TPMDC Morning Roundup
G-20 Leaders Reaching Outlines Of Agreement On IMF, Regulations
The G-20 leaders have reportedly agreed to give more than $500 billion to the IMF, in order to help governments struggling because of the financial crisis, along with stronger financial regulations to avoid another crisis in the future, though details remain to be hammered out. "I'm not saying that everything is sewn up. It isn't," said UK Business Minister Peter Mandelson. "I mean there are arguments, or some tensions over precisely what resources we're talking about."
Obama's Day Ahead: The G-20 Summit In London
President Obama met with South Korean leaders in London at 3 a.m. ET this morning. At 3:30 a.m. ET, he attended the G-20 leaders breakfast. At 4:50 a.m. ET, he attended the G-20 summit's opening plenary session. At 8:25 a.m. ET he attended the G-20 leaders lunch. At 9:30 a.m. ET he will attend the afternoon plenary session. At 10:35 a.m. ET he will meet with leaders of Saudi Arabia, and at 11:30 a.m. ET he will meet with leaders of India. At 12:45 p.m. ET, he will hold a news conference.
Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will be hosting two conference calls today, one with a group of governors and the other with a group of mayors, to discuss stimulus implementation. This evening, he will speak at the 21st Annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner in Washington.
Obama, South Korea Agree On "Stern, United Response" To North Korea
Following President Obama's meeting today with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, the South Korean presidential office announced that the two agreed on the need "for a stern, united response from the international community" against North Korea's planned rocket launch.
House Passes Second Version Of Bonus Bill
The House of Representatives last night passed a new bill to crack down on bonuses at bailed-out institutions, a second try after the 90% bonus tax appears to have stalled in the Senate. The new bill, passed almost entirely along party lines, would allow bonuses to continue if the Treasury Department and regulators determine that they are not "unreasonable or excessive."
Rove Warns About Obama's "Chicago Politics," Training In Alinsky Methods
In his new Wall St. Journal column, Karl Rove sounds the alarm at the Obama administration and liberal groups' efforts to pressure members of Congress to back his agenda. "Members of Congress should also worry about how Mr. Obama is 'keeping score,'" Rove writes. "He is steeped in the ways of Chicago politics and has not forgotten his training in the methods once used by Saul Alinsky, the radical Chicago community organizer."
NYT: Obama Health Care Critic Brings Big Wallet -- And Checkered Past
The New York Times reports that conservative critics of Obama's health care policies may get more than they bargained for in Rick Scott, the health care exec who has already launched a series of ads opposing Obama. The issue here is that Scott's company paid fines in the 1990s in a massive health fraud scandal, involving overbilling of state and federal health programs, and he was forced out of the company. Said health reform advocate Richard J. Kirsch: "He's a great symbol from our point of view."




















The Queen Greets Obama, With a Royal Flush of Bush
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=6742
and
Talk About CHANGE: Angela Merkel ASKS Obama for a Backrub
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=6737
April 2, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, congress is still investigating the us attorney firings. Anybody have a timeline? I am looking forward to rove doing some time. He can write his delusional op-eds for the prison newspaper. I am so sick of his nonsense.
April 2, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding eh, why do people think its a good idea to listen to Rove? Like you can trust anything that guy says.
April 2, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Bush can't fire his own political appointees but Obama can fire GM's CEO...interesting.
April 2, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, those are identical to a dittohead.
April 2, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually they aren't Bush's firing of his appointees has precident (I notice y'all didn't riot when he fired Rumsfeld)...Obama's is uncharted territory.
April 2, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall the king firing rumsfeld because he wouldn't twist the law to put law abiding citizens in jail or facing the threat of jail. Rumsfeld was totally on board with committing crimes for the political purposes of the administration, including war crimes and violations of international law. The problem with rumsfeld, as far as the king was concerned, was he wasn't as good at the criminal activity and dodging getting nailed for it as rove was and is. That's why rumsfeld was canned.
April 2, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, as the Brain of Bush, Rove was more indispensable to the little king than Rummy was.
April 2, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Firing of the attorneys would not be questioned, except for evidence that they were fired for political reasons. It is not OK to use the Dept of Justice to pursue a political agenda, influence elections, hound opponents, and so forth.
April 2, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are political appointees...they serve at "the pleasure of the President" (not to be confused with "for the pleasure of the President," that was another guy), they can be fired for any reason. If the DOJ is used against "political enemies" prosecute that. There was no crime in firing them.
April 2, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"(not to be confused with "for the pleasure of the President," that was another guy)"
Jesus......will you people ever stop. Its so f****** tiresome and sad.
April 2, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. The GOP seems to have no need to expel Senator Vitter the way they tried to expel President Clinton. Now whom exactly was Vitter's prostitute serving at the pleasure of?
April 2, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
...does no one have any sense of humor today?
April 2, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have plenty of humor today. But you might want to ask David Iglesias how funny the whole attorney firing issue was.
You can't have it both ways.
April 2, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, yeah, when the CEO of a company has received billions from the feds and is asking for billions more, most people with half a brain in their heads would say the president is well within his rights to demand the resignation of the CEO--in fact, most people with half a brain in their heads only wonder why it hasn't happened more often with CEOs in the financial industry as opposed to the auto industry.
But then you're a complete dumbshit, so we don't expect you to understand that. And the problem with the DOJ firings isn't just that Bush could fire political appointees whenever he wanted(never mind that most presidents never did such a thing, or that it was considered highly unethical--we know you have no ethics), it's that they were fired for failing to pursue meritless prosecutions of political opponents, which is illegal and has nothing to do with the auto bailout situation whatsoever.
Nice try loser.
April 2, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... it's that they were fired for failing to pursue meritless prosecutions of political opponents, which is illegal..."
Sorry, you're wrong. They could be removed for ANY reason or no reason at all...that's the law.
April 2, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Rove and Co. did nothing illegal, then they have nothing to fear from Leahy's truth commission, right?
{crickets}
April 2, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your problem is, what, exactly?
This is precisely why I wanted Obama elected president. And precisely what he needs to show a little more of in the coming weeks and months.
April 2, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rove is deaf, dumb and blind. Hello pot calling the kettle black. Once again this is one of the oldest vile republican tricks. Accusing you opposition of doing exactly what you do. Nice try coward.
April 2, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rove has been trying to portray Obama as an "arrogant Chicago pol socialists" but Americans just aren't buying it at all.
April 2, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorta keeping score myself and had a question: "Chicago Politics" is dogwhistle for "black", right? I just got comfortable with using the "San Francisco", "Hollywood", and "New York" dogwhistles. It's so hard to keep up with these guys.
April 2, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's more dogwhistle for corruption and organized crime. Not that Rove would know anything about that...
If I were the WSJ, I'd ask Rove why they should keep paying him when he just writes the same column over and over. Even by conservative pundit standards, it's pathetic. He's really been phoning it in for a while now.
April 2, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
""He is steeped in the ways of Chicago politics and has not forgotten his training in the methods once used by Saul Alinsky, the radical Chicago community organizer."
And politics in Dixie are as clean as a hounds tooth! I'd like Rove to give us his version of how voters in his part of the nation have been systematically disenfranchised since, well since the constitution of the United States.
April 2, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink