· Hillary Clinton. Now THERE’s a real beltway outsider, if ever there was one. She will represent the interests of at least SOME of the residents of the U.S. as Top Dip. Assuming, that is, she can get beyond representing the interests of France and Germany – AND get beyond being thrilled by Bill’s support during her campaign. (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0937524420071109). Presumably, she didn’t really mean all those nasty things she said about Obama during the campaign. And if she’s a beltway outsider, I’m Michael the archangel.
· Tim Geithner. Mister “What? ME, pay TAXES? No WAY, Jose!” He’s gonna be your new Secretary of the TREASURY? I understand you have to have honesty and integrity to hold that office. I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure I want somebody with all that honesty and integrity getting that close to our money. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-21-geithner-hearing_N.htm?csp=34).
· Eric Holder. Now there’s a real gem for your Top Cop. Holder orchestrated, scripted, produced and directed a Clinton 11th-hour-and-59th-minute pardon for billionaire and tax-evasion/racketeering fugitive Marc Rich. Top Cops should have cleaner bedsheets. (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-new-advisor-stained-by-clinton-pardon-scandal/).
Not all picks are beltway brontosaurs, and there are even a couple of good picks among those who aren’t. Janet Napolitano, for example will bring leadership and her own charisma to the Department of Homeland Security. And she’s tough enough to take the gloves off and go a few rounds with the heads of the alphabet-soup agencies, who are never enamored of too much freedom for the citizenry.
But the promise was for sea change. The delivery more resembles a glass of water. Mister Obama, you can keep the change.
Best,
Chuck
I don’t think you need to cross-post everything at BMG anymore. We can all read it at RMG just fine and its rhetorical, er, exuberance is more appropriate there. If you really wanted to cause a useful discussion here, you’d write for the audience here, but you don’t.
<
p>Following your lead, the entire right blogosphere could end up crossposting on BMG. While that may not add up to all that many posts, it could easily have the negative side-effect of confirming liberal stereotypes of conservatives, i.e., that conservatives are all angry, incoherent boors.
<
p>Besides, might I suggest a contest? How about a contest for the best rewrite of your clumsy last paragraph?
I did rewrite it. The rewrite somehow failed to get from my draft into the diary. It should read, “The delivery more resembles a cold dash of water in the face.” But, feeling magnanimous and all, I’ll leave the error up, to accomodate your comment.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
You may use my handle, KBusch. That’s how it’s done on blogs.
Here let me write your lines for you. Jeez. Warning: I don’t agree with this at all.
<
p>
Maybe I should try to write all the conservative posts myself under a different pseudonym.
but I have a comment which is somewhat related.
<
p>I wrote last week about Geitner’s tax issues (to no avail) but I would like to take this a step further.
<
p>I have heard (don’t remember where) that any IRS employee who committed the same “innocent” mistake as Geitner would be fired. Does anyone know this to be true?
<
p>Also, Obama has admitted to using drugs when he was younger…
<
p>
<
p>And yet to this day this admission would almost surely prevent a person from getting a job at the Department of Justice.
<
p>So my question is not about Obama or Geitner getting their jobs but more about do we need to change the rules for working at the DOJ or IRS… since it appears to be a total hypocrisy to let the people running these organizations be guilty of breaking the rules but we hold the workers to a higher standard.
that cheated on his wife? just wondering.
I’m not trying to start a fight between Dem/Repub or who broke any legal or moral rules. My question is not partisan and I am using Obama and Geitner because of their current relevance. you can substitute any Republican you chose to make my same point, I won’t argue with you on your selection.
<
p>All I am saying is it seems a little ludicrous to have very strict rules for people working someplace but not apply those rules to run the same place. It’s like not allowing a prison guard to have a criminal record but allowing the Warden to be a convicted felon.
An elected or appointed official goes through their own kind of vetting process outside of the purview of a human resources department. The voters or Senate have the opportunity to decide whether the pertinent indiscretion is significant enough to warrant disqualification for a particular office.
