Bloomberg article headlined "Obama Faces Rebellion From Democrats on ... Nominations" leaves out key facts
SUMMARY: In a Bloomberg News article headlined "Obama Faces Rebellion From Democrats on Stimulus, Nominations," the only evidence cited in the article of "rebellion from Democrats" on President-elect Obama's "nominations" was that Sen. Dianne Feinstein "said she hadn't been consulted on the pick" of Leon Panetta for CIA director "and preferred a CIA director with more experience in intelligence," and that Rep. John Conyers "took aim at reports that Obama is considering naming CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta as surgeon general." In fact, Feinstein reportedly stated that she was "going to vote for" Panetta. And as a member of the House of Representatives, Conyers will not have a vote on Gupta's confirmation.
On January 14 Bloomberg News published an article headlined "Obama Faces Rebellion From Democrats on Stimulus, Nominations." However, the only evidence of "rebellion from Democrats" on President-elect Barack Obama's "nominations" reporter Brian Faler cited in that article was that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) "said she hadn't been consulted on the pick" of Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta for Central Intelligence Agency director "and preferred a CIA director with more experience in intelligence," and that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) "took aim at reports that Obama is considering naming CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta as surgeon general." In fact, while Feinstein, in the wake of reports of Panetta's selection, did issue a statement on January 5, on January 7 -- two days before Obama officially announced Panetta's nomination -- Feinstein reportedly stated that she was "going to vote for him," and said that "I believe all systems are go" with regard to his confirmation. Moreover, while Conyers did urge Obama not to nominate Gupta for the post, Faler did not note that as a member of the House of Representatives, and not the Senate, Conyers will not have a vote on the confirmation of the nominee for surgeon general.
From the January 14 Bloomberg News article:
President-elect Barack Obama, looking to get his administration off to a fast start when he takes office next week, is drawing fire from members of his own party on Capitol Hill.
Democratic criticism of the stimulus package and the nomination of Leon Panetta as intelligence chief shows lawmakers intend to flex their muscle after eight years of a Bush administration that treated Congress more like employees than a separate branch of government. The disputes may become more frequent when Congress takes up contentious issues such as overhauling health care or cutting the federal budget deficit.
[...]
The tensions have flared on several fronts in recent weeks.
Obama's choice of Panetta as Central Intelligence Agency director irked Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, head of the Senate panel charged with confirming the nomination. The Intelligence Committee chairwoman said she hadn't been consulted on the pick and preferred a CIA director with more experience in intelligence. Vice President-elect Joseph Biden apologized, saying he and Obama should have conferred with her.
Days later, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, took aim at reports that Obama is considering naming CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta as surgeon general.
YAWN! We know, we know ... The media's obsession with the Democratic majority in DC has really gone stale. I must have read this same article rewritten 10 different ways from the AP, Politico, et. al.
What's funny to me is that it seems the MSM is flabbergasted at just how well the transition has gone overall that they look for any single little indication of a debate or non-conformity.
This ain't the GOP in charge. All opinions are welcomed.
MK, I think you've got to understand the concerns of the conservative media. They've seen the excellent results of the past 8 years of Republo-zombie groupthink and don't want to mess with the formula.
Not to mention the fact that there's been a lot of effort compartmentalizing "liberals" and "conservatives", making for a nice, tidy, and simple, 2-tone perspective from which to assess political situations. Who do the democrats think they are, screwing with that?
the transition is proceeding as well as it is because Bush didn't want to give the winner, whoever it might have been, the same reception he got from Clinton.
Are you referring to this wingnut fairy tale?
They're just throwing off that horrible yoke of "marxism". =>
You won't convince barney of that!
I know and I've most likely unwittingly smeared xtians as well.
I just love MM, the will bring up this boring story but yet skip right over info about Carol Browner.
Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society or know as Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party,. This groupsupports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies. Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group. Guessing Carol has the U.S. best interest at heart.
What about the ethical cloud that still hangs over Browner’s EPA legacy. In 2001, in the landmark court case Coleman-Adebayo v. Browner, Carol M. Browner and the agency she administered, the EPA, were found guilty of race, color, and sex-based discrimination as well as tolerating a hostile work environment. Also, on her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records. Obama sure know how to pick the clean background folks, what happen to this change?
But wait, there is more on the new to be soon czar. She have great interest in the so called climent change and making our life so much better, but that doesn't mean she's above making a buck off the global warming hoax, which she will soon be in a position to prop up with all the force and stolen riches of our monstrously bloated federal government. Browner is a board member of APX, a leading carbon offset trading company
Markfoot,
Do you mind telling us where you got this wonderful information? Once all this is sorted out, we'll probably find you've been spending way too much time at RushLimboob.com. or listening to audio archives of Bill O'Really.
It's been all over the conservative blogs for about a month. Thing is nobody cares.
