My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.


The Junior Varsity Strikes Again 

Today's entry involves two nominees, and the ridiculousness of their nominations.

The first was President Obama's second most-visible outreach to Republicans: the appointment of Sen. Judd Gregg (R) as Commerce Secretary. Gregg withdrew his name from consideration shortly thereafter during the political kerfuffle of the Stimulus Bill. Today, we learn just how bad a fit he would have been in the Obama administration:

(from Budget Committee Hearing via Powerline) I appreciate the chairman saying that, in the second five years of this budget, the debt levels are unsustainable, because they are.
And the cost of this budget is unsustainable. And the tax burden is unsustainable. The chairman didn't say that. I added the second two categories. ...

The problem is that that effort to try to stabilize the economy has been used as a straw dog for the purposes of expanding the size of government in the out years exponentially, moving it to the left in a way that has never been projected or seen before, should it be successful.

The budget proposes about $1.4 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years, about $725 billion in new discretionary spending, about $1.2 trillion in new mandatory spending. And virtually no savings. ...

All the presidents -- including George Bush -- since the beginning of our republic, will not have run up as much debt as this budget will run up in the first period of its term.

Gee, he would have been loads of fun at the Cabinet basketball game, dontcha think? "I'm sorry, Mr. President, but there is no such thing as a seven-point shot!" Funny how that little splash of reality wouldn't have fit in in the administration.

The second is, perhaps, even more important (again, via Powerline, which has been ALL OVER this story), is the withdrawal today from consideration for Chairman of the National Intelligence Council of Charles Freeman. To make easy sport, here's part of what Freemen said in his statement today:

I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States . . .

But here's Freeman in his own words from 2002:

I'm a very practical man, and my concern is simply this: that there are movements, like Hamas, like Hezbollah, that in recent decades have not done anything against the United States or Americans, even though the United States supports their enemy, Israel. By openly stating and taking action to make them--to declare that we are their enemy, we invite them to extend their operations in the United States or against Americans abroad.

THIS guy was going to be the person responsible for making sure Obama got the good information he needed to "decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States?"?!?! Something tells me the President might have been missing a few pieces of the puzzle along the way.

But, then again, the President hasn't exactly shown much loyalty to America's traditional closest allies.

You have to wonder who is in charge of vetting nominees in this administration. They seem to be missing a few things along the way.

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?