Republican Senator Judd Gregg was appointed Secretary of Commerce by President Obama. But the leftists complained that he would be in charge of the 2010 census. I thought the census was just getting the count correct. But there certainly is more to it, because Obama yielded and put it directly under the White House and out of Commerce's control. What would you do if you were told you weren't trusted to do your job - before you even started. So Judd did the honorable thing and quit.
WSJ.com: (I think this doesn't require a subscription. I have one and it's worth it.)
The Census Bureau, which is part of Commerce, is one of the most rigorously nonpartisan operations in government and for years has fought off pressure from left-wing minority factions to adjust its count upward on their behalf. Successions of bureau directors have resisted this pressure.Rick Moran at PajamasMedia says Judd didn't like what he saw on the inside:The Obama White House, however, indicated that it might be willing to involve itself more directly in the Census Bureau, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claiming "historical precedent" for a closer association. This put Mr. Gregg in an impossible situation. It is bad enough that one of the Senate's famous straight arrows had his integrity questioned. Equally impossible, the White House's expressed willingness to bring the Census director under the informal sway of, say, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel effectively undermined the authority Mr. Gregg would have needed to run his department.
For commerce secretary nominee Judd Gregg, it was the overwhelming nature of the stimulus bill that apparently opened his eyes to the fundamental incompatibility inherent in a relationship between a moderately conservative Republican and a president who is proposing the largest increase in federal spending ever.And there is no sign Senator Judd cheated on his income taxes like Treasury Secretary Geithner.And lurking in the background was the issue of the White House power grab of the census -- a looming battle royale that will see Republicans fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Obama White House from trying to "game" the census and increase representation for Democrats on the Hill.
Cross posted at my own blog - Economic Freedom.
Posted by Ron Hebron at February 13, 2009 12:04 PM | Email ThisDo we need a Secretary of Commerce?
Wake up, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins. Obama is playing you folks for idiots. He doesn't care about you. He cares only about himself. At least now you know that, Mr. Gregg. Snowe? Collins? Got a clue, yet?
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2009 12:20 PM1. Here’s the chutzpah: The Republicans didn’t get their act together enough to challenge Obama for not being constitutionally qualified to be President as an Article 2 “natural born citizen” so Obama’s White House steals the census from the Commerce Department against the specific instructions of the constitution itself — “actual enumeration” under Article 1.
2. Here’s the “birth certificate” issue: Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court to refrain from exercising WHAT IS ITS ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.
Posted by: Ted on February 13, 2009 01:28 PM1. Here’s the chutzpah: The Republicans didn’t get their act together enough to challenge Obama for not being constitutionally qualified to be President as an Article 2 “natural born citizen” so Obama’s White House steals the census from the Commerce Department against the specific instructions of the constitution itself — “actual enumeration” under Article 1.
2. Here’s the “birth certificate” issue: Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court to refrain from exercising WHAT IS ITS ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.
Posted by: Ted on February 13, 2009 01:29 PMBut hey, it only matters if the Democrats do it to you, right?
Posted by: demo_kid on February 13, 2009 01:30 PM1. Here’s the chutzpah: The Republicans didn’t get their act together enough to challenge Obama for not being constitutionally qualified to be President as an Article 2 “natural born citizen” so Obama’s White House steals the census from the Commerce Department against the specific instructions of the constitution itself — “actual enumeration” under Article 1.
2. Here’s the “birth certificate” issue: Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court to refrain from exercising WHAT IS ITS ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.
Posted by: Ted on February 13, 2009 01:34 PMArticle I Section 2 of the US Constitution (original):
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The ACTUAL ENUMERATION (emphasis mine) shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct...
Amendment XIV, Section 2 modifies Article I Section 2 as follows:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, COUNTING THE WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS (emphasis mine) in each State, excluding Indians not taxed...
I have not found any article or clause stating that "representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to a statistical sampling to determine an estimated count of actual persons..."
Oh, by the way, if you look at the Constitution you will see that the enumeration of persons is placed in Article I (The Legislature) and not Article II (The Executive). Can someone please explain why or how the responsibility of counting our population somehow landed in the executive branch instead of congress? If I understand the Constitution correctly, CONGRESS is charged with counting the population; not the White House, nor the Commerce Department. If this is legally not so, please show me.
Typical responce coming from you. You should read up why the Supreme court said NO to the last time you guys tried to fool with the census.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 13, 2009 01:50 PMREPORTER 1: What role did issues with the census play? And will you run for re-election in the coming year?
GREGG: The census was only a slight catalyzing issue. It was not a major issue.
The question, and its and old one, is how much a authority does the president have to direct these agencies vs how much independent power does the congressionally confirmed heads of those agencies have vs how much can congress intervene.
The modern trend has been toward a stronger unified executive.
Posted by: Giffy on February 13, 2009 02:21 PMOf course aren't those party labels interchangeable? So far, only the Undemocratic party has attempted to politicize the census bureau. The same Undemocratic party that wants to bring back the "fairness doctorine" because they can't compete in the arena of ideas on talk radio. Morons like Tom Harkin (U) demands Armed forces radio has a balanced format because it's taxpayer funded, but doesn't ask the same of taxpayer funded entities like PBS and NPR that are exclusively liberal format.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 13, 2009 02:47 PM"Judd Gregg has a Jack Abramoff problem.
At the very least, Abramoff and his team had easy access to Gregg's Senate staff and were able to use that access to help their clients by stopping unfavorable legislation while getting earmarks and favorable legislation passed into law.
As it stands right now, Gregg's best defense is that he is a terrible manager and that "bad apples" joined his staff, went "rogue" and traded favors in his name. And to be fair, Gregg may be that dense. After all, look at the sloppy and moronic way he withdrew himself from consideration as Obama's Commerce Secretary: it was not the actions of a competent man. On the other hand, it was the actions of a man distracted other things. Gregg strikes me as a nervous man deeply worried about another shoe dropping.
Perhaps he is clean of scandal, but I suspect that Gregg had a fair understanding of what his staffers were doing in his name. After all, Kevin Koonce is not the only link between Senator Judd Gregg and Jack Abramoff."
