When Tom Daschle served as the Democrats senate leader he was not very cooperative when it came to presidential appointments. In fact in 2004 Daschle prevented up-and-down votes on ten of President Bush's nominees to federal courts of appeals.
Back then Tom Daschle believed that there were issues and factors that surpassed the judgment of the President and that President’s constitutionally guaranteed right to appoint individuals to positions that they saw fit.
Little more than four years later Tom Daschle now believes that the President has the right to appoint him to a position despite ethical breaches.
Tom Daschle is,was, and will always be a liberal and as such he always possesses a level of hypocrisy that is astounding.
In 2004 he felt that because the Presidents judicial appointments were conservative, the President should be denied them. Daschle simply disagreed with the President. Those ten judges did not conduct any moral, ethical or legal breaches of conduct or activity. They just weren’t liberal. So for that Daschle, held up the courts and denied the President his judicial appointments.
Now in 2009 Tom Daschle wants us to ignore his own unethical conduct and allow him to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services simply because the President wants him.
For his part President Obama wants us to accept his appointment of Tom Daschle to the HHS position because he believes that Tom Daschle is the best person for the job.
Never mind that President Obama made a big deal about constructing the most open, honest and ethical administration in history. Never mind the fact that President Obama stated that he wants his administration to be above reproach.
None of that is suppose to matter when it comes to giving President Obama a stamp of approval. Regardless of his supposedly pristine approach to government we should overlook the ethical breaches of those who he wants to work with.
Despite the fact that Tom Daschle collected over two hundred thousand dollars from the very health care industry that he wants to reform, we should simply approve of the move and give Tom Daschle a thumbs up.
We should approve of President Obama’s choice of Tom Dascle for HHS Secretary despite the fact that he is a tax cheat who claims that he simply saw the year or more of the use of a car and chauffer as an ordinary gift from a friend.
We are to believe that a one hundred and forty thousand dollar gift from a political patron was normal and that it really has no bearing on anything.
Well you know what?. I don’t buy it.
I do not believe that a man who has been given two hundred thousand dollars by an industry can effectively reform and police that industry for the American people.
I do not believe that a man who neglects to pay taxes on services amounting to one hundred and forty thousand dollars demonstrates the ethical sincerity that we need in government.
Tell me, do you think the taxes on that “gift” would have ever been paid had Tom Daschle not been thrust back into the spotlight?
No. He promises to pay the taxes due on those services because he was going to get caught.
As for President Obama, well I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt. He is my President and he has one heck of job to do. He has only been in office for a matter of weeks and he deserves to at least get his footing before anyone tries to knock him off balance. So I have shied away from any harsh criticism, but the inherent hypocrisy of liberal thinking is building to a crescendo and I can not sit idly by and say, sure go ahead, do what you want, ethics do not matter.
The Obama administration is not off to a good start.
The most ethical administration in history didn’t even take office before one cabinet member-designate , New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, had to withdraw his nomination as Commerce Secretary because he is being investigated for selling legislative favors in turn for substantial campaign donations.
Right there it became obvious that the Obama vetting process was faulty.
But then, during confirmation hearings, it became clear that Obama’s choice for Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat. That appointment claimed that he didn’t understand the tax code.
Now that’s encouraging, isn’t it. The man in charge of our treasury doesn’t even understand the tax codes he will rule over. Yet despite his lack of familiarity with his job and his ethical breaches, the senate overlooked it all because President Obama felt he was the best man for the job.
Now this.
Tom Daschle takes money from the industry he will monitor and neglects to pay his taxes.
Is this anyway to gain our confidence in this administration or its sincerity?
Is this anyway for the most ethical administration in history to begin?
I for one do not accept the ethical breaches and illegal conduct of these individuals. I believe that the Obama administration better start saying what it means. Either they are above reproach or they are not.
Right now they are not.
Right now they are making so many exceptions to their own rules of conduct that they cannot be believed.
The only thing that would anger me more than what the Obama administration is doing to ethics would be for any Republican to vote in the affirmative when it comes to confirming Tom Daschle’s nomination.
Any Republican that can approve of Daschle is simply playing the game and voting for Tom Daschle because he is a former member of their exclusive club….the senate.
Republicans need to be the loyal opposition here. They need to keep President Obama to his word and realize that Tom Daschle is far from meeting the standards set by the President.
And if that isn’t enough I have ten other reasons for denying President Obama his first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Those ten reasons are the ten judges, whose appointments to the bench, Tom Daschle denied, simply because he didn’t like them.
|
|
| 
|
|
The anology made a lot of sense. We are 'winning the war in Iraq at the cost of destroying a country or two. In my example, I won a board game at the cost of ruining my house. I tried to simplify it for you because if you consider all of the harm the war has done, and you still believe we're winning, then we have different definitions of 'winning'. To me, if you start a civil war in one country, and f-ck up your own country to accomplish a goal, its not truly a win.
that analogy made no sence. If you are trying to prove how smart you are... try again.
