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.
Comments (94)
On a related point, the Stock Market seems to love the idea of health care Armageddon. What fools the Repubs and their supporters are.— Djoko Pritza- The stock market is up because business at least know how much this monstrosity is going to cost them after a year of dithering, not because they like it, imho. We will see in the next 12 months how much unemployment goes down in these face of the proposed tax hikes in the healthcare bill. Why is it that all the dems solutions to all of our countries ills always involves bigger govt. & higher taxes? Why you have so much faith in our federal govt. to run anything for less cost and provide better service is beyond me?— NEPhilly
- "Bush made 179 recess appointments during his two-term tenure" and I'm sure all the Democrats accepted those without saying a word. It's always amazing to me that both parties are full of hypocrites, but it's only the "Other party" that is wrong.— barlowjames
- Thanks for proving my point, NEP.— Djoko Pritza
- SPIN BORO MIKE: I will not condemn the Bush movie from 4 years ago, and will not condemn Bill Ayers from 36 to 40 years ago either. Why? It's a ploy on your part to condemn all things left, while YOU say the events from the last week and a half require video proof, arrests, trials and convictions. And until then it's Dems and Libs. They want to make Conse 'Pubs look bad and distract from their success. Then, you'll say it's old news. Get over it. Now, cherry-pick this post to prove you're right as always.— Talvenada
- Djoko, businesses ARE taking note and counting the costs: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528616— justwondering
- djoko, we will see who is being fools and who isn't. If this bill doesn't add to the deficit, lowers premiums and strenthens Medicare you will be correct. If this bill leads to higher deficits, premiums keep going up and Medicare is weakened by spending the $500 Bill in savings twice, then we will be right. The stock market today has nothing to do with it.— NEPhilly
- As I said, Repubs and their supporters are fools: Chron online, out of Texas: "A new and growing threat to an accurate national head count is coming from anti-government conservatives who may not fill out their [census] forms to protest against “Big Brother” in Washington ... Any conservative revolt would only reduce the representation in conservative areas."— Djoko Pritza
- Look at the stock market since the bill passed, not just today.— Djoko Pritza
Sorry to rain on your parade, DP, but this is what Obama said when John Bolton was recess-appointed to the UN by George Bush: “To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”— jmc- Way to cherry pick a 'crazy person's' statement and then apply that to every republican. But, the worry about our 'big brother federal govt.' knowing too much information about you (say all your health information for example) or being too powerful isn't an outlandish or radical concept, imho. It is what the founding fathers warned us against. What happened to you and why are you so much more bitter than before? I thought this president was going to bring a new tone to Wash DC? I have seen nothing but the SOS from Wash DC and so have most of the American people & we will make more changes come Novemeber, imho:)— NEPhilly
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- JMC: Bolton was a deliberate recess appointment, based on someone who would not be approved, while many others were approved. When ONE Conse 'Pub senator wants to stop ALL 70 candidates, then a recess appointment is used to stop obstructionist politics. Bolton wasn't stopped by obstruction unless you think every candidate has to be approved or it's politics, like Conse 'Pubs.— Talvenada
- Its is hypocrisy, sort of like how all the anti-war democrats have dissapeared, despite the fact that two wars still rage and troop deaths are increasing. Condy Sheehan, where art thou?— tjm333126
- 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
- NEPhilly : "Our medical records now are scattered about " Odd that you're touting an inefficiency of the private sector to advocate for the efficiency of the private sector. ... The hypocrisy of both sides is evident. Years ago, during the patriot act discussions, the left was screaming about invasion of privacy, the right was saying that giving up a little privacy for security was a good thing. Now that we're on to healthcare, the opposite is happening. Same is true w/ regards to Polman's column. R's were fine w/ recess appointments under Bush, were saying that the D's had a constitutional duty to give Bush nominees an up or down vote. D's pointed to "advise and consent". Now the opposite is true. It's always "the other guy's" fault.— still_independent
- Dorko Putzo: Our Supreme Leader cautioned you not to focus on the stock market's "fits and starts" last year. Be careful, your reliance cuts both ways. You will be cryin' like a baby in a few weeks.— CD75
- Sorry for butchering the spelling in the earlier post.— JimR
- still, the inefficency of the private sector was only having to do with the gathering all our health information in one place, not how good a job they do in their area of expertise. With the Patriot Act, you are only in trouble with the govt. if you have shady dealings or associates with known terrorist links (thus honest people are willing to give up some rights for safety, like airport screenings), with health care reform the federal govt. will eventually have all your medical records in one place and the power of the purse over you medical decisions. I am sorry I have a problem with that no matter how well you or the President explains it:) jimr, correct you are but I never played that stock market game now or then:)— NEPhilly
- Norman Leboon— tr88
- billreilly: I "played the race card"? You made the racist remark - so I responded. How's that playing the race card? And if I wanted to respond in kind, I'd say that you're a racist based on the simple fact that you're (or were) an Irish Philly cop. But I won't for that obvious and unfair retort, because I'm not on a dumb racist autopilot like you are. According to you, I've called another poster a racist twice in "6 weeks" (your words) - not weekly, as you now claim. And no I don't think all Tea Partiers are homophobes or racists, but MOST are Astroturfing Republicans, not the independent libertarians they claim to be (a recent Quinnipiac poll confirms this). More to your point, calling Democrats/Republicans/Tea Partiers "nutcases" is not the same as using racist innuendo. If you called a Democrat a "nutcase", I'd take it as a standard issue political insult. If you're arguing that racist comments are now fair game, there's not much I can say about that - other than you've declared yourself to be a racist (or at least a race baiter, a minor distinction).— p-diddy
- billreilly: BTW, I still stand by my post from 6 weeks ago. The Birther movement IS a racist political movement, and those who align themselves with it are aligning themselves with racist attitudes.— p-diddy
- Apparently many of you, and the list is long, forget that this is how politics is played. Recess appointments happen, because the other party obstructs presidential appointees in hope of stalling the game. It happens. Get over it. I agree with Polman that perhaps, just perhaps, Obama is realizing that to further attempt to cooperate with McConnell, Boehner and especially McCain, et. al, would get him and his agenda nowhere. And it is his agenda. He won, and he gets to implement it. Just as when Bush won, he got to implement his. The hissy fits from the fringe people on this blog are typical of the dumbing down of our democracy. And yes, it goes both ways.— HeywoodEm
- StillIndependt, why haven't Cindy's antics garnered any media coverage? I am aware that she is still at it (and respect that she didn't lose her outrage because there was a new president). I'm just making the point that some things are OK when a democrat is in office, but those same things are an outrage when a republican is. Of course, those feelings are natural, but its the left who own the pens......— tjm333126
- More from the Party of Fools -- Steele spends GOP funds at a bondage-theme club. And we know those fools don't have the courage to can him.— Djoko Pritza
- DP's hypocrisy detector points in only one direction. We all know and expect that. Yawn, what else is news. Wonder whether it'll be Bunch or DP to do a hatchet job on Palin this week. Bunch has already spent way too much bandwidth today about Beck.— pj katauskas
- JIM R: BIL ATK doesn't care about any opinions other than his own, and those who agree with him. His post is specific. He either didn't read past my first sentence, or ignored what he read after it. The point is he took the sentence out of context to slime an entire group of people, while agreeing with me on himself. Demand condemnation for what happened 4 and 40 years ago, while requiring convictions on Dems before it's OLD NEWS in a MONTH! Basically, he wants you to condemn the left, while he offers nothing in return but insults.— Talvenada
- JIM R: Bil Atk is a Bush Republican. All for me and none for you. Us vs. them. I talk and you listen.— Talvenada
- Huffers and Puffers Oh My! Kinda a two way street isn't it?— Alvenada
- Dorko Putzo, eat this: "Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments--a constitutional gimmick that allows a president to appoint someone when Congress is in recess to a job that normally requires Senate approval. . . . 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, while the Senate has been under Republican control for Mr. Bush's entire five years in office."--editorial, New York Times, Jan. 9, 2006— CD75
- Still Independent: I did not know that about Cindy Sheehan. She was the daily dish in the news when Bush was President. Now I guess she's buried on the sidebare on page 11a.— Alvenada
- Talvenada:"JIM R: Bil Atk is a Bush Republican. All for me and none for you. Us vs. them. I talk and you listen."............................ Really dude? Are they running low on oxygen at the insitution today?— Alvenada
- Oh the hypocrasy- STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005. EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”— Alvenada
- NE, "getting all your medical information in one place" is just about the only way we can control the cost of medical care. The lack of good records is one of the main reasons for the high cost of our current system. It's terminally naive to think that any medical care system, private or public, can simply provide unlimited medical services on request to policyholders/citizens. If you are convinced that you just have to have that MRI that your doctors and insurance companies (public and private) know that you don't need, then nothing is stopping you from paying for it yourself. There's no "rationing." Rationing refers to a wartime-style system of limiting goods, regardless of ability to pay. Nobody has ever suggested rationing in our healthcare system. Whether public or private, it's an insurance system. Don't rant without any understanding of health-care economics. Also, let me rant about the objections to something that your political enemies might do at some time in the future. That's nonsense. Fortunately George W Bush gave us liberals lots of ammunition with his actual policies so we didn't have to even speculate about what might come next.— liberal