The Socialist International - This is Google's cache of http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1779. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jan 9, 2009 12:27:16 GMT
The EPA case, you can do a each on the case name, you will also find a bill that was called "No FEAR Act of 2002" this came about because of the case against Browner. I guess you did not read that in your local paper or hear it on the news? Once you find this information you will find out quickly that she is everything you hate about the last Administration.
On APX, just do a search on APX history of past BoD, now that she is in the Obama Administration she had to leave the board. Since you are just too lazy to do the work, here is the information from their website. March 2008 – Carol Browner, former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, joins APX Board of Directors. Ms. Browner, who has a distinguished career in public service, brings to APX's Board deep expertise in environmental policy, including climate change issues. “
MK3872 - Global Warming is a hoax, everyday, more and more scientists that once back Al Gore and Global Warming are saying it is not true. We are going into a Global Cooling. More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
Sorry markbfooled, this site already has a wingnut plagiarist.
Craig - what site do you refer
I said this site - MediaMatters. It already has someone (AnutterAmerican) who cuts-and-pastes drivel from various wingnut sites and tries to pass it off as his own. There is no need for you to do it too.
Craig, when I go out and research the net, look and read the case and find information about C. Browner, that is not plagiarist act, I do not claim this information as mine, but simply information about the subject. Since “Limited” asked where my information comes from, Ilisted them freely. Just like him you can read the information listed above and see where the information can be found. Yes, I took information from many sites and put them here, I do that so I can prove my points. In the future would you like footnotes?
Is this some of that conservative love of personal responsibility I hear so much about?
Your post is textbook plagiarism, taking lines word-for-word from a Little Lulu column and the Moonie Times (including the comments section - have you no shame!) and elsewhere without attribution.
That's fascinating, Craig, and probably provides a little insight. AA & Markfoot don't seem to even understand that mindlessly repeating the thoughts of others doesn't qualify as "discussion".
Is this the end result of never bothering to think for yourself? It all makes sense now, the wingnut skims the MMFA item, Googles a ridiculous contrary position, plagiarizes a copy & paste, and imagines that he's "debating".
You are a perfect example of a liberal, ignore the subject and attack the person. Everything that was said about Carol Browner is true. Please provide information that disputes the infromation.
I would say that you, as a liar and a cheat who refuses to accept any responsibility for his bad behavior, are a perfect example of a conservative, but that would be unfair to decent and honest conservatives.
There are too few of those, IMO.
I do that so I can prove my points
Proving a neo-con lie through the use of other neo-con liars. That's a good one.
Fog, are you telling me that Browner has not done any of the things I spoke of? She was never apart of the socialist group? She was not proven guilty in a court of law, she did not tamper with evidence and she was never a Board Member of APX? Show me the lies in those facts, you cannot! So if they are facts, you are the only person not being truthful.
Well, since you asked so nicely...
I have no problem with Browner's involvement with the Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society. What did she do in that capacity that bothers you, specifically? Likewise, I find nothing wrong with her position at APX. So, same question. What specifically do you think she did wrong?
She was not "proven guilty in a court of law." However, she did allow the racist and sexist atmosphere that was at the EPA under Bush I to continue during her tenure there, and consequently lost a civil lawsuit. Deservedly. I'll make a note of the fact that your an advocate for the rights of women and minorities to not have to put up with racist and sexist "jokes" in the workplace.
Her excuse for deleting the emails is poor, and she was cited with contempt. Again, deservedly. I'll also note that you support transparency in government. You must be pretty ticked with the Bush gang and the 5 million emails they deleted in violation of the Presidential Records Act.
The biggest problem I have with Browner is that, despite the talk, it doesn't look like she's done much all that to actually help the environment and, not coincidentally, she's close with big business interests. In other words, she's a Democrat.
I do believe the phrase "global warming hoax" is all that you need to know about this most interesting post!!
Unless you has great interest in the so called climent change.
I want to hear about the incliment change. All sides of the rant you know.
Where do you track down a good climentary scientist? There's no listing for one in my phonebook.
oh my, it is a hoax. anyone who falls for it is a damn fool. look at today's chill map.
Oh me, have you checked the Mexican weather report, fm?
It's been high 80's all week where I live - record highs. If that's what we're using to prove/disprove global warming, I invite you to change your opinion here with me in sunny SoCal!
Mrs. T, I had to go into Brea on MOnday, and it was 90°. Of course, neither of us is stoopid enough to think that 80-90 days in January is proof in itself of GW. That wouldn't be quite as stupid as thinking that cold days in January dispute GW, but it would still be pretty dumb.
I just read some of the comment sections of Craig's links, and I guess for the crowd that thinks evolution is a hoax, and Homo-Leninists are a real threat, this substitutes for thinking.
haha yes - for some reason, the idea of "trends" as opposed to "isolated incidents" is completely incomprehensibly to them. Though if it DOES stay so sunny here I might have to stop being upset about global warming (and quit my job to boot) because it is darn beautiful out
Weather and climate are not interchangable terms.