Balta1701

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 6, 2009 -> 05:48 AM) Qualifications were never the issue with him. Heck, resume-wise, he was the most qualified man for President. The biggest question was more about character (specifically, at that time, the ladies). Seems now like maybe he was also slimy on the job, but, we'll see. Doesn't look nearly as bad as the Blago thing, but there does seems to be some fire in there. Don't forget though...it doesn't look as bad right now, but we haven't even seen the end results of the investigation. The comparison point for Blago would be where the investigation for him was pre-October, where there's some thought he's corrupt, where you realize there's an investigation in progress, maybe some wiretaps or something but you're not sure, but nothing firm has been released to a prosecutor and the people doing the investiating want to keep their case under wraps.

I'm really not sure if this belongs in the Repub thread or the Dem thread. But here goes. There was a debate of sorts between the major candidates vying for the RNC head position today. One of the more interesting developments seems to be the praise that they all had for, of all things, the Ron Paul campaign.

On a different appointment, not only does IU get the head spot at the Office of Legal Counsel (torture-king John Yoo's position), but her title at IU actually includes the word "Batman".

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 07:18 PM) You hate my liver. I didn't so much want the appointment to come from within the CIA, in fact I don't really care about the CIA as it's just one section of a big picture (as much as they like to think of themselves as the picture itself), I just want the guy to know his way around the community like the back of his hand. Bush 41 for example, he knew his stuff, he was the US ambassador to China at the time I think. This guy could very well know, but I still smell politics, and I don't like it. As an intel professional there is probably nothing worse for morale than having politics shoved down your throat and being forced to conform. I don't really have any problems with who he picked as DNI though, he seems pretty sharp. To speak directly to Panetta's qualifications, he has served on the board of the National Security think tank "Center for National Policy" and he was a member of the "Bush is going to listen to us!" Iraq study group. He has also spoken out Vehemently on Mr. Bush's torture and spying programs. His past suggests he may be more of a budget person, but there's also talk that a major overhaul of intelligence spending is long past due.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 07:12 PM) Depends on if their bullpen performs again. They had multiple guys have career years last year (think 2005 White Sox). Besides that, they do indeed look damn good. There's plenty of reason to think that their bullpen could improve next year...depending on what they do with their starting rotation. Remember, at the end of the season last year they added a guy who it seems that some people think might be pretty good, David Price. At least for now, that would free up an arm from their rotation to move to the bullpen as a long man or as another option there, and that's the sort of move that can really pick up a bullpen.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 06:38 PM) That's a garbage ass pick IMO. Smells like a political appointment. Politics has NO place in intelligence WHATSOEVER, if the two don't line up, the IC doesn't adjust itself, the politicians need to. I think the logic is pretty simple. The fact is, the last 8 years (Drink!), the CIA has corrupted itself to the core by supporting Bush's torture program and his illegal warrantless wiretapping program, not to mention the fact that they took the blame for Bush's Iraq debacle. If you basically say that you need someone who comes in with a clean slate to rebuild, you're not left with many options. It's probably worth pointing out that there is a history of CIA directors not being appointees from within the agency. Stansfield M. Turner, John M. Deutch, John McCone and George H.W. Bush serve as some examples. On the other hand...I agree with you on a different level, because we saw in 2003 exactly what happens when you allow facts to be "Fixed" around a policy by intelligence directors willing to sell their souls on behalf of a politician who's support they want. In this case, I think that given the war crimes that have occurred on the watch of the people running that organization in the last 8 years (Drink!), I'm willing to risk some political interference in the intelligence agency if it gives them a fresh start and puts an end to Bush's torture programs. But on this...yes, we must be cautious.

Link

Also, Blagojevich Richardson gave a press conference today on his withdrawal from the nomination and refused to take questions on the investigation.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 02:19 PM) Says an unnamed source. I liked Richardson for the Prez job, but if I had to guess who holds the blame here, I go with Richardson. I really doubt this source's story. But, we'll see as time goes on. FWIW, ABC ran an identical story citing unnamed sources.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) Yeah I meant to post that. She's obviously partisan but she is nowhere near as over-the-top and rant-prone as Olbermann, not as absurd and borderline hateful as Hannity, and not idiotic like Rush. I don't get home in time to watch her show but I would have expected her to be different also. If nothing else, she has a legitimate background, political science degree, and such.

So why did you appoint him again if you couldn't get an answer out of him?

And to bolster my case...here's a few articles on the company that's at the other end of the richardson investigation and the not-so-nice things they've been involved with in the past.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) On 2, I have a hard time believing that Obama's team would have missed that. I think its simple - its a federal investigation, and Obama's team couldn't have found out unless they got lucky. That's not information that is out there, unless the feds want it out there, usually. I'd say the same thing...except for the overwhelming evidence that it actually got to this point. Which is why I said that it reflects poorly on them that either they didn't look in to it on their own or they took Richardson at his word that it wasn't a problem.

Ken Salazar at Interior seemingly gets a Hell of a bathroom. Do they re-monogram the towels for him?

Coleman's legal challenge regarding the 600 or so properly rejected absentee ballots was rejected this morning. As of now, every legal claim from the Coleman camp has fallen. All that remains is the general challenge to the election, which relies on repeating arguments that have already been thrown out by courts. Of course, I think now is the time to appropriately bring up former Senator Coleman's statement in November about why it was so important that this not drag on endlessly...

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) Is Lyon a type B or type A free agent. I think he's a B, I'm fine with that but I wouldn't be willing to give up our first rounder this year for him. Type B.

The couple of points worth noting on here. 1. Richardson should have known well before January 3rd whether or not this was going to be a problem. It reflects poorly on him that he waited this long. 2. More importantly to my eyes...it reflects even more poorly on the Obama transition team that they did not realize this was going to be a problem during their vetting processes. This case suggests that they put a lot more emphasis on vetting the lower level guys (remember the gigantic form they had to fill out as qualification) but they were disturbingly lax in investigating their top level guys. This is very troublesome. 3. Even if Richardson did nothing wrong, there is strong suggestion of impropriety on the part of people in his administration so far, and it's hard to believe he could be clean here. 4. Maybe we can now get a better progressive somewhere on Obama's top economic team?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) If you don't like Dotel, you will absolutely hate Lyon. It depends on the role they're put in. Dotel as a 7th inning guy...ok. Dotel as an 8th/9th inning guy, ick. Lyon as a 7th inning guy with Dotel hanging around, along with the 2 Loogy's, leading in to Linebrink/Jenks...pretty nasty. Lyon as the 8th inning guy before Jenks or before someone else...worrisome.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 5, 2009 -> 07:56 AM) And it pushes the inevitable bankruptcies of these elephants out a few more months. This is assinine. Let them fail. Let them heal. Let us prosper. Pushing the timeline out will not save these companies. The auto industry as we knew it is DEAD. Accept it deal with it and move on with a leaner more efficient industry. Lowering 0% financing from FICO 725ish to FICO 600 is a great way to get back in black. Just ask WAMU, CFC, WAB, NCC. With the way the mess is right now, letting them fail does not let the economy heal, it pushes it down further and makes coming back even harder.

QUOTE (Shadows @ Jan 4, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Why? Is it the Chargers fault the AFC West wasn't very good this year? Well, given that the bolts are 1 of 4 teams in the afc west, it's at least 25% their fault.

Another long NYT piece by financial writer Michael Lewis on how the corruption and cronyism on wall street got us in to this mess and some easy and reasonable suggestions for how to fix things in the future.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 4, 2009 -> 09:48 AM) When does 24 start back up? I want to make sure I have it still set on my DVR (I recorded the 2 hr thing on THanksgiving weekend and loved that but am not sure if it was considered a series or not). The 2 hour thanksgiving movie was sort of a transition/get your feet wet between the last season and this. It sets up several things for this season and should probably be watched before this season starts. It is being replayed tonight i believe. But it doesn't directly connect in time to this season...there is time between that movie and the start of this day. The official day/season starts next sunday, the 11th. 2 hour block next sunday, 2 hour block on monday the 12th covering the first 4 hours.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Jan 3, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) Looks like they will. I'll admit, looks like I was wrong. Given the cap implications, this tells me 1 thing: Tom Brady will not be starting for the Pats next September. Probably not October either. No way you do that if Brady can go.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jan 4, 2009 -> 05:34 AM) One strike against signing Hudson to even a short term deal is that he's a Type A free agent and he'd cost picks. The only other Type A from Arizona is Juan Cruz. I'm not sure if it matters who signs Cruz, if it would affect the compensation of the Sox. The only way Juan Cruz's status relates to what the sox would lose if they signed Hudson is if the Sox sign them both. If the Sox sign any type A FA other than Cabrera (virtually impossible), they lose their first round pick. No way around it.