Spineless Democrat Watch

58 Democrats, 2 Independents Means Nothing.

2009-07-23T20:05:00.000-07:00

Relax. I think what has happened is that the R’s have gotten so bat-*hit crazy that the only ones that they will accept are those completely divorced from reality.

Look at who the Ds have: Pryor, Blanche, Landrieux (sp), Byrd, etc. These people are conservative by, say, Illinois or New York standards and would be Rs in those states. Even with 60 “D”, it is hardly a liberal juggernaut.

I’ll say it again: the current Democratic Party is a collection of centrists and conservatives (aka: “bluedogs”) and the Republicans are mostly the bat-shit insane wingnuts.

Anyway, the fact is that the Senate won’t take up health care reform this August.

I am saddened but not surprised. I give President Obama credit for trying. But the fact is that we have a sad, sad collection on our side; we’ve never had the unity that the Republicans had.

It is about time! Obama disciplines the blue dogs!

2009-07-18T12:42:00.001-07:00

This ad is running in selected Congressional Disticts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/18/obama-campaign-arm-double_n_239258.html

Now the scope of the campaign is expanding. The ad will appear in the media markets that overlap with the congressional districts of 15 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Eleven of those districts belong to Democrats, including Rep. Zack Space (Ohio), Rep. John Barrow (Georgia), Rep. Jay Inslee (Washington), Rep. Mike Ross (Arkansas), Rep. Bart Gordon (Tennessee), Rep. Baron Hill (Indiana), Rep. Charlie Melancon (Louisiana), Rep. Mike Doyle (Pennsylvania), Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), Rep. Bart Stupak (Michigan), Rep. Jerry McNerney (California).

The four Republican districts belong to Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan), Rep. Mary Bono Mack (California), and Rep. Greg Walden (Oregon), Rep. Sue Myrick (North Carolina)

For reform advocates, the Energy and Commerce Committee remains the toughest venue of the three committees handling health care in the House of Representatives, in large part because of the Blue Dog and moderate Democrats that make up its ranks. In making this purchase, Organizing for America either is worried about the committee's progress or -- much more likely -- sending a message that it has no problem applying pressure on fellow party members.

If you want to chip in, go here:

https://donate.barackobama.com/ChicagoTrip

Hey Democrats, what about healthcare?

2009-06-22T17:41:00.000-07:00

This is absurd!

We need a public option, period. For one thing, people have pre-existing conditions and it doesn't make "good business sense" to insure them.

For another, it makes "good business sense" to look for reasons to deny sick people coverage.

Here is an example

According to a Media Matters for America analysis*, the evening news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS have not covered a June 16 hearing by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on the practice by insurance companies of investigating the medical histories of people who become ill and submit claims for expensive treatments, on the grounds that those individuals had pre-existing conditions. The hearing featured testimony from Robin Beaton and Jennifer Wittney Horton, former policyholders who stated they had been subject to that practice, as well as testimony from insurance company executives. Noting that Paul Begala highlighted the media's lack of coverage of the hearing and linking to video of Beaton's testimony, national political correspondent Karen Tumulty wrote on Time.com's Swampland blog: "The more I thought about it, the more I realized what a missed opportunity this had been. There's no way I could possibly tell Robin Beaton's story nearly as powerfully as she did herself. So I asked C-SPAN's omnipotent Howard Mortman to dig up the clip out of their video library. Please watch this. It could happen to you or to someone you love."

In a June 16 post to Time.com's Swampland blog, Tumulty reported of the hearing:

In May, 2008, Robin Beaton, a retired registered nurse from Waxahachie, Texas, went to her dermatologist to be treated for acne. He mistakenly wrote down something on her chart that made it appear that she might have a pre-cancerous skin condition.

Not a big deal, right? It shouldn't have been, except that soon after that, she was diagnosed with something far more serious -- invasive and agressive breast cancer. Three days before she was scheduled for a double mastectomy, her insurance company, Blue Cross, called her and told her they were launching an investigation into the last five years of her health records. It turned out that dermatologist's note had been a red flag, and the company was looking for a way to cancel her policy on the grounds that she had been hiding a serious medical condition.

What Robin went through after that was a nightmare, one she tearfully described Tuesday morning in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee. "The sad thing is, Blue Cross gladly took my high premiums, and the first time I filed a claim and was suspected of having cancer, they searched high and low for a reason to cancel me," said Robin, whose hair is just beginning to grow back in from chemotherapy.

The subcommittee took a look today at an immoral -- and illegal -- practice in which some health insurance companies engage. It's called post-claims underwriting, and you should know about it. Because you or someone you love could be a victim if they buy insurance on the individual insurance market. Robin got her mastectomy, but only after her congressman, Joe Barton, leaned on the head of the company. (This is constituent service, in the very best sense of why we elect these guys. But the best thing they could do is to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone's constituent.)

There were other witnesses, too. Like Peggy Raddatz, whose brother Otto Raddatz lost his insurance coverage right before he was scheduled to receive an expensive stem-cell transplant to treat his lymphoma. Why? Because Fortis Insurance Company discovered that his doctor had found gall stones and an aneurysm on a CT scan -- conditions that had nothing to do with his cancer, and that never bothered him, and that he wasn't even aware of. And Jennifer Wittney Horton of Los Angeles, whose coverage was canceled because she had been taking a drug for irregular menstruation. Now, she can't get coverage anywhere else. "Since my recission, I have had to take jobs that I do not want, and put my career goals on hold to ensure that I can find health insurance," she told the subcommittee. "Fortunately, after my husband and I got married, I was able to gain coverage through his company's group health care plan. However, if he ever loses his job, or I don't have employment with a company that offers group health insurance, I might have to go without insurance."

In his June 19 CNN.com commentary piece, Begala wrote of the hearing:

It was as dramatic as congressional testimony gets. Yet it got no airtime on the networks, nor, as far as I can tell, on cable news, although CNN.com did run a story. Time's Tumulty was all over it, as was Lisa Girion of The Lost Angeles Times. But the story did not make The New York Times.

Nor The Washington Post, which found space on the front page the morning after the hearing for a story on the cancellation of Fourth of July fireworks in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, but not a story on the cancellation of health insurance for deathly ill Americans who've paid their premiums.

Stupak, and the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Henry Waxman, D-California, did their job. Why didn't the media do its? Why were the outrages uncovered by Stupak and Waxman un-covered by most of the media?

Corporate Democrats Defeat the Durbin Amendment

2009-05-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

Yes, this is Senator Tom Harkin. Here I agree with him:

Here is a blog post on this

Senator Durbin: thank you. To you spineless Democrats:

No Republican members voted for the amendment. The Democrat no votes include Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Arlen Specter (D-PA) & John Tester (D-MT).

Shame on you; I know that you represent the big banks.

This is why I don't contribute to the DSCC or the DCCC; I don't want to support such Democrats. Note: the vote on this amendment was subject to the usual "cloture" rules; that is why 45 "nay" votes were enough to kill it.

C-SPAN Video Player - The 44th President

2009-01-20T11:54:00.001-08:00

more about "C-SPAN Video Player - The 44th President", posted with vodpod

What I expect from Obama

2009-01-20T11:49:00.000-08:00

What I expect from President Obama is pretty much summed up here:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-first-choice.html

Almost every economist will tell you the stimulus has to be massive in order to have any real impact. Even Marty Feldstein, who headed Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, told Congress it had to be $800 billion. My own view is at least $900 billion. But a price tag like that scares Republicans and so-called “blue-dog” Democrats who worry about government debt.

So here’s our new president's strategic choice. He can flight for the biggest stimulus politically possible – twisting arms and counting noses to get a bare majority in the House and sixty votes in the Senate. That’s how Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got their huge tax cuts, and how Bill Clinton got his first budget through Congress.

Or Obama can aim to get the backing of a much larger majority than he needs to get the stimulus enacted – including a majority of blue dogs and Republicans. To do this he’d likely have to settle for a smaller stimulus package – one that may not be enough to jump-start the economy.

Why would he ever choose the second strategy? Because his goal is not just to get the biggest stimulus package he can squeeze through Congress. It’s to get a Congress that’s mostly united behind whatever stimulus package emerges. This would ensure that Republicans and blue-dog Democrats take some ownership of the package, and therefore responsibility for making it work.
[...]

