War On The Potomac

[jyl]

The background is, Bush nominated for ambassador to Belgium a wealthy Republican donor who funded the Swift Boat ads against Kerry. The position requires confirmation by Congress. Not surprisingly, the nomination ran into Democratic opposition, and during the confirmation hearings Bush withdrew the nomination. Now Bush has appointed the guy, as a "recess appointment". This maneuver probably allows the guy to serve until the end of Bush's term, without pay but he likely doesn't need pay.

Two other controversial nominees were also withdrawn by the administration and then given recess appointments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402405.html?hpid=moreheadlines

This is the clearest sign possible that Bush is not going to try to find compromises with the Democratic-controlled Congress. And that means the Democratic Congress is not going to compromise with him.

I don't know how much attention this maneuver will get in the media but you can believe its going to get attention in Congress.

It's going to be open war between the Congress and the Executive. Bush can't get any laws passed w/o the Congress, and Congress can't override any veto by Bush. Prepare for almost 2 years of complete logjam in Washington. Bush will try to rule by executive order, and Congress will fight back with the power of the purse and subpeona.

And if you were hoping for a compromise that would allow the troops to stay in Iraq, sorry - the odds of a cut-off of funding for the war have just increased.

I'm not sure who Bush is listening to, but they're giving him bad advice.

[legion]

I thought this was a FastPat post for a minute.

[tabs]

Yeah lets refight the Civil War just for Pat...

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by jyl
This is the clearest sign possible that Bush is not going to try to find compromises with the Democratic-controlled Congress. And that means the Democratic Congress is not going to compromise with him.

And if you were hoping for a compromise that would allow the troops to stay in Iraq, sorry - the odds of a cut-off of funding for the war have just increased.

I'm not sure who Bush is listening to, but they're giving him bad advice.

You are right about one thing, that the Dems are not doing what they said that they would do before being elected last fall. No matter what they said that they would do, they are doing everything possible to obstruct ANYTHING that the administration does, whether its legal or not, right or wrong.

There is a legal way for the President to appoint an Ambassador without their approval, and he has used this to circumvent political roadblocks. You have a problem with that? Then change the laws.

Compromise? Ask the Dems that you guys elected and get them to tell you why they are doing what they insisted that they would not do before last November. Those of us who know and understand the Dems realized that they would be playing these games and its nothing new. They are in the process of stepping on their Johnson as we speak.

In your opinion the President is getting bad advice. Some of us feel otherwise.

[jyl]

Joe, my comment is based on practicality. Bush's goal should be to get some things accomplished in the final years of his term, and I believe that in fact is his goal, for "legacy" reasons.

Is he more likely to get a major piece of legislation passed through a Democratic Congress through (1) a give-and-take compromise-cooperate process scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours process, or (2) the old "F U my way or the highway"?

You use (2) only if your opponent is powerless and frightened. The Democrats are not powerless anymore, nor are they frightened.

That is why I am saying that to choose "F U my way or the highway" is a bad decision. It may make you feel good, but in two years Bush will step down with nothing to show for it.

[Joeaksa]

John,

You are forgetting one thing. Pres Bush does things that he feels are necessary, and for a good reason, or for the bettering of the country, not for "legacy" or accomplishing anything in his final years. He is not like Clinton or the other liberal holders of the office.

Do you really think that the current administration is the only one to do things like this? Every administration has in one way or another gone around the other party when needed. This will continue as long as there is an alternate.

He is not saying "fu and its my way or the highway" but when forced into a corner to get something accomplished that he feels needs doing, and there is an alternative way out he will use it, just as most of us would. Now its up to the Dem's to cry about it and try to circumvent him in another way.

Democrats not frightened? If not now, they soon will be, and for good reason.

[jyl]

Well, then, let me put it this way.

Take one of Bush's key legislative goals that he wants to get done before he steps down - say, extending his tax cuts or immigration "reform" or whatever. He desperately needs the help of the Democratic Congress to accomplish this goal, all the bluster in the world doesn't change that - if he doesn't play nice with Pelosi Reid et al, that accomplishment doesn't happen.

