Speak Out: Obama announces 15 recess appointments, scolds GOP

Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 10:12 PM:

Replies (21)

  • President Obama is getting it done!

    -- Posted by Ike on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 10:39 PM

    Yeah Ike he is acting like a two bit dictator. Don't think these appointments wont't be scrutinized by the American voting public.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 10:45 PM
  • He blames Republicans, again. But he has had a 'filibuster-proof Democrat Senate until very recently'.

    So, Ike, I take it you weren't one of those who complained when President Bush was 'getting it done' by appointing Bolten to the United Nations?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 10:49 PM
  • "he (President Obama) is acting like a two bit dictator... "

    Since President Bush made 170 recess appointments, does that make him a "20+ bit dictator?" If the minority party chooses not to even consider nominees, or places a "hold" on them, presidents (either democratic or republican) have no realistic alternative, but to use recess appointments.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 27, 2010, at 11:01 PM
  • Hmmm Wiffle, then I wonder how he's able to get these thing done? Just luck, I guess...

    -- Posted by concerned4all on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 12:21 AM
  • And your dog, Wiff, also can do better than Ike.

    Notice old Ike's now doing his Bonnie and Clyde act with the name changer. What a lovely brainless pair! They deserve each other.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 6:26 AM
  • Your dog isn't a lawyer or the President of the United States, so nice try. Rover probably tops Wheels, Wiff, and Voyagers IQs combined though so I can see where that mistake came in.

    Obviously Wheels is clueless as to how these things have worked for years. But remember, it is only bad when a liberal does it. What a Hypocrite.

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 7:29 AM
  • The New York Times on recess appointments

    http://christopherfountain.com/2010/03/27/the-new-york-times-on-recess-appointme...

    "Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, ... a constitutional gimmick that allows a president to appoint someone when Congress is in recess to a job that normally requires Senate approval. The appointee serves until the next round of Congressional elections.

    "This end run around Senate confirmation was built into the Constitution to allow the president to quickly fill vacancies that came up when lawmakers were out of town, to keep the government running smoothly in times when travelers and mail moved by horseback and Congress met part time.

    "Modern presidents have employed this power to place nominees who ran into political trouble in the Senate. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton made scores of recess appointments. But both of them faced a Congress controlled by the opposition party,..."

    This from 2006 -- doubtless we can expect the same editorial tomorrow.

    -- Posted by blogbudsman on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 7:31 AM
  • So is the fox now in charge of the hen house?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 7:43 AM
  • Finally, President Obama had the guts to do what he needed to do. I am astounded at the hubris of the Republicans who are so upset over the recent recess appointments. President Bush make 170 ....yes, one hundred seventy...such appointments, and gee, it was okay then. Such hypocrisy! And tomorrow Rush Limbaugh will just be furious. How dare the Democrats be so bold! How dare they get away with what apparently only Republicans should be able to do!!!

    -- Posted by donacita on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 9:36 AM
  • A good reason to remember Charlie Reese's 545 people.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 9:44 AM
  • This reminds me of when my kids would say, "he hit me first" to justify a transgression.

    -- Posted by RA on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 10:32 AM
  • Boys and girls I believe that would be 171 appointments Bush made in this fashion. Doesn't make it right in my opinion, then or now.

    And this current moron has appointed a Labor Attorney to the National Labor Relations Board. Does anybody else see a problem with this? How is this guy to be unbiased?

    This is a power that a President no longer needs in this day and age. At the very least, they could use the good judgement to use it on a much more limited and reserved basis

    Futile,

    I will ignore your statements, but you are comming dangerously close to having me tell you and everybody else what I think of you and your views on economics.

    Ike,

    Elections do have consequences, one of the few things you say that I agree with.

    This country was dumb enough to believe in the lying and slick rhetoric to elect an egotistical nobody who was so poorly prepared to be President... that they are now seeing the fruits of their vote.

    We have an opportunity to do something about it in November and once more before Obamacare is implimented. Well if you don't count the collecting for it that starts immediately.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 12:49 PM
  • Ike wrote:

    "Recess appts are clearly within the executive's constitutional powers. Elections have consequences."

    Indeed, they do. I have not complained. The Republicans, and apparently some Democrats, have expressed their opposition, and Mr. Obama is using his power to get around it. I merely commented that, with a 'filibuster-proof' majority in the Senate, he really can't blame the Republicans alone for the failure to win confirmation, although that has become his wont.

