Sunday, August 30, 2009

If you hold me the the same standards as white people I am going to cry rascism!

OOPS! CHARLIE FORGOT THIS $1M HOUSE

by CHARLES HURT | Bureau Chief NYPost

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Charles Rangel failed to report as much as $1.3 million in outside income -- including up to $1 million for a Harlem building sale -- on financial-disclosure forms he filed between 2002 and 2006, according to newly amended records.

The documents also show the embattled chairman of the Ways and Means Committee -- who is being probed by the House Ethics Committee -- failed to reveal a staggering $3 million in various business transactions over the same period.

This week, Rangel filed drastically revised financial-disclosure forms reflecting new, higher amounts of outside income and numerous additional business deals that had not been reported when the reports were originally filed.

In 2004, for instance, Rangel reported earning between $4,000 and $10,000 in outside earnings on top of his $158,100 congressional salary.

(more...)

-----

Its hard to find fault with Charlie Rangel. He is so busy proposing to raise everyone else's tax bill he has no time to take account of HIS own wealth. A few buildings in rent-controlled NYC (Which clearly someone of his stature deserves instead of the spirit of the law), property in PR, and god know what else, no surprise he's unaware of his personal tax liability. Too bad they wont send him to jail, or at least hit him confiscatory tax bill of upwards of 80% like they would do to any of us. Another fine example of some pig being more equal than others.



Friday, August 28, 2009

The gentle art of making enemies

The Fall Guy

CIA Director Leon Panetta getting sacked by his own team.

In the game of political football that is today national security, spare a thought for CIA Director Leon Panetta. Quarterbacking is hard enough without getting sacked by your own team.

President Barack Obama fought hard for the former California congressman during his uncertain February confirmation fight. That's about the last thing the president has done for his spy chief. Quite the opposite: If the latest flap over CIA interrogations shows anything, it's that Mr. Panetta has officially become the president's designated fall guy.

The title has been months in the making. Mr. Obama is contending with an angry left that's riled by his decisions to retain some Bush-era counterterrorism policies. He's facing Congressional liberals still baying for Bush blood. He's hired Attorney General Eric Holder, who is giving the term "ideological purity" new meaning. Mr. Obama's way to appease these bodies? Hang the CIA and Mr. Panetta out to dry.

(more...)

------------------
Well after an extended break of watching 44 slip lower and lower in the polls...Hmmm, who would have predicted, its time to get back to it. No need to talk about imploding 44care just yet:


Yes it sucks to be Leon Panetta but WTF did he think was going to happen after the well had been posioned by Democrats over the past 5 years, that they were going to treat the CIA with kid-gloved just because an ex-Clintonite was there? Hey LP, bend over and take it like a man from your friends in the WH and congress.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

The press corps crazy, old, aunt lady asks a question

Obama's Gitmo

WSJ Opinion Journal Apr. 21

Helen Thomas: Why is the president blocking habeas corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been there . . .

Robert Gibbs: You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.

You know we live in interesting times when Helen Thomas is going after Barack Obama. Miss Thomas was asking the White House press secretary last week why detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan should not have the same right to challenge their detention in federal court that last year's Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush gave to Guantanamo's detainees. All Mr. Gibbs could do was interrupt and correct the doyenne of the White House press corps about Mr. Obama's class as a law professor.

The precipitate cause of Miss Thomas's question was a ruling earlier this month by federal district Judge John Bates. Judge Bates says that last year's Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo does apply to Bagram. The administration has appealed, saying that giving detainees such rights could lead to protracted litigation, disclosure of intelligence secrets and harm to American security. The wonderful irony is that, at least on the logic, everyone is right.

Start with Judge Bates. The judge is surely correct when he says the detainees brought in to Bagram from outside the country are "virtually identical" to those held at Guantanamo. He's also correct in asserting that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did out of concern "that the Executive could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain an individual" at Bagram.

But President Obama's appeal is also right. Though most headlines from the past few days have focused on the release of Justice Department memos on CIA interrogation, the president's embrace of the Bush position on Bagram is far more striking. Mr. Gibbs became tongue-tied while trying to explain that stand. But the Justice Department brief is absolutely correct in asserting that "there are many legitimate reasons, having nothing to do with the intent to evade judicial review, why the military might detain an individual in Bagram."


