Comments on: President Obama Inauguration

Please remember to keep your posts on topic, guys. This thread is about President-Elect Obama's transition into the White House. If you need a refresher on what is okay to post in here, please refer to the opening post:
This thread is to discuss the latest news surrounding the President Elect, Barack Obama (hereafter PE) and his future Administration. Users posting to this thread are asked to keep comments related to the following:


News on PE's potential new appointees
Issues regarding transition of power from Bush Administration to PE Administration
Discussion on the first 100 days of the PE Administration
What we can expect over the next four years
Hurdles facing the PE and his team.


News Reporting


News on PE's transitionary period to be sourced with appropriate links.
Allegations must be backed up with source material otherwise it's just your opinon.
Blogs are not reliable sources of information. Please try and source material from MSM.

Can I just say that by now the Middle East crisis is definitely a 'first 100 days' issue for the Obama administration?

I did quite seriously think about this before I posted my last post on this - and I would like to point out that if this issue isn't tackled immediately the administration will find trouble in various fields.

I really respect your task to keep this on track - but I would suggest that this discussion belongs here, and defining it as 'off topic' would basically shut down a discussion that's necessary. I would seriously ask the mods to reconsider this, if you were in fact planning to banish the Israel/Gaza issue from this thread. I'd consider this a serious gap in this discussion. Just a look at the news should make it obvious why this belongs here.



If Obama decides to tackle this by (as flimseycauldron suggests) redefining the US relations with Israel, that would be absolutely momentous. I have to say I wouldn't mind an US administration that gives Israel a slightly more stern warning about actually sticking to certain standards of behaviour, while also being tough on the Palestinians.... Someone (other Arab states, prompted by the US??) needs to speak a very serious word with them, too!

...although I don't think that Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton suggests such a step as the most obvious course of action.

But then, this wasn't expected to be top of the 'first 100 days' agenda when Hillary was appointed, and now it obviously is. It's going to be interesting. I would think that first and foremost Obama is a pragmatist who wants to get things done - and wants them done by people wo are best qualified to do so. I'd really like to hear some comment from him about this ASAP - I know... just one president at a time and so forth, but obbviously, Bush isn't going to deal with this in the next three weeks .... in fact, I don't think Israel's offensive at this time wasn't also planned with the power vacuum in the US in mind.

Can I just say that by now the Middle East crisis is definitely a 'first 100 days' issue for the Obama administration?

I did quite seriously think about this before I posted my last post on this - and I would like to point out that if this issue isn't tackled immediately the administration will find trouble in various fields.

I really respect your task to keep this on track - but I would suggest that this discussion belongs here, and defining it as 'off topic' would basically shut down a discussion that's necessary. I would seriously ask the mods to reconsider this, if you were in fact planning to banish the Israel/Gaza issue from this thread. I'd consider this a serious gap in this discussion. Just a look at the news should make it obvious why this belongs here.


This topic is off topic in this thread until we've discussed this among the staff. I can understand that there is need to discuss possible solutions to the current conflict and the role of the US and Obama in the near future.

However the past has learned us that the conflict Middle East usually leads to an Pro-Israel v Pro-Palestinian discussion. With US bashing as an added bonus. Therefore until said otherwise I currently put that topic on hold.

I'm going to work up an official thread with the other staff on the Israeli/Gaza conflict. However a lot of us are on New Year breaks right now, so a new topic may not appear for a day or so until there's more staff to police such a lively thread.

So it's off topic until the thread appears and will result in post deletion. It will also be a thread in the DoIMC, not US politics thread.

Any word on Michelle's dress for the inauguration? They have 10 balls to go to - will she change?

I have no idea. I'm not planning on changing, other than a different gown for each night. Not that anyone will care a whole lot what I'm wearing. :lol:

They are moving to Washington this weekend, though, taking up lodgings in an undisclosed D.C.-area hotel to accommodate Malia and Sash starting school on Monday. I think the plan is still for them to move into Blair House on the 15th, once the gang at the Bush White House exhaust their going home parties. The name of the hotel is being kept secret for now in order to accommodate the Secret Service's security canvass. I imagine there will be a huge crush of reporters and cameras at Sidwell when the girls arrive on Monday. Ridiculous, really.

They seem to be doing a good job of keeping the girls out of the limelight for the most part.

They seem to be doing a good job of keeping the girls out of the limelight for the most part.

They sure do. They are excellent parents. My hat's off to them on that one.

The Obama family have left Hawaii. Indeed, they may already have arrived in Chicago. They move this weekend into the Hay Adams Hotel across the street from the White House in Washington.

ETA:

I just read a column by James Fallows of the Atlantic. He lives abroad and was traveling over the holiday and writes of this experience in an airport in Indonesia, en route to Beijing:

11 am Indonesia time, January 1, 2009. Present our boarding passes to uniformed military police supervising the entrance to an international airport in Indonesia, for first of several connecting flights back to Beijing. For reasons that will be evident after the next posting, I'm not naming the airport.

"Where you from? Australians?" one of the policemen asks. It is the most likely guess for people who look like us in this part of the world. Amerika Syarikat, I reply - "the United States." We used to live in Malaysia, and after our struggles with Mandarin the Malaysian/Indonesian language feels practically like our native tongue.

The officer pulls himself up to attention and with a huge smile gives us a snappy military salute. "America - very good!" he said. He lowers the salute and says "Barack Obama!!" with a big thumbs up.

It's been a while...

(Yes, yes, Obama is a particular favorite in Indonesia because his childhood years in Jakarta make him seem a local boy made good. Still, this is not the spontaneous reaction to the name "America" that traveling Yanks have gotten used to in recent years.)

Ain't that the truth! I was so used to some version or other of "Yanqui Go Home!" in the 1970's and 1980's, it felt a lot better to just stay at home.

Hmmmm... I don't think the treatment of US-Americans abroad is in any way excuseable, but there is no denying that it is true. I haven't only seen it as reaction to travellers, but I remember that even in a rather open-minded, international place such as Oxford University Americans kept finding some sort of anti-American undercurrent, which was particularly galling for those who didn't at all agree or identify with US policies. One has to say, too, that this wasn't just the case under Bush - many Europeans were happier with Clinton, at least initially, and always less.... mystified/outraged in any case, but one can't underestimate the aftershocks of leftish politics in the 1970's and 1980's and the cold war climate, either.

I am pretty sure that the culture differences will remain to be difficult to cope with, but at the moment, I know so many people this side of the Poind who still can't wipe that satisfied smile off their faces when thinking about Obama - that has to have an effect on how Americans are received.

One thing I wonder about is whether there could be a slow change - the next intake of university students were born in 1989. The Cold War and its polemics are forgotten.... Bush and the war on terror currently defines attitudes towards America among the next generation. As in quite a few other matters, there might be some leeway for new attitudes, if the situation demands or allows. It'll be interesting to watch.

I am pretty sure that the culture differences will remain to be difficult to cope with, but at the moment, I know so many people this side of the Poind who still can't wipe that satisfied smile off their faces when thinking about Obama - that has to have an effect on how Americans are received.

Those smiles, both at home and abroad, are both striking and especially gratifying. There does seem to be an extra helping of hope and global goodwill as his inauguration approaches. I'm really enjoying the bonhomie.

One thing I wonder about is whether there could be a slow change - the next intake of university students were born in 1989. The Cold War and its polemics are forgotten.... Bush and the war on terror currently defines attitudes towards America among the next generation. As in quite a few other matters, there might be some leeway for new attitudes, if the situation demands or allows. It'll be interesting to watch.

New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks addressed this point in his "Children of Polarization (http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1)" last year.

Today’s college students, remember, were born around 1987. They were 2 or 3 when the Berlin Wall fell. They have come into political consciousness amid impeachment, jihad, polarization and Iraq. Many of them seem to have reacted to these hothouse clashes not by becoming embroiled in the zealotry but by quietly drifting away from that whole political mode.

[...]

If my Duke students are representative, then the U.S. is about to see a generation that is practical, anti-ideological, modest and centrist (maybe to a fault).

[...]

But over all it’s bad news for Republicans. While the G.O.P. was once thought of as the practical, businesslike party, now most of my students see the Republicans as the impractical, ideological party — on social and science issues as well as foreign and domestic policy.

That’s not the way to win the children of polarization.

Brooks wrote these words in February 2007, almost two years ago. He was right then and his premise is right now. He was speaking of the Class of 2007. Your Class of 2009 is, if anything, even more pragmatic and less accepting of blind ideology.

Apparently there's a registry created so women can make sure they are not wearing the same Inauguration dress as someone else. (Pretty cool idea).

10 balls is a lot of opportunity for showcasing American design talent.

Specifically, the GOP wants a "week-long cooling-off period" after the legislation is written, so that Republicans can identify spending proposals they deem "irresponsible."

My first reaction was to raise an eyebrow, noting the irony of McConnell and Boehner complaining about bloated spending bills, government waste, and bills rammed through Congress, given their own leadership in recent years.

Yeah, it does seem hypocritical for those two to now all of a sudden call for restraint. Still, it's the right thing to do, and let's hope they're sincere. Democrats obviously haven't learned the lesson that rushing major things through is detrimental in the long run. I.e. Iraq War, Patriot Act, Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Then something else occurred to me. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but looking over their coordinated responses, I couldn't help but notice that neither of them criticized the idea of massive government spending as a way to stimulate the economy. In other words, neither struck the neo-Hooverite position, which seemed to be the GOP message a couple of weeks ago.

I'm inclined to think this might be an encouraging sign. Republican leaders on the Hill, who've no doubt talked to economists, implicitly agreed yesterday that a rescue package is, in fact, necessary. They want "tough scrutiny and oversight" of the spending, and expect hearings and safeguards, but at no point yesterday did GOP leaders criticize the notion of spending lots of money to help get the economy moving again.

With that in mind, the debate will be over the size and scope of a stimulus package, not whether to have a stimulus package. Given those circumstances, not to mention PEBO's whopping 82% approval rating (which I'm quite sure is calibrated into McConnell's and Boehner's thinking), we have reason for at least some optimism.

Are we really certain that spending billions upon billions is the way to go? "Tough scrutiny, oversight, and safeguards" are the very minimum that should be expected. Thus far, what has been given out has been nothing more than a panacea of various groups and industries thrusting out their hands and begging for their very own piece of the pie. Obama's "Yea" vote for TARP was one of the biggest reasons I finally decided not to vote for him. Since he dropped the ball on that ridiculous bill, I hope that just because he has a so-called approval rating of 82% (guess I'm an 18 percenter) that he doesn't force a even larger and more shameless bill. What a way to prove his critics right from the get-go if he does.

I'm not saying I'm against injecting dollars to stimulate the economy, but there needs to be real purpose and real accountability before we sign off on this. Obama hasn't given me any reason to trust him on this yet.

I think it's the right thing to do, but, like you, they'd better come up with better accountability and oversight than what Bush and Paulson have done so far. My God! Paulson's "none of your business" on who got what this last round was outrageous.

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/soldout.jpg

I personally would have let the banks twist in the wind and rot.

My mum has Canadian Bank accounts which are all national banks and she says she can transfer money the same day to "friendly" banks, which are all the big 10. The US banking system is really suffering from its fragmentation, like health care, like auto emissions standards, like ...

I personally would have let the banks twist in the wind and rot.

Same here. I truly hated the idea that government was going to spend my dollars on these folks. Let die on the vine. Other companies will grow in their place, and will have learned from the experience.

My mum has Canadian Bank accounts which are all national banks and she says she can transfer money the same day to "friendly" banks, which are all the big 10. The US banking system is really suffering from its fragmentation, like health care, like auto emissions standards, like ...

Huh? Sorry, but you lost me. Because this seemed to come out of the blue, however, I do have a question. If all banks were linked that closely, wouldn't they all fail, instead of just a few?


-Tibbetts

The president elect is back from vacation and has delivered another weekly address; this time on his vision for a massive economic recovery package. He framed his proposal in an interesting way. Very reminiscent of the style we saw in him during the campaign, he continues to advocate an ambitious progressive agenda using middle-of-the-road language. He insisted this morning, for example, that the "problems we face today are not Democratic problems or Republican problems." The pressures facing families "know no boundaries of party or ideology." We must "come together as Americans," and do what "economists from across the political spectrum agree" we must do. Obama noted that he'll head to Washington next week to meet with "leaders from both parties," to craft a recovery plan that advances "not the interests of any party, or the agenda of any one group, but the aspirations of all American."

The proposal itself is, however, unquestionably progressive. His "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" focuses on energy independence, infrastructure investments, improvements to the health care system, and a renewed emphasis on improving public schools. The not-so-subtle goal, it seems, is to present a liberal agenda as the obvious, consensus approach on which everyone can agree.

The business of redefining the center has begun. Here's the video:

4sZKlKEU2do

Bill Richardson withdraws his name from Commerce Secretary consideration

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493919/

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.

"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact," he said Sunday in a report by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. "But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."

A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a lucrative New Mexico state contract.



It seems like scandal follows this man we just elected wherever he goes. 2 major ones before his inauguration? Are you kidding me?

I am going to make this very clear for future discussion of Bill Richardson and this case.

Not guilty until proven otherwise. Therefore this case is going to be discussed in a reasonable manner. No slurs.

Any unfounded accusations, personal opinions stated as facts will either need to be edited or might be deleted.

Thanks, Hes.

I'm not much concerned about Richardson's withdrawal. Honestly. All the cabinet nominees are being put through a vetting more thorough than anything I've ever seen. And not just by the transition team - they're also being vetted by congressional committees. I'm guessing Richardson has an issue that may not be that big a deal, but, as he said, could complicate the confirmation process.

I'd rather hear about these things now than through partisan posturing in committee.

ETA:

Chris Cillizza (WaPo's "The Fix") had some words on the Richardson withdrawal:

The decision by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to withdraw his name from consideration as secretary of Commerce today marks the first visible crack in what had been one of the smoothest presidential transitions in modern history.

Richardson's decision to step aside, which was first reported by NBC's Andrea Mitchell, was confirmed by President-elect Barack Obama in a statement this afternoon.

The root cause for the resignation appeared to be an ongoing investigation into Richardson's relationship with a financial firm that had won state contracts after donating to the governor's political action committee.

Richardson's sudden -- and surprising -- departure is in keeping with the recent history of filling cabinet posts, where at least one of the president-elect's choices winds up not making the gate.

For President George W. Bush that was Linda Chavez (Secretary of Labor); it was Zoe Baird (Attorney General) for President Bill Clinton and John Tower (Secretary of Defense) for President George H.W. Bush.

Despite the setback posed by the Richardson news, polling suggests Obama has built up plenty of good will during his transition process and is not likely to be knocked off track by today's news.

More here: Richardson Withdrawal Mars Seamless Transition (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/richardson_withdrawal_mars_sea.html)

I'm guessing Richardson has an issue that may not be that big a deal, but, as he said, could complicate the confirmation process.

I'd rather hear about these things now than through partisan posturing in committee.



Yeah, but what a shame that so much time had to elapse before Richardson came clean.

And what if the vetting process hadn't found it? Was the guy just going to accept and put the Administration in a bad spot later on?

Eeech.

Thanks, Hes.

I'm not much concerned about Richardson's withdrawal. Honestly. All the cabinet nominees are being put through a vetting more thorough than anything I've ever seen. And not just by the transition team - they're also being vetted by congressional committees. I'm guessing Richardson has an issue that may not be that big a deal, but, as he said, could complicate the confirmation process.

I'd rather hear about these things now than through partisan posturing in committee.

ETA:

Chris Cillizza (WaPo's "The Fix") had some words on the Richardson withdrawal:

The decision by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to withdraw his name from consideration as secretary of Commerce today marks the first visible crack in what had been one of the smoothest presidential transitions in modern history.

Richardson's decision to step aside, which was first reported by NBC's Andrea Mitchell, was confirmed by President-elect Barack Obama in a statement this afternoon.

The root cause for the resignation appeared to be an ongoing investigation into Richardson's relationship with a financial firm that had won state contracts after donating to the governor's political action committee.

Richardson's sudden -- and surprising -- departure is in keeping with the recent history of filling cabinet posts, where at least one of the president-elect's choices winds up not making the gate.

For President George W. Bush that was Linda Chavez (Secretary of Labor); it was Zoe Baird (Attorney General) for President Bill Clinton and John Tower (Secretary of Defense) for President George H.W. Bush.

Despite the setback posed by the Richardson news, polling suggests Obama has built up plenty of good will during his transition process and is not likely to be knocked off track by today's news.

More here: Richardson Withdrawal Mars Seamless Transition (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/richardson_withdrawal_mars_sea.html)

Purple, I'm not sure this is as big a deal in the greater context of the incoming Administration. As I recall, President Clinton went through two AG nominees before getting Reno and Bush 43 had a couple of nominees drop out (Homeland Security?) and no one really remembers them.

Right now, the Richardson thing is more an item for New Mexico, than for the incoming administration. Commerce isn't as important a post as say, AG, and as soon as another nominee is named, then the book will be closed on Richardson.

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17040.html)'s take is that the transition team did press Richardson and "got nothing".

In the end, I agree with your take Gator that it won't hurt Obama as much as it will hurt NM and Richardson. Even if nothing comes of it in the end, since it became public, it makes him look bad. People seem to remember the accusations better than the exonerations, for whatever reason.

I think it may depend on what the Grand Jury decides. If there is nothing there, Bill could not have been expected to "come clean". If he comes out of it clean then there will probably be something for him in the future. Obama certainly left that door open, although the rumors are that his team is angry at Richardson. I kind of don't understand why someone like Richardson, so apparently qualified, is failing to score or move ahead.

Here's a "leaked" slam piece on Richardson. (Similar to slam piece on Bill Clinton during primary in Vanity Fair).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/richardsons-lies-have-fin_b_155150.html

I do believe Obama uses media channels very well, but now I simply have to define some outlets as propaganda voices. Like when Rick Warren issues arose, these people started pushing stories about the female poet laureate nominee.

In Canada, we could tell the difference between indigenous news stories, and "photocopied" press releases from US powers that be, by their tone. It's basically the same here, except the players have changed a bit with the transition.

I personally would have let the banks twist in the wind and rot.

Same here. I truly hated the idea that government was going to spend my dollars on these folks. Let die on the vine. Other companies will grow in their place, and will have learned from the experience.

Yes... well... that sounds good, doesn't it.

But in my opinion that's a very short-sighted view.

If the banks go bust, it's *our* money that's lost. And that hurts individuals more than the tax dollars (or pounds, in my case) which are paid out in our name to keep the banks from going bust.

It was bad enough to see a run on a bank as we had in the UK in summer 2007. Withoput those packages this would probably hgave become a normal sight.

You live in a country that hasn't seen this sort of thing for ages - but I have elderly relatives who lost everything in various kinds of economic disasters for up to five times in their lifetime. 'Let the banks twist in the wind and rot' means we all 'twist in the wind and rot'.

