TPMDC
Reid To Obama On Nominees: Little Help Here, Buddy?
President Barack Obama talks with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Oval Office.
Share
Send to a friend!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a hard enough time getting President Obama's executive nominees confirmed before Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) won his special election. Now, with Democrats' supermajority erased, and Republicans happy to filibuster just about everything, Reid has a message for the White House: If I can't work with these people, you can get it done, too.
Speaking on the Senate floor today, Reid outlined a way Obama can get his nominees situated, even if Republicans oppose them unanimously.
"There isn't enough time in the world--Senate world at least--to move cloture on every one of these. We have spent all week--all this week--on two people," Reid said.
"I have been someone...who has tried hard not to do--have the President do recess appointments. But what alternative do we have?" Reid asked rhetorically.
"We have on the calendar dozens of people who have been held up. Dozens. And I've only picked out a few. These are people dealing with the safety and security of our country. I think it's just without explanation why this is happening."
Brown will be sworn in today, in large part to block NLRB-nominee Craig Becker. And with the Democrats' majority down to 59 in the Senate, they'll also have a hard time confirming Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Obama has shied away from recess appointments in his first year in office. But with Republicans in full obstruction mode, and Reid practically begging him to circumvent the standard confirmation process, will Obama yield?
Comments (61) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Barry Champlain
February 4, 2010 2:16 PM
He had damned well better, or he's going to go into reelection mode without organized Labor, anywhere to be found.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
February 4, 2010 2:18 PM
Why are the R's in the senate being allowed to filibuster every single thing Obama proposes? I understand the history of the senate enough to know that, while comity is part of the body's history, one side filibustering everything isn't. Where is the push back on this idiotic idea that the only way to get anything passed is with 60 votes? That has not been the case up to this point why is it the narrative now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 4, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Libertine
They're "being allowed to do it" because the rules of the Senate allow them to do it and those rules can't be changed mid-session without 67 votes. What's your suggestion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
February 4, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
If nothing can be done just prepare for epicfail. I can't believe that them D's agreed to have the new majority for all nominations and legislation be 60 votes but if they did, they did. Kinda makes the VP being the 'tie breaking vote' a moot idea...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
February 4, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to Libertine
Dude, it's not about what they agreed to or didn't agree to, it's the rules of the Senate. What they've done an incredibly piss poor job of is highlighting the unprecedented amount of obstruction the Republicans have put up to everything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
February 4, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I am so tired of excuses and apologists...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
February 4, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to Libertine
Huh? Republicans can filibuster. Those are the rules. That's not an excuse, or apologizing. That's recognizing reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 4, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to CT Voter
Libertine doesn't recognize reality. It's been a long time since he's seen it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
February 4, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to FreeRider
i hope he dies
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
February 4, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to dem4life
No you don't. Don't go Teabagger on us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
February 4, 2010 8:02 PM in reply to dem4life
You hope I die? Dude that is f'd up. Don't go there and if you are tempted to it is time to take a break from the game. Back when I was savagely attacking Bush from 2000-2008 not even wingnuts wished death on me.
:(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
February 4, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to Libertine
Sory Li.
What an addle-pated lout. Don't let it get you down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
February 5, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to CT Voter
how did the GOP get the nuclear option on the table?
Seriously, I am sick of Harry Reid. He doesn't get it. They will not cede. Anything. Ever. So, the answer is to play their game. It's to go and eliminate the debate by requiring a simple majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 4, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to Libertine
Look, it's a real problem. I'm for abolishing the filibuster. Done a complete 180 on the issue and I'm open to solutions or tactics anyone has for dealing with it before the opening of the next session when it won't take 67 votes to do it. I'm very much in favor of doing things that highlight the problem so as generate public pressure to get that done, as well as highlight the fundementally anti-democratic abuse of the rules by the Republicans.
What I'm just against is letting the frustration lead to magical thinking which, in turn, only generates further frustration when the wished for magical solution doesn't materialize. That kind of frustration and blaming of the Democrats for a problem created with malice aforethought by Republicans is exactly what the Republicans are trying to create. And if you let yourself fall prey to it you are Mitch McConnell's bitch, pure and simple.
The Republicans, with a degree of pathological cynicism once alien to our politics, have decided to embark upon an unprecedented abuse of a rule that has always had the potential to render the Senate majority impotent if not ameliorated by the tradition of comity of in the Senate. Their goal is to create a narrative that the Democrats are weak and ineffective and frustration with the Democrats.
If you let your frustration lead you to the demand for an unspecified magical that, in turn, engenders further frustration, and blaming of the wrong people, you're doing their work for them. Stop it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 4, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Great post.
At this point, if nothing is done about the filibuster, if and when the Democrats resume the minority in the Senate, they had better use the exact same tactics on the GOP. And when they do the GOP will not be shy about hollering "Obstructionists!" to the rooftops.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JBRobot
February 5, 2010 1:41 AM in reply to agio
Why don't the Dems make the Repubs ACTUALLY filibuster? Don't accept the 'threat' of filibuster. Make them physically stand there and talk for hours with no break. It may seem like it'll slow things down but with the way nothing is getting done as it is, it would be fun see what happens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 5, 2010 10:06 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Amen to that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 5, 2010 10:05 AM in reply to Libertine
Tired of excuses? How about you are too stupid to understand the rules? WTF. 4 or 5 responses to your idiotic posts explaining and you still don't understand because you'd prefer to just lay blame. You are the same guy who agrees with everything that Rutabaga Ridgepole Asshole has to say
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
February 4, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to Libertine
The Republicans are "being allowed to obstruct" because they are an organized and disciplined national political party and because the Democrats are not.
The national Democrats are going to have to lose the Senate again before they can get their act together and stop allowing the mavericks to run the party.
It would help if the job of DNC Chairman were filled and if Obama and Reid were to recognize that they belonged to the same political organization and had to work together to survive and succeed.
You'd think that the threat of the return of Republican incompetence to governing power would spur some unified action among the Democrats, but apparently it won't. They - and the American people - are going to have to get hit between the eyes by the two-by-four of a resurgent and still extremist Republican Party when it returns to power.
But what do we know? We aren't inside-the-beltway people with years of experience losing battles against the Republican idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 4, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to Richardxx
>>t would help if the job of DNC Chairman were filled >>
Ummmmm. You're about a year behind time the times. Does the name "Tim Kaine" sound familiar?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 4, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to FreeRider
Incomplete sentence. He meant "filled by someone who can tell shit from shinola."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 4, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to agio
You're a mind reader, are you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 4, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to Richardxx
And again with the magical thinking and the blaming of the Democrats.
Even if they got 60 votes for cloture on every thing they did, merely invoking the filibuster would allow them to slow the pace in the Senate to a crawl. Just like they did at the end there on health care. When we had 60 votes. Breaking a filibuster that's destined to be broken takes a minimum of six full legislative days.
Put the blame where it belongs and stop buying in to and giving credibility to the very damn narrative that the Republicans are trying to create. They are counting, as much as anything, upon the tendency to Democrats and liberals to turn on each other instead of their real enemies when the going gets rough. They know they can because it's what we've been doing since the 60s.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 4, 2010 2:31 PM
I don't understand why Obama just doesn't do recess appointments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 4, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to Maritza
Because if he does, he loses the people he appoints after two years and then has to start the whole damn thing over again from scratch, this time with an actual record for them to distort. The question is whether that's the greater or lesser evil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whiterosebuddy
February 4, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Can't he just re-appoint those same folks again? Or is the appointment limited to only one 2 year term?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 4, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to whiterosebuddy
No. If the appointee isn't confirmed by the end of the session, the appointment ends when the next session of Congress begins. At which point the office is empty again. The next Congress being in session, the president has to either offer up another nominee or wait until that Congress goes into recess again. By that time, the nominee who couldn't get confirmed last time around is damaged goods.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
February 4, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to Maritza
Because Bush was criticized for doing it. And Republicans will be all over the news shows blasting the practice and no Dems will be on to point out how many filibusters and holds the GOP has used on each and every nomination for silly non-related reasons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
February 4, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Bush's recess appointments ranged from the incompetent to the extremist. There is a gigantic difference. Let the Republicans whine. Bam hasn't pulled this his entire first year in office. There is a crying necessity to staff these agencies so the government can function. I seriously doubt the public would hold it against him if he handed out a whole bunch of President's Day appointments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zebracat
February 4, 2010 4:32 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
That would be clear and concise leadership, with just a hint of bravery against the GOP, and that is just not Obama. Oh well, things should run much smoother once the house and senate revert back to the right since Obama seems to agree with all his predecessor’s policies anyway.
Loose change is all you can believe in!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 5, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to Zebracat
More bullshit. I am so sick of this Bush lite crap. It's a fricking lie. Maybe you need to go back and read some of the Commenter's posts
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 4, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Good. I WANT them all over the news shows. Let them explain why they've stopped nearly EVERY appointment. Let them explain why there are dozens of agencies with nobody running them. Let them explain why their answer to everything the administration proposes is NO. Let them do it every single day until November 2. Then let them go to the electorate and try to convince them to vote for more of the same.
There's a message war and only one side is shooting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
February 4, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
There's a message war and only one side is shooting.
Frustrating, isn't it? I'm happy to see the Administration push back on the "ZOMG THEY GAVE A TERRORIST MIRANDA RIGHTS" freak-out, but that kind of response should have taken place awhile ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DancingBear
February 4, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to CT Voter
Even this very story is being written with the angle of intraparty wrangling rather than being about the ridiculous Republican obstructionism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wes Cain
February 4, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Right on. The more coverage of the Republican obstructionism we can get the better. Let's hope the jobs bill is real and that the Rs filibuster it. Let them try to explain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
February 4, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Maritza
If the Senate were not a non-functioning political body then there would be no need for recess appointments.
The Senators like it that the Senate can be blocked by any individual Senator, and the Senators who like it this way are the ones who wrote the rules when they reorganized in January 2009. The fact that the Senate IS a non-functioning body gives each individual Senator a lot more personal power and face time in the media. There are good reasons why every Senator thinks he is good enough to be President and why they are almost all personally rich or getting there.
The next chance for the Senate to rewrite the rules with a simple majority will be January 2011. Anyone want to bet that the filibuster and the rules on holds remain unchanged at that time??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 4, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to Richardxx
If you're in the mood for a /headdesk check this out: "holds" aren't even in the rulebook that the Senate wrote for itself. They are just part of the "comity" of the "world's greatest deliberative body".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 4, 2010 2:41 PM
There's only one way to put a stop to this. Figure out how to make the R's pay a price. This means publicizing this at every opportunity - not just once, but continuing to hammer away at it until it penetrates the public consciousness. Show how this obstruction is preventing things that people want. This is what the R's do well - they get a meme and repeat it EVERYWHERE. The D's need to learn from this. The people do not want obstruction. They want their government to work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pinson
February 4, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Exactly. The message is a no-brainer: Obstruction = antiAmerica and pro-terrorist. The GOP is a traitorous and malevolent foce that needs to be stopped. Every democrat in Washington should be screaming this all day every day. But no. They stand around and do nothing. Oh, Scott Brown wants his swearing in moved up so that you can actually make our lives MORE miserable? Sure! We can do that for you! Idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
February 4, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Right! If the Democrats were an organized and disciplined party then there would be one or more politicians assigned the job of getting that message out (not necessarily all by himself.)
The message needs to be carefully prepared and the public reaction closely monitored. Not so much the media reaction which is going to be against it. Then those responsible for crafting and monitoring the message get others to work with them getting it out.
Who did you say the DNC Chair was, by the way? He's also responsible for Organizing for America too, isn't he? But I guess he's just buried with all that anonymous fund-raising.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whiterosebuddy
February 4, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Somehow..this just sounds too simplistic and ineffectual. It sounds like the woman who thinks by reporting domestic abuse and getting a restraining order that somehow the abuse will stop.
It doesn't. Typically it escalates and she is killed.
The American public is not going to respond to the GOP obstructionism not when their entire mantra is we want this President to fail. Limbaugh preaches that daily.
Half of America that has the nerve to call themselves 'patriots' believes the obstructionism is far better than allow any of Obama's agenda or policies to become law.
They don't want this President to be effective. They want to be dismissive of the election results..they are not interested in democracy...only in getting their way individually and that is the downfall of a democracy.
Citizens have to work together for a greater good of the nation to have a true democracy. America is so polarized now that it's all about each getting their own.
So, no...just telling the public how the GOP is blocking and not governing will not accomplish much.
If anything..the GOP will double down and Americans will cheer them on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
February 4, 2010 2:42 PM
This after a f***ing YEAR of federal agencies with nobody running them. I realize the President doesn't want to step on the toes of the Senate Majority Leader of his own party, but this should have been done months ago. That it hasn't happened until now is one of my few real complaints about the Obama Administration.
And Reid, too. Up until now, he's been happy to play by the rules, only to have the Republicans beat him upside the head with the rule book. How many times can you get hit upside the head before you throw the damned rule book in the circular file and start getting some s*** done?
And yet the DSCC has the balls to call me on the phone, nearly every day during the holiday season, sometimes more than once a day, asking for money. Hell no. They're not getting a dime from me. Chuck Schumer gets money, Kristin Gillibrand gets money, but the party committee gets bupkis because I just know some of that will go toward saving Harry Reid's miserable hide, and I want him gone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 4, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
"How many times can you get hit upside the head before you throw the damned rule book in the circular file and start getting some s*** done?"
I'm sorry, I get the frustration, but that just makes no sense. Literally makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
What's he supposed to do, declare himself Dictator of the Senate, march onto the floor and decree that the rules are suspened then have the Capitol Police round up the Senators and force them to give every bill or nominee an up or down vote at gunpoint?
Reid only has power by viture of the very rules you want him to throw away. You can read the Cosntituion over and over again without finding mention of the office of Senate Majority Leader, nor will you find any Constitutional grant of power the the holder of that office.
The only way for him to "throw the rules into the circular file" is to get 67 senators to vote for them to do that. How likely do you think that is to happen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
February 4, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The 'nuclear option' only requires a majority of Senators. Not 67, not 60.
it's a point of order to declare the filibuster unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Changes_to_Senate_rules
The Democratic senate may not want to do that, but they cannot be absolved of responsibility for that choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 4, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
I'm not necessarily in favor of the nuclear option. I think the filibuster can serve a useful purpose when it's not being so flagrantly misused. But at least the treat of the nuclear option should be put out there. It's that threat from the Republicans that lead to the Gang of 14 compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
February 4, 2010 4:15 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Threats are only effective when there is a reasonable belief that they might be carried out. If Harry held a vote and got 49 votes, declaring his intention to hold another one in a month, that might be sufficient.
Of course, that would require cohones, and I don't see much evidence of that from Harry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
February 4, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
The actual vote may require a majority, but as I recall, the bill itself is still suspect to a filibuster.
I thought part of the reason why they should (and will) wait to do this at the beginning of the new Congress is that a reset button is pretty much hit at the beginning of a new Congress. The Senate Rules HAVE to be passed (or they can't do jack shit else--not like they're doing jack-shit now, I know) so a filibuster at the start of the new Congress, while possibly is more unlikely at that point.
But that's just me cobbling together a theory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 4, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to admiralmpj
The nuclear option is essentially a ruling from the chair that the filibuster is against the rules, upheld by a majority vote. Once the trigger on the nuclear option is pulled the filibuster ceases to exist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
February 4, 2010 2:56 PM
How many times can you get hit upside the head before you throw the damned rule book in the circular file and start getting some s*** done?
But, splutter, gasp, sniff: Republicans will say mean things about the Democrats!
I don't like the idea of recess appointments either. I like the idea of not having all positions filled, over a year into a presiden'ts term, even less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blmack
February 4, 2010 3:26 PM
The dems need to pick the most obscure thing/appointment that the repubs are blocking and make them do an actual filibuster. Then the media will finally pick it up and the public will see the repubs for the obstructionists that they are. They'll look pretty stupid holding up business to block "the assistant to the head of the department of White House custodial services" or whatever. That will also make it more difficult for them to filibuster something the REALLY want to filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 4, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to blmack
I'm with you except I wouldn't pick something obscure. I'd pick a nominee that deals with something the public wants. Find a Homeland Security nominee and start screaming that Americans are less safe because of Republican obstruction. Find a bank regulator nominee. It shouldn't be too hard to find several that fit the bill. Also, make sure to publicize it well ahead of time so that everyone knows it's coming and that everyone will be watching.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whiterosebuddy
February 4, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
ICAM!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fpie
February 4, 2010 3:37 PM
The thing that must be kept front and center in our (and all involved parties) minds is that NO ONE WILL CARE! The general public will be blissfully unaware how any of this stuff gets done. Mostly they will be unaware IF it gets done. They just want the garbage picked up and the provebial trains to run on time. And if Rep Billy Joe Gopper from Big Foot County's 3rd district comes on Morning Joe pissin' an' moanin' about how those librul Democrats is cheatin' on the rules Cynthia Sockermom will roll her eyes at the whining Republican and be happy to hear that Obama is making the trains run on time at last. That's why she voted the D straight ticket and might again if Obama and the Dems keep on keepin' on. That's why the Republicans are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at every damned Democratic initiative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
February 4, 2010 3:46 PM
come on peps....it's just because he's black.
CHCIKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ally
February 4, 2010 3:47 PM
Start cutting the Repugs "Pet Project" earmarks and grants - that they use to win votes.
Can't get a GSA nominee passed - close all the GSA services in that state - layoff those workers and make sure they know iti because of Inhofe, DeMint, or other Repug holding up everything.
Obama needs to show up in the Repug states and districts - and point out that things aren't happening there for their residents - because the GOP says NO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whiterosebuddy
February 4, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to ally
That sounds like a winning idea!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 4, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to ally
Right. And how do we do that? Extra-legal presidential decree based on secret superpowers granted under the GWB unitary commander in chief decider theory? Pass a law cutting off those appropriations? Oh, wait, they can't, because it would be filibustered, now wouldn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dndobson
February 4, 2010 4:17 PM
It's really simple. Dems have the Presidency and the congress - they must simply get something done. Whatever it takes. The Republicans may be the party of No, but the Dems look to be the Do-Nothing Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 5, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to dndobson
Again if you don't understand the process then you can't make such silly statements. Have you not read any of the posts here today?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
February 4, 2010 4:35 PM
Reid still doesn't get the message....Do something and stop talking and coimplaining. intelligent people get the problem, Do recess apointments and fuck the GOP game plan. Hit the MSM with we have to move this country and stop allowing the GOP to fuck it up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jen
February 4, 2010 7:47 PM
Obama has shied away from recess appointments in his first year in office. But with Republicans in full obstruction mode, and Reid practically begging him to circumvent the standard confirmation process, will Obama yield?
Short answer: No.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?