Baucus Defends Galpal Nomination

18 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Sisyphus on December 07 at 10:39 a.m.

  Actually, its kinda difficult to figure out what their standards are since it all seems to be done in secret. I also don’t know the degree to which the personal relationship was disclosed to decision makers. Certainly she’d have to undertake an FBI check which likely would have disclosed it anyway. But I don’t see where this rises to soliciting anonymous sex in a public restroom, paying prostitutes to pull your diapers off, or bribing your mistress’ family $100,000 in hush money.

  I come down on the side of investigate, if for nothing else, to let these good ol boys know they’re being watched. The problem with senators policing themselves is their presumption of honorablilty which the permeates the body. One would think the presumption would have the opposite effect and would cause them to be more aggressive when an offense brings shame on all of them.

• 

  JeanieSpokane on December 07 at 10:57 a.m.

  Is there a policy that prohibits nominating a spouse? If so, I would think that would cover the live-in girlfriend. If not - then no big deal.

• 

  Cindy_H on December 07 at 11:04 a.m.

  “paying prostitutes to pull your diapers off,”

  What the heck?
  Can I just say I’m so thankful to have missed this one. And no, I don’t want any further information.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 07 at 11:18 a.m.

  LOL Cindy. Senator David Vitter. (R-La.) He received a standing ovation from his Republican colleagues when his role in the DC madam story broke years ago. Vitter, a family values crusader, was a regular with some, ahem, interesting needs. Not only did he not resign, but he’s gearing up for re-election. He’s already got some interesting opposition shaping up, Stormy Daniels, a porn star who likes to campaign on the fact that what she does ain’t illegal.

  Funny how our ‘liberal’ media’s desire for salacious material seems to overlook that one.

• 

  Fixer on December 07 at 11:21 a.m.

  The law, 5 USC 3110, is pretty clear about any Senator’s actions regarding relatives:

  “A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion,
  or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction
  or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed,
  promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or
  advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency,
  who is a relative of the individual.”

  However, “girlfriend” doesn’t meet the definition of “relative”. Perhaps an investigation of Baucus’ activities should take place, if for no other reason, than to determine whether adjustments should be made to the ethics rules.

• 

  Cindy_H on December 07 at 11:23 a.m.

  Sis! What part of no more info needed didn’t you understand?
  I know you’re just hoping I’ll google Vitter/diapers/hookers.
  But I won’t.
  I still haven’t recovered from looking up Bob Barker in the urban dictionary.
  Just saying.

• 

  Joker on December 07 at 11:25 a.m.

  I reminded of Paul Wolfowitz, who was given his walking papers at the World Bank for giving his girlfriend a big raise.

  Baucus is an idiot for this one. Maybe he should resign. I am not sure what it is about these politicians, but obviously the blood is draining from their heads to some other area.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 07 at 11:32 a.m.

  Now Cindy, I avoided the bad stuff solely on your behalf. Give me some credit.

  And I daresay if girlfriend was included in the nepotism standard we’d have seen very little of Helen Chenoweth.

• 

  Charlie on December 07 at 12:01 p.m.

  She has a striking resemblance to Harriet Miers, GWB’s almost supreme court nominee. Sisters?

• 

  Sisyphus on December 07 at 12:03 p.m.

  Never noticed that Charlie but now that you mention it she does look a younger version. And she seems to be sporting a rock of her own on the left hand.

• 

  Katrina on December 07 at 1:41 p.m.

  I didn’t know what political party Baucus was from (been taking a mental health sabbatical from the news for a while), but one click through to the comments makes it abundantly clear. It’s funny how dependable HBOers are about either defending or excoriating public figures based on their party affiliation alone.

  Do you guys use a fill-in-the-blank template, or what? It’s like MadLibs, but with political commentary! “(Name of politician), a (choose one: Democrat/Republican), recently confessed to (description of crime or lapse of judgment). He is clearly a (scumbag, misunderstood victim of circumstance, earthly incarnation of ultimate evil, cuddle bunny who just couldn’t help it).”

