I hope to tune in to the C-Span coverage of the Senate stimulus debate about the time it degenerates to "Yo, I got a big stimulus package for you right here. Yeah? Stimulate this!". Shouldn't be long.
Charles Krauthammer is very good on the fierce urgency of pork.
Some dissent about the Stimulus in Camp Obama.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 06, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Pure evil. H/T Patterico (LUN)
Posted by: peter | February 06, 2009 at 12:53 PM
A WaPo article on Obama's upcoming prime-time TV appearances.
Sample:
Posted by: PD | February 06, 2009 at 01:00 PM
Spendulus, Porkulus... Get with the lingo TM. Stimulus is soooo last week.
Posted by: bad | February 06, 2009 at 01:03 PM
PUK, what is the world coming to when Excrement Andy has a reasonable moment..
Posted by: bad | February 06, 2009 at 01:06 PM
The problem with all of these very cogent arguments against the stimulus, such as those quoted by Sullivan in PeterUK's link, is that some in the GOP and the "moderate" Dems are already quite willing to sign off on the thing if the total number is reduced to, say, $800B. I believe it would pass in an instant if the figure were reduced to that level.
But if that happens, all of the horrendous, permanent spending and governmental intervention will be enacted into law.
I think perhaps the most offensive provision of all--well, one of the most offensive--is the use of the federal treasury to bail out states (California) that have chronically lived far beyond their means. In the final analysis, the CA legislature and the disastrous governor will bear no consequence at all for their shameful behavior.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 01:08 PM
The man is on a permanent campaign. How long will it be before he takes over the airwaves? And will it be before or after he declares Marshall law?
Posted by: Jane | February 06, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Gad. Andrea Mitchell just said the Obama people were too busy to write the stimulus bill, they just had too much on their plate to be expected to do it.
Posted by: MayBee | February 06, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Broadcasters are bracing themselves for the likelihood of three prime-time interruptions in three weeks, totaling at least three hours of prime time -- and ad breaks -- yanked.
I would suggest that they do like they did with Bush's speechs. Ie, not cover them.
OTOH, Zero is getting into Hugo Chavez territory here.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 06, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Do the people that Obama has on his new Economic Recovery Board get salaries?
Posted by: noname | February 06, 2009 at 01:11 PM
I think you are right DOT.
Posted by: Jane | February 06, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Well, at least one other person (Judge Andrew Napolitano) thinks the salary caps are unoconstitutional. He says the whole TARP thing is, too. (LUN)
Who will litigate this thing?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Obama should listen carefully to this, because I can guarantee you the people saying it are Democrats.
I don't think Americans want to turn on a sitcom and instead see the next episode of President Glum.
Posted by: MayBee | February 06, 2009 at 01:15 PM
DoT:
Who will litigate? Some bank president who does not get a golden parachute when he is canned after taking the TARP $$. (All the judge made law involving executive comp comes out of cases like that.)
Posted by: Appalled | February 06, 2009 at 01:22 PM
For those who have not seen it,The Stimulus - Youtube.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 06, 2009 at 01:22 PM
MayBee:
The TV in the lobby has non-stop CNN. All you see when you go to get a cup of coffee is non-stop Obama. It is exasperating.
Posted by: Appalled | February 06, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Pure evil. H/T Patterico (LUN)
That was linked at AoS yesterday. Completely disgusting including the journo-tard that calls it an "abortion" when it's clearly murder of a child which had been born.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 06, 2009 at 01:25 PM
"If we do not move swiftly to sign [the act] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," he said.
Now why does this remind me of AGW Rhetoric?
LUN.
The politics of FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real) is alive and well in Obama's WhiteHouse.
Posted by: PDinDetroit | February 06, 2009 at 01:27 PM
At least Obama was smart enough not to test Fox (and the American public) by asking for American Idol's time slot on Tues or Wed.
Posted by: MayBee | February 06, 2009 at 01:27 PM
"It is exasperating."
What do you have against puling, puking punks who have to be led out of phone booth? Is the It's Midnight in America message getting a bit stale for you? Don't worry - he's got the throttle to the floor and the reins in a firm grip. He's really going places.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 06, 2009 at 01:28 PM
The Stimulus - Youtube.
I'm thinking that Steele gutting the sycophants and toadies from the RNC should lead to a decline in sales of "stimulus" type drugs of possibly up to 48%
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 06, 2009 at 01:34 PM
can we bring a RICO lawsuit against Congress?
Posted by: matt | February 06, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Oh gawd it is Robert Gibbs time again.
Posted by: Jane | February 06, 2009 at 01:39 PM
A second look at TurboTimmy. I particularly liked this:
President Dumbass is a little weak on the difference between 'tactical' and 'strategic', as we will see time and time and time and time again.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 06, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Are we going to start a drinking game? Every time Gibbs mentions his kid, take a shot...
Posted by: verner | February 06, 2009 at 01:46 PM
Tapper!!!!!!
Posted by: verner | February 06, 2009 at 01:49 PM
The people who elected Obama will get what they deserve from him and his policies.
Unfortunately, the rest of us will, too.
Posted by: fdcol63 | February 06, 2009 at 02:00 PM
Appalled, I would think that a far more sympathetic and appropriate plaintiff would be the president of a financial institution that didn't get federal money while its competitors did. Why shoe-horn golden parachutes into this thing?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 02:02 PM
So, once this gets passed today it goes to conference. Its my understanding that the result of the conference has to be passed by both houses of congress as well.
Is that correct?
I thinking it because I just heard that Obama is going on the road next week to "sell the stimulus." Why would he need to do that if it didn't have to be voted on again.
Posted by: Ranger | February 06, 2009 at 02:04 PM
And why isn't going to Kentucky? '
And why is no one asking about the FEMA response to the crisis in Kentucky?
Gibbs is a tool - literally.
Posted by: Jane | February 06, 2009 at 02:08 PM
The plaintiff I just described would, I think, have standing to challenge the disbursement of the TARP funds (although the cat is already largely out of the bag).
A challenge to the compensation cap could be made by any institution that has received assistance and wants to continue to pay its top management competitive salaries in order to survive in the marketplace.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 02:09 PM
The man is going on vacation next week - holy cow. He is so not up to this job.
Posted by: Jane | February 06, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Yes, ranger--conference committee, then votes in both Houses again.
Posted by: clarice | February 06, 2009 at 02:11 PM
At least Obama was smart enough not to test Fox (and the American public) by asking for American Idol's time slot on Tues or Wed.
What time is he going to be on? He's not messing with 24 is he?
Posted by: hit and run | February 06, 2009 at 02:16 PM
And don't forget conference is where all the goodies are stuffed. It is going to be a disaster, but it might be a growth opportunity for the Public Integrity Division for the Justice Department.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 06, 2009 at 02:18 PM
DOT:
i'm not trying to shoehorn anything -- I'm just gving my opinion on where a lawsuit is likely to come from. I don't see a bank suing on consitutionality -- it's not in their interest (if they figure they might get TARP $$ in the future) or worth their resources (if they figure on getting by without TARP.)
Most cases in the compensation area come from rich people who were fired. They are the ones with time, money, and not a whole lot to lose...
Posted by: Appalled | February 06, 2009 at 02:24 PM
They won't listen to the voters, they won't listen to any dissenting voices from "the other party," but you would think they'd listen to their own CBO:
The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this bloated trainwreck is more harmful to the nation’s future than the government ignoring the issue entirely:
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 02:25 PM
Is dissent still the highest form of patriotism?
Posted by: fdcol63 | February 06, 2009 at 02:30 PM
Is dissent still the highest form of patriotism?
No that meme has been adjusted to account for the Dems now in power. Now the highest form of patriotism is to let yourself be financially raped by The One and to pay taxes.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 02:33 PM
Oh, I think I'm about to faint. Diane Feinstein just said she is inclined to vote against the bill. Be still my heart.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 02:37 PM
Yeah .... I guess that O hand gesture that was floated during the campaign was meant to show us how big our posterior orifice would be after the rape. LOL
Posted by: fdcol63 | February 06, 2009 at 02:37 PM
That would be blasphemy if he did that, now if he does it with House, one can always record that episode the following weekend, Ditto, if he messes with either the new episodes of Terminator, or that new show Dollhouse, on Friday
No, Jane, a tool is useful, to suggest that about Gibbs, is clearly facts not in
evidence; is he McClellan's long lost twin.
Speaking of same, behold David Frum's latest attempt at trying to blindly find an elephant in the dark, at the New Majority.
He and a lot of his commentators really belong better at the Huffington Post, with
his dear wife Danielle, of the Suetonius reference. He misread's Levin's piece, adds
some of his own confused warblings, about the AGIA pipelines falling through,basically
subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge. I posted a few times at that site, but lo and behold it won't accept
my registration information
Posted by: narciso | February 06, 2009 at 02:38 PM
I need some Stimulax.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 06, 2009 at 02:39 PM
The GOP is the party of trying the same old ideas and policies over and over again. Even if their plans are a bust they pretend the results were good. it is no wonder the United States is almost a basket case since the Republicans continue to hold up progress on a wide range of issues.
Posted by: joe | February 06, 2009 at 02:39 PM
basically subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge
Heh.
Posted by: Extraneus | February 06, 2009 at 02:41 PM
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of financial institutions who did not receive any TARP money, and who can be very certain that they never will (they're not "too big to fail").
In the compensation area, there are plenty of people who work extremely hard, have not been fired, and are very good at what they do, who get paid, say, $800,000 per year. I should think that their companies could bring the lawsuit, claiming their right to continue to pay them that amount without congressional interference.
I'm not sure that golden parachutes are even covered in the Obama proposal, although I don't think much detail has been published. In any event, a guy deprived of his parachute is far less likely to make a compelling case than is a company who simply wants to hire top talent.
Problem with all of this is, I think, that Napolitano's views (and mine) of the constitutional constraints on congressional spending are rather quaint, and very unlikely to prevail.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 02:43 PM
joe:"the United States is almost a basket case " and which country is your model,joe? I wish you'd share so we could learn from that example.
All this time I figured with our currency being the one most in use around the world we were, but I'm open to evidence that some other country really has cracked the code.
Posted by: clarice | February 06, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Even if their plans are a bust they pretend the results were good.
======
Who is it pretending the last 8 years of overspending is what must be continued?
Did I miss something where spending gobs of money became some big new idea?
Posted by: MayBee | February 06, 2009 at 02:50 PM
Speaking of the "same old ideas and policies," we have seen "stimulus" efforts fail time and time again, and in the FDR era they extended what would have been a deep but temporary recession into a catastrophic and long-lasting depresseion. If you want to look at a more recent example, try Japan.
I am waiting for someone to come forward with the evidence that this package will do any good at all. In the meantime, the Congressional Budget Office (run by whom?) says it will do more harm than good.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 02:50 PM
John McCain today had this to say on the Senate floor:
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 02:50 PM
Oh, I think I'm about to faint. Diane Feinstein just said she is inclined to vote against the bill. Be still my heart.
Yay!
I wrote DiFi.
I didn't bother with Boxer.
Posted by: MayBee | February 06, 2009 at 02:51 PM
It's funny how democrats inherit recessions and republicans inherit surpluses as far as the eye can see.
Posted by: Sue | February 06, 2009 at 02:52 PM
Its slow joe!!!
Hey, get back to me when you figure out which party has controlled Congress since 2006 and what party Obama is from.
And please, even the Times wrote up an article on the tired, old, and failed policies of government spending today. What's that-Obama and the Congress are looking to the tired, old, and failed policies of government spending (and for added measure, they are going for the tired, old, and failed policies of more regulation).
Wake me when it is over.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 06, 2009 at 02:53 PM
Anyone seen: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/
I can't seem to get it to load and miss the spot on economic charts and references.
Posted by: sbwaters | February 06, 2009 at 02:53 PM
Team "O" Will Release Dirty Bomber Trainee From Gitmo
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 02:53 PM
I wrote DiFi.
I didn't bother with Boxer.
Ditto.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Byron York says three Republicans have cut a deal. LUN
Sue, Bill Clinton inherited an economy that had grown at a rate of 4% in the year before he took office. (That was the year he and Al Gore spent describing it as the "worst economy in fifty years"). And the "surpluses" he bequeathed to Bush were by no means "as far as the eye can see"; future deficits were already projected before he left office.
And what did Ronald Reagan inherit from Jimmy Carter?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 02:58 PM
Now if we could just find the right rapper -"I want my stimulus, you gotta gimme this".
Posted by: Rich Berger | February 06, 2009 at 03:00 PM
For the record, here are the quarterly GDP growth rates for 1992, the final year of the Bush 41 presidency:
1st Qtr 4.2079
2nd Qtr 3·9133
3rd Qtr 3.9825
4th Qtr 4.4807
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 03:04 PM
No, Joe, with the exception of the TARP, which is eerily too close to the Hoover era RFC, Smoot Hawley,and 'wage and price controls' we generally apply policies that work. Tax cuts have worked in 1921, 1961, 1981 and 2001, & 2003, the McKinley tariff, (which had not a little to do with the turmoil in Cuba, later in the decade)the Fordney McCumber tariff, and of course, Smoot Hawley were increasingly bad ideas.
A infrastructure heavy, stimulus like the one considered now for the US, was
disastrous for the similarly bubble driven
crippled Japanese economy. And they didn't have the burden who should have if not a cheerleader like the previous occupant, maybe a member of the glee club,showing
a positive attitude.Christina Moran, his own CEA has said as much, with regards to many of the measures he's considering. This is in the midrange of recessions from the figures I see, but too much pessimism or
an improper stimulus, and we could drop into a protracted one, very far, very fast
Posted by: narciso | February 06, 2009 at 03:05 PM
I did the math. 1.2 trillion dollar bill, 3 million jobs, is $923,997 for each job.
Well, thank goodness somebody is doing the math...
Geez, just how stupid do they thing we are!!!!
That one sentence is all it takes to call the democrat socialists on their shyte.
Posted by: verner | February 06, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Assuming no one is forced to take TARP money (the way some like Wells Fargo were), I'm not sure I see how they have a case. It's a useful lesson of what happens once you take Federal handouts. You are no longer a free agent.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 06, 2009 at 03:08 PM
DoT,
I was being sarcastic. After listening to Gibbs's presser.
Posted by: Sue | February 06, 2009 at 03:09 PM
SBW,
Carpe Diem loads fine for me. His top piece on Paterson's attempt to defenestrate NY theater (as outlined by a NYT editorial) is pretty amusing. How much of the Democrat NewD irection Stimulus was directed at the "arts"? It looks like Paterson is going to nip the 'longer than four hour' problem in the bud.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 06, 2009 at 03:09 PM
The democrats have three skills as far as I can see. They get us into wars, they tank the economy, and they convince the country the other side is responsible.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 03:10 PM
John's math is off a bit - that's $400K per job, just under Obama's $500K cap (whew).
Posted by: Rich Berger | February 06, 2009 at 03:11 PM
NY Madam: Expensed $2000 an hour charges to NY banks and investment firms for their client's use of her service.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 03:14 PM
Rich Berger,
Somebody has already got there.
Stimulus lyrics by Animit
"Take these diagonal twisted words
And scrape them off the ceiling floor
Your minds have capabilities of absorbing so much more
So why would you throw that away
And simplify your thoughts
Keep your ideas the same
And forfeit all you got".
They seem quite apposite
Posted by: PeterUK | February 06, 2009 at 03:14 PM
I did the math. 1.2 trillion dollar bill, 3 million jobs, is $923,997 for each job.
Well, my calculator says that it is $400K per job, but what do I know. Still a lot of money.
Posted by: DrJ | February 06, 2009 at 03:14 PM
Sorry, Sue--I wasn't watching Gibbs (I can't).
JimmyK, the fact that they aren't forced to take it doesn't bear on the issue of unconstitutional conditions. Even if the government doesn't have to offer it, and even if the recipient doesn't have to take it, it can't be offered with an unconsitutional condition. The congress can't say, "we'll give you this money if you give up your right to vote." Arguably, agreeing to some specific salary level is an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights. (Napolitano thinks so; I'm not so sure.)
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 03:16 PM
They have been telling me on the news all morning that the stock market is up because Wall Street loves this stimulus bill and thinks it will pass. I don't get this at all. To my mind, the market should be up because the bill is stalled and may not pass.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Roll call saying Voinovich pulled out of the negotiations.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 06, 2009 at 03:17 PM
I wonder how long it will be before reporters start missing the Bush administration? The Obama administration runs late to every event.
Posted by: Sue | February 06, 2009 at 03:17 PM
Maybe McCain was using interest in his calculations.
Posted by: Sue | February 06, 2009 at 03:18 PM
Re: the "porkulus/jobs creation" projection
McCain used the low end figure for the 900K+ figure.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 06, 2009 at 03:19 PM
"Roll call saying Voinovich pulled out of the negotiations" Oh dear, did someone do a ohn Bolton--raise his voice, put his hands on his hips?
Can't have that.
Posted by: clarice | February 06, 2009 at 03:19 PM
DoT,
No problem. Gibbs said the recession began in 2007. I wanted a reporter to ask him wasn't that about the same time democrats became the majority in both houses of congress? Didn't happen.
Posted by: Sue | February 06, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Well, my calculator says that it is $400K per job, but what do I know. Still a lot of money.
Well either way, it is a lot of money per job. I'd take it and use it to stimulate the economy by buying a house and new furniture and lots of other things that would put people back to work.
Instead I don't see anything in this bill that will provide stimulus to my family. All it will do is cost us more in taxes, which are already nearly impossible to cover when on a fixed income.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Since Voinovich's crook brother who used to skim earmarks is dead, Ohio's RINO probably doesn't have any reason to support a pork souffle.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 06, 2009 at 03:21 PM
I don't see anything in this bill that will provide stimulus to my family.
That's not true for me, but I'll grant that I'm a special case. The increases to NIH and NSF will help me a lot. I'm still against the bill, and would like to see the non-stimulus stuff voted on separately. Let it stand or sink on its own merits.
Posted by: DrJ | February 06, 2009 at 03:23 PM
If you use Nancy's figure of 500 million jobs lost every month, though the package is a true bargain.
Posted by: clarice | February 06, 2009 at 03:24 PM
DrJ,
Cost it over 30 years at 4% simple (no amortization on bonds). That's how the Democrats come up with their umpteen gazillion trillion numbers and on that basis it comes to $880,000 per job. If the NewD irection Stimulus runs interest rates up 1% (a low estimate), then the cost per job will jump to $1,000,000.
Tell me that isn't stimulating. (Ignore the fact that it's nausea being stimulated.) We need to look at the NDS in the same way one would look at an STD. From a considerable distance.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 06, 2009 at 03:25 PM
$923,997
Well, you obviously have forgotten your Krugmanomics. You see, those jobs would never have been created but for the stimulus, so that figure pays for a permanent job. Amortize it over 30 years, and it's only like $20k/year! Gosh it's fun to just make stuff up.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 06, 2009 at 03:25 PM
Romney’s Q and A with TIME
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 03:28 PM
Rick, that makes sense. Hello inflation! Even without interest it is still an astronomical number.
Posted by: DrJ | February 06, 2009 at 03:30 PM
68,000 have signed the No Stimulus petition so far. Have you?
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 03:32 PM
Gibbs was wrong. Here are the quarterly figures for 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008:
2007 01 0.0493
2007 02 4·7888
2007 03 4.7574
2007 04 -0·1719
2008 01 0.8737
2008 02 2·8253
2008 03 -0.5106
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The current recession began with the 3rd quarter of 2008.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 06, 2009 at 03:35 PM
I did the math. 1.2 trillion dollar bill, 3 million jobs, is $923,997 for each job.
Ya'll are forgetting there are still 497,000,000 jobs to be lost yet this month. That's $2400 per job - now the porkulus bill is starting to make sense.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | February 06, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Is anybody watching Nora O'Donnell on MSNBC interview Thune.
She is being so snotty.
Posted by: MayBee | February 06, 2009 at 03:40 PM
The group that declares recessions declared the recession began Dec 2007.
Posted by: MayBee | February 06, 2009 at 03:42 PM
The Corner is reporting that the market is up because Obama is on the verge of suspending mark-to-market rules.
Rick? Rich? A good thing?
Posted by: Sue | February 06, 2009 at 03:46 PM
The word going around now is that Mark to Market is being revised on Monday. That was a big problem.
Posted by: PaulL | February 06, 2009 at 03:47 PM
Feinstein wants to be Governor of Calee-forn-ee-aaa! She is starting her campaign, it seems, today. If Specter is one of the"3" who will vote yes, he is a goner, or; possibly, Obama just lied to him and told him he is on his "short list" for the SC. That is what Arlen has always wanted. I just hope he doesn't get too hurt when he realizes that he has been had. HEH
I can't get any of my democrat friends to admit they voted for Obama and I see where the networks are starting to balk at Obama's crowd the airways agenda. And, this a.m. he used the teleprompter again, to introduce HIS $ advisors, who seemed , all, embarrassed for him.
DOT-why don't you run for Governor? I'll move there and vote for you!
Posted by: glenda | February 06, 2009 at 03:47 PM
Maybee...the loser press is like a child who had their candy taken away! Their One! Is. A. Big. Fat. 0. ..and they will not be able to cover-up for him anymore--and it's just week 3!
Posted by: glenda | February 06, 2009 at 03:52 PM
DoT,
The Feds have already established that they can interfere with private contracts (eg the minimum wage). All they have to do is say the magic words "interstate commerce." In fact, Clinton's $1M exec pay cap is another case. So if they can do that without a quid pro quo, I don't see how they can't in this case. (Of course, I'd prefer they not be able to do either.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 06, 2009 at 03:55 PM
Completely OT, but we had our final arguments in our property lawsuit today and the judge ruled from the bench.
It was stupefyingly wonderful. He totally and completely annihilated them. Didn't even toss them the tiniest bone of any sort.
My dear, idiot, brother was allowed to make a final argument himself because of a technicality. It was a rambling, retarded screed wherein he talked about how he and I had engaged in self dealing and commingling of funds years ago, blah, blah, blah, which is a total lie but presently serves his purposes, he thought.
Eventually the judge interrupted him and told him 90% of what he was saying had no evidence to support it and since he was now a self confessed criminal why should he listen to any of it anyway. Had to bite my lip to keep from laughing out loud.
It's a wonderful life.
God is good.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 06, 2009 at 03:57 PM
All..The doctor put me back on Prednisone yesterday and it has made me very antsy. I will try to stop posting so much!
Posted by: glenda | February 06, 2009 at 03:59 PM
Comment at Ace's:
Seriously people - spam the crap out of Sepcter's office...
here's his email contact page:
http://tinyurl.com/2xshvp
(and someone please tell me why he needs 8 offices? Really?)
Office Locations
Home
Washington DC
Main: 202-224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229
Lehigh Valley
Main: 610-434-1444
Fax: 610-434-1844
Erie
Main: 814-453-3010
Fax: 814-455-9925
Harrisburg
Main: 717-782-3951
Fax: 717-782-4920
Philadelphia
Main: 215-597-7200
Fax: 215-597-0406
Pittsburgh
Main: 412-644-3400
Fax: 412-644-4871
Scranton
Main: 570-346-2006
Fax: 570-346-8499
Wilkes-Barre
Main: 570-826-6265
Fax: 570-826-6266
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 06, 2009 at 04:00 PM
Biden: There's 30 Percent Chance We'll Be Wrong
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | February 06, 2009 at 04:01 PM
TM and other JOM readers--If you have the time to watch one video in the next day or so--I'm pleading that you watch this exchange between:
Charlie Gasparino & Thomas H. Patrick--former CFO of Merrill Lynch.
Posted by: glasater | February 06, 2009 at 04:01 PM