Just delightful ... non-session appointees!

[szh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36066234/ns/politics/

I suppose this is one way around an impasse created by the Senate, but not when a candidate is extra controversial!

And certainly not with a back-slap to Republicans. So much for non-partisan politics.

Z

[jedimind240]

Was done over 140 times by both Clinton and George W. Its just a tool the president has, every president from George Washington used it. Its not like he appointed a supreme court justice, that would be a little more dicey in my opinion though.

[szh]

Oh, I understand the reason for the Prez doing this ... plenty of them have done it in the past. And, in times of ridiculous Senate debate, it is a way to break a logjam.

My real point was that Craig Becker is as contentious potentially as a Supreme Court Justice. Albeit not as long-lasting. His appointment should NOT have been done.

And, the Prez should not have taken the moment to lambast Republicans. Way to win friends and influence people.

Z

[jedimind240]

I think the prez isn't really worried about making or losing any republican friends, they have kinda been doing a lot of working against him rather than working with him. I mean they vote against the stimulus bill then go home and take credit for the good work its supposed to be doing, its disingenuous. And when someone like John McCain being still so upset about the election, says that he vows to not work with democrats any more this year, its hard to wanna keep trying to work with these people.

Im an independent, ive voted republican, democrat, and independent in previous elections. I see as an outside observer one party trying to do things to fix things and the other trying to derail everything, but this is true for how the majority minority system works. A lot of the ideas in this healthcare bill were republican ideas. I will probably not vote for any republican that doesn't present any helpful smart ideas, if their just spouting rhetoric like communist, socialist, nazi and how evil the other party is i will stop listening because their being childish at that point. The same goes if the democrat is just doing the same. But if Sarah Palin is the nomination for president in 2012 i will work day and night to see she is not the president, because if she is, i will move. That woman is not even remotely suited to hold the office that has the capability of firing nuclear weapons at other countries. She is the single greatest liability to the republicans, people like her because she's smart and sassy, but she has no ideas on how to really do anything, just comments on whats wrong. And she believes we should just drill for more oil, which is clearly backwards thinking when we have the capabilities to be energy independent with wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal resources, all of which are renewable and just have to be invested in to see there true potential.

[szh]

And when someone like John McCain being still so upset about the election, says that he vows to not work with democrats any more this year, its hard to wanna keep trying to work with these people.

Umm, no. John McCain is not still upset about the election. He is upset by the recent deliberate railroading of bills by Pelosi and others - against the majority of the people - that are being done as we speak.

As mostly a centrist myself, I am appalled by the extreme direction that has been recently taken by Congress.

Z

[audtatious]

These are temporary appointments so it should be no issue. Of course, with the way things are clogged up they may as well be permies because it will be months and months and months that these people are signing on the party line.

[szh]

These are temporary appointments so it should be no issue.

The appointment is through the end of the next session of the Senate ... so through the end of 2011, as I read the mechanism, is pretty much guaranteed. No if's and and's about that.

Of course, with the way things are clogged up they may as well be permies because it will be months and months and months that these people are signing on the party line.

Exactly. More than 18 months of toeing the party line.

Like I said, I am generally in favor of this concept - because the Senate should deal with it (but they were too damn busy with the other crap) - but not when the appointment is as controversial as Becker. The President should have been more rational about that one. It causes more unnecessary partisan polarization than it needs to.

Z

[audtatious]

There is no reason for the current Gov to even want to discuss these people as it gives Obama the opportunity to put in who he wants. He then turns around and blames it on the GOP when they only need, what, 52 votes in the Senate to confirm any of them? I still don't know why the GOP gets blamed for the Dems, who still have the majority, choosing not to confirm someone when they can do it without GOP support. I also don't understand why it's the GOP's fault for not reaching across the isle when the Dems refuse to cave in one iota on any of the "socialist" programs they are wanting to pass. There are certain values and beliefs that people simply won't cross and in most of these instances I am actually applauding the GOP for holding their ground and not caving in.

They all suck tho.

[heliochrome85]

Like I said, I am generally in favor of this concept - because the Senate should deal with it (but they were too damn busy with the other crap) - but not when the appointment is as controversial as Becker. The President should have been more rational about that one. It causes more unnecessary partisan polarization than it needs to.

Z

i find it interesting that you are ok with it, yet, in this situation it isnt ok. this is exactly the case for every use of the recess appointment. The position of the senate is to ADVISE and CONSENT on Presidental nominations to the Executive branch. yet, as we have seen, over the last year or so, the Senate GOP has done everything in their power to make sure nothing gets done. You claim that Becker is controversial, and that this use of the recess appointment shouldnt have been made due to the controversy, yet make no mention of the dozens of NON controversial nominees that have been kept out of office because of GOP obstructionalism.

EXAMPLES:http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...s.phphttp://www.politico.com/news/s....htmlhttp://www.economist.com/blogs...efits

when this is the level of behavior in the Senate, how exactly is the President supposed to fill some of the most important offices in the land, that a year into his administration, remain empty? The fact of the matter is that the GOP is no longer even attempting to do the country's business. They have put partisan politics above the job they were sent to do. Go ahead and claim otherwise. Claim that Nazi-Pelosi and her gang of merry brown shirts are bringing us closer to rapture. The reality is that short of another Oklahoma City Bombing, nothing will force the Right to realise how addicted it is to the Siren songs that Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, The Wall Street Journal, Michelle Bachman, Eric Cantor, and Glenn Beck have sung for years.

Who is laughing to the bank now? Rush, Beck, and Palin. Who is Mr. Hollywood now?

[szh]

i find it interesting that you are ok with it, yet, in this situation it isnt ok. this is exactly the case for every use of the recess appointment. The position of the senate is to ADVISE and CONSENT on Presidental nominations to the Executive branch. yet, as we have seen, over the last year or so, the Senate GOP has done everything in their power to make sure nothing gets done. You claim that Becker is controversial, and that this use of the recess appointment shouldnt have been made due to the controversy, yet make no mention of the dozens of NON controversial nominees that have been kept out of office because of GOP obstructionalism.

It is a two-way street for sure! I can find examples in past years where Democratic obstructionism kept candidates out of office because the candidates was not deemed "liberal enough" even though they were relatively non-controversial in most ways.

My point was that it is sometimes necessary to avoid lengthy logjams, and so, yes, I do believe it is necessary to allow the President to make appointments when a reasonable length of time has passed.

However (a) it should not be done for controversial appointees, and (b) should not be used as a launching point for partisan attacks like Obama chose to do.

And, sorry, I do NOT agree that the Republican senators are being particularly more obstructionist at this time - certainly any more so that Democrats in past years! Given my age, I have seen many, many politicians take similar extreme stands - on both sides, by the way.

BTW, the Democrat have been gleefully espousing and twitting that they have the votes to pass anything - in spite of what people might want - and, I believe, they are attempting to head in directions that are simply not good for the majority of the people because of a "we know better what is good for you peons" supercilious attitude.

Sorry, they are wrong, IMHO.

when this is the level of behavior in the Senate, how exactly is the President supposed to fill some of the most important offices in the land, that a year into his administration, remain empty? The fact of the matter is that the GOP is no longer even attempting to do the country's business. They have put partisan politics above the job they were sent to do. Go ahead and claim otherwise. Claim that Nazi-Pelosi and her gang of merry brown shirts are bringing us closer to rapture. The reality is that short of another Oklahoma City Bombing, nothing will force the Right to realise how addicted it is to the Siren songs that Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, The Wall Street Journal, Michelle Bachman, Eric Cantor, and Glenn Beck have sung for years.

Wow ... just look at the extreme, one-sided stance you are taking!! This is so reflective and typical of the way Democrats insist that they are absolutely correct that I don't even need to say anything to refute you.

