Obama issues 15 recess appointments

reply to post by BomSquad


"President" George W. Bush, and his first year (or so) in office:

External articles

2001
Major Garrett, "Bush to defy Senate with recess appointments" and "Bush intends to bypass Senate with recess appointments," CNN, December 22, 2001.
Gina Holland, "Republican senator urges Bush to make recess appointments, Democratic leader argues against it," Associated Press (San Diego Union-Tribune), December 30, 2001.

2002
Victor Williams, "Why President Bush Should Use Recess Appointments to Fill Wartime Vacancies," FindLaw's Writ, January 1, 2002.
"Bush issues recess appointments for controversial nominees," GovExec.com (from Congress Daily), January 11, 2002.
[url="Bush Ignores Critics, Makes Recess Appointments,"[/url] Fox News, January 12, 2002.

www.sourcewatch.org...

Just a few...and very controversial, it seems, in their day too.

So, what's the big gosh darn deal here, anyway???





[edit on 28 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by BomSquad
You know, the Republicans might be stopping the Democrats agenda because they fundamentally disagree with their policy instead of out of some kind of personal hatred.

That would make sense if the GOP hadn't tried to pass a lot of the same legislation they are now fighting against. Democrats do it, too, but this is THE most obstructionist for obstruction's sake party I've ever seen.

Compromise needs people ON BOTH SIDES willing to LISTEN and find common ground that we can build on.

On this, we can definitely agree. But if one side isn't willing to compromise, they might not get anything they want.

Originally posted by jimmyx
the republicans are stalling, and holding up every piece of business the democrats are trying to do, and they don't give a damn, because they do not want the democrats to succeed in any type of government business, no matter how small or mundane it is. they simply don't care if america can even function on a day to day basis.

Isn't that the same thing the Dems did to Bush? No thats right they rubber stamped the PATRIOT act, and the war effort, and bigger spending.

The Democrats did hold up most of Bush's apointees though. I remember Democrats saying Bolton would cause an international incident if apointed. He got the nod while congress was away and we survived.

This cuts both ways and it has nothing to do with principles. It has everything to do with trying to help your donors. You only get a certain amount of time to line their pockets before the pendulum swings back. That means the left has to pay back those loans they recieved in the last election cycle. It also means the right has to fight to get back in power so that they can do the same.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's about time he stop trying to "play nice" with the GOP. They are not giving him the same courtesy. They are obstructionist at EVERY opportunity. I've been WAITING for Obama to stand up and stop begging for Republican support for every single thing he does. He's NOT going to get it. His job is to protect and defend the US. How can he do that with a constant barrage of obstruction that is the GOP? They have prevented him from doing his job long enough.

I haven't read about his appointments, but we, the public, have never been called on to approve the president's choices. I don't know why it should start now.

Good move, Obama!

Let's see you need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster in the Senate. Untill a month ago Obama had 60 votes in the Senate. There was nothing that the Republicans could have done to stop him. The Democrats are responsible for these nominations from being confirmed! How about you stop blaming this on the Republicans? There was nothing that they could do to stop Obama. HIS OWN PARTY BLOCKED THESE NOMINATIONS!

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's about time he stop trying to "play nice" with the GOP. They are not giving him the same courtesy. They are obstructionist at EVERY opportunity. I've been WAITING for Obama to stand up and stop begging for Republican support for every single thing he does. He's NOT going to get it. His job is to protect and defend the US. How can he do that with a constant barrage of obstruction that is the GOP? They have prevented him from doing his job long enough.

I haven't read about his appointments, but we, the public, have never been called on to approve the president's choices. I don't know why it should start now.

Good move, Obama!

Let's see you need 60 votes to over ride a filibuster in the Senate. Untill a month ago Obama had 60 votes in the Senate. There was nothing that the Republicans could have done to stop him. The Democrats are responsible for preventing these nominations from being confirmed! How about you stop blaming this on the Republicans? There was nothing that they could do to stop Obama. HIS OWN PARTY BLOCKED THESE NOMINATIONS!

Originally posted by JIMC5499
How about you stop blaming this on the Republicans?

How about you read my post?

