If Obama wants to staff these positions with competent, law abiding people, maybe he should look to the Republicans?

Irongrampa:

That is how he got Judd Gregg in place of Bill Richardson.

It was not on what an embarrassment the multiple problem nominees is for the Obama administration.

Aw, c'mon...is 19 really all that many?

Good column on Steele, by the way. I excerpted a chunk for a post on the positive way Steele is being received by the 'younger' conservatives, the ones that were frustrated to no end by McCain's refusal to attack what he knows is wrong or fight for every state to the end and were energized by Palin's message. Steele, Palin, and Jindal - quite a trio. Get them in a room with Newt a couple of times a month and maybe the GOP can be an effective party again.

"The focus of the discussion was how hard it is to find anyone who doesn't have some type of problem or conflict since anyone experienced enough would have potential problems." CNN is just covering their man's ass as best they can. MORE LIPSTICK!!

Well folks, might I suggest that since all those with 'problems' are DEMOCRATS, maybe The Chosen One should fill those offices with REPUBLICANS.
IIRC, during their confirmation hearings, the issue of 'tax cheating' did not come up at all.
And remember, Joe Biden from Scranton said that "paying taxes is patriotic".

Irongampa

You're referring of course to the long lost list of currently incarcerated Republicans or those convicted over, say, the last 8 years? Idiot.

Greed, corruption, malfeasance and stupidity know no political boundaries or political parties. There's nothing that sounds dumber than someone trying to say one party is cleaner than the other. And mostly I'm referring to wingnuts.

Good riddance to Daschle and any other democrat who is stupid, greedy, criminal and/or doesn't pay taxes when and how they should.

jfo:

democrat[: noun - one] who is stupid, greedy, criminal and/or doesn't pay taxes when and how they should.

Corrected.

Not to say anything detracting from these good articles on the problems Obama's nominees face, it is at least gratifying that the vetting process brings these things to light. I'm certainly grateful that these "malfeasances" haven't been swept under the rug. We're finally getting some real questions asked -- may their tribe increase.

from Lorie's comment:
on how high Obama has set his standards

Not committing tax fraud is a 'high standard' for an appointee to pass ???

jfo--You might want to consider which party divests themselves of the wrongdoers before you get so righteous, moron.

allen - "it is at least gratifying that the vetting process brings these things to light. I'm certainly grateful that these "malfeasances" haven't been swept under the rug. We're finally getting some real questions asked"

Excuse me?

If your so called vetting process had worked the now disqualified people would never have been nominated.

And Daschle's nomination is the most troubling of the lot. This isn't the first tax dodge he's been embroiled in, in the last one 4 years ago he attempted to not pay $288 in Wash D.C. property taxes.

If not for the breaking of that scam he very well could have been a Senator to this day.

Let me guess JFO, you're the blithering idiot that chalked up a "negative rating" point on my factual comment?

I bet a lot of people to the right were thinking that at some point Great Leader's lack of judgment and inexperience at running anything other than a campaign or community pressure groups would eventually frustrate and annoy the left to no end as it became obvious that one cannot govern or succeed, let alone lead, on stump speeches or nebulous unobtainable hopes.

Witness the trolls on this site and elsewhere and their defensive flailings. It's only been like 2 weeks. I don't think many of us expected it happen so quickly. Aren't they supposed to be singing about lollipops and grey skies clearing up and such?

jfo--You might want to consider which party divests themselves of the wrongdoers before you get so righteous, moron.

Yeah, like David Vitter getting that big divesting standing ovation. How's his divestiture going these days? And I was really impressed seeing Ted Stevens divested out of the Republican caucus after his conviction, rather than watching that vote repeatedly put off until after the election count was in. (Following the Bob Ney model of being tolerated even while a convicted felon.) And the way Republicans divested themselves of Palin after she was found to have committed ethics violations... wow, that was head-spinning divestiture!

Anyway, you were saying something about "before you get so righteous, moron"?

Brian. What ethics violations are your talking about concerning Palin? Certainly not the fact that she fired a cop who tazered a boy are you. Or don't you think firing darts into someone under the age of 12 and then blasting them with an electric current warrents getting fired. How about threats of violence against her family. Why don't you issue a believable threat of violence against you governor just to see what transpires? You are a dolt Brian. Go put a dunce cap on and sit in a corner.

What ethics violations are your talking about concerning Palin?

Sorry, there's no point in me having a conversation with someone who is that uninformed.

Certainly not the fact that she...

Oh, wait... so you do know about the finding of the legislature, but you're just pretending to be dumb. Hmm, OK, whatever. Great debate strategy. Enjoy arguing with your mirror.

brian - "Oh, wait... so you do know about the finding of the legislature,"

Watch out! You've tripped on the third rail.

There are 20 Alaska Senators and 40 members of the State's House.

Yet you make the false claim an investigation, that garnered a 12-0 vote by the Legislative Council, as opposed to the entire Legislature, was the be all and end all of that investigation.

Palin cleared by Alaska panel in ethics probe | Reuters . ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was cleared on Monday of wrongdoing in an abuse-of-power investigation into the firing of the state's public safety commissioner. . The Alaska Personnel Board report, issued on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, ran contrary to findings from a legislative inquiry that concluded in October that Palin had abused the power of her office by pressuring subordinates to fire a state trooper involved in a feud with her family. . Palin, who is Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, brought the issue to the personnel board herself after complaining the legislative probe was a partisan effort led by Democrats. . The board, a three-member panel under Palin's authority, was responsible for determining if she had broken any laws. . The investigation concluded there was no "probable cause" that Palin violated the state's executive ethics act in dismissing Walt Monegan as public safety commissioner. . It also cleared her of ethics violations in respect to her dealings regarding Michael Wooten, the trooper involved in a contentious divorce and custody battle with the governor's sister.

Looks like you're wrong, Brian. She's cleared.

Man, I hate the blockquotes around this place...

And the way Republicans divested themselves of Palin after she was found to have committed ethics violations...

Palin wasn't found to have committed ethics violations in any legally defined way. It was just the opinion of a partisan out to damage her politically. An opinion based on an invented definition of "benefit" that had no legal basis nor precedence in any court.

I guess this is another "liberal standard" like the Barney Frank or the Michele Moore standard that can now be use to judge democrats. Thus, if Obama ever did or does use his office to benefit minorities or the education of children then he'll also be found to have committed ethics violations.

I'll call this one the "Palin ethics standard". If a democrat uses their office to benefit them personally, even if it's only incidental to their race, gender, or members of their family, then it's an ethics violation even though there's no financial gain nor avoidance of financial loss.

Thanks Brian, I'm getting quite a list of liberal standards to use in judging democrats. Keep them coming.

Should be Michael Moore

"from Lorie's comment:
on how high Obama has set his standards"

Just to be clear, I was writing about what John King was saying. It was a lame attempt by King to excuse all the tax cheats Obama has nominated.

Yet you make the false claim an investigation, that garnered a 12-0 vote by the Legislative Council, as opposed to the entire Legislature, was the be all and end all of that investigation.

I misspoke, but it was hardly a "false claim". The legislative council is part of the legislature. I didn't say the "entire legislature". Besides, as you you like to claim when you misspeak, it's just semantics; the end result is the same.

("The third rail"? Get over yourself.)

JLawson - Thanks for the additional debunking of brian's crapsicle.

At the time I was pressed for time and couldn't chase down the final resolution of that witch hunt of all Witch Hunts.

Looks like you're wrong, Brian. She's cleared.

LOL! OK, we'll have Daschle get his staff together and issue a finding clearing him.

You funny. And you forget that a judge said the legislative council had legitimate authority.

brian - You "misspoke," yet you didn't make a false claim?

Yeah, gotcha in that.

Anyway, it's telling that you guys went right to the fake claims of Palin being cleared, leaving the rest of my point unchallenged. About what I expected.

Mac Lorry - "Should be Michael Moore"

Nah, you were correct the first time.

brian - You "misspoke," yet you didn't make a false claim?

Yes, I said "legislature" instead of "legislative council". Jesus, is that really the basis of your argument, Mr. Presidential-Succession-Is-In-The-Constitution?

Asshat.

brian - "Anyway, it's telling that you guys went right to the fake claims of Palin being cleared, leaving the rest of my point unchallenged. About what I expected."

Talk about expectations?

Your "point" was challenged, that you fail to see any difference between a 12 member panel of partisan's convened by a hyper-partisans and the number of actual members of the Alaskan Congress isn't a bit surprising.

It's also not surprising you would fail to acknowledge the findings of the Alaska Personnel Board that came AFTER what you purport to be the final arbiter of the case.

Palin wasn't found to have committed ethics violations in any legally defined way.

Hmm, except where they were legally defined. Too easy.

It was just the opinion of a partisan out to damage her politically. An opinion based on an invented definition of "benefit" that had no legal basis nor precedence in any court.

