Recess Appointment’s – Mikulski’s Other Foot
courtesy: U.S. Senate
U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made this statement on CNN regarding Senate rules concerning presidential appointees and the Obama recess appointments made this weekend: “This is why we we ought to reform the institution,” Mikulski said, noting the Senate’s system of placing holds, sometimes anonymously or indefinitely, has started to “hold up function of government.”
Really, I wonder if CNN bothered to ask her what she did to several appointees of President George W. Bush, well in case you were wondering… she made political points by pursuing the same obstructionist tactics she is moaning about now.
I guess political games over appointments only hurt when your side is seen as ineffective after 215 days and counting.
20 Responses to “Recess Appointment’s – Mikulski’s Other Foot”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV. TMV said: Recess Appointment’s – Mikulski’s Other Foot: courtesy: U.S. Senate U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made this… http://bit.ly/dbB7Ej [...]
[shrug] Another Dim-wit.
I'm surpised we aren't hearing more whining from the peanut gallery about the “undemocratic” Senate:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12…
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/12/18/…
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=sen…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/01/get-rid…
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/29/opinion/l-ame…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor20.html
We might hear more sometime about the “problem” with checks and balances — “divided government” (i.e., Dems not being completely in power everywhere). We can hear more calls for Obama to write more legislation “because Congress isn't doing its job” if enough people become sufficiently impatient, too, maybe calls even for more executive orders that make other Congressional decisions, if some would have their way.
Here is my thing about recess appointments. When Bush did it I did not blame Bush, I also did not blame the GOP. I blamed the Dems for finding fault enough to dig in their heels while not having the guts to stand and read phone books until they got their way…or lost but after fighting a good fight. In this case if the GOP did not want the recess appointments they should have fought instead of the passive aggressive holds but the same goes for the Dems in the past which is one of the main reasons I have disliked Harry Reid for most of this decade.
This is where the biggest problem with the Senate isn't filibustering or cloture, but with Secret Holds that can block, delay and hinder the nomination process. It violates the entire concept of advise and consent because it blocks all senators from offering said consent on the whims of one senator. We've seen the abuse get worse with Bunning's blanket hold just a month ago. We're going to get to the point where any incoming administration is just going to NOT offer up nominations at all for any vacancy simply because they'll know there will be holds placed on each nom… and with the senator(s) inflicting said holds without consequence.
Yes, some of these nominations are going to be scary mofos (John Bolton, anybody?). But Presidential administrations are voted into office by a majority (well, most of the time) of Americans, and we're supposed to respect the decisions of the voters and respect the needs of the office to get things done.
We need to limit the number of holds a senator can make. We need to put time limits on the holds to weeks or days. Or else we need to reduce the number of White House jobs open for Senate review to just the Secretaries of the Cabinet because this crap is killing our government.
“we need to reduce the number of White House jobs open for Senate review”
That's what the Obama administration has taken the initiative in doing, in creating all those “czar” (to appeal to the Herd) positions (while neglecting to fill so many conventional positions). Of course, that has some people concerned about secrecy, though there are plenty who are ignorant or don't care about this — though they'd be first and loudest to howl if it had been Bush creating “czar” positions.
But he did, he had 35(47 if you count the total Czar's but only in 35 positions) total Czar's though most of the positions that have been termed Czar's under Obama were not considered Czar's in the past he does still have 38 Czar's that do fit the “classic” definition. It is just that prior to W. FDR was the only president to have more than 10 Czar's and he had 12. Then W. Bush had 35 and now Obama has 38. I know you are not fond of wiki but it has a nice pretty table that makes it really easy to reference.
It also shows the total number of appointments for added geekiness W. 47, Obama 8, 10 for Clinton, 19 for FDR and every other president had 5 or under.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._execu…
One has to wonder why she would set herself p so nicely in the hypocrites seat. So many Congressmen and Congresswomen do this as if they think that people wont call them on it. They have to know. Only thing I can conclude is that they do indeed know, but think they can push their talking point to more people than will hear them called out for hypocrisy.
Many pol's do not get that the Internet has changed the rules of the political game. You can say what you wish just as before but I can now link to youtube videos where you say the opposite and laugh until I cry. We have seen this in large and neon ways on the GOP side but that was largely because they had been the party in power as this media change was in the mix, not because they were worse about it, so some of the new dems are a bit too savvy for it while others…well are going the same dinosaur route as we see here. To be honest I do not think that pol's that fail to learn this lesson will be around much longer, maybe an election cycle or two but regardless of party the rise of TV changed the way we viewed pol's and the rise of the internet is no different other than being much worse for them and their natural habits, lying that is and saying what will make people clap and vote.
“W. Bush had 35 and now Obama has 38″
That's worth noting, indeed. I had devalued criticism of Bush-Cheney given the nature of it as well as those doing the criticizing, and of the criticism. I was preoccupied with Bush-Cheney's needless deliberate antagonism of Congress (it became irrelevent how badly the Congre-Dems were behaving themselves) as well as other games, the “fetus as citizen” sop to the Religious Right or the quiet occasional changes to the Federal Register when it came to regulatory “reform,” and so on.
Screaming talking head on the right says this.
Screaming talking head on the left says that.
Lefty and righty joe citizen generally debate the screamer or use their screamers “facts” and “talking points” also known as lies and propaganda and never actually hear one another until we are…well where we are and likely will be even worse once the electorate awakens to that fact. This is my prime concern with “opinion media”, regardless of the political lean they obscure and apologise for their sides wrong doing and attack the other side for the same in market tested manners to poison the debate between you and me…the voters.
I know that is a rather wild assertion, that media functions primarily not to inform but to influence, but it is an assertion that both GOP voters and Chomsky agree though they do not know it and utterly disagree on the way to fix it. Chomsky thinks it is a problem of media consolidation and the GOP seems to think that media consolidation is the way to resolve it. In their defence it can be depending on your definition of a fix, if it is consolidated and sooner or later all the media is controlled by supporters of a single party then that party is VERY happy with their news.
“but think they can push their talking point to more people than will hear them called out for hypocrisy.”
pretty much
“Screaming talking head on the right says this.
Screaming talking head on the left says that.”
What's funny is that they all tend to say the same things, left or right. “Cookie-cutter” stuff, I call it. (Lists of present-day talking points, pre-defined positions on the issues. They just say these things in different ways or using their different personal styles. As you might expect, they like to dominate or monopolize the air time, too.)
Some of the shows I listen to have guests on, or are all about issues rather than the host's opinion and monologues, which are the better talk shows. The other value in those talk shows lies in getting current political and other news from them as well as the points introduced at times by the callers.
“This is my prime concern with 'opinion media'”
We have a generation and more of liberal “mainstream” media. We have nearly a generation now of opposition to it, including the revival of AM radio for explicit opinion media and a conservative counterattack (and filling of the vacuum created by the liberal media).
The Obama attempt to control the media was disturbing, and in addition to games like the Fairness Doctrine (or the equivalent in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez) we're likely to see more open scrambling for control of a more-biased media in the future, if anything else, just as we have seen for more than a generation a rabid defense of liberal judicial activism and the constant scramble of the Left to want “control of the courts” by controlling appointments to the courts or otherwise seeing results in their favor. There's no reason not to see more overt behavior of this kind with the media in our future, more liberal opinion in “news” stories and arguments over language related to this, more political opinion pieces, and so on.
I do think we are heading towards an era in which “opinions” may still matter a good deal but not as they have been framed throughout our nations history. Opinion divorced from reality and truth has been and is dangerous to democracy and in the end the republic itself but as the internet gains power I think we will see a shift from “right vs left” blogs and news sites and a rise of the middle supported by links to verifiable evidence and factual historical reviews with full citation when needed. If for no other reason, boredom since as you note both sides are basically mirror images of one another at the extremes. This of course would be a very huge change in the way the electorate forms its views and opinions compared to historically, many of our founding fathers dabbled or in some cases wallowed in propaganda themselves. Newspapers, talking heads and what we have until the last decade or so called “news” I think will die due to their inability to note references and have links that people can investigate themselves. I know this may be having too much faith in my fellow countrymen but I disagree with that view. It has been my experience that people generally rise or fall to the standard you set for them.
