A friend of mine mentioned to me a few weeks ago that there was no way Geithner, for example, could be fired, since there is no way his replacement could be confirmed. Ezra talks about the same thing today:
The Treasury Department is a good case in point. This may be the most turbulent economy since the 1930s, but the agency tasked with navigating it is still waiting for a number of key nominees to be confirmed, including the undersecretary for international affairs and the undersecretary for domestic finance. Meanwhile, the boss himself, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is under tremendous criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike. Some even want him fired.
But he can’t be fired, and it’s not because he’s doing a bang-up job. It’s because Obama can’t be confident that he could be smoothly replaced. The only thing worse than an unpopular Treasury secretary is no Treasury secretary at all.
The problem gets worse as it goes deeper. It’s not just that Geithner can’t be fired. It’s that he, in turn, can’t fire anybody. Treasury is understaffed, and there’s little reason to believe that the Senate will consider its nominees anytime soon. If Geithner is displeased with the performance of an appointed subordinate, he can’t ponder whether America would be better off with another individual in that office. Instead, he must decide whether America would be better off if that office were empty.
But, hey, Bobo says Republicans are powerless.
mr. whipple
It’s time for Obama to get off his ass and recess appoint everyone.
This is out of hand.
MikeJ
What’s really frustrating is this isn’t a problem with the filibuster. Theoretically we could get around that (hah! I know I’m dreaming.) Not really anything to do about holds other than simply ignore them.
robertdsc
This is precisely why recess appointments should have been made the minute the Senate adjourned for the weekend. Instead, more failure we can believe in.
We’re over a year in. No excuses, Mr. President. None.
jeffreyw
@mr. whipple: Ditto dat.
Napoleon
Good thing Obama is a resolute leader who like Clinton and Bush before him will use his Constitutional recess appointment power to appoint these people this weekend.
Oh wait, I forgot he isn’t. If this doesn’t show how pathetic Obama is as a leader I do not know what will.
MikeJ
Republicans want a monarchy. Always have. The point of republican obstructionism in the senate is to make it irrelevant.
When the republicans have the presidency they already ignore congress. They want the Dems to join them in this and ideally congress will be neutered. It’s incredibly easy to find republicans bitching about how the worst thing about Watergate was that it made congress uppity.
Brien Jackson
I think the notion that the filibuster could hold up against a top tier cabinet nomination is fairly dubious.
El Cid
I have to admit that I haven’t thought in great detail about it, but other than Republican / right wing pundit screaming, what would be the downside of recess appointments outside that the position has to be confirmed by the end of the next session — assuming that the likelihood of getting the nominees preferred by the administration confirmed by the sillybuster Senate is minimal?
The choice seems to be between going on forever and not getting appointments confirmed; choosing whatever candidates Republicans appear to prefer, no matter how shittier, and then probably still facing sillybuster; and appointing the desired nominees but for a shorter time.
madmommy
If the President were to just recess appoint everyone still being held up in the Congress, what would happen when their recess appointments end? Can he just continue to recess appoint to bypass the GOP entirely?
Not that he actually would, but is it an option? I wish he would just say “screw it, everybody’s in! Suck it GOP!”
TruthOfAngels
US Constitution, Article II, Section II, Clause III:
So Republicans are powerless in this instance, really. Not that they wouldn’t squeal about it, of course, mais plus ca change.
Bill E Pilgrim
@MikeJ: They want a powerful imperial Presidency — unless there’s a Democratic President.
Then they complain bitterly about him being arrogant, abusive, and ignoring them.
They revel in and use the power of Congress when it suits them. They wanted to impeach Clinton, not make him a monarch.
There’s really no point trying to find actual logic in anything they do, except for the most base, politically-motivated “Republican good, Democrat bad” kind. It drives pretty much everything.
Bill E Pilgrim
@El Cid: The downside would be that it’s not “bipartisan” and the Republicans might get mad about that and stop cooperating with President Obama.
El Cid
For Republicans, it isn’t just the “R” behind the name — it’s only about partisanship to the degree which Republicanism stands for the sort of authoritarian social structure and super-elite favoring economy and uber-hawk favoring foreign policy.
Since now that party ID is overwhelmingly associated with that ideology of the rotten society and economy they want, there’s no conflict. Those Republicans who fail to agree with that uniform rottenness either can agree to comply (and use their faux ‘bipartisanship’ to strategically harm Democratic plans) or leave the party.