It’s not the strategy his predecessors used to get their economic plans enacted. It’s not hardball politics, and it may not be the best move for the economy in the short run. But given the challenges our new president and our nation face over the long run, this may be the smartest politics and smartest economics.

Obama's Cabinet off to a good start

2009-01-13T18:18:00.000-08:00

First, the right wing hasn’t lost any time in making false statements about Obama:

On job-loss numbers, Fox’s Garrett changed the metric, falsely asserting Obama’s statement was untrue

Summary: Summary: On Special Report, Major Garrett falsely accused President-elect Obama of making an untrue assertion when Obama said that the 2.589 million jobs lost in 2008 were “the most since World War II.” In fact, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has been no greater net job decline in any calendar year since the end of World War II than occurred in 2008. [...]

Garrett said of Obama’s comments: “Mr. Obama says the 2.6 million jobs lost last year was the worst since 1945. Is that true? No.” Garrett continued:

Last year’s job losses were the fifth worst since 1945. The key statistic is percentage of workforce laid off, meaning the number of layoffs as a percentage of the entire workforce. In 1945, 6.6 percent of workers lost their jobs. Last year, 1.9 percent lost their jobs. Are things bad now? Of course they are. As bad as 1945? No. And four years — four other years between then and now were much worse than what we’ve just gone through.

Rather than note that he was using a different index from Obama — percentage loss rather than net loss — Garrett simply accused Obama of a falsehood. In fact, data from the BLS, shown in the graph [1] below, confirm that the estimated net job loss for 2008, totaling 2.589 million jobs, was indeed the worst in absolute numbers since 1945, when 2.75 million jobs were lost:[...]

Ok.

And, of course, we have Dick Morris whining that Obama is going to stop the U. S. from torturing people:

President-elect Barack Obama’s new head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, Dawn Johnsen, called the legal reasoning which gave the president broad powers to authorize “rough” interrogation of terrorists “shockingly flawed…bogus…outlandish.” She said it allowed “horrific acts” and demanded to know “Where is the outrage? The public outcry?” This is the person who will decide how to interrogate terrorists. If she errs on the side of weakening methods of questioning, there’s no chance her boss, Eric Holder the new Attorney General, will reverse her. He approved of the Clinton/Reno “wall” preventing intelligence from finding out what criminal investigators had found out and took the lead in pardoning the FALN terrorists.

What is Obama thinking? How could he weaken so dramatically our protections against terrorism? Doesn’t he realize that without warrantless FISA wiretaps we could never have uncovered the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge (how could we have gotten a warrant for conversations about the bridge when we didn’t yet know that al Qaeda had it in its sights?) Has he forgotten that we only found the name of the operative who was tasked with destroying the bridge because we subjected Kahlid Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, to “rough” interrogation techniques? Does he really mean to leave us vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

Yes he does. Not because he is callous or fiendish, but because the new president seems to carry the thinking that animated the decisions of the Warren Court on defendant’s rights over into the battle against terror. [...]

Or maybe it is because Obama is listening to experts?

NEW YORK—Fifteen former interrogators and intelligence officials with more than 350 years collective field experience have declared that torture is an “unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive” way to gather intelligence, in a statement of principles released today.

The group of former interrogators and intelligence officials released a set of principles to guide effective interrogation practices at the conclusion of a meeting convened by Human Rights First last week in Washington. The meeting participants served with the CIA, the FBI and the U.S. military.

The principles are based on the interrogators and intelligence officials’ experiences of what works and what does not in the field. Interrogation techniques that do not resort to torture yield more complete and accurate intelligence, they say. The principles call for the creation of a well-defined single standard of conduct in interrogation and detention practices across all U.S. agencies. At stake is the loss of critical intelligence and time, as well as the United States’ reputation abroad and its credibility in demanding the humane treatment of captured Americans. [...]

Meanwhile, it looks as at least two of Obama’s top picks are doing well.

Hillary Clinton had a good afternoon.

At the opening of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearings for the post of Secretary of State on Tuesday, the ranking Republican on theSenate Foreign Relations Committee offered a bit of perfunctory praise for the former first lady.

“President-elect Obama has boldly chosen the epitome of a big leaguer,” said Sen. Richard Lugar, who spoke of Clinton’s confirmation as a certainty. “Her qualifications for the post are remarkable… Her time in the Senate has given her a deep understanding of how United States foreign policy can be enriched… She is fully prepared to engage the world on a myriad of issues that urgently require attention.”

