Anita Dunn...

[Ame®icano]

OOPS!!!

Anita Dunn's husband leading candidate for White House counsel job...

Robert (Bob) Bauer, the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee and personal lawyer to President Obama and his chief campaign counsel, is emerging as the top candidate to replace Greg Craig as White House Counsel, Fox News has learned.

Senior White House officials declined to comment on Bauer's future status with the White House. But Democrats close to the situation said Bauer is under serious consideration as Craig's replacement. Craig is expected to leave the White House by year's end - if not sooner.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no decisions have been made on Craig's future or on any potential replacement.

 

[Sinatra]

OOPS!!!

Anita Dunn's husband leading candidate for White House counsel job...

Robert (Bob) Bauer, the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee and personal lawyer to President Obama and his chief campaign counsel, is emerging as the top candidate to replace Greg Craig as White House Counsel, Fox News has learned.

Senior White House officials declined to comment on Bauer's future status with the White House. But Democrats close to the situation said Bauer is under serious consideration as Craig's replacement. Craig is expected to leave the White House by year's end - if not sooner.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no decisions have been made on Craig's future or on any potential replacement.

Great find!!!!

 

[Ame®icano]

OOPS!!!

Anita Dunn's husband leading candidate for White House counsel job...

Robert (Bob) Bauer, the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee and personal lawyer to President Obama and his chief campaign counsel, is emerging as the top candidate to replace Greg Craig as White House Counsel, Fox News has learned.

Senior White House officials declined to comment on Bauer's future status with the White House. But Democrats close to the situation said Bauer is under serious consideration as Craig's replacement. Craig is expected to leave the White House by year's end - if not sooner.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no decisions have been made on Craig's future or on any potential replacement.

Great find!!!!

It's on the drudgereport.com.

 

[Charles Stucker]

And, people have been elected despite relationships with shady characters (Kennedy for example).

I agree, can't get much shadier than a man who used pull to cover up vehicular manslaughter, of Mary Jo Kopechne, as a character reference. Yet a Teddy Kennedy endorsement was a necessity for all the Democratic presidential candidates since at least 1984 until the cowards unlamented death.
Really can anyone imagine JFK running away from a car crash when someone might be in danger, just to avoid a little difficulty? I can't.

 

[mdn2000]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406

Jones says he became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the deadly April 1992 Los Angeles riots which erupted shortly after four L.A. police officers who had beaten the now-infamous Rodney King were exonerated in court. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th," says Jones, "and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."

Recalling his brief incarceration, Jones says: "I met all these young radical people of color. I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."

Van Jones is an avowed Marxist, not in his past, but now. In Van Jones own words, 1992 plus ten years takes Van Jones into 2002, this is not in his youth nor many years ago.

According to Coyote

Ayers has not been involved with radical groups for some 30 years

How does Coyote know? Go to Bill Ayers Blogspot and what do you see, a picture of a Marxist that wrote books on how to start and organize an armed guerrilla-revolution-marxist movement.

How about I quote Bill Ayers in Venuzula 2006

Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I've come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle-I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.

Let those of us who are gathered here today read this poem as "The Teacher's Obligation." We, too, must move in and out of windows, we, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education- a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation. This World Education Forum provides us a unique oppurtunity to develop and share the lessons and challenges of this profound educational project that is the Bolivarian Revolution.


Viva Mission Sucre!
Viva Presidente Chavez!
Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana
Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

There is a whole lot more, speeches, recent speeches like this, go to the link and you can see the video:

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

On April 12, 2002, Ayers said during an interview with a college radio station:
"I considered myself partly an anarchist then and consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist.... I'm very open about what I think and nobody here is surprised by what I think.
...
Is one of those regrets that I took extreme measures against the United States at a time of tremendous crisis? No it is not. I don't regret that. The people of the world are being exploited and oppressed and militarized by the great imperialist powers, led by the United States. That is the situation today in my view.
...
And I'm not sorry about anything that I participated to try to end that war or against that government that was waging that war."

According to Coyote

Ayers has not been involved with radical groups for some 30 years– people change.

In another thread I called Coyote a moron, I have to take that back, its obvious Coyote is very smart and does much research, So Coyote must be very familiar with Bill Ayers, after all Coyote is not a moron, so why does Coyote state "people change" speaking of Bill Ayers? Bill Ayers has not changed, not one bit. No radical groups in 30 years may be correct, after all Hugo Chavez is not a radical group but a radical leader siezing control of Venuzula while violating human rights. So in a way Coyote is right, you cannot call Chavez and Marxism a group so Bill Ayers is not involved in a radical group.