  I think I’m getting the hang of this! ;)

• 

  DFO on December 07 at 1:57 p.m.

  @ Katrina re: “It’s funny how dependable HBOers are about either defending or excoriating public figures based on their party affiliation alone.”

  I’ve reached the point that I think they’re all slimey and to be mistrusted. I no longer have a problem castigated either side of the divide. In a way, I long for the days when I was blind to the misdeeds on one side of the divide and oversensitive to the ones on the other. Now, I’m just cynical and view the major political parties as out to protect their own interests at all costs. I appreciate a coupla politicians. But their numbers are dwindling.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 07 at 2:06 p.m.

  Interesting Katrina. You know next to nothing and yet draw so many conclusions. Baucus has long been a conservative Democrat from Montana. This allegation of wrongdoing is interesting in both the scope of the media attention it has drawn and the gravity of the transgressions when compared to other unchecked senatorial misconduct in the just the last two years. I fully expect that this little nugget was sitting in some lobbyist’s pocket waiting for the right time to discredit anyone or anything connected with him. But while I think it has to do with the upcoming debate, I can’t figure out who.

  Lately he’s been very influential in the health care debate where he garnered much scorn from HCR supporters for trying unsuccessfully to get Republican support. These same supporters would argue that if Republicans wanna claim him they can have him. Yet he’s on board with supporting reform all the while filling his campaign coffers with tons o’ cash from the insurance industry in exchange for some fat subsidies he padded in his version of the reform bill. Either side may be gunning for him at this point.

  But I’m on record with investigating him. I just don’t think in the end this will amount to much. Being a wonk this fascinates me. But if you wanna dismiss it as partisan malarkey, well, alrighty then.

• 

  Katrina on December 07 at 2:50 p.m.

  Apologies, Sis, if I’ve tarred you undeservedly. You sound like you do know a lot about the situation. (As you quite rightly point out, I don’t know anything at all about this story.) However, based on past postings, I’m having trouble imagining you being as dismissive of the transgression (or lapse of judgment or whatever it was) if a Republican were the one in the hotseat.

  I was just laughing (to myself, at first—perhaps it should have stayed that way) at how easy it was to decipher the subject’s political party based on the comments. And, though it might have been a coincidence in this case, my guess was not wrong. I imagine I could perform the same experiment pretty successfully on threads having to do with any of the recent ridiculous spate of congressional misbehavior.

  Nice use of the word “malarkey”, by the way. :) Cheers, Sis!

• 

  Cindy_H on December 07 at 3:01 p.m.

  Katrina: The Mad libs reference made my day!
  Still smiling :-)

• 

  Sisyphus on December 07 at 3:19 p.m.

  As the only ‘Mad lib’ on the thread it was not difficult to ascertain the object of your comment Katrina. I sincerely don’t think this allegation is all that major based upon what we know so far. Neither does Dave judging by the question. But I’m genuinely curious to know who has it in for Baucus cause he’s made enemies in both camps and seemingly with his constituents as well.

  Don’t let me discourage you from commenting. I enjoy the dialogue. And I welcome your scrutiny. While I often assert a lefties’ point of view when its absent, I’m not the knee jerk I’m accused of being.

• 

  richard on December 07 at 8:17 p.m.

  ‘Sis’ you seem to be doin some back peddling on your earlier comments. In your post where you compared Baucus’ slime to a litany of Republican slime, saying it certainly didn’t rise to the same level.

  And while I agree with you, I would only add that it also didn’t rise to the serial slimes of Bill Clinton; to governor Spitzer who was not a slime, but a hypocritical slime; or to Barney Frank slime where his partner was running a whore house in Barney’s basement!

  Baucus isn’t nearly as slimey as any of these.

  Wouldn’t you agree? Just checkin’

• 

  spokelooneh on December 07 at 10:18 p.m.

  Baucus is worse.
  Thwap!

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic