One Response to “Re: Obama’s Surge”

1. JohnR223 says:

   January 15, 2009 at 11:52 am

   The wheels on the bus go thump, thump, thump.
2. JEM says:

   January 15, 2009 at 11:57 am

   If they were Republicans their nominations would already be dead, because the activist core of the GOP base expects ethics from their side. Ethics is a little more fluid to the democrats. The Treasury guy is probably in real trouble however, and his trouble will allow Holder to fly right in, unless Spector feels he isn’t getting what he wants in which case he will let Holder squirm a little.

   I think we need to term limit everyone in politically appointed or elected positions within the government. Then you have to leave Washington.
3. Mike K says:

   January 15, 2009 at 11:59 am

   Using these criteria, Bernie Madoff seems like a worthy successor to Geithner. He certainly knows how to work the system. He has lots of experience. What’s not to like ? I’ll bet he even contributed to Obama.
4. RCAR says:

   January 15, 2009 at 12:10 pm

   No one cares about any of these appointees,if there’s a problem with Hillary,Geithner,Holder, etc. bring on another batch,they’re all interchangeable.
5. myna says:

   January 15, 2009 at 12:12 pm

   Geithner in New York FED while Maddoff scumming investors with his ponzi scheme. The horror!He did not pay his taxes and pocketed the rest of the money anyway while others who have no eyes and ears from the government go to jail for tax evasion.

   Yes, genius all right. Lack of integrity and honesty. What a crook!

   Next time you missed paying your taxes call Prince Harry Reid as your defense and bring Geithner as your witness.
6. btenney says:

   January 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm

   Liberal Elites wiping their Asses on Ordinary Americans.
7. chuck martel says:

   January 15, 2009 at 12:14 pm

   The Geithner and Richardson affairs both point out an electoral issue that never seems to be brought out. Just because presidential candidates aren’t required to name their most important appointments doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be expected to do so. We want to know something of the candidate’s background, why wouldn’t we want to know the background of his lieutenants? Naturally, they don’t want to do that, but the press should demand it. And it shouldn’t be speculation. The candidate himself should provide that information long before the election. It should be a part of the process.
8. mike davidson says:

   January 15, 2009 at 12:24 pm

   We need a bipartisan agreement not to use small mistakes/controversies to derail nominees (Clinton’s AG nominees and Linda Chavez are good examples, over illegal aliens – Geithner’s housekeeper falls in the same category), or we’re likely not to have anyone competent interested. Having said which, Geithner’s tax nonpayments (in particular the failure to pay taxes for which he was reimbursed) seem to have been consciously made dishonest or, at the least, unethical decisions and that should be beyond the pale. Pity, I thought it was a good appointment.
9. Jason says:

   January 15, 2009 at 1:00 pm

   Speaking of confirmations, let’s all take a minute to mock the unhappiest person in the rightwing blogosphere, Townhall’s Amanda Carpenter.

   Ms. Carpenter probably thought she would be the belle of the wingnut ball when she released “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton.” Let’s just say that brand-spanking-new hardcover copies are going for $3.99 on Amazon.

   Jacket copy: “They adore her in Manhattan. They worship her in Hollywood. They idolize her in the liberal media. But out in the real world are those of us see through her lies about her husband, reject her socialist economics, and despise her radical social agenda. We are the members of what Hillary Clinton described as a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”-and here at VRWC headquarters, we’ve been keeping a file on her. If you’re one of us, The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton will give you all the ammunition to help end Hillary’s White House dreams once and for all.

   “It’s all here: the dirty deals, unsavory incidents, insane proposals, revealing comments, and outright flip-flops in Hillary’s past. You’ll also find the complete record of her activities since leaving the White House, and the machinery she already has in place to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

   Except now Hillary is beloved by conservatives, apparently because her whiteness trumps her alleged socialism and dishonesty, and she was just confirmed as our next Secretary of State.
10. Alexander Almasov says:

    January 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    #9: The Argos has gone completely off course. Can’t find a single conservative lovin’ Hill. The color of Ms. H. D. Rodham’s pimpled and amply adiposed skin may be of concern only to The One and D. Shrum Axlerot, who made so much of it throughout the past year.
11. myna says:

    January 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    No. 9 is having a wet dreams.
12. Sister Toldjah says:

    January 15, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Did Obama bungle it again with another cabinet pick?…

    There are a lot of questions surrounding Timothy Geithner, PEBO’s pick for Treasury secretary. Here’s the latest:
    - NRO’s Byron York writes: Geithner Accepted IMF Reimbursement for Taxes He Didn’t Pay
    - Roger Simon wonders: What i…
13. james23 says:

    January 15, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    #9 “Except now Hillary is beloved by conservatives,”
    You obviously don’t know any conservatives. Try to get out of Manhattan once in a while.

    And EW, what is that terrible stench? the smell of Hope and Change?
14. From Inwood says:

    January 15, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    As Leona Helmsley would say: “Giving the government those gross ups for taxes is for gross little people”.