Okay lefties, this is YOUR Waterloo in November 2010. Stopped by my moms house after work. Look what she got in the mail today----- IMPORTANT: 2010 MEDICARE CHANGES Your Medicare benefits have been reduced by Congress due to increases in your Deductibles and "Part A" Co-Insurance payment. Now, Medicare pays less of your health care cost and you are responsible for the unpaid balance. Also, the DRG PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM is still in effect and sets PER AILMENT CEILINGS on MEDICARE'S payment to a hospital. Because of these CEILINGS, many hospitals are now transferring patients to lower cost nursing homes or extended care facilities. After some phone calls it appears some people received these same notices last Friday. Obama only signed the bill into law on Tuesday with Gary Coleman by his side. You people have opened a hornets nest and you will be toast in November. Hope. Change.- Jmc, I actually have no problem with you thinking that, but I happen to think the opposite. I feel like the federal government would be much better at it than the private sector. It has to do with what I have read, what I have seen, and how I interpret it. I see corporations perpetrating far many more abuses than the government, and that even includes the last administration. I actually simply can not grasp the conservative's point of view because, to me, it seems like life and society get better when liberal reforms are instituted.— HandNik
- Threats cannot and should not be tolerated. Anyone who tries to defend the indefensible has gotten into the Easter Wine early and heavy. Hopefully those involved get found out, arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It's easy for the GOP crazies to minimize the cutting of gas lines in a home lived in by 4 YOUNG children but WRONG.— FormerGOPer
- testing— Falls Ed
- testing— Falls Ed
- I agree, the people who made the movie about assasination of President Bush should be prosecuted. The liberals who riot every year at the G8 Summit should be prosecuted. I wonder when Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid will reign in their minions of crazies.— formerObamasupporter
- Hello, where's my post?— Falls Ed
- Let's start with a cell for the crazy who cut the Congressman's brothers gasline and go from there. Law breaking is law breaking.— FormerGOPer
- blackhawk90 : you and your mom shouldn't be so gullible. It's a mailer from an insurance company. What she got was an advertisement. It's from an insurance company trying to scare your mother (and apparently her child) into buying supplemental insurance. btw, let he know that she shouldn't send the Nigerian royalty any money, either.— still_independent
- Alvenada/tjm333126 : Cindy Sheehan hasn't been the "daily dish" in the news since 2006. That includes the last couple of years of Bush's presidency.— still_independent
- FormerGOPer- " Let's start with a cell for the crazy who cut the Congressman's brothers gasline and go from there. Law breaking is law breaking."...... Might help if they actually caught someone or were able to produce a shred of evidence. Perhaps you're scared by a severed propane line to back yard grill but the in the realm of real threats this is the type of thing that is already yesterday's news.— formerObamasupporter
- formerObamasupporter : so if they catch someone it was threatening but if they don't it isn't? You're falling into the "defending the indefensible" trap. Want to say the Dems are whining about this type of stuff? Many of us would probably agree. Want to say that groups generally aligned w/ the Democratic party's philosphy have done equally intimidating (and illegal) things? Again, most reasonable people would agree. But trying to pretend that it isn't happening and isn't wrong is just being intellectually dishonest or just plain old ignorant.— still_independent
- Djoko : in all fairness, there are no allegations (yet?) that Steele was at the club or even approved the expense. This story may point to a general lack of oversight on his part (which is nothing new), but there's been nothing reported about him of a salacious nature.... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35148.html— still_independent
You know, the republicans think of government power as if it were some sort of tradeable commodity. You lost, you act as if you did not and showing up with signs is not a sign of anything more than the signs and the people holding them. It is not the will of the people. That happened in Nov 2008, when 67 million people VOTED. The only poll that counts. Then congress and the senate VOTED. And the President signed the legislation into law. You can't do anything about it unless you vote everyone out of office, have them vote to change the laws and have the president sign the old laws out of existence. I don't wish you good luck with that. It is class war and I will do everything in my power to agitate, organize, lobby and vote my politicians in place to defend and consolidate the power they have won against all challenges. You ain't seen nothing yet.- "abused a presidential power intended for narrow circumstances in order to dispatch "a seriously flawed and weakened candidate""...wait, that is what Harry Reid said when Bush used the recess appointment to put Bolton at the UN. I wonder what Harry thinks now.— tom - wilmington, de
- “To some degree, he’s damaged goods. I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform ... in the way that it needs to be reformed.” Wait, that is what Obama said about the recess appointment of Bolton. Isn't it also interesting that Obama made the recess appointments of two Democrat appointees to the NLRB but did not recess appoint the Republican appointee, which has been stalled by the Democrats in the Senate. Hypocrisy?— tom - wilmington, de
- Fernando08 : why is it a class war? Why does everyone need to question the motivations of those with whom they disagree? Listen, I was extremely critical of president Bush. I thought (and still think) that he was an incompetent manager, who valued loyalty over competency to the detriment of his administration and the nation, and was manipulated/dominated by his VP for the first six years of his administration. However, I never questioned his motivations. I have little doubt that he was acting in what he felt was the best interests of the country, even in cases where I feel that he was using the ends to justify the means (with which I rarely agree). The same is true with Obama. I think he's doing what he feels is best for the country, even in casesd where I disagree with him on the particulars. Neither man was/is evil, and neither was/is trying to destroy the country. I honestly don't understand why the majority of Americans (and maybe I'm skewed by the posters here) can't just accept the fact that maybe "THEY", whether they be lefties, righties, libertarians, etc. also want what's best for this country, but just have a different vision of what that means. All the intellectual dishonesty, selective amnesia, and general detachment from reality that goes on here is justified because "THEY" are evil, and "THEY" must be stopped at all costs. And those comments are obviously directed at more than just you.— still_independent
- STILL: You forgot the Conse 'Pub favorite line: Whose side are you on?— Talvenada
- tom : two thoughts. First, yes, the Dems are being hypocritical based upon their prior stance on recess appointments. As are the Republicans (and as an aside, Bush got for far more of his nominations through than Obama at this point). But to give a bit of context, Bolton was in trouble with several Republicans as well. And my second point is that I know it's late, but your 11:20 post makes little sense. How is that hypocritical? Blatant politics, sure. But where is the hypocrisy?— still_independent
- TOM: Bolton was a deliberate recess appointment, based on someone who would not be approved, while many others were approved. When ONE Conse 'Pub senator wants to stop ALL 70 candidates, then a recess appointment is used to stop obstructionist politics. Bolton wasn't stopped by obstruction unless you think every candidate has to be approved or it's politics, like Conse 'Pubs.— Talvenada
- TOM: If Dems turn down ONE appointment, it's obstruction and an OUTRAGE. You don't not get any more diplomatic than Bolton. If 'Pubs block EVERY appointment, it's to protect the country from a Commie takeover by Obama, who is deliberately ruining YOUR country.— Talvenada
- STILL: It's guilt by question, like: Is Obama anti-American?— Talvenada
- Hello. Where's my 11:21pm post?— Falls Ed
- testing again— Falls Ed
- Testing Ed Falls, Testing Ed Falls. You must be posting some racous stuff. I gotta party with you man!— Alvenada
- Still Independent- I don't disagree with anything you said I was just trying to balance out the incendiary moderate known as formerGOPer.— formerObamasupporter
- Still, Thank you for your 11:27 p.m. comment last night. I've been saying the same thing for months in a slightly different way, but it all comes down to this erroneous feeling that if you don't agree with me, you're the enemy. It will ultimately destroy our country. BTW, I felt the same way about Bush you do, and I never thought he was trying to destroy the U.S either, any more than I think Obama is. Sigh.— NigeltheMastiff
- No where in his article does DP say Democrats are NOT hypocritical. He's merely pointing out the obvious, the Republicans don't have a legitimate reason to complain about tactics they've long used and that are protected by the Constitution. Omission does not equal endorsement, he's not saying the Democrats don't / wouldn't do the same thing under the same circumstances. The only reason for the faux outrage from the Republicans is to spin the story to help push their agenda. The Democrats use the same tactics as the republicans. I know, SHOCKING! I don't understand why either side gets upset when their motives are laid bare, we all know what's going on. The D&R emperors have no clothes, deal with it.— WarrickSawyer
- Nigel, still--people with your kind of nonparanoid, rational attitude have no business posting on the net. Maybe we should try to create an alternative internet where only rational comments are allowed.— liberal
- NigeltheMastiff : What I honestly hope is that we get a very skewed impression of America on thsi board. I like to think that the majority of Americans are not so angry as many of us here are. I honestly believe that many here would rather have us fail doing things the "right" way (and that doesn't mean right as in Conservative) than succeed doing it "the other guy's" way.— still_independent
- Ah, yes. The pillars of all that is sane, rational, and virtuos are on here today. Can you guys be any more self engrandaising?
- Still, I hope you're right. I'm also surrounded by angry people in the South. But then again, the South has always been an angry, vengeful place. My personal theory about that is that Southerners have this huge chip on their shoulder from the Civil War. They just can't get over the fact the the "Yankees" won. Really. It's just unbelievable. And then, of course, the sense is encouraged by the prevalence of fundamental religions here, which are extremely judgmental. I can't understand how the South got this reputation for hospitality. It's actually a mean and spiteful culture.— NigeltheMastiff
- Nigelthemastiff- I love sparring with you. You're a great poster and formidable debate opponent but the narrative you're creating about the south is a little over the top.
- swedesboromike : Please point out where Nigel or I have referred to each other or ourselves as being more sane, rational, or "vituos" than anyone else here. I guess that when I write "... are not so angry as many of US here are" I am OBVIOUSLY excluding myself. So, I will claim superior reading comprehension skills than you and nothing more.... But thanks for proving the larger point. I'm more of a Jungian than a Freudian really, but it's interesting that you felt compelled to react so agnrily and defensively. Hmmmmm ...— still_independent
- Nigel - As a Southerner by birth I take umbrage with you statement about the South. Just like you I grew up in a place like Atlanta that be came over run with people from the north. Most of the mean nasty stuff came from them. Have you ever asked the "angry people" where they are from? We alway loved how the "Yankees" told us how we were. Just like we were their idiot cousins. If anything the people in South can't get over is all the "Yankees" that have come down and dispoiling it. We had a saying from where I lived. "If we want to live with so many people from NJ and NY we would move there"— Mike Welbourn
- Still Indepenent- Oh PULEASE!. It is implied
- swedesboromike : so, as usual, I am accountable not for what I say, but for what you think I "really" meant.— still_independent
- The Mikes, I was born and raised here in Rome, GA, so I have a pretty good sense of the South. I'm extremely familiar with the Old Romans, as they're called because they're from generations of people from Rome. As a matter of fact, I could qualify as one. This is the crowd that grew up at the country club and went to either the girls' or boys' private school. Every Sunday evening, I meet with a group of them for cocktail hour. And I know of what I speak. While they can be as kind and nice as anyone else, they can also be excessively mean about those who aren't just like them. I don't think they hear themselves. They've grown up with those attitudes, which are now just part of their DNA. There's a smugness to them that rubs me the wrong way. Except for me, they all have rather a lot of wealth, and their classism just takes my breath away sometimes. The South is a complex society, but I've learned since my return that it's not to my liking. I wish I had stayed up north. (The winters are great, though, and the Appalachian foothills here in NW Georgia are breathtaking.)— NigeltheMastiff
- swedesboromike: and just so as not to be ambiguous, yes, I am lumping you in with those that would rather fail doing things the "right" way than succeed doing things the "wrong" way.— still_independent
- lib, how does having medical info. all in one place save any money? I never understood that, maybe you can enlighten me:) It is naive to think you can cut $500 Bil from Medicare (spend it twice by using it to insure new people and to sure up medicare's books) and think that anything but less care and less quality will result. Call it what you want, but rationing is as good a word as any for what I think will happen to Medicare. Pres. Obama is giving the right plenty of rhetorical ammunition as well in the eternal struggle of right versus left & I agree there is no need to speculate on the trouble brewing. It is right there in black and white in 2700 pages of nonsense and 300 more pages of 'fixes', imho:)— NEPhilly
- Nigel - maybe it's not the so much the Southerners but the country club private school type that you hang out with. I grew up with the just plan middle class folks type. But I grew up just across the inter coastal waterway from Palm Beach and you could see the arrogant better than everyone else from some of them.— Mike Welbourn
- Mike W, perhaps you're right. Whatever the reason, I find that attitude unattractive.— NigeltheMastiff
- Is Constitution a bad word?— Falls Ed
- Is there a problem with philly.com or this particular blog? My posts from 7:19pm and 11:21pm yesterday have not appeared yet.— Falls Ed
- Mike Welbourn: Yeah, like there's no country clubs or expensive private schools in the South. I don't think Southerners are mean people or anything, but I don't think there's much question that it's less tolerant. I mean, if you're anything other than white in MS or AL, you're probably gonna have recurring run-ins with bigotry. Doesn't mean that intolerance doesn't exist in the North (aristocratic New England, for example, has it's own brand of intolerance), but generally speaking.— p-diddy
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
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.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- 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
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: