Why is Obama always trying to send a message with his appointees? Is he really?
Perhaps he's hiring who he believes is the best person for the job?Maybe... Just maybe... repubs merely trying to stir the pot by saying
that he's "sending a message?"
You know.... 95 percent of this I would agree is a fair assessment of Lew. What
I find discouraging is the last paragraph. The government going after the bad
actors who nearly killed off this economy nearly 5 years ago - remember - not a
single person has been charged with anything, which is amazing in light of the
cost the nation took to fix the problems these few players created - none of
this constitutes an anti business posture by the administration. Holding bad
players responsible and preventing future abuses is not anti business.But overall, I do agree with Samuelson's concern that his appointment may
do little to lesson the policed nature of Washington now days..... but then
again.... I am not sure any nominee could fix that problem.@Maverick
- any appointment or hire is sending a message.. it is sending the message that
this person represents what I think if important. Why that is controversial - I
have no idea. Sounds like more cry baby politics to me.... lets make a story
where there is none. Every Presidential appointment is intended to send a
Republicans are going to complain about every Obama appointee that isn't a
doormat for their interests. Heck, even Republican Chuck Hagel isn't
The science of over analysing everything the Presidents' every move reminds
me of the days when the Vatican signalled the selection of a new pope by sending
either black or white smoke up a chimney. Everyone had a different opinion of
what colour the smoke was, but no one knew what it meant.
Obama could appoint Jim Demint and the republicans would filibuster the
nomination and place a hold on it.
"...he is also a fierce defender of liberal goals — notably,
protecting Social Security benefits...".Defending Social
Security is a only a liberal goal?The base of the republicon party
might beg to differ...
@There You Go AgainObama uses the Social Security threat like a real pro,
even though it is not part of the debt ceiling or budget. That fund should be
safe since it is self-funded and safely within the 2000 presidential race
"lock box."Now, if they've somehow compromised it like
Illinois politicians have the public pensions ($96 BILLION unfunded) then people
need to go to jail.Now, lowering FICA contributions for two years in an
effort to give everyone a phony raise will have consequences.The real
questions about Obama's staffing are, "What happened to Bill
Daley?" and "Why was Jack Lew a better Chief of Staff?"When
you understand what went on there you will understand why Lew is Obama's
choice for Treasury.
I have no doubt this guy is a clown.
this character looks like a flaming liberal... what else is new. His eyes alone
I have no doubt that Obama could appoint the Savior himself and the repubs
wouldn't have 1 positive thing to say.It's so obvious that
the far right wants the White House back but hasn't a clue on how to do it.
Note to self: MUST oppose all BHO nominees for all offices when nominees have
I am wondering what is the effect of Obama realizing that he no longer has a
"next election" to worry about? Is this making he more willing to stand
his ground, and less (if at all) concerned about the opinion of us voters?
Is Obama a liberal ideologue the appointment of Lew is more proof? A career
liberal with little private sector experience Lew is a terrible choice for
growing our economy and creating jobs. Obama is being in your face to the
business community and the private sector. Why don"t our elected
representatives reject this nomination and force Obama to select a more moderate