Obama Appointee May Have Bashed President In Online Forums

ABC News:

"On a Washington Post blog, djlndc wrote last February, "the leftist media [are] covering for Obama -- just like during the campaign." [...] Last month, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced his intent to nominate Daniel J. Little for a seat on the three-person National Indian Gaming Commission. The post, which does not require Senate approval, has to be filled by a Republican because the other two slots on the commission are filled by Democrats. [...] Little is also fond of the online handle "djlndc" -- his initials, "DJL," followed by "n" -- as in "in" -- "DC."

Read the whole story: ABC News

Comments

[jcaunter]

12:53 AM on 04/05/2010

Who cares? It's freedom of speech.

You, me and any other civilian can say just about anything about anybody we want to say. Obama is technically a fascist, not a socialist as the dummies on the right are fond of saying, but whether certain statements are accurate or not has little to do with freedom of speech.

Ah, oh. This is supposed to be a story because "Obama" appointed him? It took me a little while to realize that that might be the whole point of the article. Hmmm, that's just dumb. There's no provision in the first amendment that says political appointees can't badmouth the guy who appointed them.

[jerryatthebeach]

06:04 PM on 04/03/2010

What difference does it really make. Your talking about the Indian Gaming Commission. Not the most critical position in Washington right now....

[alysheba 3]

12:45 PM on 04/03/2010

Can he do the job, with honesty and integrity? That's the important question.

A Republican has to be appointed, and I'd be extremely surprised if a Republican had never bashed the President anywhere, never mind online.

[pantherburns]

01:39 AM on 04/04/2010

republican? Honesty and integrity/ Does anyone see a connection here?

[alysheba 3]

02:17 AM on 04/04/2010

I figured there must be one or two Republicans with a little of either trait.

(Is that wishful thinking, or what?)

[springsm]

06:46 PM on 04/02/2010

Well it is salazar picking the guy, and that says alot. So he is a republithug...if he has some kind of reputation, what is holding the weasel up from appointing him?

[DocSyracuse]

03:53 PM on 04/02/2010

If that's the only post, it's not really bashing Obama, it's critical of the media. And it's appropriate, imo.

[eden4barack08]

11:19 PM on 04/04/2010

oh no, there's more:

“the thieves in the White House and Congress stealing all the wealth from the producers and bankrupting this country for future generations.”

“They are a bunch of Democrats that love Obama and didn't report the truth during the election. Why would I think they would report the truth now? Everyone should thank Obama and the Sun editors for all the lost revenue Vegas has seen due to the lost convention business. Pathetic!”

[Ladyrantsalot]

03:24 PM on 04/02/2010

Republican ethics: "I don't recall having made these statements and therefore do not believe that I did." Love it.

[guveqzero]

01:55 PM on 04/02/2010

In the art of war, keep your enemies closer than your friends. This is the Obama method. Many progressives can't stand to be so close to the enemy. However, we are fortunate to have a president that knows how to win.

[jsgaetano]

11:48 AM on 04/02/2010

If the Goopers can't even get half of Congress, why should they be getting half the appointment slots?

Will we still be doing this when the Republicans only have 3 senators and 10 house members?

[IslandGyal]

08:49 AM on 04/02/2010

Unfortunately, with Obama's need to be loved by the people who will NEVER even like him, he will okay this appointment with a smile.

[mypov123]

07:46 PM on 04/02/2010

I hate to say it, but you're absolutely right.

[escribacat]

03:00 PM on 04/04/2010

I disagree. Anybody who is a "people-pleaser," which is what you are implying, would never survive in politics -- particularly up to the level of the presidency. You are misinterpreting his interest in inclusiveness and listening for needing "love."

[gurukalehuru]

01:16 AM on 04/02/2010

a) the post had to go to a Republican
b) Republicans are allowed to post online, same as anybody else
c) Despite the inherent stupidity of his posts (he is a Republican, after all), they were not written in all caps, generally were correctly spelled and grammatical, and did not actually contain threats of violence. For Republican commenters, he's well ahead of the curve.
d) Clever detective work, but a non-story

[jsgaetano]

11:50 AM on 04/02/2010

If anything, I'd say he should be opposed simply for thinking there's a "leftist media".

[springsm]

06:47 PM on 04/02/2010

If it was a Thug bringin in a democrat that had done this, the noise would reverberate to China and he would have to step down. Give the gd man his appointment. But then Salazar is not a democrat in his actions, so maybe he has to really look over the field more.

[nice2blucky]

08:05 PM on 04/01/2010

Update:

Since skimming the article, I must conclude that in this case the timing of my point couldn't have been worse, as to be so wrong.

[nice2blucky]

07:54 PM on 04/01/2010

If he did, he was right.

Can we please have better, more reliable, more honest, accurate headlines?