Keep this quote from Jindal-it's a gem to beat him with if he tries to run in 2012.
I'll take your money, but I am philosophically opposed to it?! Really? ?!! These guys are truly idiots and have no future in running our government.

Daschle is in trouble. Paging Doctor Dean...

A RINO would still be a Republican. So even though the Dem's don't get their 60th seat, they'll get somebody more open to working in a bi-partisan manner. I'd rather get a Democrat choice for Commerce given the control of the census in 2010. What are Gregg's qualifications that put's him at the top of the list now that the main qualification of being replaced by a Democrat is off the table?

If I were Obama I would be a little ticked off right now about Daschle.

I think Obama's vetting team trusted folks not to lie, given they realize they'll face confirmation hearings. Obama has also been close to Daschle for years, used a lot of his staffers and Daschle was front and center on his campaign. Maybe he just didn't think Daschle was stupid enough to play games with taxes.

I don't think this is going to be easy as Geithner, as Geithner had bi-partisan support going into the confirmation hearings and really nobody lining up to rally support against him. Big Pharm and health insurance lobbies will be working against Daschle's confirmation here, and I worry that in order to get confirmed he might make handshake deals with certain senators.

Didn't Obama give Daschle two titles? Did both roles need Senate confirmations? What about naming a new HHS and leaving Daschle as the health czar?

Daschle has a hell of a lot more problems than just income tax! To put it in a nutshell, he's nothing more than "slimy piece of sh*t"...similar to many of Obama's Cabinet appointments!!

So, for all of you Obama apologists and laptop dogs read Greenwald's column for yourself:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Yes...I bet you are stunned along with a severe case of absolute stupidity! But, hey just relax, and continue to keep those eyes squeezed tightly shut! And, by the way, I hear they are holding auditions for "Obama's Cheerleading Squad" all day tomorrow somewhere in the D.C. area, but for the life of me I can't tell you the exact location. However I'm confident you already know where it is and will certainly be the FIRST in line....

Barney Frank finally "goes there" when a Conservative attacks the stimulus package spending (from Huffpo - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/barney-frank-you-wanna-ta_n_162907.html)

In the public debate over the stimulus package, Democrats have found themselves largely on the defensive -- forced, at first, to explain the inclusion of business tax cuts at the Obama administration's behest, then asked to justify spending provisions that drew Republican ire.

On Sunday, Rep. Barney Frank did his best to flip those dynamics, playing a card that has largely -- somewhat surprisingly -- gone unused: the war in Iraq.

From his exchange on ABC's This Week with Sen. Jim DeMint:

DeMint: Let's not say it's a stimulus when it's a government spending plan. All of the things, the needs in our society, education, these are things we debate every year.

Frank: Spending can be stimulus. I don't understand.

DeMint: It's the largest spending bill in history and we're trying to call it a stimulus.

Frank: The largest spending bill in history is going to turn out to be the one in Iraq. If we're going to talk about spending, I have a problem when we leave out that extraordinary expensive, damaging war in Iraq, which has caused much more harm than good in my judgment. I don't understand from my conservative friends, building a road, building a school, helping to get health care, that's wasteful spending. But that war in Iraq, that's going to cost us over a trillion dollars, yeah, I wish we hadn't done that we would have been in a lot better shape fiscally.

There are differing opinions over just how much foreign wars have contributed to the current state of the economy. From a strictly numerical standpoint, the cost of Iraq constitutes a small portion of the GDP.

But the argument Frank makes is that in the context of chiding government spending, self-purported fiscal conservatives should not be entitled to selective memory. So when George Stephanopoulos jumped in to say the issue could be fodder for "a whole other show," the Massachusetts Democrat had none of it.

"That's the problem," said Frank. "The problem is we look at spending and say don't spend on highways or health care. Let's builds weapons to defeat the Soviet Union when we don't need them. Let's have hundreds of billions of dollars going to the military without a check. Unless everything is on the table, then you are going to have a disproportionate hit in some places."

This is exactly how it should be framed and attacked going forward. Everytime a Republican brings up spending billions on American roads and schools, ask them why it's okay to spend that kind of money on Iraq roads and schools? Ask them why it was okay to spend $10B a month in Iraq, but then it's like pulling teeth to spend that kind of money in America.

If America never went to war with Iraq that $1T spend there would have looked awful nice being spent in America, and in reality America wouldn't be any less safe. Considering how Iraq and Iran kept each other in check, it could be argued we'd be more safe.

"Senator Gregg has told me that if he were to take this appointment, it would not alter the makeup of the Senate in terms of the majority and the minority,

Dashle, the man from the health care industry,is lobbyist criminal #1. His wife, the women from Boeing, is number 2. Can them!

It is interesting that Hillary's $13 million "loan" to her campaign has now been "forgiven." So it becomes the Clintons's personal contribution from a fortune built in large measure by mega-millions in huge "consulting and speaking fees" to Bill Clinton from foreign business interests. It would seem reasonable for the FEC to ask if the "loan" constitutes "pass through" funds from sources that cannot legally contribute to a campaign.