Bill Ayers is an avowed Marxist, listen to Bill Ayers own words and hear it for yourself.

So who is Coyote, is Coyotes statement a simple mistake, a belief, or a real attempt to hide the truth.

I see Coyote as maybe posting lies to hide a avowed Marxist, I will let Coyote explain.

Coyote is describing Ayers as an aquaintence, a casual contact, yet here is a photo of Obama's reveiw of Ayer's book.

When some one is a public figure they gain thousands of aquaintences, friends, people who do business with them, or casual contacts.

There is much more, connecting Obama and Ayers, the Annenburg project, I can post stuff about that, Obama's meeting in Ayer's home, living in the same neighborhood, professors at the same university, and there is even more. Its my bedtime so this is it for now, but dont doubt that there is much more, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hey they do control most of the Media and the few they don't control they simply try to shut down. Another page right out of Mao's playbook. It is very sad but it is what it is in the end.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

OOPS!!!

Anita Dunn's husband leading candidate for White House counsel job...

Robert (Bob) Bauer, the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee and personal lawyer to President Obama and his chief campaign counsel, is emerging as the top candidate to replace Greg Craig as White House Counsel, Fox News has learned.

Senior White House officials declined to comment on Bauer's future status with the White House. But Democrats close to the situation said Bauer is under serious consideration as Craig's replacement. Craig is expected to leave the White House by year's end - if not sooner.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no decisions have been made on Craig's future or on any potential replacement.

Hmmmmmmmm. Cronyism appears to be rampant in The Barry's WH

 

[mdn2000]

whatever happened to coyote in this thread he/she made a unsubstantiated claim about ayers and has yet to respond.

I guess when confronted with indisputable facts coyote fades away from coyote's own claims.

 

[Ame®icano]

Once a communist, always a communist. You don't just change ideology overnight...

 

[Coyote]

First off, what’s with the retarded 3rd person talk here? You can’t talk directly to me or something? Afraid of fleas?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406

Jones says he became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the deadly April 1992 Los Angeles riots which erupted shortly after four L.A. police officers who had beaten the now-infamous Rodney King were exonerated in court. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th," says Jones, "and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."

Recalling his brief incarceration, Jones says: "I met all these young radical people of color. I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."

Van Jones is an avowed Marxist, not in his past, but now. In Van Jones own words, 1992 plus ten years takes Van Jones into 2002, this is not in his youth nor many years ago.

Interesting site you use, not exactly balanced is it? It is as interesting as much for what it leaves out as for what it includes.

There is no dispute that Jones was an avowed communist. But is he still?

This, from his book, The Green Collar Economy , released in October 2008:
"There will surely be an important role for nonprofit voluntary, cooperative, and community-based solutions," Jones writes on page 86. "But the reality is that we are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither the government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.
"So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world — and everyone else."

According to Coyote

How does Coyote know? Go to Bill Ayers Blogspot and what do you see, a picture of a Marxist that wrote books on how to start and organize an armed guerrilla-revolution-marxist movement.

How about I quote Bill Ayers in Venuzula 2006

There is a whole lot more, speeches, recent speeches like this, go to the link and you can see the video:

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

When was this manifesto written?

According to Coyote
Ayers has not been involved with radical groups for some 30 years– people change.

Explain how those equal being involved with radical groups? Is he a member or something? Is he setting bombs etc or is it just his leftist ideas you don’t like?

In another thread I called Coyote a moron, I have to take that back, its obvious Coyote is very smart and does much research, So Coyote must be very familiar with Bill Ayers, after all Coyote is not a moron, so why does Coyote state "people change" speaking of Bill Ayers? Bill Ayers has not changed, not one bit. No radical groups in 30 years may be correct, after all Hugo Chavez is not a radical group but a radical leader siezing control of Venuzula while violating human rights. So in a way Coyote is right, you cannot call Chavez and Marxism a group so Bill Ayers is not involved in a radical group.

Bill Ayers is an avowed Marxist, listen to Bill Ayers own words and hear it for yourself.

I don’t think I ever said Ayers wasn’t a Marxist. I'm also trying to figure out why it matters.

So who is Coyote, is Coyotes statement a simple mistake, a belief, or a real attempt to hide the truth.