Bill E Pilgrim
@El Cid: Completely agree. The Republican party is what happens to encompass oligarchical authoritarianism, currently, so that’s the one they’re fighting for. If some other party comprised those people instead they’d be in that one.
My point was though that when Bill Clinton was President, none of them wanted him to be anything close to a monarch, don’t forget how frantic and paranoid they were about black helicopters and Janet Reno in those days.
Their being powerful is what matters, is the point. Those who share their ideas of ownership and hate unions and all the rest of it. The bawling about Presidential powers and so on is just expedience, since as I say, they’ll argue the opposite at the drop of a hat.
El Cid
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Well, yeah, if you include snark.
There is a degree, however, to which I think there is within the Democratic leadership those who oppose (not just fear) the consequences of actually successfully carrying out Democratic policies which appear to be those overwhelmingly within party assumptions.
Have Democratic Senators openly encouraged the administration to go ahead and use the completely Constitutional authority to appoint in recess? A turf stance in favor of the Senate confirmation process is in reality the equivalent of endorsing staff vacancies and the success of Republican sillybustering.
Would fellow (D) Senators not sit at your table in the cafeteria?
windshouter
You can likely get around a filibuster for most nominees, but the problem is if the Senate must do the cloture, debate, vote
routine routinely, it limits the amount of work it can do in a year to what 75 items. There’s not time to even clear the backlog let alone other important legislation (budget, naming a post office, whatever).
I agree with other on this thread. If the President doesn’t have an undersecretary of the treasury at this point, it’s because the President thinks good relations with the Senate are more important than staffing this position. Given that point of view, maybe it’s not surprising the Republicans view winning elections as more important than good relations with the President. Get elected President, you get a nice house, but you don’t get to complain about being powerless even if you are but especially when you are not.
demo woman
The MSM is part of the problem. In order to remove the liberal media stigma that is attached to them, they have conveniently forgotten the Bush era. Ronny is now a saint who lowered taxes, although he raised taxes for middle class Americans and left a large deficit. The new discussion is that the President is killing terrorists rather than endangering our troops by capturing them and torturing them. Real men torture.
All the recess appointments are not going to help unless the messengers starts printing the truth.
Brian J
Perhaps it depends on the type of person they nominate. Not that the next guy or woman up for the job has to one step below Lenin, but if the White House nominated a person with a reputation for, well, not being a Wall Street lackey, it might make getting that person through a lot easier. Or so that is what I think, based on reading this post from the Baseline Scenario about the President of the Kansas City Fed, Tom Hoenig, whom the post describes as an old fashioned regulator that wouldn’t fall for this crap.
Still, the fact that the guys can grind the Senate to a halt is insane. And while I am a little embarrassed to admit this, I am still not sure of how it happened. I know it’s a matter of the rules being designed a certain way, but I still don’t get it. It’s as if they decided to split up Texas into two states so they’d get two extra Republican senators or something.
sparky
@El Cid: good on you for being more polite than moi.
then, the rant:
sorry, but this is just wankery. “If Geithner is displeased….”? Geithner is a tool, (or a flunky, if you prefer) and the problem isn’t the Senate. the problem is that Obama isn’t going to appoint anyone who would actually stand up to Wall Street in the first place, recess appointment or no. seriously, i think people here really need to get a grip on reality. when you start approvingly quoting sorry-ass stuff like this, you have bought into some “not my fauwwwwwlt” crap of a high order.
John Quixote
@Napoleon:
Recess appointments only last until the end of the current Congressional term. In fucking January. Then we are back to the exact same dynamic were are in now. And the press will devour him for it. Hyperpartisan, bucking the Will of the Senate, blah, blah, blah. Not to mention the harping that professional asshole (‘moderate, centrist’) Dems like Pigfucker Nelson and Punk Bitch Bayh will trot out on the Sunday morning gabfests and you have a true bipartisan clusterfuck.
The sooner that you learn that the fucking rules are different for Democratic Administrations (not to mention that the POTUS is blackity, blackity, black, black, black, which pisses off the MSM like no other), the sooner that you will realize that Obama has his back against the wall, and if he gives the MSM, the GOP, and the demon sheep Conservadems even the tiniest bit of an opening, they will murder his administration on national television and have an orgy upon his entrails.
