|
|
|
|
#1
08-01-2005, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
Yahoo! is reporting that President Bush has used the recess appointment power to put Bolton into the UN. In doing so, he has completely sidestepped Congress on the issue.
This move stinks. I realize that it is within the scope of Presidential powers, but this sort of appointment power was meant to be used in the case where there is a pressing need for an ambassador, and not to evade a growing opposition to your candidate. I tip my hat to the President for a shrewd political manuever(I doubt it was completely his idea), but I wonder if this is going to burn every ounce of political capital he may have had left. Any thoughts? 
|
|
#2
08-01-2005, 11:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
[ QUOTE ]
I tip my hat to the President for a shrewd political manuever(I doubt it was completely his idea), but I wonder if this is going to burn every ounce of political capital he may have had left. Any thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] FWIW, he's used recess appointments for judicial positions that were being fillibustered in the past.
|
|
#3
08-01-2005, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
[ QUOTE ]
Yahoo! is reporting that President Bush has used the recess appointment power to put Bolton into the UN. In doing so, he has completely sidestepped Congress on the issue. [/ QUOTE ] He's sidestepped a Democratic party Senate filibuster. He'd be confirmed on an up or down vote in the Senate. The House doesn't vote on such appointments. FYP
|
|
#4
08-01-2005, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
Yes...sorry...it is just the Senate who confirms.
|
|
#5
08-01-2005, 11:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
[ QUOTE ]
He'd be confirmed on an up or down vote in the Senate. [/ QUOTE ] I question whether or not this is true and think the possible failure of an up or down vote might have something to do with the recess nomination. He'll have to be confirmed by 06' regardless. The Bush administration is just buying time so they can circle the wagons amongst wayward Senate Republicans who might have considered voting no.
|
|
#6
08-01-2005, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
[ QUOTE ]
I question whether or not this is true and think the possible failure of an up or down vote might have something to do with the recess nomination. [/ QUOTE ] Nope if Bolton wouldn't get a majority in the Senate the Democrats would end their fillibuster in a heart beat. It's just common sense. From reports I've read the Republicans feel that the abosulute worst they could do was get a 50-50 split with Cheney breaking the tie. Basically they count the votes as 53-47 most likely with Thune and Voinivich crossing over.
|
|
#7
08-01-2005, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
He's sidestepped a Democratic party Senate filibuster. He'd be confirmed on an up or down vote in the Senate.
************************************************** Yep, plus one or two RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Bolton deserved an up or down vote. Using procedural technicalities they prevented the process from continuing. Bush did the wise thing. The dirty little truth is the democrats WANTED Bush to appoint Bolton via the recess appointment. This way they avoid voting publically against Bolton which would alienate their constituents. If you have noticed Robert Byrd of West Viginia has done a 180 in his criticism of Bush/Bolton. Why? He fell below 50% in the polls in West Virginia. I can't think of anything more delicious than for Byrd to be defeated in his relection bid. But lets face facts. The ambassador to the UN is just a glorified errand boy. He takes his orders from the president and does not hold any real power. My dream is for Bolton to tell the UN to [censored] off and give Kofi Annan an "atomic wedgie" on the UN floor. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
08-01-2005, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Recess appointment stinks to high heaven
[ QUOTE ]
Yep, plus one or two RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). [/ QUOTE ] Uh, is Trent Lott a "RINO"?
|
|
#9
08-01-2005, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Trent Lott
Uh, is Trent Lott a "RINO"?
*************************************** Trent Lott is a special case. He is a VERY bitter man after resigning his position as the Majority Leader in the senate. When Trent Lott stuck his foot in his mouth, the Bush admistration sat back on the sidelines refusing help. To make things worse, the Bush43 admin made statements that pretty much forced Lott from his leadership post. Trent Lott feels he was betrayed by the Bush43 admin. Bottom line, Lott wants his job back and he looks for ways to oppose the Bush admin without alienating the republican base. Personally I'm glad Lott is gone. He was largely responsible for the bipartisan "sharing" of senate committee chairs with the democrats. When Jim Jeffords defected to the democrats, did the democrats return the favor? HELL NO! They kicked out all the republican chairs taking all this power for themselves. Trent Lott is a politically naive fool who got out-maneuvered by the democrats time-and-time again. Ironically when the democrats demonized Lott over his Strom Thurmond remarks they did the republicans a favor. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Also John Thume (R. SD) opposed Bolton. Why? The Bush Admin wanted to close a SD airforce base. I sympathize with Thune. He NARROWLY defeated Tom Dascle and the Bush43 admin puts a SD military base on their hit list. I am for closing military bases to save defense money but SOMETIMES you need to play politics. Giving the newly elected Thume a political victory would do much to keep his senate seat Republican. Instead the Bush43 gives Thune a MAJOR politcal defeat. This is TERRIBLE politics. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats make even more political mistakes. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#10
08-01-2005, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Trent Lott
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, is Trent Lott a "RINO"? *************************************** Trent Lott is a special case. He is a VERY bitter man after resigning his position as the Majority Leader in the senate. When Trent Lott stuck his foot in his mouth, the Bush admistration sat back on the sidelines refusing help. To make things worse, the Bush43 admin made statements that pretty much forced Lott from his leadership post. Trent Lott feels he was betrayed by the Bush43 admin. Bottom line, Lott wants his job back and he looks for ways to oppose the Bush admin without alienating the republican base. Personally I'm glad Lott is gone. He was largely responsible for the bipartisan "sharing" of senate committee chairs with the democrats. When Jim Jeffords defected to the democrats, did the democrats return the favor? HELL NO! They kicked out all the republican chairs taking all this power for themselves. Trent Lott is a politically naive fool who got out-maneuvered by the democrats time-and-time again. Ironically when the democrats demonized Lott over his Strom Thurmond remarks they did the republicans a favor. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Also John Thume (R. SD) opposed Bolton. Why? The Bush Admin wanted to close a SD airforce base. I sympathize with Thune. He NARROWLY defeated Tom Dascle and the Bush43 admin puts a SD military base on their hit list. I am for closing military bases to save defense money but SOMETIMES you need to play politics. Giving the newly elected Thume a political victory would do much to keep his senate seat Republican. Instead the Bush43 gives Thune a MAJOR politcal defeat. This is TERRIBLE politics. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats make even more political mistakes. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] So any Republican who does not support Mr. Bolton's nomination has an axe to grind, or is a "RINO". Makes perfect sense.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