Just saying.


I agree that much more strings have to be attached to the money that is being given to the banks (and anyone else, for that matter) - but there are indeed companies that can't be allowed to fail. We have to make very sure, though, that the money won't end up as a hand-out to their bosses, or (more of a danger) their shareholders.

I hope Obama manages to come up with a sensible compromise.

PEBO is back at work. He arrived in Washington last night on an Air Force plane normally used for Dick Cheney or First Lady Laura Bush. Here's an image:

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/05move.jpg

“I’ve got to say that I choked up a little bit leaving the house today,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the press cabin before take-off from Chicago. “Malia’s friend had dropped off an album of the two of them together. They’ve been friends since preschool, and I just looked through the pages. The house was empty, and it was a little tough. It got me.”

Aides who boarded the plane in Chicago before Mr. Obama’s motorcade arrived, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser, and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, were plainly excited at being aboard one of the presidential planes for the first time. Several said the experience drove home the realization that Mr. Obama had won the presidency.

“It’s a little clearer now,” Mr. Gibbs said. “Nice digs.”

I can't tell you how Bob Gibbs-y that remark is. :lol:

Today was filled with meetings, both on Capitol Hill and in the Washington headquarters of the the transition team. I'll have more on those meetings a bit later.

Yes... well... that sounds good, doesn't it.

Yep. Sounds just fine to me. Unfortunately, my government has decided to go all socialist on us. I don't like it. I think it will hurt us in the long run.

PEBO is back at work. He arrived in Washington last night on an Air Force plane normally used for Dick Cheney or First Lady Laura Bush. Here's an image:

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/05move.jpg

“I’ve got to say that I choked up a little bit leaving the house today,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the press cabin before take-off from Chicago. “Malia’s friend had dropped off an album of the two of them together. They’ve been friends since preschool, and I just looked through the pages. The house was empty, and it was a little tough. It got me.”

Aides who boarded the plane in Chicago before Mr. Obama’s motorcade arrived, including David Axelrod, a senior adviser, and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, were plainly excited at being aboard one of the presidential planes for the first time. Several said the experience drove home the realization that Mr. Obama had won the presidency.

“It’s a little clearer now,” Mr. Gibbs said. “Nice digs.”

I can't tell you how Bob Gibbs-y that remark is. :lol:

Today was filled with meetings, both on Capitol Hill and in the Washington headquarters of the the transition team. I'll have more on those meetings a bit later.

It was nice seeing Obama walk off a plane with Presidential markings. :agree:

To be honest, I actually got a little choked up there for a sec. My country has finally moved to a point where a black man can walk out of one of the Presidential planes, as President Elect, and it feel not only normal, but right.


-Tibbetts

Obama's pick for head of the CIA is Leon Panetta. He's a former Congressman and was Clinton's chief of staff from 1994-1997, but doesn't have any real experience in intelligence. He's bee a firm opponent of torture.

I'm fairly happy with the pick. Obama was in a very tough spot, because CIA are very hostile to anyone who isn't from inside the organization, but everyone with a senior CIA position is complicit in the torture policies of the Bush Administration. Personally, I would have been strongly in favour of giving the position to Richard Clarke - former US head of counterterrorism efforts and expert on al-Qaeda - but there's a lot of competition between government agencies and I expect CIA would have resisted him strongly. Don't know why Obama couldn't have made him Director of National Intelligence, though (that job went to Navy Admiral Dennis Blair).

I like both picks. If ever there was a doubt that PEBO means to break totally with Bush's policies of approving harsh interrogations, waterboarding and extraordinary renditions, and warrantless wiretapping, these appointments are the proof. Panetta will bring a cabinet-level focus to the CIA, which was downgraded to sub-cabinet level in recent years. I won't be at all surprised to see the agency resume its former importance - that of chief intelligence counselor to the president - or to see its rival in the Pentagon disbanded.

The military needs its own intelligence service. Sometimes, civilians don't see something that a military organization would. And the civilian organization wouldn't react properly to it, because they have different priorities.

So, the Pentagon would need to keep its intelligence aparatus, IMO.


-Tibbetts

Maybe... I know the military always has its own intel, but this group I'm talking about was set up by Cheney and Rumsfeld as a rival to the CIA. It performs essentially the same functions as Langley and is separate and apart from regular military intel operations. Many of us believe it was this group that put together much of the "flawed intelligence" we had at the time of the Iraq invasion.

ETA:

It was nice seeing Obama walk off a plane with Presidential markings. :agree:

To be honest, I actually got a little choked up there for a sec. My country has finally moved to a point where a black man can walk out of one of the Presidential planes, as President Elect, and it feel not only normal, but right.


-Tibbetts

It got me, too. :upset: I was a basket case for a few minutes when I saw that picture.

Maybe... I know the military always has its own intel, but this group I'm talking about was set up by Cheney and Rumsfeld as a rival to the CIA. It performs essentially the same functions as Langley and is separate and apart from regular military intel operations. Many of us believe it was this group that put together much of the "flawed intelligence" we had at the time of the Iraq invasion.
Yes... but the CIA has a long history of flawed intelligence and botched operations as well. It's not a simple as the CIA being good at intel and the military being bad at it.

However, you're right that the same function shouldn't be duplicated across multiple government agencies. It's inefficient and leads to turf battles.

Panetta seems to be a significant shift... I can't think of a previous time when a Congressman was appointed to head the CIA. It's traditionally been either CIA members or - if the CIA is in disfavour - a Navy man. I may be forgetting someone, though.

Panetta will be caught between wanting to increase CIA accountability to government and the public (and much of the public will desire that as well) and wanting to make the CIA - who have always been deeply hostile to oversight - accept him as head and work productively with him. If the CIA don't like the guy in charge they'll just freeze him out and manage things through the deputy director - it's been done before.

Yes... but the CIA has a long history of flawed intelligence and botched operations as well. It's not a simple as the CIA being good at intel and the military being bad at it.

However, you're right that the same function shouldn't be duplicated across multiple government agencies. It's inefficient and leads to turf battles.


Like any business, the public service tends to engage in poaching of responsibilities as that leads to power which is the service's form of profit.

It would seem, however, that the US intel community could do with a shake-up. First up, if it were my call, would be the creation of an organisation comparable to MI5 or ASIO to deal with issues of domestic intelligence and scale back the FBI to its original remit as countering interstate and federal crime.

But that's something I feel that would be beyond Obama for the simple reason that the US is a big country and big countries have big bureaucracies and big bureaucracies have a lot of clout and won't surrender power without a fight.

It got me, too. I was a basket case for a few minutes when I saw that picture.
I was just impressed with how good he looked stepping off that plane. He really belonged there.

Yes... but the CIA has a long history of flawed intelligence and botched operations as well. It's not a simple as the CIA being good at intel and the military being bad at it.

However, you're right that the same function shouldn't be duplicated across multiple government agencies. It's inefficient and leads to turf battles.

Panetta seems to be a significant shift... I can't think of a previous time when a Congressman was appointed to head the CIA. It's traditionally been either CIA members or - if the CIA is in disfavour - a Navy man. I may be forgetting someone, though.

Panetta will be caught between wanting to increase CIA accountability to government and the public (and much of the public will desire that as well) and wanting to make the CIA - who have always been deeply hostile to oversight - accept him as head and work productively with him. If the CIA don't like the guy in charge they'll just freeze him out and manage things through the deputy director - it's been done before.

Warrior, Porter Goss was a Congressman appointed to head the CIA who happened to have been a former covert agent as well.

This is an extraordinarily bad pick from the perspective that Mr. Panetta won't know what he doesn't know. He's a budget guy, not a process guy, so any oversight he could potentially bring to the table would be overwhelmed by his ignorance of the subject matter.

I have no problem with a Congressman being the director. I even have no problem with a partisan Democrat, but would have killed PEBHO to appoint someone with even a small modicum of knowledge of the area?

Jane Harmon? Dianne Feinstein?

This is a political pick, through and through and possibly the first indication that PEBHO is more attuned to politics than national security.

The military needs its own intelligence service. Sometimes, civilians don't see something that a military organization would. And the civilian organization wouldn't react properly to it, because they have different priorities.

They do - DIA as in Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA's much quieter cousin. DIA's been around for many many years - before the World Wars I believe. It wasn't created by Bush.

The intel unit I'm talking about is called SSB - Strategic Support Branch - which was set up by Donald Rumsfeld and Doug Feith (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/24/pentagon.intel/index.html) after the September 11 attacks. I don't have the time to properly search for links this morning, but the Guardian has a "special investigation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa)" on this "shadow right-wing network set up to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force."

I like the Panetta pick, I really do. What the CIA most needs, I think, is sound management and a whole lot less of the ideologues who have driven the agency into the ground.

ETA:

A quick search of the New York Times gives us:

THREATS AND RESPONSES: A C.I.A. RIVAL; PENTAGON SETS UP INTELLIGENCE UNIT (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E1D7123CF937A15753C1A9649C8B 63&scp=1&sq=secret%20intel%20unit%20in%20Pentagon&st=cse) - 10/24/2002

How Pair's Finding on Terror Led To Clash on Shaping Intelligence (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DE1F3AF93BA15757C0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&&scp=5&sq=secret%20intel%20unit%20in%20Pentagon&st=cse) - 4/28/2004

All I know is that President Bush promised to keep us safe here at home after 9/11 and he delivered. To me, that's the bottom line. Obama will have the power to change whatever he wishes, but he will be held accountable if something goes wrong and we are attacked.

I'll let that pass as this is the Obama thread.

After the inauguration, I'll be watching from nearby as President Obama escorts outgoing President Bush off to Texas at the departure ceremony.

I didn't care much for this: Atheists Granted Hearing on Inauguration Prayer (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2009/01/atheists_granted_hearing_on_in.html)

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento man known for trying to get "under God" removed from recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, has been granted a hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction to stop President-elect Barack Obama from saying "so help me God" when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20th.

Newdow and several other atheists will be in U.S. District Court Jan. 15. Collectively, they filed a lawsuit last week against inaugural organizers, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and other participants in the swearing-in ceremony. The lawsuit aims to remove the religious reference from the oath and to prohibit the scheduled invocation and benediction.

In 2001 and 2005, Newdow filed similar lawsuits to bar references at the swearing-in ceremonies of President George W. Bush. He failed.

While he argues that "so help me God" is not in the oath as written in the Constitution and that such references discriminate against atheists, critics cite the Obama's right to religious freedom.

I'll let that pass as this is the Obama thread.

After the inauguration, I'll be watching from nearby as President Obama escorts outgoing President Bush off to Texas at the departure ceremony.

I didn't care much for this: Atheists Granted Hearing on Inauguration Prayer (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2009/01/atheists_granted_hearing_on_in.html)

Michael Newdow, a Sacramento man known for trying to get "under God" removed from recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, has been granted a hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction to stop President-elect Barack Obama from saying "so help me God" when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20th.

Newdow and several other atheists will be in U.S. District Court Jan. 15. Collectively, they filed a lawsuit last week against inaugural organizers, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and other participants in the swearing-in ceremony. The lawsuit aims to remove the religious reference from the oath and to prohibit the scheduled invocation and benediction.

In 2001 and 2005, Newdow filed similar lawsuits to bar references at the swearing-in ceremonies of President George W. Bush. He failed.

While he argues that "so help me God" is not in the oath as written in the Constitution and that such references discriminate against atheists, critics cite the Obama's right to religious freedom.

There shouldn't be much to worry here, Purple. Newdow did the same thing in '01 and '05 and was involved in the "under God" controversy in California. He does it for publicity and Obama would be best served to ignore it and do what his faith tells him.

It's just one more detail in a long list for the crazy four days of the inaugural.

I didn't care much for this: Atheists Granted Hearing on Inauguration Prayer (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2009/01/atheists_granted_hearing_on_in.html)



Leave it to what must be a liberal judge to listen to this guy's garbage. Disgusting! :td::td::td:



After the inauguration, I'll be watching from nearby as President Obama escorts outgoing President Bush off to Texas at the departure ceremony.

I know you will have your hankie out to catch the tears and wave at him. Blow lots of kisses, purp! ;)

I hope so, Gator. :sigh:

Some on the left are questioning our new president's willingness to assume congressional Republicans will negotiate in good faith. They point out that Democratic attempts to do so over the past fifteen years or so have been ruthlessly punished. Thus, they're wondering aloud why, despite his significant majorities in both Houses of Congress, the president elect seems willing to take Republicans and the concerns they express seriously (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/president-elect.html).

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, argued that public dissatisfaction with the Troubled Asset Relief Program money to help stabilize the nation's financial systems and the way it was rammed through the Congress demands more transparency and accountability with the stimulus bill.

"I agree with you," the President-elect said, adding later that he would "demand complete transparency and accountability in doing it."

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Vir., suggested said the bill should be put on the Internet a week before Congress votes on it.

Mr. Obama smiled and said something along the lines of, "maybe if I was better at faking it , I'd say, 'Great idea -- we'll take you up on that.' But we've actually talked about this idea."

Rahm Emanuel, incoming White House Chief of Staff, interjected at that point to tell GOP leaders about creating an online app in which every stimulus program would be searchable, with reports on whether the initiative goes over budget, whether it's working, and whether it's creating jobs.

Obama, knowing how important credit is to lawmakers, told the Republicans, "Tell you what, we'll still call it the Cantor idea." Everyone was all smiles at that pont, and the New York Times noted (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06stimulus.html?_r=1&hp) that Republicans "praised Mr. Obama's willingness to hear their ideas, which is something they have often felt did not take place under President Bush."

It occurs to me, reading over the reports of Obama's time on the Hill, that the president-elect not only places a strong emphasis on creating proposals with bipartisan support, but seems to genuinely believe he can negotiate with the congressional minority in good faith.

Obama may very well be right, but I'm not sure where this confidence comes from. He's moving forward under the assumption that Republicans want to work with him, are willing to compromise, and stand ready to put national interests in the midst of a crisis ahead of partisan concerns. When Obama talked during the campaign about a "new" kind of politics, premised on the notion that people can be brought together with a sense of common purpose, he apparently meant it.

But the approach is not only a leap of faith -- trusting the character of angry far-right Republicans who see merit in Hoover's economic policies -- it also comes with considerable risk. [...]

Obama's instincts have a strong track record, but any discussion premised on the notion that congressional Republicans are credible negotiators who take policy seriously is inherently suspect. Indeed, even yesterday, Obama's efforts notwithstanding, GOP leaders, despite having very little leverage, complained the incoming administration wants to spend too much and cut taxes too little.

I hope Obama knows what he's doing. It's only the global economy on the line.

Everything this blogger says is true. But doesn't change have to start somewhere?

Besides, I have no doubt that Obama does know what he's doing. It's an age-old strategy called "give 'em enough rope to hang themselves." If the GOP is negotiating in good faith, things are fine. If they aren't, you can bet your last dollar we'll all know it.

ETA:

I know you will have your hankie out to catch the tears and wave at him. Blow lots of kisses, purp! ;)

I'll be waving alright, but I don't think I'll need the hankie.

Besides, I have no doubt that Obama does know what he's doing. It's an age-old strategy called "give 'em enough rope to hang themselves." If the GOP is negotiating in good faith, things are fine. If they aren't, you can bet your last dollar we'll all know it.

Virtually every President in recent history has started off trying to work with both sides of the aisle. Clinton did it, Bush did it, and Obama will certainly do it. Sometimes they've been effective at bringing about bi-partisan legislation that actually solves problems and other times they ended up with good intentions that go awry because there are too many different interests that need to be met.

I'll be waving alright, but I don't think I'll need the hankie.

This inauguration is huge and I think there will be lots of joyfully tearful faces. I'm keeping an eye on the local weather and will post updates when we get closer to the inauguration and the forecasts are more than guesstimates. Thus far it's been a cold winter but we have had a few days of really nice, warmer weather. Hopefully we'll have one of the nice days but we've had rain and even temperatures that were so cold the surgeon general was concerned the marching bands would get frostbite standing around in their uniforms so the parade was postponed and the swearing in was conducted indoors.

The first inauguration I went to was one of the cold ones. I was in high school and it was so cold my mother made me wear my snow boots under my gown. I can remember believing at the time that she'd ruined my life.....

***Edit***

Very strange report on something Al Zawaheri (sorry if I misspelled that) just said. Here's the quote:
What you are facing today is just occupation and settlement that is limited to one area or one country, but is part of a series in the Crusaders war against Islam. These air strikes are a gift from Obama before he takes office, and from Husni Mubarak, the traitor who is the primary partner in your siege and murder.

I can understand spreading the blame around, but Obama? What's he done to deserve blame? Kinda weird.....I'll try to find a link.....

To folks like Al Zawahiri, I think the fact that he exists is good enough reason to blame him.

Virtually every President in recent history has started off trying to work with both sides of the aisle. Clinton did it, Bush did it, and Obama will certainly do it. Sometimes they've been effective at bringing about bi-partisan legislation that actually solves problems and other times they ended up with good intentions that go awry because there are too many different interests that need to be met.

:agree: I'm not of the same mind as some of my favorite writers on the left, not with this one. I think it's beholden on us all to encourage this kind of give-and-take between the Executive and Legislative branches. I don't agree with you on giving Bush credit for working in a bipartisan manner. He talked a good game, yes, but when it came to his legislative issues he rammed them through without so much as a passing concern for the concerns of the legislators who had to write the bill, not even those of his own party.

This inauguration is huge and I think there will be lots of joyfully tearful faces. I'm keeping an eye on the local weather and will post updates when we get closer to the inauguration and the forecasts are more than guesstimates. Thus far it's been a cold winter but we have had a few days of really nice, warmer weather. Hopefully we'll have one of the nice days but we've had rain and even temperatures that were so cold the surgeon general was concerned the marching bands would get frostbite standing around in their uniforms so the parade was postponed and the swearing in was conducted indoors.

I'll appreciate the weather updates, believe me. We're flying in on Sunday the 18th.

As for tears, I honestly think I'm going to need tear implants by the time we return here on the evening of the 21st. I bawled my eyes out twice in Denver, when he won the nomination by acclamation and during his speech at Invesco. I bawled them out again in Chicago on Election Day. Surprisingly, the photo I posted of him walking off the Air Force plane brought more tears. Same with a recent phone conversation with him. It's so bad my daughter suggested waterproof makeup after seeing a picture of me with mascara and eyeliner running down my cheeks.

The first inauguration I went to was one of the cold ones. I was in high school and it was so cold my mother made me wear my snow boots under my gown. I can remember believing at the time that she'd ruined my life.....

This made me laugh out loud. My mother has Alzheimer's now and isn't really "with" me when I visit her these days. But she was a remarkably meticulous woman about her personal appearance and that of her two daughters. If I were to don a pair of boots with a fancy gown - no matter what the weather - I firmly believe she'd come back long enough to chew me out. :lol:

Very strange report on something Al Zawaheri (sorry if I misspelled that) just said. Here's the quote:

What you are facing today is just occupation and settlement that is limited to one area or one country, but is part of a series in the Crusaders war against Islam. These air strikes are a gift from Obama before he takes office, and from Husni Mubarak, the traitor who is the primary partner in your siege and murder.