<
p>In the hiring/firing department, however, there is a need for more regimented standards. I don’t know if it’s fair that anyone who once screwed up their taxes (either intentionally or not) is forever barred from serving at the IRS. Maybe there should be shades of gray. I don’t know that there aren’t.
<
p>Frankly, I think those on the political right have been far stronger advocates for such rules and guidelines for who can work in what capacity within government. I for one am more open to decisions being made on a case-by-case basis with enough transparency that an oversight authority or the public at large can see if the decisions are being made fairly and applied evenly.
An enlisted person was eligible for enough security clearance to access the crypto of DOD, if they admitted to have used pot experimentally, 1-3 times.
<
p>That standard was the same for H.W. Bush.
<
p>Likely you could care less for clarity, but you can bet the tunnel that you look through that no-one is prevented from getting a job at DOJ, if they inhaled and then turned their back on drug use.
<
p>The GOP specializes in “morality waivers.” Laughable!
be fired for not paying their taxes.
<
p>(http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&sid=1478352 among others)
<
p>This is in line with a philosophy that requires those in positions which require extraordinary trust being held to higher standards than others. Like most auditors, IRS auditors have a huge duty to honesty. Failing to meet the higher barrier calls into question their ability to meet the mundane.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
First, for the record, he was Senate Democratic Leader. I don’t know if he were ever in the House, but he certainly wasn’t Speaker.
<
p>Second, you quote the DC residence as “required second residence”. Doesn’t that answer your question? It seems obvious to me that the first residence would be in South Dakota. To me political residence is indicated by voter registration and I’m sure he voted in SD. Many members, especially in leadership do move their families to DC for practical purposes, while maintaining residency in their state. I’ve heard of middle-age members “living with their parents” to fulfill this requirement. We need to be generous in interpreting this as circumstances have changed since 1787.
On the first, I stand corrected. Chalk it up to too many hours in front of the cyclops writing (I’m a romantic fiction author writing under a pseudonym, no shameless plugs here!)
<
p>As to your second point, herewith for edification I list a few references that may help you understand the problem Daschle and his wife Linda created for themselves when they bought the DC Mansion:
<
p>http://www.nationalreview.com/…
http://www.nationalreview.com/…
http://southdakotapolitics.blo…
http://brothersjuddblog.com/ar…
<
p>The gist of the story, in a nutshell, is this: When Tom and Linda Daschle bought their house in Washington, DC, Tom, (not Linda) signed an affidavit claiming a “homestead exemption” for part of his property tax. This appears to have been worth a few bucks to Tom (I’ve seen 230 or 240-odd dollars bandied about in these references), but cost him a huge headache. In signing the affidavit, Daschle gave up his status as a resident of South Dakota. Now, while this was later spun by Tom’s aides to imply that only Linda was the DC Homesteader, the fact remains that Tom was the only one who signed the affidavit.
<
p>In doing so, Tom gave up his domicile in South Dakota, and took up a new domicile in DC. At the time, South Dakota politics made a lot of hay out of his faux pas. Dumb, especially when you’re Senate Minority Leader!
<
p>The domicile impossibilities were rendered moot when the people of SD tossed him out of office.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
I still maintain, however, that for political purposes if retains voting registration in SD then he is constitutionally a resident of SD. Of course, I’m not a federal court so it would be interesting to get a definitive ruling on this matter.
<
p>Lest you think this is partisan on my part, I also supported Mitt Romney’s right to run for Governor of MA (not the merits of his candidacy, mind you) even though he had supposedly “lived” in Utah while running the Olympics. Many of my party tried to kick him off the ballot because he supposedly hadn’t been a resident long enough. Again, I believe he retained his vote in Belmont so thus qualified as a resident.
“A person is considered to have gained a residence in any county or municipality of this state in which the person actually lives, if the person has no present intention of leaving.
<
p>”If a person moves to another state, or to any of the other territories, with the intention of making it his or her permanent home, the person thereby loses residence in this state.”
<
p>Daschle could not have claimed the DC Homesteader exemption without giving up his SD residence.