(...More)

----

All within his first 100 days....quelle suprise! I'm sorry but how stupid were 44 supportors to believe the web of BS he was spinning. They made GWB out to be the devil incarnate but the truth is that many of the policy decision made by 43 were ruled in rational thought, looking not just at the moment but several steps down the road. I don't blame canidate 44 for his stance, he needed it in order to get votes, but the lefties are the ones who deserve our greatest scorn for hog-tieing the executive branch...good to see 44 is holding them off for now.


Hypocrisy meter: 10 of 10

Mookie* meter : 7 of 10


*Mookie...as in 'Do the Right Thing"

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Teleprompter gives 44 the wrong info on arms control

The Nuclear Illusionist

Obama's 'moral authority' won't deter Tehran or Pyongyang.


"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."

So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea's missile launch, which America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren't binding, violations won't be punished, and words of warning mean nothing.

AP

Treaties never stopped a downpour.

Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama's in Prague. The President delivered a stirring call to banish nuclear weapons at the very moment that North Korea and Iran are bidding to trigger the greatest proliferation breakout in the nuclear age. Mr. Obama also proposed an elaborate new arms-control regime to reduce nuclear weapons, even as both Pyongyang and Tehran are proving that the world's great powers lack the will to enforce current arms-control treaties.

There's no doubting the emotive appeal of Mr. Obama's grand no-nukes vision. Ronald Reagan shared a similar hope, and in recent years these pages have run a pair of news-making essays by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn positing such a diplomatic goal. They probably gave Mr. Obama the idea. But the Gipper understood the practical limits of arms control in delivering such a world, and Messrs. Shultz and Kissinger are hard-headed enough to know that global rogues must be contained if we are going to have any hope of a nuclear-free future.

Mr. Obama recognized this rogue proliferation threat in his Prague address, but to counter it he offered only more treaties of the kind that are already ignored. OK, not merely more treaties. Two days earlier in Strasbourg he also vouchsafed the power of his own moral example.

"And I had an excellent meeting with President Medvedev of Russia to get started that process of reducing our nuclear stockpiles, which will then give us a greater moral authority to say to Iran, don't develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don't proliferate nuclear weapons," Mr. Obama said, implying that previous American Presidents had lacked such "authority."

(more...)

-----

Seriously, you couldn't come up a better policy innitiative than to jump into weapons reduction? Stick with the job at hand...the economy. When everything is working again, then go after something new to f$@k up. Quit trying to be buddy-buddy with Russia, don't you remember how well they worked for GWB? They're just going to stab you in the back and make you look like a fool for trusting them.


Hypocracy Meter : 0 of 10

Stupidity Meter: 8 of 10

Strength of Spine: 2 of 10 - nearly spineless

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

What 44 Isn't...

The 5 biggest myths about Obama

By ALEX CONANT | 3/18/09 4:42 AM EDT | Politico.com

By trade if not by choice, I have become something of a Barack Obama aficionado. POLITICO’s Mike Allen wrote last week that I have “probably listened to more President Obama speeches than any human besides [White House spokesman Robert] Gibbs.” Working at the Republican National Committee last year, I closely watched every public appearance by Obama. And I learned a lot about our new president along the way.

He loves pies, but he doesn’t appreciate beer. And when he is presented with an uncomfortable question at a town hall, he usually turns the question on the questioner. (Q: Will my son’s death in Iraq be in vain? A: How did your son die?)

I’ve concluded that much of the conventional wisdom about Obama is wrong. Here are five of the biggest misconceptions:

1. Obama is bold. Actually, he is overly cautious. It’s no coincidence the first bills he signed into law were the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, two populist favorites. Signing these bills was not an act of courage any more than attacking lobbyists or selecting Joe Biden as a running mate. In fact, Obama’s entire agenda is cautious (sometimes to a fault, in the case of his housing and banking bailouts). Are the numbers in his proposed budget eye-popping? Yes. But eye-popping budgets are well within the Democratic mainstream now.

2. Obama is a great communicator. Cut away the soaring rhetoric in his speeches, and the resulting policy statements are often vague, lawyerly and confusing. He is not plain-spoken: He parses his language so much that a casual listener will miss important caveats. That’s in part why he uses teleprompters for routine policy statements: He chooses his words carefully, relying heavily on ill-defined terms like “deficit reduction” (which means tax increases, rather than actual “savings”) and “combat troops” (as opposed to “all troops in harm’s way”).

3. Obamaland is a team of rivals. Obama earned the label “No-Drama Obama” for a reason. His closest advisers — those who actually shape his thinking, strategy and policies — are loyal and, by all accounts, like-minded. Obviously, they regularly disagree with each other, as any group of smart individuals does. But reading the (many) profiles of Obama aides written since the election, it’s striking that there are no anecdotes of serious disputes inside Obamaland. Obama does try to bring political foes into the fold when it’s convenient, but his team is primarily made up of political friends.

4. Obama is smooth. Despite being deliberate, Obama is surprisingly gaffe-prone. Reporters on my e-mail lists last year know he consistently mispronounced, misnamed or altogether forgot where he was. (In one typical gaffe in Sioux Falls, S.D., he started his speech with an enthusiastic “Thank you, Sioux City!”) His geographic gaffes are not just at routine rallies but at major events, including the Democratic National Convention and his first address to Congress. Any politician occasionally misspeaks, but the frequency of Obama’s flubs is notable.

5. Obama has a good relationship with the media. Working with the hundreds of reporters who covered the Obama campaign last year, I was struck by how many of them would quietly complain about Obama’s borderline disdain for the press. Sometimes it is readily visible — like when he scolded a reporter for asking a question during a presidential visit to the White House briefing room. Other times it’s more passive, like long gaps between press conferences, or it’s reflected in his staff’s attitude.

Obama has a lot of qualities that are indeed admirable: He is without a doubt smart and disciplined, and his mastery of politics is unmatched. But despite popular perceptions, he is far from perfect.

Alex Conant is a communications consultant who served as the Republican National Committee’s national press secretary during the 2008 presidential campaign. Previously, he was a spokesman at the White House and in the U.S. Senate.

-------
The curtain will be drawn back soon.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

"Imperial Presidency" is only imperial when the President is a Republican

Obama Channels Cheney
MARCH 6, 2009, 10:37 P.M. ET |WSJ Online

The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security. The standoff concerns the Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi Arabian charity that was shut down in 2004 on evidence that it was financing al Qaeda. Al-Haramain sued the Bush Administration in 2005, claiming it had been illegally wiretapped.

At the heart of Al-Haramain's case is a classified document that it says proves that the alleged eavesdropping was not authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. That record was inadvertently disclosed after Al-Haramain was designated as a terrorist organization; the Bush Administration declared such documents state secrets after their existence became known.

In July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President's right to do so, which should have ended the matter. But the San Francisco panel also returned the case to the presiding district court judge, Vaughn Walker, ordering him to decide if FISA pre-empts the state secrets privilege. If he does, Al-Haramain would be allowed to use the document to establish the standing to litigate.

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.

(more...)

-----
So who didn't see this coming. 44 talks one way to the children in his constituancy but now he's in charge of the 3-ringed circus, it's quite a different story. It's not that I disagree with the policy in this matter, but good God, do you have no shame at all. Skewering Bush and Cheney for the past 5 years on totally sensible policy and then for you follow directly in their footsteps. This is the reason I started this blog, exposing the callow and feckless nature of the Democrats in charge of Executive and Legislative branches.
Hypocracy Meter : 10 of 10

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Still snorting at the trough

Reid to Obama: Let us keep earmarks



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the White House to tread lightly on earmarks, saying that any push by the Obama administration to clamp down on pet projects would be met with strong opposition from congressional leaders.

"We cannot let spending be done by a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats," Reid said, arguing that lawmakers are much more in tune with federal money needs for their states than agencies in Washington.

Reid's comments came as he and Democratic leaders vowed swift action on Obama's agenda.

In comments to reporters Wednesday morning, Reid also blamed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for forcing Congress to jack up spending for congressional operations in the massive omnibus spending bill. Reid said that even though Republicans lost big in the 2008 elections, McConnell insisted that they maintain their staff levels, forcing about a 10-percent hike in funding for the legislative branch, whose budget totals some $4.4 billion.

"You should direct that question to Senator McConnell because we had trouble organizing this year,” Reid said, referring to a resolution the Senate must pass to formally organize for the new Congress. “He wanted to maintain a lot of their staffing even though they had lost huge numbers. And the only way we could get it done is to do what we did. So you should direct that question to Senator McConnell."