I can understand spreading the blame around, but Obama? What's he done to deserve blame? Kinda weird.....I'll try to find a link.....

Zawahiri doesn't like Obama at all. Remember when he tried to swing the election for McCain a few months ago? I think al Qaeda is going to have to retool their rhetoric for this presidency. This must be the first salvo.

ETA:

It's safe to say this now that the press has gotten hold of the story: Bruce Springsteen will be performing before the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday, January 18th. This "welcoming" concert is free to the public. I love the Boss.

Jane Harmon? Dianne Feinstein?

I *loathe* Jane Harman. She ran all over Southern California trying to get elected in multiple areas before she got to Congress from South Bay.

Dianne Feinstein kind of lost me today on the Burris thing, calling for him to be seated. I don't know if she's trying to go contrarian so that she will be negotiated with ... on something in the future.

I feel sorry for Franken. I mean, it may be a close election but it was totally fair. Yet he is also not being seated yet. Although, he still does not have Governor's Certification. But there is absolutely nothing improper about his status.

I don't know much about Leon Panetta for CIA but Chief of Staff is a tough job, and anti-torture sounds good to me.

Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General sounds like a great idea to me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/06/sanjay-gupta-surgeon-gene_n_155701.html

We're keeping an eye on Feinstein after her public expression of pique (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19scene.html) over the Panetta pick. Feinstein, Jane Harmon and Jay Rockefeller are viewed by many on the left as complicit in the whole torture bit. I don't necessarily think not giving her the courtesy of a phone call ahead of the leak was an intended snub, but it's something to watch.

As Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/the-opposition.html) concluded, "[I]t's obvious that Obama has actually found someone both capable of running a bureaucracy as complex as the CIA, of a stature to be approved by the Congress and maintain good relations, and with the good sense to know how interrogation based on torture is never right and much less effective than legal methods. It remains an inspired choice. And the critics help show why."

Indeed.

The BBC broadcast a pretty impressive documentary on Obama's intellectual background yesterday. There was a lot I had not heard before, and some of it seemed pretty important. Since most of the people talking are academics, one can't deny that it is mostly pretty enthusiastic, but in a measured, considered sort of way... and if you don't like the idea of Obama, this might just give you a few ideas why.... or perhaps even give you a new insight.

For example, I understand better now why his economic attitudes aren't those of uour average leftish liberal. All very interesting.

Anyway - here it is, available until next Thursday,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gfqbd/Obama_Professor_President/

Thanks for the link, Klio!

Feinstein and Rockefeller were quick out of the gate Monday with negative reactions to Panetta becoming the next head of the CIA. If they hoped to encourage others to join them in opposition to Panetta, the two are off to a very slow start. By yesterday afternoon, the Panetta selection was earning positive reviews from most corners. In the House, both chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel had endorsed Obama's choice with enthusiasm. Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham (D), the former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said he was "happily surprised" to hear about Panetta taking the job.

And in the Senate, Reid gave his approval and endorsements were voiced from Intel Committee members Evan Bayh, Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Mikulski. Roll Call characterized (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_68/news/31091-1.html) Panetta's likely confirmation as a done deal, with "senators on both sides of the aisle [coming] out Tuesday in support of his nomination for the senior intelligence post."

Obama and his transition team "scrambled to mend a divide (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07cia.html)" yesterday, and were quick to reach out to Feinstein and Rockefeller to assuage their concerns. As part of the fence-mending, Obama will likely keep Stephen Kappes, a "highly regarded former Marine officer and agency veteran," on as the CIA's second-highest ranking official, a move that would not only please Feinstein, but would also reassure career officials at the agency. The quick action seemed to work, as Feinstein has since softened her initial stance.

Slate's Fred Kaplan has a good piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2208020/) on what Panetta will bring to the agency. Kaplan noted an email from Richard Clarke, who reminded him that Panetta, throughout the 1990s, "was one of a very few people who knew about all of the covert and special-access programs."

Clarke's first point is crucial -- Panetta knows, from experience, what a president wants and needs from intelligence reports, so he could represent the agency's views more cogently than many insiders might.

But the final point is important, too. These "special-access programs" -- satellites, sensors, and other intelligence-gathering devices whose very existence is known only to those with compartmentalized security clearances -- form a welter of costly, overlapping, ill-coordinated, and largely unsupervised projects that are run by private contractors to a greater extent than most people might imagine.

One former CIA official who is familiar with these programs (and who asked not to be identified) speculates that Panetta's main task might be to clean up not only the agency's high-profile mess -- the "black ops" that have tarnished America's reputation around the world -- but this budgetary-bureaucratic mess as well. Certainly, he knows where the line items are buried to a degree that few insiders can match.

I have the sense that Feinstein and Rockefeller probably shouldn't invest too heavily in fighting this one. They're probably going to lose. Their outburst doesn't strike me as a pair of senators seeking good management of the agency. It's more about protecting their private little fiefdoms. I have no interest whatsoever in encouraging such nonsense.

Bush Has Obama for Lunch (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28535240/)

:lol:

Notice how the Republicans are all wearing blue ties and the Dems red ones? Is this the new bipartisan America?
:wow:

ahhh...back from a bit of a Holiday break :wave:

Now then, on Panetta-- I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I have no problem with them man. He, in my opinion, has been a hard worker and an honest asset in our government. I've followed him through the years and think he will do his honest best in the new administration, am cool with most of his views.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have a ton of experience in CIA affairs--that being said, many government officials have experience that isn't exactly "on the resume". So, what do I know. Also, a fresh perspective in the CIA (new eyes, if you will) from someone who is forthcoming in a stance against torture, may not be a bad thing.

Feinstein...I have voted against her the last couple elections (she is my senator). I've come to not trust her. She started out okay in our state, then as she grew more powerful and entrenched in Washington politics, she seemed to change. I watched her bow to the last administration when she could have made a moral statement and stand. her increasing propensity to play "politics", rather than speak for her constituency (in my opinion), has dropped her worth as my representative. She's been appearing more and more spineless, even while her power grows, and when she does make a stand--it seems to be more of a career move than based in principals.

I'm not the only one that feels this way in California when I talk to others in our party. In my opinion, she's too entrenched, wields far too much power (or thinks she does), and it would do her very well to be taken down a few pegs and remember what she's in Washington to do (or get her out).

These strong opinions expressed here are mine, one of her constituents.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/01/08/alg_presidents.jpg

Pretty impressive group. Arranged by height I guess.

We're keeping an eye on Feinstein after her public expression of pique (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19scene.html) over the Panetta pick.

1. "We" ?

2. "Pique" ? Makes her sound capricious & powerless. She is neither.

Panetta is not confirmed yet, and there are still 41-2 Republicans in the Senate. All it takes is 9-10 Democrats to not be happy, not even for the same reasons, and there is a problem, or something you have to trade over, concessions you have to conceed. Which means your power going forward is eroded.

This may be Clinton v Obama shadow cabinet stuff. Feinstein supported Clinton. I understand her preference was the current Deputy CIA Director, and Biden called her to assure her that he will be staying on.

The Canadian parliamentary system is much more transparent. Everyone runs for their local seats, but while they are in opposition they are the "appointed critic" of the government. Each Cabinet minister has to win popular election in their district, and you have a fair idea of the team you are voting for going in.

Clarke's first point is crucial -- Panetta knows, from experience, what a president wants and needs from intelligence reports, so he could represent the agency's views more cogently than many insiders might.

This makes no sense. It enables Panetta to know what the President wants, I don't see how that leads to him representing "the agency" well. That said, I have nothing against Panetta.

I feel like Obama is drifting away from the West Coast. Feinstein is not happy, publicly. Bill Richardson is out. Rick Warren (!) anti-Prop 8 (even Schwartzie is for it) is at Inauguration ... I would say the West Coast is "watching" Obama.

Feinstein...I have voted against her the last couple elections (she is my senator). I've come to not trust her.

I'm not to keen on her since her support of Mukasey for AG. I don't know her that well. She's from San Fran and I'm in LA area.

If you didn't vote for her - who did you vote for?

I'm not to keen on her since her support of Mukasey for AG. I don't know her that well. She's from San Fran and I'm in LA area.

If you didn't vote for her - who did you vote for?

:lol: I honestly don't remember now. One of the independent candidates, as I didn't care for the republican either time, either (go figure).

I grew up and spent over forty years in the SF bay area. I had a cousin who was also mayor of SF years ago (and made an unsuccessful run for Governor of Calif. one year).

I live in So. Calif. now, but am probably more familiar with the SF political scene.

I can actually see how important primaries are now, especially in "safe" districts.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/01/08/alg_presidents.jpg

Pretty impressive group. Arranged by height I guess.

Not by height. Bush would be to the right of Clinton, next to Carter.

I'm not to keen on her since her support of Mukasey for AG.

The Mukasey confirmation isn't the only issue. I'm talking supporting torture here, and for that she's forever damned in my book.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday she intends to support President-elect Barack Obama's choice for CIA chief, Leon Panetta, despite her earlier comments that she had reservations about the choice.

Obama chose Panetta, a former White House chief of staff who has no formal background in the intelligence community, without consulting with Feinstein. He subsequently apologized to her for the lapse.

Feinstein said in an interview that she spoke with Panetta, a fellow Californian, for about 20 minutes on Tuesday evening and came away reassured.

"I had a good discussion with him. I'm confident that he understands. I am supportive," Feinstein said. "I've known him for 20 years. I know him to be a man of credibility and a man of conscience and a man of talent, and I believe he will surround himself with top-notch staff from the intelligence community."

After Obama's choice of Panetta was disclosed by news organizations Monday, Feinstein and intelligence committee colleague Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Va., voiced doubts about Panetta's lack of grounding in intelligence matters. Obama contacted both key senators to acknowledge what Vice President-elect Joe Biden called a "mistake," and the incoming administration has continued efforts to press Panetta's backing before he comes up for a confirmation hearing.

Feinstein earlier had expressed a preference for an intelligence professional to head the agency. But she said her confidence that Panetta would surround himself with good staff allayed that concern.

She declined to comment on whether she'd been given assurances that the agency's No. 2, Steve Kappes, would stay on, but indicated she wanted him to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/feinstein-backs-panetta-f_n_156025.html

Problem resolved. Dumb mistake I think not to talk to head of Senate Intelligence Committee before naming CIA Director. Although, I wouldn't want to be at Kappes-Panetta meetings.

Dem's look to me like they are playing a 2 administration strategy. Anything not resolved now can be resolved at 2 year or 4 year marks.

Better view of the heights.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/796/slide_796_14514_large.jpg

Too much yellow in that room. Needs a paint job.

Only Obama & Bush W in lapel pins.

Problem resolved. Dumb mistake I think not to talk to head of Senate Intelligence Committee before naming CIA Director.

The transition team has admitted as much.

Too much yellow in that room. Needs a paint job.

The walls are actually an eggshell white. I think it's the camera lights that give it the gold glow - and that rug doesn't help at all. It will be interesting to see what Barack and Michelle come up with for the Oval Office rug.

Only Obama & Bush W in lapel pins.

Can I just say how much it ticked me off that Barack was hassled to holy hell for not wearing a flag pin, while John McCain never wore one and never heard a word about it?

When was Obama hassled to holy hell for not wearing a pin?

Too much yellow in that room. Needs a paint job.


LOL!

Only Obama & Bush W in lapel pins.

Well, who is going to doubt the credentials of the others? and they have nothing they need to prove. Moreover, isn't that lapel pin thing rather recent and, frankly, a bit petty? I can't quite remember when it first became an issue, but I remember reading when it suddenly was made a huge issue because someone dodn't wear one. I am fairly sure it was after 9/11 rather than before. I never quite understand it. What does wearing a flag pin (or not wearing one) actually prove? Does anyone really think that someone isn't patriotic because they don't have a pin? I mean, if you know that journalists are going to notice, obviously you are going to wear the thing as a matter of course, so it says nothing anyway....

The walls are actually an eggshell white. I think it's the camera lights that give it the gold glow - and that rug doesn't help at all. It will be interesting to see what Barack and Michelle come up with for the Oval Office rug.

is that rug negotiable? It has the crest on it! I mean.... can you just say that you don't want the crest and go for, I dunno, a patterned rug instead? I'd be surprised. And I bet a rug for that office has to be specially made. With the eagle and all! Would Obama really spend money on having another eagle rug made, just to change the background colour a little?

is that rug negotiable? It has the crest on it! I mean.... can you just say that you don't want the crest and go for, I dunno, a patterned rug instead? I'd be surprised. And I bet a rug for that office has to be specially made. With the eagle and all! Would Obama really spend money on having another eagle rug made, just to change the background colour a little?

Those rugs change traditionally with each new president. Laura Bush designed the yella fella that lies on the floor of the Oval Office now, just as Hillary Clinton designed the one in Bill Clinton's Oval Office. I don't know what happens to the rugs once the keys to the White House change hands.

When was Obama hassled to holy hell for not wearing a pin?

You didn't catch that story? The right was really worked up about his absent flag pin for a while there. Here's a link (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/14/obamas-flag-pin-reappears/), and another link (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODk4MTAxZWZhZDcxYzA5NWUyNDAxN2Y5NjA5NGQxM2I=), and another (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3196), and finally another (http://mediamatters.org/items/200710060001). I believe this was a Drudge-driven controversy.

The Inauguration Poster (don't tell me that's not on topic!!!)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-01-07-shepardobamaposter.jpg

The original HOPE painting is going to The Smithsonian. I think that's fitting.

OK, I'm starting to get excited !

Guess what? I got called by Franken campaign today! I thought it was a joke, but it wasn't.

Also, Larry Flynt & big three of porn are asking Washington for a bailout. :rotfl:
Personally, I think they need to hustle their behinds more.
However --> proves why freedom of speech is important
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/porn-bailout-larry-flynt_n_155878.html

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/56986/thumbs/s-PREZ-large.jpg

This may be Clinton v Obama shadow cabinet stuff. Feinstein supported Clinton. I understand her preference was the current Deputy CIA Director, and Biden called her to assure her that he will be staying on.

The Canadian parliamentary system is much more transparent. Everyone runs for their local seats, but while they are in opposition they are the "appointed critic" of the government. Each Cabinet minister has to win popular election in their district, and you have a fair idea of the team you are voting for going in.
Yes, but each system has its advantages. Canadian cabinet ministers are by definition politicians, so it removes the ability to bring in outside experts (like Obama did with Steven Chu at Energy, for example). And sometimes a party just doesn't have many qualified people - like the Conservative government, which earlier gave the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs [Canada's equivalent to SecState] to a businessman with zero foreign policy experience, who promptly made a mess of things in Afghanistan.

The fact that Clarke came out in favour of Panetta makes me like the pick more.

Clarke was a plus for me, too. :tu:

Linda, I love the poster! Glad you shared it! I've been talking off and on with friends in the D.C. area and with Team O members who have moved there to serve in Barack's administration, and I'm hearing that the community is approaching this inauguration not as just another stuffy pomp and circumstance-y political thingy, but instead as if they're throwing a homecoming party for a beloved family member. This time, they're telling me, it feels like the city has taken ownership of what is fast becoming the people’s party. I'm getting so excited I've reset my "Backwards Bush" clock to reflect the days. hours, and minutes until my family and I arrive in Washington. I figure it's okay. I'll get to wave when Bush boards Marine One on the 20th.

I loved this video of Barack taking questions on Panetta at a press availability yesterday:

UGcXoGn7YFE

For those who can't view the videos, a partial transcript follows:

...He brings extraordinary management skills, great political savvy, an impeccable record of integrity. As chief of staff to the president he is somebody who obviously was fully versed in international affairs crisis management, and had to evaluate intelligence consistently on a day-to-day basis.

Having said all that, I have not made an announcement. When we make the announcement, I think what people will see is that we are putting together a top-notch intelligence team that is not only going to ensure that I get the best possible intelligence--unvarnished--that the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear, but instead are going to be delivering the information the president needs to make critical decisions to keep the American people safe.

I think what you're also going to see is a team that is committed to breaking with some of the past practices and concerns that have, I think, tarnished the reputation of the agencies, the intelligence agencies as well as U.S. foreign policy....

It's finally been revealed why Obama can't stay in Blair House. Its being used by a private foreign citizen staying on the US tax-payers' dime. (Not only that a private citizen who, in his former official role, said that an Obama win would be a victory for terrorists.)

"THE former prime minister, John Howard, has been exposed as the man who inadvertently bumped the US president-elect, Barack Obama, to the waiting list for the official presidential guest-manse, Blair House, forcing the next first family into the nearby Hay-Adams Hotel.

...

As for the Howards and the Obamas co-habiting in the manse, security arrangements would, no doubt, make that impossible.

But even if it had been feasible, it would have been very awkward. The day after Mr Obama announced his candidacy for the presidency in 2007, Mr Howard said Mr Obama's pledge to remove troops from Iraq would encourage the terrorists.

"I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Mr Howard told the Nine Network."

SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/double-booking-look-whos-sleeping-in-obamas-bed/2009/01/07/1231004105846.html)

For those who can't view the videos, a partial transcript follows: Thank you :clap: I appreciate that so much.

It's finally been revealed why Obama can't stay in Blair House. Its being used by a private foreign citizen staying on the US tax-payers' dime. (Not only that a private citizen who, in his former official role, said that an Obama win would be a victory for terrorists.)

Is Oz all "hatin' on" Howard ?

To me the point is, that Howard would probably cooperate in the lie IF in fact he was asked to stay there AFTER the Bushes refused the Obamas.

BUT given Laura Bush's graciousness (including having the kids over to see their rooms, and her two daughters being there to welcome them....) I just think it's a tempest in a teapot.

I remember when the Clinton to Bush W. transition took place and Clinton staffers removed "W" from keyboards in different ministries. It was really juvenile stuff. If this is the worst problem the Obama's have it will have been a fantastic Presidency.

Is Oz all "hatin' on" Howard ?

He is not a beloved former leader at the moment.

'morning, all!

I knew this was coming, but the headline was gratifying: Bush's homeland security setup faces ax (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28553919/).

Critics, aka Bush's supporters, say this move might mean things "fall through the cracks." But we've already seen an entire city fall through the cracks of the Bush labyrinth known as Homeland Security, so I'm not especially concerned. I've never been a fan of slapping additional layers onto an existing bureaucracy, which Bush has done with Homeland Security, Justice, the CIA and FBI, and probably others I'm less familiar with.

Daschle's confirmation hearing is scheduled today before Ted Kennedy's Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Weird as it seems, this committee will not vote on whether Daschle's nomination should be sent to the full Senate for a vote. That responsibility lies with the Senate Finance Committee. There are times when I think the Senate ought to be gutted and begun anew. It's so hard to figure out what the heck they're doing!

