Nominee dies waiting for a vote,Republican Senator wanted to "inflict pain" on Obama.

[Moonbeam]

Nope. But if you have a problem with me, maybe you should take it up directly instead being such a dick to Moonie.

I too it as a complement. I find you as here, to be a passionate advocate of fairness and for me a useful check to liberal arrogance which seems to be enjoying some sort of tent revival.

 

[kage69]

spiteful chickenshit from republicans, every minute of every day for the last 7 years. It's what they call leadership.

This. Right. Here.

 

[glenn1]

She can wave hello to Bork and commiserate about how politicians can suck.

 

[ivwshane]

She can wave hello to Bork and commiserate about how politicians can suck.

I can totally see the similarities.


/S

 

[Jhhnn]

She can wave hello to Bork and commiserate about how politicians can suck.

And now, a steaming load of false equivalency.

 

[Zaap]

Democrats politicize a woman’s death, news at 11!

This.

Her death is unfortunate, but making it out like being appointed to an an ambassadorship position by your buddy the prez is like some sort of adult 'make a wish' program, is typical Dem bullshit.

Also, of course the article leave out part of the reasons for candidates being blocked: political nominees vs. career diplomat nominees, and the fact that Obama has an inbalance on the political nominee side.

But that doesn't play like exploiting her death does.

 

[michal1980]

Ok, now I get it. Please remind us when you are on your death bed. We'll be sure to schedule tons of congressional hearings and committee meetings to waste your time.

Its not like she was forced to wait for this job, she could have said no. Plus how many meetings did she have recently?

 

[Jhhnn]

This.

Her death is unfortunate, but making it out like being appointed to an an ambassadorship position by your buddy the prez is like some sort of adult 'make a wish' program, is typical Dem bullshit.

Also, of course the article leave out part of the reasons for candidates being blocked: political nominees vs. career diplomat nominees, and the fact that Obama has an inbalance on the political nominee side.

But that doesn't play like exploiting her death does.

Please. She was, by all accounts, entirely qualified to serve in the role as ambassador other than the fact that Obama nominated her.

All Ambassadors are political appointees who generally tender their resignations when the presidency changes party. They serve at the pleasure of the President. They aren't career State Dept personnel at all.

The Senate has the right to reject nominees they find unacceptable on their merits, of course, but it's not like Obama nominated the equivalent of John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN, is it?

 

[Victorian Gray]

She can wave hello to Bork and commiserate about how politicians can suck.

You bet! Completely the same type of situation. Absolutely! You nailed it.

 

[Zaap]

All Ambassadors are political appointees who generally tender their resignations when the presidency changes party. They serve at the pleasure of the President. They aren't career State Dept personnel at all.

That's not even remotely true. There's always a balance of career diplomats (you know, people with actual skills to be an ambassador) and political appointments. (You know, like major campaign doners given ambassadorships to countries they've never even been to and can't even answer basic questions about.)

Now, I don't really blast Obama for it, all presidents do it.

But part of Obama's 'change' bullshit was actually supposed to be more career diplomats and less rewarding cronies.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275897092/more-ambassador-posts-are-going-to-political-appointees

And of course that lasted all of 2 seconds.

I dont think any of its that big a deal... but then neither is not getting your "reward" for being the presidents pal or giving him a lot of money.

This is only 'news' because she died and never let a Dim miss a chance to exploit anything tragic.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's not even remotely true. There's always a balance of career diplomats (you know, people with actual skills to be an ambassador) and political appointments. (You know, like major campaign doners given ambassadorships to countries they've never even been to and can't even answer basic questions about.)

Now, I don't really blast Obama for it, all presidents do it.

But part of Obama's 'change' bullshit was actually supposed to be more career diplomats and less rewarding cronies.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275897092/more-ambassador-posts-are-going-to-political-appointees

And of course that lasted all of 2 seconds.

I dont think any of its that big a deal... but then neither is not getting your "reward" for being the presidents pal or giving him a lot of money.

This is only 'news' because she died and never let a Dim miss a chance to exploit anything tragic.

So what? Butts' qualifications were never questioned because she never got a hearing. Not even 890 days into it.

The story merely highlights the truth, that Repubs have been totally spiteful & obstructionist from 2008 forward-

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/

 

[pcgeek11]

They all do it. Get over it.

 

[ivwshane]

They all do it. Get over it.

Can you provide another example where a nominee for an ambassadorship was delayed or never given a hearing for two years?

 

[pcgeek11]

Can you provide another example where a nominee for an ambassadorship was delayed or never given a hearing for two years?

For you I'll be a little more specific.

ALL politicians use underhanded methods to get their way.

Lots of those ways are much more underhanded than this.
This is like a 1 on a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the worst. Hardly a ripple in the pool.

 

[swamplizard]

Good morning,

GOP = Grand Obstructionist Party = Do Nothing Party

 

[Jhhnn]

They all do it. Get over it.

Just another variant on the "They're just as bad!" line of bullshit.

 

[thraashman]

They all do it. Get over it.

The problem with this statement is that it's like saying "Oh, that man who brutally raped and murdered 150 girls under 10 can be shrugged off, because this other man stole a loaf of bread and was caught with weed". Magnitudes matter. They all do it doesn't work when one group does far as fuck worse and you know for a mother fucking fact that the Republicans are thousands of times worse.

 

[Greenman]

It seems to be the day for unconfirmed emotional story's. This is the second one this morning.

 

[Jhhnn]

Good morning,

GOP = Grand Obstructionist Party = Do Nothing Party

There are lots of things they'd like to do. Privatize SS. Voucherize medicare. Sell off federal lands. Repeal Dodd-Frank. Dismantle the EPA & other federal agencies. Repeal the ACA. Run up federal deficits with pamper the lootocracy tax cuts. Slash social welfare spending. Pork out the military. Ban abortion. Stack the SCOTUS with right wing toadies. Beef up the WoD & cock block cannabis legalization. Enable the teaching of creationism as science.

That's just a start, of course.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Tom Cotton was bought & paid for by the Israel lobby. He's their willing little lap dog, make no mistake about it.

What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Are you implying that the Israelis didn't want this lady to be the ambassador? Was she in good health when she was nominated? As her health failed, shouldn't she have withdrawn herself from consideration?

 

[werepossum]

I felt a little angry reading that article. I can scarcely believe how petty politics is.

Yep. The more power government gathers, the more petty its members become.

Senators (or Representatives, or governors, or elevator operators) should not have the ability to put a hold on nominees, period. I do not give a flying Siamese bat fart how the Senate chooses to conduct its non-Constitutionally required business, but they are Constitutionally required to give advice and consent on the President's nominees, and they should do so in a timely manner. A time should be set for all nominees to be vetted, after which hearings must begin and a vote held or else the nominee be seated until such time as the Senate pulls its collective head out of its collective ass and votes down that nominee. If the nominee is so heinous as to require a hold, surely someone eloquent enough to be elected Senator can convince others of that fact. Otherwise, do the fucking job that you are being paid to do.

You have a talent for being deliberately obtuse.

We're saying she would have been living her dream & doing her job as Ambassador to the Bahamas instead of being a victim of Republican vindictiveness towards Obama for 890 days.

Nothing is beneath them.

Because after all, what is the legitimate purpose of government except granting highly paid dream jobs to politicians' friends?

I too it as a complement. I find you as here, to be a passionate advocate of fairness and for me a useful check to liberal arrogance which seems to be enjoying some sort of tent revival.

Ditto to both you guys. I certainly value you both.

 

[senseamp]

You just have to look at their nominee to see the dysfunction of the Republican party.

 

[glenn1]

Yep. The more power government gathers, the more petty its members become.

Senators (or Representatives, or governors, or elevator operators) should not have the ability to put a hold on nominees, period. I do not give a flying Siamese bat fart how the Senate chooses to conduct its non-Constitutionally required business, but they are Constitutionally required to give advice and consent on the President's nominees, and they should do so in a timely manner. A time should be set for all nominees to be vetted, after which hearings must begin and a vote held or else the nominee be seated until such time as the Senate pulls its collective head out of its collective ass and votes down that nominee. If the nominee is so heinous as to require a hold, surely someone eloquent enough to be elected Senator can convince others of that fact. Otherwise, do the fucking job that you are being paid to do.


Because after all, what is the legitimate purpose of government except granting highly paid dream jobs to politicians' friends?


Ditto to both you guys. I certainly value you both.

Agree on both the first and second paragraphs. Unfortunately though we're caught in a prisoner's dilemma situation where neither party wants to advantage a POTUS of the opposite party in the short term even though all will be better off long term.

 

[werepossum]

Agree on both the first and second paragraphs. Unfortunately though we're caught in a prisoner's dilemma situation where neither party wants to advantage a POTUS of the opposite party in the short term even though all will be better off long term.

Yep. And I have no major problem with that, as long as they do the Constitutionally mandated parts of their jobs. Frankly I don't see much value in increasing the number of political flunkies in top positions, but that's on Obama. (And Bush, and Clinton, and Bush . . .) The Senate's job is to provide advice and consent. Refusing to vet, debate, and vote is in my opinion not fulfilling their Constitutional duties.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because after all, what is the legitimate purpose of government except granting highly paid dream jobs to politicians' friends?

Ambassadorships have been that way since the beginning of the Republic. It's traditional. Get over yourself.