In the latest in a string of poorly vetted candidates in Obama’s beleaguered Administration, Charles Freeman, the candidate for the head of the National Intelligence Council has been forced to withdraw his name from the running. As he had made comments previously about the “oppression” of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis which are not ideologically in line with the current Administration, he faced a losing battle. Add his name to the growing list:
Bill Richardson, nominated for Commerce Department Secretary. He withdrew on January 4 after it emerged that he was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation for influence peddling, due to his awarding of a $1.5 million state contract to political contributors.
Tom Daschle, nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. He withdrew on February 3, admitting that he had failed to pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver provided by a friend and on consulting fees after he left the Senate.
Nancy Killefer, former Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, nominated for Deputy Director at the Office of Management and Budget and Chief Performance Officer. Obama said in announcing her nomination, “We can no longer afford to sustain the old ways when we know there are new and more efficient ways of getting the job done.” Killefer withdrew on February 3 because of a lien against her home for failure to pay unemployment tax for household help. Ironic that she can afford household help – something most of us Americans can’t – and then doesn’t pay the taxes her party trumpets. Certainly not anyone you want in charge of managing the public’s money.
Hilda Solis, nominated for Labor Secretary, was confirmed on February 11 even though her husband had liens against his business going back 16 years. He paid the full $6,400 owed a day before her confirmation hearing. Wouldn’t that be nice if the average American could pretend to have nothing to do with their spouse’s finances?
Judd Gregg, Obama’s second nomination for Commerce Department secretary. Apparently the only Republican nominated to a high-level position by Obama, he withdrew on February 11 because of philosophical differences with the Obama administration over its advocacy of a massive stimulus plan. Judd had once called for elimination of the Department of Commerce. Judd was one of very few Obama nominees who withdrew due to legitimate reasons.
Timothy Geithner, nominated and confirmed on February 24 for Treasury Secretary. Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes while he worked at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004. Yet he was still confirmed because Democrats said his position was too important to be left unfilled any longer.Kathleen Sebelius was nominated on March 2 as Obama’s second choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. So far, no back tax problem has emerged, but she does have one of the most extreme partisan positions on abortion of any politician in the country; which may cause trouble with her confirmation.
Susan Tierney, the leading candidate for Deputy Secretary of Energy, dropped out on March 3 without citing a reason. Is she afraid to cite back taxes?
Jane Garvey, reportedly Obama’s top choice for Deputy Secretary of Transportation, also dropped out on March 3, reportedly for financial reasons. Did those reasons include owing back taxes?
Gary Locke. Nominated on March 5, for Secretary of Commerce after Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg withdrew. So far he appears to be sailing through to confirmation, but Frontpage Mag points out he was involved in Chinagate with former Clinton Commerce employee John Huang. Huang wrote a $1,000 check to Locke and co-sponsored fundraising events that netted $30,000 in 1996 alone.
Annette Nazareth, who was to be nominated for Treasury Deputy Secretary, abruptly announced on March 5 she was stepping aside for “personal reasons.”
Caroline Atkinson, nominated for Undersecretary of International Affairs, withdrew on March 5 as well. Did these two prospects withdraw because of failure to pay back taxes? “Personal reasons” sounds like someone wants to spend more time with their family, or something along those lines. If that was the case, why didn’t the candidates indicate so? Because of the long list of nominees who withdrew for tax problems, their withdrawals are forever tainted with a cloud of suspicion.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Obama’s first pick for Surgeon General, withdrew on March 5 without citing a reason. What were his secret reasons?
Ron Kirk, nominated for Trade Representative, failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes for speaking fees over three years. He faced Senate questioning on March 9 over it, but is expected to win confirmation. $2,600 of the back taxes was due to deducting $17,382 worth of basketball tickets; he was unable to provide proof of business purposes for those tickets. Most Americans can’t afford $17,382 in baseball tickets, much less have a business to deduct the cost from. Kirk also took overly large deductions for a used TV he gave to charity, and inflated accounting and tax preparation fees. He has agreed to pay $9,975 in back taxes from 2005-2007.
This whole process has become a huge farce. This is just a sign once again that the Obama Administration has lost complete focus over its direction. If this Administration could focus on one thing and do it well, we would be well on our way to a better economy. Rather, they are trying to do too many things and doing them all poorly as a result. This vetting process is an indicator of a bigger problem and the Liberal media has not given Obama any heat over this mockery. I guess His Holiness can do no wrong.
![]()

3 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 11, 2009 at 7:24 am
S. Dyakowski
Change we can beleive in!
The sad thing about this Obama debacle is that he wouldn’t have even been elected had the socialist state media syndicate (ie every outfit outside of foxnews) not campaigned on his behalf.
McCain was certainly a weak leader, however, he was tracking ahead in the polls until Lehman went bankrupt and the S&P500 begain its precipitous decline.
Liberals love the feel good story about their inspirational leadership and vision and fail to acknoledge that the media successfully equated the equity bear market with republican policies. All you need to do is look at the correlation between McCains popularity and the S&P 500 index from September 17th onward.
Looking at the cold hard facts (something that is difficult for the bleeding hearts to do)- It is apparant that there are TWO siginificant causes for the ecomomic and financial meltdown.
1) Relaxed home lending standards introduced by the Dems to create “fair opportunities” for unqualified candidates (aka poor people) to purchase homes.
2) Excessive and prohobitive regulation relating to financial disclosure which undermined confidence in financial institution’s liquiditiy positions.
– Sarbanes Oxley and subsequent mark-to-market accounting regulations led to the collapse of Bear, Lehman, Citi, Wamu, etc…
NOT the socialist catch-phrase of “wall street greed”.
If you dont beleive me, go study advanced accounting and familiarize yourself with the functioning of the capital markets. For liberals to blame this mess on ‘greedy bankers’ just goes to reinforce their socialist tendency to destroy and take from those who are more motivated and successful than they are.
March 11, 2009 at 11:25 am
Soviet Canuckistan
With regards to Langley’s article, def made some doof picks that reflect poorly on his executive abilities. As lucifer’s legal aid, I present Stephen Walt of Harvard University: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/on_chas_freemans_withdrawal
Simon, the dems are total bs. They’re the ones that got rid of the Glass-Steagall that prevented banks from doing risky things with deposits, and opened all this up to subprime madness. I don’t think republicans are any better though. Their bailout was the first, after all. Both parties stand in utter contempt of free market principles. And I’m not sure how an absence of Sarbanes Oxley would do anything other than allow more mark-to-market to artificially inflate the economic bubble(s).
March 11, 2009 at 11:47 am
S. Dyakowski
Doesnt mark-to-market require require you to write down illiquid assets to zero (CDO’s etc…). Even when there is still a great deal of residual value in them?
Fair point on the free market DEMs/GOP…
But i would rather the Republicans run massive deficits to fund wars which add value through the manufacturing process then have the democrats run even bigger deficits to socialize health care, and regulate energy price in order to solve their fabricated global “climate change” crisis.