Wait - really? This is your example? So your only example is a nominee that was rejected 20 years ago by a different Senate run by different people in a time where the Democratic Party was very different from today? There was nothing in the last 8 years that you could find that might actually be more representative? And that's the evidence that if a GOP President were in charge, there's no question that these nominees would be gone? Because Democrats rejected one Republican nominee in the past 50 years? That is used as the entire premise for this article? Wow. That's pretty much a complete failure of an editorial - probably the reason why no one wanted to take credit for writing it and it has no byline. Whoever is paying you to regurgitate this stuff needs to come with basic standards of what constitutes a credible article.
Now the question is, how the hell they confirmed the other tax cheater to be the top tax collector? Alphonse Capone is rolling in his grave
This is getting absurd. I guess the media is finally forced to report the depths of the corruption within Democratic circles... How many of Obama's picks have had tax issues thus far? 4? No wonder they are all in favor of higher taxes -- they themselves don't pay them! Typical libs...
They have been under more scrutiny, and esentially Obama has asked for it. I couldn't tell you half of Bush's Cabinet. I couldn't tell you Obama's either. To turn the question around on you. How many of Bush's appointees were under federal investigation or didn't pay their taxes properly? I'm suprised he dropped out. He had a good chance to be confirmed I would think.
Tommy should have stuck to the old Pontiac. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/avG9DvLi-aQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/avG9DvLi-aQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
no, it was worthwhile. We got to see you try and act like there was a double standard only to have it come crashing down, that there was no double standard at all. That was worthwhile.
you're right, the thread topic wasn't worthless, but that wasn't my point. it does help the republicans
Oh absolutely - I have no problem with them being scrutinized and the bad ones being yanked. I just find this idea that Dems or Obama get away with things because of the media to be unsupported by the facts.
I have a feeling that Obama pulled the plug on Daschle and the other appointment, I forgot her name, to try to remove all distractions for the stimulus vote. I wouldn't even be surprised if he saw this as a concession to Senate Republicans to make them more amenable to the stimulus bill.
They don't really get away with anything, I'd agree. The media is biased, but that doesn't mean they try to hide news from the American people, and here is hoping they aren't the ones influencing our Senators.
I just heard a Republican senator on NPR that said that it was good for the the Obama Admin that Daschle withdrew as he was turning into a major distraction.