It is vitally important that Obama not give anyone a chance to gut him before 2012, when the next great Political War occurs. The MSM, the GOP, and the Conservadems will be out with the long knives, even if the alternative is Miss Bible Spice. They will not rest until he is politically dead. Whether or not the country is finally on the right track and the economy repairs itself is immaterial. They all want him gone. They want thier upper class tax cuts, Jesus in the classroom, and Muslims tortured to death.
Stop being naive and come to the realization that the powers that be want his blood on the floor.
MikeJ
Goddamn that’s funny!
El Cid
@Brian J: In all systems there are degrees to which norms and voluntary compliance are factually part of the system.
If all of a sudden you have a power group which refuses to comply with institutionally favoring norms and voluntary features — i.e., a work ‘slowdown’ or peasant ‘incompetence’ and other forms of resistance not easily dealt with under formal rules — the system can break down.
You have one group willing to go to any extreme possible to advance their group interests and policy preferences and party success, no matter the damage done to the institution or wider society, and a party which continually prefers to act as if the other party is some fantasy preferred opposition party which is the normal political party it used to be in, I dunno, the 1950s.
Now, I happen to think that’s more the result of a significant portion of the Democratic leadership (particularly within but not limited to the Senate) resisting their own party’s purported agenda, but some think it has more to do with objective limits on other options and/or on some sort of institutional lack of awareness or gumption among the Democrats.
Ana Gama
It’s ridiculous that a hold can be put on a nominee that are totally unrelated to the nominee’s qualifications for the office.
At the end of Ezra’s column:
This kind of crap needs to be outlawed.
Brian J
@MikeJ:
Yes, I know.
But seriously, if the White House did decided to, say, dump Geithner and keep Summers, thus possibly placating both sides, it could still rally enough support from the public if it asked for it. And that’s just it: I don’t think Obama is beholden to Wall Street as much as he is too nice to the other side, which means he’ll let them define him. Well, maybe he is too light on Wall Street, but I think he’s got a sharp enough mind that he can be convinced that changes are necessary.
Ana Gama
@Brian J:
Why do I suspect that the Repubs would actually prefer a Wall St lackey?
Bill E Pilgrim
@El Cid: Wow.
So you’re basically saying that it’s Congress’ fault if President Obama doesn’t make recess appointments? That it’s their job to convince him to do this, and if he doesn’t, that’s their failing?
Listen maybe he will make recess appointments. I hope he does. But good grief, the “don’t dare include Obama in any of the criticism” here is just becoming silly.
Democrats are flipping ridiculous, we all seem to agree. Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are, however, Democrats also. I really don’t see the point of either blaming every evil on them, or of twisting oneself into a pretzel to exclude them.
Sandmann
I’m not convinced that recess appointments should be made before the Healthcare summit. That would seem to be the perfect shiny object needed by the Repubs (enabled by the lazy-ass MSM) to use as an excuse for not showing up. You know they are looking for any out they can at this point.
John Quixote
@Sandmann:
This. Remember the Henry Louis Gates affair? That shut down Washington for 3 fucking weeks. Recess appointments will drown HCR.
Chad N Freude
@John Quixote:
And therefore it is vitally important that he not take any action?
robertdsc
Here’s the whole problem. The Will of the Senate isn’t even being addressed since the nominees can’t even get an up or down vote. If he recess appointed folks that didn’t get more than 50% of the vote, I could see a problem. But the nominees aren’t even given the courtesy of a fucking vote to see what the true will is!
Hell, even Harry Reid asked the President to do recess appointments because of the GOP blocks. And from the White House? Crickets. Full metal FAIL.
El Cid
@Bill E Pilgrim:
No, that’s not my view, and try not to be thick-headed. The question was more of a theoretical nature — i.e., if the Democratic Senators in the midst of this process were so aware of the ridiculousness and awfulness of the current situation, why wouldn’t they themselves support the President using recess appointments? The likely answer would be that no, they’re less bothered by the continual sillybuster situation preventing important offices from being staffed than they are with , say, among two likely options either supporting their Senate turf or simply not preferring to staff these positions yest. I.e., if you insist on treating the standard confirmation process as the only reasonable option, yet you know simultaneously that this will not result in the confirmation of necessary candidates, what’s the reason for the insistence? It’s probably not an empirically answerable question, just something people can off-handedly hypothesize on on blogs like this, which aren’t journals of political science.