    You asked on another thread how I could blame the Democrats for preventing the Banking Reform Act of 2005 when they were in the minority. The Republican majority then was smaller than the Democrat majority of today. So I take it you agree that Mr. Obama is stretching the truth when he blames the delays on Republicans?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 1:07 PM
  • Shapley,

    Dodd may have been too busy trying to shake down the lenders for a cheap rate. I believe that was Dodd as I remember it.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 1:50 PM
  • Ike,

    Here is a bit on it. It is an opinion piece, to be sure, but it outlines Dodd's role. Dodd was the senior Democrat on the committee, and the principle recipient of Fannie/Freddie donations.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841....

    "The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.

    During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

    The president's budget proposals reflected the nature of the challenge. Note the following passage from the 2005 budget: Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs "are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. . . . A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy."

    That passage was published in February 2004. Dodd can find it on Page 82 of the budget's Analytical Perspectives.

    The administration not only identified the problem, it also recommended a solution. In June 2004, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Samuel Bodman said: "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision."

    Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform: "Congress needs to pass legislation strengthening the independent regulator of government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so we can keep them focused on the mission to expand home ownership," he said in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year's State of the Union address.

    How did Fannie and Freddie counter such efforts? They flooded Washington with lobbying dollars, doled out tens of thousands in political contributions and put offices in key congressional districts. Not surprisingly, these efforts worked. Leaders in Congress did not just balk at proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddie. They mocked the proposals as unserious and unnecessary.

    Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the following on Sept. 11, 2003: "We see entities that are fundamentally sound financially. . . . And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn't bail them out."

    Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), later that year: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

    As recently as last summer, when housing prices had clearly peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" reform proposals. Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that the president's suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was "inane."

    Sen. Dodd wonders what the Bush administration did to address the risks of Fannie and Freddie. Now, he knows. The real question is: Where was he?"

    You point out yourself that it 'went nowhere in committee'. Dodd used his power on that committee to ensure that it went nowhere.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 3:48 PM
  • Thank you Shapley- you are a highly intelligent person!

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 4:00 PM
  • Wheels, Craig Becker is now one of the fox is charge of the hen house. A SEIU lawyer in the perfect choice to mediate labor disputes.

    I wonder if we can get Blaggo off and give him a position of importance. He could help choose some more recess appointments.(;

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 4:42 PM
  • Old John,

    It makes me sick to watch the blatant takeover of government by the Chicago Democratic Machine, which is the most corrupt in the country... and worse yet to watch the approval on here of some who know government positions are being filled with dishonest people.

    It started with the nomination of tax cheats and it continues.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 4:47 PM
  • "No, I asked you specfically what DODD did to kill that bill. He did nothing. Research the legislative history of that bill. It simply went nowhere in committee. I urge you to research it. Not hard to find such info."-- Posted by Ike on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 1:16 PM

    Yes, Ike, I asked you for proof on another matter. You were insulting and refused to produce your proof.

    You are very quick to call others liars, and you refused to answer questions. Why should anyone else extend you a courtesy of an answer.

    Be prepare, Ike, for this to follow you hereon out.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 5:08 PM
  • Ike wrote:

    "Shapley, you said Dodd killed the bill. I encourage you to go to the senate website or thomas.gov to review the actual legislative history, not someone else's account."

    I have, as I told you before. All it says is 'no action'. the legislative history does not record the lobbying, the back-room deals, or even the arguments. I stated as much in answer to your previous posts. Sorry, but the legislative record is simply an outline, it does not say who or what action or inaction resulted in a bills defeat, only that it is not acted upon.

    I stated in that earlier post that I refrained from posting links because they were nearly all blogs or opinion pieces. However, you pressed the issue so I provided one that provided the best outline. Have you some evidence that the Senators who recieved vast sums of monies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not kill the bill? Are you seriously suggesting that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not receive anything in return for their millions of lobbying dollars?

    Your political bias is showing. You're perfectly willing to accept any statement that faults Republicans, while demanding proof ad-nauseum for any statement that my fault a Democrat. Dodd killed the bill. That was generally accepted as fact at the time. I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

    There is plenty of documentation available of Democrats defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from any change in regulatory power. I have neither the time nor the inclination to rifle through it to post it for you. This is an opinion board, and I have posted mine. If you reject it, that is your prerogative. If you evidence to the contrary, post it, I'll read it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 10:18 PM
  • That's disgusting, blog ... and under-handed. The worst thing is, people like myself weren't very aware of it, and the ones who were/are accept it. Getting 'around the rules' like that is pretty unethical, I don't care what president of which party does it.

    President Obama has shown so little professionalism or good judgment in the matter of his 'picks' and in his seemingly power-mad antics that I've decided not to vote for him next time around! ~laughing~ And yes, Old J., I do believe it is the fox guarding the henhouse. Has this always been the case?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Mar 28, 2010, at 11:56 PM

Respond to this thread