Is it worth risking that legislation, just to install someone as ambassador to Belgium, one of the least significant diplomatic posts, for just the next 1 and 1/2 years?

It is plain stupid.

(And don't try to tell me that Bush is incapable of doing stupid things because he sees the intel that we don't see - that was disproved long ago, and anyway we're talking domestic policy here.)

[DaveE]

In the end, I think the less they can do (Congress or POTUS), the better off we all are.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
You are right about one thing, that the Dems are not doing what they said that they would do before being elected last fall.

WTF?

I thought you read Fox news, it was in all the news media. Do you suffer from long term memory loss?

Democrats' 'First 100 Hours' Winds Down With Plenty of Time to Spare
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244539,00.html

With more than 57 hours to spare, early Thursday evening, Democrats passed the last of their "Six for '06" plan — a renewable energy measure that adds $15 billion in new fees, royalties and taxes for the oil industry — 264-123, and prepared to turn off the clock......................................Democra ts approved the remaining Sept. 11 commission recommendations that had not been made into law on Jan. 9; pushed through an increase of the minimum wage on Jan. 10, expanded federal funding for stem cell research on Jan. 11; allowed the government the power to re-negotiate Medicare drug prices on Jan. 12; and gave a cut in interest rates on students' college loans on Wednesday. They were on the verge of investing in renewable energy Thursday.

Bush got caught again handing out favors to unqualified loyalist ....................no one is suprised, but this time he is shamed. The rule is don't get caught - he broke the rule.

When we see this, Bush is in real trouble.

[RoninLB]

Bush paid off his party through approving all their bs earmarks + so he could get all their support.


If anyone thinks he could pay off a left wing owned junkie with a joint you must believe that engaging the Dems for any reason is worth while? The Dems are at war with the White House.


btw.. the presidency and congress are in eternal conflict over who has more power in government. Some presidents are whimps and some are like Andrew Jackson. It's one of those stories that never end.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by jyl
Is it worth risking that legislation, just to install someone as ambassador to Belgium, one of the least significant diplomatic posts, for just the next 1 and 1/2 years?

It is plain stupid.

Was just about to make that point. Is posting an inconsequential St Louis businessman in an inconsequential diplomatic post for less than 2 years really going to do anything for Dubya's legacy? I doubt it. In the end, he's paying off a loyalist and thumbing his nose at those who rightfully have the power to confirm diplomatic postings.

Sure, it's legal. IMO, it's unethical. No surprises there. Someone wiser than I once said that the most unethical things that go in Washington are legal.

[legion]

Originally posted by wludavid
[B]Was just about to make that point. Is posting an inconsequential St Louis businessman in an inconsequential diplomatic post for less than 2 years really going to do anything for Dubya's legacy? I doubt it.B]

Why is it worth it for the Dems to fight it themselves?

[wludavid]

Good point legion. Had it really been a "fight" I'd agree with you. But let's not confuse the issue. POTUS nominates, Senate confirms. The senate took a couple hours one day to basically say to Dubya, "bzzzt, try again." There was no fight. Bush used a legal, unethical loophole to circumvent the will of the group who has the constitutional right to a veto of the POTUS' nomination.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by wludavid
Good point legion. Had it really been a "fight" I'd agree with you. But let's not confuse the issue. POTUS nominates, Senate confirms. The senate took a couple hours one day to basically say to Dubya, "bzzzt, try again." There was no fight. Bush used a legal, unethical loophole to circumvent the will of the group who has the constitutional right to a veto of the POTUS' nomination.

Agree with the above except the loophole is there. What the Senate did is the unethical act.

My heartburn is that if the Senate had really investigated this guy and said "he is a child molester, or security risk and we do not like him" then I would have to agree and would support their decision.

But no, they could have cared less for the guys background or his qualifications, they nixed him because he donated money to the "Swift Boat" group. Of course dickless Kerry could not allow this so he voted against him.