Sorry, if you're referring to the Personnel Board, I think you meant to say "save" instead of "damage".

I guess this is another "liberal standard"

I'm pleased to hear you call following the law a "liberal standard".

Thus, if Obama ever did or does use his office to benefit minorities or the education of children then he'll also be found to have committed ethics violations.

Do you really equate benefiting "minorities or children" with benefiting Malia and Sasha and no one else?

If a democrat uses their office to benefit them personally, even if it's only incidental to their race, gender, or members of their family

"Incidental"? I do not think it means what you think it means. Taking action to have your family member fired is not "incidental" to that family member.

then it's an ethics violation even though there's no financial gain nor avoidance of financial loss.

Ah, I see the problem. You think ethics involve only finances. Can't say I'm surprised.

A public officer may not ... attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest

Funny how this derailed from Daschle...

Is this seen as a Democrat only club or can Republicans join? Lest none forget Tom Delay, the first congressional leader ever to be indicted on criminal charges!

I don't condone any crime be they left or right, these people have been found out. But they've been found out right at the start, not five years down the line when the massive damage has already been done. Jack Abramoff, anyone?

But lets not forget that Obama has already picked two Republicans for his cabinate, Judd Gregg and Ray LaHood. He also picked an independent in, Robert Gates. Already Obama has doubled the amount of cross aisle picks that Dubya made. I still remember in 2001 how Dubya made the same pledge of bipartisanship that Obama has. Seems Obama really meant it.

Look, over there! Something shiny!

that you fail to see any difference

Jesus, Marc, grow up a little, will you? I said I got it wrong, OK? Legislative council, not legislature. Big fucking deal. It wasn't the legislature, it was a council of the legislature. Ooooh, what an insightful comment coming from someone who (using your words) "fails to see any different between the Constitution and laws". You're really making a fool out of yourself, were anyone else paying attention to you.

It's also not surprising you would fail to acknowledge the findings of the Alaska Personnel Board

I don't fail to acknowledge them. I chuckle at them.

that came AFTER what you purport to be the final arbiter of the case.

I did? Where did I say that? You're just a big asshat liar, that's what you are. Run along, little boy.

Funny how this derailed from Daschle...

Indeed. I mention Palin in a passing comment, and the right-wing crazies come out.

Ha ha ha ha.... Daschel dashes out the door before He can screw America some more and the libtardos on here cant stand it.

Such an ethical administration. The same corrupt scoundrels Obama has been surrounded by since He was a street hustler in the big wind.

brian - "Jesus, Marc, grow up a little, will you? I said I got it wrong, OK? Legislative council, not legislature."

Would you care to revisit the threads during the controversy where you made the same "mistake?"

First of all, Palin, your entries are never taken seriously because frankly, you don't make sense and your comments are false.

Brian, why don't you provide us a list of republicans who got in legal trouble but are still serving in the congress and democrats who do the same. Start with Ted Kennedy and work forward.

Oh yeah! How about all the citizens in Kentucky who died while Obama was having a Superbowl Party. He should be charges for gross negligience. ww

It couldn't be written.

Hope and change had the longevity of a fruit fly.

Hey Brian, stick around. The Chosen One is only in his 2nd week. Remember George Bush? Well ever stutter, every oooops, every gotcha is coming your way FOR FOUR YEARS pal. Enjoy!

"How about all the citizens in Kentucky who died while Obama was having a Superbowl party?"

He dont care bout dem Rednecks ww cause they all pay their taxes.

Oh yeah! How about all the citizens in Kentucky who died while Obama was having a Superbowl Party. He should be charges for gross negligience.

C'mon, that's not fair. That should've all been handled by the local government, not at the fed level.

C'mon, that's not fair. That should've all been handled by the local government, not at the fed level.

You know. Like Katrina.

I have to say...these guys are really impressive. I don't know that I'd be so clever in finding ways to make Obama look good in spite of all his failures. Obama could eat a baby and they'd still find a way to portray him as a hero.
http://www.rightklik.net/

"LOL! OK, we'll have Daschle get his staff together and issue a finding clearing him."

Good point. It would be a lot like what they did with the new Treasury Secretary. A Dem Senate got together and confirmed him, thereby saying what he did was acceptable enough to allow him to hold the position. (And yes, I know Republicans helped him pass)

You can get a group of partisans to clear or condemn a politician for just about anything. What is most important is what the facts are, rather than what the partisans thought of them.

Dems were ready to confirm Daschle in spite of his tax problem. Dems were ready to condemn Palin for doing something I would defend without reservation. Look at the facts -- at what they did. Palin failed to "reign in" her husband when he tried to get a trooper who had tasered a kid and threatened to kill the governor's father taken off the streets. I actually think Palin and her husband should have done more to get the guy taken off the job considering he had a gun and a badge and was threatening a citizen of the state with bodily harm. I don't know if that is ethical or not or legal or not, but those are the facts and that is what I think about them.

Same goes for Daschle. That he most likely would have had the votes to be confirmed in spite of the tax situation, as many Dems have claimed, doesn't change what he did and doesn't make it right or wrong.

I don't know if that is ethical or not or legal or not, but those are the facts and that is what I think about them.

So forget about ethics and the law, let's just rule the country the way Lorie feels at the time.

You don't get a pass at breaking the law because what you did was sympathetic. I'm really surprised I have to remind a conservative of that. But perhaps you're just a Republican.

Hmm, except where they were legally defined. Too easy.

Hmm, nothing in there that applies to what Palin did. Too easy.

Sorry, if you're referring to the Personnel Board, I think you meant to say "save" instead of "damage".

Check your own link. Alaska law empowers the Personnel Board to make such determinations. No judge or legislative committee can override the lawful authority of the Personnel Board. In their finding they found that Branchflower's findings "that Governor Palin abused her power had no legal basis and that Governor Palin did not violate the Ethics Act." Until Alaska changes it's laws it's the Personnel Board's findings that have the force of law.

Do you really equate benefiting "minorities or children" with benefiting Malia and Sasha and no one else?

Not in the real world, but those who accept Branchflower's findings about Palin must accept such non-financial benefits as being an ethics violation. That's why it's a "liberal standard" rather than a vaild standard.

Taking action to have your family member fired is not "incidental" to that family member.

You should read the links you provide. It's not an ethics violation for the Governor to exercise all the rights an ordinary citizen has, which include reporting alleged crimes committed by a family member, or filing a complaint against a government employee. The evidence and testimony shows only that level of involvement on the part of the Governor herself concerning her sister's X.

Ah, I see the problem. You think ethics involve only finances. Can't say I'm surprised.

And I see you didn't read the complete details the link you provided. Can't say I'm surprised.

LOL, yeah Daschle is the criminal, what Palin did was OK. *eyeroll*

Thank God she was never allowed anywhere near the White House, that's a nightmare to scary to contemplate.

Hmm, nothing in there that applies to what Palin did.

Bullsh-t. "A public officer may not ... attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest". Crystal clear.

Until Alaska changes it's laws it's the Personnel Board's findings that have the force of law.

More bullsh-t. A judge found that the legislative council had legitimate authority.

those who accept Branchflower's findings about Palin must accept such non-financial benefits as being an ethics violation.

Agreed. If Obama issues an executive order benefiting his children and no one else, I'll join you in classifying that as an ethically fishy. I have no problem with you classifying that as a "liberal standard".

It's not an ethics violation for the Governor to exercise all the rights an ordinary citizen has

Really? I have the right to fire police chiefs when they don't fire state troopers I don't like? Wow, who knew?

And I see you didn't read the complete details the link you provided. Can't say I'm surprised.

And I see you just make up bullsh-t when the facts don't support you. Can't say I'm surprised.

Well, as usual the left is still fighting the past while ignoring the present. Dashle is a tax cheat and a criminal that should be fined, penalized and/or incarcerated but the left wants to know about Sarah Palin wanting her ex brother in law looked at for stalking and threatening family members. Okay. Yeah. That's equal. Do you lefties even know how pathetic you look? I doubt it. Why not say Dashle is a tax cheat and a criminal and be done with it. Wow! Such hatred. ww

Thankful Palin didn't get into the WH? At least she would not have been doing this:

According to GeostrategyDirect.com, a newsletter published by The Washington Times' ace national security reporter Bill Gertz, "Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from al Qaeda in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. 'For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,' a diplomatic source said. 'Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.' "

For the record I really hope this report is not accurate. I would never have dreamed even Obama would be willing to negotiate with al Qaeda. This back and forth over Palin, who is in Alaska for goodness sakes, and over tax irregularities of Tom Daschle is trivial. What Obama is saying to Syria, Iran and al Freaking Qaeda is very important, and frankly scary as hell. The pork spending bill that Obama is trying to saddle our great, great grandkids with is very important. The tax stuff points out the inexperience, and hypocrisy, of the Obama team, but it is not terribly important compared to all the other stuff we are facing.

[UPDATE to comment: I just talked to a couple of bloggers with some good contacts who think the al Qaeda contact story is bunk, but say there are some talks with others that we will be hearing more about soon.]

Bullsh-t. "A public officer may not ... attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest". Crystal clear.

Read the numerous exceptions that follow the part you like so much. You'll see that what Palin actually did is covered by at least two of them.

More bullsh-t. A judge found that the legislative council had legitimate authority.

The judge only found that the subpoenas from the legislative council were valid under the provisions that allow the legislature to investigate virtually anything. A legislative council could investigate a burglary and issue a report as to who did it, but that report would have no legal weight because only the judiciary has that power. Under state law the Personnel Board's findings have the force of law the legislative council has never disputed that.

Sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is unless you are trying to create another "liberal standard" to use against democrats.

Agreed. If Obama issues an executive order benefiting his children and no one else, I'll join you in classifying that as an ethically fishy. I have no problem with you classifying that as a "liberal standard".

Sorry, you can't add the caveat about only "benefiting his children and no one else".

Really? I have the right to fire police chiefs when they don't fire state troopers I don't like? Wow, who knew?

Palin never fired Wooten. Try to get your facts straight. If you know a police chief is protecting some trooper who is committing crimes, then yes, you can report that and it might get him fired. If the police chief works for you and you complain about a trooper committing crimes it doesn't make the police chief immune from being reassigned when they are insubordinate on budget matters. Wooten only came up with the story of being fired for protecting the trooper after he resigned and after some of Palin's opponents suggested it to him.

And I see you just make up bullsh-t when the facts don't support you. Can't say I'm surprised.

You are the one making up facts and also the one who doesn't read the links they provide. Not at all surprising.

Dang, I lost track of who's who in the Palin saga. It should be...

Palin never fired Monegan. Try to get your facts straight. If you know a police chief is protecting some trooper who is committing crimes, then yes, you can report that and it might get him fired. If the police chief works for you and you complain about a trooper committing crimes it doesn't make the police chief immune from being reassigned when they are insubordinate on budget matters. Monegan only came up with the story of being fired for protecting the trooper after he resigned and after some of Palin's opponents suggested it to him.

"So forget about ethics and the law, let's just rule the country the way Lorie feels at the time."~ Brian

"Alaska law empowers the Personnel Board to make such determinations."~ Mac Lorry

Mac is absolutely right. It's in Alaska's constitution. Just how much more lawful can you get than that? Unless convening a panel headed up by an overt partisan Democrat with his own ethical issues is what constitutes "law" for Brian....

"Really? I have the right to fire police chiefs when they don't fire state troopers I don't like? Wow, who knew?"

No police chief got fired. Wooten did not get fired. As a matter of fact, even Monahan didn't get fired. He resigned.

Lorie Byrd, taking what bloggers say at face value is not a good way to find out facts. It's good that you were skeptical of this story.

Palin recently whined about bloggers talking about her and her family. Most bloggers just post opinions, they quote other opinion pieces as if they're facts.

I love partisan politics, if Palin had been Democrat *shudder* she would have been ripped apart for abusing her power, and previously skirting around ethics laws in 07. But because she's GOP she's clean.

As i said i won't excuse Daschle, i may be partisan but i'm not so far left i will excuse criminals. But this is not exclusively Dem, you know the old saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

I love partisan politics, if Palin had been Democrat *shudder* she would have been ripped apart for abusing her power, and previously skirting around ethics laws in 07. But because she's GOP she's clean.

There's a saying for people that believe this sort of thing...something along the lines of 'dumb as a bucket of, um...let's say slop'.

Palin, I just cannot believe you. You are so partisan that, let's say, a president rapes or sexually assaults a woman who campaigns for you. Would you: a> Ask for the president to apologize? b> Ask the president to resign? c> Bring criminal charges against the president? d> Attack the victim viciously to protect your president? You chose d. Way to go. ww

Mac is absolutely right. It's in Alaska's constitution. Just how much more lawful can you get than that? Unless convening a panel headed up by an overt partisan Democrat with his own ethical issues is what constitutes "law" for Brian....

Oyster, it's a good thing this happened in Alaska. In California, the anti Prop 8 folks are trying to get an amendment to the state constitution ruled unconstitutional.

Brian:
LOL! OK, we'll have Daschle get his staff together and issue a finding clearing him.

You mean like Chris Dodd (D-Con)?