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

[Jhhnn]

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.

That oozes false equivalency. Since 2008, Repubs have provided the most obstructionist congresses in history. That's been documented in this forum many times.

 

[Greenman]

That oozes false equivalency. Since 2008, Repubs have provided the most obstructionist congresses in history. That's been documented in this forum many times.

You're "obstructionism" is my "holding the line". It all depends on how you look at it. I've always believed that the best congress would approve the budget and any necessary spending bills, then go home. We'd save trillions of dollars.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're "obstructionism" is my "holding the line". It all depends on how you look at it. I've always believed that the best congress would approve the budget and any necessary spending bills, then go home. We'd save trillions of dollars.

Well, yeh, they have pretty much held the line on trickle down tax cuts & shutting down the govt, no doubt. They've held the line to keep immigration totally fucked up, too.

Other than that, they've tried to prevent proper functioning by obstructing every routine appointment imaginable, including this one. It's mostly to punish the evil Kenyan usurper, near as I can tell. It's not like their Dem counterparts were nearly so spiteful with GWB.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

Your Strawman about rape and murder doesn't work here. What they are doing is legal. Your stupid analogy is not.

No, What you stated is YOUR Opinion on the matter. An opinion that I disagree with completely.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

This I agree with 100%.

 

[Mursilis]

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/

Some of these cases are more complex than the simple "Dems good/Repubs bad" spin some people like to put on it. There's a sub-Secretary-level political nominee position at VA that's been sitting unfilled for going on 5 years. Like most very senior positions at VA, it's traditionally been filled by a veteran. The VSOs (veteran service organizations) that have a lot of pull in Congress have been very insistent that top VA spots go to veterans, and both parties have generally been OK with that. Surveys show that veterans like knowing that veterans are running the show at VA, and both parties and all prior presidents have followed that unwritten rule. Until Obama. When the position became open, he nominated a minority female non-veteran. Minority status was no big deal, because minorities had filled the position before - nothing new there. Being female was new for the position, but plenty of females hold other top spots at VA and elsewhere in government, so really, no one much cared. Her non-veteran status was a big issue, however - the VSOs were quite clear that this was a problem and they would not support a non-veteran in the job. The committee refused to schedule a vote, and the nomination expired. Obama submitted the same nominee two more times, despite even members of his own party telling him a non-veteran VA appointee would not fly! We can debate whether having this "veterans only" unwritten rule for senior VA positions is fair and just, but it didn't just start when the GOP took over Congress - it goes back at least 50+ years. Regardless, Obama decided to ignore it, and we got another blocked nomination as a result.

 

[FerrelGeek]

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

Unless it's a republican doing it. Then it's crony politics.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Some of these cases are more complex than the simple "Dems good/Repubs bad" spin some people like to put on it. There's a sub-Secretary-level political nominee position at VA that's been sitting unfilled for going on 5 years. Like most very senior positions at VA, it's traditionally been filled by a veteran. The VSOs (veteran service organizations) that have a lot of pull in Congress have been very insistent that top VA spots go to veterans, and both parties have generally been OK with that. Surveys show that veterans like knowing that veterans are running the show at VA, and both parties and all prior presidents have followed that unwritten rule. Until Obama. When the position became open, he nominated a minority female non-veteran. Minority status was no big deal, because minorities had filled the position before - nothing new there. Being female was new for the position, but plenty of females hold other top spots at VA and elsewhere in government, so really, no one much cared. Her non-veteran status was a big issue, however - the VSOs were quite clear that this was a problem and they would not support a non-veteran in the job. The committee refused to schedule a vote, and the nomination expired. Obama submitted the same nominee two more times, despite even members of his own party telling him a non-veteran VA appointee would not fly! We can debate whether having this "veterans only" unwritten rule for senior VA positions is fair and just, but it didn't just start when the GOP took over Congress - it goes back at least 50+ years. Regardless, Obama decided to ignore it, and we got another blocked nomination as a result.

"And now you know the rest of the story. Good day."

 

[werepossum]

Some of these cases are more complex than the simple "Dems good/Repubs bad" spin some people like to put on it. There's a sub-Secretary-level political nominee position at VA that's been sitting unfilled for going on 5 years. Like most very senior positions at VA, it's traditionally been filled by a veteran. The VSOs (veteran service organizations) that have a lot of pull in Congress have been very insistent that top VA spots go to veterans, and both parties have generally been OK with that. Surveys show that veterans like knowing that veterans are running the show at VA, and both parties and all prior presidents have followed that unwritten rule. Until Obama. When the position became open, he nominated a minority female non-veteran. Minority status was no big deal, because minorities had filled the position before - nothing new there. Being female was new for the position, but plenty of females hold other top spots at VA and elsewhere in government, so really, no one much cared. Her non-veteran status was a big issue, however - the VSOs were quite clear that this was a problem and they would not support a non-veteran in the job. The committee refused to schedule a vote, and the nomination expired. Obama submitted the same nominee two more times, despite even members of his own party telling him a non-veteran VA appointee would not fly! We can debate whether having this "veterans only" unwritten rule for senior VA positions is fair and just, but it didn't just start when the GOP took over Congress - it goes back at least 50+ years. Regardless, Obama decided to ignore it, and we got another blocked nomination as a result.

Good info, thanks. Still, Republicans should have held a quick hearing, voted her down, and made hay from Obama nominating a non-veteran. As it stands, ignoring her nomination just gives us ass hats on both sides AND puts no pressure on Obama to fill that position with a suitable candidate.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

It would have been a lot less remarkable had she died as the ambassador to the Bahamas.