Kevin Loonce was just named as staffer F in the guilty plea of Todd Boulanger- and he worked for Gregg.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 13, 2009 02:50 PMNo. He was being polite by not going out of his way to bash a President he still has to work with.
But I can fully understand why that's a foreign concept to people like you.
Posted by: jimg on February 13, 2009 03:18 PMSo when Obama and his crony Rahm Emanuel do it, they are silent.
Hypocricy anyone?
Posted by: Mark on February 13, 2009 03:20 PMWow. Don't hurt yourself with that big of a stretch. You'd think if he was that tainted, the vetting team of your precious savior would've discovered that BEFORE he was nominated.
Nope. It can't be that Gregg came to the conclusion over the last few days that it wasn't going to work out. Nope. It just HAD to be some nefarious intent.
I've never witnessed a bigger bunch of immature fools than you clowns on the left.
Posted by: jimg on February 13, 2009 03:23 PMDon't hurt yourself with trying to fudge on this one. Another republican hero turns out to be a crook....oh, well. Business as usual.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 13, 2009 03:28 PM"Any important Republican who comes out and says they didn't know me is almost certainly lying," he says. Such lies are not just, well, lies, but dumb to boot, he adds, for, as his own humiliations suggest, old e-mails never die; they just sit on hard drives, waiting to be subpoenaed and then to be leaked to the press. "This is not an age when you can run away from facts," he declares. "I had to deal with my records, and others will have to deal with theirs."
Posted by: correctnotright on February 13, 2009 03:33 PMNo, let AlwaysWrong make his stretch, please!
AlwaysWrong,
I guess this just points more and more to the FACT that Obama is simply NOT prepared to be Chief Executive, given that YET ANOTHER NOMINEE has poisonous skeletons in his closet...
So when do we hear you bleating about the incompetence of the Obama Administration for nominating - yet again - a crooked cabinet member?
You're making the charge, I suspect you will whipsaw so fast on your own hypocrisy that you'll be within ocular distance of your own colon.
So what's it going to be:
1. Gregg had skeletons and bad connections and Obama was ignorant and unprepared YET AGAIN
OR
2. Gregg took a principled stand and simply backed out because he couldn't support the continually evolving agenda of the Obama regime
Those are your choices. You lose in either case.
Enjoy!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 13, 2009 03:41 PMhttp://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_04_Former_Gregg_staffer_caught_up_in_Abramoff_corruption_probe/
So, stretch was right on the basic facts but did the usual Pinocchio on the relevance to the topic.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2009 04:02 PMWhat's the net worth of your 3 companies you own? And do you own your own house or condo? Is the total value of all your assets (including retirement plans, IRAs, CDs - music and investment, electronics, car) over $1,000,000? That is a pretty paltry value for someone who's the least bit successful as you claim to be.
So if you have kids - or even if you wanted to leave it all to charity - how do you feel about the Government - which already TAXED the income used to purchase and procure those assets, and taxed them annually as you built them up (in the case of real estate and your companies) - coming along and taking a chunk when you die?
You OK with that? If you are, why not voluntarily give even MORE taxes now, since you don't seem to mind the Government taking more. You know, it's NOT illegal to OVERPAY your taxes!
Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is. Take no deductions for yourself or your businesses. Forgo the sales tax deduction you get (thanks to President Bush); forgo the standard deduction. You made $80K? Use that as your adjusted gross income and pay the full taxes on it.
Go ahead - you seem to think it's fine!
And about $100 million? Not even close. It starts at $1 million. If you bought a house in Seattle 30 years ago, you've got an asset worth in excess of $600,000 right there. Add in a few small IRAs that you contributed to over the last 20 years, add in a retirement plan, a car, and general personal assets and you're at $1 million.
Most elderly homeowners in Seattle are worth $1 million or more. I guess you consider the average old homeowner to be a greedy, heartless bastard. So charitable of you!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 13, 2009 05:14 PMYou miss one glaring problem. It's NOT YOUR MONEY. And God had a little something to say about coveting what belongs to other people. He felt it was important enough to make it one of the commandments.
Posted by: Richard on February 13, 2009 06:03 PMIf you don't understand the end game for Congress with the Administration complicit, here it is; To destroy the opposition by their way - the end justifies the means. So what do you get if the end game proceeds unchecked ? A socialist utopia with more corruption, gestapo tactics, 20% unemployment and this country losing power to become a turd world nation with open borders.
As I said earlier, the Repubs may be developing some backbone, so the Neo-marxists like #36, No Facts and their ilk will meet resistance. It doesn't have to be that way, but it appears the Dems lust for power will create this ugly scenario. I do not want to see one party rule and felt the same way back after 2002 when Bush and his cronies started to take liberties that were unconstitutional. "Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Posted by: KS on February 13, 2009 06:44 PMSomeone with an actual business and the experience it brings would likely not produce the kind of silly tripe "facts" burdens us with on a daily basis.
If I'm wrong, hey, I'll admit it. But the burden of proof lies with "facts".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2009 07:20 PMAh the tolerant left. You've just got to love 'em!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2009 07:37 PMYou are more full of nuts that a 3-year old holiday fruitcake, "facts".
You could simply tell us what you do for a living in plain english. Oh, but then I would be expecting too much. One of the games liberals always play is to avoid being straightforward. Or am I wrong?
No Facts - for someone who supposedly manages alot of money, you are an intellectual midget. You spew the same old tired leftwing talking points with no substantive evidence. Torturing prisoners - what a friggin joke - would you rather get beheaded ? You come across as consumed with greed and are full of crap. You make some sense when talking of finance, but you repeatedly distort and are a left-wing propagandist. Maybe waterboarding would be good for you.
gop not - sick, twisted freak.
Posted by: KS on February 13, 2009 08:12 PMForgive me but I just don't buy your excuses, or your story.
You can probably guess what I think you are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2009 08:45 PMDan, I can make points here without lying.
And I did not lie (apparently you believe a potential mistake is a lie). However, you are wrong when you post:
"That's because the amount an individual can leave to heirs free of federal estate taxes in 2009 is $3.5 million (up from $2 million in 2006-2008)"
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/will-you-owe-estate-taxes-9554/
See, only a simpleton would rely upon some magazine to make a statement about estate taxes. What does the IRS actually say? Hey, look here:
Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax.
