It doesn’t make any sense at all. Certainly Obama, given his support in the other two cases and his statement regarding her as one of his most important choices, would be most reluctant to accept her withdrawal. How can you refuse a president for such a trivial matter?
This small item must be a smokescreen for something far more serious that she would wish remains uncovered.
Or, she just decided that “fuck 'em, they want to grill me over something that trivial from that long ago that I fixed as soon as I found out, there’s no reasonable way that I could expect to do the job offered”
Not everyone’s. Those seeking Federal office, though. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that all applicants for federal office should have to publish their finances en toto.
Uh, no. When questions like this came up about Linda Chavez, it killed her nomination for Secretary of Labor. Turns out that the woman in question that Chavez gave money to wasn’t even an employee - she was a victim of domestic abuse that needed help.
Didn’t matter - it was enough. Just like it is enough now, and was enough for Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood. The real third rail in American politics is paying off the maid.
Better tax evaders in office than war criminals.
Trouble is, she damages Obama with this attitude.
Oh Please, Bush unapologetically had the most pro-corporate, lobbyist laden administration in history. Not only do the Benedict Arnolds of corporate America not pay taxes, they ran Bush’s White House. The Democrats are as much a part of the corrupt culture in Washington, but it takes a high level of hypocrisy or denial to believe the Republicans, especially the former Bush administration, exemplify law abiding tax paying citizens.
This would require a constitutional amendment because of Powell v. McCormack and it would be a pretty significant invasion of privacy. By my lights, we need more people willing to assume public office, not fewer.
If she believes she’d be ineffectual in her job given the climate, I can’t argue w/her reasons. And, I rather resent the attitude of “if she resigned over this it must be because she’s got much bigger problems in her background”
Another Republican crook:
Spiro Agnew
Spiro story: The local paper was publishing Pogo when Kelly was heartily lampooning Nixon, especially Nixon’s move to install White House guards with silly uniforms. Spiro was depicted wearing one, an unflattering canine caricature. This prompted a stern letter to the editor railing with high dudgeon about the Vice President being depicted as a dog. For shame, sirs! Cancel my subscription etc.
A few days later, a letter appeared from a zoology professor at the U. He remarked that the complaining writer had his facts wrong. Kelly was painstakingly precise in his caricature, the shape of the muzzle, the ears were exactingly correct, leaving no question that Spiro was not presented as a dog, but as a hyena.
How about with her timing? It’s rather well accepted that appointments to important government jobs entail significant scrutiny. If you think you can’t withstand that, you should decline any request to participate. If you accept, you should be prepared to go through with it. If you quickly wither under the normal scrutiny, you do no one any good, least of all the poor guy who asked you to help his administration succeed.
When actions are insufficiently explained by what’s known, speculation shouldn’t be surprising.
This is an example of fallacy: argument from ignorance. “We don’t know what her secret crime is, so it must exist.” If you have evidence, present it.
This is non-responsive. How many of Bush’s cabinet appointments were caught tax cheating? Like the previous response, you seem to invite the reader to conclude that even though we don’t have a specific answer, we must conclude something favorable to your point. That’s not the way it works. If you have evidence, present it.
How about Bush himself? While not exactly tax cheating, Bush was delinquent multiple times in filing with the SEC.
Talking heads call it the “Rule of Three”. She was, by happenstance, the third person to emerge with a similar backstory, and thus established a trend. The RoT apparently has applied historically.
By the way, has the OP ever heard of Catalina Vasquez Villalpando? Or for that matter, George W. Bush?
And down the convenient Republican memory hole they go
And
And these are excluding the ones withdrawn for their contacts with Abramoff, voter suppression or as in the case of Miers, grotesque unsuitability.
Look at it this way, by simply making nominations, Obama has enriched the coffers of the IRS, and therefore the citizens of these great United States, by nearly a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS!!
Brilliant!
Kerik wasn’t done in by a nanny problem. If he had been, I’d be celebrating nanny problems for having prevented him from becoming Homeland Security Secretary.
No doubt posted somewhere, just a few years ago…
Personally, I blame the LIBERAL MEDIA and their VENDETTA against their ideological FOES. This would never happen if their butt buddies, the DEMOCRATS, hijacked the reins of office from the rightful owners.