El Cid
Well, if my memory hadn’t been so shitty, I guess it was partly an empirically answerable question.
Emma
If someone tells me one more time “but Obama could rally public opinion” I will gut him and dance on his intestines.
Public opinion and four bucks get you a grande latte at Starbucks. An if you people who are observers of the political world don’t know it, you deserve the spitting you’re going to get when the Republicans march back into power.
The PUBLIC has been in favor of a lage number of things in the past year. The PUBLIC wants larger bailouts, enlargement of the Medicare plans, more investment in infrastructure. The PUBLIC is even in favor of eliminating DADT. And the Senate and their cronies in the MSM act as if the PUBLIC doesn’t have anything to say about it.
The problem is that the PUBLIC keeps on electing people to the Senate (and the House, but that is less of a problem) that are either Republicans or super-conservative Democrats. The PUBLIC does it because in their eyes the problem is never “their” senator, because said Senator makes sure he brings enough pork back home to keep “their” constituents happy.
Chad N Freude
@Ana Gama:
Do they really need another one? Well, no, but greed is greed and the greedy have to have not just enough, but ALL.
El Cid
@Emma: The PUBLIC was mostly opposed to Reagan’s agenda, who enjoyed approval ratings no higher and often lower than Clinton or (so far) Obama, except that apparently we’re supposed to look back on His reign of one of untrammeled Morning In America success of Unity.
Kirk Spencer
@John Quixote:
No, it’s to the end of the NEXT session. A recess appointment made now would last through January of 2012.
There’s another situation in which the recess appointment can end. “[W]hen an individual (either the recess appointee or someone else) is nominated, confirmed, and permanently appointed to the position, whichever occurs first.” (source: CRS Report.)
Bill E Pilgrim
@El Cid:
Who’s telling you that they’re not? And moreover, why does it matter?
Was my point.
Yes, that’s all interesting theoretically but what’s the point? A handful of conservative Democrats disapproving won’t stop him if he wants to do it, it’s not like a Senate or House vote that can be stopped with a filibuster, in fact the whole point would be to get around the filibuster.
Jay B.
And bitching about how mean Republicans are will get you back in the minority. Obama and the Democrats either figure out how to get his nominations through, or the Democrats lose.
El Cid
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Sometimes I’m curious about things which aren’t at the very core of every issue. As to who’s telling me that they’re not, it was an assumption — and since someone reminded us of Harry Reid’s endorsement of the recess appointment option, it’s at least the case that one or more Senators themselves recognized some importance in clarifying their own appreciation for and the temporal need for recess appointments.
Martian Buddy
@demo woman: In a related vein, I just saw this story from ABC entitled “Why Harry Reid Is Stripping Down Jobs Bill.” It’s amazing how “Republicans loaded the bill up with tax cuts and pork and then threatened a filibuster anyway” can mutate into “Harry Reid gutted a carefully-crafted bipartisan agreement because he’s an evil meanie pants.” What makes this story particularly irksome to me is that there’s a link right beneath it to a Miami Herald story on how the GOP has taken filibustering to unprecedented levels, including the appointments discussed in this thread. If the Miami Herald can see the proverbial elephant in the drawing room, why can’t ABC?
Emma
El Cid: My point exactly. Don’t misunderstand. I think Obama should start making recess appointment tomorrow, even if it means an even bigger fight in January (which it will, considering what our glorious press will do to him). But everyone seems to think that if he waves his magic wand, everything will be fine and dandy tomorrow because the PUBLIC will rise and take to the streets in his defense. Fat effin’ chance.
The people who are really pissing me off is the part of the Democratic machine who is supposed to be in charge of electing real Democrats. Why aren’t they pouring money into defeating these idiots? If you hammer something in people’s ears often enough it tends to get in. Why aren’t they going after all the Conservative so-called Democrats? Or the Gonzo Republicans?
demo woman
@Kirk Spencer: The link is broken. I thought it was the current term also. If he does blanket appointments and the Senate is lost, can the rules be changed? I thought that Quixote’s comment at the end was important also.
sparky
@El Cid: again, kudos to you for politesse.
especially the use of purported. but i suspect this point has sailed over the heads of many people here. in fairness, it’s difficult to think that you have been sold…a promise of a pony. for myself, i didn’t realize until the fall that i’d been had. that’s probably why i sound cranky and some people think i’m a troll. maybe the phrase should be changed to “massaging” expectations.