Sucks to be PROVEN WRONG yet again, huh Factless? When dealing with taxes, I'll take the word of the IRS over some magazine any day. Of course, that's just considered smart after all...
Dan, I also would bet I pay more in property taxes than you make, not to mention my company's share of the withholding.
Most definitely! I've restructured myself - legally - to have ZERO taxable income (note the word "taxable"; I can guarantee that my total income is considerably above yours, unless you're in that top 0.5% of the US). That's not to say I do not have money; on the contrary, I have plenty. I have just used the laws of the land to reduce my taxable income - legally - to zero. And guess what - you're taxes are paying ME a nice fat "stimulus check", since I'm one of those who now has an adjusted gross income below the line of poverty.
So thank you for your check to me! I'll make sure and spend it on some nice Hefeweisen at the Shanghai Paulaner, or perhaps a beach-side massage in Malaysia. Or maybe buy a few more acres for my rubber tree farm in Thailand.
The proud but ignorant man brags about the amount of taxes he pays; the smart man figures out how to use the rules laid down to reduce the taxes he pays in the first place. And laughs all the way to the bank!
If it would mean America would be better for all, paying a little more wouldn't bother me.
Well, do you? Do you not take any deductions, to make America better? Do you purposefully forgo legal deductions to increase your tax load? You say it's for the better, so do you do it? Or is this just more talk from you, without putting your money where your mouth is?
More like I have donated thousands to the candidates of my choice.
How much? Probably a few pennies, I bet...
But here's the crux of the matter:
What Obama proven to be an idiot and woefully unprepared YET AGAIN by nominating Gregg (who some of your fellow Marxists here believe had skeletons to deal with);
OR
Do his nominees - those he believed in enough to give them a cabinet level position of power - simply disagree with his policies so much they refuse to participate?
Which is it? Is the "smartest man" actually an idiot, or are his plans so untenable that those he considers his equals - his nominees - run away from them?
He's a failure either way; you've shown your partisanship time and again to ever admit or state the outright failures and fraud and lies of the Slavery Party masters to whom you pledge allegiance.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 13, 2009 09:49 PMYou mean like saying "I won," holding retreats where only Democrats where invited and forging this bill without any Republican members? That's bi-partisanship?
Well, what did you expect from Chicago thugs like Obama and Rahm Emanuel. They went after Sarah Palin's children, a new low in American politics.
Of course this is what Obama truly is, pure ghetto trash.
Posted by: Mark on February 13, 2009 11:22 PMBut under Obama, I guess we have to waste a bunch of money on windmills, then waste a bunch more on transmission lines to thousands of disparate windmills, then waste yet another bunch on the maintenance of thousands of disparate turbines perched 20 meters up, and the finally scramble to produce new traditional baseload plants when the windmill energy predictions don't pan out and we are facing rolling blackouts.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 14, 2009 12:36 AMGregg asked for the job Dan.
Well that's a lie... Care to provide "facts" to back that up, not just rumors on HuffingtonPost.com?
Obama's fault?
Yes, he did the nominating. And that other Marxist, "correctnotright" said the reason Gregg pulled out was a "Jack Abramoff" tenuous connection.
If that is in fact the case, then it just shows that - once again - Obama has terrible judgement of character and simply does not adequately vet his candidates. Shows a lack of intelligence, a lack of attention to detail, a lack of seriousness, or all three. Your choice.
Unless of course you consider that your Marxist pal AlwaysWrong was once again wrong?
If you have done well, that is fine with me.
No it's not. You want to steal some from me by the threat of force and redistribute it as you see fit. The cental tenet of Marxism is to take from individuals and give as the Marxists see fit; personal ownership is a myth in your worldview.
As far as being a "failure" a couple weeks into his presidency. Yeah right buddie.
Funny, it took you Marxists and Slavers just a few weeks to brand President Bush a failure, too. And he didn't nominate a whole slate of tax cheats for cabinet positions, either!
Obama obviously reached out to them
HOW? Can you give ONE example of that reaching out? Where did he invite the GOP to the table to discuss the stimulus bill? Where did he invite the GOP to the table to discuss his dozens of executive orders regarding national security?
Face it - the Slavery Party and it's leader, President Obama - are as exclusionary and divisive as you claim the GOP to be. You Slavers are the true hate-mongers and racists of the world...
I especially like how the media interviews blow hards, and not economists for the jobs bill debate
How about Dr. Robert Barro Harvard economist and one of the most influential economists in the world. Of course, he's adamantly opposed to this pork-laden spending spree. He'll never be interviewed by the mainstream Marxist/Slaver media, since he doesn't toe your class-warfare line.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2009 12:46 AM
Factless - I don't know what all your numbers and dates mean but I can guess that citing the last day of the quarters means that you pay estimated quarterly taxes. Better talk to your accountant because estimateds are due on the 15th of those months, not on the last day. I hope your fines aren't too stiff.
You certainly are savvy though!
Posted by: dan on February 14, 2009 07:43 AMIf only she was clean and just a tax cheat like half a dozen nominees by the Obama administration. Then she'd fit right in with the rest of that cabal of thieves!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2009 11:50 AMThe 0.00484 is the B&O tax rate for manufacturers not in aerospace or lumber. So apparently Factless is a manufacturer. And the 25th of each month is when that regressive, repressive B&O tax is due, but it's only due monthly IF you pass a certain threshold of taxation (I believe the equivalent of $250,000 quarterly).
I'm still willing to bet that Factless doesn't own any businesses, though... And I'm still waiting for him to say he doesn't take any exemptions because he WANTS to pay higher taxes "for the common good"...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2009 11:53 AM" Given that a blatant undercounting of Democratic voters would be in the best interests of Republicans, why *wouldn't* such a hot topic be taken out of that portfolio? You'd have to be a damned fool to give your political opponents a means to get a leg up on you."
If that is what Obama thought then why the hell would he nominate him for the position in the first place? Please explain.
