Will Panetta be next on the chopping block?
posted at 8:58 am on February 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Wall Street Journal reports that Leon Panetta made over $700,000 in speaking fees to interest groups last year, some of which came from firms tied to the economic collapse. Will this derail the former Clinton chief of staff from taking over at the CIA? If his lack of experience didn’t put him at risk, this looks unlikely to matter:
The White House’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday.
Mr. Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday’s scheduled Senate hearing on Mr. Panetta’s nomination.
Both Merrill and Wachovia reported big losses last year and were acquired by larger firms. The Wachovia honorarium was dated Oct. 30, and the last Merrill Lynch honorarium was dated Oct. 11, according to disclosure forms filed by Mr. Panetta in connection with his nomination. At the time, Bank of America had agreed to a rescue of Merrill Lynch; Wachovia had agreed to be acquired by Wells Fargo & Co.
Mr. Panetta’s disclosure form illustrates how retired politicians commonly make money giving speeches and consulting for prominent companies with significant interests before the government. That was one element in the controversy over the cabinet nomination of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who withdrew Tuesday.
It was one element, sure, but hardly the most important element. Daschle failed to pay taxes on his income and on the limousine service his employer provided him, which created far more trouble for Daschle than just earning speaking fees. That made Daschle the ultimate “limousine liberal” and turned his appointment into an embarrassment for Barack Obama, and Daschle finally had the good sense to leave as quietly as possible under the circumstances.
Accepting speaking fees from corporate clients, though, should present few problems for Panetta. It doesn’t break any laws, and as far as is known, Panetta paid his taxes, which already puts him in the upper percentiles of Obama appointments. Furthermore, Panetta’s speaking fees didn’t come from companies doing business in the spy sector. Why not? Because Panetta never had anything to do with intelligence work before now, so no one would pay to hear what he thinks about it.
No one, that is, until Barack Obama. For some reason, Obama decided that in a time of war against terrorist networks, what the CIA really needs as a leader is a political hatchet man with no experience in their work at all, except for reading some of their briefings. It’s akin to putting the editors of Jane’s in charge of an armored division because they took some great pictures of tanks.
A Senate with the best interests of the nation at war in mind would challenge Panetta’s appointment on the basis of common sense, not on irrelevant speaking fees. But perhaps the irrelevance of the speaking fees will remind some Senators of the irrelevance of Panetta to the intelligence effort.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
“Change you can believe in”
Hmm
jake-the-goose on February 5, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Hope. It really is just a town in Arkansas.
TugboatPhil on February 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Question: Does he just seem to gravitate towards the losers or was it something that he said that derailed them?
genso on February 5, 2009 at 9:04 AM
I don’t trust Obama to appoint the Jane’s editors. He’d probably go for Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone.
Techie on February 5, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Panetta’s speaking fees will not derail the nomination but perhaps asking him directly where the CIA is located (guessing the state would be close enough) might do the trick!
How, in this time of two ongoing wars and international intelligence battles – can a nominee be considered who has zero (n-o-n-e) intelligence experience – seems a question for which nobody has the answer. Panetta’s nomination serves only to confirm Obama’s rookie status as a Chief Executive.
IntheNet on February 5, 2009 at 9:06 AM
He’s fine…this shouldn’t matter. People speak and make money all the time…if Ms Clinton can make millions (via her husband) speaking to foreign countries and then lead up State, this should not be an issue…
jwehman on February 5, 2009 at 9:06 AM
R’s better stand firm against him.
No intel experience?
Then again, we have Mr training wheels in the WH.
artist on February 5, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Cheating on taxes — not a problem.
Having no experience in a vital component of America’s security — not a problem
Being paid to make speeches — woo, dude, that makes you a capitalist. Put him up against the wall!
rbj on February 5, 2009 at 9:11 AM
I’m sorry. I don’t get it. People paid him for speaking/lecturing. So? Am I missing something?
vcferlita on February 5, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Maybe one of the most important positions in the next two years, and he pulls in someone with zero experience…Obama plays basketball, he’s in a tight game, his team needs to score; he looks to the bench and puts in the soccer player…no looks like he is going for the tennis player…what a CHANGE, what is he HOPING for?
right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I think, looking at my previous post, his new mantra needs to be revised just a bit.
Hope and Change, needs to become….Change then Hope…
right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Arguably, the editors of Jane’s should at least have some clue when it comes to defense matters; Unlike panetta when it comes to intelligence matters, other than possibly cutting the CIA’s budget.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on February 5, 2009 at 9:14 AM
At least the people at Jane’s deal with their subject matter constantly and have probably gleaned some valuable insights over time.
Putting Pinata in charge is stupid, but stupidity has become the byline of this new administration.
Guns. Buy them early, buy them often, just buy them.
Bishop on February 5, 2009 at 9:17 AM
In an article posted on National Review, reports some suspicion that Panetta leaked a memo that was used to pillory Richard Nixon adding fuel to the growing leftist hatred that resulted in Nixon’s resignation.
Skandia Recluse on February 5, 2009 at 9:17 AM
What are waivers for, after all?
Akzed on February 5, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Appears that he is first a mouthpiece for the failed banking system.
Second he has no experience in what they want him to manage.
Third he is just another Clinton re-tread.
It is never just “one thing” it is a culmination of weak points. And he is accumulating them, add to that Obama is now “gun shy” at picking his leaders.
He has failed miserably the past few weeks, and his weakness, his shallowness, his lack of ability is beginning to show and he is probably near tears.
right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 9:18 AM
This would only be a problem if he were a Republican and the only reason that’s an issue is because the MSM and Democrats consider conservative policy illegal.
perroviejo on February 5, 2009 at 9:18 AM
This kills me.
I’ve been out of work since last August. Right now I am busting my tail, helping a startup company on the chance that I might get a $25,000 commission by helping them secure some venture capital, and further commissions on sales of their product. And these clowns get paid more than that just to make a damn speech about nothing. And they do it with no shame, while calling themselves liberals who care about the “working men and women.”
Bruce Springsteen is charging a hundred bucks on this concert tour. A hundred bucks to hear him sing songs about the working man and pronounce his liberal bona fides, and apologize for making a deal with Walmart.
They all make me sick.
rockmom on February 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Getting paid for speaking engagements that don’t show a conflict of interest should not be a problem.
What should be a problem however is being appointed to head the CIA with no real intelligence experience or expertise.
I like this quote:(via instapundit)
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/02/now-we-are-just-haggling-over-the-price.html
Obama is also probably walking straight into the fire by pissing off the CIA putting a liberal partisan in charge:
Comment: CIA Insiders Issue Political Threats Against Obama, Panetta
January 8, 2009 ·
http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/02-32/
Looks like another genius move by Mr. 57 states.
Baxter Greene on February 5, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Another eloquent speaker with no credible experience put in a very important government position.
sherry on February 5, 2009 at 9:22 AM
I would say it is closed to a ‘true Freshman’ than anything else.
belad on February 5, 2009 at 9:22 AM
With this no experience clown running things, into the ground, we all better be saving our change and hope we can derail this economic catastrophy thet the Dems seem intent on forcing down our throats
Ltmousseman on February 5, 2009 at 9:23 AM
rockmom on February 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Don’t hate the players, hate the game.
It’s not my money, so if somebody wants to pay Pinata to make a speech, go for it. If they wanted to pay me to do the same thing, I’d happily do it. Are libs hypocrites? Sure, but that’s life in the big city.
Bishop on February 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Comedy gold.
Vashta.Nerada on February 5, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Bishop on February 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM
On the positive side, at least Springsteen didn’t make a political speech during Super Bowl halftime.
This has to be the worst start for an administration evah.
kingsjester on February 5, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Let’s “Hope” so!
Branch Rickey on February 5, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Glad I don’t live in NYC or DC….
