NationStates Jolt Archive

Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination on Tuesday as President Obama’s nominee to lead the Health and Human Services Department, a decision that came one day after Mr. Obama declared that he would stand behind Mr. Daschle as problems over unpaid taxes were scrutinized on Capitol Hill.

“I accept his decision with sadness and regret,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.

The decision to withdraw his nomination as a member of the Obama cabinet comes as the White House battled across several fronts on Tuesday with tax problems of the president’s top political appointees. Mr. Daschle had expressed regret for not paying about $140,000 in back taxes, but on Monday vowed to press ahead.

The move came as a surprise on Capitol Hill, where Democratic senators had rallied behind Mr. Daschle. It is the highest-level political casualty of the young Obama administration.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/tom-daschle-withdraws-as-health-nominee/?hp

Thoughts? Speculation? Basless Conjecture? Asking where the change is?

Odd. I thought Geitner was the one who should have bowed out: I mean, anybody can mess up on the tax laws, but Geitner was the one who was supposed to be an expert.

Odd. I thought Geitner was the one who should have bowed out: I mean, anybody can mess up on the tax laws, but Geitner was the one who was supposed to be an expert.

The big difference is the Republicans liked Geitner, so they werent calling for him to bow out.

They didnt like Daschle. So they used his taxes as an attack. That and Daschle owed a lot more in back taxes, if I remember correctly

A politician bowing out after an embarassing scandal is revealed? Typical Washington insider behavior. Where's the change, Ob(s)ama?

I guess he only supports raising taxes on other people...

Is it bad that I learnt of Daschle's unpaid taxes from the Daily Show?

Is it bad that I learnt of Daschle's unpaid taxes from the Daily Show?

Not in the least. All news should be delivered with an embedded joke.

What we learn from this is:

1) No one is Washington is clean enough to be government.

2) Our taxes are obviously too complicated, if even the jackasses who created the system can't use it right.

3) I may be wrong, but I do not believe I have seen such a level of opposition to cabinet nominees ever before. I may not have been happy with all of Obama's choices, but this is fucking ridiculous. Okay, yes, $128K in back taxes is extreme, even by DC standards, but what does that say about the brouhaha over Geithner's $30+K? And what the hell could possibly have been so wrong with Richardson that the mere threat of a "lengthy investigation process" was enough to get him to pull out? I have never seen a congress so willing to leave the executive branch without a functioning cabinet.

I am not happy.

3) I may be wrong, but I do not believe I have seen such a level of opposition to cabinet nominees ever before. I may not have been happy with all of Obama's choices, but this is fucking ridiculous. Okay, yes, $128K in back taxes is extreme, even by DC standards, but what does that say about the brouhaha over Geithner's $30+K? And what the hell could possibly have been so wrong with Richardson that the mere threat of a "lengthy investigation process" was enough to get him to pull out? I have never seen a congress so willing to leave the executive branch without a functioning cabinet.

I am not happy.



Congress grew a spine just in time to oppose the wrong fucking president.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe I have seen such a level of opposition to cabinet nominees ever before.
Clinton went through a month without an attorney general, because his first pick had an illegal-alien nanny, and the second had a legal nanny with unpaid Social Security taxes, or some such thing (I can't be bothered to go back and hunt up the details).

Congress grew a spine just in time to oppose the wrong fucking president.
This isn't growing a spine. This is throwing a temper tantrum. I wonder how surprised the Republicans on the committee were to find there actually was something that wrong with Dashle (meaning I think they went after him only because he's Obama's pick, not because there was anything obviously hinky about him to begin with).

Clinton went through a month without an attorney general, because his first pick had an illegal-alien nanny, and the second had a legal nanny with unpaid Social Security taxes, or some such thing (I can't be bothered to go back and hunt up the details).
However, I don't recall this much zeal being applied to every single one Clinton's nominees for every single position. I mean, of course, I certainly hope due diligence was met, but these committees seem to be assuming guilt before innocence nowadays.

Of course, they do all know each other, so I'm sure they know shit we don't, but it never seemed to bother them before Obama won the election.

Like I said, maybe it's an illusion created by the media crowing over every single thing in a way they didn't before, but it is very frustrating.

It was best for all involved that Daschle fell on his own sword rather than put Obama in an awkward position.

Hopefully, Obama will do a better job vetting future candidates to find those who pay their taxes. :rolleyes:

I think it may seem like the Obama appointments have received more scrutiny from Congress than appointments of past administrations because Obama announced them in a timely fashion -- i.e. well in advance of the inauguration. Lots more time for the media machine to search out quotes from Mitch McConnell et al. as compared to Clinton's appointments.

Honestly I was so depressed after Bush won in 2000 that I don't really remember the cabinet appointments, except I do remember the Senate grumbled a lot about Ashcroft. I don't think the whole circus is particularly unusual in the context of the last 16 years.

Looks like Puff Daschle's withdrawal ends the "sloppy seconds" issue. :tongue:

Looks like Puff Daschle's withdrawal ends the "sloppy seconds" issue. :tongue:

Its a good thing you laugh at your own jokes. Otherwise who would?

Looks like Puff Daschle's withdrawal ends the "sloppy seconds" issue. :tongue:

"sloppy seconds" issue? Where exactly does Larry Craig fit into this? :confused:

"sloppy seconds" issue? Where exactly does Larry Craig fit into this? :confused:

Win.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/tom-daschle-withdraws-as-health-nominee/?hp

Thoughts? Speculation? Basless Conjecture? Asking where the change is?

the change is between the seat cushions, unlike Geithner, this time the Republicans on the committee were ready when the news broke and didn't sit there eating ankle, and "Wow, Tom Daschle's got a limit to his hypocrisy??"

Puff Daschle's

I don't even know what the fuck this is supposed to mean..

I don't even know what the fuck this is supposed to mean..

NM's posts are like the sun.

What we learn from this is:

1) No one is Washington is clean enough to be government.

2) Our taxes are obviously too complicated, if even the jackasses who created the system can't use it right.

Can't, or didn't want to?