Posted by: pb on February 14, 2009 02:31 PMI'd be willing to wager there isn't a single reader here who would consider vandalizing "facts" car, and I rather expect that he knows that.
Good grief, it sometimes appears that half the cars in Seattle sport Obama stickers. I can't recall seeing any that have been damaged.
Lets be kind and just say that "facts" has some other issues.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2009 03:19 PMCertainly they risk the defection of principled liberals such as Paglia.
I've predicted for some time that when the liberals finally go too far they will end up alienating many of their supporters. It certainly happened to me. I finally began to wonder, "my god, who are these nasty people who want to tell us what to drive, what to eat, what to say, force us wear bicycle helmets, and don't want us to have gas lawnmowers." I didn't remember voting for any of that when I voted for Democrats.
Much of liberal success has been based on folks not being fully aware of who these nasty, intolerant, controlling scolds really are.
It might help if they post a picture of Chuck Schumer on their refrigerators.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2009 06:08 PMHOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 14, 2009 09:40 PMYup - you guys are REAL patriots. Just like how you didn't care about ruining the reputation of our country by starting unnecessary wars, torturing prisoners, illegal wiretapping and perversion of the justice department.
Yup, the second amendment is ONLY part of the constitution you hypocrites have ever read.
Yup, you don't mind supporting Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed when they launder money for their pal Abramoff to support forced abortions and slave labor (or Indian gambling or Russian oil tycoons). Hypocrites.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 14, 2009 10:35 PMBush screwed up the economy, but the Dems could have been responsible and passed something reasoned. Instead they chose to be irresponsible and passed something that will bankrupt future generations and call it a win because they got their pork and ability to further manipulate the system. The corrupt scumsuckers are in control and the inmates are clearly running the asylum.
Posted by: KS on February 14, 2009 11:09 PMOh, and Abramoff? Hey, you campaigning against Patty Murray since she's neck-deep in that excrement? Of course, with TAX CHEATS like Geithner at the highest levels, what do you expect.
And that transparency, and 5 days of examination online of bills before passage. That was broken in a matter of two weeks.
And being bipartisan, by locking out the GOP from conference.
Yep, set of lies and failures on you Slavers and Marxists.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2009 08:55 AMThis quote from the article sheds some doubt on your erroneous conclusions that Gregg was in the dark.
"Later, Boulanger sent an e-mail to Abramoff expressing confidence that the senator for whom the staffer worked (Gregg) would give them a favor. "Easy money," Boulanger wrote, adding that the aide "practically lives in our various suites. We are shady."
Either Gregg was in on the "shady" dealings or he was monumenatlly incompetent and stupid - Which was it?
As to Obamas juudgement in trying to pick a republican - this info came out after the pick. It is very difficult to find an untainted republican - even Abramoff said that.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 15, 2009 10:03 AMThen why wasn't he vetted better? Huh? And just what/where is your source for all this stuff? Where's a link?
Face it. You're grasping at straws because Gregg saw the writing on the wall. Personally, I think he was a fool for even accepting the nomination. I wouldn't want to be any where near this joke of an administration.
Oh, and make me laugh out loud that all of a sudden NOW it's wrong to wish for the failure of a president's policies. NOW dissent should be crushed.
As if I simply imagined the last eight years where you wished for failure in Iraq just so you could score political points.
Yep. Butyou are the big, tough patriot. Snort.
Posted by: jimg on February 15, 2009 10:44 AMAnd about that money being spent... President Obama has already blown through more money than was spent on the entire 6 years of the Iraq war, a war that President Obama's VP and Secretary of State both supported and voted to approve.
Failed nominations, offending our allies, breaking his pledges left and right, and blowing through more money in 3 weeks than any President in history.
THIS is the legacy you have to enjoy for President Obama.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2009 12:42 PMFool. There's a difference between believing that the war was a gross ethical mistake and hoping that the folks responsible wouldn't be able to whitewash it, and hoping that American soldiers die. Only a moron can't see that.
@81: Tom Daschle getting tripped up on taxes is much lower on the scale than, say, nominating Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court. I mean, at least Tom Daschle was competent to serve in the position...
In terms of "blowing through more money", the Iraq War has been the worst case of financial mismanagement this country has ever seen, and the fiscal obligations of the federal government are going to last for decades, amounting to far more than this stimulus package. Where was "fiscal responsibility" then?
Conservatives are laughable. THREE weeks in and they're trying their best to declare a presidency a "failure". You really do want to destroy this country, don't you? No room for "loyal opposition" in your foolish hyperpartisanship, is there?
Posted by: demo kid on February 15, 2009 05:25 PMOh, Daschle qualified? Yes, as a LOBBYIST. And a TAX CHEAT...
And what about Geithner, ADMITTED TAX CHEAT? Or Solis? Or Killefer? Heck, what about Rangel, or Feinstein, or now perjury by Burris? Or the dozens and dozens of lobbyists that Obama has nominated to his Adminstration?
Can we count on you condemning those names above (yes, including Geithner) for their admitted lawlessness?
And how about that $3.1 TRILLION dollar stimulus package that the Administration admits will have little effect, and the CBO states will actually HURT the long-term economy? That's FOUR TIMES the amount spent on the Iraq War.
The Iraq War liberate 25 million people; this Marxist wet dream of a spending plan will enslave 300 million.
Hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2009 05:51 PMHe has other chances soon to come to redeem himself by being more bipartisan, but he will have to override the wishes of the overreaching House and Senate. Bush had nothing to do with this Stimulus Bill and it sucked.
If the Democrats would rather be overreaching and fascistic like they have shown, either Obama steps in or his presidency will get tarnished in a hurry. The left thinks that they can get away with anything since Bush had such a low rating when he left. Gains from this attitude in the here and now will translate in long term losses for the Dimocrats and the people.
Posted by: KS on February 15, 2009 05:59 PMIn the past they've done it in places such as the old Soviet Union, China, and Cuba. This is their first serious attempt,(besides their longtime intolerance of free speech on college campuses), to crush what is left of opposing media opinion. The list of supporters grows longer every day, now it includes Bill Clinton, and NPR demanding that Fox no longer call Juan Williams an "NPR Commentator". Jerry Brown has just joined the chorus, and did Sen. Tom Harkin. Schumer and Pelosi have long been on board, as has the Move-On, Huffington Post, Media Matters socialist complex.