The Senate played games with the approval, so the President used "plan B" to get what he wanted. Had the Senate acted professionally in the first place this never would have happened. What or who a candidate donates to (unless its Hammas or the communist party) should have no part in their being confirmed or not.

[DaveE]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
....... Of course dickless Kerry could not allow this so he voted against him.

.............

It's pretty pathetic to call anyone who spent substantial time on a swift boat in 'Nam as 'dickless'. You should be ashamed.

Try to show at least SOME class in your arguements.

[Moneyguy1]

Joe...You really believe that the prez is doing what he thinks is right for the country or simply acting out of pure stubbornness? I have tried to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on a number of things but have concluded that, no matter the public is not privy to all the info the admin has, the administration forges ahead with pre-determined plans, not considering the long-term consequences. It seems, to me, to be in danger of evolving into a Messiah complex.

Compromise is the foundation of our form of government. If the president vetoes the funding bill. is this not the purest form of ego? Could he not sign it, accept the funding and then begin negotiating the dates for withdrawal? Which is more important? The immediate need for cash or a date a year or more away that could be negotiated if circumstances change?

BTW...I am not a fan of John Kerry, but I do believe that character assasination is not something I like to see. He was there, we were not (even though I was serving at the time off the coast of the US). Respect him for going and not receiving deferrments.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by DaveE
It's pretty pathetic to call anyone who spent substantial time on a swift boat in 'Nam as 'dickless'. You should be ashamed.

Try to show at least SOME class in your arguements.

You are correct. I am ashamed of both Kerry and Teddy, the two peas in a pod. Everytime I see them I am more and more ashamed.

Kerry is dickless, and guilty of many, many things that the swift boat vets brought out into the light. How about accidently wounding himself, then claiming a Purple Heart and using this as a reason to go home early, leaving his entire crew back in Viet Nam? Several of them were eligible to return home for the same reason but stayed with their squad.

Teddy is a murderer who was let go because of his family.

When they start showing some class, then the other side might respond likewise.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Joe...You really believe that the prez is doing what he thinks is right for the country or simply acting out of pure stubbornness? I have tried to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on a number of things but have concluded that, no matter the public is not privy to all the info the admin has, the administration forges ahead with pre-determined plans, not considering the long-term consequences. It seems, to me, to be in danger of evolving into a Messiah complex.

Compromise is the foundation of our form of government. If the president vetoes the funding bill. is this not the purest form of ego? Could he not sign it, accept the funding and then begin negotiating the dates for withdrawal? Which is more important? The immediate need for cash or a date a year or more away that could be negotiated if circumstances change?

BTW...I am not a fan of John Kerry, but I do believe that character assasination is not something I like to see. He was there, we were not (even though I was serving at the time off the coast of the US). Respect him for going and not receiving deferrments.

Bob,

I still feel that Pres Bush is doing what he feels is best for the country and its people. Sorry but I must be a bit slow.

Totally agree with compromise but the Ambassador to be should have been voted upon for his attributes, not if he was a Democrat or Republican. Kerry and his minions voted against him for political reasons, and that opened the door for the President to use a loophole.

I am stating the truth about Kerry. Ok, maybe he is not dickless but he is spineless, gutless and a sniveling weasel. Do give him some credit for serving rather than going to Canada or England like Clinton. At least Pres Bush was in uniform and could have been sent over. BTW, I was wearing an Army uniform at that time even though I did not get sent to 'Nam, so we were both in the same situation.

[Moneyguy1]

Ah, but who to believe when allegations are made? Who IS telling the truth? "A" claims that "B" did something illegal or immoral. No proof ie given. "C" listens to the allegation and, since his beliefs are similar to "A" he believes the allegations. Simple as that, no matter the party. Sheep follow.

Joe: Christ urges us to look for the good in others; not to drag them down and minimize them. Doing so reduces the effectiveness of the individual's argument and in effect, admits defeat.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
I still feel that Pres Bush is doing what he feels is best for the country and its people. Sorry but I must be a bit slow.

We should all be worried then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHjDbpaaZ-s