Obama Watch - Keeping an Eye on U.S. Leadership

[You Can Call Me Ray]

As if the stampede of AGW nutjobs in the Obama administration is not enough, now we are seeing fleeting evidence to suggest that the "Ban Space Weapons Now" (and let's hope the Exopols are not involved) people are influencing the Obama administration:

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/usa/story.php?id=443444

Obama Seeks Ban on Space Weapons
2009-01-26 07:33am

Obama will pursue a global ban on space-based weapons, according to the newly updated White House Web site, while also promising to look at threats to American satellites, contingency plans to keep information flowing through them, and taking steps to protect spacecraft against attack.

Some analysts say it will be difficult to define what constitutes a "weapon," because even innocuous weather satellites can be programmed to ram into other satellites.

Step back...it would seem Carol Rosin and Alfred Lambremont Webre (JD and whatever other alphabet soup he attaches to his name) now have an "in" in the White House. God save the Queen!

Ray

[MrPenny]

Greetings MrPenny:
As it turned out, the President's political foes filled that gap for him and we now have a news story which relates how a released Guantanamo prisoner traveled to Iraq to become a "martyr".

Odd to me that it would be used as ammunition against the current administration, seeing as how the prisoner wasn't released on Obama's watch. Regardless of the responsibility, who's naive enough to not expect some recidivism? It would be a far more anomalous circumstance if no released prisoners retained their ideology and fervor and returned to the "jihad."

Truly, I'm a political outsider (I like it that way), so many of my observations may not be colored by any past association with "politics." I think, as in many other subjects, one's conclusions inescapably become filtered through whatever colored lenses are used to ponder the subject.

Consider Guantanamo as a failed, crappy marketing icon. Just the context in which the place is mentioned now leaves many with a bad taste in their mouth. Funny, that at one time Gitmo was thought of with some fondness and admiration. Yeah, I'm old enough to remember that....and where the phrase "The Buck Stops Here" comes from, thank you very much. I'm seeing a strategy less concerned with "what to do with the thugs", as one focused on eliminating a negative symbol.

I think the goal is less one of "doing something with the thugs", and more one of "getting rid of the world's foul taste of the place." Realistically, the "thugs" can go nearly anywhere....and that's probably the entire scope of the shut down process; where to send the thugs. Because that's really all that is involved in shutting the place down, and what's complicated about that? They have an entire year and a buttload of our money.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I would love for anyone who voted for Obama to defend some of this spending nonsense in the new "stimulus" spending bill which is most certainly going to get Obama's signature:

Among the funding measures included in the proposal are $25 million for new ATV trails; $400 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global warming research; $335 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat sexually-transmitted diseases; and $650 million coupons to subsidize TV viewers for digital television conversion.



THIS is responsible spending? THESE are issues that absolutely NEED government funding given the financial mess we are in? As predicted, NOTHING has changed. What I am really surprised by is that the environmental block was not able to totally shut-down any money at all for ATV trails. But they certainly were able to limit it to a "paltry" 25 mil!!! And I guess some of these "causes" are linked: Of course the DEM congress wants to make sure all their mind-numbed constituents can still watch TV so as to not miss any of the AGW propaganda (and they can't be expected to miss Dancing With The Stars... Bread and Circuses!)

Nonsense. Absolute f---ing nonsense!
Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Odd to me that it would be used as ammunition against the current administration, seeing as how the prisoner wasn't released on Obama's watch.

I could be wrong, but I think the point of bringing this up after Obama ordered Gitmo closed was to show that, if this is what happened with a prisoner who was released who we thought was "safe" (?) to be released, then those who we are still holding onto clearly are a very real danger.

Consider Guantanamo as a failed, crappy marketing icon. Just the context in which the place is mentioned now leaves many with a bad taste in their mouth. Funny, that at one time Gitmo was thought of with some fondness and admiration. Yeah, I'm old enough to remember that....and where the phrase "The Buck Stops Here" comes from, thank you very much. I'm seeing a strategy less concerned with "what to do with the thugs", as one focused on eliminating a negative symbol.