3) I may be wrong, but I do not believe I have seen such a level of opposition to cabinet nominees ever before. I may not have been happy with all of Obama's choices, but this is fucking ridiculous. Okay, yes, $128K in back taxes is extreme, even by DC standards, but what does that say about the brouhaha over Geithner's $30+K?

30k is alot of money, although more understandable than 128k, its still more than alot of people make in a year.

And what the hell could possibly have been so wrong with Richardson that the mere threat of a "lengthy investigation process" was enough to get him to pull out? I have never seen a congress so willing to leave the executive branch without a functioning cabinet.

I don't know why he pulled out, but it seems to indicate he has some skeletons, if the threat of investigations made him run scared. I'd rather have congress carefully screen people, than mindlessly sign off on things, weed out the criminals and such.

So Obama is running in to the same issues that his predecessors had - there aren't enough honest people in government, so he has trouble finding people to appoint.

I don't even know what the fuck this is supposed to mean..
About as much as "donkocrats" and "the magic negro", that is to say, nothing.

At this rate, you guys won't have a cabinet by summer.:p

2) Our taxes are obviously too complicated, if even the jackasses who created the system can't use it right.
What do you mean? A rich guy got out of paying over $100,000 to the government, which is exactly what the current system was designed to be used for.

I don't even know what the fuck this is supposed to mean..
Sean "Diddy" Combs, formerly known as "Puff Daddy". Basically NM's comparing him to a black guy and implying that this is bad.

The big difference is the Republicans liked Geitner, so they werent calling for him to bow out.

They didnt like Daschle. So they used his taxes as an attack. That and Daschle owed a lot more in back taxes, if I remember correctly

Over five times more--it was pretty serious. Geithner's mistake was plausible. Daschle's wasn't so much. He received obvious, daily services he didn't report--even though his accountant informed him of the value of the services.

"sloppy seconds" issue? Where exactly does Larry Craig fit into this? :confused:

I was referring to one of my posts from another (related) thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14470554&postcount=258

And as for Larry Craig, he doesn't "fit into this." That's because the GOP didn't line up lock-step in support of Craig.

I don't even know what the fuck this is supposed to mean..


Sean "Diddy" Combs, formerly known as "Puff Daddy". Basically NM's comparing him to a black guy and implying that this is bad.

"Puff" Daschle is Rush Limbaugh's name for the failed ex-senator from South Dakota. Your lack of familiarity with the moniker somehow doesn't surprise me. ;)

Oh, and CF: your knowledge of the subject of your post is even less than your usual complete lack.

NM's posts are like the sun.

Clearly. Much like the sun, they generate a blinding light and drive cockroaches back into their crevices. :D

About as much as "donkocrats" and "the magic negro", that is to say, nothing.

"Donkocrat" is the more polite version of "Ass-o-crat", but both are derived from the party mascot and are equally applicable.

As for "the magic negro," I wish I could claim credit for that one, but alas, the term first came to public attention in an opinion piece published in the L.A. Democrat Times by a black columnist who supported Obama.

At this rate, you guys won't have a cabinet by summer.:p

From your lips to God's ear. ;)

What we learn from this is:

1) No one is Washington is clean enough to be government.

2) Our taxes are obviously too complicated, if even the jackasses who created the system can't use it right.

3) I may be wrong, but I do not believe I have seen such a level of opposition to cabinet nominees ever before. I may not have been happy with all of Obama's choices, but this is fucking ridiculous. Okay, yes, $128K in back taxes is extreme, even by DC standards, but what does that say about the brouhaha over Geithner's $30+K? And what the hell could possibly have been so wrong with Richardson that the mere threat of a "lengthy investigation process" was enough to get him to pull out? I have never seen a congress so willing to leave the executive branch without a functioning cabinet.

I am not happy.

Nearly all of the appointees have had tax problems. It's because they don't want to pay their taxes - not because the taxes in question are complicated.

They get away with it because they're rich politicians - if any one of us had been in that situation, the IRS would have been completely up our ass.

I'd rather have no cabinet, than a cabinet full of people whose idea of integrity is "the law applies to the masses, not to us".

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/tom-daschle-withdraws-as-health-nominee/?hp

Thoughts? Speculation? Basless Conjecture? Asking where the change is?
It's a shame it took NY Times editorials to finally make this happen. But Obama is a Chicago-style pol.

But isn't Obama the candidate that said lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House" Seems like he went a little soft on that promise. Then again, he is a Chicago-bred pol.

It's a shame it took NY Times editorials to finally make this happen. But Obama is a Chicago-style pol.

But isn't Obama the candidate that said lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House" Seems like he went a little soft on that promise. Then again, he is a Chicago-bred pol.

17 lobbyists and counting...

Over five times more--it was pretty serious. Geithner's mistake was plausible. Daschle's wasn't so much. He received obvious, daily services he didn't report--even though his accountant informed him of the value of the services.
Come on, even my 18 year old daughter figured out that she owed SSI and Medicare for a job that paid her on a 1099.

17 lobbyists and counting...
But he's a Democrat AND the second coming, so it's okay...

Nearly all of the appointees have had tax problems. It's because they don't want to pay their taxes - not because the taxes in question are complicated.

They get away with it because they're rich politicians - if any one of us had been in that situation, the IRS would have been completely up our ass.

I'd rather have no cabinet, than a cabinet full of people whose idea of integrity is "the law applies to the masses, not to us".
Yeah...uh...no shit, Sherlocke. It's called sarcasm. But I'm not surprised you failed to recognize it, because you've wrapped yourself up so tight in this latest rightwing fantasy, you've been missing out on quite a few things going on in the real world lately. If you don't watch out, by the time you wake up all your clothes will be out of fashion.

But he's a Democrat AND the second coming, so it's okay...
You know what I would love to see you and DK do? I'd love to see you guys go back in history and find any evidence whatsoever that anyone anywhere ever did to Bush what you and the other rightwing marionettes are doing to Obama -- namely, crying and bitching endlessly about what a fraud and failure he is AFTER ONLY TWO WEEKS OF HIS FIRST TERM. Of course, everybody knew he was a fraud and a failure because of his history, but show me anyone IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS, pointing to what he was doing and screaming about what FOOLS!! everybody was to have voted for him and how BLIND!! they all were, and what a disaster it was all going to be!!!! In the first TWO WEEKS. And make sure you show us the Democrats doing it all in "lockstep" -- you know, the way you guys fall into "lockstep" with Limbaugh.

I could see if it was already past the first 100 days, but it's been TWO FUCKING WEEKS. TWO. You're the ones acting crazy about Obama, not his supporters. These complaints of yours are so nonsensical, they're really nothing more than trolling. You might feel all triumphant and vindicated because it turns out that Washington is a cesspit of corruption (surprise!), but you really just look silly.

Grow up and give some thought to what's going on outside your own little bubble for a change.

Or don't, and be the laughing stocks your arguments make you. Your call.

Come on, even my 18 year old daughter figured out that she owed SSI and Medicare for a job that paid her on a 1099.

I bet your 18 year old daughter's taxes are super complicated, too.

Yeah...uh...no shit, Sherlocke. It's called sarcasm. But I'm not surprised you failed to recognize it, because you've wrapped yourself up so tight in this latest rightwing fantasy, you've been missing out on quite a few things going on in the real world lately. If you don't watch out, by the time you wake up all your clothes will be out of fashion.


You know what I would love to see you and DK do? I'd love to see you guys go back in history and find any evidence whatsoever that anyone anywhere ever did to Bush what you and the other rightwing marionettes are doing to Obama -- namely, crying and bitching endlessly about what a fraud and failure he is AFTER ONLY TWO WEEKS OF HIS FIRST TERM. Of course, everybody knew he was a fraud and a failure because of his history, but show me anyone IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS, pointing to what he was doing and screaming about what FOOLS!! everybody was to have voted for him and how BLIND!! they all were, and what a disaster it was all going to be!!!! In the first TWO WEEKS. And make sure you show us the Democrats doing it all in "lockstep" -- you know, the way you guys fall into "lockstep" with Limbaugh.

I could see if it was already past the first 100 days, but it's been TWO FUCKING WEEKS. TWO. You're the ones acting crazy about Obama, not his supporters. These complaints of yours are so nonsensical, they're really nothing more than trolling. You might feel all triumphant and vindicated because it turns out that Washington is a cesspit of corruption (surprise!), but you really just look silly.

Grow up and give some thought to what's going on outside your own little bubble for a change.

Or don't, and be the laughing stocks your arguments make you. Your call.
As I recall, it started for GWB even before his inauguration... There were a few notable characters that accused him of 'stealing' the election and being an 'illegitimate' President. That refrain continued until the day he left office.

As I recall, it started for GWB even before his inauguration... There were a few notable characters that accused him of 'stealing' the election and being an 'illegitimate' President. That refrain continued until the day he left office.

Muravyets doesn't remember...

Muravyets doesn't remember...

Actually, she'll tell me that I'm making it up...

I bet your 18 year old daughter's taxes are super complicated, too.

Actually, Mr. Daschle was one of those senators that passed laws "to make sure that the rich pay their fair share of the taxes".

Too bad that the average US citizen falls for that crap and does not realize that half of the senators are millionaires. I guess that the senate's definition of "the rich" does not apply to the senate and congress.

I bet your 18 year old daughter's taxes are super complicated, too.
Ignorance, incompetence, carelessness, complexity are not excuses for failure to comply with the tax laws. I would expect the folks that post here to be even more alarmed at a citizen's failure to do his duty and surrender his property to the government, especially after all the vitriol I remember directed at this one fellow
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540325&highlight=plainfield
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540028

After all, the new Treasury secretary used government services and didn't pay for them properly...

Actually, Mr. Daschle was one of those senators that passed laws "to make sure that the rich pay their fair share of the taxes".

Too bad that the average US citizen falls for that crap and does not realize that half of the senators are millionaires. I guess that the senate's definition of "the rich" does not apply to the senate and congress.
That makes me think that we should be more worried about the 'political class' than about the wealthiest 5% or even about the several billion a year that are paid out in bonuses to executives of private companies... The 'wealthy' class can't hurt us too much, if at all. The 'political' class can make our lives a living hell.

As I recall, it started for GWB even before his inauguration... There were a few notable characters that accused him of 'stealing' the election and being an 'illegitimate' President. That refrain continued until the day he left office.
And I'm sure you can link to articles or websites or anything that might be archived somewhere?

Muravyets doesn't remember...
You're right. Remind me.

Actually, she'll tell me that I'm making it up...
You're wrong. I asked for evidence, and I'm waiting for it. If you can show that your behavior is merely echoing what some other idiots did to Bush, then I'll stand corrected about that.

Then we can tackle how stupid this all is.

And I'm sure you can link to articles or websites or anything that might be archived somewhere?

And you were unconscious during the whole Bush-Gore contested election thingy... right.

And I'm sure you can link to articles or websites or anything that might be archived somewhere?


You're right. Remind me.


You're wrong. I asked for evidence, and I'm waiting for it. If you can show that your behavior is merely echoing what some other idiots did to Bush, then I'll stand corrected about that.

Then we can tackle how stupid this all is.
I give. You're right. No one ever contested the ballot counts in Florida. No one ever complained about GWB's use of the USSC to stop counting ballots. No one ever referred to his election or presidency as illegitimate.

I give. You're right. No one ever contested the ballot counts in Florida. No one ever complained about GWB's use of the USSC to stop counting ballots. No one ever referred to his election or presidency as illegitimate.

Either that, or Muravyets was unconscious for eight years.

on the bright side Obama wont try to push Health care reform in the first 100 days.
nothing I can imagine worse then a rash attempt at health care reform.

Come on, even my 18 year old daughter figured out that she owed SSI and Medicare for a job that paid her on a 1099.

Yeah, I mean, if a woman can do her own taxes...:rolleyes:

But he's a Democrat AND the second coming, so it's okay...

The bitterness. Its delicious. Tell me, do you cry yourself to sleep everynight? Because that would be wonderful.

Actually, she'll tell me that I'm making it up...

Considering 99% of your claims are pure fabrication, it wouldnt be an unreasonable assumption on her part.

I give. You're right. No one ever contested the ballot counts in Florida. No one ever complained about GWB's use of the USSC to stop counting ballots. No one ever referred to his election or presidency as illegitimate.

