How much vetting can there possibly be required to work for Geithner?

So Obama's considering appointees and then dropping them during vetting, which he has promised to be very strict. Is there a story here? Would you rather he approve them anyway? Add another layer of bureaucracy and pre-vet them?

I thought the Office of the President-Elect, that had that nifty seal on the podium, had a Department of Vetting that was tasked with handling all these appointments.

Bush was the fighter pilot, but Obama needs only one more to become an "ace."

a candidiate for best comment of the week.
LMAO!

Seems to me as if the vetting process is working out as it should, as implied by Trizzlor. After all, that IS the purpose of vetting.

Though you do make some valid points occasionally concerning President Obama, your seething hatred for him is quite evident to most people who are capable of critical thinking. Thankfully, most Americans aren't buying what you and people like Rushbo are offering for sale.

Is Obama perfect? Of course not. No one is. But, he's a far sight better for our country than what this country endured for the prior eight years. Thank God!

"Seething hatred," Dude?

Maybe it comes from 20 years of going to a racial separatist church, or finding my radical roots in the arms of domestic terrorists, or having a morose Yeti of a wife who can't see anything but another reason to pity herself in every opportunity, despite the charmed life she's led.

Oh, wait. That's someone else's reasons to hate.

Me?

I think he's dangerous, incompetent, and I'd be amazed if he doesn't set this nation back decades on a number of fronts. I think he'll probably get a lot of people killed unnecessarily. But I'm a optimistic pragmatist, and I see opportunity for redemption here.

Barack Obama is a pure vision of what liberals have tried to breed for a half-century, as close to being the living embodiment of everything liberalism stands for as any human being possibly could be.

And when this near-perfect liberal President, backed by both a very liberal House Speaker and liberal Senate Majority leader, do exactly what they want to do to this nation with almost no one to stand in their way, America will get an excellent, in-the-trenches view of what the "-isms" really hide.

This perfect storm is going to hurt America and hurt it badly, I'm afraid, but I have every confident that once this storm has blown itself out and big government liberals (both Democrat and Republican) have destroyed their credibility for a decade or three, then perhaps Americans will emerge from the wreckage of the Obama Presidency and remember the kind of country we once were and could be again, instead of the bloated welfare state we've been foundering toward since long before my birth.

He is my hope. He will bring about the changes I believe in.

Hate him?

I'm counting on him.

Re: Dude

The Executive Branch vetting process should be completed before the candidate appointee's name is made public. Much of it should be done before the candidate appointee even knows he is being considered, followed by a detailed probing once a very conditional offer is made.

The fact that these things are coming out after the name is public argues that either the investigators are incompetent, or their political masters view various disqualifications [especially tax evasion by someone being appointed to an administration dedicated to taxing the hell out of us] as being far more acceptable than the public does. In fact, given that it is the administration that makes the names public; they must literally believe that tax evasion and bribery in office are the norm. Maybe for Democrats, they are.

Subotai Bahadur

During WWII a group of pilots called the AVG volunteered to fight for China against the Japanese. One of the pilots was a former transport pilot, during his transition to fighters, he wrecked 5 P-40 Tomahawks. The group painted five US flags on his plane and nicknamed him the "Japanese Ace". That's Obama, a neophyte that has wrecked his own side five times, he is the new "Hawaiian Ace."

I'm counting on him, too. At least you and I have that in common, even if it is for different reasons.

Change is the only constant. I don't know what our country will be like in 4 years, 8 years, several decades down the road. I do know this. It won't be what it is now nor will it be, as you put it, what it once was, whatever that was in your mind.

When we look back we often see only the good things of the past and tend to forget what was wrong in the past. We are where we are now because of where we've been in the past. We're still learning. We're still a young nation as nations go. I have confidence in the can do spirit of the American People. We will come through these difficult times and be a better nation for it. That's my hope.

I'll add that I also share your concern in regards to the bloated welfare state. However, I would imagine that my concerns are somewhat different than yours. I'll give you an example.

I read today that in the new stimulus package will likely provide jobs for 300,000 people who are either illegal immigrants or legal immigrants that don't yet have the legal right to work here. These figures are based on studies by two conservative think tanks. One was the Heritage Foundation and I forget the other one. No one disputes their projections, liberals or conservatives. Congress had written into their version of the stimulus package that all employers using government stimulus funds must use the e-verify system to verify the legal immigrant status of all employees. That requirement was removed in the senate version of the bill.