There is no doubt that all prisons are negative symbols. Some more than others. But the "marketing speak" is, to me, endemic of a whole lot of what is wrong with America: We only seem to care about how something appears to others ("gotta look good...no need to actually BE good"), with very little attention to the substance of the matter and what the purpose is for certain institutions. Going down this road of only worrying about "how does it look to the rest of the world" can be dangerous. For example, I am sure there are people who try to (or actually do!) equate Gitmo with the "detention camps" where we placed Japanese citizens in WW II. One could see how someone could obliterate the clear distinctions to arrive at this comparison. But it shows how only worrying about how something looks blurs the reality of why we do things. The thugs in Gitmo were either found on a field of battle, actively engaging our troops, or were captured after massive intelligence operations led us to their hideouts from which they took part in planning terrorist activities. This has no similarity to taking law-abiding US citizens of Japanese descent from their homes and placing them in detention camps. Although when one only looks at the surface and how something appears, without digging into the details of the function of a particular prison, one can come to such erroneous allegories.

I think the goal is less one of "doing something with the thugs", and more one of "getting rid of the world's foul taste of the place." Realistically, the "thugs" can go nearly anywhere....and that's probably the entire scope of the shut down process; where to send the thugs. Because that's really all that is involved in shutting the place down, and what's complicated about that? They have an entire year and a buttload of our money.

What is complicated about that is "who wants them in their backyard?" I heard Murtha from PA pipe up saying he would take them (thinking only of that buttload of money he would request to build a supermax prison in his district), but that guy has shown (on more than one occasion) that he is waaaay out of touch with the people he is elected to represent (the rednecks & racist comments). In fact, watching Murtha and judging only by appearances (as noted above) one could conclude he is not representing his people at all, only representing his own wishes and his own thought process.

The other thing that makes it complicated is very much that "buttload of our money". Would we rather be forced to allocate some of that buttload of money with providing the thugs with civil attorneys, and all the trappings to which US citizens who are prisoners are accustomed? Because that is where a LOT of that buttload of money will go. Sure, some will actually have to go to the building and staffing a prison to receive them, but not all of it. For the issue of bringing them on US soil is the very reason Gitmo was setup to begin with. I am one who is tired of coddling prisoners, especially the murders. When you take it to the level of mass murderers who plan terrorist activities against totally innocent masses of people, I have less patience.

The problem, if you ask me, is that all international agreements for war are written with respect to state actors. That is what the Geneva convention is all about... war between defacto states and nations. Does the fact that nowhere have the international community considered or agreed upon procedures to handle non-state violence against innocent people mean we should just NOT do whatever it takes to subdue them? I don't think that is the way the world works, and it is most certainly not the way the US works. In the US, we tackle problems head-on and do something about them while other parts of the world (Europe) are happy to talk, talk, talk, and have some coffee and talk some more. The Euros call this the "cowboy approach" as if it is a bad thing. They think it is bad, but we get things done. Sure, we make mistakes, but we ge things done AND work out the mistakes and how to correct them as we go along. The US has a history of acting to do the right thing. Plenty of armchair quarterbacks and monday morning analysts will ALWAYS be there to criticize, because it is eminently easier to criticize than it is to actually get something done.

I really could give a chit what Europe thinks. Their history of allowing two world wars to fester and explode does not bode well for a future of dealing with problems. I will take the "cowboy approach" any day, because at least it gets things done instead of pushing them off and letting them get worse.

Sorry for the rant...
Ray

[ryguy]

Regardless, those other programs may need to be accepted in light of the other programs that are part of the stimulus package that will bring relief, such as:

- A tax credit to help the unemployed buy health insurance coverage under COBRA or through Medicaid. This situation of the uninsured is now at crisis levels and this one single item provides short term releave for the (growing) unemployed population.

- $100 billion (that's billion, not million) on clean energy investments and doubling renewable energy generating capacity in three years. If he wants to spend a few million on the idiotic topic of global warming - so be it. At least the bulk of investments will be going toward clean and renewable energy technology instead of keeping us addicted to oil (how's that oil stock doing Ray?)

- Expanding the Child Tax Credit (YES!!!)

- "The largest weatherization program in history, making 2.5 million homes and three-fourths of federal buildings more energy efficient." (Hence REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL) ...you probably should sell those stocks Ray.

- Spending to beef up port security (FINALLY) and increase trade, extending electricity transmission lines, putting 40 million "smart meters" in U.S. homes and expanding broadband access to millions of Americans.