I didn't blame the Republicans. I put the blame squarely where it belongs. On Obama. For trying to play nice. For not standing up and doing his job. I always have blamed him for being so stubborn as to want bi-partisanship where there was none.

I do believe that the GOP is trying every trick in the book to KEEP him from doing his job, but as you said, he doesn't need them. I have never insinuated that he did.

HIS OWN PARTY BLOCKED THESE NOMINATIONS!

Do you have a source on that?


[edit on 3/28/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Do you have a source on that?

The source was the article that I posted in the original post. Though I must say that characterizing it as his own party blocking the nomination might be hyperbole. There were 2 democrat senators that voted against, making the vote 2 votes short of a 60 vote super majority needed to close debate on the nominees, ending the filibuster...

I keep hearing about fillibusters. However, I flip on CSPAN and don't see any one trying to fillibuster. That would be a congressman speaking and not yielding his time until the other side decides to kill a bill or motion.

This fillibuster talk is mainly political game playing. I don't think it is a serious issue. To me it feels like the Democrats trying to avoid responsibility. They finally had a 60 seat majority and couldn't play well enough together to get anything done. This is what activist on the left have complained about for years. The lft always says "the Democrats always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Just look at how many bribes and twisted arms it took for them to come together on a health care bill. Then it still took executive orders and promises about future bills to pull it off in the last hours. It is time for the Democrats to stop blaming the Repulicans. They are in the driver seat. They can not play the victim now.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
They can not play the victim now.

Obama just appointed 15 people. They are not playing the victim.

Fact is, if the GOP can block an Obama appointment or bill, they will. You don't see a filibuster because Obama won't let it get to that. He wants to avoid it altogether, so he either makes sure he has the votes or finds a way around it. If he doesn't, the GOP will either block it or dig up some kind of "dirt" and exaggerate it to the point of ridiculousness and broadcast it through their mouthpieces on FOX until it's a smear campaign on whatever Obama is trying to do.

That's just how it is.

I'm not trying to say that the Democrats are victims or that they're perfect or that they don't do the VERY same thing when they're in the minority. They DO. My biggest gripe is with Obama trying to play nice. If ANYONE is the victim, it's those of us who voted the Democrats into the majority so they could get Obama's agenda passed.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

My biggest gripe is with Obama trying to play nice. If ANYONE is the victim, it's those of us who voted the Democrats into the majority so they could get Obama's agenda passed.

It is my personal opinion that the majority of people who voted for the Democrats and Obama in the last election did so because they were strongly opposed to the Republicans and the Bush years. The Democrats took this as a ringing endorsement of their agenda. I think they misread the mandate of the people.

It is my opinion that the people wanted "change". To a majority of people, "change" meant anything but Bush. "Change" did not mean a radical swing to the left.

Bill Clinton learned this lesson in 1994 when the people elected a majority Republican house for the first time in 40 years. He learned the lesson well, and moved closer to the center. He did not abandon his agenda, merely tempered it with the knowledge that the country was not yet ready to follow him that far to the left. So he led them as far as they were willing to go. Good for him. I do not neccessarily agree with his agenda either, but he realized exactly what the peoples mandate meant, and worked within those limits. It was a smart move. It is better to get some of your agenda passed than none of it.

Obama has yet to learn this lesson and I think the people will try and teach it to him come the November elections. We will see if he is as good a student as Bill Clinton was of reading the people. Maybe he will understand that getting some of his agenda passed will be better than none of it at all. I predict that if he learns this lesson, his popularity will rise dramatically because the people will feel like their will matters again.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you have a source on that?

My apology. I misread your post.

I don't need a source. The Dems had 60 votes in the Senate. If every Democrat voted in favor of these appointments they would have all passed. Aparently they all wouldn't vote in favor, so they obviously blocked Obama's mnominations.

Originally posted by BomSquad

WASHINGTON - Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment.

The move immediately deepened the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care. Obama revealed his decision by blistering Republicans, accusing them of holding up nominees for months solely to try to score a political advantage on him.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

While recess appointments are quite common, I do not recall such controversal choices being appointed especially in the face of some of these nominees being denied appointment by a previous bi-partisan vote.