'morning, all!

I knew this was coming, but the headline was gratifying: Bush's homeland security setup faces ax (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28553919/).

Critics, aka Bush's supporters, say this move might mean things "fall through the cracks." But we've already seen an entire city fall through the cracks of the Bush labyrinth known as Homeland Security, so I'm not especially concerned. I've never been a fan of slapping additional layers onto an existing bureaucracy, which Bush has done with Homeland Security, Justice, the CIA and FBI, and probably others I'm less familiar with.

So, does this mean they are doing away with the Homeland Security Department? It says they want to do away with the Advisor but nothing about the Department.

Daschle's confirmation hearing is scheduled today before Ted Kennedy's Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Weird as it seems, this committee will not vote on whether Daschle's nomination should be sent to the full Senate for a vote. That responsibility lies with the Senate Finance Committee. There are times when I think the Senate ought to be gutted and begun anew. It's so hard to figure out what the heck they're doing!

What's Daschle's post going to be? I forget.


-Tibbetts

So, does this mean they are doing away with the Homeland Security Department? It says they want to do away with the Advisor but nothing about the Department.

It says "the independent advisor's office." I take that to mean the entire layer is about to be long gone. Katrina showed us just how useless that extra layer was in real time. It would have made no difference if a bomb had hit New Orleans; either way, the Homeland Security Department didn't do much securing.

What's Daschle's post going to be? I forget.


-Tibbetts

Tom will head Health and Human Services, from where we can expect major reforms in health care coverage.

It does seem like Obama is going to try to undo everything Bush has done. Is that a good thing? I think not.

I had heard it before that he was going to do this, let me look up some links (please buy me time!), but I thought it was just talk. If he's going to start with getting rid of Homeland Security, which cannot be blamed for Katrina (the blame needs to be put on the state of Louisiana), then it looks like it's already starting.

I don't care who you are. There is not one person who can say everything Bush did is/was wrong. Maybe you don't like him, but I'm sure you don't dislike everything he's done.

OK, here's a link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.executive.orders/). It just makes it seems like he's going in with the power to change everything that was done "Republicanly", if you will. Sure, he's going to be the President, and sure he is Democrat, but that doesn't make this right. I understand he's going to do what he believes and he's going to govern his beliefs. But, it just makes it sound like he's going in with the mindset to erase Republican from government and turn everything Democrat. I'm not going to say he's being mean, but it makes it sound mean.

It does seem like Obama is going to try to undo everything Bush has done. Is that a good thing? I think not.

The voters gave him a mandate to do just that in November. Change was embraced and is expected from the Obama presidency.

I don't care who you are. There is not one person who can say everything Bush did is/was wrong. Maybe you don't like him, but I'm sure you don't dislike everything he's done.

I can - and I do. I just scrambled my brain trying to think of something he did that I didn't abhor. Certainly there was nothing domestically. I'll settle on the work he did in Africa. He gets okay marks there.

OK, here's a link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.executive.orders/). It just makes it seems like he's going in with the power to change everything that was done "Republicanly", if you will. Sure, he's going to be the President, and sure he is Democrat, but that doesn't make this right. I understand he's going to do what he believes and he's going to govern his beliefs. But, it just makes it sound like he's going in with the mindset to erase Republican from government and turn everything Democrat. I'm not going to say he's being mean, but it makes it sound mean.

Bush made a point of undoing much of what Clinton set in place, too - along with undoing about 240 years of American jurisprudence along the way.

If these issues really become issues then he has the right to deal with them. If they are not issues, if they are not problems, then he should not go out of his way to make them so. What I've heard and what that article tells me is his mindset is to completely erase Bush as soon as he gets in office. You may tell me that's right, but there is no way you can make me believe that's right. I still wouldn't like it if it was the other way around and the Republican President was immediately trying to erase everything the former Democrat President did. You don't do that out of anger or hate or spite or just because you can. You do it if you have a real reason to do it and if an issue occurs, but you don't just do it because you have the power to do it. The Presidency is not a job where you do things out of spite.

I don't care who you are. There is not one person who can say everything Bush did is/was wrong. Maybe you don't like him, but I'm sure you don't dislike everything he's done.

Much as Clinton put environmental legislation in when he was transferring out so has Bush. He has created huge marine sanctuaries (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28506975/). Granted, the places protected are not current fishing areas nor energy deposits but at the rate that we are using up our natural resources people would be looking there before long. So he gets points for that in my book especially given his negatives on the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. I hope the Obama team doesn't give special dispensation for these marine areas to be used.

I am all for change, but sometimes the more expensive changes come when you scrape things down to the bones and start over. To my knowledge, although some could correct me, he is not getting rid of NCLB but making changes to it. So there is something there to build on. We shall see if he carries through...

Honestly, Leah, none of the upcoming changes will be done out of spite, anger, or hate. They will be done because an awful lot of wrong has to be righted. Those signing statements referred to in your link? Many, if not most, of them will be overturned. The Constitution was not written to permit a president to sign a bill and then issue a signing statement asserting that he doesn't have to follow the newly created law and/or legislation, or parts of same. Bush didn't do a whole lot to uphold the power vested in the legislative and judicial branches of our structure of government. The politicization of government offices - like Justice, as an example - also require immediate action.

With the way everything's been run it's been "We're not Bush. We're not Republican. Change, change, change. You hate Bush, so you like us." That's honestly the message I got from his campaign and then I read articles like the one I linked to and I watch things on the news about this issue and it upsets me. This is a Democracy not a Dictatorship. We do have a leader, but he has to listen to the people and that means every person. I don't want to be ignored and my party, which is not a small one, doesn't want to be ignored, either. The way things sound like they're going, we are going to be ignored and everything we worked so hard to get is going to wiped off the map, because we are not them and what we worked for was not done or created by them.

Who says Obama is going to ignore the Republican party and all the people who didn't vote for him? Everything the Republicans implemented in the last eight years?

Obama, his cabinet and the Democrats in both houses will have to work with the Republicans. I think I've heard Obama repeatedly addressing the need to work together.

So personally I think one shouldn't judge Obama positively or negatively on his coming presidency before he has had the change to be president. Which will start from the moment he's sworn in.

This is a Democracy not a Dictatorship.

And the decision from the great democratic forum was that the majority of people want Obama's agenda and because it is a democracy, the majority voice carries the day.

We do have a leader, but he has to listen to the people and that means every person.

The people spoke on November 4.

everything we worked so hard to get is going to wiped off the map

Good thing too, if you ask me.

You don't do that out of anger or hate or spite or just because you can.I'd like some evidence that Obama is going to undo things because of anger or hate or spite. He is just going to implement his agenda. And that agenda is what the American public voted for. He isn't going to waste time undoing things for petty reasons. He's going to be busy trying to get us out of our economic hole, and all his efforts will be directed to that goal.

As for things like stem cells or offshore drilling, that's just a matter of differing viewpoints for different presidents. Personally, I am eager for removing stem cell restrictions. I have a degenerative disease that might respond to stem cells.

Obama has stressed the importance of reaching across the aisle, so he has no intention of ignoring Republicans. But he isn't going to do or support things that he disagrees with just to please others (Democrat or Republican).

I don't know. I don't feel comfortable with everything I've read from his campaign to what he's been doing since he got elected. I want to feel comfortable. Do you have proof that he has it in mind to be bipartisan, that he is going to reach across the aisle? Sure, he needs to do what he believes in. That is something I did say in a previous post (the last or next to last one). I don't want him to completely erase everything that has happened in the past 8 years. What I've been reading and hearing, not just from right-wing sites, the one I linked was CNN, is that his goal is to go in and change everything Bush has done. Tell me what that is and tell me that you would be okay if a incoming Republican President did that to what the outgoing Democrat President's 8 years of work. Tell me that's bipartisan, because I don't see it. He talks about change, but is it change that will get us ahead or just to be different than what we had before?

Obama is going to run his office as a Democrat. I know that. I'd be stupid not to admit it. When he makes his decisions and appoints people to offices he'll be making his decisions as a Democrat and appointing people who think like him. I can't blame him for that. That's what every president does. I just don't want him to go in and completely erase everything Bush has done without giving it sincere and complete thought. It just seems to me that he's going in saying he wants to erase everything Bush has done in the past 8 years because the American people want change and we hate Bush. OK, you hate him, let's forget he was ever president. That's how I feel and I just want proof that's not going to happen. I've been watching the news, NBC (not MSNBC) and Fox News, and that's the feeling I'm getting from what I'm hearing.

I don't want him to completely erase everything that has happened in the past 8 years. What I've been reading and hearing, not just from right-wing sites, the one I linked was CNN, is that his goal is to go in and change everything Bush has done.
Changing everything that contributed to one of the worst presidencies ever can only be a good thing.

So far the changes Obama is proposing are resonating with the majority American populace in a good way. (I still have some misgivings, but I will wait and see)
:relax:

Leah, please read Dismantling the Imperial Presidency (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/huq). It touches very closely on the executive grab for power that occurred during the Bush presidency. The author is a progressive who directs the liberty and national security project at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. He is co-author of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror (New Press, 2007)

He is a 2006 recipient of the Carnegie Scholars Fellowship and has published scholarship in the Columbia Law Review, the Yearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, and the New School's Constellations Journal. He has also written for Himal Southasian, Legal Times and the American Prospect, and appeared as a commentator on Democracy Now! and NPR's Talk of the Nation.

Barack Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago before he began his political career and, as you might guess, is intimately familiar with the types of liberties Bush and Cheney have taken with with the U.S. Constitution. It is true, as Huq notes, that Bush's judicial appointments have created a federal court system that inherently evinces "strong deference to executive claims of secrecy and expediency. Paradoxically, then, one of Bush's key legacies will be a judiciary that instinctually hews to an executive controlled by a Democratic president."

He is not convinced Obama will restore the Constitutional balance on his own, even if he gives up the more offensive and extravagant policies embraced by George W. Bush. What you can expect to see, however, is Obama dismantling the skewed justifications for torture, the repeated breach of the rule of law, and the reinstatement of executive accountability. Quoting Huq again: " The other pressing issue to face the incoming administration - detention policy - is so complex and difficult, largely thanks to the outgoing administration's compounded mistakes, that it needs to be looked at separately."

I posted this bit to give you some idea of changes that will be forthcoming in an Obama presidency. These are in no way the only things that are going to be changed, mind you, but they are a place to start for someone worried about what might happen.

ETA:

Here's something that might help, too.

The president-elect sat down with bipartisan congressional leadership on the Hill yesterday, and made a pitch for an economic recovery package. Despite significant Democratic majorities in both chambers, Barack Obama gave every indication of taking Republican concerns seriously.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, argued that public dissatisfaction with the Troubled Asset Relief Program money to help stabilize the nation's financial systems and the way it was rammed through the Congress demands more transparency and accountability with the stimulus bill.

"I agree with you," the President-elect said, adding later that he would "demand complete transparency and accountability in doing it."

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Vir., suggested said the bill should be put on the Internet a week before Congress votes on it.

Mr. Obama smiled and said something along the lines of, "maybe if I was better at faking it , I'd say, 'Great idea -- we'll take you up on that.' But we've actually talked about this idea."

Incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told GOP leaders about creating an online app in which every stimulus program would be searchable, with reports on whether the initiative goes over budget, whether it's working, and whether it's creating jobs. Obama, knowing how important credit is to lawmakers, told the Republicans, "Tell you what, we'll still call it the Cantor idea."

Some on the left are not happy with him making overtures like this one.

I think that the impression that Obama wants to undo everything comes from him noting the many things he wants to change. It's more newsworthy to note the "change" elements, and hyperbole tends to take hold a bit in the rhetoric, so the things he won't change get overlooked. Secretary Gates is one notable example of him keeping something of Bush.

I recall stories last month about how Obama was trying to call many members of Congress individually, and how he did speak to the Republican governors. So, he at least seems to be making an effort to meet with Republicans, even if he ultimately enacts or attempts to enact policies that Republicans do not like.

He sat down with congressional leaders from both Houses and both parties just this past Monday. That meeting is where the quotes in my last post came from.

Here's video of the highlights from his speech on his economic stimulus package today:

wFrEGWR63Ro

ETA:

Here's a sign that our new president is listening: Obama urges delay in digital TV transition (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28562781/)

President-elect Barack Obama is urging Congress to postpone the Feb. 17 switch from analog to digital television broadcasting, arguing that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air channels won’t be ready.

In a letter to key lawmakers Thursday, Obama transition team co-chair John Podesta said the digital transition needs to be delayed largely because the Commerce Department has run out of money for coupons to subsidize digital TV converter boxes for consumers. People who don’t have cable or satellite service or a new TV with a digital tuner will need the converter boxes to keep their older analog sets working.

Obama officials are also concerned that the government is not doing enough to help Americans — particularly those in rural, poor or minority communities — prepare for and navigate the transition.

The legislated effective date was a tone-deaf Republican policy from 2005. Digital is the right way to go, no argument there, but with the tanking economy hitting lower-income Americans a lot sooner, and with a good deal less fanfare than what we've experienced just last year, not many of those families could afford the new boxes - let alone the expensive new televisions. And there's also the matter of yet another underfunded domestic program.

What I've been reading and hearing, not just from right-wing sites, the one I linked was CNN, is that his goal is to go in and change everything Bush has done.
I read the same article and didn't find where it said that he wanted to undo EVERYTHING that Bush has done. It mentioned a few things that Democrats didn't like that Bush did. The door swings both ways, and now Democrats can see some of their preferences dealt with, which BTW, Bush didn't feel like accommodating. Thankfully, it is a democracy and not a dictatorship, and now we will have a new direction chosen by the people. So I don't understand this anger because Democrats are finally going to get some things done their way. I just see balance being restored. And, as purplehawk has illustrated, some things he wants to reverse aren't Democratic or Republican, they are simply unjust and unconstitutional.

And I still didn't see any reference to Obama doing it out of anger or spite or hate. When people hold differing viewpoints, they are just that--differing viewpoints. An opposing viewpoint isn't held out of anger or spite or hate. It just an opposing viewpoint. Obama's approach to governing and what he considers important will differ from Bush's. And that is a large part of why McCain lost and Obama won (excluding any personal traits and skills that were also a crucial part of the mix).

And I don't think Obama's goal is undoing the past so much as shaping the future.

I'm not so much into "undoing" the Bush Presidency. The previous way things were done had flaws too. I am more interested in what Obama is going to "do" and I think we may see some very NEW institutions, that are neither what Bush had nor what the previous Clinton & other administrations had. It is a new Century and there are new challenges.

I must say, I have always despised the name "Homeland Security" which reminds me of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. So I will be happy to see that die. It's hard to know what works in security. As far as I can tell, almost all countries have several agencies in the field. Perhaps competition is good, or segregation of information improves security.

The legislated effective date was a tone-deaf Republican policy from 2005. Digital is the right way to go, no argument there, but with the tanking economy hitting lower-income Americans a lot sooner, and with a good deal less fanfare than what we've experienced just last year, not many of those families could afford the new boxes - let alone the expensive new televisions. And there's also the matter of yet another underfunded domestic program.

The all digital policy was the desire of the entertainment industry ("Hollywood") and it's hard to see how that is "Republican".

I long for a day when we can discuss policy without the words " pejorative Republican" or "pejorative Democrat" in the sentence.

I think this digital TV thing is connected to Obama's infrastructure plan which includes expanding the high speed internet grid. I imagine it will be rolled into that. Seems a pretty small thing to make an announcement about, although probably to justify the departments to not spend the money pending the "big plan".

President-elect Barack Obama is urging Congress to postpone the Feb. 17 switch from analog to digital television broadcasting, arguing that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air channels won’t be ready.

In a letter to key lawmakers Thursday, Obama transition team co-chair John Podesta said the digital transition needs to be delayed largely because the Commerce Department has run out of money for coupons to subsidize digital TV converter boxes for consumers...

I'm a little worried that government in this economically depressed time is going to spend all its money on maintaining the status quo payroll of government employees and have no money for actual ... you know ... programs !

Actually, I came post that Marion Robinson, Obama mother in law, will be moving to Washington too, which I think is absolutely fabulous! First Grandmother. Really gives respect to the role so many grandparents play in their children's and grandchildren's lives.

I must say, I have always despised the name "Homeland Security" which reminds me of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. So I will be happy to see that die.

That makes two of us. It always reminded me of that Gary WhatsHisName (the guy who played Sirius) acting out the part of a terrorist and talking about "The Motherland" in the movie Air Force One.

The all digital policy was the desire of the entertainment industry ("Hollywood") and it's hard to see how that is "Republican".

To get through the 109th Republican-controlled Congress, it had to have a good deal of Republican support to get passed. As for the perjorative, I admit to having trouble trying to remake myself as a post-partisan. You have to understand that I've just come to the possible end of forty years of hearing the word "liberal" flung around like an epithet - not to mention any number of others I don't care to get into.

I'm a little worried that government in this economically depressed time is going to spend all its money on maintaining the status quo payroll of government employees and have no money for actual ... you know ... programs !

We have to move quickly. Right now, we can still borrow - and spend - enough to regenerate the U.S. economy, but that window will soon close if we dally. If we reach that point, we're toast. The thing that frustrates me most is the similarity between the solution and the problem - as in we wouldn't be in this mess had we not gone on an eight-year spending spree.

Actually, I came post that Marion Robinson, Obama mother in law, will be moving to Washington too, which I think is absolutely fabulous! First Grandmother. Really gives respect to the role so many grandparents play in their children's and grandchildren's lives.

I am delighted to hear Marion is in D.C. now, but Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that her continued stay is not a done deal (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/01/michelles_mom_marion_robinson.html).

That makes two of us. It always reminded me of that Gary WhatsHisName (the guy who played Sirius) acting out the part of a terrorist and talking about "The Motherland" in the movie Air Force One.

You know, in all the discussion here, THIS is the ultimate sin. ;)

Gary Oldman, obvioulsy.
http://content9.flixster.com/photo/30/90/43/3090439_tml.jpg

I think I'll have to bring in some Siriusly partisan people to give you a hard time for that one ;) :D

You'll want the Republicans back once they are finished in here....






... OK... back to topic.....

I have to say, I also find it rather unlikely that Obama would be doing anything out of spite. I don't think I have ever come across one with that much self-control.... and, it has to be said, I think he is probably extremely calculating.

Doing something out of spite probably simply doesn't make *sense* to him, and it's hardly likely if he did something that didn't make any sense to him. That's how he comes across to me.

I am not saying that he might not be able to be ruthless if necessary, in fact, I am pretty sure he can be - but I'd be extremely surprised if he'd do anything for less than rational reasons....