True. You don't give a single fuck about the dead Ambassador to Libya so why would you care about the Ambassador to the Bahamas.

:sneaky:

 

[Jhhnn]

Unless it's a republican doing it. Then it's crony politics.

The only time I ever complained about an ambassadorial nomination was Bolton for the UN. It was a calculated "Fuck You!" to the rest of the world.

 

[Jhhnn]

True. You don't give a single fuck about the dead Ambassador to Libya so why would you care about the Ambassador to the Bahamas.

:sneaky:

I didn't say that & it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[MongGrel]

The only time I ever complained about an ambassadorial nomination was Bolton for the UN. It was a calculated "Fuck You!" to the rest of the world.

Yeah, that one was really sad att.

 

[Jhhnn]

Some of these cases are more complex than the simple "Dems good/Repubs bad" spin some people like to put on it. There's a sub-Secretary-level political nominee position at VA that's been sitting unfilled for going on 5 years. Like most very senior positions at VA, it's traditionally been filled by a veteran. The VSOs (veteran service organizations) that have a lot of pull in Congress have been very insistent that top VA spots go to veterans, and both parties have generally been OK with that. Surveys show that veterans like knowing that veterans are running the show at VA, and both parties and all prior presidents have followed that unwritten rule. Until Obama. When the position became open, he nominated a minority female non-veteran. Minority status was no big deal, because minorities had filled the position before - nothing new there. Being female was new for the position, but plenty of females hold other top spots at VA and elsewhere in government, so really, no one much cared. Her non-veteran status was a big issue, however - the VSOs were quite clear that this was a problem and they would not support a non-veteran in the job. The committee refused to schedule a vote, and the nomination expired. Obama submitted the same nominee two more times, despite even members of his own party telling him a non-veteran VA appointee would not fly! We can debate whether having this "veterans only" unwritten rule for senior VA positions is fair and just, but it didn't just start when the GOP took over Congress - it goes back at least 50+ years. Regardless, Obama decided to ignore it, and we got another blocked nomination as a result.

How does that explain the most obstructionist congresses in history?

As blame shifting, it's pretty weak sauce.

 

[werepossum]

How does that explain the most obstructionist congresses in history?

As blame shifting, it's pretty weak sauce.

And some people cannot handle anything more complex than the simple "Dems good/Repubs bad" meme.

Well . . . some scripts, anyway.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How does that explain the most obstructionist congresses in history?

"...it has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

 

[senseamp]

Guys like Tom Cotton and Donald Trump are all symptoms of the same Republican bitterness and hate which is leading them to nowhere.

 

[ivwshane]

And some people cannot handle anything more complex than the simple "Dems good/Repubs bad" meme.

Well . . . some scripts, anyway.

And some people will buy any narrative given to them to avoid uncomfortable truths. You were provided with one example and that's all it took for you to condemn someone else's counter point.
But you also subscribe to the equally simple, "both sides are the same" meme.

 

[Mursilis]

Good info, thanks. Still, Republicans should have held a quick hearing, voted her down, and made hay from Obama nominating a non-veteran. As it stands, ignoring her nomination just gives us ass hats on both sides AND puts no pressure on Obama to fill that position with a suitable candidate.

The problem with putting the nomination to a vote is that you run the risk of having the race/gender card played. As Jhhhnnn will surely remind us, the GOP hates both women and minorities, so why risk giving the other side more ammo? The nominee I cited was qualified to serve in the position - she had advanced degrees, experience in the field, etc. She just wasn't a veteran, which was a violation of an unwritten rule, not an actual one.

 

[Mursilis]

How does that explain the most obstructionist congresses in history?

As blame shifting, it's pretty weak sauce.

At what point did I try to justify GOP inaction? I've previously posted in support of Merrick Garland's opportunity for a hearing and vote, and I've written that the GOP is wrong to block him just because we're in an election year. I've never written a blanket defense of GOP obstructionism (among other stupid policies they've gifted the rest of us). But understanding that would require some understanding of nuance, which you clearly lack. Please return to your "My team good/your team bad!" cheerleading. We expect nothing else.

 

[Jhhnn]

"...it has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

Blocking Butts' nomination is just one example of the overall obstructionism.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Blocking Butts' nomination is just one example of the overall obstructionism.

You failed to concede Mursilis' points that were specific to your post and this thread...you didn't even acknowledge that there may have been a valid reason for blocking Butt's nomination. Shameless hack, is shameless hack.

 

[Jhhnn]

At what point did I try to justify GOP inaction? I've previously posted in support of Merrick Garland's opportunity for a hearing and vote, and I've written that the GOP is wrong to block him just because we're in an election year. I've never written a blanket defense of GOP obstructionism (among other stupid policies they've gifted the rest of us). But understanding that would require some understanding of nuance, which you clearly lack. Please return to your "My team good/your team bad!" cheerleading. We expect nothing else.

Your comment served as a point of diversion that was promptly seized upon- "they're just as bad".

If that was not your intention it certainly was the result.

 

[Jhhnn]

You failed to concede Mursilis' points that were specific to your post and this thread...you didn't even acknowledge that there may have been a valid reason for blocking Butt's nomination. Shameless hack, is shameless hack.

Excuse me, but Cotton stated that he blocked the nomination to punish Obama. See the link in the OP.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Excuse me, but Cotton stated that he blocked the nomination to punish Obama. See the link in the OP.

That's really all you see here? It figures.