John Quixote
@Chad N Freude:
Getting HCR passed is the most important item he has at the moment. Everything (except a jobs bill) is meaningless. If Obama makes recess appointments, the GOP and ‘moderate’ Dems will have a reason to scuttle it, and the MSM will give them the cover to do so. Passing HCR will give him the momentum to get more done. What good is having an Under Secretary to the Treasury if he is only on the job for ten months?
The Libs who evicerated LBJ gave us Nixon.
The Unions and Eagleton (who gave us ‘McGovern is the candidate of Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion’) crippled McGovern.
The Libs devoured Carter, which gave us Reagan, who begat the Iran Contra criminal Bush 41.
Liberal dissatisfaction allowed Dubya to be re-elected.
And Lib backstabbing will give us President Bible Spice, or President Boss Hogg, or the Minnesota Mullet, or the Sun Kissed Prarie Hero.
Becareful what you wish for, you may get it.
Ed in NJ
@Napoleon:
I am sure that when Bush was making all his recess appointments you were supporting his constitutional right to do so.
And I’m sure if Obama was to make all these recess appointments the media would point out this constitutional right and report it as a response to Republican obstructionism.
Look, we live in country where the press will uncritically report every rightwing complaint against Obama, even if Bush did the exact same thing and they supported it, while the majority of the country still believes there is liberal bias in the media. At the same time, you and much of the left bashes Obama for both being just like Bush, and not enough like Bush.
El Cid
I think there was some small role of a war in that.
Bill E Pilgrim
@El Cid: Reminded “us”?
Reid’s urging for recess appointments isn’t news to me, it’s one of the reasons I’m as frustrated as the person who posted that seems to be. I assumed you were guessing that Conservadems would object, and my point was why do we care? If it was a more or less meaningless theoretical exercise okay then.
Montysano
I find it shocking that no one is seeking President Cheney’s advice on this crucial issue. After all, the man is full of opinions.
El Cid
@Bill E Pilgrim: I said I forgot. I had forgotten. Again, that was something I forgot. I was just trying to think about a variety of other options. After all, without telepathy it’s often difficult to purse out the motivations of various actors — you just make the best arguments you can for the incentives, disincentives, prior habits, and objective restrictions of each party you’re trying to game out.
sparky
@El Cid: if we, the great unwashed, know of this, i would infer this is a publicly sent signal. i would further infer that if a “leave the wounded behind” signal is public knowledge, something much worse is afoot, though perhaps in a passive rather than an active sense.
General Winfield Stuck
@robertdsc:
And so the pointless and idiotic Obama FAIL meme continues. So by this time in his term Bush had made 10 recess appointments and since Obama hasn’t at least matched that it is failure. Great measuring stick there.
And you apparently didn’t even read the article to learn that just the past week Obama stomped on Mitch the bitch Mcconnell for the blockage and 29 blocked appointees were released the next day for votes, thus no recess appointments were needed. Leaving just 36 appointees blocked with an Obama promise to recess appoint them soon if they aren’t released for votes. And hopefully get them actually confirmed so as not to take up more Senate time reappointing them when a recess appoint. expires.
It is not the criticism of Obama that is dumb, it it the uninformed wanking Obama fail that is dumb and lazy.
El Cid
@sparky:
Don’t get too used to it. Though with cleek’s pie filter installed and working, it could help. Particularly with the fake troll types.
John Quixote
@El Cid:
And Nixon escalated the war and bombed Cambodia back to the Stone Age for thier troubles. For all of Humphrey’s flaws, anybody who claimed there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between him and Nixon (not to mention the out loud and proud bigot Wallace) and stayed home made a decision that still hangs over the country to this day. No Nixon, no Reagan. No Reagan, no Bushes. But I’m sure they has fun on Max Yasgur’s farm, fucking in the mud.
Bill E Pilgrim
@El Cid: Hey relax, it was only the “reminded us” part I was correcting.
You misunderstood, I misunderstood, let’s drop it.
Warren Terra
Maybe Obama remembers that a “Senate Hold” is a threat by one Senator to kill the Senate if their whim is defied, by insisting on roll calls on every tiny thing? Yes, the Senate could be even SLOWER.
Kirk Spencer
@demo woman: weird about the broken. Let me try again here.
As to the changing of the rules, no. It’s black and white in the Constitution:
The important word in that is “NEXT”.
sparky
@General Winfield Stuck: ahh, but it’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it? i’ll agree with you about uninformed complaints, but there are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with Obama at this point, and a goodly number of them do not involve procedural niceties.
Bill E Pilgrim
@sparky: Second this emotion.
demo woman
@Kirk Spencer: Thank you for the clarification.
El Cid
@General Winfield Stuck:
All good points. Since so many were able to be released from hold (sillybuster), maybe it’s more the case that the rest are imminent.
The Klein column originally linked concluded with:
Of course, any attempt to implement such reforms would make the screaming about ‘czars’ seem like a coffee shop reading discussion group.
Sandmann
@ John Quixote
Yep, this is one instance where timing is critical and battles need to be chosen wisely.
sparky
@John Quixote: point taken, but i think you are rewriting history a bit. it’s not as if Nixon popped up for the first time in 1968, or that his tactics had never been seen before. and Johnson quit. and RFK was shot. etc. blaming a bunch of self-indulgent college kids for the subsequent history of the US is, well, a bit too much like a conspiracy theory, at least for me.
and your point about 2004 is just wrong. lots of people, myself included, were not thrilled with Kerry, but i don’t know of a single cranky lefty like myself who didn’t get out there and beat the hell out of the streets to try to stop a GWB victory.
Dannie22
Maybe I’m missing something, and if I am please explain it to me. Obama got the repubs to release the holds on 27 nominees and all 27 have been confirmed. Obama did that with the threat of recess appointments. He still has some nominees left, and Obama will probably recess appoint some of them in his own time. Not yours or anyone elses. It just seems strange that there are folk on this post who think Obama should just recess appoint everyone when they don’t seem to know that just the threat released 27 holds. Like I said, if I missed something, please tell me. I REALLY want to learn
El Cid
@John Quixote: Hey, if it were up to me to decide how people ought to have voted in various U.S. elections, we’d already be a much better and different country.
General Winfield Stuck
@sparky: Make them informed, like with facts and stuff, and you won’t hear me complain about it being dumb, though I might debate you on what the facts mean, or agree with your interpretation, I won”t called it stupid wanking. That’s what FDL, GOS and others specialize in, and they do it well enough there is no need to duplicate it here. IMHO
John Quixote
@Kirk Spencer:
I stand corrected. My bad. I still think that recess appointments right now will kill the slight possibility that HCR gets passed. He can wait until the next recess, which starts April 3rd. And he’ll get more appointees passed by then. He won’t get them all, but if a Jobs bill and HCR get done, he’ll be able make recess appointments, and the bitching won’t be as loud.
Nick
@robertdsc:
That’s because the media has decided the will of the Senate is 60% for approval, not 50%.
Also, Obama was able to get 27 nominees confirmed by threatening a recess appointment.
Napoleon
@El Cid:
Harry Reid did. Tells you something that Reid is more aggressive and realistic then Obama.
Nick
@sparky:
then you didn’t get out enough in 2004. I met more cranky lefties who didn’t get out there and beat the hell out of the streets then I can fit in the new Cowboys’ Stadium.
Napoleon
@John Quixote:
The reason they are different is because the Dems listen to the MSM and pundits and the Reps do not. The one grudging bit of admiration I can give to the Reps is they realize how the MSM and pundits are clowns and you would do better listening to the opinion of a 4 year old. If the Dems just quit listening to the MSM and the pundits the rules would change for them also.
Nick
@Napoleon:
Take it from someone who works in the MSM…no, they won’t, as a matter of fact, my bosses would love nothing more than for the administration to pick a fight with us…and the problem isn’t that Dems listen to the MSM, the problem is the voters do.
Napoleon
@John Quixote:
Your theory is the only one that I could think of that makes sense.
John Quixote
@sparky:
I knew plenty that did. Anecdotal yes, but that was my experience in 2004.
I admittedly have a huge beef with a lot of Baby Boomers. Things will get a lot better when they get out of the damn way. I’ll pay through the nose for thier SS and thier Medicare, but it won’t bother me that much as long as they STFU.
Napoleon
@Ed in NJ:
Yes I did because 1) it is explicitly in the constitution and 2) holds and the filibuster are blatantly unconstitutional. I was cheering for the Rep. to pull the nuclear option when they ran Congress because the Dems could use it to consider the filibuster to be destroyed in total when they came back to power.
Nick
@Napoleon:
Actually, they’re not…the Constitution says the Senate can make up it’s own rules, as per Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2. If the Senate wanted to make the threshold for breaking a filibuster 100 votes, it could.
jwb
@demo woman: I think it actually has very little to do with avoiding the taint of liberal media and everything with the desires of their corporate overlords.
John Quixote
@Nick:
This. As a former member of the MSM (radio, and God how much do I hate it now), I can attest to this. I thought it was bad during MonicaGate. How little did I know…..
rikyrah
recess appointment ALL OF THEM.
sparky
@Nick: maybe you are right. i was in Florida, and had friends who came from outside the US to ring doorbells.
@John Quixote: agreed on that point. having grown up in their shadow, i am sick of hearing about them. making this complaint used to be a sure-fire way to start a flame war here, because they tend to swarm….
@General Winfield Stuck: i think you are painting with too broad a brush. most–not all, but most–of the Obama/Dem party criticism that i read here is measured and well-informed. saying some people at other blogs say incendiary and ill-considered things as a reason to say everything they say is useless is a bit too easy, kinda like saying a blog is worthless because some of the comments are crap.
and i have yet to see Glenzilla say anything inaccurate. you may not agree with his conclusions or some of his rhetoric but he certainly has his facts straight.
as for myself, i hardly ever read anything at Kos and never read FDL. gave up on Huffington a couple of years ago. i’d say the major problems with those sites (Kos excepted) is that it seems like traffic gets to be a drug for them, just as with some of the folks on the right. as Rupert figured out a long time ago, screaming sells.
AhabTRuler
@Napoleon:
Don’t allow Reid to blame-shift. It is the Senate’s responsibility to pass nominees, and President Obama isn’t part of that august body anymore. It isn’t the President’s responsibility to ram his nominees down Congress’ throat, no matter how much Reid would love to avoid the need for confrontation.
Even if it is the Republicans fault for breaking the system, it is still Harry Reid’s responsibility, because he wanted the job.
I personally think that Reid should be leading chants of “upperdown vote” in the hallways of Congress, but that’s just me.
AhabTRuler
I wouldn’t worry about it too much. People are people, and the world sucked before there were Baby Boomers, too. Also.
Hell, most Americans suck balls, even the ones I like.
Napoleon
@Nick:
Actually it is. The Senate can not make rules that violate the Constitution. Effectively changing the voting requirement of a majority, which it is crystal clear that is what the Constitution contemplates, to a supermajority is unconstitutional. The Senate can no more hide behind their rule making ability to violate the Constitution then they could by, say, taking people who have pending federal criminal trials and simply using them as human sacrifices because the Senate rules say have to be made at the beginning of every days session. That would violate the Due Process clause and the fact that the Senate passed something under their rule making ability does not change that. Same with changing the majority voting requirements in the Constitution.
General Winfield Stuck
@sparky:
My brush more often than not covers you and your comments here, and this one in full. Do carry on though with yer omnipresent nonsense.
John Quixote
@sparky:
He’s completely full of shit on the Citizen’s United decision. His ‘things can’t get much worse then they already are’ shtick makes me want to take a wiffle ball bat to his crotch.
Warren Terra
@AhabTRuler
Indeed. If Obama recess-appoints and the Rs follow through on their “Hold” threats in response, the Senate becomes unworkable, and Reid is freed of the responsibility to get anything done.
Chad N Freude
@sparky:
Traffic = Money. Traffic is the digital analog of hardcopy circulation figures.
Nick
@sparky: The problem with critics like Glenzilla is that they criticize Obama like one would criticize the sun for it not being 80 degrees in February,
They have no sense of political reality, at all.
That and they end up contridicting themselves. First they criticize Obama for wanted to pay attention to the deficit and national debt, saying that’s bad policy, and now they’re slamming Goldman Sachs for being accused of allowing Greece to skirt rules to ignore their deficit and debt, thereby admitting that ignoring the national deficit/debt, what they wanted Obama to do, is actually a BAD thing,
They’re opportunists.
gopher2b
I’m no Geitner fan and I think it shouldn’t that difficult to find a Treasury Secretary who knows a universe exists outside Goldman Sachs, but man, that dude must be exhausted.
