Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be thankful for two things: These women fought for your right to vote, and you don't have to dress like this.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(106)
-
▼
March
(32)
- Women in politics
- Kids and cops
- Hey Maeve,
- The President's budget
- The credit crisis explained
- The Supreme Court and schools
- My friend is working on this case
- Iraq vs. Afghanistan
- The new fireside chat?
- What's going to happen to the Guantanamo detainees?
- AIG
- Pictures from investigation of drug murders
- The military-industrial complex
- Particularly for Maeve
- Especially for Dania
- Kids and homelessness
- Do you know who Warren Buffet is?
- You are all depressing me.
- Blowing up the Senate
- It's finally here!
- Obama's interpretation of signing statements
- Prop 8 hearing
- New executive order
- It's looking good for Prop 8
- California courts deciding on Prop 8
- Obama's FEMA nominee
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- Hillary Clinton's world tour
- Frances Perkins
- An increased bureaucracy?
- How the economic downturn happened
- Op-Ed about filibusters
-
▼
March
(32)
1 comment:
Considering that this article was very opinionated, it succeeded in making its points in favor of the Democrats. It was interesting to read about the supposed two-facedness of Republican senators, saying that when Bush was appointing nominees, Republicans said that filibusters were undemocratic and unconstitutional. First, I think that they were just trying to save themselves in a way by avoiding any possible opposition to their rise to power in this arena. Second, it was ridiculous to learn that they completely went back on their previous claims by blatantly threatening Obama's appointees with a filibuster if they do not approve.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that senators must confirm appointed nominees from their own state, so I do not think that the Republicans have any valid arguments here. The article really did succeed in making them appear foolish. The senators are pushing their luck by insisting that Obama begin by appointing holdover Bush nominees who were never confirmed by the Senate. This would defeat Obama's entire platform of "change" for the United States because he would plainly be perpetuating Bush's legacy with appointees who share his ideology. Just as the author asserts, "There is no need to do so, and Mr. Obama should not."
I agree that Obama needs to focus on selecting the few he considers the most qualified and reflective of his intents and his mission. The Republican senators look desperate; they are attempting to salvage their power in the only branch of government left. The only request of theirs that is sensible to me is the proposal that Obama consult with them on his possible choices. This would benefit not only the Republicans, but mostly Obama since he is attempting to gain their cooperation in order to expediently and effectively implement his legislative agenda and the changes he promises.
Post a Comment