Recess Appointments

. . . and unemployment just ticked down another tenth of a percent . . . and away we go.

 

Making end-runs around the law in order to defeat obstructionists is not good policy. President Obama, at a time when Republicans are nonsensically claiming he is acting unconstitutionally, now actually did something to fit their previously unmerited claims.

So dumb.

 

It's only dumb if there's an outcry of opposition.

This had barely registered a blip.

Has a single editorial been written against it? (For the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out right wing house organs like the NY Post.) Has a single Democrat denounced it?

Republican elected officials & right wing pundits have barely criticized it.

I think it's a win politically. That's not to say it's the right thing to do -- especially in the precedent it sets. But, short term, it's a good, strong move.

 

In the case of a consumer protection bureau, it's also a strong move for an election year. I think some of the reason Republicans aren't more upset is because they know it's going to put a bigger spotlight on how they've tried to block the consumer protection bureau, and even if they hate it, Republicans want to avoid explaining why they're against protecting consumers from the shit that helped get us in this economic mess in the first place.

 

Exactly.

And, I think the Consumer Protection Bureau is bull shit, but if you come out against it, it sounds like you don't want to protect consumers.

The Dems talk about Frank Luntz and the way the Republicans use key words to their advantage, but the Dems have always been good at this.

They'll put all kinds of stuff in the "Clean Water" bill or "Clean Air Act" and if you're against the bill in total, it's portrayed as a vote against clean water or air.

 

Just heard it pointed out that the payroll tax cut extension was extended during one of these "pro forma" extensions.

Makes is pretty hard to call them illegitimate if you're willing to accept the good that comes out of them, and not the bad.

And, again, in general, I think it's bs to not give the President an up or down vote on his appointments.

 

I wish they'd just make it that the Senate has 60 days or 90 days to hold hearings, and vote to reject or the nominations take effect. If you can't dig up enough dirt to reject a candidate in 60 days, or 90 days, it isn't there.
Hell, I'm sure Obama would even promise to just fill half the open seats until he leaves office (whenever that is) and leave the rest to the next president.

 

Recess appointments?

How can Obama make appointments when everyone else is having snack and playing on the swings?

I agree with and understand this.

But I would also say that state politicians in certain states attempted to pull similar crap recently when they left the state rather than vote on legislation they found displeasing.

 

It's not unconstitutional or illegal at all, it's been done for 220 years.

You'd think the self-anointed wizards of constitutional fundamentalism would remember that, but it seems there's a lot about the Constitution they tend to conveniently forget.

 

On this, we wouldn't have to go through the recess appointment crap, except that Republicans don't want to show their Tea Party asses any more than they have. If Republicans don't like the bureau, then why not introduce a bill to kill it? Well, because they know it's going to get vetoed anyway, and they don't want a vote on record saying they are hip deep in bankers' pockets. So they come up with some shit about how it's just not the right candidate, just like they are with all the other Obama appointments they're dragging ass on. They're trying to play stallball in hopes they can ram their people through in 2013.

Except that things have changed since those heady Tea Party days of 2010. The Tea Party govs (Walker, Kasich, Scott) in swing states have been disastrous with their electorate. Hell, Walker faces the possibility he's tossed out two years into his job. Paul Ryan's cut-stuff-people-love-to-give-to-the-rich plan died a fast death. The saving grace for Republicans is that redistricting might give them a chance of even making gains, but if the economy keeps improving, and if the Republican presidential candidate can't inspire a Tea Party turnout, Republicans could be in more trouble than they think.

For evidence, look at Indiana. There's only one reason the Republicans are trying to ram down a "right-to-work" bill in a matter of days -- because there's no way in hell they keep the 60-40/37-13 majorities they have now, and the more light that's shed on the bill, the less support it gets. (House Democrats left the state last year as a stall tactic -- this year, so far it's about just not showing up, and trying to hold statewide hearings on the bill). The Republicans are so scared of their tight window, and peoples' attempt to open it further, they tried unilaterally limiting the number of people who could come into the state house (lobbyists were excepted, of course). So much backlash came over that one -- including from Tea Partiers afraid they'd be barred from the capitol -- that Mitch Daniels had to overturn it.

Occupy Wall Street didn't last long as a movement, but it came at the right time with the right message -- that income inequality is worsening, and that policies being pushed (particularly by Republicans) were causing the rich to leave everyone else in the dust. Republicans could carp about the recess appointment, but they won't, because they're slowly losing the message. It's worse for Republicans as the economy gets better, because if voters buy the message that Republicans did nothing but obstruct and help their rich friends instead of trying to fix the economy, Mitt Romney won't be the only Republican candidate in trouble.

 

William Graham Sumner is the inspiration for these GOP obstructionists.