John Bryson resigned as Commerce Secretary, calling an end to the medical leave of absence he’d been on since a seizure caused his involvement in two car accidents in early June.
“I have come to the conclusion that I need to step down to prevent distractions from this critical mission,” Bryson wrote in a letter to Commerce Department staf
The 68-year-old former energy executive gave President Barack Obama his resignation letter late Wednesday and informed department employees of his action Thursday morning.
“I feel privileged to have been part of the progress we have made together for our businesses and workers as they ‘build it here and sell it everywhere,’” Bryson said in his letter. “In my personal capacity, I will continue to do everything I can to support the president and America’s businesses as they continue to advance innovation, U.S. competitiveness, and prosperity for our people in the months and years ahead.”
Bryson “fought tirelessly for our nation’s businesses and workers, helping to bolster our exports and promote American manufacturing and products at home and abroad,” Obama said in a statement Thursday. “John has proven himself an effective and distinguished leader throughout his career in both the public and private sectors, from his success in the business world to his work leading on issues in the renewable energy industry.”
The two will meet Thursday afternoon in the Oval Office, the White House said. Rebecca Blank, Bryson’s deputy, will continue to serve as acting commerce secretary.
Like many of his predecessors, Bryson leaves the department as a relative unknown. He wasn’t a presence on the Sunday morning talk shows and kept a limited public schedule, despite his role overseeing the administration’s major economic initiatives on manufacturing, trade and tourism.
We here at Blatherwatch wish him well, and hope that the seizures are not a symptom of a more serious illness. This is your weekend open thread.
Romney seems to be asking Scott to lie about Florida’s economy.
“This is one of those situations where
you could have it both ways
and there’s enough truth in it that it would resonate,” Stipanovich said.“It would be better if everybody was singing from the same hymnal.”Rmoney 2012
“You could have it both ways”
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 21, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Great monologue today with Martin Bashir comparing Romney to Thatcher. I found the video at Newsbusters. Poor Newsbusters thinks Bashir's presentation scores one for their side and they claim that Thatcher is beloved. Haha. She set the path leading to the continued unemployment which resides around 8% today. She led her country on the same path that Reagan set America upon. Newsbusters, like most Republicans, just doesn't get beyond superficial talking points. Thatcher, like Reagan, might be beloved by the idiot right and some on the left, but that doesn't change the fact that she screwed up Britain just like Reagan has screwed up America. Thirty years since they broke the little guy and look what we've got: a broken world-wide economy.
Thanks Maggie and Ron.
Posted by: T-S | June 21, 2012 at 02:30 PM
The states with GOP governors, like Florida, Indiana and Wisconsin - to name three have lower unemployment rates than the states governed by Democrats - no coincidence. States have some control over economic policies which has trumped to some extent, Owebama's
bad economic policies from the Fed. Government. BTW-
Romney asked Scott to downplay - not the same as lying about Florida's economy, BTW.
Sorry to hear about Mr. Bryson's health problems, to his credit he came forward and resigned and thanks for your service.
Posted by: KS | June 21, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Not much respect for David Brooks' column:
"OMG, is this a load of nonsense, based on a perception of facts laced with ideological prejudice.
...The countries with the highest levels of social spending, the northern countries of the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and finland are in great shape."
The Republicans are turning this country into a third world Plutocracy.
Posted by: T-S | June 21, 2012 at 07:36 PM
More of what David Brooks wrote, as opposed to the silly ideological paranoid pinko drivel above. Brooks, a centrist has it pegged;
"I guess I’d say Republicans don’t have an illness; they have a viewpoint. Let me describe it this way: In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower reconciled Republicans to the 20th-century welfare state. Between Ike and George W. Bush, Republican leaders basically accepted that model. Sure, they wanted to cut taxes and devolve power, but, in practice, they sustained the system, often funding it more lavishly than the Democrats.
But many Republicans have now come to the conclusion that the welfare-state model is in its death throes. Yuval Levin expressed the sentiment perfectly in a definitive essay for The Weekly Standard called “Our Age of Anxiety”:
“We have a sense that the economic order we knew in the second half of the 20th century may not be coming back at all — that we have entered a new era for which we have not been well prepared. ... We are, rather, on the cusp of the fiscal and institutional collapse of our welfare state, which threatens not only the future of government finances but also the future of American capitalism.”
To Republican eyes, the first phase of that collapse is playing out right now in Greece, Spain and Italy — cosseted economies, unmanageable debt, rising unemployment, falling living standards.
America’s economic stagnation is just more gradual. In the decades after World War II, the U.S. economy grew by well over 3 percent a year, on average. But, since then, it has failed to keep pace with changing realities. The average growth was a paltry 1.7 percent annually between 2000 and 2009. It averaged 0.6 percent growth between 2009 and 2011. Wages have failed to keep up with productivity. Family net worth is back at the same level it was at 20 years ago."
Posted by: KS | June 21, 2012 at 08:09 PM
You're unbelievable. We already read the column. Not that it made much sense. You need to read the comments. Hahahaha.
Posted by: T-S | June 21, 2012 at 08:12 PM
You distorted it though and am not surprised it didn't make much sense to you. He is nuanced and put out some good info.
I read the comments and the criticism came from both sides - it happens when you are a moderate.
Posted by: KS | June 21, 2012 at 09:02 PM
who's a 'moderate'?
Posted by: DemoNow! | June 21, 2012 at 09:33 PM
I read through many of the comments in the Brooks article, but not all. None of which supported his view. If there are any, I challenge anyone to point one out.
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 21, 2012 at 09:35 PM
And please, something of substance. None of the liberals are Nazis crap.
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 21, 2012 at 09:59 PM
who's a 'moderate'?
Posted by: DemoNow! | June 21, 2012 at 09:33 PM
David Brooks in the real world. In your world he is probably a rightwing extremist, right ?
Posted by: KS | June 21, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Conservatives didn't agree with Brooks and progressives did not agree either. Mostly progressives commented on the editorial. The two unfunded wars cost less than the Stimulus (not to mention the continuation of the unfunded wars through the end of 2011) and Obamacare and the slush funds (Solar panel industries) have not even been considered.
The left is unable or unwilling or both to get their heads wrapped around this inconvenient truth. If you don't buy this, show me the real numbers (money)..
Posted by: KS | June 21, 2012 at 10:37 PM
KS, the posted comments were from folks concerned about Brook’s logical flaws; be they left or right. As a matter of fact I was taken by the quantity of conservatives which were willing to suggest the foibles of the left, without going full birther, and still criticized his essay. And if you are suggesting you are the model of moderation, I’d recommend a rethink, if not…a lobotomy.
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 21, 2012 at 11:35 PM
I left a lot out of this column which is targeting Ryan's healthcare proposal but seems to focus on David Brooks' logic as well.
Yet Ryan's "roadmap" is now the GOP party line. Just three months after taking the House, Republican political instincts have become as bad as the Democrats' lack of backbone. Times columnist David Brooks, ever eager to present himself as a serious sort of policy and ideas man, got so excited about proposed Republican cuts to Medicare that I expected him to deploy an emoticon. Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee, personifies "courageous political leadership – a powerful elected official willing to issue a proposal, willing to take a stand, willing to face the political perils."
..."The Ryan budget," writes Brooks, "will put all future budgets in the proper context: the current welfare state is simply unsustainable..." Brooks is a man who is simply so serious that in December 2003, defending the invasion of Iraq, he chided critics for being "disgusted by the way George W Bush's administration has allowed honesty and candor to seep into the genteel world of international affairs." Now that's serious, folks. And Brooks expects politicians to measure up.
"Everyone wants to go to Baghdad," began the famous neocon mantra of 2003. "Real men want to go to Tehran." Now, in 2011, the truly virile want to gut the welfare state. Or what little remains of it.
What Ryan proposes and Brooks celebrates is the privatisation of Medicare, ... The changes to Medicaid would be truly disastrous, transforming the healthcare entitlement for the nation's poorest into a block grant to the states with no coverage requirements.
...Now, David Brooks is a serious, philosophy-reading conservative. So if a particular opinion held by most people in his party is patently wrong, he likes to explain how the position is valid in some, you know, deeper, pop-psychological way. In a July 2010, op-ed he charged that comparative effectiveness research was part of a broader progressive onslaught orchestrated by "educated professionals, who have been trained to do technocratic analysis, who believe that more analysis and rule-writing is the solution to social breakdowns,...
Rather than supporting the creative efforts to control the cost of healthcare, Brooks applauds Ryan for taking a hatchet to government spending on healthcare.
..."His proposal(Ryan's) will set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion," Brooks writes in classic Brooks-ese, reframing conservative politicking as the epitome of moderation and the inevitable consequence of careful logic. "It will become the 2012 Republican platform, no matter who is the nominee."
Well, David, fingers crossed. "Eliminate Medicare as we know it" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, now does it?
Posted by: T-S | June 22, 2012 at 05:58 AM
poor T-S, so link happy she even linked to herself in the last paragraph.
twisty roads, again. twisty roads.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 22, 2012 at 04:43 PM
And if you are suggesting you are the model of moderation, I’d recommend a rethink, if not…a lobotomy.
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 21, 2012 at 11:35 PM
BR - You need reading comprehension 101. I was speaking of Brooks as being a moderate. Admittedly, I lean conservative but appreciate a reasoned moderate point of view. T-S leans far left and if you think she is mainstream, I'd recommend a rethink and if not - shock treatment.
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2012 at 05:05 PM
KS and I don't have issues. I am to the left of KS by a number of degrees. I am definitely left of center, especially on social issues. Yet he's always been reasonable in his differences with me.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 22, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Rather than supporting the creative efforts to control the cost of healthcare, Brooks applauds Ryan for taking a hatchet to government spending on healthcare.
..."His proposal(Ryan's) will set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion," Brooks writes in classic Brooks-ese, reframing conservative politicking as the epitome of moderation and the inevitable consequence of careful logic. "It will become the 2012 Republican platform, no matter who is the nominee."
Well, David, fingers crossed. "Eliminate Medicare as we know it" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, now does it?
Posted by: T-S | June 22, 2012 at 05:58 AM
Even if I explained the forward thinking intelligence of Ryan's plan, it would be a waste of time because you would not comprehend as you showed above. You continue to spew misinformation void of any substantive facts. Ryan's budget is the only roadmap to financial sustainability that there is up to now. It is a starting point and a pretty good one, not a final document.
Any other future budget document done by the Dems is unsustainable by 2030 or sooner.
"What Ryan proposes and Brooks celebrates is the privatisation of Medicare, ... The changes to Medicaid would be truly disastrous, transforming the healthcare entitlement for the nation's poorest into a block grant to the states with no coverage requirements."
Prove it, T-S. That is preposterous and Medicaid (passed by Bush-43) has actually been less spendy than predicted. Block grants to the states would be equally as effective and cut administrative costs - which is what he proposed. The Federal Government would not be involved which is a win for Americans because of smaller government. The system is badly broken and it must be fixed before we go into insolvency.
Progressives are on the WRONG side here, just as Neo-cons were on the wrong side of invading Iraq in 2003.
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2012 at 05:18 PM
she even linked to herself ...
I always claimed you had trouble with reading comprehension. Why characterize me all the time? It's like begging for attention again. That's a problem for you. Why not try to really read the links and talk about them.
Now mind you, I'm not demanding that you read my links or respond to them. I think most people would find that more intereting than your constant narrative on me . . . Am I that irresistable?
Posted by: T-S | June 22, 2012 at 06:27 PM
KS, your constant demand that everybody "prove it" is ringing hollow. Like Peter who called wolf too many times. First of all, you never prove when you're asked. Second, you don't even provide sources for where your misguided opinions come from.
Now, I linked The Guardian. If you want them to prove it, ask them. Don't be so stupid as to ask me for more evidence. I linked a credible source. Take it for what it's worth or don't.
But quit this incessant demand for proving the information people post from credible sources - which you never ever produce.
Posted by: T-S | June 22, 2012 at 06:33 PM
"KS, your constant demand that everybody "prove it" is ringing hollow."
Posted by: T-S | June 22, 2012 at 06:33 PM
Sorry, I don't accept your misinformation. I read the Guardian and take it for what it's worth. In that case, I'll defer that to the writer at the Guardian to prove it and say that I am suspect of their conclusion about Medicaid.
You have selective amnesia, about the credible evidence that I have displayed on this blog that has refuted your sources. I'll continue doing due diligence when I post. Playing the victim card again, T-S ? Too bad.
"KS and I don't have issues. I am to the left of KS by a number of degrees. I am definitely left of center, especially on social issues "
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 22, 2012 at 05:12 PM
By a few degrees, PS and perhaps a few more on social issues, but would say PSB is centrist who leans right on fiscal issues and left on social issues. Actually, I am more libertarian - live and let live as long as it does not adversely impact others. Libertarians are big on smaller government limited executive powers, more power to the states but socially moderate or apolitical.
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2012 at 07:09 PM
Live and let live without Government intrusion, you'll make some folks on this blog nervous with that kind of 'wild talk.' you must be one of those 'radical republicans' i read so much about...
LMAO
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 22, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Yeah, just call me an anti-nanny statist, but will also say "Try it, you'll like it..."
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2012 at 08:23 PM
how'd you like the jon stewart video on fast and furious?
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 22, 2012 at 08:39 PM
I'd say that Stewart gave some zingers back at the Prez and his Administration for calling Executive privilege and fast and furious and spanked them good !
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Ohh Kay…KS, I didn’t know you fancied yourself a radical.
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 22, 2012 at 09:29 PM
What have ;you been smoking, BR ?
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2012 at 09:34 PM
“Live and let live without Government intrusion”
Putz, isn’t this an oxymoron?
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 22, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Sorry bub, don't smoke. You agree with Brooks?
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 22, 2012 at 09:42 PM
I already covered that above. You may not smoke, but seems like you've been snorting or drinking.
Posted by: KS | June 22, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Ok, yes…drinking liberally. But you haven’t answered the question. Do you agree with Brooks?
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 22, 2012 at 10:51 PM
A telling answer.
Posted by: Gentlemen Rouge | June 22, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Or should I say, non-answer from KS?
Posted by: Gentlemen Rouge | June 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM
But you haven’t answered the question. Do you agree with Brooks?
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 22, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Wrong. After you sleep it off, scroll back in this email and see what I said and cut and paste it to your response if you have any questions.
Posted by: KS | June 23, 2012 at 06:19 AM
Do you agree with Brooks?
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 22, 2012 at 10:51 PM
When ? In the article ? In general ? A vague question merits the type of response I wrote above. Do you think Brooks is an extremist conservative or a moderate that leans conservative ?
Posted by: KS | June 23, 2012 at 06:26 AM
If conservatives criticize Brooks where I don't, that would indicate those who do are more conservative than I am. I did not have any glaring issues with his editorial that was posted that everyone else on the left and right had issues with.
My favorite columnists are Brooks, James Taranto, Michael Barone and Byron York - all subjective, informative and would lean conservative, but generally do not let their politics get in the way of reporting - a rare commodity today. For humor and satire, Mark Steyn is right up there - PSB has echoed that before.
Posted by: KS | June 23, 2012 at 11:55 AM
There is not better writer on political analysis than James Fallows, The Atlantic
Just a good read.
Posted by: T-S | June 24, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Sometimes you have to look for the news:
June 24, 2012
Wealthy Americans Renouncing Citizenship at Record Pace
"Startling new data from Uncle Sam show that defections by Americans are expected to double this year, largely to avoid any stiff tax bills resulting from the proposed 55 percent hike on the rich -- as well as the likely expiration on Dec. 31 of the Bush era tax cuts. As many as 8,000 US citizens are projected by immigration officials to renounce in 2012, or about 154 a week, versus 3,805 in 2011, or about 73 per week."
I guess that's the new patriotism for you.
Posted by: T-S | June 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Come on KS, I’m not asking you for your predisposed credentials. I’m asking if you are predisposed to tow the republican rope. By the way, do you guys (Puget & yourself) get out of the basement much?
Posted by: BlackRhino | June 24, 2012 at 11:29 PM
where are they planning to move to, Tennessee?
Posted by: mw | June 25, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Great column by Cenk: The Mandate Is the Perfect Symbol of the Central Mistake of Obama Administration
I love him. He's a former Republican and he doesn't feel the necessity to be nice. He straight talks. Liberals need to get more comfortable with straight talk.
Posted by: T-S | June 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM
I recall watching Cenk in his interview with Breitbart and later talking about the death of Breitbart.
Cenk comes across as a decent person.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 26, 2012 at 06:09 AM
Current TV is up and running again, for now at least at:
http://www.cvinetwork.tv/channel/593
Enjoy it while it last.
Posted by: sneaky | June 26, 2012 at 09:09 AM
Thanks, Sneaky. I wondered about that. Any idea why it keeps disappearing?
Posted by: T-S | June 26, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Well, the stations come and go in the internet tv places. Current TV resided for a good long while at thertv.eu but that site went down. Then cvinetwork carried it but it comes and goes there. Looks like it just went. But that is the location where it is most likely to be found. . .
Just hit cvinetwork every so often and check for it.
I will continue to post the location of Current TV as I am able to run it down.
Posted by: sneaky | June 26, 2012 at 11:18 AM
I guess I"m doomed, Sneaky. I can't get it to work. I have a mac and it keeps telling me to download FLV player which doesn't look compatible with MAC OS. I do get CVI but not Current. So all is not lost . . . Currently, when I try to open that address, I get FUBAR something and a lot of ads.
MAC OS isn't compatible with anything! I can't even send Pages documents to Word PCs. Very frustrating. I want to go back to Appleworks!
But I'm ahead rather than behind with some stations. Thanks.
Posted by: T-S | June 26, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Current TV is up and running again now at 4:15 p.m., June 26.
Go to:
http://www.cvinetwork.tv/channel/593
Posted by: sneaky | June 26, 2012 at 04:17 PM
mw did you hear that the NRA will be scoring the vote in the House tomorrow? How many Republicans will vote no, knowing they will be primaried if they do??
You should Google Michael Vanderboegh and then read Fortune Magazine. Tomorrow will be a shameful day to be a Member of the House.
Posted by: sparky | June 27, 2012 at 06:36 PM
You didn't read the article, KS, but I did not expect you to, as your mind is already made up. The article was for mw and the others on here who are interested in what really happened.
Posted by: sparky | June 27, 2012 at 06:49 PM
Current TV...LMAO
Without DINO's you can't have a majority party.
Ironic, eh? Once elected they won't do your bidding cause they want to be re-elected.
Ironic.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | June 27, 2012 at 07:05 PM