:blush: I have a terrible time remembering names. I ran into Lawrence Funderburke in the grocery store today, knew immediately he was a former Buckeye basketball star (not least from his height), but couldn't recall his name for the life of me. What's worse, I could remember his game stats from high school! Thankfully, he took mercy on me and reintroduced himself, his wife and their two kids. Besides all that, I never liked the casting of Oldman as Sirius. He's too short. :p

As for Obama, I honestly don't think the man has a spiteful bone in his body. He just isn't motivated by such things.

Thankfully, he took mercy on me and reintroduced himself, his wife and their two kids. Besides all that, I never liked the casting of Oldman as Sirius. He's too short. :p

:lol:

And now it's really time to run and hide! A bad memory for names is permissible... but that?!!! You have no idea what forces you may just have unleashed. :D ;)

Obama might not be spiteful.... but I am not so sure about a Sirius fan who sees Gary Oldman ... scorned. ;) :D
Perhaps you should try to get asylum in the Republican's Social group ... that would be a very unlikely hideout ;) :D





More topical, but not entirely political.....

Surely, being inaugurated as US President is nothing compared to

This honour!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/7819726.stm)

Amazing. Literally ;)

Ah, yes, Spiderman! I've been saving images from the comicbook for our ComicBookWorm. I was going to surprise her with them. I have three already!

I happen to think that appearing alongside Spidey is a far greater honor than becoming the first black president. ;) :lol:

My guess? He's enjoying this stint immensely.

OK, here's a link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/obama.executive.orders/). It just makes it seems like he's going in with the power to change everything that was done "Republicanly", if you will. Sure, he's going to be the President, and sure he is Democrat, but that doesn't make this right. I understand he's going to do what he believes and he's going to govern his beliefs. But, it just makes it sound like he's going in with the mindset to erase Republican from government and turn everything Democrat. I'm not going to say he's being mean, but it makes it sound mean.

There's not one executive order by Bush cited in the article that I wouldn't reverse my first day in office if I were the one coming in.

If anything, I'm a bit dismayed that Obama isn't that much different, outside of the political spectrum. I'm not convinced that he's serious about reversing the sense of entitlement that Bush believed the office seemed to offer.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1367309,CST-EDT-sullum08.article#

Obama endorsed Paulson's illegal loans to GM and Chrysler, saying they were "a necessary step to help avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers." Evidently, Obama opposes only the unnecessary abuse of executive power. All the debate over what form the Obama-backed stimulus package should take may be pointless because our next president seems to think he may do whatever he deems necessary to protect economic security, no matter what Congress says.

And this is the man we're trusting to "fix" the economy? Ok, I'm for giving automakers a bailout, but with conditions. This tacit approval by Obama for actions undertaken by Secretary Paulson and GMAC concerns me. Sure, it's nice that Gitmo will be closed, more stem cells will be had, etc. But those are side issues compared to the economy, both national and global. And I frankly don't trust Obama who isn't showing himself to be that much different than his predecessor in this regard.

A cartoon that's worth a chuckle (I'm not savvy enough to imbed the image):
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/kevin_siers/story/454870.html

:blush: I have a terrible time remembering names. I ran into Lawrence Funderburke in the grocery store today

How can you forget a name like Funderburke?

How can you forget a name like Funderburke?

Who are you asking? It isn't as though he didn't grow up kinda under my nose, either. My sons played basketball against him in high school and in AAU summer leagues. I do, however, remember his telephone number and all those stats I mentioned. I'm just a weirdo who recalls every account number, equation or actuarial table I ever worked with, but not the names of the people involved. I have several hundred thousand social security numbers embedded in my brain and the account balances associated with those SSNs at the time I retired. I remember every telephone number I've ever dialed, which explains why my husband sometimes uses me as a walking, talking Yellow Pages.

There's not one executive order by Bush cited in the article that I wouldn't reverse my first day in office if I were the one coming in.

Not just the executive orders, but the signing statements as well. All those signing statements he released without fanfare after he'd signed a bill into law, asserting his right to ignore portions he disagreed with. The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage won a Pulitzer (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/savage_signing_statements/) for his work in ferreting out those damnable things.

Here's an example (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/) of one from January 2008, in which Bush asserted his right to ignore Congress' prohibition on building permanent military bases in Iraq because it "infringes on his executive powers."

Hagrid, just a quick point on Jacob Sullum, the author of the piece you've quoted. He's a right-winger who writes for Reason Magazine, which is a political journal that advocates the full gamut of libertarian causes. The magazine is owned by a foundation of the same name that challenges strict environmental regulations (as well as financial bailouts). I wouldn't take him entirely seriously.

Hagrid, just a quick point on Jacob Sullum, the author of the piece you've quoted. He's a right-winger who writes for Reason Magazine, which is a political journal that advocates the full gamut of libertarian causes. The magazine is owned by a foundation of the same name that challenges strict environmental regulations (as well as financial bailouts). I wouldn't take him entirely seriously.

Seeing as I voted for two Libertarians in the last election, they're looking a whole lot more appealing to me than the GOP or the Democratic Party. Personally, I think we should get rid of the lot of them, including Obama. That would be REAL change.

It would also create a vacuum that would lead to anarchy.

To get through the 109th Republican-controlled Congress, it had to have a good deal of Republican support to get passed.
By that logic, FISA is a "Democratic" bill since it passed the 110th Congress. I find it more useful to look at how members of Congress actually voted, but it's incredibly hard to find a specific bill on the Congress database unless you know its number.

We have to move quickly. Right now, we can still borrow - and spend - enough to regenerate the U.S. economy, but that window will soon close if we dally. If we reach that point, we're toast. The thing that frustrates me most is the similarity between the solution and the problem - as in we wouldn't be in this mess had we not gone on an eight-year spending spree.
Absolutely. Borrowing large amounts of money during an economic expansion was extremely unwise. And the dilemma you mention isn't just the government's - many people are in debt due to unsustainable spending on credit, and yet people are encouraged to spend more to fight the recession rather than paying down their debts. The government is doing the same. I understand it as economic policy - when other people aren't inclined to spend during a recession, the government needs to do it to avoid further contraction; and interest is pretty much 0% so there's no better time - but considering the US's debt load it's also a troublesome solution.

On another topic: I would like to see the Department of Homeland Security renamed, but that's largely a cosmetic change. I'm not at all happy of him appointing Brennan as a top advisor because people opposed giving the CIA due to his record on torture. Which yes, he did support. Waterboarding was just one of the more rarely used and extreme methods of torture; despite eventually speaking against it, he supported and was complicit in all the other uses of torture. He should not be part of the administration. That Obama has chosen to keep him suggests there will not be a great deal of change, and certainly not a full investigation into human rights abuses and civil liberties infringements under the Bush administration.

It would also create a vacuum that would lead to anarchy.


The ex-punk side of me kind of sees that as a good thing :p

BBC Article: Obama sees the end of Reaganism
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7819180.stm)

Not entirely happy with this. Monetarism and supply-side have reached their logical conclusion in state corporatism from my point of view on the Republican side. However, I'd have to warn against excessive intervention and the populist nature of Obama's brand of keynesian economics. Partly since, as a non-US citizen the inevitable trade barriers will harm our exports, the global market and as a result the US market. Secondly, a failure to price goods which is indicative of state involvement gives all sorts of services false value which is hardly going to help pull the US out of recession.

I can't feel much sympathy for the supply-siders. Reagan maintained that "government is the problem" bit, sure, but he also built the largest government on record until George W. Bush came along to snatch that dubious "honor." It is clear - to me, at least - that the small government mantra was little more than a bait-and-switch tactic to divert federal resources to war-making apparatchiks, while maintaining a halfway plausible excuse not to govern domestically.

I have a right to feel angry about it, considering where the supply-siders have led us.

It's not really a question of whether an economic discipline has been misused or not though. I agree with you that for a long while now those in power have said one thing and done precisely the other however, as an overseas observer protectionism will hurt us a lot so I think I'm justified in hoping that Obama does not follow the Keynesian doctrine too heavily.

For a state as large as the US fiscal discipline should be paramount. Over here we have a saying "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".

To be fair, I don't know enough about the less internationally known figures on Obama's team to work out how disciplined etc they are likely to be.

I agree with everything you've said here, 'Dose. He must not lose sight of the fact that this is a global crisis, not just an American crisis. I don't think there's much chance he will, though.

Here's his weekly address to the American people.

cTDln2f0GvQ

Here's the full text for those who can't watch video:


Radio Address
Saturday, January 10, 2008
Washington, DC

We start this new year in the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime. We learned yesterday that in the past month alone, we lost more than half a million jobs – a total of nearly 2.6 million in the year 2008. Another 3.4 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. And families across America are feeling the pinch as they watch debts mount, bills pile up and savings disappear.

These numbers are a stark reminder that we simply cannot continue on our current path. If nothing is done, economists from across the spectrum tell us that this recession could linger for years and the unemployment rate could reach double digits – and they warn that our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.

It’s not too late to change course – but only if we take immediate and dramatic action. Our first job is to put people back to work and get our economy working again. This is an extraordinary challenge, which is why I’ve taken the extraordinary step of working – even before I take office – with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will call for major investments to revive our economy, create jobs, and lay a solid foundation for future growth.

I asked my nominee for Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, and the Vice President-Elect’s Chief Economic Adviser, Dr. Jared Bernstein, to conduct a rigorous analysis of this plan and come up with projections of how many jobs it will create – and what kind of jobs they will be. Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities, and our economy.

The report confirms that our plan will likely save or create three to four million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector – the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs we save, like the teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services in our communities.

The jobs we create will be in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries. And they’ll be the kind of jobs that don’t just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to lead the world in the long-term.

We’ll create nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy – by committing to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years, and by modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improving the energy efficiency of two million American homes. These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can’t be outsourced.

We’ll create hundreds of thousands of jobs by improving health care – transitioning to a nationwide system of computerized medical records that won’t just save money, but save lives by preventing deadly medical errors. And we’ll create hundreds of thousands more jobs in education, equipping tens of thousands of schools with 21st century classrooms, labs and computers to help our kids compete with any worker in the world for any job.

We’ll put nearly 400,000 people to work by repairing our infrastructure – our crumbling roads, bridges and schools. And we’ll build the new infrastructure we need to succeed in this new century, investing in science and technology, and laying down miles of new broadband l

ines so that businesses across our nation can compete with their counterparts around the world.

Finally, we won’t just create jobs, we’ll also provide help for those who’ve lost theirs, and for states and families who’ve been hardest-hit by this recession. That means bi-partisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage; a $1,000 tax cut for 95 percent of working families; and assistance to help states avoid harmful budget cuts in essential services like police, fire, education and health care.

Now, given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won’t happen overnight, and it’s likely that things will get worse before they get better.

But we have come through moments like this before. We are the nation that has faced down war, depression and fear itself – each time, refusing to yield; each time, refusing to accept a lesser fate. That is the spirit that has always sustained us – that belief that our destiny is not written for us, but by us; that our success is not a matter of chance, but of our own courage and determination. Our resources may be finite, but our will is infinite. And I am confident that if we come together and summon that great American spirit once again, we will meet the challenges of our time and write the next great chapter in our American story.

Here's the report (http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf) (pdf).

Politico's Mike Allen (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17298.html) has a story this morning, noting that "tax cuts are a weak stimulus, compared to direct government spending" - and acknowledging that "tax breaks are likely to create fewer jobs than infrastructure investments." The report suggests, however, that the incoming administration has no choice but to pursue a variety of stimulus options:

"[B]ecause there is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame, and because tax cuts and state relief can be implemented quickly, they are crucial elements of any package aimed at easing economic distress quickly."

All of this comes, of course, just a day after we learned that the economy shed 524,000 jobs in December, and 2.6 million jobs in all of 2008.

It's not really a question of whether an economic discipline has been misused or not though. I agree with you that for a long while now those in power have said one thing and done precisely the other however, as an overseas observer protectionism will hurt us a lot so I think I'm justified in hoping that Obama does not follow the Keynesian doctrine too heavily.
I expect that trade policy won't change. Based on The Audacity of Hope, he's pro-free trade. He'll make some largely symbolic gestures in negotiating trade agreements in order to get blue-collar workers on side with it - a general, unenforced commitment to labour and environmental standards, for example. If he sells it effectively, it will ultimately be good for free trade, because if the working class feels it's inherently against there interests there will eventually be a protectionist backlash.

I've never really associated Keynesianism with protectionism, but with fighting recessions through government spending and considering economic growth as a higher priority than minimizing inflation; the oppose of current monetarist doctrine.

For a state as large as the US fiscal discipline should be paramount. Over here we have a saying "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".
That's true, as a general rule; but if nobody spends money during a serious recession, there's less demand for everything, leading to more jobs being lost and businesses failing, and it goes into a general downward spiral. However, the economic stimulus has to be geared to produce the maximum effect for each dollar, and not just throw money at everything out there without regard for its economic impact - which is going to be very difficult with several billion dollars on the table.

purp, do you have any information on where specifically the tax cuts will be directed (across-the board income tax cut, income tax cut for lower-income people only, business or capital gains cuts, etc?). Are these in excess of Obama's previously-planned cuts?

Mike Allen is right. And not only is spending more effective than tax cuts at stimulus (because all the money is spent, not some spent and some put in the bank), it would be less of a long-term burden on the US. Stimulus spending is a one-time thing; but once you have a tax cut it's on the books long-term, and it's very politically difficult to raise it again.

But I would bet the Republicans will do all they can to stick a capital gains cut in that bill and hope the Democrats cave on it.

EDIT: Ah, the Politico article has a little information about it.
But officials say the tax cuts will be based on historical and empirical evidence of what works, not ideology. Rather, the targeted tax cuts will be designed to stimulate job growth in the private sector and help middle class families, the officials said.

For families, the tax cuts include the $500 Making Work Pay payroll tax credit Obama proposed during the campaign.

For businesses, the tax cuts would include breaks for small employers and a “new jobs credit.”
I like the idea of a business tax cut being directly linked to the number of new jobs created; it makes far more sense to me than just giving a general one and taking it on trust that it will create jobs in the country rather than being used to raise CEO salaries or invest overseas.

I like the job requirement, too. Getting people back to work in jobs that are more secure than parttime McDonalds positions is a must-do.

Changing the subject, I have to say that if the FDA weren't so important the story I just read at WaPo might not be quite so painful (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803195.html).

In an unusually blunt letter, a group of federal scientists is complaining to the Obama transition team of widespread managerial misconduct in a division of the Food and Drug Administration. [...]

In their letter the FDA dissidents alleged that agency managers use intimidation to squelch scientific debate, leading to the approval of medical devices whose effectiveness is questionable and which may not be entirely safe.

"Managers with incompatible, discordant and irrelevant scientific and clinical expertise in devices...have ignored serious safety and effectiveness concerns of FDA experts," the letter said. "Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."

The scientists say the FDA's scientific review process has been "corrupted and distorted" by Bush political appointees, "thereby placing the American people at risk. Currently, there is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around."

They also claim to have seen FDA managers committing "outrageous misconduct by ordering, coercing and intimidating FDA physicians and scientists," and "retaliating" against experts who "refuse to go along."

One has to assume this agency, as we've found with so many others, has been pretty thoroughly Bush-ified when scientists are practically begging the incoming president to come rescue them.

Just another item for Obama's clean-up list.

Who knows what other departments have been corrupted by the Bush administration. It would take an army years to clean up the mess left by this morally bankrupt and inept band of thugs.

We know Justice and Defense are seriously hosed. We know the intelligence community has been in trouble for some time. We know the FDA and NASA need all the help they can get to rise from the mess that's been laid on them.

But it's a bad thing if everything that Bush did is reversed, huh Purp?

But it's a bad thing if everything that Bush did is reversed, huh Purp?
Maybe not everything. More like 90-95%. Some of the administration's homelessness initiatives were good.

Yeah, you really have to do some research to find things that was good and had no strings attached.

It would take an army years to clean up the mess left by this morally bankrupt and inept band of thugs.

I think this is a prime example of the type of discourse we'd rather avoid on here :relax:

But it's a bad thing if everything that Bush did is reversed, huh Purp?

I wouldn't mind much, with the exception of what Eowyn mentioned and some of the work he's done in Africa.

Obama stimulus analysis (14 page pdf (http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf)) and Nate Silver's analysis (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/obamas-indifference-on-tax-cuts.html). Interesting reads, and i'm not qualified to determine whether the conclusion(s) drawn by the Obama Economists are right :).

------------------> Breaking News

Obama going to Canada.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/10/obama-going-to-canada-for_n_156837.html

That's like the baby foreign trip. Everyone speaks English (even French side), and the Secret Service can car pool.

Interview from 1996 (post marriage pre children) with the Obama's for Le Monde
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/sacre-bleu-le-m.html

------------------> Breaking News

Obama going to Canada.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/10/obama-going-to-canada-for_n_156837.html

That's like the baby foreign trip. Everyone speaks English (even French side), and the Secret Service can car pool.
Yay! We get Obama!

The BBC reports that Obama has given an interview which has been or is to be broadcast today. Apparently he talked about foreign policy in particular.

The summary they give (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7822961.stm) sounds extremely interesting. Does anyone know whether the interview is online somewhere?

Our new president is absolutely NOT interested in being stuck in a bubble (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2009/01/08/BL2009010802230.html), as our previous president has so famously been (http://www.google.com/search?q=froomkin+bubble+site%3Awashingtonpost.com&btnG=Search). Here's video of his trip to Ben's Chili Bowl, a D.C. institution, for lunch with Mayor Adrian Fenty - and a good chunk of neighborhood residents.

4vQ7wQ80Aik

ETA:

Here, in three parts, is Barack's interview with George Stephanopoulus on ABC's "This Week" today.

2J-jc7Wp6-8

ZCN4gU7dUNk

KdqKU_7Fv24

Here's the thing, not everyone thinks alike. Of what Bush has done what you may disagree with others may like and vice versa, so you can't just blanket say that Obama needs to reverse everything Bush has done.

ETA:

Here, in three parts, is Barack's interview with George Stephanopoulus on ABC's "This Week" today.

Barack Obama with George Stephanopoulus, January 10, 2009

Thanks! You are a star!!! :)

Here's the thing, not everyone thinks alike. Of what Bush has done what you may disagree with others may like and vice versa, so you can't just blanket say that Obama needs to reverse everything Bush has done.

Actually, anyone can. Opinion is free. And the American electorate has pretty clearly said that there is a need to reverse, or at least change, the policies and practices of the current administration.

It's called democracy and one of its hallmarks is that the losers will have their noses out of joint for a while. But if they don't assess why they lost (and address those issues) they'll stay in opposition for a long time.

Weather predictions are still a bit far off for next week but it looks like Washington is due for a couple of cold days followed by a sharp warm up for a couple of days and then a big crash with highs in the 20's by Friday and Saturday. The inauguration isn't until Tuesday and the weather here has a habit of changing on a dime so even a bitterly cold Saturday could be followed by a warm and wonderful Monday and Tuesday. I'll keep you up to date as the the event draws closer........

Of what Bush has done what you may disagree with others may like and vice versa, so you can't just blanket say that Obama needs to reverse everything Bush has done.I think I can say that, and I will (that pesky First Amendment and all). There was very little that he did that I approved of. And there was quite a bit that I actively disliked (or even detested). I'm all for the efforts being made by the Obama transition team to identify what can and should be reversed. And I'm sure they will be able to dig in deeper once they assume the reins of the administration. However, I doubt that their goal will be to reverse everything, since it won't always be possible or feasible (too heavily embedded or entangled), nor will that be their only focus since the economy is job one.

But frankly, the things that I've read that they wish to reverse stand out as steps that were, IMO, abuses of power and should never have been put in place to begin with.

*sigh* Obama isn't even president yet and we're bickering about his administration. A little less lecturing of other posters and a little more analysis of the transition, perhaps? (weather reports are fine :lol:)

Just today we've had:
Changes to Obama's stimulus plan (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17335.html)

NYT Reporter warns of one-term Obama (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17331.html)

First fan Obama takes aim at BCS (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17313.html) (low-hanging fruit here)

Former top Bush officials back Holder (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17322.html)

Obama not looking back on torture (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17317.html)

Along with the ABC interview. None of these are worthy of discussion?

We've been given a new thread called President Bush: Thoughts on His Legacy (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=119132) in the DoIMC. Horns or halos, that's where we can say our good-byes, or take our best shots. Dude has 8 days and about 12 hours.

As for PEBO, he has a mandate so clear it can't be missed or mistaken. The country wants - demands - change and change is what's going to be delivered over the course of the Obama presidency.

He told Stephanopoulus today that the family has settled on either a Labradoodle or a Portuguese water hound for the First Dog - and that they're getting it from a shelter. I'm so happy to hear that last big!

Mom! Thanks muchly for the weather updates.

And just in case anyone is interested in lining up for a copy, Marvel Comics is releasing Amazing Spider-Man #583 on Wednesday, a comic book with a five-page inaugural insert that has America's angst-filled superhero briefly playing Secret Service for Barack Obama.

And, yes, Barack is a Spider-Man fan.

ETA:

Chris, I'm penning a quick note of disapproval to Jeff Zeleny at the New York Times. This is the second time in a week he's made a huge stretch like this latest one.

Chris, thanks for digging up several interesting articles. I just read the Politico article (which I assume was sourced from the NYT) predicting the future administration's course and outcomes (NYT Reporter warns of one-term Obama (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17331.html)). I get aggravated with pundits since they often struggle to say something pithy, but their pontifications come out sounding so hollow.

I don't find Jeff Zeleny's observation as particularly prescient (that Obama would only be a one-term president if things don't turn around). If things don't turn around, people will probably blame Obama. Personally, I don't think things will turn around until some time in 2010, since we are in deep poo poo. And I find all of his assumptions about Obama's original plans for his political future rather tenuous and seemingly unsourced.

And I'm not worried about economic promises that may fall between the cracks. The ones that article sited (like carbon footprint) can be dealt with later on. I'm also not concerned about Obama not calling us to sacrifice (another complaint in the article). People are already suffering and sacrificing. The prior two comments were made by Peter Baker.

Inauguration rehearsal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7823265.stm)

That was fun to watch. Here's a Fox Video with panoramic scenes.

_VywLVescDA

Here's another quicky:

JA4w2iUWA6Q

I am a little nervous about Obama's job creating stimulus program:

At first the figures were that 2.5 million jobs (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLR&q=obama+plan+2.5+jobs&btnG=Search) would be created.

Then 3.5 million. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy)

Now 4 million (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10551408).

I hope this is from further actual review of the plan and not due to opposition from Congress, which doesn't seem inclined to cooperate.

First Admendment, schmirst admendment. You know that I'm not talking about your right to free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want about what you would like Obama to do in office. You know that is not what I meant. Let's not pick at the words used and actually look at the meaning of what was said, thank you.

You have the right to say whatever you want about what you would like Obama to do in office.

Now that we've settled that, I'll remind everyone of what chparadise said last night:

A little less lecturing of other posters and a little more analysis of the transition, perhaps? (weather reports are fine :lol:)

Weather in DC today was sunny with highs in the low 40's and lows of about 25. Tomoroow is the big warm up - highs in the upper 40's with lows if about 22. Unfortunately that's followed by the big chill - both Wednesday and Thursday have highs of 29 with lows on Wednesday of 23 and Thursday of 13. Seems like it'll be sunny with not much wind so it'll be cold but not take your breath away cold.

Extended forecasts don't go much beyond Friday right now so it could be warm, wet, cold, or all of the above.

Thus ends the Monday afternoon weather report ........

Leah, one of the toughest things is to successfully convey meaning in an online community. Often it doesn't matter at all what the poster intended. Instead we deal with what the reader perceived. Perception becomes reality and never more so than when comunicating online.

"We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values."

That quote was taken from his interview with George Stephanopoulus on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. He hedged a bit when asked when this might happen. Just how quickly will Obama move on closing Guantanamo? Apparently, we can expect action very soon (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5EsdlkX6j-O1i9hoC58QVubvgagD95LQ4C80).

Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay. That executive order is expected during Obama's first week on the job -- and possibly on his first day, according to two transition team advisers. Both spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

I realize this is far from straightforward. Even if he signs the order on Jan. 20, this doesn't mean Guantanamo would shut its doors for good on Jan. 21. What he is saying here is that he'll direct his administration to "figure out what to do with" the 250 or so detainees at the facility, and then submit an actionable plan.

I don't think this can be accomplished within Obama's first 100 days in office, because the challenge is dealing with the mess Bush created and left for his successor. Just the task of identifying detainees who can't be tried in U.S. courts because the evidence against them was obtained through torture is going to require a major effort. The whole situation is untenable. We don't want to release potentially dangerous detainees who are national security threats, and we can't charge them based on inadmissible evidence. This is a terrible legacy Bush is leaving behind for Obama to clean up.

That said, the sooner they get to work on this, the better. Issuing an order on Guantanamo on his first day would, at a minimum, send the right signal both at home and abroad, and get the process - probably a hair-raising process - underway.

Thanks, Mom!

Obama has invited Gay Bishop to give opening Prayer at Inauguration. :clap:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/gene-robinson-gay-bishop_n_157076.html

I am appeased. Also, bishop is in my faith (Episcopalian or Anglican in Canada). I think my paternal grandfather was Jewish & rejected his faith, my paternal grandmother was Greek Orthodox.

I don't find Jeff Zeleny's observation as particularly prescient (that Obama would only be a one-term president if things don't turn around).

I can see it but on social issues. Next election won't be a "first" and if he's disappointed too many in the base, will he get the riotous interest he did this time? He can appease the right all he wants, they won't vote for him. Anne Hathaway commented publicly on the Rick Warren pick too.

Economically, I think the economy will have improved in 4 years (I don't see how it can't), so I don't think he will be done in by the economic side.

I will be watching how long Guantanamo stays open too. Admittedly, I won't remember in 4 years if it was 90 days or 6 months, but I suggest people will remember if it is open another year.

But I think we will be in a better position to evaluate after the first 100 days. He's not even Inaugurated yet!

Is Obama going to close the Naval Base, or just the detention center? If it's the entire base, I think it's a mistake. The detention center? That can go or stay, so long as the US has some place to keep POW's, I don't care what they do with it.


-Tibbetts

Is Obama going to close the Naval Base, or just the detention center? If it's the entire base, I think it's a mistake. The detention center? That can go or stay, so long as the US has some place to keep POW's, I don't care what they do with it.


-Tibbetts

Wils, it's the detention facility and all the attendant mess associated with it. I haven't heard anything about plans to close the base.

ETA:

Red, here's the transcript (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/story?id=6618199&page=1) for PEBO's interview with George Stephanopoulus on ABC's "This Week."

Extended forecasts are still sketchy at this point but they are all showing highs of 35 and lows in the teens on inauguration day. Lots depends on the wind, but it looks like it'll be cold but not deathly cold. Saturday and Sunday look to be the coldest days with highs in the 20's so those of you coming to DC may want to plan on indoor activities. Ice skating and tea at the Willard are always lovely ......

Wil, it's the detention facility and all the attendant mess associated with it. I haven't heard anything about plans to close the base.

Okay. Good. So long as the base itself remains open and in US hands. The detention center can go entirely, or be moved elsewhere for all I care.


-Tibbetts

Loose Lips Lieberman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-issues-first-veto-t_n_157585.html

He's got to be out of the caucus.

Extended forecasts are still sketchy at this point but they are all showing highs of 35 and lows in the teens on inauguration day...

I don't recognize this new weather_mom persona. :lol:

It seems as though Obama is having trouble with yet another nominee. First Richardson, and now Tim Geithner.

Treasury nominee failed to pay taxes (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090113/D95MGFTO1.html)

Funny thing...well not so funny...is that Obama's own transition team is sniffing out these issues AFTER Obama has named them. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

And what does it say about the character of these people when they are willing to conceal skeletons from Obama just to get a job? What if they're in office and stuff happens and they decide not to tell him?


Eeech!

And what does it say about the character of these people when they are willing to conceal skeletons from Obama just to get a job? What if they're in office and stuff happens and they decide not to tell him?

After what we've had over the last eight years, Pensieve, I can't get worked up about $34,000 in payroll taxes. Geithner apparently filed five years of amended tax returns (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/the_details_on_geithners_household_help_taxes_prob .php) and has already paid what he owes the IRS.

Contrast his situation to that of Republican Brad Schlozman, formerly of the U.S. Justice Department, who broke the law while in office and then lied about it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a report (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0901/final.pdf) released by the Department of Justice's Inspector General. His offenses range from outrageous - ""My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs rights out of the section" - to passing along another employee's racist statement that he liked his coffee "Mary Frances Berry style - black and bitter (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/top_dojer_called_voting-rights_official_black_and.php)." Berry is a black American woman who was Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not Acosta, with the comment, "Y'all will appreciate Tanner's response."

And for some reason, Schlozman will escape prosecution for breaking the law in his hiring practices at Justice. Senator Pat Leahy isn't happy about that decision. "When somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/leahy_schloz_committed_heinous_crime.php)." You can listen to Leahy's speech here (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/vidLink.php?b=1231861182&e=1231862082&n=2), but the pertinent part is below.

I really wish that the current U.S. attorney's office appointed by this administration had prosecuted. I think that the only way you stop such blatant criminal violations by people who know better, people who are sworn to uphold the law, (unint.) that they know they'll go to jail for breaking the law. That's what should have been done. And just because they broke the law in the Bush administration and the Bush administration did not, or deemed not to prosecute, I think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law. I think about one of the people who testified that same investigation and said that, uh, "we swear an oath to President George Bush." I said, "no, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That constitution is the constitution you're sworn to uphold and I'm sworn to uphold and it's the constitution that reflects all Americans."

...

And when somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime. We will see some kid who steals a car, they'll be prosecuted as they probably should. But when you have a key member of the DoJ lie about it under oath, who subverts the consitution of the United States, all the more reason to prosecute that person. Mr. President what Mr. Schlozman did was reprehensible, it was disgusting, it was wrong, goes at the very core of America's principles. The distinguished presiding officer, like me, had the great opportunity to serve as a prosecutor, and I have every reason to believe that he did not show fear of favor when he brought prosecution, as I did, as I did not, I did not show fear of favor, most prosecutors do not. And when you have somebody who is part of the Justice Department lie under oath, and do it in a way to cover up subverting the laws that protect all of us, the civil rights laws protect all of us, white, black, brown, no matter what our race, our creed, it protects all of us. And what has marked this country since the time I was a young lawyer in the sixties, is our adherence to the civil rights laws. You can't go back to a time where they're enforced for some but not for others.

I ask you: What does it say about the character of these people if they are willing to conceal skeletons ... while serving in a politically-appointed position?

ETA:

Last thoughts. Doesn't it seem a little odd that when you have a ball player like Roger Clemens, who lies to Congress about steroid use in baseball, we have the U.S. Attorney for DC convening a grand jury to consider a perjury indictment - but when an official of the Justice Department, Brad Schlozman, lies to Congress about intentionally politicizing the civil service division within DOJ, the U.S. Attorney fo DC passes on prosecution? Which is the more significant problem for the country?

Watch this guy lie through his teeth:

PlXgnKHKy0E

After what we've had over the last eight years, Pensieve, I can't get worked up about $34,000 in payroll taxes. Geithner apparently filed five years of amended tax returns (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/the_details_on_geithners_household_help_taxes_prob .php) and has already paid what he owes the IRS.

Contrast his situation to that of Republican Brad Schlozman, formerly of the U.S. Justice Department, who broke the law while in office and then lied about it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a report (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0901/final.pdf) released by the Department of Justice's Inspector General. His offenses range from outrageous - ""My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs rights out of the section" - to passing along another employee's racist statement that he liked his coffee "Mary Frances Berry style - black and bitter (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/top_dojer_called_voting-rights_official_black_and.php)." Berry is a black American woman who was Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not Acosta, with the comment, "Y'all will appreciate Tanner's response."

And for some reason, Schlozman will escape prosecution for breaking the law in his hiring practices at Justice. Senator Pat Leahy isn't happy about that decision. "When somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/leahy_schloz_committed_heinous_crime.php)." You can listen to Leahy's speech here (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/vidLink.php?b=1231861182&e=1231862082&n=2), but the pertinent part is below.

I really wish that the current U.S. attorney's office appointed by this administration had prosecuted. I think that the only way you stop such blatant criminal violations by people who know better, people who are sworn to uphold the law, (unint.) that they know they'll go to jail for breaking the law. That's what should have been done. And just because they broke the law in the Bush administration and the Bush administration did not, or deemed not to prosecute, I think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law. I think about one of the people who testified that same investigation and said that, uh, "we swear an oath to President George Bush." I said, "no, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That constitution is the constitution you're sworn to uphold and I'm sworn to uphold and it's the constitution that reflects all Americans."

...

And when somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime. We will see some kid who steals a car, they'll be prosecuted as they probably should. But when you have a key member of the DoJ lie about it under oath, who subverts the consitution of the United States, all the more reason to prosecute that person. Mr. President what Mr. Schlozman did was reprehensible, it was disgusting, it was wrong, goes at the very core of America's principles. The distinguished presiding officer, like me, had the great opportunity to serve as a prosecutor, and I have every reason to believe that he did not show fear of favor when he brought prosecution, as I did, as I did not, I did not show fear of favor, most prosecutors do not. And when you have somebody who is part of the Justice Department lie under oath, and do it in a way to cover up subverting the laws that protect all of us, the civil rights laws protect all of us, white, black, brown, no matter what our race, our creed, it protects all of us. And what has marked this country since the time I was a young lawyer in the sixties, is our adherence to the civil rights laws. You can't go back to a time where they're enforced for some but not for others.

I ask you: What does it say about the character of these people if they are willing to conceal skeletons ... while serving in a politically-appointed position?

Why is that if something negative is pointed out about a Democrat---large or small--it must be "contrasted" with a Republican to be put into "perspective"? It's all well and good that he paid what he owed but it certainly doesn't give alot of credence to Obama's vetting process. And it doesn't bode well for Obama to be learning about these situations even after the fact. A little more care from the Obama team in hard times is not unwarranted.

After what we've had over the last eight years, Pensieve, I can't get worked up about $34,000 in payroll taxes.

You mightn't but you can bet it will come up in confirmation hearings.

The fact that it was overlooked or missed indicates that some of the sloppiness demonstrated by the Obama campaign (particularly in the primaries) has not been remedied which is reason to give anyone pause.

And saying "you think my guy's bad, look at this" is really no excuse. What really counts now is getting a team running for the next four years. That's not going to happen if they have to keep putting out issues which could have easily been avoided.

If the Republicans have broken laws while in office, then the new president should have the guts to investigate.

I agree with everything you've said, Wab.

My reaction had more to do with the spirit in which the Geithner story was posted.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is raising questions about a housekeeper who worked briefly for Treasury Secretary-nominee Timothy Geithner without proper immigration papers, and multiple years when Mr. Geithner didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself. [...]

According to people familiar with the matter, Mr. Geithner employed a housekeeper whose immigration papers expired during her tenure with Mr. Geithner, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The woman went on to get a green card to work legally in the country and federal immigration authorities didn't press charges against her, these people said.

The second issue involved taxes due while Mr. Geithner worked for the International Monetary Fund between 2001 and 2004. As an employee, Mr. Geithner was technically considered self-employed and was required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself as both an employer and an employee.

He apparently failed to do so, resulting in Internal Revenue Service audits his last two years at the IMF. As soon as the IRS brought the issue to his attention, he paid the taxes with interest, these people said.

Judging from how quickly the transition team came to his defense (http://thepage.time.com/obama-statement-on-geithner-confirmation/), I would think Geithner disclosed the audits during the vetting process.

As nominating controversies go, this seems pretty thin. With regards to the housekeeper, Geithner employed a woman whose papers were in order when he hired her, and who went on to get a green card. There was a three-month gap, but it's easy to believe Geithner didn't know about the discrepancy. Moreover, the gap was determined not to be worth prosecuting. He went beyond what was legally necessary in paying back withholdings.

On the self-employment taxes, the Wall Street Journal noted (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html) that this is a pretty common error among IMF employees - the institution has deliberately set up a unique payroll system to accommodate foreign employees - and Geithner addressed it by paying what he owed.

Democratic senators have "gathered in an emergency meeting (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17403.html)" to discuss the matter, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said the allegations are not enough to "disqualify" Geithner from consideration, and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), added, "What we talked about had been fully disclosed to transition officials. I am certainly going to support him."

For what it's worth, while Grassley has made a fuss, other Republicans seem largely unfazed by the revelations. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said he "still supports" Geithner.

Unless something comes up that we aren't now aware of, I'll be surprised if anything bad comes from this. We're talking about infractions that (1) are minor; (2) Geithner addressed and corrected; and (3) he made no effort to conceal. It'll take considerable effort for Republican caucus and Fox News to gain traction with this one.

I don't recognize this new weather_mom persona. :lol:

Just trying to add to the discussion cause I have nothing else to say (and I don't want any of our friends who plan on attending the event to freeze their toes off or boil).

President Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, and, in my opinion deserves a chance to show his stuff. I think it's too soon to make judgments and declare him a failure just as it is too soon to declare him one of the best President's ever. He deserves the time to figure out what type of leader he'll be, what issues are of utmost importance to him, and what policies and programs he'll support.

Just trying to add to the discussion cause I have nothing else to say (and I don't want any of our friends who plan on attending the event to freeze their toes off or boil).

I am going to Washington next week and I truly appreciate the updates she's been posting.

President Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, and, in my opinion deserves a chance to show his stuff. I think it's too soon to make judgments and declare him a failure just as it is too soon to declare him one of the best President's ever. He deserves the time to figure out what type of leader he'll be, what issues are of utmost importance to him, and what policies and programs he'll support.

