And why is there nobody at Treasury to counterbalance Geithner's incompetence?

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/a...-blocking-treasury-nominees-over-petty-bs.php

Oh...because of Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ):

You might think it would be a good idea to have an Under Secretary for International Affairs. Kyl disagrees. You might think it would be a good idea to have an Under Secretary for Domestic Finance. Kyl disagrees. You might think it would be a good idea to have an Assistant Secretary for International Markets and Development. Kyl disagrees. You might think it would be a good idea to have an Assistant Secretary for International Economics and Development. Kyl disagrees. You might think it would be a good idea to have an Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets. Kyl disagrees. You might think it would be a good idea to have an Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy. Kyl disagrees.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Senator Kyl, for holding up staffing of a department more important than ever due to petty political bickering on how to enforce online gambling regulations. Dumbass.
 
Doing this is sport for both parties now and it sucks. If they wanna war over somethin heavy like a Supreme Court jurist, I get it. But winning the presidency means getting the spoils of government appointments and if the person isn't an outright nut, the opposing party needs to back off and let the president have his way.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Doing this is sport for both parties now and it sucks. If they wanna war over somethin heavy like a Supreme Court jurist, I get it. But winning the presidency means getting the spoils of government appointments and if the person isn't an outright nut, the opposing party needs to back off and let the president have his way.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Unless someone is clearly corrupt or otherwise obviously unfit for a government job, they should be confirmed. Being the president means you get to fill these jobs. There is no reason to oppose these nominees, just Kyl bitching about an unrelated matter. Politics at its worst, and it sucks for the rest of us.
 
^ But here's where we'll probably find disagreement and thus explain precisely why constant, unwavering obstructionism is the flavor of the day.

Van Jones was a hit job. One comment from college used to assassinate an otherwise highly, highly qualified person for (though to be fair it may have been an appointment that didn't need to be approved by Congress). But the right earned political favor in a cultural climate that is fearful of "socialists" in a McCarthy-like way by outing someone who once described themself, while in college, as a communist.

Earning political points is the most meaningful part. They're earned the same way no matter the quality of the target, and they're lost if the party allows a competent person to fill that given seat.

But we all know this already. That said, the public doesn't get a chance to identify capability, or they simply don't let genuine knowledge get in the way of their opinions (e.g., feelings on the competencies of folks like Sarah Palin or Harriet Miers).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ But here's where we'll probably find disagreement and thus explain precisely why constant, unwavering obstructionism is the flavor of the day.

Van Jones was a hit job. One comment from college used to assassinate an otherwise highly, highly qualified person for (though to be fair it may have been an appointment that didn't need to be approved by Congress). But the right earned political favor in a cultural climate that is fearful of "socialists" in a McCarthy-like way by outing someone who once described themself, while in college, as a communist.

Earning political points is the most meaningful part. They're earned the same way no matter the quality of the target, and they're lost if the party allows a competent person to fill that given seat.

But we all know this already. That said, the public doesn't get a chance to identify capability, or they simply don't let genuine knowledge get in the way of their opinions (e.g., feelings on the competencies of folks like Sarah Palin or Harriet Miers).[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I get what you're saying. I should clarify: there is no legitimate non-political-points-scoring reason for opposing qualified nominees. In this case, perhaps he's scoring political points in Arizona or nationally, although I hope not. What he's doing is offensive and wrong, at least to me.

As for Van Jones, although I doubt I would have picked him for the job, I don't understand the level of hysteria (except to understand that Glenn Beck doesn't do any lower level of hysteria). For example, he said Republicans are "assholes," yet said in the same speech that he also is an "asshole." The 9/11 "truther" idiocy he was caught up in proved he was at least in some areas pretty out there (as well as the communist affiliation), but those things really didn't have much to do with his job. But then again, I doubt I would have picked him, for those reasons and others. However, if you want to hold someone accountable for their decisions as an executive, you have to let them have control (at least the lion's share of control) over personnel decisions.
 
More of this crap. I saw another story of a nominee being held up so I googled her to find out why. Fox News comes to the rescue.
President Obama's controversial choice to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel is spending the holidays in limbo after Senate Republicans -- in a last jab at Democrats for passing a massive health insurance bill -- blocked her nomination and five others.
Click to expand...
And that's not a bullshit gig. The damn OLC is important. I can't believe the party that put John Yoo (arguably the biggest scumbag in the Bush administration) in this same position is blocking a candidate.

And when the Dems pushed for an extension so they wouldn't have to renominate her because of the new year, it was rejected. Gimme a break.
 
I may be exposing some political naivete here, but the Republicans who were opposed or otherwise held up during the Bush Administration often got in as "recess appointments." Which, while they always looked slimy (circumventing the broader review process and all that), worked - and people don't remember that shit anyway.

Why wouldn't Obama do the same thing?
 
Good question. I think they're kind of crappy too, but I think there's degrees of crappiness depending on the nominee. James Hormel I think was an example of a good recess appointment. Andrew Biggs (sorry to use a nominee from the he-who-shall-not-be-named administration, but I think we can all agree he was shady) was a good example of a bad one.

Can Obama really not want to use this tool because he thinks it wrong? I can't think of another reason. Thrust or Bob will straighten us out I'm sure.
 
[quote name='speedracer']More of this crap. I saw another story of a nominee being held up so I googled her to find out why. Fox News comes to the rescue.

And that's not a bullshit gig. The damn OLC is important. I can't believe the party that put John Yoo (arguably the biggest scumbag in the Bush administration) in this same position is blocking a candidate.

And when the Dems pushed for an extension so they wouldn't have to renominate her because of the new year, it was rejected. Gimme a break.[/QUOTE]

That is a much different situation, as Dawn Johnsen is a political hack chosen to lead a part of the Justice Department that is supposed to be free from political influence. I can understand objections on that one. Not saying I agree with Yoo's appointment there given what he did.

[quote name='mykevermin']I may be exposing some political naivete here, but the Republicans who were opposed or otherwise held up during the Bush Administration often got in as "recess appointments." Which, while they always looked slimy (circumventing the broader review process and all that), worked - and people don't remember that shit anyway.

Why wouldn't Obama do the same thing?[/QUOTE]

It's possible he could. However, recess appointments are only good for a certain amount of time, and they upset senators by stepping on their toes. So unless he has to, Obama probably doesn't want to. BTW, another recess appointment was John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. by Bush.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That is a much different situation, as Dawn Johnsen is a political hack chosen to lead a part of the Justice Department that is supposed to be free from political influence.[/quote]
How so? I didn't see anything in a quick google search yesterday that threw flags.
BTW, another recess appointment was John Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. by Bush.
Click to expand...
And that worked out so well. That guy's a 1st class heel.
 
Speaking of John Bolton...

bolton_muppet.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top