I see Coyote as maybe posting lies to hide a avowed Marxist, I will let Coyote explain.

Coyote is a Flea-Bitten Perverted God Hating Frenchie Know-it-All Liberal Varmint. Now…what's your excuse?

Coyote is describing Ayers as an aquaintence, a casual contact, yet here is a photo of Obama's reveiw of Ayer's book.

There is much more, connecting Obama and Ayers, the Annenburg project, I can post stuff about that, Obama's meeting in Ayer's home, living in the same neighborhood, professors at the same university, and there is even more. Its my bedtime so this is it for now, but dont doubt that there is much more, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

If you are going to claim I said something, you need to be a little more accurate and not just pick stuff out.

What I said was this:

Well…why should they care? Ayers has not been involved with radical groups for some 30 years – people change. Rezko was hardly a close friend, and Wright was a pastor who had some radical views but who also, I suspect got taken out of context and blown out of proportion some of the time..

When some one is a public figure they gain thousands of aquaintences, friends, people who do business with them, or casual contacts. There are going to be controversial figures around them. It’s reminiscent of the debunked Clinton (and later Bush) “body counts”. snopes.com: The Clinton Body Count

In response to this

Now, Obama had Ayers, Wright, Rezko exposed during the campaign and all in the media (except Fox) said...who cares....and the people diodnt care.

While Ayers is something more than a casual aquaintence he is also something less than a close friend.

 

[Coyote]

whatever happened to coyote in this thread he/she made a unsubstantiated claim about ayers and has yet to respond.

I guess when confronted with indisputable facts coyote fades away from coyote's own claims.

Coyote is too busy scavenging political carrion to keep an eye out for your posts.

 

[Misty]

Mao is one of her favorite philosophers. Lol

 

[mdn2000]

here is no dispute that Jones was an avowed communist. But is he still?

Yes, Jones is still a Marxist.

Interesting site you use, not exactly balanced is it?

Nope, its not balanced, in politics the middle way is no way at all (John Adams said this first). Balanced or rule from the center is how the Marxist/Liberal tricks the opposition into comprimising and thus the Liberal/Marxist advances their idealogy incrementally.

There is no reason to be balanced nor to move to the center when one is confronted with a Liberal/Marxist. One does not make a deal with tyrants, it comprimises liberty.

When was this manifesto written?

It does not matter when Ayers wrote his manifesto, his veiws have not changed as Ayers states in the interview in 2006

Explain how those equal being involved with radical groups? Is he a member or something? Is he setting bombs etc or is it just his leftist ideas you don’t like?

First Ayers ideas are Marxist and yes I dont like Marxist ideas. Ayers never got caught setting off bombs, I beleive his wife did not get caught either, Ayers wife just accidentally blew herself up so was Ayers involved in a radical group, in Ayers words he states he was involved.

I don’t think I ever said Ayers wasn’t a Marxist. I'm also trying to figure out why it matters

Ayers is a professor at a college, does being a Marxist and teaching Marxist politics as a better system of goverment than Democracy matter, yes, it matters.

Ayers and Obama are freinds who share the beleif in Marxism. Does it matter, very much so.

While Ayers is something more than a casual aquaintence he is also something less than a close friend.

Something less than a close freind is a freind, close enough for me. Consider all the Marxist Obama has appointed indicates Obama has many, many, connections directly to Marxist.

 

[Oldandtired]

So based on this logic I keep seeing...

"He was but is no more"....regarding Ayers and Van Jones.....

and the logic the dems keep using like....

"yes he had a small bump with his taxes (Geitner), but he is the best man for the job".....

Well then....

Madoff, in my eyes, knows as much as, if not more than anyone else in regard to SEC Compliance. And since he only broke the law once, and I am sure he will say he is rehabilitated when asked.....should he be the new SEC Complaince Czar?

 

[Coyote]

here is no dispute that Jones was an avowed communist. But is he still?

Yes, Jones is still a Marxist.

We are talking about Communist, not Marxist.

Nope, its not balanced, in politics the middle way is no way at all (John Adams said this first). Balanced or rule from the center is how the Marxist/Liberal tricks the opposition into comprimising and thus the Liberal/Marxist advances their idealogy incrementally.

Balance in the poltiical spectrum does not necessarily mean Marxism. Balance is pragmatism over idealogues.

There is no reason to be balanced nor to move to the center when one is confronted with a Liberal/Marxist. One does not make a deal with tyrants, it comprimises liberty.