    As Blago would say: “S**t, the F**ker’s not even from F**king Chicago.

    As Caroline What’s Her Name would say “ Well, you know, um, I’m glad, you know, to have this, um, opportunity to, you know, talk about tax policy, um….”

    As Bernie Madoff would say: I can get you 10% for that gross up if you invest it with me instead of turning it over to the Feds. Whose gonna know?
15. From Inwood says:

    January 15, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Make that “who’s” gonna know
16. Jason says:

    January 15, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    #10
    “Can’t find a single conservative lovin’ Hill.” Alexander Almasov

    As I suspected, AA, you are not a big reader.

    I don’t have time to keep you up on current events or to Google for you. Here is a bit of one piece, “Hawks for Hillary” at TNR, which lists some of the conservatives who back Hillary, including Richard Perle and the neocrazies at The Weekly Standard.

    “When news first leaked that Hillary Clinton was being considered for secretary of state, some of the most vocal responses came from the right–and they weren’t exactly negative. Newt Gingrich told Fox News that she would be “a very formidable secretary of state, and frankly, a lot tougher in defending American interests than some of the liberal secretaries of state we’ve had in the past.” Republican Senator Jon Kyl lavished her with praise, calling her “a very good selection.” The Weekly Standard gushed that she had become “The Great Right Hope.”

    “What’s with the right’s newfound love for Clinton? I spoke with a number of conservative foreign-policy eminences to find out. Many of them were surprisingly optimistic about Obama’s new top diplomat. “On the whole I’m quite pleased,” explains Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board and an architect of the Iraq war. “She seems to me quite tough-minded. That’s not a worldview, but it is a predisposition. That’s a good thing. It’s not an easy world out there”

    Here’s a bit from conservative Noemie Emery at the Weekly Standard, explaining conservatives’ “elation” that Hillary would be Sec. of State: “This explains the elation (okay, the relief) that swept over some in conservative circles when it seemed likely that the steely-eyed stare of Hillary Clinton was what Iran, Venezuela, and Russia were likely to get. Differences remain still with Hillary Clinton, but most of these are on social and size-of-government issues, which in her projected new post would be immaterial, much as they would have been if John McCain had won and then named Joe Lieberman, the one Democrat even more hawkish than Hillary, as his man at State or Defense. As it is, foreign policy is the one area in which her ideas seem somewhat in line with those of conservatives;”

    Oh and the vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirming Clinton was 16-1. This presumably includes some conservatives. The one holdout was Republican David Vitter, who apparently was not keen on Clinton’s opposition to global sex slave trafficking.
17. John Hartland says:

    January 15, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    Oh come on. The guy didn’t pay enough taxes for two years. He got audited, and he coughed it up. Commentary is going to focus on that, while remaining completely silent about Bernie Madoff, who stole $50 billion. Let all pause to vomit and laugh at the same time at this crowd’s utter hypocrisy.
18. Eppur Si says:

    January 15, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    Tim Geithner was the top regulator of the NY banks, including Lehman Bros. He, far more than any other member of the Bush Administration, is responsible for the economic meltdown. Contrary to the Dem meme, there was never any “deregulation” of the banking system under the Bush Administration, but key regulators did not do their jobs properly, and Geithner more than any. He, more than anyone else, allowed these securitized subprime loans to be used as leverage assets to build the entire house of cards.

    That, however, doesn’t disqualify him to be Sec’y of Treasury. Oh, no! What disqualifies him is some minor irregularity on a back tax return. This guy plays a leading role in crashing the world economy, but what everyone gets worried about is his tax returns. Great. Just great.

    As Churchill said, the best argument against democracy is five minutes talking to the average voter. Well, if Geithner doesn’t get confirmed maybe Barney Frank or Chris Dodd would take the job.
19. Steven says:

    January 15, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    A change from the last 8 years? Bush’s nominees didn’t have all of these problems. Every nominee of Obama’s except Robert Gates has a problem. This was not the case with Bush.
20. Bob Miller says:

    January 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    Lately, Obama sees experience in the system as a prime qualification for appointed office. Of course, if we had regarded elective office the same way, he’d be in no position now to appoint anyone.
21. John Burke says:

    January 16, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Geithner wil probably get past the stuff that’s come out — so far. What can easily happen though is that once a nominee has X to explain, some reporter discovers Y and political opponents are inspired to look deeper to find Z.

    Then you have the prospect that with the confirmation hearing now scheduled after the Inauguration, the issue of filling the spot at Treasury without any additional delay could become the controlling one. If it looks on the first day of that hearing that there is X, Y and Z to review and it all might take considerably longer, Obama will reassess just how badly he needs Geithner — especially when he has Larry Summers to stick in there!

    http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/
22. huxley says:

    January 16, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Have there been other recent president-elects who had this much trouble with their nominees and replacements?