Z

[srellim234]

I have a little different take on this than you. The Prez is justified in this instance in making the appointment the way he did. The blocking party has relegated that person to equal status and no more controversial than any of the others picks by their actions. If the minority party was not obstructionist to all picks, approved the non-controversial selections and delayed only the controversial ones, I would agree with you.

[audtatious]

Who is really the blocking party? The Dems have enough votes to get them in without any GOP support so how is the GOP stopping it from happening? Why should the GOP support them when it gets them nowhere and may be against the values of the GOP party as a whole? Again, it's the GOP who must relent and not the Dems in the least yet that is all the fault of the GOP?

Does that really make sense? If I have the authority to make a choice that you and I will follow, and you don't agree with that choice but must follow it, then how can I blame you for me not making the choice that I want when you can't stop me? I being the Dems with the "votes" and you being the GOP who can't stop me. Yet, you are at fault for not agreeing with the choice I am prepared to make. That's like accusing a passenger for the driver running a red light; passenger may not have wanted the red light to be run but not driving he can't stop it from happening.

[srellim234]

You're thinking like a Republican, walking and voting in lockstep with the party no matter how destructive, obstructive or untruthful it is.

The fact is that many Democrats, particularly southern ones, are very conservative so the Democrats don't have a united voting block just because they have a "D" for a party affiliation. The Democrats, too are very good at bowing to the whim of corporate lobbyists and sponsors, probably even more so than the Republicans. My observation over the years has been that Republicans bow to the party, Democrats bow to the lobbyists and very few in Congress actually have what's best for America at the front of their agendas.

Many appointments cleared Senate committees and Republicans have used legislative tactics and threatened filibusters to prevent full Senate approval votes from happening. They have prevented the appointment votes from happening, attempting to grind the government to a halt, and then they will campaign blaming the Democrats for so little getting done in all those departments that are missing leaders.

[audtatious]

If the Dems had anyone worthwhile come up for office I would vote for them. Hell, I may have voted for Hillary over McCain as would quite a few other "Republicans". Against someone like Gore, Kerry and Obama I surely would vote straight ticket. I have not liked the Republicans who have been running yet I have disliked the Dems more as they have been way out in left field. Everyone running these last 10+ years have been progressives in one fashion or another on both sides. I'm a fiscal conservative first and have some moderate views. I don't lump you personally into the far-left nut-job zone and I would apprecieate you not lumping me into the far right-wing conspiracy category either. Deal?

Realize that both sides use tactics with the Dems doing the same when the Republicans were in the majority. SOSDD

[srellim234]

I didn't mean to characterize you as being lockstep in general. I was referring only to your comment regarding who the blocking party was. I aplogize it came out the wrong way.

There are true fiscal conservatives running on third party tickets. They've gotten most of my votes over the last 20-25 years. Voting along party lines for either of the two major parties will only yield more of the same garbage we've received from them for decades. I'm one who believes in voting FOR the candidate who most closely represents what I want out of that political office regardless of party affiliation. I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. That still produces an evil.

As for my political beliefs, I'm one who tends to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I spend a lot of time reconciling the two.

[HashiriyaS14]

Umm, no. John McCain is not still upset about the election. He is upset by the recent deliberate railroading of bills by Pelosi and others - against the majority of the people - that are being done as we speak.

I think it's safe to assume that he's upset about both.

It's unreasonable to assume that he's not still sore about losing in 2008, but it's equally unreasonable to assume it's the sole motivation behind any of his actions in 2010.

He's also up for a VERY tough primary battle against someone who's a lot more conservative than he is, so he's going to talk a hard line no matter what. I hope McCain wins personally, Hayworth scares me.

[Jesda]

McCain is more sore about the 2000 GOP primary than the 2008 general election. I doubt he thought he was really going to win after the economy took a nosedive.

In order to be butthurt about something, you have to have a reasonable expectation of getting something in order to feel bad about losing it.

He lost nothing because he saw it slip away long before November. He didn't do anything to earn my vote either.