The sentiments may have been customary Senate pleasantries. But Clinton, over the course of several hours, proved the Indiana Republican correct. Her confirmation hearing was a tour de force, one that demonstrated not just her breadth of understanding of the policy issues, but the meticulous preparation that she has brought to most every political task in her career — and, likely soon, Foggy Bottom.

Pressed by her soon-to-be-former Senate colleagues, Clinton fielded questions on topics ranging from the impact of the Law of the Sea treaty on Alaska, to Russia’s purchase of a Serbian gas utility, to the piracy crisis off the coasts of Somalia.

“I’ve never seen anybody know so much about so much,” Chris Matthews, a sometimes-critical voice on the Clintons, would gush on Hardball later that day.

If Clinton’s performance was, as Matthews claimed, virtuoso, it was owed to hard, behind-the-scenes preparation. [...]

Stephen Chu had a good day as well:

It wasn’t exactly a love-fest, but the initial hearing, today, on Steven Chu’s soon-to-be-formal Energy Secretary nomination couldn’t have been more cordial.

Although senators can be a fairly imperious lot, members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources were respectful — in most cases, downright deferential — towards the Nobel physicist that Barack Obama wants to head federal energy-research and -development enterprises.

Most senators at the hearing asked whether Chu would support a reinvigoration of the U.S. nuclear power industry. Yes, Chu said again and again — as long as work continues on how to cope long-term with nuclear wastes.

How about coal, which powers half of U.S. electricity? Yes, Chu would support continued use of coal — as long as work continues on limiting the release of greenhouse gases and other pollutants from conventional coal burning. Carbon sequestration and cap-and-trade emissions limits were mentioned repeatedly.

Only a couple senators actually showed any interest in research details. Among the few: Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.). She asked about the Helios program at the national facility Chu currently heads, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. According to the lab’s website, this renewable-fuels initiative has a heady goal: to “cut across divisions and programs in profound ways to produce transforming technologies in synthetic biology and nanotechnology.” It also seeks to “fuse our core strengths in biological, chemical, and physical sciences in the search for a sustainable carbon-neutral source of energy.”

No wonder Lincoln asked what, in practical terms, this venture actually involves.

Chu explained that the two-year-old program is striving to develop fourth-generation biofuels. To date, researchers at the lab have “trained” bacteria and yeast to take simple sugars and produce “not ethanol, but gasoline-like substitutes, diesel-fuel substitutes and jet [fuel] substitutes.” He says a cadre of “brilliant” scientists who had previously spent most of their careers in basic research is now “very focused on making this technology commercially viable.”

Asked about what type of plant material would be used — since Lincoln was hoping it might be grown in Arkansas — Chu perked up and chuckled: “Now we’re getting to science. I love this!” [...]

Make No Mistake About it...

2008-12-28T14:15:00.000-08:00

This blog is designed to encourage Democrats to be Democrats. There is no Republican sympathy here; none.

This is one good reason why: (from: DemConWatch)

Two days after Christmas, and the Republicans have already forgotten "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men."
The Hill is reporting that Chip Saltsman, one of the candidates for RNC chair (and if memory serves, a prior member of a whites-only country club) sent a 41-track CD to members of the RNC, by his friend Paul Shanklin of the Rush Limbaugh Show.
The CD, called “We Hate the USA,” lampoons liberals with such songs as “John Edwards’ Poverty Tour,” “Wright place, wrong pastor,” “Love Client #9,” “Ivory and Ebony” and “The Star Spanglish banner.”
Several of the track titles, including “Barack the Magic Negro,” are written in bold font. The following month, Shanklin debuted his version of the song, sung to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon” and performed in Shanklin’s impression of Al Sharpton.
“Paul Shanklin is a long-time friend, and I think that RNC members have the good humor and good sense to recognize that his songs for the Rush Limbaugh show are light-hearted political parodies,” Saltsman said.
Some people know no shame.

We (I for now) have nothing in common with those "people".

This is NOT it

2008-12-23T16:12:00.000-08:00

Though we ("we" = "me" for now; I hope to get more people aboard before too long) will hold Democrats accountable, we will not be hammering Democrats for "made up" scandals.

