Quote of the Day

“Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the size of the package.”That closet must be getting mighty crowded.

I’ve been sayin, if Obama frames things correctly then he wont have to negotiate with the republicans much at all. The republicans will end up looking so bad they will have to cooperate.

JM –Exactly!

GOP: suddenly, the party of ‘No.’

Ha. It’s good to remind them of that fact now and then.Plus – why is Boehner so concerned about the size of Obama’s package?heh.

I get turned on every time the size of President Obama’s stimulus package is discussed.

This may be a little off-topic, but does anyone know what is going on with Bill Lynn? This guy used to be a lobbyist for Raytheon, a major government contractor, and the President wants him to be Asst. Sec. Of Defense. Okay, except the Pres. Just signed an executive order saying that there has to be a two year gap before a lobbyist can serve the country in the same area in which he/she used to lobby. What gives??? How does this guy get an exception? And, according to the Huff Post, the President became “Irritated” when asked about it at a White House Press Corps Meet & Greet.

Minx,It’s a good question.Aside from the Raytheon lobbying, the guy appears to be very experienced and well qualified:http://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/rtnwcm/groups/public/documents/content/bio_lynn.pdfI think President Obama got annoyed by the question not because of the content, but because of the context.His visit to the White House Press Corps was strictly a social visit, not a press event. This was implicitly understood by all the reporters in attendance – except for the asshat from Politico. I understand the President told the Politico guy that the question would be addressed by a press conference. When the reporter wouldn’t let it go, Obama got annoyed, and told him, in effect, that if he wished to abuse this social visit, then there may be no more social visits (whether he meant for just that guy, or for everyone, I don’t know).It will be interesting to hear how this is addressed, because it certainly seems to run counterpoint to the ethics rules Obama laid down the other day.

My personal afternoon awesome:http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/the_inauguration_of_president.htmlAnd not just the pictures. The comments section is full of readers pouring their feelings out about the incoming president. There were more than a few comments there that had me on the verge of tears.

The President’s ethics rule may be ignored at the discretion of the President in circumstances were the candidate’s qualifications for a position are unmatched by any other candidate that does not have a conflict with the lobbyist rules.That’s a paraphrase, but an accurate paraphrase of a portion of the lobbyist rules.If the person is the best qualified for the position, the rule can be ignored. That evaluation/decision being made by the President.It’s his rule, it’s his to ignore. I have no problem with this. He wants the best people for the job and in the Bill Lynn case, I agree with the President. YMMV.

One could convincingly argue that being a lobbyist in and of itself automatically makes someone not the best qualified candidate.

Okay, one more question… Isn’t Bill Lynn serving in this position a potential (or actual) conflict of interest? BTW, Thanks so much to Silly Git (love the name) & Packy for the info. It makes sense that the President wouldn’t appreciate being “ambushed” at a social gathering. Clarify for me, did he say that the issue would be addressed?

Minx,Here’s the report from Politico:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html

Where the heck did the contraceptive line come from?This will be their m.o.: looking for quickie talking points that portrays the bill as wasteful, like the “bridge to nowhere.” Will be interesting to see which one of these sticks.And I’m also hoping the Dems, particularly Pelosi, show SOME fiscal discipline and restraint. I know Pres. O. said no earmarks, but I’m just worried about the stuff we can’t see. I’m hoping there really will be transparency for this thing.I’m also hoping Pelosi and Reid step down. But that’s asking too much.

Yeah, classic Obama…This insulting of ‘bipartisanship’ is a straw man….people like Travis and Sarah Palin speak of the dangers of talking and listening to people when there IS NO DANGER. It’s NOT capitulation. It’s simple politeness and it’s smart.

Where the heck did the contraceptive line come from?This will be their m.o.: looking for quickie talking points…

They’re using a new line. McConnell’s “mob museums and water slides” talking point got old.

people like Travis and Sarah Palin

I see what you did here.And talking and listening aren’t the same thing as capitulating and appeasing.

You’re right – they aren’t. That’s exactly what I said. And since I’ve never called for capitulating and appeasing, we agree I guess.Sweet!

I’d call that sophistry but that’d be like calling what a crab does “dancing”.

Since you can’t point to a single example of me calling for capitulation, I’ll call what you just did ‘dancing’.

Dude every post you make is flavored with the sweet smokey aroma of Versailles. You’re willing to swallow what ever (sugar-free!) medicine the DNC will dish out. Cowardly.