That is such a gross generalization it really isn't answerable.

It does not matter when Ayers wrote his manifesto, his veiws have not changed as Ayers states in the interview in 2006

It does matter - what was written in the manifesto is far broader than what he expressed in his interview. To say his views haven't changed - at all - would be inaccurate.

First Ayers ideas are Marxist and yes I dont like Marxist ideas. Ayers never got caught setting off bombs, I beleive his wife did not get caught either, Ayers wife just accidentally blew herself up so was Ayers involved in a radical group, in Ayers words he states he was involved.

You are deliberately blurring tenses here to try to make a false point.

What I said was: Explain how those equal being involved with radical groups? Is he a member or something? Is he setting bombs etc or is it just his leftist ideas you don’t like?

Ayers claimed he never set bombs, and he left the radical group when they became more violent. You can say "he never got caught" - but that is speculation not based on hard evidence or a conviction in a court of law. He has said repeatedly that he did not intend innocent people to be hurt. That doesnt' excuse what his group did - but we are talking how many years ago?

You may not like the ideas, but having Marxist ideas is no more "radical" than the ideals promoted by such rightwing think tanks as PNAC and does not equal belonging to radical groups.

Ayers is a professor at a college, does being a Marxist and teaching Marxist politics as a better system of goverment than Democracy matter, yes, it matters.

Is that what he is teaching? Or, is he comparing Marxism and capitalism?

Ayers and Obama are freinds who share the beleif in Marxism. Does it matter, very much so.

Can you support that claim with any hard data? Preferably more current then decades ago?

While Ayers is something more than a casual aquaintence he is also something less than a close friend.

Something less than a close freind is a freind, close enough for me. Consider all the Marxist Obama has appointed indicates Obama has many, many, connections directly to Marxist.

Well, if gross generalizations and factual inaccuracies are "close enough" for you...that is your choice, but don't whine if folks choose to ignore your posts

 

[Coyote]

So based on this logic I keep seeing...

"He was but is no more"....regarding Ayers and Van Jones.....

and the logic the dems keep using like....

"yes he had a small bump with his taxes (Geitner), but he is the best man for the job".....

Well then....

Madoff, in my eyes, knows as much as, if not more than anyone else in regard to SEC Compliance. And since he only broke the law once, and I am sure he will say he is rehabilitated when asked.....should he be the new SEC Complaince Czar?

So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?

Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.

Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.

Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.

 

[Oldandtired]

So based on this logic I keep seeing...

"He was but is no more"....regarding Ayers and Van Jones.....

and the logic the dems keep using like....

"yes he had a small bump with his taxes (Geitner), but he is the best man for the job".....

Well then....

Madoff, in my eyes, knows as much as, if not more than anyone else in regard to SEC Compliance. And since he only broke the law once, and I am sure he will say he is rehabilitated when asked.....should he be the new SEC Complaince Czar?

So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?

Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.

Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.

Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.

Nope..not at all what I said and not at all what can be inferred with what I said.

But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
You make a bad decision, you dam well better prove that you regret it before youy enter the WH.
You see....here in America....our highest officials are held to a higher standard...and it was always the press that hepld them there for us.

But whatever...I am kind of losing patience with you twisting my words.

It seems to be a bad habit of yours during good debates.

 

[Coyote]

So based on this logic I keep seeing...

"He was but is no more"....regarding Ayers and Van Jones.....

and the logic the dems keep using like....

"yes he had a small bump with his taxes (Geitner), but he is the best man for the job".....

Well then....

Madoff, in my eyes, knows as much as, if not more than anyone else in regard to SEC Compliance. And since he only broke the law once, and I am sure he will say he is rehabilitated when asked.....should he be the new SEC Complaince Czar?

So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?

Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.

Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.

Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.

Nope..not at all what I said and not at all what can be inferred with what I said.

But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
You make a bad decision, you dam well better prove that you regret it before youy enter the WH.
You see....here in America....our highest officials are held to a higher standard...and it was always the press that hepld them there for us.

But whatever...I am kind of losing patience with you twisting my words.

It seems to be a bad habit of yours during good debates.

You seem to have a bad habit of generalizing...should that put an end to debates?

You say: But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.

Ok, I can pretty much agree with that when it comes to criminal activity or really radical beliefs - but defining radical is pretty subjective. Some folks seem to think that anything left of center is "radical". I don't agree with that. I'm not saying you necessarily think that but it is clear from debates that there are those that do.