For those of us who understand how people on the left think none of this is a surprise. What is a suprprise is how they have seemingly thrown caution to the wind. Is it because so many leftists are veterans of the left's "golden days" of the 1960's who see time running out on their socialist dreams? Well, it's a theory at least.
It's another "see we told you so" moment for those of us who have been told over the years that we were "chicken littles" or "paranoid" when we predicted what the left will attempt to do.
In my opinion the left is making a monstrous error in grabbing for the whole enchilada so quickly. It's fascinating, really. After years of denying that they are socialists suddenly they have abandoned their disguises in just a matter of a couple of weeks. I knew that eventually they would not be able to stop themselves and we've certainly arrived at that moment in history.
I think we have a lot of reason to be optimistic. Unless I miss my guess most Americans are going to be appalled, if they aren't already.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2009 06:43 PMMight explain their arrogance as much as anything.
I expect history will look on the Democrat's overreach as a fatal miscalculation.
@84-86: Obama wins by a wide margin and both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democrats, and suddenly the Republicans want to be bipartisan? Limbaugh and Hannity shovel their biased filth to the conservative faithful with no room for alternative opinions, conservative PACs are gearing up to throw Snowe, Collins and Specter into a primary fight, and the left is "shutting down dissent"?
You're certainly not disproving my opinion that conservatives are blind fools.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 15, 2009 07:18 PMThe $3.1 TRILLION is from the CBO - Congressional Budget Office. The Congress, that's been in Slavery Party hands for the last 2+ years.
And in case you didn't notice, President Bush is not the President. Obama is. The past is over; the present is falling apart. Your Savior, the Obamassiah, made lots of promises, and is breaking EVERY ONE. Putting lobbyists all over his administration. Refusing to put aside politics and work in a bipartisan manner. Refusing to allow legislation stand for 48 hours before votes, or 5 days before signing it.
Remember this one: Pay As You Go? I guess that doesn't include blowing more in 3 weeks than all the budget deficits of the current millennium!
Or is it that you expect no more from President Obama than you did from President Bush? That President Obama is allowed to be - in your words - a failure like you consider President Bush? Do you have such LOW EXPECTATIONS for the man who leads your Marxist regime?
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 15, 2009 07:45 PMYou don't sound very confident.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2009 07:46 PMBut don't let that discourage you - as for conservatives being blind fools - it happens. Now the Democrat/progressives are doing quite well at being blind fools themselves and seem to feel good about it now that they have their own administration to fall back on.
Obama has the opportunity to change course and strive to be bipartisan in future legislation - the question is, does he have the saavy step in override the House and Senate (who are both out of control) and do this ?
Time will tell.
"In the interim, the Republican staff of the Committee on the Budget has developed preliminary estimates. The estimate begins with a list of provisions compiled by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget [CRFB]."
This is NOT the stimulus package. This is what the Republicans wanted to add arbitrarily to the "stimulus package".
But yes, Mr. ChiCom Traitor, let's throw people off Medicaid, let's defund schools, and let's devastate our science budgets. Actually, I think that you should just simply line up the poor people that you don't like and shoot them. At least it wouldn't be the coward's way out... you'd have to tell them up front that you were killing them, instead of allowing them to linger.
@89: I'm confident, but unlike most conservatives apparently, I know that this is not the sole route for change and that Obama isn't a "messiah". Apparently, conservatives are placing higher expectations on Obama than rational people.
@90: Obama has the opportunity to change course and strive to be bipartisan in future legislation - the question is, does he have the saavy step in override the House and Senate (who are both out of control) and do this ?
"Bipartisan" does not equal "doing what the minority party always wants". The Republican-controlled Congress in the Bush years rarely indulged in such bipartisanship, but automatically it is seen as a "good" by Republicans simply because you're out of power. Were you as enthusiastic of a cheerleader when the Democrats were at 49 votes? When the "nuclear" option was being proposed to get around cloture?
Posted by: demo_kid on February 16, 2009 06:30 AMThere's $3.1 TRILLION in spending tied to this bill, and it's just like you Slavers to lie about the actual cost. After all, you lied about how it was going to be debated, how it was going to be bipartisan, and how it was going to be an open and transparent process.
So much for that Pay As You Go. So much for your shouts and rants against deficit spending. Hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2009 08:19 AMAbout throwing people off of Medicaid and defunding schools. Apparently you're for it, too! Because unless the spending of the bill is made permanent, that is EXACTLY what will happen. Temporary spending, like President Clinton's 100,000 new police (who were funded for only 4 years).
So here's your conundrum: is the spending temporary, in which case you are advocating the most terrible thing of all, giving people benefits then yanking them away in a year or two;
OR
You make the extra spending permanent, and the $3.1 TRILLION becomes reality, meaning you are actively lying about the true cost of the bill.
So which is it? Are you a heartless bastard who wants to tease the poor and downtrodden with temporary benefits (that you know will disappear), or do you want to agree with the GOP that this bill blows through $3.1 TRILLION while hurting the long-term economy of the US?
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2009 08:24 AMIn terms of the funding, the federal government is taking up the shortfall while folks are out of work, pretty much like it should do. Temporary? Sure! My position is that the government should be building up rainy-day funds for this very purpose, and hopefully when economic times get better, we won't simply cut taxes (or drastically expand spending) and sacrifice our long-term economic stability in favor of fulfilling right-wing talking points.
Again, why don't you just go out and kill some poor, out-of-work families yourself? Shoot them, strangle them in their sleep, whatever. You're proposing to do pretty much the same thing, except more slowly. It'd be more humane just to get it over with than to let them die because they can't get health care or basic assistance.
Just face it... Republicans AND Democrats both fail in fiscal responsibility. The difference is that Republicans dishonestly portray themselves as the friend to working families, when they are only concerned about "trickle-on economics" that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
Posted by: demo_kid on February 16, 2009 09:04 AMHe went on vacation! LOL
So much for that bill now.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 16, 2009 09:26 AMThen why the insistence on bipartisanship? If you are so confident in what you can do with your majorities, then why not TRUMPET your control of the Congress for the last two years, and TRUMPET your control of Congress and the White House now?
Why even worry about GOP participation? Why even mention the GOP at all? No way to stop what you want...
These messes sit squarely in the lap of the most inexperienced, ill-prepared Executive in the history of These United States. Failed nominations for the most basic problems. Dozens of broken promises - SHATTERED promises - done within the first three weeks. Profligate spending beyond anything done before.
You're pushing $1.7 TRILLION in Slavery Party spending over the last 5 months. That's twice your favorite talking point the Iraq war. It's more than all of President Bush's deficits when there was a GOP in control of the Senate and House. And this is just the opening salvo! It's not a stimulus bill - it's a pass-everything-we-Marxists-ever-wanted bill.
It's pass your agenda via spending, rather than legislation. A complete violation of the Constitution in spirit, if not letter.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2009 10:09 AMSo pray tell. What was going on that so required Bush to be at the WHITE HOUSE...
Was the world going to end as Obama has said over and over.
Odd I never remember Bush say such.
That's what I like about you demo, your so easy to smack around.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 16, 2009 10:37 AMMichele thinks the publica is against Obama - hahahah - you idiot read the times today. the republicans have LOST again. The public supports Obama and the stimulus plan. the average REAL Americans are worried about the economy and their jobs and blame the feckless republicans for being obsttructionists.
You idiots were all for wasting over a trillion dollars in Iraq for.....an Islamic republic that will gouge us on oil prices. And for no-bids contracts to Haliburton with no oversight and for billions to Blackwater for useless security.
But when it comes to jobs for Americans and rebuilding our own infrastructure...that is pork. You fools are so pathetic.
Oh and Medic Vet:
Your hero Bush fiddled while:
The PDB said we would be attacked by al qaida using airplanes.
While Katrina was underwater, Bush was partying with John McCain.
While his own regulators were warning bush about the impending banking crisis, Bush was "clearing brush" on his fake ranch.
whie the economy was laready in a recession, Bush kept saying last spring that the economy was "sound".
You and your oblivious fool republican buddies keep repeating the same crap - it screwed our economy for the last 8 years and it won't help now. Trickle down is dead.
That is what I like about Medic/idiot -she is so easy to smack around and so defenseless and clueless.
Oh, And Shanghai fool - thanks for the link that proved you were wrong and as far as your vetting argument - the article came out after the nomination. So much for your pathetic argument.
Abramoff - the republican scandal that is just starting to grow again now that the Justice department is operating.
How does it feel for you republicans to be supporting the corrupt "Abramoff" party? Looks like you are plenty cozy with forced abortions, forced labor, illegal indian gambling and syupporting Russian oil tycoons.
Fool, you just keep repeting the same lies over & over and have been proven wrong so manytimes.
I'm not ever going to waste my time with you. (again)
Of course, the previous President was asleep at his post! His experiences as governor of Texas seemed like they didn't prepare him for an executive position at a McDonald's, let alone the Chief Executive. The loser had to run away on vacation whenever a true leader was needed, and he was more than glad to drop this problem into Obama's lap. So much for vaunted Republican values... his slacker Presidency can be summed up in three words (or five, for the literate): "Heckuva job, Brownie!"
And your feelings seem so hurt by Obama's broken promises. Are you in the closet? Are you secretly a liberal?
@98-100: With his ineffectual presidency, it seems like he could have stayed on vacation and it wouldn't have made a difference.
And it seems like "I'm not going to waste my time with you" = "I'm a whiny loser that can't defend my insipid little points". :)
Posted by: demo_kid on February 16, 2009 12:05 PMI see I hit a nearve with you.. So was the world going to crash when Bush was prez cutting weeds?
(I see you never answered that one)
LOL Keep trying.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 16, 2009 12:32 PMFirst off, Abramoff. When you come out and CONDEMN PATTY MURRAY and call for her to step down, then you will have some standing on Abramoff. She's neck-deep in that fecal matter, and your blinders show you to be the mealy-mouthed two-bit partisan hack you really are.
But let's go on... I'm sure it was a GOP conspiracy for the TAX CHEAT GEITHNER, TAX CHEAT DASCHLE, TAX CHEAT KILLEFER, TAX CHEAT RANGEL, or the DOZENS AND DOZENS of lobbyists that Obama positioned.
How about President Obama's constant mantra of Pay As You Go? Where's that? What - we just crack open the checkbook and write away? Isn't that what you mouth-breathers on the Left railed against (even when you held the purse strings in Congress)? My, when it's YOUR exalted leader stealing from the kids, it's all OK!
How about his "sunlighting" of bills for 5 days? Where did that go? The porkulus bill hits President Obama's desk tomorrow - he is supposed to leave it open in a searchable format for the public to see for 5 days before signing it. Think he'll wait until next Sunday to sign? MERCY NO! He has a VACATION to attend! It's been a LONG 3 weeks, so it's time to take off for a week or two and admire the STOLEN PROPERTY that his CONVICTED FELON TONY REZKO gifted him...
How about his "sunlighting" of earmarks for 3 days? Think he'll name which Slaver put what spending in the bill? Or will he simply hide and ignore his own promise to a clean and open regime?
You know it's all gone out the window, because it's not beneficial to the dear Exalted Leader. If it doesn't help him right now, then what was said yesterday is irrelevant. Promises are nothing; empty words from yesterday, to be forgotten tomorrow. All that matters is today's grab for power.
Think about it - $3.1 TRILLION dollars blown in three weeks. Your Slavery Party has dropped nearly $4 TRILLION in the last 5 months. FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. That's more than ALL of President Bush's deficits COMBINED, by a large margin. It's more than the debt has grown since 2001. It's FIVE TIMES the spending on the Iraq War that you slovenly Slavers like to trumpet.
FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. That's $13,000 per man, woman, and child in These United States. Blown in a matter of 5 months. It's a 40% INCREASE in our national debt. You Slavers have tightened the chains and locked down every family of four with a new $52,000 in debt.
A thousand dollars a week for the year of 2009. But don't worry! That good massah Obama said he give us back $13 a week! That mean he only keep $987 a week. Why, it's like gettin only 49 lashes rather than 50! He's a good massah!
And how to pay it off? Why, your Master Obamassiah promised no taxes on the general populace, just the top 1% (of which he and the slime Pelosi, Reid, and Biden belong). Of course, he shows further intellectual infantilism when you realize the TOTAL INCOME - 100% - of the top 1% is barely $1.8 TRILLION. You can confiscate every penny of the top 1% and still come up $2.2 TRILLION short. His answer on how to pay for it? SILENCE. He has none. Even the CBO says this plan will HARM long-term growth of the Nation - we're better off doing NOTHING. But that doesn't fit with his power grab...
And what a grab it is! In the desire to take over a massive chunk of the US economy, he has rammed through a "stimulus" bill. The people do NOT want it. In fact, half the nation believes they can spend the money better than The Obamassiah. Over 60% believe that the Slavery Party's plan is NOT bipartisan, just their own pet projects.
Here's the most telling poll. You Slavers have had control of the Nation's purse strings and legislation for the last two years. And you have the Presidency now, too... Yet 2 out of 3 Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's a 66% MANDATE that you Marxists are taking us in the wrong direction. The people are waking up to the FACT you cannot trust a Slaver on the economy.
You want to know why your Slaver Masters pushed this bill through? Because in another month it would NOT be possible. The political will would be gone, because America is realizing the terrible mistake it made, turning the reigns of Government over to a cabal of thieves and a brood of mental midgets.
President Obama is pathetic. He may have earned a fancy degree (assumed, since it's never been proven, nor even do we know his grades), but being educated does not make one intelligent. In fact, it's quite obvious that he's ignorant. He's unprepared - Geither, Daschle, Kellifer, Solis, and dozens of others. And he's a liar - PROVABLY so (sunshine rules on bills? Lobbyists not allowed into his administration?).
But I guess that's why you worship the man - you're cut from the cloth. You have nothing to go on but:
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2009 12:37 PMWant to talk about a prepared, open, accountable Administration?
Tim Geithner.
Checkmate.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2009 12:43 PMHey buddy, with 13 bucks more per week. I can now afford a cheap bottle of wine and a can of dog food (reagan days)
(-:
Maybe with your limited intelligence you think Bush was a great President.
Maybe with your keen insight you think the economy is doing great and more of the same that got us into this mess is the correct prescription for the HOLE we are in.
Maybe you think we are somehow safer after alienating most of our longtime allies by an unnecessary war in Iraq - but of course you are deluding yourself.
Maybe you think those WMDs will be found.
Maybe you think the lack of regulation of the banks (from the laws written by Phil Gramm and the banking lobbyists) were good ideas, but you would be wrong again.
Maybe you should just learn to think instead of regurgitating the same poorly thought out crap that you hear on the drug addict Rush Limpduh's show.
you can't name ONE time I have been "proven wrong". For someone who can't even use correct grammer
Umm, you spelled "grammar" wrong. But I'm sure you'll use some new Slavery Party dictionary that grades your spelling of the word as "close enough".
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2009 05:07 PMDo you have any PROOF of Patty Murray and Abramoff? You spout off a lot - but do you have ANY proof linking Patty Murray to Abramoff?
Abramoff himself said that any prominent republican that denied knowing him was lying.
Here are the facts you have wrong:
"Your Slavery Party has dropped nearly $4 TRILLION in the last 5 months" - patently false.
Last I checked Obama came in on January 20th - Bush signed everything before that. Can't you even keep track of who was president when?
Where are your excsuses for the largest budget deficits in history - proposed and signed by Bush?
You said: "The people do NOT want it. In fact, half the nation believes they can spend the money better than The Obamassiah. Over 60% believe that the Slavery Party's plan is NOT bipartisan, just their own pet projects."
The latest Gallup poll shows 67% approval for Obama and the stimulus package. Republicans in congress - not so good - under 30%.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008748466_stimpolitics16.html
You are wrong again. Do you enjoy spouting falsehoods?
Do I have to go on to prove how DUMB you are and how pathetically WRONG you are? Why is that I can find most of the things you write to completely and utterly wrong?
Could it be you are shooting this stuff out of your ass and can't verify a damn thing?
"The state's senior senator, a Seattle Democrat, said there was nothing wrong with accepting more than $40,000 in campaign donations from out-of-state tribes represented by the disgraced lobbyist."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/256542_murray21.html
Posted by: Ron Hebron on February 16, 2009 05:42 PMWrong again! Here you go about Patty and Jack having money fun... Also detailed here. I know, those articles are full of big words so maybe you can't understand them...
And I know you can't read because you properly quote me as "Your Slavery Party has dropped nearly $4 TRILLION in the last 5 months" then you respond with "Last I checked Obama came in on January 20th - Bush signed everything before that".
Funny, Congress has been in Slavery Party control for over two years now, and actually WROTE THE TARP BILL! But we know that you haven't a CLUE how the Government works...
Pelosi and Reid are Slavers, after all...
Where are your excsuses for the largest budget deficits in history - proposed and signed by Bush?
They sucked. I've never excused them. Of course, I also say this new porkulus bill from you Slavers is even WORSE. It's bigger than anything President Bush proposed, and even the CBO says it won't work.
So, are you all for deficit spending now? All for blowing trillions without return? You like blowing $4 TRILLION dollars that will do nothing? Go on record, really...
The latest Gallup poll shows 67% approval for Obama and the stimulus package.
LIAR. The quote you're referring to is:
A recent Gallup Poll found 67 percent of Americans approved of the way he was handling the economic-stimulus bill; only 31 percent approved of Republicans' performance.
So people like the way Obama is handling the bill, but as we see 38% think it will help; the balance believe there's nothing gained or it will actually hurt. So you have your 38% there!
You are LYING YET AGAIN. You're worthless. Really. You cannot understand English. People may think Obama is handling the bill correctly, but the majority of people do NOT support the bill.
