Georgie wants Henry Paulson, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, to replace Jack Snow as the Secretary of the Treasury.

This, in my opinion, is an excellent choice.

Sometimes W demonstrates that he still has a brain cell left (in spite of his best efforts to the contrary).

Thoughts?


(Edit: - oh yeah, links to the story..... guess I'll have to work on those brain cells myself..... )

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=801642006

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1786556,00.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...E6%7D&keyword=

http://www.gs.com/our_firm/media_cen...le_918630.html

http://www.forbes.com/markets/commod...markets12.html

know what Paulson's biggest passion is?

THE ENVIRONMENT!! He actually thinks the US should sign the KYOTO TREATY..

Isn't that Ironical?

Additionally, Goldman Sachs seems to produce quality guys:

ROBERT RUBIN
JON CORZINE
STEPHEN FRIEDMAN

You know...Bush may be a "liberal" after all...

__________________
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."

If he is an environmentalist then I'm for him.

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters

29% in the polls sometimes can trigger seismic activity in one's brain..

__________________
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet."

If you guys were simply willing to be objective about Bush, you'd know that he cares greatly about the environment as well. Not being for the Kyoto Agreement doesn't mean anything. Kyoto exempts some of the biggest polluters in the world. So, how in the world does THAT help the environment. It's a flawed agreement. No reason why the U.S. should be a part of a flawed agreement......one which only hurts us economically while exempting others.

I've also never understood why Bush doesn't talk about his own home and the state of the art environmentally-friendly manner in which it was built. Something that tmost people aren't even aware of.

I had to laugh when Hillary was asked last week about what she and Bill do personally to help the environment.....she stumbled around and could only say, "they were thinking about some things."

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

I agree that Paulson is a decent choice. But he faces three obstacles:

1. Economic policy is made in the White House;

2. Bush is an unpopular lame duck;

3. The Bush administration is not notably open to contrary views.

Bush has made it clear that he's mostly looking for a cheerleader, someone to talk up the economy. Paulson, like Tony Snow, says he was assured that he would be a key player in setting economic policy; but history is not encouraging in that regard.

I predict that Paulson will quickly be isolated by other White House insiders, marginalized in the policy discussions and quickly become frustrated with his cheerleader role.

__________________
Man up.

I think this was a good choice. And I don't think Paulson will be overly bothered by being isolated by the neocons. He knows what he's in for. This will be a roughly two year resume builder, if nothing else. The inside knowledge he'll gain while on staff couldn't be bought... well, maybe that's taking it too far, but still.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

I caught the tail end of that speech while I was driving to work, and you rather distort what she actually said. Here's a transcript:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ha...eils_0523.html

__________________
Man up.

He won't be isolated..
Bush only picks Neocons its all part of the ROVE/CHENEY PROGRAM!
So too bad....You guys hate him...Paulson is obviously an Unterofficer of PNAC.

Enjoy your own rhetoric

I believe Bush cares about the environment, but I also he believe he cares about his corporate buddies (especially the oil ones) more.

On Kyoto, the reason some countries, including China, are allowed to pollute more is because the treaty differentiates between developing and developed countries. Agree or Disagree, but the logic is that Europe and America went through the industrialization process where they polluted like there was no tomorrow and are not at a place where they can cut back... where as developing countries will have to go through the same process to arrive where Euro/America is today.