I don't give two shits what MSNBC admits to. Maybe we're completing our mission, but when you count all the retarded disasters that surround this war, I would hardly say we're winning. We're half assing a goal while destroying 2 countries, one of them being our own. That doesn't qualify as winning in my book. Pretend we're playing Monoply, Hawk. And I win the game...but to win, I have to burn my house down. It doesnt really seem like winning huh?
you need to qy=uit getting your info from the daily kos. We are winning in Iraq,,,, even MSNBC has admitted this fact.
I don't count it winning if you start a civil war, destroy the infrastructure, run up an unbelievable deficit, turn allies against yourself, ruin your credibility, and allow the real enemy to escape.
We can go back and forth on Iraq if you like but it is just about over there. Our men and women in uniform performed and we have just about won that war. Iraq will now have to be judged by history.....
The military says we are, I will take their word.
If we were killing terrorists in Iraq, you;d have a point.
I support killing terrorist, if that is the war you are talking about then yes, I support it.
Entitlements, government, I could go on. They spent like drunken democrats. That is why they lost and that is why they will continue to lose until someone in the Republican party stands up and says enough is enough. There are conservative republicans out there and they better become leaders or the Repubs will live in exile for years to come.
On a war that most of you republicans still support.
no he is far from a conservative. The repubs spent like drunk democrats.
No more saying Bush isn't a conservative just because he put the republican "rules" aside for a moment to adopt a plan that might actually work instead of just sitting on his ass and doing nothing. He spoke against gay marriage, he's pro-life, he promotes extreme fair trade, and he enacted tax cuts that favor the wealthiest. He's a conervative.
I am just in a very rare good mood and having fun... no offense, i just saw an opportunity and took it. how is your day?
The same can be said of Republicans. Not all Republicans are conservative (see Bush). I know all dems are not liberals, the leaders are (pelosi and reid) but there are many blue dogs that tend to be fiscally conservative. I have been guilty in the past of painting with a wide brush but I know the difference.
Speaking of people slapping me around, having a good day, Demo?
"There were many times I needed to be slapped around"
Amen!! j/k i love you arjay :)
I like brutal debates. Engage me in that when the oppurtunity arises.
Hawk and I have had a long history of going after one another. But I realized, like I was telling you about the whole Olivia thing, I can't expect anyone else to change. The only one I should expect a change from is myself. And as I tried, I realized that Hawk will play you at your own game, he will engage you in thoughtful conversation no matter what your party is, or he will slap you around if you act like you need to be slapped around. There were many times I needed to be slapped around, and he gave me a good one a few months ago which made me think a little clearer.
And by the way, Republicans..not all democrats are liberals. There are plenty that wer center-left, moderate and there are evn conservative democrats. Please don't equate 'liberal' with 'democrat'. It's incorrect.
:)
I did. I love it. haha.
Imagine, go peep my comments page.... you will like it.
No, Hawk, what I am saying is, if this is a Rep/Dem thing, keep it a Rep/Dem thing. Don't expand it. If he wants to talk about this in the context of the Obama administration or the Democratic Party, that's one thing. Go to town on that. I don't think anything Daschle did, however, is indicative of the core values of liberalism. Putting him up as the example of everything the liberal world stands for is flat wrong. It's painting with too wide a brush. As far as I'm concerned, if Republicans and Democrats want to argue over which has more blood on their hands until the end of time, let them go at it. But keep it at that level. I'm doing what I can as a liberal to distance myself from the Democratic Party, and while I did vote for Obama because I felt he is an inspiring individual and will hopefully be able to bring a different spirit to Washington, he does not have the ultimate answers. Aside from him, there are few Democrats I have faith in, I probably hold just as many Republicans in esteem, which is not saying much. If Kempite wants to hold up Daschle and say, see, this is what Democrats this last decade are about, or this is what the Obama administration stands for, that's one thing, and you may even get some agreement from me. But saying this is what liberalism is all about, I think that goes too far. The Rep/Dem fight should be big enough in and of itself to not have to suck in parties which have nothing to do with it.
Hawk, i don't have a bias to Obama. I like the guy, and I think he can succeed, but like I said, it's not as if he were my first, second or even third choice for president. There were atleast 3 other candidates I liked more than OBama in the primary, and I did not vote for Obama in the primary.
I would not try to make you out to be anything you are not.... You will do that. Rj is right, my first instict is to punce on liberals, I am a consrvative, I think of it as my duty. It is kind of like you and Bush bashing, you feel like you have to do it. I will never bash Obama for made up shit, I wil have plenty of real shit to bash him on as the days unfold. I will remember your pledge to do the same. and RJ, I thank you for your kind words, you and I have a long history and I like to think that we have both evolved over the years.