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Um do rich right wing political hacks piss you off too or are you just a flaming hypocrite? I love how you’ve decided that Democrats are the only ones in the political class who earn sick amounts of money for dumb speaking engagements. Hank Williams also earns alot of money for concerts. If you have a problem with an elite class maybe you should join a socialist organisation instead of pretending that the only people who are “unfairly” rich (your characterization) are Democrats and liberals. Get a clue.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM
The hypocrisy of the left is once again on full display:
What Did Leon Panetta Know About Rendition And When Did He Know It?
http://www.redstate.com/pejman_yousefzadeh/2009/01/10/what-did-leon-panetta-know-about-rendition-and-when-did-he-know-it/
Thus far, defenders of Director-designate of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta make the following points in defense of the proposition that he would make a good DCI:
It is going to be hilarious watching liberals that called Bush a liar,war criminal,and accused him of tearing up our Constitution over programs like this(NSA wiretapping also)defend this guy who helped institute Rendition as a way of dealing with our enemies.
Baxter Greene on February 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM
You’re late. Does Axelrod know you went to IHOP before coming to work?
genso on February 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM
IntheNet:
He is just following in footsteps of the prez! Panetta is an empty suit leftists.
Other than that; I am as baffled as you!
Branch Rickey on February 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM
I don’t know, with Obama shooting himself in the foot on so many appointments and allowing Pelosi to hijack his first piece of significant legislation, Obama has allowed the GOP to catch up in a big hurry. It’s as if Obama went up 28-0 in the first quarter, and then turned around and threw two interceptions that got returned for touchdowns. We have a long way to go, so the GOP shouldn’t try to make things up too quickly. Start chipping away at the important stuff.
To be sure, the CIA is important–critical even–but Obama’s chosen someone who’s arguably qualified, given Obama’s job description for the role, which is that Obama wants a good manager. The public just won’t get its mind around this appointment. Unless the GOP can find a pattern of gross incompetence in Panetta’s past experience, it should gripe loudly on the record about Panneta’s inexperience in intelligence and even vote against him on that principle. But don’t engage in a death match over this guy.
Let’s face it, the country elected a moron with no international experience to CIC, and now the moron wants more inexperience in intelligence. When Johnny Jihad sets of a small nuclear weapon in some Midwest metropolitan area, Obama will have to defend Panetta’s appointment.
Personally, I’d save the death matches for Supreme Court appointments and landmark legislation.
It’s 28-14. We still got a lot of catching up to do, but it’s only the first two weeks. For now, target the stimulus bill.
BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM
You’re late. Does Axelrod know you went to IHOP before coming to work?
genso on February 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Dude…he WORKS at Ihop.
Bishop on February 5, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Having sat through these kinds of productions, the real question is what POS corporate executive thinks it’s a good idea to invite a hack like Panetta to speak to any collection of his or her workforce. Save the dough, get each of those workers a subscription to The WSJ and some conservative political publication, and tell them to eat lunch at their desks catching up on current events.
What a fricking waste of money.
BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Why is Clinton hanging out with the father from American Pie?
YellowDawg on February 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM
DeathToMediaHacks on February 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM
First, rockmom is going through a tough time. Show a little class, Scooter. Next, Conservatives have been shown to be more charitable in their giving than the Liberal Elites. Bocephus is one of those who gives time and money to good causes. Only Liberal/Beltway Elites can be so pompously arrogant and ineffectual at the same time. Look at what’s happening in the current administration. Their bad choices and the resulting spin have their popularity ratings in a freefall.
The Stimulous bill has a 37 % approval rating that is falling rapidly also. Our enemies are starting to laugh at us for putting such a lightweight in office. So, Hack, to bring this rant back to square one, it’s not how much money and power you have. It’s what you accomplish with it.
kingsjester on February 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM
If he DOES end up on the “chopping block”, we will have found HIS new nickname………waitforit……
PANCETTA
LIBBY moonbats are 98.99% pure pig lard anyhoo…
seejanemom on February 5, 2009 at 9:47 AM
There’s stunting in the line. The corners are showing blitz. Obama looks worried as takes the snap from center. He steps back in the pocket and looks left. His protection is breaking down. He looks left again, cocks his arm and fires…
whitetop on February 5, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Amen
Vashta.Nerada on February 5, 2009 at 9:51 AM
What could that reason be?
Pardon my paranoia, but could Panetta have had something on the Clinton’s that he would’ve given Obama to use in the primaries against Hillary?
