Hope and Change Obama Style

[alexamenos]

I'll take a stab at this, KG....

link--> Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion

The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.

New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. include $1 trillion for the Public-Private Investment Program, designed to help investors buy distressed loans and other assets from U.S. banks. The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.

Financial "Rescue"??? I don't know about the rest of you, but forking $42k over to Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke's buddies doesn't feel like I'm being rescued, it feels like I'm being raped.

...the fed gov is taking a year's worth of labor and handing it over to their banker buddies. The federal government is basically guaranteeing that we will all receive the sad effects of going a year without working (ie, debt and lower quality of life), only without the happy benefits of unemployment (ie, sitting around in underwear and playing on the ps3 all day).

The absurdity of all this is the idea that the government is doing this for our own good. I think the folks who are still clinging to the idea that the federal government is doing them a big favor are just incredibly foolish. KG was exactly right -- one must be incredibly naive to think the fed gov is saving them from some looming economic calamity by foisting an economic calamity upon them.

In fact, the economic calamity that may have been felt by many wall street bankers is being transferrred from them to you -- you are being sacrificed that they may be rsecued. This is what they mean by 'financial rescue'.

So ...

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Okay, I confess to being incredibly naive. Tell me what I should recognize?

What you should recognize is that you're being raped.

[dude1394]

I wasn't sure if this belonged in this thread or the Buyers' Remorse thread...But the savings are so HUMONGOUS...that they will probably spread over into that thread by themselves.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SPIN-M...6290.html?.v=1

SPIN METER: Saving federal money the easy way
SPIN METER: Obama's latest budget-tightening effort hardly makes a dime's worth of difference

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital's attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

The president gave his Cabinet 90 days to find $100 million in savings to achieve over time.

For all the trumpeting, the effort raised questions about why Obama set the bar so low, considering that $100 million amounts to:

--Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.

--4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.

--Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.

--7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.

--1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77063/
UPDATE: Obama’s proposed spending cuts illustrated. Looks like one of those comparisons of the Earth to the Sun. . . .[/quote]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/20/...s-in-pictures/

[dude1394]

Hope and Change...Chicago Style!!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/413hhpmq.asp

Admiral Dennis Blair, the top intelligence official in the United States, thanks to his nomination by Barack Obama, believes that the coercive interrogation methods outlawed by his boss produced "high-value information" and gave the U.S. government a "deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." He included those assessments in a letter distributed inside the intelligence community last Thursday, the same day Obama declassified and released portions of Justice Department memos setting out guidelines for those interrogations.
That letter from Blair served as the basis for a public statement that his office put out that same day. But the DNI's conclusions about the results of coercive interrogations--in effect, that they worked--were taken out of Blair's public statement. A spokesman for the DNI told the New York Times that the missing material was cut for reasons of space, though the statement would be posted on DNI's website, where space doesn't seem to be an issue.
Curious.
There's more. Blair's public statement differed from his letter to colleagues in another way. The letter included this language: "From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques." Blair's public statement made no mention of the permission granted by "members of Congress"--permission that came from members of Obama's own party.
Odd.
And then there are the memos themselves. Sections of the memos that describe the
techniques have been declassified and released. But other sections of those same memos--the parts that describe, in some detail, the value of the program--have been redacted and remain hidden from public view. Marc Thiessen, a speechwriter for George W. Bush, had access to the full memos and read them to prepare a speech for Bush in 2006. When Thiessen looked at the redacted version released by the White House last week, he noticed something strange.
He writes: "But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved."

[alexamenos]

things are really different this time 'round.

check out the federal receipts lately vs. federal receipts a year ago table in the above link.

fwiw....when the CBO (congressional budget office, whatever there TLA may be) projected trillions of future surpluses back in '02 they were being wildly optimistic. Now as the CBO projects several trillions in deficits over the next few years, I think they're being wildly optimistic still.

This s___ is going to get ugly, like banana republic government kind of ugly. I think a lot of people are slow to recognize the writing on the wall, but things are different.

[dude1394]

WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

[dude1394]

Michael Ramirez offers a diagnosis; click to enlarge:

[12 Tone Melodies]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/De...aspx?id=510936
NPR axes Christian radio programs
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 4/30/2009 8:30:00 AM
A shocking decision has been handed down by the National Public Radio board.

In 1985, National Public Radio (NPR) adopted a policy stating that member stations had to provide "nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial" educational programming. But in February 2009, the wording was changed to say: "NPR Member Stations shall provide ONLY [emphasis added] nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial educational content on all broadcast channel(s) and related media distribution platforms such as member partners that use the NPR member brands."

The rule, which takes effect May 1, means that any NPR stations carrying religious programming must cease and desist that programming as of that date. In explaining its decision in a similar matter, PBS -- another federally funded media outlet -- says it "places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view." Allowing such programming, it continues, "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand."



David McNabb is the host of "Christian Corner" on KJZA (in Williams, Arizona), which is a partner station with KJZZ in Phoenix. His and several other religious programs featured on the NPR member station will be axed effective tomorrow.

"The change is labeling any Christian content as sectarian and, therefore, not to be used on NPR," he explains. "As part of their mission statement, one of the things that they are not is they are not sectarian. But up until now they haven't defined sectarian as having religious content...and so that's the change."

McNabb's program had a half-hour weekend slot and was bringing in $300 per month in revenue. The other religious programming was bringing in revenue as well and actually out-performing other weekend "nonsectarian programming."

The change in NPR policy affects all NPR affiliates in the United States.

[left texas]

hiahb

[dude1394]

Figures....The only religion that NPR is interested in is liberal religion anyway..

Hey who's going to be the first person on the board to purchase a new UABAMA car? That outta be one fine running clunker.

[dude1394]

The new Obama Car...Step right up!!

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/SAMS/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-10.jpg[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/SAMS/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-11.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050103395.html

Which brings us to another disturbing aspect of the government's dealings: its unabashed and unwise attempts to tilt the scales in the unions' favor. The government proposed giving the United Auto Workers' retiree health fund a 55 percent equity stake in Chrysler -- more than the combined stakes of Chrysler's merger partner, Fiat, or the other creditors that are owed roughly $7 billion. At GM, the plan is for the union to take a 39 percent slice -- a rich reward for years of work rules, health care and pension deals that contributed mightily to the company's financial woes.
Obama has said he hopes to get out of the car business soon, and he has urged private investors to replace the government as the source of ongoing funds. But no executive in her right mind would take that gamble when it is clear that, in dealing with the government, private capital will always take a back seat to politically powerful entities. Bankruptcy -- which everyone has dreaded until now -- may prove an unlikely balm. Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 last week, and GM may be facing a similar fate. At least in this arena, long-established rules, and not political favoritism, will play a pivotal role in deciding who gets what. It will also bring some business discipline to decisions that will shape the companies -- and, I hope, enable them to pay back every red cent I'm owed.

[92bDad]

Funny to see NPR promoting 'Diverse' programming...yet they are censoring so-called "Christian" programming.

I suppose Diversity and Tolerance all depends on ones point of view. Truly sad, watching the left destroy the foundation of this nation...but then, has that ever changed...now they are simply drunk with power.

[dude1394]

More Hope and Change...Barry Style!!

D.C. Families Fight for School Choice [Dan Lips]

This afternoon, more than 1,000 students, parents, and concerned citizens gathered across from city hall to rally in support of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. A number of prominent D.C. leaders spoke, including former mayor Anthony Williams and former councilmember Kevin Chavous. But the most moving speeches were from the parents and students participating in the scholarship program. High-school student Carlos Battle spoke about how he was personally working to redefine the image of the black teen in Washington, D.C. — and how the Opportunity Scholarship program was giving him a chance to fulfill his dream. A father of a scholarship student pointed out the hypocrisy of Congress bailing out failing corporations but taking scholarships away from D.C. students.

Look at all of these right-wing Neanderthals!



http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...c3Mzc0NWE1NjM=

The rally was held on Pennsylvania Avenue across the street from the D.C. City Council

[Mavdog]

guess you failed to read that obama has pushed to continue funding the current dc opportunity scholarships...but hey! don't let the facts get in the way.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

guess you failed to read that obama has pushed to continue funding the current dc opportunity scholarships...but hey! don't let the facts get in the way.

No I read it and think it's typical of his "compassion". He'll try to keep the folks who are protesting about it to quit bitching and embarrassing him by giving them the money....but he'll condemn the kids who want to follow in their footsteps to the sweet tender mercies of the NEA and their cesspool of a school system by canceling the program. Hmmm...so the program is really working for these kids...but the rest....

f'em..

Yea...hope and change..you quit bitching about me.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No I read it and think it's typical of his "compassion". He'll try to keep the folks who are protesting about it to quit bitching and embarrassing him by giving them the money....but he'll condemn the kids who want to follow in their footsteps to the sweet tender mercies of the NEA and their cesspool of a school system by canceling the program. Hmmm...so the program is really working for these kids...but the rest....

f'em..

Yea...hope and change..you quit bitching about me.

the assertion that "the program is working for these kids" is a ruse.

the kids are what's "working", the program has little to do with it.

put kids who have the will to work into any school and they the results will be constant...kids who strive to learn will learn, kids that don't won't.

instead of spending money to take these students who have the desire to learn out of the washington schools and give the money and kids to private businesses (schools), let's spend the money and time towards fixing the schools that are already there.

as for the barbs at obama, not surprised. he keeps the funding for the students and that's not enough for his detractors. I'm confident that if he kept the program enrolling new students. those same voices would criticize him for not doing more.

the detractors you see are just never going to bring themselves to abandon their negativity.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the assertion that "the program is working for these kids" is a ruse.

You should be a spokesman for the NEA.

the kids are what's "working", the program has little to do with it.

Prove it.

but kids who have the will to work into any school and they the results will be constant...kids who strive to learn will learn, kids that don't won't.

So either school system will work, right? Since it has no effect. Bosh

instead of spending money to take these students who have the desire to learn out of the washington schools and give the money and kids to private businesses (schools), let's spend the money and time towards fixing the schools that are already there.

Yea like all of the other urban school systems work, right? The head is still in the sand here.

as for the barbs at obama, not surprised. he keeps the funding for the students and that's not enough for his detractors. I'm confident that if he kept the program enrolling new students. those same voices would criticize him for not doing more.

I have a problem with his philosophies, his (and the liberals) willingness to preseve the NEA versus allowing children to have a decent education is disgusting.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You should be a spokesman for the NEA.

you know, the teachers in these private schools can very well be nea members, too.

Prove it.

studies show this to be true. there are excellent students in private as well as public schools. the difference is the private schools can cast off underacheivers, public schools cannot. the low performance students hurt the overall scores of the public schools.

So either school system will work, right? Since it has no effect. Bosh

your blinders show in that statement. either school system CAN work.

bosh did come out of public school btw...lincoln high here in dallas.

Yea like all of the other urban school systems work, right? The head is still in the sand here.

yes, some schools in urban school systems do work, even the much maligned disd has some, and the key is to make the rest of the schools in these districts successful too.

I have a problem with his philosophies, his (and the liberals) willingness to preseve the NEA versus allowing children to have a decent education is disgusting.

the members of nea preserve the nea, not anyone else. what, you want to forbid/outlaw a teachers union?

your belief that these teachers in public schools don't want the kids to be successful, for the schools to be successful, is very revealing, and really quite disrespectful to an entire profession.

[92bDad]

Saddly this issue regarding schools and free choice is not about the student, at least not for the left.

No doubt that teachers in general want the students to excel at learning.

The issue is about administrators and others who are running the schools as a business. They are blinded by money, and their job is to get more butts in seats in order to secure tax dollars.

Having to compete with schools that are successful has been too much, so rather than work to improve the 'Public' school system, certain entities have pushed to have the rules changed and exclude these successful schools.

As for your precious Obama...he is well known to say whatever people want to hear, and leave the dirty work to other (Congress, etc...)

How anyone can argue that School Choice is a bad program simply baffles me. Do liberals believe in giving all children complete opportunity, or do they believe that they know whats best and that children should be controlled?

[dude1394]

What I don't want is Barry making policy because of this... Which is what he is doing. Kowtowing to the UAW, kowtowing to the NEA. Both have destroyed their product.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050603852.html

The proposal, to be released in budget documents today, is an attempt to navigate a middle way on a contentious issue. School choice advocates, including Republicans and many low-income families, say the program gives poor children better access to quality education. Teachers unions and other education groups active in the Democratic Party regard vouchers as a drain on public education that benefits relatively few students, and they say the students don't achieve at appreciably higher levels at their new schools.

[dude1394]

Liberals at their heart are socialists, as such they are joined at the hip with unions.

[Mavdog]

actually, unions were formed to head off the workers possible turn to socialism.

[dude1394]

I won't raise taxes...I'll raise money by cap and ..errr....taxes on energy.
http://www.industryweek.com/articles...00.aspx?Page=1

'Cap and Trade' to Hurt America in the Wallet Says U.S. Agency

A 15% reduction in carbon emissions would cost the average U.S. household roughly $1,600.

,,,,


....The non-partisan CBO, which provides federal economic and budgetary analysis to Congress, estimated that a 15% reduction in carbon emissions would cost the average U.S. household roughly $1,600.

[Mavdog]

I wonder how much it would cost the average US household if the earth's temperture increases to the point of having farms realize dramatic drops in thri ability to grow foods due to less water, and the inabilty of animals to reproduce at their current rate due to loss of their young, or the decrease in worker productivity due to worker's increased health issues due to foul air.....

one interesting statement in the article linked:

Nevertheless, the CBO director said, "policymakers can significantly affect the distribution of costs associated with a cap-and-trade program, depending on how they decide to distribute the value of the allowance."

iow, our conclusions on the costs to each household are not accurate if the assumptions change.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I wonder how much it would cost the average US household if

Or not. When the climate models accurately predict anything that makes sense..then let's talk.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Or not. When the climate models accurately predict anything that makes sense..then let's talk.

the problem of course is by the time the predictions are found to be accurate or inaccurate, we're already there.

we shouldn't be an ostrich and stick our heads in the ground and pretend there is not a problem with the increased temperature of our atmosphere.

the avg temperature is rising. that's a fact, and more carbons in the atmosphere only increases that rise. whether the cause of the rise or not, less carbon is a good thing.

[dude1394]

I'm starting to get it..it's the 10 year timeframe that keeps tripping 'em up..(10 years to get oil from Anwar, 10 years to get a hydrogen vehicle..the horizon is too far out for democrats..)..

More change from Barry... Oh don't pay attention to what we said a couple of weeks ago...

Lessee....7 billion for UAW(now counting what GM will get) ....41.9million for basic research into hydrogen fuel-cells.... Now how many fuel-cells vote.... Easy equation.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05...in-new-budget/

The message has been hinted at before, but the federal government is now serious about shifting the focus away from hydrogen and onto plug-in vehicles. In an important statement yesterday, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that hydrogen vehicles are still 10 to 20 years away from practicality and that millions in federal government funding for hydrogen programs will be cut from the 2010 federal budget. Chu said, "We asked ourselves, 'Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?' The answer, we felt, was 'no'" (well, duh).

Did we mention this is a big reversal? Just a few weeks ago, Chu announced $41.9 million for hydrogen projects. A major switch, but not totally surprising. During the presidential campaign last fall, Obama did call for a million PHEVs by 2015.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the problem of course is by the time the predictions are found to be accurate or inaccurate, we're already there.

we shouldn't be an ostrich and stick our heads in the ground and pretend there is not a problem with the increased temperature of our atmosphere.

the avg temperature is rising. that's a fact, and more carbons in the atmosphere only increases that rise. whether the cause of the rise or not, less carbon is a good thing.

I've seen both numbers...
for example
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8677

I've seen NOTHING to show that man-made CO2 has anything to do with it, until it does, it's just politics...has been for 20 years now.

And we know that Barry knows politics.

[mcsluggo]

yes...

"It seems that some serious analysis has discerned that..."

serious analysis published in the eminent and distinguished leading scientific journal: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

i am sorry... but if there is any THERE there, then publish it in a serious and prestigious peer-reviewed journal. period.

[dude1394]

Ah the Barry administration...all light and goodness. The Auto Task Force? Wonder if the ACLU will appeal for minutes of all of these meetings. After all, they are ACTUALLY making financial policy here.

How GM and Chrysler made their decisions remains, up to two weeks later, undisclosed. Under the watchful eye of the Obama administration, the forced cutbacks were enshrouded in mystery.

The government has ordered some auto executives be fired, has even demanded a change in manufacturers’ advertising budgets and now has insisted that private, successful companies go out of business.

[dude1394]

Ah hope and change. Right...Good for me, but not for thee.

First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process

May 30, 2009 1:08 PM
President Obama's expressed hope today in his weekly address "that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past" runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

[dude1394]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/023685.php

If you don't read anything else today, read Byron York's searing account of what happened last time a brilliant Hispanic jurist was nominated to a high-profile appellate post:

Born in Honduras, [Miguel] Estrada came to the United States at 17, not knowing a word of English. He learned the language almost instantly, and within a few years was graduating with honors from Columbia University and heading off to Harvard Law School. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a prosecutor in New York, and worked at the Justice Department in Washington before entering private practice.

Estrada's nomination for a federal judgeship set off alarm bells among Democrats. There is a group of left-leaning organizations -- People for the American Way, NARAL, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, and others -- that work closely with Senate Democrats to promote Democratic judicial nominations and kill Republican ones. They were particularly concerned about Estrada.
In November, 2001, representatives of those groups met with Democratic Senate staff. One of those staffers then wrote a memo to Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, informing Durbin that the groups wanted to stall Bush nominees, particularly three they had identified as good targets. "They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous," the staffer added, "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
It was precisely the fact that Estrada was Hispanic that made Democrats and their activist allies want to kill his nomination. They were determined to deny a Republican White House credit, political and otherwise, for putting a first-rate Hispanic nominee on the bench.

They succeeded, too. They filibustered Estrada for years and he never made it onto the bench. So, when you see Barack Obama--who voted to filibuster Sam Alito!--piously denouncing "the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process" in the past, remember Miguel Estrada. Somewhere on this earth, there is a worse hypocrite than Barack Obama. I just can't think who he is offhand....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Ah hope and change. Right...Good for me, but not for thee.

remember that obama was one of the leaders who fought against the use of filibuster on thte roberts nomination.

isn't it interesting to note the folks who railed against the use of filibuster on a scotus nomination when it was a republican nominating the candidate are those who are calling for its use today on sotomayor.

go figure...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

remember that obama was one of the leaders who fought against the use of filibuster on thte roberts nomination.

isn't it interesting to note the folks who railed against the use of filibuster on a scotus nomination when it was a republican nominating the candidate are those who are calling for its use today on sotomayor.

go figure...

Stuff comes around doesn't it. Get smacked on the nose enough times, you wind up hitting back.

Isn't it funny that the folks who railed FOR the filibuster are now the ones who say it shouldn't be used?

[dude1394]

ObamaWord... Heh...
Amusement Park

by Chris Muir

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Stuff comes around doesn't it. Get smacked on the nose enough times, you wind up hitting back.

Isn't it funny that the folks who railed FOR the filibuster are now the ones who say it shouldn't be used?

of course, it's interesting to remember that the first use of the filibuster in modern times against a scotus nomination was by the republican party, so any use of the "nah nah nah, you did it to me" excuse is lame at best.

as was mentioned, obama was vocal in not supporting the use of filibuster on roberts, so it really is not "funny" that he is taking that very same position this time.

[Arne]

Breaking news:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news...urce=a-section

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

of course, it's interesting to remember that the first use of the filibuster in modern times against a scotus nomination was by the republican party, so any use of the "nah nah nah, you did it to me" excuse is lame at best.

as was mentioned, obama was vocal in not supporting the use of filibuster on roberts, so it really is not "funny" that he is taking that very same position this time.

Nice side-step.

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.
On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on "This Week" that he would "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."

I can only hope that this Scotus Nominee gets the same fair treatment as Miguel Estrada did from O's so fair-minded lefties.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Nice side-step.

"side step"? apparently the "stuff comes around" argument that you offered falls flat in light of the facts about just who gets the "comes around".

I can only hope that this Scotus Nominee gets the same fair treatment as Miguel Estrada did from O's so fair-minded lefties.

was estrada nominated for the supreme court? no?

seems that sotomayor should get the same treatment as roberts, and I expect that she will.

[dude1394]

Wow..110billion. Those UAW votes did NOT come cheap.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The Obama administration's commitment of $30 billion on Monday to General Motors Corp. as it files for bankruptcy, brings the total amount of funds allocated and promised to the auto industry to $110 billion, including bailout capital and funds to be made available for green car component suppliers.
The additional $30 billion brings the government's allocations to General Motors to $50.7 billion, according to ProPublica, a non-profit newsroom. Read ProPublica's report.

[dude1394]

Funny..

"Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Barack Obama
Sunapee, N.H.
June 20, 2007

"The international community has an obligation, even when it's inconvenient, to act when genocide is occurring."

Barack Obama
Dresden, Germany
June 5, 2009