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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (32492)	2/10/2009 2:57:11 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Ingraham to Renegade Sen. Specter: 'Is It Nice to Be Wined and Dined at the White House?' By Jeff Poor February 9, 2009 - 19:51 ET It's a question we've all been waiting to hear answered. Unfortunately, it took a conservative talk radio host to ask it and didn't come from the mainstream media. In an interview with Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, Pa., on Feb. 9, talk show host Laura Ingraham asked why he and Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are the only three out of 229 Republican members of Congress to support the stimulus. She inquired if it might have had something to do with being invited to the White House by President Barack Obama. "Is it nice to be wined and dined at the White House?" Ingraham asked. "And, you're treated pretty well when you're a Republican bucking other Republicans, right Senator?" Specter told Ingraham he wasn't being "wined and dined" by the Obama White House. Specter wasn't on the guest list of one infamous White House party that included several Republican and Democrat members of Congress, which included cocktails and wagyu beef. However, Specter did attend a Super Bowl party hosted by the White House on Feb. 1 as the only Republican member in attendance. "Now let's get off it Laura," Specter replied. "I'm not drinking any wine at the White House and I don't dine at the White House. If the president wants to talk to me - I talk to him and I make my own independent judgment. Don't give me the wine and dine baloney young lady." Ingraham challenged Specter again by asking him if that had any effect on his position on the stimulus, which he outlined in a Feb. 9 Washington Post op-ed. "Absolutely not, anymore than talking to anybody else," Specter said. "He's the president and I talk to him. I talked to people who were opposed to it and talk to everybody. I got a pretty good record, Laura for making up my own mind." According to Specter, the legislation will create jobs immediately in his state and cited Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and a mayor of "a major city" as evidence. "Laura, we have a big chunk of this money going to roads, highways and mass transit," Specter said. "I talked to the governor of my state and he said we could do it in nine months. And I said, ‘That's really not good enough.' And he said, ‘If we really twist and turn we can cut it back to six months. And I talked to the mayor of a major city this morning that has a parking plot going up, which is out of money and the work can go forward this afternoon." "And there are projects, shovel-ready, which can be put to good use immediately and put people to work," Specter said. newsbusters.org

To: Jim S who wrote (32492)	2/14/2009 10:56:21 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

1,073 Pages A stimulus bill that's anything but transparent. FEBRUARY 13, 2009, 11:43 P.M. ET In his closing remarks on the stimulus bill yesterday, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey called it "the largest change in domestic policy since the 1930s." We'd say more like the 1960s, which is bad enough, but his point about the bill's magnitude is right. The 1,073-page monstrosity includes the biggest spending increase since World War II, but more important is the fine print expanding the role of the federal government across the breadth of American business, health care, energy and welfare policy. Given those stakes, you might think Congress would get more than a few hours to debate it. But, no, yesterday's roll call votes came less than 24 hours after House-Senate conferees had agreed to their deal. Democrats rushed the bill to the floor before Members could even read it, much less have time to broadcast the details so the public could offer its verdict. So much for Democratic promises of a new era of transparency. Only this Tuesday the House unanimously approved a resolution promising 48-hour public notice before holding a roll call. Even better, the bill could have been posted on the Internet, as candidate Barack Obama suggested during the campaign. Let voters see what they're getting for all this money. Not a chance. This high-handed endgame follows the pattern of this bill from the start, with Republicans all but ignored until Democrats let three GOP Senators nibble around the edges to prevent a filibuster. With their huge majorities, Mr. Obey and Democrats got their epic victory. But far from a new, transparent way of governing, this bill represents the kind of old-fashioned partisan politics that Tom DeLay would have admired. online.wsj.com