Proof? More from the Rassmussen poll:
Thirty-two percent (32%) say they're more likely to vote for someone who supported the bill in Congress while 35% said they're less likely to vote for someone who supported it.
Now, if people are in favor of the bill, why would more voters PENALIZE YOU for voting for it?
And this quote is rather telling:
Most Americans believe tax cuts are good for the economy, and half (48%) say that more government spending is bad for the economy. And what do you Slavers do? Spend, not cut taxes (2/3rds of that "package" is spending, NOT tax cuts).
Then you write: Republicans in congress - not so good - under 30%.
LYING AGAIN. See here. 39% favorables for the GOP, 40% for the Slavers. It's a tie. And nowhere NEAR your fictitious and insane 30%. You liar.
Hey, but why are you even here? You Slavers run the Government. Anything that happens is on your head. Enjoy the collapse that you brought around, and are making worse.
You are a fraud. You have no sense of right and wrong, given the amount of outright LIES you post here. You're a waste of time.
But you do have your HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 16, 2009 06:41 PMJust because a politician got contributions doesn't mean anything - where is the quid pro quo? Where is the evidence this influenced a vote? Where is the evidence that aides were wined and dined?
I showed that evidence and you show....nothing. So you have....nothing. Big mouth and NO evidence. Weak evidence is just that WEAK. Where is your proof - put up or shut up. I showed proof - you showed ...nothing.
Remember it was Abramoff himself who said that every republican poltiican "knew him" and dealt with him. the whole K street project was designed by Abramoff and Rove to limit lobbying to the republicans.
Speaking of being an idiot - you are so clueless:
Here is what you siad:
"Congress has been in Slavery Party control for over two years now, and actually WROTE THE TARP BILL! But we know that you haven't a CLUE how the Government works..."
If you anything about the bill (written by Paulson and Bush and pushed through congress on short notice) or anything about how congress works (Bush proposed the bill and Paulson wrote most of it), you would know that Bush pushed it, Bush promoted it and bush signed it. also, the republicans could have blocked it but did not. It takes 67 votes to overcome a veto - so bush has had his way even with a majority democratic since 2006. This is the legacy of BUSH - and your weak denials just show how good you are at making EXCUSES and not taking any responsibility.
Here is another incorrect statement:
"It's bigger than anything President Bush proposed"
Nope - the bank bailout and the Iraq war are at least double the size of this bill. Wrong again. Are you right on ANYTHING? You keep spouting incorrect nonsense. Get your facts straight before you call someone a liar - you whining little baby. You sound like a third grader...wahhhh, you lie.
Maybe you should learn to actually read. Here is the Gallup poll results:
"The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill, while the Democrats and, in particular, the Republicans in Congress receive much lower approval ratings of 48% and 31%, respectively."
Wrong again - really. I am beginning to think you are delusional and just spout stuff you think you heard somehwere.
Since I have just shown that you have made at least 10 errors in your last 3 posts - you are questioning my credibility? hahhaha - you are funny.
You would not know the truth if it stared at you in the face. Face it, you voted for and supported Bush, twice. He caused the largest deficit in history and the worst economy since the great depression - now explain how great he was.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 17, 2009 09:41 PMYes, where is your PROOF that Gregg has evil ties to Abramoff? YOU made the accusation, you back it up.
You can't, so you try to change the subject. You're a liar. Live with it.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 17, 2009 11:17 PMPaulson wrote the TARP bill not congress: You are WRONG again:
Link: http://www.bailoutfacts.com/Paulson_Plan.htm
Gregg's ties to Abramoff - If you could read, I posted the link and the damaging quote. Gregg's chief aide was in the tank for Abramoff according to the court documents (as Senator F in the guilty plea of Todd Boulanger):
"A person familiar with the case confirmed today that "Staffer F" in court documents is Kevin Koonce, who worked as legislative director in Gregg's Senate office from 2002-04. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is still under investigation.
Staffer F was cited in a guilty plea last week by Todd Boulanger, a former deputy to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In federal court, Boulanger admitted he plied the staffer with front-row tickets to a hockey game and other tickets to a baseball game, and in exchange received favors in spending legislation."
"As part of the plea documents, prosecutors said Staffer F tried to help insert spending measures and add other amendments to legislation for Boulanger's clients. Later, the staffer asked Boulanger if he could "score some hockey tickets," and Boulanger got him front-row seats.
Boulanger later got the staffer box tickets to see the Baltimore Orioles, but he wanted more.
"Could you make sure there's beer this time," he wrote in an e-mail. I "mean, the red sox, crab cakes, and fillet mignon's were nice but ... haha."
Later, Boulanger sent an e-mail to Abramoff expressing confidence that the senator for whom the staffer worked would give them a favor. "Easy money," Boulanger wrote, adding that the aide "practically lives in our various suites. We are shady."
Link: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_02_04_Former_Gregg_staffer_caught_up_in_Abramoff_corruption_probe/
The bottom line - the staffer for Gregg was given special favors in exchange for putting in legislation. I said before that Gregg was either incompetent or crooked - and that is the case here. Either Gregg was not paying attention to his own legislation and staffer (incompetent) or he was in on it (crooked).
So - those are the facts - and you have....nothing. If you don't know the difference between actual facts and what you have (nothing), then maybe your suppositions are ...just plain wrong.
Posted by: correctnotright on February 18, 2009 06:53 AMSo you admit you have ZERO proof of Gregg being personally tainted by Abramoff. Unless you try to claim the tenuous link you're asserting is damning. But then the link to Patty Murray is actually strong (she ADMITS her relationship with Abramoff)! So where's your condemnation of Patty? Huh? Silence yet again...
But we do have proof (Geithner, Daschle, Kellifer, Solis, and more) that President Obama is WOEFULLY lacking in judgement when he picks his people. That he just is NOT up to the task of the Presidency.
With Gregg, he either got it wrong and missed the vetting process (potential given the other failures he's completed so far) or he blew the political calculus over this position.
Either way, it shows he's failed. And that's what really sticks in your craw - your Obamassiah has been shown to have feet of clay, and is yet again shown to be lacking in judgement or intelligence or most likely both.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 18, 2009 08:40 AM