A GOP leadership aide said that Republican staff “aren’t getting a dime” more than they did last year. The aide also said that a $116 million-increase for the architect of the Capitol was more to blame for the increase in the cost of running Congress.

(...more)

----

We here's a big surprise! 44, stand up to these people, you said you are about change...make some GD change. Cut the deficit by the end of your first term? You don't lay down the law right now, you'll be eating those words. One party government worked wonders for the Bush enonomy, didn't it?

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Lucas blows his wad all over 44

By | 2/11/09 8:39 PM EST | Politico.com

We all know that Barack Obama has achieved superstar status. But is he an actual hero? Like in the action movie sense?

You betcha! says "Star Wars" creator George Lucas, who was in Washington Wednesday night for the Ford's Theatre reopening celebration where both he and screen legend Sidney Poitier were being honored with the Ford Theatre Society's Lincoln medal in a ceremony attended by President Barack Obama, a Lincoln aficionado.

Lucas says that, in a contest between Luke Skywalker and Obama, our 44th president wins hands down—even without the lightsaber. In addition, Poitier told Politico that Obama's rockstar status is still going strong.


------

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick George, did you even watch your own movies; I mean the first 3 not the final 3 you ruined. Luke Skywalker blew up the DEATHSTAR!!! Which itself destroyed entire planets (Only one though because LS BLEW IT UP before it destroyed another) He was instrumental in bringing down the entire empire and the death of the Emperor. WTF has 44 already done to make him more powerful than Luke Skywalker? You are a sycophantic little grub selling out the one shiny part of your past.

...unless you mean Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars Christmas Special, then of course 44 is more powerful, Skywalker looks like a tranny in that.

----
For further reading on why LS might not have been all that great please read:

The Case for the Empire
Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong.
by Jonathan V. Last | The Weekly Standard.com


STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.

It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.

First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.

If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.

I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic

At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."

The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.

(more...)

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Someone who is telling it like it is.

Feb. 11, 2009 | Money by the barrelful, by the truckload. Mountains of money, heaped like gassy pyramids in the national dump. Scrounging packs of politicos, snapping, snarling and sending green bills flying sky-high as they root through the tangled mass with ragged claws. The stale hot air filled with cries of rage, the gnashing of teeth and dark prophecies of doom.

Yes, this grotesque scene, like a claustrophobic circle in Dante's "Inferno," was what the U.S. government has looked like for the past two weeks as it fights on over Barack Obama's stimulus package -- a mammoth, chaotic grab bag of treasures, toys and gimcracks. Could popular opinion of our feckless Congress sink any lower? You betcha!

Why in the cosmos would the new administration, smoothly sailing out of Obama's classy inauguration, repeat the embarrassing blunders of Bill Clinton's first term? By foolishly promising a complete overhaul of healthcare within 100 days (and by putting his secretive, ill-prepared wife in charge of it), Clinton made himself look naive and incompetent and set healthcare reform back for more than 15 years.

President Obama was ill-served by his advisors (shall we thump that checkered piñata, Rahm Emanuel?), who evidently did not help him to produce a strong, focused, coherent bill that he could have explained and defended to the nation before it was set upon by partisan wolves. To defer to the House of Representatives and let the bill be thrown together by cacophonous mob rule made the president seem passive and behind the curve.


Most mainstream American voters are undoubtedly suffering from economist fatigue these days. This one calls for tax cuts; that one condemns them. One says we're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars; the other claims that sum falls pathetically short. A plague on all their houses! Surely common sense would dictate that when Congress is doling out fat dollops of taxpayers' money, due time should be delegated for sober consideration and debate. The administration's coercive rush toward instant action, accompanied by apocalyptic pronouncements of imminent catastrophe, has put its own credibility on the line.

But aside from the stimulus muddle, Obama has been off to a good start. True, I was disappointed with the infestation of the new appointments list by Clinton retreads and slippery tax-dodgers. Nevertheless, I was very impressed by Obama's relaxed, natural authority with military officers on Inauguration Day, in contrast to the early Bill Clinton's palpable unease and exaggerated posturing. I applauded the signal Obama sent to the world by starting the closure of the Guantánamo detention center. Contrary to the rote claims of conservative talk radio, there is as yet no public evidence that every individual being held at Guantánamo is a proven "terrorist"-- whom we would all agree should be severely punished. That is the entire point of a rational process of indictment and trial. If Guantánamo became a symbol of un-American repression, it is the procrastinating, paralyzed Bush administration that should be blamed.

Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.

One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.

(more...)

-----

Camille Paglia, agree with her or not, at least she is not a hypocrite. She has always called it like she sees it no matter who feathers get ruffled. This Fairness Doctine is a pile of shit and pretty much anyone but rabid liberals can see that.


Friday, February 6, 2009

Yet another suprise

By | 2/5/09 6:21 AM EST | Politico.com


President Barack Obama kept one campaign pledge Wednesday afternoon and at the same time violated another when he signed into law the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which extends health care coverage to 11 million low-income children.

The White House views the SCHIP legislation as a down payment on Obama’s pledge to provide universal health care by the end of his first term. The bill ran into some partisan resistance because it allows states for the first time to use federal money to cover children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants.

But Obama’s 5 p.m. signing came barely three hours after the House approved the bill, breaching Obama’s promise to have a five-day period of “sunlight before signing,” as he detailed on the campaign trail and on his website.

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” the Obama-Biden campaign website states. “As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act only two days after it received final passage last week, and it wasn’t posted on the White House website until after it became law.

Politifact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times that tracks Obama’s campaign promises, says the five-day rule is the only pledge he has broken outright.

On the Ledbetter Act, the website wrote: “We recognize that Obama has been in office just a week, but he was very clear about his plan for a five-day comment period, and we can’t see why this one needed to be rushed. It is somewhat ironic that with the same action, Obama both keeps and breaks a campaign promise.”

A White House spokesman refused to comment on the matter.

----


How could this be a surprise to anyone. Of course he's going to sign a bill right away, especially one which is for the children, what great press. Followed by lofty words that this is one which couldn't wait.

Broken Promises Meter:
10 of 10
(sorry this meter is either 0 or 10, you can't half break a promise)

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Great...

Sorry Harry Potter, no Hogwarts for you.

Tax problems torpedo two big Obama nominations

By JENNIFER LOVEN | apnews.myway.com

*

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama on Tuesday gave up his nomination fight for Tom Daschle and a second high-profile appointee who failed to pay all their taxes, fearing ugly confirmation battles that would undercut his claims to ethical high ground and cripple his presidency in just its second week. "I screwed up," he declared. "It's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules - you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said in one of a series of interviews with TV anchors.

"I'm frustrated with myself, with our team. ... I'm here on television saying I screwed up," Obama said in an interview on NBC's "Nightly News with Brian Williams." He repeated virtually the same words in several other interviews. The White House announced that Daschle had asked to be removed from consideration as health and human services secretary and that that Nancy Killefer had made the same request concerning what was to be her groundbreaking appointment as a chief performance officer to make the entire government run better.

"They both recognized that you can't set an example of responsibility but accept a different standard of who serves," said spokesman Gibbs. Daschle said in a brief letter to Obama that he refused to "be a distraction" from the new president's drive for health care reform. Obama said neither he nor Daschle excused the former senator's tax errors but that he accepted his friend's decision "with sadness and regret."

Questions about Daschle's failure to fully pay his taxes from 2005 through 2007 had been increasing since they came to light last Friday. Daschle overlooked taxes on income for consulting work and personal use of a car and driver, and also deducted more in charitable contributions than he should have. To resolve it, he paid $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest last month.


(more...)

----
2010, picture a GOP election ad, 44 standing there looking all serious. Clip after clip will be spiced together of him saying "I screwed up", "we made a mistake", "oops, my bad', etc... For the past 8 years the public has said, "Why hasn't Bush ever apologized for his mistakes", well this would be the reason. It doesn't take much knowledge of negative campaign ads to figure this our; never admit your wrong, you'll get hammered for it in the press.

If 44 had been smart he would have thrown Daschle under the bus as soon as this tax issue arose and made a grand statement about how this is what he would not tolerate in his administration but obviously that would mean getting rid of a few others as well.

I guess the main point is 'don't make dumb proclamations about your administration being so much better than the last, just do it', otherwise you put a target on your back when you come up short. It's like you didn't even watch the first year Clinton tapes!

Neophyte meter:7 of 10

* ...thought bubble..."Damn she got a nice can, now I'm not going to get a chance to tap that, Hill better watch out now"

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

File this under "NO SHIT"

Obama's promise of ethics reform faces early test

| IHT.com

WASHINGTON: During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a "new era of responsibility." What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.

