I totally understand the lobbyist appointee thing. I have mixed feelings about it. He's appointed a couple of lobbyist in contraindication of his pledges. At the same time, his lobbyist appointment issues have meant that a number of spot is the Treasury (and elsewhere) have been difficult to fill because most qualified people have been involved in lobbying efforts over the years. I like the balance overall, but certainly a number of disappointments.
But given all of that which I am happy to posit..no disclaimers or a clarifications? Dude. This isn't his budget. Not his bill. His only negotiation with it was when he was a Senator and not substantially then. Honestly, what would be the positive side of him vetoing it? What would we get out of it? Do you want him to veto it just because and weaken his position with the current budget negotiation? Shouldn't we judge him based on the actions he takes with things he has some influence over? Judah On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like, for once, for a politician to actually say what it is he will > do and then do it. Not offer any excuses, disclaimers, or clarifications. > > I'll just file this one with 'no lobbyist appointees'. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:291049 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