Questioning the shady outcomes of a tight election =/= declaring his presidency a failure.

Besides, I seem to recall Hanity and the other drones on Fox saying Obama wasnt legit because he said the oath of office right and Bush's SCOTUS appointee said it wrong.

Either that, or Muravyets was unconscious for eight years.

Considering you and Myrmi's constant calls for more tax cuts and claims that tax cuts for the wealthy will fix the economy, Id say she wouldnt be the only one.

Considering 99% of your claims are pure fabrication, it wouldnt be an unreasonable assumption on her part.

You were unconscious during the whole Bush-Gore contested election thing too...

You were unconscious during the whole Bush-Gore contested election thing too...

See my post about how questioning the outcomes of a shady election =/= declaring the presidency a failure.


So, yeah, we're still waiting.

See my post about how questioning the outcomes of a shady election =/= declaring the presidency a failure.


So, yeah, we're still waiting.

They were declaring it a failure before it began with Bush. Both elections.

They were declaring it a failure before it began with Bush.

Im sure you have some sort of evidence that people were in lock-step declaring Bush's presidency a failure in the first two weeks.

Oh, who the hell am I kidding. You have no evidence.

Both elections.

Um...thats because for the 2004 election, we had seen him fuck up for four years already. So it was fair to call his new presidency a failure.

And we were right.

Im sure you have some sort of evidence that people were in lock-step declaring Bush's presidency a failure in the first two weeks.

Oh, who the hell am I kidding. You have no evidence.

The criticism started before he even took office. Of course you don't remember, because that would be inconvenient for you.

Of course, in your estimation, no Democrats ever criticized Bush. You were nice and fair up to the end of the eight years, giving him every chance.

The criticism started before he even took office. Of course you don't remember, because that would be inconvenient for you.

Just like it would be inconvenient for you to prove any assurtion you make.

See, normally Id take a poster at their word. But since you have this history of...umm...lying, I dont plan to.

Of course, in your estimation, no Democrats ever criticized Bush. You were nice and fair up to the end of the eight years, giving him every chance.

Nah, they just waited for him to actually screw up to critisize him, and didnt scream "FAILURE!!!" at ghosts.

The criticism started before he even took office. Of course you don't remember, because that would be inconvenient for you.

Of course, in your estimation, no Democrats ever criticized Bush. You were nice and fair up to the end of the eight years, giving him every chance.

I remember when you admitted to being a pedophile. Of course you don't remember, because that would be incovenient for you. And I'm certainly not going to produce even one example, because then I wouldn't be a lazy and terrible debater.

Nah, they just waited for him to actually screw up to critisize him, and didnt scream "FAILURE!!!" at ghosts.

Yes, it's a "ghost" when Obama promises very clearly not to have any lobbyists and then nominates or hires 17 of them.

Yes, it's a "ghost" when Obama promises an ethical administration, and then nominates people who all have tax cheat problems (starting with Richardson, and moving on - it wasn't just one or two).

Yes, it's unfair to actually hold him to simple promises that he made.

This wasn't a "mistake". He was caught in an outright lie, and if it wasn't for the NYT, Daschle would be approved right now.

"I screwed up" = "You caught me lying, and I'll make sure you don't catch me the next time."

Yes, it's a "ghost" when Obama promises very clearly not to have any lobbyists and then nominates or hires 17 of them.

Yes, it's a "ghost" when Obama promises an ethical administration, and then nominates people who all have tax cheat problems (starting with Richardson, and moving on - it wasn't just one or two).

Yes, it's unfair to actually hold him to simple promises that he made.

This wasn't a "mistake". He was caught in an outright lie, and if it wasn't for the NYT, Daschle would be approved right now.

"I screwed up" = "You caught me lying, and I'll make sure you don't catch me the next time."

:rolleyes:

Tell me. What color is the sky in this magical world?

:rolleyes:

Tell me. What color is the sky in this magical world?

See? In your eyes, Obama doesn't have to keep his promises. He can commit any violation of ethics, and it's OK with you.

See? In your eyes, Obama doesn't have to keep his promises. He can commit any violation of ethics, and it's OK with you.

Yep, not what I said at all. When he commits an actual ethics violation, Ill call him on it.

Besides, Id rather have a president who uses the code for "Shit, busted" by saying "I screwed up" then a president who, when told "Hey, you have a gazillion ethical violations and break the constitution on a regular basis" sticks his head in the sand and yells "NU-UH!!!" like that the president you and Myrmi miss so much.


But Bush could get away with being a crook because he killed Muslims right? And killing Muslims is better then sex, right DK? Even if you have to live vicariously through others. Where as Obama is a dirty terrorist.

Yep, not what I said at all. When he commits an actual ethics violation, Ill call him on it.

He's violating his own promises, and you're fine with it.

He's nominated people who HAVE commited ethics violations and have ongoing ethics violations, and you're fine with it.

Please link to a post where I called Obama a terrorist. You won't be able to find one.

He's nominated people who HAVE commited ethics violations and have ongoing ethics violations, and you're fine with it.

Who? Daschle? He bowed out. Which means Obama probably pressured him to, as is often the case in politics.

The other guy the senate, even your darling Republicans, confrimed, so they apperantly didnt have much of a problem either. Everyone but Limblob chalked that up to an honost mistake.

The other two, Richardson and the one woman whose name elludes me, bowed out. Which means that when Obama found out about their tax issues, he pressured them to bow out.

So...we have one.

Who? Daschle? He bowed out. Which means Obama probably pressured him to, as is often the case in politics.

The other guy the senate, even your darling Republicans, confrimed, so they apperantly didnt have much of a problem either. Everyone but Limblob chalked that up to an honost mistake.

The other two, Richardson and the one woman whose name elludes me, bowed out. Which means that when Obama found out about their tax issues, he pressured them to bow out.

So...we have one.
We're just going along with Obama because he already has the votes to do whatever he wants.

Obama knew about their issues during the vetting process, and nominated them anyway.

Which you're OK with.

The fact that the press caught him is the only thing that stopped any of it.

Otherwise, they would be in, and you would be fine with it.

There is also the matter of how he promised to run the most clean administration, and would forbid lobbyists to work for him - and then he hired 17 of them.

But you're OK with that, too. You know, making a high minded promise to the people who voted for him, and then shitting all over the promise.

And you were unconscious during the whole Bush-Gore contested election thingy... right.

I give. You're right. No one ever contested the ballot counts in Florida. No one ever complained about GWB's use of the USSC to stop counting ballots. No one ever referred to his election or presidency as illegitimate.
You're right -- I am right, after all.

Saying that an election was not valid and that the person who got the office did not get it legitimately is not the same thing as pointing to every single thing that happens in the first two weeks of a new presidency and claiming that it is proof that the new president is a liar, corrupt, incompetent, and that all his supporters are just blindly worshipping him and thus blind to the horrible truth of how bad he is. All in two weeks.

Try again. Show me people doing to Bush what you are doing to Obama, and then we can talk about how we're the loopy ones, not you.

Try again. Show me people doing to Bush what you are doing to Obama, and then we can talk about how we're the loopy ones, not you.

Is there a problem with holding Obama to his promises? Or do you think it's fine that he promises an open and ethical administration, and then intentionally and knowingly populates it with tax cheats and lobbyists?

Questioning the shady outcomes of a tight election =/= declaring his presidency a failure.

Besides, I seem to recall Hanity and the other drones on Fox saying Obama wasnt legit because he said the oath of office right and Bush's SCOTUS appointee said it wrong.



Considering you and Myrmi's constant calls for more tax cuts and claims that tax cuts for the wealthy will fix the economy, Id say she wouldnt be the only one.
Let's not change the question, okay. This is what was asked..."You know what I would love to see you and DK do? I'd love to see you guys go back in history and find any evidence whatsoever that anyone anywhere ever did to Bush what you and the other rightwing marionettes are doing to Obama -- namely, crying and bitching endlessly about what a fraud and failure he is AFTER ONLY TWO WEEKS OF HIS FIRST TERM."
I think that questioning the very right of the man to hold office is quite a claim to fraud. The bitching and moaning started on November 8th, 2000 and never stopped.

You're right -- I am right, after all.

Saying that an election was not valid and that the person who got the office did not get it legitimately is not the same thing as pointing to every single thing that happens in the first two weeks of a new presidency and claiming that it is proof that the new president is a liar, corrupt, incompetent, and that all his supporters are just blindly worshipping him and thus blind to the horrible truth of how bad he is. All in two weeks.

Try again. Show me people doing to Bush what you are doing to Obama, and then we can talk about how we're the loopy ones, not you.
It's nice that you can have such a unique perspective on history. Almost revisionist, one could say... Thanks for the chuckle.

I would still claim that when one is said to hold an office illegally, then it can be inferred that it is also claimed that everything he is doing in that office is illegal. Which is far worse than just calling him a liar, or an incompetent.

They were declaring it a failure before it began with Bush. Both elections.
I'll go ahead and call that one a lie.

Unless, of course, you have some proof that anyone did that? An article from the time saying that, maybe?

Is there a problem with holding Obama to his promises? Or do you think it's fine that he promises an open and ethical administration, and then intentionally and knowingly populates it with tax cheats and lobbyists?
I'm sorry, did you say something? I couldn't hear you over the noise of me still waiting for you to show any evidence whatsoever in support of anything you have claimed as fact.

It's nice that you can have such a unique perspective on history. Almost revisionist, one could say... Thanks for the chuckle.

I would still claim that when one is said to hold an office illegally, then it can be inferred that it is also claimed that everything he is doing in that office is illegal. Which is far worse than just calling him a liar, or an incompetent.
I can't hold a candle to your ability to rewrite history to suit yourself. I bow to the master on that. :hail:

Tell us more about how good tax cuts are for the economy, oh wise one! :hail:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/tom-daschle-withdraws-as-health-nominee/?hp

Thoughts? Speculation? Basless Conjecture? Asking where the change is?

I've never been a fan on Daschle. I'll be interested to see who the replacement is.

Obama has a way to go to catch up with W. This article only accounts to 2004. Not only were they lobbyists, but now they would oversee the exact industries they lobbied for. I think it is near impossible to NEVER hire a lobbyist in Washington. So many of the people who are involved have so many intricate loops they are held together by. I also remember Obama saying not to hir lobbyists who were registered in the past 2 years. He has made some exceptions becuause that's what smart people do. They examine each on a case by case basis instead of making blanket rules.

Published on Sunday, May 23, 2004 by the Denver Post
When Advocates Become Regulators
President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.
by Anne C. Mulkern


WASHINGTON -- In a New York City ballroom days before Christmas, a powerful Bush administration lawyer made an unprecedented offer to drug companies, one likely to protect their profits and potentially hurt consumers.

Daniel E. Troy, lead counsel for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, extended the government's help in torpedoing certain lawsuits. Among Troy's targets: claims that medications caused devastating and unexpected side effects.

Pitch us lawsuits that we might get involved in, Troy told several hundred pharmaceutical attorneys, some of them old friends and acquaintances from his previous role representing major U.S. pharmaceutical firms.

The offer by the FDA's top attorney, made Dec. 15 at the Plaza Hotel, took the agency responsible for food and drug safety into new territory.

"The FDA is now in the business of helping lawsuit defendants, specifically the pharmaceutical companies," said James O'Reilly, University of Cincinnati law professor and author of a book on the history of the FDA. "It's a dramatic change in what the FDA has done in the past."

Troy's switch from industry advocate to industry regulator overseeing his former clients is a hallmark of President Bush's administration.

Troy is one of more than 100 high-level officials under Bush who helped govern industries they once represented as lobbyists, lawyers or company advocates, a Denver Post analysis shows.

In at least 20 cases, those former industry advocates have helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates.

The president's political appointees are making or overseeing profound changes affecting drug laws, food policies, land use, clean-air regulations and other key issues.

Government watchdogs call it a disturbing trend, not adequately restrained by existing ethics laws.

Among the advocates-turned-regulators are a former meat-industry lobbyist who helps decide how meat is labeled; a former drug-company lobbyist who influences prescription-drug policies; a former energy lobbyist who, while still accepting payments for bringing clients into his old lobbying firm, helps determine how much of the West those former clients can use for oil and gas drilling.