So, as far as the so-called "Blagojevich-Obama" scandal: I'll let Jed L. at the Daily Kos take it from here:

What a big disappointment for the cynics.
The Obama transition team's report documenting its contacts
with the Illinois governor's office on the Illinois Senate seat reveals exactly
what we expected: that there was hardly any contact at all between the
transition team and Blago's office, and that it was all appropriate.
There
was no discussion whatsoever relating to any sort of this-for-that, and nobody
on the transition team had any idea of what was going on inside Blago's
mind.
Moreover, it is obvious that the Obama team would have liked to release
this report long ago. It was completed on the 15th, but at the request of the
U.S. Attorney was not made public until today to allow Fitzgerald's office to
complete its interviews, the last of which was conducted on the 20th.
At the
request of the Office, we delayed the release of this report until such time as
the interviews could be completed. The interviews took place over a period of
three days: Thursday, December 18, 2008 (the President-Elect); December 19, 2008
(Valerie Jarrett); and December 20, 2008 (Rahm Emanuel).
Let me emphasize
this point: the reason why the release of the Obama report was delayed was to
allow Fitzgerald to complete his interviews with the transition team. In other
words, everything that Obama's team has said has been true.

So yes, Blagojevich is corrupt and should be removed. But none of this has anything to do with Barack Obama. Nothing to see here.

There is nothing to see here either.

Let's say you're at a bar with a group of people. They've been working
hard while everyone else is having fun, and they look pretty bored.
So you
decide you'll be a mensch and buy 'em a round.
That'd be pretty decent of
you, don't you think?
Ah, but this is our greatly esteemed national media
we're talking about. And the great defenders of the Republic --
specifically, CNN -- have proclaimed it an unacceptable sin that our
President-elect attempted to purchase their affections with a Bud.
That Anonymous Guy's diary ::
::
Beergate began yesterday, with this rather innocuous pool report from Jeff
Zeleny of the New York Times:
He chatted for a moment, telling the
traveling press pool to have a beer and put it on his tab. No one took him up on
the offer.
Now, I read this and thought, "Gee, that Obama sure is a decent
guy. I'd want to strangle these guys if they'd been hounding me throughout
my vacation, and here he's offering to buy them a round!"

CNN's Ed Henry, on
the other hand, had
a stroke.

HONOLULU (CNN) – Many Republicans already believe
President-elect Barack Obama has gotten a free ride from the national media, so
they may not be happy to learn the incoming Commander-in-Chief offered to buy a
round of drinks for reporters covering his working vacation on the sands of
Hawaii's beaches and the greens of its lush golf courses...
[T]he key here is
reporters covering the President-elect are having more fun here in Hawaii than
we had in Crawford, Texas — and 85 degrees in the middle of the afternoon here
is way better than the cold winds blowing through Chicago too. But none of the
journalists were corrupted by free beer — we pay our own tabs.
And just for
the record: your faithful correspondent, while enjoying the wonders of Waikiki
beach, never drinks — at least not on the job.

Ooooooo! Ed Henry buys
his own drinks! He's not about to be corrupted by a Budweiser!
Frickin' second coming of Woodward and Bernstein, you are.
Now, I thought I'd cut Ed some slack... maybe he was just joking around, right?

No, they were trying to manufacture outrage.

Forget it.

Bad Choice Mr. President Elect

2008-12-20T09:15:00.000-08:00

Rick Warren was chosen to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. Ok, ok, I don’t care so much about this person being a delusional woo; one person’s superstitious BS is pretty much the same as another. But the message I am hearing is that this sort of attitude is acceptable to Barack Obama:

As we’ve pointed out several times before, in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were “non-negotiable” issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone. He criticized Obama’s answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice. He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying “there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population … This is not a political issue — it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about.” He’s declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.

Frankly, I see this as the enabling of bigotry. I can not support the President Elect on this one. Warren is a disgrace, not an example.

Yes, he has done some good things (AIDS, poverty relief) but then again, so has Hamas.

On the other hand, where I’ve been critical of some of Obama’s choices. But I’ve been ecstatic over others; from Science Debate 2008:

We want to congratulate President-elect Obama on continuing to assemble an outstanding science team.