While I do defend the right of the president to make these recess appointments, I believe he should have chosen nominees that were less controversal as a sort of caretaker until the Senate was back in session.

"Sneaking" in these radical choices in through the back door in this manner will only heighten the partisanship and alienation of the opposition and even some members of his own party.

W Bush appointed two appeals judges while senate was in recess(and who were filibustered). He appointed John Bolton, to serve as U.S. representative to the United Nations. Bolton had also been the subject of a Senate filibuster.

Clinton appointed an Assistant Attorney Gen because he was openly for affirmative action.

President Ronald Reagan used this privilege 243 times

President George H.W. Bush used this privilege 77 times

President Bill Clinton used this privilege 140 times.

President George W. Bush has used privilege 171 times

In short-this is nothing new whatsoever.


[edit on 29-3-2010 by captaintyinknots]

reply to post by captaintyinknots


My statement applies equally to these former Presidents as well. If the Senate has already voted against the nominee, especially in a Bipartisan manner, a less controversial nominee should be "recess appointed" as a caretaker of the position until the Senate can begin debate on prospective nominees again.

Originally posted by BomSquad
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

My statement applies equally to these former Presidents as well. If the Senate has already voted against the nominee, especially in a Bipartisan manner, a less controversial nominee should be "recess appointed" as a caretaker of the position until the Senate can begin debate on prospective nominees again.

Filibuster is not voting against. Its the government version of saying 'you wont play my way, I'm taking my ball and going home'.

If you are to do something to get rid of recess appointments, filibusters must be don e away with as well.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


True. Maybe I should say instead that the Senate had not decided to close debate on these particular nominees and therefore these nominees should not be appointed to their positions behind the Senate's back.

I think my basic premise is still valid. Caretaker nominees should be appointed to fill these positions until such a time as the full Senate can conclude debate on these nominees.

Originally posted by BomSquad
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

True. Maybe I should say instead that the Senate had not decided to close debate on these particular nominees and therefore these nominees should not be appointed to their positions behind the Senate's back.

I think my basic premise is still valid. Caretaker nominees should be appointed to fill these positions until such a time as the full Senate can conclude debate on these nominees.

I absolutely get what you are saying. However, if the senate is allowed to filibuster anyone that a particular party doesnt support, then we will NEVER have what the president considers his best advisors around him.

The other side of this, also, is that the reason these things are filibustered is because specific sects want PARTISAN appointments, meaning each side will continue to filibuster the other, and we will NEVER have continuity in our government, if caretakers positions are being filled and changed every few months.

Recess appointments are another check and balance. It makes it so that a partisan senate cannot overrule (or simply plus their ears and not listen to) the president.

We all want to complain about the fact that Obama has not followed through on his promises. Yet here is an example of him taking a step to try and further his moves.

And apparently we arent okay with that either.

Its becoming quite apparent in this country that we simply cannot be happy. Complain when he isnt getting things done. Complain when he is. Complain when he lets congress block him. Complain when he takes steps around it.

Originally posted by Target Earth
This is the endless bummer, just one day I would like to hear some good news, just one day. Why are there so many Obama Army people on this site. I'm a little suspect of anyone on a conspiricy site who want bigger government

Ain't that the truth.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I starred your post. I agree with the last line of your post 100% the people that voted for Obama and the Democrats did not get what they wanted. It is a symptom of a much larger problem. We should all be mad at our elected leaders for not doing what their constituents ask them to do.

reply to post by MikeNice81


While I disagree with Obama in some areas, overall, I'm happy so far with Obama and what he's doing. So are many who voted for him. What I'm NOT happy with is his continued efforts toward bipartisanship in the face of impossibility. I admire him wanting to work well with others, but when the others are determined to work against him, there comes a time when he must realize that and move on without them. I hope this recess appointment is a signal that he's starting to get that.

Originally posted by BomSquad
If the Senate has already voted against the nominee, especially in a Bipartisan manner, a less controversial nominee should be "recess appointed" as a caretaker of the position until the Senate can begin debate on prospective nominees again.

If you're talking about Craig Becker, he received a majority. The advice and consent clause requires a simple majority, which he got, 52-33 !

I know the Senator from Walmart, I mean Arkanasas, voted against.