"When you go to work in lobbying, it is clearly understood and accepted that your job is to advocate for the interests of those who hired you," said Terry L. Cooper, a University of Southern California ethics and government professor. "When you go to work in government, you are supposed to be responsible for upholding and maintaining whatever you can identify as the public interest."

The Bush administration says the regulators were chosen for their abilities.

"The president appoints highly qualified individuals who make their decisions based on the best interests of the American people," said White House spokesman Jim Morrell. "Any individual serving in the administration must abide by strict legal and ethical guidelines, including full disclosure of past lobbying activities."

Six of the former industry advocates have faced ethics investigations or resigned amid conflict-of-interest charges. Those and at least 14 others have been lambasted by public-interest groups.

Government ethics standards are part of the problem because they don't fully address the kind of issues that now permeate Washington, Cooper and some inside government say. The rules focus mainly on direct financial conflicts. Other, more nuanced conflicts aren't addressed

"There are so many ways around, over and under these (ethics) bans ... they almost never work," said Paul Light, who for decades has studied the appointment process for the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington. "There're more screen doors than steel doors."

A March 16 report from the Interior Department's inspector general, for example, concluded that department's "byzantine" conflict-of-interest rules were "wholly incapable" of addressing ethical questions involving a former energy lobbyist, J. Steven Griles, as the department's No. 2 official.

The report called the department's ethics system "a train wreck waiting to happen."

Bringing bias to a federal job isn't new. Presidents of all political persuasions have appointed people who shared their party's values.

As president, Bill Clinton peppered the federal bureaucracy with Democratic state officials, lawyers and advocates from various environmental or public-interest groups.

Only a handful of registered lobbyists worked for Clinton, however.

Bush's embrace of lobbyists marks a key difference because it allows "those who are affected by the regulations to determine what the ground rules should be," said David Cohen, co-director of the Advocacy Institute, which helps teach nonprofits how to lobby in Washington.

While previous Republican presidents hired lobbyists, "the Bush administration has made it rise in geometric proportions," Cohen said, meaning Bush is "capturing the instruments of government and using them for the ends" that favor Bush's political supporters.

"In the Bush administration," said U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., "the foxes are guarding the foxes, and the middle-class hens are getting plucked."

Republicans and their lobbying allies reject the idea that industry is embedded in the administration.

"Foxes? No," Vice President Dick Cheney told The Denver Post. "I think we have a good track record."

The clout of industry is balanced by the power of labor unions, trial lawyers and public-interest groups, said Jerry Jasinowski, chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers.

"The notion that somehow business gets everything and we've gotten a free ride is absurd," he said.

Still, the lobbyists-turned-policymakers control or influence health care, food safety, land use, the environment and other issues touched by government.

HEALTH CARE

Ann-Marie Lynch

The drug-industry lobbyist who fought price controls joined the Health and Human Services Department and has helped drug companies avoid the limits.

Top aides in the Department of Health and Human Services provide analysis and advice to the president on key consumer issues, including prescription-drug policies. In doing so, they consider the needs of pharmaceutical companies seeking revenue for future research, and consumers struggling to afford increasingly costly medications.

In June 2001 Bush installed Ann- Marie Lynch, a lobbyist for the drug- company trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, to help set those policies.

As a lobbyist, Lynch fought congressional attempts to cap prices for drugs. Price controls, she argued, would hamper medical innovation.

Thirteen months after Lynch became deputy assistant secretary in the office of policy, her division issued a report that praised brand- name drugs. It warned that "government-controlled restrictions on the coverage of new drugs could put the future of medical innovation at risk and may retard advances in treatment."

Consumer advocates say that's nonsense. Other countries innovate despite price controls, said Gail Shearer, director of health policy analysis for Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.

"They haven't taken as seriously their job of making medicines affordable to all Americans," Shearer said. "When you talk about the need for (drug) innovation, you have to put it in the context of, will people get the wonder drugs?"

Critics say the report influenced congressional debate over a Medicare drug policy that, among other things, banned government from using Medicare's buying power to cut drug prices. The legislation will mean an extra $139 billion in profit over eight years to drug companies, Boston University researchers said.

Republicans in Congress used arguments that came "directly out of Ann-Marie Lynch's mouth" and from the trade group she previously worked for, said Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, lead Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee's health subcommittee.

Lynch declined to talk to a reporter. HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said the report was not intended to sway Congress. Provisions banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices date to 2000, he said.

Lynch also blocked the release of about a dozen completed research reports that challenge drug-company claims, three former employees said. Pierce said Lynch decides research topics and which reports are released.

One 2001 report, for example, criticizes Medicare plus Choice (now known as Medicare Advantage). Its findings suggested that running the Medicare prescription-drug benefit through private health companies - the method the administration ultimately chose - would be more expensive and would not serve rural areas well.

"Very few of (the private companies) manage to bring in the benefit cost effectively," said Mark Merlis, the private health policy consultant who wrote the report.

Thomas A. Scully

The former hospital lobbyist presided over an agency that helped a chain he once represented win a favorable settlement in a Medicare fraud case.

Thomas A. Scully represented the nation's for-profit hospitals as a lobbyist before being hired by the Bush administration in June 2001 to head the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Eight months after Scully arrived at the Medicare and Medicaid agency, it moved to settle final claims involving HCA Inc., a hospital chain that was the biggest member of Scully's former employer, the Federation of American Hospitals. HCA Inc. faced allegations it fraudulently overbilled the government for Medicare cases.

Under the terms agreed to in June 2002 by Scully's agency, HCA would have settled for $250 million. Medicare fraud cases typically are ironed out with Justice Department participation, but Scully agreed to those terms on his own, said John R. Phillips, an attorney who represented whistle-blowers in the case.

"The $250 million was a total sellout by Scully, who totally negotiated it behind Justice's back," Phillips said.

It also was handled in a way that protected the company from a full review of its cost reports and the triple- damage civil fines that can be imposed in fraud cases, he said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Justice in October 2002 if that deal was "too lenient."

Justice delayed the settlement until June 2003.