A few days ago we told you about the appointment of Steven Chu as Energy Secretary.

Today we have two more outstanding appointments to announce:

1. We have learned that John Holdren will be President Obama’s Science Advisor. John has an excellent knowledge of science policy, and a deep understanding of how the public needs the government to engage on science policy issues. He is a recent past president of the AAAS and an early and ardent Science Debate 2008 supporter. You can watch a 1-minute video he did for us last February, promoting a primary science debate at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.

2. Jane Lubchenco, we’re told, will head up President Obama’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admninistration (NOAA). She is an outstanding choice with a deep background in marine biology. Jane is also a past AAAS president, and also an early supporter of Science Debate 2008. When we issued candidate invitations to an Oregon debate, Jane was a close advisor. Here’s a 1-minute video of her.

Why are these choices so important? Here is a 1-minute video President-elect Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, did for us earlier this year that answers that. Clearly, this is a man who gets it, working, it seems, for a president who gets it.

There is widespread hope that these excellent picks (in science) will continue.

In all, I haven’t educated myself on all of his picks, though I’ll do so over the weekend. Here are my initial impressions:

* Department of Agriculture
Tom Vilsack: I am leaning favorable here.

* Department of Commerce
Bill Richardson: I am very happy; smart and multi-talented

* Department of Defense

Robert Gates: Yes, a Bush holdover but he appears to be smart and competent.

* Department of Education
Arne Duncan: Chicago area superintendent; I don’t know much.

* Department of Energy
Steven Chu: Nobel Laureate in Physics; head of the Livermore lab, passionate and out of this world brilliant.

* Department of Health and Human Services
Tom Daschle: lean favorable but I’ll have to learn more; I didn’t follow his Senate career all that closely though he was minority leader at one time.

* Department of Homeland Security

* Department of Housing and Urban Development
Shaun Donovan: really don’t know other than he is from New York.

* Department of the Interior
Ken Salazar: mixed; he has political skill and is the Colorado Senator; from reading the stuff he wrote I don’t get the impression that he is all that intellectual. Here is an example.

* Department of Justice
Eric Holder: I don’t know all that much about him.

* Department of Labor

Hilda Solis: so far she appears to be a good pick; workers unions like her and she makes the fat cat crowd uneasy.

* Department of State
Hillary Clinton: Love the pick. She is sharp, knowledgeable and well respected around the world.

* Department of Transportation
Ray LaHood: Barf; this guy is a mediocrity where I think excellence is needed. But one commenter at Prairie State Blue said:

Politically speaking. LaHood will help deflect some of the inevitable Republican criticism of these massive spending projects. And it’s not the job of a Cabinet Secretary to come up with fresh, imaginative solutions to complex problems. In fact, someone too in love with his own ideas could easily become a liability.

That is probably the best defense of this pick that I’ve seen.

* Department of the Treasury
Tim Geithner: seems sharp, creative and full of energy. I like the pick, but we’ll wait and see.

* Department of Veterans Affairs
Eric Shinseki: love this pick; he is best noted for falling from the grace of the Bush administration by telling the truth about how hard the Iraq occupation would be.

For more about Obama's science team:

I am happy with this.

Bailout: Lack of oversight leads to this

2008-12-20T09:11:00.000-08:00

Don’t say that we weren’t warned. We were warned repeatedly.

So, while disgusting, this comes as no surprise:

When the nation’s chief financial officers begged Congress for $700 billion of taxpayer money, they said it was about saving banks. They didn’t say anything about saving bonuses.

Despite monumental losses, some Wall Street firms will still be giving out big bonuses this year — even firms that were bailed out by the government.

Goldman Sachs, which accepted $10 billion in government money, and lost $2.1 billion last quarter, announced Tuesday that it handed out $10.93 billion in benefits, bonuses, and compensation for the year.

Goldman Sachs noted that the figure is down 46 percent from a year ago and that seven of its senior executives are forgoing bonuses this season.

“Bonuses across Goldman Sachs will be down significantly this year,” a bank representative told ABC News. The spokesman refused to disclose the size of the bonus pool or how much of the compensation fund of $10.93 billion was planned for bonuses, but some employees are reportedly being given more than $200,000 in cash.

Make them give it back or make this company go into bankruptcy.