Guess who lobbied the hardest to get that requirement removed from the stimulus package? You guessed it! Those bastions of free enterprise and unfettered free market capitalism, none other than the US Chamber of Commerce and the US Home Builders Association. They said that it would be too expensive, too much of a hassle and possibly leave businesses vulnerable to law suits. Anyone with a lick of common sense understands the real reason they don't want to comply with that rule.

Yes sir, I too am concerned about the bloated welfare state. I'm concerned that we have spawned generations of people who are too sorry to work for a living AND generations of a wealthy corporate mindset that preaches one thing and does another. The latter is no more on higher moral ground than the former. They just wear different clothes.

Regardless of which political party is in power, and that is an ebb and flow over time, the Federal Government will only continue to grow larger as our population grows, if the past 100 years of our history is any indication of future trends. The question is what path we shall take. Time will tell.

Dude

dude
The One has only filled 70 of 1200 appointments. he has serious internal issues that haven't even surfaced yet. wake up. sheeesh.

Yes, I know, Kate. Part of the "problem" is that he's keeping his campaign promise in regards to not hiring people who have recently worked as lobbyists lobbying the departments of the government in which they would now be working. It is a problem.

On the other hand, it's a temporary problem that I can live with. In fact, I find it refreshing. Nice to see that the same old same old isn't going to be the norm. I hope President Obama's team can find some qualified fresh, new blood to work in our government. Surely, there are plenty of qualified Americans who aren't part of the "system".

It's change we can believe in! It won't happen overnight. Think of it as growing pains as we mature into the nation that we can and will become.

It's tough being nearly the only liberal that regularly visits this forum. That's OK. I'm trying to do my part to help ya'll understand. Besides that, it's no fun for you if you're only preaching to the choir!

Best Regards to All,

Dude

Dude --

He most definitely IS NOT keeping his promise against hiring lobbyists, in fact...

Oh wait -- must NOT engage with trolls, MUST NOT ENGAGE WITH TROLLS!

"At this point, I think our young President's vetting team should resign and consider a career in porn."

Huh! WTH???

"After all, they've already seen more messy withdrawals than Jenna Jameson."

Oh -- Bwahahahahaha! ROTFLOL.

I would trust Jenna MUCH more with economic policy. At least if she screws-you-over you'll enjoy the process. Although much like Obama's economic screw-job, Jenna might leave you with a lingering illness.

I don't think they could handle a career in porn. I would suggest slapstick, they do have a comedic genius.

Guess who lobbied the hardest to get that requirement removed from the stimulus package? You guessed it! Those bastions of free enterprise and unfettered free market capitalism, none other than the US Chamber of Commerce and the US Home Builders Association.

Dude, that provision was not removed in the Senate version. It was removed in the conference committee, the body responsible for for reconciling the House and Senate versions, a body made up entirely of Democrats and from which Republicans were intentionally excluded.

You'd like to blame the elimination of e-verify on the Chamber of Commerce and the home builders. Why? Who did they lobby so hard that the provision was removed? How did you draw that conclusion? Please show your work.

Pablo,

Yes, you are correct. The E- Verify provision was removed in a Senate conference committee.

I didn't draw any conclussions about who lobbied hardest against it. It's a fact. Check it out for yourself:

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2009/january/090128_verify.htm

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2009/january/090109_everify.htm

http://www.cis.org/node/1087

http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2008/12/23-SHRM-Chamber-Join-Suit-Against-EVerify-Changes.aspx

http://www.homeland1.com/Security-Technology/articles/445465-Chamber-sues-DHS-over-legality-of-E-Verify-system

Now, you can draw your own conclusions as to WHY the US Chamber of Commerce is so against this rule. To me, it's simple. It's not brain surgery nor rocket science.

Dude

I can see quite clearly why the CoC is against it. But that's wholly irrelevant barring some evidence that they swayed the Congressional leadership. What matters is why a highly effective, user friendly tool to ensure employer compliance with the law was removed from the stimulus bill.

We know who did it, in broad terms: Congressional Democrats. The question is why?