President Barack Obama said Monday that he was "absolutely" standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had "no excuse" and wanted to "deeply apologize" for his failure to pay $128,000 in U.S. taxes.

But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Obama has proved willing to compromise.

Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.

"This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual."

And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by television comics and questioned by reporters about whether Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.

Some Republicans saw a double standard. "What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?" asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, referring to Bush's Treasury secretary. "It would be roundly attacked and roundly criticized." ....

(More...)

----

Great, now the MSN is finally speaking up...just to cover their ass in 6 months when people say "hey, why still all this 44 adulation".



Hey Harry Potter, pay your taxes like everyone else!!!

By KEVIN FREKING | AP News Myway

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fighting to salvage his Cabinet nomination, Tom Daschle pleaded his case Monday evening in a closed meeting with former Senate colleagues after publicly apologizing for failing to pay more than $120,000 in taxes. President Barack Obama said he was "absolutely" sticking with his nominee for health secretary, and a key senator added an important endorsement.

The White House both underscored the magnitude of the problem and tried to downplay it in the space of seven words. "Nobody's perfect," said press secretary Robert Gibbs. "It was a serious mistake. ..."

Nobody was predicting defeat for Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services, but it was proving an unsavory pill to swallow for senators who only last week confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary despite his separate tax-payment problems. It's an issue that strikes a nerve among lawmakers' constituents who are struggling with their own serious money problems.

On the bright side for Daschle, he got warm words of support from the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the panel that will have the first say on his fate. Daschle has been "an invaluable and expert partner" in efforts toward health care reform, said Democrat Max Baucus of Montana - an especially important endorsement since the two men have had tussles in the past over Baucus' handling of GOP tax-cut proposals, Medicare changes and other issues.

Republicans weren't so quick to get in line.

Going into the private meeting with Daschle, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, top Republican on the Finance panel, was asked if supported the nomination. He responded, "Ask me after the hearing a week from tomorrow," a reference to Daschle's public confirmation hearing.

Said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, as he went into the meeting: "I'm going to just listen and pay attention very closely."

Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, expressed his remorse in a letter to the Finance Committee, saying he was "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about what he said was an unintentional failure to pay taxes that he owed. He recently filed amended returns for 2005-07 to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest.

(...more)

----

The hypocrisy of democrats makes me sick. It's not like the GOP is less hypocritical, but the DEMS have taken the moral high ground so many times that they must really believe their shit don't stink. Bitch and moan about American corporations going off shore because the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates which make us less competitive and you can't even pay your own personal taxes! You self-rightous scum. Get a GD job, justify yourself to your shareholders, compete against other market forces on a daily basis!

Hypocrisy Meter:7 or 10

More MSM douchebaggery

Sitting with Obama, Lauer held up a copy of US Magazine, and pointed to how the editors cut him out of the cover photo with his wife and daughters. In the upper right-hand corner of the cover was a photo of a curvier Simpson and the headline: “Weight Battle.”

Did POTUS diss Jessica Simpson?

By | Politico.com


...

They took you out of it,” Lauer said of the magazine.

“It — it’s — it’s a little hurtful,” Obama said.

“You got replaced by Jessica Simpson,” Lauer said.

“Yeah, who’s losing a weight battle apparently,” Obama said, according to the NBC transcript of the interview. “Yeah. Oh, well.”

The ladies didn’t like that one. Karen Tumulty at Time’s Swampland blog, and others across the blogosphere, schooled the new president.

“Barack Obama may be the most eloquent politician on the scene today, but he laid a big one in yesterday's interview with Matt Lauer,” Tumulty wrote Monday.

----
Tsk, tsk, tsk 44. Don't fall into the MSM's traps by answering questions about everyday life, they will allow you to be crucified for it. Women, all those gushing suburban mommies who voted for you, will turn on you quicker that that Rosie O'Donnell at an 'all you can eat' buffet when they tell her they're out of cheese sauce, if you comment about some fatty gaining weight. If you wouldn't say it about your wife, don't say it about anyone else, you're no longer a private citizen!

I am a private citizen, so but down the bucket of chicken and the side of cracklins you white trash fatty.

Scandal meter:
3 of 10

Calling it like it is meter:
10 of 10

Stupidy:
7 of 10