Didn't whatshisname from Good Morning America, Gibson, say something about this was expected to last 10 minutes or so before it started?

Don't you think the "liberal bias" crap should stick to the mouth-breathers in the sticks? The article has no bias in it and simply reports facts. To compare Hot Air to Greg Miller is ridiculous. Miller is a reporter and his articles shouldn't be deemed "bias" simply because the paper he writes for has a liberal lean in their editorial section.

If there is something false in his article, then say it. But the "media bias" crap should be saved for the low IQ Rush crowd.

I don't think either side is happy, and never will be. The radical left and right are just people who turned government into a sport. It's not about the policies and not about whats best for the country. It's about winning the game. Rush said it best when he said he hopes Obama fails. The same can be said for the left who didn't oppose a moronic war hard enough because they knew they cared more about their political lives than American lives.

I agree ... because the reality of it is completely wasted on worthless liberal spawns of Satan who aren't fit to inhabit a planet with even remotely decent human beings. No sense wasting pearls before swine like that. Starting with the reality that the only way they avoid doing evil is by accident, since that's their very nature.

No, the ten minutes was for the opening statement.

Wasn't his best performance. It took him forever to get to the points (which I'm not what they were). I love the "tough" questions that look well, scripted.

I'd also like to see the WaPo reporter who asked about steroids be the last extraordinary rendition.

Oh yes, because there is such a difference between conservatives and liberals these days. Both sides are so messed up in the "game" they don't even know who is who. Bush was praised by guys like Rush and Hannitty while being more liberal than Jimmy Carter on most of his policies.

re: rendition

Political Punch: Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

Not one of your more lucid moments, Jon.

Helen Thomas failed to deliver.

I'm really disappointed so far. And concerned.

Erm, read the post the led to mine again. I thought the thread had moved into "suddenly insert random hyperbole into the mix with as much venom as possible" territory & I was just trying to do my part.

+1 Admittedly, I only heard the first two 'answers' to the questions he received, but those responses were full of rabbit trails and linguistic sleight of hand. The whole change thing is going to dog Obama as long as he's president, but it would be nice, for a change, to see answers to a question rather than long-winded reviews of what we already know.

Ah, I can see it in that context.

:D

Well, four of Obama's nominees have withdrawn (and it should have been five (i.e. Geithner)). Judd Gregg finally came to his senses and won't shovel the shit that Obama spews.

I'd say Obama's administration is in shambles already and he's not doing very well at all considering by how much he won the election.

I wouldn't go as far as saying his administration is in a shambles...

but I would say he's certainly looking less messianic than he did in the general...and he certainly hasn't ushered in the openness and change he was talking about.

Of course, Pelosi and Reid certainly aren't making his job any easier.

Let me amend that to say that his administration is in shambles already considering by how much he won the election.

I don't get the power trips that Pelosi and Reid are on. They seem to be the cancer of the party.

Did anybody think they were going to?

And I don't mean that from a "Pelosi & Reid are blithering idiots" standpoint, I mean from a "isn't that cute, little Barrack won the election. Now run along & let the grown ups take care of business" sort of way.

Winning the election was just part of his battle, to actually run things he's going to have to overthrow a fairly entrenched portion of his own party.

They're the leaders of a co-equal branch of government. I know we've gotten used to seeing the Congress as lackeys of the executive, but Congress should stand up it's self.

Let's see, in less than a month in office he will sign a stimulus that's very close to what he asked for in January, the Fairpay Act, and an expansion of S-Chip. I know Republicans want him to fail, but he's on a pretty good roll for the first month on the job.

Or maybe not:

Stand up it's self? All Congress knows how to do is to add on more to what Executive or anyone else wants. More expenditures, more pork, more conflicting, overwrought legislation and more expansion of federal bureaucratic powers. The Legislative Branch have been exceeding their constitutional powers for a long time, and no one has had the guts to take them on or to reduce their powers.

Regardless of whether or not I or you agree with what Congress does, I think it's healthy that they aren't simply yes men for the current executive.

We'll see if the analysis will continue to be kept separate. Besides, you had me at "White House spokesman". We had not given much credence to what any WH spokespersons have said the previous 16 years and now all of a sudden, they are quoted for credibility??!!?? ;)

Or that Executive simply not sign everything passed by Congress.

Just a little balance to the all Republican quotes in your story.;)

At this point almost nothing gets passed that hasn't been pre-negotiated with the executive. Personally, I'd be fine with a little less cooperation between the legislative and the executive.

I would much rather have quoted a Dem for bringing up these concerns but they apparently aren't much into transparency. :p


I wouldn't expect that in a one-party government.

Did I see that the Fairness Doctine is being brought up again? Some of you guys said that I was off my rocker for even thinking that it could be brought up. Or was that yet another attempt to show your balance when you privately hoped that it would come to pass?

The libs can have talk radio and Fox, only if they hand over the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC.

Fairness Doctrine is the new Beetle Juice.

I can agree with on that. However, it almost appears that they are trying to "be" the President, instead of working with him.

I just don't see it that way. They met the broad outlines of the President as well as many of the specifics.

Strange how as soon as the White House considers taking the census in house that Gregg runs from Commerce Secretary as fast as he can at the urging of Republican leaders. So, yeah, there wasn't going to be any funny business going on with the census if it had stayed in Commerce :rolleyes:

And major Republicans have never done anything shady to screw with representative government.

SI

What the hell was Diane Feinstein (sp?) thinking? If you hear confidential information that we're flying Predator aircraft out of a Pakistani base, DON'T SAY IT IN PUBLIC!!!!

Predator drones flown from base in Pakistan, U.S. lawmaker says -- chicagotribune.com

This is going to make relations with Pakistan a whole lot more difficult for Obama.

At this point, I actually think Reid & Pelosi are suffering from PTSD from their time of being overrun by the GOP in Congress and a Bush White House. They're acting as if they're still afraid of their own shadows.

They've got a commanding majority in the House, a majority in the Senate with the ability to flip a few moderate GOP votes as necessary, and a Democrat in the White House. Some of this legislation, to be honest, could have been rammed through much quicker than it has been. Seems like they'd rather draw out the process to amp up the partisan bickering.

I mean, it would be different if there were significant numbers of Republicans close to a compromise with the Democratic position on this bill, but clearly there aren't. All the Republicans in the House voted against it and all but the usual suspects in the Senate voted against it. Why drag it out? Why water it down? You aren't going to get these folks to change their minds anyway.

Ram it through, tell the Press that the GOP doesn't want to help Americans, and call it a day. Politics 101. You wouldn't see Tip O'Neill pulling this kind of shit.

A (prediction) Winner is me!!! :D

Don't forget the Associated Press, Rueters, the AFP, Politico, Yahoo! News/Google News Headlines, and of course, publicly funded NPR.

As Gregg has stated he's not running for re-election, why does he need to please "Republican leaders" in the first place?

You kooky lefties have to get back to reality.

My new wish is for someone to challenge Harry Reid for majority leader. Kind of a shame that Hillary left the senate -- she may have had enough political capital to pull it off well.

That would have been interesting (and favorable)

SI

Got it, so it's okay for the Dems to screw with it because the people they'll screw aren't saints either?

Here's an idea: why don't we instead come up with a fair and even way to do this, instead of saying the ends justify the means (since they, well, don't).

Didn't say that at all. Just said let's not pretend this wasn't a partisan thing to begin with. Considering who funds and executes the census, I'm curious to hear your big "fair and even way to do this"?

Or was "let Gregg run this from inside the Commerce department when he had shown obvious bias in last census" your "fair" idea?

SI

agree 100%

In his interview after turning down the Commerce post, Gregg had this to say:

"The person that the White House has proposed to manage the Census, Ken Pruitt, did it in 2000 when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee that had oversight over Commerce Department. And I thought he did an excellent job. So I thought the people were going to be in place to do a pretty good job."

Bucc's quote: Dems bringing census in to WH will bias census results. Bad idea.

Your response to him: Repubs must have had plans to bias things themselves, since Gregg is now pulling out as his Commerce sec. Obvious partisan counterpoint to Bucc's concern about Dem bias.

My response to you: The problem isn't who's being biased. It's that it is biased at all. Your response to Bucc is an implicit support of Dems biasing the census, and you try to justify it by dragging Gregg and Repubs through the mud.

What you should have suggested and failed to do (unlike me) is suggest that there should be an effort to keep the census as unbiased as possible.

Your curiosity about how I would run it will have to go on, because I don't have an answer. If I did, I wouldn't be responding to your partisan slop here, I would be in Washington making a difference. There are smarter people than you or I who can do this. My point is, and it's a point both you and I can definitely grasp, is that this is a process that needs to remain as politically neutral as it can. And in fact, I don't know if Bucc had in mind that Gregg was in line to be the Commerce sec, but his point that running the census out of Commerce is less apt to be influenced than out of the WH is dead on target (which is true, whether the Dems or the GOP are in the WH).

I like how you try to sully me now with your last sentence. That is an ad hominem, calling my bias into question. Good to see you know how to use faulty logical reasoning to make your point, SI. :rolleyes:

I didn't even know Gregg was up for Commerce until reading this thread. Frankly, I don't watch the every day news items for what Obama's doing with his Cabinet. I don't even know who Gregg is actually. My assumption from your responses is that he's a Republican. I don't support either side influencing the census, whether from the WH or the Commerce dept, Dem or GOP.

All I am asking for is that you stop partisan and illogical arguing with Bucc and myself and instead put your support to trying to find an unbiased process for conducting the census (or as unbiased as can be done).

There is a term for that but I can't remember what it is. It's the calculated move of deflecting attacks away from what you personally hope to come true. By deflecting the attacks, you can succeed in acheiving your ends covertly or quietly. This is a good example because many (including those here) would love to have Dem-controlled gerrymandering - to ensure that their opposition stays weak. It is typical political gamemanship but to be defensive against calling what it really is, as have been through much of the 2008 campaigns, becomes laughable or hypocritical.

They can't though. To them it's a game, not what's best for the country. It's Yankees vs Red Sox, not what would be the best solution. One of the greatest tricks politicians have ever pulled is to turn Americans against Americans. If you're busy bashing the other team, you don't notice the people looting the vault behind your back.