So looking at who has entered the White House we have Geitner, whom you mentioned. He had some tax problems that may or may not have been inadvertent there is no way to truely know. He paid it.

Ayers isn't part of the White House so he is a moot point.

Van Jones has done nothing wrong - rightwingers just don't like his ideology. Same with Anita Dunn. What "higher standard" should he have been held to? They try to smear him as a radical communist yet his own writings indicate a more current belief that capitalism is the best means for social change. I was not happy with many past administration appointees - but much of that was ideological and ideological reasons are not sound reasons to reject an appointment.

 

[Coyote]

OOPS!!!

Anita Dunn's husband leading candidate for White House counsel job...

Robert (Bob) Bauer, the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee and personal lawyer to President Obama and his chief campaign counsel, is emerging as the top candidate to replace Greg Craig as White House Counsel, Fox News has learned.

Senior White House officials declined to comment on Bauer's future status with the White House. But Democrats close to the situation said Bauer is under serious consideration as Craig's replacement. Craig is expected to leave the White House by year's end - if not sooner.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no decisions have been made on Craig's future or on any potential replacement.

Hmmmmmmmm. Cronyism appears to be rampant in The Barry's WH

One person is "rampant"?

 

[Oldandtired]

So...am I correct in assuming that you feel only some people change? Like, for example - President Bush was a former drunk and drug user, but it's ok - he "changed" Only conservatives can be granted the ability to change? Is that what you think?

Ayers isn't an administration official or advisor in any way so his current political ideals are largely irrelevant but he has, in interviews expressed regret that innocent lives may have inadvertently been put at risk.

Van Jones - if you read his book or interviews has clearly moved to capitalism as a means of social change. You may not agree with his idea of social change but that is nothing more than ideological differences. It doesn't make him even remotely comparable to Madoff.

Madoff is a convicted criminal who defrauded thousands of innocent people of their life savings. Van Jones is not nor ever was a convicted criminal nor is Geitner. Madoff may be rehabilitated but he has yet to serve his time or compensate his victims or show any indication of a desire to do so. It's an interesting comparison you make, but it is more along the lines of a logical fallacy.

Nope..not at all what I said and not at all what can be inferred with what I said.

But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.
You make a bad decision, you dam well better prove that you regret it before youy enter the WH.
You see....here in America....our highest officials are held to a higher standard...and it was always the press that hepld them there for us.

But whatever...I am kind of losing patience with you twisting my words.

It seems to be a bad habit of yours during good debates.

You seem to have a bad habit of generalizing...should that put an end to debates?

You say: But for someone to say he has changed without ANY indication of such is not enough for that person to enter the WH.

Ok, I can pretty much agree with that when it comes to criminal activity or really radical beliefs - but defining radical is pretty subjective. Some folks seem to think that anything left of center is "radical". I don't agree with that. I'm not saying you necessarily think that but it is clear from debates that there are those that do.

So looking at who has entered the White House we have Geitner, whom you mentioned. He had some tax problems that may or may not have been inadvertent there is no way to truely know. He paid it.

Ayers isn't part of the White House so he is a moot point.

Van Jones has done nothing wrong - rightwingers just don't like his ideology. Same with Anita Dunn. What "higher standard" should he have been held to? They try to smear him as a radical communist yet his own writings indicate a more current belief that capitalism is the best means for social change. I was not happy with many past administration appointees - but much of that was ideological and ideological reasons are not sound reasons to reject an appointment.

If you consider saying you are a communist as an adult AND NEVER renouncing it as doing nothing wrong, we will never be able to debate honestly.

If you believe a WH appointee telling high school students that Moa is one of her two favorite POLITICAL philosophers as doing nothing wrong, then I have no interest in debating you.

As for Geithner....he ONLY paid it when it was revealed...and he STILL did not pay what he owed from making the same mistake previously as he was not "cauight" as that was not originally audited.....and yes, he finally paid that when Fox let the cat out of the bag on that one.

To me...if you get audited and you did something wrong, you are not necessarily to blame.....but if you had done it earlier as well, and did not point that out to the auditor....you may be a msart man as we all would do the same...but you have lost the right to be a WH appointee.

Funny....all those Obama supporters complained about Bush and his "lies and deceit"...and the runors flew around about himwith nothing concrete...just rumors.

So here, we have an administration where rumors do not need to fly....we have proof.....a lot of crap on film and yet..."thats OK!...they made mistakes"

Pathetic.