Perhaps that’s far-fetched…but so, too, is this appointment.
misslizzi on February 5, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Sack Panetta for Valerie Plame. At least she has relevant experience.
Steve Z on February 5, 2009 at 9:56 AM
I can’t speak for the poster to whom your responding, but in my view a lot of the criticisms you are hearing may be call-outs to what is perceived as grandstanding hypocrisy as opposed to people getting paid what the market will bear. I personally have few problems with people making a buck for speeches that someone is willing to pay for. What is amusing is lengths that some (Gore, Springsteen, etc.) will go to convince us commoners that they get us, are like us, and are looking out for us and all the while are not applying their professed standards of behavior to their own lives. Since “you won” you should expect to hear more and more of this…. goes with the territory.
Pianobuff on February 5, 2009 at 9:56 AM
I think everybody has something on everybody. Why would O ever want to have anything to do with Hill? It’s the end game that they all want.
genso on February 5, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Of course, but the question is: how does this Panetta guy figure into this end game?
misslizzi on February 5, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Obama NEEDS Panetta’s intelligence. Panetta knows where those other 7 states are hiding, and those states haven’t paid their taxes in the last four years.
Yoop on February 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM
You have to have someone there. From Obama’s standpoint, who better to have than a know-nothing who is easily controlled. Stalin didn’t surround himself with people who were good at their jobs, only those who would not challenge his authority.
genso on February 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM
What cabinet position was Hank Williams appointed to?
I am telling you, as I have before…each of your posts make you look dumber and dumber…We are talking about people in Obama’s cabinets, not entertainers…Hank Williams, CIA director?
HAHAHAHAHA!!! You are such a fool, stick around, you crack me up…
right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Makes sense, though I question whether Obama is the one with the authority or the brains here, at least on a Stalinistic level.
Oops! There goes that paranoia again!
misslizzi on February 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I’ve never heard a Democratic politician ever say money is bad, capitalism is bad and that wealth should be curtailed. Thus being a Dem political hack that makes money isn’t hypocritical. Now a Dem political hack that makes money and doesn’t pay his taxes (Tom Daschle) THAT’S a hypocrite, because Dem politicians claim to believe in higher taxes and a kind of wealth redistribution. I expressed nothing but glee at Daschle’s expulsion from consideration for HHS because he’s a health industry hack.
However I get your larger point and I say (and have been saying often lately it seems) the GOP really is no better. They ran on “protecting marriage” and how many of them have been caught in affairs? They run against “liberal elitism” yet how many of them belong to exclusive country clubs. They run for “free market conservatism” yet how many ofthem openly push for Federal subdsidization of private industries, which is corporatism, not free market conservatism. One thing I’ve noticed being on this site the last few months is the remarkable symmetry between GOP/DEM supporters. You’re basically willing to believe *whatever* is convenient about the other party and your own, in defiance of facts because some political strategist has figured out how to pander to you. It’s a shame. I thought the conservative blogosphere’s critic of the media would at least also lead to a healthy skepticism of the GOP…not so much.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM
The post I responded to mentioned Bruce Springstein in its tirade, please read before you put your foot in your mouth.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Lest we forget, our last Democrat President never had a single meeting with his CIA Director, R. James Woolsey. So maybe it doesn’t matter who fills the slot in a Dem administration, since CIA input is of no interest to someone who is willing to cower before our enemies.
fogw on February 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM
They all piss me off. And I never give Republicans a pass just because they don’t claim to hate rich people while getting rich themselves. I served in the Reagan Administration with a guy who told people before he came to Washington that he was doing it to get rich. He ended up in jail. I know some of the bigtime lobbyists in DC and I can’t stand any of them. I used to be a smalltime lobbyist, and I got out of it because I had Congressmen actually trying to get my clients to fire me and hire their better connected, richer friends and former colleagues. Bob Ney tried to get me fired so my client would hire his former chief of staff who was working for Jack Abramoff. I can’t stand that SOB and I’m glad he is in jail. A whole lot of other ones ought to be. It is an entire culture that is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.
And as for Springsteen, he’s a guy who could afford to charge 10 bucks for his concerts, (as recently as 2004 he charged $75, which is a lot but not terrible) but he doesn’t. My son just went to see Metallica for $62.50. They could have charged $100 too, but they didn’t. And he didn’t get a big political lecture in the middle of the show. I was hoping to get tickets to see Springsteen, I’ve seen him 10 times, but when I found out they were $100 I said that’s it, no more. He has a big a tin ear as Barack Obama does.
My problem with Leon Panetta, Tom Daschle, and Eric Holder is that they all were major practitioners of the corrupt Washington culture that I thought Barack Obama had vowed to clean up. The one appeal Obama had to people like me is that he had not been around the Washington culture long enough to get sucked into it and therefore he might actually have what it takes to change it. How’s he going to do that with guys like these in key agencies in his government? Are we to believe that Eric Holder now suddenly cares about ethics and honesty in government? Were there no other black Democratic lawyers available for the job who had not cashed in on prior government service? Was Leon Panetta really the best man to run the CIA, or was he just another Democratic elite for whom Obama had to find a job?
Of course, the day Obama named Rahm Emanuel chief of staff, I knew he wasn’t going to change a damn thing in Washington. Now he’s leading the charge for the worst piece of legislation in the history of the Republic, whining that people want to know exactly what’s in it before swallowing another trillion dollars in debt. He’s getting rolled by the culture already.
rockmom on February 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Funny and true. Don’t listen to anything that might challenge your view on something. Sounds like the MO for liberals.
genso on February 5, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Yea,he knew where Osama was to.
Passed up on taking him more than 8 times.
If Obama is having to depend on a Clinton appointee for his
“brain” that was in charge while al-qaeda attacked at will and grew to enormous strength,than we are getting in deeper trouble as each day passes.
The CIA has already let it be known that choosing him is a huge mistake.
They will make life a living hell for the Paparazzi President and his policies of capitulation and appeasement.
Baxter Greene on February 5, 2009 at 10:20 AM
hopeychangey
notagool on February 5, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I couldn’t agree with you more that the knife cuts both ways. Right now, Dems are making the preponderance of the calls which as far as I can tell is why the knife is turning. I suggest you read conservative blog archives to find examples of R’s getting the same heat from their own. First one that comes to mind is Ted Stevens, though if I spent more time thinking about it I could come up with more, as could others here.
To your point about no Dem saying wealth should be curtailed, etc., may I remind you of a certain President who recently said “now is not the time for profits”.
Pianobuff on February 5, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Stay tuned for a floodgate of leaks to the NYT.
fogw on February 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Can’t say I disagree with any of that. Particularly in terms of Panetta and Daschle. In terms of “new voices” in the Administration they are in the minority, it’s shaping up to be (another) Dem administration. All we can do is see what happens. That said, Obama, at least, has started a conversation that was entirely absent in Washington the last 8 years. We didn’t blink an eye as Bush appointed industry lobbysts to regulate those same industries, now we’re paying attention and calling people out who are defense contractors and healthcare industry stooges. This is actually good. And if it took a Dem getting in power and some hypocritical partisanship to get both sides of the spectrum caring about lobbysts then so be it. I’ll look at Obama’s record in 2012 and see if how much his appointees have actually done anything new and different. If they have I’m on board again, if not I’m back on the sidelines.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I can’t believe Obama effectively doubled-down on Pelosi’s legislation with his WaPo editorial today. Even the original 50-50 support is turning against him. He’s trying to force feed this thing down the country’s throat by the Valentine’s Day Weekend, and I don’t think the country is buying it. Word is out and people are noting its bogus components–and his Tupperware Parties aren’t going to change any opinion. His false deadline is going to blow up in his face. We saw it in October with Paulson (where is that guy now? renting a room in Jeremiah Wright’s house along with OBL?)
What employee in this country hasn’t suffered the horsesh*t of a moron boss who imposes a false deadline? The important thing is not just to do something, but to do something constructive that makes sense.
What did Gene Krantz (Ed Harris’s character) say in Apollo 13, “Let’s work the problem. Let’s not make it worse by just guessing.”
