TPMDC
« For First Time In Eight Years, President Supports Roe On Anniversary | Home | Caroline: A Taxonomy of Blame »

Curiouser and Curiouser: Who's the GOPer Stalling Enviro Nominees?

Will the Republican senator who objects to confirming Barack Obama's two top environmental nominees please stand up?

We've been looking all day at the mysterious delay in the confirmations of Lisa Jackson, nominated to lead the EPA, and Nancy Sutley, who will head the Council on Environmental Quality. Two Republican senators, John Barrasso (R-WY) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK), had been making noise about the appointment of White House climate adviser Carol Browner -- a forceful advocate for tackling climate change who will not require Senate confirmation.

Raising questions about Browner's role in Obama's environmental chain of command is certainly a clever way to presage Republican opposition to any future regulation of carbon emissions. The environment committee chairman, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), also told us she believed Barrasso was gumming up the works.

The only problem? Barrasso says his objection is all a big misunderstanding.

When I talked to Barrasso outside the Senate chamber, he said he had been on an airplane when Senate Democrats first sought to unanimously confirm Jackson and Sutley earlier this week. Barrasso's staff then objected to the move on his behalf -- but once he talked to Browner this morning, the senator said, his concerns were resolved.

Barrasso told me he even plans to vote for the two nominees. But wait ... his office was still putting out the earlier, anti-Browner line to the Associated Press as recently as this afternoon. What gives?

Inhofe made no bones about his objection to Browner's appointment. "But she's not up for confirmation," the longtime climate change denier told me. When Jackson and Sutley told Inhofe they would act independently of Browner, the senator said he was satisfied with their answer.

All this leaves one huge question unanswered: Who was the Republican senator objecting to approving Jackson and Sutley on the Senate floor two hours ago? If Barrasso and Inhofe really are copacetic, we may just have an anonymous obstructor on our hands after all.


32 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Has anyone asked John Cornyn about this?

user-pic

Boy, it better not have been Cornyn, or he's going to be exposed as a petty obstructionist Republican hack.

The more things change...

user-pic

CT, if it's a republican, it's a petty obstructionist hack.

user-pic

Methinks Big Bad John is trying to raise his stature in the party at a national level.

Could Corn-hole be mulling a presidential bid?

user-pic

If so, it's Christmas in January!

user-pic

He absolutely is. No other reason to delay Sec. Clinton's confirmation a day and then end up voting for it. He wanted his name mentioned during the inauguration coverage. And now he's front and center raising a stink about Holder when there is virtually no chance to defeat him. And considering he voted to confirm Gonzalez and Mulkasey, he's certainly not making any principled stand.

He was re-elected in 2008, he's untouchable for the next five years. He's also young enough to be eyeballing a run in 8 years.

user-pic

He may want to become the Minority Leader.

user-pic

Republicans saying one thing and doing another. Imagine that.

Are you new to Washington, Elena?

user-pic

Apparently at least one of them is Barrasso according to a Huffpo article This makes him a party hack obstructionist and a liar.

user-pic

I would like to see Harry Reid make more of an issue of obstruction - but I don't have much hope.

First, if he announced it to the media; and then the "anonymous" obstructor was questioned - we may see less of this in the future.

I see the attack on the anonymity of this as key to ending this practice.

Another approach might be to see how many senators would pledge not to use anonymous holds - if they don't like something, then let them say so.

user-pic

Don't know who it is but I know what he is a COWARD!!!!

user-pic

Agreed! Transparency is supposed one of the guiding principles of the Obama era of New Politics. That transparency needs to include Congress, and that means that this kind of behind-the-scenes obstructionism has got to stop. A Senator with an objection to proposed legislation or to a nominee or whatever needs to have the balls to come out and own the objection and explain it to the American people.

user-pic

Genuine enquiry here from a British observer of the scene - I can't think of any parliamentary action that a UK elected politician can take anonymously - somebody will doubtless now correct me on that. What is the reason that those who support the ability to put anonymous holds and the like on nominations give to justify being able to do that? I don't mean what do you think is a good reason, I mean what is the argument that is made for it by others?

user-pic

It's a scam by collection of individuals who fancy themselves Lords of the People, rather than servants of the people.
~

user-pic

Vitter?

user-pic

Newsflash

Republicans don't tell the truth

user-pic

Ten bucks to Elana's favorite charity if it's not Jim Bunning.

user-pic

We're going to have to get used to the Republicans tossing roofing nails on the road to a better America. That's just their manner.

This is the gang that tried to spend and give away all the money in the Treasury just so they could tell the new President: "Sorry, we're broke; can't do anything now. Maybe next year."

So the Republican obstructionist strategy is this: Cornyn objects to Hillary's being approved by the Senate, but then he votes for it and somebody else votes against it.

And these two ya-hoos say they're holding up they environmental picks, but it turns out it's someone else. When the vote is taken, they'll probably vote 'aye' and someone else will vote no.

And then there's Lindsey Graham. I'll willing to wager good money that he's going to back Eric Holder all the way up until the vote is taken. And then he'll find a reason to vote against Holder. But, no, he won't be obstructing. He'll just be doing his job, my friends.

This wouldn't bother me so much if the Democrats hadn't been so crappy when they tried to do the same things.

user-pic

Can someone explain what this "hold" ultimately means? Can these nominees be confirmed? Thank you!

user-pic

Cornyn. Big John wants to make a name for himself. I picked out "*sshole" for him.

user-pic

Great reporting, Elana. Its nice to see some good shoe-leather journalism on environmental policy!

user-pic

Seconded. This is exactly what we need. In a case like this, energetic reporting could actually have the effect of making "obstacles" disappear.

And there's been a lot of energetic reporting going on around here lately!

user-pic

and when Obama's policies succeed and his appointments become successful, with Cornhole and Barasshole take credit for it the way McCain took credit for the GI Bill passing that he voted against?

user-pic

become successful...WILL ... Corhnole and Barasshole ...

user-pic

If it's Cornyn, it's on. Obama is at 62% in Texas.

user-pic

I was just in Houston. Big change. When I was there in September, all the TV stations in hotels and restaurants were on Fox-TV. Last weekend CNN was on everywhere. Maybe there's hope.

user-pic

Bunning. It's always Bunning. He has Alzheimer's and does this same thing once or twice a year, out of the blue, regardless of the issue. It's sad.

user-pic

John Cornyn is not universally loved in Texas like Kay Bailey is. I think he is trying to stir up his base for his re-election campaign next year. Frankly, I think he is producing a few sour notes and not propping up his campaign, given that the country really wants to let President get going and try to solve some of these problems we're facing.

The GOP can get more honey by working hard on the issues at hand, productively, even as the loyal opposition rather than being unclear about why they are doing what they are doing and seemingly using the old politics. I expect them to disagree but I also expect that they are not sneaky and add value to the debates about issues.

user-pic

Am I wrong, or didn't he just win reelection?

Either way, it's one thing to disagree in substantive ways and about substantive things, but this silliness is ripe to be exploited and we should exploit it.

user-pic

He did. After a miserable start, he won comfortably.

user-pic

Wow rain39, if you expect that they are not sneaky and add value to debates I believe you're setting yourself up for major disappointment. It was quite a spectacle to see Brit Hume the other day speaking of republicans in congress as being completely irrelevant these days and opposition to Obama being primarily from Pelosi.

These trivial nuisances of trying to open up an umbrella in the face of a giant tsunami only reminds everyone how irrelevant they actually are.

What makes me smile is the thought of them sweating through attempting to whip up an absolute consensus to be able to successfully threaten filibuster. This is where Obama's aggressive courting of McCain is key, seeing as to how many of the republican senators break more towards arch-conservativism.

user-pic

Watch for a lot more of this technique from Cornyn or at the very least directed by him. As the newly minted President of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn is using obstructionism to rile up the base and to hopefully increase contributions.

The Republicans have lost too many seats in the last two elections. Cornyn does not want to be the NRSC Prezzie that handed the Dems a filibuster-proof majority. This no matter what the cost to our country.

-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio


Latest Videos




Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address