Thanks, Mom. That's pretty much the tack I'm taking and so are most of the people I know and love best, both Democratic and Republican. I've been so overwhelmed since last June, when Barack first clinched the nomination, that I can hardly contain the feelings of pride and hope that are with me every time I draw breath. His acceptance speech coming on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was... I don't have words to describe it, and now his inauguration will occur one day after the official observance of what would have been Dr. King's 80th birthday. January 20th might well be the most transcendent day of my life.

mom, I agree that it is too soon, but I am going to watch the first 100 days closely !

Clinton confirmation hearings were today. I may start watching the news again.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/live-blog-clintons-confirmation-hearing/?hp

Geithner's payroll tax problem highlights the complicity of the upper class in illegal immigration. To me, it makes him look like Leona Helmsley or ... they got Ariana Huffington this way too.

Why is that if something negative is pointed out about a Democrat---large or small--it must be "contrasted" with a Republican to be put into "perspective"?

:tu: The Obama administration will soon be sinking or swimming on its own.

To put it in perspective tho', it's not yet as bad as Bush continuing to blame the Clintons after 8 years. :rotfl:
I just put that perspective bit in to drive everyone crazy ! :err:

His acceptance speech coming on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was... I don't have words to describe it, and now his inauguration will occur one day after the official observance of what would have been Dr. King's 80th birthday. January 20th might well be the most transcendent day of my life.

I love the symbolism too, but the particular man Barack Obama was not known to MLK, nor are their policies necessarily identical. I think the linking of the two men works to BO's advantage and is a bit unfair to the deceased, who, after all, did not endorse anyone.

But being the first Black President lasts 1 day. Then he has to be President.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

"I have a dream today!"

That part of the dream came true on November 4, 2008.

Call it a pre-endorsement.

What worries me are the supporters of Obama. Too many of them get all "worshipy" whenever they speak about him. He is only a man and yet people talk as if he's more.

*sigh* I just worry about the people that get all emotional about him. If he fails, they'll either fall apart, or stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.

In other words, it's not Obama I'm worried about. It's him trying to live up to the "O" that has sprouted up from his followers, and if he can't....? *shrugs*

Too many speak of Obama with reverence. Many are gonna be ticked when they realize he's just like any other politician. Not only that, but a "Chicago" politician. Which is even worse from what little I've heard. :(

I'm cautiously optimistic about the man, and I wish him the best of luck. I also wish him no "free ride" from the Congress. Bush, and Clinton got little. I expect Obama to receive the same treatment.

Hope all that made sense. :(

-Tibbetts

Most of us are experiencing relief at Bush's departure - and hope on a lot of fronts.

But it's also fair to say that Obama will feel the proverbial foot in the tush if screws up. His supporters have not disbanded and are already helping to drive the agenda.

Wils, I love you to death, but you've obviously missed the first six years of George Bush's presidency. He had control of both the legislative and judicial branches, as well as the executive branch. I can't remember the last time a president had such an easy time of getting his legislative agenda passed, such as it was.

Apparently Obama's views on Gay Marriage were "walked back" for the general election.

http://www.wctimes.com/images/publications/wct/2009-01-14/current.pdf

That relieves my mind a great deal.

As nominating controversies go, this seems pretty thin.

Thin? People go to jail in this country for cheating on their taxes. $34,000 is nothing to sneeze at. But Mr. Geithner will get the job anyway because the Democratic majority will look the other way. And to think this man will have his hands on the nation's cash box!

:no:



That part of the dream came true on November 4, 2008.

Call it a pre-endorsement.

Oh, brother...

:whistle:

Let's not run ahead here, I expect that Geithner's tax problems will be investigated and suitably dealt with. Making assumptions that the Democratic Party is condoning this and will look the other way, is out of order without some pretty solid proof that they will indeed brush over it.

If it's only your opinion make it crysal clear that this is the case.

Let's not run ahead here, I expect that Geithner's tax problems will be investigated and suitably dealt with. Making assumptions that the Democratic Party is condoning this and will look the other way, is out of order without some pretty solid proof that they will indeed brush over it.

If it's only your opinion make it crysal clear that this is the case.

Can Obama save Geithner? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090114/pl_politico/17428)

I don't see this as being "my opinion". Just check out this piece by Yahoo!'s Amie Parnes and Craig Gordon.

The episode raises questions about whether Geithner’s nomination will survive, despite early soundings of support from Democrats, and perhaps, more importantly, a larger question:

What was Obama thinking?

Emphasis mine.

I don't see this as being "my opinion". Just check out this piece by Yahoo!'s Amie Parnes and Craig Gordon.

I read that. Maybe I misread the original article posted but this one says that the Obama team new about this six weeks ago?!?!? And Obama still thought/thinks he's the man for the job? The article also says he repaid what he owed after the nomination...

I understand that Obama needs to have this spot filled so he can hit the ground running after the inaugeration---but there was no one else as another option? Perhaps this man is the best for the job (perhaps not) but whatever type of man he is the current news on him does not fit well into Obama's promises of change in Washington.

I don't recognize this new weather_mom persona. :lol:

Just trying to add to the discussion cause I have nothing else to say (and I don't want any of our friends who plan on attending the event to freeze their toes off or boil).

Well, I am not going anywhere near DC any time soon (alas) - but *I* am enjoying the weather reports, too. Somehow it makes the whole thing more.... real somehow. :) It's fun to read among the political discussion. :) :tu:

President Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, and, in my opinion deserves a chance to show his stuff. I think it's too soon to make judgments and declare him a failure just as it is too soon to declare him one of the best President's ever. He deserves the time to figure out what type of leader he'll be, what issues are of utmost importance to him, and what policies and programs he'll support.

:tu: :tu: :tu:

One of the best things I have read in this forum in recent weeks, or months. I agree totally. :) :tu:

mom, I agree that it is too soon, but I am going to watch the first 100 days closely !

I'll pay attention as well, but I think the whole first 100 days thing is a bit overblown. This is a new administration which will be trying to get it's feet under it. Let's give the folks the time they need to fully research and debate issues rather than forcing them to rush through poorly thought out and equally poorly implemented programs whose effect on the problems they're supposed to solve will be questionable. I'd rather the Administration take the time to do things right rather than just get something done in 100 days. I know that you weren't saying that you want them to rush through decisions, so please don't take this as a criticism of what you posted!

I just feel sometimes like people (not you specifically!), and maybe it's the media but I'm not sure, are so jazzed up about ooo 100 days that they forget that the government has some pretty heady things to deal with and rushing to put a band-aide on a problem doesn't solve it and might even make things worse in the long run.

I don't see this as being "my opinion". Just check out this piece by Yahoo!'s Amie Parnes and Craig Gordon. It's still just an opinion, even if not your. An article in Yahoo, or any media, can hardly be considered solid proof of anything.

Most of us are experiencing relief at Bush's departure - and hope on a lot of fronts.

But it's also fair to say that Obama will feel the proverbial foot in the tush if screws up. His supporters have not disbanded and are already helping to drive the agenda.

That's good to hear.

Wils, I love you to death, but you've obviously missed the first six years of George Bush's presidency. He had control of both the legislative and judicial branches, as well as the executive branch. I can't remember the last time a president had such an easy time of getting his legislative agenda passed, such as it was.

I did not miss the first six years. Last time a president had that? I'm pretty sure you could find out. Before the -90's Dems had forty years in control of Congress. Not both houses for some of it, but still...

I was paying close attention during the first term of President Bush, and I thought he did a magnificent job with the hand that he was dealt. As for the congress during that time? I didn't agree with the Patriot Act. I thought it was the worst possible Act to pass at the time, and I still do.

Topic change: I read that Obama is threatening to veto the new bailout bill (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/13/transition.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview) once it reaches his desk if they do not involve more transparency, and accounting of where the money is going. Which gives me "hope" that he is actually going to be President instead of the lacky of Reid and Pelosi.


-Tibbetts

On the self-employment taxes, the Wall Street Journal noted that this is a pretty common error among IMF employees (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html) - the institution has deliberately set up a unique payroll system to accommodate foreign employees - and Geithner addressed it by paying what he owed.

We shouldn't focus on crucifying Geithner without considering the quoted bit, above. The WSJ is right. It does happen all the time at IMF. The last big-name I recall reading about was Paul Wolfowitz. He, too, had to pay back taxes based on an audit. I cannot stand Wolfowitz and mostly wish him only ill, but I wouldn't call him a "cheat," as Geithner has been called here. At least not for the tax bit. The sweetheart deal he arranged for his mistress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050700490_pf.html), the one that cost him his job at the World Bank, is another matter altogether.

Before the -90's Dems had forty years in control of Congress. Not both houses for some of it, but still...

True enough. And over those same forty years, Democrats have held the presidency for only 12 of those years. As I said before, the situation with Bush and the 106th-109th Congresses was unique.

It's still just an opinion, even if not your. An article in Yahoo, or any media, can hardly be considered solid proof of anything.

Geithner tax and housekeeper problems jolt Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/treasury_nominee_analysis)

Senate Democratic leaders and Obama transition officials immediately voiced confidence in Geithner and called for his quick confirmation once Obama is sworn in and is able to formally nominate him


It sure seems like the Dems want to move forward with the nomination, regardless of the issues here....

A letter Obama wrote his kids is public in Parade Magazine. It is an "open letter".
http://www.parade.com/export/sites/default/news/2009/01/barack-obama-letter-to-my-daughters.html

I find that incredibly narcissistic. If you want to write a personal letter to your kids, why publicize it? Yuck!
If I were one of his children I would feel used and NOT touched.

Nice picture of first family though.

And over those same forty years, Democrats have held the presidency for only 12 of those years. As I said before, the situation with Bush and the 106th-109th Congresses was unique.

California, with Democratic House & Senate, is facing bankruptcy and 10% sales tax. I can't get into "Democrats will save America". I do hope the Obama administration can.

Well, I don't know! The paper asked him what he wanted for his kids, and he wrote his answer in this format.

This doesn't mean that it *is* a letter to his kids - just a literary format he chose to answer a question the paper asked him. If this was a *real* letter for his kids, tat might be different - but this isn't something he wrote to his kids, for them personally, he later decided to publish (that WOULD be tasteless). This is a piece he wrote for the readers of the paper in question, and he chose this format for it. I think there is a pretty big difference.

I do find the piece has a little too much pathos for my taste - but I am talking about the tone, not the addresses (I think one could get away with that, if the whole thing was written in a tone that's less 'visionary' sounding. But that's due to the big difference in how European and US-American politicians express themselves - here in Europe too much idealism invites cynicism. Over here one just wouldn't get away with it.... but I am assuming it's OK on the other side of the Pond.

I like it. He wrote it as a response to a question and included all the children in the world, rather than just Malia and Sasha. Did you know Sasha's given name is Natasha?

Linda, Ohio was in the exact same shape two years ago when a Republican governor, House, Senate, and State Supreme Court. It was so bad, in fact, that when Tom Noe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Noe) was indicted for embezzling cash from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation and funnelling it into Bush-Cheney '04, all but one judge on the Ohio Supreme Court had to recuse from hearing the appeals. The lone Democrat had to appoint judges from all over the state to handle the case.

ETA:

Some news items of interest.

In response to Republican demands, Tim Geithner's confirmation hearing has been pushed off until Jan. 21 (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/geithner-hearing-scheduled-for-jan-21.), the day after the inauguration. Obama is still optimistic (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28642237/) about Geithner's nomination.

It looks like Osama bin Laden is still alive (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6643641&page=1), and is challenging Obama with a new tape released online.

The transition office unveiled the official Obama portrait (http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/) today. It's the first time that an official presidential portrait was taken with a digital camera.

The president-elect chose Tim Geithner to be his treasury secretary because he's the right person to help lead our economic recovery during these challenging times," Gibbs said in a written statement. "He's dedicated his career to our country and served with honor, intelligence and distinction. That service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes, which, upon learning of them, he quickly addressed.

Ok. Let's just say this was a mistake. Alrighty? This is NOT the sort of mistake I'd want the incoming TREASURY SECRETARY making with his own finances. If he can't get his own finances straight, how can we expect him to take care of the finances of the American economy? The Wolfowitz comparison doesn't fly with me because Wolfowitz never was slated to head the Treasury. Geithner is the hot-shot pick to "fix the economy".

And the revelation that Obama and his staff knew about Geithner's tax problems long before they nominated him really... UGH! Infuriates me! All this does is make me question Obama's judgment even more, disappoints me since it's another example of business-as-usual.

Yes We Cancer (ˈyes ˈwē ˈkan(t)-sər)

Yes We Cancer is a type of disease in which one's body can becomes so rampant with positive feelings, it can no longer process realistic assumptions.

The disease has until recently been kept at bay by an immunity brought upon by years of failure of the U.S.'s Democratic Party. However, following the DNC's recent return to moderate relevancy, Yes We Cancer has re-emerged and has begun spreading throughout most of the continental United States, with the exception of certain areas of the South, Midwest and Appalachians, where a widespread chronic cases of Drillbabydrillitis serve to counteract Yes We Cancer's effects.

Once a victim has stopped chanting "Yes We Can!" in favor of "Yes We Did!" the disease will have completely taken hold of the brain. At that point, not even Rick Warren's upcoming speech can deter the blinding levels of optimism.

Victims of the disease should remain mostly functional for all intents and purposes, but will most likely be unable to take part in meaningful conversation for the next four-to-eight years. Fortunately for victims who work in political punditry, most cable news channels do not discriminate against people with political-related brain disorders.
http://blog.indecision2008.com/2009/01/14/obam-ailments-to-watch-out-for-yes-we-cancer/

I can't believe the Inauguration (?) is Tuesday. The Rick Warren pick was like a record screeching to a stop for me in terms of the Obama love fest. I had this one guy on my campaign working for both against Prop 8 & for Obama. He was the sweetest guy. Such a lovely soul. I cringe every time I think of the Rick Warren pick. I still want Obama to do well, but I don't think it's automatic.

The transition office unveiled the official Obama portrait (http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/) today. It's the first time that an official presidential portrait was taken with a digital camera.
He wore a lapel pin. I had hoped that could be put aside now.

Hagrid442 and lindaluna, can we have links, please?

Linda, Ohio was in the exact same shape two years ago when a Republican governor, House, Senate, and State Supreme Court. It was so bad, in fact, that when Tom Noe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Noe) was indicted for embezzling cash from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation and funnelling it into Bush-Cheney '04, all but one judge on the Ohio Supreme Court had to recuse from hearing the appeals. The lone Democrat had to appoint judges from all over the state to handle the case.

I take it that this is to give me "perspective" that California Democrats didn't actually ruin California because Republicans misbehaved in Ohio. Not sure they are connected.

People get audited and they back taxes and fines. The world goes on. Geithner is a monetary specialist, not a tax accountant. We need an experienced monetarist at Treasury. We already have plenty of tax accountants there in the IRS.

I take it that this is to give me "perspective" that California Democrats didn't actually ruin California because Republicans misbehaved in Ohio. Not sure they are connected.

What was done by Ohio Republicans doesn't give California's Democrats a free pass. The perspective angle means only that it happens across the table, with both parties.

Obama stopped by George Will's house Tuesday night for a two-and-a-half hour chat (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obamas-dinner-with-conser_n_157701.html) with leading conservative columnists/pundits. One might expect the left to be protesting loudly about him breaking bread with conservatives, but that hasn't happened. What did happen was an explosion on the right. Patrick Ruffini's remarks (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/ruffini_kristol_brooks_and_will_not_conservative_e nough.php) that Will, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks are not "representative" of "conservative media" were typical.

Politico
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17441.html) has the list of conservatives who attended the dinner: George Will, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Larry Kudlow, David Brooks, Rich Lowry, Peggy Noonan, Michael Barone, and Paul Gigot. Politico also has the partial list (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17441.html)of center-left media types who met with Obama the following day: E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Gerry Seib, Ron Brownstein, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Andrew Sullivan, and Rachel Maddow.

I don't necessarily consider the two groups as relatively parallel, but that discussion is for the media thread, I guess.

People get audited and they back taxes and fines. The world goes on. Geithner is a monetary specialist, not a tax accountant. We need an experienced monetarist at Treasury. We already have plenty of tax accountants there in the IRS.


What's that old saying? Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? According to the links pensieve provided his lack of tax knowledge goes all the way back to 2001. You have to pay taxes every year. If your tax guy is making mistakes (on your behalf) then you ought to get a new tax guy. So, I personally wouldn't want a man who makes bad hiring decisions hiring people to handle my tax dollar.

Also as a monetarist it's obvious to me that the more capital you have to invest (say by using the money you ought to have paid your taxes with) the more money you will make. He was using this money during the boom years when the stock market was making money hand over fist. With that money he could have made twice or even three times what he owed. But let's say he wasn't. Say the money was just sitting in the bank gaining interest. He's still making a nice chunk of money on it, by my standards at least. I wish I was making interest on my tax dollar. All my opinion of course.

Hagrid442 and lindaluna, can we have links, please?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/13/treasury.taxes/index.html

People get audited and they back taxes and fines. The world goes on. Geithner is a monetary specialist, not a tax accountant. We need an experienced monetarist at Treasury. We already have plenty of tax accountants there in the IRS.


He cheated on his taxes. Ignorance, if that's what it really was, is no excuse as flimseycauldron points out. Obama's judgement here is seriously flawed IMO and the Dem leadership in Congress is excusing it all away.

Terrible. :td:

Pensieve, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I read a column today in which a conservative, in keeping with Bush's valedictory tour, posited that "Bush Destroyed a Dictator. Clinton Installed One (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197784199983615.html)." Nutty stuff like that going along simultaneously with little jabs aimed at Obama is faintly amusing, but I'm not buying. Judgment is not one of Obama's weaknesses. It also isn't one of Bush's strengths. Nor is it on-topic, or even the issue here. The issue is partisanship and I'm not buying that either.

What I'd like to see happen is that Obama is given a fair chance once he's in office before the "let's see if we can take him down" troops are deployed. I don't wish to spend the next few years as you guys have done; blaming every Bush failure on Clinton.

What's that old saying? Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? According to the links pensieve provided his lack of tax knowledge goes all the way back to 2001. You have to pay taxes every year. If your tax guy is making mistakes (on your behalf) then you ought to get a new tax guy. So, I personally wouldn't want a man who makes bad hiring decisions hiring people to handle my tax dollar.

And you're still on the hook if your tax guy messes up. Dude should have known enough to make sure his taxes were paid properly. Dude should have known that hiring an illegal immigrant was against the law. To me it's yet another example of the "ruling class" establishing rules that us non-rulers are expected to follow but which they just ignore. And, they get away with it.

***Edit ***

Seems the Geithner situation is more than just a guy who forgot to pay his taxes for several years. Geithner worked for the IMF and the IMF reimburses employees for the self-employment taxes they are expected to pay. Geithner, apparently, submitted forms for and received reimbursement for self employment taxes which he never actually paid. That's quite a bit more than just "forgetting" to pay your taxes.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzJjOGQyODY2ZjhhMWY4Y2U3YmVkMjhlMWQ2MWZiNTA=

Why does York's NRO column contain no links verifying his allegations?

[QUOTE=purplehawk;5219112]Pensieve, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I read a column today in which a conservative, in keeping with Bush's valedictory tour, posited that "Bush Destroyed a Dictator. Clinton Installed One (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197784199983615.html)." Nutty stuff like that going along simultaneously with little jabs aimed at Obama is faintly amusing, but I'm not buying. Judgment is not one of Obama's weaknesses. It also isn't one of Bush's strengths. Nor is it on-topic, or even the issue here. The issue is partisanship and I'm not buying that either.

Again with the conservative "perspective/contrast"? No one is trying, at least I'm not, to tear down Obama before he has begun. But these are my dollars this guy will be running through his hands. I'm sure many conservatives will agree that Obama has to govern both conservatives and Democrats in a fair and balanced way. If a great many conservatives don't like the thought of this guy, for good reason imo, then Obama should be willing to appoint someone else, instead of trying to push this guy through. My thoughts on why the Obama admin hasn't done this is because they have no one else lined up with proper backround research and the inauguration is only days away. The reality is if you know your policies are going to be contested it's better not to throw fuel on the fire. Which, with the Geithner pick, is what they are doing.


And you're still on the hook if your tax guy messes up. Dude should have known enough to make sure his taxes were paid properly. Dude should have known that hiring an illegal immigrant was against the law. To me it's yet another example of the "ruling class" establishing rules that us non-rulers are expected to follow but which they just ignore. And, they get away with it.

I agree, Mom, although my understanding is that the workers papers expired while she was emloyed with him rather than him hiring her illegally. He was still wrong to not keep up to date on her status but he didn't originally have her enter his employ in that fashion.

Reimbursing someone the employer's portion of Social Security is highly unusual. And apparently many people getting this unusual reimbursement from the IMF make the same mistake about not reporting it. I imagine their accountants are the ones making the mistake since they are high income individuals, and I doubt they do their own taxes. And regardless of the fact that he signed a form acknowledging the reimbursement, just think about all the paperwork shoved at you when taking a job. Even if you know what you signed at the time, you don't remember it much later on.

As for the housekeeper, probably most of the households in the country have the same problem.

Here is a pragmatic approach to the issue. Geithner slowed, not stopped by tax problems (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28642237/)
GOP opponents of Geithner should "think this through," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah., a member of the Senate Finance Committee that's considering his nomination. "They're not going to get anybody better than him from this administration for treasury
secretary."
The following article is collation of stories provided by US News and World Report (hardly a liberal outlet) all discussing the likelihood that Geithner will be confirmed. They all center around the skills the man will bring to the job. IMO, that the real issue. Geithner Still Expected To Win Confirmation (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090115.htm)

BTW, not all people who get audited are tax cheaters, nor are they negligent. Many of they either make innocent mistakes or get tripped up by an obscure law. And no one is expected to understand the entire tax code, except for tax lawyers and accountants.

Reimbursing someone the employer's portion of Social Security is highly unusual. And apparently many people getting this unusual reimbursement from the IMF make the same mistake about not reporting it. I imagine their accountants are the ones making the mistake since they are high income individuals, and I doubt they do their own taxes. And regardless of the fact that he signed a form acknowledging the reimbursement, just think about all the paperwork shoved at you when taking a job. Even if you know what you signed at the time, you don't remember it much later on.

Except that it was over 4 year period, not just when he was taking the job. The reimbursement was made every year and he signed a form indicating that he would pay the taxes for which he was receiving reimbursement every year. He was also audited in 2006 and told to pay his self employment taxes for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. He paid them for 2003 and 2004, plus interest and penalties, but not for 2001 or 2002. He only paid them for 2001 and 2002 when the Obama vetters showed up and began questioning him.

The article below is collation of stories all discussing the likelihood that Geithner will be confirmed. They all center around the skills the man will bring to the job. IMO, that the real issue.

I'm sure he'll get confirmed but personally I view failing to pay your taxes as a form of cheating and to me that would disqualify anyone from serving is such a high government office.

BTW, not all people who get audited are tax cheaters, nor are they negligent. Many of they either make innocent mistakes or get tripped up by an obscure law. And no one is expected to understand the entire tax code, except for tax lawyers and accountants.

No one ever said everyone who got audited was a negligent cheater - just this guy.

And how can anyone posting in this forum decide he was a negligent cheater unless they are tax professionals? He paid the taxes that the audit required. He paid the other taxes when he was vetted as a show of good faith. He was not legally required to pay those taxes.

Tax avoidance is legal.

Patrick Ruffini's remarks (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/ruffini_kristol_brooks_and_will_not_conservative_e nough.php) that Will, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks are not "representative" of "conservative media" were typical.

Hardly surprising. Brooks, in particular, was consistently critical of the direction the GOP has taken in recent years, especially the choice of Palin as a potential VP. It's not so much a matter of not being "conservative" but not in lock-step with the party and demonstrating independent thought.

Will and Brooks have been critical, Kristol has been in lockstep. I guess the far right might have preferred Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

Expanding a bit on Judy's comment that "no one is expected to understand the entire tax code, except for tax lawyers and accountants," sometimes even they don't understand the tax code.

I spent most of my career working with public employee retirement plans set up under Section 457 of the I.R.C. I knew those plans inside-out, from every possible perspective, and the Internal Revenue Service mounted an impressive recruitment campaign aimed at persuading me to come aboard to help them understand how those plans worked, and to develop procedures for auditing them.

I mention that only to point out the fact there is considerable confusion across the board with regard to our unnecessarily complex tax code.

On the other hand, I've had more time to read-up on the Geithner story and I agree with some of you that he had a surprisingly cavalier attitude toward paying his taxes. Given Geithner's professional profile, and the fact that he would be in charge of the IRS if he becomes Treasury Secretary, his tax transgressions are tough to excuse.

I support the delay on his confirmation based on what I've discovered. I hope the Senate committee questions him thoroughly and, above all else, that Geithner is forthcoming and credible in his responses. That said, I also don't think there is anyone who comes close to his ability to serve the country well in that particular position - or at least not anyone who isn't already tainted with the problems that caused it.

Hardly surprising. Brooks, in particular, was consistently critical of the direction the GOP has taken in recent years, especially the choice of Palin as a potential VP. It's not so much a matter of not being "conservative" but not in lock-step with the party and demonstrating independent thought.

Which is precisely the Number One problem with today's GOP.

And how can anyone posting in this forum decide he was a negligent cheater unless they are tax professionals? He paid the taxes that the audit required. He paid the other taxes when he was vetted as a show of good faith. He was not legally required to pay those taxes.

So was it "an honest mistake" or was it "tax avoidance". The latter would serve to prove he willfully thought of ways to reduce his tax burden (and I might be wrong but there's alot of paperwork to fill out to qualify I would think) and in this instance he simply didn't pay--for years. The former would mean that he didn't have the proper controls over his finances. Hiring someone else doesn't exempt you from the law. The show of good faith thing could easily be (mis)construed as covering his backside in order to land the appointment.

As far as his skillset is concerned---I'm sure many of the banking CEOs and Wall Street Big Wigs had great resumes as well. Didn't prevent them from running the country into the ground, though. I'm not saying that he was a cheater, only that, if Obama truly wants to live up to his change mantra--there's alot of things out of his immediate control but this appointment is one where he does have control. People don't want the same old politics--why should Obama give it to them?

As the other old saying goes, burn me once shame on them. Burn me twicce shame on me.

Can't we debate the tax issue without seeing it through the lens of liberal or conservative? Or at least try not to draw conclusions based entirely on the liberal / conservative slant of the author or speaker?

Can't we debate the tax issue without seeing it through the lens of liberal or conservative? Or at least try not to draw conclusions based entirely on the liberal / conservative slant of the author or speaker?

If you're referring to the subchat between Wab and myself, we're discussing the dinner Obama had at George Will's house two nights ago. Conservative bloggers, in particular, were hacked-off about it and have most written off the right-wing pundits who attended as not being true conservatives.

I'm not arguing the point. I may well have missed something else.

I thought I heard Limbaugh say he was there... maybe I misheard.

23/6 (comedy site) has posted Letters Barack wrote to his dry cleaner, etc. that also bring a tear to the eye. http://www.236.com/news/2009/01/15/okay_obama_we_get_ityou_love_e_11126.php

I don't know enough about Geithner to know why he is the right or only man to be Treasury Secretary. But as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of NY he's already pretty high up in banking (for your classic NY Leona Helmsley tax cheat),

I haven't had the TV on lately but now I'm at my moms and Bush is driving me crazy with his farewell tour. OMG - let historians write the books and go relax for a while. I mean, just GO ! It's endless.

I'm at my mom's definitely absolutely finishing my masters thesis for tomorrow. I am so bored with it. It is sludge drivel meaningless mindless pap. But must submit or don't get degree. Hope there are marks for correct pagination. Back to salt mines.

I thought I heard Limbaugh say he was there... maybe I misheard.He hinted at it, but it was just a joke. He wasn't there.

After telling the Associated Press last year that Obama’s middle name was among the reasons Islamic terrorists would rejoice over his election, King says he’s since been careful to avoid using it. Thus he found Obama’s decision to allow it be mentioned on the steps of the Capitol “bizarre” and “a double-standard.”

“Is that reserved just for him, not his critics?” King asked.

The congressman says he doubts Obama’s sincerity when he explained that he chose to use his middle name so as to be historically consistent with past inaugurations, when America has heard the full names of its presidents echo from the inaugural stand.

“Whatever his reasons are,” King said, “the one he gave us could not be the reason.”

He continued: “The society is a little strange about this. If you’re speaking the truth and in an effort to be objective, there should be nothing off limits in a free society, [but] there are many biases building and clearly a double-standard.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17506.html

I think he should be sworn in with his middle name. OMG this is ridiculous. People have names. Decent people's names are things like Adolf for example. Milbank (Nixon), Herbert (one of Bush's). Ted (Kennedy & Bundy). Lizzie (Lizzie Bordon axe murderess).

I think he should be sworn in with his middle name. OMG this is ridiculous. People have names. Decent people's names are things like Adolf for example. Milbank (Nixon), Herbert (one of Bush's). Ted (Kennedy & Bundy). Lizzie (Lizzie Bordon axe murderess).

Linda, I think Nixon's was Milhous (that's why the character on the Simpson is kind of funny). Anyway, I don't think the use of the middle name was what Rep. King was arguing about. During the campaign, a great deal of umbrage was assumed by the Obama-ites every time his opponents or detractors used his middle name. The automatic assumption was that it was done to for racial purposes or to incite fear. There was an episode in Ohio where an talk show host introducing McCain used the entire name, Barack Hussein Obama, and McCain slapped him down.

Fast forward, after creating a situation where use of the middle name is equivalent to race baiting, PEBHO himself is saying the use of the name is okay for a formal ceremony like his swearing in.

Personally, I don't care if he uses it or not. Jimmy Carter didn't and was sworn in as "Jimmy Carter" not "James Earl Carter". Bush 41 used the Herbert in George H. W. Bush to distinguish himself from George W. Bush (#43). I'm sure George P. Bush will use the P when he's sworn in 2024.

I think this is small fish to fry, considering $825 Billion in "stimulus" spending.

And how can anyone posting in this forum decide he was a negligent cheater unless they are tax professionals? He paid the taxes that the audit required. He paid the other taxes when he was vetted as a show of good faith. He was not legally required to pay those taxes.

I've been a CPA for over 15 years.

Just because he worked for the IMF doesn't make him above the law - he was and is required to pay his taxes. The IMF isn't a US based company so it doesn't withhold FICA and Medicare from it's US based employees pay. As a result he was obligated to pay self employment taxes for any salaries paid to him by the IMF - a total of 13.5%. People who are 1099'd do it all the time. The IMF reimbursed him for those taxes and he signed the reimbursement form indicating that he'd paid those taxes. After he was audited and told to pay them for 2001 - 2004 he paid them for 2003 and 2004 but not 2001 and 2002. He only paid those when the vetters uncovered it.

Not exactly an indication of someone whose on top of things and not someone I'd want leading the department which includes the people who set tax policy.

Tax avoidance is legal.

Of course it is and there investments and strategies you can employ to legally reduce your tax liability. But failing to pay your self employment taxes isn't one of those strategies.

After he was audited and told to pay them for 2001 - 2004 he paid them for 2003 and 2004 but not 2001 and 2002. He only paid those when the vetters uncovered it.

This is the part that is most concerning to me.


Not exactly an indication of someone whose on top of things and not someone I'd want leading the department which includes the people who set tax policy.


My feelings exactly. But as I mentioned earlier the Obama team probably had no time to choose someone else. I expect him to be appointed but I don't like it and I hope people watch this man very closely while he is in office. Obama wants change--well government oversight would be a significant change and this would be the best time to enact such a promise, imho.

During the campaign, a great deal of umbrage was assumed by the Obama-ites every time his opponents or detractors used his middle name. The automatic assumption was that it was done to for racial purposes or to incite fear. There was an episode in Ohio where an talk show host introducing McCain used the entire name, Barack Hussein Obama, and McCain slapped him down.

Fast forward, after creating a situation where use of the middle name is equivalent to race baiting, PEBHO himself is saying the use of the name is okay for a formal ceremony like his swearing in.


This is very true, I think.

I think this is small fish to fry, considering $825 Billion in "stimulus" spending.

And this doesn't include the 350 billion that was released to him correct?

For your latest unofficial weather forecast for the inauguration.

Today we hit a whopping high of 7. Yes seven, 7. With wind. My youngest was screaming that his eyes were frozen.

Tomorrow will be a balmy 23 with temps increasing to around 32 on Tuesday with bright sunny skies.

I live about an hour due west of the city so temps in the city will be a bit warmer. That means it'll be chilly but not butt freezing cold like today. There won't be much wind and it'll be sunny so if you have a good coat and gloves you should be fine. Your toes might be a bit cold in heels so you may want to bring a pair of lined boots or more comfortable shoes to wear during the parade.

Flimsey, it does not include the $350 Billion released today and there is still $40 Billion left over from the first round, even after the BofA money released.

For your latest unofficial weather forecast for the inauguration.

Today we hit a whopping high of 7. Yes seven, 7. With wind. My youngest was screaming that his eyes were frozen.

Tomorrow will be a balmy 23 with temps increasing to around 32 on Tuesday with bright sunny skies.

I live about an hour due west of the city so temps in the city will be a bit warmer. That means it'll be chilly but not butt freezing cold like today. There won't be much wind and it'll be sunny so if you have a good coat and gloves you should be fine. Your toes might be a bit cold in heels so you may want to bring a pair of lined boots or more comfortable shoes to wear during the parade.

I think Old Man Winter hit Washington and Ohio with the same brick. I woke up this morning to -12. Yeah, that's a minus there. It's now a whopping 0, but we're supposed to warm into the high 20's tomorrow. That'll be like a heatwave! :lol:

I'm sitting here in a polo shirt & jeans. It is like 80 during the day here and 50 at night (quite chilly actually). :rotfl:
I am from Canada and all I can say is :p

I finished my masters thesis and:
1. pagination was perfect !
2. Graphs looked good.

Now, to find work. Should be no problem. Haven't been paying much attention. How's the job market?

Not exactly an indication of someone whose on top of things and not someone I'd want leading the department which includes the people who set tax policy.

Isn't Treasury in charge of IRS? (tax collectors?)

Flimsey, it does not include the $350 Billion released today and there is still $40 Billion left over from the first round, even after the BofA money released.

That is not actual money. That is future toilet paper you're talking about.

You can try to get picked by lottery for White House open house on Jan 21.
http://www.pic2009.org/page/s/dayone

I just realized the inauguration will be at 9 am Pacific Time. Argh!

I'm sitting here in a polo shirt & jeans. It is like 80 during the day here and 50 at night (quite chilly actually). :rotfl:

I am throwing a virtual ice chunk at you .... Course with temps in the 80's it'll melt before it gets there, but it's the thought that counts. :p

And I don't want to hear anything from Gator cause he's sitting pretty in Florida..:grumble:

See - I can pick on both conservative and liberals!!!!

Yea - it's 1am and I can't sleep and I'm getting slap happy........

I finished my masters thesis and:
1. pagination was perfect !
2. Graphs looked good.

Congratulations kiddo! You rock!!!!!

Now, to find work. Should be no problem. Haven't been paying much attention. How's the job market?

Depends on the field. Real Estate stinks right about now.......

Isn't Treasury in charge of IRS? (tax collectors?)

I think so.

That is not actual money. That is future toilet paper you're talking about.

:lol::lol::lol:

A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money. Here's the best part - this is what a trillion looks like:

1,000,000,000,000

According to the US Census there are about 222 million adults in the US (306 million people with 73% adults). For every trillion we spend stimulating the economy that's about $4,500 for every adult in the US - $9,000 for each couple. Three trillion, which is a figure I've heard but can't remember where is about $13,000 per adult or $26,000 per family.

Just thought you all ought to know that. No clue why, but then again it is 2 am. :drool:

I don't have precise statistics, but based on the debt clock and some estimates of GDP, national debt as a % of GDP is now higher than it has been at any time since Truman's presidency.

This is due to a combination of massive tax cuts, the Iraq War and other military spending increases, and the bailouts.

What is the national debt estimated to be?

Oh - it is 0 literally 0 degrees Fahrenheit on my deck right now.

I think Old Man Winter hit Washington and Ohio with the same brick. I woke up this morning to -12. Yeah, that's a minus there. It's now a whopping 0, but we're supposed to warm into the high 20's tomorrow. That'll be like a heatwave! :lol:

Today was the first day in about a week the temperature dropped below 35C in this part of the world. Had a 43 a few days ago and 49 at one of the local mines.

Irrelevant but I thought I'd rub that in.

I don't have precise statistics, but based on the debt clock and some estimates of GDP, national debt as a % of GDP is now higher than it has been at any time since Truman's presidency.
There's graph here (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html). Not run by fans of the prez it seems but the data is sourced from the OMB (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/).

Oh - it is 0 literally 0 degrees Fahrenheit on my deck right now.

My pipes froze. (It was negative 4) Even with the woodstove and regular heat set to 67 degrees. Yeah, it's cold in NH. Weatherman says we're running twenty degrees below average. Good news is that it's too cold to snow :D (Why was I born in New England? I should have been born in Hawaii or Antigua!)I hope Obama has free hot cider and hot cocoa for anyone standing in the cold! And people ought to wear their wool socks!






A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money. Here's the best part - this is what a trillion looks like:

1,000,000,000,000

So I'm confused. Are we already a trillion in debt? Are we adding the new stimulus package on top of that?