HCA, the nation's biggest for-profit hospital company, eventually paid that $250 million, plus $631 million in civil penalties and damages and $17.5 million to states.

Scully's ethics agreement did not require him to officially avoid cases involving HCA. But Scully said he steered clear.

"I recused myself from everything involving HCA-specific issues or policy and was not involved in any way, shape or form," Scully said. "Every time anything came up (regarding) HCA, I left it to my deputies."

But Grassley in a June 25, 2002, letter to a Justice Department lawyer said comments by Scully "have given me great concern that there is an active, ongoing effort underway to change or modify enforcement (on Medicare fraud) policy that in my view could significantly undermine the (law)."

Scully has since left the administration for consulting jobs with a lobbying firm and an investment company that represent Medicare providers.

Daniel E. Troy

The lawyer who represented major drug companies still fights for causes that benefit them as chief counsel at the Food and Drug Administration.

Daniel E. Troy was well-known at the FDA before he arrived in summer 2001 to work as chief counsel, the top legal position in the department.

As a lawyer in private practice, Troy repeatedly sued the FDA, arguing that it had only limited ability to regulate drug companies. He filed those suits through the Washington Legal Foundation, a group funded by businesses, including drug companies. Donors include charitable foundations run by Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and Eli Lilly & Co.

Troy also represented Pfizer through his firm, Wiley, Rein & Fielding. Troy said in an e-mail to a reporter that his Pfizer work was mainly communications and insurance law, and averaged only 80 hours a year.

At the FDA, Troy still is fighting for causes that benefit drug companies.

It's unclear whether any of pharmaceutical firms responded to his December request for lawsuits the FDA might get involved in.

By the time Troy made that offer, he had already intervened in three drug-company cases as FDA chief counsel. One involved Pfizer.

In court briefs, the FDA argued that it determines which warnings a drug company must give consumers. Lawsuits filed in state courts arguing that drug-company warnings are inadequate therefore were invalid, the FDA says. One of the cases Troy challenged involves thousands of consumers who say they were harmed by painful withdrawal from an antidepressant.

Lawsuits accusing drug companies of telling consumers too little about side effects constitute the largest category of cases against drug companies, law professor O'Reilly said.

If Troy's legal position prevails, O'Reilly said, it would be catastrophic for consumers hurt by drugs. He said it would bar cases like the one filed against the makers of fen-phen, the combination of diet medications tied to heart problems. The makers of those drugs are settling with consumers for $14 billion. That case predates Troy's policy.

Troy, who declined to be interviewed, said in a written statement that the FDA is intervening in the lawsuits to protect "the safety, effectiveness and availability of important medical products."

He said that would be "adversely affected if judges and juries acting under state law had the power to substitute their judgment for the expert determinations made by FDA scientists."

Clinton's Justice Department, he added, took the same legal position, arguing that federal law pre-empts state law.

But prior to Troy, professor O'Reilly and one FDA official said, the government got involved only when a judge asked. Troy, in contrast, is seeking cases in which to intervene.

And the FDA now is staking a new legal claim, experts say: that its authority to determine drug labeling always trumps any claims made in state court.

The FDA is "taking sides in private litigation," said Thomas McGarity, a University of Texas Law School professor and president of the Center for Progressive Regulation, which supports government regulation on health and safety issues.

The FDA asks drug-company attorneys to alert the agency to cases because otherwise "our rules might be undermined by contrary state findings" the agency is unaware of, said Peter Pitts, an FDA spokesman.

He added: "For people to infer that (FDA) decisions are made with anything but the public health as our focus is untrue, unfair and very ill-considered."

FDA officials also say they want to discourage frivolous lawsuits, which drive up costs.

A former FDA chief counsel in the Nixon administration, Peter Barton Hutt, said he supported the FDA's legal position but added, "I probably wouldn't be out there encouraging" lawsuits.

Troy oversees other FDA changes that provoked accusations that he is siding with drug companies.

In October 2001, the Health and Human Services Department gave Troy's office final approval over warnings telling companies they could be in violation of FDA rules. Those had previously been sent out by the FDA's drug-marketing division and district offices.

After that change, the number of warnings of questionable claims by pharmaceutical companies quickly dropped from an average of seven a month to two.

FDA spokesman Pitts said fewer letters were sent because the process was centralized.

"If you torture statistics long enough," Pitts said, "they confess to anything."

Others see this as dangerous to the public.

"This ... may be a welcome development for the drug industry, but it poses serious dangers to public health," Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, said in an Oct. 1, 2002, letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson.

Waxman said the bad policy decision was "exacerbated by the appointment of Daniel Troy."

The investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, in October 2002 also found that, under the new system, warning notices "have taken so long that misleading advertisements may have completed their broadcast life cycle before FDA issued the letters."

Waxman described the delays as "a development that benefits the powerful pharmaceutical industry at the expense of consumers."

FOOD SAFETY

Charles Lambert

As a USDA official, the former lobbyist for the meat industry who opposed labeling told a hearing that mad cow disease was not a threat.

Mad cow disease had yet to surface in the United States last June when a U.S. Department of Agriculture official - a meat-industry lobbyist only eight months earlier - bet his job on the promise that the ailment couldn't sneak into the country through imports.

Congress had just passed a law requiring meat labels to state which country a cow lived in before slaughter. Food safety groups say those labels could, among other things, help consumers avoid buying beef from countries with mad cow disease.

The USDA opposed such labeling. The person making the agency's case, Deputy Undersecretary Charles Lambert, knew the arguments against such labels. He'd made them as a lobbyist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Lambert spent 15 years at the Cattlemen's Association working in Denver before coming to Washington, D.C., where he worked as lobbyist and chief economist. He left in December 2002 to join the USDA as undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.

When asked about mad cow and the labels, Lambert said mad cow disease wasn't a threat.

"Is there a possibility that it could get through?" Rep. Joe Baca, a California Democrat, asked Lambert at a hearing last June.

Lambert answered, "No, sir."

"None at all?" Baca asked.

"No," Lambert replied.

"You would bet your life on it - your job on it, right?"

Lambert answered, "Yes, sir."

The disease was discovered in the U.S. six months later - apparently brought here by a cow from Canada.

Lambert now says, "I overstated my case."

