The latest media obsession is whether John Edwards will endorse either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and if so, which one. He visited Obama yesterday. His dilemma is described as follows:
People close to the Edwardses, speaking privately, say they have been torn about whom to support. The former North Carolina senator is concerned that Obama may not be ready for the presidency and that his health care plan is inferior. But Edwards was highly critical of Clinton — her policies, her ties to special interests and her character — during his campaign, making it more difficult to support her now.
This neatly sums up the problem that many Democrats face: do they choose the novice or a return to the Clinton melodrama. (While Republicans, despite fears of Obama’s electoral appeal, may be rooting for the fall of Clinton, they may also find the possibility of an Obama presidency — and his apparent foreign policy team — somewhat chilling.) As the race continues through the spring, into June and potentially up to the convention, it is not clear that either can put voters’ minds at ease. Clinton, after all, is who she is and comes with Bill and all he entails. Obama will not gain in experience or, absent some extraordinary situation, be able to dispel doubts about his toughness. It then is not surprising that Edwards, and many voters, find the choice a hard one.
Does Edwards really matter? In a race still close and likely not to be completed by June, small events take on exaggerated significance in the media storyline and, in this set of facts, may influence the superdelegates who will put one of the two candidates over the 2025 delegate mark. However, the more cynical among us may surmise that he simply wants to be on the winning side and will wait until the key March 4 primaries are decided. And remember, his 26 delegates might come in handy at the convention.
Too bad. You will get nothing and like it. You are impotent to stop The One.
WASHINGTON — Republican senator Mel Martinez of Florida says he will support Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder, putting him a big step closer to confirmation.
Holder met with Martinez morning Friday while the Senate Judiciary Committee held a second day of hearings on his nomination.
Martinez said in a statement that he believes Holder understands the unique role of the nation’s top law enforcement official and intends to vote to confirm him.
The support from Martinez and the already-declared backing from Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, should give Holder the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster, assuming all the current Democratic senators support him.
I could not disagree more with respect to Geithner and Holder. Needless to say, the federal tax code is extremely complex. It appears by all accounts that Geithner had a good faith misunderstanding of how to treat payroll and Medicare taxes when he was self-employed. This is not unusual, and he corrected this mistake when the IRS brought it to his attention. Holder has a remarkable legal record, and is among the most respected lawyers in the country. We need public servants like these.
Like the rest of humanity, Geithner, and Holder, I have made many mistakes, both personal and professional. My experience has been that I learn the most from my mistakes, and I rarely make the same mistake twice. I accept that Holder made an honest mistake, he learned a lot from it, and he won’t make the same mistake again.
This is so an irrelevant non-issue. Toss Geithner and Holder on the ash heap;two genetic analogs will replace them. Find a Republican to beat Rangel,and he’s gone. Poof. It is so pathetic that all you can do is fantasize about trivial,subatomic,victories that you can’t win anyway. 2010 is almost here, please try to retake the house and senate. Until then, it’s just like Israel in Gaza,a total mop-up.
Unfortunately the Republican party was so quick to abandon its own moral and political principles that it no longer has the power to halt the ambitions of the Democrats. This is the price we’re paying. The price is not counted in Congressional seats lost, or the number of formerly elected or gainfully employed conservatives who no longer have jobs in Washington and state capitals around the country. Those things are insignificant. The price is paid in watching, all but powerless, as the country is economically and politically weakened. The price is paid in watching, all but powerless, as the Democrats push through dubious appointments and massive spending legislation that will only deepen our economic problems.
I would disagree, however, with anyone who thinks these little “foibles” from Geithner, Holder et al are insignificant, or that Republicans are simply being churlish in bringing them up. I cite the biblical principle of “faithful with little, faithful with much.” If Geithner could plausibly claim ignorance, then fine. But the details mitigate against this defense. And of course Holder cannot claim ignorance, either. These were not oversights or mistakes. They were moral failings. Holder was clearly deceptive about his role in the Rich pardons, and Geither was deceptive in taking reimbursements for taxes he should have paid but didn’t.
Partisans will say these are isolated incidents. First, these were not incidents but decisions, and second, no decision is ever isolated. The decisions we make now establish patterns for the decisions we will make in the future. If I am deceptive in small matters, it makes it easier for me to be deceptive in large matters. If I justify a little theft, I will progressively justify more, and my moral fiber gradually deteriorates. If Geither will lie in order to pocket a few tens of thousands of dollars, what will he do to pocket millions? I don’t doubt for a minute that we can find a dozen people at least as qualified as Geither to run Treasury; Obama is just being stubborn, reticent to acknowledge a mistake.
I don’t know a liberal who would shed a tear over the loss of Rangel. Holder, on the other hand, deserves confirmation. And I think Geithner will be confirmed, but I’m not sorry to see him taken to the woodshed.
Krauthammer says you are unserious:
“I think what’s serious here is the fact that our banks are collapsing. Citicorp is crashing. We have record unemployment.
“We have in Geithner a guy with amazing experience, extremely smart, who has been in every crisis over the weakness in 2008, all the rescues. He is a man who inspires confidence in our economy, which is what it is really lacking.
“And to sink his nomination over what I think is a triviality is simply unserious. Our crisis is too strong, too big, and his is too much of an asset to deny him office over unpaid taxes, which in the end he refunded and repented.”
I would be a little more sympathetic to the Libs problems if they didn’t portray themselves as God’s gift to mankind. If they didn’t portray themselves as the bright ones. If they didn’t spend all their waking hours telling everyone how stupid and corrupt conservatives are.
I’m very careful with my taxes. As a professional employee I understand a lot about compensation…even terms like grossing up. If I get a booklet informing me about my tax liabilities I will read it. Ok, he overlooked his extra wages and forgot to pay his SE tax.
Now what about the camp expenses? Careless, dumb, trying to game the system? Let’s be honest…if he were a Republican he’d have removed his name by now.
Holder? Rangel? Dodd? There’s a website called Crooks and Liars…of course is a Lefty website referring to Righties!!! Ha.
#6: Ooh lawdie, who drew this monstrous caricature?
There is no excuse for Geithner. He signed on the dotted line with IMF to pay the employer contribution to payroll tax that IMF gave him as part of his compensation (plus the grossed-up amount to pay for the increase in his tax liability). I’m no accountant but as an engineer I can understand the tax forms. I understand that Geithner is very bright, however he is a tax cheat, and so is Rangel. We have defined the rule of compliance down as a result of the behavior of these tax cheaters. No shame and no honor! A man has nothing but his name and his honor!
The point is not whether any of these men have the knowledge to do their jobs, it’s whether they have the integrity to practice what they preach, the honesty to operate well within the rules rather than on the fringes of the policies they implement and the honor to admit they did what they did purposefully. I grow weary of this oft used term of late: “Innocent mistake”.
Geitner’s tax “mistakes” were of a quarterly nature. Four years of quarterly “mistakes”. 16 “innocent mistakes”. Does that mean he doesn’t have the knowledge base to do the job? No. But it does mean he’s a tax cheat.
Why, by Joe Biden’s definition, that’s “unpatriotic”!