A quote from the republicans in the report I read:

"In the Republicans' weekly address, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said his party wants to work with Obama and congressional Democrats but that Republicans prefer 'fast-acting tax relief, not slow-moving government spending programs.'

The Republicans' competing plans have included cutting income tax rates and providing a tax credit for home purchases. Boehner said for now, the Democrats' plan "is chock-full of government programs and projects, most of which won't provide immediate relief to our ailing economy."

I'll tell you what - most of the items listed above will provide immediate relief - reducing income taxes will not because you have to actually have an income to get relief. Those thousands who are finding themselves unemployed NEED immediate help with health care costs, high home heating/energy costs, and providing financial relief through the Child Credit puts money in the pockets of those who need it most - families who are devoting their energy and resources to raising the next generation of Americans.

Republicans are going to have to stop moaning and complaining because right now, gridlock and doing nothing is not an option.

-Ry

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Regardless, those other programs may need to be accepted in light of the other programs that are part of the stimulus package that will bring relief

That is exactly what politicians want We The People to swallow, and this is also the precise symptom of "politics as usual" that gets us into such debts. Moreover, this is the exact reason why EVERY President asks for the line item veto to tame the pork that flows from Congress. I am disappointed that you accept this, Ryan. I truly expected more from you, as a person who claims to have conservative views. Accepting it emboldens and empowers "politicians as usual" to continue to spend us (and YOUR CHILDREN, Ryan!) into debt we will never get out of.

If he wants to spend a few million on the idiotic topic of global warming - so be it.

And I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you are minimizing this agenda of the Goreites, which is now extremely hard to deny. Do you forget that I predicted this (and much worse which is yet to come) well before the election? I read the tea leaves, and I was right. I do not like being right, and I will not like it when this agenda marches on to further institutionalize what you admit to be "idiotic". This thing you minimize, Ryan, is Phase 1. He is listening to Gore, has appointed one of Gore's minions to a non-confirmable position of power, and that person (Browner) has been proven to be active in at least one MAJOR socialist organization. What more red flags do you need to face this dangerous fact, Ryan? I am one who regularly brushes away conspiracy theories that have no extant evidence of conspiratorial actions. But this AGW thing is not anything like that... it has ALL the earmarks of a defacto conspiracy of people who wish to push socialist agendas with BAD SCIENCE. I cannot express my rage and my caution for how dangerous this path is!!! Many see it...but those who are so enamored of Obama's rockstarness, and so hopeful that he will deliver change that is needed, that they purposefully minimizing a clear and present danger.

At least the bulk of investments will be going toward clean and renewable energy technology instead of keeping us addicted to oil (how's that oil stock doing Ray?)

You make this as a joke, I realize. But it is based upon a fallacy. One of the biggest "big oil" stocks that I own in my energy portfolio is BP. They also happen to be the undisputed leader in solar energy manufacturing. No one can beat them for how many solar PV systems are being sold! The solar PV system on my roof (bought & installed in 2003) is from BP Solar. So yes, this stock is doing quite well.

"The largest weatherization program in history, making 2.5 million homes and three-fourths of federal buildings more energy efficient." (Hence REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL) ...you probably should sell those stocks Ray.

Not a chance, pal. See above. Now, I want the DETAILS of how we are going to make those 2.5 million homes more energy efficient via weatherization. Because the details matter! Example: I received both a CA state and Federal one-time rebate for my solar PV. That is not a socialist money-redistribution scam, because it requires me to make the decision to do it myself before I get the benefit. What I will be willing to bet you beers on is that this is NOT how these 2.5 million homes will be weatherized!!! Dems don't do rebates and/or tax incentives for people to take smart actions. They prefer "giving out money" which is the form of wealth-redistribution that smacks of socialism. You watch... it will happen...and I will point it out when it does.

"In the Republicans' weekly address, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said his party wants to work with Obama and congressional Democrats but that Republicans prefer 'fast-acting tax relief, not slow-moving government spending programs.'

The Republicans' competing plans have included cutting income tax rates and providing a tax credit for home purchases. Boehner said for now, the Democrats' plan "is chock-full of government programs and projects, most of which won't provide immediate relief to our ailing economy."

I'll tell you what - most of the items listed above will provide immediate relief

Complete and utter b.s., Ryan. When have you EVER seen government programs act quickly? You were just as wrong about coalescing all school funding under the Feds. You completely ignore just how ineffective the federal government is at getting big projects done on time, much less rapidly!!! Just look how inefficient NASA is compared to the commercial SpaceEx in building rockets. And that is just one example. If you want more examples, take a look at the fat and expensive and slow bureaucracies in Europe.

Those thousands who are finding themselves unemployed NEED immediate help with health care costs, high home heating/energy costs, and providing financial relief through the Child Credit puts money in the pockets of those who need it most - families who are devoting their energy and resources to raising the next generation of Americans.

Idealism. Just wait until you see how "immediate" it is. In virtually every aspect where you could compare government response times with a commercial business, the commercial business will respond faster and with less waste. I can cite numerous studies with data that have pretty much made that conclusive.

Republicans are going to have to stop moaning and complaining because right now, gridlock and doing nothing is not an option.

And you continue to make it Republican vs. Democrat. My gawd, we have been over this so many times it makes my head hurts. Ryan! THEY ARE THE SAME! And gridlock is NOT isolated to one party against another... and let me prove that by showing you what is shaping up within the DEM party when it comes to the "Great Global Warming Push" that is currently being put together:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/scien ... ml?_r=3&hp

Geography Is Dividing Democrats Over Energy
John M. Broder

Already, the Congressional Democrats Mr. Obama will need to carry out his mandate are feuding with one another.

By coincidence or design, most of the policy makers on Capitol Hill and in the administration charged with shaping legislation to address global warming come from California or the East Coast, regions that lead the country in environmental regulation and the push for renewable energy sources.

That is a problem, says a group of Democratic lawmakers from the Midwest and Plains States, which are heavily dependent on coal and manufacturing. The lawmakers have banded together to fight legislation they think might further damage their economies.

And well they should. Ryan, I would really really REALLY like you to open your eyes that we are well beyond the whole "Dem-Repub" thing. The problem is "politics as usual". You think you are seeing change, and I am telling you it is the same-old same old, but now the DEMs will have their turn to f*ck things up even worse and have their little infighting and bickering within their party....and the result will be bigger debts and further devaluation of the dollar.

While there were several issues that torbjon and I did not agree upon, I think we both saw eye-to-eye that the Dem-Repub thang is a show...a distraction to keep the status quo. It "works" for both parties because each has the other to blame. Meanwhile, Rome burns. Please... if the tone of this, my post, angers you, at LEAST look at what Torb was saying. We were saying the same thing. I am sick and effing tired of BOTH of these parties. They BOTH have failed and I am afraid I am reading the tea leaves of failure again.... NOT just because of Obama and his admin... but because the Parties are bigger than even the person in the Oval Office. I think you know that, but I do not think you are willding to admit it.

I really wish I was wrong...but the evidence is embedded in our history of the last 30 years (if not more).
Ray

[ryguy]

I agree 100% Ray...but I just don't see the political landscape being fixed in time so that everyone can get along before this crisis takes down the country completely. We need to swallow the b.s. for now and accept that, once again, stupid politicians are going to backload the recovery package with more pork - but the fact is that the "frontloaded" *good* programs are critical...and we need them now, not after Washington is reformed. Let's recover the nation, whatever it takes, so that things are stable again, the economy is at least on an even keel, employers and businesses aren't hemmorhaging jobs, and markets and industries at least go flat and not decline.

As the country rebuilds from that lower, more stable position, then we can take a look at fixing the problems within the political arena. As you point out, those problems have been around for years - but the country hasn't faced a crisis of this magnitude for many decades. Moaning now about political problems that have been part of the system for a very long time does nothing to fix the problems that are occuring in the country today.

Not angry at all about what you've written above Ray! As always you make excellent and well thought-out points.

-Ry

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I agree 100% Ray...but I just don't see the political landscape being fixed in time so that everyone can get along before this crisis takes down the country completely. We need to swallow the b.s. for now and accept that, once again, stupid politicians are going to backload the recovery package with more pork - but the fact is that the "frontloaded" *good* programs are critical...and we need them now, not after Washington is reformed. Let's recover the nation, whatever it takes, so that things are stable again, the economy is at least on an even keel, employers and businesses aren't hemmorhaging jobs, and markets and industries at least go flat and not decline.

I understand what you are saying, Ryan. But I just don't see it happening. This is the same mantra that has been used all along "let's just get through this one crisis, then we can fix the process." But with the defacto stranglehold that Party Politics has on our entire Federal government, it just never happens. And the electorate is either so damned numb from it all, or so damned brain dead from distractions like Paris Hilton, American Idol, and Jessica Simson's weight, that they take the easy way out and continue to elect incumbents (for the most part) and continue to vote the swinging pendulum of power from Dem to Repub to Dem...ad nauseum. We talk about the limit cycle oscillation with an onset of full divergence. We are there. I hate to say it, but the limit cycle has gone on since the days of Nixon, and this giant recession is acting as the forcing function that will cause the limit cycle to finally break out into a divergence.

As the country rebuilds from that lower, more stable position, then we can take a look at fixing the problems within the political arena.

To be blunt: VERY little short of revolution will fix it. And I fear that the pot will continue to approach the boiling point where that will happen... and if you think today's situation is ugly just wait until you see what happens when the entire electorate just has had enough. The ONLY way I see it getting fixed, short of a full revolution, is if PEOPLE, en masse, find a way to not only hold their Reps and Sens accountable, but also find a way to forcibly inflict some kind of pain upon them for not getting the job done. I don't mean physical pain... but the best kind of pain short of that is to hit someone (hard) in their wallets. Not a single person who reports to The People's House or the Senate today is feeling one iota of pain that the American people are... but oh, they will give speeches and try to convince people they are. It's all part of the show.

We see in the news the Wall Street firms getting GOV handouts giving away giant bonuses. What makes anyone think that this same MONEY GRAB is not also going on right there on Capitol Hill???? The way I read the tea leaves, we are witnessing the last great money grab. All the people who wield even a little power are seeing the ship go down...and they just want to make sure they get some of whatever scraps are left before the collapse.

It is all over government if you look. Not sure how much you follow NASA, but that is a perfect "isolated" segment of the Federal Government to study to see the effect. Politics is in full control running all aspects of NASA. Science and engineering are impotent. And I am not only talking about James Hansen and his GISS crowd that supports UN IPCC. I am talking ALL parts of NASA. It is a microcosm of the cancer that infests all corners of our gov. And it is worse in the states, esp. here in CA, because states cannot "print money" to continue to try and spend their way out of trouble. CA is so emaciated from spend, spend, spend, and more spend that they cannot even give me the excess money back that I paid them in taxes this year! I will not get a check... I will get an IOU!! WTF good is that? Many have suggested we should send the IOU in with our property tax bills as payment...and then write out our own IOUs for the balance.

Not angry at all about what you've written above Ray! As always you make excellent and well thought-out points.

Thanks. Glad you can see my obvious anger as venting. I appreciate your hopeful outlook, but unfortunately, with a few more years on this motal coil than you, I have seen this same thing play out since the 60s. We are caught in a temporal loop. The names change but the personalities and their intentions (hidden as they are) do not.

Stop ALL paychecks to Reps and Sens on Capitol Hill and then watch how quickly the problem gets solved (or the final implosion occurs which leads to revolution). Either way, it will only happen with something drastic that makes the power-players hurt, and hurt bad.

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

It would seem we have a contest for the slimyest Obama nominee between Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle. Readers will recall in this very thread that I warned of Daschle's slimyness. I do not expect Obama to withdraw Daschle's nomination, but I am of the strong opinion that it is the proper thing to do.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01 ... firmation/

First, we see another Obaminee (Obama nominee) with trouble remembering to pay taxes:

it was revealed that Daschle -- Obama's nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services -- failed to pay $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest.

The White House acknowledged Friday that Daschle had "some tax issues," which, the administration says, have been resolved and should not bar his confirmation as secretary.

Of course not...because it didn't stand in the way of Geithner getting confirmed. Now, had this been any Republican president's nominee with this kind of trouble, we would have witnessed quite a spectacle during the confirmation hearings. But I agree with the administration, it will not be Daschle's tax problem that will cause trouble with confirmation. But will his bigger issue?

Tom Daschle, the former South Dakota senator picked by President Obama to reside over the nation's healthcare system, received $220,000 in speaking fees from health care groups with an interest in the work he would do once confirmed as health chief, Politico.com reported Saturday.

Daschle, who has come under fire in recent days for his failure to pay taxes, reportedly received thousands from health care groups -- such as the Health Industry Distributors Association -- that stand to gain or lose depending on the outcome of Obama's universal health care initiative.

If Obama does not withdraw Daschle, and the Senate Dems rubber-stamp him (as can be expected), this will be just one more piece of evidence to exhibit Obama's hypocrisy (and the "politics as usual in DC") when it comes to wanting to rid his administration of Conflict of Interest perceptions or actual problems.

Daschle is a terrible pick...and it is clear if he is confirmed he will be doing favors for the people who paid him. Yes, he IS THAT SLIMY!

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

And so today we learn:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/03/ ... index.html

Daschle withdraws as HHS nominee

And I believe the points made in this commentary are right on the money:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/03/ ... index.html

Commentary: Obama's ethics vow at risk

The appointment process which started out so smoothly for President Obama has turned into a problem.

Several picks undermine Obama's campaign promise to change how Washington works.

The troika of Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle and Timothy Geithner raises questions about Obama's commitment to making government reform central to his presidency.

The news from these appointments has been disturbing for many Americans.

I give more credit to Richardson for knowing his own situation, such that when investigations of "pay to play" came up he knew he would have to withdraw his nomination. Daschle, of course, had the attitude that he believes he is above it all and that he refuses to see his past as tarnishing what his would-be boss is trying to do for the country. Had he been more realistic he would have declined the appointment for the same, exact reasons that he decided he could not withstand a run for the Big Job...

I also blame Obama's people, but the buck stops with Obama himself. If he really DID want to instill in the American people that "this is gonna be different" he would have (personally) removed these people from consideration at the moment they began to stink. And with Daschle, that means even a small amount of vetting his past should have IDed him as having ethical troubles. He should never have been put forward for the job. I would have had more respect for Obama even if he had nominated him but, at the first sign of trouble withdrew his nomination. But as the author of the commentary above points out, he should learn that if he really does want people to believe in his "change" then he has to NOT repeat the same mistakes of Carter (or others before him).

IOW... he has to learn to NOT PLAY POLITICS whenever anything related to ethics is involved. If people he puts forward cannot withstand the ethics litmus test, they must be rejected. It is the only way he can save his pledge of ethics and "changing DC".

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

From back in February 2007, we have this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17263273/

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement Wednesday of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who said the White House hopeful "personifies the future of Democratic leadership in our country."

Interesting. So perhaps this answers the question of why Obama would "stand behind" Daschle after his tax problems were first raised. But what really makes one wonder is:

Obama began his term in the Senate after Daschle lost his seat in 2004. But the South Dakotan served in the Senate with several of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and John Edwards, a former lawmaker.

So Daschle had never even worked directly with Obama in the Senate when he gave this endorsement. It is no secret that Daschle was a prior seeker of the Presidency. And of course, there was this that many people missed from back in 2006, before Daschle even endorsed Obama:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2 ... ction.html

When former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) announced last week that he would not run for president, he was largely ignored by the national news media.

But, Daschle's decision actually has major repercussions when it comes to the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- currently THE hot candidate of Democratic presidential politics. (Witness the rock star treatment that Obama received during a book signing and campaign stop in New Hampshire yesterday.)

Why? Because many people in Obama's inner circle have close ties to Daschle and would have been put in an extremely tough situation if both men had decided to run. With Daschle out, the way is clear for these experienced campaign hands to focus full-time on Obama -- a boon for the relatively inexperienced Senator as he navigates the tricky waters of a national bid in the coming months. If Obama does decide to run, you can expect a number of other top-level staffers with ties to Daschle to jump on-board the nascent presidential campaign.

So hopefully I do not need to spell it out directly for everyone, but just in case I will: The nomination of Daschle was a political payback for his support (in the form of endorsement and supporting staff). In other words: the same old politics as usual that Obama said he was going to change! Moreover, the reason Obama was "standing by" Daschle even when the embarassing tax issue first came to light is because Obama had that feeling that he owed Daschle. In other words, this tells us that Obama is more than willing to play the "politics as usual" game.

I am not impressed by him coming out now and saying "I screwed up". He never would have "screwed up" at all if he had not ignored the clear problems Daschle has/had, which were the very reasons why Daschle decided to not run for President himself! And beyond this, why has no one pointed out that the people of South Dakota rejected Daschle as one of their Senators while he actually held the job of Senate Minority Leader? It is not very often at all that an incumbent Senator loses his job, but even more rare that one loses his job while he holds that position of power. Could it be that the people of South Dakota were sick of his BS too?

The evidence will continue to roll in that "change" was really only a change back to Clintonites, and that means the same old Dem Party elites are running the show. Obama knows that he never would have made it where he is if he did not make promises to them. So how many more cases will we see of Obama "standing by" someone who clearly has problems for nothing but political payback reasons?

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... WRmMjg0MmI

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Yes, indeed, Tom. Yes indeed!
Ray

[Access Denied]

I stand corrected, Rush Limbaugh was right… Obama IS the Messiah. Hell, two weeks into his administration and he’s already being crucified!

Never mind the fact that had he not implemented the “toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times” none of these issues could have "bit him in the ass".

Never mind the fact that he acknowledged his critics by admitting he “screwed up” with Daschle.

Instead, could this be the first sign that “change” is actually happening?

I think this is the NYT article that Daschle said led him to withdraw his nomination after he read it…

Obama’s Pledge to Reform Ethics Faces an Early Test

I for one remain cautiously optimistic.

[ryguy]

I for one remain cautiously optimistic.

oooooohh....nice one.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I stand corrected, Rush Limbaugh was right… Obama IS the Messiah. Hell, two weeks into his administration and he’s already being crucified!

And the reason is: Saying one thing, doing another. The article you cite hits the nail on the head. He campaigned on one thing, but now it is back to the same old, same old. We've seen it before. And the Daschle thing stands out NOT because Obama admitted he screwed-up. It stands out because the nomination, from the get-go, had all the trappings of political payback. Not to mention there was PLENTY of data out there on Daschle's questionable ethical cleanliness.... which was why, by and large, he elected to not seek the presidency himself.

Never mind the fact that had he not implemented the “toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times” none of these issues could have "bit him in the ass".

C'mon, AD. You are, again, skirting the point. He CLAIMED he was going to implement the toughest ethics rules (just like Carter did)...and now he is failing to make good on them by granting exceptions. That is saying one thing and doing another. And the most ridiculous is asking We The People to accept a Treasury Secretary who had problems paying his taxes! For that job, it seems to me, that kind of problem is not one that should be allowed to be excepted. I would even accept the tax problem as an exception for Daschle's nominated job before I would accept it for Treasury.

Never mind the fact that he acknowledged his critics by admitting he “screwed up” with Daschle.

Only when it was clear Daschle wasn't going to make it. Until then he played politics as usual "standing by his man". As I had pointed out from the time Daschle's name was raised, there was AMPLE evidence in the public view to suggest he would have big problems, not the least of which is his wife's dealings....which never seemed to see the light of day.

Instead, could this be the first sign that “change” is actually happening?

Baloney. The first sign of change would be for Obama to resolutely stick to his rules, instead of finding reasons to except them and wiggle around them to ensure he makes good on his political paybacks. I would settle for you simply admitting that the "political game" requires the president to give political paybacks.

I think this is the NYT article that Daschle said led him to withdraw his nomination after he read it…

This is the point:

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

Why do you not acknowledge this? What I think is laughable is that the NY Times was one of the media outlets fawning all over Obama and throwing him soft pitches. Now that he is President, NOW is when they go back to doing what media should be doing all along... holding elected officials accountable for doing what they said they would do. NY Times was part of the problem in the campaign phase. How quickly they run from their "anointed one".

I for one remain cautiously optimistic.

I don't and I will give an example why: All over the news now we see Obama passing rules to cap executive pay at free-market companies. While this may be a good thing in the long run, and the people are certainly going to like it, what I DO NOT SEE is any move to cap or reduce any pay for anyone in the government. For the government it is business as usual. And yet no one can deny that government officials (from BOTH PARTIES) had a hand in this mess, and many (including Obama) benefitted from lobbying money from Fannie and Freddie. So why is it OK for government officials to profit from the mess, but not OK for private business to do the same?

There is double standard and politics-as-usual written all over Obama's first two weeks. I feel bad that you don't see it, but maybe at some point you may take off the rose colored glasses. Honeymoon is clearly over. And government creating laws to cap private industry pay certainly smells like the road to socialism to me. How long before there is a "standard, government-specified wage" for your job and my job, AD?

Ray