My personal experience on the web began at sites that agreed with me and those violently opposed that played fast and loose with reality and fact but then quickly shifted to sites where those debating me would present evidence or it would be in the articles themselves. In the end I now prefer more moderate sites on both sides and basically ignore both extremes since I can never really trust what they are saying and unless I want to investigate on my own I am likely to be the victim of a good deal of disinformation so it is easier to avoid them altogether unless I have lots of free time.
“I do think we are heading towards an era in which 'opinions' may still matter a good deal but not as they have been framed throughout our nations history.”
If the behavior I've seen out there (and at worse times from my critics on this site) provide examples and warnings, we will see more emotional and exploitive, superficial opinions and behavior appealing to emotion in the future. Obama's example provides another warning, that of more obvious manipulation of the media and public opinion by government. (If they believe they can get away with it, or if they don't care, or they see nothing wrong with it, they will do it.)
“I think we will see a shift from 'right vs left' blogs and news sites and a rise of the middle supported by links to verifiable evidence and factual historical reviews with full citation when needed.”
Or as a more general approach by all parties, using citations as backup or as enhancements (as I do with links in some of my postings).
“I now prefer more moderate sites on both sides and basically ignore both extremes”
With me it varies — I'll look at most things but discard the obvious sources that are disqualified from the start. Extremity in rhetoric is not in and of itself a disqualifier. There's nothing laudable about whimpering or whining among mushy defenders of the big government status quo — they are upset that anyone is actually questioning big government — which is a viewpoint stuck in the 1960s as well as being wrong on its face. (I recall a similar non-respectable spectacle by some people after the 1994 elections, and Schlesinger's and Schoeder's remarks about “taking us back to the articles of Confederation” were similarly wrong on the facts, despicable, and un-American.)
TMSF said: “Many pol's do not get that the Internet has changed the rules of the political game.”
I agree, and have often thought this. YouTube, in particular, changes things. When you can show people, from 2 years before, saying an exact opposite thing with apparent sincerity and conviction: that's a bad day for a politician.
I agree that older politicians might suffer the worst. However, I do think You Tube will punish Pres. Obama if he runs for re-election. Much of his appeal had to do with the trust which voters placed in him. Barack of 2008 is all over YouTube, everywhere, saying things with conviction and assurance, with “trust me” heavy in the air, saying things with a sing-song lilt of mocking scorn for the laughable Repubs who believed differently than Barack of 2008 allegedly believed. And, now, Pres. Obama of 2010 has flipped opinion/action all over the place. You Tube helps voters remember how they trusted Barack, and helps voters clearly see how they got burned. You Tube will not defeat Barack in 2012, but You Tube will definitely punish him; will definitely create some pain.
Beyond Barack, the internet is tremendously exciting re politics. The truth wants to be free. The internet does a fantastic job of helping that happen. An exciting thing. Political liars beware.
“We've seen the abuse get worse with Bunning's blanket hold just a month ago.”
I don't think Bunning's hold could be equated with this one. His rant was legitimate. The Democrats themselves passed the pay-go rules – which most in both parties agreed to (and rightly so: no money, no legislation). He attempted to call them on it. He simply wanted them to get rid of something to pay for it. I thought that was fair.
We should applaud members of either party when they attempt to use fiscal responsibility.
Fiscal responsibility is getting more rare with every passing day.
Very astute observation, MSF. Oustanding.
So we can deduce that the internet has some redeeming qualities:
It may actually force politicans to adopt integrety and honor – or at least the ability to tell the truth.
But a more realistic scenario will be that they will simply speek more vaguely so they cannot contradict themselves. Works for Obama: “As I've always said…..”
Bush had a ton of czar positions, and I don't remember howling about it.
That's cuz Bush was a REEL AMERICAN. (Do I hear you howling now? In outrage, or with derision?)