You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2009.

A while ago we were wondering how will Obama handle the Rove situation.

And so far, he gave Donna’s buddy a reprieve

Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, agreed on Friday to postpone the deadline on the Rove subpoena for three weeks, giving the Obama administration time to decide how it wants to handle the issue of executive privilege and congressional subpoenas.

Did anyone say “not ready on day one”? Yup. Obama did:

Obama and his legal advisors have rejected that view as an overbroad reading of the president’s authority, but they have yet to fully formulate their own response to the question.

ElephantDancing ElephantDancing ElephantDancing

I am having fun on the sidelines PopcornDrink as a neutral observer – OK, I guess Obama would be right – if there were not for the all  hypocrisy , considering who financed him and his 170 million inauguration. I just thought this was fun.

Ny Post as usual, is Obama’s bullhorn

while little free newspaper Metro dares to give the Wall Street side of things

and this is the article and the anonymous quotes:

“What I want to see is every congressman and every senator take a pay cut,” said Keith, a 39-year-old trader from Hoboken, who declined to give his last name.

Funny, he didn’t dare say “POTUS”

Someone else considered stockbrokers “the working man”

“[Obama] has to sit down and understand the compensation structure of low- to middle-management Wall Street. … A bonus is 20 to 50 percent of a person’s annual salary,” she said. “If you want to stimulate the economy, you can’t take the legs out of the working man.”

Again, it’s a stretch. But then I remember that bit of recent history

180,000 power brokers that have funded nearly 60% of his campaign. In all the Obama campaign has accepted more than $25 million in contributions from the “disclosed” employees of financial services, insurance, and real estate firms,

by a candidate who rejected public financing
.So, maybe those little stockbtokers weren’t all that wrong. Maybe they get shamed while the big boys – the ones who own the banks et all, get the bailouts anyway.
More thoughts on this circus from Riverdaughter

Well, that’s telling them. They will get a sternly worded letter saying, “Don’t do it again or Congress will have to regulate you.”  I’ll bet that put the fear of Gawd into them.  The bankers are going to have to court some more Blue Dog Democrats to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Hillary sponsored it – in case someone doesn’t know it.


Seems Mechelle did some preening on this too, but Obama couldn’t be bothered to listen

Obama begged and cajoled, sacrificed family planning – all in the hope of getting those un-needed GOP votes for the stimulus. And got none

President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught – at least on the House side.

Why? Fineman gave me a clue in what was – the first positive mention of Clinton’s presidency in the media

In the end it may not matter that much. In 1993, Bill Clinton passed his first and most important — and successful — tax bill without a single GOP vote in the House. The legislation is generally credited with having helped spur the Long Boom of the 1990s.

Generally credited? Not by Fineman and all of them – not then or since, but yeah, I agree.

Of course he gets condescending in the next paragraph

But in 1993, times weren’t as tough, and Clinton wasn’t proposing to change the way Washington worked. He just wanted to win, and he did.

Riight. Clinton didn’t change anything that Reagan/Poppy did…..So, now, the post-partisan  billion dollar candidate, got his stimulus through the house with more tax cuts and without family planning – and also without a GOP vote. It’s nice to see the revisionism on Clinton finally getting the truth though.

So much for “post-partisan”. And…why couldn’t we have Hillary again?

And once again, Krugman seems to me stalking me

Aren’t you glad that Obama watered it down and added ineffective tax cuts, so as to win bipartisan support?

I could not improve on the title of this Denver Post editorial who makes a convincing case for consistency and democracy

Some of you must still believe that politicians are meant to serve rather than be worshiped. And there must be someone out there who considers partisanship a healthy, organic reflection of our differences rather than something to be surrendered in the name of so- called unity — which is, after all, untenable, subjective and utterly counterproductive.

How about those who praised dissent for the past eight years?

I am answering “yes” on all counts. I praised dissent for the past 8 years and still think it’s patriotic.

I think partisanship is a healthy reflections of our differences – or rather – it should be. What went on during the past elections convinced me that politics blur differences – and not in a good way.

But most importantly, I agree with

Some of you must still believe that politicians are meant to serve rather than be worshiped.

It seems quite basic stuff, but it needs repeating in these times. Particularly in light of such tributes as the Hollywood produced “I pledge”

in which

Anthony Kiedis (thanks to teen daughter for identifying him) kissing his biceps (which he seems to have named Barack and Obama)

and luminaries such as Demi Moore pledge – amongst other things

“I pledge to be a servant to our president…”

Nope. It is the other way around. It was Obama who pledged – twice – to be a servant of the people.

I know it wasn’t obvious with the rhetoric coming from the White House and its media for the past 9 years that this was about public service rather than being a ruler. But this is what it is. Public service. And we are the employers, not the servants.

Not Your Sweetie