Obama is throwing into the flats for the third time in a row–and he’s telegraphing the pass. I smell another interception and a big runback when Congress sits on the bill until after Valentine’s Day Weekend.
BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM
r2b: have a great day
death to media hacks: are you in between social studies and algebra when you post? Just curious.
Branch Rickey on February 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Who’s “We”, you and your chia pet? You’ve got to be joking or you never read a newspaper during the Bush presidency.
Huh? 17 appointees so far who worked as lobbyists. Well yeah, that’s got a lot of people talking …. about his hypocrisy.
fogw on February 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I just love the idiots that our Leader is putting in high Positions. I wonder if I should do my taxes then>? Unreal how our Reps have been getting by with out paying taxes. Then our Treasurer gets confirmed…….. This makes me nervous more. Looking at his picture the man looks like a weasel. Shiftless turd.
sheebe on February 5, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Imus had his brother on this morning who used to like Obama, he has some problems with the New President including this stimulus.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/02/fred-imus-proves-radio-is-still.html
Dr Evil on February 5, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Fair enough. I knew some of the hacks that went into the Bush administration and I was none too pleased about them.
I am concerned that Obama suffers from the same problem that Bush had – both came into the Presidency as relative rookies with few close friends and without a large circle of people who were personally loyal to them. So they had to turn to “the establishment” to find people to serve with them. Washington has become so appealing to people of both parties who came there to serve, becauee of the huge amounts of money being thrown around by the law and lobbying firms who just want that big name on the letterhead. You are simply not going to change Washington by populating your Administration with such people.
Barack Obama made great hay against Hillary Clinton by using the line “we are not going to change Washington by just sending the same people back there to sit in different chairs.” Would be nice if he would at least try to live up to his own campaign rhetoric.
rockmom on February 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM
He has a pass that excuses him from physical education class.
BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2009 at 10:44 AM
LOL, would not surprise me!
Branch Rickey on February 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Meanwhile Paul Volcker calls Larry Summers a woman, because he has an inferior brain and cannot lead like a real man.
Volcker then orders Larry to go do the ironing!
Mr. Joe on February 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Need some clarification here. You’re telling us you’re deaf or that you live somewhere without electricity?
TugboatPhil on February 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I am pretty sure you wrote this:
Really, I am telling you, he is not up for a cabinet postition…honest.
He may run for the senate…but he is not running for a cabinet position…
right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
This guy is insane, thinking he has any business accepting this nomination in the first place. Another day, another EPIC FAIL from Rahmulus and Reamus.
Christien on February 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
“Transparency”
drjohn on February 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM
The Rahm Emanuel presidency is sinking fast.
rockmom on February 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM
What I cannot wrap my head around is that someone hired Panetta to hear him speak about something/anything. I cannot imagine I would get all excited about attending a meeting or a conference where Leon Panetta was the guest speaker. If I had to go I would bring a crossword puzzle to do or something. Why was this guy getting paid to speak?
HawaiiLwyr on February 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Businesspeople always want to hear what is going on in Washington and why. They are pretty clueless about government and politics. Panetta was a major figure in the Clinton White House and in Congress before that, so he’ll be in demand as a speaker. But the fees people like him rake in for these speeches is obscene.
rockmom on February 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM
That’s the way to create a lobbyist, without calling them a lobbyist.
You pay someone to do a gig for $50,000 grand, and you have an ally…
Look at Carter, he gets big bucks from the middle east, and suddenly the middle east terrorists can do no wrong.
right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Mmm. Pancetta. Mi piace la pancetta frita, con uove e pomidori e spinacci. mmm….oh wait. We’re talking about Panetta….mmmmmmmm….Panera. Mi piace Panera, zuppa e sandwiches.
Jewel on February 5, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Changalanche! TM
TheSitRep on February 5, 2009 at 1:27 PM
If ever there was a beta male, it’s Leon Panetta.
Putting him in charge of the CIA is madness.
RJL on February 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Ed, I’d wager that any one of Jane’s editors has significantly more intelligence experience that Mr. Panetta.
cryptojunkie on February 5, 2009 at 6:50 PM
doh!
that = than
cryptojunkie on February 5, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Comment pages: