
President Obama said tonight he went to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to say he would use recess appointments if Republican senators failed to release their holds on his nominees.
Obama said he spoke to McConnell (R-KY) Tuesday about the tactics used by his caucus, leading some GOPers to release their holds.
"This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate," Obama said in a statement released tonight by the White House.
He decried that "a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate" since the holds in many cases were "motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator's state or simply to frustrate progress."
According to Politico, Obama was "forceful" with McConnell, saying in the meeting: "If you don't move any, I'm going to do some [recess] appointments."
In his statement, Obama thanked the Senate for tonight confirming 27 of his high-level nominees after a lengthy delay, but said there remain dozens of nominees pending and he reserves the right to use the recess appointments down the line.
The White House has signaled for the last few weeks that Obama and the Democratic party would take a harder line calling out Republican obstructionism.
Read the president's statement in full below.
Today, the United States Senate confirmed 27 of my high-level nominees, many of whom had been awaiting a vote for months.At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination. In most cases, these holds have had nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications or even political views, and these nominees have already received broad, bipartisan support in the committee process.
Instead, many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator's state or simply to frustrate progress. It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people.
And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments. This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken. Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate.
While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.
Late Update: Senate Republicans think the White House is putting some spin on the story.
i said GOOD DAY sir
February 11, 2010 9:57 PM
Sounds good, Mr. President. You see, this is how the GOP should ALWAYS be treated.
With impatience and contempt, that is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 12:26 AM in reply to i said GOOD DAY sir
"many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator's state"
I would like to see "earmarks" in place of "projects". But I'm not part of the discussion on how to word criticisms of Republican anti-Americanism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 12, 2010 7:53 AM in reply to JNagarya
while using 'earmarks' here would highlight a good measure of hypocrisy on the 'issue' of earmarks that certainly exists with a number of the GOP cretins who have placed holds, it would also have the unfortunate effect of lending legitimacy to a bullshit non-issue. the fewer asshats demagoguing the maleficence of earmarks in washington, the better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 8:06 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
We agree it's a nonissue to begin with. And it's better, anyway, for longer term goals -- bipartisanship -- to not (legitimately) bash the other side for their hypocrisy about that (non-)issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
February 12, 2010 8:27 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
fkaZ,
the Republicans are masters at using the language to beat the Democrats over the head. Republicans know that injecting certain words, phrases, platitudes, etc. into the debate at the right time will get the attention of a large number of the American public that are a mile wide and a half inch deep and quite easily led. Using the word "projects" in place of earmarks or pork is an example of Democrats missing an opportunity to reach this crowd of vacuous Americans.
Democrats can be high minded and lose elections or turn the Republican's tactics against them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 8:54 AM in reply to JohnW1141
I agree the democrats are too high minded but that is what separates us from them. It's tough to have morals and principles when trying to deal with those who have none.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DoubleFelix
February 12, 2010 10:15 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Taking a principled stand and fighting for it is not a moral dilemma. In fact, it is absolutely necessary in a democracy.
Most of the time, you can't even figure out what the Democrats are for. Given a choice, the mindless millions of "swing voters" will go for the guy who actually represents something. It doesn't much matter whether he represents something popular because those swing voters are mindless. They don't know what they want. But they certainly appreciate some swagger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 12, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to lousgirl84
You think the Democrats are too high minded???
They work for the same corporations the GOP does, and their actions vary greatly with their promises.
They are all corrupt!
Look at their records at opensecrets, they take money from the same masters. Look at the health care debacle if you don't believe me. I voted for Obama, the only other choice was Whore McCain & the Mindless Twit.
High minded???
There is only one democrat who gives a rap about the American people, that is Dennis Kucinich! If Americans had any say over their leaders, he would have been our president. Democrats and Republicans cheered whenever they had the chance to hear him. The MSM did a total blackout on him, he posed a true threat to corporate interests.
So, we got Obama, a good 21st century Corporate stooge.
Wake up and look around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeaningLeft
February 12, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to JohnW1141
That's what I was thinking except with a different phrase. He should have stolen the Republican phrasing and said, "All of my nominees deserve an up or down vote," and reminded people that that was the Republican mantra with Bush's Supreme Court nominees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 13, 2010 1:45 AM in reply to JohnW1141
Do you not know that "pork" and "earmarks" -- oops, "job creation" -- is how the system LEGITIMATELY works?
That means "pork" and "earmarks" are actually a NON-issue. If your Congressional delegation DOESN'T bring home "pork" -- er, "job creation" -- you'll elect others who will.
But certainly it is "pork" and "earmarks" and therefore condemnable when some other state gets the . . . "job creation".
But the Republicans, having nothing of substance to sling, and being the party of the eternal tax cut, will make an issue out of a non-issue. So Shelby, in particular, rants and raves, in public, AGAINST "pork" and "earmarks" -- which only Democrats pursue. Then he gets caught with his hand in the "pork"/"earmarks" jar. Exposing his hypocrisy on the point actually has more to do with the issue than does the non-issue of "pork" and "earmarks".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
February 12, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to JNagarya
Or just put "pork" in front of "projects."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 12, 2010 9:05 AM in reply to i said GOOD DAY sir
LMAO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
February 12, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to i said GOOD DAY sir
Contempt? When you feel you have to apologize, because recess appointments are "rare"?
How "rare" could they be, when the last administration made recess appointments all the time? This is just more rotten framing, telling the American public, "We're going to do something that's hardly ever attempted, because it's just so controversial! And we're trusting you not to object, please?"
I don't think Bush ever felt the need to explain himself. Things were just done. And the Stupids rewarded Strong Daddy (allegedly) with two terms. The mindblowing thing about Obama is how, with no evidence to support it whatsoever, he keeps standing by his contention that the American public can be re-educated to reward cordiality in the face of scorched-Earth opposition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
February 11, 2010 10:00 PM
That's good. My biggest disappoint with Pres. Obama so far has been his reluctance to step up to the plate and go to bat for his nominees. The Recess Appointment tool should've already been used.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
February 11, 2010 10:00 PM
You punch back, they wilt! But, who are the 29, and who are left on hold? It still may be necessary to make recess appointments. I would suggest a line in the sand be drawn re: allow a vote on all labor appointments (jobs), Pentagon ("war on terror"), Homeland Security (also "w on t"), judicial and Dept of Justice (prosecuting the "w on t"). I know, that's almost everybody. Isn't that too bad?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
February 11, 2010 11:06 PM in reply to sunnysteve
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/nominations-and-appointments/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DoubleFelix
February 12, 2010 7:22 AM in reply to sunnysteve
I get a kick out of the talk of the snowstorm "bringing government to a halt." The irony of that statement seemed to be totally missed by all of the talking heads babbling on about that. More accurately, "Gridlock will have to wait for a few days because of the snowstorm."
He should have cracked McConnell a lot harder than that. "Mitch, you have 24 hours to release all of those holds or else they will ALL be seated through recess appointments this weekend. So if you want your boyz to have any part of the process, you had best be making some phone calls right now."
Even when Obama makes a "bold move" he is still timid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 12, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to DoubleFelix
Oh totally. In fact, I think merely threatening recess appointments was a sign of weakness. I think he should have threatened to use thermonuclear weapons on the home state of every Republican senator with a hold on a nominee.
No wait, that's not tough enough either. He should have gone ahead and launched a surprise nuclear strike on the second largest city in each of those states and then threatened more to follow if his nominees aren't seated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tlees2
February 11, 2010 10:30 PM
Oh, finally we get a backbone! Thank the Lord!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
February 11, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to tlees2
i think he's handled it really well. as someone who's managed teams with really difficult people, it's better to be cautious and give a chance or two too many, rather than be hasty. in the end a patient person wins more approval and carries far more authority when they finally move to criticize.
Obama has used the rope-a-dope very successfully to discredit his adversaries. it's ramping up again now, from the Palin jokes to Obama repeatedly criticizing Republicans for obstructionism. it's starting to stick and Republicans persist at their own peril.
if Obama had come out swinging from day one, all the public would perceive is a chaotic melee where it's hard to tell who started it and who's to blame. this way the majority of the public sees Obama trying to take the high road and Republicans clearly being obstructionist, consistently over a period that defines their character. when Obama calls them on it he'll have a long list of examples, and it'll devastate Republican credibility.
Obama did the same thing with Hillary and McCain. don;t jump on every chance, wait and let them think they're gettign away with it.
not to say all this is planned, but it's his nature and ultimately effective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tlees2
February 11, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to Neil
I hope you're right!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 12:24 AM in reply to Neil
Exactly.
As I've noted elsewhere to others: there's more than one form of leadership. And Obama has a history of leadership -- but without bullying or strong-arming.
That is why he was elected to head the "Harvard Law Reveiw": leadership abilities.
And why he was elected President: leadership ability -- and change of tone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 12, 2010 8:08 AM in reply to JNagarya
being elected to a leadership position is not evidence of proven leadership ability.
it may be evidence of one's ability to persuade others of one's leadership abilities, but it does not prove the existence of those leadership abilities in fact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 12, 2010 8:15 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
?? being able to convince people to follow you is part of what makes an effective leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 8:43 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
I'll say it again:
When no on else on the Harvard campus could bring together two sides who were entrenched in their positions, Barak Obama succeeded in bringing them together, and resolving the issue.
THAT is L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P.
The fundamental premise remians the same and unrefuted: there is more than one way to "do" leadership. I, for one, am fed up with the demand for "a strong leaders" which invariably means "a bully".
It is also because of his effectiveness in interpersonal relations that got him elected to head the "Harvard Law Review". He was elected on the basis of RESULTS. And as the head he was bipartisan: he won over opponents by giving them bylines. They -- Republicans -- praise him to this day for that ability.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
am4
February 12, 2010 8:28 AM in reply to JNagarya
That's why I voted for him--change of tone. I couldn't care less about results like real reform of health care and Wall Street or the end of indefinite detention or upholding the rule of law by prosecuting the elites when they torture or cause financial crises or ending ruinous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just give me a change it tone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 8:46 AM in reply to am4
You like the "tone" from the Republicans? Or would you like to see that changed?
Obama is currently playing some hardball politics by calling the Republicans on their bluff about having stuff live on TeeVee. And watch: they don't DARE to say "NO!" -- no matter how much they want to -- because he won't let We the people forget it if they do. And if they say "Yes," he will hold them to it with PRAISE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
February 12, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to Neil
I disagree. The whole concept of "getting them right where we want them" is silly.
Because in the interim, President Obama and his administration have developed the perception in the public eye as weak and rollable, and you never want that. It is not preferable to catching your opponents off-guard, or whatever advantage you think being quiet and compliant in the face of ballistic opposition will achieve.
His approval numbers are key here; it's hard-to-impossible to roll back uphill to where he was, after he was inaugurated. There is no advantage I can think of, that would trump not squandering his political capital.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 12, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
If by "public" you mean "you" or "you and some other people who comment here" or even "a few thouand FDL commenters," I'd agree with you. Otherwise, I think I'd want to see some actual data to back up a sweeping assertion like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
February 11, 2010 10:36 PM
I hope that the administration realizes that this kind of forcefulness works for them and keeps it up. We voted for them because we wanted results not so we could watch them try to accommodate everyone. Maybe, just maybe there is a ray of light.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Common Sense Caucus
February 11, 2010 10:44 PM
I am long past even remotely caring about anything the Republican party wants. The only decision I would let the Republicans make is whether they want every possible progressive initiative shoved down their throats or up their asses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChuckD
February 11, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to Common Sense Caucus
Thanks CSC, my sentiments exactly. Move the agenda and let the American people speak to it. These Republicans have devolved into nothing but cartoons.
Act and let the People decide.
C.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
February 12, 2010 12:05 AM in reply to Common Sense Caucus
We're the ones keeping track of what the idiots inside the beltway are doing. We're politics and news junkies. We are not a very significant voting bloc. If this is planned by the administration, then we are not the primary audience they were trying to convince.
It is possible that the strategy has been to let the Republicans go really extreme towards obstructionism during the year before election year. It should have been long enough to sink in even to the most oblivious of the voters who normally are not aware of elections until the last three weeks before the election when the TV ads get serious.
Obama has been patient and reached out to get Republican input and hasn't got anything except lies and obstructionism. Those of us who are here think he has been very much too patient. In the meantime the administration has been setting up a pretty good record of overall accomplishment regarding war and the economy. But they've done it by giving the Republicans a great deal of obvious rope that can be used to hang them on fighting for personal gain and ignoring the issues important to the American people.
Now, starting eight months before the election, the White House can start forcing the issue with the obstructionist Republican in the media. If they'd done that last year the media would be bored by now and looking for exceptions they could build stories around to kill the operation. I've been expecting the DADT repeal effort to start this year early.
If all that is the case, then the White House and the Democratic Party should start building the pressure on the Republicans from now for the rest of the year. That would be a new story that might suck in the media. That would not have been true if they had started trying to build the case against Republican obstructionism last year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 12:29 AM in reply to Richardxx
Agreed. Well said.
And California has been helpful in preventing a rope shortage by legitimizing the growing of hemp.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 8:31 AM in reply to Richardxx
Dig this --
NY Times
Poll Finds Edge for Obama Over G.O.P. Among the Public
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: February 11, 2010
WASHINGTON — At a time of deepening political disaffection and intensified distress about the economy, President Obama enjoys an edge over Republicans in the battle for public support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
While the president is showing signs of vulnerability on his handling of the economy — a majority of respondents say he has yet to offer a clear plan for creating jobs — Americans blame former President George W. Bush, Wall Street and Congress much more than they do Mr. Obama for the nation’s economic problems and the budget deficit, the poll found.
They credit Mr. Obama more than Republicans with making an effort at bipartisanship, and they back the White House’s policies on a variety of disputed issues, including allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
_________________________
Washington Post
75% back letting gays serve openly
By Ed O'Keefe and Jennifer Agiesta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 12, 2010
Three-quarters of Americans say that they support openly gay people serving in the U.S. military, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, a finding that could lend momentum to the Obama administration's effort to dismantle the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 12, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to Richardxx
Great post. I hope you're right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Noam Sane
February 11, 2010 10:57 PM
Good start. Kinda late. Hopefully this will follow through to other obstructed matters (hint: health care).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Turnaround
February 12, 2010 1:37 AM in reply to Noam Sane
I agree. I'll give the guy the entire first year as a noble, ethically-obligatory exercise in High Road attempted bipartisanship.
But now it's time to get all Chicago hardcore on those obstructionist GOP's corpulent hineys.
Anthem in CA just jacked my insurance 39%. We're dying out here, Mr. President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to Noam Sane
It's not too late. It's never too late. He has three more years at least so how is it too late. I believe Obama knows what he's doing as far as playing these folks. He is way smarter than they, and don't think he didn't know what he was getting into when he ran for this office. He told Richard Wolfe early on in his candidacy that they were going to make him out into a scary guy. Black folks understand white folks way better than white folks understand Black folks. They have had no choice. Obama didn't get into this blindly. I still think this President can get good things done but I fear the folks in our own party more than the stupid thugs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
February 12, 2010 9:30 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Yep. What lousgirl84 said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
February 12, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Agreed. Especially the part about Black folks knowing White folks more than White folks knowing Blacks, which was spot on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
February 11, 2010 11:04 PM
Thank you, Mr. President.
While it's not necessary or even desirable to readily resort to threats, this one just couldn't be put off any longer. This was absolutely the right thing to do and the right time to do it.
If you stand up to these guys, you might be surprised at how much support you'll get from the public on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 12:39 AM in reply to chimpale
That support is showing up here!
The Republicans deal in bad faith. I have faith in President Obama knowing what he's doing. At the invitation of the Republicans, he wiped the floor with them. He has now invited them to a summit -- publicized, on TeeVee, as they've demanded -- to discuss the health insurance reform issue. He's calling their bluff -- but is still acting in good faith.
Let's see if the Republicans dare back out of it. If they do (or don't), it'll be a highly public display of cowardice and hypocrisy by the Republicans.
When the President began turning it around nby pointing out how the Republicans (and "some Democrats") had boxed themselves in, he was sending them a message. He was being sympathetic -- but also clarifying the situation for the voters to see it for themselves.
The only question at the moment is whether the Republicans continue to obstruct -- and are therefore increasingly and repeatedly, consistently exposed as doing so -- or realize they have run out of time on the obstruction gambit: either they show they are about producing, or that they are opposed not merely to President Obama but also opposed to the interests of the country itself.
They can't continue to obstruct and do nothing, and blame everyone else, and get away with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pvel
February 11, 2010 11:05 PM
It sounds like McChinless peed his pants. Good for Obama. I still want to see recess appointments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarkAtl
February 12, 2010 6:06 AM in reply to pvel
I still want recess appointments too. Who knows he stood up to Mitch but us junkies. Do some recess appointments and raise the attention to the American people. Oh, and btw, the holds will probably start again right after the recess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
flounder
February 11, 2010 11:08 PM
I don't like it. I don't like the whole "I reserve the right to use recess appointments" posture. That makes me think that he won't use recess appointments during this next break, when nominees like Becker and Johnsen who have been needlessly stalled for a year should get appointed no matter how much McConnell and Kyl whine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 11, 2010 11:12 PM
Recess appointments is a pretty easy one. It's provided for in the constitution, and the only thing the President has to do is to do it. Josh Marshall probably owes the White House team an apology: he posted a message on Sen. Shelby's holds pretty much guaranteeing that Obama would turn turtle and meekly accept it(based on the fact the Gibbs described the holds as "silliness". In fact, the White House counterattacked in unison with Harry Reid and has forced concessions. True, he went the bipartisan route, and made threats rather than just launching a sneak attack and making the appointments. That would be more warlike, but since the goal is to paint the Republicans as obstructionist, a unilateral action might backfire. 27 appointments ain't chump change as far as political capital goes, and I think we've mostly got Sen. Shelby to thank for it. Kudos for Obama and Reid for exploiting the situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 12, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to philogratis
Recess appointments come with a cost, dammit. If they didn't there'd never be a single appointee submitted to the Senate for approval.
A recess appointment would last until the start of the next Congress, i.e. less than ten months. Then the appointee has to pack up his or her desk, move out and hand the keys back over to the senior career bureaucrat in the office. The nomination can be resubmitted to that Congress, but if the Senate doesn't move, he or she cannot be re-appointed until there's another recess.
That's not a good way to run a bureaucracy. If you're GWB and your objective is to prove that government can't do anything right, that's not a problem. If you're not GWB and you give a good goddam about good government, it kind of is.
I'm not saying that there's not a place for them, and in particular for the threat of them, but there's enouch downside to them to mean they should be used judiciously. Unfortunately, "recess appointment" has turned into the new "reconciliation" as the magic unicorn bean panecea. There are costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
February 11, 2010 11:18 PM
About effing time. More please, Mr. President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to Phoebe Fay
When the President does something we agree with we all need to call the White House and let him know we support his efforts. He always says he wants to hear from us. I call the White House on a regular basis and express my approval and disapproval.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckley
February 11, 2010 11:26 PM
More of this please.
Let's out some Republican CIA agents too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
witty1
February 11, 2010 11:40 PM
Winning the Presidency means running the government - took him long enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 12, 2010 8:11 AM in reply to witty1
Our gov't consists of three separate branches. The President has the authority to run only one of the three.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 12, 2010 8:20 AM in reply to witty1
This is not a dictatorship. I wonder if you'll praise him when he uses these tactics on progressives in congress. And will you praise the next republican president when he/she uses those tactics on Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 9:31 AM in reply to Viva!America!
You are one of the most reasonable voices here at tpm. I am so glad you are here to keep the whiners on track.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oee
February 11, 2010 11:48 PM
this is no victory. Why wait another week for Ms. Jonsenn and Mr. Becker? what happenede to the rest? what happended to the
"fierce urgency of now'?
May be Obama should give money to NASA so it appoint a committee to search for signs of... BALLS IN THE WHITEHOUSE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 12, 2010 5:10 AM in reply to oee
Sorry top disappoint, but Obama will never be a liberal/left-ish Bush.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
808stater
February 11, 2010 11:50 PM
He forgot to mention:
"If Republicans continue to undermine the effective operation of the government, we'll tell your moms that you hate America."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrSmith1
February 12, 2010 12:01 AM
Finally!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 12, 2010 12:39 AM
He should have just done the recess appointments and appointed all of them. He could have had a photo op on the capitol steps with everybody lined up in back of him to show the absurdity of what was going on. He needs to get tough. He has been pussy footing around for over a year now. Time for hardball.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zing!
February 12, 2010 2:02 AM
... so can someone explain where the "Or Else!" part of the threat comes from? Why wouldn't the Republican side just say "fine, push them through as recess appointments; we'll just spin it that you're rushing them through, going around the process, and abusing the office." How was this any kind of threat that they reacted to?
Signed, I just don't get it. I never get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
igotthis
February 12, 2010 3:30 AM in reply to zing!
We can't help you! LOL! No, seriously, you give the Republicans too much credit and you vastly underestimate the president's strategy and savviness.
As others have pointed out, the game is over for the Republicans; he has checkmated them. He is letting them and the public know this without blasting it out loudly. So he says to them like my mother use to say to me without yelling it: "Son, if you do that again, I am going to whup your behind." Now I knew she meant it, so I never repeated the offense she warned me about. Likewise, now the Republicans know, after recent events, that the president is able and willing to whup their behinds on national television, so they may start treating the president with more respect and caution just like I treated my mother. Of course, some of them may be slow learners like some of my siblings. Oh, did they get whupped into shape!
Understand that although Republicans don't mind embarrassing themselves in public, they absolutely hate being embarrassed by President Obama in public. President Obama understands this now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zing!
February 12, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to igotthis
Ah. That makes Sense™. Thanks you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
February 12, 2010 2:38 AM
"...we'll just spin it that you're rushing them through, going around the process, and abusing the office."
In other words, that he did precisely what Bush did before him - and which the GOP had no objections to?
Frankly, i find Obama's actions only enough to render him half-a-pussy in my eyes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
igotthis
February 12, 2010 3:39 AM in reply to GayIthacan
You've been punked by the Republicans, but the president has never been a punk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
February 12, 2010 7:31 AM in reply to GayIthacan
This is really dumb reasoning. It might make sense if this were not always the way things have been done in the past.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
February 12, 2010 5:50 AM
If Obama were to give a detailed accounting in a speech or press conference of exactly who the GOP Senators were that are holding out for earmarks in their states, he could at one fell swoop take much of the steam out of the anti-earmark bullshit the GOP indulges in as well as get his nominees finally confirmed. So long as Dems in Congress and the WH refuse to communicate to the public the true nature of the horsecrap the GOP spews, nothing will change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
February 12, 2010 7:23 AM
Obama was not elected to please the republican party. He was elected to please the people. This translates into doing what he said he would do to get elected. If the people disagree the people will remove him from office in 2012. In either case, it doesn't matter one little shit what the republicans think, as long as what they're doing is being done purely to obstruct the will of the majority in the country. This is what we have elections for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DF
February 12, 2010 7:55 AM
While this appears to be a step in the right direction, the question remains: What was he waiting for? It's not as if the GOP has acted in good faith on a "bipartisan" basis for quite some time. Did Obama just finally figure out that he could do this or is he actually beginning to outgrow his obsession with "bipartisanship"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 12, 2010 9:02 AM in reply to DF
Good point, but you also have to wonder whether he was conducting some sort of formative assessment on the GOP and now just has his ammunition in how they have carried themselves and can also make it translate into public perception of the GOP as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 12, 2010 9:16 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
While I agree with you, this could have been done 6 months ago. We didn't need over a year to find this out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 12, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to AhTrini1
True that..in agreement. Once the HCR debate went south in the summer there should have been some moves from a position of strength, and sadly most of it should have been aimed at Baucus, Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln & Landrieu. Grassley should have been pilloried in public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DF
February 12, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Grassley should be launched into the sun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 12, 2010 9:33 AM in reply to DF
I so wish it was my foor launching his 'grandma killing' ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 9:43 AM in reply to AhTrini1
Well, he wasn't just dealing with HCR. There were/are a lot of other important issues on the President's plate. Wouldn't it be wonderful if he could have devoted all of his time to one issue
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Good morning. Are you all dug out?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 12, 2010 9:32 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Yes...it's a balmy 34' so I'm warming up my scoot...
youre up damn early out there..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 9:38 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
We freeze here when it's 45 degrees but 34 must feel balmy. Is the sun shining? And yes, I am an early riser. The older I get, the less sleep I seem to need. xxxooo
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 12, 2010 9:44 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Yea..I agree with that sleep thing. Sun is out but its dry out too, the air. I guess you didnt get that email address I sent in an archived headline.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
No I didn't get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Can you direct me to that archived headline.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 12, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to lousgirl84
had to do with McCain
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tduff
February 12, 2010 8:43 AM
Obama should still use the recess appointments because lets be honest the Republicans will just keep doing this.
http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 9:41 AM
I am listening to the rerun of Colbert and he's playing the latest talking points from the thugs. It's a trap!!! Obama is setting a trap by asking the negotiations to be televised. Rush, Hannity, Beck, all of them repeating the same shit - Its a Trap. And why now after he has shut them out of all negotiations!! Isn't it amazing how these people can lie 24/7?
You gotta give it to them for being united in their lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 12, 2010 10:14 AM
Did the Republicans stop Obama from doing recess appointments of 64 next week by finally allowing a vote on 29 who probably should not have been held up in the first place?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
consumetheconsumer
February 12, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to condew
Certainly looks like that, don't it? What a victory . . . not. It's less than half. But, don't want to rock the boat too much . . . need to get those 1 or 2 Republicans on board for all that legislation waiting to be passed in the Senate.
I can't wait for the Republicans in the Senate to lose their majority. Bwwwwwahhhhh-ha-ha-ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
afisher
February 12, 2010 10:25 AM
WAIT...before we get all giddy, we need to know which appointments were approved. Just last week, Shelby stated that most of these were "low level" appointees. So if the GOP was to approve ONLY these lower level appointees, they may lose a day in the PR spin cycle, but they are still obstructing the running of the gov't.
That being said, it was good to hear that President Obama take a stronger stance. Maybe he will learn that his dream of a bipartisan approach will be just that, a dream!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
February 12, 2010 10:56 AM
I agree with others in terms of wondering why it took this long for him to do this.
The president and the democrats overall seem obstinate in their willingness to allow the bully obstructionists to walk all over them.
A step in the right direction but is it too little too late?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph Calling
February 12, 2010 12:01 PM
Be careful what you wish for, libs, you just might get it. You may want to get rid of the filibuster now, but when the GOP retakes Congress and the White House in 2012 (Obama is another Jimmy Carter, a one-termer for sure), you'll wish you had it back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 12, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
I don't know who will win in 2012, it will be whomever the corporations want thanks to the supreme court ruling last month.
I agree the filibuster should not be eliminated; it gives away too more power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
February 12, 2010 12:13 PM
Good grief, what is this claptrap by Ezra Klein on the TPM frontpage saying Obama botched this?
Klein must be snowed in with his laptop, because this is a stretch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
February 12, 2010 1:43 PM
How was it botched? Is recxes over and the little Repugs back in school? BO still looks like the sane one and that was the bigger win, IMVHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Knothead Jake
February 13, 2010 7:24 AM
Until O makes those recess appointments I'd say he only grew one nut and some peachfuzz.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?