It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Now that he's tackled the Supreme Court openings, President Bush is preparing for another high-profile nomination: a successor to Alan Greenspan, whose 18-year run at the Federal Reserve comes to an end in just over three months.
Often referred to as the second-most powerful person in the United States, Greenspan's last day is expected to be Jan. 31.
Speaking at a wide-ranging news conference on Tuesday, Bush touched briefly on the White House's efforts to select a new Fed chairman. He called the process to find Greenspan's replacement "ongoing."
"There is a group of people inside the White House ... who will bring forth nominees," Bush said.
Frequent mentions for Greenspan's job are [not surprisingly all "Bush Whackers"]:
--Ben Bernanke: A former Fed board member, he recently became Bush's top economist.
--Martin Feldstein. An economics professor at Harvard University and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, he advised Bush when the Texas governor ran for president in 2000.
--R. Glenn Hubbard. Dean of Columbia University's graduate school of business and an economics professor, he was Bush's chief economic adviser from 2001 to 2003.
Originally posted by SHADOW266
Or how about some of the displaced CEOs from Enron...
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes, lets denounce constitutional rights and duties exercised by a President only because we don't like him, my how very American indeed. Also keep it going RANT I think your on your 4th bush bashing thread, you're on a roll
"The nominees will be people that, one, obviously can do the job and, secondly, will be independent," Bush said. "It's important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent person from politics. It's this independence of the Fed that gives people, not only here in America but the world, confidence."
Yup. It's that First Amendment that'll get ya every time. Thanks for your "very American" complaint about the exercising of my rights.
Going back to the topic. . .,
Originally posted by WestPoint23
I just find it relevant for a member to comment on a threads intent.
Bush said. "It's important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent person from politics. It's this independence of the Fed that gives people, not only here in America but the world, confidence."
Originally posted by WestPoint23
RANT there is always concern and doubt with every nominee a president may choose for an important position, however like I said before it’s their right and duty under the constitution. If we don't agree with who he/she has nominated we can call our local senator and file a complaint. I don't however, think we should make it appear as if the president is not obeying the law, and let our personal feelings toward him automatically judge anyone he picks.
THE President is to NOMINATE, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up ALL VACANCIES which may happen DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE at the end of their next session.''
It has been observed in a former paper, that "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.'' If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode of appointing the officers of the United States contained in the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union; and it will not need proof, that on this point must essentially depend the character of its administration. [...]
The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. [...]
In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. [...]
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of universal venalty in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory. It has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most corrupt governments...
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
You can't have it both ways.
You can't be rude, and still expect to have anyone to argue with.