The news that the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee has postponed consideration of Labor Secretary nominee Hilda Solis because her husband only yesterday paid off tax liens, some of which had been pending for up to 16 years, confirms that there's an inexplicable, widespread problem in the Obama vetting process (as if Geithner, Daschle, Richardson, Killefer, et al hadn't already demonstrated that). The disclosure forms that presidential nominees have to fill out are interminable—they take days to fill out; think about how long it takes to do your taxes, and multiply by at least ten. So are the interviews. Then there's the FBI background check and the IRS tax check. The White House counsel's office questions the nominee on any arguably controversial thing he may have said or written, any dispute or litigation he may have been involved in, and anyone that might have any reason whatsoever to say anything negative about the nominee. Caesar's wife received less scrutiny. And at the end of the process the nominee is asked one final catch-all question: Is there anything that could cause you, your family, or the President embarrassment if it became public? Either Obama and his nominees aren't easily embarrassed, or the vetters have tin ears the size of satellite dishes. corner.nationalreview.com