Nick
@Napoleon:
Please point out specifically where in the Constitution it mandates simple majority to pass legislation in Congress.
Dennis G.
I spoke with somebody in the DOJ over the weekend. There is a destructive layer of Bush appointees still in place in large part because having somebody is better than having nobody in these roles and/or the supervising position above them is not filled to fire them.
Another friend in another agency reported similar problems. The obstruction is an effort to create failure. A recess appointment would last for only 10 months and does not solve the underlying problem of obstruction. Still, I think it is time to make some of these appointments.
The real key here is to show the damage this obstruction is doing and give obstruction a real political cost. Right now the GOP gets a free pass on this and so they do it over and over again. This will be the case until there is a price to pay.
Cheers
dengre
General Winfield Stuck
@Nick:
We have had this argument posited many times here on this blog. As you are correct that the Constitution gives the Senate the mandate to make it’s own rules, and the only time a rule they make can be suspect is if it violates some other provision in the Constitution. That is where this specious argument ends, but it returns like the un dead when the sun goes down.
Nick
@Dennis G.:
We’ve had reporters who wanted to do a story on this but were pushed away because “the public wouldn’t find it interesting.”
Kirk Spencer
@Dennis G.: I said it above, I’ll say it again here. No, not ten months. The appointment ends at the end of the NEXT session, so it would end when the 2011 session ends.
Nick
@Kirk Spencer: No, he’s right, ten months. The appointments end when the current Congress ends, which is when the next elected Congress takes office.
Another words, this coming January since there are Congressional election this November.
Kirk Spencer
@Nick: No. Over and over NO. Look at what I’ve linked, above. It’s the CRS report of FAQs about recess appointments. I’ve also quoted the constitution.
The appointment does not end at the end of THIS session, it ends at the end of NEXT session. That’s found in the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 3.
Napoleon
@Nick:
The Constitution only list the exceptions that require supermajorities. Why would you list when you were to use a supermajority unless majority voting is the ordinary rule?
Steeplejack
@Kirk Spencer:
Your link doesn’t work (for me).
Message: “The requested document is no longer being distributed.”
Nick
@Napoleon: You’re misinterpreting. This isn’t about votes to pass. All legislation requires a simple majority to pass, it requires a super majority to END DEBATE in order to proceed to a vote on passage, which is 51 votes. In the past few Congresses, Senators have combined them to mean the same thing, that they will only vote to end debate on a piece of legislation they will vote for anyway.
The Senate has the constitutional right to decide how many votes it takes to end debate.
Steeplejack
@Steeplejack:
Some information here (PDF): “Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions.”
Kirk Spencer
@Steeplejack: Demo Woman already noticed, and I posted the corrected link here.
For those who want to search it out themselves, it’s Order Code RS21308, Updated March 12, 2008. The specific question and answer is:
This is then followed with specific examples, including one from GWB’s time in office.
cat48
@John Quixote:
This. They want his blood on the floor.
cat48
@John Quixote:
Uh, the Dems always undermine their presidents. I saw it with LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. That is why I am not a Dem, because they are f’n retarded. The only reason I am so pro-Obama is because everyone has deserted him. The media, the Congress, and his “supposed base who got him elected.”
I don’t desert my presidents just because I don’t always agree with them. Yes, he wanted the job and he ran for it, but no one in my lifetime has entered office with a mess like he faces. He should be supported whenever possible. That is just the way I roll and will until I die. Never will be a selfish, whiny Dem though. Not in this lifetime. Too embarrassing.
Joe Buck
It simply isn’t true that Geithner can’t be replaced because the Republicans will hold up the replacement.
Obama can fire Geithner and appoint his least incompetent underling as acting secretary. He can propose a highly competent candidate to replace him, and ask the Senate to start the confirmation process. He can announce a deadline, for example, the summer recess. He can say that if the relevant committee, or Congress as a whole, rejects the nomination, he will accept it and submit a new name. However, if Congress hasn’t completed action by the summer recess, he’ll make a recess appointment.
Nick
@Joe Buck:
Oh Good, that only gives the media and the GOP six months to unite to demonize said nominee and turn the public even further against the socialist administration.