As to Tom Daschle, he's one of the reasons why I got out of the Democratic Party. In 2002 and 2003, instead of leading opposition against the then-potential war in Iraq and the general NeoCon agenda, he whined. At times he would vote with Republicans, then turn around and whine to the press. He was one of a generation of Democrats who talked a big game, yet cowered when it came to voting on those principles. When you saw Senate votes going 99-1 in favor of war reolutions, he was always one of the 99, never the one (the one was often Russell Feingold, someone who should have ran for president). When patriotic zealotry was sweeping across the country, and liberals were being bashed and blamed for every little thing possible, Daschle played CYA. Instead of taking a stand, he vacillated. He gave in when the word liberal was a four-letter word. He deserved to lose his seat in 2004.
Well, Arjay, if Hawk is going to try to make me out to be ignorant or uniformed, then he has quite a job ahead of him. I'm not a name caller either. I have called certain people ignorant on certain topics. Thats not name calling. Thats truth. Someone may be ignorant on one topic and expert on another. "ignorant" is only a "name" when its unjustified. I won't call someone ignorant for disagreeing with me, but I wont hesistate to make the accusation against someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Personally, if I'm ignorant on a subject, I stay out of the discussion. if its a topic I feel is important, I'll get informed. If its somethign I have no interest in, I'll just refrain from discussing it. Others should do the same, in my opinion.
Kempite has right to his opinion and he has the right to be a partisan hack. You say keep it to yourself? We are here to debate the issues. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you should keep it to themselves. That is a dictatorship..... is that what you are advocating?
Imagine, Hawk is like a big guard dog. Initially, when he sees a liberal, he's going to pounce on you, but he's also going to check you out and see if you're full of BS. Sometimes the process is quick, sometimes it takes years. If you have something to offer that is intelligent, he'll engage you thereafter with respect. If all you have is namecalling, he'll play just as dirty and beat you at your own game. Ask Liberal411. You really would rather Hawk on your side than in your face.
Hawk, I'll be criticizing Obama right with you when he actually screws up. One thing I won't do is is go along with this stupid made up bullsh-t like saying he's kenyan. I'll criticize him when he actually makes a mistkake, and anytime I hear a Bush supporter criticize Obama for some made up bullsh-t, I'll call them out on it too.
See, it's lines like this, "Tom Daschle is,was, and will always be a liberal and as such he always possesses a level of hypocrisy that is astounding.", that make me wonder if Kempite will ever ascend above the level of partisan hack. The implication that all liberals are inherently hypocritical is wrong and best and slanderous at worst, but when you consider three years of conservatives talking big about fiscal responsibility and doing the exact opposite, Newt Gingrich's Contract on America becoming another joke by the very Republicans who allege to champion it, and talking it up about letting people living their lives without government intrusion while tapping everyone's phones, I fail to see how any conservative can call any liberal a hypocrite. As I have said before, if you Reps and Dems insist on playing these childish games, keep it to yourselves, there are Libertarians and Socialists and members of the Constitution and Green Parties who had absolutely nothing to do with your little dance of death.
It appears that I may have been wrong about you. First immpressions are sometimes skewed. I am a Republican and I support the conservative platform. I am against government handouts and believe in the American people. I want government to leave my money alone. I have no problem paying my fair share but paying for abortions overseas is not what I consider good use of my money. I want the Federal government to do their job and leave the states to do theirs. I did not vote for Obama I held my nose and voted for McCain. I was amzed that this was the best we had to offer. I to will give Obama a chance but I will call him out when he back tracks on his promises. He promised an ethical admin, the most ethical in history and now the guy in charge of the IRS cheated on his taxes. That is not what I consider an ethical start.
Ok, Hawk. Just so you're aware that the Bush administration was filled with incompetence and corruption. And just so you're informed about me, I'm no super strong democrat. I'm a democrat because they are the viable party that best represents my own ideas. That's not to say I don't like many of their candidates and actions. And just so you know, I'm not one of these Obama lovers. I voted for him in the general election because I felt that America could not afford a McCain/Palin administration. In the primary, Obama was not my first, second or even third choice for president. I do think Obama is a good man though. I'm somewhat dissapointed by him so far, but I'll give him a shot.
See
and just so you are informed when talking about me I did bitch when the spending was out of control in the last admin. I bitched when they tried to open the borders. I bitch when I think they are wrong, I just enjoy bitching about dems more.
I was talking to Kempite, Hawk.
I'm not bitching... I am actually enjoying this. The most ethical admin in history my ass.
I hope you bitched this much during the Bush years.
I am trying to keep up with the number of Obama folks who fail to pay taxes while asking us to pay more..... so far I think we are at three but we shall see where we end up.
Daschle did diligently dump, doh!
|
|
<< Home