Huffers and puffers
Republicans go ballistic when Obama exercises one of his constitutional rights
Huffers and puffers
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Apparently there can be no respite from the reek of hypocrisy. Over the weekend, the Senate Republicans got royally ticked off when President Obama decided to sidestep their obstructionism and unilaterally appoint 15 of his long-stymied nominees to crucial administration posts that have sat empty since Inauguration Day.
Emboldened by his win last week on health care reform, and apparently convinced (finally) that there's no point waiting for the other party to cooperate on much of anything, Obama exercised his constitutional right to make "recess appointments" - in this case, to take advantage of the Senate's Easter recess and rescue some of the nominees who have been stalled by the usual Republican filibuster threats and the various "holds" placed on nominees by individual Republican senators.
In a Saturday statement, Obama noted that 77 of his nominees have long been twisting in limbo, and that he had decided to fill 15 key jobs - inside Homeland Security, Commerce, Treasury, the National Labor Relations Board, and others - in order to serve "the basic functioning of government." Under the recess rule, these 15 appointees can serve only until the end of the current Senate's term, next January.
Naturally, the Republican response to Obama's move was a textbook case of hypocrisy. They behaved this weekend as if Obama, by making these recess appointments, had somehow invented a whole new form of socialist-tinged tyranny - while somehow forgetting, of course, that recess appointments are encoded as an executive option in the U.S. Constitution.
The usual huffers and puffers took center stage. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell assailed Obama's move as "stunning" and "yet another episode of choosing a partisan path." Senator Jim DeMint groused on CBS News yesterday that Obama had acted "by executive fiat...to circumvent Congress again, which has become his style on so many issues, and just appoint while we were out of town." Senate GOP Whip John Kyl warned that Obama's unilateral appointments "would make it very difficult to have bipartisan cooperation" going forward. And then there was John McCain, lamenting how Obama, by making his recess move, was showing "little respect for the time-honored constitutional roles and procedures of Congress."
What explains McCain, anyway? Either his long-marinating bitterness over his '08 presidential defeat has clouded his thinking, or he's simply repositioning himself ever rightward in order to fend off a primary challenge from conservative talk radio host J. D. Hayworth. Either way, he seems to have forgotten how he responded five years ago when President Bush was preparing to name John Bolton as the U.N. ambassador - via recess appointment. When asked about Bush's imminent action, McCain replied: "I would support it. It's the president's prerogative."
Indeed it is. Bush made 179 recess appointments during his two-term tenure - including 15 by this point in his second year. Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments, including 38 in his first year. Bill Clinton made 139 during his eight years. And one historic Republican hero, Theodore Roosevelt, made 160 in a single day, during a mass White House signing.
They all made these moves because Article II, Section 2, says that they could. As the founders wrote, "the President shall have the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate," and in 1821, U.S. attorney general William Wirt affirmed the language when he wrote, "The substantial purpose of the Constitution was to keep those offices filled."
Today's Republicans know all this; their real complaint is that Obama now seems so willing to confront them. They like him better when he extends his hand, in the spirit of bipartisanship, so that they can slap it away. And what most infuriated them, over the weekend, was Obama's recess appointment of Craig Becker to one of the many empty seats on the National Labor Relations Board.
Becker, stymied by a Republican filibuster and a "hold" slapped on his nomination by McCain, is a labor law expert who has long given legal advice to the AFL-CIO and the Service Employes International Union. How shocking it is (at least from the Republican perspective) that Obama would want to name a pro-labor figure to a board that was created during the New Deal specifically to protect the rights of workers and serve as a counterpoint to corporate clout.
But here again is where the hypocrisy theme kicks in. Senate Republicans didn't utter a peep when President Bush made seven recess appointments to the NLRB - no doubt because Bush's roster included people such as Peter Kirsanow, who, as an attorney, had specialized in representing management in labor negotiations and labor-related litigation. And I don't recall any Republicans complaining about Bush's "executive fiat" when he used the recess option to name Eugene Scalia, son of the U.S. Supreme Court justice, as the Labor Department's top legal officer. The younger Scalia was a business lawyer most famous for his opposition to government health and safety standards, which was probably sufficient reason for Republicans to hit their mute button.
The bottom line is that elections have consequences, and any president of either party is rightly entitled to choose his own qualified team. So says the Constitution, anyway. As for Obama, he need not bother waiting for the Senate Republicans to suddenly recognize that basic right. More recess appointments will surely be necessary; as I noted here six weeks ago, there's not much point in Obama extending his hand to people whose first instinct is to devour it and then demand his wrist and forearm for dessert.
TJM: It was The Iraq War that was protested, and not all wars. Bush preemptively attacked a country, while Obama is making the best of it with The Afgan War.— Talvenada- B-ATK: My 11:15 post said more than the part you quoted. I also said: Now, cherry-pick this post to prove you're right as always.— Talvenada
- NEP, speaking for myself, I have more faith in the government than corporate America because I've seen my benefits cut, my medical not cover any doctors in my area, and not received cost of living increases when I deserved them. The government doesn't answer to a profit margin or a board of directors. The government has a responsibility to the people. I feel that if the conservatives have their way, this country would go back to Sinclair's Jungle.— HandNik
- H-NIK: The first voters were white male landowners, probably christian. Talk about conservative core values. They love the constitution and the founding fathers, and this voting situation would be perfect for permanent Conse 'Pub governance.— Talvenada
- Obama's statement about Bolton as UN ambassador had some content--appointing a known UN right-wing critic to the post meant that the appointee's impact on the UN would be minimal, compared with appointing a more moderate diplomat, even one who had the same ultimate agenda as Bolton. Obama turned out to be right about Bolton. It's generally not a good idea to put known ideologues in appointive posts in bureaucracies, since such people really don't know how to get things done and put the bureaucrats in an obstructive mood from the start. Both parties make this mistake frequently.— liberal
- tjm333126 : from wikipedia: "On October 5 (2009) Sheehan was arrested with sixty others at the White House protesting President Obama's continuation of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" ... "On December 10 Sheehan protested on the streets of Oslo, Norway, as President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize" ... "On March 20th (2010), Sheehan was again arrested in front of the White House. "..... Do you ever bother to look anything up before you rant, or do you not care if pesky things like facts are in the way?— still_independent
- NE--You are entirely rational in not loving government too much, but not so rational for loving the private sector too much. How can you possibly believe that you can keep your private life out of the government's hands, when technology has already given Walmart more information about you than George Washington's government could ever have dreamed' of having? And the flap over surveillance during the Bush administration showed, among other things, how easily the government can get hold of the same information as Walmart has and lots more besides. We're already down that slippery slope. Your views demonstrate once again how much of the conservative tea-party agenda of teensy government is based on fantasy, not 21st century reality.— liberal
- hand, I trust companies that are at least out in the open about wanting to make money and are regulated by the govt. Making money, making things to sell, paying taxes & hiring new employees are what private companies do well. Let them. The congress and our federal govt. haven't run one program well or under budget, are only regulated by themselves (see Fannie/Freddie for an example) and our congress has a quid pro quo for their votes for campaign contributions. Now tell me who you trust more again? tal, those people fought and died so you can be like you are & who you are & a little more respect might be in order:) Sheesh.— NEPhilly
- lib, Obama has been putting known ideologues in bureaucratic positions ad nauseum (see Van Jones, etc.). Thus the problem with his appointees. Also, at least all my personal information is scattered around in different locations and it makes it seems less threatening (also spawns new businesses like Lifelock, ect.) & the govt. regulates that info. as well. Now who will regulate the govt. when they have all your information in one place, especially health information. Will they use it to decide who gets treated and who doesn't if the system is awash in red ink like every other federal entitlement program. That is a logical concern in my view. Our medical records now are scattered about and not readily available to the govt. or anyone else for that matter but the individual doctor or hospital. We need to stop our own govt. from encroaching on our rights no matter how logical their reasons seem. Remember at sometime in the near future (I hope) the terrible old repubs are going to be in charge again. Will you trust them with this much power? Would you trust GWB? How about Dick Cheney? How about Jeb is 2012? That is what I thought:)— NEPhilly
- Hypocrisy, wow Dick you have big ones (or you think you do). See You Tube on Obama's pre-presidency views on reconcillation and also the use of executive orders. Dick, you are a corrupt "journalist".— CD75
HandNik: When I get to the point where my pay and benefits are not to my liking, my first thought would not be to put my future economic security and growth in the hands of the federal government. I don't know, maybe it's me.— jmc- do as I say , not as I do , the republican mantra....— hejira33312
- bil. atk. , I was the target of the movie issue yesterday so I will state again that no one with powers of reason puts any blessing on a movie that muses about assinating president Bush. It was a disgraceful exercise but it would help if there was equal condemnation of inappropruate behavior by the fringe on the right - not just denial, accusation of conspiracies, and dismissal as rough politics.— JimR
- NEP, the market is up (or down) because of what a bunch of high rollers decide on any day. It's a giant Monopoly board but it's the best game we have. If you argue that current politics isn't in play for the ups, then you can't realistically argue that politics is responsible only for the downs - as we saw for weeks on this site.— JimR
- Obama in his prepresidency views must have believed not everything he tried to do would be so questioned and demonized , so his views then have matured to what they are now, people learn quick and your blocked at every turn CD75— hejira33312
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