More than a dozen other high-ranking USDA officials appointed under Bush also have ties to the meat industry.

"Whether it's intentional or not, USDA gives the impression of being a wholly owned subsidiary of America's cattlemen," said Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. She served as a USDA assistant secretary in the Carter White House. "Their interests rather than the public interests predominate in USDA policy."

When he came to the USDA, Lambert signed an agreement stating that in his first year he would "not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which (Cattlemen's) is a party or represents a party, unless I am authorized to participate."

During that period he met at least 12 times with current or former members of Cattlemen's and its affiliates, an office calendar obtained by The Denver Post shows.

Lambert said that at any meeting where policy was discussed, he acted only as a facilitator and that another USDA person was present. The calendar shows meetings where other USDA people were present, although it is not always clear what was discussed.

The rest of those meetings were at social settings, he said.

"You're not required to sever all personal and past relationships ... when you come to federal employment," Lambert said in an interview.

ENVIRONMENT

Jeffrey Holmstead

The EPA official, a lawyer, formerly worked for a firm that represents utility companies, which are among the biggest air polluters.

When the Environmental Protection Agency issued proposed changes to air pollution rules Jan. 30, the wording troubled Martha Keating, a scientist with environmental advocacy group Clear the Air.

"It struck me that I had seen this before," Keating said.

At least 12 paragraphs were identical to or closely resembled a Sept. 4, 2003, proposal given to the Bush administration by Latham & Watkins, a law firm that represents utility companies.

The EPA official overseeing the proposed changes is Jeffrey Holmstead, who until he joined the EPA in October 2001 had worked as a lawyer at Latham & Watkins. His clients included a chemical company and a trade group for utility companies. Power plants are among the biggest air polluters.

Holmstead oversees the EPA division that governs air pollution.

Environmental groups say the rewrite poses a health threat because it slows the reduction of mercury emissions by as much as 11 years. Those emissions can end up in water where they contaminate fish. Forty-three states have issued advisories about fish consumption because of mercury pollution, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group said.

One effect of the proposal would be that 168 of 236 Western-based plants, including those in Colorado, would not be required to reduce those emissions at all, Keating said.

Lobbyists commonly suggest wording for legislation. But even EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt objects to how this language was lifted.

"To take something from a source without noting it doesn't seem to be the normal course of business, and it shouldn't have been done," EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said, speaking for Leavitt.

Holmstead declined to comment.

Six Democratic senators are asking for an investigation. Ten attorneys general and 45 senators - including three Republicans - have asked Leavitt to void the proposed rule because of undue industry influence.

The inspector general hasn't decided whether to investigate. Bergman said the final pollution rule is still under development.

LAND USE

J. Steven Griles

The tenure of the veteran energy lobbyist at the Interior Department was labeled an "ethical quagmire" by the agency's inspector general.

At the U.S. Department of the Interior, which oversees some 507 million acres of national parks, refuges and rangeland, top officials weigh the competing merits of resource conservation and development.

Bush named J. Steven Griles, a veteran energy industry lobbyist, as the department's second-highest official in June 2001.

Griles earned $585,000 a year as a lobbyist, representing an array of oil, gas and other energy interests. As Interior's deputy secretary, he continues to receive $284,000 a year for four years to pay him for the value he had created for the firm by bringing in clients.

Upon entering the government, Griles had pledged to remove himself from deliberations that affected his former clients.

This year, the department's inspector general called Griles' tenure an "ethical quagmire."

"Mr. Griles' lax understanding of his ethics agreement and attendant recusals, combined with the lax dispensation of ethics advice given to him, resulted in lax constraint over matters in which the deputy secretary involved himself," the inspector general concluded.

That report or a subsequent review by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics found other issues:

A former business partner of Griles' hosted a party for Griles and top Interior officials for land and mining.

Also, a former Griles client, Advanced Power Technologies Inc., won some $2 million in no-bid contracts from his department after two people Griles supervised pressed APTI's case.

And Griles urged the EPA not to press concerns over a plan to open 8 million acres in Wyoming and Montana to gas drilling by companies including six of his former clients. The project is proceeding while a task force studies the matter.

The investigations of Griles found no illegalities. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced that her right-hand man had been "cleared."

Review of ethics guidelines

Neither the Bush administration nor Congress has called for a systematic review of government's ethics guidelines.

They should, says Stuart Gilman, president of the Ethics Resource Center, a nonprofit group in Washington that works with companies and government groups.

"The question is, are we dealing with the problems we're currently confronting in government?" Gilman said.

Complaints about ethical breaches within government in some cases can be politically motivated, said Gilman, who also worked in the Office of Government Ethics under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton.

At the same time, Gilman said, governmental leaders have a responsibility to eliminate both real and perceived conflicts of interest.

"For government to function, government must have the confidence of people," Gilman said. "If people don't believe the government is acting fairly, it encourages everyone to cheat."

Denver Post staff writers John Aloysius Farrell and Mike Soraghan and researchers Tamania Davis, Barbara Hudson and Regina Avila contributed to this report.

Shit! When even Joe Leiberman says you are slimy you sure as shit know you are.

I can't hold a candle to your ability to rewrite history to suit yourself. I bow to the master on that. :hail:

Tell us more about how good tax cuts are for the economy, oh wise one! :hail:
What's my claim always been? Find a place where I explicitly state that tax cuts are "good" for the economy. Thats' very vague and I would have never used such a vague term.

I have said that they increase tax revenues and grow the economy over and over because it's a fact. But it's not just me...
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Clearly. Much like the sun, they generate a blinding light and drive cockroaches back into their crevices. :D

Arrogance is endearing in ME, NM.

That makes me think that we should be more worried about the 'political class' than about the wealthiest 5% or even about the several billion a year that are paid out in bonuses to executives of private companies... The 'wealthy' class can't hurt us too much, if at all. The 'political' class can make our lives a living hell.

And that is the reason that our tax code grows by so many laws every year. Our so called elected representatives have fallen for the power of their office and rewarding their large benefactors. Of course, who really cares what happens to those ignorant peons in my home district, when they are not giving me enough money for the campaign.

But the biggest problem of the "political" class is that we keep sending them back term after term.